Any of your liberal historical geniuses ever hear of the "Killing Fields?"

[teapartysamurai]

Lessons learned?

Foriegn military interventions to prop up dictators. Bad Idea.

And the dictators that took advantage of us just leaving like Pol Pot?

 

[JakeStarkey]

teapartysamurai's foreign expansionism and adventurism would be voted down by 97% of the Tea Party movement. She is merely a neo-con wannabee in the movement.

 

[The Gadfly]

Ok, I've heard a lot of talk about how "unwinnable" Vietnam was. Now, let ME ask a question-just how many of you critics were actually there? Any of you? I doubt it; I don't see any of the known Vietnam vets on this board anywhere in this discussion.

Well, I WAS THERE, and I am here to tell you that we kicked the VC and the NVA all over that country and beyond, from one end to the other, and even in a few places we weren't supposed to go. We could have kicked them all the way to Hanoi, and hung Uncle Ho by his scraggly beard. How do I know? Because I was on the front line kicking their ass, that's how I know!

I don't know, if Pol Pot would have come to power, if we had stayed and won, instead of cut and run. I DO KNOW, that tens of thousands of Vietnamese who trusted us to protect them, were tortured and executed in communist "re-education camps". Protecting those people, and trying to protect their freedom, WAS our mission! I was in Vietnam, not only because I was willing to give my life to for OUR freedom; I was also there, because I was willing to give my life, for SOMEONE ELSE'S freedom. Were the Vietnamese worth it? To this American, yes they were, and what happened to them, after we were forced to abandon them, makes me feel sick, even after all these years. Would winning have been worth more American lives? Let me put it this way; if I could have gone back, and fought for them some more, I would have!

Don't any of you condescend to lecture me on the cost; I damn well know the cost! It's measured in the names on the WALL; some of them belong to men I commanded, some to close friends; all of them belong to my brothers and sisters in arms! Beyond that, I know the cost, in broken bodies, broken dreams, and nightmares. I know the cost, and still, I'd do it all over again. Freedom and decency are expensive. Protecting innocent people from murder, torture and oppression, and genocide, is expensive, too, but it's also right!

Should we have gone into the Balkans? How many American lives was it worth? As many as it took, to prevent genocide! Should we have acted, in Rwanda? Yes, for the same reason-we either stand for what we say we do, or we stand for nothing! Evil triumphs when good men (and good nations) stand by, and look the other way, because it's easier (and cheaper) than confronting the beast!

You know what's ironic? I've been called a murderer and a baby killer right here on this board, by people far too young to know anything about Vietnam, except from movies and books. Funny how I apparently care more than some of them do, about protecting the innocent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one here, The Gadfly, I hope is cheapening the cost of Vietnam for this country.

We also need to remember the cost of the war to the Vietnamese.

 

[Dragon]

Well, I WAS THERE, and I am here to tell you that we kicked the VC and the NVA all over that country and beyond, from one end to the other, and even in a few places we weren't supposed to go.

During the peace treaty signing, an American military official said to his Vietnamese counterpart, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield."

The Vietnamese responded: "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant."

 

[Sallow]

There were no Americans killed in the Balkans.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Iran won't invade Iraq. Frankly it won't need too, they have many common interests. And one lovely thing that the Iraq invasion did was solidify the PKK..which brings a coalition of Iran, Iraq and Turkey into the mix.

Good job boys.

I love how you libs always think there's this perfect world out there if ONLY we just believed.

Same thing liberals told us about Germany. They won't invade. They just want living space, blah blah blah

You have an odd view of History

FDR was the greatest liberal in this countries history. It was FDR urging that we prepare for war and conservatives urging that we avoid foreign entanglements

And just for your information, Germany did not invade us

A) FDR stated he did not want to fight Europe's wars prior to Pearl Harbor, and insisted the US remain neutral.

Sorry that IS a fact!

The United States, in 1939, wanted to stay out of what was considered "Europe's war". Franklin D. Roosevelt (F.D.R.) promised on September 1, 1939 America would stay neutral.

World War Two

Chapter 35: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Shadow of War | APNotes.net

B) Germany declared war on the US about three days after the US declared war on Japan.

Hitler Declares War on the United States


The fact you don't know either of these inconvenient truths, doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Lakhota]

What does The Killing Fields have to do with Iraq?

Rohrabacher: 'I Don't Understand' Republicans Wanting To Stay In Iraq | ThinkProgress

 

[teapartysamurai]

I love how you libs always think there's this perfect world out there if ONLY we just believed.

Same thing liberals told us about Germany. They won't invade. They just want living space, blah blah blah

You have an odd view of History

FDR was the greatest liberal in this countries history. It was FDR urging that we prepare for war and conservatives urging that we avoid foreign entanglements

And just for your information, Germany did not invade us

Just when I think she can't get any stupider. I wonder where she went to school? Probably in Texas where they revise history.

Look who's trying to revise history? Don't EITHER of you know Hitler declared war on the US? What do they teach for history in liberal schools now? That's pathetically sad!

A) FDR stated he did not want to fight Europe's wars prior to Pearl Harbor, and insisted the US remain neutral.

Sorry that IS a fact!

Quote:
The United States, in 1939, wanted to stay out of what was considered "Europe's war". Franklin D. Roosevelt (F.D.R.) promised on September 1, 1939 America would stay neutral.

World War Two


Chapter 35: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Shadow of War | APNotes.net

B) Germany declared war on the US about three days after the US declared war on Japan.

Hitler Declares War on the United States


The fact you don't know either of these inconvenient truths, doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Samurai: "A) FDR stated he did not want to fight Europe's wars prior to Pearl Harbor, and insisted the US remain neutral. Sorry that IS a fact!"

That is not true at all. In fact, you have it backward. FDR was not your isolationistic buttholes from Nebraska at all. You need to go study history, girl, from real people and real sources.

 

[The Gadfly]

No one here, The Gadfly, I hope is cheapening the cost of Vietnam for this country.

We also need to remember the cost of the war to the Vietnamese.

Jake, that was my point. Look if we could have protected the South Vietnamese from the communist murderers and torturers with less bloodshed, that would have been fine with me. I wanted to stop the communists from doing that whatever it took-they invaded South Vietnam, and there's no way to call that anything but what it was-communist aggression. I happen to think that the people of South Vietnam, in spite of their corrupt government, deserved our protection and support. The ones who worked with us, trusted us, deserved better than to be left to the not-so-tender mercies of the aggressors. If you had seen some of the communist atrocities I saw, you might feel differently. As disgusted as I am by things like what happened at My Lai IV, that pales in comparison in both numbers and the sheer, unspeakable and utterly unjustified nature of the acts involved, to the atrocities the VC regularly and systematically engaged in!

There is just something about going into a country, winning people's hearts and minds and trust, and then abandoning them, just because someone back home finds that more convenient than honoring our commitments. I never shot an unarmed Vietnamese, not a single one, but to have promised them we would protect them (which was our policy, and my orders to tell them) and then throw them to the wolves-I couldn't feel worse, if I had turned around and shot them myself; I feel like I was forced to betray them, and lie to them; and THAT makes me sick.

 

[rightwinger]

I love how you libs always think there's this perfect world out there if ONLY we just believed.

Same thing liberals told us about Germany. They won't invade. They just want living space, blah blah blah

You have an odd view of History

FDR was the greatest liberal in this countries history. It was FDR urging that we prepare for war and conservatives urging that we avoid foreign entanglements

And just for your information, Germany did not invade us

A) FDR stated he did not want to fight Europe's wars prior to Pearl Harbor, and insisted the US remain neutral.

Sorry that IS a fact!

The United States, in 1939, wanted to stay out of what was considered "Europe's war". Franklin D. Roosevelt (F.D.R.) promised on September 1, 1939 America would stay neutral.

World War Two

Chapter 35: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Shadow of War | APNotes.net

B) Germany declared war on the US about three days after the US declared war on Japan.

Hitler Declares War on the United States


The fact you don't know either of these inconvenient truths, doesn't surprise me one bit.

FDR was anything but neutral. Ever hear of Lend/Lease? FDR was being crucified by conservatives for his support of England

I am fully aware that Hitler declared war on us. That does not negate your ignorance in claiming that Germany invaded us

 

[The Gadfly]

There were no Americans killed in the Balkans.

Thank God, there weren't, but if they had been, would that have made what we did any less right? The difference between right and wrong, Sallow, is not which party in in the White House, or even how many casualties we take; the question is, was it right to intervene? There's a cost, of confronting evil, and there's also a cost (including the moral one) of doing nothing in the face of evil.

 

[BlindBoo]

Lessons learned?

Foriegn military interventions to prop up dictators. Bad Idea.

And the dictators that took advantage of us just leaving like Pol Pot?

And if we never intervened on behalf of the French/So. Vietnam? What if we didn't block free elections there?

 

[mikef]

I do not think the killing fields in cambodia were the fault of the U.S democrats , I always vote a mixed ticket and I owe no one an apology for that. As I remember our white house at the time was ran by tricky Richard Nixon , a republican and he did what this democracy wanted and that was to get out of nam . so there should be blame to go all around . We can not afford to police the world . Politics have been a messy deal in that part of the world. an interesting read in to the subject would be "Dien bien phu " I may have misspelled that title but read it and look behind the scenes . North Vietnam was an ally in wwII , and they rescued a lot of allied pilots that went down fighting the japanese . It is amazing how the sides change.