Obama gets peace prize for not being Bush!

[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]

Smedley Butler quote from his book, “War is a Racket”:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Smedley Butler quote from his book, “War is a Racket”:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Smedley Butler quote from his book, “War is a Racket”:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Smedley Butler quote from his book, “War is a Racket”:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Smedley Butler quote from his book, “War is a Racket”:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said.

I’m not a military expert as you are but I do like to read up and educate myself.

Yes, with Vietnam, we should go back to WWII. At the end of WWII the Chinese took the surrender of the Japanese in North Vietnam while the British disarmed the Japanese in the South, at the behest of the French who wanted to regain their colony, with the support of America. The Brits returned the colony to France.

Like I said before, America should have supported a Nationalist Vietnam at the time with Ho Chi Minh who had not yet turned to the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese Nationalist coalition included those who would later become leaders in South Vietnam.

The French used us for their purposes in Vietnam (like you said, resource acquisition, e.g. rubber for Michelin) and then handed us a quagmire.

—-

As far as the Democrat vs. Republican thing, I just like to give those Republicans some of their own medicine. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said.

I’m not a military expert as you are but I do like to read up and educate myself.

Yes, with Vietnam, we should go back to WWII. At the end of WWII the Chinese took the surrender of the Japanese in North Vietnam while the British disarmed the Japanese in the South, at the behest of the French who wanted to regain their colony, with the support of America. The Brits returned the colony to France.

Like I said before, America should have supported a Nationalist Vietnam at the time with Ho Chi Minh who had not yet turned to the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese Nationalist coalition included those who would later become leaders in South Vietnam.

The French used us for their purposes in Vietnam (like you said, resource acquisition, e.g. rubber for Michelin) and then handed us a quagmire.

—-

As far as the Democrat vs. Republican thing, I just like to give those Republicans some of their own medicine. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said.

I’m not a military expert as you are but I do like to read up and educate myself.

Yes, with Vietnam, we should go back to WWII. At the end of WWII the Chinese took the surrender of the Japanese in North Vietnam while the British disarmed the Japanese in the South, at the behest of the French who wanted to regain their colony, with the support of America. The Brits returned the colony to France.

Like I said before, America should have supported a Nationalist Vietnam at the time with Ho Chi Minh who had not yet turned to the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese Nationalist coalition included those who would later become leaders in South Vietnam.

The French used us for their purposes in Vietnam (like you said, resource acquisition, e.g. rubber for Michelin) and then handed us a quagmire.

—-

As far as the Democrat vs. Republican thing, I just like to give those Republicans some of their own medicine. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said.

I’m not a military expert as you are but I do like to read up and educate myself.

Yes, with Vietnam, we should go back to WWII. At the end of WWII the Chinese took the surrender of the Japanese in North Vietnam while the British disarmed the Japanese in the South, at the behest of the French who wanted to regain their colony, with the support of America. The Brits returned the colony to France.

Like I said before, America should have supported a Nationalist Vietnam at the time with Ho Chi Minh who had not yet turned to the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese Nationalist coalition included those who would later become leaders in South Vietnam.

The French used us for their purposes in Vietnam (like you said, resource acquisition, e.g. rubber for Michelin) and then handed us a quagmire.

—-

As far as the Democrat vs. Republican thing, I just like to give those Republicans some of their own medicine. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said.

I’m not a military expert as you are but I do like to read up and educate myself.

Yes, with Vietnam, we should go back to WWII. At the end of WWII the Chinese took the surrender of the Japanese in North Vietnam while the British disarmed the Japanese in the South, at the behest of the French who wanted to regain their colony, with the support of America. The Brits returned the colony to France.

Like I said before, America should have supported a Nationalist Vietnam at the time with Ho Chi Minh who had not yet turned to the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese Nationalist coalition included those who would later become leaders in South Vietnam.

The French used us for their purposes in Vietnam (like you said, resource acquisition, e.g. rubber for Michelin) and then handed us a quagmire.

—-

As far as the Democrat vs. Republican thing, I just like to give those Republicans some of their own medicine. 😉

[sd_matt]

[quote=sd_matt][quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]
You don’t seem to want to address whether or not the far left and far right think the same. Hmmmmm….[/quote]

Yes, they are the same in many ways.

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Abortion. The left wants women to chose no matter what. The right believes that God calls upon them to ban abortion.

Gay marriage. The left believe that gay people deserve equal protection and should be able to marry if that makes them happy. How does that affect straight marriages? The right thinks that God did not intent same sex marriage.

With the right, it’s always about God and eternal damnation.[/quote]

Nope you completely missed it in terms of empathy.[/quote]

Lemme spell it out for you.

One can bust a Christians mans balls all day about being against gay marriage (or some kind of legal equivalent) and yet claim to walk in the other mans shoes (or stilettos for that matter..he he). And I do it and it pisses them off to the point where they just glare at me.

And then you ask a lib about abortion and he says it’s a womans choice, her body. Well you put yourself in the woman’s shoes. Great.
But isn’t there someone else who has a body? Isn’t there someone else whose shoes you should take a walk in?

So if you are really going to be thorough about then you put yourself in the baby’s position too. At least consider it’s feelings after it becomes viable. And if you still adhere to the concept of “do unto others…” or in those great song/words “what if it were youuuuuuuuu..?” then you ask what would I rather have done to me? Would I rather have a major choice taken away or have every choice I will ever make taken away via my very life?

Maybe you would rather be aborted than grow up adopted or in, god forbid, a foster home. Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I bet that you would rather decide for yourself sometime down the road whether or not life is worth living. Free will maaaaaan.

When I talk to you far left and far right guys it’s always the same. When I ask you to put yourself in everyones position then you try to argue another angle or stomp away.

[sd_matt]

[quote=sd_matt][quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]
You don’t seem to want to address whether or not the far left and far right think the same. Hmmmmm….[/quote]

Yes, they are the same in many ways.

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Abortion. The left wants women to chose no matter what. The right believes that God calls upon them to ban abortion.

Gay marriage. The left believe that gay people deserve equal protection and should be able to marry if that makes them happy. How does that affect straight marriages? The right thinks that God did not intent same sex marriage.

With the right, it’s always about God and eternal damnation.[/quote]

Nope you completely missed it in terms of empathy.[/quote]

Lemme spell it out for you.

One can bust a Christians mans balls all day about being against gay marriage (or some kind of legal equivalent) and yet claim to walk in the other mans shoes (or stilettos for that matter..he he). And I do it and it pisses them off to the point where they just glare at me.

And then you ask a lib about abortion and he says it’s a womans choice, her body. Well you put yourself in the woman’s shoes. Great.
But isn’t there someone else who has a body? Isn’t there someone else whose shoes you should take a walk in?

So if you are really going to be thorough about then you put yourself in the baby’s position too. At least consider it’s feelings after it becomes viable. And if you still adhere to the concept of “do unto others…” or in those great song/words “what if it were youuuuuuuuu..?” then you ask what would I rather have done to me? Would I rather have a major choice taken away or have every choice I will ever make taken away via my very life?

Maybe you would rather be aborted than grow up adopted or in, god forbid, a foster home. Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I bet that you would rather decide for yourself sometime down the road whether or not life is worth living. Free will maaaaaan.

When I talk to you far left and far right guys it’s always the same. When I ask you to put yourself in everyones position then you try to argue another angle or stomp away.

[sd_matt]

[quote=sd_matt][quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]
You don’t seem to want to address whether or not the far left and far right think the same. Hmmmmm….[/quote]

Yes, they are the same in many ways.

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Abortion. The left wants women to chose no matter what. The right believes that God calls upon them to ban abortion.

Gay marriage. The left believe that gay people deserve equal protection and should be able to marry if that makes them happy. How does that affect straight marriages? The right thinks that God did not intent same sex marriage.

With the right, it’s always about God and eternal damnation.[/quote]

Nope you completely missed it in terms of empathy.[/quote]

Lemme spell it out for you.

One can bust a Christians mans balls all day about being against gay marriage (or some kind of legal equivalent) and yet claim to walk in the other mans shoes (or stilettos for that matter..he he). And I do it and it pisses them off to the point where they just glare at me.

And then you ask a lib about abortion and he says it’s a womans choice, her body. Well you put yourself in the woman’s shoes. Great.
But isn’t there someone else who has a body? Isn’t there someone else whose shoes you should take a walk in?

So if you are really going to be thorough about then you put yourself in the baby’s position too. At least consider it’s feelings after it becomes viable. And if you still adhere to the concept of “do unto others…” or in those great song/words “what if it were youuuuuuuuu..?” then you ask what would I rather have done to me? Would I rather have a major choice taken away or have every choice I will ever make taken away via my very life?

Maybe you would rather be aborted than grow up adopted or in, god forbid, a foster home. Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I bet that you would rather decide for yourself sometime down the road whether or not life is worth living. Free will maaaaaan.

When I talk to you far left and far right guys it’s always the same. When I ask you to put yourself in everyones position then you try to argue another angle or stomp away.

[sd_matt]

[quote=sd_matt][quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]
You don’t seem to want to address whether or not the far left and far right think the same. Hmmmmm….[/quote]

Yes, they are the same in many ways.

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Abortion. The left wants women to chose no matter what. The right believes that God calls upon them to ban abortion.

Gay marriage. The left believe that gay people deserve equal protection and should be able to marry if that makes them happy. How does that affect straight marriages? The right thinks that God did not intent same sex marriage.

With the right, it’s always about God and eternal damnation.[/quote]

Nope you completely missed it in terms of empathy.[/quote]

Lemme spell it out for you.

One can bust a Christians mans balls all day about being against gay marriage (or some kind of legal equivalent) and yet claim to walk in the other mans shoes (or stilettos for that matter..he he). And I do it and it pisses them off to the point where they just glare at me.

And then you ask a lib about abortion and he says it’s a womans choice, her body. Well you put yourself in the woman’s shoes. Great.
But isn’t there someone else who has a body? Isn’t there someone else whose shoes you should take a walk in?

So if you are really going to be thorough about then you put yourself in the baby’s position too. At least consider it’s feelings after it becomes viable. And if you still adhere to the concept of “do unto others…” or in those great song/words “what if it were youuuuuuuuu..?” then you ask what would I rather have done to me? Would I rather have a major choice taken away or have every choice I will ever make taken away via my very life?

Maybe you would rather be aborted than grow up adopted or in, god forbid, a foster home. Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I bet that you would rather decide for yourself sometime down the road whether or not life is worth living. Free will maaaaaan.

When I talk to you far left and far right guys it’s always the same. When I ask you to put yourself in everyones position then you try to argue another angle or stomp away.

[Author]

Posts