My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Protons collide in Switzerland | Main | Kim Jong Nam: When you’re locked up in North Korea, you dream of flying to Disneyland »

September 10, 2008

Comments

Neo

I think the distinction is between "wanting to lose" and "being willing to lose".
The Democrats were credited, correctly, as having lost the Vietnam War. They don't want to lose another war, but are willing to lose another war if it gets them to their next place.

Frank Warner

We have serious evidence the Democrats wanted to lose. What else explains Barack Obama's continued refusal to use "Iraq" and "victory" (or "Iraq" and "democracy") in the same sentence? It was the same with John Kerry four years ago.

Obama recently said we have no choice but to win, as if he had been backed into a corner, forced to expand the Free World when he'd rather not.

It's disappointing, to say the least.

dg

The U.S. did not "lose" in Vietnam. The U.S. left Vietnam and the Vietnamese high and dry. And, by the way, the "dominoes" did fall, with disastrous consequences.

Frank Warner

Two years after the U.S. left South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon, capital of South Vietnam, and imposed Communist repression on all of Vietnam.

In a major way, the U.S. had won the war in early 1973. It won the North Vietnamese Communist government's promise, in writing, that it would allow a freely elected government and all other democratic institutions in South Vietnam.

Thirty-five years later, we and the South Vietnamese are still waiting for the Hanoi government to honor that obligation.

The comments to this entry are closed.