We're All Spaniards Now

[dilloduck]

Thank you Dillo, I have been wondering the same thing for a long time. We are there, and we are getting things done.

I think the world looks a bit different to the libs now they can be held responsible for what they do (or don't). Reminds me of when my son was little and thought he would be real brave and catch a pigeon in the park. He caught it alright and it scared the shit out of him.:rotflmao:

 

[José]

Originally posted by Bonnie
I suppose those who were hanging off our helicopters trying to avoid the Vietcong as we fled Saigon, then fell to their deaths, may disagree with you there??

Bonnie

Those vietnamese hanging off US helicopters were the same vietnamese who were denied the right to vote on the fate of their country as established by the Geneva Accords because the US knew they would vote for Ho Chi Min, they would vote for their greatest national hero and the country would be unified peacefully without the massacre caused by the US intervention to support the puppet government in the South.

 

[José]

Listen Bonnie

If you tell me the US and the succession of puppet governments that ruled South Vietnam until 75 had a better social project for Vietnam (a project based on the principles of an open society as opposed to a totalitarian one) I will agree with you completely.

My only problem with the posters of this Board is the fact they try to hide the flagrant historical fact that, as far as nationalist legitimacy is concerned, you can't even compare a national hero like Ho Chi Min with the endless succesion of completely discredited governments that ruled South Vietnam.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I've read several books on the ME and terrorism. Some by authorities, and one by a Englishman of Pakistani descent. None make the connection between Iraq and terrorism. The only link I've seen is supposition by those who want to see the connection. Hell, up until about six months ago, every neocon or conservative I spoke to said nobody in the admin had made the connection. Now, they are saying there is. OBL hated Saddam and vice versa.

Maybe the focus of their books was not making a connection between Iraq and terrorism??? Since you've read several books on the topic, I would encourage you to read one more. Bin Laden was first published in
1999, and then updated in 2001. I'm betting--from what you've written--that you'll get a different perspective on Iraq's participation in international terrorism. The author, Yossef Bodansky, is an expert on international terrorism and unconventional warfare. I doubt that he could have written 400plus pages on international terrorism based on "supposition." In my soft cover copy of the book, there are five single-spaced pages of international and American sources given. The book is not about Iraq solely, but Saddam Hussein's participation in international terrorism is certainly addressed.

 

[dilloduck]

Listen Bonnie

If you tell me the US and the succession of puppet governments that ruled South Vietnam until 75 had a better social project for Vietnam (a project based on the principles of an open society as opposed to a totalitarian one) I will agree with you completely.

My only problem with the posters of this Board is the fact they try to hide the flagrant historical fact that, as far as nationalist legitimacy is concerned, you can't even compare a national hero like Ho Chi Min with the endless succesion of completely discredited governments that ruled South Vietnam.

Another decacle thanks to the French post-WWII demands.

 

[Dr Grump]

I suppose those who were hanging off our helicopters trying to avoid the Vietcong as we fled Saigon, then fell to their deaths, may disagree with you there??

Those guys hanging from the helicopter were not fighting the US. As for falling to their deaths, I wonder how the civilians in Hanoi felt as they were getting bombed?

 

[Dr Grump]

So will everything be peachy if we cut and run?

I think if the US cut and run the country is screwed. I think if the US does a strategic withdrawl the country is screwed. I think if the US stays there forever the country is screwed. Its a lose-lose-lose situation. Cut and run will mean less US casualties - that's about it. Is it worth it?

 

[Dr Grump]

I think the world looks a bit different to the libs now they can be held responsible for what they do (or don't).

Whatever they do, they'll be cleaning up a mess made by neocons....

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe the focus of their books was not making a connection between Iraq and terrorism??? Since you've read several books on the topic, I would encourage you to read one more. Bin Laden was first published in
1999, and then updated in 2001. I'm betting--from what you've written--that you'll get a different perspective on Iraq's participation in international terrorism. The author, Yossef Bodansky, is an expert on international terrorism and unconventional warfare. I doubt that he could have written 400plus pages on international terrorism based on "supposition." In my soft cover copy of the book, there are five single-spaced pages of international and American sources given. The book is not about Iraq solely, but Saddam Hussein's participation in international terrorism is certainly addressed.

If I manage to find a copy, I'll have a gander. Still, Iraq did supposedly pay suicide bombers in Israel. I'm looking for hte AQ and WMD connection...:alco:

 

[dilloduck]

If I manage to find a copy, I'll have a gander. Still, Iraq did supposedly pay suicide bombers in Israel. I'm looking for hte AQ and WMD connection...:alco:

The "hang-Bush" democrats are heading for the center so I would think that harping on al queda in or (not in) would finally die. The dems appraciate the votes the got from the "Bush-hangers" but they have other fish to fry now. Can you try to leap to the present?

 

[Dr Grump]

The "hang-Bush" democrats are heading for the center so I would think that harping on al queda in or (not in) would finally die. The dems appraciate the votes the got from the "Bush-hangers" but they have other fish to fry now. Can you try to leap to the present?

Do you think the neocons have learned from their mistakes again? If not, no point in leaping...too many lessons yet to be learned.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you think the neocons have learned from their mistakes again? If not, no point in leaping...too many lessons yet to be learned.

Let me get this straight--for the next two years you going to bitch about invading Iraq ?

 

[José]

Almost everybody know that famous picture used to illustrate what optical illusions are.

When you look from a specific angle it looks like a duck and when you look at it from another perspective it looks like a rabbit.

The vietnam war always reminds me of this picture.

When you look at this war from the american perspective you see a communist government trying to overtake a democratic one (or at least with an implied promise to become democratic, when the war ended).

When you look at the same conflict from the vietnamese perspective you see nationalists fighting to overthrow a puppet government installed by an european foreign power and unify the country under its most legitimate nationalist leader.

Any impartial analysis reveals that both perspectives are correct.

Ho Chi Min was the most legitimate nationalist leader in Vietnam and a communist leader at the same time.

I believe nationalism was the unifying factor behind this war.

Not everybody who fought against Japan, France, the US and South Vietnam were communists but all of them were nationalists, they all wanted to see the country unified. This was the common goal shared by all.

All things considered, Vietnam was the sad combined legacy not only of french colonialism in Indochina (as Dillo rightly pointed out) but also of the Cold War mindset.

 

[Redhots]

Let me get this straight--for the next two years you going to bitch about invading Iraq ?

Yes and no.

If they're smart I see them playing it as follows.

+ Push the bi-partisan solution to succeeding in Iraq on the ground. Even though it might already be too late for that. This'll be heavily subject to public polling.

+ At the same time launch investigations into all the corruption and war profiteering that has gone on under the Republican's watch, but not the "why we went to war" angle that some people would still like to see.

So they'll be able to stay close to the middle by saying "we're trying to fix Iraq" and while at the same time holding the Republican's feet to the coals with the war profiteering, which is an issue that cuts across all party lines.

"Win" or "lose", Iraq is most likely going to end in less than two years if nothing major changes, this way they get to say "we tried, we were bi-partisan" and expose Republican negligence that'll make '08 very hard on any Republican candidate.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes and no.

If they're smart I see them playing it as follows.

+ Push the bi-partisan solution to succeeding in Iraq on the ground. Even though it might already be too late for that. This'll be heavily subject to public polling.

+ At the same time launch investigations into all the corruption and war profiteering that has gone on under the Republican's watch, but not the "why we went to war" angle that some people would still like to see.

So they'll be able to stay close to the middle by saying "we're trying to fix Iraq" and while at the same time holding the Republican's feet to the coals with the war profiteering, which is an issue that cuts across all party lines.

"Win" or "lose", Iraq is most likely going to end in less than two years if nothing major changes, this way they get to say "we tried, we were bi-partisan" and expose Republican negligence that'll make '08 very hard on any Republican candidate.

I smell that coming too. They have to do something to appease the Bush- hangers yet still appear that they have some sort of ability to govern and maybe even a plan to resolve Iraq. If they don't succeed they can always fall back to 'the republicans messed it up beyond repair". Don't expect them to step out on any limb that they might be held responsible for.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Simplistic response. Iran and Saudia Arabia have always been/are the financial arm of international terrorism. Iran has been the major sponsor of international terrorism since its inception (read Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America). And the terrorists don’t need to transport a 150,000 man army; they have demonstrated that a much smaller, clandestine force can get the job done for them.

When you say "international terrorism", does that involve plots meant to be hatched on US soil? Or is this a euphemism for giving money to palestinian suicide bombers, who have never carried out any violence in the US?

Again, I am aware that there are terrorists with external funding. The question is, are they going to pass up a chance to strike american soil in order to maybe kill a few american soldiers? I ask the current and former military members of this board, would this be a sensible strategy to you? If an angry bull had the intellect of a man, would he still charge the red cape, or would he charge the matador?

As I have read and heard the news, that “bomb in the road”, as you put it, is making headline news--Page 1 in every newspaper and the lead article in every MSM newscast. It is the main focus of the MSM’s reporting of the WOT in Iraq. According to the MSM, our soldiers haven’t had much success in spotting the enemy setting up his IED’s. And haven’t you heard? The terrorists don’t care if they get shot while placing their IED’s; to them, that just means they are assured a place in heaven.

You missed my point entirely. The main point I'm trying to make is, the biggest majority of these attacks are only possible because we did them the favor of bringing our military to them. How many troops did we lose to IED's before we invaded Iraq? None.

It seems to have done just that. Are you saying there have been no attempts by the terrorists to attack America again in the five years since 2001? If so, that is certainly news to me, and you'll have to refer me to your source.

I'm not sure how many terror plots have been foiled since 2001. Maybe I'm not watching the news enough anymore, there was that dumbass with the shoe bombs, and...I don't know, how many others were there?

If you want to give credit for stopping domestic attacks, give it to increased security measures, not the war in Iraq. If there are any examples of terrorists changing their game plan to attack US troops in Iraq instead of coming to america, I'm all ears.

 

[José]

Baron is absolutely right.

The ridiculous, childish statement that Al Qaeda is now diverting to Iraq terrorists previously destined to attack the US is so absurd that you don’t really need to refute it. By exposing it, you are already refuting it.

This is just cheap propaganda from those who support the war in Iraq just like the equally absurd statement that oil is the main reason behind the war is also cheap propaganda coming from people who oppose the war.

 

[dilloduck]

Baron is absolutely right.

The ridiculous, childish statement that Al Qaeda is now diverting to Iraq terrorists previously destined to attack the US is so absurd that you don’t really need to refute it. By exposing it, you are already refuting it.

This is just cheap propaganda from those who support the war in Iraq just like the equally absurd statement that oil is the main reason behind the war is also cheap propaganda coming from people who oppose the war.

I think the point is that al quaeda has two fronts to deal with.

 

[Gunny]

It’s quite ironic to see former soviet generals and the american civilians/retired soldiers of this MB agreeing on something.

But wait!!!

I almost forgot...

These russian generals were (still are) super patriotic soviet clowns.

OH... this explains the common ground shared by both groups.

Super patriotic clowns think alike. : )

The only difference between you and the rest of the blithering idiot, pussy, turn tail and run left-wingnut crowd is .......ummmmm .......nothing.

Super-anti-American clowns think alike, and you all smell the same ... like death. Do the world a favor, maggot, and go choke yourself.

 

[Gunny]

Bonnie

Those vietnamese hanging off US helicopters were the same vietnamese who were denied the right to vote on the fate of their country as established by the Geneva Accords because the US knew they would vote for Ho Chi Min, they would vote for their greatest national hero and the country would be unified peacefully without the massacre caused by the US intervention to support the puppet government in the South.

Unsupported, absolute bullshit. The people hanging off those helicopters supported the US and knew they'd die being tortured or in prison for daring to oppose the Communist regime.

And if you were even an inkling as smart as you think you are, it was the GVN that suspended elections, not the US.

The government of S Vietnam was not a US puppet. It was a UN puppet, if anything. Learn to read.

And yeah, the country sure was unified "peacefully." There was a former S Vietnamese Marine on the tube just last night who was imprisoned for 9 years following N Vietnam's invasion of S Vietnam.

When you proceed to tell flat-out lies, you probably ought to check out who's in the audience first, jackass.