If the enemy tells you why you were defeated, wouldn't you listen?
http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp
(read the entire interview, but here is a taste)
Gen. Bui Tin: "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."
2007-03-08 17:00:49 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you are welcome to repost this
2007-03-08 17:07:38 · update #1
Okay! I read it. It was asked in biased terms of a former Viet Cong General, who has since turned his "colors".
In no place did it say that we protesters cost the lives of our own boys. It said that they saw the eventual end of the war coming...so what?? What difference would a "win" have made? What difference if Johnson had let the extra 200,000 troops go? (Just more dead as for as I can see....Or is that the point? It doesn't really matter how many die as long as we can put it in the "Win" column????)
You conveniently ignore the part about Nixon and Ford.....how very "right" of you.
2007-03-08 17:12:53 · answer #1 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
i think of the demonstration grew to become right into a pitiful attempt. there have been extra police status around doing no longer something then there have been protesters, and the protesters have been too afraid to coach their faces, little doubt because of the fact they knew their very own community might provide them a puzzling time for helping this concepts-set. It angers me that those persons are protesting against the rustic they chosen to stay in, they take exhilaration in the liberty given to them by technique of the very adult males they're calling butchers. fortunately this comparable freedom means they're unfastened to circulate away every time they want. France is in user-friendly terms a prepare holiday away, and in the event that they have a British passport they're going to have not any concern.
2016-09-30 10:24:02 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is clearly a necessary component of capitalist growth. 20th century wars have been imperialist wars, mostly of choice. And the choices are constrained by the nature of surplus value, i.e., profit. Capitalists seldom invest in war without capital gain in mind. The military industrial complex and its corporate takeover of the State must always make a profit. War does that. In the never-ending search for surplus value, capitalist enterprise manufactures new markets that require new things, and war is a huge market. Commodification continues until the ability to manufacture most goods is exported, i.e., outsourced to the cheapest labor pool. What are the unemployed and under-employed working class of then supposed to do? The capitalist has the answer: manufacture wars that require billions, and even trillions of dollars to execute and hire through an economic draft the cannon fodder to execute it. What does it matter to the capitalist how much devastation and collateral damage is created? The twentieth century offers many examples of how insignificant the working class is to the ruling elite.
2007-03-08 17:04:54 · answer #3 · answered by dstr 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
That's that one man's opinion and your excerpt mentions nothing about the effect on the enemies morale improving b/c of protests. The article has that, but this interview was conducted long after the war was over. He seems to be suffereing from a revisionist view of the war.
The fact is that England los the Revolutionary War b/c they were fighting a war far away from home with a huge supply line problem. They encountered guerilla tactics used by the enemy (us) that they couldn't deal with. The US fought a very similar war in 'Nam and didn't learn any lessons.
Now we are doing the EXACT SAME THING IN IRAQ!
2007-03-08 17:04:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 4⤋
Very good article. You won't convince any war protesters because they are delusional.
I am a Viet Nam Vet. I have been saying this very same thing as often as I can here in Y/A because it is the pure truth.
North Viet Nam sat back and laughed at us all the time because of what these idiot protesters were doing.
Just like the terrorists know all they have to do is wait and we will give up. They base it all on the protesters and laugh!
2007-03-08 17:20:33 · answer #5 · answered by Kye H 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
If I remember correctly, Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Robert Kennedy protested the Vietnam war. Was it their fault as well?
By the way, there were protesters for World Wars I and II. Can you tell me what happened in those wars? Not many people protested the Korean War. What happened with that war?
Your blame doesn't hold water...
2007-03-08 17:10:30 · answer #6 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Bullets kill soldiers. They wouldn't be exposed to bullets were the bush & the dick not greedy for the Iraqi oil.
2007-03-08 18:16:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes your right we should abandon our democracy so we can win wars.
Our soldiers being killed has nothing to do with a horrible president with one of the worst war plans in history now does it
2007-03-08 17:03:51 · answer #8 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 10⤊ 4⤋
It seems like you've constructed a nice little world to live in. Succeed? Good! Fail? It's the liberals fault. It's a wonderful world where you're always right. Shame it's not the real world.
2007-03-08 17:20:55 · answer #9 · answered by mykll42 2 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Are you really so dense as to buy into that? We've lost our democracy because people dissent? That IS democracy, for God's sake! What the heck did you think democracy was? Catering to the President's every whim would be called a dictatorship.
2007-03-08 17:03:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 6⤋