Funniest Report from CPAC: Congressman Laments that "We" Didn't Murder Enough Vietnamese

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133873.html



Kill More People

Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 14, 2013 11:54 AM

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told his fellow Christian warmongers at CPAC that US aggression against Vietnam was "winnable." (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-louie-gohmert-r-tx-vietnam-was-winnable?ref=fpb)

It's not enough that the US murdered between 4 and 6 million Vietnamese (the estimation of military historian Martin Van Creveld). Then we have to add in all those bombed in Laos, and the horrors inflicted by secret US ally Pol Pot in Cambodia. Altogether, a Mt. Everest of skulls.


Ah, but I'm sure Rand set them straight and explained the Golden Rule to them:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/rand-paul-has-peaked-he-speaks-at-cpac.html

[AuH20]

Lew Rockwell is an ass. Gohmert never said "murder more Vietnamese." This is what Gohmert said:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-louie-gohmert-r-tx-vietnam-was-winnable?ref=fpb


Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), speaking at conservative gathering CPAC, declared that "Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!" "If you go to war you better mean it," Gohmert added, blaming America's failure to go to war with Iran over the capture of its embassy in 1979 for more recent attacks on embassies and consulates.

Nothing objectionable about those statements and in all likelihood, if this blueprint was followed, the war would have ended much quicker and more Vietnamese would be alive today.

[Acala]

double post

[Acala]

Vietnam was not "winnable" because the definition of "winning" there was the destruction of an idea. It is analogous to the war on terror. When the enemy is not a clearly defined physical entity - like the German army - but is instead an idea or a tactic or a religion, there is no winning short of absolute scortched earth genocide.

Anyone who thinks that capturing Hanoi would have ushered in an era of peace in Vietnam is fooling themselves. It is nothing but a bunch of blamestorming by people who can't accept that we made a mistake.

And are you really suggesting that we should have invaded Iran when they captured our embassy? You DO know the history of how badly we screwed those people for decades, right? But you advocate a full-scale invasion when the finally are able to retaliate a tiny bit?

[angelatc]

Lew Rockwell is an ass. Gohmert never said "murder more Vietnamese." This is what Gohmert said:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-louie-gohmert-r-tx-vietnam-was-winnable?ref=fpb



Nothing objectionable about those statements and in all likelihood, if this blueprint was followed, the war would have ended much quicker and more Vietnamese would be alive today.

Really? You don't find anything wrong with the implied assertion that if we had gone to war with Iran in 1979, the Middle East would not hate us because we're free?

[supermario21]

Everybody mentioned in these articles is an ass. Gohmert for being utterly ignorant of history, Rockwell for twisting the words to a ridiculous level, even though I do agree with him that there was lots of warmongering, and EPJ guy for saying Rand's speech bombed. Even Raimondo loved it.

[AuH20]

Really? You don't find anything wrong with the implied assertion that if we had gone to war with Iran in 1979, the Middle East would not hate us because we're free?

I was specifically referring to Lew Rockwell's misleading title about Gohmert. He never said "murder more Vietnamese" but was pointing out the obvious in regards to the political circus known as the Vietnam War. Lew just likes to rile up emotions by being an insufferable prick on occasion.

[thoughtomator]

The effective options for an invading force not willing to engage in genocide are few, and pretty much all rely on the de facto support of the population at large. This is why invading a nation is a decision to be taken with the utmost gravity, and pretty much shouldn't be done unless things are bad enough that we are willing to kill as many as it takes (which hopefully would not happen unless our very existence was at stake).

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Lew Rockwell is an ass. Gohmert never said "murder more Vietnamese." This is what Gohmert said:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-louie-gohmert-r-tx-vietnam-was-winnable?ref=fpb

Nothing objectionable about those statements and in all likelihood, if this blueprint was followed, the war would have ended much quicker and more Vietnamese would be alive today.


You forgot this: "Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!"

Oh I see, Nixon had a secret plan to nuke them with reverse-neutron bombs which would destroy everything, but leave the human beings intact. And then I suppose Halliburton would re-nation-build their society so they wouldn't all starve and be rendered murdered by the U.S. military. Your logic is impeccable and irresistable.

By the way, are these the same kind of nukes that cousin Barry was talking about using on those dirty commies?

[Matt Collins]

hxxp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/rand-paul-has-peaked-he-speaks-at-cpac.html

Why do people keep posting links to that drivel? That website is obviously working against the liberty movement.

[Acala]

The effective options for an invading force not willing to engage in genocide are few, and pretty much all rely on the de facto support of the population at large. This is why invading a nation is a decision to be taken with the utmost gravity, and pretty much shouldn't be done unless things are bad enough that we are willing to kill as many as it takes (which hopefully would not happen unless our very existence was at stake).

Exactly. Besides, the REAL point of the Vietnam War was the transfer of wealth from the hands of the American people into the coffers of the crony-capitalist government contractors and banks. And by that measure, the Vietnam War was a fabulous success!

[itshappening]

EPJ is becoming a parody of itself as far as Rand is concerned.

Rand had multiple applause lines and had them cheering against foreign aid. Quoting Lincoln is smart. He's a hero to these people. That just goes to show you at how good he is at throwing quotes from their heroes at them, including Reagan and others.

It was actually one of his best speeches so far.

[AuH20]

You forgot this: "Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!"

Oh I see, Nixon had a secret plan to nuke them with reverse-neutron bombs which would destroy everything, but leave the human beings intact. And then I suppose Halliburton would re-nation-build their society so they wouldn't all starve and be rendered murdered by the U.S. military. Your logic is impeccable and irresistable.

By the way, are these the same kind of nukes that cousin Barry was talking about using on those dirty commies?

I don't think you are too well versed in the intracacies surrounding the buildup of the Vietnam War, but you would rather dance in the hysterical glow of extremist, strawman positions. It all started with the Eisenhower Adminstration's promotion of the incredibly unlikeable Ngo Dinh Diem as the head of South Vietnam and his eventual assassination by the CIA. This lack of foresight was an incredble strategic blunder that paved the way for the instability later cultivated within the South Vietnamese government.

Meanwhile we had the McNamara and a host of globalist stooges diddling about with no gameplan to win the war. From the very onset of the ground war, there were specific target restrictions placed on NVA MiG fighters, supply ships in Hanoi Harbor and a host of other legitimate war targets in the North. Moreover, it took 5 goddamn years for a U.S. administration to finally focus on the key supply lines of the Ho Chi Minh Trail which ran east into Cambodia and Laos. I truly believe that there were certain factions within the U.S. government that did not want an open-and-shut war but rather preferred a bloody, prolonged tragedy of close to 20 years, which is what they eventually got.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Lew Rockwell is an ass. Gohmert never said "murder more Vietnamese." This is what Gohmert said:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-louie-gohmert-r-tx-vietnam-was-winnable?ref=fpb



Nothing objectionable about those statements and in all likelihood, if this blueprint was followed, the war would have ended much quicker and more Vietnamese would be alive today.

Speaking of attributing language to someone... please quote where Rockwell said Gohmert said what you attributed to Rockwell.

For a bonus, please explain how more war would not logically result in more death.

[AuH20]

Speaking of attributing language to someone... please quote where Rockwell said Gohmert said what you attributed to Rockwell.

For a bonus, please explain how more war would not logically result in more death.

Rockwell comes across as a sanctomonious fool for deliberately twisting what Gohmert said. To your second point, the U.S. military killed roughly 3 million Vietnamese during the core campaign that lasted 9 years from 1965-1974, while not even attempting to eliminate the command-and-control cadre in the North. Looking back, nearly all the battles during the Vietnam War had taken place in and around the South. Vietnam turned into a counterproductive, politically driven meat grinder as opposed to a sound strategy of any type. Killing the 5,000 NV officials who were directly delegating the war effort would have been more conducive to victory as opposed to the wasteful attrition method that the Pentagon foolishly signed onto.

[Matt Collins]

Quoting Lincoln is smart. See, I think this went over most people's heads and it show's Rand's brilliant, and in this case, very subtle sense of humor here. That quote from Lincoln is the most ironic thing he could ever cite. Lincoln talking about Executives who usurp power and lose fidelity to the Constitution LOLz. Lincoln was the worst at it, which is why I'm guessing Rand chose that one. But the irony was lost on most people in that room; Rand on the other hand was fully aware of what he was saying.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rockwell comes across as a sanctomonious fool for deliberately twisting what Gohmert said. To your second point, the U.S. military killed roughly 3 million Vietnamese during the core campaign that lasted 9 years from 1965-1974, while not even attempting to eliminate the command-and-control cadre in the North. Looking back, nearly all the battles during the Vietnam War had taken place in and around the South. Vietnam turned into a counterproductive, politically driven meat grinder as opposed to a sound strategy of any type. Killing the 5,000 NV officials who were directly delegating the war effort would have been more conducive to victory as opposed to the wasteful attrition method that the Pentagon foolishly signed onto.

"Washington didn't let us win!" is the rallying cry for those who wanted to stay and "finish the job." Which logically would lead to more killing of people. Thus, Rockwell's title is a perfect description and analysis of the logical outcome of Gohmert's position.

[Acala]

Rockwell comes across as a sanctomonious fool for deliberately twisting what Gohmert said. To your second point, the U.S. military killed roughly 3 million Vietnamese during the core campaign that lasted 9 years from 1965-1974, while not even attempting to eliminate the command-and-control cadre in the North. Looking back, nearly all the battles during the Vietnam War had taken place in and around the South. Vietnam turned into a counterproductive, politically driven meat grinder as opposed to a sound strategy of any type. Killing the 5,000 NV officials who were directly delegating the war effort would have been more conducive to victory as opposed to the wasteful attrition method that the Pentagon foolishly signed onto.

And if you had just killed those 5000, all of the Vietnamese people would have just rolled over for an American occupation. False. This is "lost cause" face-saving mythology.

[AuH20]

"Washington didn't let us win!" is the rallying cry for those who wanted to stay and "finish the job." Which logically would lead to more killing of people. Thus, Rockwell's title is a perfect description and analysis of the logical outcome of Gohmert's position.

Not stay and finish the job. Commit to winning from the beginning or don't get involved. By the time, Nixon came into the fold, the war was already lost.

[Acala]

Not stay and finish the job. Commit to winning from the beginning or don't get involved. By the time, Nixon came into the fold, the war was already lost.

Define "winning".

[AuH20]

And if you had just killed those 5000, all of the Vietnamese people would have just rolled over for an American occupation. False. This is "lost cause" face-saving mythology.

Without extensive Soviet and Chinese support as well as the leadership fulcrum provided by the party apparatus, they would have been an afterthought. You need educated, learned men to delegate a war and ultimately win it.

[Acala]

Without extensive Soviet and Chinese support as well as the leadership fulcrum provided by the party apparatus, they would have been an afterthought. You need educated, learned men to delegate a war and ultimately win it.

So your victory would have involved also defeating China and the Soviet Union?

[AuH20]

Define "winning".

Destroy the command and control core taking orders from Beijing and Moscow. Smash the resistance into small, disorganized factions with very little experience. It's a mop-up job.

[Acala]

Destroy the command and control core taking orders from Beijing and Moscow. Smash the resistance into small, disorganized factions with very little experience. It's a mop-up job.

And then what?

[Acala]

Destroy the command and control core taking orders from Beijing and Moscow. Smash the resistance into small, disorganized factions with very little experience. It's a mop-up job.

And then what?

[Acala]

Destroy the command and control core taking orders from Beijing and Moscow. Smash the resistance into small, disorganized factions with very little experience. It's a mop-up job.

Isn't that exactly what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? You call those victories?

[AuH20]

So your victory would have involved also defeating China and the Soviet Union?

I would have cut off the supply lines and rendered ports useless. Secondly, the Chinese and Soviets were directly involved in more clandestine, less publicized ways. The Soviets had transported hundreds of POWs to Russia for interrogation. Plus, if you go back to the Korean War when routine air battles between U.S. aircraft and Communists in the western portion of Korea later known as MiG Alley.

[Acala]

I would have cut off the supply lines and rendered ports useless. Secondly, the Chinese and Soviets were directly involved in more clandestine, less publicized ways. The Soviets had transported hundreds of POWs to Russia for interrogation. Plus, if you go back to the Korean War when their routine air battles between U.S. aircraft and Communists in the western portion later known as MiG Alley.

Assuming that China and the Soviet Union would have laid down and let you do that, which I doubt, then what? Make Vietnam the 51st state and move in for good? I defy you to propose a realistic exit strategy that does not result in a complete reversal of your "victory" in a matter of months.

[AuH20]

Isn't that exactly what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? You call those victories?

Two different animals. Iraq had a formalized goverment. It was eliminated and dispersed. Iraq was a tactical victory, but not a victory when you examine the final accounting ledger in terms of hard resources uitlized. Afghanistan is a decentralized, tribal region in which victory can never truly be attained.

[Brian4Liberty]

In 79, the Soviet Union was a counterbalance, always threatening to get involved. Once the evil Soviet Union fell, the evil neo-conservative chicken hawks were free to wage war almost at will, or at least when the "opportunity" presented itself.

[AuH20]

Assuming that China and the Soviet Union would have laid down and let you do that, which I doubt, then what? Make Vietnam the 51st state and move in for good? I defy you to propose a realistic exit strategy that does not result in a complete reversal of your "victory" in a matter of months.

In all likelihood, they would have. There were serious transgressions made during the Korean War that were left to die on the vine, so to speak. With MAD looming, calmer heads prevailed.

[Acala]

In all likelihood, they would have. There were serious transgressions made during the Korean War that were left to die on the vine, so to speak. With MAD looming, calmer heads prevailed.

You are avoiding the real question. .

[Acala]

Two different animals. Iraq had a formalized goverment. It was eliminated and dispersed. Iraq was a tactical victory, but not a victory when you examine the final accounting ledger in terms of hard resources uitlized. Afghanistan is a decentralized, tribal region in which victory can never truly be attained.

Not at all. It is exactly the situation you described as "victory" in Vietnam: "Smash the resistance into small, disorganized factions with very little experience." That is the "insurgency" in Iraq and Afghanistan that we could not defeat. And as soon as we leave those two countries everything we accomplished will be lost. Just like it would have been in vietnam.

[AuH20]

Not at all. It is exactly the situation you described as "victory" in Vietnam: "Smash the resistance into small, disorganized factions with very little experience." That is the "insurgency" in Iraq and Afghanistan that we could not defeat. And as soon as we leave those two countries everything we accomplished will be lost. Just like it would have been in vietnam.

Iraq is not equatable to Vietnam. Vietnam for the most part was relatively homogenous in comparison to the patchwork state of multiple feuding factions that was held together by the Ba'athists.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Why do people keep posting links to that drivel? That website is obviously working against the liberty movement.

Maybe its because after watching 60+ years of people like Buckley and Goldwater carry out the never-ending CIA project of pulling the liberty movement to the authoritarian, militarist, police state center, some of us aren't going to stand idly by while it all happens again?

[Todd]

Iraq is not equatable to Vietnam. Vietnam for the most part was relatively homogenous in comparison to the patchwork state of multiple feuding factions that was held together by the Ba'athists.

I don't think that's what most people mean when they compare the two.

They usually think: "unwinnable, interventionist foreign wars involving people who don't wish us to be there, that have nothing to do with American security, and make us weaker".

Sounds like a good comparison to me.

[Matt Collins]

Maybe its because after watching 60+ years of people like Buckley and Goldwater carry out the never-ending CIA project of pulling the liberty movement to the authoritarian, militarist, police state center, some of us aren't going to stand idly by while it all happens again?
Goldwater?! lolwut? :confused::rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Goldwater?! lolwut? :confused::rolleyes:

Goldwater was a realist as opposed to a CIA lackey. He bucked and criticized AIPAC as well, when it was a political death sentence to do so. But don't tell the extreme doves that.

[twomp]

Lew Rockwell is an ass. Gohmert never said "murder more Vietnamese." This is what Gohmert said:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-louie-gohmert-r-tx-vietnam-was-winnable?ref=fpb




Nothing objectionable about those statements and in all likelihood, if this blueprint was followed, the war would have ended much quicker and more Vietnamese would be alive today.

As a Vietnamese American, I can assure you the war would not have ended much quicker. You act as if everyone would lay down their guns once the U.S took over a certain spot. You don't even mention the fact that Chinese border sits right there and the Chinese were arming anyone willing to resist. The REASON the U.S left was because you can't expect to win over a population that doesn't want you there. No matter how much you bomb them.

[AuH20]

As a Vietnamese American, I can assure you the war would not have ended much quicker. You act as if everyone would lay down their guns once the U.S took over a certain spot. You don't even mention the fact that Chinese border sits right there and the Chinese were arming anyone willing to resist. The REASON the U.S left was because you can't expect to win over a population that doesn't want you there. No matter how much you bomb them.

Which is the exact reason why the Eisenhower Administration should have never backed the dictatorial Ngo Dinh Diem and gave him the reins to the country in 1955. The South Vietnamese government was obviously unpopular and then the CIA complicated things even further by assassinating him.

[Acala]

Which is the exact reason why the Eisenhower Administration should have never backed the dictatorial Ngo Dinh Diem and gave him the reins to the country in 1955. The South Vietnamese government was obviously unpopular and then the CIA complicated things even further by assassinating him.

If you want to start listing the mistakes, start with not totally minding our own business. That would have solved all the rest.

[Acala]

As a Vietnamese American, I can assure you the war would not have ended much quicker. You act as if everyone would lay down their guns once the U.S took over a certain spot. You don't even mention the fact that Chinese border sits right there and the Chinese were arming anyone willing to resist. The REASON the U.S left was because you can't expect to win over a population that doesn't want you there. No matter how much you bomb them.

Exactly.

This fantasy scenario where Muricah WINS in Vietnam would have required sealing the Chinese border. That would mean amassing troops and building bases at the border of a hostile nuclear power. That would have been incredibly reckless and almost certainly would have led to more hostility in SE Asia and elsewhere. And perhaps to the unthinkable.

In any event it brings us back to the question AuH2O refuses to answer: then what? Fifty years of occupation while fighting a constant 4th gen war? 100?

Unless you can come home, there has been no "victory". We never could have left Vietnam and therefore victory was simply not one of the options.

[AuH20]

Exactly.

This fantasy scenario where Muricah WINS in Vietnam would have required sealing the Chinese border. That would mean amassing troops and building bases at the border of a hostile nuclear power. That would have been incredibly reckless and almost certainly would have led to more hostility in SE Asia and elsewhere. And perhaps to the unthinkable.

In any event it brings us back to the question AuH2O refuses to answer: then what? Fifty years of occupation while fighting a constant 4th gen war? 100?

Unless you can come home, there has been no "victory". We never could have left Vietnam and therefore victory was simply not one of the options.

It had more to do with not establishing a fair, respectable government in South Vietnam that would have discouraged the influence of such resistance elements. The U.S. could have easily done the "heavy lifting" in eliminating the major strategic obstacles I outlined earlier, but ultimately the final chapter, consisting of clean-up details, would be reserved for the native residents.

[Acala]

It had more to do with not establishing a fair, respectable government in South Vietnam that would have discouraged the influence of such resistance elements. The U.S. could have easily done the "heavy lifting" in eliminating the major strategic obstacles I outlined earlier, but ultimately the final chapter, consisting of clean-up details, would be reserved for the native residents.

Because they would have welcomed with open arms OUR version of fair, respectable government. Ours is, after all, the standard by which all human society is to be measured. We go in, slap around the bad guys, set up fair, respectable government, all the people immediately appreciate the obvious superiority of the American way, submit to having it imposed upon them, and we move on to build the next nation in our image, leaving in our wake a trail of fair, respectable governments and throngs of grateful peasants. It's just a minor clean up operation. What a grand vision!

[UWDude]

Moreover, it took 5 goddamn years for a U.S. administration to finally focus on the key supply lines of the Ho Chi Minh Trail which ran east into Cambodia and Laos.

Three times WW II bomb tonnage dropped on Cambodia.
Did it do anything for victory in Vietnam?
Nope.

[AGRP]

Define "winning".

Define trolling.

[twomp]

It had more to do with not establishing a fair, respectable government in South Vietnam that would have discouraged the influence of such resistance elements. The U.S. could have easily done the "heavy lifting" in eliminating the major strategic obstacles I outlined earlier, but ultimately the final chapter, consisting of clean-up details, would be reserved for the native residents.

I think the best that could have come out of the Vietnam War is a situation like in Korea where the country would be literally split in 2 (North Vietnam and South Vietnam) and we (the U.S.) would be left footing the bill for the defense of the South. Last I checked, we still have like 25,0000 troops or something in South Korea.

It was in EVERYONE'S best interest that the U.S. left Vietnam. The killing stop and if you look at the country now, they are still communist but they are starting to open up a stock market and the government has allowed the people to start owning their own things. The U.S now does business with Vietnam again and although they are a long long long way from any form of freedom as we know it. This is a much better way of "spreading Democracy" and our ideas then at the barrel of a gun.

[Acala]

Define trolling.

It is a bit OT, but I would say that trolling is posting material for the primary purpose of derailing a thread, inciting an emotional response, or impeding a discussion by generating useless conflict.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Goldwater?! lolwut? :confused::rolleyes:

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=189


What, then, happened? In part, an inept campaign led to electoral rout, but the major cause lay elsewhere. The Johnson forces skillfully used shock over the Kennedy assassination to fuel a mendacious assault on the supposed right-wing atmosphere of hate that, it was alleged, bore responsibility for President Kennedy's death. Goldwater fell right into the trap set by his leftist foes. Though his domestic policies stood squarely within the American tradition, he accepted the appellation "extremist" that his enemies sought to pin on him.

And in one essential area, the leftist charge was right. Goldwater enthusiastically championed the cold war, and many who might otherwise have been well disposed to him found frightening his apparent haste to bring nuclear weapons into play. Ironically, in foreign policy, Goldwater stood squarely within the liberal consensus, which was itself extreme. Mr. Perlstein shows that his "extremist" nuclear rhetoric merely echoed earlier remarks by Kennedy, Rockefeller, and other stalwarts of the cold war consensus. Had Goldwater returned to the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Old Right, he could have turned the campaign of fear against his accusers.


That's ok though. This has been played out countless times the past 60+ years and y'all just keep falling for it every time: Reagan Revolution, Contract with America, etc.

With the Ron Paul Revolution having a presidential candidate who was too honest and could not help himself from NOT selling out--no matter how frightened his campaign staff became--you'd think the CIA would have had its work cut out for them. But not to worry, it was really child's play for them: Just send in one of their East European cold war fixers, fix the KY Senate election, and voila: mission accomplished.

[AGRP]

It is a bit OT, but I would say that trolling is posting material for the primary purpose of derailing a thread, inciting an emotional response, or impeding a discussion by generating useless conflict.

Its very on topic and it happens a lot when Auh20 shows up.

[Matt Collins]

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=189No, that's not exactly accurate. Goldwater wasn't as hawkish as he was made out to be by LBJ and the media.

[AuH20]

Because they would have welcomed with open arms OUR version of fair, respectable government. Ours is, after all, the standard by which all human society is to be measured. We go in, slap around the bad guys, set up fair, respectable government, all the people immediately appreciate the obvious superiority of the American way, submit to having it imposed upon them, and we move on to build the next nation in our image, leaving in our wake a trail of fair, respectable governments and throngs of grateful peasants. It's just a minor clean up operation. What a grand vision!

The CIA doesn't set up fair, respectable governments in tune with the will of the native country. That's the issue. In this case, Eisenhower gave his blessing to annoint a Catholic in name only that eventually terrorized both the indigenous Degar as well as the Buddhists.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/ikeanddiem2.jpg

[Acala]

The CIA doesn't set up fair, respectable governments in tune with the will of the native country. That's the issue. In this case, Eisenhower gave his blessing to annoint a Catholic in name only that eventually terrorized both the indigenous Degar as well as the Buddhists.

Invading foreign countries, slaughtering as many people as needed to subdue them, and installing a government over them by force works just FINE if you do it right!!! Who knew?

[AuH20]

Invading foreign countries, slaughtering as many people as needed to subdue them, and installing a government over them by force works just FINE if you do it right!!! Who knew?

Grievous sins of the Cold War. They drove them into the arms of the Communists.

[Anti Federalist]

Define "winning".

Umm, not having the POTUS hand the last of US textile manufacturing to the Vietnamese on a silver platter.

Who was the tool that made these comments?

[AuH20]

Umm, not having the POTUS hand the last of US textile manufacturing to the Vietnamese on a silver platter.

Who was the tool that made these comments?


Didn't Clinton, Kerry, & McCain sell exclusive access to their business partners for the gradual normalization of trade relations between the US and Vietnam?

[UWDude]

Grievous sins of the Cold War. They drove them into the arms of the Communists.

pretty much. Ho Chi Minh wasn't really a communist, and wanted ties with the US. He was essentially polarized to become a communist leader, because America felt French interests in Vietnam were more important than the right to self-determination of the Vietnamese people.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

No, that's not exactly accurate. Goldwater wasn't as hawkish as he was made out to be by LBJ and the media.

Which is completely besides the point--even if it was true. Whether or not Goldwater was a closet constitutionalist on military matters (i.e., whether or not he believed that a permanent military was illegal and dangerous to liberty), he did nothing to clean up the perception that the liberty movement was polluted with welfare queens hopelessly addicted to shovel loads of government money and power.

[BamaAla]

...or we could have just stayed out of it. Vietnam wasn't lost in late '55 with Diem; Vietnam was a lost cause and nothing more than a kill zone after Dien Bien Phu in 1954. We should have let the French lick their wounds and stayed the hell out of South East Asia.