PDA

View Full Version : Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam With Timelines...


jAZ
07-07-2007, 01:24 AM
Rudy is proving himself to be Bush II. I really though he was more than that. I am starting to question how intellectually curious he is, what with the ISG thing... and stupid comments like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam
Today, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech to the Jewish Community Relations Council in New York:

(I)f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do — which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you’re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We’ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an “eight-point peace plan” calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

Some highlights of Nixon giving the enemy a “timetable of our retreat”:

June 8, 1969: Nixon announces the redeployment of 25,000 troops, which would begin in the “next 30 days” and be completed by the end of August.

Sept. 16, 1969: Nixon announces a new “troop ceiling,” meaning that a minimum of 60,000 troops would be withdrawn by December.

Dec. 15, 1969: Nixon calls for a “reduction in our troop ceiling of 50,000 more U.S. troops by April 15 next year.”

April 20, 1970: Nixon calls for the withdrawal of 150,000 troops “to be completed during the spring of next year.”

Oct. 12, 1970: Nixon announces the reduction of the troop ceiling by another 40,000 troops between “now and Christmas.”

Nov. 12, 1971: Nixon announced to the nation, “Over the next 2 months we will withdraw 45,000 Americans.”

Jan. 13, 1972: Nixon stated, “I am announcing today the withdrawal of an additional 70,000 [troops] from Vietnam over the next 3 months.”

Apr. 26, 1972: Nixon announces that “over the next 2 months 20,000 more Americans will be brought home from Vietnam.”

stevieray
07-07-2007, 01:30 AM
"by agreed upon stages"

Wouldn't we have to be in talks with the insurgents for this to apply?

or does this imply just internal agreement?

Logical
07-07-2007, 01:46 AM
"by agreed upon stages"

Wouldn't we have to be in talks with the insurgents for this to apply?

or does this imply just internal agreement?

Internal agreement with Congress

Taco John
07-07-2007, 02:14 AM
"by agreed upon stages"

Wouldn't we have to be in talks with the insurgents for this to apply?

or does this imply just internal agreement?



Oh my good Christ... :shake:

Yeah... We cleared our timetable with the folks whose country we invaded. Once they were cool with it, we split. :rolleyes:

Taco John
07-07-2007, 02:28 AM
Look folks... The only reason this war is as complicated as it is, is because Bush didn't listen to his generals to begin with. If he'd have gone in with the proper amount of troops, this thing most likely would have been put to bed long ago.

It's too late now. The only way to "win" this thing is through a draft so that we can secure and HOLD areas for extended periods of time.

General Colin Powell said go in with overwhelming force. Mr. Donald Rumsfeld said we could secure the nation with light forces and air strikes. Bush ignored the general in favor of the civilian, and our nation is paying for it with another Vietnam-like failure.

The only defeatists in the room are the ones who insist on throwing our troops into the never-ending meat grinder hoping that if we sacrifice enough of them, things will turn around over there. It's not going to happen unless we make a national committment and re-instate a draft.

I personally can't even envision a scenario in which America would get behind a draft for Iraq. As such, there's really no option for us at this time but to pull out and let the chips fall where they may.

Logical
07-07-2007, 03:09 AM
Look folks... The only reason this war is as complicated as it is, is because Bush didn't listen to his generals to begin with. If he'd have gone in with the proper amount of troops, this thing most likely would have been put to bed long ago.

It's too late now. The only way to "win" this thing is through a draft so that we can secure and HOLD areas for extended periods of time.

General Colin Powell said go in with overwhelming force. Mr. Donald Rumsfeld said we could secure the nation with light forces and air strikes. Bush ignored the general in favor of the civilian, and our nation is paying for it with another Vietnam-like failure.

The only defeatists in the room are the ones who insist on throwing our troops into the never-ending meat grinder hoping that if we sacrifice enough of them, things will turn around over there. It's not going to happen unless we make a national committment and re-instate a draft.

I personally can't even envision a scenario in which America would get behind a draft for Iraq. As such, there's really no option for us at this time but to pull out and let the chips fall where they may.

Yup, very concise and well stated.

HolmeZz
07-07-2007, 03:34 AM
It's not going to happen unless we make a national committment and re-instate a draft.

A coalition of the unwilling!

Taco John
07-07-2007, 04:07 AM
You won't even get patteau to voice support of a draft. The best he'll give is the same wishy washy non-vision that candidates like Rudy Giuliani is giving, saying that he'll wait to hear what the Generals on the ground will say.

What we have right now is a leadership vaccuum. Nobody on the right is willing to stick their necks out and say that they have a plan and that the buck will stop with them. Instead, they put it on the Generals, who predictably don't want to look like wimps while in the middle of combat. They'll paint as optimistic a picture as they can possibly muster... just like any of us would in our own jobs when asked to deliver under tough circumstance.

Bill Parcells
07-07-2007, 06:33 AM
Oh my good Christ... :shake:

Yeah... We cleared our timetable with the folks whose country we invaded. Once they were cool with it, we split. :rolleyes:
I think Stevie was referring to the Vietnam scenario, in which we did have talks with North Vietnam. and that we obviously will not have talks with the insurgents.

mikey23545
07-07-2007, 10:28 AM
Yeah, we should follow the Vietnam plan...That turned out well....

Taco John
07-07-2007, 10:40 AM
Yeah, we should follow the Vietnam plan...That turned out well....



It did once we got out. Too bad that we got in there in the first place.

wazu
07-07-2007, 10:40 AM
Yeah, we should follow the Vietnam plan...

I thought we already were.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 10:45 AM
You won't even get patteau to voice support of a draft. The best he'll give is the same wishy washy non-vision that candidates like Rudy Giuliani is giving, saying that he'll wait to hear what the Generals on the ground will say.
Based on some of his posts I bet he's support foreigners for hire in our military and more mercs.

Simplex3
07-07-2007, 10:54 AM
...and our nation is paying for it with another Vietnam-like failure.
Bullshit.

According to documents declassified by the Vietnamese govt. in 1995 5.1 million people died in the Vietnam war, including 4 million civilians (likely to have included Viet Cong), 1.1 million military casualties, and 600,000 wounded.

Lay down the bullshit political rhetoric. This war doesn't hold a f**king candle to that one and isn't comparable in any way. You do a huge disservice to the people who were involved in Vietnam (on both sides) when you try.

Simplex3
07-07-2007, 10:57 AM
It did once we got out. Too bad that we got in there in the first place.
Yes it was. It was even worse that we thought we could fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. You know, like the one we're fighting in Iraq now.

I'm not even attempting to make the point that Iraq isn't f**ked. Let's not pretend, however, that it is anything like Vietnam.

stevieray
07-07-2007, 12:10 PM
I think Stevie was referring to the Vietnam scenario, in which we did have talks with North Vietnam. and that we obviously will not have talks with the insurgents.

careful, you might indicate that troop withdrawals are a part of peace talks, therefore pissiing on the fearmongering.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 01:14 PM
By omission, the consensus on this thread seems to be "Rudy, you ignorant slut".

patteeu
07-07-2007, 02:36 PM
By omission, the consensus on this thread seems to be "Rudy, you ignorant slut".

I suspect the "omission" indicates that no one was interested in the original topic.

Logical
07-07-2007, 03:32 PM
careful, you might indicate that troop withdrawals are a part of peace talks, therefore pissiing on the fearmongering.

That is just not the way it went, but go ahead and make shit up Stevie.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 04:11 PM
That is just not the way it went, but go ahead and make shit up Stevie.

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords), it *is* the way it went. Troop withdrawal was a topic negotiated with the enemy.

...

The main military and political provisions of the agreement were:

...

Following the ceasefire, U.S. troops (along with other foreign soldiers) would begin to withdraw, with withdrawal to be complete within sixty days. Simultaneously, U.S. prisoners of war would be released and allowed to return home. The parties to the agreement agreed to assist in repatriating the remains of the dead.

...

Baby Lee
07-07-2007, 07:55 PM
By omission, the consensus on this thread seems to be "Rudy, you ignorant slut".
We're all glued to the Live Earth concert!!