How to cut and run

we have another one in our midsts.


And not a moment too soon, apparently! :shocked1:

In the interests of full disclosure, trobinett and I know each other from another forum, which I will refrain from mentioning to avoid the appearance of shilling for another site. He is one of the folks who invited me over here. While we occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum, we are nevertheless friends and I give his posts due respect (no matter how hard that is sometimes) and he accords me the same consideration.

I happen to believe that the best of all possible results occurs when all voices are heard and given a respectful hearing. Upon initial review, it seems that policy is NOT shared by a large percentage of folks here.

But I am planning on changing that! ;)

:cheers2:
 
we have another one in our midsts.


And not a moment too soon, apparently! :shocked1:

In the interests of full disclosure, trobinett and I know each other from another forum, which I will refrain from mentioning to avoid the appearance of shilling for another site. He is one of the folks who invited me over here. While we occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum, we are nevertheless friends and I give his posts due respect (no matter how hard that is sometimes) and he accords me the same consideration.

I happen to believe that the best of all possible results occurs when all voices are heard and given a respectful hearing. Upon initial review, it seems that policy is NOT shared by a large percentage of folks here.

But I am planning on changing that! ;)


Nice of Trobinett to bring ya in for the cure ! Welcome !
 
we have another one in our midsts.


And not a moment too soon, apparently! :shocked1:

In the interests of full disclosure, trobinett and I know each other from another forum, which I will refrain from mentioning to avoid the appearance of shilling for another site. He is one of the folks who invited me over here. While we occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum, we are nevertheless friends and I give his posts due respect (no matter how hard that is sometimes) and he accords me the same consideration.

I happen to believe that the best of all possible results occurs when all voices are heard and given a respectful hearing. Upon initial review, it seems that policy is NOT shared by a large percentage of folks here.

But I am planning on changing that! ;)

Well, welcome aboard.

In the interest of full disclosure, just because you are at opposite ends of the spectrum and friends with a respected member, don't presume that will give you any special dispensation. I give due respect when it is EARNED. I for one have seen too many trolls come to this board spewing the DU talking points and though they make fairly decent parrots, they haven't got a logical brain cell in their heads.

I shall see how well you substantiate your position and give fair consideration if it is deserved.
 
Fair enough, CSM

By the way, I am a Vietnam vet and I am NOT anti-military. What I AM opposed to is hobbling the military with phony political constraints. Colin Powell knows full well how to fight a war, and it is NOT by giving commanders half of the troops they need to do the job.

I approve highly of the military practice of conducting after action reviews to identify what went right, what went wrong and how to minimize those mistakes in the future. THAT is keeping an open mind and that practice of analysis and review should be emulated throughout government.

I object strongly to subjecting troops to death or dismemberment in pursuit of vague political goals, That to me is the ultimate insult to our soldiers.

That is all.
 
Fair enough, CSM

I approve highly of the military practice of conducting after action reviews to identify what went right, what went wrong and how to minimize those mistakes in the future. THAT is keeping an open mind and that practice of analysis and review should be emulated throughout government.

Would this be an attempt to explain why I should vote for a Democrat?
 
One of the problems of "staying till the jobs done" is and, has been since 2004, is that 90% of the people we're fighting over there are Iraqis. We aren't "fighting the terrorist there so we don't have to fight them here" thats a children's fairy tale that even the DoD can't deny anymore.

We're killing Iraqi nationalists, the majority of people who are willing to stand up, fight, and possibly die for their country. So many people in America lament or ponder when the Iraqi's will stand up and take charge for themselves. Well guess what, they have been for about 2 years now, they just aren't on our team.

Even then its not so clear cut as only nationalisim being the factor, its also divided along tribal, religious, and ethnic lines which is why we see a civil war playing out in the background.

Like the article said, victory isn't lost yet, it just isn't going to look like the one the architects of this war envisioned at the start.
 
it just isn't going to look like the one the architects of this war envisioned at the start.



Ahh, there's the rub, Horatio. The original plan was deeply flawed.

Being old enough to remember when Vietnam was not just a question on high school history tests, I recall that at the time that DDE and JFK made the top level decisions that got us involved in that particular morass, there were no native speakers and precious few people who had any notion about Vietnamese history. And they were not consulted. Those decisions were predicated on A.} helping the French out after Dienbienphu so they would support NATO and B.} suppressing perceived threats from the Soviet Union and China. NO consideration was given to the country or the people of Vietnam themselves. One of the popular sayings in that country is "When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." and they understand which they are in that metaphor. 56,000 soldiers died, the country was torn apart and billions in national treasure were pissed away in the name of gaining a diplomatic advantage and ideology.

Once again, ideology is the predominate factor in the pre Iraq war plans. But this time, instead of the Domino Theory, it is the notion that exporting democracy will somehow bring the islamic world to its senses and make its people want to be just like us. There was even some idiot on the team who offered the statement that there was no history of sectarian violence between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds. THAT may go down in history as one of the stupidest political statements ever rendered.

We had our collective national rose colored glasses on from the start. Wildly cheering Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. There would be dancing in the streets (no doubt led by Martha and the Vandellas) and our soldiers would be treated as heroes. What pains me is that these visions were pedaled to the American public by officials at the highest levels of government, including the Ovoid Office.

It seems to me it was intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that these pie in the sky pronouncements were a bunch of hooey and a piss poor basis for committing American soldiers. Several top military leaders said so and were dismissed from the service for having the audacity to oppose our Dear Leader.

Military leaders work damned hard to mimimize casualties and protect our troops. Unfortunately, our leaders have thrown our soldiers into a situation that puts them at substantial risk without the plans or materiel necessary to offer a reasonable chance of a successful mission. That, to me, is irresponsible and borders on criminal negligence.

Support our troops? Yes, I most definitely do. I support their right not to die for an illusion.

Being of Irish heritage, I have a storehouse of knowledge about my native country, which is probably the ONLY country on earth to be overrun by outsiders as often as the people of Vietnam. The Irish have been "visited" by every single political power in European history. One could draw some conclusions about the imposition of political control by external forces from studying Irish history. The record isn't all that good and should give pause to anyone who feels like bringing "enlightenment" to people in another land. Our leaders, though, are not guided by the observable history of mankind or by thoughtful consideration of the likely consequences of their actions. They are guided by a deep, abiding belief that they are right and the whole of prior human experience is wrong. What a paltry excuse for sending American soldiers to be killed and maimed.:spank3:

In fact, to the casual observer, the entire focus on Iraq, where alQueda is NOT, instead of Afghanistan, where the crazies ARE, can only be described as indicative of mental illness at the highest levels. If I came over to your house and told you God told me to come visit, you would put out a call for the boys who drive the Disoriented Express. When our LEADERS tell us that they are sending American troops someplace because God said it was the right thing to do, we stand up and cheer. I find that odd. :cuckoo:
 
it just isn't going to look like the one the architects of this war envisioned at the start.



Ahh, there's the rub, Horatio. The original plan was deeply flawed.

Being old enough to remember when Vietnam was not just a question on high school history tests, I recall that at the time that DDE and JFK made the top level decisions that got us involved in that particular morass, there were no native speakers and precious few people who had any notion about Vietnamese history. And they were not consulted. Those decisions were predicated on A.} helping the French out after Dienbienphu so they would support NATO and B.} suppressing perceived threats from the Soviet Union and China. NO consideration was given to the country or the people of Vietnam themselves. One of the popular sayings in that country is "When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." and they understand which they are in that metaphor. 56,000 soldiers died, the country was torn apart and billions in national treasure were pissed away in the name of gaining a diplomatic advantage and ideology.

Once again, ideology is the predominate factor in the pre Iraq war plans. But this time, instead of the Domino Theory, it is the notion that exporting democracy will somehow bring the islamic world to its senses and make its people want to be just like us. There was even some idiot on the team who offered the statement that there was no history of sectarian violence between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds. THAT may go down in history as one of the stupidest political statements ever rendered.

We had our collective national rose colored glasses on from the start. Wildly cheering Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. There would be dancing in the streets (no doubt led by Martha and the Vandellas) and our soldiers would be treated as heroes. What pains me is that these visions were pedaled to the American public by officials at the highest levels of government, including the Ovoid Office.

It seems to me it was intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that these pie in the sky pronouncements were a bunch of hooey and a piss poor basis for committing American soldiers. Several top military leaders said so and were dismissed from the service for having the audacity to oppose our Dear Leader.

Military leaders work damned hard to mimimize casualties and protect our troops. Unfortunately, our leaders have thrown our soldiers into a situation that puts them at substantial risk without the plans or materiel necessary to offer a reasonable chance of a successful mission. That, to me, is irresponsible and borders on criminal negligence.

Support our troops? Yes, I most definitely do. I support their right not to die for an illusion.

Being of Irish heritage, I have a storehouse of knowledge about my native country, which is probably the ONLY country on earth to be overrun by outsiders as often as the people of Vietnam. The Irish have been "visited" by every single political power in European history. One could draw some conclusions about the imposition of political control by external forces from studying Irish history. The record isn't all that good and should give pause to anyone who feels like bringing "enlightenment" to people in another land. Our leaders, though, are not guided by the observable history of mankind or by thoughtful consideration of the likely consequences of their actions. They are guided by a deep, abiding belief that they are right and the whole of prior human experience is wrong. What a paltry excuse for sending American soldiers to be killed and maimed.:spank3:

In fact, to the casual observer, the entire focus on Iraq, where alQueda is NOT, instead of Afghanistan, where the crazies ARE, can only be described as indicative of mental illness at the highest levels. If I came over to your house and told you God told me to come visit, you would put out a call for the boys who drive the Disoriented Express. When our LEADERS tell us that they are sending American troops someplace because God said it was the right thing to do, we stand up and cheer. I find that odd. :cuckoo:

A well thought out post MG, as is your style.

You DO overstate your position on a few points, which is ALSO your style.

The original plan was deeply flawed.

Rather than make such a "blanket" statement, which is what we hear on a constant basis from the left, explain why you think the plan was "flawed", if that isn't asking too much. And please MG, don't fall back on the comparison to Viet Nam, for these War's are far different from one another. One was fought to stop the spread of Communism, and this one is being fought to stop the spread of terror.

As a Vet, you did your job, and came back. For that, people like me, will forever be grateful. Yes, when we came back "to country", people sneered, and yelled disgraceful remarks our way. But, just as what happens in war is not your fault or my fault, our leaders shouldn't be condemned, and have disgraceful remarks hurled their way for trying to do the right thing.

In the end, looking back with 20-20 vision, there were mistakes made in policy, and their were mistakes made in fighting the war, but it was NO mistake to try and stop the Communist from taking over yet another country.

I don't like the way the "anti-war" crowd is handling themselves this time around either. Some make it sound like we've left Afghanistan, we haven't. That country, and the tactical situation there, call for a different type of fight. Iraq on the other hand, requires a more conventional approach to rooting out, and destroying the "bad guys". Lets don't forget, WE DIDN'T START THIS WAR.

Sure, many people around the world, and some here in the 'States, say our policies have brought this down on us. I say BULL SHIT.

We must be willing to hunt down, and fight the "crazies" where ever they hide, and by what ever name they call themselves.

Minimizing casualties is always of great importance to any commander, all the way up to the President, both military, and civilian. But, as anyone, that has found themselves in "harms way" can tell you, casualties there WILL BE.

The problem today, as has been the problem with war, since "instant" communication, is the public, the non-combatants, don't really have the stomach for war. The terrorist know this, and use it against us. The left have fallen right into their trap, and only make the fighting of this war, for our military more difficult, and MORE DANGEROUS.

Think about it.:scratch:
 
it just isn't going to look like the one the architects of this war envisioned at the start.



Ahh, there's the rub, Horatio. The original plan was deeply flawed.

Being old enough to remember when Vietnam was not just a question on high school history tests, I recall that at the time that DDE and JFK made the top level decisions that got us involved in that particular morass, there were no native speakers and precious few people who had any notion about Vietnamese history. And they were not consulted. Those decisions were predicated on A.} helping the French out after Dienbienphu so they would support NATO and B.} suppressing perceived threats from the Soviet Union and China. NO consideration was given to the country or the people of Vietnam themselves. One of the popular sayings in that country is "When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." and they understand which they are in that metaphor. 56,000 soldiers died, the country was torn apart and billions in national treasure were pissed away in the name of gaining a diplomatic advantage and ideology.

Once again, ideology is the predominate factor in the pre Iraq war plans. But this time, instead of the Domino Theory, it is the notion that exporting democracy will somehow bring the islamic world to its senses and make its people want to be just like us. There was even some idiot on the team who offered the statement that there was no history of sectarian violence between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds. THAT may go down in history as one of the stupidest political statements ever rendered.

We had our collective national rose colored glasses on from the start. Wildly cheering Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. There would be dancing in the streets (no doubt led by Martha and the Vandellas) and our soldiers would be treated as heroes. What pains me is that these visions were pedaled to the American public by officials at the highest levels of government, including the Ovoid Office.

It seems to me it was intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that these pie in the sky pronouncements were a bunch of hooey and a piss poor basis for committing American soldiers. Several top military leaders said so and were dismissed from the service for having the audacity to oppose our Dear Leader.

Military leaders work damned hard to mimimize casualties and protect our troops. Unfortunately, our leaders have thrown our soldiers into a situation that puts them at substantial risk without the plans or materiel necessary to offer a reasonable chance of a successful mission. That, to me, is irresponsible and borders on criminal negligence.

Support our troops? Yes, I most definitely do. I support their right not to die for an illusion.

Being of Irish heritage, I have a storehouse of knowledge about my native country, which is probably the ONLY country on earth to be overrun by outsiders as often as the people of Vietnam. The Irish have been "visited" by every single political power in European history. One could draw some conclusions about the imposition of political control by external forces from studying Irish history. The record isn't all that good and should give pause to anyone who feels like bringing "enlightenment" to people in another land. Our leaders, though, are not guided by the observable history of mankind or by thoughtful consideration of the likely consequences of their actions. They are guided by a deep, abiding belief that they are right and the whole of prior human experience is wrong. What a paltry excuse for sending American soldiers to be killed and maimed.:spank3:

In fact, to the casual observer, the entire focus on Iraq, where alQueda is NOT, instead of Afghanistan, where the crazies ARE, can only be described as indicative of mental illness at the highest levels. If I came over to your house and told you God told me to come visit, you would put out a call for the boys who drive the Disoriented Express. When our LEADERS tell us that they are sending American troops someplace because God said it was the right thing to do, we stand up and cheer. I find that odd. :cuckoo:

Funny thing, George Washington said that about the revolutionary war.

About vietnam, the secretary of state, a Dem, his name is on the tip of my tongue,(macnamara?) and his cronnies were just like todays elitist liberals. They were college educated, privledged bean counters. Their decisions were often disasterous because they refused to follow the advise of the generals and instead often followed what their engineers and scientists advised regarding military equipment. Like the M16, which needed a modification to prevent it from jamming, but they didnt do, and it resulted in many soldiers deaths because suddenly they were standing in the middle of mayhem and all they had to hold was their dick and a useless m16.

ANyways, regarding the vietnam war, we had the north stopped. They agreed in 1975 to stop entering the south, and that there would be seperate north and south. The only reason they eventually overran the south was because the US didnt give the PROMISED support if the north invaded the south, After THE Paris peace accords were signed.
Now, if we take Korea, and Vietnam, and use those as learning tools, what we learn is this. If we defend democracy, as in Korea, we wind up with sucess, as S Korea is now a democratic flourishing nation, as opposed to the North which has untold suffering, starvation. If we dont defend Democracy, then we wind up with Vietnam, where the bad guys run all over and end up with things like Pol Pot.

We have a simple choice, see this thing thru to the end like Korea, or act like traitorous cowards, cut and run, and wind up with Vietnam.

Its the same situation in Iraq right now. We have defeated the main military, ousted the criminal govt and are helping them set up to be able to defend themselves. If we leave too early as we did in vietnam, it will all be a waste. If we stick around long enough for them to handle themselves, then we wind up with Korea.
 
Funny thing, George Washington said that about the revolutionary war.

About vietnam, the secretary of state, a Dem, his name is on the tip of my tongue,(macnamara?) and his cronnies were just like todays elitist liberals. They were college educated, privledged bean counters. Their decisions were often disasterous because they refused to follow the advise of the generals and instead often followed what their engineers and scientists advised regarding military equipment. Like the M16, which needed a modification to prevent it from jamming, but they didnt do, and it resulted in many soldiers deaths because suddenly they were standing in the middle of mayhem and all they had to hold was their dick and a useless m16.

ANyways, regarding the vietnam war, we had the north stopped. They agreed in 1975 to stop entering the south, and that there would be seperate north and south. The only reason they eventually overran the south was because the US didnt give the PROMISED support if the north invaded the south, After THE Paris peace accords were signed.
Now, if we take Korea, and Vietnam, and use those as learning tools, what we learn is this. If we defend democracy, as in Korea, we wind up with sucess, as S Korea is now a democratic flourishing nation, as opposed to the North which has untold suffering, starvation. If we dont defend Democracy, then we wind up with Vietnam, where the bad guys run all over and end up with things like Pol Pot.

We have a simple choice, see this thing thru to the end like Korea, or act like traitorous cowards, cut and run, and wind up with Vietnam.

Its the same situation in Iraq right now. We have defeated the main military, ousted the criminal govt and are helping them set up to be able to defend themselves. If we leave too early as we did in vietnam, it will all be a waste. If we stick around long enough for them to handle themselves, then we wind up with Korea.

Well stated...:salute: :clap:
 
Hold on there a second LuvRPgrl...

If we defend democracy, as in Korea, we wind up with sucess, as S Korea is now a democratic flourishing nation, as opposed to the North which has untold suffering, starvation.

Well, yeah, N Korea went on the shit list after the war with regards to trade, travel, and assistence which were so severe it lead to national canibalisim... now they have nukes. Kind of reminds you of Germany after WW 1 no?

If we dont defend Democracy, then we wind up with Vietnam, where the bad guys run all over and end up with things like Pol Pot.

Vietnam's star has been on the rise for some time now. They're actualy doing well for themselves all things considered. They have one of the fastest-growing economies in the world right now.

Vietnam is a densely-populated, developing country that in the last 30 years has had to recover from the ravages of war, the loss of financial support from the old Soviet Bloc, and the rigidities of a centrally-planned economy. Substantial progress was achieved from 1986 to 1997 in moving forward from an extremely low level of development and significantly reducing poverty. Growth averaged around 9% per year from 1993 to 1997. The 1997 Asian financial crisis highlighted the problems in the Vietnamese economy and temporarily allowed opponents of reform to slow progress toward a market-oriented economy. GDP growth averaged 6.8% per year from 1997 to 2004 even against the background of the Asian financial crisis and a global recession, and growth hit 8% in 2005. Since 2001, however, Vietnamese authorities have reaffirmed their commitment to economic liberalization and international integration. They have moved to implement the structural reforms needed to modernize the economy and to produce more competitive, export-driven industries. Vietnam's membership in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and entry into force of the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement in December 2001 have led to even more rapid changes in Vietnam's trade and economic regime. Vietnam's exports to the US doubled in 2002 and again in 2003. Vietnam hopes to become a member of the WTO in 2006. Among other benefits, accession would allow Vietnam to take advantage of the phase out of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which eliminated quotas on textiles and clothing for WTO partners on 1 January 2005. Agriculture's share of economic output has continued to shrink, from about 25% in 2000 to 21% in 2005. Deep poverty, defined as a percent of the population living under $1 per day, has declined significantly and is now smaller than that of China, India, and the Philippines. Vietnam is working to promote job creation to keep up with the country's high population growth rate. However, high levels of inflation have prompted Vietnamese authorities to tighten monetary and fiscal policies.

https://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html#Econ
 
PROPOSITION 1 – Ho Chi Min was by far the most legitimate vietnamese leader since the end of WWII. The entire country revered him as a nationalist leader (not as a communist leader), a national hero of the struggle against the japanese occupation and french colonialism.

America and South Vietnam themselves recognised this historical fact when they refused to allow the national elections on the reunification of the country established by the Geneva Accords.

Official excuse: the elections in the North wouldn’t be free.

Real motive: everybody in America and in South Vietnam knew Ho Chi Min would win in the South by a landslide.

The popularity and legitimacy in nationalist terms of the series of puppet governments who ruled South Vietnam until 75 can’t even be compared with 10% of the popularity and legitimacy of Ho Chi Min AS A NATIONALIST LEADER.

PROPOSITION 2 - America had a clearly superior social project for Vietnam and had this project succeded the country would be far more prosperous and free than it is today.

As LuvRPgrl has rightly stated even the most basic comparison between South Korea and Vietnam (one of the poorest countries not only in Asia but in the world) proves this statement beyond any doubt.
 
If you accept proposition 1 and reject proposition 2 you are an anti american clown.

If you accept proposition 2 and reject proposition 1 you are a super patriotic american clown.

If you believe both propositions are valid, CONGRATULATIONS!!!

You don’t belong in a circus anymore.

You are a serious political thinker.
 
Proposition One is correct, in my view.

Ho Chi Minh, like ALL Vietnamese intellectuals was educated in Paris at a time when virtually EVERYONE in Paris was a socialist/communist. He affiliated with the Communist Party while in Paris. After WW II, when anti-communism became the mantra of American policy, this fact alone was sufficient to ensure that HCM was treated as a pariah.

The rest, as they say, is history, and is recorded for all to see on a long black marble tablet in Washington. It is a monument to human stupidity.
 
José;499885 said:
If you accept proposition 1 and reject proposition 2 you are an anti american clown.

If you accept proposition 2 and reject proposition 1 you are a super patriotic american clown.

If you believe both propositions are valid, CONGRATULATIONS!!!

You don’t belong in a circus anymore.

You are a serious political thinker.

If you accept Jose's unsubstantiated opinions as fact you're a moron.
 
Proposition One is correct, in my view.

Ho Chi Minh, like ALL Vietnamese intellectuals was educated in Paris at a time when virtually EVERYONE in Paris was a socialist/communist. He affiliated with the Communist Party while in Paris. After WW II, when anti-communism became the mantra of American policy, this fact alone was sufficient to ensure that HCM was treated as a pariah.

The rest, as they say, is history, and is recorded for all to see on a long black marble tablet in Washington. It is a monument to human stupidity.

Wrong. That monument represents the sacrifice of thousands of lives thrown down the shitter because a bunch of left-wing sewer rats didn't have the stones to finsih what they started.
 
Wrong. That monument represents the sacrifice of thousands of lives thrown down the shitter because a bunch of left-wing sewer rats didn't have the stones to finsih what they started.

I truly don't think the cut, and run crowd will E-V-E-R "get it". One mans treasure is another's junk. Opinions differ, but one thing is for sure, when politicians micro-manage wars, EVERYONE loses.

Great post Gunny.:cof:
 
Wrong. That monument represents the sacrifice of thousands of lives thrown down the shitter because a bunch of left-wing sewer rats didn't have the stones to finsih what they started.

I dont really understand what Jose is trying to say.

I disagree about their lives being thrown down the shitter. If nothing else, but we dont abandon Iraq because of the vietnam experience, then they will have at least won that victory for us.

I agree with the left wing sewer rats, and the monument stands for those who lived and died heroically for this country.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top