The 100 years in Iraq comment

[Cancel7]

Yes if we had only stayed until 1986 in Vietnam we would have won!

LOL

Talk about a skewering.

 

[Damocles]

Yes if we had only stayed until 1986 in Vietnam we would have won!

Not the same thing. When we win we leave troops behind in bases, at Embassies, etc. When we lose we have full withdrawal.

I simply made an observation. When we win, we usually leave troops there for a long-term commitment, when we lose we remove all troops. Basically, McCain said he wouldn't mind winning. (note the "wouldn't mind" portion of his remark.)

 

[Litmus]

If the US stays it means it is usually successful in its endeavors. When the US leaves, it almost always means failure.

IT's weird that our standard for success is the same as cancer's.

 

[Damocles]

LOL

Talk about a skewering.

Right. It was simply a miscommunication and an assumption. But since you jumped on that bandwagon it appears as if the ASSumption made an ass out of more than a single assumptor...

 

[Damocles]

IT's weird that our standard for success is the same as cancer's.

Again, simply a miscommunication.

In Germany are we a "cancer"? We won, we left troops. In Viet Nam, we left because we lost.

 

[Litmus]

Again, simply a miscommunication.

In Germany are we a "cancer"? We won, we left troops. In Viet Nam, we left because we lost.

It really depends on your point of view.

 

[Cypress]