Poll: Was Vietnam 'winable'?
Yes
No
Maybe
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Vietnam: Was it 'winable'?
#4
Despite the facts as we know them today we were sold on the notion that the Vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism AS IF Vietnam could have ever been the bulwark to prevent the spread in Europe,  the Americas or anywhere other than Vietnam. I can vividly remember when S Vietnam fell many people still believing that communism was right around the corner for us all. Of course not everyone was so naive, but a lot were. 
There was never really a definition of what winning would have been other than bombing N Vietnam back to the stone age which we pretty much did anyway and despite it all we just packed up, went home and repeated the same dumb shit again in Afghanistan..only more expensive and far more corrupt. 
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"

Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.


[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote





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'? - grampahol - 12-31-2019, 02:21 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 01-15-2020, 03:31 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)