PDA

View Full Version : Bush will invoke Vietnam in support of Iraq plans


Boyceofsummer
08-22-2007, 03:16 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.


President Bush pauses Tuesday during a news conference at the North American Leaders summit in Canada.

On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," according to speech excerpts released Tuesday by the White House.

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush will say.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

The president will also make the argument that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today's terrorists by compromising U.S. credibility, citing a quote from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that the American people would rise against the Iraq war the same way they rose against the war in Vietnam, according to the excerpts.

"Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility, but the terrorists see things differently," Bush will say.

Bush sees progress, but speaks of 'frustration'
Iraqi rivals look for reconciliation formula
Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report
The White House is billing the speech, along with another address next week to the American Legion, as an effort to "provide broader context" for the debate over the upcoming Iraq progress report by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad.

It is being closely watched on Capitol Hill, particularly by Republicans nervous about the political fallout from an increasingly unpopular war.

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would wait for the report before deciding when a drawdown of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq might begin.

Bush's speeches Wednesday and next week are the latest in a series of attempts by the White House to try to reframe the debate over Iraq, as public support for the war continues to sag.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans -- 64 percent -- now oppose the Iraq war, and 72 percent say that even if Petraeus reports progress, it won't change their opinion.

The poll also found a great deal of skepticism about the report; 53 percent said they do not trust Petraeus to give an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq.

In addition to his analogy to Vietnam, Bush in Wednesday's speech will invoke other historical comparisons from Asia, including the U.S. defeat and occupation of Japan after World War II and the Korean War in the 1950s, according to the excerpts.

"In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then, as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom," Bush will say. "Today, in defiance of the critics, Japan ... stands as one of the world's great free societies."


Speaking about the Korean War, Bush will note that at the time "critics argued that the war was futile, that we never should have sent our troops in, or that America's intervention was divisive here at home."

"While it is true that the Korean War had its share of challenges, America never broke its word," Bush will say. "Without America's intervention during the war, and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime."


BUSH DID NOT SERVE DURING VIETNAM. HE RAN FROM THE COMMITTMENT. NOW HE WILL EDUCATE THE WORLD ABOUT THE MISTAKES WE MADE IN VIETNAM?

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 04:16 AM
BUSH DID NOT SERVE DURING VIETNAM. HE RAN FROM THE COMMITTMENT. NOW HE WILL EDUCATE THE WORLD ABOUT THE MISTAKES WE MADE IN VIETNAM?

No, we've been waiting for you to educate us about the mistakes that far more educated and informed people have made.

Please don't hold back. We need you.

Just you.

Boyceofsummer
08-22-2007, 04:22 AM
No, we've been waiting for you to educate us about the mistakes that far more educated and informed people have made.

Please don't hold back. We need you.

Just you.

the world's wrong.

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2007, 04:39 AM
Don't lose your nerve, Boyce. Stick with the "Bush was wrong," "Condi was wrong," "Rumsfeld was wrong," "Patreaus is wrong," "Powell was wrong despite being right" thing.

Boyceofsummer
08-22-2007, 04:49 AM
Don't lose your nerve, Boyce. Stick with the "Bush was wrong," "Condi was wrong," "Rumsfeld was wrong," "Patreaus is wrong," "Powell was wrong despite being right" thing.

is sad. NOT ONLY WERE THEY WRONG! THEY LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE QUAGMIRE THEY CREATED!

It's called treason.

Boyceofsummer
08-22-2007, 04:51 AM
Don't lose your nerve, Boyce. Stick with the "Bush was wrong," "Condi was wrong," "Rumsfeld was wrong," "Patreaus is wrong," "Powell was wrong despite being right" thing.

historically flawed political view. Bye!

Fishpicker
08-22-2007, 04:57 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YsVKDY74C0g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YsVKDY74C0g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

they had it right all along yet, they lied anyway.

Powell, February, 2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Rice, July, 2001: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

patteeu
08-22-2007, 07:01 AM
BUSH DID NOT SERVE DURING VIETNAM. HE RAN FROM THE COMMITTMENT. NOW HE WILL EDUCATE THE WORLD ABOUT THE MISTAKES WE MADE IN VIETNAM?

AS OPPOSED TO YOU EDUCATING US ABOUT THE MISTAKES WE ARE MAKING TODAY? BRILLIANT!!

the Talking Can
08-22-2007, 07:40 AM
Stephen Colbert is funny as hell....















..wait, this isn't a skit?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:53 AM
I've read that the nc's and Cheney in particular, are really emotionally stuck in the Vietnam loss and never got over it; that it drives them psychologically as a past bad experience. They've never let go of it.

Also Kissinger has been advising both Bush and Cheney behind the scenes. He was there during Vietnam too.

Just a week or so ago Bush was using the Korean model. Guess it could still apply.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 10:13 AM
Bush isn't too bright. For him to turn around and say Iraq is like Vietnam gives his opponents the political opening of the decade.

Ugly Duck
08-22-2007, 10:35 AM
I listened to his speech while cleaning up the kitchen.... wutta fuggin moran! Amazing that there are still some Americans that can listen to him without laughing in his face. Unbefreakinlieveable!

patteeu
08-22-2007, 10:41 AM
I listened to his speech while cleaning up the kitchen.... wutta fuggin moran! Amazing that there are still some Americans that can listen to him without laughing in his face. Unbefreakinlieveable!

Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye. He is a heroic figure, IMO.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 10:49 AM
Ya' know what's funny about this Vietnam thing. We weren't harmed at all after we left. In fact, now we trade with them.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 10:57 AM
Ya' know what's funny about this Vietnam thing. We weren't harmed at all after we left. In fact, now we trade with them.

We were harmed a great deal. Our intelligence capabilities were broken by "reform" (and they eventually let us down in both GW I and the GWoT). Our global battle with Soviet communism moved to different venues but it didn't end.

But by far the biggest harm was psychological: We moved a long way in the direction of becoming a "can't do" nation instead of a "can do" nation.

That damage has manifested itself in our longtime impotence in the face of the islamist terror threat and now that we've finally engaged it, the psychological scars have made the American public seemingly incapable of sustaining support for the effort. It's really pretty pathetic.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 11:03 AM
Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye. He is a heroic figure, IMO.
see this tells me that your here to just push buttons ... that your passionate and blind support for this administration is more about screwing with the left than it is anything else.


you're too intelligent to actually believe/feel that term heroic applies to virtually any modern political figure.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 11:09 AM
see this tells me that your here to just push buttons that you passionate and blind support for this administration is more about screwing with the left than it is anything else.


you're to intelligent to actually believe/feel that term heroic applies to virtually any modern political figure.

I'm not the only one:

Why President Bush is a Hero (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/why_president_bush_is_a_hero.html)
By Ed Koch

President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.

Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the President's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a perfect job in the White House.

George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage. The President does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

....

BTW, this is an old article from last December.

the Talking Can
08-22-2007, 11:10 AM
We were harmed a great deal. Our intelligence capabilities were broken by "reform" (and they eventually let us down in both GW I and the GWoT). Our global battle with Soviet communism moved to different venues but it didn't end.

But by far the biggest harm was psychological: We moved a long way in the direction of becoming a "can't do" nation instead of a "can do" nation.

That damage has manifested itself in our longtime impotence in the face of the islamist terror threat and now that we've finally engaged it, the psychological scars have made the American public seemingly incapable of sustaining support for the effort. It's really pretty pathetic.

pathetic is right....what a bunch of psychobabble...literal gibberish

you are Stephen Colbert, I don't care what you say

Ugly Duck
08-22-2007, 11:39 AM
Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye. He is a heroic figure, IMO.

Well, now you've gone & made me feel bad. Its completely unfathomable to me how anyone with half a brain could have fallen for that senseless drivel, and yet here you are. Its a puzzlement....

|Zach|
08-22-2007, 01:16 PM
Boyce as always been a weak seagull poster. And the only dumbass out of every post and every person I have ever read on this message board to actually use the subject headers for each post.

The guy hasn't had a real take in his life.

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 01:20 PM
Boyce as always been a weak seagull poster. And the only dumbass out of every post and every person I have ever read on this message board to actually use the subject headers for each post.

The guy hasn't had a real take in his life.

couldn't have said it better myself :thumb:

StcChief
08-22-2007, 03:26 PM
We were harmed a great deal. Our intelligence capabilities were broken by "reform" (and they eventually let us down in both GW I and the GWoT). Our global battle with Soviet communism moved to different venues but it didn't end.

But by far the biggest harm was psychological: We moved a long way in the direction of becoming a "can't do" nation instead of a "can do" nation.

That damage has manifested itself in our longtime impotence in the face of the islamist terror threat and now that we've finally engaged it, the psychological scars have made the American public seemingly incapable of sustaining support for the effort. It's really pretty pathetic.

and America will still be saying they are our friends lets work it out, as they are sliting throats right in front of them.

Best thing for John Daly would be to witness such an event in Iraq

Adept Havelock
08-22-2007, 03:40 PM
We were harmed a great deal. Our intelligence capabilities were broken by "reform" (and they eventually let us down in both GW I and the GWoT). Our global battle with Soviet communism moved to different venues but it didn't end.

But by far the biggest harm was psychological: We moved a long way in the direction of becoming a "can't do" nation instead of a "can do" nation.

That damage has manifested itself in our longtime impotence in the face of the islamist terror threat and now that we've finally engaged it, the psychological scars have made the American public seemingly incapable of sustaining support for the effort. It's really pretty pathetic.


So what should we have done? Invaded Laos, Cambodia, and N. Vietnam? It's the only way we could have won long-term.

Then there's that pesky little matter of that kind of escalation almost certainly escalating into WW3 with the USSR (who had nuclear parity by that point) and the PRC.

Sure, pulling out hurt us. Not as much as staying would have, IMO.

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 03:58 PM
So what should we have done? Invaded Laos, Cambodia, and N. Vietnam? It's the only way we could have won long-term.

Then there's that pesky little matter of that kind of escalation almost certainly escalating into WW3 with the USSR (who had nuclear parity by that point) and the PRC.

Sure, pulling out hurt us. Not as much as staying would have, IMO.

WRONG

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 03:59 PM
We were harmed a great deal. Our intelligence capabilities were broken by "reform" (and they eventually let us down in both GW I and the GWoT). Our global battle with Soviet communism moved to different venues but it didn't end.

But by far the biggest harm was psychological: We moved a long way in the direction of becoming a "can't do" nation instead of a "can do" nation.

That damage has manifested itself in our longtime impotence in the face of the islamist terror threat and now that we've finally engaged it, the psychological scars have made the American public seemingly incapable of sustaining support for the effort. It's really pretty pathetic.

Excellent Take!

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 04:04 PM
Excellent Take!
Realize that there's intel of the CIA, FBI plus how the sharing of information was done due to certain laws passed in the 1970's where pat's point applies on terrorism but not from the CIA analysts specializing in the ME, or rogue covert operations that are kept secret from other folks in the CIA.

Adept Havelock
08-22-2007, 04:12 PM
WRONG


Are you seriously suggesting that we could have won in Vietnam without denying the enemy a sanctuary from which to strike? Last time I checked that meant occupying N. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

An escalation like that means occupying a nation that shares a border with China. Remeber what happened last time we tried that?

Are you really foolish enough to believe that Brezhnev wouldn't have gone apeshit?

You remind me of the yammerheads that blamed Ellsworth for showing the American people what the Government knew about the war...all the way back in 1967. Neither LBJ or Nixon were willing to escalate to that level to secure a "win". That in itself speaks volumes, IMO.

OK, self-proclaimed genius, as I asked pattteeu, how do you "win" Vietnam without occupying those nations and escalating the war?

jettio
08-22-2007, 04:14 PM
We were harmed a great deal. Our intelligence capabilities were broken by "reform" (and they eventually let us down in both GW I and the GWoT). Our global battle with Soviet communism moved to different venues but it didn't end.

But by far the biggest harm was psychological: We moved a long way in the direction of becoming a "can't do" nation instead of a "can do" nation.

That damage has manifested itself in our longtime impotence in the face of the islamist terror threat and now that we've finally engaged it, the psychological scars have made the American public seemingly incapable of sustaining support for the effort. It's really pretty pathetic.

Not only did B*sh go headlong into an unnecessary folly, he did not bring enough troops to do the job, and then the PUSSY hid them out in the "green zone" with Paul Bremer and the College Republicans lounging about the pool while terrorists terrorized the Iraqi people we were supposed to save from Saddam..

The psychological scars are the ones on your heroic figure. He was a PUSSY duirng the Vietnam war, and he has fought this unnecessary war like an even bigger PUSSY afraid to pay the price in American lives that it would have taken to save the good people in Iraq from the terrorists.

B*sh was a pussy all by himself, it is not the fault of the American people that B*sh was too chickensh*t to fight to win his unnecessary war. Not only did he miscalculate from the start, he wanted so bad to win re-election in 2004, that he intentionally failed to escalate troop levels to what they needed to be even after he realized that the job was not getting done.

B*sh is the sorriest excuse for a wartime commander in chief in our nation's history. Lies to start an unnecessary war, and then does not even fight to win the war because he only wants to trick enough stupid people into voting for his lying dumbazz again.

jettio
08-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye. He is a heroic figure, IMO.

If he made you cry he must have reminisced about the Coalition Provisional Authority. Stay the Course.

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 04:32 PM
Realize that there's intel of the CIA, FBI plus how the sharing of information was done due to certain laws passed in the 1970's where pat's point applies on terrorism but not from the CIA analysts specializing in the ME, or rogue covert operations that are kept secret from other folks in the CIA.

I know. I believe we started nudering our spy agencies beginning with the Democrats and the Church Committee in the 70's which started a cascade of events where our spies couldn't do their work on the ground properly thus blinding us for two plus decades about threats like Al Qaeda. Patteau's post is right on the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

HolmeZz
08-22-2007, 04:35 PM
Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye. He is a heroic figure, IMO.

Sweet Zombie Jesus.

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 04:50 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that we could have won in Vietnam without denying the enemy a sanctuary from which to strike? Last time I checked that meant occupying N. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

An escalation like that means occupying a nation that shares a border with China. Remeber what happened last time we tried that?

Are you really foolish enough to believe that Brezhnev wouldn't have gone apeshit?

You remind me of the yammerheads that blamed Ellsworth for showing the American people what the Government knew about the war...all the way back in 1967. Neither LBJ or Nixon were willing to escalate to that level to secure a "win". That in itself speaks volumes, IMO.

OK, self-proclaimed genius, as I asked pattteeu, how do you "win" Vietnam without occupying those nations and escalating the war?

I'm saying we should have divided the country like Korea and never of left.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 04:55 PM
Not only did B*sh go headlong into an unnecessary folly, he did not bring enough troops to do the job, and then the PUSSY hid them out in the "green zone" with Paul Bremer and the College Republicans lounging about the pool while terrorists terrorized the Iraqi people we were supposed to save from Saddam..

The psychological scars are the ones on your heroic figure. He was a PUSSY duirng the Vietnam war, and he has fought this unnecessary war like an even bigger PUSSY afraid to pay the price in American lives that it would have taken to save the good people in Iraq from the terrorists.

B*sh was a pussy all by himself, it is not the fault of the American people that B*sh was too chickensh*t to fight to win his unnecessary war. Not only did he miscalculate from the start, he wanted so bad to win re-election in 2004, that he intentionally failed to escalate troop levels to what they needed to be even after he realized that the job was not getting done.

B*sh is the sorriest excuse for a wartime commander in chief in our nation's history. Lies to start an unnecessary war, and then does not even fight to win the war because he only wants to trick enough stupid people into voting for his lying dumbazz again.

It's too bad you have to resort to such lies. Bush didn't lie us into war. I do agree that the 2004 election cycle hurt our cause though as Bush held off on finishing the job in Fallujah until after the election. He shouldn't have called it off the first time.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 05:00 PM
Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye. He is a heroic figure, IMO.


Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye, too. I couldn't believe how FOS he was standing up there. Made me want to cry.

Worst president of my lifetime. Possibly all time.

Adept Havelock
08-22-2007, 05:46 PM
I'm saying we should have divided the country like Korea and never of left.

That's one possibility, I suppose. I'm sure the NVA and their allies in the South would have been thrilled to have another couple of decades to bleed us. As would their masters in Hanoi, Moscow, and Beijing.

BTW- Thank you for your implied admission that I was correct RE: the geopolitical realities that prevented us from "winning the war". Otherwise why would you be willing to settle for a mere return to the status quo ante bellum (as you stated above), instead of going for the win? Well if you can admit (even in a roundabout fashion) I'm correct, I suppose you do have an element of genius about you after all. :)

.

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 05:53 PM
That's one possibility, I suppose. I'm sure the NVA and their allies in the South would have been thrilled to have another couple of decades to bleed us. As would their masters in Hanoi, Moscow, and Beijing.

BTW- Thank you for your implied admission that I was correct RE: the geopolitical realities that prevented us from "winning the war". Otherwise why would you be willing to settle for a mere return to the status quo ante bellum (as you stated above), instead of going for the win? Well, if you can admit, even in a roundabout fashion I'm correct, I suppose you do have an element of genius about you after all. :)

I'm glad I could make you happy. :) You may kiss my ring.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 05:56 PM
That's one possibility, I suppose. I'm sure the NVA and their allies in the South would have been thrilled to have another couple of decades to bleed us. As would their masters in Hanoi, Moscow, and Beijing.

BTW- Thank you for your implied admission that I was correct RE: the geopolitical realities that prevented us from "winning the war". Otherwise why would you be willing to settle for a mere return to the status quo ante bellum (as you stated above), instead of going for the win? Well, if you can admit, even in a roundabout fashion I'm correct, I suppose you do have an element of genius about you after all. :)

I won't admit that you are correct. You may be, but I have no way to judge that. To be sure, the Cold War dynamic and the Chinese factor were serious considerations. Even if, as you have suggested in the past, the Pentagon Papers agree with your outlook, it wouldn't be the first time that the Pentagon got it wrong. If the Pentagon was infallible, we wouldn't be facing an insurgency in Iraq right now. But I was a young lad at the time and I haven't researched it myself so I'm not in a position to accept or reject your theory.

However, I don't have to reject your theory to be right about the consequences of our loss in Vietnam. Whether we had a better alternative or not, cutting and running damaged our country in a serious and ongoing way even if it didn't lead to fulfillment of the domino theory.

Adept Havelock
08-22-2007, 06:02 PM
I won't admit that you are correct. You may be, but I have no way to judge that. To be sure, the Cold War dynamic and the Chinese factor were serious considerations. Even if, as you have suggested in the past, the Pentagon Papers agree with your outlook, it wouldn't be the first time that the Pentagon got it wrong. If the Pentagon was infallible, we wouldn't be facing an insurgency in Iraq right now. But I was a young lad at the time and I haven't researched it myself so I'm not in a position to accept or reject your theory.

However, I don't have to reject your theory to be right about the consequences of our loss in Vietnam. Whether we had a better alternative or not, cutting and running damaged our country in a serious and ongoing way even if it didn't lead to fulfillment of the domino theory.


I note you still can't suggest anyway we could have "won".

I don't dispute leaving Vietnam hurt us. It seems you would have been happier if we had allowed Hanoi and their paymasters a couple more decades of bleeding the US. IMO, that would have harmed us far more, domestically, as well as internationally. As fragmented as the nation was in the late Sixties/early Seventies, I shudder to think what another 15 years of that war would have done to us.

BTW- The Pentagon Papers weren't about an in-house Pentagon Study. It was a study by RAND, one of the most effective think-tanks throughout the Cold War. Their track record is/was quite impressive, especially when compared to the five sided funny farm or the folks down the road at Langley. I think I understand. You don't want to be bothered with researching a counter-argument, and find it easier to simply sow doubt. No biggie.

I'm a bit surprised you can't admit that a Democratic administration got us into an unwinnable war. ;)

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 06:30 PM
I note you still can't suggest anyway we could have "won".

I don't dispute leaving Vietnam hurt us. It seems you would have been happier if we had allowed Hanoi and their paymasters a couple more decades of bleeding the US. IMO, that would have harmed us far more, domestically, as well as internationally. As fragmented as the nation was in the late Sixties/early Seventies, I shudder to think what another 15 years of that war would have done to us.

BTW- The Pentagon Papers weren't about an in-house Pentagon Study. It was a study by RAND, one of the most effective think-tanks throughout the Cold War. Their track record is/was quite impressive, especially when compared to the five sided funny farm or the folks down the road at Langley. I think I understand. You don't want to be bothered with researching a counter-argument, and find it easier to simply sow doubt. No biggie.

I'm a bit surprised you can't admit that a Democratic administration got us into an unwinnable war. ;)

One of the the best lessons that came out of Vietnam was the elimination of the Draft thus making our armed forces professional.

Adept Havelock
08-22-2007, 06:36 PM
One of the the best lessons that came out of Vietnam was the elimination of the Draft thus making our armed forces professional.

Very true.

One question. As you have so much respect for the military, why is your avatar a picture of a soldier who, like Macarthur, decided to ignore the chain of command? After all it was Lemay's saber-rattling (contrary to direct orders) during the Cuban Crisis that got him pushed out of SAC in favor of General Powers.

That said, I won't dispute he did a hell of a job with the Eighth AF in Europe, and equally as well running the Superforts in the Pacific. He was effective, no doubt. Everything I've read and heard attests to that. However, there were a couple of other issues with the man (aside from his chain-of-command issues) I've got family that served directly under him in SAC, and he was as bloodthirsty a nutter as we've had in quite some time. The loon was trying to provoke the biggest holocaust in human history, and got (correctly) bounced for it.

Not a knock on you, just curious. Hell, my avatar is of a cat that doesn't even know if it exists or not.

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 06:40 PM
Agreed. One question. If you have so much respect for the military, why is your avatar a picture of a soldier who, like Macarthur, forgot about the chain of command? After all, it was Lemay's saber-rattling (contrary to direct orders) during the Cuban Crisis that got him pushed out of SAC in favor of General Powers.

That said, I won't dispute he did a hell of a job with the Eighth AF in Europe, and equally as well running the Superforts in the Pacific.

I didn't put that much detailed thought into it AH. I had to change my Avi after LJ signed so I decided to add this priceless signature from this guys memoirs about Lemay. Then I just added LeMay's pic. I'm surprised you think he did a good job with the 8th AF since he carpet bombed Japanese cities regardless of military value. But in fairness it was a different time and we were a different country.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 07:00 PM
The US will never win an undeclared war, because it won't be able to keep the people behind the effort.

jettio
08-22-2007, 07:06 PM
It's too bad you have to resort to such lies. Bush didn't lie us into war. I do agree that the 2004 election cycle hurt our cause though as Bush held off on finishing the job in Fallujah until after the election. He shouldn't have called it off the first time.

Oh, I did not realize that there was Mission Accomplished, II.

I thought you and B*sh had visions of Iraq being the arab democracy that would be such a great place to live that every other neighboring country would follow suit and the threat of terrorism would die. my bad.

Adept Havelock
08-22-2007, 07:33 PM
I didn't put that much detailed thought into it AH. I had to change my Avi after LJ signed so I decided to add this priceless signature from this guys memoirs about Lemay. Then I just added LeMay's pic. I'm surprised you think he did a good job with the 8th AF since he carpet bombed Japanese cities regardless of military value. But in fairness it was a different time and we were a different country.


Thanks for the response. I Appreciate it. WW2 was a different time, that's for sure. Hopefully the world will never see another "Total War" again, otherwise it's Einstein's version of WW4 shortly thereafter.

Good sig line. I hadn't heard that about him.

alanm
08-23-2007, 12:29 AM
Parts of his speech nearly brought a tear to my eye, too. I couldn't believe how FOS he was standing up there. Made me want to cry.

Worst president of my lifetime. Possibly all time.
You ain't seen Hillary yet.
:)

Ugly Duck
08-23-2007, 12:37 AM
The US will never win an undeclared war, because it won't be able to keep the people behind the effort.

Heck... BushCo invaded Iraqnam without a draft and without asking the country to pony up for the costs. They're just putting it on the tab instead of having us ante up. Either one of those would cause most of the remaining support evaporate right quick.

ChiefaRoo
08-23-2007, 12:46 AM
I note you still can't suggest anyway we could have "won".

I don't dispute leaving Vietnam hurt us. It seems you would have been happier if we had allowed Hanoi and their paymasters a couple more decades of bleeding the US. IMO, that would have harmed us far more, domestically, as well as internationally. As fragmented as the nation was in the late Sixties/early Seventies, I shudder to think what another 15 years of that war would have done to us.

BTW- The Pentagon Papers weren't about an in-house Pentagon Study. It was a study by RAND, one of the most effective think-tanks throughout the Cold War. Their track record is/was quite impressive, especially when compared to the five sided funny farm or the folks down the road at Langley. I think I understand. You don't want to be bothered with researching a counter-argument, and find it easier to simply sow doubt. No biggie.

I'm a bit surprised you can't admit that a Democratic administration got us into an unwinnable war. ;)

The older and more experienced I get I have come to realize that war is not always about the traditional American version of winning and losing. Gulf War 1 was a traditional win because the objective was clearly defined and the objective did not involve nation building. Korea, has turned into a grey win because S. Korea is a vibrant country that contributes to the world but still lives under the threat of attack from their countrymen to the North. Vietnam could of been Korea most likely and I believe Iraq can be a long term win but if it is it will be different than any war we've ever fought. I don't get frustrated with Iraq because I think we will win if we stay there long enough. That being said I don't like to hear about Americans or innocent Iraqis being killed.... it's an inperfect world, we're doing the best we can.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 09:36 AM
I note you still can't suggest anyway we could have "won".

You're very observant. You might also note that I haven't spent a lot of time (actually, no time at all) explaining how we win in Iraq or Iran or North Korea or Syria or anywhere else. Unlike some of the armchair generals we have around here, I don't presume to be an expert war planner. I do know that we weren't defeated militarily in Vietnam and that we had options that we left on the table.

I don't dispute leaving Vietnam hurt us. It seems you would have been happier if we had allowed Hanoi and their paymasters a couple more decades of bleeding the US. IMO, that would have harmed us far more, domestically, as well as internationally. As fragmented as the nation was in the late Sixties/early Seventies, I shudder to think what another 15 years of that war would have done to us.

BTW- The Pentagon Papers weren't about an in-house Pentagon Study. It was a study by RAND, one of the most effective think-tanks throughout the Cold War. Their track record is/was quite impressive, especially when compared to the five sided funny farm or the folks down the road at Langley. I think I understand. You don't want to be bothered with researching a counter-argument, and find it easier to simply sow doubt. No biggie.

I'm a bit surprised you can't admit that a Democratic administration got us into an unwinnable war. ;)

You're right that I don't want to be bothered with researching a counter-argument for a war that's been over for decades now. I keep too busy arguing with this generation's Jane Fondas and Tom Haydens.

I appreciate your jab about me passing on the opportunity to criticize a democrat administration, but the truth is that I respect the fact that neither of the democrat administrations involved in that conflict cut and ran. Whether getting into the fight in the first place was a good move is a different question (just as it is in the current conflict).

Ugly Duck
08-23-2007, 09:42 AM
I think we will win if we stay there long enough.

What does "win" mean?

patteeu
08-23-2007, 09:46 AM
The US will never win an undeclared war, because it won't be able to keep the people behind the effort.

I don't know why you think the people would stay behind a formally declared war any better than they'd stay behind an "authorized" war. I doubt it. I think our population has grown complacent and many of us expect the good times to roll perpetually without any need to confront real life threats. It's a child-like sense of invulnerability.

Evidence of this can be seen in the people who think that diplomacy without the credible threat of force can solve all our problems, IMO.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 09:49 AM
What does "win" mean?

Refusing to surrender, for one thing.

Radar Chief
08-23-2007, 09:49 AM
What does "win" mean?

:LOL: From the Raiduh’s fan = irony. ;)

HolmeZz
08-23-2007, 09:55 AM
Refusing to surrender, for one thing.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8RorxM0AQYw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8RorxM0AQYw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Now how about you answer UD's question thoughtfully and not with something you saw on a bumpersticker.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 10:31 AM
Now how about you answer UD's question thoughtfully and not with something you saw on a bumpersticker.

Are you a Corey Hart a fanboy?

The President has articulated our goals on many occasions and I've addressed what I think victory means (pretty much everything the President is holding out for minus the necessity for an immediate democracy). If you and UD don't know what "win" means by now, you don't really deserve a seat at the grownups table.

HolmeZz
08-23-2007, 10:34 AM
The President has articulated our goals on many occasions.

He's said a lot of stuff about a lot of things.

I've addressed what I think victory means (pretty much everything the President is holding out for minus the necessity of a democracy) too.

I haven't heard it. I want you to tell me. What is 'winning'? What does it look like? How can we achieve it? How long will it take to achieve? What are you plans to make sure everything doesn't revert back to the way it is once we leave?

patteeu
08-23-2007, 10:40 AM
He's said a lot of stuff about a lot of things.



I haven't heard it. I want you to tell me. What is 'winning'? What does it look like? How can we achieve it? How long will it take to achieve? What are you plans to make sure everything doesn't revert back to the way it is once we leave?

I just did. You quoted it. The President's exhaustive and repeated explanations are available here (www.whitehouse.gov/).

HolmeZz
08-23-2007, 10:46 AM
You've certainly earned your seat at the grownup's table.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 10:57 AM
You've certainly earned your seat at the grownup's table.

Let me know if you kids need any more gravy.

stevieray
08-23-2007, 11:25 AM
I don't know why you think the people would stay behind a formally declared war any better than they'd stay behind an "authorized" war. I doubt it. I think our population has grown complacent and many of us expect the good times to roll perpetually without any need to confront real life threats. It's a child-like sense of invulnerability.
.

I'd bet some the biggest detractors in this forum haven't even been in a fistfight, let alone put their life on the line for their country.

We're just recycling the sixties, because that generation can't get past it... and the people who spit on our soldiers want to get back in power to keep the vicious cycle alive.

Nightwish
08-23-2007, 11:36 AM
I'd bet some the biggest detractors in this forum haven't even been in a fistfight, let alone put their life on the line for their country.
I don't know how many of the war's detractors that is true of, but I am fairly certain it is true of quite a few of the war's supporters.

Nightwish
08-23-2007, 11:37 AM
Never underestimate the ability and willingness of both sides to invoke Vietnam when it is politically expedient to do so. Has Godwin's Law been extended to include Vietnam yet? If not, it probably should, because once a person drags up the ghost of Vietnam in a discussion of Iraq, they tend to instantly lose credibility.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 11:54 AM
I'd bet some the biggest detractors in this forum haven't even been in a fistfight, let alone put their life on the line for their country.

We're just recycling the sixties, because that generation can't get past it... and the people who spit on our soldiers want to get back in power to keep the vicious cycle alive.

Couldn't agree more.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 11:55 AM
Never underestimate the ability and willingness of both sides to invoke Vietnam when it is politically expedient to do so. Has Godwin's Law been extended to include Vietnam yet? If not, it probably should, because once a person drags up the ghost of Vietnam in a discussion of Iraq, they tend to instantly lose credibility.

I tend to agree with this sentiment although I don't remember you making that point back when the only people invoking Vietnam were the cut and run crowd.

Nightwish
08-23-2007, 12:16 PM
I tend to agree with this sentiment although I don't remember you making that point back when the only people invoking Vietnam were the cut and run crowd.
I don't remember a point where the only people invoking Vietnam were the detractors. From the time when people started seriously discussing troop reductions (back when your personal demon Murtha started that ball rolling) both sides were invoking Vietnam. The war detractors were saying, "We're in another unwinnable war, just like Vietnam, so we need to get out before the numbers become comparable." And the war supporters were saying, "We have to stay in for the long haul, we can't afford another embarassment like Vietnam." Both sides. If you chose only to hear the one side dredging up the ghost, then I can't help that.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 12:22 PM
Another call for sensibility from two people who were intimately familiar with and on opposite sides of the US policy debates of the Vietnam withdrawal era:

Defeat’s Killing Fields (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/opinion/07shawcross.html?ex=1338868800&en=000cc25a5f68cf10&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

By PETER W. RODMAN and WILLIAM SHAWCROSS
Published: June 7, 2007

SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.

We beg to differ. Many years ago, the two of us clashed sharply over the wisdom and morality of American policy in Indochina, especially in Cambodia. One of us (Mr. Shawcross) published a book, “Sideshow,” that bitterly criticized Nixon administration policy. The other (Mr. Rodman), a longtime associate of Henry Kissinger, issued a rebuttal in The American Spectator, defending American policy. Decades later, we have not changed our views. But we agreed even then that the outcome in Indochina was indeed disastrous, both in human and geopolitical terms, for the United States and the region. Today we agree equally strongly that the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even more serious and lasting.

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and “re-education” camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt.

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact. Leonid Brezhnev trumpeted that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Their invasion of Afghanistan was one result. Demoralized European leaders publicly lamented Soviet aggressiveness and American paralysis.

True, the consequences of defeat were mitigated by various factors. The Nixon-Kissinger breakthrough with China contributed to China’s role as a counterweight to Moscow’s and Hanoi’s new power in Southeast Asia. (Although China, a Khmer Rouge ally, was less scrupulous than the United States about who its partners were.)

And despite the defeat in 1975, America’s 10 years in Indochina had positive effects. Lee Kuan Yew, then prime minister of Singapore, has well articulated how the consequences would have been worse if the United States had not made the effort in Indochina. “Had there been no U.S. intervention,” he argues, the will of non-communist countries to resist communist revolution in the 1960s “would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist.” The domino theory would have proved correct.

Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.

As in Indochina more than 30 years ago, millions of Iraqis today see the United States helping them defeat their murderous opponents as the only hope for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have committed themselves to working with us and with their democratically elected government to enable their country to rejoin the world as a peaceful, moderate state that is a partner to its neighbors instead of a threat. If we accept defeat, these Iraqis will be at terrible risk. Thousands upon thousands of them will flee, as so many Vietnamese did after 1975.

The new strategy of the coalition and the Iraqis, ably directed by Gen. David Petraeus, offers the best prospect of reversing the direction of events — provided that we show staying power. Osama bin Laden said, a few months after 9/11, that “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” The United States, in his mind, is the weak horse. American defeat in Iraq would embolden the extremists in the Muslim world, demoralize and perhaps destabilize many moderate friendly governments, and accelerate the radicalization of every conflict in the Middle East.

Our conduct in Iraq is a crucial test of our credibility, especially with regard to the looming threat from revolutionary Iran. Our Arab and Israeli friends view Iraq in that wider context. They worry about our domestic debate, which had such a devastating impact on the outcome of the Vietnam War, and they want reassurance.

When government officials argued that American credibility was at stake in Indochina, critics ridiculed the notion. But when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as a reason not to take American warnings seriously. The United States cannot be strong against Iran — or anywhere — if we accept defeat in Iraq.

jettio
08-23-2007, 01:14 PM
I'd bet some the biggest detractors in this forum haven't even been in a fistfight, let alone put their life on the line for their country.

We're just recycling the sixties, because that generation can't get past it... and the people who spit on our soldiers want to get back in power to keep the vicious cycle alive.

I served six years and I knew from the very beginning that B*sh was misleading the public about the need for war.

The biggest shame is that people put support of a political party or a lamebrained politician like B*sh above honorable military conduct and simple right and wrong.

B*sh's lies managed to trick a lot of people, now only the exceptionally stupid partisans make up B*sh's support.

The only obvious Vietnam hangover in this current situation is the plain fact that B*sh was too much of a coward to fight to win his unnecessary war, because he was more worried about re-election than being an honorable leader.

It is great how none of the B*sh supporters in this thread have responded to that obvious fact. B*sh is afraid to fight war like it is war and he did it all by himself.

Now the chicken hawks who haven't served in the military try to blame people who are not even in power for the chickens*t conduct of B*sh.

If Jane Fonda talked B*sh into not fighting to win, why would anyone still support B*sh?

ChiefaRoo
08-23-2007, 05:18 PM
I served six years and I knew from the very beginning that B*sh was misleading the public about the need for war.

The biggest shame is that people put support of a political party or a lamebrained politician like B*sh above honorable military conduct and simple right and wrong.

B*sh's lies managed to trick a lot of people, now only the exceptionally stupid partisans make up B*sh's support.

The only obvious Vietnam hangover in this current situation is the plain fact that B*sh was too much of a coward to fight to win his unnecessary war, because he was more worried about re-election than being an honorable leader.

It is great how none of the B*sh supporters in this thread have responded to that obvious fact. B*sh is afraid to fight war like it is war and he did it all by himself.

Now the chicken hawks who haven't served in the military try to blame people who are not even in power for the chickens*t conduct of B*sh.

If Jane Fonda talked B*sh into not fighting to win, why would anyone still support B*sh?

Hey Mr. Slip and Fall Lawyer. Why don't you re-write this your silly post and have it make sense next time.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2007, 05:41 PM
Has stevieray ever fought in a war?

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact. Leonid Brezhnev trumpeted that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Their invasion of Afghanistan was one result. Demoralized European leaders publicly lamented Soviet aggressiveness and American paralysis.

Time to update some of this material:
In 1996, the former CIA director Robert Gates said American intelligence services aided the mujahidin guerrillas BEFORE the Soviet invasion.Zbigniew Brzezinski confirmed two years later in an interview Le Nouvel Observateur.

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahidin began during 1980, that's to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained that in my opinion this aid would lead to a Soviet military intervention."

They wanted to give the Russians their own Vietnam.

"What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

CIA and a Blowback World (http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt17.html)

I might add that the threat of the Soviet Union with it's arsenal was much greater than some terrorist who operate from a cave.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2007, 05:42 PM
Hey Mr. Slip and Fall Lawyer. Why don't you re-write this your silly post and have it make sense next time.
I thought he made a good point. Stop calling people names. It just means you can't articulate a good response.

go bowe
08-23-2007, 06:24 PM
I won't admit that you are correct. You may be, but I have no way to judge that. To be sure, the Cold War dynamic and the Chinese factor were serious considerations. Even if, as you have suggested in the past, the Pentagon Papers agree with your outlook, it wouldn't be the first time that the Pentagon got it wrong. If the Pentagon was infallible, we wouldn't be facing an insurgency in Iraq right now. But I was a young lad at the time and I haven't researched it myself so I'm not in a position to accept or reject your theory.

However, I don't have to reject your theory to be right about the consequences of our loss in Vietnam. Whether we had a better alternative or not, cutting and running damaged our country in a serious and ongoing way even if it didn't lead to fulfillment of the domino theory.good heavens...

cutting and running after 10 years of continuous warfare?

and 50,000 american lives?

is any withdrawal of troops going to be characterized as cut and run from now on?

Taco John
08-23-2007, 06:27 PM
I'd bet some the biggest detractors in this forum haven't even been in a fistfight, let alone put their life on the line for their country.

We're just recycling the sixties, because that generation can't get past it... and the people who spit on our soldiers want to get back in power to keep the vicious cycle alive.



I guess I'm not familiar with your service record... Care to share it?

HolmeZz
08-23-2007, 10:10 PM
Let's take a trip back to 2004...

QUESTION: How do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

go bowe
08-23-2007, 10:15 PM
Boyce as always been a weak seagull poster. And the only dumbass out of every post and every person I have ever read on this message board to actually use the subject headers for each post.

The guy hasn't had a real take in his life.real takes?

there are real takes around here?

do you have to have a real take to post around here?

what's next?

are they gonna make zach a moderator?

this place is crazy fun...





(p.s. i'm teasing you zach) :D :D :D

jettio
08-24-2007, 07:07 AM
Hey Mr. Slip and Fall Lawyer. Why don't you re-write this your silly post and have it make sense next time.

Who is this guy? Says he has been around since 2005 and has over 3,000 posts, but I sure don't remember any. Did he have another alias before?

Chiefaroo must approve of B*sh's touch-football version of crusade for democracy. Probably something his hero Curtis Lemay thought up.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 07:10 AM
good heavens...

cutting and running after 10 years of continuous warfare?

and 50,000 american lives?

is any withdrawal of troops going to be characterized as cut and run from now on?

I think Vietnam is pretty close to the definition of cutting and running. We were cutting our (extensive) losses and getting out of Dodge.

It's not cutting and running if we withdraw troops after a victory, e.g. Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, WWII, etc.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 07:14 AM
I thought he made a good point. Stop calling people names. It just means you can't articulate a good response.

Jettio is one of the biggest, foul-mouthed name callers we have around here (NTTAWWT, it gives him character). In fact, he was namecalling in the post that you just said had a good point. So my question for you is how can name calling mean you can't articulate a good response when you just called Jettio's post good?

patteeu
08-24-2007, 07:19 AM
Let's take a trip back to 2004...

QUESTION: How do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

Oooh. What a great point. :rolleyes:

An equally silly point can be made about the democrats who have been making the Vietnam analogy since at least 2004 but who now say there isn't a valid comparison.

Of course, the two sides are making completely different analogies and neither side is really showing any inconsistency, but don't let that get in the way of your dramatic oversimplification.

jettio
08-24-2007, 08:30 AM
Jettio is one of the biggest, foul-mouthed name callers we have around here (NTTAWWT, it gives him character). In fact, he was namecalling in the post that you just said had a good point. So my question for you is how can name calling mean you can't articulate a good response when you just called Jettio's post good?

Maybe the point that she is making is that all of you B*sh idolizers have ducked my contention that B*sh has failed to fight to win.

B*sh keeps insisting how important victory in Iraq is, yet he alienated all potential allies, never established security and infrastructure, allowed the situation to deteriorate to where most educated Iraqis have fled the country, and he remains afraid to pay the price of victory.

If victory in Iraq is so damn important why didn't and why doesn't your hero make an honest effort to achieve victory.

That is the parallel with Vietnam. B*sh pulled strings to avoid fighting when there was a military draft, and B*sh has been too much of a pussy to send the post Vietnam all volunteer military to fight as if victory in Iraq was important. Once B*sh found out that war is war and not just fun and games and sh*ts and giggles, he was afraid to find out if he could be re-elected if there were the casualty levels necessary to secure the country.

The only hope for Iraq is a multinational effort to secure the country. B*sh has no chance of putting that together since he burned bridges in 2002 and 2003 when he lied to the United Nations and pretended that he was afraid of Saddam attacking the United States.

The day B*sh leaves office will be the first day that there will be any reason for any hope that his unforgivable mess might be cleaned up.

If he wants Iraq to be anything other than a mess before 2009-2010 he needs to resign after Cheney resigns and a decent successor VP is confirmed by the Senate.

Until then, and until you B*sh supporters honestly face the fact that your hero has been afraid to fight to win, you B*sh supporters should confine your political discussion to domestic policy.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 09:26 AM
Jettio is one of the biggest, foul-mouthed name callers we have around here (NTTAWWT, it gives him character). In fact, he was namecalling in the post that you just said had a good point. So my question for you is how can name calling mean you can't articulate a good response when you just called Jettio's post good?
LOL! He spoke in general about "supporters" who were aleady denigrating the "detractors" who never were in a "fistfight" etc. etc. and you were agreeing with that. What jettio did was in the same spirit of the other posts. I see that as fair game. Not the same category of thing because he didn't call a specific poster any bad name. Am I missing something? I don't think so.

Carry on calling each other out if you wish.

HolmeZz
08-24-2007, 09:45 AM
Oooh. What a great point. :rolleyes:

An equally silly point can be made about the democrats who have been making the Vietnam analogy since at least 2004 but who now say there isn't a valid comparison.

Of course, the two sides are making completely different analogies and neither side is really showing any inconsistency, but don't let that get in the way of your dramatic oversimplification.

Georgie was the one oversimplifying. Invoking Vietnam used to make you unpatriotic and an emboldener of the enemy. But now it's in his bag of tricks.

Ugly Duck
08-24-2007, 09:46 AM
Now how about you answer UD's question thoughtfully and not with something you saw on a bumpersticker.

Folks throw around words like "win" & "success" & "defeat" & "surrender" and then just leave them hanging out there without definition. Defining terms like "win" in Iraqnam is too tough a task for righties cuz it brings to light a very inconvenient truth. That truth is that "winning" & "success" are out of the hands of our soldiers - they are dependent upon the behavior of the Iraqis themselves. "Winning" is when the civil war stops. We can't stop their civil war. "Success" is when they embrace pluralistic democracy and each other. We can't make them do that.

So we just hang our men out to dry in the streets, getting picked off one by one, waiting, waiting, waiting on the Iraqnamese to make nice and stop killing each other. Waiting for the Iraqnam government entities to be kind and fair to one another. Staying til "the job is done" when our guyz have already done their part and the Iraqnamese refuse to do their part. They are now the ones in control of our situation, and the majority cheer every American death.

Taking control of our situation back from the Iraqis? Why, that is called "surrender" and "defeat."

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:09 AM
Maybe the point that she is making is that ...

I agree with you to a very small extent. Particularly, I agree with the idea that punches have been pulled in a misguided belief that fighting a politically correct war (fear of collateral damage, fear of taking casualties, fear of alienating Iraqis, etc.) would benefit us.

I also agree with this part of your post:

... he was afraid to find out if he could be re-elected if there were the casualty levels necessary to secure the country.

But the rest is ***** of ***** and ******* ***** ******.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:13 AM
LOL! He spoke in general about "supporters" who were aleady denigrating the "detractors" who never were in a "fistfight" etc. etc. and you were agreeing with that. What jettio did was in the same spirit of the other posts. I see that as fair game. Not the same category of thing because he didn't call a specific poster any bad name. Am I missing something? I don't think so.

Carry on calling each other out if you wish.

In other words, your statement about how namecalling somehow indicates that a message is bogus was bogus itself.

Personally, I think people who resort to saying things like "[Namecalling] just means you can't articulate a good response" just means they can't articulate a good response themselves.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:15 AM
Georgie was the one oversimplifying. Invoking Vietnam used to make you unpatriotic and an emboldener of the enemy. But now it's in his bag of tricks.

Do you really think you're making a good point here? You can't possibly believe that.

jettio
08-24-2007, 11:58 AM
In other words, your statement about how namecalling somehow indicates that a message is bogus was bogus itself.

Personally, I think people who resort to saying things like "[Namecalling] just means you can't articulate a good response" just means they can't articulate a good response themselves.

Has Chiefaroo addressed the issue of B*sh's cowardly conduct of the war? Since he has not, maybe you ought to stop defending him as if he did.

I should think we should all encourage Chiefaroo to put on his tinfoil hat and write about how poor little B*sh was not able to take the gloves off and fight like it is a fight worth fighting because a cabal of 1960's liberals are really running the executive branch of our government while everbody figures that B*sh-Cheney-Rumsfeld are.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 12:19 PM
In other words, your statement about how namecalling somehow indicates that a message is bogus was bogus itself.

Personally, I think people who resort to saying things like "[Namecalling] just means you can't articulate a good response" just means they can't articulate a good response themselves.
Actually, no my point was more that Roo frequently indulges in name calling.

HolmeZz
08-24-2007, 12:23 PM
Do you really think you're making a good point here? You can't possibly believe that.

You're right. It's not right to compare it to Vietnam if you're against the war. It's fine to bring up Vietnam if you want to use it as an excuse to stay in Iraq.