OT- More Government Control

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]Nationalism 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.[/quote]

I don’t know brian. I wasn’t a big fan of bush either. But the thing that I don’t like about this administration…from my perspective, it “feels” like more and more socialism now….

Can’t achieve your goals, no problem…We’ll regulate that.
Didn’t save your hard earned money…no problem We’ll regulate those that did.
Got burned by over paying for homes. don’t worry, we’ll regulate that too to make you whole.
Can’t keep your car company afloat…We’ll regulate that too.
Pissed that your neighbor makes more than you, we’ll regulate that too.
Don’t feel like spending, he’ll we’ll throw you a few bones too…courtesy of the other tax payers.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Allan,

I’m not a Vietnam historian, but if the war was won as you claim, what were the motivations of Cronkite and the media in general in lying to the American public?[/quote]

Afx: I wouldn’t say “lying”, rather, a skewed or biased reporting of the war.

I think the press had a legitimate mistrust of the military, especially the Army under Westmoreland, and were relying on the writings of journalists like Halberstam, who were openly critical of the war and how it was being managed.

Bear in mind, this was the first “war in your living room” where Americans were treated to pictures and film of the war, presented during the evening news. You were seeing footage of wounded and dead GIs and Marines during dinner. In WWII and Korea, the US Government censored and/or suppressed such footage. There were pictures of American war dead that weren’t allowed into circulation until after WWII had ended.

I think by 1968 there were serious questions as to where the war was going in terms of an exit strategy and Cronkite himself admitted to being “shaken” by footage of Viet Cong sappers inside US Embassy grounds in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. It doesn’t help that the Tet caught both the US and South Vietnamese forces by surprise and there was a sense that the North Vietnamese Army and VC were a step away from destabilizing the South. It looked like America was unprepared and didn’t have a sense of control over the war or a workable strategy.

In point of fact, after the initial surprise wore off, the US forces inflicted grievous casualties on the North Vietnamese Army and especially the Viet Cong forces, which came out into the open and fought a conventional set piece campaign for the first time in the war and US firepower absolutely decimated them. The Marines at Hue City and Khe Sanh, during the same time period, erased entire regiments of North Vietnamese Army forces.

The two key North Vietnamese leaders, Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, admitted later that Tet was a complete US military victory, but also a complete North Vietnamese propaganda victory based on American news and media reporting following.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Allan,

I’m not a Vietnam historian, but if the war was won as you claim, what were the motivations of Cronkite and the media in general in lying to the American public?[/quote]

Afx: I wouldn’t say “lying”, rather, a skewed or biased reporting of the war.

I think the press had a legitimate mistrust of the military, especially the Army under Westmoreland, and were relying on the writings of journalists like Halberstam, who were openly critical of the war and how it was being managed.

Bear in mind, this was the first “war in your living room” where Americans were treated to pictures and film of the war, presented during the evening news. You were seeing footage of wounded and dead GIs and Marines during dinner. In WWII and Korea, the US Government censored and/or suppressed such footage. There were pictures of American war dead that weren’t allowed into circulation until after WWII had ended.

I think by 1968 there were serious questions as to where the war was going in terms of an exit strategy and Cronkite himself admitted to being “shaken” by footage of Viet Cong sappers inside US Embassy grounds in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. It doesn’t help that the Tet caught both the US and South Vietnamese forces by surprise and there was a sense that the North Vietnamese Army and VC were a step away from destabilizing the South. It looked like America was unprepared and didn’t have a sense of control over the war or a workable strategy.

In point of fact, after the initial surprise wore off, the US forces inflicted grievous casualties on the North Vietnamese Army and especially the Viet Cong forces, which came out into the open and fought a conventional set piece campaign for the first time in the war and US firepower absolutely decimated them. The Marines at Hue City and Khe Sanh, during the same time period, erased entire regiments of North Vietnamese Army forces.

The two key North Vietnamese leaders, Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, admitted later that Tet was a complete US military victory, but also a complete North Vietnamese propaganda victory based on American news and media reporting following.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Allan,

I’m not a Vietnam historian, but if the war was won as you claim, what were the motivations of Cronkite and the media in general in lying to the American public?[/quote]

Afx: I wouldn’t say “lying”, rather, a skewed or biased reporting of the war.

I think the press had a legitimate mistrust of the military, especially the Army under Westmoreland, and were relying on the writings of journalists like Halberstam, who were openly critical of the war and how it was being managed.

Bear in mind, this was the first “war in your living room” where Americans were treated to pictures and film of the war, presented during the evening news. You were seeing footage of wounded and dead GIs and Marines during dinner. In WWII and Korea, the US Government censored and/or suppressed such footage. There were pictures of American war dead that weren’t allowed into circulation until after WWII had ended.

I think by 1968 there were serious questions as to where the war was going in terms of an exit strategy and Cronkite himself admitted to being “shaken” by footage of Viet Cong sappers inside US Embassy grounds in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. It doesn’t help that the Tet caught both the US and South Vietnamese forces by surprise and there was a sense that the North Vietnamese Army and VC were a step away from destabilizing the South. It looked like America was unprepared and didn’t have a sense of control over the war or a workable strategy.

In point of fact, after the initial surprise wore off, the US forces inflicted grievous casualties on the North Vietnamese Army and especially the Viet Cong forces, which came out into the open and fought a conventional set piece campaign for the first time in the war and US firepower absolutely decimated them. The Marines at Hue City and Khe Sanh, during the same time period, erased entire regiments of North Vietnamese Army forces.

The two key North Vietnamese leaders, Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, admitted later that Tet was a complete US military victory, but also a complete North Vietnamese propaganda victory based on American news and media reporting following.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Allan,

I’m not a Vietnam historian, but if the war was won as you claim, what were the motivations of Cronkite and the media in general in lying to the American public?[/quote]

Afx: I wouldn’t say “lying”, rather, a skewed or biased reporting of the war.

I think the press had a legitimate mistrust of the military, especially the Army under Westmoreland, and were relying on the writings of journalists like Halberstam, who were openly critical of the war and how it was being managed.

Bear in mind, this was the first “war in your living room” where Americans were treated to pictures and film of the war, presented during the evening news. You were seeing footage of wounded and dead GIs and Marines during dinner. In WWII and Korea, the US Government censored and/or suppressed such footage. There were pictures of American war dead that weren’t allowed into circulation until after WWII had ended.

I think by 1968 there were serious questions as to where the war was going in terms of an exit strategy and Cronkite himself admitted to being “shaken” by footage of Viet Cong sappers inside US Embassy grounds in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. It doesn’t help that the Tet caught both the US and South Vietnamese forces by surprise and there was a sense that the North Vietnamese Army and VC were a step away from destabilizing the South. It looked like America was unprepared and didn’t have a sense of control over the war or a workable strategy.

In point of fact, after the initial surprise wore off, the US forces inflicted grievous casualties on the North Vietnamese Army and especially the Viet Cong forces, which came out into the open and fought a conventional set piece campaign for the first time in the war and US firepower absolutely decimated them. The Marines at Hue City and Khe Sanh, during the same time period, erased entire regiments of North Vietnamese Army forces.

The two key North Vietnamese leaders, Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, admitted later that Tet was a complete US military victory, but also a complete North Vietnamese propaganda victory based on American news and media reporting following.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Allan,

I’m not a Vietnam historian, but if the war was won as you claim, what were the motivations of Cronkite and the media in general in lying to the American public?[/quote]

Afx: I wouldn’t say “lying”, rather, a skewed or biased reporting of the war.

I think the press had a legitimate mistrust of the military, especially the Army under Westmoreland, and were relying on the writings of journalists like Halberstam, who were openly critical of the war and how it was being managed.

Bear in mind, this was the first “war in your living room” where Americans were treated to pictures and film of the war, presented during the evening news. You were seeing footage of wounded and dead GIs and Marines during dinner. In WWII and Korea, the US Government censored and/or suppressed such footage. There were pictures of American war dead that weren’t allowed into circulation until after WWII had ended.

I think by 1968 there were serious questions as to where the war was going in terms of an exit strategy and Cronkite himself admitted to being “shaken” by footage of Viet Cong sappers inside US Embassy grounds in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. It doesn’t help that the Tet caught both the US and South Vietnamese forces by surprise and there was a sense that the North Vietnamese Army and VC were a step away from destabilizing the South. It looked like America was unprepared and didn’t have a sense of control over the war or a workable strategy.

In point of fact, after the initial surprise wore off, the US forces inflicted grievous casualties on the North Vietnamese Army and especially the Viet Cong forces, which came out into the open and fought a conventional set piece campaign for the first time in the war and US firepower absolutely decimated them. The Marines at Hue City and Khe Sanh, during the same time period, erased entire regiments of North Vietnamese Army forces.

The two key North Vietnamese leaders, Ho Chi Minh and General Giap, admitted later that Tet was a complete US military victory, but also a complete North Vietnamese propaganda victory based on American news and media reporting following.

[briansd1]

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

It’s also because we supported a corrupt South-Vietnam government where

1) anyone with money could bribe their sons from serving in the military in a time of war.

2) The country imports of cosmetics were larger of all the exports combined. There was essentially no economy except for the war economy. You know, GI you come with me, I love you long time! …

That is exactly what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan without the prostitution. The troops are paid better now but they don’t have the R&R they enjoyed during Vietnam.

I believe that

a) Iraq will turn out to have been a of waste money and lives. The end result would have been no different than a change of regime after Saddam’s eventual death.

b) Afghanistan will turn into another Vietnam. The difference is that we won’t win in Afghanistan like we are winning in Vietnam now with Coca Cola, Levis, Citibank, KFC, Procter & Gamble, etc. (I don’t think that Vietnam has McDonald’s and Starbucks yet).

Also don’t forget that we have have all the cheap Vietnamese labor to produce the clothes we consume from Gap, Abercrombie, etc..

We did win the Vietnam War economically as well a militarily. We lost it psychologically.

Will Afghanistan eventually become part of our economic supply chain?

Time will tell…

[briansd1]

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

It’s also because we supported a corrupt South-Vietnam government where

1) anyone with money could bribe their sons from serving in the military in a time of war.

2) The country imports of cosmetics were larger of all the exports combined. There was essentially no economy except for the war economy. You know, GI you come with me, I love you long time! …

That is exactly what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan without the prostitution. The troops are paid better now but they don’t have the R&R they enjoyed during Vietnam.

I believe that

a) Iraq will turn out to have been a of waste money and lives. The end result would have been no different than a change of regime after Saddam’s eventual death.

b) Afghanistan will turn into another Vietnam. The difference is that we won’t win in Afghanistan like we are winning in Vietnam now with Coca Cola, Levis, Citibank, KFC, Procter & Gamble, etc. (I don’t think that Vietnam has McDonald’s and Starbucks yet).

Also don’t forget that we have have all the cheap Vietnamese labor to produce the clothes we consume from Gap, Abercrombie, etc..

We did win the Vietnam War economically as well a militarily. We lost it psychologically.

Will Afghanistan eventually become part of our economic supply chain?

Time will tell…

[briansd1]

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

It’s also because we supported a corrupt South-Vietnam government where

1) anyone with money could bribe their sons from serving in the military in a time of war.

2) The country imports of cosmetics were larger of all the exports combined. There was essentially no economy except for the war economy. You know, GI you come with me, I love you long time! …

That is exactly what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan without the prostitution. The troops are paid better now but they don’t have the R&R they enjoyed during Vietnam.

I believe that

a) Iraq will turn out to have been a of waste money and lives. The end result would have been no different than a change of regime after Saddam’s eventual death.

b) Afghanistan will turn into another Vietnam. The difference is that we won’t win in Afghanistan like we are winning in Vietnam now with Coca Cola, Levis, Citibank, KFC, Procter & Gamble, etc. (I don’t think that Vietnam has McDonald’s and Starbucks yet).

Also don’t forget that we have have all the cheap Vietnamese labor to produce the clothes we consume from Gap, Abercrombie, etc..

We did win the Vietnam War economically as well a militarily. We lost it psychologically.

Will Afghanistan eventually become part of our economic supply chain?

Time will tell…

[briansd1]

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

It’s also because we supported a corrupt South-Vietnam government where

1) anyone with money could bribe their sons from serving in the military in a time of war.

2) The country imports of cosmetics were larger of all the exports combined. There was essentially no economy except for the war economy. You know, GI you come with me, I love you long time! …

That is exactly what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan without the prostitution. The troops are paid better now but they don’t have the R&R they enjoyed during Vietnam.

I believe that

a) Iraq will turn out to have been a of waste money and lives. The end result would have been no different than a change of regime after Saddam’s eventual death.

b) Afghanistan will turn into another Vietnam. The difference is that we won’t win in Afghanistan like we are winning in Vietnam now with Coca Cola, Levis, Citibank, KFC, Procter & Gamble, etc. (I don’t think that Vietnam has McDonald’s and Starbucks yet).

Also don’t forget that we have have all the cheap Vietnamese labor to produce the clothes we consume from Gap, Abercrombie, etc..

We did win the Vietnam War economically as well a militarily. We lost it psychologically.

Will Afghanistan eventually become part of our economic supply chain?

Time will tell…

[briansd1]

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

It’s also because we supported a corrupt South-Vietnam government where

1) anyone with money could bribe their sons from serving in the military in a time of war.

2) The country imports of cosmetics were larger of all the exports combined. There was essentially no economy except for the war economy. You know, GI you come with me, I love you long time! …

That is exactly what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan without the prostitution. The troops are paid better now but they don’t have the R&R they enjoyed during Vietnam.

I believe that

a) Iraq will turn out to have been a of waste money and lives. The end result would have been no different than a change of regime after Saddam’s eventual death.

b) Afghanistan will turn into another Vietnam. The difference is that we won’t win in Afghanistan like we are winning in Vietnam now with Coca Cola, Levis, Citibank, KFC, Procter & Gamble, etc. (I don’t think that Vietnam has McDonald’s and Starbucks yet).

Also don’t forget that we have have all the cheap Vietnamese labor to produce the clothes we consume from Gap, Abercrombie, etc..

We did win the Vietnam War economically as well a militarily. We lost it psychologically.

Will Afghanistan eventually become part of our economic supply chain?

Time will tell…

[Zeitgeist]

They already are: Afghanistan supplies nearly all the world’s opium, the raw ingredient used to make heroin. We supply them money.

[Zeitgeist]

They already are: Afghanistan supplies nearly all the world’s opium, the raw ingredient used to make heroin. We supply them money.

[Zeitgeist]

They already are: Afghanistan supplies nearly all the world’s opium, the raw ingredient used to make heroin. We supply them money.

[Zeitgeist]

They already are: Afghanistan supplies nearly all the world’s opium, the raw ingredient used to make heroin. We supply them money.

[Author]

Posts