Robert McNamara

**Hondo** · 5th November 2010, 14:03

Too late. Iraq is proof of that.

**Eki** · 5th November 2010, 14:08

Originally Posted by Hondo

Too late. Iraq is proof of that.

There will probably be more Iraqs in the future.

**Bob Riebe** · 5th November 2010, 14:10

Originally Posted by Eki

True. I wish current and future world leaders would watch it and learn before they themselves repeat the same mistakes.

Do you mean cut and running from Vietnam; Obama would cut and run first chance he gets.

...McNamara said that the Domino Theory was the main reason for entering the Vietnam War. In the same interview he stated, "Kennedy hadn't said before he died whether, faced with the loss of Vietnam, he would [completely] withdraw; but I believe today that had he faced that choice, he would have withdrawn....

That is a load of BS, Kennedy was known to be one for whom defeat was not a concept to be accepted.
Johnson had the North at their knees when rg the bombing halt giving them the chance to re-equip.
McNamara is the one who forced the Air Force to fly routes which allowed the North to simply sit and wait for them, as they flew the same routes time, after time, after time, after time, after time....

McNamara asinine concept of how he would decimate the Viet-Cong was incredibly stupid as they were fighting the North Vietnamese, the Cong were a minor concern.

To say he was not stupid is to ignore what he did.

**Eki** · 5th November 2010, 14:19

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Do you mean cut and running from Vietnam; Obama would cut and run first chance he gets.

The smartest thing would have been staying out from Vietnam (and Iraq) altogether right from the beginning.

**Bob Riebe** · 5th November 2010, 14:23

Originally Posted by Eki

The smartest thing would have been staying out from Vietnam (and Iraq) altogether right from the beginning.

Iraq possibly, Vietnam, no.

An interesting, off-topic aside, read about how Siam (Thailand) while assisting the allies during WWII, had to send its Air Force to attack U.S. aircraft so as to not make the Japanese suspicious.
They did manage to shoot down a B-29, and a P-38, but lost their own airmen and aircraft in the attacks.

**Eki** · 5th November 2010, 16:12

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Iraq possibly, Vietnam, no.

Why do yo think Vietnam was necessary? The North won anyway and it wasn't the end of the world. The North could have won 15 years earlier and 3 million less dead people. I think it would have been a better option.

**Eki** · 5th November 2010, 16:43

Originally Posted by Starter

There are a number of different ways of looking at almost anything. One way would be to say that, given our population today with diminishing resources and fresh water in many places, 3 million dead people is a pretty good thing. The survivors will have a much better standard of living.

(Please send condolences to Eki as he recovers from the stroke he'll have when reading this.)

True, but the casualty rates were quite unequal. 1.5 million Vietnamese and 1.5 million Americans dead would have been more fair.

**fandango** · 5th November 2010, 19:15

Originally Posted by Eki

True. I wish current and future world leaders would watch it and learn before they themselves repeat the same mistakes.

Hang on a second. I liked the documentary because I'm a Joe Nobody sitting in my living room, getting an interesting perspective on world events that happened before I was born. Current and future world leaders had better be A LOT better informed than what comes out of a movie like that.

What's interesting above all for me is the humanity element, how priorities change. Bob Riebe sustains that McNamara was stupid based on his actions, a valid argument, but it depends on whether your priorities were winning the war or reducing human loss (a priority usually lacking in war, on all sides).

**BDunnell** · 5th November 2010, 22:33

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Johnson had the North at their knees when rg the bombing halt giving them the chance to re-equip.
McNamara is the one who forced the Air Force to fly routes which allowed the North to simply sit and wait for them, as they flew the same routes time, after time, after time, after time, after time....

This I largely agree with. However...

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is a load of BS, Kennedy was known to be one for whom defeat was not a concept to be accepted.

My low opinion of Kennedy stems largely from the fact he was in no way the man he was/is made out to be, or made himself out to be. His foreign policy is a major reason for this. I mean, this was a man who was feted for his supposed commitment to Berlin in its time of need after 1961, yet who in reality did not truly care about the plight of the city. I wouldn't class it as an example of his being willing to accept defeat, but he was certainly prepared to acquiesce in the division of Berlin in 1961. Now, I am certain that a more 'hawkish' approach could have brought with it immense dangers, and the stance adopted probably turned out to be the right one. But making the generalisation that Kennedy was in some way a great Cold War warrior strikes me as not painting a true picture.

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

To say he was not stupid is to ignore what he did.

You do, if I may say so, throw the term around to far too great an extent, as though your opinion is the only one in town and that's an end to it. It's not an attractive trait. Seeing shades of grey, rather than black and white, seems not to be popular on the American right at present.

**glauistean** · 6th November 2010, 01:49

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This I largely agree with. However...

My low opinion of Kennedy stems largely from the fact he was in no way the man he was/is made out to be, or made himself out to be. His foreign policy is a major reason for this. I mean, this was a man who was feted for his supposed commitment to Berlin in its time of need after 1961, yet who in reality did not truly care about the plight of the city. I wouldn't class it as an example of his being willing to accept defeat, but he was certainly prepared to acquiesce in the division of Berlin in 1961. Now, I am certain that a more 'hawkish' approach could have brought with it immense dangers, and the stance adopted probably turned out to be the right one. But making the generalisation that Kennedy was in some way a great Cold War warrior strikes me as not painting a true picture.

You do, if I may say so, throw the term around to far too great an extent, as though your opinion is the only one in town and that's an end to it. It's not an attractive trait. Seeing shades of grey, rather than black and white, seems not to be popular on the American right at present.

Your last point hit the mark squarely on the proverbial head!!!!