America the Gutless

[BigRob]

I guess everyone's guilty of committing a Palin, from-time-to-time.

If only I could visit all of our 57 states.

 

[Andy]

Sure the casualty count was higher on the Vietcong side...the US had the far superior weapons..which they also used to wantonly slaughter millions of innocent civilians.

Nevertheless, be by the peace table or whatever, the US was driven from the country. It's all about the area gained, not the casualty count.

As I stated before, the US would have never sat down at the table had not the war become unwinnable. The Nixon Administration was looking for a way out, while at the same time attempting to retain a little bit of respect.

The loss in Vietnam taught America some needed humility...Accept defeat like a man... it'll do you good

Granted we do need humility. Of course normally the point who are first to point that out, are also the first to need humility themselves. A statement like that coming from one of the most arrogant on the forum, is quite funny in my estimation.

That said... we didn't lose. We never lost in Vietnam. Not once. The largest military engagement of the entire war, the Tet Offensive, was a massive overwhelming disaster for Ho Chi Mhin. The North Nam, lost more than half their entire standing army. Boy, that sounds like a massive US loss... right?

The idea that the war was unwinnable is a sorry joke. Right up the end, we could have stomped north vietnam flat. The fact is, the only reason we couldn't win was because idiot democrats prevented victory. Even while we pulled out, Nixon bombed and wiped out north Vietnam until they were read to cease-fire.

How? By simply letting our military do what it does, unlike LBJ who micromanaged the entire thing, and prevented us from taking the fight to the enemy.

The only reason our allies fell to the north communists, is because our murderous democrats prevent military aid being given to our allies.

We didn't slaughter millions of civilians. That's just a complete lie on your part, and puts your already weak credibility in question. Even the two limited instances where civilians were killed, pales to the millions killed by mass slaughter and systematic murder by the socialists. Yet here, you, not me, is trying to elect similar to the socialist murders.

 

[Popeye]

Granted we do need humility. Of course normally the point who are first to point that out, are also the first to need humility themselves. A statement like that coming from one of the most arrogant on the forum, is quite funny in my estimation.

That said... we didn't lose. We never lost in Vietnam. Not once. The largest military engagement of the entire war, the Tet Offensive, was a massive overwhelming disaster for Ho Chi Mhin. The North Nam, lost more than half their entire standing army. Boy, that sounds like a massive US loss... right?

The idea that the war was unwinnable is a sorry joke. Right up the end, we could have stomped north vietnam flat. The fact is, the only reason we couldn't win was because idiot democrats prevented victory. Even while we pulled out, Nixon bombed and wiped out north Vietnam until they were read to cease-fire.

How? By simply letting our military do what it does, unlike LBJ who micromanaged the entire thing, and prevented us from taking the fight to the enemy.

The only reason our allies fell to the north communists, is because our murderous democrats prevent military aid being given to our allies.

We didn't slaughter millions of civilians. That's just a complete lie on your part, and puts your already weak credibility in question. Even the two limited instances where civilians were killed, pales to the millions killed by mass slaughter and systematic murder by the socialists. Yet here, you, not me, is trying to elect similar to the socialist murders.

Hmm..interesting reading, if I don't say so myself...

Estimating the number killed in the conflict is extremely difficult. Official records are hard to find or nonexistent and many of those killed were literally blasted to pieces by bombing. For many years the North Vietnamese suppressed the true number of their casualties for propaganda purposes. It is also difficult to say exactly what counts as a "Vietnam war casualty"; people are still being killed today by unexploded ordinance, particularly cluster bomblets. Environmental effects from chemical agents and the colossal social problems caused by a devastated country with so many dead surely caused many more lives to be shortened. In addition, the Khmer Rouge would probably not have come into power and committed their slaughters without the destabilization of the war, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the sanctuaries' in Cambodia.

The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged.

Of course the NVA and the VC were responsible for a percentage of the civilians killed but the vast majority were killed by the US with napalm and bombing runs.

You should be ashamed of your governments actions in Vietnam not still defending them almost 40 years later.

http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/

 

[Andy]

Hmm..interesting reading, if I don't say so myself...

Estimating the number killed in the conflict is extremely difficult. Official records are hard to find or nonexistent and many of those killed were literally blasted to pieces by bombing. For many years the North Vietnamese suppressed the true number of their casualties for propaganda purposes. It is also difficult to say exactly what counts as a "Vietnam war casualty"; people are still being killed today by unexploded ordinance, particularly cluster bomblets. Environmental effects from chemical agents and the colossal social problems caused by a devastated country with so many dead surely caused many more lives to be shortened. In addition, the Khmer Rouge would probably not have come into power and committed their slaughters without the destabilization of the war, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the sanctuaries' in Cambodia.

The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged.

Of course the NVA and the VC were responsible for a percentage of the civilians killed but the vast majority were killed by the US with napalm and bombing runs.

You should be ashamed of your governments actions in Vietnam not still defending them almost 40 years later.

http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/

Um, as we already pointed out repeatedly... and you (unsurprisingly) have failed understand, that 1.5 million figure includes military and VietCon deaths. Your blah blah millions of civilian deaths, is still, and always will be, a complete lie. A lie repeated, is merely a confirmed liar.

Well, sorry to bother you, I am not only, not ashamed of my governments actions, I fully support the efforts in made in Vietnam, and if it were needed to be done over, I would support it again, and proudly so.

The only thing I am ashamed of, is that our democrat lead government prevented us from winning, and deserted our ally in Vietnam, dooming thousands of people to a communist society that murdered hundreds of thousands.

Further, I'm ashamed of people like you who would base foreign policy on the word "probably" in the above quote, in order to justify supporting socialism that killed millions the world over, and do so for no other reason than to support your selfish political partisanship. It's a sad day when people are more willing to allow abandonment of our allies, and the suffering of an entire nation, in the name of the democrat party.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

You should be ashamed of your governments actions in Vietnam not still defending them almost 40 years later.

Are you even an American?? I've noticed that most of the libs around here consistantly use the phrase "YOUR government" or similar phraseology. If you ARE an American, it's YOUR GOVERNMENT TOO.

 

[Plainspeaker]

Mr Carpenter, your opening statement on this thread suggests that you think that the US goes nobley into battle to help foreign countries at great expense to itself and with no appreciation from the country it helped.

This is not accurate.

It ususally goes to war for at least one of two reasons.

1) To fight communism about which it is paranoid.
2) To gain wealth either by taking the natural resource of the victim or by crippling allies with loans at usery rates of interest.

If a country has a right wing Government and no oil then the US has no interest in 'regime changing' it as it did in Iraq once the claim of WMD became unsustainable.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Mr Carpenter, your opening statement on this thread suggests that you think that the US goes nobley into battle to help foreign countries at great expense to itself and with no appreciation from the country it helped.

This is not accurate.

It ususally goes to war for at least one of two reasons.

1) To fight communism about which it is paranoid.
2) To gain wealth either by taking the natural resource of the victim or by crippling allies with loans at usery rates of interest.

If a country has a right wing Government and no oil then the US has no interest in 'regime changing' it as it did in Iraq once the claim of WMD became unsustainable.

Plainspeaker, I'm afraid it's YOUR analysis that is flawed. Firstly, the reason any current engagements against Communism would be unnecessary is because we spent over 50 years fighting it, and finally defeated it as a viable threat to our nation. Now all we have to do is ferret out the last vestiges of it that have grown in our own country thanks to the institutions of lower indoctrination, which were instituted as a tool of the Communists, and which have polluted the minds of the 'less intelligent' among our young people over the past 60+ years.

Your second point is also haighly flawed, as there is absolutely no historical precedent to support the allegation.

Also, your assertions concerning "regime change", especially as it relates to Iraq, are also highly flawed, but since you're obviously a "true believer", I shant waste any of my time presenting the volumns of evidence to the contrary, as I suspect that you'd simply resort to the standard talking points instead of even considering that your position is flawed.

 

[Plainspeaker]

It sounds like you agree with me.

You acknowldge that the US fights in wars if communism is involved.

You didn't address the second reason for war (theft of resource/loan sharking) but my guess is that you will agree with that too even if you do present your argument in such agrressive ways.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

It sounds like you agree with me.

You acknowldge that the US fights in wars if communism is involved.

Of course we do, because Communism is anathema to America.

You didn't address the second reason for war (theft of resource/loan sharking) but my guess is that you will agree with that too even if you do present your argument in such agrressive ways.

I did address it, and informed you that there is NO PRECEDENT for your assertion (in deference to you allow me to rephrase; that means it's never happened, so your saying so is, like, totally bogus Dude).

 

[Plainspeaker]

There are lots of precedents.

The US started the war against Iraq claimining it was because they had WMD.

That argument was proved to be unsustainable and then what should have happened is that the US withdrew and stopped attacking Irtaq because their reason for doing so was debunked.

But instead they kept going and changed the reason to regime change.

But the US does not regime change lots of other countries where the leaders are a lot worse than Saddam Hussein.

So although they are in greater need of regime change the US does not effect it.

Why?

You tell me.

Clue - oil.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

There are lots of precedents.

The US started the war against Iraq claimining it was because they had WMD.

That argument was proved to be unsustainable and then what should have happened is that the US withdrew and stopped attacking Irtaq because their reason for doing was debunked.

That statement right there proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have no concept of military operations, or even the concept of "you broke it, you fix it". Whether or not Saddam had WMD's (which he did, and it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to anyone but the "true believers" like you), once combat operations began, we were duty bound to ensure that we stabilized the country, allowed them to elect a new government, and maintain security while that government got it's feet under it to the point that our presence is no longer necessary.

But the US does not regime change lots of other countries where the leaders are a lot worse than Saddam Hussein.

We have "regime changed" every government in every country we've invaded. Was Hitler still in charge of Germany after 1945? Was Hirohito still in charge of Japan after '45? Your entire argument is a Red Herring.

So although they are in greater need of regime change the US does not effect it.

Why?

You tell me.

Clue - oil.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you here. You're obviously condemning us for going into Iraq, overthrowing a tyrannical despot who murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of his own people, including by using WMD's on them, and who was providing material assistance to almost every terrorist group in the region, yet you appear to be calling for us to go into other countries for much the same reasons?

Why the hypocrisy?

Oh, and if oil was really the reason, why is it that we have yet to import even 1 barrel of Iraqi oil since 2003? Where is all of this oil that we allegedly invaded Iraq for?

 

[Plainspeaker]

Your argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that the US invaded Iraq once before and clearly did not have to ''stabilized the country, allowed them to elect a new government, and maintain security while that government got it's feet under it to the point that our presence is no longer necessary.''.

It would appear that the US army does not share your view of military operations.

Even Bush acknowledged there are no WMD in Iraq. Again, a republican commander in chief who disagrees with your views.

And where was the US when 4M people were murdered in the the Democratic republic of Congo?

Tell me why Iraq needed regime change but not DRC?

 

[BigRob]

Your argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that the US invaded Iraq once before and clearly did not have to ''stabilized the country, allowed them to elect a new government, and maintain security while that government got it's feet under it to the point that our presence is no longer necessary.''.

We did not install a new government in 91. We left Saddam there, who then ruthlessly cracked down on any dissidents. Remember the Kurdish uprising right after the war?

It would appear that the US army does not share your view of military operations.

Even Bush acknowledged there are no WMD in Iraq. Again, a republican commander in chief who disagrees with your views.

And where was the US when 4M people were murdered in the the Democratic republic of Congo?

Tell me why Iraq needed regime change but not DRC?

There is no point to getting involved in the DRC. They offer nothing to the world. Was Iraq a mistake in hindsight, yes. Was it a mistake at the time given what we thought we knew, probably not.

 

[Plainspeaker]

''There was no point getting involved in DRC. They offer nothing to the world''.

Out of interest, what does Iraq have ''to offer the world'' such that they needed regime change and DRC not?

I have noticed that you have been appointed a moderator.

It does not say much for this board that it appoints someone who can right off the deaths of 4M people so glibly as being unworthy of help because ''They offer nothing to the world''.

And in actual fact the US did get involved in Congo as they do in many African countries.

The difference being that in this case the US was contributing to the problem as they helped the despotic right wing governor to power overthrowing thr previous communist regime.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_georgian_071105_un_probes_congo_slau.htm

I have to say that your comment about DRC is just disgraceful and it shows how cheap Americans think foreign lives are.

Those who were slaughtered were innocent people trying to eek a life out in desperate conditions.

If you qualify as a moderator then it is no surprise that so many of the views posted on this board are so unpleasant.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Your argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that the US invaded Iraq once before and clearly did not have to ''stabilized the country, allowed them to elect a new government, and maintain security while that government got it's feet under it to the point that our presence is no longer necessary.''.

It would appear that the US army does not share your view of military operations.

Really? That's odd, because the former Commander in Iraq, David Petreus clearly stated time and time again that that was precisely their mission.

Even Bush acknowledged there are no WMD in Iraq. Again, a republican commander in chief who disagrees with your views.

That is patently false.

And where was the US when 4M people were murdered in the the Democratic republic of Congo?

Which time? The fact of the matter is, and history bears this out, that going into Africa to stop those ANIMALS from slaughtering each other is utter folly, which is why the UN doesn't even like to send troops in there. You also neglect to account for the fact that our involvement in Iraq was predicated by UN resolutions, and after 12 years of Saddam failing to comply with those UN resolutions, as well as his continual refusal to comply with the terms of his surrender in '91, we had every right, under international law, to go back in there and depose him.

Tell me why Iraq needed regime change but not DRC?

Again, Saddams steadfast refusal to comply with the terms of surrender following the '91 Gulf War and 12 years of willful failure to comply with literally dozens of UN resolutions.

Now, I've answered YOUR questions repeatedly, yet you have failed to address mine. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION that we should go into Rwanda? Congo? Any of the other fourth-world cess-pools in Africa where their favorite past time is slaughtering each other? Why is that not hypocritical when you decry our presence in Iraq? Are the Iraqi people somehow less deserving of being saved from a despotic and murdering leader than the people of Rwanda or Congo? Are we to finally become the "Policemen of the world" that everyone on the left has accused us of being for the past 4 decades?