Thread: Changing Attitudes On Veterans Day

Originally Posted by Tangmo

So I'd invite you to begin some measure of debate that addresses my points in scrolling that address your one note theme you continue to recite and repeat without any supporting reasoning or rationale. Most specifically, if 8.7 million troops in the US armed forces from 1964 to 1975 weren't enough to win the conventional war that was fought, then how many of 'em would you have needed to win your conventional war you insist would have done the trick in VN. .

Do you realize how obtuse that is? The point is how many grunts were on the ground in Vietnam itself, not how many served around the globe during the era. Good lord man. Out of around 500,000 US troops in-country only aporx 50,000 were actually in the bush fighting. Not enough to go up against every infantryman North Vietnam could infiltrate, plus varying numbers of VC depending on the year and month. So lets start with that realization, which should have been obvious, and go from there.

As for commitment? What the hell do you think commitment means? It means the desire to do whatever it takes to win.

Originally Posted by dave8383

Do you realize how obtuse that is? The point is how many grunts were on the ground in Vietnam itself, not how many served around the globe during the era. Good lord man. Out of around 500,000 US troops in-country only aporx 50,000 were actually in the bush fighting. Not enough to go up against every infantryman North Vietnam could infiltrate, plus varying numbers of VC depending on the year and month. So lets start with that realization, which should have been obvious, and go from there.

As for commitment? What the hell do you think commitment means? It means the desire to do whatever it takes to win.

That is a wild statement that disqualifies you from any position of military command, leadership, responsibility.

Originally Posted by dave8383

Tangmo, I'm from Boston. I'm very familiar with what went on in Harvard Square and on Comm. Ave. I was in Vietnam in '67 and '68 and was sitting in professor Howard Zinn's class in '70 so my view is a rather broad one. And again, I'm not debating policy I'm debating only whether or not a conventional army, such as we had at the time, that included conscripts, could have defeated the North Vietnamese.

Could we have? Sure. We lost Vietnam at the strategic level, had we went in with a better strategy and with a better consideration for the geopolitical situation we might have emerged victorious, or perhaps a situation similar to Korea where Vietnam remains split to this day.

But that would have required a level of foresight, planning, and leadership that we didn't have.