Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (246823)	4/21/2008 10:20:15 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793681

I still say, the jury is still out on who wins these wars. It looks like this to me. 1. If obama or clinton win, we will lose the war. 2. If mccain wins, but the democrats win more seats in the congress, which is very likely to happen, then we lose the war. 3. Bottom line, mccain needs to win with a big enough coat tail to carry the necessary seats to give him a republican congress. I would not bet one buffalo or jefferson nickel on that happening. As much as I hate to say it, this election is really all about whether the liberals get a much larger share of the seats in the Congress next year. If they do, IMO losing the war will ultimately become another asterisk in U.S. history.

To: unclewest who wrote (246823)	4/21/2008 11:17:00 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793681

Technology and tactics are not always superior to better strategy and tactics. So why do we not have the superior strategy? Isn't that what they teach in the War Colleges? Are we not getting our money's worth, or is there something else? Suppose the Pentagon dug up some old "Mission Impossible" scripts. You know, the kind were Phelps tricks the bad guys into killing each other or getting the least bad guy to kill the worst bad guy, or at least the one who is in the way of US objectives. Would that do it? Is it really strategy that is the problem, or rather lack of will-power and public opposition? Our politicians seem afraid to do what's necessary because they might lose their jobs. Unless we are willing to see these things through, we shouldn't even start them in the first place. Maybe Bush should have said "OK, al Quaida flew into those buildings so which is it? a) We do nothing and live with the consequences, or b) We do everything necessary and no bitching about it." And then keep track of what happens. I recall from an ROTC course that the real reason we were in Vietnam was the strategic position of the place between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. I see no problem with being honest about that to the general public.

To: unclewest who wrote (246823)	4/22/2008 11:38:25 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793681

I would say we lost Vietnam primarily do to inferior determination to win. The insurgency aspect had become weaker, but so had US willingness to continue the war, or even to continue to provide assistence to the South. The North, prematurely tried a conventional invasion, while we where still supporting the South but with the majority of Americans pulled out. (The Easter Offensive, or Eastertide Offensive, or Nguyen Hue Offensive). It was smashed. In 1975 the invasion force was larger, but more importantly the timing was much better. The US no longer had any will to provide any direct assistance to the South, or even to do much in the way of resupplying the South. The insurgency was largely a spent force in the 70s, and it didn't win itself. A conventional invasion won the war for the North. I don't think I'm informing you of any facts. I'm sure you already know this, maybe more about it than I do. I just don't see how the conclusion from these facts is that it was mainly an issue of superior strategy. I still say, the jury is still out on who wins these wars. That much, I can agree with.