- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
So we lost.
Think of it this way, if two teams are playing hockey, and one team dominates the game but accidentally scores three own-goals, while only scoring two goals for their own team, they lose.
Dominating all game don't mean **** if the objective is lost.
A war isn't a hockey game and we didn't score any own goals.
mcnamara was a child prodigy, who subscribed to the belief in his greatness
he thought he could apply his "whiz kid" analytical approaches that he used at ford to create efficiencies in the military
he was very wrong about that, and later about our prospects for success in vietnam
he was the wrong fellow in the wrong job at the wrong time ... the blame most goes to the person who selected him for the position: JFK
later, mcnamara screwed up the world bank about like he did our defense department
he epitomized the saying that being smart is not enough
So in essence, the enemy we lost to did more to stop down communism than we did by hitting Cambodia. :lol:
Also, did Laos not become a communist country after we lost Vietnam?
Seems to me the expansion, or stopping of the expansion, was not affected by our involvement.
How would you form that conclusion? The war in Vietnam was essentially a war in IndoChina, which consists of Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam... We knew that if Vietnam fell, the other two would likely follow suit.
But what we also believed was that without intervention, Communist expansion would continue into the Pacific Islands... Did that happen? NO. Why? I won't spell it out for you again... especially when your just laughing saying crap I already acknowledged.
The mods always seem to be the most immature people on this site.
So in essence, the enemy we lost to did more to stop down communism than we did by hitting Cambodia. :lol:
Also, did Laos not become a communist country after we lost Vietnam?
Seems to me the expansion, or stopping of the expansion, was not affected by our involvement.
Incorrect. The Communist enemy didn't halt Communist expansion in Southeast Asia.
And I won't spell it out for you. Communist expansion continued AFTER the US lost the war. The goal of the war was to STOP communist expansion, not slow it down.
When we entered the war, the goal was to prevent North Vietnam form defeating South Vietnam. Since that goal was never attained, we can't change the goal posts and cal lit a victory because something we didn't know would happen, but feared might happen, didn't actually happen.
Is Vietnam a communist regime?
Nazism didn't end with WW2. By your logic we lost WW2 as well.
Is the Nazi party re-gaining power in Germany? Did we lose WW2? Did we end Nazism, or just slow it down?
Did Vietnam? Yes. Yes they did. And they didn't give a rats ass what we thought.
Hmmm... Let's play compare:
German Nazis after WWII = not in power anymore, tired for war crime
Vietcong after Vietnam = never lost power, never tried for war crimes
Do you see yet why your strawman fails?
Ho Chi Mihn was a nationalist, and had no idealist embracing of communism. He even came to the U.S. in 1919 and asked Wilson to push for the freedom of his country. We made him an enemy by constantly supporting colonialism. He went to the communists because they would support him when we would not.
Who is he?
Vietnam was already lost in 1954, long before the war went hot. Vietnam had fought off the Japanese in 1945 and were ready to become independent, and then the French decided they wanted to recolonize the area. America sold out is values and backed French imperialism over its own democratic ideals. Then in 1954 after the French got stomped, we then decided to back a horrible dictator like Diem.
Ho Chi Mihn was a nationalist, and had no idealist embracing of communism. He even came to the U.S. in 1919 and asked Wilson to push for the freedom of his country. We made him an enemy by constantly supporting colonialism. He went to the communists because they would support him when we would not.
By 63, the odds were horribly stacked against the U.S. The government in Saigon was utterly unable to stand on its own. Even if we had won a military victory, it would not have been enough. Even a defeated NVA army would have been enough to smash the ARVN forces if we left. Unless we wanted to stay forever, south Vietnam was going to fall.
Your Kidding right you have no idea who he is. This explains allot about some of your post then.
And I won't spell it out for you. Communist expansion continued AFTER the US lost the war. The goal of the war was to STOP communist expansion, not slow it down.
When we entered the war, the goal was to prevent North Vietnam form defeating South Vietnam. Since that goal was never attained, we can't change the goal posts and cal lit a victory because something we didn't know would happen, but feared might happen, didn't actually happen.
I have not once resorted to an insult while talking with you, but you resort to one while talking to me. What was that about maturity?
For the record, don't resort to such tactics again with me or there will be consequences. Consider that a warning.
No i am not
I was clearly taking you for a fool and you fell for it :doh
My recollectin was that Ho Chi Mihn was in thick with the REDS while that goat-teed little imp was in France. I could be wrong, I was wrong once that century !!
No, that wasn't the goal -.- It's that simple... our goal was to try and stop the dominoes falling and continued Communist expansion to the east. Laos and Cambodia falling were directed consequences of Vietnam's fall... But, was there a successful Communist uprising in Malaysia, the Philipinnes, or Indonesia? The answer is no. The dominoes were stopped cold.
The goal was much broader than that. Your calling it a victory, I'm calling it a partial victory. There is a huge difference...
You see everything in black and white. The world is gray Tucker... gray.
:rofl:rofl:rofl
woww... thanks for proving my point
OMG I think I have wine that old !!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?