Solid Steel Balls

Happy Monkey · 10-17-2004, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 404Error

And what's your respect level for a 'would be' commander-in-chief who's words and actions helped to extend the Vietnam War and continue the suffering of our men held prisoner there?

You misspelled "shorten" twice.

lookout123 · 10-17-2004, 02:55 PM

it wasn't my post so i'm not sure but i think he adheres to the philosophy that says that if it weren't for the anti-war movement and protests in the US the military and powers that be would have been able to bring full force to bear and employ an effective strategy and tactics.

i don't necessarily agree as the military and civilian leadership of the time were rife with incompetance. anytime there are civilian leaders half a world away designating tactical targets you have major command and control issues that may be impossible to overcome.

10-17-2004, 04:33 PM

For anyone who cares to revisit the subject, an interesting discussion of both sides of the Vietnam issue can be found here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...39/ai_17473108

The paper reproduced on this site gives an analysis of the both the "hawk" and "dove" viewpoints. Here's a snip which agrees with Lookout's post above:

"The Vietnam War was likely winnable within a reasonable definition of victory, but the military strategy adopted by the United States in late 1964, and doggedly pursued until 1968, was counterproductive to America's own war aims. Hawks are wrong to blame the antiwar movement or the press for losing the war. Civilian and especially military leaders at high levels of the U.S. government lost the war. Their failure in battle is what gradually stoked antiwar sentiments at home, not the other way around."

lookout123 · 10-17-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Their failure in battle is what gradually stoked antiwar sentiments at home, not the other way around."

i personally believe that this became a vicious circle that made the war unwinnable.

slang · 10-17-2004, 05:32 PM

Is it too late to go back and try again? We might do better with another try.

This time lets wage the war with fat food and cigarettes. They seem to be doing wonders for us and we like them.

Might work, yes?

richlevy · 10-18-2004, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

Is it too late to go back and try again? We might do better with another try.

I've heard a few guys who would like us to do just that. Of course, they wouldn't be the ones fighting it, but the guys who start wars seldom do.

slang · 10-19-2004, 04:56 AM

This next time though......we go back with donuts and Marlboros.That'll fix em.

Maybe we should throw in cable TV too for good measure.

10-17-2004, 02:55 PM	#2
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	it wasn't my post so i'm not sure but i think he adheres to the philosophy that says that if it weren't for the anti-war movement and protests in the US the military and powers that be would have been able to bring full force to bear and employ an effective strategy and tactics. i don't necessarily agree as the military and civilian leadership of the time were rife with incompetance. anytime there are civilian leaders half a world away designating tactical targets you have major command and control issues that may be impossible to overcome. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

10-17-2004, 05:32 PM	#5
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	Is it too late to go back and try again? We might do better with another try. This time lets wage the war with fat food and cigarettes. They seem to be doing wonders for us and we like them. Might work, yes? Last edited by slang; 10-17-2004 at 05:36 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-17-2004, 04:33 PM	#3
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	For anyone who cares to revisit the subject, an interesting discussion of both sides of the Vietnam issue can be found here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...39/ai_17473108 The paper reproduced on this site gives an analysis of the both the "hawk" and "dove" viewpoints. Here's a snip which agrees with Lookout's post above: "The Vietnam War was likely winnable within a reasonable definition of victory, but the military strategy adopted by the United States in late 1964, and doggedly pursued until 1968, was counterproductive to America's own war aims. Hawks are wrong to blame the antiwar movement or the press for losing the war. Civilian and especially military leaders at high levels of the U.S. government lost the war. Their failure in battle is what gradually stoked antiwar sentiments at home, not the other way around."

10-19-2004, 04:56 AM	#7
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	This next time though......we go back with donuts and Marlboros.That'll fix em. Maybe we should throw in cable TV too for good measure.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)