[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That is not what the United States was doing in Vietnam, as you well know. And there was no mention of the US losing the war before this post; I mentioned a theory that the US could've won the war if they had "lasted three more days," according to Kevin. Don't create straw-man arguments to make your tired old irrelevant points here.

Please see this thread for a humorous look at the debate we're talking about. And look, it talks about a possible new option for Iraq. Surprising you didn't post. [/sarcasm]

I have found a doctoral dissertation which is a history buff's treasure chest of summaries and which helps dispel some of your notions and is consistent with what Kevin and I and others have been trying to tell you all along:

"The communists had won on the floors of the US Congress, what they could not possibly have won on the battlefields of Vietnam."

It's much too detailed and lengthy to post here but anyone who has five minutes will get the drift.

Vietnam: Looking Back - At The Facts

The bottom line is that if we NEVER LOST ONE BATTLE IN VIET NAM but the people (like you, perhaps?) forced us to abandon VietNam when it could have been won, what have the sickening Iraqi War protests done to contribute to the situation there today?

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

NEVER LOST ONE BATTLE IN VIET NAM

I'm about to read this but I want to do a "Carnac" and guess the problem with this dissertation is going to be the way it determines victory conditions.

Winning battles were not the victory conditions for the VC. Not so much with the North, but one should note their unwillingness to enter bona-fide battles.

I'll get back and see how my predictions did.

Edit: White type on a black background. Myyy eyesss, it burnnssss ussss!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

yes, I said exactly that.

Seems a lot of folks want to make a distinction between civilian and soldier. As if there's some huge discernable difference. In reality, there is no difference. The so-called 'civilians' are wholly responsible for the existence of the military. You can go from civilian to soldier without even trying - simply by checking your mail and opening the draft notice.

"But, Spliff, the soldiers are paid to do their job."

Yeah, and your civilian ass is paying the salary. And buying or building the weapons they use and the food they eat.

And international commerce provides much of that money. So I guess your average Japanese citizen is just as much a U.S. soldier as a Marine getting shot right now in Iraq, right? Because absolutely any vague connection to the military makes a person a soldier these days, apparently.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm about to read this but I want to do a "Carnac" and guess the problem with this dissertation is going to be the way it determines victory conditions.

Winning battles were not the victory conditions for the VC. Not so much with the North, but one should note their unwillingness to enter bona-fide battles.

I'll get back and see how my predictions did.

Edit: White type on a black background. Myyy eyesss, it burnnssss ussss!

I hate the fact that people don't realize that white type on a dark background really discourages reading. It's a fact.

Try this: "select all - copy - open textedit - paste"

[Chuckit]

White type on a dark background is easier to read. Freakin white backgrounds burn my eyes after a while, while dark backgrounds don't really.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

I have found a doctoral dissertation which is a history buff's treasure chest of summaries and which helps dispel some of your notions and is consistent with what Kevin and I and others have been trying to tell you all along:

The bottom line is that if we NEVER LOST ONE BATTLE IN VIET NAM but the people (like you, perhaps?) forced us to abandon VietNam when it could have been won, what have the sickening Iraqi War protests done to contribute to the situation there today?

I study history in school, and in particular the history of modern warfare has caught my interest. Whoever reliable your article is (and no, I won't have to time to read it), on my shelf I have two books about Vietnam that I've read, both by leading war historians (which I would be surprised if your writer is, if it's a doctoral dissertation). In another words, I know a little about Vietnam, and about warfare in particular.

You, however, do not seem to know too much. For example, your comment in capitals above seems to imply that you've never heard of the old phrase "won the battle but lost the war." It's not just a one-liner, you know. If you think warfare is just about the battlefield, then you're ignorant about warfare.

Have you ever heard of the great German leader Otto von Bismarck, after whom the infamous ship was named? He was won of the great modern statesmen, who understood that "war was an extension of policy by other means." He aimed for what was achievable, but also understood when it was time to leave the table. As a result, he consolidated various European states into the great German state of the 20th century. You can contrast him to his brilliant general, Helmut von Moltke, who while kicking ass all over the place was unable to discern the political constraints that must bind all military operations. As a result, his ideas were a major force in leading Germany's generals into two failed world wars in the next century (see for example: the Schlieffen Plan in the Great War, and why it just didn't make political sense).

Nevertheless, your argument about what could have been done in Vietnam – and how that applies to Iraq today – is, as I already stated, irrelevant to this thread, and derailing it to boot. If you wish to discuss Vietnam or Korea and their relevance to Iraq today, and have me show you how illogical and inane your arguments are, you can do so in the thread I linked to above – which talks about those very issues. And which you didn't post in, I might add. Odd, how that works.

greg

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

"The communists had won on the floors of the US Congress, what they could not possibly have won on the battlefields of Vietnam."

I always knew Nixon was a Commy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I always knew Nixon was a Commy.

You like being thought silly?

[subego]

Okay, I'm about 2/5ths through.

I was worried that my prediction would force me to see things that weren't really there, but the way he's treating things makes the flaw in his thinking pretty obvious.

His introduction lists all those examples of the "in WW II we accidentally smoked our own Generals, no Generals were accidentally smoked in Vietnam" variety. These examples, especially the ones that compare our military successes in Vietnam favorably with our successes in other wars, are acting as if victory conditions exist in a vacuum. You can't just fulfill your victory conditions, you have to deny the enemy theirs.

From a little further on...

Originally Posted by Dr. Sears

In the words of General Dave Palmer, though the communists were to suffer “…thirty thousand dead in the first ten days of the Tet offensive—none would achieve as much as the twenty who blew a hole in the embassy wall and survived inside for four hours.”

As one US observer noted “The Americans might not understand the power of television propaganda, but the enemy sure as hell did.”

"We should have stayed in Vietnam because we never lost a battle" should read "We should have stayed in Vietnam despite our inability to deny victory to the enemy". A far more equivocal statement.

Your enemy's victory conditions are more important and useful as a barometer of success than your own. In fact, without a thorough understanding of your enemy's victory conditions, victory is impossible.

Edit: interesting article though. I learned things I didn't know.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

You like being thought silly?

I'm... not sure you understand. Try a history class or two.

[subego]

Awesome moddination!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The other thing I have to just point out is that marden's thread is of course off-topic from the original post. It started off talking about whether Vietnam could've been won in three more days, and now has mutated to whether Vietnam could've been won. Very different, I'll point out.

greg

[Chuckit]

On the course we were taking, Vietnam wasn't really winnable because we weren't willing even to try. We were like a kid skating through school on C grades hoping to get on the Dean's List.

[OreoCookie]

I think the text just shows once more the emotional trauma caused by the Vietnam War and that the war was lost. I've talked to a few veterans and none of them claimed victory (I'm not claiming, these select individuals represent a cross-section of former US soldiers).

The war was lost, because there was a lack of clear goals as a mean to measure success. It is a duty of the proponents of military action to supply clear, achievable and bite-sized goals. That's why the War On Terror and Iraq will fail unless such a clear check-list of realistic short-term goals is made public.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The other thing I have to just point out is that marden's thread is of course off-topic from the original post. It started off talking about whether Vietnam could've been won in three more days, and now has mutated to whether Vietnam could've been won. Very different, I'll point out.

greg

Your obsession with an irrelevant difference between three days and three years reminds me of this joke.

Did You Hear the One About the Talking Dog?
A funny dog joke, sent to me by several friends (who makes these things up, anyway? I once read that all jokes start on Wall Street, but that might only refer to my portfolio....)

A guy is driving around Tennessee and he sees a sign in front of a house: "Talking Dog for Sale." He rings the bell and the owner tells him the dog is in the backyard. The guy goes into the backyard and sees a Labrador retriever sitting there.

"You talk?" he asks.

"Yep," the Lab replies.

"So, what's your story?"

The Lab says, "Well, I discovered that I could talk when I was pretty young. I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA about my gift, and in no time at all they had me jetting from country to country, sitting in rooms with spies and world leaders, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping. I was one of their most valuable spies for eight years running."

"But the jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn't getting any younger so I decided to settle down. I signed up for a job at the airport to do some undercover security wandering near suspicious characters and listening in. I uncovered some incredible dealings and was awarded a batch of medals. I got married, had a mess of puppies, and now I'm just retired.''

The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants for the dog.

"Ten dollars," the guy says.

"Ten dollars? This dog is amazing. Why on earth are you selling
him so cheap?''

"Because he's a liar. He never did any of that s---.''

The point is that it COULD have been won.

Let's get some perspective, greg.

[Uncle Skeleton]

There's a non-zero possibility that it could have been won, given infinite time and resources? Yeah, one of you needs to get some perspective.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There's a non-zero possibility that it could have been won, given infinite time and resources? Yeah, one of you needs to get some perspective.

Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see

Strawberry Fields Forever
The Beatles

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Your obsession with an irrelevant difference between three days and three years reminds me of this joke.

The irrelevant difference between three days and three years?!? Well, one almost defines a weekend, while the other almost covers a Presidency, for starters.

What's irrelevant is amusing jokes about dogs that I don't have time to bother reading. I've already responded about your lack of military knowledge, and your lack of recognition that a war consists of both military and political maneuvering. I already responded that I've talked about Vietnam in another thread, which you once again decided to ignore in favour of creating an entirely new one, and apparently wish me to re-post everything again (which won't happen).

That you continue to not respond to any of these arguments in anything closely resembling a coherent fashion, or without simply posting some quote you read online, only emphasizes how much trolling you're doing in this thread.

The point is that it COULD have been won.

Let's get some perspective, greg.

The circular reasoning in this argument is again the same as I pointed out in the original thread on Vietnam's "three days" that I asked you to respond in. It's a stupid argument. Anything could be won. If America had nuked North Vietnam, it would've "won." If Hitler hadn't idiotically attacked Russia, he very well may have "won." If Napoleon hadn't tried the same trick, he might have "won."

Saying "if we'd stayed in Vietnam we would've won" is the rough equivalent of saying "the only way we'll lose Iraq is if we leave." Circular reasoning. It doesn't make sense. Just like Korea and Vietnam, there's no definition of victory, and there's little knowledge of how to stop an enemy who doesn't need victory to win – who only needs to not lose. The parallels between the three are quite eerie. Either way, your quote conveniently ignores the fact that at that point it was a Thirty Year War. At that point, something has gone horrible wrong.

As it was, America committed war atrocities and, by any definition, war crimes in their efforts to stop "Charlie." In the previous thread I already asked Kevin whether he supported the continued destruction of North Vietnam by relatively indiscriminate "carpet bombing" and chemical warfare, but got no reply. Likewise, you don't seem to have much chagrin for making North Vietnam look like "the surface of a brown moon" for a cause as historically unimportant as "stopping communism"....

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The irrelevant difference between three days and three years?!? Well, one almost defines a weekend, while the other almost covers a Presidency, for starters.

What's irrelevant is amusing jokes about dogs that I don't have time to bother reading. I've already responded about your lack of military knowledge, and your lack of recognition that a war consists of both military and political maneuvering. I already responded that I've talked about Vietnam in another thread, which you once again decided to ignore in favour of creating an entirely new one, and apparently wish me to re-post everything again (which won't happen).

That you continue to not respond to any of these arguments in anything closely resembling a coherent fashion, or without simply posting some quote you read online, only emphasizes how much trolling you're doing in this thread.



The circular reasoning in this argument is again the same as I pointed out in the original thread on Vietnam's "three days" that I asked you to respond in. It's a stupid argument. Anything could be won. If America had nuked North Vietnam, it would've "won." If Hitler hadn't idiotically attacked Russia, he very well may have "won." If Napoleon hadn't tried the same trick, he might have "won."

Saying "if we'd stayed in Vietnam we would've won" is the rough equivalent of saying "the only way we'll lose Iraq is if we leave." Circular reasoning. It doesn't make sense. Just like Korea and Vietnam, there's no definition of victory, and there's little knowledge of how to stop an enemy who doesn't need victory to win – who only needs to not lose. The parallels between the three are quite eerie. Either way, your quote conveniently ignores the fact that at that point it was a Thirty Year War. At that point, something has gone horrible wrong.

As it was, America committed war atrocities and, by any definition, war crimes in their efforts to stop "Charlie." In the previous thread I already asked Kevin whether he supported the continued destruction of North Vietnam by relatively indiscriminate "carpet bombing" and chemical warfare, but got no reply. Likewise, you don't seem to have much chagrin for making North Vietnam look like "the surface of a brown moon" for a cause as historically unimportant as "stopping communism"....

greg

Oh but dog jokes are VERY relevant here.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Blah blah blah blah...VietNam. Blah, blah, VietNam. Blah, blah, blah blah, Viet NAM! Blah, blah blah...

[Nicko]

Marden, you really need to work on your material. Perhaps a new personality?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Marden, you really need to work on your material. Perhaps a new personality?

I guess you haven't a Mardenshrine in your home or office?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

<snip pretentious condescending banter>

Come on short. If you are going to attack him, atleast read the article and talk about it.

Your post was nothing but one big ad-hominem.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

STFU Kevin. Marden hasn't said one word about his own article. Stop being a pathetic troll.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

STFU Kevin. Marden hasn't said one word about his own article. Stop being a pathetic troll.

greg

Hey greg that's kinda rude, don't you think?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And, in a moment of wonderful timing and coincidence with the original thread on Fareed Zakaria's opinion of an Iraq strategy, comes his newest article: The Next Step? Think Vietnam.

Once again, he does not advocate his earlier positions of putting more troops on the ground in Iraq. He is advocating a pullout for an army that, as in Vietnam, "could not achieve its objectives." He notes that there can really be no objections to the fact that Iraq is now in the midst of at least a low-grade civil war, and that both sides refuse to cooperate because they are jockeying for position in the event of the inevitable power vacuum once the US leaves.

Obvious question: should the US then just stay in Iraq? One might think that, eventually, both these fractions would realize that there won't be a power vacuum, and learn to cooperate.

Obvious questions #2-on: can the US then just stay in Iraq, when they seem to be the only common target between two bitter enemies? If the Iraqi government increasingly refuses to cooperate with them, should they break the "democracy" they helped set up in order to install a more cooperative regime? Will the Iraqi people, or the American people, or international pressure, allow the US to do this? Does the US Army have the political backing, and the American president and constituents the political will, to keep troops on the ground in the face of increasing hostilities?

greg

Originally Posted by Zakaria

If you want to understand the futility of America's current situation in Iraq, last week provided a vivid microcosm. On Thursday, just hours before a series of car bombs killed more than 200 people in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City, Sunni militants attacked the Ministry of Health, which is run by one of Moqtada al-Sadr's followers. Within a couple of hours, American units arrived at the scene and chased off the attackers. The next day, Sadr's men began reprisals against Sunnis, firing RPGs at several mosques. When U.S. forces tried to stop the carnage and restore order, goons from Sadr's Mahdi Army began firing on American helicopters. In other words, one day the U.S. Army was defending Sadr's militia and, the next day, was attacked by it. We're in the middle of a civil war and are being shot at by both sides.


There can be no more doubt that Iraq is in a civil war, in which leaders of both its main communities, Sunnis and Shiites, are fomenting violence. The assault on Sadr's Ministry of Health was likely retaliation for a recent mass kidnapping at the Ministry of Education, which still retains some Sunnis. The Ministry of the Interior houses the deadliest killers from the Badr Brigades, the other large Shiite militia. Badr's Bayan Jabr built the death squads when he ran the ministry; he's now Iraq's Finance minister, in charge of its resources. This is the Iraqi government we are protecting, funding and attempting to strengthen. To speak, as the White House deputy press secretary did last week, of "terrorists ... targeting innocents in a brazen effort to topple a democratically elected government" totally misses the reality of Iraq today. Who are the terrorists and who are the innocents?
...
To the contrary, both sides now see American troops as the problem. The Shiite ruling coalition and the Sunni insurgency both believe that if only the United States were to get out of the way, they could defeat their enemies outright. That's why, in the most recent poll of Iraqis, taken in September, 91 percent of Sunnis and 74 percent of Shiites said they wanted American forces to leave within a year.
...
With a losing hand and deteriorating conditions on the ground, Kissinger maneuvered to extricate the United States from a situation in which it could not achieve its objectives, while at the same time limiting the damage, shoring up regional allies and maintaining some measure of American credibility. A version of such a strategy is the only one that has any chance of success in Iraq today.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hey greg that's kinda rude, don't you think?

Absolutely. So is Kevin's constant whining about whether people are being rude to, or "ad-hominizing," other people besides himself. It's none of his business, and it inevitably descends a thread into back-and-forth bickering about who did what to whom first.

Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned it's just an easy way to not talk about the argument at hand. If he wants to add something constructive to this thread, he can start talking about his "Vietnam could've been won in three days" belief that started this thread.

Otherwise, he can suffer my rudeness. But I'm sure it won't be in silence. And I'm just as sure it won't be by responding to my argument.

For that matter, I love how you've started a thread about a topic I suggested, and now refuse to discuss that topic. Very clever.

greg

[xi_hyperon]

shortcut comes up with valid questions and points relevant to the topic, and you guys respond with cartoons, song lyrics and accusations. You are utterly brilliant. I would be interested to hear genuine responses instead. Got any?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

should they break the "democracy" they helped set up in order to install a more cooperative regime?

Was I the only one who thought in the beginning we were just going to install our own ruthless dictator?

For me, not doing this, and actually stopping talks with NK instead of just saying we were going to stop talks are the two real head-scratchers of this administration.

[itai195]

This is a new twist. For years you people have said Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Now that you can't really ignore the comparisons, you're claiming Vietnam was winnable. How much further can you go in defense of this war...

[subego]

Originally Posted by itai195 

This is a new twist. For years you people have said Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Now that you can't really ignore the comparisons, you're claiming Vietnam was winnable. How much further can you go in defense of this war...

I have been putting forth the idea that if the left is "Vietnaming" the war in Iraq with their bad attitude, that maybe Bush should take blame for not anticipating this and perhaps treating the left like he wanted something from them rather than a red-headed stepchild.

Needless to say, this idea is encountering great resistance.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195 

This is a new twist. For years you people have said Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Now that you can't really ignore the comparisons, you're claiming Vietnam was winnable. How much further can you go in defense of this war...

Iran has nothing in common with Hiroshima or Nagasaki unless we introduce a factor which makes them similar.

Namely a nuclear detonation.

If you take two seemingly dissimilar things, places, events but introduce a factor which MAKES them similar then there is a similarity where none existed before.

OK?

Now, Iraq was nothing like Vietnam until one factor was introduced to the iraq war that was an important aspect of the Vietnam war...

Domestic protests and the manipulation of the American public through the media.

By protesting the Vietnam War the enemy gained encouragement and momentum and the American people lost it's will to win. Once we lost the will to win the funds were eventually cut and the war ended ignominiously.

The invasion and the war in Iraq were different than the war in Vietnam UNTIL the protests started increasing in size and number and frequency and war opposition became a sport with no outward pricetag, despite the fact that the conservatives never stopped trying to warn you guys of the danger.

Then the protests were seen by the jihadists and terrorists and it encouraged them to fight harder and longer with the assurance that, like in Vietnam, America would eventually lose it's will to win. Or even to fight at all. The only thing needed was for the media to blow up the explosion here or the rare atrocity there out of proportion and make it look like we were losing and we were doing terrible things there and before long the majority of people in America would begin to criticize the President and sue for peace and a pull out.

And that's exactly what happened.

Iraq WAS different than Vietnam.

Until you guys made them similar.

Congratulations.

[Dakar²]

How did we make it similar?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have been putting forth the idea that if the left is "Vietnaming" the war in Iraq with their bad attitude, that maybe Bush should take blame for not anticipating this and perhaps treating the left like he wanted something from them rather than a red-headed stepchild.

Needless to say, this idea is encountering great resistance.

Blame, blame, blame.

Is that a natural reaction in all liberals? I think it is.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

How did we make it similar?

Protests and criticizing the President so viciously. al Qaeda knew to use the tenor of the protests as a gauge of American public opinion.

Look at my sig, below talking about North Vietnamese General Giap.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Uhhhh...you're blaming the liberals in your previous post.

greg

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by marden 

Protests and criticizing the President so viciously.

And how did that stop him from winning the war?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uhhhh...you're blaming the liberals in your previous post.

greg

...It was so obvious I couldn't even bother to point it out.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And, once again, you're completely ignoring my point on war as a function of military and political maneuvering.

They go hand in hand. Successful warfare – like the Prussian amalgamation of Germany I talked about – combines both elements.

Vietnam did not.

Is Iraq "successful"?

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

And how did that stop him from winning the war?

I was just gigged for posting the whole article here. After having explained the whole argument in the thread I thought your question was needless. So I believed that by rolling out the whole article as a way of answering your question would make an obvious statement.

Dakar & /or greg, for reporting me and getting OreoCookie to give me an infraction I will no longer entertain your posts.

From now on please do not expect any responses from me.

[Dakar²]

How about you summarize to a paragraph the thesis.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uhhhh...you're blaming the liberals in your previous post.

greg

He asked, I answered. I didn't look for an opportunity to blame. I gave the reason that the two wars were similar.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

How about you summarize to a paragraph the thesis.

SIGH! Read my sig.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You know, I'm seriously considering starting a Feedback thread requesting some changes to the quotation system. It seems sad, but this is all you get with this guy.

I wonder if it would be possible to implement something like that? Say, maximum of 10 lines per quote, and 5 quotations per post? And have a Forum Rule of no quote-posting entire articles? It seems draconian to think of it, but abemardeneen's method of quote-posting entire articles instead of actually saying anything is nothing short of spam.

greg

[Dakar²]

OK. So how did that actually prevent Bush from doing the right moves in Iraq?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You know, I'm seriously considering starting a Feedback thread requesting some changes to the quotation system. It seems sad, but this is all you get with this guy.

I wonder if it would be possible to implement something like that? Say, maximum of 10 lines per quote, and 5 quotations per post? And have a Forum Rule of no quote-posting entire articles? It seems draconian to think of it, but abemardeneen's method of quote-posting entire articles instead of actually saying anything is nothing short of spam.

greg

Well they just revised the posting rule to include on snippets of articles, but as far as I understand that for starting new threads. If I were you bring it up in the Feedback area. There's a topic already dealing with it basically.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, just reading that. Thanks.

greg

[Kevin]

You know if I didn't like people constantly bagering me about launching personal attacks, I might stop the personal attacks.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Blame, blame, blame.

Is that a natural reaction in all liberals? I think it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you just blame the liberals for blaming?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You know if I didn't like people constantly bagering me about launching personal attacks, I might stop the personal attacks.

So...you enjoy flamebaiting. Glad to see you finally admit it.

greg

[Kevin]

Asking people to stop personally attacking other people is hardly flame-baiting.

And you are still doing it.