Thursday, December 28, 2017

Bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail

Vietnam veteran Merrill McPeak: We dropped two million tons of bombs on Laos -- something like our total tonnage during all of World War II in both the European and Pacific theaters. We seeded clouds to induce flooding, sprayed Agent Orange, mined the road, installed sensors along the electronic-monitoring McNamara Line. No doubt about it, we extracted a heavy price. In time, the North filled 72 military cemeteries with the remains of those who built, manned and moved over the trail.

More

But move they did, putting through the cargo -- the 122-milimeter rockets that pounded our Marines around Danang, the mines that killed our soldiers near the Parrot's Beak, the heavy equipment that in the end would surround and capture the Saigon of memory. Pumping hard, the truckers provided the oxygen sustaining the North's ability to make war in the South.

We never stopped traffic, never got the job done, a fact that bothers me to this day. Our technical deficiencies -- inability to operate at night, inaccuracy of unguided munitions -- have since been corrected. But when Saigon fell, it was not a swarm of ragtag Vietcong guerrillas who overran the city, but columns of Russian-made T-54 tanks, leading a modern field army complete with artillery and surface-to-air missiles, all delivered by those tough-guy truck drivers down that seemingly indestructible Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Comments

a fact that bothers me to this day

Sore loser.... 50 years and still crying about it...

The ones who deserved victory, won. The invaders lost. Get over it.

With this attitude we'll never hear the end of boohooing over Afghanistan ...when the living-in-denial wears off... maybe another 18 years.

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-27 08:06 AM

RE#1

You is such a ho.

Yo wanna cash me outside? We was just makin America great.

Because FREEDOM! (and dominoes or something).

Thems was the good old days. Can't wait to get back there.

MAGA!

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-27 02:32 PM

"The ones who deserved victory, won. The invaders lost. Get over it."

Technically, the North were invaders as well. They were just invaders who were less concerned with politics...or the need to conform to a silly ideal about how wars should be fought.
...which is exactly why they won.

#3 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-27 02:45 PM

which is exactly why they won.

They won because they had the support of the people.

They had the support of the people because they didn't napalm innocent villagers for headlines.

#4 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-27 02:50 PM

"They won because they had the support of the people."

Yeah.

the Cambodians were just lining up for the opportunity to throw flowers at the NVA.

"They had the support of the people because they didn't napalm innocent villagers for headlines."

No, they just went in and raped them before murdering them.

#5 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-27 03:32 PM

#5

Go easy on JRigelTosserMain, they don't teach those particular facts in his part of "Texas."

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-27 03:40 PM

Whatever.

History is written by the victors, not by the losers.

End of story. They won. They were a better .. braver.... people who fought for their country. They deserved to win. Be as butthurt as you like.

50 years now..... jeeeez

#7 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-27 03:43 PM

America will need to someday atone for the war crimes we committed in Vietnam. I won't single out John McCain but anyone who dropped napalm on villages must have some guilt or they are somehow managing to blank it out of their minds. Those who supported our efforts in Vietnam but didn't sign up themselves are in some ways far worse. Vietnam was a true turning point in our history when the military/industrial complex assumed complete control. Nothing has changed since.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-26 08:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OUCH!

#8 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-27 04:07 PM

I saw video of an American GI sweeping a path for mines. Civilian traffic was zooming by him on bikes and foot non stop. Those people knew where the mines were. We cancelled elections to determine if Vietnam would reunify because the CIA said reunification would win with 80 to 90% of the vote. We were on the wrong side of a war we couldn't win. But lots of people made lots of money off of it.

#9 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2017-12-27 09:45 PM

"No, they just went in and raped them before murdering them."

Americans didn't rape villagers? What planet do you come from?

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 08:12 AM

"End of story. They won. They were a better .. braver.... people who fought for their country."

No they weren't, but they were defencing their homeland while our forces were invading and occupying. We had to deal with things like children wearing bombs, they didn't. We could have won there if we just disregarded all vestiges of humanity, thankfully we didn't. Don't fool yourself though, we could have put Hanoi into the stone age if we had been willing to go that far. I disagreed with the war, thought it was inhumane but I never doubted the power of the U.S. forces nor the courage of the U.S. military.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 08:15 AM

if we just disregarded all vestiges of humanity

Napalming civilians and mining rice fields and making sure no trees or food grows again (agent orange) is humane according to you then?

we could have put Hanoi into the stone age if we had been willing

Too afraid of Russia to go nuclear.

I never doubted the power of the U.S. forces nor the courage of the U.S. military.

17 years in Afghanistan and can't defeat cave dwellers.

So much for power and courage....

#12 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 08:35 AM

"17 years in Afghanistan and can't defeat cave dwellers."

If they were willing to unleash all the power of the U.S. military they could drive the Taliban out of that country in a month. Apparently all our goal is really to prevent another Al Quaeda training camp. Fortunately for the Taliban and Al Quaeda, Pakistan seems willing to provide those bases for them. We should not give another dime to Pakistan.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 09:08 AM

"End of story. They won. They were a better .. braver.... people who fought for their country. They deserved to win. Be as butthurt as you like."

You act like I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not. The Communists were committed to winning at any cost. In reality, it was a construct that wasn't much different from the massive communist armies that defeated the Germans a few decades earlier. Had the USSR been more concerned with preserving lives, or culture, or history, or whatever, they would have never made it past 1942. The fact that the were willing to commit every last resource with the USSR to the defeat of Germany is key to their victory.

"Americans didn't rape villagers? What planet do you come from?"

Of course they did...but where the US could simply drop bombs or artillery on villages that supported the adversary, the NVA was forced to use less technical means of dissuading villages from helping the Yanks. And rape was one of those less technical means.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-28 09:12 AM

"Don't fool yourself though, we could have put Hanoi into the stone age if we had been willing to go that far."

45 years ago, at this very moment, B-52s flying out of Andersen AFB, Guam, and U Tapao RTAB, Thailand, were doing just that during the Operation known as Linebacker II. Over the course of the "11 Days of Christmas, Nixon unleashed the USAF and USN to go after targets that had previously been off-limits. The result of the campaign was that the Hanoi was severely damaged, and the ability of the North was to defend itself was virtually gone. Another 11 days, and the North would have likely kissed whatever ass was placed in front of them.

But like I said earlier, that would not have played well with the US electorate.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-28 09:20 AM

Fortunately for the Taliban and Al Quaeda, Pakistan seems willing to provide those bases for them.

Nonsense.

The US has no control over 50% of Afghan territory.

The taliban have PLENTY of places to hide in Afghanistan.... far more area than in crowded Pakistan.

We should not give another dime to Pakistan.

Dotard just gave them another $700 million. Should have asked you first.....

#16 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 09:32 AM

If they were willing to unleash all the power of the U.S. military

They did. Short of a nuke.

they could drive the Taliban out of that country in a month.

They couldn't.

17 years........

I think the trick is to start making movies about Afghanistan. At the very least someone will start making money out of this turkey.

#17 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 09:35 AM

The absolute height of US military power is called "B-52 bomber"... okay?

When you use THAT, day and night, and them bad apples are still standing.... well #*$&%....

#18 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 09:38 AM

"They couldn't."

As I recall, you claim to live in Texas? Then it should be "we" couldn't. That aside, we placed a fairly small number of troops there and tried, as best we could, to not harm the civillians whom the Taliban blended in with. If we were to operate with the same "sensitivity" to civillian casualties as our enemy does, we could have driven them out in a month. Notice: ISIS. Where is their Caliphate today?

#19 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 09:52 AM

If J. Tremain does in fact live in Texas I sort of hope some of his neighbors figure out that he is an enemy sympathizer. Go home, you don't belong in America Tremain. I don't approve of everything my country does but I also don't sympathize with our enemies.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 09:54 AM

Then it should be "we" couldn't.

I am a hippy this week. I make love not war.

we placed a fairly small number of troops there

The B-52s that flew out of 3 Pakistani airbases were more than enough for a country the size of Afghanistan.

to not harm the civillians

And how many weddings did "we" bomb since 2001 in Afghanistan?

How about that clinic run by Doctors Without Borders?

America has consistently shown contempt and disregard for Afghan civilians. Which is why the American installed puppet government is so hated and why the Taliban are so strong.

People like you will never learn from Vietnam as long as you keep telling yourself lies.

If you continue with such nonsense, I'll be forced to start linking to all those stories of killed covilians. It'll be a pain but not such a big deal.

ISIS. Where is their Caliphate today?

Killed off by Russian bombing.

The US secretly supports ISIS... but the Russian ruined that plan.

Nothing was happening until the Russian showed up. Stealing credit like that is pathetic.

#21 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 10:06 AM

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag: Still thinks of Vietnam as the enemy

#22 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 10:08 AM

"Still thinks of Vietnam as the enemy"

Never actually did.

"Killed off by Russian bombing."

Demonstrating what we could have done even better if we were willing to totally disregard civillian casualties. The cities were bombed into total devastation. Thousands of civillians killed.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 10:11 AM

And don't even bother with the fact that Putin allied with that butcher Assad. You're proud of that? America ain't perfect but we didn't ally with that butcher.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-28 10:13 AM

but we didn't ally with that butcher.

No.. "we" (non-Texans) just created ISIS and armed it and funded it to kill civilians so we can get an excuse to intervene against Asad,

Create "problem", use it as an excuse to invade and bomb... for Isreal.

Disgusting.

#25 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 10:16 AM

Russia deserves a medal for killing ISIS.

US and Saudi Arabia and Turkey ought to die of shame for creating and funding ISIS. (all this has been well reported on)

#26 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 10:18 AM

that butcher Assad

He may be whatever.

But how is that OUR problem???

Did he do any butchering in Houston? No?

Sc^^ him.

#27 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 10:20 AM

if we were willing to totally disregard civillian casualties

www.youtube.com

Told you I would.....

#28 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 10:23 AM

US and Saudi Arabia and Turkey ought to die of shame for creating and funding ISIS. (all this has been well reported on)

#26 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

Lead the way our Tokyo Rose "Texan".

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-28 10:43 AM

"They did. Short of a nuke."

They actually didn't. If they had, Haiphong and Hanoi would have been smoking holes...just like any number of cities had been 20 years earlier during WWII.

"The B-52s that flew out of 3 Pakistani airbases were more than enough for a country the size of Afghanistan."

Those weren't B-52s...those were Top Secret B-22 Bombers using special stealth technology to look like B-52s, assigned release chem trails that would make Afghan men want to diddle little boys.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-28 10:44 AM

"America has consistently shown contempt and disregard for Afghan civilians. Which is why the American installed puppet government is so hated and why the Taliban are so strong."

The Taliban operate very similarly to how the NVA operated in South Vietnam. If the inhabitants of a village support the coalition effort, then the Taliban will come in and kill the people of that village. The villagers, not being idiots, realize that there is no way that the US could very provide any sort of meaningful protection, and even if they did, it would likely mean a permanent presence of heathens and infidels running round.

It's also worth mentioning that some of the most effective anti-coalition forces operating in Afghanistan were fighting the Taliban before the Coalition arrived. In fact by virtually all accounts, the Taliban were nothing but a bunch of uneducated yokels whose only real advantage was in the millions of dollars that the ----- were using to prop them up. And had it not been for the Paki support, the Northern Alliance would have dealt with the Taliban forces with relative ease.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-28 10:56 AM

"America ain't perfect but we didn't ally with that butcher."

Nope. We allied with Assad's enemies instead. Namely ISIS using clever nommes de guerre as cover.

And they were far, far worse than Assad.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-28 11:06 AM

If the inhabitants of a village support the coalition effort, then the Taliban will come in and kill the people of that village.

That's over simplistic. There is more going on there. Taliban threats can't explain taliban military victories. The only possible explanation is Americans are more hated than the taliban by the common people.

Why? Well for starters, Americans support drug lords and war lords as long as they're on the American side.

They actually didn't. If they had, Haiphong and Hanoi would have been smoking holes

Afghan cities were a ruin already.

USAF ran out of places to bomb in Afghanistan.

When that happened, they switched to killing civilians by drone.

#33 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 11:39 AM

Let me put this nonsense argument to rest.. that it was our humanity that stopped us from turning our enemies into dust.

A few years before Vietnam, the British faced a terrible communist uprising in Malaysia, worse than Vietnam. They stopped it cold. How?

Not by napalming the population. Not by raping and bombing villagers.

They did it by using intel and solid police work. They won.

The US instead used brute force.

Wars are not won by brute force alone. That is apparent seeing how the last war the incompetent US military won, was WW2. There too, Russians did the heavy lifting when it came to killing Hitler.

#34 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 11:45 AM

American war theory.... get lots and lots of "stuff"... chuck it at the enemy... hope for the best.

British war theory.... No need to explain. See what they did to Sinn Fein (IRA). Where is IRA today???

Chinese war theory.... starve them out. Economically. Then politically. Resorting to military means is actually seen as a failure.

#35 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 11:50 AM

"Why? Well for starters, Americans support drug lords and war lords as long as they're on the American side."

Honestly...I don't know where the US stands right now. On one hand, the US has publicly declared that ISIS is the primary target...yet ISIS is a US construct, which IMHO was supported as a means of limiting Syrian and Iranian, and by default, Russian influence in the region. I could easily see the US supporting the Taliban in an effort to curb the growth of ISIS in Afghanistan, but I say that without knowing which ethnic groups or tribes within that country, if any, are supportive of the Islamic state. But I also don't know what sort of deals the US has made with other plays in regards to ISIS.

Personally, I think ISIS was a group that was allowed to flourish in Syria for the reasons I outlined above. SO long as they were a headache for the Assad regime, they were an ally. It was only when they overstepped what was probably an unstated mandate (I doubt ISIS knew a whole lot about how they were being funded and why) and went into Iraq that the US elected take action against them. Even though the ISIS message seems to have resonated to many within Iraq.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-28 11:57 AM

US has also created ISIS in Afghanistan.

At some point they'll shove them up Iran's bum.

Or not.

#37 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 12:44 PM

ISIS, by it's very nature, hate Shia. (see thread on back page of latest attack in kabul)

Iran is the largest Shia nation on earth.

How convenient.

#38 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 12:46 PM

History is written by the victors, not by the losers.
End of story. They won. They were a better .. braver.... people who fought for their country. They deserved to win. Be as butthurt as you like.

So I guess you are against the Palestinians then? Israel won the Six day war. Took a lot of Muslim land. Only stopped when the U.S. stepped in.

Then the world had to beg Israel to give the land back.

#39 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-28 01:02 PM

So I guess you are against the Palestinians then? Israel won the Six day war. Took a lot of Muslim land. Only stopped when the U.S. stepped in.

Then the world had to beg Israel to give the land back.

Posted by boaz at 2017-12-28 01:02 PM | Reply

They aren't allowed to it. UNSC181 AND UNSC 242.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-28 01:04 PM

So I guess you are against the Palestinians then?

I am not against the Palestinians at all.

However, I have to say they... in fact all Arabs... SUCK when it comes to fighting.

A prime minister of your favorite nation (Pakistan) once described the Arabs as "Zero plus zero plus zero."

I would say that's true even today.

#41 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-28 01:32 PM

assigned release chem trails that would make Afghan men want to diddle little boys.

Otherwise known as "---- sweat."

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-28 01:32 PM

I have never seen a Pakistani sweat.

White people sweat like pigs... these guys don't. It comes from their rice diet and the fact they live in temperatures of 40+ Celsius.

#43 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-29 02:22 AM

If Laos had done a better job keeping Vietnamese soldiers out the bombings would have been unneeded.

#44 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 12:45 AM

If Laos had done a better job

The US had no right to go to Vietnam in the first place. What Laos did or didn't do was Laos' business. Not ours.

OUR war was ILLEGAL and IMMORAL. The soldiers were called 'baby killers' and worse and rightly so. It's what they were.

We DESERVED to lose. It's what happens to invaders, like it or not.

Why were we there? We can cough up all kinds of facts, however, the real reason was we wanted the Russians to see who's boss. And how dare they kick out the master white man (the ever useless French)? And also because the American military is a scavenger by nature. It likes to pick on leftovers.

#45 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-30 01:02 AM

Ever read up on what life was like under Stalin?

It's no wonder sane people didn't want to see Communism adopted in more countries.

FTR Vietnam was fought badly and organized by people with no real plan aside from kick the problem down the road.

#46 | Posted by Tor at 2017-12-30 01:15 AM

Little late to complain since LBJ has been dead for decades.

"The U.S. government viewed its involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. This was part of the domino theory of a wider containment policy, with the stated aim of stopping the spread of communism. ... Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965."
Vietnam War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

#47 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-12-30 01:18 AM

Ever read up on what life was like under Stalin?

Oh yes.... THIS was SUCH a BETTER life! Napalm for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

kottke.org

LBJ has been dead

Then why is the US repeating the exact same mistakes in Afghanistan? With all the lies? And started a war by lying in Iraq? And destroyed Syria? And Libya? etc? How about trying to use ISIS for America's benefit and arming them and funding them?

Let's not blame it on LBJ. Fact is, Americans are just bad people.

#48 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-30 01:56 AM

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com

#49 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-30 02:01 AM

static01.nyt.com

Notice the anger on her face as the invader swine walk past.

#50 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-12-30 02:02 AM

These horrific illegal acts of war were justified by intelligence reports that portrayed Russia, China and Ho Chi Min as a direct threat to our way of life. A story which was a pack of lies, as always. More importantly the military industrial complex made mind boggling sums of money. This is always more important than ordinary people.

#51 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-30 07:23 AM

X

#52 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-30 12:23 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

White House Budget Director: Shutdown 'Kind of Cool' (66 comments)

Oxfam: World's Richest 1% Hoard 82% of the Wealth (48 comments)

Senate Votes to End Shut Down (39 comments)

When Trump's Foreign Policy Luck Runs Out (19 comments)

Opinion: Fix NFL PR Nightmare? Put a Woman in Charge (18 comments)

Patriots vs. Eagles (17 comments)

White House Answering Machine Message Lays Blame (15 comments)

Voters Disapprove of Trump, Doubt His Mental Stability (14 comments)

What Killed the Aztecs? After 500 Years, We May Know (14 comments)