--
johnmanyjars@eatshit.com
> > > Nothing pisses me off more than some dipshit armchair
> > > general Repig dismiss the French as having 'always been
> > > cowards'. Ever read about Verdun?

James A. Donald:
> > Hurling conscript cannon fodder into the meat grinder is
> > not valor. Sometimes the officers would take the ammo out
> > of the troops' guns before sending them into the charge so
> > that they could not shoot their officers.

johnmanyjars@eatshit.com
> So, by your logic, the conscript cannon fodder we sent to the
> meat grinder of 'Nam also weren't to be commended for thier
> bravery?

Most conscript troops in Vietnam failed to fight, and this was
a major reason the war was lost. I would not call it
cowardice -- if they were volunteers I would call it cowardice
-- but it sure was not bravery either.

Trench warfare was, in large part, a tactic for forcing troops
fight when neither they nor their officers were in fact willing
to fight. The troops at Verdun were forced into the mouths of
cannon by officers standing right behind them with guns,
officers that did not follow.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ul1fpeiS2mH2HF21Z1n19s4bhmZdFNwr759W0jts
46vW1LfWXE8LJctnP91f4WtBU9PrBgYAEd6DO5UV5

--
James A. Donald
> > :Most conscript troops in Vietnam failed to fight, and this
> > :was a major reason the war was lost.

Fred J. McCall
> Evidence?

It was near thirty years ago -- I cannot give you citations.
But as I recall, they found that most short timers (conscripts)
had never fired a shot on the battlefield.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/heLb/SIUr7fGqPTc7LkdUK0zC2orPkqYnmGfp7f
4OqN8cZ/yrJAjz664wxBpTukXEIuETJ1etkEcmJ9F

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

: --
:James A. Donald
:> > :Most conscript troops in Vietnam failed to fight, and this
:> > :was a major reason the war was lost.
:
:Fred J. McCall
:>
:> Evidence?
:
:It was near thirty years ago -- I cannot give you citations.
:But as I recall, they found that most short timers (conscripts)
:had never fired a shot on the battlefield.

I believe you recall incorrectly. As I recall it, Vietnam was a
watershed because such a HIGH percentage of troops were actually
firing in combat; some 90%, where in prior wars the percentage was as
low as 10%. This was attributed to training and the fact that each
trooper now had an automatic weapon, which gave them more confidence.

The loss in Vietnam was not a failure on the part of the troops. It
was a failure in political will.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, James A. Donald wrote:

> --
> James A. Donald
> > > :Most conscript troops in Vietnam failed to fight, and this
> > > :was a major reason the war was lost.
>
> Fred J. McCall
> > Evidence?
>
> It was near thirty years ago -- I cannot give you citations.
> But as I recall, they found that most short timers (conscripts)
> had never fired a shot on the battlefield.

do you remember if they were in combat? i'd be suprised if most
soldiers actually did fire a shot on hte battlefied. given the extensive
logistics present.

-gr

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qc5ogvk7d2mbib98pgk75ke0kordarmu01@4ax.com...
> James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> : --
> :James A. Donald
> :> > :Most conscript troops in Vietnam failed to fight, and this
> :> > :was a major reason the war was lost.
> :
> :Fred J. McCall
> :>
> :> Evidence?
> :
> :It was near thirty years ago -- I cannot give you citations.
> :But as I recall, they found that most short timers (conscripts)
> :had never fired a shot on the battlefield.
>
> I believe you recall incorrectly. As I recall it, Vietnam was a
> watershed because such a HIGH percentage of troops were actually
> firing in combat; some 90%, where in prior wars the percentage was as
> low as 10%. This was attributed to training and the fact that each
> trooper now had an automatic weapon, which gave them more confidence.
>
> The loss in Vietnam was not a failure on the part of the troops. It
> was a failure in political will.
>


We "won" in Korea but lost in Vietnam. What were the differences that made
this possible?


--
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

[newsgroups trimmed]
[Followup set to: alt.current-events.usa]


On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:30 GMT, Fred J. McCall
<fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:

[snip]

==>The loss in Vietnam was not a failure on the part of the troops. It
==>was a failure in political will.

Nonsense.

Four U.S. presidents bent all the "political will"
they could muster towards trying to dominate
and subdue the Vietnamese and failed, as had
the French before them.

America's loss in Vietnam was its inability to
defeat an enemy who was smarter, stronger,
tougher, more knowledgeable about the
terrain and about jungle warfare in general,
more committed and more willing to sacrifice
life and limb in the cause of ridding their country
of an imperialist foreign invader.

If U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were less than
completely enthusiastic about what they were
supposed to do, it probably had something
to do with their realization that they were the
bad guys in this fight and their subsequent
unwillingness to die in a cause that was both
wrong and hopeless.

The "lack of political will" canard is nothing more
than a face-saving right-wing fiction that has been
so completely debunked by history it joins the
"weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" bullshit
as being among the most shameless lies of our
time.

Yours for historical accuracy. . . .

--
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:30 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> The loss in Vietnam was not a failure on the part of the
> troops. It was a failure in political will.

We were competing with the commies in willingness to sacrifice
conscript cannon fodder. They will always win such a conflict,
and were we to have the "will" to win in such a struggle we
would be no better than they.

The doctrine of containment meant we had to win or draw every
war, ever time, in times and places of the communists choosing.
Obviously it was going to fail.

With the doctrine of rollback, we could afford to lose some
wars, in fact we could afford to lose all of them, if we
managed to stir up more wars simultaneously than the communists
could afford to pay for.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
GUvMU2Z5D3ABBKNMBOCu+jDrrQZx2FKD753W6o/v
47xKxpbaSkOK3Em1a1uuIPSFo1JrCNLHkAyo2JdRv

"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:qc5ogvk7d2mbib98pgk75ke0kordarmu01@4ax.com.. .
:>
:> The loss in Vietnam was not a failure on the part of the troops. It
:> was a failure in political will.
:
:We "won" in Korea but lost in Vietnam. What were the differences that made
:this possible?

Well, it wasn't anything to do with 'draftees', since pretty much all
the troops in Korea were draftees, too.

The difference, as I said, was political will. How many American
divisions did we use to carry the fight to the enemy in our drive on
Hanoi? Now ask yourself a similar question with regard to American
divisions in North Korea.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill