"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:17:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:
The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.
We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.
How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have
thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU
PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?
Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say
that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?
Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.
"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."
You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the
military
do their job.
Now, go back to bed.
So, when officers sit in classes, they are never asked (by teachers) "Look
at this battle situation. What would you do if this or that happened?" ?
Is that what you're saying, John? That never happens? Rarely happens?
Choose.
Some 'what ifs' are appropriate. Some are inane.
They're only inane if the question, and the possible answers exceed your
ability to ponder them. Kissinger was repeatedly told by NV diplomats that
no matter WHAT we did, they would not surrender. You would have the exact
same attitude if this country were invaded, so it baffles me why you can't
accept the same attitude from another country.
With this in mind, it is most certainly NOT inane to suggest that you might
put yourself in the position of a president, and decide when enough is
enough.
|