The advantages of the Vietnam war.

[Picaro]

It's progressive policy in action.

Before Pres Wilson, we were isolationist and had a policy of not getting involved in other peoples wars or lives.

But evil won, so the progs sent us to die in WW1. And b/c we went to WW1, WW2 happened, which caused the Cold war, and that lead to Korea, VN, Pay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and every other conflict we've gotten into.


Now sit back and imagine a people that cause the deaths of millions of people, calling another group warmongers.

Actually we got into WW I and WW II because Germany attacked our shipping and then declared war on us, and both Germany and Japan did so in WW II, all of which made what was already obvious to FDR and others that the world was becoming a much smaller place and U.S. neutrality dreams were delusional fantasies only taken seriously by cranks and idiots; even before then American neutrality was a insane pipe dream, as both John Jay and Thomas Jefferson found out.

Your narrative is of course nonsense as a reference to history, and yes, most of the warmongering in the world is done in spite of the U.S., not because of U.S..

 

[Two Thumbs]

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

 

[GibsonSG]

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

The US can't beat wife beaters in pyjamas (the Taliban) either. They doing that on purpose as well?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's progressive policy in action.

Before Pres Wilson, we were isolationist and had a policy of not getting involved in other peoples wars or lives.

But evil won, so the progs sent us to die in WW1. And b/c we went to WW1, WW2 happened, which caused the Cold war, and that lead to Korea, VN, Pay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and every other conflict we've gotten into.


Now sit back and imagine a people that cause the deaths of millions of people, calling another group warmongers.

Actually we got into WW I and WW II because Germany attacked our shipping and then declared war on us, and both Germany and Japan did so in WW II, all of which made what was already obvious to FDR and others that the world was becoming a much smaller place and U.S. neutrality dreams were delusional fantasies only taken seriously by cranks and idiots; even before then American neutrality was a insane pipe dream, as both John Jay and Thomas Jefferson found out.

Your narrative is of course nonsense as a reference to history, and yes, most of the warmongering in the world is done in spite of the U.S., not because of U.S..

U.S. Involvement in World War I

The ship was sent into a war zone, after the Germans told us to stay out.

Leftist got us into that war.


How many countries have invaded the US since 1812?

Aside from Japan attacking, but not invading, I can't think of anything. And, of course, no WW1, there is no WW2

 

[Two Thumbs]

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

The US can't beat wife beaters in pyjamas (the Taliban) either. They doing that on purpose as well?

not quite the same

the VC wore uniforms while AQ does not.

however the same policies of limited war are in place.

Can't fire into a mosq, even if being shot at, w/o permission
snipers need permission to kill someone
etc

 

[Mojo2]

Now let me get this straight, Communist in Cuba 90miles away get a free pass, while communist in Vietnam 7000 miles away we decided to fight spending billions of dollars and 50,000 lives of our military all because of a promise? Sorry not buying it.

Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.

However, in Viet Nam the belief and fear was that once Viet Nam went Communist the rest of the countries in the region would also fall to the Reds, one after the other, like dominoes.

Hence, the "Domino Theory."

How many countries went "red" after the Vietnamese victory over America?

We stopped the dominoes from falling, thank God.

As i said, 'shit worked.'

 

[editec]

Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.

However, in Viet Nam the belief and fear was that once Viet Nam went Communist the rest of the countries in the region would also fall to the Reds, one after the other, like dominoes.

Hence, the "Domino Theory."

How many countries went "red" after the Vietnamese victory over America?

We stopped the dominoes from falling, thank God.

As i said, 'shit worked.'

We did?

Interesting given that we LOST that war.

Consider the more obvious explanation...there was never any dominos to fall in the first place.

 

[Indofred]

How many countries went "red" after the Vietnamese victory over America?

We stopped the dominoes from falling, thank God.

As i said, 'shit worked.'

We did?

Interesting given that we LOST that war.

Consider the more obvious explanation...there was never any dominos to fall in the first place.

Shhhh - no one wants to mention, America lost.
They make excuses but refuse to allow the basic fact, America was forced to withdraw.

 

[GibsonSG]

Saving Vietnam from communism is like saving Indonesia from islam, like, who fucking cares?

 

[9thIDdoc]

We stopped the dominoes from falling, thank God.

As i said, 'shit worked.'

We did?

Interesting given that we LOST that war.

Consider the more obvious explanation...there was never any dominos to fall in the first place.

Shhhh - no one wants to mention, America lost.
They make excuses but refuse to allow the basic fact, America was forced to withdraw.

Wrong. We never made an attempt to "win" and we certainly were NOT forced to withdraw.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We did?

Interesting given that we LOST that war.

Consider the more obvious explanation...there was never any dominos to fall in the first place.

Shhhh - no one wants to mention, America lost.
They make excuses but refuse to allow the basic fact, America was forced to withdraw.

Wrong. We never made an attempt to "win" and we certainly were NOT forced to withdraw.

We never tried to win.

The list of bad ideas, laymen like me can find, is so long, that anyone with knowledge of war strategies must come to the conclusion that no attempt to win was ever made.

 

[Desperado]

What is amazing that even after 40 years people could actually believe that there were "advantages to the Vietnam war."

 

[Flopper]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

It's progressive policy in action.

Before Pres Wilson, we were isolationist and had a policy of not getting involved in other peoples wars or lives.

But evil won, so the progs sent us to die in WW1. And b/c we went to WW1, WW2 happened, which caused the Cold war, and that lead to Korea, VN, Pay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and every other conflict we've gotten into.


Now sit back and imagine a people that cause the deaths of millions of people, calling another group warmongers.

The US could not and would not remain an isolationist nation. Wall Street would not have allowed it. Most of the wars fraught since the beginning of the 20th century have been to protect American interest in the region which translates into American business interests and defense treaties to protect those interest.

 

[Indofred]

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

no crossing boarders - please explain the carpet bombing of Cambodia.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

Personally, I've heard many stories of how our soldiers came home from that war, and were spat upon by members of the receiving crowds. My Pastor served in Vietnam, he remembers those days vividly.

And I think there's also no need for you to be snide either. If you really want to know what triggered our entry into the Vietnam Conflict, look up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

It's progressive policy in action.

Before Pres Wilson, we were isolationist and had a policy of not getting involved in other peoples wars or lives.

But evil won, so the progs sent us to die in WW1. And b/c we went to WW1, WW2 happened, which caused the Cold war, and that lead to Korea, VN, Pay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and every other conflict we've gotten into.


Now sit back and imagine a people that cause the deaths of millions of people, calling another group warmongers.

The US could not and would not remain an isolationist nation. Wall Street would not have allowed it. Most of the wars fraught since the beginning of the 20th century have been to protect American interest in the region which translates into American business interests and defense treaties to protect those interest.

uhhuh

Lets put this myth to some thought shall we;

You are an American business man making widgits and are trying to sell your widgits in England, but are having a hard time b/c of and English company also makes widgits.

War breaks out and your plant, in England is in danger, but ALL of his plants are in danger.

Do you;
A) demand the government save your one plant
B) Sit back, let your competition get blown to bits and lose all their money then move in and take over the widgit market

 

[Two Thumbs]

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

no crossing boarders - please explain the carpet bombing of Cambodia.

That came late in the war, long after the PR campaign against the war had started

 

[GibsonSG]

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

no crossing boarders - please explain the carpet bombing of Cambodia.

That came late in the war, long after the PR campaign against the war had started

Cambodia was letting vc cross through their territory, in effect choosing sides.

I'd be all for carpet bombing Indonesia, but it would be a massive waste of bombs.

 

[Indofred]

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

no crossing boarders - please explain the carpet bombing of Cambodia.

That came late in the war, long after the PR campaign against the war had started

Are you sure?
My understanding is this was going on for eight years.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.

We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it. So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional

no crossing boarders - please explain the carpet bombing of Cambodia.

Please explain why you are so determined to discuss a subject you know so little about.

We carpet bombed those portions of Cambodia already occupied by the North Vietnamese. Someone actually familiar with the subject will have heard of the Ho Chi Minh trail.