Well, you mother ing red-state Ohioans, you got the murderous, lying cretin you voted for, so now live with, and die for, with that cretin. Your kids are NOT dying for the US of ing A. You deserve every bit of pain shrub is inflicting on your families. That's the real shrub "family values". Note that it's your kids who are dying, NOT the kids of the Repug administration.
You parents and your friends in your 50's and 60's were lied to and butchered in the Viet Nam era as young people. How can you ever trust those mother ers, esp Repug mother ers, in Washington again? You got burned twice, you naive idiots.
===============================================
washingtonpost.com
Ohioans Urge U.S. Escalation Or Pullout
Associated Press
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; A02
CLEVELAND, Aug. 16 -- The day after burying their son, parents of a fallen Marine urged President Bush to either send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.
"We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out," said Rosemary Palmer, mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II.
Schroeder, 23, died two weeks ago in a roadside explosion, one of 16 Ohio-based Marines killed recently in Iraq.
The soldier's father said his son and other Marines were being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.
"Our comments are not just those of grieving parents," Paul Schroeder said in front of the couple's home. "They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated."
Palmer accused Bush of refusing to make changes in a war gone bad. "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out -- he can't just let it continue," she said.
White House spokesman Allen Abney declined to comment other than to refer to remarks Bush made last week. At a news conference Thursday, the president said: "Pulling troops out prematurely will betray the Iraqis. Our mission in Iraq, as I said earlier, is to fight the terrorists, is to train the Iraqis."
The Ohio couple have long opposed the war and tried to dissuade their son from joining the Marines, but have made their views public only since his death. On Tuesday, they urged Americans to voice their opposition to the war.
"We want to point out that 30 people have died since our son. Are people listening?" Palmer asked.
More than 1,800 U.S. troops have been killed in the war.
The couple applauded Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has camped out in protest near Bush's ranch near Crawford, Tex., for bringing the war to the public's attention.
"We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war," Palmer said.
=============================================
There ain't no escalation possible. shrub can't even support the current troops with materiel and sufficient troop numbers.
It's a classic dilemma. We're ed if we pull out now and hand Iraq to Iran (that will happen no matter what). Iran and "Iran West" as the center of the international Islamic fundamentalist caliphate, as terrorist-training headquarters and terrorist financiers extraordinaire. And of course Iran is selling their oil at $65.
And we'll continue to be ed over if we stay. And then when the war is handed to the Dem's in 2008, the s bags Repugs will lie saying the already-lost war was lost by the Dems.
Just as long as oil is (way) over $50, shrub has achieved his (corporate paymaster) Mission Accomplished as the oil co's and defense contractors pocket 10's of $Bs in windfall profits.
the people are turning against shrub and the war, and the Repug s are feeling the heat:
I'd also like to add that the way these pople are voicing their opinion is much more credible and sympathetic than the way Cindy Sheehan is doing it...
However:
The Ohio couple have long opposed the war and tried to dissuade their son from joining the Marines,
Obviously he wanted to join the war effort...Soldiers die in wars....and this is probably the most casualty free war in US history.
And by the way...it is over.
Yep, you're right. Al Qaeda is running the Vietnam playbook, and the fools and weak minded here in America, particularly the press, are headed down the same road that saw the US, despite actually winning the war in reality, losing it due to media pressure and peace mongers here in the States.
And all the y idiots like yourself will get to see because of it is a stronger, more dangerous, empowered Al Qaeda.
Congratulations. Bring on the nuke in LA, NY, or DC, because it's coming when AQ thinks it can deliver a knock out blow and get us out of the Mideast altogether.
The anti-war movement isn't turning public opinion in the US....but the terrorists probably think that...The handling of the war is viewed negatively when the insurgency is active...when there is a break through public opinion changes.
Historically it's a no-brainer that this is perhaps the most amazingly well run war in US history.
This family is different though....they are against the war but they also ask that if we are going to try and win it then we need to send more troops over there and kick the out of the insurgency. That's not entirely a bad idea....except for the fact that it could hurt the transformation of the US image in the mideast currently underway.
"the most amazingly well run war in US history. "
Under-manned by a couple 100K soldiers (who don't exist anyway), no post-war planning, no post-invastion security of people and infra-structure, even worse execution, Bremmer was the wrong man, under-armored, etc, etc, etc.
And of course the ENTIRE ING set of reasons for starting that war have been shown, every last one of them, to be totally bogus.
"well run" ? We're getting our asses kicked. It was a ing fiasco from day one and will be for years to come. GMAFB
Revisionist history of the highest order. We got out YEARS too late, 47,000 lives flushed down the toilet, and no clue as to how to deal with the VC. Each puppet government the US installed lasted about as long as gum flavor. The US was NOT winning that action. We had nominal control over a few cities, and no clue or control outside of them. Sound familiar?Yep, you're right. Al Qaeda is running the Vietnam playbook, and the fools and weak minded here in America, particularly the press, are headed down the same road that saw the US, despite actually winning the war in reality, losing it due to media pressure and peace mongers here in the States.
Spoken like a true moron.We're getting our asses kicked.
Revisionist history? The communist government over there even acknowledged they would have lost the war with the U.S. if it weren't for media/anti-war protests in the continental U.S. turning the tide of public opinion.Revisionist history of the highest order. We got out YEARS too late, 47,000 lives flushed down the toilet, and no clue as to how to deal with the VC. Each puppet government the US installed lasted about as long as gum flavor. The US was NOT winning that action. We had nominal control over a few cities, and no clue or control outside of them. Sound familiar?
Osama is running the same playbook on us, and some of y'all are just as gullible today as the hippies back in the 70s.
I just want to see some of you acknowledge the fact that AQ and the like isn't going away. They won't stop until everyone in America, Europe, and the rest of the world is either dead or converted to Islam.
You want to know what I think is ironic as ? For all the bagging we did on countries like Germany and France for not stepping up with Iraq, and for all the perceived animosity/"future opponent in a world war" BS that we project towards China, those three will be the ones that spearhead the battle against militant Islam.
The French and Germans are already doing something about it, the Brits are working on it, and meanwhile here in the U.S. the court of public opinion is going to lose the United States another war.
Damn, makes me proud to be an American.
Amazon.com page
I had an opportunity to attend a presentation by the author of this book. Pretty interesting argument. I haven't had the time to read this book but his basic argument is that the Saudis have overstated their recoverable reserves by a significant amount. Perhaps he can be disregarded as just another oilpatch Chicken Little, but he has some fairly solid credentials. If the Saudis indeed are misrepresenting what they have then it could result in a substantial change in US policy in the region.
Oh well, back to the mindless partisan bickering.
"The French and Germans are already doing something about it"
... they both were absolutely right to be against the war, their kids are alive, and the Repugs were absolutely wrong, then, now, always to start the Iraq war for totally bogus, "fixed up intelligence" reasons.
Before the Iraq war, there were no religious/fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq. Cheney has shown to be a huge liar on that issue. With the Repug war, Iraq is overrrun with terrorists. Nice work, Repugs. Nobody in the USA is safer. Iraq is, will finally, fall under domination of Iran and al Qaeda-type religious terrorists.
NOBODY, in their right mind, can say the USA is safer as a result of the Iraq fiasco. And the USA wasn't threatened by Iraq in the first place. NOW the USA is horribly threatened by Iraq and the fundamentalist caliphate it will become as Iran's Shiite vassal.
The Repugs should have known, because they are so ing brilliant, that a quaqmire in Iraq was a real possibility. The Repugs got their asses kicked under Nixon for the Viet Nam quaqmire when American public opinion turned against the. The Repugs totally ed up in Iraq by thinking the Americans would not turn against a long quaqmire in Iraq. The suckered American red-state naives are wisening up to the Repug lies and disastrous handling of Iraq.
The Americans should be ashamed only because they let themselves be taken in by Repug lies, but there is no shame in seeing the light now.
If we're doing book of the month thing
He basically argues that the US has realized that the Saudis are playing both sides and are tired of it, and that a large part of why we went into Iraq (we could never state it publically of course) was to itimate to the House of Saud that either they were going to start playing the Al Qaeda game our way or they'd be next. And hand in hand with that would be that we'd have Iran surrounded on all sides (hence, why they are trying F things up in Iraq), as well as be a stone's throw from Syria as well.
Go stuff, and he makes no pretenses that either of the Bush or Clinton administrations are perfect - both made serious mistakes, both also did some things right in the game, but read this book and some of you liberal peace mongers might be changing which side you're rooting for WRT the situation in Iraq.
Blaming Vietnam on the GOP is a bit of Democratic historical revisionism and homerism.
boutons,
o dumbass, there was the whole Sunni party, not to mention Saddam "I Want to Establish a Muslim caliphate and be its ruler" Hussein.Before the Iraq war, there were no religious/fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq.
Someone needs to bone up on their American history. It was JFK (Demo) who started the US policy towards Vietnam, LBJ (Demo) who continued it, and Nixon took over a war that was already lost.The Repugs got their asses kicked under Nixon for the Viet Nam quaqmire when American public opinion turned against the.
Try again.
I love how this war is a quagmire...how long were we at war in Korea? Vietnam? WWII? The Civil War?
I'm curious as to what you think about WWII. We lost more men on Omaha Beach than we've lost in Iraq.quaqmire in Iraq
, we lost more boats to German U-boats in WWII than we have lost troops in Iraq (not to mention about 6 times as many men).
Methinks you need hit a few more history books before you come into the deep end of the pool here.
It wasn't JFK...Truman financially supported the French trying to maintain their colonial rule in Indochina when they were starting to graviate towards communusm.
The French were the most brutal, uncaring and corrupt colonial power in World history(just take a look at how every country they colonized and ruled is now an absolute hole)....this caused the Vietnamese to absolutely embrace communism...
The Vietnamese were too anti-American/pro communist because of our support of the French...
Still...from a military standpoint the US absolutely destroyed the Viet Cong for the entire duration of the war...
But it was indeed a war lost in the eyes of America because of propaganda...
Ummm, no.Someone needs to bone up on their American history. It was JFK (Demo) who started the US policy towards Vietnam, LBJ (Demo) who continued it, and Nixon took over a war that was already lost.
Spartcus, SchoolnetIn September, 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the formation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Unknown to the Vietminh Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin had already decided what would happen to post-war Vietnam at a summit-meeting at Potsdam. They had agreed that the country would be divided into two, the northern half under the control of the Chinese and the southern half under the British.
After the Second World War France attempted to re-establish control over Vietnam. In January 1946, Britain agreed to remove her troops and later that year, China left Vietnam in exchange for a promise from France that she would give up her rights to territory in China.
Emperor Bao Dai went into exile in Hong Kong in March, 1946. After signing an accord recognising Vietnamese national unity within the French Union, he was allowed to return in June, 1948. The following year the French installed Bao Dai as Head of State.
France refused to recognise the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that had been declared by Ho Chi Minh and fighting soon broke out between the Vietminh and the French troops. At first, the Vietminh under General Vo Nguyen Giap, had great difficulty in coping with the better trained and equipped French forces. The situation improved in 1949 after Mao Zedong and his communist army defeated Chaing Kai-Shek in China. The Vietminh now had a safe-base where they could take their wounded and train new soldiers.
By 1953, the Vietminh controlled large areas of North Vietnam. The French, however, had a firm hold on the south. When it became clear that France was becoming involved in a long-drawn out war, the French government tried to negotiate a deal with the Vietminh. They offered to help set-up a national government and promised they would eventually grant Vietnam its independence. Ho Chi Minh and the other leaders of the Vietminh did not trust the word of the French and continued the war.
French public opinion continued to move against the war. There were four main reasons for this: (1) Between 1946 and 1952 90,000 French troops had been killed, wounded or captured; (2) France was attempting to build up her economy after the devastation of the Second World War. The cost of the war had so far been twice what they had received from the United States under the Marshall Plan; (3) The war had lasted seven years and there was still no sign of an outright French victory; (4) A growing number of people in France had reached the conclusion that their country did not have any moral justification for being in Vietnam.
General Navarre, the French commander in Vietnam, realised that time was running out and that he needed to obtain a quick victory over the Vietminh. He was convinced that if he could manoeuvre General Vo Nguyen Giap into engaging in a large scale battle, France was bound to win. In December, 1953, General Navarre setup a defensive complex at Dien Bien Phu, which would block the route of the Vietminh forces trying to return to camps in neighbouring Laos. Navarre surmised that in an attempt to reestablish the route to Laos, General Giap would be forced to organise a mass-attack on the French forces at Dien Bien Phu.
Navarre's plan worked and General Giap took up the French challenge. However, instead of making a massive frontal assault, Giap choose to surround Dien Bien Phu and ordered his men to dig a trench that encircled the French troops. From the outer trench, other trenches and tunnels were dug inwards towards the centre. The Vietminh were now able to move in close on the French troops defending Dien Bien Phu.
While these preparations were going on, Giap brought up members of the Vietminh from all over Vietnam. By the time the battle was ready to start, Giap had 70,000 soldiers surrounding Dien Bien Phu, five times the number of French troops enclosed within.
Employing recently obtained anti-aircraft guns and howitzers from China, Giap was able to restrict severely the ability of the French to supply their forces in Dien Bien Phu. When Navarre realised that he was trapped, he appealed for help. The United States was approached and some advisers suggested the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Vietminh. Another suggestion was that conventional air-raids would be enough to scatter Giap's troops.
The United States President, Dwight Eisenhower, however, refused to intervene unless he could persuade Britain and his other western allies to participate. Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, declined claiming that he wanted to wait for the outcome of the peace negotiations taking place in Geneva before becoming involved in escalating the war.
On March 13, 1954, Vo Nguyen Giap launched his offensive. For fifty-six days the Vietminh pushed the French forces back until they only occupied a small area of Dien Bien Phu. Colonel Piroth, the artillery commander, blamed himself for the tactics that had been employed and after telling his fellow officers that he had been "completely dishonoured" committed suicide by pulling the safety pin out of a grenade.
The French surrendered on May 7th. French casualties totalled over 7,000 and a further 11,000 soldiers were taken prisoner. The following day the French government announced that it intended to withdraw from Vietnam. The following month the foreign ministers of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France decided to meet in Geneva to see if they could bring about a peaceful solution to the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
After much negotiation the following was agreed: (1) Vietnam would be divided at the 17th parallel; (2) North Vietnam would be ruled by Ho Chi Minh; (3) South Vietnam would be ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem, a strong opponent of communism; (4) French troops would withdraw from Vietnam; (5) the Vietminh would withdraw from South Vietnam; (6) the Vietnamese could freely choose to live in the North or the South; and (7) a General Election for the whole of Vietnam would be held before July, 1956, under the supervision of an international commission.
After their victory at Dien Bien Phu, some members of the Vietminh were reluctant to accept the cease-fire agreement. Their main concern was the division of Vietnam into two sections. However, Ho Chi Minh argued that this was only a temporary situation and was convinced that in the promised General Election, the Vietnamese were sure to elect a communist government to rule a re-united Vietnam.
This view was shared by President Dwight Eisenhower. As he wrote later: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh."
When the Geneva conference took place in 1954, the United States delegation proposed the name of Ngo Dinh Diem as the new ruler of South Vietnam. The French argued against this claiming that Diem was "not only incapable but mad". However, eventually it was decided that Diem presented the best opportunity to keep South Vietnam from falling under the control of communism.
Once in power, the Americans discovered that Diem was unwilling to be a 'puppet' ruler. He constantly rejected their advice and made decisions that upset the South Vietnamese people. Several attempts were made to overthrow Diem but although the Americans were unhappy with his performance as president, they felt they had no choice but to support him.
The United States government was severely concerned about the success of communism in South East Asia. Between 1950 and 1953 they had lost 142,000 soldiers in attempting to stop communism entering South Korea. The United States feared that their efforts would have been wasted if communism were to spread to South Vietnam. President Eisenhower was aware that he would have difficulty in persuading the American public to support another war so quickly after Korea. He therefore decided to rely on a small group of Military Advisers' to prevent South Vietnam becoming a communist state.
Under the leadership of Colonel Edward Lansdale, a twelve-man team of American soldiers and intelligence agents was sent to Saigon in June, 1954. The plan was to mount a propaganda campaign to persuade the Vietnamese people in the south not to vote for the communists in the forthcoming elections.
I guess we are supposed to forget about LBJ and McNamara and the rest of the best and brightest.
But, I know, you can cut and paste something you found on the internets...
That's an excellent article Dan...I'd like to thank you for kicking the ass of every Democrat in the country...and doing it so proudly.
And by the way...exactly why are supposed to listen to France, Germany and Russia on how to conduct middle east affairs?
Those countries...and the UK...are the ones that turned it into a hole in the first place...
Every time you hear a ing mullah talking about Western Colonialism, Puppet Governments while pointing the finger at America...
Guess which countries gave them that impression?
France.
Germany.
Russia.
And the UK.
They see us all as the West....and since we are the kings of the West...we pay for the sins of Europe in that region of the World...this is an addition to the two world Wars they drug us into while fighting for control of that region of the World.
I will just as soon as YOU acknowledge that anything we attempt in Iraq makes NO DIFFERENCE against al Qaeda.I just want to see some of you acknowledge the fact that AQ and the like isn't going away.
Oh, and Vietnam wasn't lost to the NVA, it was lost to the VC, the insurgency. It wouldn't have made a 's worth of difference if we HAD taken down North Vietnam. Taking down Saddam didn't accomplish much, either. They are accomplishing it in much the same way that we won our freedom from England: fight, run, hide, repeat. We must look just as tasty to them as a column of redcoats armed with muskets looked to a squad of Kentucky longriflemen beyond the treeline.
You're right, we're much worse off having the assholes (AQ) go to fight our military, armed to the teeth, than if we sat around waiting for them to cross our porous borders, sneak in through BS visas, and blow the civilian population of America to .anything we attempt in Iraq makes NO DIFFERENCE against al Qaeda.
Dan, I'm supposed to go with some UK-based, dork ass schoolnet internet site over the accepted world history of the Vietnam war?
I've seen some internet sites that call Michael Moore an alien, does that mean it's true?
Case in point...
The Palestinian Israeli conflict was created by the UK promising the Israelis and the Palestinians the same land...bascially the UK wanted no part of the savagery of the Arabs and expected the Jews to get exterminated. The US was not even in the UN when Israel was formed.
We became allied with Israel when Russia was encroaching on that region in the mid 60's...the PLO was financed primariy by Russia.
The UK...not America...was the one that gave the Saudi Family rule of Saudi Arabia.
The UK...not America... was the country that put the Shah of Iran in power(both of them)...the US aided the British in putting him back on the throne when the elected leader was on the verge of allying himself with Russia.
Other than extermination of the Jews...the major impetus for WWII on the part of the Germans was the unfair war reparations demanded of the Germans by the French after WWI...against the advice of the US....and to gain control of mid-eastern Oil.
Don't even get me started on the French...
Ok get me started....let's look at some of their colonies...
Lebanon
Syria
Algeria
Tunisia
Ivory Coast
the list of holes colonized by the French is too long to name...but pretty much...if there is a world hole...it was probably a French Colony...there is about a 30% chance it was a British colony...
And the ing idiot left wants to listen to these idiots on how to solve the mid-east problem....Those mother ers created it...
Incidentally...they are also the ones who oppose us fixing it...
Thank God Kerry didn't get elected President of this country...
No, LBJ realized that he did the wrong thing, and he left a term sitting on the table. If only W would have been as insightful.I guess we are supposed to forget about LBJ and McNamara and the rest of the best and brightest.
So now your trying to rewrite Vietnam history? That was just a good, fast source, but if you want to dispute any of the points made in the article please feel free.Dan, I'm supposed to go with some UK-based, dork ass schoolnet internet site over the accepted world history of the Vietnam war?
Left a term sitting on the table?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
