Yeah, I went back and checked again, and we had no military presence in Vietnam at all when Ford asked for this money. Nixon ended American military involvement in Vietnam. Is the title just meant to be inflammatory, or purposely misleading?

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 Sold out whose military? Our military operations ceased long before that. This is supposedly "selling out", as opposed to inept leaders who stubbornly threw American flesh and blood into a blender for years in the hope of saving face... Ford asked for $722 million a couple of weeks before Saigon fell. That would have been the smart thing to do... ship a boat load of equipment that the communists would have ended up using. You could have shipped the Denver mint there and it wouldn't have mattered. Even with that, the money would have lasted, oh, about 6 months by the reckoning of the generals requesting it. The general who made up the proposal said that $200 million in ammunition would last them 60 days. Even if they had repelled the invasion, there is no way even twice that much would have held them off forever. The war was OVER. $188 billion, with almost 60,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. It was a failure, period. You believe that the American military spending our money couldn't defeat the North Vietnamese, but our money in the hands of the ragged leftovers of the South Vietnamese could??? Henry Kissinger said: "The Viet Nam debate has now run its course. The time has come for restraint and compassion. The Administration has made its case. Let all now abide by the verdict of the Congress—without recrimination or vindictiveness." I suggest you take his advice. You can see by the interest in American politics that terrorists are taking a "divide and conquer" stance. For someone who talks about other people doing the terrorists' work for them, you're helping them out in that area with vigor...

first off you keep quoting 60 thousand dead it was 53 thousand dead, and that is 53 thousand to much.

second where did I say americans were fighting? I said the monies were to help the south defend from the north. The democrats indeed did sell out the american military by pushing for a withdrawel from vietnam, they caved to public pressure.

Maybe if you were not so ready to point out how wrong I am you might take the time to read what I typed and not read what you THINK I MIGHT MEAN.

{ ignoring the debate above }

I do find this article interesting given the news here: Biden to fight troop surge (from The Washington Times)

Biden and company pushed so hard for a change in direction in Iraq and yet Biden is now wanting to get out in front of the idea that putting more troops there -- which would likely be used to help stablize the situation -- is the wrong idea?  Clearly the status quo isn't right, and clearly drawing down the troops there given the current security situation is also not right, so just where would Biden have us go?

And he most certainly isn't the only individual on the Democratic side of the aisle that is sending mixed messages, or messages that aren't mixed, but are far from following along any path to either victory or dignified withdrawal.

The Democrats have long been weak on defense, and weak on the use of U.S. armed forces.  Given their druthers, I suspect they'd like to gut the military completely leaving something that resembles a bunch of British Bobbies equipped with nothing but whistles and perhaps a few night sticks to use to keep the peace around them.

"first off you keep quoting 60 thousand dead it was 53 thousand dead, and that is 53 thousand to much."

People who persist in falsehood can't claim ignorance. I pointed out just the other day what the true number was, and here you are posting a false one. I said "almost 60,000". There are 58,249 names on the memorial wall, and only 1200 of those are MIA.

Trying to goof with the numbers just ignores men and women who died. You don't like it when people pad numbers to make things sound more grisly. How grisly is it to misplace thousands to make your point?

"second where did I say americans were fighting? I said the monies were to help the south defend from the north. The democrats indeed did sell out the american military by pushing for a withdrawel from vietnam, they caved to public pressure."

When you said that Democrats sold out the American military. Frankly if it hadn't been for the pressure of Congressional Dems, you'd probably have a higher number above. If you want to pretend pulling people out of a meat grinder is selling them out, well, feel free to sell me out.

Maybe if you were not so ready to point out how wrong I am you might take the time to read what I typed and not read what you THINK I MIGHT MEAN.

I read your post twice. Maybe you don't get your point across. Frankly your warmongering garbage makes me sick.

"Look I trusted ARVN as much as I would trust a junkie with my wallet, but they at least should have had a last chance to fight for their country."

They did, for over ten years, and they lost. Maybe partially due to the fact that they weren't much better than who they were fighting.

Telling the truth isn't high and mighty. Misplacing several thousand of your fellow soldiers' bodies for argument's sake isn't humble, either. You don't tolerate your opponents in arguments persisting in lies, so why do you?

Back then, the damage was done. the betrayal of you, your cohorts and the people of S. Vietnam was complete long before Ford was sworn in as vp, much less Prs. The minute Congress chose to try to fight the war from Washington, instead of allow the generals on the ground to do their jobs, the fate was sealed. There wasn't very many members of Congress or either administration involved (Except maybe JFK who wanted it to be nothing more than a Special Forces game) who were left without blood on their very souls.

A common rhyme repeated by disgruntled short-timers (paraphrased here):

Oh I'll Never Be Happy, No I'll Never Be Free, Til I've done the Army Like the Army Done Me!

Change the service to fit the Congressman or Senator and you see exactly what is going on today. There are people in both houses who were there, betraying the troops and the people of South Vietnam still today. Worse yet, there are now Vietnam vets. They were the betrayers and the betrayed then, and now they have joined forced to do it again.

The US military didn't lose the Vietnam War, America lost that war... then turned on the troops while cheering on the traitors. There are traitors among us today who are salivating over the blood bath of yesterday, just so they can point their stinky finger at the heros... and gain the power they crave.

If this turns out to be "another Vietnam", it will only be because Murtha and his minions worked so hard to make it happen.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... If we surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, we welcome all future terrorist attacks because we will show them that we'd rather die wimpering than fight standing.

"baker you have been on a tear not only with me but several others, nit picking this and that, you have been acting like you are the final word on everything. Nothing you say will change my mind about what I see you doing. so lets drop it."

You took issue with ME saying almost 60,000. There are over 58,000 names on the wall. I didn't pick this over numbers, you did.

"baker you have been on a tear not only with me but several others, nit picking this and that, you have been acting like you are the final word on everything. Nothing you say will change my mind about what I see you doing. so lets drop it." You took issue with ME saying almost 60,000. There are over 58,000 names on the wall. I didn't pick this over numbers, you did.

How about this? Your "both" wrong:

1. Harry G. Summers, The Vietnam War Almanac. Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1985. U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - 57,690. South Vietnamese military killed - 243,748. Republic of Korea killed - 4,407. Australia and New Zealand (combined) - 469. Thailand - 351. The Vietnam People's Army and NLF (combined) - 666,000. North Vietnamese civilian fatalities - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilian dead - 300,000. 2. Marc Leepson, ed, Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999. U.S. killed in action, etc. - 58,159. South Vietnamese military - 224,000. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV military - not listed. DRV civilians - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilians - 300,000. 3. Edward Doyle, Samuel Lipsman, et al, Setting the Stage. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1981. U.S. - 57,605. South Vietnamese military - 220,357. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV and NLF deaths - 444,000. Combined DRV and RVN civilian deaths -587,000. A fourth Source, John Rowe's Vietnam: The Australian Experience. Sydney: Time-Life Books Australia, 1987, gives a figure of 496 Australians killed in action or died of wounds.

Link

I'm sorry but about a 2500 difference is not "almost". And Elie, your figures are way low my friend.

(Citizen)drmilerDecember 28, 2006 14:00:03

died of other causes

I will accept a wrong from ytou doc. but this is where I am having a problem. the died from other causes, in the 15 plus yeas we were in vietnam if they count total deaths in the military from accidents, natural causes, murder, training deaths. etc. I can see that would boost the numbers.

The sight I went to had included deaths from cambodia, laos, thailand and china counted in all the way up to 1985, 10 years after the so called war ended.

Reply By: BakerStreet

Nice way to dodge the question.  And MM is right.  You are on a vendetta.  Of which not many know.

Simply put, the democrats got us into it, and then bailed like sheep.  Today. The repubs got us into it with the help of the dems, and I guess we dont have to guess who is bailing.

Never mind.  No debate here. just sematics and nit picking on non-issues.

the democrats got us into it, and then bailed like sheep.

this is why i keep hopin they'll come out with an 'american history for dummies' series.

while there were a few american observers in vietnam prior to 1954 and truman helped fund the french's effort to keep indochina enslaved, it was ike who first sent military forces to vietnam. eisenhower was in the whitehouse when the us prevented the national referendum on unification of the two vietnams thereby gutting the 1954 geneva conference.

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Thursday, December 28, 2006 the democrats got us into it, and then bailed like sheep. this is why i keep hopin they'll come out with an 'american history for dummies' series. while there were a few american observers in vietnam prior to 1954 and truman helped fund the french's effort to keep indochina enslaved, it was ike who first sent military forces to vietnam. eisenhower was in the whitehouse when the us prevented the national referendum on unification of the two vietnams thereby gutting the 1954 geneva conference.

So basically because a democrat only had a few "advisors" and Observors" in vietnam it does not count as getting involved? Maybe that book should be called history for liberal dummies.