[palmer]

Yes, of course. And we were even winning in the end, killing them many times over, compared to what they did to us, which was greatly exaggerated by the media due to Communist meddling.

As I suggested to rudeboy, we destroyed our economy. So all we needed to do to win in Vietnam is take out a few more villages? Or perhaps install a better dictator? Your vision of the world is unremarkably narrow. You are a military utopian who does not understand the complexities and risks of war. Furthermore you do not understand that choosing your wars carefully to result in economic benefit is the best course when forced into war. Thus with the "plan" described by TailgunnerJoe, we will "destroy" Putin while the Chinese destroy us. Do you agree with Tailgunner Joe?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

As I suggested to rudeboy, we destroyed our economy.

Suggested? Why not proved?

So all we needed to do to win in Vietnam is take out a few more villages?

Was the United States wiping out villages filled with civilians for no military purpose?

Or perhaps install a better dictator?

Who says they would be replaced by a dictator? And what's wrong with an anti-Communist dictator? I much prefer them over Pro-Communist dictators, in the end.

If the United States was half as Machiavellian as the Russkies, the world would indeed be a better place.