Was it inevitable that the US lost the Vietnam war?

[Agathon]

Mind you, if conservatives made up the army, there wouldn't be any wars, since they would all be crapping their pants too much to fight.

[Odin]

Here is my analysis of Vietnam:

1. We couldn't go total war against NV because it would of started WWIII.

2. Using draftees for guerilla warfare, as Zkribbler said, was pure idiocy.

3. It's hard to get the people to support you when your men are torching villages.

[GePap]

No, the US could not have won the Vietnam war, if the amongst the aims of said war were NOT starting WW3 and keeping the corrupt South Vietnamese regime in power.

Given that no sane US leader would have risked WW3 to defend the corrupt Saigon regime, thank god our leadership at the time was sane and not made up of nuts like Ned.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
No, the US could not have won the Vietnam war, if the amongst the aims of said war were NOT starting WW3 and keeping the corrupt South Vietnamese regime in power.

Given that no sane US leader would have risked WW3 to defend the corrupt Saigon regime, thank god our leadership at the time was sane and not made up of nuts like Ned.

Or Barry Goldwater. *vomit*

[Lancer]

"provided you have enough tanks and bombs."

Remember you're talking to an evil conservative. We can never have enough talks and bombs.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon
Mind you, if conservatives made up the army, there wouldn't be any wars, since they would all be crapping their pants too much to fight.

the entire army is conservative. They are all gung ho flag waving pickup driving good ole' boys.

It's the liberals who are draft dodgers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The problem with conservatives is that they think violence solves everything - that there is no problem that can't be solved, provided you have enough tanks and bombs.

Eh, that's true. If brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough.

[BeBMan]

No, it's wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
No, the US could not have won the Vietnam war, if the amongst the aims of said war were NOT starting WW3 and keeping the corrupt South Vietnamese regime in power.

Given that no sane US leader would have risked WW3 to defend the corrupt Saigon regime, thank god our leadership at the time was sane and not made up of nuts like Ned.

Speaking of risking nuclear war, I point to an actual leader: Kennedy.

He was also the mover and shaker in the Vietnam struggle and may have been a lot more aggressive than Johnson when push came to shove. After all, a man who comes to the brink of nuclear war and who assassinates the leader of an allied country is no pansy ass.

[Ned]

Odin, clearly the thought of Chinese intervention once again was a major reason for the pusillanimy of Johnson. Nixon had the same problem, but he solved it.

He went to China in '72.

This prevented the North from using its China card to prevent an invasion, which is precisely what Nixon now threatened the North with in order to force them to sign the peace accords.

What this shows is the superiority of Nixon as a statesman and a strategist vis-a-vis Kennedy and Johnson. The latter two might have been able to prevail in Vietnam without invading the North, but, as we see, there was little likelihood of success in a purely guerilla war in the South using conscripts. But Nixon realized that the only way to win the war was to remove the Chinese threat, and he did.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Odin


Or Barry Goldwater. *vomit*

The man had some good ideas.

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

- Barry Goldwater

[Ned]

And, btw, had Kennedy lived, I think he would have done the same thing as Nixon. He was not an idiot like Johnson.

[Ned]

And, btw, after the disaster that was Johnson, most Americans changed their minds about Goldwater and wished to god to have had the opportunity to recast that vote.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Eh, that's true. If brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough.

I rest my case.

[Ned]

The thing about Republican administrations since WWII is that they generally have been very, very good at strategy even while they have been overwhelmingly ridiculed and opposed by the left. I earlier gave the example of Nixon going to China affecting the outcome of the Vietnam War. Ike ended the Korean war on a successful note, usering in 8 years of peace that he called detente. Nixon's era also used that word. Reagan trashed detente and went after the Evil Empire. It collapsed. Bush I took care of Noriega and Kuwait with great success and to world acclaim. Bush II got Pakistan to switch sides, making our invasion of Afghanistan possible.

He also took care of Saddam and launched the so-called Bush doctrine of spreading democracy. His actions are bearing fruit worldwide, as people like Gaddafi junk their nukes, the people of Kuwait revolt against Syria, the people of Georgia and the Ukraine defy their Russian masters and win their freedom. There is little doubt that democracy is on the rise in Palestine due to Bush's hostility towards the bloody dictator Arafat.

But the left will never credit Republicans for anything, will they?