Trump Lost Badly In Iran And Can't Spin His Way Out

[CowboyTed]

The U.S. is in decline. We did it to ourselves as we see the paintings dry. Controlling trade access on the seas bottlenecks helps us out to last longer. Reducing China's presence in the Western Hemisphere is good. Reducing their presence in the middle east is good. China is a rising nation. They produce military hardware and equipment many times faster and much more than we do. They are slowly catching up in technologies and even compete in some. If they do nothing within 15 years or so they will have the ability to go head-to-head easily. as we decline civil discourse will happen. All of the social agendas that are stupid will be replaced with food and shelter as major concerns. adjustments may include the elderly moving in with their children like in the past. That may increase homes for people to purchase if the price is fair as we manage the decline and buy some time. Other new realities will occur also.

US biggest problem isn't as much Trump but his supporters...

Biden couldn't make any deals worthwhile because they knew that Trump would break everyone of them.

US is now a country that you can't have as a trusted partner... Trump basically showed that he will break any deal of former Presidents, this not good for America. So much of America's power comes from soft power. Trump has eroded that to almost nothing.

Example, USAID had deep links all over Africa. This allowed US to have access to all those leaders and those leaders use to say, if US got your back then you can deal with them. Trump threw that in the bin.
Africa is the largest producer of a lot of the Rare Earth Metals that is used in Tech. Who moved in? China. Now China has all those resources, they are the trusted partners.
US can't even build their military tech with out these resources...

This is why Trump is clueless and dangerous... He doesn't understand the pros and cons of US being a superpower and he has no one left around to explain it to him.

 

[Robert W]

Just like TACO - simply chicken out - whilst Republicans (see @Robert W) still claim that the USA did not lose the Vietnam war

How long were we responsible for babysitting the South Vietnamese? We did that for a long time. We and the North proclaimed we wanted peace, so we made a deal with them. We would leave and they would not invade the South. Guess who lied? We were gone for 2 effing years. Again, with our troops long gone, how could we save South Vietnam from the invaders?

 

[Robert W]

US biggest problem isn't as much Trump but his supporters...

Biden couldn't make any deals worthwhile because they knew that Trump would break everyone of them.

US is now a country that you can't have as a trusted partner... Trump basically showed that he will break any deal of former Presidents, this not good for America. So much of America's power comes from soft power. Trump has eroded that to almost nothing.

Example, USAID had deep links all over Africa. This allowed US to have access to all those leaders and those leaders use to say, if US got your back then you can deal with them. Trump threw that in the bin.
Africa is the largest producer of a lot of the Rare Earth Metals that is used in Tech. Who moved in? China. Now China has all those resources, they are the trusted partners.
US can't even build their military tech with out these resources...

This is why Trump is clueless and dangerous... He doesn't understand the pros and cons of US being a superpower and he has no one left around to explain it to him.

You hoisted yourself on your own petard by making those claims.

Biden was a ***** and of course pussies words are gold. You do not like Trump at all for a simple reason. You love the authoritarian Democrats and God only knows why.

 

[Kruska]

Naw, the country as a whole did not support Vietnam. Much like Afghanistan. Try again, only try discussing that you have a clue about.

Bullshit - the entire country in majority supported the Vietnam war - Americans just can't take combat losses - that's all and therefore led to Nixon's decision, fully supported by the Democrats.

Try some reading instead of just spreading unfounded bull

By Andrew L. Johns. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8131-2572-5. Appendix. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. vii, 339. $40.00.

Vietnam’s Second Front is a cogent examination of the Republican Party’s roiling contribution to the tragic progression of the Vietnam War. This well-written book focuses specifically on how domestic political considerations shaped foreign policy decision-making from 1961 to 1973, and it drills into a divisive GOP environment with extensive and well-chosen research. Andrew Johns, a professor at Brigham Young University, explores the impact of domestic politics on the Vietnam War through a progression of eight chapters that chronologically reveal Hawk vs. Dove divisions within the GOP, its struggles with the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and how its decision-making and culpability in the war’s outcome pivoted on domestic political calculations.

Democrats strongly opposed Nixon’s "secret" escalations, particularly the 1970 invasion of Cambodia. This action triggered widespread protests and caused many in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push for faster action, leading to the repeal of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
By 1973–1974, with Nixon weakened by the Watergate scandal, the Democrat-controlled Congress took a more active role in cutting off funding for continued military action in Southeast Asia.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bullshit - the entire country in majority supported the Vietnam war - Americans just can't take combat losses - that's all and therefore led to Nixon's decision, fully supported by the Democrats.

Try some reading instead of just spreading unfounded bull

By Andrew L. Johns. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8131-2572-5. Appendix. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. vii, 339. $40.00.

Vietnam’s Second Front is a cogent examination of the Republican Party’s roiling contribution to the tragic progression of the Vietnam War. This well-written book focuses specifically on how domestic political considerations shaped foreign policy decision-making from 1961 to 1973, and it drills into a divisive GOP environment with extensive and well-chosen research. Andrew Johns, a professor at Brigham Young University, explores the impact of domestic politics on the Vietnam War through a progression of eight chapters that chronologically reveal Hawk vs. Dove divisions within the GOP, its struggles with the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and how its decision-making and culpability in the war’s outcome pivoted on domestic political calculations.

Democrats strongly opposed Nixon’s "secret" escalations, particularly the 1970 invasion of Cambodia. This action triggered widespread protests and caused many in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push for faster action, leading to the repeal of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
By 1973–1974, with Nixon weakened by the Watergate scandal, the Democrat-controlled Congress took a more active role in cutting off funding for continued military action in Southeast Asia.

We had no business being in Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson started and escalated it. 58k American lives lost for nothing.

 

[Kruska]

How long were we responsible for babysitting the South Vietnamese? We did that for a long time. We and the North proclaimed we wanted peace, so we made a deal with them. We would leave and they would not invade the South. Guess who lied? We were gone for 2 effing years. Again, with our troops long gone, how could we save South Vietnam from the invaders?

The USA had been supportive of the Vietnam war even before the French got hammered.
The USA expanded that civil war in the South to North Vietnam and even Laos and Cambodia.

Why should North Vietnam have honored a ceasefire treaty that was requested by Nixon??? upon the USA having killed around 2 million Vietnamese and contaminated the country with chemicals and mines ??? Besides North-Vietnam had never altered it's constitution - advocating a unification. Nixon simply signed becasue all he wanted was to get out of this unwinnable war.

Just like TACO bombing and killing civilians - destroying the country and then expecting Iran to follow whatever ceasefire conditions he proposes? You Americans - especially your kind - is even more naive then a child.

 

[0311]

So? now you going to try and bullshit people into believing that Republicans would have been against the Vietnam war?

The ones who opposed it first even violently were those people you nowadays term lefty, traitors and communist - so according to you Republicans??

The Republican administration under Nixon came to belief that the Vietnam war was not winnable - so Nixon ordered the troops to pack their bags - whilst totally lacking a profound exit strategy. Simply asking the corrupt and incompetent South Vietnamese government to carry on the war.

Just like TACO - simply chicken out - whilst Republicans (see Robert W) still claim that the USA did not lose the Vietnam war

IF ReNaziKlans opposed the war, then why did many of them vote to fund it.

 

[Concerned American]

We had no business being in Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson started and escalated it. 58k American lives lost for nothing.

Actually the first 'advisor' troops arrived in Vietnam to aid the French in 1950. The French left in 1954 leaving the US to aid the south. Kennedy increased the military presence ten fold. Johnson escalated the war after Kennedy's assassination. By the late 60s the US will to be in this costly war was waning greatly and Nixon/Kissinger negotiated a withdrawal in the Paris peace accords. Some disagreed with that, but the overwhelming view of the nation was to get out.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Actually the first 'advisor' troops arrived in Vietnam to aid the French in 1950. The French left in 1954 leaving the US to aid the south. Kennedy increased the military presence ten fold. Johnson escalated the war after Kennedy's assassination. By the late 60s the US will to be in this costly war was waning greatly and Nixon/Kissinger negotiated a withdrawal in the Paris peace accords. Some disagreed with that, but the overwhelming view of the nation was to get out.

Agreed but it was a Democrat boondoggle. Worse was they shit on returning military.

 

[Mick2]

Who would’ve thought that the mightiest military power in the world would lose to a country just out of the Stone Age
View attachment 1248746

You are mentally very unwell

 

[Kruska]

We had no business being in Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson started and escalated it. 58k American lives lost for nothing.

A decision carried and approved by ALL in Congress for, since the 50'ies - so what do YOU complain about?? Were you one of those tying flowers in your hair wearing a batik dress and shouting make love not war???

And neither Kennedy nor LBJ had carried out an illegal ground invasion against Laos and Cambodia - that was Nixon.

 

[Robert W]

Bullshit - the entire country in majority supported the Vietnam war - Americans just can't take combat losses - that's all and therefore led to Nixon's decision, fully supported by the Democrats.

Try some reading instead of just spreading unfounded bull

By Andrew L. Johns. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8131-2572-5. Appendix. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. vii, 339. $40.00.

Vietnam’s Second Front is a cogent examination of the Republican Party’s roiling contribution to the tragic progression of the Vietnam War. This well-written book focuses specifically on how domestic political considerations shaped foreign policy decision-making from 1961 to 1973, and it drills into a divisive GOP environment with extensive and well-chosen research. Andrew Johns, a professor at Brigham Young University, explores the impact of domestic politics on the Vietnam War through a progression of eight chapters that chronologically reveal Hawk vs. Dove divisions within the GOP, its struggles with the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, and how its decision-making and culpability in the war’s outcome pivoted on domestic political calculations.

Democrats strongly opposed Nixon’s "secret" escalations, particularly the 1970 invasion of Cambodia. This action triggered widespread protests and caused many in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push for faster action, leading to the repeal of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
By 1973–1974, with Nixon weakened by the Watergate scandal, the Democrat-controlled Congress took a more active role in cutting off funding for continued military action in Southeast Asia.

Let me tell you the actual history. I then had been discharged shortly after Kennedy was murdered. I got home from Germany early in February 1964. We only had special forces in Vietnam, and they trained the Vietnamese how to win a war. We all recall when Democrat Johnson actually invaded Vietnam to take over the war against Ho Chi Minh. It was tough sledding even though Johnsons army never lost any battles. The North were not competent fighters. Much later, the public quit backing Johnson so he quit, refused to run again. Nixon took over and for his part he really tried hard to win the war. He took off the gloves. Johnson had soured Americans on the war. Nixon escalated it. Finally, the North had enough and went to Paris to agree to peace. So, seeing he solved the problem, Nixon ordered all of our troops to come home to the USA and they did. Get this and I mean it, we were gone for 2 years. We were not even there when the south lost.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

A decision carried and approved by ALL in Congress for, since the 50'ies - so what do YOU complain about?? Were you one of those tying flowers in your hair wearing a batik dress and shouting make love not war???

And neither Kennedy nor LBJ had carried out an illegal ground invasion against Laos and Cambodia - that was Nixon.

Just shut up, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel ignoring facts

 

[Alweysrite!]

Who would’ve thought that the mightiest military power in the world would lose to a country just out of the Stone Age
View attachment 1248746

Your only problem is it doesn't appear that we are losing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your only problem is it doesn't appear that we are losing.

The left hopes we are. Just sad

 

[Seymour Flops]

Like the Viet Cong of 50-odd years ago, the Iranians have perceived the American superpower’s Achilles heel: “They understand that the U.S. could drop thousands of tons of bombs, but it does not possess the patience to withstand a prolonged war.”

We still live in a country that was fundamentally reshaped by defeat in the Vietnam War, the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s and the economic crises of the 1970s and ‘80s, even if most living Americans do not remember those events. Politicians of both parties must loudly proclaim a quasi-religious belief that America is an exceptional and “indispensable” nation, anointed by God or history or the unique genius of the Founders. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to treason, even if Trump’s MAGA motto seems to carry a heretical subtext: Somewhere along the way, it’s implied, America’s greatness has been lost or stolen or corrupted by corporate diversity programs, NFL rule changes, renewable energy and, of course, Barack Hussein Obama.

Trump lost badly in Iran. How does he spin that as a win? - Salon.com

No amount of late-night posting and Fox News bluster can make this world-historical humiliation look like victory

www.salon.com

I'm sure in his mind the Epstein files have gone away, and we will all just forget about all of the sleaze and corruption, the murders of American citizens by ICE, and the theft of more Americans jobs, healthcare and living conditions to give his Project 2025 pals yet another tax cut.

Yes.

You hit the nail on the head.

The Iranians are winning bigly!

Like the way the Iranians wiped out the majority of the leadership of the Trump regime in one day and left a life-sized cardboard cutout in charge.

Oh, wait . . .

 

[Kruska]

Naw, the country as a whole did not support Vietnam. ...... Try again, only try discussing that you have a clue about.

It's obvious that you either have no clue or live in denial - feel free to chose between the two or take both.

 

[Concerned American]

It's obvious that you either have no clue or live in denial - feel free to chose between the two or take both.

What part did you play in Vietnam?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What part did you play in Vietnam?

Message board blabber mouth

 

[Rambunctious]

NO, we are just tired of our country getting involved in senseless wars

Is keeping crazed 12th century Muslim fanatics who hate the USA from getting nukes senseless?....