Re: "What are you talking about???" [re - 'Vietnam']
Why, your very long (though interesting...) post --- which began with a mention of WW II, then moved on to discuss in several paragraphs *many* events and issues that date to, or hail from, the 1960s (..."new generation" ...spoiled, arrogant, ...hippies, ...dropped out ...and tuned into LSD ... protesting against authority, ... avoid the draft, ...go to Canada, ...sing "Give Peace A Chance", etc., etc., etc.) seemed to spend so much time on the issues - and the war, the leading issue of that time, that I'm a bit puzzled why you would be confused any when I actually mention the word 'Vietnam'.
???
(Just seemed a bit awkward when you switched gears and moved on to something else: ["the enemy has already attacked us at home increasingly and numerous times over the past 35 years..."]. Guess I was trying to illustrate - by using the same subjects you and some others had been posting on, perhaps even fixating on of late, 'Vietnam'... that just because some entity is declared to be "our enemy" one day, does not mean they stay "our enemy" forever. Vietnam makes an excellent example of this: we have peaceful relations, open trade relations today... they help to serve as a regional counter-weight to China's strategic heft --- despite all the Crapola the American public was once sold about the 'indivisible International Communist Conspiracy' and that 'dominoes would fall all the way to Mexico'.)
Seems likely that a careful and pragmatic strategist might also be able to play-off Iran and Saudi Arabia's rivalries and inherent tensions against each other one day --- ALL to the betterment and advancement of American strategic interests. |
