Members banned from this thread: Luther |
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
the entire war was just one big cluster$#@!.
LOL. Much of the war was fought as any war is, just as competently.
We failed, not because the "entire war was just one big cluster$#@!." We failed because we did not adequately identify positive goals against which to wage winning campaigns. Keeping the other guy from winning is not a sufficient goal.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
nathanbforrest45 (05-14-2019),Peter1469 (05-14-2019)
I was thinking of that very subject this morning. The left gave GW Bush hell for not having an "exit plan" for the Gulf Wars. And of course, dutifully we gave the left hell for that. But in retrospect they were correct. I don't know if it should be called an "exit plan" but there should be some demonstrable goal that would signify success or failure. Especially when we are not defending the homeland but some foreign soil who loss would not severely affect us over time.
This was the case of Vietnam. I can't tell you what our real goal was in Vietnam other then the stated one of "stopping the spread of communism" and avoiding "the domino effect" (which never really happened). Our win or loss in Vietnam is confusing since we don't really know what we were trying to achieve (I don't think it was putting Ho Chi Minh in power over the entire country although over the long run he certainly was a better leader than many we have supported, like Chaing Kai Shek in Taiwan or Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. I remember going into a store in Hong Kong and there was a huge banner of Mao Zedong in the store. Then we went to Taipai and in a store was a huge banner of Chaing on the wall. I wondered what was the difference between these two guys over all. They both were tyrants and ruthless.
BTW, we called Chairman Mao "Mousey Dung"
MisterVeritis (05-14-2019)
No, they win fights. Winning fighters win battles. And won battles win wars.
But frankly, I don't much care what Sun Tzu said about it. There are many things you already know that you wait for some authority figure to tell you anyway. I don't understand that, but most people do it to one degree or another.
On the other hand, some drunk in a gutter can tell them that 2+2=4 and they will reject the fact because he's a drunk.
nathanbforrest45 (05-14-2019)
Not always.
And yet you brought him into this discussion. Incorrectly, of course.But frankly, I don't much care what Sun Tzu said about it.
I believe you are thinking of Chris. I do not feel the need to quote long dead men in order to make a case.There are many things you already know that you wait for some authority figure to tell you anyway. I don't understand that, but most people do it to one degree or another.
I envision you, for some reason.On the other hand, some drunk in a gutter can tell them that 2+2=4 and they will reject the fact because he's a drunk.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
We did lose the war if we're going to use that context. Our motives weren't clean and that's how we go into trouble. Our military did it's job very well, but the scandal is we didn't have to. The scandal is Ho Chi Minh came to us first, but ambassador John Dulles informed Truman that it was a French problem. Being soft on Communism was the political threat that got us in and kept us there in the face of a war that was 20 years old when we arrived and was essentially over in the national population. It was the downfall of our credibility around the world and we've done nothing to make it any better.