Obama gets peace prize for not being Bush!

[briansd1]

About the Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t hear any conservative criticizing the award to Henry Kissinger who got it for negotiating with the enemy.

Kissinger negotiated away South Vietnam in the dark, in secret, without the knowledge of the American people and the service men who fought in Vietnam.

At the time, Kissinger was only the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State with all the trappings and legitimacy of the American government.

Did Kissinger bring about peace in a way the served American interests? That’s something for the conservatives to reflect upon.

And even as Kissinger negotiated away the conflict, Nixon was still incapable to plan even a semblance of an honorable exit.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: No argument from me about Kissinger. Morally and ethically reprehensible human being and we could probably start a whole new chapter dedicated to how Kissinger’s actions further f**ked up the Middle East.

However, my point was that you continue to completely ignore LBJ’s role in the prosecution of the war from 1965 through 1968 (and, yes, I realize he held office till January of 1969), especially his unwillingness to expand Operation Rolling Thunder, pursue VC, NVA and NLF forces into their safe havens in Laos and Cambodia, or to capitalize on the gains US forces achieved during Tet ’68.

But, of course, LBJ was a Democrat, so its far easier to blame Nixon and Ford for what was not their “war of choice” but rather their “war of circumstance”.

Interestingly, you make the same point that Obama will be blamed for Bush’s wars, although they are not of his creation. How does that work, from a logic standpoint? You seem perfectly willing to blame Nixon and Ford for a war they didn’t create, then bemoan the fact that Obama is in the same predicament.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: No argument from me about Kissinger. Morally and ethically reprehensible human being and we could probably start a whole new chapter dedicated to how Kissinger’s actions further f**ked up the Middle East.

However, my point was that you continue to completely ignore LBJ’s role in the prosecution of the war from 1965 through 1968 (and, yes, I realize he held office till January of 1969), especially his unwillingness to expand Operation Rolling Thunder, pursue VC, NVA and NLF forces into their safe havens in Laos and Cambodia, or to capitalize on the gains US forces achieved during Tet ’68.

But, of course, LBJ was a Democrat, so its far easier to blame Nixon and Ford for what was not their “war of choice” but rather their “war of circumstance”.

Interestingly, you make the same point that Obama will be blamed for Bush’s wars, although they are not of his creation. How does that work, from a logic standpoint? You seem perfectly willing to blame Nixon and Ford for a war they didn’t create, then bemoan the fact that Obama is in the same predicament.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: No argument from me about Kissinger. Morally and ethically reprehensible human being and we could probably start a whole new chapter dedicated to how Kissinger’s actions further f**ked up the Middle East.

However, my point was that you continue to completely ignore LBJ’s role in the prosecution of the war from 1965 through 1968 (and, yes, I realize he held office till January of 1969), especially his unwillingness to expand Operation Rolling Thunder, pursue VC, NVA and NLF forces into their safe havens in Laos and Cambodia, or to capitalize on the gains US forces achieved during Tet ’68.

But, of course, LBJ was a Democrat, so its far easier to blame Nixon and Ford for what was not their “war of choice” but rather their “war of circumstance”.

Interestingly, you make the same point that Obama will be blamed for Bush’s wars, although they are not of his creation. How does that work, from a logic standpoint? You seem perfectly willing to blame Nixon and Ford for a war they didn’t create, then bemoan the fact that Obama is in the same predicament.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: No argument from me about Kissinger. Morally and ethically reprehensible human being and we could probably start a whole new chapter dedicated to how Kissinger’s actions further f**ked up the Middle East.

However, my point was that you continue to completely ignore LBJ’s role in the prosecution of the war from 1965 through 1968 (and, yes, I realize he held office till January of 1969), especially his unwillingness to expand Operation Rolling Thunder, pursue VC, NVA and NLF forces into their safe havens in Laos and Cambodia, or to capitalize on the gains US forces achieved during Tet ’68.

But, of course, LBJ was a Democrat, so its far easier to blame Nixon and Ford for what was not their “war of choice” but rather their “war of circumstance”.

Interestingly, you make the same point that Obama will be blamed for Bush’s wars, although they are not of his creation. How does that work, from a logic standpoint? You seem perfectly willing to blame Nixon and Ford for a war they didn’t create, then bemoan the fact that Obama is in the same predicament.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: No argument from me about Kissinger. Morally and ethically reprehensible human being and we could probably start a whole new chapter dedicated to how Kissinger’s actions further f**ked up the Middle East.

However, my point was that you continue to completely ignore LBJ’s role in the prosecution of the war from 1965 through 1968 (and, yes, I realize he held office till January of 1969), especially his unwillingness to expand Operation Rolling Thunder, pursue VC, NVA and NLF forces into their safe havens in Laos and Cambodia, or to capitalize on the gains US forces achieved during Tet ’68.

But, of course, LBJ was a Democrat, so its far easier to blame Nixon and Ford for what was not their “war of choice” but rather their “war of circumstance”.

Interestingly, you make the same point that Obama will be blamed for Bush’s wars, although they are not of his creation. How does that work, from a logic standpoint? You seem perfectly willing to blame Nixon and Ford for a war they didn’t create, then bemoan the fact that Obama is in the same predicament.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.[/quote]

Brian: I would certainly agree that US (CIA) intel was faulty (in that it held that South Vietnamese forces could hold until 1976), but the North Vietnamese had been steadily driving south and the end was only a matter of time, whether it happened quickly or slowly.

But, if you’re being honest about the effects of the Vietnam War, you have to look at the entire conflict, going back to WWII (read up on the joint OSS/Viet Minh operations, including Deer Team) and US assistance against the Japanese, through the French occupation after WWII (ending with the debacle at Dien Bien Phu), which then lead to US involvement, starting with military advisers and then to full combat operations in 1965. LBJ and “Waste More Land” (Gen. Westmoreland) did a horrible job, both tactically and strategically, in prosecuting that war and to blame Nixon and Ford is to ignore most of the key chapters in the book.

My specialty in the Army was counterinsurgency warfare and I spent a lot of time studying Indochina/Vietnam, as well as Malaya circa 1950 and the US “Banana Wars” (1898 – 1934). If you really want to have your eyes opened about US foreign policy, read up on Marine Major Smedley Butler, especially his writings after his service was completed.

You can argue Dems versus Repubs all the live long day, but the cold, hard reality is that our policy is driven by money and resource acquisition and always has been. Partisan politics is absolutely irrelevant at that point and your “intellectually anchored” Democrats feed just as greedily at the same trough as the “God-centric” Republicans.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.[/quote]

Brian: I would certainly agree that US (CIA) intel was faulty (in that it held that South Vietnamese forces could hold until 1976), but the North Vietnamese had been steadily driving south and the end was only a matter of time, whether it happened quickly or slowly.

But, if you’re being honest about the effects of the Vietnam War, you have to look at the entire conflict, going back to WWII (read up on the joint OSS/Viet Minh operations, including Deer Team) and US assistance against the Japanese, through the French occupation after WWII (ending with the debacle at Dien Bien Phu), which then lead to US involvement, starting with military advisers and then to full combat operations in 1965. LBJ and “Waste More Land” (Gen. Westmoreland) did a horrible job, both tactically and strategically, in prosecuting that war and to blame Nixon and Ford is to ignore most of the key chapters in the book.

My specialty in the Army was counterinsurgency warfare and I spent a lot of time studying Indochina/Vietnam, as well as Malaya circa 1950 and the US “Banana Wars” (1898 – 1934). If you really want to have your eyes opened about US foreign policy, read up on Marine Major Smedley Butler, especially his writings after his service was completed.

You can argue Dems versus Repubs all the live long day, but the cold, hard reality is that our policy is driven by money and resource acquisition and always has been. Partisan politics is absolutely irrelevant at that point and your “intellectually anchored” Democrats feed just as greedily at the same trough as the “God-centric” Republicans.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.[/quote]

Brian: I would certainly agree that US (CIA) intel was faulty (in that it held that South Vietnamese forces could hold until 1976), but the North Vietnamese had been steadily driving south and the end was only a matter of time, whether it happened quickly or slowly.

But, if you’re being honest about the effects of the Vietnam War, you have to look at the entire conflict, going back to WWII (read up on the joint OSS/Viet Minh operations, including Deer Team) and US assistance against the Japanese, through the French occupation after WWII (ending with the debacle at Dien Bien Phu), which then lead to US involvement, starting with military advisers and then to full combat operations in 1965. LBJ and “Waste More Land” (Gen. Westmoreland) did a horrible job, both tactically and strategically, in prosecuting that war and to blame Nixon and Ford is to ignore most of the key chapters in the book.

My specialty in the Army was counterinsurgency warfare and I spent a lot of time studying Indochina/Vietnam, as well as Malaya circa 1950 and the US “Banana Wars” (1898 – 1934). If you really want to have your eyes opened about US foreign policy, read up on Marine Major Smedley Butler, especially his writings after his service was completed.

You can argue Dems versus Repubs all the live long day, but the cold, hard reality is that our policy is driven by money and resource acquisition and always has been. Partisan politics is absolutely irrelevant at that point and your “intellectually anchored” Democrats feed just as greedily at the same trough as the “God-centric” Republicans.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Democrat-led Congress[/quote]

Allan, if the Republicans regain the House, I will look forward to blaming Iraq and Afghanistan on them, haha.. 😉 Just joking.

——–

Sure, what you mentioned were some reasons why we lost the war.

But isn’t how we exited what brought shame upon us? We didn’t even know what hit us when it did in April 1975. We had to scramble to get out and abandon our embassy.

Either our intelligence sucked or we were truly incompetent in the last days of the Vietnam War (still the Nixon/Ford Administration).

Australia, on the other had remained diplomatically engaged in South East Asia.

I’ve talked to plenty of Vietnam vets and even Vietnamese Americans as well at Vietnamese in Vietnam. I’ve visited the country myself, North to South. That’s why I take such an interest in Vietnam.[/quote]

Brian: I would certainly agree that US (CIA) intel was faulty (in that it held that South Vietnamese forces could hold until 1976), but the North Vietnamese had been steadily driving south and the end was only a matter of time, whether it happened quickly or slowly.

But, if you’re being honest about the effects of the Vietnam War, you have to look at the entire conflict, going back to WWII (read up on the joint OSS/Viet Minh operations, including Deer Team) and US assistance against the Japanese, through the French occupation after WWII (ending with the debacle at Dien Bien Phu), which then lead to US involvement, starting with military advisers and then to full combat operations in 1965. LBJ and “Waste More Land” (Gen. Westmoreland) did a horrible job, both tactically and strategically, in prosecuting that war and to blame Nixon and Ford is to ignore most of the key chapters in the book.

My specialty in the Army was counterinsurgency warfare and I spent a lot of time studying Indochina/Vietnam, as well as Malaya circa 1950 and the US “Banana Wars” (1898 – 1934). If you really want to have your eyes opened about US foreign policy, read up on Marine Major Smedley Butler, especially his writings after his service was completed.

You can argue Dems versus Repubs all the live long day, but the cold, hard reality is that our policy is driven by money and resource acquisition and always has been. Partisan politics is absolutely irrelevant at that point and your “intellectually anchored” Democrats feed just as greedily at the same trough as the “God-centric” Republicans.

[Author]

Posts