So, what has he done for Putin? It hardly compares to the swooning from the right, just because he takes his shirt off and throws some journalists in jail. There appears to be many on the right that would like the "freedom" to do that to the MSM.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Democrats Never Met A Communist....
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
NoTeaPartyPleez
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2012
- 11,826
- 1,912
- 245
THANK YOU REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST...PRESIDENT RONALDO MAGMUS!
My GOD, you really are this stupid...a TRUE communist trait!
Reagan had nothing to do with it.
And NOW the LIES!
The Soviet Union collapsed because totalitarian Communism is fatally flawed.
You betcha'!!!
If only it had followed these simple rules: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Unfortunately, the same fate may await the United States for the same reason.
Reagan saved Social Security, remember? One of the top three best examples of Socialism in America?
lol, you people need to wake up and grow up.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times and raised the debt ceiling 18 times.
PC, do you need help getting that egg off your face? Those crow feathers out of your mouth? That bullet out of your foot?
Obama says Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times; George W. Bush seven times
Obama says Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times George W. Bush seven times PolitiFact
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn t Square with Reality - CBS News
That's retarded.
NO, the retarded part is that SOME, such as yourself, don't REALIZE it! the NATIONAL dummycRATS are indeed communists.... the Gov't takeover of almost everything in the citizens life...want to start with GOV'T healthcare?
You might want to travel outside your county more.
Why, because the concentration camps aren't operating yet, you scum already are trying to do away with FREE SPEECH, and gun ownership.... pure communist goals!
Also, you might want to try this
Education
And you might TRY not being a communist backer! We all see what you people are!
Yes. We're "not stoopid."
You might want to try it some time.
Vigilante
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #84
And NOW the LIES!
The Soviet Union collapsed because totalitarian Communism is fatally flawed.
You betcha'!!!
If only it had followed these simple rules: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Unfortunately, the same fate may await the United States for the same reason.
Reagan saved Social Security, remember? One of the top three best examples of Socialism in America?
lol, you people need to wake up and grow up.
Shouldn't YOU be applauding him then?
I do, for that.
Shouldn't you be calling him a Communist bent on destroying America, fuckwit?
Why? Because YOU say so, you feel citizens paying into a retirement system is socialism... Now NOT paying into one and getting money IS SOCIALISM!... Ever hear of your Mess...iah's REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?
- May 17, 2013
- 68,865
- 33,796
- 2,290
Ill answer that one...........................How did the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia?
"The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians.
"Some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry.[41]
"However, Pol Pot biographer David P. Chandler argues that the bombing 'had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh'.[42][43]
"Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973.[44][45]
"Craig Etcheson agreed that it was 'untenable' to assert that US intervention caused the Khmer Rouge victory while acknowledging that it may have played a small role in boosting recruitment for the insurgents.[46]
"William Shawcross, however, wrote that the US bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos that Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid."
The same way IS took control of Mosul??
Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
- In the movie “The Killing Fields,” the first half leaves one with the impression that the United States was ultimately to blame for the fate that befell Cambodia by bringing Cambodia into the Indochina war, destroying its neutrality, and bombing to the extent that it drove the Khmer Rouge to the horrors that developed. The actuality is that it was North Vietnam that widened the war, not the United States. It was before 1965 that Hanoi created the Khmer Rouge (as early as WWII) and the Pathet Lao (mid ‘50’s) with the goal of conquering all of Indochina for communism.
- In “Sideshow,” William Shawcross claims that the 1970 bombings caused the coup in which Prince Sihanouk was by Lon Nol. But this adumbrates the issues, as Sihanouk attempted to be too clever, allowing the Vietnamese to invade his country, and then telling Kissinger he could bomb them.
- The North Vietnamese were getting support from the Soviet Union and China, determined to support wars of “national liberation.”
Now for your error re: Shawcross-
c. In 1994, Shawcross acknowledged his error: “Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times...,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions.”
Wiliam Shaw Cross I m William Cross
So how many more American lives would you have been willing to see spent in Southeast Asia fighting over issues that had nothing to do with our national security or vital interests?
And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
His act includes only two tricks:
Trick #1....lies
Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
Today it's Trick #2 on display:
"So how many more American lives would you have been willing to see spent in Southeast Asia fighting over issues that had nothing to do with our national security or vital interests?"
Why don't you man up and take a position once in awhile.
Should we have stayed in SE Asia longer or not? Yes or no
Should we have fought in Laos, Cambodia, etc. or not? Yes or no.
Your damed skippy..................FOUGHT AS A WAR..............LARGE ARMIES pounding the enemy into the ground by taking ground and destroying the enemies dumb enough to stand in the way..........WE SHOULD have INVADED NORTH VIETNAM and destroyed any in the way........................and in CAMBODIA AS WELL..................
NOT FIGHT IT in a PC BS MANNER............................
THAT IS HOW YOU WIN A WAR......................
PC and POLITICS is how you lose a War...................and how you increase our casualties...............
People like you who think as you do are exactly why we lose Wars and why we always strap our troops with RULES instead of letting them just get the dang thing over with...................
These rules of Warfare are why there is a North KOREA today..............COMMUNIST VIETNAM TODAY.......................why SADDAM wasn't taken out in the 1st Gulf WAR...............
We have failed to finish what we started, and are paying the price for the foolishness of it.
How do you explain that it's the right that's been kissing Putin's butt on a regular basis?
Russia is not communist nation....
- Thread starter
- #87
It was Franklin Roosevelt who changed the course of American history, in many ways, for the worse.
The embrace of Stalin and communism, case in point.
Let's continue our history lesson, proving the title of the thread: "Democrats never met a communist that they didn't adore."
5. Roosevelt had three vice-presidents. Garner was his first. But after Garner left, Roosevelt demanded a communist be his next one.
That's right: FDR DEMANDED a communist as his vice president.
a. "Even with FDR’s endorsement (and his threat to withdraw from the presidential race if were not chosen by the Democratic convention), [Henry] Wallace won by only 628 to 459…Wallace was not allowed to give an acceptance speech.
b. J. Edgar Hoover warned Roosevelt that Wallace was friendly with Communists in Hollywood and had inappropriate connections with overseas Communists, including in the Soviet Union.
6. …historian John Lewis Gaddis has written that “there is Soviet documentation that Wallace was regularly reporting to the Kremlin in 1945 and 1946 while he was in the Truman administration,” and that later, when Truman was considering a secret effort to approach the Soviets, his effort was “blown wide open by Wallace when he was running for president on the Progressive Party ticket” in 1948. This was after Truman fired Wallace for giving an address in Madison Square Garden attacking the Truman administration for excessive anti-Communist zeal.
7. ‘Wallace would have created an American foreign policy run by Soviet agents he had installed in the White House, including Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, his former assistant at Commerce, and the secret Communist and Soviet agent Harry Magdof, who wrote Wallace’s Madison Square Garden speech in 1946 . . . all of whom would have given Joseph Stalin precisely what he sought: control of Eastern Europe and inroads into subversion of France, Italy, and Great Britain as well…..new evidence has emerged that points to just how much Wallace was under the control of the Soviets, and how they were counting on him as the man in the United States best suited to serve their ends.’"
FDR Stalin and Oliver Stone - The New York Sun
This was the man that Franklin Roosevelt demanded be one breath from the presidency.
Henry A. Wallace.
The embrace of Stalin and communism, case in point.
Let's continue our history lesson, proving the title of the thread: "Democrats never met a communist that they didn't adore."
5. Roosevelt had three vice-presidents. Garner was his first. But after Garner left, Roosevelt demanded a communist be his next one.
That's right: FDR DEMANDED a communist as his vice president.
a. "Even with FDR’s endorsement (and his threat to withdraw from the presidential race if were not chosen by the Democratic convention), [Henry] Wallace won by only 628 to 459…Wallace was not allowed to give an acceptance speech.
b. J. Edgar Hoover warned Roosevelt that Wallace was friendly with Communists in Hollywood and had inappropriate connections with overseas Communists, including in the Soviet Union.
6. …historian John Lewis Gaddis has written that “there is Soviet documentation that Wallace was regularly reporting to the Kremlin in 1945 and 1946 while he was in the Truman administration,” and that later, when Truman was considering a secret effort to approach the Soviets, his effort was “blown wide open by Wallace when he was running for president on the Progressive Party ticket” in 1948. This was after Truman fired Wallace for giving an address in Madison Square Garden attacking the Truman administration for excessive anti-Communist zeal.
7. ‘Wallace would have created an American foreign policy run by Soviet agents he had installed in the White House, including Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, his former assistant at Commerce, and the secret Communist and Soviet agent Harry Magdof, who wrote Wallace’s Madison Square Garden speech in 1946 . . . all of whom would have given Joseph Stalin precisely what he sought: control of Eastern Europe and inroads into subversion of France, Italy, and Great Britain as well…..new evidence has emerged that points to just how much Wallace was under the control of the Soviets, and how they were counting on him as the man in the United States best suited to serve their ends.’"
FDR Stalin and Oliver Stone - The New York Sun
This was the man that Franklin Roosevelt demanded be one breath from the presidency.
Henry A. Wallace.
When the US invaded and occupied South Vietnam without authorization from the UNSC or any imminent threat from the Vietnamese it committed "the supreme international crime."what the communist supporting libs always understood, but pretended like they didn't, is if a country is being used by your enemy to stage attacks on you and your allies.....it isn't a f*****g neutral country....even if the people of that country don't want your enemy there......but they supported the communists,during the war....so the blood of the dead is on them......not
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'[2]
"Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and 'shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security'"
"Accmulated evil of the whole"
Rhymes with Mosul
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
How many people were slaughtered in the name of the Pope during the religious wars in Europe? Too many to count...
Vigilante
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #90
The Soviet Union collapsed because totalitarian Communism is fatally flawed.
You betcha'!!!
If only it had followed these simple rules: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Unfortunately, the same fate may await the United States for the same reason.
Reagan saved Social Security, remember? One of the top three best examples of Socialism in America?
lol, you people need to wake up and grow up.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times and raised the debt ceiling 18 times.
PC, do you need help getting that egg off your face? Those crow feathers out of your mouth? That bullet out of your foot?
Obama says Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times; George W. Bush seven times
Obama says Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times George W. Bush seven times PolitiFact
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn t Square with Reality - CBS News
Obama promised NO NEW TAXES, and added $7.5 TRILLION to our debt!!!
- Thread starter
- #91
How do you explain that it's the right that's been kissing Putin's butt on a regular basis?
Russia is not communist nation....
No...you are not a sentient individual.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Ill answer that one...........................How did the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia?
"The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians.
"Some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry.[41]
"However, Pol Pot biographer David P. Chandler argues that the bombing 'had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh'.[42][43]
"Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973.[44][45]
"Craig Etcheson agreed that it was 'untenable' to assert that US intervention caused the Khmer Rouge victory while acknowledging that it may have played a small role in boosting recruitment for the insurgents.[46]
"William Shawcross, however, wrote that the US bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos that Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid."
The same way IS took control of Mosul??
Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
- In the movie “The Killing Fields,” the first half leaves one with the impression that the United States was ultimately to blame for the fate that befell Cambodia by bringing Cambodia into the Indochina war, destroying its neutrality, and bombing to the extent that it drove the Khmer Rouge to the horrors that developed. The actuality is that it was North Vietnam that widened the war, not the United States. It was before 1965 that Hanoi created the Khmer Rouge (as early as WWII) and the Pathet Lao (mid ‘50’s) with the goal of conquering all of Indochina for communism.
- In “Sideshow,” William Shawcross claims that the 1970 bombings caused the coup in which Prince Sihanouk was by Lon Nol. But this adumbrates the issues, as Sihanouk attempted to be too clever, allowing the Vietnamese to invade his country, and then telling Kissinger he could bomb them.
- The North Vietnamese were getting support from the Soviet Union and China, determined to support wars of “national liberation.”
Now for your error re: Shawcross-
c. In 1994, Shawcross acknowledged his error: “Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times...,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions.”
Wiliam Shaw Cross I m William Cross
So how many more American lives would you have been willing to see spent in Southeast Asia fighting over issues that had nothing to do with our national security or vital interests?
And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
His act includes only two tricks:
Trick #1....lies
Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
Today it's Trick #2 on display:
"So how many more American lives would you have been willing to see spent in Southeast Asia fighting over issues that had nothing to do with our national security or vital interests?"
Why don't you man up and take a position once in awhile.
Should we have stayed in SE Asia longer or not? Yes or no
Should we have fought in Laos, Cambodia, etc. or not? Yes or no.
Your damed skippy..................FOUGHT AS A WAR..............LARGE ARMIES pounding the enemy into the ground by taking ground and destroying the enemies dumb enough to stand in the way..........WE SHOULD have INVADED NORTH VIETNAM and destroyed any in the way........................and in CAMBODIA AS WELL..................
NOT FIGHT IT in a PC BS MANNER............................
THAT IS HOW YOU WIN A WAR......................
PC and POLITICS is how you lose a War...................and how you increase our casualties...............
People like you who think as you do are exactly why we lose Wars and why we always strap our troops with RULES instead of letting them just get the dang thing over with...................
These rules of Warfare are why there is a North KOREA today..............COMMUNIST VIETNAM TODAY.......................why SADDAM wasn't taken out in the 1st Gulf WAR...............
We have failed to finish what we started, and are paying the price for the foolishness of it.
Why? Why were we in Vietnam in the first place? What was our vital national interest?
- Thread starter
- #93
How many people were slaughtered in the name of the Pope during the religious wars in Europe? Too many to count...
The greatest acts of crime and killing have not been instigated by people professing to follow Jesus. The numbers:
- Judaism and Christianity throughout history:17,000,000
- Anti- or irreligious forces over the last 100 years:
Isn t religion to blame for most of history s killings
Your turn, you dope.
NoTeaPartyPleez
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2012
- 11,826
- 1,912
- 245
Again we were at WAR..............the Cambodians were supplying the enemy with weapons, food and more.............How did the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia?
"The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians.
"Some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry.[41]
"However, Pol Pot biographer David P. Chandler argues that the bombing 'had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh'.[42][43]
"Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973.[44][45]
"Craig Etcheson agreed that it was 'untenable' to assert that US intervention caused the Khmer Rouge victory while acknowledging that it may have played a small role in boosting recruitment for the insurgents.[46]
"William Shawcross, however, wrote that the US bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos that Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid."
The same way IS took control of Mosul??
Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In a WAR a KEY MILITARY STRATEGY is to hit the enemies supply lines......................The supply lines were there..................So we hit them.....................
Even with this, we again failed to fight it as a War..................had we driven our armies in MASS into North Vietnam they couldn't have stopped us..................instead we fought THEIR WAR and not ours...................
While the outcome due to Ideology may not have changed, all of VIETNAM would have fallen to our forces and the supply lines cut to ribbons................
At best, the North only had half the numbers we had there...........TET was MILITARILY A FAILURE as the North lost a lot of troops................
They sacrificed their men in a hopeless endeavor for POLITICAL REASONS............to get the American public to DEMAND that we leave.................and it WORKED................as the PC CULTURE refused to fight it as a WAR.....................
Another example of how politicians lose WARS..............
Same as the 1st Gulf WAR when we didn't finish Saddam off when we had a half a million forces at his doorstep.
And what was the point of our being in Vietnam in the first place?
The myth that we had to stop the Communists THERE before they could come HERE.
Such bullshit.
And today Vietnam is.....Surprise! A Communist country!
58,000 Americans and 100,000s of Vietnamese civilians died.
Fucking Republicans need to wake up. They really are sleep-walkers.
- May 17, 2013
- 68,865
- 33,796
- 2,290
Our National policy at the time was to OPPOSE the spread of Communism..............whether right nor wrong once you PULL THE TRIGGER FIGHT THE DAMNED WAR TO WIN AND NOT TO LOSE IT.Ill answer that one...........................Now for your error re: Shawcross-
- In the movie “The Killing Fields,” the first half leaves one with the impression that the United States was ultimately to blame for the fate that befell Cambodia by bringing Cambodia into the Indochina war, destroying its neutrality, and bombing to the extent that it drove the Khmer Rouge to the horrors that developed. The actuality is that it was North Vietnam that widened the war, not the United States. It was before 1965 that Hanoi created the Khmer Rouge (as early as WWII) and the Pathet Lao (mid ‘50’s) with the goal of conquering all of Indochina for communism.
- In “Sideshow,” William Shawcross claims that the 1970 bombings caused the coup in which Prince Sihanouk was by Lon Nol. But this adumbrates the issues, as Sihanouk attempted to be too clever, allowing the Vietnamese to invade his country, and then telling Kissinger he could bomb them.
- The North Vietnamese were getting support from the Soviet Union and China, determined to support wars of “national liberation.”
c. In 1994, Shawcross acknowledged his error: “Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times...,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions.”
Wiliam Shaw Cross I m William Cross
So how many more American lives would you have been willing to see spent in Southeast Asia fighting over issues that had nothing to do with our national security or vital interests?
And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
His act includes only two tricks:
Trick #1....lies
Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
Today it's Trick #2 on display:
"So how many more American lives would you have been willing to see spent in Southeast Asia fighting over issues that had nothing to do with our national security or vital interests?"
Why don't you man up and take a position once in awhile.
Should we have stayed in SE Asia longer or not? Yes or no
Should we have fought in Laos, Cambodia, etc. or not? Yes or no.
Your damed skippy..................FOUGHT AS A WAR..............LARGE ARMIES pounding the enemy into the ground by taking ground and destroying the enemies dumb enough to stand in the way..........WE SHOULD have INVADED NORTH VIETNAM and destroyed any in the way........................and in CAMBODIA AS WELL..................
NOT FIGHT IT in a PC BS MANNER............................
THAT IS HOW YOU WIN A WAR......................
PC and POLITICS is how you lose a War...................and how you increase our casualties...............
People like you who think as you do are exactly why we lose Wars and why we always strap our troops with RULES instead of letting them just get the dang thing over with...................
These rules of Warfare are why there is a North KOREA today..............COMMUNIST VIETNAM TODAY.......................why SADDAM wasn't taken out in the 1st Gulf WAR...............
We have failed to finish what we started, and are paying the price for the foolishness of it.
Why? Why were we in Vietnam in the first place? What was our vital national interest?
That is what I'm saying...............we were of a different mindset at the TIME.............and it's easy to say today under a different mindset on why we shouldn't have gone..............It's easy to condemn the actions after the fact instead of beforehand...................
Vietnam was of NO NATIONAL INTERESTS to the U.S. at the time.................Only to the RHETORIC of the time and to prevent the spread of Communism which was the deal at the time................
Tell that to the 6k protestants killed in one day after Trent, by Papal decree, the Pope had many other Christians destroyed or exiled....Templar's, Jesuits,,,,,,,,just to name two....but after the reformation and counter reformation even royalty was killed, imprisoned or exiled over religious sects....fighting over domain of the Pope or freewill Protestants...How many people were slaughtered in the name of the Pope during the religious wars in Europe? Too many to count...
The greatest acts of crime and killing have not been instigated by people professing to follow Jesus. The numbers:
6,000,000 + 9,000,000 + 40,000,000 + 24,000,000 + 25,000,000 + 22,000,000 + 2,000,000 + 1,000,000,000 =1,128,000,000
- Judaism and Christianity throughout history:17,000,000
- Anti- or irreligious forces over the last 100 years:
Isn t religion to blame for most of history s killings
Your turn, you dope.
NoTeaPartyPleez
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2012
- 11,826
- 1,912
- 245
The Soviet Union collapsed because totalitarian Communism is fatally flawed.
You betcha'!!!
If only it had followed these simple rules: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Unfortunately, the same fate may await the United States for the same reason.
Reagan saved Social Security, remember? One of the top three best examples of Socialism in America?
lol, you people need to wake up and grow up.
Shouldn't YOU be applauding him then?
I do, for that.
Shouldn't you be calling him a Communist bent on destroying America, fuckwit?
Why? Because YOU say so, you feel citizens paying into a retirement system is socialism... Now NOT paying into one and getting money IS SOCIALISM!... Ever hear of your Mess...iah's REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?
There has been no redistribution of wealth. The wealth gap hasn't been this high since 1917. This graph was created to reflect data gathered through 2006.
Guess what happened in 2008, Cletus?
All because of a political stance...and WWIIAgain we were at WAR..............the Cambodians were supplying the enemy with weapons, food and more.............How did the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia?
"The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians.
"Some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry.[41]
"However, Pol Pot biographer David P. Chandler argues that the bombing 'had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh'.[42][43]
"Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973.[44][45]
"Craig Etcheson agreed that it was 'untenable' to assert that US intervention caused the Khmer Rouge victory while acknowledging that it may have played a small role in boosting recruitment for the insurgents.[46]
"William Shawcross, however, wrote that the US bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos that Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid."
The same way IS took control of Mosul??
Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In a WAR a KEY MILITARY STRATEGY is to hit the enemies supply lines......................The supply lines were there..................So we hit them.....................
Even with this, we again failed to fight it as a War..................had we driven our armies in MASS into North Vietnam they couldn't have stopped us..................instead we fought THEIR WAR and not ours...................
While the outcome due to Ideology may not have changed, all of VIETNAM would have fallen to our forces and the supply lines cut to ribbons................
At best, the North only had half the numbers we had there...........TET was MILITARILY A FAILURE as the North lost a lot of troops................
They sacrificed their men in a hopeless endeavor for POLITICAL REASONS............to get the American public to DEMAND that we leave.................and it WORKED................as the PC CULTURE refused to fight it as a WAR.....................
Another example of how politicians lose WARS..............
Same as the 1st Gulf WAR when we didn't finish Saddam off when we had a half a million forces at his doorstep.
And what was the point of our being in Vietnam in the first place?
The myth that we had to stop the Communists THERE before they could come HERE.
Such bullshit.
And today Vietnam is.....Surprise! A Communist country!
58,000 Americans and 100,000s of Vietnamese civilians died.
Fucking Republicans need to wake up. They really are sleep-walkers.
Add in the communist spin-offs in China, Cambodia, Cuba, Viet Nam, etc., and the number goes well beyond 100 million mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, lives counted as less important than the victory of communism.
And this is the hallmark of every totalist view, communism, Nazism, socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism.....the life of the individual may never be considered, only the collective, the state, the "general will" is paramount.
DEMOCRAT Harry Truman spent some 36,000 American lives keeping the Communist North Koreans out of South Korea.
If you support that Democratic President's actions, you have an odd way of showing it.
99.9% of all national Democrats are communist! The last REAL DemocRAT left when Zell shut the door on them!
Yeah, Zell Miller, last of the old Southern conservative segregationist Democrats.
You are correct if you leave out the word segregationist.
- May 17, 2013
- 68,865
- 33,796
- 2,290
I never said that going there was the right thing to do...............I said it's under a different mindset than today, and your side uses the mindset of today to interpret history...............refusing to tr to see it in the context of the day....................Again we were at WAR..............the Cambodians were supplying the enemy with weapons, food and more.............How did the Khmer Rouge seize power in Cambodia?
"The relationship between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians.
"Some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry.[41]
"However, Pol Pot biographer David P. Chandler argues that the bombing 'had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh'.[42][43]
"Peter Rodman and Michael Lind claimed that the US intervention saved Cambodia from collapse in 1970 and 1973.[44][45]
"Craig Etcheson agreed that it was 'untenable' to assert that US intervention caused the Khmer Rouge victory while acknowledging that it may have played a small role in boosting recruitment for the insurgents.[46]
"William Shawcross, however, wrote that the US bombing and ground incursion plunged Cambodia into the chaos that Sihanouk had worked for years to avoid."
The same way IS took control of Mosul??
Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In a WAR a KEY MILITARY STRATEGY is to hit the enemies supply lines......................The supply lines were there..................So we hit them.....................
Even with this, we again failed to fight it as a War..................had we driven our armies in MASS into North Vietnam they couldn't have stopped us..................instead we fought THEIR WAR and not ours...................
While the outcome due to Ideology may not have changed, all of VIETNAM would have fallen to our forces and the supply lines cut to ribbons................
At best, the North only had half the numbers we had there...........TET was MILITARILY A FAILURE as the North lost a lot of troops................
They sacrificed their men in a hopeless endeavor for POLITICAL REASONS............to get the American public to DEMAND that we leave.................and it WORKED................as the PC CULTURE refused to fight it as a WAR.....................
Another example of how politicians lose WARS..............
Same as the 1st Gulf WAR when we didn't finish Saddam off when we had a half a million forces at his doorstep.
And what was the point of our being in Vietnam in the first place?
The myth that we had to stop the Communists THERE before they could come HERE.
Such bullshit.
And today Vietnam is.....Surprise! A Communist country!
58,000 Americans and 100,000s of Vietnamese civilians died.
Fucking Republicans need to wake up. They really are sleep-walkers.
Vietnam was a mistake.................in my view..............No real national interests for the cost....................
But again, when you go to WAR.............FIGHT IT AS A WAR.................or you LOSE THE WAR...............
Understand now.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 383
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 144
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 85
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 355
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8287
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 476
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-