More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?

Battleborne said:
You are the one who googled the war history and threw out dates...I did not state the war ended in 75' reread...the ie75' comment...the pullout was 74 as I stated(when you challenged me)...the dates 71-73 you threw out were not mentioned by me in my original post...but I then answered you stating you should check the Jane Foinda and Lt.Kerry dates and compare...I gave a general overview...and you googled to try to trap me...so kiss my vets ass hippie draft dodger...aka politician! and I did not pause I was busy with something else...cypo man!
Click to expand...

I don't have to google anything. I was alive and reading newpapers in 1975.

I'm wondering if indeed, you were around then.

You stated: we were three months away from victory in 1975


Please explain the discrepency:


How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?
 
and all you neocons seem to avoid this question:

Re: Vietnam.... what sort of alternate ending would the neocons have wanted and how many more americans were they willing to sacrifice to get it? Here we have a neocon president pressing hard for fully normalized trade relations with Vietnam.... what more could they possibly want? What would the outcome of their alternate vision of "victory" have looked like and would it be any better than what exists today?

From my perspective, Vietnam, today, is in a relatively good place and the war protesters who were successful in stopping that hideous conflict and saving tens of thousands of American lives really created no signficant "downside".

what better outcome would you want from a war than to be trading partners with your former enemies?
 
Lol...

maineman said:
if you ARE experienced in the maineman-dixie duels, then why get YOUR panties in a bunch when I give him shit about living in a trailer park, asshole?
Click to expand...


I was not referring to the Dixie/vainman duels...I was referring to experience in military protocals and ME intel...now I am a 'asshole' again just for playing your game...so now we are both 'assholes'...:gives:
 
Cypress said:
I don't have to google anything. I was alive and reading newpapers in 1975.

I'm wondering if indeed, you were around then.

You stated: we were three months away from victory in 1975


Please explain the discrepency:


How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?
Click to expand...


Loooooong pause while the vietnam vet BB, googles the history of the vietnam war, to try to fix his facts.

Google all you want dude. I remember it well. I was alive then. We weren't "three months away from victory" in 1975.

Americans were gone from NAM, and the ARVN was fleeing and surrendering as fast as they could to the NVA in 1975.

If that's "victory three months away", I don't know what defeat is.
 
maineman said:
Dixie...since you agree that AQ's strategic mission is to destroy secular governments that exist in the territory comprising the former Islamic caliphate...can you please give me one good reason why Saddam would give WMD's (even if he had them, which we now know he did not) to an organization whose mission was the destruction of his government?

Regardless of the fact that both Saddam and Osama had "axes to grind" with the United States, why would Saddam give a loaded gun to a guy whose primary mission was to shoot him, even if another goal of the guy was to shoot one of Saddam's enemies?
Click to expand...


We've been through this before. If Saddam had been all gung-ho to sell WMD's to alQaeda, they would have struck us on 9/11 with them! Saddam didn't trust alQaeda, for the very reason you point out, but that doesn't mean Saddam's regime wasn't conspiring with alQaeda, they were. Whether this was done without Saddam's knowledge, I have no way of knowing, but it did happen.

You've made some valid and credible points about the tenuous relationship between alQaeda and Saddam, and I agree with much of what you are saying, however, the relationship changed dynamically after Kuwait, and that is where you are missing the 'rest of the story' here. Pre-Kuwait, you are absolutely correct, Saddam and alQaeda were diametrically opposed, with completely different goals and objectives, and they were not remotely interested in working together, nor did they have a valid reason to do so. After Kuwait, and with the presence of US forces in SA, the dynamics changed, and alQaeda began to reach out to Saddam through his regime. This is documented in as many as eight meetings between alQaeda operatives and members of Saddam's regime. We can clearly see now, the insurgents loyal to Saddam have no problems working with alQaeda, they seem to get along very well now, so to believe this was just impossible before the war, is extremely short-sighted and disingenuous. The same reasons they would fight together now, are the same reasons they would have worked together before.
 
You my friend(use loosley)

Cypress said:
I don't have to google anything. I was alive and reading newpapers in 1975.

I'm wondering if indeed, you were around then.

You stated: we were three months away from victory in 1975


Please explain the discrepency:


How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?
Click to expand...


are so full of shit...you read newspapers in 1975...and you have a photographic memory and threw out the 71-73 and the 75 outcome from memory...again reread the ie75' comment your spin is really getting stupid...I never said we were within three months of victory in (75)...I made the general comment that we were within three months of total victory in the war!
74...when we were forced to pull out by you idiots et al! Now go have a beer with Lt.Kerry,Jane and Murtha..y'all are sick puppies...!
 
Battleborne said:
are so full of shit...you read newspapers in 1975...and you have a photographic memory and threw out the 71-73 and the 75 outcome from memory...again reread the ie75' comment your spin is really getting stupid...I never said we were within three months of victory in (75)...I made the general comment that we were within three months of total victory in the war!
74...when we were forced to pull out by you idiots et al! Now go have a beer with Lt.Kerry,Jane and Murtha..y'all are sick puppies...!
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You said we were "three months away from victory in 1975". Don't make me post the exact quote again.


You still haven't explained the discrepency...I'm waiting:


How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?
 
Cypress said:
Bullshit. You said we were "three months away from victory in 1975". Don't make me post the exact quote again.


You still haven't explained the discrepency...I'm waiting:


How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?
Click to expand...

BB: First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'
 
maybe we WOULD have been three months from victory in 75 if a whole host of things had happened that didn't happen, and a whole host of things had not happened that DID happen.

I can well imagine that had Geroge Wallace and "Bombs Away" Curtis LeMay won the 1968 election, we would have "won" the Vietnam portion of the Third World War rather handily, turning the entire southeast asian penninsula into a molten glass crematorium.....

but the fact was, we got out of a messy civil war where we were backing the corrupt side and had already cost us way more than we should ever have sacrificed for such a debacle....

and now...Vietnam is our trading partner and our neocon president had coffee this morning with their leaders. If we had pumped in another 50K pieces of american human cannon fodder, could we really have asked for a better outcome than that?
 
maineman said:
Dixie.... do you have any reputable sources, besides you and battleweary, that would support this claim that we WOULD have been a few months away from victory if we had continued to pour young american cannon fodder into Vietnam?
Click to expand...


We didn't "lose" a single battle in Vietnam. Had we intensified our efforts, we could have defeated the NVA, probably in 1975, as BB indicated. However, at that point in time, after watching LBJ dick around for 10 years over there, the American people were without patience, and didn't want to hear of it. So, we withdrew, South Vietnam collapsed shortly thereafter, and we've had to live with that disgrace ever since. Our "mistake" in Vietnam, was not WINNING Vietnam. We had the means and the capability to do it, we just didn't have the stomach, and because of our actions, we've paid a heavy price in foreign affairs since that time. One of alQaeda's prime motivators is the knowledge that Americans lack the resolve to finish the job, that when the going gets tough and people start dying, we run away or find a way out.
 
Post away...

Cypress said:
Bullshit. You said we were "three months away from victory in 1975". Don't make me post the exact quote again.


You still haven't explained the discrepency...I'm waiting:


How is it that a heroic vietnam veteran, like yourself, thinks we were three months away from victory in 1975, when there weren't even any american combat forces in Nam in 1975 and the NVA was rolling over a frightened and demoralized ARVN in 1975?
Click to expand...



spin mister..even Dixie explained it to you! You are so dense....by the way what were you doing back about 71-75 why did you not serve in Nam?
 
maineman said:
maybe we WOULD have been three months from victory in 75 if a whole host of things had happened that didn't happen, and a whole host of things had not happened that DID happen.

I can well imagine that had Geroge Wallace and "Bombs Away" Curtis LeMay won the 1968 election, we would have "won" the Vietnam portion of the Third World War rather handily, turning the entire southeast asian penninsula into a molten glass crematorium.....

but the fact was, we got out of a messy civil war where we were backing the corrupt side and had already cost us way more than we should ever have sacrificed for such a debacle....

and now...Vietnam is our trading partner and our neocon president had coffee this morning with their leaders. If we had pumped in another 50K pieces of american human cannon fodder, could we really have asked for a better outcome than that?
Click to expand...

He didn't say that we "might" have been three months away from victory in 1975 if things had gone differently.

He said we WERE three months away from total victory in 1975.
 
Dixie said:
We've been through this before. If Saddam had been all gung-ho to sell WMD's to alQaeda, they would have struck us on 9/11 with them! Saddam didn't trust alQaeda, for the very reason you point out, but that doesn't mean Saddam's regime wasn't conspiring with alQaeda, they were. Whether this was done without Saddam's knowledge, I have no way of knowing, but it did happen.

You've made some valid and credible points about the tenuous relationship between alQaeda and Saddam, and I agree with much of what you are saying, however, the relationship changed dynamically after Kuwait, and that is where you are missing the 'rest of the story' here. Pre-Kuwait, you are absolutely correct, Saddam and alQaeda were diametrically opposed, with completely different goals and objectives, and they were not remotely interested in working together, nor did they have a valid reason to do so. After Kuwait, and with the presence of US forces in SA, the dynamics changed, and alQaeda began to reach out to Saddam through his regime. This is documented in as many as eight meetings between alQaeda operatives and members of Saddam's regime. We can clearly see now, the insurgents loyal to Saddam have no problems working with alQaeda, they seem to get along very well now, so to believe this was just impossible before the war, is extremely short-sighted and disingenuous. The same reasons they would fight together now, are the same reasons they would have worked together before.
Click to expand...

so....you are saying that even though Saddam didn't trust Osama as far as he could throw him, and even though Saddam was known to have killed members of his inner circle with little or no provocation, you now want us to believe that members of Saddam's regime would have given Osama bin Laden some of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction behind Saddam's back????

Do you have any idea how much you need to stretch reality to make that seem anywhere near sensible?

And just because AQ in Iraq is targeting US forces and attempted to stir the pot, and former baathist sunnis in Iraq are targeting US forces and attempting to disrupt what they see as a march toward shia theocracy does not mean that they are "working together".
 
Whatever. A message board classic: Another rightwing vietnam vet, who appears to not know about the history of the vietnam war.

-BB: First and foremost...we were within three months of total victory in VN ie 75'

Ten minutes later:

-BB: "I never said we were within three months of victory in (75)."
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Why are you relying on Dixie to save you.

Please explain the discrepency.
Click to expand...

Look, I know it's difficult when you are a hard head, but BB's explained it, I've explained it, Maineman understood it, and you are the only one on the board who doesn't get the explanation. In short, BB said that IF we hadn't withdrawn, we WOULD have won in '75. Of course, we weren't there in '75, and he never said that we were, if we had been, we WOULD have won, that WAS his point. Is that so difficult for you, or should we break out the crayons?
 
Dixie said:
We didn't "lose" a single battle in Vietnam. Had we intensified our efforts, we could have defeated the NVA, probably in 1975, as BB indicated. However, at that point in time, after watching LBJ dick around for 10 years over there, the American people were without patience, and didn't want to hear of it. So, we withdrew, South Vietnam collapsed shortly thereafter, and we've had to live with that disgrace ever since. Our "mistake" in Vietnam, was not WINNING Vietnam. We had the means and the capability to do it, we just didn't have the stomach, and because of our actions, we've paid a heavy price in foreign affairs since that time. One of alQaeda's prime motivators is the knowledge that Americans lack the resolve to finish the job, that when the going gets tough and people start dying, we run away or find a way out.
Click to expand...

I say AGAIN:

maineman said:
what sort of alternate ending would the neocons have wanted and how many more americans were they willing to sacrifice to get it? Here we have a neocon president pressing hard for fully normalized trade relations with Vietnam.... what more could they possibly want? What would the outcome of their alternate vision of "victory" have looked like and would it be any better than what exists today?

From my perspective, Vietnam, today, is in a relatively good place and the war protesters who were successful in stopping that hideous conflict and saving tens of thousands of American lives really created no signficant "downside".

what better outcome would you want from a war than to be trading partners with your former enemies?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top