- This topic has 280 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
Zeitgeist.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2009 at 9:05 AM #442289August 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM #441525
briansd1
GuestNationalism for nationalism’s sake?
To me, Zeitgeist sounds like the above. She’s a just a partisan shill who has no philosophy of her own.
She just hates Obama, just because.
She supports the Patriot Act because it sounds patriotic but she claims to be for civil liberties.
She thinks it’s perfectly OK for the police to invade someone’s property, demanding ID, and arresting the homeowner, just because a hesitant neighbor made a phone call. All for safety’s sake. (Sounds like Soviet style security to me).
I can see Allan from Fallbrook’s points of view and I agree with him more than not.
But Zeitgeist? She’s just a nutty nationalist who has turned-off her brain. It takes people turning-off their brains for Nazism to rise.
August 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM #441722GuestNationalism for nationalism’s sake?
To me, Zeitgeist sounds like the above. She’s a just a partisan shill who has no philosophy of her own.
She just hates Obama, just because.
She supports the Patriot Act because it sounds patriotic but she claims to be for civil liberties.
She thinks it’s perfectly OK for the police to invade someone’s property, demanding ID, and arresting the homeowner, just because a hesitant neighbor made a phone call. All for safety’s sake. (Sounds like Soviet style security to me).
I can see Allan from Fallbrook’s points of view and I agree with him more than not.
But Zeitgeist? She’s just a nutty nationalist who has turned-off her brain. It takes people turning-off their brains for Nazism to rise.
August 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM #442055GuestNationalism for nationalism’s sake?
To me, Zeitgeist sounds like the above. She’s a just a partisan shill who has no philosophy of her own.
She just hates Obama, just because.
She supports the Patriot Act because it sounds patriotic but she claims to be for civil liberties.
She thinks it’s perfectly OK for the police to invade someone’s property, demanding ID, and arresting the homeowner, just because a hesitant neighbor made a phone call. All for safety’s sake. (Sounds like Soviet style security to me).
I can see Allan from Fallbrook’s points of view and I agree with him more than not.
But Zeitgeist? She’s just a nutty nationalist who has turned-off her brain. It takes people turning-off their brains for Nazism to rise.
August 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM #442126GuestNationalism for nationalism’s sake?
To me, Zeitgeist sounds like the above. She’s a just a partisan shill who has no philosophy of her own.
She just hates Obama, just because.
She supports the Patriot Act because it sounds patriotic but she claims to be for civil liberties.
She thinks it’s perfectly OK for the police to invade someone’s property, demanding ID, and arresting the homeowner, just because a hesitant neighbor made a phone call. All for safety’s sake. (Sounds like Soviet style security to me).
I can see Allan from Fallbrook’s points of view and I agree with him more than not.
But Zeitgeist? She’s just a nutty nationalist who has turned-off her brain. It takes people turning-off their brains for Nazism to rise.
August 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM #442299GuestNationalism for nationalism’s sake?
To me, Zeitgeist sounds like the above. She’s a just a partisan shill who has no philosophy of her own.
She just hates Obama, just because.
She supports the Patriot Act because it sounds patriotic but she claims to be for civil liberties.
She thinks it’s perfectly OK for the police to invade someone’s property, demanding ID, and arresting the homeowner, just because a hesitant neighbor made a phone call. All for safety’s sake. (Sounds like Soviet style security to me).
I can see Allan from Fallbrook’s points of view and I agree with him more than not.
But Zeitgeist? She’s just a nutty nationalist who has turned-off her brain. It takes people turning-off their brains for Nazism to rise.
August 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM #441540Borat
ParticipantDan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”
August 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM #441737ParticipantDan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”
August 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM #442070ParticipantDan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”
August 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM #442141ParticipantDan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”
August 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM #442315ParticipantDan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”
August 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM #441560Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=Borat]Dan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”[/quote]
Borat: No argument from me on that one. However, my point was that the North’s victory was largely due to the American public’s attitude towards the war and not attributable to force of arms in the field.
Think about this for a second: At the close of the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Viet Cong is virtually destroyed and the North Vietnamese Army is incapable of offensive operations in the South. It is a clear cut US victory and, in conjunction with US air operations, which were wearing heavily on the North, the war is now capable of being won. However, the US news/media, led by Walter Cronkite, solemnly announces that the war is a stalemate and there is no end in sight. The public’s perception, largely driven by what they were hearing on the news and reading in articles by journalists like Halberstam, solidifies against the war.
August 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM #441757Participant[quote=Borat]Dan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”[/quote]
Borat: No argument from me on that one. However, my point was that the North’s victory was largely due to the American public’s attitude towards the war and not attributable to force of arms in the field.
Think about this for a second: At the close of the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Viet Cong is virtually destroyed and the North Vietnamese Army is incapable of offensive operations in the South. It is a clear cut US victory and, in conjunction with US air operations, which were wearing heavily on the North, the war is now capable of being won. However, the US news/media, led by Walter Cronkite, solemnly announces that the war is a stalemate and there is no end in sight. The public’s perception, largely driven by what they were hearing on the news and reading in articles by journalists like Halberstam, solidifies against the war.
August 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM #442090Participant[quote=Borat]Dan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”[/quote]
Borat: No argument from me on that one. However, my point was that the North’s victory was largely due to the American public’s attitude towards the war and not attributable to force of arms in the field.
Think about this for a second: At the close of the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Viet Cong is virtually destroyed and the North Vietnamese Army is incapable of offensive operations in the South. It is a clear cut US victory and, in conjunction with US air operations, which were wearing heavily on the North, the war is now capable of being won. However, the US news/media, led by Walter Cronkite, solemnly announces that the war is a stalemate and there is no end in sight. The public’s perception, largely driven by what they were hearing on the news and reading in articles by journalists like Halberstam, solidifies against the war.
August 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM #442159Participant[quote=Borat]Dan: Couple of other things: (1) Militarily, we did win Vietnam. Inarguable fact in that US forces never lost a single major battle in the entire war. Vietnam was lost on the home front, not on the battle field.
I always liked the story of the Vietnamese and American generals meeting at the close of the Vietnam war. The American general said, “You know, you never won a battle against us.” To this, the Vietnamese general replied — “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”[/quote]
Borat: No argument from me on that one. However, my point was that the North’s victory was largely due to the American public’s attitude towards the war and not attributable to force of arms in the field.
Think about this for a second: At the close of the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Viet Cong is virtually destroyed and the North Vietnamese Army is incapable of offensive operations in the South. It is a clear cut US victory and, in conjunction with US air operations, which were wearing heavily on the North, the war is now capable of being won. However, the US news/media, led by Walter Cronkite, solemnly announces that the war is a stalemate and there is no end in sight. The public’s perception, largely driven by what they were hearing on the news and reading in articles by journalists like Halberstam, solidifies against the war.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.