On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
wrote:

>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.

>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep, 
>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.

>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs

The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
(or lose) the war.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:q1eat4pdej05q5dc1on40ft44kfsp2b0gg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> wrote:
>
>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
>
>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep,
>>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
>
>>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
>
> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> (or lose) the war.

So clueless, so Amerikkkan.

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> wrote:
> 
>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
> 
>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep, 
>>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
> 
>> 1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
> 
> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> (or lose) the war.

It seems to me that the generals should have actually understood Sun Tzu 
and applied what he said. It also seems the Vietnamese did.

     If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
     If he is in superior strength, evade him.

     If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
     irritate him.  Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

     If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
     If his forces are united, separate them.

     Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
     you are not expected.

     There is no instance of a country having benefited
     from prolonged warfare.

etc. etc. So many of his rules were broken by the US

>

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:16:36 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
 wrote:

>>>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
>>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs

>> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
>> (or lose) the war.

>So clueless, so Amerikkkan.

I've often been accused of being a paedophile, but to accuse me of
being American is *really* hateful.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:q1eat4pdej05q5dc1on40ft44kfsp2b0gg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> wrote:
>
>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
>
>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep,
>>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
>
>>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North 
>>Vietnamese
>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
>
> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> (or lose) the war.
>

Not quite
If the military are allowed to do their job instead of being micro-managed 
by politicians, then can actually win wars
We have the Civil War, WWII, Korea, Desert Storm, as perfect examples of 
that.
Vietnam is the exact opposite, the politicians micro-managed the generals, 
and ultimately managed to turn a military victory into a political fiasco.
And by the way, for doing so, it encouraged a lot of tin-pot dictators and 
terrorists to attack other countries AND THE US, because of the lack of will 
of the politicians.

"Martin"  wrote in message 
news:49d53bfb$0$17527$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
>>
>>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep, 
>>>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
>>
>>> 1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North 
>>> Vietnamese
>>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
>>
>> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
>> (or lose) the war.
>
> It seems to me that the generals should have actually understood Sun Tzu 
> and applied what he said. It also seems the Vietnamese did.
>
>     If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
>     If he is in superior strength, evade him.
>
>     If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
>     irritate him.  Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
>
>     If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
>     If his forces are united, separate them.
>
>     Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
>     you are not expected.
>
>     There is no instance of a country having benefited
>     from prolonged warfare.
>
> etc. etc. So many of his rules were broken by the US
>

Get perspective
Vietnam was an asymmetrical war
There was a steep learning curve involved
In the end, the US learned how to handle it.


What people forget, is that every war is different for a variety of reasons.
Also the first few months of war serve usually to cause a series of things 
to happen
1)    cleaning out the peacetime deadwood that has accumulated
2)    replacing the peacetime commanders with field commanders
3)    identifying what is different in the was from previous wars
4)    adjusting combat policy, strategy and tactics to the new conditions
The faster the military can do the above, the faster it can win the battles 
and ultimately the war.

This is a lesson that the US military had forgotten going into Vietnam
It also was slow on the uptake.
But by the Thet offensive, it had achieved all 4 of those criteria
But by then, the politicians in the US were running scared from the 
so-called Peace Movement, and started looking for a quick way out.

"SaPeIsMa"  wrote in
news:M6WdndenNMhL80jUnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@posted.cpinternet: 

> 
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:q1eat4pdej05q5dc1on40ft44kfsp2b0gg@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
>>
>>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan
>>>> isep, going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
>>
>>>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North 
>>>Vietnamese
>>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
>>
>> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
>> (or lose) the war.
>>
> 
> Not quite
> If the military are allowed to do their job instead of being
> micro-managed by politicians, then can actually win wars
> We have the Civil War,

Politicians actually managed this one until Sherman cut off contact with 
Washington.

But I think you'd be happier in a military dictatorship that doesn't have 
to worry about politicians.  In this country, civilian authority is 
supreme.

Why do you hate our country?

>  WWII, Korea, Desert Storm, as perfect examples of that.

> Vietnam is the exact opposite, the politicians micro-managed the
> generals, and ultimately managed to turn a military victory into a
> political fiasco.

This is the rightard "who lost it?" myth.  Short of killing every 
Vietnamese, there wasn't any way to achieve a military victory.  It was 
certainly a political fiasco, but it was a political problem in the first 
place.

> And by the way, for doing so, it encouraged a lot of
> tin-pot dictators and terrorists to attack other countries AND THE US,
> because of the lack of will of the politicians.

Most of today's terrorists were born after 1975, and a westernized 
Vietnam (most of whose population doesn't remember the war either) 
provides no example for them.

"SaPeIsMa"  wrote in
news:PJKdnRnsq79V8kjUnZ2dnUVZ_jOWnZ2d@posted.cpinternet: 

> 
> "Martin"  wrote in message 
> news:49d53bfb$0$17527$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
>>>
>>>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan
>>>>> isep, going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
>>>
>>>> 1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North 
>>>> Vietnamese
>>>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
>>>
>>> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who
>>> win (or lose) the war.
>>
>> It seems to me that the generals should have actually understood Sun
>> Tzu and applied what he said. It also seems the Vietnamese did.
>>
>>     If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
>>     If he is in superior strength, evade him.
>>
>>     If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
>>     irritate him.  Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
>>
>>     If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
>>     If his forces are united, separate them.
>>
>>     Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
>>     you are not expected.
>>
>>     There is no instance of a country having benefited
>>     from prolonged warfare.
>>
>> etc. etc. So many of his rules were broken by the US
>>
> 
<snip/>

> This is a lesson that the US military had forgotten going into Vietnam
> It also was slow on the uptake.
> But by the Thet offensive, it had achieved all 4 of those criteria
> But by then, the politicians in the US were running scared from the 
> so-called Peace Movement, and started looking for a quick way out.

Utter horseshit, of course.  The Tet Offensive (note the spelling) was in 
1968, the year Richard Nixon was elected to prosecute the war.  Nixon 
didn't give a shit about the Peace Movement, and in 1972, he beat the 
Peace Movement candidate in a landslide.  The "quick way out" was another 
seven years coming.

For the US, there was simply nothing of overriding importance in fighting 
the Vietnam War.  For the Vietnamese, it was a matter of throwing out 
foreign occupiers, something they'd been doing doggedly for about 1000 
years before we showed up.

In article 
"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>
>
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
> news:q1eat4pdej05q5dc1on40ft44kfsp2b0gg@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
> >
> >>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep,
> >>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
> >
> >>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
> >>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
> >
> > The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> > (or lose) the war.
>
> So clueless, so Amerikkkan.

Hi Eric!  How's the asshole today?

In article 
"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>
>
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
> news:q1eat4pdej05q5dc1on40ft44kfsp2b0gg@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
> >
> >>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep,
> >>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
> >
> >>1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
> >>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
> >
> > The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> > (or lose) the war.
>
> So clueless, so Amerikkkan.

Hi Eric!  How's the asshole today?

In article ,
 Cynic  wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> wrote:
> 
> >>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
> 
> >> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep, 
> >> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
> 
> >1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North Vietnamese
> >            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
> 
> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> (or lose) the war.

Or get us into them.
-- 

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being 
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the 
moment of conception until death."  - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

In article <PJKdnRnsq79V8kjUnZ2dnUVZ_jOWnZ2d@posted.cpinternet>,
 "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:

> "Martin"  wrote in message 
> news:49d53bfb$0$17527$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > Cynic wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:26:32 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Name one "WAR" that the USA has "lost", poofter.
> >>
> >>>> Vietnam went really well, Iraq is doing ok I suppose, Afghanistan isep, 
> >>>> going good, Cuba yep that embargo is working wonders.
> >>
> >>> 1)    Yup Militarily, the US had pretty well demolished the North 
> >>> Vietnamese
> >>>            Their own top general pretty well said so in his memoirs
> >>
> >> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
> >> (or lose) the war.
> >
> > It seems to me that the generals should have actually understood Sun Tzu 
> > and applied what he said. It also seems the Vietnamese did.
> >
> >     If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
> >     If he is in superior strength, evade him.
> >
> >     If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
> >     irritate him.  Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
> >
> >     If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
> >     If his forces are united, separate them.
> >
> >     Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
> >     you are not expected.
> >
> >     There is no instance of a country having benefited
> >     from prolonged warfare.
> >
> > etc. etc. So many of his rules were broken by the US
> >
> 
> Get perspective
> Vietnam was an asymmetrical war
> There was a steep learning curve involved
> In the end, the US learned how to handle it.
> 
> 
> What people forget, is that every war is different for a variety of reasons.
> Also the first few months of war serve usually to cause a series of things 
> to happen
> 1)    cleaning out the peacetime deadwood that has accumulated
> 2)    replacing the peacetime commanders with field commanders
> 3)    identifying what is different in the was from previous wars
> 4)    adjusting combat policy, strategy and tactics to the new conditions
> The faster the military can do the above, the faster it can win the battles 
> and ultimately the war.
> 
> This is a lesson that the US military had forgotten going into Vietnam
> It also was slow on the uptake.
> But by the Thet offensive, it had achieved all 4 of those criteria
> But by then, the politicians in the US were running scared from the 
> so-called Peace Movement, and started looking for a quick way out.

It was a war based on a lie and the American people had no stomach for a 
war that killed and broke so may Americans.
-- 

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being 
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the 
moment of conception until death."  - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:56:38 -0700, Billy 
wrote:

>> The military can only win the battles.  It is the politicians who win
>> (or lose) the war.

>Or get us into them.

ITYM *and* get us into them.

It is politicians and *only* politicians who start wars.

-- 
Cynic