Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
Do the consequences of leaving Vietnam outweigh consequences that would have happened to both Americans and Vietnamese if the US never involved itself in the first place? In other words, US does not intervene in Vietnam > US intervening in Vietnam?
Pertaining to the current war, and I quote Ron Paul,
"The argument [for the continuation of the war] has been reduced to this: if we leave now, Iraq will be a mess, immplying the implausible, that if we stay, it won't be a mess."
In re: ikestoys last comment,
Leaving Vietnam had severe consequences, and it is important to point those out. However, more severe consequences would have resulted if the US stayed (more lives on both sides lost, further destruction of Vietnam geographically) rather than thrown in the towel on the whole situation.
The US has had a problem with "winning" WARS (not battles) since World War II and I believe this is a direct result of trying to play world police and mediator. Every major conflict we have been involved with since WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq part I, Somalia, Kosovo, and others I am forgetting) has ended without a "victory" in the traditional sense of the word. The 'bad guy' was never truly defeated and these crises evolved and settled as a result of internal politics, not pressure from abroad.
|