Isolating The Vietnam War

[Flanders]

Fighting for this country against all enemies foreign and domestic make conscription necessary when events are obvious. The problem is in defining who and what inductees will serve when there is no impending military threat. There is no circumstance that allows conscription for a political agenda. Conscription for a political cause is exactly the same as conscription to serve a specific organized religion.

Since conscription is my topic today let me begin by excerpting a previous thread. Before he was disgraced, Representative Charley Rangel called for re-instituting the draft. Knowing Democrats, I’m certain he wanted more military personal available to staff meals-on-wheels programs in foreign countries. In short: Conscription to staff a political cause:

Let’s take a look at he who is ethically challenged —— Charlie Rangel:​

There’s no mass movement for mandatory service, but the idea has gained a diverse group of supporters, including retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y).​

Save America: Restore the draft
By Dana Milbank, Published: November 29

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...935-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?hpid=z2​

Rangel supporting the draft is no recommendation nor is his support new. Bob Unruh over at WND is a bit more precise than is Milbank over at the WAPO:​

WND also has reported that U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”

His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”

Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”

“It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specified.

It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.​

Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging
'2nd term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect'
Published: 04/13/2012 at 10:57 AM
BOB UNRUH

Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging​

I hate to ask about the kind of service Rangel wants performed by those “draftees” who do not go into the military.​

XXXXX​

Based on what I heard and read liberals believe that conscription will solve Washington’s problems by making more Americans available to serve the United Nations.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/327079-conscription-liberal-style.html​

Clarification: My comments are for well-informed readers. Others who might be interested can research the numerous aspects of the topics I am covering.

The end of conscription in 1973 has proved to be a moral disaster.​

Presidents et al. abusing conscription is the only moral disaster:

It’s impossible to predict long-range military manpower needs, but it’s worth noting that the history of conscription in 20th-century America is a study in moral and administrative decline. The World War I draft was very fair, the World War II draft was somewhat fair, the Korean War draft was somewhat unfair, and the Vietnam draft was scandalously unfair. It’s not that conscription can’t be done right; it’s that we’ve lost the will to do it right.​

September 16, 2016, 12:15 am
Disrespecting Draftees
Louis Marano

Fracking’s Borderlines | The American Spectator​

Many Americans opposed conscription in WW I because America had not been attacked. WW I was the first major presidential abuse of conscription when Woodrow Wilson made the decision to abandon strict neutrality. Basically, Wilson chose sides in WW I when America was not threatened militarily. In fact, from America’s perspective Wilson could just as easily have sided with Germany.

FDR had no problem with conscription in WW II. Without getting into the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory, Americans enlisted by the millions after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Were it not for the publicity a few well-known actors received the number of conscientious objectors would have gone unnoticed because the total number of so-called Draft Dodgers was negligible. Most American men knew they had to defend the country after Pearl Harbor. Most American men did not like conscription in WW II but served willingly when called.

Conscription for the Korean War was a mixed bag. The Korean War was possible because of the one and only time the Soviet Union missed a Security Council meeting. The Soviets would surely have vetoed President Truman’s Police Action.

On the positive side, Truman did the right thing in Korea (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953). On the negative side Truman did the wrong thing by getting permission from the United Nations.

Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon did the right thing in Vietnam because Vietnam was fought for the same reason Truman went to Korea —— stop Communist expansion with a preemptive strike before Communists acquired the capability to attack a weakened American people militarily. In effect, the Cold War fought against the Soviet Union was a “peaceful” preemptive strike. Korea and Vietnam were two military battles made necessary by Communist aggression.

NOTE: Islam is attacking America on every front, yet there has never been a preemptive strike against Islam itself à la Communism.

Vietnam is unique in that American traitors succeeded in isolating the Vietnam War from all of the justifications that led to the war. Separation succeeded because media taught average Americans in the Vietnam War era to oppose Vietnam without telling them they were also opposing Communism. The only reason they did not bring defeat to their country in the Korean War meant they had to demonstrate against the United Nations.

Over the years being against Communism without knowing it morphed into being for it. Proof: Two generations of Americans since Vietnam oppose a war without knowing what they support, or why they support the media’s view.

NOTE: As far back as the 1920s and ‘30s print press advocated Socialism. According to journalists (and novelists) Socialism/Communism was the wave of the future. Television set print journalism Socialism in cement not long after WW II ended. For all practical purposes the end of the Vietnam War saw Communism accepted as settled law, while the U.S. Constitution was rejected as obsolete.

President Truman fired General MacArthur because Mac wanted to bomb China. A bombing campaign would have meant that a United Nations Police Action declared war against a newly established Communist country (1949).

Incidentally, the United Nations did not sanction the Vietnam War.

My point: China today is a direct result of isolating the Vietnam War from the justification. Put it this way. Everybody who opposes the Vietnam War today supports China just as American traitors supported Communist China in Vietnam.

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE​

​

Richard Botkin’s book Ride the Thunder is about courage and honor, the very things Communists want Americans to forget about Vietnam.

Botkin’s article reminds us:

The outlook in 1968 was not good. Americans were a divided lot in every way, and yet we somehow managed to pull through. The record of history suggests we will meet and defeat the challenges we currently face. History also suggests that it has never been a good idea to bet against America and her people.​

It's never been this bad? Remember 1968
Posted By Richard Botkin On 09/16/2016 @ 7:03 pm

It’s never been this bad? Remember 1968​

 

[whitehall]

What is the definition of "impending military threat"? President Woodie Wilson (or his wife) sent the Doughboys to fight and die in a European conflict that had no "impending military threat" to the U.S. The U.S. lost about 100,000 of it's best and bravest to save France from the Hun and then we did it all over again two decades later. Harry Truman sent Troops on an (illegal?) executive order to save South Korea from the invading North Korean hoard. We lost about 50,000 of America's best and bravest in a conflict that was so poorly handled that we ended up where we started. Truman and MacArthur received a tickertape parade by the the same hypocrite media that called Korea "the forgotten war". LBJ sent Troops to Vietnam with a fake (Tonkin Golf) crisis and set the rules so that we could win every battle and still lose the war. Saving South Korea and South Vietnam from invading hoards was a legitimate use of American Military power but the problem is that you can't trust any democrat administration to properly use the Military. Democrat politicians start worrying about their own hides and they lose touch with reality and the mission becomes secondary to their own political future .

 

[anotherlife]

If there is conscription in the 21st century, then that is for domestic population control, i.e. killing off the domestic population. In the era of drones and carpet bombing, a large scale unqualified army is only a meat shield.

 

[Flanders]

If there is conscription in the 21st century, then that is for domestic population control, i.e. killing off the domestic population. In the era of drones and carpet bombing, a large scale unqualified army is only a meat shield.

To anotherlife: I cannot reconcile your interpretation of a conscription army willing engaging in killing fellow Americans. I have one caveat. Obama’s conscripted civilian national security force would become Hillary’s security force with no qualms about killing off Americans:

Note that the Obama/Hillary Ready Reserve Corps is already funded in the Affordable Care Act:

​

 

[anotherlife]

If there is conscription in the 21st century, then that is for domestic population control, i.e. killing off the domestic population. In the era of drones and carpet bombing, a large scale unqualified army is only a meat shield.

To anotherlife: I cannot reconcile your interpretation of a conscription army willing engaging in killing fellow Americans. I have one caveat. Obama’s conscripted civilian national security force would become Hillary’s security force with no qualms about killing off Americans:

Note that the Obama/Hillary Ready Reserve Corps is already funded in the Affordable Care Act:

​

I completely agree with you, but that one is still a volunteer force. When every American is conscripted, they will be sent to foreign slaughter fields such as the borders of Israel, for the purpose of engineering the American society.

 

[Picaro]

Why do conspiratards continually litter this forum with rubbish when they have their own forum to sling poo on the walls in?

 

[Flanders]

Islam is attacking America on every front, yet there has never been a preemptive strike against Islam itself à la Communism.

Move the cursor to 2:40 to hear General Keane touch on what I said about a preemptive strike:

​

Parenthetically, how many times has that piece of garbage in the White House told us about millions of peaceful, law-abiding, Muslims? Note that throughout the Cold War American Communists spewed the same garbage about Communism. The story was that average Russians do not want Communism. Communist leaders and a few misguided Americans were America’s only enemies.

After the Soviet Union imploded tens of millions of Russians elected Communists. I expect the same thing will happen after Communist China collapses. Thank you democracy.

Our spiritual leader is worse than Cold War Communist traitors ever were. He will not use the phrase radical Islamists. Indeed, right from the day Garbage-Mouth took office he palmed off Muslim butchers as criminals. To hear him tell it he truly believes his own filth. He did not release not peace-loving Muslims from Gitmo he released criminals.

Finally:

And for the pièce de résistance, there was White House spokesman Josh Earnest who actually had the gall to call our fight with ISIS a “narrative war.”

“When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight with them, a narrative battle, and what ISIL wants to do is they want to project that they are an organization that is representing Islam in a fight and a war against the West, and a war against the United States,” he said on CNN’s New Day. “That is a bankrupt, false narrative. It’s a mythology, and we have made progress in debunking that mythology.”​

A ‘Narrative War’?
Scott McKay
September 20, 2016, 12:12 am

A ‘Narrative War’? | The American Spectator​

If Garbage-Mouth wants to hear a true story he should come and see me:

narrative (noun)

1. A narrated account; a story.

2. The art, technique, or process of narrating.

3. Computer Science. A comment.

adjective
1. Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story: narrative poetry.

2. Of or relating to narration: narrative skill.

narratively adverb​

 

[whitehall]

Everything including conscription to the Military has a "political agenda". Politics r us. The new left wing argument about "no pending military threat" is bull shit. WW1 was nothing but a ongoing thousand year conflict between European tribes and (God Help us) a freaking Princeton Professor was in charge. No-nothing spineless democrats decided to take the plunge and we lost thousands of America's best and bravest but the left leaning media loved it because they loved democrat administrations. The left wing media made a lot of money while they stayed out of harms way and wrote books and articles praising Wilson. Since "military conscription" hasn't been a factor in a couple of decades the issue is a moot point anyway.

 

[anotherlife]

Everything including conscription to the Military has a "political agenda". Politics r us. The new left wing argument about "no pending military threat" is bull shit. WW1 was nothing but a ongoing thousand year conflict between European tribes and (God Help us) a freaking Princeton Professor was in charge. No-nothing spineless democrats decided to take the plunge and we lost thousands of America's best and bravest but the left leaning media loved it because they loved democrat administrations. The left wing media made a lot of money while they stayed out of harms way and wrote books and articles praising Wilson. Since "military conscription" hasn't been a factor in a couple of decades the issue is a moot point anyway.

But military conscription is still a factor because every US male must sign up, even if not a citizen but only a green card holder. That's the law.

Also, is that a fair bet, that as soon as the Vietnam generation begins to die out, another Vietnam will be started, but this time around Israel?

 

[GLASNOST]

Vietnam is unique in that American traitors succeeded in isolating the Vietnam War from all of the justifications that led to the war. Separation succeeded because media taught average Americans in the Vietnam War era to oppose Vietnam without telling them they were also opposing Communism ..........
Over the years being against Communism without knowing it morphed into being for it. Proof: Two generations of Americans since Vietnam oppose a war without knowing what they support, or why they support the media’s view............................
My point: China today is a direct result of isolating the Vietnam War from the justification. Put it this way. Everybody who opposes the Vietnam War today supports China just as American traitors supported Communist China in Vietnam.

You are very deeply ill.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... Saving ..... South Vietnam from invading hoards was a legitimate use of American Military power .....

OMG!

How little some people know about history. George Orwell would be proud of you.

 

[Flanders]

You are very deeply ill.

How little some people know about history. George Orwell would be proud of you.

To GLASNOST: In a previous thread:

United Nations Government In Somalia?

your responses identified you as an imbecile, yet you insist on responding with trite remarks proving, once again, that you know nothing about Vietnam or any other war.

 

[GLASNOST]

your responses identified you as an imbecile, yet you insist on responding with trite remarks proving, once again, that you know nothing about Vietnam or any other war.

I am a Vietnam war veteran with a conscience. I experienced the war. I saw what we did, and what we were told to do. I also saw the consequences of both. I wanted to come to terms with what we (I) had done and to understand it. If you support a bully you might later feel some responsibility for the injustices you meted out. You want to be vindicated but you must be willing to take the truth like a man. Otherwise you're just a piece of shit who's learned nothing at all about life.

I have since studied Vietnam. It's history, its' people, its' political aspirations (and facts leading up to them). I've compared all of that with what I saw during my year of combat in that country. None of it tallies with the propaganda I was taught before "going over" and it certainly does not support your adolescent view of it. You calling me an imbecile is water on a duck's back. My own self-criticism is much more painful. So don't tell me what I know and what I don't know. I've spent a life-time coming to terms with the truth, and your superficial cliche-bashing makes no impact. Your opinion of me is a laugh.

 

[Flanders]

I am a Vietnam war veteran with a conscience.

To GLASNOST: Spare me the conscience-stricken garbage. You would be singing another tune had America’s enemies won WW II, or the Cold War, or the war Islam started —— that is assuming you would not join them. When you and your kind convince America’s enemies to abandon their military hostility I might have some respect for your horseshit.