US State Department Stirring It Up With Iran...

Rasputin_Vol

How dare you?
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
40,899
Likes
12,390
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 .
Why were we there in the first place?
 

RavinDave

Orange Classic
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
4,810
Likes
4,908
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.
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.
 

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
12,056
Likes
10,371
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.
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.
 
Likes: SpaceCoastVol

RavinDave

Orange Classic
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
4,810
Likes
4,908
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.
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.
 

Rasputin_Vol

How dare you?
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
40,899
Likes
12,390
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.
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.
 

RavinDave

Orange Classic
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
4,810
Likes
4,908
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.
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.
 

Weezer

VolNation Dalai Lama
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
31,125
Likes
33,486
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.
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.
 

RavinDave

Orange Classic
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
4,810
Likes
4,908
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.
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.
 

Rasputin_Vol

How dare you?
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
40,899
Likes
12,390

Orangeburst

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
5,480
Likes
8,015
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.
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.
 

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,487
Likes
34,061
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.

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.
 

37L1

Good Dog!
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
8,917
Likes
12,472

Rasputin_Vol

How dare you?
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
40,899
Likes
12,390
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.
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???
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top