Communism is a great theory too, except it doesn't account for human nature. That's a pretty big design flaw, wouldn't you agree? Likewise, any strategy that doesn't account for domestic politics has an inherent design flaw.
How on Earth could you derive that from what I said? My point was that winning and losing battles is irrelevent when you have an inherent design flaw in your overall strategy. You're still stuck on trying to "prove" that we won more battles. Amazing!Originally Posted by apdst
And they still won the war! What does that tell you?Originally Posted by apdst
Those who made the most money.
My eyes are always open, habitat gropin'...
Think about this: Who has a greater interest in the conflict, the United States or the people who live there? Who has a greater will to win, a desire to fight to the death, no matter the costs financially or in lives? I know I'm not willing to bankrupt this country for Vietnam, nor am I willing to sacrifice Americans. I would gladly bankrupt this country for America though. What about you? Would you fight for Vietnam as selflessly as you would for America?
An inherent design flaw in every pro-war hawk always seems to be the inability to comprehend human nature or sociology. They don't seem to understand that wars are not won simply with guns. Insurgencies have the potential to last forever, until the end of occupation. In the end, they always fail to acknowledge the level of sacrifice necessary for victory. Would you sacrifice your sons? Daughters? Grandparents? Your life savings? Your house? Because the insurgents will. This is their home, they are literally fighting for their homes. What are you fighting for, your government?
Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President
December 26, 1972 - North Vietnam agrees to resume peace negotiations within five days of the end of bombing.
The History Place - Vietnam War 1969-1975
Winning battles doesn't mean you win the war. Victory in war is not determined by a tally of who won more battles. It is determined by who achieved their strategic/political objectives. We sure as hell did not achieve our political objectives in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese did.
Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-31-11 at 10:03 AM.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody 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.