Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tet '68 Compared To Iraq...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joisey
    replied
    There is only one similarity: Once again, the Leftists who control the Dem Party and the Liberal Press are rooting against America and hoping our enemies will win.

    In '68 it was Tet.

    In '04 it was Ted (Kennedy)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    Mine Mine at the people turning history upside down by saying liberals started the Vietnam war and today's republicans are becoming moderates. I heard strange things but that is really bizarre.
    Quick history lesson: Esinhower's very conservative republican administration invited their selves into the Viet Minh/French peace talks in mid fifties. French abandoned Vietnam which was one county and had always been one country in it's long history. Esinhower and his advisors forced the creation of some thing called South Vietnam. The Viet Minh went along with this because they knew they could easily reunite their county once all these foreign leave. Problem arose when all those Vietnamese catholics left the north and moved in mass to South Vietnam. These people even as a minority take over much of the positions of power in south and dominated the buddist majority. Esinhower and the conservatives believed they could build democracy society out of this buddist peasant society by use of these catholics and military advisors plus CIA. Thus USA is married to a Vietnam nightmare.
    JFK comes along and continues the dream but it is believed he was planning to withdraw from Vietnam when suddenly he was murdered under very bizarre circumstances. LBJ comes along and instantly esclates the war to the great joy of hte war hawks conservatives of both parties. LBJ like FDR was pushing liberal social programs due to fear that if social injustices are not addressed a social revolution could happen in America. On foreign issues LBJ danced to the tune of the war hawks until the war broke his morale. LBJ's finanical backers were very powerful Texas right wing extremist oilmen. Nixson war now begins with great renewed energy. Finally the pressure from the American Left forced and end to the nightmare. Why did it take some long for the Left to gain the strength to stop the slaughter? It was the suffocating fear of being labelled soft on communism by the powerful american right wing. The right wing conservatives war hawks had been driving this foreigh policy since the fall of China in the fifties to Mao's communist movement. Hey guess what they are today again driving foreign again under Bush 2 and we are battling in Iraq under some very odd circumstances. One Two Three Four. What are we fighting for? Don't known don't give a damn. Next stop Vietnam. Cheers!



    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    "As for Kennedy not being a liberal,By that same rationale,We could also say that Bush isnt compared to earlier GOP presidents.
    Democrats have gotten more radical with Republicans becoming more moderate in the past quarter-century."--------sgtlong

    I disagree. Nixon's Republican party attempted to paint Kennedy as being 'soft on communism', and nearly succeeded. Ike's administration did the work on the Bay of Pigs debacle, and Ike's administration laid the groundwork for our involvement in Vietnam. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs debacle to happen can be directly linked to his not wanting to be painted into the 'soft on communism' (the 60's version of liberal), corner. Kennedy expanding our involvement in Vietnam can also be directly linked to not wanting to be seen as being soft on communism, i.e. liberal. It isn't accurate to call Kennedy a liberal in today's sense.

    It also is not accurate to call Nixon a conservative.

    Nor is it accurate to state that the Republicans have become 'more moderate' in the past quarter-century. The Republicans are THE ORIGINAL liberal party.

    The Reagan Revolution was not one of moderating the Republican party. Instead, it was based on making the conservative-end of the Republican party to seem more palatable, while denegrating the liberals on the Democratic side, by pointing out that while in power the 'liberals' had botched things for the country. While it would be fair to say that the Republicans have returned to their more moderate tendencies in the past 12 years, it would be just as fair to say that the Reagan Revolution moved the party too far to the right, only being electable during that time due to Reagan's immense popularity.

    Saying the Democrats have become more radical in the past quarter-century is also inaccurate. Talk with a few die-hard Democrats, and you'll find that most are highly unsatisfied with the current Democratic party specifically because it ISN'T defining itself more as the party of liberals. While sick and tired of being called the dirty 'L' word, (liberal), Democrats are less than pleased that the response, (however natural), of their party to the calls that they were too liberal, was to move significantly more to the center of the political pendulum, i.e. more moderate.

    Leave a comment:


  • hogdriver
    replied
    Originally posted by SGT Long
    Isnt it funny how liberals got America into Vietnam but like to compare every military action that they dont approve of to Vietnam?
    Par for the Course, yes? Rather like Kerry, on any given day, he can't remember what he did, what he said, or what he believed. Sounds rather like Clinton, doesn't it? Also rather like the Soviets as well, anytime some unfortunate thing or other happened, they simply rewrote history to fit their needs. Just like a liberal/socialist (two sides of the same coin).

    Leave a comment:


  • SGT Long
    replied
    I was referring to Kennedy. True,We had some advisors in South Vietnam in the Eisenhower administration,as we do in almost every other friendly country. However,it picked up momentum on his watch.

    As for Kennedy not being a liberal,By that same rationale,We could also say that Bush isnt compared to earlier GOP presidents.
    Democrats have gotten more radical with Republicans becoming more moderate in the past quarter-century.

    Leave a comment:


  • Overseer
    replied
    Thanks for pointing out that Liberals didn't start US involvement in Vietnam. And conservatives didn't rush to get us out of it. Nixon and Kissinger were more than happy to be involved there, but when the pressure got too great, then they decided to make a messing bailing out from the war.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by SGT Long
    Isnt it funny how liberals got America into Vietnam but like to compare every military action that they dont approve of to Vietnam?

    I'm not sure Ike would be considered a liberal, and in today's parlance neither would Kennedy.

    When Cronkite said that Tet showed that the war was lost, I do not believe he was referring to the military-angle.

    Vietnam and Iraq have similarities. WWII and Iraq have similarities too, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • SGT Long
    replied
    That's all they've been programmed for.
    So thats why every political scandel in the last quarter century has to have a -gate stuck on the end of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • hogdriver
    replied
    Originally posted by SGT Long
    Isnt it funny how liberals got America into Vietnam but like to compare every military action that they dont approve of to Vietnam?
    That's all they've been programmed for. We'll have to wait for Liberal Robot 3.45 for them be able to do any speaking that approaches rationality. For now, all they can do is spout tired old cliches, accuse the liberal target d'jour with silly, vague allegations, and demand we disengage, because the war is unwinnable. Any more, and their "brain" (powered by a AAA battery) shorts out.

    Leave a comment:


  • British_Apostle
    replied
    This could become another Vietnam if they let it. Right now there is an increase in fighting, 60 soldiers dead since last Tuesday, and it worries the American Civilans. They don't really understand they just see that Americans are dying and they want it to stop. We should have the U.N. have NATO deploy 150,000 Troops and we could take our forces down from 125,000 to like 45,000. On the Vietnam thing remember 47,000 Troop died so there would need to be a lot more deaths in Iraq for us to start major protests and not support our troops.

    Leave a comment:


  • chrisvalla
    replied
    Paramount to swithing to a 'guns' strategy, the people need to be completely convinved that the enemy truly requires the necessary sacrifices to be defeated (ala WWII). Short of an all-out fully conventional battlefield army giving us a bloody nose or some tyrant grabbing countries left and right, I don't think you're going to find the American public ever willing to give up its' lifestyle to support a fight that can seemingly be won with stealth bombers, laser-guided bombs, and special forces.

    After that, you will have the inevitable "I didn't vote for this war, why should I sacrifice for it". While the answer would be 'you voted for the people in office to represent you and they decided for you', that would never be an acceptable answer unless a vast majority (75%) supported the effort. 51%, while a majority, still means half didn't say yes.

    If we go looking, we'll surely find monsters, the thing is, the American public doesn't want to go find them, they'd rather let them come to us and then we whack them. "Nobody" 'wants trouble' and they're not about to sacrifice for something they didn't want in the first place when it comes down to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Vietnam and Iraq

    At this point in time it is unreasonable to compare apples and oranges. Vietnam was an environment were America's prediliction for massive firepower paid only limited dividends. As we found out first hand just a decade or two earlier....jungle fighting is ardous and prone to heavy casualties. Instead of learning from the French we sought to impose even greater conventional forces and firepower to offset the physical terrain. To a remarkable degree we were highly successful. The Viet Cong's near destruction during Tet and the subsequent damage to the North Vietnamese infrastructure brought us very close to victory...and the Viets will as much as admit it. But as Clauswitz said that war is an extension of politics...we were exactly what Giap had said we were....a democracy. Democracies do have a concommittant weakness and strength when it comes to waging war. The support of the people is paramount and the loss of public support, no matter how well the military effort is proceeding. will result in eventual defeat. On the other hand democracies, like all liberal governments born out of the age of Reason, have shown a truely remarkable ability to fight the better fight when they, the NATION, are truely mobilized to achieve total victory. Totalitarian nations have repeatedly misjudged the resolve and military effectivenss of democracies. The proof is in the books and the books give straightforward honest answers through three world wars.

    So now we know that democracies have a weakness, you must sell the war to all the people, you must mobilize every facet of life to achieve victory. There can not be, and should not be, guns and butter. This weakens the participation of the home front in the purchase price of victory. That is precisely where our political leaders went astray in Vietnam...they failed to bring the will of the people into the fight and then they failed to be willing to use "whatever force necessary to achieve victory" and all that those magic words mean in the head of your opponent . That was never on the table, and because it was not there..Giap had eventual hope that America will tire of the war and lose hope of victory. Once that was done, and it wasn't done by one single group......peaceniks, media, or commie loving actresses. It was done through negligence and presumption and now it is past history and rightfully so.

    We should have learned a lesson...but it appears we've learned the wrong ones. You do not fight tyranny by becoming more tyrannical. You do not hide the truths of war and prevent honest straightfoward reporting except at your peril. You do not bring democracy to anyone at the end of a bayonet.

    Iraq is a much more favorable terrain to our forces....the sand does not hide quite as effectively. Massive firepower still rules the day and the night. House to house fighting while potentially more brutal and deadly will still bring battlefield victories. But this will work only so long as the American people are prepared to see it as a worthy goal. Our government. and our two party system have once again failed to evoke the sacred trust that democracies demand and require in times of war. We are falling into the trap once again of guns and butter. Failing to move into a full war time economy, with sacrifice both at home and abroad to forge a true link between the worker and the warrior. Our public policy needs to blunt and to the point so that Al-Quida and Iraq both understand...we WILL win, even if we need to destroy every living thing in that part of the world to do it! That is a language they understand...and that is the price they are not willing to pay. Unless we commit to a "real" total war and not the guns and butter philosophy currently at the root of our strategy, Vietnam's paradigm will remain very much before our eyes. Sorry this is so long.....but its been itching to get out.

    Leave a comment:


  • British_Apostle
    replied
    I don't think you can compare the 2. The Army in Vietnam was experiencing incredibly low morale, the equipment and technology we were using was outdated and we were not fully commited. Iraq we have the forces and technology and we can get it done. The question is at what price?

    Leave a comment:


  • wayne3387
    replied
    think i will start my talk by handing out number slips between 1 and 366, selectively tailored to make my point. i will ask all those with <100 to stand up and inform them they are to be drafted. that may get their attention. i remember the draft lottery, being only a millenium older than the rest of the class (and teacher).
    the difficulty for me will not be presenting the talk but writing it and rehearsing so as to keep politcis as neutral as possible. as i get older, i get more intolerant of the geopolitically stupid radical left and their lackeys in the partisan press.

    to paraphrase whoever the texas democrat vp nominee (was that '88?) years ago.

    "i served in the vietnam era and this is no vietnam."

    thanks for the input.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim H. Moreno
    replied
    WHA?!?... The Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor?! So Belushi was wrong in Animal House ? Damn, there goes my day.

    Seriously, I think it's absolutely absurd.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X