Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
Participantucodegen, compare to the non-votes by Mc Cain during the same period.
I’ll let you do the counts…
I did check McCains record before I did that post, and I also checked Hillary Clinton etc. I don’t agree with any of them skipping out on their constituents to further their careers.
That said, when taken as a totality of their congressional record, Obama’s has very high percentage of non-voting/chasing career to the expense of his constituents.
I’ll prune McCains record, since he still is a senator, to 2008.
McCain:
Resumed participation at the same time as Obama.
McCains block of ‘non-voting’ started around 7/9/07
Obama’s block of ‘non-voting’ started around 2/17/07
–Obama bailed on voting early, Hillary’s non-voting started around 9/6/07 – which is actually better than McCain – though it looks like she may have continued ‘non-voting’ after the primary.
McCains record goes back to 1/12/91
Obamas record goes back to 1/6/051.5 years of non-voting in 15 years of service for McCain.
1.75 years of non-voting in 4 years of service for Obama.It is quite possible for them to know when a vote is going to go to the floor.. and this is the electronic age. It is possible for them to get a copy of the bills that are going to vote without even being in congress. No excuse for either.
Participantucodegen, compare to the non-votes by Mc Cain during the same period.
I’ll let you do the counts…
I did check McCains record before I did that post, and I also checked Hillary Clinton etc. I don’t agree with any of them skipping out on their constituents to further their careers.
That said, when taken as a totality of their congressional record, Obama’s has very high percentage of non-voting/chasing career to the expense of his constituents.
I’ll prune McCains record, since he still is a senator, to 2008.
McCain:
Resumed participation at the same time as Obama.
McCains block of ‘non-voting’ started around 7/9/07
Obama’s block of ‘non-voting’ started around 2/17/07
–Obama bailed on voting early, Hillary’s non-voting started around 9/6/07 – which is actually better than McCain – though it looks like she may have continued ‘non-voting’ after the primary.
McCains record goes back to 1/12/91
Obamas record goes back to 1/6/051.5 years of non-voting in 15 years of service for McCain.
1.75 years of non-voting in 4 years of service for Obama.It is quite possible for them to know when a vote is going to go to the floor.. and this is the electronic age. It is possible for them to get a copy of the bills that are going to vote without even being in congress. No excuse for either.
Participantucodegen, compare to the non-votes by Mc Cain during the same period.
I’ll let you do the counts…
I did check McCains record before I did that post, and I also checked Hillary Clinton etc. I don’t agree with any of them skipping out on their constituents to further their careers.
That said, when taken as a totality of their congressional record, Obama’s has very high percentage of non-voting/chasing career to the expense of his constituents.
I’ll prune McCains record, since he still is a senator, to 2008.
McCain:
Resumed participation at the same time as Obama.
McCains block of ‘non-voting’ started around 7/9/07
Obama’s block of ‘non-voting’ started around 2/17/07
–Obama bailed on voting early, Hillary’s non-voting started around 9/6/07 – which is actually better than McCain – though it looks like she may have continued ‘non-voting’ after the primary.
McCains record goes back to 1/12/91
Obamas record goes back to 1/6/051.5 years of non-voting in 15 years of service for McCain.
1.75 years of non-voting in 4 years of service for Obama.It is quite possible for them to know when a vote is going to go to the floor.. and this is the electronic age. It is possible for them to get a copy of the bills that are going to vote without even being in congress. No excuse for either.
Participantucodegen, compare to the non-votes by Mc Cain during the same period.
I’ll let you do the counts…
I did check McCains record before I did that post, and I also checked Hillary Clinton etc. I don’t agree with any of them skipping out on their constituents to further their careers.
That said, when taken as a totality of their congressional record, Obama’s has very high percentage of non-voting/chasing career to the expense of his constituents.
I’ll prune McCains record, since he still is a senator, to 2008.
McCain:
Resumed participation at the same time as Obama.
McCains block of ‘non-voting’ started around 7/9/07
Obama’s block of ‘non-voting’ started around 2/17/07
–Obama bailed on voting early, Hillary’s non-voting started around 9/6/07 – which is actually better than McCain – though it looks like she may have continued ‘non-voting’ after the primary.
McCains record goes back to 1/12/91
Obamas record goes back to 1/6/051.5 years of non-voting in 15 years of service for McCain.
1.75 years of non-voting in 4 years of service for Obama.It is quite possible for them to know when a vote is going to go to the floor.. and this is the electronic age. It is possible for them to get a copy of the bills that are going to vote without even being in congress. No excuse for either.
Participantucodegen, compare to the non-votes by Mc Cain during the same period.
I’ll let you do the counts…
I did check McCains record before I did that post, and I also checked Hillary Clinton etc. I don’t agree with any of them skipping out on their constituents to further their careers.
That said, when taken as a totality of their congressional record, Obama’s has very high percentage of non-voting/chasing career to the expense of his constituents.
I’ll prune McCains record, since he still is a senator, to 2008.
McCain:
Resumed participation at the same time as Obama.
McCains block of ‘non-voting’ started around 7/9/07
Obama’s block of ‘non-voting’ started around 2/17/07
–Obama bailed on voting early, Hillary’s non-voting started around 9/6/07 – which is actually better than McCain – though it looks like she may have continued ‘non-voting’ after the primary.
McCains record goes back to 1/12/91
Obamas record goes back to 1/6/051.5 years of non-voting in 15 years of service for McCain.
1.75 years of non-voting in 4 years of service for Obama.It is quite possible for them to know when a vote is going to go to the floor.. and this is the electronic age. It is possible for them to get a copy of the bills that are going to vote without even being in congress. No excuse for either.
ParticipantWhat he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)
That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.
Here is Obama’s voting record.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/
Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..
ParticipantWhat he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)
That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.
Here is Obama’s voting record.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/
Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..
ParticipantWhat he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)
That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.
Here is Obama’s voting record.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/
Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..
ParticipantWhat he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)
That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.
Here is Obama’s voting record.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/
Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..
ParticipantWhat he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)
That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.
Here is Obama’s voting record.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/
Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..
ParticipantUnfortunately, now our soldiers overseas are barricaded behind high walls. (Even during the Vietnam War our soldiers were well loved by the local kids and people. They could mingle with the local population.)
OT, but will address: Our soldiers are also able to mingle with the local population. As a matter of fact, one of the members of the local population warned a base that Al Qaida was planning an attack on the base (This was on one of the more recent attacks). The reason for the barricade is because Al Qaida member are willing to blow themselves up to achieve the goal and don’t care about civilian casualties. This is not a point of view shared by the Viet Cong.
ParticipantUnfortunately, now our soldiers overseas are barricaded behind high walls. (Even during the Vietnam War our soldiers were well loved by the local kids and people. They could mingle with the local population.)
OT, but will address: Our soldiers are also able to mingle with the local population. As a matter of fact, one of the members of the local population warned a base that Al Qaida was planning an attack on the base (This was on one of the more recent attacks). The reason for the barricade is because Al Qaida member are willing to blow themselves up to achieve the goal and don’t care about civilian casualties. This is not a point of view shared by the Viet Cong.
-
AuthorPosts
