Bush invokes 'tragedy of Vietnam' against Iraq pullout

[Deadeye]

Quote by: The Decider I never claimed otherwise. The issue I responded to concerned the "first" advisers. LBJ was not the first to send aid and men to Vietnam. He was the first to send thousands and thousands of troops into a needless war.

The Viet Nam War was not a needless war. Any time that we can/could challenge and defeat a communists regime it was very "needed".

Democrats didn't allow us to win the Korean War or the VN War. Leftists love to surrender......or quite while we are ahead as we did in Korea.

If we would have removed the communists regime from Viet Nam the people today would be more prosperous and millions of lives in Laos and Cambodia would have been saved, not to mention the hundreds of thousands who died while trying to escape south in boats.

Don't ever tell me that a people are better off under a communist leadership than a democratic one, even if the democratic government isn't perfect.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Deadeye The Viet Nam War was not a needless war. Any time that we can/could challenge and defeat a communists regime it was very "needed".

War is never needless to those more interested in "kicking ass" than in thinking.

You have a very warped and hostile understanding of what is needed in this world.
I don't need powerful states invading and slaughtering thousands upon thousands--"destroying them in order to save them," as one American Vietnam-era bomber pilot phrased it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

New Report Recommends Iraq Handover in 5 Years - washingtonpost.com

In a report to be released Sunday, a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Institute of Peace calls for a 50 percent reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq within three years and a total withdrawal and handover of security to the Iraqi military in five years.

Just thought I'd add this to the discussion.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: Decider When did President Johnson ever publicly renounce the Vietnam War? (...) Johnson refused to run for two reasons: his own party was abandoning him in droves and his poor health condition. He blamed "the liberal media," especially the "communist" New York Times, and student protesters for his predicament, not a fatally flawed US policy that he inherited from Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy. The only real mea culpa among the Johnson inner circle came from Defense Secretary Robert McNamara many years later.

Could we have a few sources for this info, D?
You can't expect Johnson to have said anything publicly, what with the war still going and all. Those president guys just don't do that sort of thing (unfortunately).

I too would have liked him to have been bolder. Nevertheless, he recognized the blunder -- as did most Americans at latest during the Tet offensive.

When did he reverse course and reduce troop levels and begin serious diplomatic negotiations?

Well he did start serious negotiations. So serious that they all but achieved what Nixon "achieved" half a decade later, after four years in power. More in the following post....

[Nono]

Jeez, xyzer, you could do with a little remedial history, such as how Tricky Dick as candidate did his level evil best to sabotage any peace negotiations that might have thwarted his personal lust for presidential power.

(...) Using a series of extremist and shady intermediaries, the Nixon campaign covertly assured the South Vietnamese generals that if they boycotted President Lyndon B. Johnson's dearly bought conference (which they ultimately did on the very eve of the election) they would get a more sympathetic administration. Irony is too feeble a word for what they actually got: a losing war, protracted for four years and concluded -- with much additional humiliation -- on the same terms that Johnson and Hubert Humphrey had been offering in 1968. Summers has spoken to all the surviving participants, including the dramatic go-between figure of Anna Chennault, who now regards even herself as one of those betrayed by this foul deal. Almost half the names on that wall in Washington are inscribed with a date after Nixon and Kissinger took office. We still cringe from counting the number of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. Nixon's illegal and surreptitious conduct not only prolonged an awful war but also corrupted and subverted a crucial presidential election: the combination must make it the most wicked action in American history. (...)

- Christopher Hitchens: Let Me Say This About That - New York Times

Yes, Hitchens puts it in a nutshell, but then he's had Kissinger's number for a long time.

PS And x, you could do worse than start by reading "Sideshow" (see Hitchens piece). However you slice it, Nixon and Kissinger were both war criminals.

[TheStripey1]

Quote by: thx1138 Cambodia, Vietnam... I'm sure it's all the same in his mind, after all he never went to Vietnam during the war. But think about this, The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia not in Vietnam. Does he think most people are not going to know?

He doesn't think... period.

and ya know the biggest difference between Iraq and Viet nam for bush? He had an exit strategy for Viet Nam. He didn't go.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: grandpa War is never needless to those more interested in "kicking ass" than in thinking. You have a very warped and hostile understanding of what is needed in this world. I don't need powerful states invading and slaughtering thousands upon thousands--"destroying them in order to save them," as one American Vietnam-era bomber pilot phrased it. Grandpa h.

When are you going to stop thinking that surrending is also winning? People who think as you do are simply leading the US into a third World position. I guess you'd rather see a weaker America. I guess you'd rather we be dominated by some state as Red China, or Terrorists Iran. I'ts okay to root for an underdog, but it isn't okay to be one.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: TheStripey1 He doesn't think... period. and ya know the biggest difference between Iraq and Viet nam for bush? He had an exit strategy for Viet Nam. He didn't go.

Bush flew F-102 night fighters. You have never, and will never and cannot ever do anything as dangerous as flying an old Century Series fighter over the inky black sea at night. Furthermore He was what we called a "deployable" asset, which means that he could have been "called up" at any time. He was one of the most active pilots in his squadron for three years. That's a lot of flying. He got over 500 hours in type. (Few hops last much over a hour and a half, those after buring single seat fighters burn a lot of JP.)

I flew on both active duty and in the reserves during and just after the VN War. The reserve forces were not often called up, only speciality units got the call. In those days the active forces were much larger than they are now, since those days Carter and Clinton raped our active duty proponent, and reserve forces are called to active duty with regularity.

If Bush was in the reserves/Guard today as he was then he'd be seeing a lot of active duty. Most of the guys in the reserves yearned for Active Duty. Least I did, because combat flying is exciting and the pay was much more than what I was making as a civilian. Today fighter pilots make about $80,000 a year and while deployed overseas it's tax free. The pay varies with rank however. Lieutenants are paid less than Majors, etc. I think the starting pay (after wings) is something like $50k.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: TheStripey1 He doesn't think... period.

No, "He" thinks a lot and reads and writes constantly, and "he" is not a fanatic, and "he" believes in a strong America.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Deadeye When are you going to stop thinking that surrending is also winning? People who think as you do are simply leading the US into a third World position. I guess you'd rather see a weaker America. I guess you'd rather we be dominated by some state as Red China, or Terrorists Iran. I'ts okay to root for an underdog, but it isn't okay to be one.

First of all, I haven't surrendered a single thing.

Also, invaders don't surrender, they stop acting as aggressors and leave. That's not even "losing" in any conventional sense, it's called ending aggression.

And then you make another dramatic and equally simple-minded claim about me taking the US into a third world position. You hold me to an argument that's impossible to refute because it makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it is the elites in charge of the world economy that foster third world poverty.

First of all, I, or others sympathetic to anarchism, am not in charge of the economy, nor is it my aim to see Third-World-ization.

As for wanting "a weaker America," you got me there. I would like to see the state abolished. I stand against this expansionist, terroristic entity called "America" rather than for it. Similarly, I do not advocate "Red China" or Iran.

Nor have I supported Saddam Hussein (I suspect you might go there next). In fact, it was the U.S. in 1979,
that encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in an effort to crush Iran's
Islamic revolution. A modest estimate places war deaths in the hundreds of thousands. That instance alone is a reason to despise state power wherever it can be found. And America supported Saddam even after he gassed the Kurds, just like it has supported Turkey's ethnic cleansing of Kurds over the years.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Deadeye No, "He" thinks a lot and reads and writes constantly, and "he" is not a fanatic, and "he" believes in a strong America.

He reads and writes drivel constantly. In fact, it's the same kind of material one can find in virtually any terrorist society with printing presses, only with a different cast of characters and a bigger military budget.

Supporting a "strong America" is indeed fanatical. Anything that kills millions around teh world is indeed either fanatical or completely idiotic. In this case, it's both.

P.S> What's with the quotation marks around the word "he"?

Grandpa h.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: grandpa He reads and writes drivel constantly. In fact, it's the same kind of material one can find in virtually any terrorist society with printing presses, only with a different cast of characters and a bigger military budget. Supporting a "strong America" is indeed fanatical. Anything that kills millions around teh world is indeed either fanatical or completely idiotic. In this case, it's both. P.S> What's with the quotation marks around the word "he"? Grandpa h.

You know what Grandpa. If I said what I really think about you I'd be kicked off of this site. So I'm not going to say anything.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Deadeye You know what Grandpa. If I said what I really think about you I'd be kicked off of this site. So I'm not going to say anything.

Whatever. If you let your emotions get such a hold on you that you can't discuss things, that's your problem.

Grandpa h.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: grandpa Whatever. If you let your emotions get such a hold on you that you can't discuss things, that's your problem. Grandpa h.

Oh, I don't know. Reading what you say really angers me, and I'm not that easy to anger. I'd like to chat with you, but you immediately stoop to name calling, etc..

You need a little work on your presentation. You need, badly to learn to be polite.

[shield772]

Quote by: grandpa He reads and writes drivel constantly. In fact, it's the same kind of material one can find in virtually any terrorist society with printing presses, only with a different cast of characters and a bigger military budget. Supporting a "strong America" is indeed fanatical. Anything that kills millions around teh world is indeed either fanatical or completely idiotic. In this case, it's both. P.S> What's with the quotation marks around the word "he"? Grandpa h.

How and when has America killed millions? And how is supporting and defending your home fanatical?

I heard none of you saying that Clinton's uses of US military might as fanatical or idiotic, and he wasn't even defending the US or any US assets or interests, he wouldn't use military or he pulled them out when that was a concern.

[trace]

Bush is an idiot i think he should be impeached, moving into Iraq might have seemed like a good idea at the time but he should have let the UK
take care of it. This is a joke!


Please comment.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: shield772 And how is supporting and defending your home fanatical?

And yet you don't have any problems at all with describing those Iraqi's that feel they are defending their home as fanatics.

Quote by: shield772 I heard none of you saying that Clinton's uses of US military might as fanatical or idiotic, and he wasn't even defending the US or any US assets or interests, he wouldn't use military or he pulled them out when that was a concern.

Until bush came along, I thought clinton was possibly the worst U.S. president in history. bush has certainly easily taken that distinction. clinton didn't kill thousands, maim tens of thousands more, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary war based on a foundation of lies and deceit.

[Nono]

Quote by: Deadeye Democrats didn't allow us to win the Korean War or the VN War.

Thanks for the two-dimensional history lesson, Rambo. Mind filling us in on the details a bit? Johnson suspended bombing, did he? Well Nixon resumed it (while -- unlike Johnson -- pulling out the troops -- that's fact). And what ended up happening, eh?

As for Korea, I would be very interested to hear your version of how the Democrats refused to let you win that one.

Well, I'm waiting.

[Nono]

Quote by: Deadeye Bush flew F-102 night fighters. You have never, and will never and cannot ever do anything as dangerous as flying an old Century Series fighter over the inky black sea at night. Furthermore He was what we called a "deployable" asset, which means that he could have been "called up" at any time. He was one of the most active pilots in his squadron for three years. That's a lot of flying. He got over 500 hours in type.

If you google bush+f-102+hours, you'll find considerable disagreement about the number of hours Boy George rang up. And as a pilot, D, you'll know how unreliable logbook entries can be (especially when your dad is a Major Bigshot).

That said, the F-102 was a lot of airplane, as was the F-101, which I believe Bush also flew (if one can believe anything -- see above). So it's true that Dubbya can't be accused of being a Dan Quayle.

The fact remains that fast airplanes are thrilling, sexy. And that Mr Warmonger-in-Chief remained in the US (remember, you can also get killed crossing the street) while there was a big war going on. He could have gone if he'd wanted -- you know it and I know it. But he didn't.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: trace Bush is an idiot i think he should be impeached, moving into Iraq might have seemed like a good idea at the time but he should have let the UK take care of it. This is a joke! Please comment.

Bush cannot be impeached unless the House of Representatives finds enought evidence of lawbreaking to likely convict him in a trial by the Senate. Bush has not been accused of committing any crimes, so he cannot be impeached.

As for being an idiot, Bush graduated from Harvard, Yale and he won his "wings" in the Air Force and served honorable in the National Guard. Then he was elected to the governership in Texas for two terms. He was very popluar governor supported by both parties.

Sorry, but idiots don't have such a pedigree