Re: Pres Bush Left His Unit to Avoid a Drug Test! A Repub

From: Dennis M. Hammes (scrawlmark_at_arvig.net)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:40:25 GMT

Mr Stu Pididiot wrote:
>
> "Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:cj1m5r$1ttd$1@news.ums.edu...
> > Art (arty_faque@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >
> >
> > : Eric Chomko wrote:
> > : >
> > : > Dennis M. Hammes (scrawlmark@arvig.net) wrote:
> > : > : Art McNutt wrote:
> > : > : >
> > : > : > Eric Chomko wrote:
> > : > : ...
> > : > : > >
> > : > : > > A failure to the point that we could rally and then attack the north above
> > : > : > > the DMZ and seize Hanoi? Explain why that wasn't the next step.
> > : > : >
> > : > : > Because only YOU ever thought of it.
> > : >
> > : > : Not, actually. Westmoreland, like MacArthur in like case, was
> > : > : removed from command for thinking of it more than once, and
> > : > : Johnson's authorisation to Bomb Hanoi raised so much media stink he
> > : > : refused to run for re-election in the belief it would cost his Party
> > : > : the office (his replacement wasn't "good enough" in the campaign
> > : > : sense to get it, anyway; one doesn't "groom a replacement" for a
> > : > : President in his first term).
> > : >
> > : > Pleas provide a cite that LBJ intended to bomb Hanoi. I believe that the
> > : > was what Goldwater stated.
> >
> > : Rolling Thunder rolled right to Hanoi's doorstep in 1968; and the only
> > : logical next step was bombing Hanoi City, itself. CINCPAC, the Joint
> > : Chiefs, Moscow, Beijing, Hanoi and The American public all knew this.
> >
> > Cite?
> >
> > : Dennis obviously means Johnson's authorization for greatly intensified
> > : bombing of northern industrial targets; i.e., the heart of the
> > : DRV--Hanoi, if you will.
> >
> > : Johnson stopped short, under the council of McNamara, of bombing Hanoi
> > : City. He ended Rolling Thunder in October. McNamara is, in many senses,
> > : an entire textbook demonstrating plainly to everyone (but himself) what
> > : NOT to do in crisis.
>
> Why overanalyze things? We got into a war of attrition
> with an enemy that wanted it more. So, of course, we
> lost it. The war of attrition was a result of our deciding
> early on to contain, not conquer. This lack of determination
> has to be chalked up to the underlying fear of the cold war
> and it's nightmare scenarios.
>
Why overanalyse things? We didn't get into a war at all.
  We got into a Police Action at the invitation of the country who
was running it.
  It was a vague parallel to another Police Action we got into in a
country that's /not/ running it.

The /war/ was with China, and our primary ally was Russia.
  Russia helped China and the NVA against us to prove to them that
they couldn't kick our asses even /with/ Russian help.
  This revisionism did not fully emerge until the collapse of the
SovUnion in 1989, though it was well known to many analysts and
reported routinely by defectors throughout the Cold War.
  The filthiest, bloodiest, and most hateful wars are sectarian
wars, and Russia and China were having one over Marx/Leninism vs.
Maoism.
  Russia could not have invaded Europe under any circumstances; the
Chinese would have rolled up their asses.
  Nor could they attack China, as we would have taken back Eastern
Europe, costing the Soviet all the industrial plant they had stolen
after WWII, thus costing them the war with China.
  It was necessary for our friends the Soviets to keep China from
attacking the U.S. directly by showing them how well the U.S. shot
down MiGs over Korea and Viet Nam.
  It was necessary to keep China from enlisting indigenous aid by
showing them that the indigenes, issued AK-47s, only fired them at
cameramen and the Great Face In The Sky, which caused the indigenes
carrying M-16s to drop them on the ground for the surplus market
("The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes"). 

-- 
-------(m+
  ~/:o)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
 a built-in, shock-proof, *** detector.  -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org