Will Russia dominate boxing in the next decade?

[Dr. Z]

The US had total command of the Air and Sea and were vastly superior in weaponry and technology they carpet bombed neutral Cambodia and denied it was happening .They lost.
How many of that "kill ratio " were innocent civilians?
The US military lost over 58,000 personnel.Tell me what for?

1. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Vietnam_War_casualtiesVietnam War casualties - Wikipedia
   
   
   A 1975 US Senate subcommittee estimated around 1.4 million civilian casualties in South Vietnam because of the war, including 415,000 deaths. An estimate by the Department of Defense after the war gave a figure of 1.2 million civilian casualties, including 195,000 deaths. [1]
   • Civilian deaths (North and South Vietnam): 405,000–627,000
   • Total deaths: 1,353,000
   • PAVN/VC military deaths: 444,000–666,000
   • US and allied military deaths: 282,000
   • Don't talk to me about the "jungles of Vietnam,",you ignorant fool, I've been there ,and Cambodia

The kill ratio was 10 to 1 military. The USA didn't support the war, only parts of its government did ( Johnson ) . The war itself was not just. Cambodia is not Vietnam. The USA did not fight to win. If we did it would have been over in a year.

[Willie Pep 229]

The kill ratio was 10 to 1 military. The USA didn't support the war, only parts of its government did ( Johnson ) . The war itself was not just. Cambodia is not Vietnam. The USA did not fight to win. If we did it would have been over in a year.

Fight to win?

You ll need to explain that someday but not now.

In 1950 a very ****** MacArthur fought the Korean War to win. Once it became clear that North Korea was finished, ready for the death blow, 300,000 Chinese soldiers cross the river and slamed uinto our flank causing terrible casualties. Within three months over 800,000 Chinese were in country.

Everything we gained north of the 38th parallel we lost and the war fell into a stalemate.

NOW THE RUB!

Mao was only in power for one year at that time and had just finished off Chang and his Nationalists. Yet he threw all those men into the frey.

So if we 'fought to win' and crossed the 17th parallel towards Hanoi, what the hell do you think Mao would have done?

The son of a ***** put close to one million troops into Korea. Now having been in power for 15 years, what kind of numbers would he have thrown at us to defend Hanoi? Two million, maybe three?

At our escalation height (circa 1969) we had 516,000 in country working on a four to one support ratio. Those numbers got us to a stslemate in the South. How much more commitment would we have had to make if two million Chinese entered the war?

There was no real way to defeat North Vietnam.

We should have let Ho Chi Minh win the damn election back in 1956 (as called for by the Geneva Accords) and we could have walked away with no egg on our face.

We said we were agsinst commuist expansion by aggression. This would have been communist expansion via democracy. Ho would have won the ******** election with 80% of the vote (without even having to cheat.)

But we didn't, we instead picked up where French colonialism failed, and failed again. There was no road to victory in Vietnam.

P.S. You might find Col. Harry Summer's On Strategy an interesting read. He offers the only alternative reasonable military solution I have come across. But it would have never happened because of Cold War restraints (not nuclear).

But still an interesting, very different approach, one that might have worked.

Invading the north was off the table the day we decided to pretend there was a nation called South Vietnam.

The Vietnam War came as a Containment objective and given legitimacy by its (questionable) membership in SEATO.

By our own political philosophy we took an invasion of the north off the table.

War was never a solution to this problem.

[Dr. Z]

Fight to win?

You ll need to explain that someday but not now.

In 1950 a very ****** MacArthur fought the Korean War to win. Once it became clear that North Korea was finished, ready for the death blow, 300,000 Chinese soldiers cross the river and slamed uinto our flank causing terrible casualties. Within three months over 800,000 Chinese were in country.

Everything we gained north of the 38th parallel we lost and the war fell into a stalemate.

NOW THE RUB!

Mao was only in power for one year at that time and had just finished off Chang and his Nationalists. Yet he threw all those men into the frey.

So if we 'fought to win' and crossed the 17th parallel towards Hanoi, what the hell do you think Mao would have done?

The son of a ***** put close to one million troops into Korea. Now having been in power for 15 years, what kind of numbers would he have thrown at us to defend Hanoi? Two million, maybe three?

At our escalation height (circa 1969) we had 516,000 in country working on a four to one support ratio. Those numbers got us to a stslemate in the South. How much more commitment would we have had to make if two million Chinese entered the war?

There was no real way to defeat North Vietnam.

We should have let Ho Chi Minh win the damn election back in 1956 (as called for by the Geneva Accords) and we could have walked away with no egg on our face.

We said we were agsinst commuist expansion by aggression. This would have been communist expansion via democracy. Ho would have won the ******** election with 80% of the vote (without even having to cheat.)

But we didn't, we instead picked up where French colonialism failed, and failed again. There was no road to victory in Vietnam.

P.S. You might find Col. Harry Summer's On Strategy an interesting read. He offers the only alternative reasonable military solution I have come across. But it would have never happened because of Cold War restraints (not nuclear).

But still an interesting, very different approach, one that might have worked.

Invading the north was off the table the day we decided to pretend there was a nation called South Vietnam.

The Vietnam War came as a Containment objective and given legitimacy by its (questionable) membership in SEATO.

By our own political philosophy we took an invasion of the north off the table.

War was never a solution to this problem.

The USA could if they wanted to bombed ( non nuclear ) North Vietnam into submission but didn't. It would have killed 100,000+ people, thankfully they did not do it. The allies did it to Germany in world war II. The USA won every major battle in Vietnam. We were fighting with our hands tied.

Yes we should have let the Geneva election stand.

[Ivich]

The USA could if they wanted to bombed ( non nuclear ) North Vietnam into submission but didn't. It would have killed 100,000+ people, thankfully they did not do it. The allies did it to Germany in world war II. The USA won every major battle in Vietnam. We were fighting with our hands tied.

Yes we should have let the Geneva election stand.

1. storymaps.arcgis.com › stories › 2eae918ca40a4bd7aBombing missions of the Vietnam War - ArcGIS StoryMaps
   
   
   Between 1965 and 1975, the United States and its allies dropped more than 7.5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—double the amount dropped on Europe and Asia during World War II. Pound for pound, it remains the largest aerial bombardment in human history.!

The US dropped over 2 million tons of bombs on neutral Laos

ps://www.history.com/news/laos-most-bombed-country-vietnam-war

The U.S. Air Force began bombing targets in Laos in 1964, flying planes like AC-130s and B-52s full of cluster bombs on covert missions based out of Thailand. The United States eventually dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years,

1. Boy are you getting your ignorant ass whipped here! lol

[QueensburyRules]

Fight to win?

You ll need to explain that someday but not now.

In 1950 a very ****** MacArthur fought the Korean War to win. Once it became clear that North Korea was finished, ready for the death blow, 300,000 Chinese soldiers cross the river and slamed uinto our flank causing terrible casualties. Within three months over 800,000 Chinese were in country.

Everything we gained north of the 38th parallel we lost and the war fell into a stalemate.

NOW THE RUB!

Mao was only in power for one year at that time and had just finished off Chang and his Nationalists. Yet he threw all those men into the frey.

So if we 'fought to win' and crossed the 17th parallel towards Hanoi, what the hell do you think Mao would have done?

The son of a ***** put close to one million troops into Korea. Now having been in power for 15 years, what kind of numbers would he have thrown at us to defend Hanoi? Two million, maybe three?

At our escalation height (circa 1969) we had 516,000 in country working on a four to one support ratio. Those numbers got us to a stslemate in the South. How much more commitment would we have had to make if two million Chinese entered the war?

There was no real way to defeat North Vietnam.

We should have let Ho Chi Minh win the damn election back in 1956 (as called for by the Geneva Accords) and we could have walked away with no egg on our face.

We said we were agsinst commuist expansion by aggression. This would have been communist expansion via democracy. Ho would have won the ******** election with 80% of the vote (without even having to cheat.)

But we didn't, we instead picked up where French colonialism failed, and failed again. There was no road to victory in Vietnam.

P.S. You might find Col. Harry Summer's On Strategy an interesting read. He offers the only alternative reasonable military solution I have come across. But it would have never happened because of Cold War restraints (not nuclear).

But still an interesting, very different approach, one that might have worked.

Invading the north was off the table the day we decided to pretend there was a nation called South Vietnam.

The Vietnam War came as a Containment objective and given legitimacy by its (questionable) membership in SEATO.

By our own political philosophy we took an invasion of the north off the table.

War was never a solution to this problem.

- - Pep, the US had already knocked back the Chinese at Chipyong-ni where we had defeated a massive all in Chinese battle to send them off less 5000+ troops and uncountable crippled for life. We lost 400 troops for scale. At this point politics enters the fray with Truman and his team trying to call the shots in Asia to save the nascent NATO alliance in Europe as well as the UN.

Bottom line is Truman didn't want to risk another general war, and Mac was confident he had China's number and emphatically there would be no general war past what had already occurred. When Mac was relieved of command, only days before he had been in the field negotiating terms of peace with the Chinese. Had he been allowed to finish, the DMV would've been the Korean/Chinese border as Korean Commies would be forced into China leaving whole of Korea united in new ********ic state.

[Ivich]

- - Pep, the US had already knocked back the Chinese at Chipyong-ni where we had defeated a massive all in Chinese battle to send them off less 5000+ troops and uncountable crippled for life. We lost 400 troops for scale. At this point politics enters the fray with Truman and his team trying to call the shots in Asia to save the nascent NATO alliance in Europe as well as the UN.

Bottom line is Truman didn't want to risk another general war, and Mac was confident he had China's number and emphatically there would be no general war past what had already occurred. When Mac was relieved of command, only days before he had been in the field negotiating terms of peace with the Chinese. Had he been allowed to finish, the DMV would've been the Korean/Chinese border as Korean Commies would be forced into China leaving whole of Korea united in new ********ic state.

McArthur wanted to invade China.

US sources: 2,000 killed 3,000 wounded 79 captured[5]: 4  Chinese sources: 1,800 killed and wounded[3]	US sources: 51 killed 250 wounded 42 missing [5]: ii  Chinese sources: 800 killed and wounded[3]

[Dr. Z]

1. storymaps.arcgis.com › stories › 2eae918ca40a4bd7aBombing missions of the Vietnam War - ArcGIS StoryMaps
   
   
   Between 1965 and 1975, the United States and its allies dropped more than 7.5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—double the amount dropped on Europe and Asia during World War II. Pound for pound, it remains the largest aerial bombardment in human history.!

The US dropped over 2 million tons of bombs on neutral Laos

ps://www.history.com/news/laos-most-bombed-country-vietnam-war

The U.S. Air Force began bombing targets in Laos in 1964, flying planes like AC-130s and B-52s full of cluster bombs on covert missions based out of Thailand. The United States eventually dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years,

1. Boy are you getting your ignorant ass whipped here! lol

I not talking about Laos, I'm taking about North Vietnam. We could have blown North Vietnam off the map if we wanted to, turning all target into fire bombs like was done to Germany and Japan. You remain and ignorant fool.

[Ivich]

I not talking about Laos, I'm taking about North Vietnam. We could have blown North Vietnam off the map if we wanted to, turning all target into fire bombs like was done to Germany and Japan. You remain and ignorant fool.

Viet Nam.Laos and Cambodia,the last two of which were neutral.

Did you miss this?lol

• Between 1965 and 1975, the United States and its allies dropped more than 7.5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—double the amount dropped on Europe and Asia during World War II. Pound for pound, it remains the largest aerial bombardment in human history.!
• How many innocent civilians do you think those bombs killed?

Deaths caused by the American military[edit]


RJ Rummel estimated that American forces killed around 5,500 people in democide between 1960 and 1972, from a range of between 4,000 and 10,000.^[27] Estimates for the number of North Vietnamese civilian deaths resulting from US bombing range from 30,000–65,000.^[28][4] Higher estimates place the number of civilian deaths caused by American bombing of North Vietnam in Operation Rolling Thunder at 182,000.^[29] American bombing in Cambodia is estimated to have killed between 30,000 and 150,000 civilians and combatants.^[25][30]

18.2 million gallons of Agent Orange, some of which was contaminated with Dioxin, was sprayed by the U.S. military over more than 10% of Southern Vietnam^[31] as part of the U.S. herbicidal warfare program Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War, from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam's government claimed that 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of after effects, and that 500,000 children were born with birth defects.^[32] and studies have shown higher rates of casualties, health effects, and next-generation birth defects in Vietnamese peoples.^[33][34] The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable.^[35]

For official US military operations reports, there was no established distinctions between enemy KIA and civilian KIA. Since body counts were a direct measure of operational success, US "operations reports" often listed civilian deaths as enemy KIA or exaggerated the number. There was strong pressure to produce body counts as a measure of operational success and enemy body counts were directly tied to promotions and commendation.^{[36][37][38][39]} The My Lai Massacre was initially written off as an operational success and covered up.^[40][37] Sometimes civilian casualties from airstrikes or artillery barrages against villages were reported as "enemies killed".^[36][37][41] All individuals killed in declared free-fire zones, combatants or not, were considered enemy killed in action by US forces .^[42] This might partially explain the discrepancies between recovered weapons and body-count figures, along with exaggeration, although the NVA and VC also went to great lengths to recover weapons from the battlefield.^[

[Willie Pep 229]

Well the grunts on the ground had their own solution:

"Put all the friendlies on barges out in the China Sea and bomb the country flat; then sink the barges."

You can't talk Vietnam without talking Laos and Cambodia. There was no such thing as a netural Laos or a netural Cambodia. Again read: Summer's On Stratgey

About bombing Hanoi.

During the Christmas bombing of December 18 - 29, 1972, in that 10 day period we lost 16 B52 out of a force of less than 100 total B52 (mostly being used elsewhere as Cold War deterrents.) We could not keep that up for very long.

We were not bombing Hanoi flat, not non-nuclear, anyway. It had become the most air-defended city in the world.

Now pointless killing civilians with air strikes we could do but it didn't fit in with our announced agenda, not to mention it was making an awful lot of people unhappy, e.g. most of the US populace, the rest of the ******** World.

You know what I mean, a few people didn't like it.

The war was unwinable.

Lt. Col. John Paul Vann had figured that out at the Battle of Ap Bac (1963) so they buried his negative assessment reports as top secret (Pentagon Papers) and went in full steam ahead anyway.

You know America, more balls than common sense.

In short our 'advisors' on the ground (1961-1964) already knew we (SVN) couldn't win that war so they (Washington) hid the bad news calling it top secret.

Sound familiar? Remember how the intelligence report regarding the failure of the Iraq War had to be leaked to the NYTs.

Nothing changes but the date. No one learns from their mistakes.

[Ivich]

Well the grunts on the ground had their own solution:

"Put all the friendlies on barges out in the China Sea and bomb the country flat; then sink the barges."

You can't talk Vietnam without talking Laos and Cambodia. There was no such thing as a netural Laos or a netural Cambodia. Again read: Summer's On Stratgey

About bombing Hanoi.

During the Christmas bombing of December 18 - 29, 1972, in that 10 day period we lost 16 B52 out of a force of less than 100 total B52 (mostly being used elsewhere as Cold War deterrents.) We could not keep that up for very long.

We were not bombing Hanoi flat, not non-nuclear, anyway. It had become the most air-defended city in the world.

Now pointless killing civilians with air strikes we could do but it didn't fit in with our announced agenda, not to mention it was making an awful lot of people unhappy, e.g. most of the US populace, the rest of the ******** World.

You know what I mean, a few people didn't like it.

The war was unwinable.

Lt. Col. John Paul Vann had figured that out at the Battle of Ap Bac (1963) so they buried his negative assessment reports as top secret (Pentagon Papers) and went in full steam ahead anyway.

You know America, more balls than common sense.

In short our 'advisors' on the ground (1961-1964) already knew we (SVN) couldn't win that war so they (Washington) hid the bad news calling it top secret.

Sound familiar? Remember how the intelligence report regarding the failure of the Iraq War had to be leaked to the NYTs.

Nothing changes but the date. No one learns from their mistakes.

I like you post,but,if Laos and Cambodia weren't neutral, and the US had not declared war on either of them nor had they on the US ,why was the bombing of them "covert",ie kept secret from the public?