Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 123

Thread: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

  1. #81
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Listen my left wing friend............
    I have been

    The people in the south were mostly farmers not soldiers.......
    Ok what is your point? What does their occupation have anything to do with it?

    .I spent 13 months there I know, In addition a couple of low yeild nukes strategically placed would have brought the NVN and the Viet Cong to their knees just like it did with the Japanese.........
    You wanted to use nuclear bombs? What would the point be? Take away the people of Vietnam's right to self determination? What were we fighting for?


  2. #82
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yeah! Let's get the **** outta there...so we can go right back in 10 years. Awesome strategy!

    I mean, hey! Every generation needs it's war. Right?
    If you actually look at Afghan history, the British and the Russians get ****ed over every time they think it's their business what goes on in that ****hole.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #83
    Sage
    Crosscheck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,478

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Listen my left wing friend............The people in the south were mostly farmers not soldiers........I spent 13 months there I know, In addition a couple of low yeild nukes strategically placed would have brought the NVN and the Viet Cong to their knees just like it did with the Japanese.........
    What did the Vietnamese ever do to us before the conflict that even remotely compares to what the Japanese did to us?
    And since we so called lost the Vietnam Conflict how many Vietnamese terrorists have attacked us?


    If you are so concerned about the Vietnamese why don't you get off your butt and go over there and doing something about it. You can easily fly into Vietnam and carry out a mission.

  4. #84
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Go look in my account at my friends......I see you have visited my account before Redress.......
    Do you know what changing the topic is NP? It's what you did here.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #85
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    I have been


    Ok what is your point? What does their occupation have anything to do with it?


    You wanted to use nuclear bombs? What would the point be? Take away the people of Vietnam's right to self determination? What were we fighting for?
    I was fighting for the South and as it did in Japan a couple of low yeild nukes would have actually saved lives.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #86
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I was fighting for the South and as it did in Japan a couple of low yeild nukes would have actually saved lives.
    Nukeing a country that posed no threat to us from the get go, and only was considered bad because our anti-imperialist policy in Asia was reversed after FDR passed.
    You have yet to answer the question. What were we fighting for?
    And how would that make us look nuking a third world country of rice farmers and impoverished people because we didnt like the way the country was moving.
    And wasnt it the US that decided not to allow the plecibit which would allow the Vietnamese on how to govern themselves? The US said no no no because the people would democratically elect Ho as the leader of Vietnam under DRV rule?
    So answer me this you have yet to answer a single question i have asked you. What were we fighting for? What did the occupation of people in the South have anything to do with this?


  7. #87
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Μολὼν λαβέ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    09-29-17 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,914

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    What were we fighting for? What did the occupation of people in the South have anything to do with this?
    To stop the spread of communism. You're right, most South Vietnamese would rather have been subjects of a communist regime than fight for their freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Wasn't it Nixon (a Republican) who worked to end the Vietnam war, Navy?
    After two democrat administrations were committed to an anti-communist policy, Kennedy, another democrat, involved the US in the conflict. LBJ, another democrat, engaged in a full-fledged military conflict, and made sure made sure victory was unattainable because of his "police action" rather than "win the war" policies.

    Actually, Nixon tried to win the conflict by bombing North Vietnam after taking office. However, public opinion had long since waned, especially after the Tet Offensive in January '68. But yes, Nixon finally ended the conflict, which had become un-winnable before he took office.
    Last edited by Μολὼν λαβέ; 05-07-12 at 10:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Generalizations are stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Steel View Post
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns.

  8. #88
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Do you know what changing the topic is NP? It's what you did here.
    I did not change it you did when you insinuated I had no friends....I proved you wrong...........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  9. #89
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    After two democrat administrations were committed to an anti-communist policy, Kennedy, another democrat, involved the US in the conflict. LBJ, another democrat, engaged in a full-fledged military conflict, and made sure made sure victory was unattainable because of his "police action" rather than "win the war" policies.

    Actually, Nixon tried to win the conflict by bombing North Vietnam after taking office. However, public opinion had long since waned, especially after the "Tet Offensive in January '68. But yes, Nixon finally ended the conflict, which had become un-winnable before he took office.
    Uhh to say the LBJ was not trying to win, but Nixon did because he bombed the North. But LBJ started bombing the North long before Nixon. Operation Rolling Thunder... Bombed the **** out of the North. Also we were engaged in a war of attrition, slowly trying to wear down the North and bring them to their knees both LBJ and Nixon took this strategy... But yes i agree that the war was unwinnable when Nixon took over it was unwinnable from the get go...
    Last edited by TheDemSocialist; 05-07-12 at 10:50 PM.


  10. #90
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Congress' intelligence heads: Taliban stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    After two democrat administrations were committed to an anti-communist policy, Kennedy, another democrat, involved the US in the conflict. LBJ, another democrat, engaged in a full-fledged military conflict, and made sure made sure victory was unattainable because of his "police action" rather than "win the war" policies.

    Actually, Nixon tried to win the conflict by bombing North Vietnam after taking office. However, public opinion had long since waned, especially after the "Tet Offensive in January '68. But yes, Nixon finally ended the conflict, which had become un-winnable before he took office.
    Uhh to say the LBJ was not trying to win, but Nixon did because he bombed the North. But LBJ started bombing the North long before Nixon. Operation Rolling Thunder... Bombed the **** out of the North. Also we were engaged in a war of attrition, slowly trying to wear down the North and bring them to their knees both LBJ and Nixon took this strategy... But yes i agree that the war was unwinnable when Nixon took over it was unwinnable from the get go...


Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •