Vietnam: Was it 'winable'?
|
Vietnam: Was it 'winable'?
|
12-28-2019, 06:07 PM
The war was definitely winnable. The American objective was not to win but to perpetuate the war machine. A lot of young men gave their lives in a war the politicians were not committed to win. One Nagasaki sized nuke on Hanoi would have ended the war. The threat of escalation was real but the question was is it winnable. Sometimes you lose more when you win than when you lose.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Messages In This Thread |
|
Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Bengalzona - 12-21-2019, 01:53 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - fredtoast - 12-23-2019, 11:47 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - sandwedge - 12-24-2019, 01:53 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 12-28-2019, 04:38 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Synric - 12-28-2019, 05:29 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Catmandude123 - 12-28-2019, 06:07 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 12-31-2019, 02:21 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - jfkbengals - 01-05-2020, 02:20 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Catmandude123 - 01-05-2020, 02:28 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - jfkbengals - 01-05-2020, 03:14 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Bengalzona - 01-05-2020, 08:12 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 01-15-2020, 03:31 AM
|
