US State Department Stirring It Up With Iran...

#476
#476
RDU VOL#14 said:
Agreed that a skirmish could lead to a larger engagement, but we fought Vietnam with one hand tied behind our back as walking on egg shells trying not to piss off the Soviets. He talks about Iraq 2003 which was a massive intelligence failure, but we went for the jugular right away, not the same, but people always wanted the comparison. The lessons learned from those previous Wars are not lost on people in the Pentagon or in the intelligence services.

People use Vietnam as a rallying cry just like they think the Right war mongers by warning about security concerns. They both are very excessive .
Click to expand...
Why were we there in the first place?
 
#478
#478
RDU VOL#14 said:
I think there are a lot different opinions on that. I don’t think I feel like giving a broad brush essay answer about why we went to war in the first place. Especially one I’m sure you already have your own opinion decided upon.
Click to expand...
It was basically "containment" i.e. to check the spread of communism in SE Asia... didn't want Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand to go the way of N Korea. And the USA's strategy of gradual escalation was calibrated as much towards not upsetting the ChiComms as it was the Soviets.
 
#479
#479
RavinDave said:
It was basically "containment" i.e. to check the spread of communism in SE Asia... didn't want Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand to go the way of N Korea. And the USA's strategy of gradual escalation was calibrated as much towards not upsetting the ChiComms as it was the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Well, I could go that route and kind of make that the main argument, but Ras being somewhat a defender of the Russians I just didn’t feel like it . That was way before my time, but the whole mindset of Communism and the fear of the stranglehold in Southeast Asia was at the heart of it. I guess it’s easy for everyone to Monday Morning Quarterback policy failures and objectives when it comes to our Wars. The only positive is to take away what you can until the next crazy threat presents itself and try not to f it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#480
#480
RDU VOL#14 said:
Well, I could go that route and kind of make that the main argument, but Ras being somewhat a defender of the Russians I just didn’t feel like it . That was way before my time, but the whole mindset of Communism and the fear of the stranglehold in Southeast Asia was at the heart of it. I guess it’s easy for everyone to Monday Morning Quarterback policy failures and objectives when it comes to our Wars. The only positive is to take away what you can until the next crazy threat presents itself and try not to f it up.
Click to expand...
Wars I hope we can avoid better than in the past, but if we got to wage war, best to go all out and make it a short one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#481
#481
RavinDave said:
It was basically "containment" i.e. to check the spread of communism in SE Asia... didn't want Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand to go the way of N Korea. And the USA's strategy of gradual escalation was calibrated as much towards not upsetting the ChiComms as it was the Soviets.
Click to expand...
We had a presence in Vietnam going back to the mid-1940s with the OSS. Ho Chi Minh was begging us to get the French out of the area. He had no choice afterwards but to get help from the Soviets and Chinese. So, if they were serious about fighting communism, they would have backed HCM from the very beginning.

Vietnam was simply a way for the military industrial complex to sell more weapons and in order to stay in business, they needed war. A short, abbreviated campaign in Vietnam was not good for the bottom line.
 
#482
#482
Rasputin_Vol said:
We had a presence in Vietnam going back to the mid-1940s with the OSS. Ho Chi Minh was begging us to get the French out of the area. He had no choice afterwards but to get help from the Soviets and Chinese. So, if they were serious about fighting communism, they would have backed HCM from the very beginning.

Vietnam was simply a way for the military industrial complex to sell more weapons and in order to stay in business, they needed war. A short, abbreviated campaign in Vietnam was not good for the bottom line.
Click to expand...
You go back before Eisenhower, ok. But “contain communism” was JFK’s credo and he brought in McNamara to run Defense who micromanaged the escalation but lost faith in the cause. Meanwhile as you rightly point out the MIlitary Industrial Complex prospered and had no wish to see it end.
 
#483
#483
RavinDave said:
You go back before Eisenhower, ok. But “contain communism” was JFK’s credo and he brought in McNamara to run Defense who micromanaged the escalation but lost faith in the cause. Meanwhile as you rightly point out the MIlitary Industrial Complex prospered and had no wish to see it end.
Click to expand...
JFK had also ordered the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam before his assassination. After his death, LBJ rescinded that order. We never should have been there because we were unwilling to do what was necessary to win. If you're not fighting to win, you're going to lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14 and Rasputin_Vol
#484
#484
Weezer said:
JFK had also ordered the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam before his assassination. After his death, LBJ rescinded that order. We never should have been there because we were unwilling to do what was necessary to win. If you're not fighting to win, you're going to lose.
Click to expand...
Yes, had JFK not been assassinated there’s a good chance the war winds down instead. And I agree with your last point. If we have to wage war, we should do it by the Powell doctrine.
 
#487
#487
#490
#490
lawgator1 said:
Does he really think this is the way to de-escalate? Threatening to obliterate them?

I don't get it. Call off the strike because 150 ppl will die, then promise to obliterate them. He's all over the map.
Click to expand...

Threatened retaliation, to be clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#491
#491
lawgator1 said:
Does he really think this is the way to de-escalate? Threatening to obliterate them?

I don't get it. Call off the strike because 150 ppl will die, then promise to obliterate them. He's all over the map.
Click to expand...
I think it best to send a plane load of cash. It may of been their money per say but were we ever reimbursed or have restitution for the embassy, hostages, barracks and tower bombings and deaths? Your boy tried to bribe them with money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and marcusluvsvols
#492
#492
lawgator1 said:
Does he really think this is the way to de-escalate? Threatening to obliterate them?

I don't get it. Call off the strike because 150 ppl will die, then promise to obliterate them. He's all over the map.
Click to expand...
Don't worry LG, He's got this. Trust me.:)
 
#493
#493
Orangeburst65 said:
I think it best to send a plane load of cash. It may of been their money per say but were we ever reimbursed or have restitution for the embassy, hostages, barracks and tower bombings and deaths? Your boy tried to bribe them with money.
Click to expand...


It got them to agree not to build nukes. By all accounts was working, too.

But I get it. The black guy screwed it up theory. You ride that one trick pony for all it's worth.
 
#495
#495
lawgator1 said:
It got them to agree not to build nukes. By all accounts was working, too.

But I get it. The black guy screwed it up theory. You ride that one trick pony for all it's worth.
Click to expand...

Got them to agree.

But did they honor the agreement which we bought?
 
#496
#496
stg062519dAPR20190625034508.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#498
#498
#499
#499
37L1 said:
Reported by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Intelligence Service and then there is this from the article despite the headline:

Iran is yet to name the side responsible for the supposed assassination attempt.

Even though they arrested the "supposed" people responsible.

And it reportedly happened the first week of September.

Nice, Ras.
Click to expand...

Really not sure what you are driving at here. They haven't named a side yet, so now that represents a hole in the story???
 
#500
#500
Rasputin_Vol said:
Really not sure what you are driving at here. They haven't named a side yet, so now that represents a hole in the story???
Click to expand...
You aren't that dense, maybe it's because it's early? Interesting, what it possibly says about who and what you believe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top