Jack Kelly: Give Obama the potato test
-
The Tet Offensive? Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?[^]
We achieved victory by every meaningful military measure. We were not defeated militarily but politically thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Active combat units were pulled out by November of '72. After that it was basically only advisors and Naval operations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
We had some groups, or so I was told, that were with the tards up in the mountains, but basically, you are right. I had a senior moment. I guess the image of the fall of Saigon is so burned into my memory, I forget that the guards there were the only uniforms left.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
too damn socialist for my tastes.
Please explain what that means. How would you prefer it? And what would be the risks associated with that?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
Please explain what that means. How would you prefer it?
I want way less government in my life, way less social programs and less entitlement programs and therefore way less taxes taken from me.
Al Beback wrote:
And what would be the risks associated with that?
The risks of too much socialism is apathy and everything that leads to... The risks of too little government is that people who refuse to even make an effort to be self sufficient may die early.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They will be falling all over themselves to implement a full blown European social welfare state as quickly as they possibly can. And I do not believe that American society is ready for it.
Really? You may be right. American society does seem quite content with expensive endless wars, expensive gasoline, expensive health insurance, expensive food prices, plumetting real estate values, and a worthless currency. God forbid our next administration and Congress takes steps to curtail those things. :rolleyes:
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm just waiting for him to do something in the name of god, like Assnan's butt buddies.
You've considered that possibility, too? I wonder if Chris has a plan of action if he starts posting messages saying the angel of the Lord has told him to lock and load. . . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the angel of the Lord has told him to lock and load. . . .
Is that a religious euphemism for the five-knuckle-shuffle? :)
-
oilFactotum wrote:
What a laff!
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
oilFactotum wrote:
What would we have 'won' and how would we have won it?
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying,
I'm not, and you know it. Yet you seem to be quite cavalier with the lives of 10's of thousands of young American lives to 'win' a war that would accomplish nothing.
Oakman wrote:
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Don't have to. I'm well aware of the differences. Perhaps you need to look at Vietnam today. Strong emerging economy and no threat to it's neighbors. I doubt that American occupation could have created a better result. So, it appears that what you are saying is that what we would have won would have been a South Vietnam not terribly different than what it is now - the only difference is the 10's of thousands of additional American casualties(as well as 100's of thousands of Vietnamese casualties) and billions of American tax dollars spent on the effort. And you haven't addressed how we would have gotten there. Your comparison to Korea suggests that your idea of an American victory would not need to include the conquest of North Vietnam. Without an invasion how could we have possibly compelled them to surrender? No matter how successful COIN could have been, with NV unoccupied and the Ho Chi Minh trail(are you going to advocate for the invasions of both Cambodia and Laos?) still active, when would it have ended?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are you planning on thanking us for getting America out of Vietnam
:omg: Nixon was a lefty? :omg:
-
We achieved victory by every meaningful military measure. We were not defeated militarily but politically thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We were not defeated militarily but politically
Absolutely true. The people who waged the war failed to provide a strategy for victory or even a reason to try.
Stan Shannon wrote:
thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Again, absolutely true. The American people recognized the pointlessness of sending their children to fight and die for no purpose.
-
On the other hand, the military of the 1960's was designed to fight two major wars simulataneously. It is difficult to believe that we have gone from that to being incapable to taking out a few minor backwater nations without a draft. (However, I do concur with the need for a draft). The problem is that we have not maintained the offensive. If we had kept these assholes in front of us rather them letting them infiltrate the society we are trying to stabilize it would have been much better. Still, things are not looking all that bad in Iraq right now dispite our incompetence.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
(However, I do concur with the need for a draft).
No we don't (#). When I was a kid and the draft was ended ... by the "evil" :rolleyes: Nixon ... just before it was time for me to register (*), I would have agreed that the US needs a draft. Now that I am old, I vehemently opposed to a draft (**). (*) I went down to register, they told me to come back in a month. When I came back, they had pretty much closed up shop and told me to go away. (**) Which, of course, puts the lie to one of the favorite leftist propaganda canards with which they "educated" us teenagers in the '70s. (#) First, consider how lefties look at "free" "government" money. Now, can you seriously believe they will not regard "free" soldiers in the same way?
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?
Your post is a perfect example of why the left is blamed (and should be blamed) for losing a war that we were winning.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Your post is a perfect example of why the left is blamed (and should be blamed) for losing a war that we were winning.
And more importantly, the leftists should be blamed for the multiple millions of human beings who were slaughtered directly because we, the US, listened to their lies.
-
On the other hand, the military of the 1960's was designed to fight two major wars simulataneously. It is difficult to believe that we have gone from that to being incapable to taking out a few minor backwater nations without a draft. (However, I do concur with the need for a draft). The problem is that we have not maintained the offensive. If we had kept these assholes in front of us rather them letting them infiltrate the society we are trying to stabilize it would have been much better. Still, things are not looking all that bad in Iraq right now dispite our incompetence.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
On the other hand, the military of the 1960's was designed to fight two major wars simulataneously
That was the theory. However, it was not tested.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is difficult to believe that we have gone from that to being incapable to taking out a few minor backwater nations without a draft
We have allowed Putin and Wen Jiabao to forge bonds with Iran which puts limits on how much taking out we can do - though I have no doubt that we could return them to the stone age if no other consideration besides miliary might was present.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we had kept these assholes in front of us rather them letting them infiltrate the society we are trying to stabilize it would have been much better.
Bremer and Rumsfeld hurt this country as badly as if that was their purpose. It wasn't, of course, and I am sure they think of themselves as patriots, but their monumental ineptness did more damage to the U.S. that anyone could have thought possible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the society we are trying to stabilize
We would have done far better to leave Saddam in power and begun to support him again, if that was our goal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Still, things are not looking all that bad in Iraq right now dispite our incompetence.
Petreus is a miracle worker. That he has done so much with so little is amazing. I only hope his deputy is at least half as good. But, and 'tis a big but, our troops are being used up. Even though casualties have been reduced, they are still in harm's way 24/7. No-one, no matter how good a soldier, no matter how professional a soldier, can keep going day after day, month after month, tour after tour. Nor is my reading that Iraq is more stable. Just safer. There are still three factions, none with the upper hand, all believing they deserve to rule the other two, and all planning on getting sole power as soon as we leave, whether that's next month, next year, or three years from now. Joe Biden had the right of it awhile back - the only hope for what is left of Iraq is to create a three-state confederation - and the oil geography make that pretty impossible.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Your post is a perfect example of why the left is blamed (and should be blamed) for losing a war that we were winning.
And more importantly, the leftists should be blamed for the multiple millions of human beings who were slaughtered directly because we, the US, listened to their lies.
Ilíon wrote:
And more importantly, the leftists should be blamed for the multiple millions of human beings who were slaughtered directly because we, the US, listened to their lies.
Put down your matches. We're not burning anyone at the stake tonight, Torquemada.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying,
I'm not, and you know it. Yet you seem to be quite cavalier with the lives of 10's of thousands of young American lives to 'win' a war that would accomplish nothing.
Oakman wrote:
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Don't have to. I'm well aware of the differences. Perhaps you need to look at Vietnam today. Strong emerging economy and no threat to it's neighbors. I doubt that American occupation could have created a better result. So, it appears that what you are saying is that what we would have won would have been a South Vietnam not terribly different than what it is now - the only difference is the 10's of thousands of additional American casualties(as well as 100's of thousands of Vietnamese casualties) and billions of American tax dollars spent on the effort. And you haven't addressed how we would have gotten there. Your comparison to Korea suggests that your idea of an American victory would not need to include the conquest of North Vietnam. Without an invasion how could we have possibly compelled them to surrender? No matter how successful COIN could have been, with NV unoccupied and the Ho Chi Minh trail(are you going to advocate for the invasions of both Cambodia and Laos?) still active, when would it have ended?
oilFactotum wrote:
Yet you seem to be quite cavalier with the lives of 10's of thousands of young American lives to 'win' a war that would accomplish nothing.
Sonny, I was fucking there and you fucking weren't. So don't bother to try to tell me shit about what I think or how I feel about Vietnam. You haven't got a clue, and you couldn't get a clue if your life depended on it.
oilFactotum wrote:
Without an invasion how could we have possibly compelled them to surrender?
We didn't need them to surrender. We needed to prove to them that we couldn't be defeated and that we could hurt them terribly, easily. After Tet and the recapture of Hue, they suddenly wanted to talk. That's all it took. Just as the Chicoms realised after the Spring offensive of '51 that they couldn't defeat the United Nations and the ROK and so sat down for peace talks, North Vietnam would have kept their word about the continuation of two Vietnams had we kept troops stationed over there, as we kept troops in Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Yet you seem to be quite cavalier with the lives of 10's of thousands of young American lives to 'win' a war that would accomplish nothing.
Sonny, I was fucking there and you fucking weren't. So don't bother to try to tell me shit about what I think or how I feel about Vietnam. You haven't got a clue, and you couldn't get a clue if your life depended on it.
oilFactotum wrote:
Without an invasion how could we have possibly compelled them to surrender?
We didn't need them to surrender. We needed to prove to them that we couldn't be defeated and that we could hurt them terribly, easily. After Tet and the recapture of Hue, they suddenly wanted to talk. That's all it took. Just as the Chicoms realised after the Spring offensive of '51 that they couldn't defeat the United Nations and the ROK and so sat down for peace talks, North Vietnam would have kept their word about the continuation of two Vietnams had we kept troops stationed over there, as we kept troops in Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Sonny, I was f***ing there and you f***ing weren't.
So what?(I respect your service, BUT - ) That gives you no right to put others in harms way.
Oakman wrote:
We needed to prove to them that we couldn't be defeated
Ah, yes the "the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics -- the conservative conceit that willpower is the crucial variable in making our national security policy work. Thus, when resistance to national objectives is encountered, instead of dealing with them pragmatically the resistance is seen as a test of will. Since it's a test of will, the most important thing becomes not resolving the issue in a productive way, but demonstrating the implacability of our will. When strategies motivated in this manner fail to achieve their goals, that merely shows the need for more will because to change strategy at all would send the wrong sort of message about our resolve."
Oakman wrote:
about what I think or how I feel about Vietnam
I haven't. So whats the problem?
Oakman wrote:
they suddenly wanted to talk.
No, that's not how it happened. It was Johnson that caved, not the other way around.
Oakman wrote:
Just as the Chicoms realised after the Spring offensive of '51 that they couldn't defeat the United Nations and the ROK and so sat down for peace talks,
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. The Chinese accomplished their goal - prevent the US conquest of North Korea.
Oakman wrote:
North Vietnam would have kept their word about the continuation of two Vietnams
You still haven't addressed how we would have gotten to that point, or why we should have spent the lives and money to do it.
-
Oakman wrote:
Sonny, I was f***ing there and you f***ing weren't.
So what?(I respect your service, BUT - ) That gives you no right to put others in harms way.
Oakman wrote:
We needed to prove to them that we couldn't be defeated
Ah, yes the "the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics -- the conservative conceit that willpower is the crucial variable in making our national security policy work. Thus, when resistance to national objectives is encountered, instead of dealing with them pragmatically the resistance is seen as a test of will. Since it's a test of will, the most important thing becomes not resolving the issue in a productive way, but demonstrating the implacability of our will. When strategies motivated in this manner fail to achieve their goals, that merely shows the need for more will because to change strategy at all would send the wrong sort of message about our resolve."
Oakman wrote:
about what I think or how I feel about Vietnam
I haven't. So whats the problem?
Oakman wrote:
they suddenly wanted to talk.
No, that's not how it happened. It was Johnson that caved, not the other way around.
Oakman wrote:
Just as the Chicoms realised after the Spring offensive of '51 that they couldn't defeat the United Nations and the ROK and so sat down for peace talks,
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. The Chinese accomplished their goal - prevent the US conquest of North Korea.
Oakman wrote:
North Vietnam would have kept their word about the continuation of two Vietnams
You still haven't addressed how we would have gotten to that point, or why we should have spent the lives and money to do it.
oilFactotum wrote:
So what?(I respect your service, BUT - ) That gives you no right to put others in harms way.
What it gives me is the ability to know what I am talking about. people who talk about harm's way and have never been there are poseurs.
oilFactotum wrote:
When strategies motivated in this manner fail to achieve their goals, that merely shows the need for more will because to change strategy at all would send the wrong sort of message about our resolve."
Call it what you will. It worked in Korea; it worked in Vietnam. We didn't need to show more will, all we needed to do was live up to our obligations to South Vietnam.
oilFactotum wrote:
You still haven't addressed how we would have gotten to that point,
We were at that point. A peace treaty had been signed. The North had affirmed the right of the South to continue to exist. Read your history.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
(However, I do concur with the need for a draft).
No we don't (#). When I was a kid and the draft was ended ... by the "evil" :rolleyes: Nixon ... just before it was time for me to register (*), I would have agreed that the US needs a draft. Now that I am old, I vehemently opposed to a draft (**). (*) I went down to register, they told me to come back in a month. When I came back, they had pretty much closed up shop and told me to go away. (**) Which, of course, puts the lie to one of the favorite leftist propaganda canards with which they "educated" us teenagers in the '70s. (#) First, consider how lefties look at "free" "government" money. Now, can you seriously believe they will not regard "free" soldiers in the same way?
Ilíon wrote:
Now, can you seriously believe they will not regard "free" soldiers in the same way?
As a percentage of total Democrats in the Congress, how many served in the armed forces? As a percentage of total Republicans in the Congress, how many served in the armed forces? Where did you do your service, chicken little?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
And more importantly, the leftists should be blamed for the multiple millions of human beings who were slaughtered directly because we, the US, listened to their lies.
Put down your matches. We're not burning anyone at the stake tonight, Torquemada.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
Now, can you seriously believe they will not regard "free" soldiers in the same way?
As a percentage of total Democrats in the Congress, how many served in the armed forces? As a percentage of total Republicans in the Congress, how many served in the armed forces? Where did you do your service, chicken little?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Put down your matches. We're not burning anyone at the stake tonight, Torquemada.
How terrible it must be to exist in such a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance as you do. Poor thing. :laugh:
-
oilFactotum wrote:
So what?(I respect your service, BUT - ) That gives you no right to put others in harms way.
What it gives me is the ability to know what I am talking about. people who talk about harm's way and have never been there are poseurs.
oilFactotum wrote:
When strategies motivated in this manner fail to achieve their goals, that merely shows the need for more will because to change strategy at all would send the wrong sort of message about our resolve."
Call it what you will. It worked in Korea; it worked in Vietnam. We didn't need to show more will, all we needed to do was live up to our obligations to South Vietnam.
oilFactotum wrote:
You still haven't addressed how we would have gotten to that point,
We were at that point. A peace treaty had been signed. The North had affirmed the right of the South to continue to exist. Read your history.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
What it gives me is the ability to know what I am talking about.
Assuming you were in combat, it does mean your opinion on combat carries weight, but it doesn't mean much at all when it comes to how we could have won or why we should try.
Oakman wrote:
It worked in Korea;
No, it didn't. We accomplished our goal of preventing the conquest of South Korea, and the Chinese accomplished their goal of preventing the conquest of North Korea.
Oakman wrote:
it worked in Vietnam
No. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City.
Oakman wrote:
We were at that point. A peace treaty had been signed. The North had affirmed the right of the South to continue to exist. Read your history.
You've got to be kidding. The treaty was a fig leaf for American withdrawal and everyone knew it.
