On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:24:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 7:54:04 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:07 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 5:31:24 AM UTC, news18 wrote:

So, effectively, the USA surrendered [in Vietnam].

Oh, it's worse than that. In The Devil's Pleasure Palace, Michael Walsh made the case that the US wanted to lose that war. Other historians and philosophers have made the point that stopping the 20th century's wars, and into this century, too soon just guaranteed that one unfinished war would be the flash-point for the next one. Iraq and Afghanistan are the recent examples commonly cited. Paul Johnson wrote of the deplorable effects of Americans' small-town morality when real politik was required. Walsh fixes the blame for this defeatist inability to conduct wars to their necessary conclusion on the Frankfurt School and its Critical Theory. I've been calling them commiepinkofellowtravellers since the 1960's and their theory the stinking detritus of resentful Germans who didn't know how to behave as guests in someone else's house. The little Antifa fascists are their children, and the modern Democratic Party is driven by Critical Theory's foolish fallacies. Their whole thing is
cultural Marxism and, like other sorts of Marxism, it is a suicide cult in which limp-dick defeatism pigeonholes nicely into the their huge cupboard full of omnidirectional hate for Western civilisation. You're a representative example of what Critical Theory has done to two generations now.

Well that explains everything! Meanwhile, North Vietnam did not surrender.

-- Jay Beattie.

I got a haircut on Friday afternoon and my barber used to be a South Vietnamese government official. I told him what you said and he used a word that means "Eat ****". He said that the agreement was that the North would cease their invasion of the South and that the US would provide air support and military supplies to the South Vietnamese to maintain the status quo.
Not only did the North not even slow up the continuous invasion but that the US did absolutely nothing.

I would suggest you come down here and discuss it with him but he wields a mean straight razor.

According to what was reported Nixon had promised the South that the
U.S. would provide air support if necessary and during his
confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James
Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing
in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against
South Vietnam.

In 1975, U.S. Congress refused to appropriate additional military
assistance for South Vietnam, citing strong opposition to the war by
Americans and the loss of American equipment to the North by
retreating Southern forces.

So effectively, your barber is correct.

But, this is a far different story then your assertion that the North
surrendered.

cheers,

John B.

"We won't fight you if you won't fight us" Uh, sure that wasn't a surrender..