Outrage?

The MG Experience ~ Off Topic Forum ~ Archives

General non-MG related discussions. No politics here please!!

If you would like to post a reply, please click below to visit the The MG Experience Forums:
Off Topic Forum: Outrage?
http://www.mgexperience.net/phorum/read.php?47,645006,page=1

Join the discussion, post your photos, or ask your own questions. Membership is FREE!




Oct 02, 2007 09:59:19
RSS

When MoveOn.org ran its ad about GEN Petreus, the "right" went bonkers. OH MY GOD!!!! they screamed. MOVEON HATES THE TROOPS!!! they screamed. TREASON!!! they screamed. Slobber buckets overflowed in all those places where the 26-Percenters (aka Dead-Enders) live.

Now that the darling of the "right" - none other than that paragon of manly virtues, Rush Limbaugh - has called Soldiers who do not support Bush's war "Phony Soldiers", the conservative pundits are totally silent. This is the same Rush Limbaugh who avoided Viet Nam because of a boil on his butt, so I guess he's qualified to recognize a phony, but still.... Where's the outrage?








R.


Oct 02, 2007 10:02:52
gow589

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "
.... Where's the outrage?
R.
"



Right here in a liberal "surrender us" CAR FORUM!





Oct 02, 2007 10:16:37
KLUTZ

This should be a fun one :)

Oct 02, 2007 10:16:42
Eric M

Read the transcripts carefully .

A literal reading of the Sept. 26 show transcript shows that the controversial host did not in fact say that soldiers opposing the war are "phony," but his remarks have left confusion as to whom he is referring when he used the phrase

Oct 02, 2007 10:17:41
Steve64B

It seems for some drivers...life is not a two way street! Can't have it both ways Gary. What is low and dispicable cuts both ways

My son got back from Iraq two years ago... support within the troops was low then, my guess is it's lower now. They are committed to doing their duty, but they know it's a hopeless mess with little chance of success.

In Greenspans book it's revealed that Bush thought it would be over in days and cost $50 Billion. Bit a miscalculation?!

Steve

Oct 02, 2007 10:24:34
gow589

Steve64B Wrote:

Quote: "
It seems for some drivers...life is not a two way street! Can't have it both ways Gary. What is low and dispicable cuts both ways
My son got back from Iraq two years ago... support within the troops was low then, my guess is it's lower now. They are committed to doing their duty, but they know it's a hopeless mess with little chance of success.
In Greenspans book it's revealed that Bush thought it would be over in days and cost $50 Billion. Bit a miscalculation?!
Steve
"


Steve my point is, and I know this is off topic section, but I came here to talk cars. I have been so frankly disappointed in peoples views in this forum I just don't have much interest in it anymore.

Oct 02, 2007 10:27:56
Eric M

Well , it is in the "off topic" section . I jump over here every now and then to see whats up . I could care less what someones political opinions are , that will never be agreed upon but in the MG section , I say most people put aside their differences and talk about cars and only cars .

Oct 02, 2007 10:29:03
gow589

No kidding, but you can't help but read them, then you just can't help not feel the same way about the community.

Oct 02, 2007 10:29:31
Steve64B

Gary,

This section of the forum pi$e$s me off most of the time, but it is the off topic forum! I just come here when my aggravation level get too low and I need a burr under my saddle.

BTW: I really like going to your site on a regular basis to review how you did your car. It's a great service to the entire MG community.

Steve

Oct 02, 2007 10:30:30
gow589

Thank you Steve, that was kind!!!

Oct 02, 2007 10:30:41
robgeskey

Rick,

Did you listen to the whole show where this was discussed and not just snippets for chosen words? Having done so, I did not come away from it feeling that Mr. Limbaugh was denigrating our troops and their opinions. His main beef was with an individual claiming to have been in Iraq but was terminated long before and never served in combat ever.

While I am not a Republican nor a fan of Rush Limbaugh, I find that in both instances that the allegations are completely unfounded having done my own research. I should add that I am not a Democrat either, I am an independent voter. You can not depend on someone elses opinion for it is twisted heavily in the direction they wish to portray.

I, for one american, am getting extremely tired of the smears from both political parties. While crap like these instances fill our airwaves the real topics are not being discussed or dealt with.

We need to think for ourselves and seek out the real truths. One would think you should be able to take national news as fact but look what Dan Rather and others have been involved in and spewed their diatribes as known facts.


Cheers,

Rob

Oct 02, 2007 10:31:21
Eric M

Ah , don't let it bother you , to many more important things to worry about .

Oct 02, 2007 10:32:55
gow589

Eric do you have a post about your Isetta?

Oct 02, 2007 10:34:56
Eric M

Post ? you mean pics ?

Oct 02, 2007 10:38:14
gow589

Yea, was trying not to hijack this thread but would love to see some info on it. MAybe you can start a new topic.

Oct 02, 2007 10:47:26
Eric M

I might just do that sometime . My brother is restoring a 31' FORD truck , when he gets that done , I plan on lining all ours cars up for a picture . My family has the ...

31' AUBURN 898A
31' FORD Truck
41' ARMY JEEP
57' ISETTA
64' MGB

Not that pricey of a collection but quite the variety .

Oct 02, 2007 10:52:33
gow589

They all sound interesting, post a topic on each of them some time.

Oct 02, 2007 11:18:42
RSS

robgeskey Wrote:

Quote: "
I, for one american, am getting extremely tired of the smears from both political parties. While crap like these instances fill our airwaves the real topics are not being discussed or dealt with."


Rob - The problem is the synthetic outrage from those on the "right" whenever someone on the left says something they don't like. Usually, the comments run along the lines of Un-American, Traitorous, Surrender (see Gary's comment above), and so on. But let one of their own SPECIFICALLY CALL SOLDIERS WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE phony, and it's all excuses and "Well, they did it too!"

Was it the left that called Clinton a rapist? Was it the left that called Hilary a murderer? Was it the left that morphed Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden? Was it the left who spread the "swift boat" lies? Was it the left who smears everybody who disagrees as cowards and traitors? None of the above.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservatism.

Oct 02, 2007 11:20:18
RSS

PS - Regarding Gary's car: I have a folder on my PC named, "How it Should Look" and in that folder I have every picture of Gary's car that I can find. That is just a magnificent piece of machinery.

R.

Oct 02, 2007 11:21:32
gow589

Thanks Rick!

Oct 02, 2007 11:22:27
KLUTZ

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "
PS - Regarding Gary's car: I have a folder on my PC named, "How it Should Look" and in that folder I have every picture of Gary's car that I can find. That is just a magnificent piece of machinery.
R.
"



I have his site in my bookmarks too, but I have mine titled, "How My GT Will Never Look." :(

Paul

Oct 02, 2007 11:26:28
Simon

BY the way - if you dont like a particular topic in the OT section - then simple DO NO READ IT.

End of story

Oct 02, 2007 11:27:23
gow589

I think anyone here can do what I did with the car. It's just about time. It seems to be the hardest thing to come by these days!

Oct 02, 2007 11:34:12
KLUTZ

Hey Gary,

My Ex Girlfriend moved to Evansville with her parents when we were 15 and I still haven't forgiven her. :) Last name KING.. Father a Lawyer.... Say hi for me will ya. :D

Paul

Oct 02, 2007 11:35:31
gow589

KLUTZ Wrote:

Quote: "
Hey Gary,
My Ex Girlfriend moved to Evansville with her parents when we were 15 and I still haven't forgiven her. Last name KING.. Father a Lawyer.... Say hi for me will ya.
Paul
"

You bet, hey my wife is from up their, Quebec actually.

Oct 02, 2007 11:35:37
bills73bgt

Hey Gary,

How about an update on your Pantera project? (Now that's really off topic!)

Oct 02, 2007 11:38:45
MG Murray

gow589 Wrote:

Quote: "
KLUTZ Wrote:Quote:
Hey Gary,
My Ex Girlfriend moved to Evansville with her parents when we were 15 and I still haven't forgiven her. Last name KING.. Father a Lawyer.... Say hi for me will ya.
Paul
You bet, hey my wife is from up their, Quebec actually.
"


[/quote] This should be a fun one :)

Oct 02, 2007 11:42:37
KLUTZ

gow589 Wrote:

Quote: "
KLUTZ Wrote:Quote:
Hey Gary,
My Ex Girlfriend moved to Evansville with her parents when we were 15 and I still haven't forgiven her. Last name KING.. Father a Lawyer.... Say hi for me will ya.
Paul Quote:


[quote]You bet, hey my wife is from up their, Quebec actually.
"



They are kinda.... Over there, not up here. We are up here... I guess.

Paul

Oct 02, 2007 11:42:43
gow589

bills73bgt Wrote:

Quote: "
Hey Gary,
How about an update on your Pantera project? (Now that's really off topic!)
"


Going slow. Just spent last week simulator training at Flight safety, aircraft going through inspection and fall yard work. Hopefully I can get moving again soon. Done with most metal work, working on fitting larger engine, building headers, roll bar, gas tank and other items from scratch. Probably not much visual progress from last time you saw it:







Oct 02, 2007 11:43:24
gow589

KLUTZ Wrote:

Quote: "
gow589 Wrote:Quote:
KLUTZ Wrote:Quote:
Hey Gary,
My Ex Girlfriend moved to Evansville with her parents when we were 15 and I still haven't forgiven her. Last name KING.. Father a Lawyer.... Say hi for me will ya.
Paul Quote:

You bet, hey my wife is from up their, Quebec actually.
They are kinda.... Over there, not up here. We are up here... I guess.
Paul
"



It's a long drive that I know for sure!

Oct 02, 2007 11:45:42
KLUTZ

gow589 Wrote:

Quote: "

It's a long drive that I know for sure!
"



Will be a lot longer too, if they ever do separate from Canada, but the Newfies will be happy as it will cut down their travel time by 10 hours, when they come to Ontario.

Paul

Oct 02, 2007 11:47:24
KLUTZ

Gary... Wanna make a four week road trip to Bradford? Have tools, beer, and a warm garage. I won't even bother you.

Paul


Oh... Bring paint....

Oct 02, 2007 11:47:48
gow589

KLUTZ Wrote:

Quote: "
gow589 Wrote:Quote:
It's a long drive that I know for sure!
Will be a lot longer too, if they ever do separate from Canada, but the Newfies will be happy as it will cut down their travel time by 10 hours, when they come to Ontario.
Paul
"


LOL

Oct 02, 2007 11:50:04
gow589

KLUTZ Wrote:

Quote: "
Gary... Wanna make a four week road trip to Bradford? Have tools, beer, and a warm garage. I won't even bother you.
Paul
Oh... Bring paint....
"


If I wasn't married I would take you up on it! And I love to paint! (cars or parts, not houses)

Oct 02, 2007 12:02:09
Eric M

Man oh man , talk about having a thread hijacked !!!!!

Oct 02, 2007 12:38:41
gow589

Eric M Wrote:

Quote: "
Man oh man , talk about having a thread hijacked !!!!!
"

At least it's peaceful :)

Oct 02, 2007 12:40:10
AzMarc

It's a crap thread anyway......Not a lot of outrage because there isn't much to it. If Rick was being accurate, then there would be well deserved outrage.

Oct 02, 2007 13:00:10
Limey

AzMarc Wrote:

Quote: "
It's a crap thread anyway......Not a lot of outrage because there isn't much to it. If Rick was being accurate, then there would be well deserved outrage.
"


True - anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that everything that comes out of Rush's mouth is pure rubbish. I don't think I have ever heard him utter a rational thought!

Oct 02, 2007 13:04:37
gow589

Limey Wrote:

Quote: "
AzMarc Wrote:Quote:
It's a crap thread anyway......Not a lot of outrage because there isn't much to it. If Rick was being accurate, then there would be well deserved outrage.
True - anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that everything that comes out of Rush's mouth is pure rubbish. I don't think I have ever heard him utter a rational thought!
"


sigh!

Oct 02, 2007 13:09:05
JNickell

Setting the record straight:

1. In general, I think Rush is an idiot. He provides political entertainment in the form of a radio talk show. I can listen to him for about 2 minutes before thinking, "this guy is an idiot" and changing the radio dial.

2. MoveOn accused a US serviceman of betraying his country and lying. They did so with an illegal contribution from the NY Times in the form of a severely discounted ad rate. Even the NY Times admits they screwed the pooch on this one. They violated the law and their own policy regarding political advocacy ads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html

3. Limbaugh made the "phoney soldier" comment in referring to a man named Jesse MacBeth who claimed to be an Iraq & Afghanistan veteran, Purple Heart reciepent and witness to atrocities committed by US troops, but instead it was found that he had been drummed out of the military 44 days after he entered it without ever serving in either country.

4. Media Matters, a media "watch dog" originally reported this issue. I have read the transcripts on their web site and on Limbaugh's web site, and in my view Limbaugh was referring to MacBeth and others like him who seem to be running to the anti-war media and claiming to be veterans when in fact they never served. Another example is the NY Times adoption of Amorita Randall as anti-war hero. there are others.

5. Gary has a really cool project going, but I want to know just how he keeps is garage so clean.

Oct 02, 2007 13:15:11
gow589

JNickell Wrote:

Quote: "
Setting the record straight:
1. In general, I thin......
2. MoveOn accus........
3. Limbaugh m.........
4. Media Matters,......

5. Gary has a really cool project going, but I want to know just how he keeps is garage so clean.
"


LOL, It's a photo trick! you stack all the crap behind the camera and photo shop the rest out. Look at this photo, this was really the extent of my tools when I started on the MG:

http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/mgb.jpg

http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/mgb2.jpg

The shop is 3500sgr ft which helps.

Oct 02, 2007 13:15:49
tommylg

I wonder if Ann Coulter drives a BGT?

Oct 02, 2007 13:23:50
MG Murray

Im outraged that my car will never look like Gary's

Oct 02, 2007 13:26:29
gow589

1 piece at a time Monte! That was a 3 year process!

Oct 02, 2007 13:26:45
KLUTZ

tommylg Wrote:

Quote: "
I wonder if Ann Coulter drives a BGT?
"



Who's he? :(

Oct 02, 2007 13:28:39
wyatt

There is humor here, and it's the Ann Coulter ad right after Ricks post.

Oct 02, 2007 14:21:58
Rod H.

One of my best friends and his family met Rush Limbaugh last year. I won't go into the circumstances, but it was a situation where they got to (err, had to) spend some time with him.

When they told my wife and me about it they had zero positive to say about the guy, so my impression was that even in social situations he is the same person.

The only thing I really get out of this thread is the idea of considering him a commedian and that would be a satisfactory explanation for me were it not for the experiences of my friends, which they didn't consider funny at all.

Oct 02, 2007 14:50:08
RSS

AzMarc Wrote:

Quote: "
It's a crap thread anyway......Not a lot of outrage because there isn't much to it. If Rick was being accurate, then there would be well deserved outrage.
"


Marc - Why do you hate America?


Oct 02, 2007 15:27:02
wyatt

I am as political as the next guy, maybe more so. I must admit I wish I didn't read these and other political posts. People whom I like and people whom I have read their other post and agreed with, now slightly upset me all because of a political statement. It's kinda like seeing your parents naked when you are a kid. A mental scare.

Oct 02, 2007 16:08:10
BillD

Ann Coulter drives a Hummer with huge spikes on the hubs of her rims. Anybody who drives near that behemoth will have their car shredded. Her bumper sticker reads:
"I Brake for Democrats...NOT!!! "

Oct 02, 2007 16:12:11
AzMarc

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "

Marc - Why do you hate America?
"


You are an outright liar. I love America but have contempt for those who lie or make innuedos such as with the above statement.

The real question now is:

Why can't YOU site facts such as those Jay Nickell refuteed above? It is YOUR credibility at stake here. Don't try and throw me under the bus when it is you that authored this thread. I know it is your party's M.O. but most here see through it.


Oct 02, 2007 16:22:27
mcce

Oh Boy, Let me roll up my sleeves for this One, later... ;-)

Anybody remember "Ohio" by CSN? Well, we are just about at that point... I'm not gonna Endorse another $200 billion for business as usual in Alfphy & Iraqistan-- just like Truman-- the Buck Stops Here!

This situation is such a Gluster-F that it Pales beyond the mistakes made in Vietnam and the Men in the clothes don't come clean either-- 1 brigade per month to widthdrawal-- Excuse Me?

We put 500,000 troops into Kuwait within 3 months... utter Bushshit-- Light the Bag and lets Stomp on It!

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 02, 2007 16:30:37
Englishcarlover

I hear Gasoline is good for putting out fires...........................................................


Peace, Kyle

Oct 02, 2007 17:20:51
mcce

Not another Dime should be presented to support the Iraq/Afgan War with the current Commander & Chief...

As much as I Luv LBJ-- he did not have the Balls to Command. Nixon came on the scene and took care of business-- opened up China & Russia as a Real Madman Player. Had Watergate not happened, Vietnam would have come out in a much better position.

Bushca is a Dummy that Bush41 pulled the strings in the beginning... but our pal Cheney gave Bush43 the Big Head and that he couldn't do any Wrong under his Watch... well, we now know just how Screwed up we Are-- We need a New Commander & Chief that can get the Job Done! Who is that?... I'm Waiting....



Listen to How I Feel about the Current Situation in the United States of America and our Commitments a Far

Here's Our Choices:


Withdrawal


"PBR Streetgang... this Almighty, Almighty... Radio Check, Over..."

No Cheers!
Mike

Oct 02, 2007 17:27:39
KLUTZ

mcce Wrote:

Quote: "
We need a New Commander & Chief that can get the Job Done! Who is that?... I'm Waiting....

Mike

"



Here he is.. Good luck...

Oct 02, 2007 17:28:49
gow589

I guess what I thought was true. With this blatant sentiment I don't need to be here. I don't wish to be a part of it.

Oct 02, 2007 17:36:46
mcce

gow589 Wrote:

Quote: "
I guess what I thought was true. With this blatant sentiment I don't need to be here. I don't wish to be a part of it.
"

Gary, you are part of it.... Which part would you Rather Discard?

Oct 02, 2007 17:40:11
mcce


Patton would have Lost had his Commander & Chief been GWB... don't Blame the Generals on this One ;)

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 02, 2007 17:40:22
gow589

mcce Wrote:

Quote: "
gow589 Wrote:Quote:
I guess what I thought was true. With this blatant sentiment I don't need to be here. I don't wish to be a part of it.
Gary, you are part of it.... Which part would you Rather Discard?
"


Nothing good can come from me telling you what I think.

Oct 02, 2007 17:51:20
mcce


Not just Truck Loads, but Boat Loads of Billions into a Black Hole.


We Bring some of It Home...

Oct 02, 2007 17:54:22
KLUTZ

gow589 Wrote:

Quote: "

Nothing good can come from me telling you what I think.
"




Gary.. please watch what you say... Mike may start throwing out......

TRIVIA QUESTIONS again....
:eyepop: :eyepop: :eyepop: :eyepop:

:)

Oct 02, 2007 17:55:34
mcce

gow589 Wrote:

Quote: "
mcce Wrote:Quote:
gow589 Wrote:Quote:
I guess what I thought was true. With this blatant sentiment I don't need to be here. I don't wish to be a part of it.
Gary, you are part of it.... Which part would you Rather Discard?
Nothing good can come from me telling you what I think.
"

Okay then... Tell me just How much of Your hard Earned Cash would Invest in Iraq or Afghanistan during this Moment?

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 02, 2007 18:42:29
bobmunch

Hmmm. Anti-Bush bumperstickers in a Sponsored Links banner. You can turn them off by upgrading to a gold membership. Maybe Skye should institute a "Diamond Membership" and then all political commentary would be turned off and we'd never have to be exposed to opposing views. Bet some would jump for that.

I have always felt that meeting people, even on the internet in forums, is, well, still meeting them. And part of people being who they are is that they have interests and opinions on more matters than just MGs. It gives them more than one dimension and gives us a fuller understanding of who they are. I can live with that. It is what makes them human, as far as I am concerned, and also makes them human when I read their MG postings. If you love meeting folks from this forum live at a car show, can we not allow them to be as real in our Off Topic area too? Or are we secretly disappointed when we meet others in person too?

As for outrage, I have some, but Rush is beneath my threshold, altho his antics are sometimes incendiary. Even as are Ann Coulter's and good ol' Billo's. They are just noise. What irks me is that we all have opinions, as a nation, and yet very few people are willing to act on them to get their particular agenda in motion. A lot of "ain't it a shame, ain't it a shame," but few people willing to do the heavy lifting to right the wrongs as they see them. If that is what our opinions lead us to, then I guess they are just noise too. There is too much that could be done that isn't getting done, and if nothing else, it is probably why so many polls show such lackluster opinions of 51 to 49 for this, and 48 to 52 for that. Somebody is holding out and waiting for someone else to do "it". I don't know about anyone else, but I am fed up with the "War of Words", when in hell does the real War of actions start? Or will it only be played out on TV??

Oct 02, 2007 19:18:55
fast-tl

I'm not a Limbaigh fan (but I *am* a Bill O'Reilly fan) and both instances lately have been proven to be false attacks in my view. People forget too easily that details matter, and you have to be precise before you jump on the media bandwagon to criticize someone. Make sure you've parsed the words for the correct, not just the convenient, meaning. I think Rush was taken out of context as was Bill. I don't given Rush's show more than 2 minutes at a time either, but at least be honest in criticizing someone; honest enough to be accurate.

Oct 02, 2007 19:27:45
MudSnow

bobmunch Wrote:

Quote: "What irks me is that we all have opinions, as a nation, and yet very few people are willing to act on them to get their particular agenda in motion. A lot of "ain't it a shame, ain't it a shame," but few people willing to do the heavy lifting to right the wrongs as they see them. If that is what our opinions lead us to, then I guess they are just noise too. There is too much that could be done that isn't getting done, and if nothing else, it is probably why so many polls show such lackluster opinions of 51 to 49 for this, and 48 to 52 for that. Somebody is holding out and waiting for someone else to do "it". I don't know about anyone else, but I am fed up with the "War of Words", when in hell does the real War of actions start? Or will it only be played out on TV??
"


There IS a man of action who decided to take a stand and get busy right now, and all those who don't have the spine to stand up and get moving themselves sure know how to be backseat drivers, and question his every move and motive.

RSS Wrote:
Quote: "
Was it the left who smears everybody who disagrees as cowards and traitors?
"


Nope, the left just smears everybody who disagrees as liars and idiots.

Thank God for all the 10%ers who thought kicking Hitler's a** was the right thing to do.

Oct 02, 2007 19:47:00
robgeskey

Lee,

Exactly! Any person who speaks or writes can have their words parsed and snipped and made to have a completely different sound and meaning. I can not see how people don't look in to these matters a bit further before reacting to the pablum they are being fed. I respect a persons right to say what they think, but much more so if they have done their own due diligence and have proof for what they are saying and not just acting as someones puppet regurgitating nonsense.

I wonder if it is time for the Flat Earth Society to make a comeback...................

You may laugh at that, but it sure seems that there is a mass of gullible people out there.

With that being said, I will remain an independent thinker and only form my opinions after I have done my own research.

Cheers,

Rob

Oct 02, 2007 20:01:08
slywelder

the supporters of this administration have done a excellent job of painting anyone who disagree's with them as unpatriotic,not supporting the troops ect.I see it a lot of times even here on this forum,the little digs,the jokes,snide remarks,thats why i dont like to talk politics.I believe you can be civil and disagree,Marc and i have vastly different views but i respect the heck out of him,lets all remember one thing,were american's first and foremost,where at a dangerous time right now with this issue of nuclear arms,it scares the shit out of me,i can honestly say i dont see a leader in the potental canidates on either side that worries me the most

Oct 02, 2007 20:39:05
MudSnow

I don't care at all about patriotism or being American.

I would just like to see more upstanding men willing to get off their butts and kick the crap out of all the dirtbags and tyrants everywhere, from the ghettos to the desert to the jungles. Every time I read about 12 year old prostitutes, and 10 year old soldiers, it just makes me sick. I don't know why every army from every country with a conscience doesn't just rise up and severely kick some ass.

A little vigilante justice would go a long way toward getting rid of gangs and abusers everywhere.

BTW, read another post criticizing Bono. I think we need a few million more men just like him. Well, not exactly like him, but with his sense of motivation and empathy.

Oct 02, 2007 21:13:44
AzMarc

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
I don't care at all about patriotism or being American. "


Care to elaborate? None of my business but it strikes me as peculiar and would like to better understand your perspective.....

If you'd rather not elaborate, I understand as well.....

Oct 02, 2007 22:01:25
MudSnow

I consider myself a citizen of the planet. My friends/cars/musical tastes/food preferences are all very international.

I currently own an MG, a Mitsubishi, a Dodge, and an Audi Quattro.

I would rather listen to Tiromancino or George Drexler than any current American rock. I prefer burritos and enchiladas to steak and pork chops.

I believe in smacking villains in the head with a BFH no matter where they pop up.

I do what I can locally, as well as sponsoring the education and care of two Latino children.

Oct 03, 2007 05:02:22
Limey

Whose M.O.? Telling lies etc?

Don't tell me your party of choice always tells the truth - cause if you do, it's a lie!

Oct 03, 2007 05:49:58
wyatt

Limey,..which party ran the dasiy ad? The beginning of modern day trash/smear ads.

Oct 03, 2007 06:16:42
Limey

Wyatt - I have no idea. My point was supposed to be that neither side is innocent, both tell big lies to get what they want.

I wish we had the same libel laws that the U.K. has - then they would all be in court for the lies they tell! Same with the liability laws - but that would put 90% of the country's lawyers out on the street!

I do know that I am absolutely sick of the continuous stream of lies we get regarding Iraq! But what is worse is the vicious attacks by the liars on those who try to tell the truth.

Oct 03, 2007 06:37:41
Eric M

I do know that I am absolutely sick of the continuous stream of lies we get regarding Iraq! ----- So you will never believe anything about Iraq then ? Everything will be a lie ? I get tired of hearing all the bad things that the media says , I have some friends there and they get just as aggravated with all the bad news they see when they come back here .

Oct 03, 2007 06:44:10
bobmunch

Nathan said: "all those who don't have the spine to stand up and get moving themselves sure know how to be backseat drivers, and question his every move and motive."

Not exactly sure who you mean, Nathan, but I could hazard a guess that he lives in the White House. That guy lives by his convictions and perceptions, and, as far as that goes, that is a good thing. I wish more people did. But it doesn't mean that others have to agree with what he does or believes to be the best course of action for our country.

As far as I am concerned, real actions take place not only from the top down, but from the bottom up, even as your support of latino kids shows. That is just one issue among a whole host of issues that individuals can affect by their actions...or inaction. We have infrastructure issues, medical care issues, housing issues, financial issues, and many many more for which we look to government to resolve in the larger world of laws, mandates, and oversight. But these same issues also require work from the grassroots level as well, and that sort of work requires commitment, education, and time taken by people with their boots on the ground facing the results of government's action, inaction, or simple lack of a willingness to get their hands dirty with the bolts and nuts of how these issues affect the lives of the individuals most directly affected by their improvement or neglect.

My comments above are directed by my own belief that actions speak much louder than rhetoric, and that most of that dogpile of words, is just noise compared to genuine activity by individuals which actually accomplishes something. What is accomplished moves along anyone's agenda, regardless of it political or social orientation, but I find that we, as a people, (and this is generalization, I know) are too often either interested in bread and circuses (what is accomplished by knowing the details of Britney Spears life?) or demagoguery (doesn't matter which side of the aisle) that makes us feel good that someone thinks like us but is, as Shakespeare said, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

The Ken Burns documentary, The War, is on now, and in its approach to viewing that period of conflict, it attempts to portray not only the broad action on the theater of military engagement, but also the impact on the civilians at home which demanded their own extraordinary efforts to meet the challenge. We say that recycling is a good thing, and many people participate actively in this because they believe enough in it (or get an incentive of some sort), even as their grandparents scrapped their rubber, nylons, and metals to win a war. That has been a good thing. We also say that we should be committed to winning this war in Iraq, but the military has a tougher time getting recruits (altho they do get them) to fight it, and support too often means picking up a yellow ribbon at the 7-11 to stick on our cars, but not much else. There are, God bless them, plenty of people who send "Care Packages" and letters of support to our troops, among other activities, but nothing on the scale of what we saw during WW2 or even Vietnam. The commitment to this war is an optional thing in these days, perhaps because we as a people see the war in Iraq as an optional war.

Oct 03, 2007 06:51:47
Eric M

I don't agree with everything Bush says or does but one thing I am impressed with , he does not flip flop or change his mind according to some poll that was taken the night before . Like it or not , he's not going to flip flop just based on public opinion.

Oct 03, 2007 07:03:24
Limey

Eric M Wrote:

Quote: "So you will never believe anything about Iraq then ? Everything will be a lie ? "


No - I read news from multiple sources and try to balance them against each other to see what is right and what is wrong. Amazingly, most of those sources are not based in the US!

I have friends in Iraq too - one did not come home, one is on his third tour.

Oct 03, 2007 07:49:51
wyatt

Limey I have head that many times about the UK's libel and liability laws, and it was all positive.

Oct 03, 2007 07:50:05
Gerry

What has amazes me is that those who accuse the other side of intollarence, practice the very same thing in the name of their cause

Oct 03, 2007 08:07:03
Limey

Eric M Wrote:

Quote: "Like it or not , he's not going to flip flop just based on public opinion.
"


Exactly, damn the Constitution. "By the People, for the People" should only count if those in power agree with it!

Oct 03, 2007 08:09:41
racer76

Eric M Wrote:

Quote: "
he does not flip flop or change his mind
"


Its not his mind to change.

Oct 03, 2007 08:53:10
Eric M

Exactly, damn the Constitution. "By the People, for the People" should only count if those in power agree with it! ----- He was elected on a certain platform , that platform was what he said his beliefs were , he shouldn't change it once he gets in office as do alot of politicians . He was elected by the people .

Oct 03, 2007 08:56:10
mcce


LBJ felt Remorse for his Actions


Both in the Oval Office and on the Ranch

LBJ even grew his Hair down to his massive Shoulders during his last Days on the Ranch after 1969. 10s of thousands of Men, Women, & Children lost their Lives under his Commanding hand.

GWB? He is a Psychopath... He feels Nothing at all :(

No Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 08:58:30
Andy

He was elected by the people?

Really?



Oct 03, 2007 09:00:32
cartoy

bobmunch,
I think part of the problem with lack of support for the Iraq war is how do we know when it is won? What is the defining moment that determines the "win"? Much like Bush's war on terrorism, how will we know we've won? I personally doubt you can ever defeat terrorism since this has been going on for thousands of years, Muslims vs Christians. And if you never know what it takes to win a particular war, for some it is difficult to support such an open-ended conflict. Plus in previous wars the country had a common enemy that you could point to, be it a person, a government, or a political belief. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we're fighting against a mind-set, something that is different from one person to the next. So how do you win such a war? In a strange way it almost looks like the Crusades all over again.

Just my thoughts
cartoy

Oct 03, 2007 09:01:26
Andy

Mission Accomplished?

Oct 03, 2007 09:04:02
fast-tl

Andy Wrote:

Quote: "
He was elected by the people?
Really?
"


Oh c'mon on. You do realize he's on his SECOND term now? Your sarcasm expired with the end of his first term.

Who on this planet would not agreed that a two term president was not elected by the people?!

Oct 03, 2007 09:08:36
Eric M

I forgot he stole the election , my bad .

Oct 03, 2007 09:08:50
mcce

Sum it all Up... and then Listen to CSN&Y's "I Almost Cut My Hair"

And just Wonder Why... Fear & Paranoia is Rampant.

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 09:10:46
mcce

fast-tl Wrote:

Quote: "
Andy Wrote:Quote:
He was elected by the people?
Really?
Oh c'mon on. You do realize he's on his SECOND term now? Your sarcasm expired with the end of his first term.
Who on this planet would not agreed that a two term president was not elected by the people?!
"

The Entity is called DIEBOLD ;) Remember HAL9000? It's a Reality in the 21st Century...

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 09:12:39
MudSnow

Regarding Iraq

http://www.abovepolitics.com/thread273779/pg1
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA23805
http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Quote: "Have you seen the Other Iraq?

It's spectacular.
It's peaceful.
It's joyful.
Fewer than two hundred US troops
are stationed here.
Arabs, Kurds and westerners all vacation together.

Welcome to Iraqi-Kurdistan! "


Quote: "Writing from Baghdad, BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley talks of her recent experience arriving at the new "glass-fronted 'gateway' to the world," the Erbil International Airport, which received its first flights from Dubai, Beirut and Amman. The airport was constructed on a former Iraqi air force base which had been used to bomb the Kurds of Halabjawith chemical weapons. The economic success of Iraqi Kurdistan is apparent in Ms. Hawley's description of "the cranes dotting the skyline" of the city of Suleymaniya:

"Everywhere you look, bulldozers are at work. Things are booming…. People have money, people are spending it, they feel it's safe to spend – and to build for the future.""



mcce Wrote:
Quote: "Fear & Paranoia is Rampant.
"



Paranoia, thy name is Mike.

Oct 03, 2007 09:15:41
racer76

I am sure many of you don't really care about OUR opinion, but this relates to some comments posted by non-Americans in these off topic threads.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/30/2019490.htm

Forty per cent of Australians hold an unfavourable view of the United States and most of those say it is due to President George W Bush, a comprehensive opinion poll has found.

http://tinyurl.com/3ycw89

The survey of 1,213 Australians, carried out by the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, also found growing dissatisfaction with US president George Bush.

Asked to name something they disliked about the US, the largest response was about the president, a News Ltd newspaper reported on Wednesday.


Oct 03, 2007 09:19:08
mcce

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
Regarding Iraq

Quote:Have you seen the Other Iraq?
It's spectacular.
It's peaceful.
It's joyful.
Fewer than two hundred US troops
are stationed here.
Arabs, Kurds and westerners all vacation together.
Welcome to Iraqi-Kurdistan!

Quote:Writing from Baghdad, BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley talks of her recent experience arriving at the new "glass-fronted 'gateway' to the world," the Erbil International Airport, which received its first flights from Dubai, Beirut and Amman. The airport was constructed on a former Iraqi air force base which had been used to bomb the Kurds of Halabjawith chemical weapons. The economic success of Iraqi Kurdistan is apparent in Ms. Hawley's description of "the cranes dotting the skyline" of the city of Suleymaniya:
"Everywhere you look, bulldozers are at work. Things are booming…. People have money, people are spending it, they feel it's safe to spend – and to build for the future."
Paranoia, thy name is Mike.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 10/03/07 09:16AM by MudSnow.
"

Swell, we paid almost a $$trillion$$ for that nice booming Economy over There ;) I believe we be Sucking Eggs about Right now over Here-- We must have lost our Boomerang or Something??

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 09:33:38
Eric M

The more other countries don't like the US , the more it means we are doing a great job . I could care less what Hollywood or any other country thinks about us .


My uncle has been to Australia , he absolutely loved it .

Oct 03, 2007 09:46:07
MudSnow

How many dollars would it be worth to take these kids out of the militias and put them in school? And who will be willing to make the investment? Australia? Germany? Japan?

If someone ever does manage to start turning things around down there, are we going to start crying "Impeach the President" as soon as the first soldier is killed? Is Congress going to put a spending limit or time frame on that?

Australia is active in Indonesia, as well as the mideast. But what could be done if all the citizens of the world directed their "outrage" to where it would do the most good?







Oct 03, 2007 09:59:58
mcce

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
How many dollars would it be worth to take these kids out of the militias and put them in school? And who will be willing to make the investment? Australia? Germany? Japan?
If someone ever does manage to start turning things around down there, are we going to start crying "Impeach the President" as soon as the first soldier is killed? Is Congress going to put a spending limit or time frame on that?
Australia is active in Indonesia, as well as the mideast. But what could be done if all the citizens of the world directed their "outrage" to where it would do the most good?
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 10/03/07 09:49AM by MudSnow.
"

Less Dollars well Spent is more Like it... ever heard of the CIA? Where is the CIA? Naval Intelligence? You don't Fight Civil War Actions with a 100% Military-- it takes Intelligence & Special Forces to Take Out the Clowns that Leads them, not a Pvt 1st Class with a Rifle.

U Got Milk?

Oct 03, 2007 10:00:44
Andy

Right.

And Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'm sure the WMDs will turn up any moment as well. What was the verdict on the CIA shipping innocents off to be worked over in "secret" detention centers? Yes? No? Yes. Just because it's old news and we've built up a thicker skin, does that make it now ok?

A bit of a Catch-22 right now if you can think for yourself and you support the current administration. To blindly support the current adminstration means you are willing to forego and walk away from many of the rights and liberties that make America great. Patriot Act anyone?

Give me a freakin break. The current administration has a solid record of denial,lying and then coming "clean." Dispute that.

We are a bunch of sheep that fell for all the distraction. Things are the way they are by default. We are only to blame because we've let it go unchecked for so long.

Bush was not elected by the people the first time around. You'd be a fool to believe that. We did nothing the next time around, so sure, we elected him.

We elected him because we believed the lies. Lies were his foundation. Piggyback that on our short attention spans and it's a recipe for success.

Don't get me wrong, I like low gas prices.



Oct 03, 2007 10:06:23
mcce

Eric M Wrote:

Quote: "
I don't agree with everything Bush says or does but one thing I am impressed with , he does not flip flop or change his mind according to some poll that was taken the night before . Like it or not , he's not going to flip flop just based on public opinion.
"

Yes, Just like the Fool on the Hill-- His Father put together the Iraq Study Group and Jr. just Laught it Off.

I can't wait to see the End of the Story when Bush43 approaches the end of his term in Office--- keep your Heads down low-- it ain't gonna be Pretty.

No Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 10:06:47
MudSnow

The CIA must have done a pretty great job of lying. They even had Saddam's own military convinced that it had WMD. Instead all they had was massive stockpiles (hundreds of truckloads) of French weapons.

Do we have to convince the world that Uganda has WMD before people will support an "invasion" of that "sovereign nation"?

Oct 03, 2007 10:13:54
Andy

Well, we found some of our oil under Uganda's dirt.

Not sure if it's enough to move them up a notch on the list of countries to be liberated though.

Things will really get interesting when China and India decide to become liberators that take small countries under their wing in exchange for access to their resources. It's already begun.

Oct 03, 2007 10:29:08
RSS

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
RSS Wrote:Quote:
Was it the left who smears everybody who disagrees as cowards and traitors?
Nope, the left just smears everybody who disagrees as liars and idiots.
Thank God for all the 10%ers who thought kicking Hitler's a** was the right thing to do.
"


You're joking, right? You just proved my entire point, thank you very much. Please tell me you're just being ironic in the name of humor.

Eric (racer76) - Don't worry. We always like to hear what our Austrian friends have to say about us. :devil:

R.

Oct 03, 2007 11:03:21
MudSnow

Charles Lindbergh Warns America Not To Enter WW2 On April 23, 1941
by Charles Lindbergh

There are many viewpoints from which the issues of this war can be argued. Some are primarily idealistic. Some are primarily practical. One should, I believe, strive for a balance of both. But, since the issues that can be covered in a single address are limited, tonight I shall discuss the war from a viewpoint which is primarily practical. It is not that I believe ideals are unimportant, even among the realities of war; but if a nation is to survive in a hostile world, its ideals must be backed by the hard logic of military practicability. If the outcome of war depended upon ideals alone, this would be a different world than it is today.

I know I will be severely criticized by the interventionists in America when I say we should not enter a war unless we have a reasonable chance of winning. That, they will claim, is far too materialistic a standpoint. They will advance again the same arguments that were used to persuade France to declare war against Germany in 1939. But I do not believe that our American ideals, and our way of life, will gain through an unsuccessful war. And I know that the United States is not prepared to wage war in Europe successfully at this time. We are no better prepared today than France was when the interventionists in Europe persuaded her to attack the Siegfried Line.

I have said before, and I will say again, that I believe it will be a tragedy to the entire world if the British Empire collapses. That is one of the main reasons why I opposed this war before it was declared, and why I have constantly advocated a negotiated peace. I did not feel that England and France had a reasonable chance of winning. France has now been defeated; and, despite the propaganda and confusion of recent months, it is now obvious that England is losing the war. I believe this is realized even by the British Government. But they have one last desperate plan remaining: They hope that they may be able to persuade us to send another American Expeditionary Force to Europe and to share with England militarily, as well as financially, the fiasco of this war.

I do not blame England for this hope, or for asking for our assistance. But we now know that she declared a war under circumstances which led to the defeat of every nation that sided with her, from Poland to Greece. We know that in the desperation of war, England promised to all these nations armed assistance that she could not send. We know that she misinformed them, as she has misinformed us, concerning her state of preparation, her military strength, and the progress of the war.

In time of war, truth is always replaced by propaganda. I do not believe we should be too quick to criticize the actions of a belligerent nation. There is always the question whether we, ourselves, would do better under similar circumstances. But we in this country have a right to think of the welfare of America first, just as the people in England thought first of their own country when they encouraged the smaller nations of Europe to fight against hopeless odds. When England asks us to enter this war, she is considering her own future, and that of her empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere.

It is not only our right, but it is our obligation as American citizens to look at this war objectively, and to weigh our chances for success if we should enter it. I have attempted to do this, especially from the standpoint of aviation; and I have been forced to the conclusion that we cannot win this war for England, regardless of how much assistance we send.

I ask you to look at the map of Europe today and see if you can suggest any way in which we could win this war if we entered it. Suppose we had a large Army in America, trained and equipped. Where would we send it to fight? The campaigns of the war show only too clearly how difficult it is to force a landing, or to maintain an Army, on a hostile coast.

Suppose we took our Navy from the Pacific, and used it to convoy British shipping. That would not win the war for England. It would, at best, permit her to exist under the constant bombing of the German air fleet. Suppose we had an Air Force that we could send to Europe. Where could it operate? Some of our squadrons might be based in the British Isles; but it is physically impossible to base enough aircraft in the British Isles alone to equal in strength the aircraft that can be based on the Continent of Europe.

I have asked these questions on the supposition that we had in existence an Army and an Air Force large enough and well enough equipped to send to Europe; and that we would dare to remove our Navy from the Pacific. Even on this basis, I do not see how we could invade the Continent of Europe successfully as long as all of that Continent and most of Asia is under Axis domination. But the fact is that none of these suppositions are correct. We have only a one-ocean Navy. Our Army is still untrained and inadequately equipped for foreign war. Our Air Force is deplorably lacking in modern fighting planes, because most of them have already been sent to Europe.

When these facts are cited, the interventionists shout that we are defeatists, that we are undermining the principles of democracy, and that we are giving comfort to Germany by talking about our military weakness. But everything I mention here has been published in our newspapers, and in the reports of congressional hearings in Washington. Our military position is well known to the governments of Europe and Asia. Why, then, should it not be brought to the attention of our own people?

I say it is the interventionist in America, as it was in England, and in France, who gives comfort to the enemy. I say it is they who are undermining the principles of democracy when they demand that we take a course to which more than 80 percent of our citizens are opposed. I charge them with being the real defeatists, for their policy has led to the defeat of every country that followed their advice since this war began. There is no better way to give comfort to an enemy than to divide the people of a nation over the issue of foreign war. There is no shorter road to defeat than by entering a war with inadequate preparation. Every nation that has adopted the interventionist policy of depending on some one else for its own defense has met with nothing but defeat and failure.

When history is written, the responsibility for the downfall of the democracies of Europe will rest squarely upon the shoulders of the interventionists who led their nations into war uninformed and unprepared. With their shouts of defeatism, and their disdain of reality, they have already sent countless thousands of young men to death in Europe. From the campaign of Poland to that of Greece, their prophesies have been false and their policies have failed. Yet these are the people who are calling us defeatists in America today. And they have led this country, too, to the verge of war.

There are many such interventionists in America, but there are more people among us of a different type. That is why you and I are assembled here tonight. There is a policy open to this nation that will lead to success--a policy that leaves us free to follow our own way of life, and to develop our own civilization. It is not a new and untried idea. It was advocated by [George] Washington. It was incorporated in the Monroe Doctrine. Under its guidance, the United States has become the greatest nation in the world.

It is based upon the belief that the security of a nation lies in the strength and character of its own people. It recommends the maintenance of armed forces sufficient to defend this hemisphere from attack by any combination of foreign powers. It demands faith in an independent American destiny. This is the policy of the America First Committee today. It is a policy not of isolation, but of independence; not of defeat, but of courage. It is a policy that led this nation to success during the most trying years of our history, and it is a policy that will lead us to success again.

We have weakened ourselves for many months, and still worse, we have divided our own people by this dabbling in Europe's wars. While we should have been concentrating on American defense, we have been forced to argue over foreign quarrels. We must turn our eyes and our faith back to our own country before it is too late. And when we do this, a different vista opens before us. Practically every difficulty we would face in invading Europe becomes an asset to us in defending America. Our enemy, and not we, would then have the problem of transporting millions of troops across the ocean and landing them on a hostile shore. They, and not we, would have to furnish the convoys to transport guns and trucks and munitions and fuel across three thousand miles of water. Our battleships and submarines would then be fighting close to their home bases. We would then do the bombing from the air and the torpedoing at sea. And if any part of an enemy convoy should ever pass our Navy and our Air Force, they would still be faced with the guns of our coast artillery and behind them the divisions of our Army.

The United States is better situated from a military standpoint than any other nation in the world. Even in our present condition of unpreparedness, no foreign power is in a position to invade us today. If we concentrate on our own defenses and build the strength that this nation should maintain, no foreign army will ever attempt to land on American shores.

War is not inevitable for this country. Such a claim is defeatism on the true sense. No one can make us fight abroad unless we ourselves are willing to do so. No one will attempt to fight us here if we arm ourselves as a great nation should be armed. Over a hundred million people in this nation are opposed to entering the war. If the principles of democracy mean anything at all, that is reason enough for us to stay out. If we are forced into a war against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of our people, we will have proved democracy such a failure at home that there will be little use fighting for it abroad.

The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people.

During the last several years I have traveled over this country from one end to the other. I have talked to many hundreds of men and women, and I have letters from tens of thousands more, who feel the same way as you and I. Most of these people have no influence or power. Most of them have no means of expressing their convictions, except by their vote which has always been against this war. They are the citizens who have had to work too hard at their daily jobs to organize political meetings. Hitherto, they have relied upon their vote to express their feelings, but now they find that it is hardly remembered except in the oratory of a political campaign. These people--the majority of hardworking American citizens, are with us. They are the true strength of our country. And they are beginning to realize, as you and I [are], that there are times when we must sacrifice our normal interests in life in order to insure the safety and the welfare of our nation.

Such a time has come. Such a crisis is here. That is why the America First Committee has been formed--to give voice to the people who have no newspaper, or newsreel, or radio station at their command, to give voice to the people who must do the paying, and the fighting, and the dying if this country enters the war.

Whether or not we do enter the war rests upon the shoulders of you in this audience, upon us here on this platform, upon meetings of this kind that are being held by Americans in every section of the United States today. It depends upon the action we take, and the courage we show at this time. If you believe in an independent destiny for America, if you believe that this country should not enter the war in Europe, we ask you to join the America First Committee in its stand. We ask you to share our faith in the ability of this nation to defend itself, to develop its own civilization, and to contribute to the progress of mankind in a more constructive and intelligent way than has yet been found by the warring nations of Europe. We need your support, and we need it now. The time to act is here. I thank you.

Oct 03, 2007 11:05:04
MudSnow

WW1

President Wilson's own sentiments leaned toward the side of the Allies (England and France) against Germany, but a strong pacifist (anti-war) movement forced him to proceed cautiously. In fact, America continued to provide goods and services to both the Allies and Germany, until it finally entered the war in 1917.

America stayed neutral despite numerous German terrorist attacks on Americans, and against American citizens. German submarines sank an American freighter, as well as British, French and Italian passenger ships, killing thousands of civilians including hundreds of Americans. A German exploded a bomb in the U.S. Senate reception room. President Wilson's own Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, resigned in protest when Wilson merely sent a protest note to the Germans. Bryan then headed a pacifist group that vigorously opposed American's involvement in the war, and used Senate filibusters to prevent America from challenging Germany in any significant way.

In January 1917, Wilson outlined a peace plan, calling for "Peace without victory." Germany's response was to sink several American steamships without warning. Only then did America finally declare war on Germany in March 1917.




Oct 03, 2007 11:24:32
Limey

Eric M Wrote:

Quote: "
Exactly, damn the Constitution. "By the People, for the People" should only count if those in power agree with it! ----- He was elected on a certain platform , that platform was what he said his beliefs were , he shouldn't change it once he gets in office as do alot of politicians . He was elected by the people .
"


I don't remember "deny health care to 10 million kids" to be one of his platform speeches. A bill that (by most accounts) about 80% of the population, the majority of members of Congress, and EVERY governor in the country thinks is good, he vetoes.

Yeah, that's a good President - stick your head in the sand and ignore the people.

A good politician WILL change his point of view - in fact, every sensible person should be amenable to change their opinion as the situation changes. In fact, most people do just that, but not Bush - after all, he is "The Decider".

What an idiot!

Oct 03, 2007 11:29:03
Rod H.

I like knowing where the folks stand here politically. It never makes me angry.

Sometimes I'm surprised when I agree with those totally opposite me politically. Other times those I usually agree with come out with something I can't agree with. In general after a while I get a pretty clear picture of just about everyone.

Can't hold a person's politics against them though as much is just due to their environment and personal culture....

But then there are a few who constantly puzzle me.

Oct 03, 2007 11:54:39
Eric M

Health care is available to everyone , little snot nose kids too . I don't remember voting on this health care bill , 80% ? who says ? a poll taken by cnn ? nbc ? fox ?

I don't want the president I vote for to change his mind , I voted a certain way because of his/her stance on things . Change his opinion as the situation changes ? what the heck kinda thinking is that ? Who decides what the new situation would be ? someone taking a poll ?

My kids know I am not going to change my mind on things , they know exactly what I think , regardless of the "situation"

Oct 03, 2007 12:21:56
mcce

Smoke on the Water... Daa, daa, daa... doo, doo, doo ;)

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 12:26:14
JNickell

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "
Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservatism.
"


Wrong Rick - Hypocrisy, thy name is Politics.

Two thoughts:

1. Read Matthew 7-3; I'm not a Bible thumper (apologies to those who are), but this verse always resonates with me.

2. Read Orwell's "1984" and apply the theme to modern politics.



Oct 03, 2007 13:11:01
Skye

I hope this website can be a uniter, not a divider ;)

Oct 03, 2007 14:00:08
Eric M

It should ! I'm done in the OT section !

Oct 03, 2007 14:09:11
Andy

Does these mean we won't be seeing a donkey, elephant, Star of David, cross, star and crescent, etc , in addition to country flags anytime soon?

Oct 03, 2007 14:11:38
RSS

Sorry about that, Skye, but we're practicing strategery here. Can't fool me again, you know.

Jay - I have read "1984". Look up the term "Orwellian" and apply it to the current situation.

Nathan - I know all about the folks who wanted to appease the Nazis. I know, as well, how the Bush family was one of the prime supporters of Nazism and the entire European fascist machine.

I also know all about how the repubs have publicly tried to triangulate disagreeing with them into being the modern-day equivalent of Nazi appeasers. Your making the same juxtaposition simply, as noted, proves my point about the "right" thinking it's okay for them to cast stones while they themselves are supremely thin-skinned. Scroll back to see Marc's outrage at being asked why he hates America for an example. (I like you, Marc, but I've never heard you express similar outrage when someone on the left is accused of the same thing.)

This forum (the OT forum) is the best thing that happened to this board, except for Skye building it in the first place. These discussions used to happen on the other side of the virtual fence. At least this way, if things get too hot we can always just go over to the other side and cool down.

Oct 03, 2007 14:20:28
Skye

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to the debate, as long as its constructive. It's only natural that ANY group of people into any hobby will be politically divided, its just a reflection of the current (unfortunate) state of affairs in 2007.

Skye

Oct 03, 2007 14:26:13
RSS

My friend, you are so right about that. That division sucks in a lot of ways, too, because as somebody noted earlier - sometimes these views cloud our perceptions of one another. Sigh....


Oct 03, 2007 14:30:19
mcce

Rick,

A little Dose is helpful, Over dosage is Harmful... let it Ride ;)

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 03, 2007 14:46:33
RSS

I do have breaking news: It seems that Fred Thompson (remember him - the Hollywood elitist who doesn't know much about Terry Schiavo?) has put out a press release praising Rush: "Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive."

Speaking of pandering....

Since neither Fred nor Rush ever had the courage to ever wear a uniform - consistent with most of the chicken-hawks screaming WAR! WAR! WAR! - I don't feel particularly chastised.


Oct 03, 2007 16:03:47
wyatt

Limey, a simple or ever an overwhelming majority, has virtually nothing to do with justice.


Since when has voting to steal others wealth and property been an admirable or even a hard decision?

Oct 03, 2007 17:36:48
MudSnow

So to summarize Lindbergh's argument:

Sure, it would be terrible for England to fall, but it's too late now, and anyway, they got themselves into the mess by attacking Hitler's army. Not really our problem, and we should only be concerned about ourselves. Hitler's army isn't a threat to us, and it just isn't worth it to fight for anyone else.

The war is already a fiasco, and England should have negotiated with Hitler before it started.

It would take too long and cost too much in lives and money to go to war against Germany, so it's just too much bother. We shouldn't have to sacrifice just because someone on the other side of the ocean is being destroyed. Hitler's army isn't a threat to us.

The warhawks say they are trying to protect democracy, but by ignoring the will of the American public, they are already destroying democracy.

We should wait for our enemy to come to us, so that we can fight close to home.

Oh, did I mention, Hitler's army isn't a threat to us. And we should only be concerned about ourselves.

.....................................................................

BTW Rick, my own family came to this country as German mercenaries hired by the British to defeat the Colonists. I'll bet some of my ancestors were even thieves and murderers if you go back far enough.

.....................................................................

Obviously, the reason that Bush vetoed that particular health bill is that Bush hates poor children, and he wants them all to die and decompose into oil.

Hillary supports mandatory health insurance for everyone.

I would like to see health insurance completely done away with, and the medical system funded through a combination of property and income tax.

Oct 03, 2007 19:22:48
wyatt

MudSnow, a great name. Now on to the business at hand. Limey et al are correct, and I have changed my opinion. I want all you guys to work your a$$e$ off to support me and mine. It's the American way. I have learned to except that there is no shame in being a parasite.

Oct 03, 2007 20:17:39
orgum


To set up what we like, against what we dislike----this is the disease of the mind!!!


Cheers

Oct 03, 2007 21:11:53
RSS

I forgot to mention one other point for my good friend Nathan: To actually try linking World War II to this elective fiasco in Iraq is completely and utterly despicable. I'm ashamed of you for trying, and I'm ashamed that your own military service is being stained by the comparison. You did serve, of course....



And please don't go off on some blah, blah, blah about "Islamo-Fascism" or any other Limbaugh talking point. It's silly, and the synthetic comparison doesn't hold up under rational thought.

Speaking of which, "OldAmericanCentury.org" has a good compendium of the 14 points of fascism. Summarized, they are:

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. (NB: I will add: Glamorized by people who seldom actually served in the military.)

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed (See "Right to Work" laws).

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Get the complete text here http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm.

A more in-depth comparison is here: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14_pts_2.htm.


R.

Oct 03, 2007 21:45:42
MudSnow

Sounds like the list of reasons for toppling Saddam.

Throw in the use of chemical weapons against civilians, the mass graves, the invasion of neighboring countries, the stock piling of weapons, violation of several mandates, and the general destabilizing of the regional economic and political landscape, and I think you've got it covered. :)

But as I understand it, Hitler was a union man himself. I would have to Google it to be sure.

Indeed, Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin all gained their popularity from the labor parties, representing the common man.

But you are right, the similarities between the USA 2007 and Germany 1933 are truly striking. ;)

BTW, I have three family members in Iraq and one in Afghanistan right now. All of them are there voluntarily, because they share the same viewpoint that most of my family does.

Oct 03, 2007 23:31:16
AzMarc

Limey Wrote:

Quote: "
Yeah, that's a good President - stick your head in the sand and ignore the people. "


Wow! I never knew the framers of the constitution envisioned a government that was to be created to "take care" of the people. Give them free healthcare, Social Security, Welfare, heck even give the illegals college tuition breaks.....Some nucklehead is even proposing biving each newborn $5K to kickstart their life in America! I always thought it was the Communist Manifesto that was designed for the purpose of "taking care" of the people....

I want a government that provides a good defense and protects us from foreign and domestic evil and also gets the hell out of the way so that those that want to work hard have a good shot at making a better life for themselves....

We don't need more taxes...We need permanent tax cuts coupled with drastic spending cuts....The dems in the majority aren't doing any better than the repubs so neither party gets any brownie points from me.

We need to get off the dime with immigration inaction and create a path to let those who want to work hard and contribute to the American society have a chance just as most of our ancestors had a chance when they came over...... Bush, Congress et al get FAILING grades in my book....

Frankly....we just need a whole lot less government interference and DRASTIC spending reductions!

Let Freedom Reign!

Oct 04, 2007 06:17:53
cartoy

So what do you do with the person that has a major medical problem and goes broke paying off his/her debt? Let them go belly-up and become homeless? If you can't contribute to society than the heck with you? Suffer and die?? Volunteer programs can't handle such a load, government has to help. Want a strong defense? Fine but who is going to build the highways? Who is going to build dams that control the waterways in this country? Who is going to build the airports and control the airways? Who is to govern the mirad of things we take for granted everyday? Do you think that water for your shower this morning got there for free? Do you think firemen just appear when needed? Do you think that street in front of your house grew there?

It really bothers me when people think that government should be limited as you outlined. Take the military out of the picture and this country would fall apart if the government didn't do all the other things it does for you and your fellowman/woman. Entitlement programs?? Drop them all and see what happens. That person that no longer gets welfare may have to resort to crime just to stay alive. Or that same person may die since they no longer have any income to live on (and I'm NOT talking about those that abuse the welfare program). If you want to say to hell with those in need than you go out there and start shooting those that can't contribute to this country. Me, I'm willing to help those in need even if the government has to do it. Call me a Liberal but a least I won't have the moniker of "Conservative" and the lives of the less fortunate on the soles of my shoes.

Just some thoughts.
Cartoy

Oct 04, 2007 07:01:46
bobmunch

I find it interesting that many who crow the loudest about entitlements and the "welfare state", do not seem to have any qualms about either one when there comes a time that they can or need to step up to the trough.

We haggle and fuss about how much it costs out of our pockets, but when push comes to shove, tax "breaks", corporate "welfare", subsidies, incentives, and monopolies all have their hands in other people's pockets, and it is very interesting to me that those of us who line up for these benefits of our government's policies, do so willingly.

Oct 04, 2007 07:15:58
MudSnow

cartoy Wrote:

Quote: "
So what do you do with the person that has a major medical problem and goes broke paying off his/her debt?
"


That is why I do believe that getting rid of health insurance and funding the health care system through property and income taxes (not unlike the way we fund our educational system and roadway infrastructure) would be a good idea. It would also help to even out the growing income inequity, by having the strong shoulder more of the burden.

Keeping the health insurance system, and enlarging it by the way of enforcing mandatory laws (as both Hillary and Edwards have proposed, the fascists!) only makes the problem worse, by increasing the drain of the middlemen in the system. In addition, mandatory insurance amounts to an inequitable tax, which is not only generally not progressive, but flat and even regressive, where it would be a significant drain on the incomes of the lower middle class who don't qualify for the government subsidies that Hillary also proposed.

As we have seen through the blatantly socialist mandatory auto insurance industry, in which careful and safe drivers are forced by the government to subsidize, to the tune of thousands of dollars per year, not only the damage caused by the inept and reckless drivers, but also the homes and living expenses of the insurance industry middlemen. The auto insurance tax is not only assessed with no regard for ability to pay, but is also regressive, as people with poor credit history are charged a higher rate no matter how spotless their driving record may be. If there was any way that it could be perfectly enforced, mandatory auto insurance alone would consume as much as 10% of the incomes of lower income families.

This same mandatory insurance regressive "tax" is supported by almost all of our politicians. Guess that makes it right.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My deepest apologies to any forum users who I may have upset. This forum should be a safe haven in which left leaning users can gather in peace and harmony to insult and ridicule the views, intentions, and intellect of rightward leaning citizens without fear of any upsetting rebuke.

Again, my apologies.

Oct 04, 2007 07:23:15
cartoy

No need to apologize. I view this as just healthy, sometimes loud, discussion. We're all still LBC owners and, I hope, friends.

Just some thoughts,
Cartoy

Oct 04, 2007 07:42:43
racer76

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
My deepest apologies to any forum users who I may have upset. This forum should be a safe haven in which left leaning users can gather in peace and harmony to insult and ridicule the views, intentions, and intellect of rightward leaning citizens without fear of any upsetting rebuke.
Again, my apologies.
"


No need to apologise, we think equally porly of the neo-conservative view that the only good wealth is that built on the crushed and broken bodies of those who have had less opportunity.


Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant
So away with all superstitions
Servile masses arise arise
We’ll change forth with the old conditions
And spum the dust to win the prize


Oct 04, 2007 07:57:36
mcce

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
cartoy Wrote:Quote:
So what do you do with the person that has a major medical problem and goes broke paying off his/her debt?
That is why I do believe that getting rid of health insurance and funding the health care system through property and income taxes (not unlike the way we fund our educational system and roadway infrastructure) would be a good idea. It would also help to even out the growing income inequity, by having the strong shoulder more of the burden.
Keeping the health insurance system, and enlarging it by the way of enforcing mandatory laws (as both Hillary and Edwards have proposed, the fascists!) only makes the problem worse, by increasing the drain of the middlemen in the system. In addition, mandatory insurance amounts to an inequitable tax, which is not only generally not progressive, but flat and even regressive, where it would be a significant drain on the incomes of the lower middle class who don't qualify for the government subsidies that Hillary also proposed.
As we have seen through the blatantly socialist mandatory auto insurance industry, in which careful and safe drivers are forced by the government to subsidize, to the tune of thousands of dollars per year, not only the damage caused by the inept and reckless drivers, but also the homes and living expenses of the insurance industry middlemen. The auto insurance tax is not only assessed with no regard for ability to pay, but is also regressive, as people with poor credit history are charged a higher rate no matter how spotless their driving record may be. If there was any way that it could be perfectly enforced, mandatory auto insurance alone would consume as much as 10% of the incomes of lower income families.
This same mandatory insurance regressive "tax" is supported by almost all of our politicians. Guess that makes it right.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My deepest apologies to any forum users who I may have upset. This forum should be a safe haven in which left leaning users can gather in peace and harmony to insult and ridicule the views, intentions, and intellect of rightward leaning citizens without fear of any upsetting rebuke.
Again, my apologies.
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 10/04/07 07:35AM by MudSnow.
"

Great Ideas!!!

Interesting concepts ;) mandatory is the key.

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 04, 2007 08:01:44
mcce

cartoy Wrote:

Quote: "
So what do you do with the person that has a major medical problem and goes broke paying off his/her debt? Let them go belly-up and become homeless? If you can't contribute to society than the heck with you? Suffer and die?? Volunteer programs can't handle such a load, government has to help. Want a strong defense? Fine but who is going to build the highways? Who is going to build dams that control the waterways in this country? Who is going to build the airports and control the airways? Who is to govern the mirad of things we take for granted everyday? Do you think that water for your shower this morning got there for free? Do you think firemen just appear when needed? Do you think that street in front of your house grew there?
It really bothers me when people think that government should be limited as you outlined. Take the military out of the picture and this country would fall apart if the government didn't do all the other things it does for you and your fellowman/woman. Entitlement programs?? Drop them all and see what happens. That person that no longer gets welfare may have to resort to crime just to stay alive. Or that same person may die since they no longer have any income to live on (and I'm NOT talking about those that abuse the welfare program). If you want to say to hell with those in need than you go out there and start shooting those that can't contribute to this country. Me, I'm willing to help those in need even if the government has to do it. Call me a Liberal but a least I won't have the moniker of "Conservative" and the lives of the less fortunate on the soles of my shoes.
Just some thoughts.
Cartoy
"

Ditto!!

Oct 04, 2007 08:05:54
mcce

Our Healthcare system is lacking Competition... I believe by investing in our Govt Healthcare systems we can bring Competition to the Private sector. What is good enough for our Govt Workers is Good enough for Each and Everyone of us. Lets spend our Dollars where we see the Benefit. Meds are Second on the List.

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 04, 2007 08:06:38
MudSnow

mcce Wrote:

Quote: "
Great Ideas!!!
Interesting concepts mandatory is the key.
Cheers!
Mike
"


In my opinion, progressively distributed funding of a widely used and essential public service is the key.

Mandatory enforcement of the funding of the private insurance industry middlemen, which is what both Hillary and Edwards have proposed, is just a blood sucking parasitic loss on the funding of the essential public service. And, like I said, would be unfairly distributed.

Oct 04, 2007 08:47:55
RSS

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
My deepest apologies to any forum users who I may have upset. This forum should be a safe haven in which left leaning users can gather in peace and harmony to insult and ridicule the views, intentions, and intellect of rightward leaning citizens without fear of any upsetting rebuke.
Again, my apologies."


I like it when you're being silly. But you're new here, Nathan. You may want to consider Gold membership in the Forum.

As for your family members in Iraq and Afghanistan, they deserve our prayers. Just as do so many hundreds of thousands of others, including the hundreds of MP's I trained as an Active Duty drill sergeant in 2003/2004, and the hundreds of kids who were at DLI with me last year learning to speak Arabic.

My question, however, wasn't if any of your family has served. It was: Have you ever worn the uniform of your country? In other words, have you earned the moral authority to be so pro-war? I ask only because so very, very many of the "patriots" supporting the war in Iraq just don't have the courage of their own very loud convictions.

R.

Oct 04, 2007 08:48:15
cartoy

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
mcce Wrote:Quote:
Great Ideas!!!
Interesting concepts mandatory is the key.
Cheers!
Mike
In my opinion, progressively distributed funding of a widely used and essential public service is the key.
Mandatory enforcement of the funding of the private insurance industry middlemen, which is what both Hillary and Edwards have proposed, is just a blood sucking parasitic loss on the funding of the essential public service. And, like I said, would be unfairly distributed.
Edited 2 times. Last edit at 10/04/07 08:13AM by MudSnow.
"


But Bush wants to do away with having the govt tracking users of govt insurance so he can eliminate "Federalization" of the insurance industry. Of course he wants to hand that over to private companies and have the cost go from $10.00 per patient to $17.00 per patient. How is that better than what Hillary or Edwards have proposed??

Just some thoughts
Cartoy

Oct 04, 2007 08:53:36
Gerry

"In other words, have you earned the moral authority to be so pro-war?"

So someone has to be a vet in order to have the authority to have an opinion on war?

Oct 04, 2007 10:02:47
RSS

Gerry Wrote:

Quote: "
"In other words, have you earned the moral authority to be so pro-war?"
So someone has to be a vet in order to have the authority to have an opinion on war?
"


That's a fair question, Gerry but I'm not sure that's my message. I do believe there's a shortage of on-the-ground courage on the part of those Americans who support the war in Iraq. I also believe we have the right to know whether someone in the pro-war crowd has ever served, just as we have the right to know the size of Al Gore's carbon footprint. It gives us a framework within which to judge their level of commitment.

R.

Oct 04, 2007 10:13:42
JNickell

Rick, if you could objectively read your own posts I think you would see that you perfectly mimic the behavior which you criticize in people with whom you disagree.

Oct 04, 2007 10:22:04
MudSnow

I didn't pass the physical. When I was 18, I was a 132 pound kid with scoliosis, bad ankles, and hernias, and mild asthma. Guess that means I don't have any right to make moral decisions, even if my views are shared by many, if not most, of those who have volunteered to be in the military, including my own family members.

...................................................................

Steve, you are right, my thoughts on the health care system are in disagreement with all of the current major politicians. Guess that doesn't flow with the accusations that all Bushbots are mindless minions of fascism.

Oct 04, 2007 10:23:49
AzMarc

I have never served in the military of this great country and neither has Janel. Does that make both of us at the same level of "Commitment"? That is so friggin stupid but I guess because YOU have served, you are more deserving to be critical.

Oct 04, 2007 10:24:28
RSS

JNickell Wrote:

Quote: "
Rick, if you could objectively read your own posts I think you would see that you perfectly mimic the behavior which you criticize in people with whom you disagree.
"


If that were true, they'd all stop doing that stuff. :devil:

And I don't think any reading of any post I've ever made can compare me with people like Rush Limbaugh, or with my good friend Nathan who wants to equate me with a Nazi appeaser because I don't agree with him. Not even close.

R.

Oct 04, 2007 10:25:20
AzMarc

JNickell Wrote:

Quote: "
Rick, if you could objectively read your own posts I think you would see that you perfectly mimic the behavior which you criticize in people with whom you disagree.
"


really now....How dare you be critical of Rick Stevens. By the way, in the futre I think we should all address him properly as Mr. Stevens.

Oct 04, 2007 10:33:11
MudSnow

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "
I do believe there's a shortage of on-the-ground courage on the part of those Americans who support the war in Iraq."


That's pretty funny. So if the war supporters don't have enough on-the-ground courage, then just who are all those 164.000+ people over there?

Oct 04, 2007 11:01:38
RSS

Not you.

Oct 04, 2007 11:25:39
MudSnow

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "
a Nazi appeaser"


That is an awfully strong term to describe the 80-90% majority who supported an anti-war opinion because they believed that the "European war" was not in America's own personal interests. Surely you don't agree that in retrospect they were wrong?

Imagine if Lindberg's very "practical" vision of the world had come to pass, if all the region of Europe was controlled by the Axis powers, much as the Mideast is overrun by superstitious, illiterate, uneducated, illogical, genocidal maniacs today.

100 years from now, imagine a world where people will look back with incredulity that the majority of Americans, along with the rest of the world, were willing to allow genocidal Islamic crusading maniacs to continue controlling a large region of the continent, not to mention global resources.

Oct 04, 2007 11:41:01
Rod H.

It's impossible to predict what even *major* changes in history 60 years ago would have on the modern world.

Oct 04, 2007 11:42:34
Steve64B

Seems to me that chicken hawks always make the same noise. They scream for war... because they don't have to live at the pointy end of the spear and scream even louder when someone uses the political tactics they invented.

I think they should rest on their laural after coming up with the:

You're not supporting the troops if you don't support the war... gambit

Swift boating, is now a verb that everyone understands. It's not easy inventing a whole word.

I especially like the "those who want to surrender" Surrender what? We're not even in control of that 3rd world sh!t hole. We haven't won anything to surrender.

Just my opinion

Steve

Oct 04, 2007 11:47:14
MudSnow

Steve, are those your own thoughts, or are you just paraphrasing Lindbergh?

Rod, you are right, but one thing we do know is that the longer religious fanaticism, slavery, sexism, and intellectual oppression go unchecked, the more people they will harm. And like you said, too many people (the majority) are more concerned with "bread and circuses" and the whereabouts of Paris Hilton. So we have established that the majority is not always right, but still it is repeated that the majority oppose the war as a good reason for abandoning it.

If I was an Iraqi citizen in Baghdad today, I couldn't think of anything scarier than an immediate troop withdrawal.

Oct 04, 2007 12:04:15
mcce

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
Steve, are those your own thoughts, or are you just paraphrasing Lindbergh?
Rod, you are right, but one thing we do know is that the longer religious fanaticism, slavery, sexism, and intellectual oppression go unchecked, the more people they will harm. And like you said, too many people (the majority) are more concerned with "bread and circuses" and the whereabouts of Paris Hilton. So we have established that the majority is not always right, but still it is repeated that the majority oppose the war as a good reason for abandoning it.
If I was an Iraqi citizen in Baghdad today, I couldn't think of anything scarier than an immediate troop withdrawal.
Edited 2 times. Last edit at 10/04/07 11:58AM by MudSnow.
"

Saigon... Baghdad-- Two different worlds-- had Saigon been like Baghdad we would not have commited over 550,000 troops to Vietnam-- you have to have a Safe Haven somewhere-- where is it in Iraq-- in the Restroom?

Oct 04, 2007 12:21:10
RSS

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
So if the war supporters don't have enough on-the-ground courage, then just who are all those 164.000+ people over there?
"


Or maybe this guy.... https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1138/t/376/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1755

R.

Oct 04, 2007 12:41:26
RSS

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
Steve, are those your own thoughts, or are you just paraphrasing Lindbergh?
"


In other words, Steve, my good friend Nathan thinks you're a Nazi appeaser. He thinks I am, too, I guess:
Quote: "... the left just smears everybody who disagrees as liars and idiots. Thank God for all the 10%ers who thought kicking Hitler's a** was the right thing to do. "


I think the saddest part of this whole exchange is how somebody new to the forum (302 posts, most of them political) has managed to take my message of outrage regarding Limbaugh and turned it into personal attacks on those who disagree with him.

And Nathan - you tried to enlist but were turned down? Try again. Then again. If needed, ask for a waiver. Then try again. Your commitment is only as strong as your effort. When I enlisted I was 5'7", 135 lbs., had flat feet, was color blind, with 20/400 vision. Since that time I spent 10 years on active duty in the Navy, 12 years and counting in the Army Reserve (24 months of active duty since 9/11, with more likely coming), career civil service and - just because I like helping in my community - 10 years as a volunteer EMT-P.

Come on, Nathan. You can do it. If the Army won't take you, there are a lot of contractors driving trucks in Iraq. If you can't drive a truck, there are other opportunities. Prove your patriotism, don't just talk about it. WAR!!! WAR!!! WAR!!!

And please, please, please stop with the Nazi comparisons. I don't think you appreciate the irony.

R.

Oct 04, 2007 12:44:18
MudSnow

As I understand Vietnam, the Vietnamese received support from USSR. And fear of provoking the USSR and China is what kept us from bombing North Vietnam into submission. Without the supplies and support from it's superpower allies, the Vietcong would not have had a chance.

Iran is somewhat fulfilling the role that Russia and China played then, but to a much smaller extent, because they must be covert about it.

A bigger difference is that we were fighting the government and resources of the government of North Vietnam, as well as China and USSR.

We are in Iraq with the full cooperation and alliance of the current government, and we are not fighting soldiers, but gangs of genocidal criminals, who are going against the will and best interests of their own country.

Also Mike, regarding your earlier suggestion of a small precision operation rather than a full scale attack in Iraq, that is exactly how Vietnam started out. We originally sent a few supplies over for the South Vietnamese. Then we sent over a few hundred troops to do training. We were there more than 5 years before we had serious levels of troops committed.

Quote: "1961: Defense Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend instead a massive show of force by sending six divisions (200,000 men) to Vietnam. However, the President decides against sending any combat troops."


And on for three more years, we allowed the North to build strength and overrun the rural areas of South Vietnam. If we had taken McNamara's original suggestion, and overwhelmed the North from the outset, we may never have had to face major losses.

Oct 04, 2007 12:57:30
MudSnow

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "thinks you're a Nazi appeaser.
"


There you go referring to the majority in an insulting term again. Surely that isn't how you feel about them?

And here you have made an entire career out of the military. I already have a career, reducing oil dependence and saving the world from exhaust fumes.:P

Ten years on active duty in the Navy? Ever fire a gun at an enemy, or just did a lot of snorkeling and sightseeing?

Oct 04, 2007 12:58:21
JNickell

Nathan, I have to question your history a bit. I highly recommend this book if you are interested in the Viet Nam war.

http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Stanley-Karnow/dp/0140265473

Oct 04, 2007 13:05:38
wyatt

I have been keeping a modest score here, the Socialists are far and away the predominate voice, a few conservatives have spoken up, but the libertarian voice has been but a peep.

The interesting portion of this whole thread has been the demonstrative fact that the education system for the last 40/50 years has been an abysmal failure in teaching free market economics or the principals of the constitution. As we as a nation progress to the chaos and failure that is socialism, our economic national rivals throw off those bonds and move to the wealth producing free market system. An interesting irony. They learned from us, and we want to emulate their past.

Oct 04, 2007 13:14:06
MudSnow

Actually Wyatt, socialized health care has worked out pretty well for a lot of civilized nations.

While the constitution regarding limited government worked out great at the time, today we may need to exercise caution that we don't slip even further back in time, to the feudal ages, and a few rich people owned everything and most were peasants. That is something that could happen in a pure free market economy with no socialistic restraints.

Oct 04, 2007 13:19:23
Limey

Interesting comment, Wyatt.

I have often said that the parallels I see between what is happening, especially around here, and what was going on in England 40 years ago are frightening. Add to that a President who clearly doesn't understand that his spending, and spear shaking, at some point will have to be paid for, and we have the makings of a real mess.

It took 20 years, and nearly 20% unemployment in the U.K. to get out of their mess - I wonder what it will take here?

Oct 04, 2007 13:43:22
Steve64B

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
Steve, are those your own thoughts, or are you just paraphrasing Lindbergh?
"


Sorry I actually had to work, so I was away for a while!

Nathan,

From the Wikipedia pages on Lindbergh:

In Europe, during the pre-war period, Lindbergh traveled to Germany several times at the behest of the U.S. military, where he reported on German aviation and the Luftwaffe (air force).

Lindbergh went to Germany at the urgent request of the U.S. military attaché in Berlin, who was charged with learning everything possible about Germany's new warplanes. Thus Lindbergh traveled repeatedly to Germany, touring German aviation facilities, where the Luftwaffe chief tried to convince Lindbergh that the Luftwaffe was far more powerful than it actually was. Lindbergh used his prestige to gain far more knowledge of German warplanes than any American.

Lindbergh was suspected of being a Nazi sympathizer because of his numerous scientific expeditions to Nazi Germany, combined with a belief in eugenics. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt considered him a Nazi and banned him from rejoining the military. Lindbergh's subsequent combat missions as a civilian consultant restored his reputation after the public found out about them, but only to an extent. However, his Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, A. Scott Berg, contends that Lindbergh was not so much a supporter of the Nazi regime as someone so stubborn in his convictions and relatively inexperienced in political maneuvering that he easily allowed rivals to portray him as one.

Nice try at personal assassination though, that's the aforementioned - If you don't agree with me you must be the enemy - ploy.

My ideas are my own, my expression is my own.

Steve


Oct 04, 2007 13:44:50
Rod H.

What about the Moderates Wyatt? You made no mention of those of us who aren't Socialists or Conservatives, and we seem to usually be in the majority.

Oct 04, 2007 14:07:40
wyatt

Rod, there are no .."moderates"....sorry, only degrees of each. A stated position is a degree of something.

Oct 04, 2007 14:09:06
mcce

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
As I understand Vietnam, the Vietcong crossed the border to invade South Vietnam, and we kicked them back up on to their own side of the border in very little time, after we finally got around to making a commitment. When things went bad is when the military got overconfident, and crossed into the North, and went so far north that the Chinese got involved.
Iran is somewhat fulfilling the role that China played then, but to a much smaller extent, because they must be covert about it.
A bigger difference is that we were fighting the government and resources of North Vietnam, as well as China.
We are in Iraq with the full cooperation and alliance of the current government, and we are not fighting soldiers, but gangs of genocidal criminals, who are going against the will and best interests of their own country.
Also Mike, regarding your earlier suggestion of a small precision operation rather than a full scale attack in Iraq, that is exactly how Vietnam started out. We originally sent a few supplies over for the South Vietnamese. Then we sent over a few hundred troops to do training. We were there more than 5 years before we had serious levels of troops committed.

Quote:1961: Defense Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend instead a massive show of force by sending six divisions (200,000 men) to Vietnam. However, the President decides against sending any combat troops.
And on for three more years, we allowed the North to build strength and overrun the rural areas of South Vietnam. If we had taken McNamara's original suggestion, and overwhelmed the North from the outset, we may never have had to face major losses.
Edited 4 times. Last edit at 10/04/07 01:16PM by MudSnow.
"

Maybe, if we took Bob's advice... but those Bastards were Crazy-- Body Waves full of them... Remember the French in DBP.

Pacification is the Issue here... We couldn't and wouldn't do in Vietnam... the same goes for Iraq and Aphganistan-- the Germans were Masters of Pacification by utilizing their Methods-- We don't believe in those Methods and that is why we Fail, each and everytime.

I'm sorry, but Americans are not necessarily Ruthless people most of the Time to attain their Ends ;)

Cheers!
Mike

Oct 04, 2007 14:10:45
wyatt

I would also like to add,..I am impressed at this web site for not air brushing this topic away. Its quite admirable.

Oct 04, 2007 14:18:13
Rod H.

wyatt Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod, there are no .."moderates"....sorry, only degrees of each. A stated position is a degree of something.
"


I must be dense because what you say makes no sense to me. Could you explain this better?

Edit:

Do you mean that you are only counting those who have clearly stated belief in one of those three extreme views?

Oct 04, 2007 14:52:47
RSS

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
As I understand Vietnam, the Vietcong crossed the border to invade South Vietnam, and we kicked them back up on to their own side of the border in very little time, after we finally got around to making a commitment. When things went bad is when the military got overconfident, and crossed into the North, and went so far north that the Chinese got involved."


Oh, wow.... That's not even sorta right. Unbelievable. Folks, I think that's a wrap.




Oct 04, 2007 15:39:31
wyatt

Rod, do you drink you whiskey neat or add a bit of water?

Oct 04, 2007 15:43:09
MudSnow

Steve, I know that Lindbergh wasn't a Nazi supporter. But he was a very outspoken antiwar isolationist. And so were the majority of Americans.

What strikes me most about his letter is how close many of his antiwar arguments are to the ones being used today.

We know know that Lindbergh was terribly wrong about our ability to win that war. But he was right about the high cost. He and his peers of the time used the high cost of entering the war as justification to just stand back and let England fall, the same way many Americans today are advocating the US to just withdraw from Iraq and let the militants have the run of the place.

Another big disagreement I have with him is the "Not my problem" attitude that is responsible for nearly all the preventable genocide this century, from Timor and Cambodia to Asia and Africa.

Like I said before, the world is too small, and there is too much murder and rape and pillaging to have an isolationist attitude, when all it takes is "a few good men" to make a difference.

Oct 04, 2007 16:30:15
Rod H.

wyatt Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod, do you drink you whiskey neat or add a bit of water?
"


I don't whiskey so you will need to come up with a different analogy.

LOL, I don't *drink* whiskey is what I meant.

Oct 04, 2007 16:54:07
MudSnow

I drink stout, porter, and merlot. :)

Oct 04, 2007 16:57:23
Steve64B

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
Steve, I know that Lindbergh wasn't a Nazi supporter. But he was a very outspoken antiwar isolationist. And so were the majority of Americans.
What strikes me most about his letter is how close many of his antiwar arguments are to the ones being used today.
We know know that Lindbergh was terribly wrong about our ability to win that war. But he was right about the high cost. He and his peers of the time used the high cost of entering the war as justification to just stand back and let England fall, the same way many Americans today are advocating the US to just withdraw from Iraq and let the militants have the run of the place."


Nathan,

WWII and Iraq are apples and oranges, there is nothings that even remotely links the two.

There is not even a question that the rationals this Administration presented for invading Iraq were outright fabrications.

So our soldiers die for lies! If we as a nation are going to send our best men and women off to die, it should be for a higher cause. Iraq has never risen to that standard. I held my breath for the year my kid was there. He came home with a cut on his chin.... which if he had been looking the other way would have taken his head off.

The bill for this misadventure will come due soon in many different ways, none of which our military will be able to protect us from.

Steve





Oct 04, 2007 17:49:13
MudSnow

Well, we disagree about what was lies, what was honest mistakes, and what was PR, but regardless, every soldier who has volunteered has his own reasons, especially those who have enlisted in the past 2 years, and many in fact do feel that their purposes are noble.

Oct 04, 2007 18:11:10
Gerry

It's sad to see people so filled with hate

Oct 04, 2007 18:35:26
RSS

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "
Well, we disagree about what was lies, what was honest mistakes, and what was PR, but regardless, every soldier who has volunteered has his own reasons, especially those who have enlisted in the past 2 years, and many in fact do feel that their purposes are noble.
"


Nathan - You're the guy who thinks the Viet Cong invaded from North Viet Nam and then the Chinese got involved because the Americans advanced too close to China, remember? The issue isn't whether or not anybody agrees with you. The issue is how credible your beliefs are, considering your "knowledge" of history. Gerry's right: It's sad to see you so filled with hate. Truly sad.

R.

Oct 04, 2007 18:56:57
MudSnow

The North Vietnamese DID invade from North Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese success WAS in fact made possible by China, as well as USSR. Excuse me for not having been born then, so some of the details are kind of foggy.

May I remind that you are the one who didn't even have an accurate grasp of his original post? Not sure you should be lecturing on credibility. Or attitude.

Oct 04, 2007 19:22:14
RSS

As for the original purpose of my own thread here, I know quite well what it was. You should listen to the Limbaugh piece. I did, and I stand by the original post. That drug-addicted, lying, impotent little clown has done some pretty fancy tap-dancing to wiggle out of his own words - aided and abetted by his dead-ender supporters, of course ("Dittoes, Rush!! giggle, snort) - but the recording speaks for itself.

Limbaugh is a liar, a hypocrite, and a cowardly little chicken-hawk who doesn't hesitate to smear the troops who don't share his own certifiably neo-Nazi point of view.

Interesting parallel you're drawing, though. First Limbaugh tries to pretend he didn't say what he said. Then this:

Quote: "As I understand Vietnam, the Vietcong crossed the border to invade South Vietnam, and we kicked them back up on to their own side of the border in very little time, after we finally got around to making a commitment. When things went bad is when the military got overconfident, and crossed into the North, and went so far north that the Chinese got involved."
Not exactly, "supported by China and Russia...."

I wasn't born during the Korean War or WWII, my good friend, but I know about them. It's called "History". Important topic. People learn from it. Some people. Those who know any of it. You almost described the Korean War up there, except for that bit where the Viet Cong invaded from the North. I repeat: Oh, wow....

R.

Oct 04, 2007 19:22:54
slywelder

reading this stuff makes me wonder how many of us goes to church on sunday,we might be wasting our time

Oct 04, 2007 19:23:12
wyatt

Rod, OK, thats your position,you don't drink whiskey. If you did you would be a whiskey drinker. If you added a little...or a lot of water,you would still be a whiskey drinker.

Oct 04, 2007 19:28:50
RSS

Beer. Very, very cold beer. (Sorry, Limey.)


Oct 04, 2007 19:37:37
Rod H.

wyatt Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod, OK, thats your position,you don't drink whiskey. If you did you would be a whiskey drinker. If you added a little...or a lot of water,you would still be a whiskey drinker.
"


Ok, so I think I get it. I *am* a whiskey drinker by your definition if I understand you correctly because I have drank whiskey....just not recently and I don't keep it in the house. Tomorrow night if a friend invited me over and offered to make me a drink with whiskey I'd drink it if he didn't have any beer and I felt like a drink.

By your definition I'm also a Socialist because I believe that some state services along these lines are a good thing. I'm also a Libertarian because I've voted for them a couple times and I like their ideas becasue they are idealistic, though I think they wouldn't all work. I was registered as a Republican about 35 years ago, and voted accordingly for one election, and am fiscally conservative, so although I make no claims of being a conservative I may be one also.

Whiskey is about half water straight from the bottle.

Oct 04, 2007 19:39:01
Rod H.

Gerry Wrote:

Quote: "
It's sad to see people so filled with hate
"


Yes, and anger too Gerry.

Oct 04, 2007 19:41:16
RSS

This thread has been fun. The damn thing won't stand still, but it's been a hoot.

I can hardly wait for the "SCHIP Veto Override" thread coming October 18. :thumbup:

R.

Oct 04, 2007 19:41:50
Gerry

Rod H. Wrote:

Quote: "
Gerry Wrote:Quote:
It's sad to see people so filled with hate
Yes, and anger too Gerry.
"


The two seem to go hand in hand

Oct 04, 2007 20:07:02
wyatt

Rod, you are what your last preference was. When you vote you make an ideological choice,even if you hold your nose while pulling the lever. That's the point I am trying to make. That we are responsible for our actions. I claim to be a libertarian,and I voted as such in all the lesser elections,but for Prez I held my nose and voted for Bush. Not very Libertarian was I? That action did not make me a moderate. I chose what can be called "conservatisim". Remember,contrary to popular belief, you vote for the party not the man.

Oct 04, 2007 20:13:22
orgum


I am an American and Human, voting is a man-made discipline, which i consider private, and i share this planet with many other species---some i consider dangerous!

I try to avoid those!

Life goes on.

Cheers

Oct 04, 2007 20:21:52
RSS

wyatt Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod, you are what your last preference was. When you vote you make an ideological choice,even if you hold your nose while pulling the lever. That's the point I am trying to make. That we are responsible for our actions. I claim to be a libertarian,and I voted as such in all the lesser elections,but for Prez I held my nose and voted for Bush. Not very Libertarian was I? That action did not make me a moderate. I chose what can be called "conservatisim". Remember,contrary to popular belief, you vote for the party not the man.
"


Wyatt, your actions in the voting booth make you a hell of a lot smarter than those folks who persisted and voted for Ralph Nader. As far as I'm concerned that lot went in there and joined you in voting for Bush.

It's pretty obvious where I stand on things, I guess, and frankly I may have more in common with the Nader gang than with Gore's core crowd. But there comes a point where pragmatism and common sense have to prevail, no matter how distasteful. You showed what I believe: We should never give up our ideals, but when faced with only two choices - one of which is the complete antithesis to our own beliefs - those very ideals require us to make the best decision.

That was a long-winded way of saying, "Why waste a vote when it counts? Vote with your head." You did that. I disagree with your choice, obviously, but you chose wisely.

R.

Oct 04, 2007 20:40:18
autoist

I've quietly read this discourse & have, with a few exceptions, enjoyed it. However, I need to inject a few historical points before some fictional assertions take on an air of credibility they do not deserve.

But, first, an introduction to support my credentials: I'm a retired Army colonel with a Masters of Military Arts & Sciences degree in Military History (among other graduate & postgraduate degrees); was on the faculty of the US Army Command & General Staff College; am a past Profesor of Military History at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks; am a wounded veteran of the Vietnam Conflict; am a veteran of Desert Storm; am a recipient of Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Meritorious service Medal and other combat-related medals; am currently at FT Campbell training the 101st Airborne staff prior to their deployment to Afghanistan; receive briefings periodically on the situation in Afghanistan & Iraq (just finished reading the latest intelligence summary on Afghanistan) & have trained most division and higher-level staffs that have deployed into one of the 2 combat theaters since 2004. I know Vietnam & the current situation! Oh, in the 80's I taught a college-level history class on terrorism & the situation in the middle east/Arabian peninsula so I also understand the underpinnings of the current conflict.

Here we go:

1) To fully understand the Vietnam Conflict, one must fully understand what happened at the end of WWII with Ho Chi Minh, Chaing Kai Shek, the OSS, US/French/Britsh gov'ts, and Japanese attrocities in the area during WWII. One must also understand 4,000 years of Vietnamese history. (DUH! And to understand the current conflict, one must understand the history of that region from the time of Isaac & Ishmael before the birth of Jesus, the founder of Christianity, or Mohammed, the prophet of Allah, up to & including the division of land after WWII and everything that's happened since then. Bumper sticker statements & sound bites do not suffice for an understanding of the underpinnings of the current situation and those who pander to them only show their ignorance!)

2) South Vietnam was a relatively new entity at the time when we entered into the fray just as Iraq is -in its present form - a relatively new entity. And the similiarities between the 2 conflicts ends there! Someone stated that the "NVA invaded South Vietnam" - NO, they did not! Someone also stated that the "Viet Cong crossed the border to invade South Vietnam, and we kicked them back up on to their own side of the border in very little time" - NO, they did not! I suppose if Syke would allow me the bandwidth, I could write a PhD thesis on those subjects; however, the short story is:

The Viet Cong were, by and large, citizens of South Vietnam who supported a unified Vietnam with a totally different government than was there at the time. They did not invade from the north, they were already in the south! The NVA, the Army of North Vietnam, was the invited military arm of the North Vietnamese government that was supporting the Viet Cong in their attempt to overthrow the government of South Vietnam (against the wishes of the preponderance of South Vietnamese citizens). North Vietnam was supported in its goal by Russia and China and other regional countries in minor roles. The government of South Vietnam asked for assistance in securing their right to govern and remain a separate democratic society (although their definition of 'democracy' is different than ours - a position that is not unusual throughout the world; we in America seem to view democracy differently than anywhere else on this planet!). South Vietnam was supported primarily by the US, South Korea, Australia, Britain and other countries in minor roles.

Militarily, the Viet Cong & NVA were beaten in most every military action but our media didn't portray it that way. TET of '67/'68 is an example & even General Giap (of the NVA) stated in his book that the Viet Cong & NVA were losing militarily. Politically, the US lost its will to continue the fight because we did't have the stomach for a protracted conflict that our media convinced the US public did not directly affect us. (Hmmm, sounds chillingly familiar as I watch the major news outlets/read the traditional newspapers!)

3) Someone said "we are not fighting soldiers". What a foolish statement! True, they do not wear uniforms or march in line and column in perfect unison; they do not look like our image of soldiers; however, trust me, they ARE soldiers...& the sooner we can understand that they are soldiers of the new millenium, the better off we'll be. If we didn't learn the lesson of the Holocaust, Bataan Death March or any of the numerous atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII, they'll come back to haunt us before we know it! As the poet and philosopher George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". (Think: Viet Cong. No uniforms, little formal military training, hit & run tactics, some atrocities - sounds a lot like todays 'criminals' who we're fighting)

4) Rick Stevens 14 points of Facism describe perfectly the enemy we are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq (& indirectly, Iran). The enemy (though externally looking like several disjointed bands of 'criminals'), by his description, are "Islamo-fascists" - and the sooner the people of the world understand that, the sooner that threat can be countered. Drawing parallels to Hitler is valid; & we, as a nation, are on the cusp of a potentially larger and more harsh war than we've ever faced in our nation's or the world's history - & a much more protracted one!

In a bunker in Khe Sahn after the seige (I was there as were many of you), a statement written by an unknown US Marine during that terrible battle was found etched on the walls. It stated simply: "For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know." That doesn't mean citizens who have never served do not have a voice; but it does mean those who have served - & fought - understand better than others the awful cost & the wonderful taste of the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

I'm not going to enter the political fray - we each have our own opinions. I'm going to simply repeat a toast given by Stephen Decatur, a US Navy Commander at Norfolk, VA in April 1816: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

Please stop berating my country! In doing so during a time of conflict one gives support & strength to our enemy. I don't mean to limit discussion, but I do want Americans to stop hating and berating America & to focus on the positive attributes of the discussion. Discuss, argue, present options all you want & I'll stand up for your right to do so...but DO NOT denigrate America! (Oh, the definition of denigrate: to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame)

Oh, if I edit this its because, as I reread it, I find things I want to add or more clearly enunciate - or I find something misspelled.

Oct 04, 2007 22:20:33
MudSnow

autoist Wrote:

Quote: "Someone said "we are not fighting soldiers". What a foolish statement! True, they do not wear uniforms or march in line and column in perfect unison; they do not look like our image of soldiers; however, trust me, they ARE soldiers..
"


Regardless of uniforms or formations, by definition, soldiers are members of the military of a country. So I stand by my assertion that we are not fighting soldiers. Not only are they not sponsored by the military of Iraq, but they are the enemies of the military of Iraq and of the citizens of Iraq, and not officially sponsored by any country, let alone the one in which they claim citizenship. Not only that, but most of their assaults are not against military targets. They murder civilians, they commit crimes of racism, they kidnap, extort, and commit random acts of violence.

They do not merely look like disjointed bands of criminals, but in the case of al Sadr's former followers, they are disjointed bands, who splinter and reform with the changing of the wind, taking no orders that they don't agree with.

Call them what you wish, but they aren't soldiers. They certainly are fascists, and a host of other anti-social ailments.

Oct 04, 2007 23:43:08
autoist

I'm not going to argue with you - I've faced them in combat and know better.

I will give you that, by the definition of a soldier under the Geneva Convention they don't, conform; but, I am going to say that hanging onto the narrow definitions of the past will cause greater consequences in the future. I don't believe we should grant them the protection of the Geneva Convention but I do believe they are soldiers, albeit despicable ones in their conduct.

Just as we had to relearn everything we knew about war in Vietnam, we're having to do so once again. I remember when people said (paraphrased) "the Viet Cong aren't soldiers and aren't sponsored by the military of South Vietnam, but they are the enemies of the military of South Vietnam and of the citizens of South Vietnam, and not officially sponsored by any country, let alone the one in which they claim citizenship." The Viet Cong believed, as do the modern-day combatants we're facing on the battlefield today, that - if you couldn't willingly get the populance to support and fight with you - you terrorized them into submission through acts of " murdering civilians, crimes of racism, kidnapping, extortion, and committing random acts of violence."

As we move into an era where we must not only redefine 'soldier', we're also moving into an era where we must redefine 'army'. The days of solely fighting an army that is the ultimate extension of a government's politics are gone; we're now in an era where we must also be prepared to fight an 'army' of 'soldiers' who are fighting for an ideology regardless of boundaries and official sanctions.

This is a discussion worth having. Right now, our officials call them 'enemy combatants' or just 'combatants' so as not to give them the status of 'soldier'. But, you know, the old adage "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." is gonna reach up and bite us pretty soon. While we're yelling to the top of our lungs, "FOUL!! They're not soldiers! They're commiting atrocities!" they're chuckling all the way to the international press.

Look at the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army during WWII, an army sanctioned by the Japanese government. Those acts were much worse than the things we're seeing today, and in larger numbers! Why did Japanese Army terrorists receive sanctioning as an 'army' of 'soldiers' and these 'combatants' don't?

As for "but in the case of al Sadr's former followers, they are disjointed bands, who splinter and reform with the changing of the wind, taking no orders that they don't agree with", that's not entirely true either. Their splintering and reforming has nothing to do with with whom they agree or disagree. It has to do with their survival and the survival of their ideological goal. They move to where their support exists, reforming as necessary to survive but their mantra never changes; their ultimate goal never waivers.

They're sorta like the Hydra of Greek mythology. Just like the Hydra, if you cut off one of her heads, another forms to take its place. And just as Heracles learned (when you cut off one of the heads you have to scorch the neck stumps after decapitation so the head cannot regrow), we also have to learn and accept new definitions and tactics.

Again, edits to clarify.


Oct 05, 2007 00:28:24
MudSnow

Well, the whole point of what I was trying to say is that they aren't representative of their own government, and don't have the financial or logistical support of their own government.

So, since you think I am such a fool for saying they aren't soldiers, I guess I will have to rephrase my original statement to say "we are not fighting armed military employees who are representatives of the state of Iraq who were formerly known as soldiers but I can't refer to them as soldiers anymore because someone thinks I am a fool because of it".

My point stands. They do not represent the government of Iraq. They are not supplied and funded by Iraq. They are lawless subversives with poorly organized and unstable backing.

That is all I was trying to say.

If you see some guy walking around the streets of the Bronx with a gun, I hope you aren't going to try to convince me to call him a cop.

Oct 05, 2007 01:19:13
autoist

Quote: "They do not represent the government of Iraq. They are not supplied and funded by Iraq. They are lawless subversives. "

So, using your thought process, soldiers of the Confederacy weren't really 'soldiers' but were 'lawless subversives' since they didn't represent the government of the United States and weren't supplied or funded by the US but were, instead, funded by an unauhorized and illegal organization run by a terrorist named Jefferson Davis.

Extending that and using the "apples & oranges" thought process you apply to the armed criminal stalking the streets of the Bronx, since Confederates weren't solders of the United States they must've been 'lawless subversives' stalking the roads of Gettysburg.

My opinion (& history's) is that the Confederates were 'soldiers' of what they thought was their country even though the US didn't recognize their country - just as the 'combatants' in Iraq are 'soldiers' of what they think is their country, not what we recognize as their country.

As an astute student of history, I'm sure you're well aware that the Iraqi's didn't form the country we recognize today as Iraq. In 1926, the British formed the boundaries of what is modern-day Iraq and, in 1932, granted them their independence and established the Hashemite monarchy who, in 1958, the Iraqi Army overthrew and which government Saddam ultimately claimed in 1968 after he overthrew those in power.

Those 'soldiers' you call 'lawless subversives' never recognized England's authority to redefine their historical groupings based on religious and tribal demographics, overthrew the monarchy, overthrew the government that overthrew the monarchy (roughly 5 different governments in the 10 years after the monarchy and before Saddam) and are only now - after Saddam's ouster - stepping forward to continue a process that's gone on for centuries!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not validating anything the scum in that area are doing. I'm just pointing out that, from their position, they're in the right just as, from their perspective, the Confederates were in the right.

Again, edited for clarification and spelling.

Oct 05, 2007 02:43:51
MudSnow

If you want to call black purple, go right ahead. That still doesn't change my point that the people we are fighting right now do not have the logistical support or representation of the Iraqi government, whereas in Vietnam we were fighting an enemy with the full and open backing of two major superpowers.

The reason we give words meanings is so that people know what we are talking about when we use those words.

Edited to hide my aggravation at having my meaning distorted.

Oct 05, 2007 03:36:00
autoist

So, since the Viet Cong had the backing of superpowers around the globe, that 'army' was legitimate even though it didn't represent the government in power that it was trying to overthrow?

I'm not certain I would call what Russia & China did for the Viet Cong "full and open backing" - nor would I call them superpowers though Russia was more of a superpower then than now and vice versa with China - but I would agree the US and Russia both used the 2 Vietnam's in a proxy war whose strategic objective was a part of our Cold War goals. And it was all done under the guise of supporting South Vietnam in its fight to maintain its independence from North Vietnam when, ultimately, Ho Chi Minh never recognized the authority of South Vietnam's government anyway; and, in his mind, he was just reclaiming something that was already his much like Saddam's philosophy when he invaded Kuwait.

And there is no "North Iraq" or "North Afghanistan" involved in the present equation that we can pronounce as the enemy of the people of the friendly nations of Iraq and Afghanistan that have asked us for help. There are only the 'people' fighting to govern Iraq and Afghanistan as they see fit based on their historical perceptions derived from centuries of religious and tribal cultures with the backing of major international terrorist organizations and with the quasi-open backing of quasi-influential countries around the globe each with their own agendas. We may even be embarking on another proxy war using Iraq and Afghanistan as the battlegrounds.

Unfortunately, the scum terrorist organizations backing the 'people' we're fighting in those two theaters are developing credibility around the world - from other terrorist organizations (such as that damned United Nations) and from some recognized countries, both openly and in the background. Then, factor in the poppy trade from Afghanistan that represents 90% of international opium production in the world and you can include organized crime as one of the 'terrorist' organizations involved! And the huge oil deposits in the area cause alarm that, should the wrong entity gain control, international economic paradigms could be set on their heads. And because of all of those, the lines between 'countries' and 'terrorist organizations' are becoming blurred.

Historically, one country always went to war with another country or one king always went to war with another - both combatants being recognized by other countries/kings that supported one or the other. Nowadays, we've gone to war with an ideology that's totally separate from a country, something that we've not done before. Yes, we went to war with Communism but we named it the Viet Cong and its master, North Vietnam, and called ourselves supporting South Vietnam's fight against the Viet Cong's desire to overthrow the 'democratic' government in the south and reunite the 2 countries.

Fighting a philosophies without boundaries instead of a physical entity is cause for seriously rethinking how we go about this 'business' of war. And discussions such as this between peoples with differing (yet amazingly close) positions done is a positive and academic vein without rancor or name calling help us to come to a mutually supportable position from which we can draw the strength needed to further the common cause. Unlike in the Vietnam era or the Cold War as a whole, the 'Islamo-facist' enemy with which we're presently engaged in combat has as its ultimate goal the complete and total destruction of our Nation and way of life.

Again, edited for the usual reasons.

Oct 05, 2007 04:23:06
MudSnow

Because the Iraqi insurgents do not have two major industrialized nations publicly shipping weapons and supplies to them, do you think that should make them easier to defeat than the Vietnamese were?

Oct 05, 2007 05:26:36
orgum

I think we -[Americans], have a tendency to look at things subjectively, rather then objectivly! In war there is always an opposing force, and it really does not matter what they wear or how they get there weapons. If you have ever been shot at, it does not matter whether you are in a war-zone or not!

In the name of God, whose side is God on? Both perhaps! Both sides believe it.

Terrorism was not confined to Muslims, or the mid-east least we forget O.K. city bombings and Waco, Tx. and others, the list would go on and on! It most certainly is terrible, but has been around a long time. Was Pearl Harbor a terrorists attack?

A country or civilization falls from within, history proves that, and that is the real danger.

The polarization that exist currently is dangerous, it says that this country is far from united!

I could go on and talk about the changes in the Bill of rights during the current political atmosphere or special interest, with relations to Iraq and many others, but part of the political process requires listening and checking, its all there for the individual who wants to see reality.

Most of the time, people that want war---have never seen it or been a part of it!

I am not outraged, but disappointed, in that this nation has evolved in such a manner.

It is the thoughts and ideas that are dangerous, I know of no weapons that can kill a thought or idea!

Cheers


Da-Nang-Dong-Ha-R.V.N.-69-70

Oct 05, 2007 05:39:17
wyatt

Hey Tony, regarding your posted bona fidies....BIG DEAL....I slept in a Holiday Inn last nite.

Oct 05, 2007 06:18:56
Limey

Tony - you are missing another important conflict that supports your point regarding a legitimate soldier - the American War of Independence!

Unless I got my history very wrong - the early (and many later) "soldiers" on the American side in that conflict did not wear uniforms. They also indulged in what would now be described as "Guerrilla" warfare tactics. Furthermore, they did not have the support of the current government of the country - and it was a number of years before the "Government" of the United States was recognised as a legitimate entity.

Oct 05, 2007 06:20:21
cartoy

Autoist,
Since you have all of this experience and knowledge how do we REALLY win this war? And in no way am I making light of your experience/knowledge. Nor am I attacking you in any way. I'm really hoping you can point out how we can come out of this mess with a "win" and our troops safe at home. How do we defeat these "soldiers", how do we win the war on terrorism? If you had the control, what would you do.
Thanks!!
Cartoy

Oct 05, 2007 06:58:33
wyatt

Limey, they were colonelists of colonies not a country per se.Also considered somewhat 2nd class citizens of the Crown. They wore clothing generaly accepted as proper attire for the region. Their Tactics were sanctioned and encouraged by the British in the French and Indian war. They did have the support of the Gov't, their Gov't as declared by the Declaration of Independance. Presidence's set forth in the mother country's own history. The recognition you speak of is selective, many nations accepted the right almost immediatly.

Oct 05, 2007 07:19:51
autoist

Quote: "I slept in a Holiday Inn last nite"

That's okay, Wyatt. I've been sleeping in one since September 24th & don't leave until October 13th.

Quote: "the early (and many later) "soldiers" on the American side in that conflict did not wear uniforms. They also indulged in what would now be described as "Guerrilla" warfare tactics. Furthermore, they did not have the support of the current government of the country - and it was a number of years before the "Government" of the United States was recognised as a legitimate entity. "

Eric - exactly. To the majority of the world at that time, the American military were fighting outside the bounds of accepted methods for conducting warfare (though we had shown that was the way to fight on this new continent, learning quickly from our Native American brothers!). And we don't yet know how history will view either of the proponents in this conflict, us or them.

Quote: "Because the Iraqi insurgents do not have two major industrialized nations publicly shipping weapons and supplies to them, do you think that should make them easier to defeat than the Vietnamese were?"

Nathan, my personal opinion for what its worth: they're going to be harder to beat - funding and logistical supply (weapons, etc) are important but what they have going for them that the Vietnamese didn't is exactly the one thing about which you & I are in complete agreement: Islamo-facisism

Quote: "How do we defeat these "soldiers", how do we win the war on terrorism?"

Steve - one of the most important things President Bush said shortly after 9/11 is probably the most important thing he has said; to paraphrase him: we're in this for the long haul. I don't agree with lots of things he's said or done but that's one thing we need to take to heart, this isn't a 100-hour war like Desert Storm. This thing has been festering for longer than America has been America and its going to take some time to sort it out.

The primary thing we as a Nation have to do is to either decide to win or decide to get off the battlefield. If we decide to win, we've got to show a unified front to the world, no internal bickering, no potential for propaganda that can be used by the enemy to bolster their position in the world and with their recruits. We have too many "Tokyo Rose's" and "Jane Fonda's" whose words and actions lend credance to the enemy and bolster their position within their world. I hate to say it (and don't want to delve into politics but this point is inseparable from the war on terror) but they know which political party they want in power in America because they know which one will acquiesce to their point of view - and they're willing to wait until they can get an American president with whom they can 'work'. Time doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to us. And we have to take one point to heart: the terms and demands of the Islamo-facist are not negotiable!

Until they actually believe America means what it says, we've not got a chance of winning this thing; so long as we're disjointed and they think they have support within our borders, they'll go on with their unholy war. And, we think differently than they do. To win, we've got to change our mindset. We've got to accept that this is a philosophical war that won't be won in the short term; and we've got to decide how America will act on the battlefield. What we see as strengths of character they see and exploit as weaknesses. The only thing they understand is action.

We also have to accept that this is a religious war. Not all Muslims are fanatics just as not all Christians or Jews or whatever are; however, most of those who are creating problems in Afghanistan and Iraq are Muslim fanatics. And, we need to understand their interpretation of the Koran. Just as the Bible or the Torah can be interpreted differently by different people, so can the Koran. I don't know if there's any solution for that and therein may lay our greatest challenge.

Militarily, given the opportunity America and our allies can win the war just as we were winning in Vietnam. However, constrictions put on the military by politicians and a media that is slanted against the war can cause problems no amount of military power or expertise can overcome. Calusewitz, the preeminent theorist of modern war, believed that war is a continuation of a country's politics by other means.

If we believe that, how can we usefully mobilize force against an enemy who is not a state and who does not practice politics in any recognizable form? How can our military power be used to alter the policies of an opponent whose demands are not negotiable in political terms? Those are the 2 questions we have to answer - and we must answer them quickly and then stand as one voice against the enemy, admonishing him that we have set our faces against him and will not waiver no matter the amount of force he puts before us.

All my own personal opinions. I don't purport to have the answers. If I did, I'd be somewhere else other than FT Campbell in a Holiday Inn. I do try to read with an open mind, think about what I read, evaluate the situation as it evolves, and do what I can to support the course upon which we've set ourselves.

Edited for the usual reasons

Oct 05, 2007 07:20:22
Rod H.

wyatt Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod, you are what your last preference was. When you vote you make an ideological choice,even if you hold your nose while pulling the lever. That's the point I am trying to make. That we are responsible for our actions. I claim to be a libertarian,and I voted as such in all the lesser elections,but for Prez I held my nose and voted for Bush. Not very Libertarian was I? That action did not make me a moderate. I chose what can be called "conservatisim". Remember,contrary to popular belief, you vote for the party not the man.
"


One of my best friends has been a Republican all his life, and voted accordingly with one exception. After Watergate, and a few other life events, he voted for Carter. I doubt he would be amused if I told him that at that time he was a Socialist.

I understand your poll now, and like all polls we can take it for what it's worth and interpret the results as we see fit. Thanks for explaining.

Oct 05, 2007 07:34:47
Limey

autoist Wrote:

Quote: "...We also have to accept that this is a religious war. Not all Muslims are fanatics just as not all Christians or Jews or whatever are; however, most of those who are creating problems in Afghanistan and Iraq are Muslim fanatics. And, we need to understand their interpretation of the Koran... "


Well said Tony! We also have to recognize that the fanatics (on both sides) are in the minority! We cannot wage war on Islam because of a few fanatics, but that is what they feel we are doing! IF we spend some time trying to understand what Islam really is, and stop the rhetoric that paints all Muslims as fanatics, we will make a start towards success. However, I also believe we NEED to have input from all the interested parties as to what, and how, the government of the area should be, rather than simply trying to force what we think it should be.

Again, the politics of the region, which have been festering for years MUST be taken into account. If we succeed in enforcing the Iraq as we have made it now - the Iranians will be ticked off. If we do it the way they want it, the Saudis won't like it. Yes it is a mess. Unfortunately, one we have managed to stir up very thoroughly - it is now our RESPONSIBILITY to sort it out, and sort it out justly and fairly!

Oct 05, 2007 07:44:58
wyatt

OK Rod,I hope I made some sense. As far as Carter is concerned, I'll go a step farther. Carter was a protoge' of FDR, he agreed with and implemented similar big Gov't policies (dept of Ed) comes to mind. FDR was a proponent of and installed many outright socialist reforms. Socialism had come in vogue by his election,brought about a stumbling economy,and the German/ Russian/European school of economics that had been on the rise since the 1890's. In stark contrast to the Austrian VonMises/Hayek theorys of free markets of the same period. Desperate people ( the citizens) are susceptable to desperate ideas.

Ignorance of an agenda is of little excuse for having voted for it.

Oct 05, 2007 08:05:35
Naomi

Whoops --wrong post for me ---Bye :)

Oct 05, 2007 09:01:03
mcce

autoist Wrote:

Quote: "
I've quietly read this discourse & have, with a few exceptions, enjoyed it. However, I need to inject a few historical points before some fictional assertions take on an air of credibility they do not deserve.
But, first, an introduction to support my credentials: I'm a retired Army colonel with a Masters of Military Arts & Sciences degree in Military History (among other graduate & postgraduate degrees); was on the faculty of the US Army Command & General Staff College; am a past Profesor of Military History at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks; am a wounded veteran of the Vietnam Conflict; am a veteran of Desert Storm; am a recipient of Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Meritorious service Medal and other combat-related medals; am currently at FT Campbell training the 101st Airborne staff prior to their deployment to Afghanistan; receive briefings periodically on the situation in Afghanistan & Iraq (just finished reading the latest intelligence summary on Afghanistan) & have trained most division and higher-level staffs that have deployed into one of the 2 combat theaters since 2004. I know Vietnam & the current situation! Oh, in the 80's I taught a college-level history class on terrorism & the situation in the middle east/Arabian peninsula so I also understand the underpinnings of the current conflict.
Here we go:
1) To fully understand the Vietnam Conflict, one must fully understand what happened at the end of WWII with Ho Chi Minh, Chaing Kai Shek, the OSS, US/French/Britsh gov'ts, and Japanese attrocities in the area during WWII. One must also understand 4,000 years of Vietnamese history. (DUH! And to understand the current conflict, one must understand the history of that region from the time of Isaac & Ishmael before the birth of Jesus, the founder of Christianity, or Mohammed, the prophet of Allah, up to & including the division of land after WWII and everything that's happened since then. Bumper sticker statements & sound bites do not suffice for an understanding of the underpinnings of the current situation and those who pander to them only show their ignorance!)
2) South Vietnam was a relatively new entity at the time when we entered into the fray just as Iraq is -in its present form - a relatively new entity. And the similiarities between the 2 conflicts ends there! Someone stated that the "NVA invaded South Vietnam" - NO, they did not! Someone also stated that the "Viet Cong crossed the border to invade South Vietnam, and we kicked them back up on to their own side of the border in very little time" - NO, they did not! I suppose if Syke would allow me the bandwidth, I could write a PhD thesis on those subjects; however, the short story is:
The Viet Cong were, by and large, citizens of South Vietnam who supported a unified Vietnam with a totally different government than was there at the time. They did not invade from the north, they were already in the south! The NVA, the Army of North Vietnam, was the invited military arm of the North Vietnamese government that was supporting the Viet Cong in their attempt to overthrow the government of South Vietnam (against the wishes of the preponderance of South Vietnamese citizens). North Vietnam was supported in its goal by Russia and China and other regional countries in minor roles. The government of South Vietnam asked for assistance in securing their right to govern and remain a separate democratic society (although their definition of 'democracy' is different than ours - a position that is not unusual throughout the world; we in America seem to view democracy differently than anywhere else on this planet!). South Vietnam was supported primarily by the US, South Korea, Australia, Britain and other countries in minor roles.
Militarily, the Viet Cong & NVA were beaten in most every military action but our media didn't portray it that way. TET of '67/'68 is an example & even General Giap (of the NVA) stated in his book that the Viet Cong & NVA were losing militarily. Politically, the US lost its will to continue the fight because we did't have the stomach for a protracted conflict that our media convinced the US public did not directly affect us. (Hmmm, sounds chillingly familiar as I watch the major news outlets/read the traditional newspapers!)
3) Someone said "we are not fighting soldiers". What a foolish statement! True, they do not wear uniforms or march in line and column in perfect unison; they do not look like our image of soldiers; however, trust me, they ARE soldiers...& the sooner we can understand that they are soldiers of the new millenium, the better off we'll be. If we didn't learn the lesson of the Holocaust, Bataan Death March or any of the numerous atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII, they'll come back to haunt us before we know it! As the poet and philosopher George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". (Think: Viet Cong. No uniforms, little formal military training, hit & run tactics, some atrocities - sounds a lot like todays 'criminals' who we're fighting)
4) Rick Stevens 14 points of Facism describe perfectly the enemy we are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq (& indirectly, Iran). The enemy (though externally looking like several disjointed bands of 'criminals'), by his description, are "Islamo-fascists" - and the sooner the people of the world understand that, the sooner that threat can be countered. Drawing parallels to Hitler is valid; & we, as a nation, are on the cusp of a potentially larger and more harsh war than we've ever faced in our nation's or the world's history - & a much more protracted one!
In a bunker in Khe Sahn after the seige (I was there as were many of you), a statement written by an unknown US Marine during that terrible battle was found etched on the walls. It stated simply: "For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know." That doesn't mean citizens who have never served do not have a voice; but it does mean those who have served - & fought - understand better than others the awful cost & the wonderful taste of the freedoms we enjoy in this country.
[snip]
"

Colonel,

Did you ever run into a Fella by the name of Edward Lansdale while Romancing the Stone in Vietnam?

Most people don't know that Uncle Ho used to work with Us during WWII. The Japanese were Ruthless occupiers of Vietnam-- absolutely, Ruthless!

Colonel, I have a few Questions for you since you are an Authority on the Subject of Vietnam:

o Did we in fact drop cases of Budweiser on the Ho Chi Ming Trail?
o Did we in fact Win every major Battle in Vietnam?
o Besides TET in 68, wasn't Downtown Saigon a Safe place to walk the Streets?
o Was it a mistake for President Kennedy to Look the Other Way during the assassination of President Diem?
o Would we have been more Effective if more 'Colonel Kurtz' methods were employed in the theater? ;)
o Hearts & Minds: Were these lost because we could not Guarantee them Safety in the Rural areas of Vietnam via Pacification Programs?

Anymore insights would be welcomed.

Thanks in Advance,
Mike


Oct 05, 2007 10:29:10
JNickell

Thanks for jumping in Tony. Your insights are appreciated. I agree that the 14 points of Fascism which Rick posted above accurately describes the Islamist-terrorist set, but I don't think that was the comparison Rick was making, or was it Rick?

Oct 05, 2007 10:36:46
autoist

Mike - Love your questions with their hidden meanings....here ya go, cannon fodder for further discussion:

Quote: "Did you ever run into a Fella by the name of Edward Lansdale while Romancing the Stone in Vietnam? "

Do you mean Air Force General Lansdale? He was a little above my pay grade & was retired by the time I was in Vietnam, I think. But he did write a pretty good book.

Quote: "Did we in fact drop cases of Budweiser on the Ho Chi Ming Trail? "

Don't know about the Ho Chi Minh trail but every time a resupply heliocopter arrived at one of the many fire bases where I was located, they usually had a sling full of Jaxx or some other gosh awful brand of beer for us to drink. Yep! We were provided free beer and nobody checked our ID's to see if we were old enough to drink it! Heck, the 'Nam is where I learned to drink hot beer (goes well with my MG's!). But, if you read The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam you might get a straight answer to your question...hehehe

Quote: "Did we in fact Win every major Battle in Vietnam?"

Of course not! If you reread what I said in my simple outline that you quoted, you'll see I referenced "most major actions" - actions being the operative word. But, 'every battle'? No way.

Quote: "Besides TET in 68, wasn't Downtown Saigon a Safe place to walk the Streets?"

Don't know since I never made it to Saigon except for the first day when I arrived in country. And then, they transported us from the airfield to our holding compound in buses with wire mesh over the windows. All my time in Vietnam was spent in the mountains of the I Corps region of the country. Guess I just wasn't lucky enough to enjoy Saigon's B girls!

Quote: "Was it a mistake for President Kennedy to Look the Other Way during the assassination of President Diem?"

Ah, the 20/20 of hindsight. To me, a simple man, it looks like we "didn't dance with who brought us to the dance" when we failed to tell him about the attempt we knew was going to happen; but, who knows what would've happened had we shared that information. Was it Madame Nhu who said, "Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies." And wasn't General Lansdale an advisor to President Diem?

As an aside, didn't Madame Nhu look good in those sexy jumpsuits? Was she the more corrupt of her husband and President Diem? Or was the entire family just plain crooked? And was his crooked rule singularly responsible for the establishment of the NLF and the ensueing conflict?

Quote: "Would we have been more Effect if more 'Colonel Kurtz' methods were employed in the theater?"

hehehe...Colonel Kurtz of Apocalypse Now fame....what was the famous line from that movie? "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"....hehehe

Quote: "Hearts & Minds: Were these lost because we could not Guarantee them Safety in the Rural areas of Vietnam via Pacification Programs?"

Even with its negative connotations, President Johnson's program (though not new to him or Vietnam) should be one of the lessons we learned from Vietnam. Success in countries where our military might have to operate depends on exactly that. However, I'm wondering if you're referring tongue-in-cheek to Hearts and Minds another movie of the Apocalypse Now genre with - IMHO - double entendres about the success and failures of military propaganda.

Now, exactly when was it, again, that you said you served in Vietnam?

Again, edited....etc, etc, etc

Oct 05, 2007 10:41:35
Englishcarlover

Robert is right. Americans are there own enemy. Bob Dylan's "With God on our side" is so true. If God does not take sides, why should I?


Peace, Kyle

Oct 05, 2007 11:27:38
MudSnow

Limey Wrote:

Quote: "
We cannot wage war on Islam because of a few fanatics, but that is what they feel we are doing!
"


We aren't waging war on Islam. We are remaining there to prevent the citizens of the nation of Iraq from being shot at and blown up. And if we make an immediate withdrawal, then we will not be able to protect the civilians of Iraq from being killed and maimed.

With all the rhetoric about how many civilians have died, the question is that if civilians dying is a bad thing, how many more will get killed if we leave?

Oct 05, 2007 11:46:00
Limey

MudSnow Wrote:

Quote: "We are remaining there to prevent the citizens of the nation of Iraq from being shot at and blown up. And if we make an immediate withdrawal, then we will not be able to protect the civilians of Iraq from being killed and maimed.
With all the rhetoric about how many civilians have died, the question is that if civilians dying is a bad thing, how many more will get killed if we leave?
"


The problem is, we are not doing a very good job at protecting them from being killed and maimed. So they point the finger at us for starting it all (which we did). If we pull out, and the killing continues, at least they will know it is not us who are killing them.

I DO NOT think this is the best way of doing it, but somehow, we need to convince them we do not hate them. At the moment, I think, they have every reason to believe otherwise. (Why did we attack them?)

Oct 05, 2007 12:21:23
mcce

autoist Wrote:

Quote: "
Mike - Love your questions with their hidden meanings....here ya go, cannon fodder for further discussion:

[quote]
Quote:Did you ever run into a Fella by the name of Edward Lansdale while Romancing the Stone in Vietnam?
Do you mean Air Force General Lansdale? He was a little above my pay grade & was retired by the time I was in Vietnam, I think. But he did write a pretty good book.
"

Yep... that's the Guy-- the Architect of Vietnam-- Brilliant in overthrowing Govts since WWII ;) Also, may have been a Dirty Player on November 22, 1963.

Quote: "Did we in fact drop cases of Budweiser on the Ho Chi Ming Trail?
Don't know about the Ho Chi Minh trail but every time a resupply heliocopter arrived at one of the many fire bases where I was located, they usually had a sling full of Jaxx or some other gosh awful brand of beer for us to drink. Yep! We were provided free beer and nobody checked our ID's to see if we were old enough to drink it! Heck, the 'Nam is where I learned to drink hot beer (goes well with my MG's!). But, if you read The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam you might get a straight answer to your question...hehehe"

The Answer --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/347360.stm

Quote: ":Was it a mistake for President Kennedy to Look the Other Way during the assassination of President Diem?
Ah, the 20/20 of hindsight. To me, a simple man, it looks like we "didn't dance with who brought us to the dance" when we failed to tell him about the attempt we knew was going to happen; but, who knows what would've happened had we shared that information. Was it Madame Nhu who said, "Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies." And wasn't General Lansdale an advisor to President Diem?
As an aside, didn't Madame Nhu look good in those sexy jumpsuits? Was she the more corrupt of her husband and President Diem? Or was the entire family just plain crooked? And was his crooked rule singularly responsible for the establishment of the NLF and the ensueing conflict?"

Don't forget his Brother... master of Torture.

Quote: ":Would we have been more Effect if more 'Colonel Kurtz' methods were employed in the theater?
hehehe...Colonel Kurtz of Apocalypse Now fame....what was the famous line from that movie? "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"....hehehe"

Actually, that was Colonel Kilgores famous words ;)

Would you agree with Colonel Kurtz's words to Win Vietnam?

Quote: "I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me.

It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies.

I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see.

We went back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought: My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that.

Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that.

If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion... without judgement... without judgement. Because it's judgement that defeats us. "
"

Remember the Necklaces of Ears?


Quote: "
Now, exactly when was it, again, that you said you served in Vietnam?
"

Never Served... I was born a few days before the Thirteen Days of Hell-- the Cuban Missle Crisis ;) I am a History buff of WWII & Vietnam and recent Presidents is all.

autoist Wrote:
Quote: "

All my own personal opinions. I don't purport to have the answers. If I did, I'd be somewhere else other than FT Campbell in a Holiday Inn. I do try to read with an open mind, think about what I read, evaluate the situation as it evolves, and do what I can to support the course upon which we've set ourselves.
Edited for the usual reasons
"

Colonel, would you be Interested in My Solutions regarding these Missions?

Cheers!
Mike

PS: Have you ever watch "Boys in Company C"? Hhehehehhehehheheheee

Oct 05, 2007 17:55:58
autoist

Mike - I hope you do lots more research than the BBC & Apocalypse Now - which I'm certain you do.

Quote: "Crates of Budweiser beer were also parachuted down - a strategy of incapacitation though inebriation. "

I consider BBC of the same caliber as CNN (my personal opinion) so I take everything they put out with a grain of salt. I was intrigued by your comment and, since our last post, have done some research and found that there was a hairbrained scheme cooked up in McNamarra's office to do so but I can't find where it ever happened. I found a copy of The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam in the library on post. The author, Tom Wells, confirms it was discussed at the highest levels but says it never occurred.

But, having said that, its another example of what happens when the military abdicates its responsibilties and allows civilians to run the war.

About Apocalypse Now and other fictional movies...I don't put any credance in them & only go to them for the entertainment factor. We Were Soldiers Once...and Young on the other hand is a pretty good depictation of what actually happened in a real situation & there are lessons to be learned from it & it's worthy of discussion. Apocalypse was, IMHO, Francis Ford Coppolo's anti-war statement as well as a statement about the darker side of man. He injected enough truth to fool the amateur historian who doesn't do as you and dig deeper. He used a real unit in the Army that never went to Vietnam; he built a fictional commander & used actual heliocopter tactics on a fictional river...and those quotes? They probably sounded prophetic when the Hollywood writers made them up; they were dramatic on the big screen; but I question their relevance to modern warfare or to the study of the Vietnam Conflict itself. And, yep, it was Robert Duvall's character (didn't remember his name) who made the statement , "I love the smell of napalm in the morning..." - the only thing other than the opening heliocopter attack to the music of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" that most people hang onto. And most people who like that scene think the music was probably written just for the movie!

From movies like Apocalypse comes a sad indictment on our education system. Unfortunately, many Americans get their history from movies and TV without ever checking out whether or not what they saw was truthful; thus, movie storyboards such as the "necklace of ears" become part of history; and there are probably even some REMF's out there who perpetuate the myth by telling tales of wearing them or seeing others cut off ears for their necklaces.

Again, edited....etc, etc.



Oct 05, 2007 19:41:24
RSS

Mike, Nathan - If there's one person on this board who knows this stuff cold it's Tony Barnhill. Learn from him, guys, but be sure you're right when you question his facts. And respect him. He's earned it.

Tony - I hope I haven't smeared you with Liberal cooties just now, but thanks for chiming in. ;) For what it's worth, anybody who's actually followed my ramblings - AzMarc comes to mind - will understand the apparent contradiction here. (Not all understand, of course. My wife thinks I've gone over to the dark side when she hears me say one of my personal heroes is John McCain.) The thing is, there is no contradiction. Respect for the person - for some people, anyway - is not dependent on ideological agreement. Welcome home, Colonel.

R.

Oct 05, 2007 20:20:40
Rod H.

You won't find too many film buffs more enthusiastic than I am, but Tony brings up a good point. Films are works of fiction, and the best ones are a writer and/or director's form of artistic expression. Even biographical films are often fictional to a great extent.

"Apocalypse Now" is from Joseph Conrad's book "Heart of Darkness" and not even originally set in SE Asia. Coppola set it in SE Asia for obvious reasons.

Getting history from films is roughly like trying to get photographic accuracy of the past from a painting. It may give you a small perspective, but not the big picture (no pun intended).

Oct 05, 2007 20:24:00
autoist

Thanks, Rick.

Quote: "I hope I haven't smeared you with Liberal cooties"

Heck, I've been 'smeared' before & will probably be 'smeared' again....

Quote: "Welcome home"

I appreciate that - a few years ago, I was on vacation with my wife, daughter and son-in-law and was out and about on July 4th enjoying the flavor of the local community we were visiting while wearing my baseball cap that proclaims "Vietnam & Desert Storm Vet" when a high school age young lady came up, hugged me & said thanks & ran off down the street to catch up with her friends....that was all I will ever need. And coming home from Desert Storm was the complete opposite, Americans were great to vets then.

Our time - by 'our', I mean Viet vets - is past, its history, its in the recesses of our minds and in today's textbooks (boy, I can't wait for my grandson to take me to school as his show-and-tell project!)...what we all need to do is band together and thank the great young men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, some for 3 to 5 rotations (have you ever considered that's getting close to being almost as long as many WWII vets spent away from home? We've had troops in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003!). They've done more than I ever did! Thank them when they come home, thank them when we see them on the street in uniform (heck, buy their dinner when we see them in a restaurant), thank them in church, wherever, we just need to show them somebody cares.

...& equally important: thank their spouses & children also!

Oct 05, 2007 21:34:50
AzMarc

RSS Wrote:

Quote: "
My wife thinks I've gone over to the dark side when she hears me say one of my personal heroes is John McCain"


WOW! I like him to except for his immigration position....

You're a good guy Rick. I just like giving you grief over some of your views.....Thank God we have not had another 9-11-01.

Oct 05, 2007 21:39:41
chuck cougill

btw Tony, how is your nephew doing?

Oct 06, 2007 06:34:18
autoist

chuck - Since the incident in Afghanistan back in the early days of the conflict, he's been medically retired from the Army and has a great job as a counselor with the VA...unfortunately, his health isn't getting any better....right now he's back in Walter Reed for his 32nd operation...what's left of the leg is still giving him problems but all they can do is reopen it from time to time...real problem is that his spine is almost gone (that's why he's in hospital this time - they're working on it, or what's left of it)....we really don't know if that strapping, strong, young ex-Green Beret will see his son graduate from high school in 8 years! All that muscle he'd worked years to tone has gone to flab since he's not able to do marathons and lift weights anymore.

But, his spirits are high and he's still got his smile....no rancor or regret....and one of his 1st cousins is a registered nurse in the same VA hospital where he works in Nashville so she keeps an eye on him for all of us.

Oct 06, 2007 07:20:34
chuck cougill

thank him for me when next you speak to him Tony

Oct 06, 2007 08:36:19
mcce

autoist Wrote:

Quote: "
Mike - I hope you do lots more research than the BBC & Apocalypse Now - which I'm certain you do.

"

Thanks for the Follow up, Tony. I have read many sources regarding Vietnam. Just like Bataan, We are unable to be such Monsters to Others... and we as a whole should never be. Beware of the Darkside ;)

Cheers!
Mike

This is an archived discussion from the The MG Experience Forums

If you would like to post a reply, please click below to visit the The MG Experience Forums:
Off Topic Forum: Outrage?


Archive Index | The MG Experience Forums | Return to The MG Experience