- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM #468463October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM #467671
ucodegen
ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM #467853ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM #468209ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM #468280ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM #468493ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM #467701briansd1
GuestAllan, are you saying that Bush did not send enough troops to Afghanistan?
Why would Obama need to send more if Bush had sent enough?
BTW, didn’t Rumsfeld say that you have to fight and win with what you have, not what you wished you had. I actually agree with him. The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.
If I had more money I could afford my mortgage. If they lower my payments, I can afford my mortgage. If my wife didn’t get pregnant, we could have afforded the mortgage. You should have thought about all of that ahead of time. Otherwise, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make it work.
October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM #467883GuestAllan, are you saying that Bush did not send enough troops to Afghanistan?
Why would Obama need to send more if Bush had sent enough?
BTW, didn’t Rumsfeld say that you have to fight and win with what you have, not what you wished you had. I actually agree with him. The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.
If I had more money I could afford my mortgage. If they lower my payments, I can afford my mortgage. If my wife didn’t get pregnant, we could have afforded the mortgage. You should have thought about all of that ahead of time. Otherwise, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make it work.
October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM #468239GuestAllan, are you saying that Bush did not send enough troops to Afghanistan?
Why would Obama need to send more if Bush had sent enough?
BTW, didn’t Rumsfeld say that you have to fight and win with what you have, not what you wished you had. I actually agree with him. The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.
If I had more money I could afford my mortgage. If they lower my payments, I can afford my mortgage. If my wife didn’t get pregnant, we could have afforded the mortgage. You should have thought about all of that ahead of time. Otherwise, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make it work.
October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM #468310GuestAllan, are you saying that Bush did not send enough troops to Afghanistan?
Why would Obama need to send more if Bush had sent enough?
BTW, didn’t Rumsfeld say that you have to fight and win with what you have, not what you wished you had. I actually agree with him. The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.
If I had more money I could afford my mortgage. If they lower my payments, I can afford my mortgage. If my wife didn’t get pregnant, we could have afforded the mortgage. You should have thought about all of that ahead of time. Otherwise, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make it work.
October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM #468523GuestAllan, are you saying that Bush did not send enough troops to Afghanistan?
Why would Obama need to send more if Bush had sent enough?
BTW, didn’t Rumsfeld say that you have to fight and win with what you have, not what you wished you had. I actually agree with him. The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.
If I had more money I could afford my mortgage. If they lower my payments, I can afford my mortgage. If my wife didn’t get pregnant, we could have afforded the mortgage. You should have thought about all of that ahead of time. Otherwise, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make it work.
October 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM #467784sd_matt
Participant“The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.”
That’s a messed up thing to say.
So you blame the sword for the hand that wields it.
October 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM #467967Participant“The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.”
That’s a messed up thing to say.
So you blame the sword for the hand that wields it.
October 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM #468324Participant“The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.”
That’s a messed up thing to say.
So you blame the sword for the hand that wields it.
October 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM #468395Participant“The military is a bunch of cry babies who always complain of if-this and if-that.”
That’s a messed up thing to say.
So you blame the sword for the hand that wields it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.