PDA

View Full Version : McCain on Vietnam




thal
11-29-2007, 12:37 AM
I cannot question John McCain's knowledge of Vietnam, anyone to do so would be foolish.

However, tonight he said that the difference between Iraq and Vietnam was that the Vietnamese did not intend to follow us home. To my knowledge, the Vietnam War was one of the battles the United States has waged against not just a country, but an ideology. How the war drums were beat with that slogan!

If only he could have been called on it, but I do think that enough people would know that was a bad answer, and a direct retort would probably aggravate those that don't know, and that associate John McCain with war hero.

adpierce
11-29-2007, 12:43 AM
McCain is right the Vietnamese weren't about to follow us home, but the Communist domino theory threatened to! It didn't, and just like how we're fretting about terrorists following us home from Iraq I think we'll find they have their own issues to deal with over there once we leave them alone for once since world war 1. Plus if you've read the 9/11 Commission Report you'll be astounded by how many times we could have caught the 9/11 plot red-handed if we had been just a little bit more attentive to domestic security concerns. That should be our focus, being over there just creates more terrorists and gives more legitimacy to Bin Laden's arguments than if we just minded our own business and protected ourselves better

scoot87
11-29-2007, 12:46 AM
I am Vietnamese and I vote Ron Paul. Discussion OVER. :)

asdf
11-29-2007, 12:50 AM
He also said we would of won the Vietnam War but lost it because public opinion forced a withdrawal. He didnt score any points with his generation or anyone else w/ comments like those.

davidhperry
11-29-2007, 01:03 AM
I am Vietnamese and I vote Ron Paul. Discussion OVER. :)

Welcome to the forum!

F3d
11-29-2007, 01:10 AM
....

scoot87
11-29-2007, 01:18 AM
Welcome to the forum!

thanks. I've been rooting for RP since like in this spring. What an amazing guy

john_anderson_ii
11-29-2007, 01:18 AM
What do you mean? So he's correct and everyone else is wrong just because he was a POW?

Actually, the fact about not losing a military battle was pretty much true. We may have "lost" a skirmish here or there, but as far as tactical victories, taking and holding territory, etc. It's true. We didn't lose Vietnam militarily. And "everyone else", including the NVA Generals agree with that assessment.

However, Ron Paul was more right and also more on point when he pointed out that military victories were irrelevant because we still lost the war.

F3d
11-29-2007, 01:20 AM
....

adpierce
11-29-2007, 01:25 AM
Actually, the fact about not losing a military battle was pretty much true. We may have "lost" a skirmish here or there, but as far as tactical victories, taking and holding territory, etc. It's true. We didn't lose Vietnam militarily. And "everyone else", including the NVA Generals agree with that assessment.

However, Ron Paul was more right and also more on point when he pointed out that military victories were irrelevant because we still lost the war.

True... we were fighting against a nation which wasn't going to stop fighting our troops until we left. At a certain point it became less about communist v. capitalist and just about not being occupied by a foreign nation. I wonder why that sounds familiar? Hummm I'll think about it some more I'm sure the reason why it sounds so familiar will come to me.

john_anderson_ii
11-29-2007, 01:28 AM
I sometimes wish Ron were a little more eloquent in his speech. I think he's trying to point out a very fundamental point. A victory here, a success there, moving troops in, moving troops out, none of it makes a difference. Even a successful surge does not correct the ideological and economic fallacy of our involvement in Iraq. But with being rushed around and asked to speak once every 20 minutes, I can understand why his speech and thoughts would get a jumbled up.

Ron LOL
11-29-2007, 01:43 AM
People need to stop giving McCain a pass on all things war just because he was a POW. Especially conservatives, who largely accept Ann Coulter's argument RE: 9/11 widows (probably the only argument to ever leave that woman's mouth that I've found myself in agreement with) but don't see how it applies to McCain equally.

But yes, a worthy point on stopping communism vs. stopping radical Islam. With any luck, somebody will write an article on this one.

MGreen
11-29-2007, 02:09 AM
So wait, the Vietnamese weren't going to follow us home... so why did we go in to begin with? Should we have stayed in Vietnam, even though they posed no threat to us?

As for Paul's great rebuttal, I'm disappointed he didn't expland on that a bit more. It's good to explain why some people in the region want to "come here" and attack us, but he needs to drive home the fact that the Iraq "war" is unwinnable. We can have every village under military control, but the violence will never end because occupations do not work. Paul shouldn't fight the "we have to win in Iraq" slogans with "just come home;" he needs to hammer the fact that there is no winning in Iraq.

Blowback
11-29-2007, 03:05 AM
I LOVED LOVED LOVED Paul's answer on this one but I wish he would have elaborated on it a little more.

What he was saying is that whether we were "winning" or "losing" in Vietnam was irrelvant because once we left, we got what we wanted (goal was achieved). Assuming the goal was to have the Vientam we have now.

Why anyone would ever want to try and accomplish something with war that could be accomplished with peace is hard for me to understand.

Hence forth, whether we are "winning" or "losing" in Iraq is irrelavant if we just left and the country still came out the way we wanted (which is quite possible as long as you don't aacept the BIG LIE of there being chaos if we leave - an idea that seems accepted at face value despite the fact that no one knows the future).

chefphil
11-29-2007, 03:10 AM
How are they going to follow us? In a cab? Follow that floatilla cabby!!! Will they tie ropes to our bumpers?
"They" are already here! They don't have to follow us. They only need to visit on vacation.

Follow us!! How stupid.

thal
11-29-2007, 07:21 AM
What do you mean? So he's correct and everyone else is wrong just because he was a POW?

I didn't say everyone was wrong. People are going to form their own opinions on everything, but I do believe that his military service, combined with his time as a POW, does give him unique perspective, and dismissing his experiencing because I disagree with him politically would be foolish.

allyinoh
11-29-2007, 07:35 AM
I am going to have to watch a clip again of the exchange but I thought of something that McCain said and it's escaped my mind but it correlates with Iraq.

apropos
11-29-2007, 07:40 AM
If we really didn't want terrorist to follow us home, we would secure the borders. Terrorists can already 'follow us home' right now. They don't need to win in Iraq to jump the border. It's not like there is some invisible wall stopping bombers in the Middle East from coming to this country.

The U.S.S.R. and the communist bloc had the resources for an actual invasion of the U.S. The threat of invasion and potential defeat was more real when facing a conventional army. Terrorists are not a conventional army. One individual can sneak into a country much more easily than ten divisions and armored columns.

Bin Laden never wanted to conquer America, per se. He wanted it to go bankrupt and tear itself apart within internal dissent. He realized that this was the only way he could hope to win...through attrition. The nature of today's threat is different than that of the communist one.

tarsus
11-29-2007, 07:42 AM
The problem with Vietnam wasn't that we could have won the war if our media at home didn't kill our morale. The problem is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

FreedomProsperityPeace
11-29-2007, 08:26 AM
How are they going to follow us? In a cab? Follow that floatilla cabby!!! Will they tie ropes to our bumpers? '

LOL!!! :D