One of your adversaries is missing...(merged)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dat
I am no expert on Vietnam so can't really comment.
Were the tactics THAT different ?
Let's compare Ia Drang with Long Tan. Apart from the insertion of the US troops by Helo and everything was scaled up in numbers (both sides) and the US had aircraft in support, at the base level it was infantry troops fighting close quarters with one side fixed and one side attacking with the defensive side being supported well by Arty.
The result was the same, high casualties, both sides looked at it as a victory,
both sides learnt from it.
Now take the other Ia Drang valley battle at the next landing zone over,
A Battalion effectively massacred.
As for the rest of the war, not sure.
Aggressive offensive and defensive patrolling, which the Australians did in spades and kept the NVA on their toes all the time works in any war.
I am no expert on Vietnam so can't really comment.
Were the tactics THAT different ?
Let's compare Ia Drang with Long Tan. Apart from the insertion of the US troops by Helo and everything was scaled up in numbers (both sides) and the US had aircraft in support, at the base level it was infantry troops fighting close quarters with one side fixed and one side attacking with the defensive side being supported well by Arty.
The result was the same, high casualties, both sides looked at it as a victory,
both sides learnt from it.
Now take the other Ia Drang valley battle at the next landing zone over,
A Battalion effectively massacred.
As for the rest of the war, not sure.
Aggressive offensive and defensive patrolling, which the Australians did in spades and kept the NVA on their toes all the time works in any war.
Dat asks a good question about how do you win a war when the other side doesn't value life in the same way the west does?
You remove the handcuffs that bind you early. Had the fight been brought to the north in the way of unrestricted warfare, the outcome may have differed. The NV may not have placed a high value on the worth of an individual, they did on the infrastructure of the North as evidenced by the air defenses present.
However the civilians appointed above the military didn't have the stomach for that.
You remove the handcuffs that bind you early. Had the fight been brought to the north in the way of unrestricted warfare, the outcome may have differed. The NV may not have placed a high value on the worth of an individual, they did on the infrastructure of the North as evidenced by the air defenses present.
However the civilians appointed above the military didn't have the stomach for that.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
WW2 was less than 30 years ago. It is now 40 years since.
PGMs were in their infancy and not available at all to SAC. The risk therefore was media collateral in civilian casualties and the risk of killing 'innocent' foreign advisors.
Eventually that risk was taken.
Ask SASless. He can tell you.
As I quite enjoy reading your missives here.....and the opposite being true for HJ's drivel.....I see absolutely no need to waste a second of my time even looking at a single post made by HJ.
So....I am not going to allow you to cause me to set out on a Fool's Errand.
500N,
The Americans and Aussies used the same basic tactics and equipment. The difference is in the size of the Aussie Area of Operations, where it was located, and the Enemy Order of Battle and Logistics issues the enemy had in supporting its troops.
US units were engaged with Main Force NVA Regulars, were confronted in many areas by NVA Artillery, Tanks, and other significant forces. The Ho Chi Minh trail supply routes, in general lay along the Laos-Cambodian border areas and afforded the North Vietnamese to provide effective logistical support to their forces deployed against US Forces in the Border areas.
The Aussie AO around Nui Dat were at the very end of the NVA supply line and thus they were not able to build large units and sustain them for operations.
Thus, the Australian forces had to deal with a lesser capable opposition as compared to the Large Enemy formations in places like the Ashau Valley, DMZ, and Cambodian Border areas west and north of Saigon.
It did not make the fighting any less dangerous.....just reduced the size and make-up of the forces engaged.
As was normal in the Vietnam War....the scale, scope, and intensity of one's experience varied with the Year, Season, Location, and within which unit one found himself.
My unit supported the Aussies.....doing the same missions with them we did with US Units and except for the Aussies being very organized and efficient in their planning for our Chinook missions.....comparable US units were anything but.....I found little difference in the capabilities.
The Aussies on average had better discipline in their conduct of operations....sound and light discipline being an example. They seemed to be more aggressive in their small unit patrolling.
We have to remember.....there were far fewer Australian units too. In the US units....right down to platoons within companies....some were better than others in their performance but that was primarily a function of the quality of their leadership which naturally varied with the NCO's and Officers assigned to the units.
Comparing Long Tan to Ia Drang and the subsequent ambush that was so disastrous is not an easy exercise.
The Aussies experienced an Advance to Contact fight where they encountered enemy units and then fought a pitched battle of survival against overwhelming odds and made excellent use of Artillery and had very little Air Support. The engaged unit had excellent leadership.
At Ia Drang, the Air Cav did an Air Assault well into enemy held territory where there were no ground units to support them. They then fought against overwhelming odds but had tremendous Artillery and Air Support. The Battalion Commander did an outstanding job of leading his men and controlling the fight.
The Ambushed Column marching overland to LZ Albany was physically exhausted after being engaged in combat at LZ X-Ray, did not use proper tactical measures except for the front and rear of the column, and was poorly led by the Battalion Commander who quickly lost control of the situation. As a result there was little effective Artillery and Air Support.
The danger of drawing generalities is that doing so does not effectively consider important differences in those situations.
Last edited by SASless; 17th Oct 2013 at 12:34.
Upon Creighton Abrams taking over from Westmoreland.....the strategy became one of Logistics rather than Attrition. Abrams understood the real weakness in the NVA ability to conduct operations.
The NVA had to stage their supplies in advance of operations which is the complete reverse of standard convention warfare.
His method was to deprive the NVA of their pre-positioned supplies and armament so that the NVA forces could not conduct effective operations.
Our casualties decreased and the pace of enemy operations slowed as a result.
Had we been allowed to carry the war to the Sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos, to close down the sea port in Cambodia, and sent our ground forces into North Vietnam we would have been able to have ended the war particularly right after TET of 1968 when the NVA/VC took such a horrible beating down South.
Sadly, our National Leadership were blind to the reality of what they were doing wrong.....they were not only lying to the American People, the Troops in Combat, but fatally....to themselves.
The NVA had to stage their supplies in advance of operations which is the complete reverse of standard convention warfare.
His method was to deprive the NVA of their pre-positioned supplies and armament so that the NVA forces could not conduct effective operations.
Our casualties decreased and the pace of enemy operations slowed as a result.
Had we been allowed to carry the war to the Sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos, to close down the sea port in Cambodia, and sent our ground forces into North Vietnam we would have been able to have ended the war particularly right after TET of 1968 when the NVA/VC took such a horrible beating down South.
Sadly, our National Leadership were blind to the reality of what they were doing wrong.....they were not only lying to the American People, the Troops in Combat, but fatally....to themselves.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HJ.
I address this comment to you, and not as a slight to the yanks.
Giap was a great General, not because of who he defeated, but of those he defended.
In any Country, a soldier who repels invaders has done his job.
In the case of Giap, and Vietnam- we can only wonder at how he did, what must have seemed to a poorly trained and uncivilised peasant army, the impossible.
But, lets go back to basics.
Let us not confuse Strategy and Tactics, because although US tactics were well fought, US Strategy was so poor.
In fact. What was the US strategy in Viet Nam?
Back to Giap.
Again, Strategically, why did the French fancy that after all the giant political and social changes, including- basically the end of Empires that came after WW2, they could just waltz back into Cochin China?
Big boo-boo.
The World had changed, and it was clear to all who had eyes to see.
Perhaps le Frog was blinded by the utter humiliation of the French Piss-poor performance in WW2?
Anyway, the French got their asses handed to them in Dien Bien Phu.
But let no one say they did not put up one hell of a fight.
Giap, prevailed. And frankly, for a legacy, that would have done nicely.
The US, ignoring every single thing that the Frogs told them, went down to a similar defeat.
Now.
Had Giap, been a UK General.
He would have been a hero of giant proportion.
He wasn't, of course, but he was a living legend and in had he lived in any other Country, and fought, I think he would have done well.
After Vietnam, the lessons were there for all to see:
When fighting in a foreign Country- the people are the prize- avoid killing the buggers!
Again, the US would not listen, and would not see.
Thus, the giant defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are bound to go on their arses time after time. See US recent history for many examples.
Giap:
The Generals' General.
Kicked the US and the French right up the arse and out of Vietnam. With nothing.
Suck it up.
I address this comment to you, and not as a slight to the yanks.
Giap was a great General, not because of who he defeated, but of those he defended.
In any Country, a soldier who repels invaders has done his job.
In the case of Giap, and Vietnam- we can only wonder at how he did, what must have seemed to a poorly trained and uncivilised peasant army, the impossible.
But, lets go back to basics.
Let us not confuse Strategy and Tactics, because although US tactics were well fought, US Strategy was so poor.
In fact. What was the US strategy in Viet Nam?
Back to Giap.
Again, Strategically, why did the French fancy that after all the giant political and social changes, including- basically the end of Empires that came after WW2, they could just waltz back into Cochin China?
Big boo-boo.
The World had changed, and it was clear to all who had eyes to see.
Perhaps le Frog was blinded by the utter humiliation of the French Piss-poor performance in WW2?
Anyway, the French got their asses handed to them in Dien Bien Phu.
But let no one say they did not put up one hell of a fight.
Giap, prevailed. And frankly, for a legacy, that would have done nicely.
The US, ignoring every single thing that the Frogs told them, went down to a similar defeat.
Now.
Had Giap, been a UK General.
He would have been a hero of giant proportion.
He wasn't, of course, but he was a living legend and in had he lived in any other Country, and fought, I think he would have done well.
After Vietnam, the lessons were there for all to see:
When fighting in a foreign Country- the people are the prize- avoid killing the buggers!
Again, the US would not listen, and would not see.
Thus, the giant defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are bound to go on their arses time after time. See US recent history for many examples.
Giap:
The Generals' General.
Kicked the US and the French right up the arse and out of Vietnam. With nothing.
Suck it up.
Last edited by AtomKraft; 18th Oct 2013 at 22:14.
A nascent democracy in Iraq with SH visiting with his 19 virgins. Not quite as you describe it Atom.
Not perfect, not a democracy in the sense of what you enjoy in County Claire (my assumption) but a start.
Not perfect, not a democracy in the sense of what you enjoy in County Claire (my assumption) but a start.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For someone with such firm opinions I’m interested in how those opinions were informed?
They certainly have little connection to historical reality, as HJ would tell you.
If he was honest.
Giap was not a great General.
In the French campaign of 1948, the Viet Minh were reduced to a rump and both HCM and Giap were lucky to escape with their lives.
He was given a lifeline only after the ascendancy of the Communist Chinese who were victorious in the Chinese civil war in 1949.
Giap’s conduct of the 1950 Red River campaign was disastrous. Giap himself was lucky not to find himself the scapegoat for that disaster. It fell instead to Nguyen Binh, who was set up to be killed in a French ambush by Giap.
The uncivilised peasant army that Giap took to victory at DBP was anything but poorly trained. It wasn’t until the Chinese communists turned up on the northern border that Giap had the chance to train and raise divisions. His 308th division for example was the equal in terms of equipment and training to any Japanese Division that saw service in WW2.
Giap disgraced himself in the Land Reform measures of 1955-56 and his suppression of the Quynh Luu revolt that was a reaction to them in November 1956. After this Giap while retained as a PAVN ‘figurehead’, because of the propaganda importance of his DBP victory, played no further part in the decision making that led to the ‘American War’.
Let me reiterate this important fact.
General Giap had nothing to do with the decision to go to war against the south; in fact he was against it. Giap had nothing to do with the strategy or tactics used against the US from 1959 until the US withdrawal in 1972. Nothing. He had nothing at all to do with the final campaign against the ARVN that resulted in the fall of Saigon in 1975.
The French made every effort from 1945 onwards to create viable independent Indochinese States. The French plan was the same as that adopted by the British in both India and Malaya, that is, an evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary one.
Giap, HCM and Le Duan were committed to a revolutionary process and violence.
If HCM and Giap had done nothing other than simply wait, do you honestly believe that Indochina would still be a French Colony in 2013? In the absence of the failed Viet experiment in Communism Vietnam would certainly have been independent, unified by the time of the Doi Moi reforms of 1986. The choice of war was a communist initiative and one that unnecessarily caused millions of deaths and set back Vietnamese economic development by three generations. Let the blame fall where it belongs.
The Vietnamese did not defeat the US. The US had been gone 3 years prior to the fall of Saigon in 1975. The defeat of 1975 belongs entirely to the ARVN.
Anything of any consequence that occurred in Vietnam happened before 1965 when the Marines waded ashore at Danang or after 1972 when they had packed up and left. They just don't make movies about it and the books don't sell as well.
Had Giap been a UK General he probably would not have the blood of 300,000 of his countrymen on his hands. Vietnamese that he had killed to meet land reform quotas. The British just don’t do that sort of thing anymore.
Had Giap been a UK general he would have been rightly condemned for his treatment of the POW’s he took at DBP. During the battle he managed to kill 2,000 French and Vietnamese defenders. In the immediate aftermath of the battle, prisoners in Giap’s care died in huge numbers. 8,000, more than four times the battle casualties, died in the camps or on death marches. Giap was never tried as a war criminal because he was on the winning side.
If that makes him a General’s general you need to recalibrate your moral compass.
I always enjoy the combination of ill-informed opinion and knee jerk anti-Americanism. Heaven knows, there just isn’t enough of that on the internet.
They certainly have little connection to historical reality, as HJ would tell you.
If he was honest.
Giap was not a great General.
In the French campaign of 1948, the Viet Minh were reduced to a rump and both HCM and Giap were lucky to escape with their lives.
He was given a lifeline only after the ascendancy of the Communist Chinese who were victorious in the Chinese civil war in 1949.
Giap’s conduct of the 1950 Red River campaign was disastrous. Giap himself was lucky not to find himself the scapegoat for that disaster. It fell instead to Nguyen Binh, who was set up to be killed in a French ambush by Giap.
The uncivilised peasant army that Giap took to victory at DBP was anything but poorly trained. It wasn’t until the Chinese communists turned up on the northern border that Giap had the chance to train and raise divisions. His 308th division for example was the equal in terms of equipment and training to any Japanese Division that saw service in WW2.
Giap disgraced himself in the Land Reform measures of 1955-56 and his suppression of the Quynh Luu revolt that was a reaction to them in November 1956. After this Giap while retained as a PAVN ‘figurehead’, because of the propaganda importance of his DBP victory, played no further part in the decision making that led to the ‘American War’.
Let me reiterate this important fact.
General Giap had nothing to do with the decision to go to war against the south; in fact he was against it. Giap had nothing to do with the strategy or tactics used against the US from 1959 until the US withdrawal in 1972. Nothing. He had nothing at all to do with the final campaign against the ARVN that resulted in the fall of Saigon in 1975.
The French made every effort from 1945 onwards to create viable independent Indochinese States. The French plan was the same as that adopted by the British in both India and Malaya, that is, an evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary one.
Giap, HCM and Le Duan were committed to a revolutionary process and violence.
If HCM and Giap had done nothing other than simply wait, do you honestly believe that Indochina would still be a French Colony in 2013? In the absence of the failed Viet experiment in Communism Vietnam would certainly have been independent, unified by the time of the Doi Moi reforms of 1986. The choice of war was a communist initiative and one that unnecessarily caused millions of deaths and set back Vietnamese economic development by three generations. Let the blame fall where it belongs.
The Vietnamese did not defeat the US. The US had been gone 3 years prior to the fall of Saigon in 1975. The defeat of 1975 belongs entirely to the ARVN.
Anything of any consequence that occurred in Vietnam happened before 1965 when the Marines waded ashore at Danang or after 1972 when they had packed up and left. They just don't make movies about it and the books don't sell as well.
Had Giap been a UK General he probably would not have the blood of 300,000 of his countrymen on his hands. Vietnamese that he had killed to meet land reform quotas. The British just don’t do that sort of thing anymore.
Had Giap been a UK general he would have been rightly condemned for his treatment of the POW’s he took at DBP. During the battle he managed to kill 2,000 French and Vietnamese defenders. In the immediate aftermath of the battle, prisoners in Giap’s care died in huge numbers. 8,000, more than four times the battle casualties, died in the camps or on death marches. Giap was never tried as a war criminal because he was on the winning side.
If that makes him a General’s general you need to recalibrate your moral compass.
I always enjoy the combination of ill-informed opinion and knee jerk anti-Americanism. Heaven knows, there just isn’t enough of that on the internet.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 61
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AtomKraft:
'People are the prize'. Nice line. And how few in the American military (and now, it would seem, the British too) appear to realise the truth of those simple words.
As for the rest of your post... hmmmm. A little one-sided and simplistic perhaps, but basically correct. Giap did have his less-than-attractive side though :-)
West Coast:
I originally had you down as quite smart. May I downgrade that to 'barely functioning'?
ANYONE who seeks to pretend that the Iraq 'adventure' was - and remains - anything other than unmitigated disaster for the people of that god-forsaken land is a blinkered fool.
No wonder your country keeps repeating its mistakes. Even those able to write are unable to write sense.
Michael:
And I have always enjoyed the combination of ill-informed opinion and an intellect bright enough to see the wood but regrettably not quite bright enough to see the trees.
Giap has been assessed by others better placed than you or I to determine his worth as a soldier and a revolutionary leader. The consensus seems to be that, yes, he certainly doesn't possess a blemish free record, but that he was also the right person in the right place to take Viet Nam forwards into a future of... well... what, exactly, we're still trying to discover.
To attempt to argue that in the '50's the Vietnamese should have sat around patiently as colonialism was dying and independence just around the corner is as spurious and ill-conceived an argument as suggesting that USA should have invested in running shoe production in the 60's instead of military hardware because the Soviet Union was going to implode by the end of the century.
Giap had a far greater influence than you suggest on political and military strategy of Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. The party in Viet Nam is not renown for keeping mere figureheads within its orbit. Cross the party and you're out, or worse. If Giap was there, he was contributing something other than the remnants of his glorious past at DBP. What, precisely, he was contributing will be a matter for historians to determine through personal interview with party members and access to archives, not amateur historians with access to Wiki in Australia.
Can you even read Vietnamese? It's a rhetorical question.
'People are the prize'. Nice line. And how few in the American military (and now, it would seem, the British too) appear to realise the truth of those simple words.
As for the rest of your post... hmmmm. A little one-sided and simplistic perhaps, but basically correct. Giap did have his less-than-attractive side though :-)
West Coast:
I originally had you down as quite smart. May I downgrade that to 'barely functioning'?
ANYONE who seeks to pretend that the Iraq 'adventure' was - and remains - anything other than unmitigated disaster for the people of that god-forsaken land is a blinkered fool.
No wonder your country keeps repeating its mistakes. Even those able to write are unable to write sense.
Michael:
And I have always enjoyed the combination of ill-informed opinion and an intellect bright enough to see the wood but regrettably not quite bright enough to see the trees.
Giap has been assessed by others better placed than you or I to determine his worth as a soldier and a revolutionary leader. The consensus seems to be that, yes, he certainly doesn't possess a blemish free record, but that he was also the right person in the right place to take Viet Nam forwards into a future of... well... what, exactly, we're still trying to discover.
To attempt to argue that in the '50's the Vietnamese should have sat around patiently as colonialism was dying and independence just around the corner is as spurious and ill-conceived an argument as suggesting that USA should have invested in running shoe production in the 60's instead of military hardware because the Soviet Union was going to implode by the end of the century.
Giap had a far greater influence than you suggest on political and military strategy of Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. The party in Viet Nam is not renown for keeping mere figureheads within its orbit. Cross the party and you're out, or worse. If Giap was there, he was contributing something other than the remnants of his glorious past at DBP. What, precisely, he was contributing will be a matter for historians to determine through personal interview with party members and access to archives, not amateur historians with access to Wiki in Australia.
Can you even read Vietnamese? It's a rhetorical question.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your contribution HJ
People certainly were the prize. I’ll give you that.
Except of course the ones that were killed by quota between 1955 and 1956. A democide that Giap presided over. Those people were not prized.
Link that mass killing with the minor league killing of non communist anti Imperial opposition in the period 1945-46. And you get a picture of selective and general murder that was the hallmark of communism in Vietnam. Those people were not prized.
Again part of Giap’s legacy.
You still haven’t provided an explanation as to why Ngo Dien Khoi, the then leading non communist anti imperialist was buried to his neck and beaten to death with the shovels that dug the pit? I thought that you would share that? The non communist opposition to French colonialism certainly were not prized.
The people certainly were the prize when the French in the wake of the defeat of DBP decided that the cause of non communist post colonial succession was not worth the candle and bailed. Resulting in an exodus to the South that measured in the millions. Why is it do you did so many vote with their feet?
Post 1975 there was another mass exodus. Apart from mocking the expatriate entrepreneurial class that was rejected pre Doi Moi, you haven’t adequately explained why the current regime is spending so much time, treasure and shoe leather in wooing the investment of these people back. Apparently you’re the 'go to' Doi Moi man; please do tell?
Those people were not prized in 1975, but now they are!
If Giap had, as you suggest, any influence in military matters in the 1960’s and 1970’s perhaps you would be kind enough to give an example? One will do.
Giap presided over a deliberate campaign to eliminate all non communist anti French opposition from 1945 to 1946.
Giap was a war criminal. General Homma was shot in 1946 for less than Giap was responsible for in terms of his treatment of French and Vietnamese Prisoners of War in 1954.
Giap committed crimes against humanity against his own people in the Land reform campaign of 1955-56.
There is no escaping these historical facts.
People certainly were the prize. I’ll give you that.
Except of course the ones that were killed by quota between 1955 and 1956. A democide that Giap presided over. Those people were not prized.
Link that mass killing with the minor league killing of non communist anti Imperial opposition in the period 1945-46. And you get a picture of selective and general murder that was the hallmark of communism in Vietnam. Those people were not prized.
Again part of Giap’s legacy.
You still haven’t provided an explanation as to why Ngo Dien Khoi, the then leading non communist anti imperialist was buried to his neck and beaten to death with the shovels that dug the pit? I thought that you would share that? The non communist opposition to French colonialism certainly were not prized.
The people certainly were the prize when the French in the wake of the defeat of DBP decided that the cause of non communist post colonial succession was not worth the candle and bailed. Resulting in an exodus to the South that measured in the millions. Why is it do you did so many vote with their feet?
Post 1975 there was another mass exodus. Apart from mocking the expatriate entrepreneurial class that was rejected pre Doi Moi, you haven’t adequately explained why the current regime is spending so much time, treasure and shoe leather in wooing the investment of these people back. Apparently you’re the 'go to' Doi Moi man; please do tell?
Those people were not prized in 1975, but now they are!
If Giap had, as you suggest, any influence in military matters in the 1960’s and 1970’s perhaps you would be kind enough to give an example? One will do.
Giap presided over a deliberate campaign to eliminate all non communist anti French opposition from 1945 to 1946.
Giap was a war criminal. General Homma was shot in 1946 for less than Giap was responsible for in terms of his treatment of French and Vietnamese Prisoners of War in 1954.
Giap committed crimes against humanity against his own people in the Land reform campaign of 1955-56.
There is no escaping these historical facts.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 61
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael:
I must confess that I stand in awe of your understanding of Vietnamese history and your incisive - nay, completely unique - view of post-1945 events in our land.
I think you have much to teach us. We clearly have much to learn from you. Perhaps you would consider expanding your posts into a book? I'd be happy to translate it into Vietnamese in order that the citizens of the Socialist Republic could become better acquainted with our history.
Failing this, would you consider accepting an invitation to lecture at the next meeting of our economic and social development committees? I feel your ability to understand the aspirations of our citizens would provide the clear guidance we so sadly lack.
In hope more than expectation...
HJ.
I must confess that I stand in awe of your understanding of Vietnamese history and your incisive - nay, completely unique - view of post-1945 events in our land.
I think you have much to teach us. We clearly have much to learn from you. Perhaps you would consider expanding your posts into a book? I'd be happy to translate it into Vietnamese in order that the citizens of the Socialist Republic could become better acquainted with our history.
Failing this, would you consider accepting an invitation to lecture at the next meeting of our economic and social development committees? I feel your ability to understand the aspirations of our citizens would provide the clear guidance we so sadly lack.
In hope more than expectation...
HJ.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure.
Bring it on. I'll have my people talk to your people etc...
But I must warn you in advance, although I have an exceptionally large penis, I've never flown a MIG.
That could possibly be a game changer as far as the invite is concerned.
Up to you.
In the mean time have a crack at disputing any of the specifics I've posted, rather than generally disagreeing and deflecting.
Again up to you.
Bring it on. I'll have my people talk to your people etc...
But I must warn you in advance, although I have an exceptionally large penis, I've never flown a MIG.
That could possibly be a game changer as far as the invite is concerned.
Up to you.
In the mean time have a crack at disputing any of the specifics I've posted, rather than generally disagreeing and deflecting.
Again up to you.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Dutch were the first to pull out of Asia leaving Britain to handle affairs in Sumatra and Java. The British and the French both had to contend with 'communist' or perhaps more properly 'nationalist' uprisings not just in Malaya and Indo-China but India and to some extent China. I accept that China was not a colony but the communists changed the political, economic, and social status.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My views are my own Chippy. And for the record, I'm no lefty.
****, is ****. You don't need to be a genius to see it and know it for what it is.
For the benefit of those who specialise in missing the point, here it is:
The US had no business in Vietnam. None.
They slaughtered the people, who they held in clear contempt.
They poisoned the gene pool and defoliated and poisoned the land.
You should hang your heads in shame.
Giap, is a hero in my view, not because he was perfect, but because he is a recognisable element of the force that kicked the US's ass.
Which is exactly what it needed.
The whole plot was a fukcing disgrace.
****, is ****. You don't need to be a genius to see it and know it for what it is.
For the benefit of those who specialise in missing the point, here it is:
The US had no business in Vietnam. None.
They slaughtered the people, who they held in clear contempt.
They poisoned the gene pool and defoliated and poisoned the land.
You should hang your heads in shame.
Giap, is a hero in my view, not because he was perfect, but because he is a recognisable element of the force that kicked the US's ass.
Which is exactly what it needed.
The whole plot was a fukcing disgrace.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not looking for any particular concession but I think you'll find that rather than 'Smarter that me' I think you will find it is 'Smarter than me'.
Now that I have cleared that up.
Any particular historical points you want to dispute?
That's the important thing.
Now that I have cleared that up.
Any particular historical points you want to dispute?
That's the important thing.
Chippy, unfortunately when you start to nit pick spelling mistakes such as
then you lead yourself wide open to people asking what do you mean by
when I'm sure you meant Why is it do you think so many .... Clearly with your arguments you are above this.
but I think you'll find that rather than 'Smarter that me' I think you will find it is 'Smarter than me'.
Why is it do you did so many vote with their feet?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 61
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're correct. It should be 'than'. I was flustered by the fact that you'd noticed my tiny penis.
No, Michael, the past really doesn't interest me, except as an aide memoire of mistakes not to be repeated. But please, continue to obsess. I know you're enjoying yourself. :-)
No, Michael, the past really doesn't interest me, except as an aide memoire of mistakes not to be repeated. But please, continue to obsess. I know you're enjoying yourself. :-)