Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[yesman065]

Blah blah blah - Did you even read the article I cited? Obviously not.

"everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric."

Just more rhetoric.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Blah blah blah - Did you even read the article I cited?

Obviously read it and more. Then I cited - what - 15 different reasons why that one isolated point is in direct conflict with history. Did you read all those maybe 15 reasons? Or ignore them? Or not understand them because the author assumed you know the history?

Your point is simply a paragraph quoted from a newspaper article; taken as if a verbatim fact. Provided were other sources, the bigger picture, AND why other facts dispute your conclusion. Did you spend enough time reading and then reading that post to grasp so much information?

Did you even grasp the significance of S Vietnam's invasion of Laos when Saigon's forces were (as you believe) equivalent to the enemy (on paper) AND had US airpower in support? Did you ignore that example because you did not know that history? Did you learn why better card players know when to fold ‘em?

Yesman065, you are very young to already have such firm opinions. That is not a good thing especially when humans typically don't even start grasping the world until after age 16. Posted were three reasons necessary to have a victorious war. Do you just ignore fundamental concepts to ‘keep spending good money after bad’?

In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War since even the wise men said in 1968 that the war could not be won. Even Nixon had conceded that reality but continued that war so as it not be ‘lost on his watch’. Did you know those facts? Did you know that N Vietnam so well understood the power of their position as to even show their own secret assessments to Kissinger in Paris? And yet you know otherwise because you read a 'Daily News' type summary in a newspaper article.

If Saigon forces were so good, then why were they massacred in their first major operation, fully supplied, and without American troops? Did you even read the reality I cited?

Show me something with facts such as why. Show me - and I am not from Missouri. A paragraph in one newspaper article has a severe credibility problem especially when 15 some examples demonstrate it wrong - with 'whys'.