MadMark said:
That's a train of thought used by someone when they wish to discard facts.
{edit} As an example, the French tried warning us off of Nam. This is a fact.
You tried blaming the french for getting us involved in Nam. That's a fiction but you find someone to agree with you and by your thinking it will behistory. A history void of fact which makes it a ficticious history. But the fiction will continue as long as people continuing believing lies.
That's a train of thought used by everyone in the position of writing history. That is why Napoleon said it. Unless you were directly involved in the Vietnam conflict, or know someone who was, you can't be certain of what's fact and what's fiction. Lastly, "The french warned us not to go into Vietnam" you keep writing reminds me of a broken record. I actually read it the first time you posted it. The French had been directly involved in Vietnam's government for 100 years, so I'd say regardless of what they "warned us about", they're still responsible for what developed. Regardless, even though you repeatedly focus on the side comment of my main point, which was to state that our presence in Vietnam was a military victory and a political defeat. A kill ratio of at least 18:1 is a military loss?? Here's a simplified analogy for you; You're a kid, living in a rough neighborhood. Your friend has been arguing with some local punk and he gets in a fight, gets his ass beaten up by the punk. You don't like what this kid stands for, so you run up, and the kid punches you in the face and blackens your eye, then you get pissed and break both his arms, his legs, his ribs, etc. You beat him so badly he's in the hospital for a month. Meanwhile, your mother says she can't stand the fact that you got a black eye, so she forces you to move away from the area, and after you leave, the punk gets out of the hospital, and he beats your friend so bad that your friend dies. So then the neighborhood starts saying.. that YOU lost the fight because the punk gave you a black eye and killed your friend? (That little part about you putting him in the hospital is forgotten, apparently) You are America, injured from the loss of 58,000 of your best, but healing and as strong as ever, your mother is the liberal media, protestors and politicians all rolled into one, the punk is North Vietnam, your friend is South Vietnam. How exactly is an ass beating like a very conservative 18:1 kill ratio considered a military defeat? Our allies lost, yes, because our politicians folded under the pressure exerted by the massive liberal movement of the times and the media influence. For the last time, as many retired generals have stated, Vietnam was a military victory, but a political defeat.
* If the liberals had sprung up during the late 1930s, instead of the 1960s, we probably would have withdrawn from WWII after the first couple months, so I guess I count us fortunate that it happened later rather than sooner.