Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Speaking of 1968...

  1. #1
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Speaking of 1968...

    Interesting and insightful/inciteful read...

    [url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRjYWI4MDQ4ZTFlNTEyMDNkNmZmMTkzMjk5YjJjNGY=[/url]



    January 10, 2008 12:00 AM

    Myths of '68
    Anniversary of a turbulent year.

    By Thomas Sowell

    This 40th anniversary of the turbulent year 1968 is already starting to spawn nostalgic accounts of that year. We can look for more during this year in articles, books, and TV specials, featuring aging 1960s radicals seeking to relive their youth.

    The events of 1968 have continuing implications for our times but not the implications drawn by those with romantic myths about 1968 and about themselves.

    The first of the shocks of 1968 was the sudden eruption of violent attacks by Communist guerillas in the cities of South Vietnam, known as the “Tet offensive,” after a local holiday.

    That this sort of widespread urban guerilla warfare was still possible after the rosy claims made by American officials in Washington and Vietnam sent shock waves through the United States.

    The conclusion that might have been drawn was that politicians and military commanders should not make rosy predictions. The conclusion that was in fact drawn was that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

    In reality, the Tet offensive was one in which the Communist guerilla movement was not only defeated in battle but was virtually annihilated as a major military force. From there on, the job of attacking South Vietnam was a job for the North Vietnam army.

    Politically, however, the Tet offensive was an enormous victory for the Communists — not in Vietnam, but in the United States.

    The American media, led by Walter Cronkite, pictured the Tet offensive as a defeat for the United States and a sign that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

    That in turn led to the second shock of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson’s announcement that he would not run for re-election. He knew that public support for the war was completely undermined — and that is what in fact made the war politically unwinnable.

    Think about it: More than 50,000 Americans gave their lives to win victories on the battlefields of Vietnam that were thrown away back in the United States by the media, by politicians and by rioters in the streets and on campuses.

    Years later, Communist leaders in Vietnam admitted that they had not defeated the United States militarily in Vietnam but politically in the United States.

    The next great shock of 1968 was the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. The after-shocks included riots that swept through black ghettos across the country.

    These orgies of mass destruction, vandalism, looting, and deaths have likewise been seen nostalgically as mass “uprisings” against “the system.”

    But “the system” did not kill Martin Luther King. An assassin did. And the biggest losers from the 1968 riots were the black communities in which they occurred.

    Many of those communities have never recovered to this day from the massive loss of businesses and jobs.

    Then came the next great shock of 1968: The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Deep thinkers tried to claim that somehow it was America that was in some way responsible for these assassinations. In reality, the assassin of Robert Kennedy was not an American, but an Iranian.

    Dispersed among these national shocks were various local and regional shocks, as colleges and universities across the country were hit by student disruptions and violence of one sort or another over one issue or another.

    Like the ghetto riots, campus riots flourished where the authorities failed to use their authority to preserve order. Instead, academics sought to cleverly finesse the issues with negotiations, concessions and mealy-mouthed expressions of “understanding” of the concerns raised by campus rioters.

    Many academics congratulated themselves on the eventual restoration of calm to campuses in the 1970s. But it was the calm of surrender. The terms of surrender included creation of whole departments devoted to ideological indoctrination.

    Members of such departments spearheaded the campus lynch mob atmosphere during the Duke University “rape” case, as they have poisoned other campuses in other ways, all across the country.

    1968 indeed left a legacy.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    That is one of the most stupid articles I have read in some time.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thomas Sowell is usually a very good read.

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2309989]That is one of the most stupid articles I have read in some time.[/QUOTE]

    most stupid :rolleyes:

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetswin;2309958]Interesting and insightful/inciteful read...

    [url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRjYWI4MDQ4ZTFlNTEyMDNkNmZmMTkzMjk5YjJjNGY=[/url]



    January 10, 2008 12:00 AM

    Myths of '68
    Anniversary of a turbulent year.

    By Thomas Sowell

    This 40th anniversary of the turbulent year 1968 is already starting to spawn nostalgic accounts of that year. We can look for more during this year in articles, books, and TV specials, featuring aging 1960s radicals seeking to relive their youth.

    The events of 1968 have continuing implications for our times but not the implications drawn by those with romantic myths about 1968 and about themselves.

    The first of the shocks of 1968 was the sudden eruption of violent attacks by Communist guerillas in the cities of South Vietnam, known as the “Tet offensive,” after a local holiday.

    That this sort of widespread urban guerilla warfare was still possible after the rosy claims made by American officials in Washington and Vietnam sent shock waves through the United States.

    The conclusion that might have been drawn was that politicians and military commanders should not make rosy predictions. The conclusion that was in fact drawn was that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

    In reality, the Tet offensive was one in which the Communist guerilla movement was not only defeated in battle but was virtually annihilated as a major military force. From there on, the job of attacking South Vietnam was a job for the North Vietnam army.

    Politically, however, the Tet offensive was an enormous victory for the Communists — not in Vietnam, but in the United States.

    [B]The American media, led by Walter Cronkite, pictured the Tet offensive as a defeat for the United States and a sign that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.[/B]

    That in turn led to the second shock of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson’s announcement that he would not run for re-election. He knew that public support for the war was completely undermined — and that is what in fact made the war politically unwinnable.

    Think about it: More than 50,000 Americans gave their lives to win victories on the battlefields of Vietnam that were thrown away back in the United States by the media, by politicians and by rioters in the streets and on campuses.

    Years later, Communist leaders in Vietnam admitted that they had not defeated the United States militarily in Vietnam but politically in the United States.

    The next great shock of 1968 was the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. The after-shocks included riots that swept through black ghettos across the country.

    These orgies of mass destruction, vandalism, looting, and deaths have likewise been seen nostalgically as mass “uprisings” against “the system.”

    [B]But “the system” did not kill Martin Luther King. An assassin did. And the biggest losers from the 1968 riots were the black communities in which they occurred. [/B]

    Many of those communities have never recovered to this day from the massive loss of businesses and jobs.

    [B]Then came the next great shock of 1968: The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Deep thinkers tried to claim that somehow it was America that was in some way responsible for these assassinations. In reality, the assassin of Robert Kennedy was not an American, but an Iranian.[/B]

    Dispersed among these national shocks were various local and regional shocks, as colleges and universities across the country were hit by student disruptions and violence of one sort or another over one issue or another.

    Like the ghetto riots, campus riots flourished where the authorities failed to use their authority to preserve order. Instead, academics sought to cleverly finesse the issues with negotiations, concessions and mealy-mouthed expressions of “understanding” of the concerns raised by campus rioters.

    Many academics congratulated themselves on the eventual restoration of calm to campuses in the 1970s. But it was the calm of surrender. The terms of surrender included creation of whole departments devoted to ideological indoctrination.

    Members of such departments spearheaded the campus lynch mob atmosphere during the Duke University “rape” case, as they have poisoned other campuses in other ways, all across the country.

    1968 indeed left a legacy.[/QUOTE]

    Another propaganda piece that is beyond insulting to people that understand history. Here is the news you may not hear on Fox or Msnbc. First, Sowell's assine comment that the media created the idea that Vietnam was unwinnable is insulting. This is an example of how the mainstream media is worthless. Here is a dose of the truth;

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg[/url]
    [B]The Pentagon Papers[/B]

    Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of government decision-making during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers.

    Ellsberg grew up in Detroit and attended Cranbrook Kingswood School, then attended Harvard University, graduating with a Ph.D. in Economics in 1959 in which he described a paradox in decision theory now known as the Ellsberg paradox. He served as a company commander in the Marine Corps for two years, and then became an analyst at the RAND Corporation.

    A committed Cold Warrior, he served in the Pentagon in 1964 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (and, in fact, was on duty on the evening of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, reporting the incident to McNamara). He then served for two years in Vietnam working for General Edward Lansdale as a civilian in the State Department, and became convinced that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. He further believed that nearly everyone in the Defense and State Departments felt, as he did, that the United States had no realistic chance of achieving victory in Vietnam, but that political considerations prevented them from saying so publicly. McNamara and others continued to state in press interviews that victory was "just around the corner." As the war continued to escalate, Ellsberg became deeply disillusioned.

    [edit] The Pentagon Papers
    After returning from Vietnam, Ellsberg went back to work at the Rand Corp. As a Vietnam expert, he was invited, in 1967, to contribute to a top-secret study of classified documents regarding the conduct of the Vietnam War that had been commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara. These documents later became known collectively as the Pentagon Papers. Because he held an extremely high-level security clearance, Ellsberg was one of the very few individuals who were given access to the complete set of documents. [B]They revealed that the government had knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed that high-ranking officials had a deep cynicism towards the public as well as disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians.[/B]
    Ellsberg was appalled by the cynicism and hypocrisy reflected in these papers, and, after a period of soul-searching, became determined to make their contents public. He knew that releasing the papers violated the trust placed in him by his colleagues, would damage reputations and would most likely result in his conviction and a lengthy prison sentence. In late 1969, with the assistance of his former Rand Corp. colleague, Anthony Russo, he secretly made several sets of photocopies of the papers (which was, in itself, a difficult undertaking). Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to persuade a few sympathetic U.S. Senators — among them J. William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George McGovern, a leading opponent of the war — to release the papers on the Senate floor, because a Senator could not be prosecuted for anything he said on-the-record before the Senate.

    When these efforts came to naught, Ellsberg finally leaked the documents to New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan. On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first installment of the 7,000 page document. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. However, the Supreme Court soon ordered publication to resume freely. Although the Times did not reveal Ellsberg as their source, he knew that the FBI would soon determine that he was the source of the leak. Ellsberg went underground for sixteen days, living secretly among like-minded people until deciding to turn himself in on June 28. He was not caught by the FBI, even though it was under enormous pressure from the Nixon Administration to find him.

    On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska entered 4,100 pages of the Papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press.[1]

    The Nixon administration also began a campaign to discredit Ellsberg. Nixon's plumbers broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, Lewis Fielding, in an attempt to find damaging information. When they failed to find Ellsberg's file, they made plans to break into Fielding's home

    As far as the assassinations of kennedy and King, I do not have enough time to list information calling into question the "history" of those events.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    the importance of that year is of consequence. We are only now emerging from the legacy of that year.


    A beaten Viet Cong rolls the dice for a final offensive knowing it would be destroyed and is defeated, yet lays the groundwork for our defeat.

    America had just discovered the limits of its power as we could not translate military successes into political results until after 1969.

    A society in ferment as certain groups, not content with just removing injustices, now felt that they were owed something to compensate for them. Voices of moderation and idealism- King and RFK assasinated. President Johnson, victim of his own policies of bread and butter and micromanagement of the war in Vietnam forced to abandon his bid to run for reelection.

    The US and its allies strategically on the defensive aroudn the globe as the Soviets brutally repressed the liberalization effort in Czechoslovakia, France saw its students run for the barricades and topple deGaulle's government.

    That year also saw the emergence of the divide in the Democratic party as centrist Kennedy- Johnson- Humphrey democrats began to be challenged by the radical McGovern faction of the party.

    This is just a short blurb, but the legacy of that year still lives in my parents' generation, even as they decide who to vote for in the Florida primaries.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2310214]Another propaganda piece that is beyond insulting to people that understand history. Here is the news you may not hear on Fox or Msnbc. First, Sowell's assine comment that the media created the idea that Vietnam was unwinnable is insulting. This is an example of how the mainstream media is worthless. Here is a dose of the truth;

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg[/url]
    [/QUOTE]

    :zzz::zzz::zzz:

    wikipedia.....:zzz::zzz::zzz:

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Equilibrium;2310217]the importance of that year is of consequence. We are only now emerging from the legacy of that year.


    A beaten Viet Cong rolls the dice for a final offensive knowing it would be destroyed and is defeated, yet lays the groundwork for our defeat.

    America had just discovered the limits of its power as we could not translate military successes into political results until after 1969.

    A society in ferment as certain groups, not content with just removing injustices, now felt that they were owed something to compensate for them. Voices of moderation and idealism- King and RFK assasinated. President Johnson, victim of his own policies of bread and butter and micromanagement of the war in Vietnam forced to abandon his bid to run for reelection.

    The US and its allies strategically on the defensive aroudn the globe as the Soviets brutally repressed the liberalization effort in Czechoslovakia, France saw its students run for the barricades and topple deGaulle's government.

    That year also saw the emergence of the divide in the Democratic party as centrist Kennedy- Johnson- Humphrey democrats began to be challenged by the radical McGovern faction of the party.

    This is just a short blurb, but the legacy of that year still lives in my parents' generation, even as they decide who to vote for in the Florida primaries.[/QUOTE]

    but wouldn't you agree the groundwork for defeat was laid years prior with the decisions not to invade NK on land??? never mind giving the VC free reign for almost half a decade to conduct the war from inside Cambodia???

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2311260]:zzz::zzz::zzz:

    wikipedia.....:zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.ellsberg.net/[/url]
    [url]http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ellsberg98-0.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,857099,00.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.bookrags.com/biography/daniel-ellsberg/[/url]
    [url]http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm[/url]
    [url]http://www.beacon.org/client/pentagonpapers.cfm[/url]
    [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/pentagonpapers.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/ellsberg/[/url]

    I could go on for hours and list sites besides wikipedia. Apparently, Sean Hannity did not give you the okay to read that site. send an email to sean and ask if its okay to think for yourself on this one. He'll tell you what to do.

    [url]http://www.hannity.com/contactus.asp[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 01-11-2008 at 03:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2311446][url]http://www.ellsberg.net/[/url]
    [url]http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ellsberg98-0.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,857099,00.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.bookrags.com/biography/daniel-ellsberg/[/url]
    [url]http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm[/url]
    [url]http://www.beacon.org/client/pentagonpapers.cfm[/url]
    [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/pentagonpapers.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/ellsberg/[/url]

    I could go on for hours and list sites besides wikipedia. Apparently, Sean Hannity did not give you the okay to read that site. send an email to sean and ask if its okay to think for yourself on this one. He'll tell you what to do.

    [url]http://www.hannity.com/contactus.asp[/url][/QUOTE]

    In fairness, CBTNY didn't know there was a Sean Hannity approved web site list.

    He's off searching for it now. It will prove quite useful to him in the future.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2311265]but wouldn't you agree the groundwork for defeat was laid years prior with the decisions not to invade NK on land??? never mind giving the VC free reign for almost half a decade to conduct the war from inside Cambodia???[/QUOTE]


    NK? I assume you meant North Vietnam due to the rest of the question.

    Remeber that the conflict was entered into specifically as a limited war. THe fear was that the Chinese or the Soviets would intervene in any invasion of the North a la China after MacArthur's march to the border with China.

    it is important to consider that the US invovlement in the conflict had three phases:

    I. 1964-66 Conventional: VC/ NVA regular army forces tried to defeat US and ARVN forces in large force engagements but fail and suffer large losses in doing so.

    II. 1966-68 VC forces conducted large scale insurgent warfare in an attempt to attrit US forces and destroy the socio-political structure of South Vietnam. THe situation became stalemated as the US could not end the supply by invading North Vietnam or expand the war into Cambodia or Laos as it would have destabilized the weak governments there and bring about a full scale North Vietnamese intervention in those areas.

    III, 1968-1973
    The VC risked its whole organization and ended up destroying itself as an insurgent force after Tet. Afterwards, with no indigenous Southern support, the North resorted to interventions by conventional forces. This also came as Nixon opened relations with China as China joined the US in counterbalancing Soviet influence in Asia as the Soviet Union sought to negotiate better economic and military agreements with the US to limit the burden and tensions of the arms race on its economy.

    Nixon seized the opportunity created by international conditions and eliminated the sanctuaries in Cambodia and the South Vietnamese army invaded Laos and severly degraded the NVA positions there.

    The North, recognizign the situation, attempted to gamble again by sending its entire army on an invasion of the South in 1972, which was not only stopped, but entirely destroyed by a very capable ARVn and US airpower. Nixon cut off the last remaining supply route by mining Haiphong harbor.

    The North realized that it had to get the US out of the south to have a chance at conquering the South. nixon's strategy was to guarantee the South's survival by supplying it and placing US air and seapower in position to support if ever threatened again.

    Of course, Watergate changed the political context of the situation. The radical McGovernite wing of the Democratic party assumed dominance in Congress and literally overturned the landslide victory of Nixon's relection by reducing and then stopping all aid to the South as promised by Nixon, the prestige of the US to an ally and guaranteed by 50,000 US lives.

    The South fell after its armies, out of fuel, short on ammunition and spare parts (with the world's 6th largest airforce) and US aid and assistance neutralized by Congress was abandoned and left destitute.

    The congressional legacy of that time where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory lives on today with Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsroed much of the legislation that cut off aid to the South before and during the invasion. I am not usually passionate about politics, however, Biden to this day earns my scorn and disdain.

    So,, invading the North in the end was not neccesary. US and allied firepower had devasted the North's armies and its supply sanctuaries were eliminated as its patrons were competing with each other for better relations with the US. Johnson produced stalemate that saved the South, but Nixon had given it almost a sure guarantee of survival.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Eh, I still like Wikipedia. Just have to know what your looking at before you start, and not assume it's 100% correct without question.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2311446][url]http://www.ellsberg.net/[/url]
    [url]http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ellsberg98-0.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,857099,00.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.bookrags.com/biography/daniel-ellsberg/[/url]
    [url]http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm[/url]
    [url]http://www.beacon.org/client/pentagonpapers.cfm[/url]
    [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/pentagonpapers.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/ellsberg/[/url]

    I could go on for hours and list sites besides wikipedia. Apparently, Sean Hannity did not give you the okay to read that site. send an email to sean and ask if its okay to think for yourself on this one. He'll tell you what to do.

    [url]http://www.hannity.com/contactus.asp[/url][/QUOTE]


    really a pathetic attempt to justify your sad and misguided notion of a single thought (which is all you are capable of)...that thought (singularly gleaned from the pentagon papers) being the war would not be won.....in essence, if you knew the history of the conflict, what McNamara fought against was how the JCS were conducting the war, which made it unwinnable...

    [QUOTE]Politically, however, the Tet offensive was an enormous victory for the Communists — not in Vietnam, but in the United States.

    The American media, led by Walter Cronkite, pictured the Tet offensive as a defeat for the United States and a sign that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.[/QUOTE]

    the irony of course is the VC admitted they used the American media's anti-war bias to their advantage...but hey- them's the facts...

    then again I guess they won't tell you this at [url]www.dailykos.com[/url]
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 01-11-2008 at 05:58 PM.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Equilibrium;2311604]NK? I assume you meant North Vietnam due to the rest of the question.

    Remeber that the conflict was entered into specifically as a limited war. THe fear was that the Chinese or the Soviets would intervene in any invasion of the North a la China after MacArthur's march to the border with China.[/QUOTE]

    but the fact is the Vietnamese hate China more than America....they never wanted the Chinese to intervene as they realized once they came they would never leave....hence they would have resisted their involvement...

    [QUOTE]it is important to consider that the US invovlement in the conflict had three phases:

    I. 1964-66 Conventional: VC/ NVA regular army forces tried to defeat US and ARVN forces in large force engagements but fail and suffer large losses in doing so.

    II. 1966-68 VC forces conducted large scale insurgent warfare in an attempt to attrit US forces and destroy the socio-political structure of South Vietnam. THe situation became stalemated as the US could not end the supply by invading North Vietnam or expand the war into Cambodia or Laos as it would have destabilized the weak governments there and bring about a full scale North Vietnamese intervention in those areas.

    III, 1968-1973
    The VC risked its whole organization and ended up destroying itself as an insurgent force after Tet. Afterwards, with no indigenous Southern support, the North resorted to interventions by conventional forces. This also came as Nixon opened relations with China as China joined the US in counterbalancing Soviet influence in Asia as the Soviet Union sought to negotiate better economic and military agreements with the US to limit the burden and tensions of the arms race on its economy.

    Nixon seized the opportunity created by international conditions and eliminated the sanctuaries in Cambodia and the South Vietnamese army invaded Laos and severly degraded the NVA positions there.

    The North, recognizign the situation, attempted to gamble again by sending its entire army on an invasion of the South in 1972, which was not only stopped, but entirely destroyed by a very capable ARVn and US airpower. Nixon cut off the last remaining supply route by mining Haiphong harbor.

    The North realized that it had to get the US out of the south to have a chance at conquering the South. nixon's strategy was to guarantee the South's survival by supplying it and placing US air and seapower in position to support if ever threatened again.

    Of course, Watergate changed the political context of the situation. The radical McGovernite wing of the Democratic party assumed dominance in Congress and literally overturned the landslide victory of Nixon's relection by reducing and then stopping all aid to the South as promised by Nixon, the prestige of the US to an ally and guaranteed by 50,000 US lives.

    The South fell after its armies, out of fuel, short on ammunition and spare parts (with the world's 6th largest airforce) and US aid and assistance neutralized by Congress was abandoned and left destitute.

    The congressional legacy of that time where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory lives on today with Senator Joseph Biden, who sponsroed much of the legislation that cut off aid to the South before and during the invasion. I am not usually passionate about politics, however, Biden to this day earns my scorn and disdain.

    So,, invading the North in the end was not neccesary. US and allied firepower had devasted the North's armies and its supply sanctuaries were eliminated as its patrons were competing with each other for better relations with the US. Johnson produced stalemate that saved the South, but Nixon had given it almost a sure guarantee of survival.[/QUOTE]

    in not invading NV on the ground the troops were usually put in a position to defend rather than be on the aggressive, as your points illustrate....

    this point is proven in point II...by the time the US tried to stop the VC in Cambodia they were too entrenched....read Hal Moore's book, "We were Soldiers once and Young" which illustrates the first big battle in Vietnam- they mention frequently how the VC would cross into Cambodia to reload and catch a breather as US forces were not allowed to shoot across the border before '68....

    btw; read Karnow's book on Vietnam, best one I've ever read...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 01-11-2008 at 05:17 PM.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2311594]In fairness, CBTNY didn't know there was a Sean Hannity approved web site list.

    He's off searching for it now. It will prove quite useful to him in the future.[/QUOTE]

    tough talk from a pea brained edwards apologist.....

  16. #16
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    765
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetswin;2309958]Interesting and insightful/inciteful read...

    [url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRjYWI4MDQ4ZTFlNTEyMDNkNmZmMTkzMjk5YjJjNGY=[/url]



    January 10, 2008 12:00 AM

    Myths of '68
    Anniversary of a turbulent year.

    By Thomas Sowell

    This 40th anniversary of the turbulent year 1968 is already starting to spawn nostalgic accounts of that year. We can look for more during this year in articles, books, and TV specials, featuring aging 1960s radicals seeking to relive their youth.

    The events of 1968 have continuing implications for our times but not the implications drawn by those with romantic myths about 1968 and about themselves.

    The first of the shocks of 1968 was the sudden eruption of violent attacks by Communist guerillas in the cities of South Vietnam, known as the “Tet offensive,” after a local holiday.

    That this sort of widespread urban guerilla warfare was still possible after the rosy claims made by American officials in Washington and Vietnam sent shock waves through the United States.

    The conclusion that might have been drawn was that politicians and military commanders should not make rosy predictions. The conclusion that was in fact drawn was that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

    In reality, the Tet offensive was one in which the Communist guerilla movement was not only defeated in battle but was virtually annihilated as a major military force. From there on, the job of attacking South Vietnam was a job for the North Vietnam army.

    Politically, however, the Tet offensive was an enormous victory for the Communists — not in Vietnam, but in the United States.

    The American media, led by Walter Cronkite, pictured the Tet offensive as a defeat for the United States and a sign that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

    That in turn led to the second shock of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson’s announcement that he would not run for re-election. He knew that public support for the war was completely undermined — and that is what in fact made the war politically unwinnable.

    Think about it: More than 50,000 Americans gave their lives to win victories on the battlefields of Vietnam that were thrown away back in the United States by the media, by politicians and by rioters in the streets and on campuses.

    Years later, Communist leaders in Vietnam admitted that they had not defeated the United States militarily in Vietnam but politically in the United States.

    The next great shock of 1968 was the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. The after-shocks included riots that swept through black ghettos across the country.

    These orgies of mass destruction, vandalism, looting, and deaths have likewise been seen nostalgically as mass “uprisings” against “the system.”

    But “the system” did not kill Martin Luther King. An assassin did. And the biggest losers from the 1968 riots were the black communities in which they occurred.

    Many of those communities have never recovered to this day from the massive loss of businesses and jobs.

    Then came the next great shock of 1968: The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Deep thinkers tried to claim that somehow it was America that was in some way responsible for these assassinations. In reality, the assassin of Robert Kennedy was not an American, but an Iranian.

    Dispersed among these national shocks were various local and regional shocks, as colleges and universities across the country were hit by student disruptions and violence of one sort or another over one issue or another.

    Like the ghetto riots, campus riots flourished where the authorities failed to use their authority to preserve order. Instead, academics sought to cleverly finesse the issues with negotiations, concessions and mealy-mouthed expressions of “understanding” of the concerns raised by campus rioters.

    Many academics congratulated themselves on the eventual restoration of calm to campuses in the 1970s. But it was the calm of surrender. The terms of surrender included creation of whole departments devoted to ideological indoctrination.

    Members of such departments spearheaded the campus lynch mob atmosphere during the Duke University “rape” case, as they have poisoned other campuses in other ways, all across the country.

    1968 indeed left a legacy.[/QUOTE]

    And of course gave rise to socialists, like Hilary(Big Butt) Clinton

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2311621]but the fact is the Vietnamese hate China more than America....they never wanted the Chinese to intervene as they realized once they came they would never leave....hence they would have resisted their involvement...



    in not invading NV on the ground the troops were usually put in a position to defend rather than be on the aggressive, as your points illustrate....

    this point is proven in point II...by the time the US tried to stop the VC in Cambodia they were too entrenched....read Hal Moore's book, "We were Soldiers once and Young" which illustrates the first big battle in Vietnam- they mention frequently how the VC would cross into Cambodia to reload and catch a breather as US forces were not allowed to shoot across the border before '68....

    btw; read Karnow's book on Vietnam, best one I've ever read...[/QUOTE]


    The Ia Drang battle occured in the early phase of the war- '65 or '66 I believe, when the North Vietnamese Army tried to destroy the 1st Cav. During this until the invasion in '70 this was true. But after the invasion- no more NVA actions occured from that region until the '75 final invasion.

    The international strategic situation was not conducive to a US invasion of the North.

    [quote]catch a breather as US forces were not allowed to shoot across the border before '68....[/quoe]

    The Johnson Administration also contributed to this as US bombing offensives (Rolling Thunder, Flaming Dart, etc.) were limited in their targets and subject to many bombing "pauses" to give the enemy time to consider negotiations.

    Karnow's book is a great piece of jounalistic effort. But I reccomend Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" as well as Kissinger's Vietnam chapter in "White House Years"

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Equilibrium;2311652]The Ia Drang battle occured in the early phase of the war- '65 or '66 I believe, when the North Vietnamese Army tried to destroy the 1st Cav. During this until the invasion in '70 this was true. But after the invasion- no more NVA actions occured from that region until the '75 final invasion.

    The international strategic situation was not conducive to a US invasion of the North.

    [quote]catch a breather as US forces were not allowed to shoot across the border before '68....[/quote]

    The Johnson Administration also contributed to this as US bombing offensives (Rolling Thunder, Flaming Dart, etc.) were limited in their targets and subject to many bombing "pauses" to give the enemy time to consider negotiations.[/QUOTE]

    I understand your point about an invasion into NV, yet that strategy caused the war to drag on and ultimate withdrawal as the VC were able to entrench themselves in so many ways....it forced Americans to play prevent defense more than anything else imo

    [QUOTE]Karnow's book is a great piece of jounalistic effort. But I reccomend Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" as well as Kissinger's Vietnam chapter in "White House Years"[/QUOTE]

    thanks...will check them out...

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was born on the day Robert Kennedy was assassinated and my best friend in high school was born on the day of the Tate/LaBianca murders....coincidence?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2311612]really a pathetic attempt to justify your sad and misguided notion of a single thought (which is all you are capable of)...that thought (singularly gleaned from the pentagon papers) being the war would not be won.....in essence, if you knew the history of the conflict, what McNamara fought against was how the JCS were conducting the war, which made it unwinnable...



    the irony of course is the VC admitted they used the American media's anti-war bias to their advantage...but hey- them's the facts...

    then again I guess they won't tell you this at [url]www.dailykos.com[/url][/QUOTE]

    What seems more likely; Classified papers from the pentagon, that were never intended to been seen by the public, are correct? Or the Johnson Administration was completly honest to the media about what was happening in Vietnam?

    And as far the assassinations are concerned, check this out concerning the Bobby Kennedy;
    [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6169006.stm[/url]

    Look, I love this country as much or more then the next person. But loving someone or something means being honest and critical when it is necessary. You cannot act in this manner because you spend too much time at this man's house;

    [url]http://www.kraftfoods.com/koolaid/ka_main.html[/url]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us