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

Edit, for full context.

Dixie said:
The rest of the world certainly did not think any LESS of us for getting out of what they viewed as a internal conflict in the southeast asian penninsula.

Yes, they did. Even the retarded recognize this...

"The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us. Most knowledgable experts say the vietnam war extended the cold war. The vietnam conflict sapped american strength, credibility, and economic power. It was a one-sided defeat for america. The soviets were basically bystanders, who weren't in a position to "lose" anything. The vietnamese never were soviet puppets, and the cambodian khmer-rouge were ferociously anti-soviet. All vietnam was, at its core, was a civil war. Us "winning or losing" there, had little effect on the soviets. The vietnamese never were, and never became, their puppet state. The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us. And us, staying another few years in vietnam to "win", wouldn't have made any appreciable difference to the Soviet geopolitical position on the world stage.-- Prissy

note: "winning" put in quotes, because total "military victory" in Nam was not possible....just like in Dixie's war in Iraq today.

************************************************

because I do not buy into your rosy scenario

I didn't give a rosy scenario, just a realistic evaluation of what might have happened. As I said before, and you can't refute, winning wars is always more beneficial than losing them.
Click to expand...
 
Well Prissy, you should quit while you're ahead. The first sentence is correct, we did lose credibility, prestige and clout. The rest of what you post, is nothing more than you blowing hot air out of your ass, and pretending it is valid objectivity. I've never heard any of these "knowledgable experts" you speak of, and if they argue that the US would have been worse off to have won in Vietnam, I would have to check their mental state.

note: "winning" put in quotes, because total "military victory" in Nam was not possible....just like in Dixie's war in Iraq today.

Sure it was. There is no such thing as an unwinnable war for the US.
 
Dixie said:
Well Prissy, you should quit while you're ahead. The first sentence is correct, we did lose credibility, prestige and clout. The rest of what you post, is nothing more than you blowing hot air out of your ass, and pretending it is valid objectivity. I've never heard any of these "knowledgable experts" you speak of, and if they argue that the US would have been worse off to have won in Vietnam, I would have to check their mental state.

note: "winning" put in quotes, because total "military victory" in Nam was not possible....just like in Dixie's war in Iraq today.

Sure it was. There is no such thing as an unwinnable war for the US.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as an unwinnable war for the U.S.


"Kissinger: Military Victory In Iraq Is No Longer Possible..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900287_pf.html


Henry Kissinger is one of Bush's top advisors on the Iraq War.
 
Damocles said:
Did you notice he also stated it would be a terrible mistake to leave, or did you expect us not to know about it?
Click to expand...


I would like to know Damo, how you would explain to the mother or father of a young solider, that military victory was not possible in Iraq...but that their child's life is still asked for.

This is pure insanity.

Let's begin immediate diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria and pull our troops out.
 
Darla said:
I would like to know Damo, how you would explain to the mother or father of a young solider, that military victory was not possible in Iraq...but that their child's life is still asked for.

This is pure insanity.

Let's begin immediate diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria and pull our troops out.
Click to expand...
I don't have to. It wasn't my own opinion. Let the person with the opinion explain. How about reading that article there rather than assume my opinion for me? I simply asked a question about his assertion, I didn't propose an opinion at all.
 
In fact, if you had read the article you would see he asserts that Iran and Syria shoudl be part of the solution as well...

Then he states this:

But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq's neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict.

"A dramatic collapse of Iraq _ whatever we think about how the situation was created _ would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said.

Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's neighbors _ including Iran _ and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region.

"I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Military victory over sporadic insurgent violence, is not possible, and not necessary to "win" in Iraq. If this is the criteria set for winning wars, the Union never "won" the Civil War, because the KKK survived for years afterward. This is the point Kissinger is making, and Prissy is completely missing.
 
Dixie said:
The rest of the world certainly did not think any LESS of us for getting out of what they viewed as a internal conflict in the southeast asian penninsula.

Yes, they did. Even the retarded recognize this... The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us.-- Prissy

because I do not buy into your rosy scenario

I didn't give a rosy scenario, just a realistic evaluation of what might have happened. As I said before, and you can't refute, winning wars is always more beneficial than losing them.
Click to expand...


yet you have yet to explain how spending even one dime more, or losing one life more would have caused an outcome any different than the one we have today.

I have personal responses from professsional military personnel from over 20 countries that says we did NOT lose any credibility or prestige or clout from leaving Vietnam for the vietnamese to figure out, and in response, the only thing you can post is cypress?

Please offer up some other more credible source to show how much we lost in Vietnam....and how much we HAVEN'T lost in Iraq.
 
yet you have yet to explain how spending even one dime more, or losing one life more would have caused an outcome any different than the one we have today.

Yes I did, you laughed at my "rosy scenario" because you can't envision anything other than your myopic view. You are asking me to prove a negative, I can't prove that it would have been better for us to win Vietnam, and that is what you are asking for.

I have personal responses from professsional military personnel from over 20 countries that says we did NOT lose any credibility or prestige or clout from leaving Vietnam for the vietnamese to figure out, and in response, the only thing you can post is cypress?

Just stating the truth! Most people, including the retarded, realize and understand the United States lost credibility and clout, in losing Vietnam. Now, maybe some old fart Commanders who stood too close to the big guns, think otherwise, I don't doubt it. This doesn't refute the simple fact of the matter, it's always more beneficial to win than lose in war.
 
Dixie said:
yet you have yet to explain how spending even one dime more, or losing one life more would have caused an outcome any different than the one we have today.

Yes I did, you laughed at my "rosy scenario" because you can't envision anything other than your myopic view. You are asking me to prove a negative, I can't prove that it would have been better for us to win Vietnam, and that is what you are asking for.

I have personal responses from professsional military personnel from over 20 countries that says we did NOT lose any credibility or prestige or clout from leaving Vietnam for the vietnamese to figure out, and in response, the only thing you can post is cypress?

Just stating the truth! Most people, including the retarded, realize and understand the United States lost credibility and clout, in losing Vietnam. Now, maybe some old fart Commanders who stood too close to the big guns, think otherwise, I don't doubt it. This doesn't refute the simple fact of the matter, it's always more beneficial to win than lose in war.
Click to expand...


your rosy scenario is unprovable...your suggestion that Pol Pot's killing fields would somehow miraculously not have happened if we had stayed and been "vicotrious" is laughable.

And most people that YOU hang out with might think that our departure from Vietnam caused a loss of credibility in the world community....but I have shown that the world community did not, oddly enough, share that view....... oddly enough, most of the people you hang out with think that schools should still be segregated in Alabama and that it is impossible to divide anything into equal thirds.... which is, from MY perspective, pretty damning for you and your moronic redneck racist friends.
 
your rosy scenario is unprovable...

Of course it is, that's what I just said. You are asking for proof of the unprovable, because we didn't win in Vietnam. Anything I say, is speculative. You can't prove a negative, I can't prove anything would have happened as the result of victory in Vietnam, because it didn't happen.

your suggestion that Pol Pot's killing fields would somehow miraculously not have happened if we had stayed and been "vicotrious" is laughable.

I don't think it's laughable at all. Had we wiped out the NVA, and shown the full might of the United States military, Cambodia and Laos would have been far less likely to be aggressive, and far more likely to be peaceful. Everything that happens, has consequence, and that seems to be something you have a hard time understanding. No one knows what may have resulted, had America achieved decisive victory in Vietnam, Korea too, for that matter. We can't know because it didn't happen, but we do know the simple fact of the matter, it's more beneficial to win than lose in war. If you can give me examples to refute this, I will accept your premise, otherwise, I have to assume we would have been marginally better off, winning with clear victory in Vietnam.
 
Damocles said:
Did you notice he also stated it would be a terrible mistake to leave, or did you expect us not to know about it?
Click to expand...

BINGO!!!

Yep, that's exactly what the vietnam war apologists said too: "we can't win militarily, but we have to stay for US prestige and to keep the domino effect from happening"

Sorry damo - I wouldn't offer up my life for that lame hackery. Would you?
 
Cypress said:
BINGO!!!

Yep, that's exactly what the vietnam war apologists said too: "we can't win militarily, but we have to stay for US prestige and to keep the domino effect from happening"

Sorry damo - I wouldn't offer up my life for that lame hackery. Would you?
Click to expand...
He didn't say it was about "prestige", don't you read the articles you post? Come on, you can do better than that!
 
Pretending that this particular one can have no impact on US shores like VN is simply wishful thinking. It can and will if we are not careful in our extraction.
 
Dixie said:
but we do know the simple fact of the matter, it's more beneficial to win than lose in war. If you can give me examples to refute this, I will accept your premise, otherwise, I have to assume we would have been marginally better off, winning with clear victory in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


more beneificial for whom? for those additional americans who die in order to give our selves "victory"?

I again say.... one of those soldiers who died in the last years of Vietnam might very well have come home and found the cure for cancer and AIDS. Refute THAT!
 
Damocles said:
He didn't say it was about "prestige", don't you read the articles you post? Come on, you can do better than that!
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question. Would you die, for this lame reason to keep fighting?

Dixie and other apologists say we can't lose face. How many times have we heard the "losing face " argument, vis a vis Lebanon, Somalia, and Vietnam. And Kissenger and Dixie (who's been wrong about everthing) say if we redeploy, it will be a catastrophe. I'm not buying it. These apologists have been wrong about everything from day one.
 
Cypress said:
You didn't answer the question. Would you die, for this lame reason to keep fighting?

Dixie and other apologists say we can't lose face. How many times have we heard the "losing face " argument, vis a vis Lebanon, Somalia, and Vietnam. And Kissenger and Dixie (who's been wrong about everthing) say if we redeploy, it will be a catastrophe. I'm not buying it. These apologists have been wrong about everything from day one.
Click to expand...
I would keep fighting if I knew, as do those that are there, that leaving before stability is reached will bring the fight to US shores after it all finally ends. As I stated before pretending that this has no aspect that can reach our shores, like VN, is just wishful thinking. It's covering your eyes so you can't see reality...

It isn't about "keeping face" it isn't about "prestige", as Kissinger made clear... And you now have twice made clear that you didn't read the article that you posted. Kissinger is surely no Bush apologist.
 
I don't think it's laughable at all. Had we wiped out the NVA, and shown the full might of the United States military, Cambodia and Laos would have been far less likely to be aggressive, and far more likely to be peaceful.

Cambodia and Laos were never a strategic threat to the United States. These are extremely lame reasons to ask more american soldiers to die.

The khmer rouge likely would never have come to power, if Nixon hadn't invaded cambodia, and destabilized it in 1970.
 
Damocles said:
I would keep fighting if I knew, as do those that are there, that leaving before stability is reached will bring the fight to US shores after it all finally ends. As I stated before pretending that this has no aspect that can reach our shores, like VN, is just wishful thinking. It's covering your eyes so you can't see reality...
Click to expand...

Our own military says that very few of the insurgents are foreign fighters. 2 to 3% at most.

Your asking american soldiers to die in a civil war. In which there is no prospect of military victory. That's just plain wrong. Only political solutions by iraq and its neighbors will end it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top