Is continuing to have soldiers die in a stupid war strong on national security?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Based on comments here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=35472.0

[minionofmidas]

No if taken literally. But you posed the question wrong. It should be: Is "strong on national security" pc-speech for continuing to have soldiers die in a stupid war? In which case the answer is yes.

I did vote No though.

[MODU]

Though your question is wrong (and biased), I voted yes.  We are losing less men in Iraq than we are domestically.  For a war time situation, that is a very good number.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Though your question is wrong (and biased), I voted yes.  We are losing less men in Iraq than we are domestically.  For a war time situation, that is a very good number.

I was referring to Vietnam, not Iraq.

[MasterJedi]

Though your question is wrong (and biased), I voted yes.  We are losing less men in Iraq than we are domestically.  For a war time situation, that is a very good number.

I was referring to Vietnam, not Iraq.

Then why the hell didn't you say that?

Anyways I voted yes because of what MODU said so....yeah.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Though your question is wrong (and biased), I voted yes.  We are losing less men in Iraq than we are domestically.  For a war time situation, that is a very good number.

I was referring to Vietnam, not Iraq.

Then why the hell didn't you say that?

Anyways I voted yes because of what MODU said so....yeah.

See the link. I think it's safe to say "Scoop" didn't have much to do with Iraq.

[MODU]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

We could've have had no casualties by never getting involved. And the US would be in no more danger.

[MODU]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

We could've have had no casualties by never getting involved. And the US would be in no more danger.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[opebo]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

The claims of right-wingers that we 'were winning the war' or 'we would've won the war had the politicians stayed out of it' are pathetic.  You're bad loosers!  Show a little sportsmanship, admit you lost, and that the Vietnamese were the 'better man'.  They beat you, and from a position of far inferior material capacity, due to being considerably more brave, smarter, and more determined. 

You're not doing yourselves any favours with your sour grapes, sore loser attitude.  You act as if you think Americans are by definition superior to the people of other countries!  Such a position reveals your laughable hubris.

Oh and you're all fat too.

[??????????]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

The claims of right-wingers that we 'were winning the war' or 'we would've won the war had the politicians stayed out of it' are pathetic.  You're bad loosers!  Show a little sportsmanship, admit you lost, and that the Vietnamese were the 'better man'.  They beat you, and from a position of far inferior material capacity, due to being considerably more brave, smarter, and more determined. 

You're not doing yourselves any favours with your sour grapes, sore loser attitude.  You act as if you think Americans are by definition superior to the people of other countries!  Such a position reveals your laughable hubris.

Oh and you're all fat too.

Another insightful post brought to you by the dumbass in Thailand.

[David S]

I vote no.

Here are some other things that could have happened:

We could have prevented the communists from taking over the country by taking it over ourselves, although at a cost of many more lives.

We could have nuked the country to save it from the commies.

We could have stayed out and lost no lives either Vietnamese or American. How would we be worse off today if we had done that?
How would we be better off today if we had managed to win?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

The claims of right-wingers that we 'were winning the war' or 'we would've won the war had the politicians stayed out of it' are pathetic.  You're bad loosers!  Show a little sportsmanship, admit you lost, and that the Vietnamese were the 'better man'.  They beat you, and from a position of far inferior material capacity, due to being considerably more brave, smarter, and more determined. 

You're not doing yourselves any favours with your sour grapes, sore loser attitude.  You act as if you think Americans are by definition superior to the people of other countries!  Such a position reveals your laughable hubris.

Oh and you're all fat too.

Yeah, nuclear weapons would have been more effective.

[opebo]

As far as Vietnam was going, it was terribly mismanaged (thanks to DC politics), though we were winning.  If the politicians would have stayed out of the planning stages of the war, we probably would have had less casualties.

The claims of right-wingers that we 'were winning the war' or 'we would've won the war had the politicians stayed out of it' are pathetic.  You're bad loosers!  Show a little sportsmanship, admit you lost, and that the Vietnamese were the 'better man'.  They beat you, and from a position of far inferior material capacity, due to being considerably more brave, smarter, and more determined. 

You're not doing yourselves any favours with your sour grapes, sore loser attitude.  You act as if you think Americans are by definition superior to the people of other countries!  Such a position reveals your laughable hubris.

Oh and you're all fat too.

Yeah, nuclear weapons would have been more effective.

Yes, since the individual Vietnamese soldier was so far superior to the individual American soldier.