Question - New England Patriots Forums

All_Around_Brown · 07-27-2006, 05:02 PM

I heard something on the radio today that got me to thinking. It was said that the US govt officially acknowledged that Vietnam was unwinnable as early as 1968, but refused to do anything about it for political purposes.

At that time, there were 25,000 KIA. By the time we reached the political end game, an additional 30,000 were killed over there.

Does anyone know if theres any truth to that?

Seems relevant since Bush conceded that the War on Terror is not winnable, what the hell are we still in Iraq for? Simply goading Iran and Syria??

***IcyPatriot*** · 07-27-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

I heard something on the radio today that got me to thinking. It was said that the US govt officially acknowledged that Vietnam was unwinnable as early as 1968, but refused to do anything about it for political purposes.

At that time, there were 25,000 KIA. By the time we reached the political end game, an additional 30,000 were killed over there.

Does anyone know if theres any truth to that?

Seems relevant since Bush conceded that the War on Terror is not winnable, what the hell are we still in Iraq for? Simply goading Iran and Syria??

We've been making plans to Invade Iran for at least 5 years.
A move sure to deal a blow to Russia...a bad move if ever there was one.

Mainefan · 07-27-2006, 05:23 PM

All Around Brown, you are correct. In the Pentagon Papers, LBJ and McNamara agreed in 1968 that the war was unwinnable. This was probably a factor in LBJ's decision not to run again.

However, this was NOT what LBJ and McNamara told the American public. In public, we were always making progress, getting things under control, on the verge of victory, etc. If you substituted the word "Iraq" for "Vietnam" in LBJ's speeches, you'd think you were listening to George Bush.

I don't think Bush has exactly said that the War on Terror is unwinnable. He's said that it will go on for many years, that it's very hard, etc. Anyhow, the War on Terror is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic used by Islamic fanatics. The war is against the fanatics.

***PATSNUTme*** · 07-27-2006, 05:23 PM

Bush never conceded that the WOT was unwinnable. He did say it would go on long after he is out of office. Anyone with a little common sense would know that anyway.

How do you take an honest appraisal and twist it like a pretzel?

***PATSNUTme*** · 07-27-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”

George W. Bush
NBC's Tonight Show
August 30, 2004
Via Associated Press...

THAT is a ver batum QUOTE from George W. Bush.

He also said he doesnt think much about Bin Laden.

Probably not until the next time his family has the Bin Laden family over for a July 4th cookout.

If he doesnt think about Bin Laden, if he withdrew our troops (the majority of them) from going after Al Quaeda, the TERRORIST GROUP who attacked us, and if he decided to go into Iraq to get Saddam Hussein, who DID NOT ATTACK US, exactly how is he fighting the WOT and what the hell are our men, and women, in Iraq being killed for?

I will tell you what they are being killed for...for the personal vendetta and lthe personal agenda of a simple minded fool who put them there to satisfy his long standing desire to get Saddam Hussein, thats what they are dying for...

And more will die until people like you wake up and face the truth.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5865710/

Now leave me alone. There's too much football stuff happening tonight.