English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

You can bomb here,,,,you cant bomb there,,,you cant fly there,,you cant go into cambodia etc etc. Thats just a set up for failure.

2006-06-11 12:35:57 · 19 answers · asked by Starchild 2 in Politics & Government Military

19 answers

Its the liberal way to loose a war.

2006-06-11 12:57:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is a classic example of why politicians should move aside once war is declared. Did the world learn nothing from the demise of the third Reich? Hitler insisted on interfering with military strategy, and this eventually cost the nazi's the war..

Starting a war should have the same rules as that of a street cop raising his weapon, if you make any kind of aggresive move towards that cop, he will shoot you dead.

Politicians determine when to go to war and if it's important enough to go to war, it sould also be determined that it will be won at all costs. How, is up to the military minds, without interference from the civilian government. If a politician want a nice war with certain parameters, then he better get his as*s back to the negotiating table because he's not ready for war.

LBJ was a terrible president and leader. Westmoreland was a spineless general that allowed the civilian white house to call the shots. He let the war slip away when he had the enemy on its knees, following Tet. Johnson had already given up, and Westmoreland didn't have the courage to go it alone with the troops he had, to get the job done.

Shame on civilian governments that start wars and then ask their troops to fight with one arm behind their backs. We did it in Korea. We did it in Vietnam. And, we are doing it in Iraq.

This goddamn war would have been over a long time ago if we had closed those borders. Granted, it would have taken more troops. Instead, this meely mouthed (Donald Rumsfeld) politicians didn't want to piss off the voters by asking for what was needed. Rather, he chooses to prolong the war, exposing our troops to unreasonable danger, instead of listening to his generals. Goddamn Rumsfeld, that low life son of a *****. If that sorry bastard had a son or grandson in this ******* war, do you honestly believe he would be running it the same way? I don't believe that he would! I think it's time they got that old derelict out of the pentagon. We need fresh blood. Oh yes, we need to win, at all costs we need to win. And if we need to cross Syria, Iran or Pakistans borders in order to make it happen, so be it!

2006-06-11 20:10:59 · answer #2 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0 0

Yes, it was a set-up for failure. But in Washington, D.C. at the time, it was not a 'war'. It was a police action. I had hoped that the U.S. had learned something from that time, but it appears our leadership is making the same mistake. Iraq is Arabic for Viet Nam. Also, the generals wanted to be able to fight the war the way they were trained. The Politicians would not let them fight without restrictions, and public opinion was very vocal. This was the first war where we could actually see the battlefield in our living rooms.

2006-06-11 19:41:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think it was the beginning of political correctness, he didn't want to piss off the rest of the world. Vietnam started during the Eisenhower era when we sent advisers to help the Vietnamese form an army to combat the Viet Cong. Johnson escalated our part of it little by little until it became full fledged combat. I think that the generals in charge of it, thought we could win with limited engagement and until the tet offensive that was the case.

2006-06-11 19:42:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

they were bringing drugs into the country with the military. they didn't want to bomb they're own dealers. if the war stopped how would they explain all the troops over there to move the drugs. once Johnson was out and new leaders in, we changed our direction for the war....

2006-06-11 19:42:32 · answer #5 · answered by truthteller 5 · 0 0

He wanted to prolong the war. He and his croonies made a lot of money during the war. I was in Vietman and wished we could have blown the crap out of the whole Southeast area.

2006-06-11 19:40:01 · answer #6 · answered by buckeye1943 1 · 0 0

becuse it was a pulitacal war and we wernt actuly at war we were on a peace keeping mission thats why we could not crosse the border and we are still to this day in a peace keeping mission at this very moment we have truops in south kirea ready to fight at a moments notisy

2006-06-11 19:43:11 · answer #7 · answered by promask101 1 · 0 0

These arrogant elitists thought were so much smarter than the people that were actually fighting the war and did not trust anyone else.

2006-06-11 19:46:16 · answer #8 · answered by distill80 3 · 0 0

Because the idiots did not want us to win the war. Militarily, we won the war.

2006-06-11 19:38:46 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0 0

the set up for failure was the reason we went in there in the first place,figure that one out?

2006-06-11 19:39:43 · answer #10 · answered by aminuts 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers