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

Vietnam was a loss for the United States. Iraq will also be a big loss. To all who support the war I ask you this....."How will you like to eat Crow"? And You will be eating Crow.

2006-06-16 06:31:23 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

4 answers

Only crow to be eating is the crow you're eating now

2006-06-19 09:22:40 · answer #1 · answered by Best President Ever!!! 3 · 1 0

Same old question, been answered many times, after being posted before under the old K-9 name.

A statement without facts, and from a position of predjudice against the U.S military who you clearly have a grudge against.

Vietnam was entirely different, not least that it was two countries geographically divided from one post war entity and at war with each other through conventional engagements.

The U.S pulled out, the north invaded in strength, the south lost. Game over. Nothing like Iraq at all.

Notice the profile has changed and you were now in the navy as well as being a dog handler in the air force and something in Nam!!

2006-06-19 02:31:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, Vietnam was NOT a loss for the U.S.

The South Vietnamese government crumbled under attack after the Democrats in the U.S. government reneged on their promise to provide them with support once we pulled the majority of our ground forces out of the country.

The U.S. military was never defeated on the battlefield in 'Nam -- oh, sure, we had a couple of setbacks, but we always came through in the end. That's why the NVA had to wait until we left to invade.

We'll see who eats crow.

2006-06-16 14:19:55 · answer #3 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0 0

Republicans keep trying to re-fight Vietnam all the time. It was a loser then. It's a loser now.

They can't even define "victory" for this one.

I amend my remarks to say that the US military was victorious in every major battlefield engagement in Vietnam. The problem wasn't with the grunts in the field. It was the strategy emplyed by the White House and the top brass. Had they followed the plan advocated by Gen. Krulak and the Marines, they might have won the hearts and minds of the populace and then, who knows? Fighting a war of body counts and attrition was the wrong strategy to use against a determined adversary. I meant no disrespect to the guys who did the fighting. Their leaders let them down. Thanks, fellows.

2006-06-16 13:35:38 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. October 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers