Gohmert: ‘Vietnam was winnable,’ but ‘people in Washington decided’ to lose

[AgingAmerican]

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Thursday asserted that the U.S. war in “Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!”

“One of the things that we’ve heard over and over again since Vietnam is, you know, we don’t want to get in another un-winnable war like Vietnam,” Gohmert told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “I’m not going to debate the merits of whether we should or should not have gone to Vietnam, but what I will tell you is, Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!”

More here...

Yeah, all we had to do was nuke them! The stupid...it....burns...!!

[Scuba]

1. GignertL "I'll say anything to keep the crazies back home either riled up or scared."

[Solly Mack]

2. Yeah, yeah. Him and "Rambo".

[marmar]

3. Gohmert is proof that evolution has not been kind to everyone.

nt

[maxsolomon]

4. in order to save the village, it was neccessary to destroy it.

this is, in fact, a way that wars have been won historically. you kill and kill and kill with massive, overwhelming force, until there is no one left to kill. then you enslave the survivors.

we could have done it. we could have "won" by killing everyone in vietnam.

thank god we didn't.

[atreides1]

5. From a former Army Lawyer

Gohmert served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, at Fort Benning, Georgia, from 1978 to 1982. The majority of his U.S. Army legal service was as a defense attorney.

Like military lawyers are given advanced classes in strategy and tactics!

[cthulu2016]

6. It was winnable, if we

define winning as killing every person in North Vietnam while rendering South Vietnam uninhabitable, along with Laos and Cambodia and Thailand and probably Burma and the Philippines.

And perhaps having a full-out nuclear exchange with Russia, destroying all of civilization.

We could have done that.

But the hearts and minds part? Nope.

[upaloopa]

7. The Vietnam war lasted ten years.

There are more than 50,000 names on the Wall in DC.
That averaged 5000 a year. The Iraq war cost over 4,000 military lives in 10 years.
Those numbers are a fraction of those killed by both wars.
To win the Vietnam war would have cost maybe another 50,000 military lives and millions more civilian and enemy lives.
Whether wars are winnable should not be the issue but rather how many lives should we waste fighting them.
We could have been in the same place with Vietnam before our involvement as we are today if we would have not supported the imperialism of France in 1946.

[denverbill]

8. Hey Louis: What would be different if we had 'won' the war?

A
What would be different if we had won the war?
1) Vietnam would be ruled by a pro-US military dictator
2) Tens of thousands of additional Americans would have died
3) Hundreds of thousands of additional Vietnamese would have died
4) We would be hundreds of billions deeper in debt

B
What would not be different?
1) We'd still have a free trade agreement with them
2) Diplomatic ties are cordial
3) Thousands of Vietnamese would still be getting maimed by unexploded ordnance
4) 50000 Americans would still be dead
5) 500000 Vietnamese would still be dead
6) We still be hundreds of billions of dollars in debt

C
What would be different if we hadn't fought in the first place?
1) Thousands of Vietnamese would not still be getting maimed by unexploded ordnance
2) 50000 Americans would not be dead
3) 500000 Vietnamese would not be dead
4) We be hundreds of billions of dollars less deeply in debt

Louis prefers option A.

[librechik]

9. yes, the disfunction goes back that far. They have been writing alternate history since the 60s.

How can we turn around 50 yrs of powerful and widely believed lies? Especially since we don't think it's fair to use propaganda, unlike the other side which LIVES on it.

[Botany]

10. Outside of the fact that the south was corrupt from top to bottom ...

..... and some of the officers for the South used to charge their soldiers
for bullets before they went in action. We could win every battle but
sooner or later we had to go home and the stronger side aka the North
was going to win.



my childhood friend's brother is on the wall ..... Louie should keep his mouth shut.

[cheyanne]

11. Why it's necessary for republicans to believe this: Iraq.

See, we won in Iraq!! (sarcasm)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. He has been behind the troops. As an Army pogue. Well behind. Somewhat like "Tailgunner Joe."

Here's an exchange that he had with Rep. John Murtha, the first Vietnam War veteran elected to the U.S. House of Representatives:

Rep. Gohmert: Let me close by saying some have not had nice things to say about our colleague Mr. Murtha, and others wanting to pull out of Iraq quickly. I understand the faithful visitation that he does routinely. So i say thank god for his big heart. I say thank god for his compassion. Thank god for his visits to the wounded. Thank god for his ministering to grieving families. But thank god he was not here and prevailed after the bloodbaths at Normandy and in the Pacific or we would be here speaking Japanese or German. Thank you.

Rep. Murtha: Was the gentleman at any of those locations? Either at normandy or any of those locations?

Rep. Gohmert: You want to know which locations?

Rep. Murtha: Yeah. Normandy?

Rep. Murtha: I say were you there?

Rep. Gohmert: No, sir. I wasn't.

Rep. Murtha: Were you in Vietnam?

Rep. Gohmert: No, sir.

Rep. Murtha: Iraq?

Rep. Gohmert: No. I have been over there. I haven't been fighting.

Rep. Murtha: Boots on the ground?

Rep. Gohmert: I do admire the gentleman's compassion and all he has done for our wounded. He has done a great service that would be you, Mr. Murtha

http://forums.eog.com/showthread.php?t=30600

[thucythucy]

13. Ah yes, the old "stab in the back" legend.

AKA the "Dolchstosslengende."

Used and loved by reactionaries the world-over since 1918.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Sure. Taking sides in civil wars is ever so beneficial. See Afghanistan for more recent brilliance.