The reason people mention it is because they think the US lost the war because of casualties. Simply not true. Korea was far worse during the time of the fighting, yet the US citizens continued to support it.Korbius wrote:Why does everyone mention Vietnam here for the US casualties? Whats ur point, that people in the SU didn't care about their soldiers and they were just robots to be used in expanding SU? Tariq Aziz and Mullah Omar said the same thing as u did about US not affording casualties and guess what, in both cases US went and kicked a*s, no matter what it would take. If US goes full throttle on something, it always achieves its goal, unlike Vietnam which was a "limited war"LeoAU wrote: Do you think it would or might've been used the way Soviets used, I mean if US suffers a million+ casualties, you think they would keep on sending man to that distant war? Think about Vietnam.
What lost Vietnam had nothing to do with the battlefield, it had to do with why we were fighting.
The only reason was to contain Communism, and this was seen as a great threat, and one worthy of dying for. Then in 1968 the people of Czechoslovakia decided to raise up against communist oppression, the US stood by and did nothing.
It's hard to advocate that it is worthly for your sons to die in Vietnam, a country most had never heard of much less cared about, in order to stop communism, when you don't try to stop it at all in Europe.
Vietnam wasn't lost in the jungles of Southeast Asia, but in the streets of Prague.
Xanthro