|
War-Losing Faction
Quote:
|
I guess that would be any of us who thinks that things should be done a different way than it is being done now. In other words, anyone who is against further suckling of Haliburton on the public teats, anyone who thinks that money is being scandalously wasted, and anyone who doesn't just plain agree with the current administration.
You know...the same sort of people who lost the Vietnam War. |
Ooow, me, me. Take me prisoner, strip me naked, do unspeakable things, make me cum. I just can't wait to lose.:right:
|
I don't know about you guys, but I just flat out hate America. I hate freedom, and I hate apple pie. That's the only reason anybody would criticize their government. Many smart-talking eggheads will try to tell you different, but deep down, they really just hate America. Take any situation: is America involved? Then I hope they lose. Our way of life? I want it destroyed, and I want to help that happen. Tax and spend, baby, tax and spend. I'm comin' after your guns, if I don't get your Bible first. And guess what? Mandatory abortions for all American citizens. Hail Satan!
|
Quote:
|
I don't like Bush's policy at all, and I don't like seeing people (including soldiers, innocent children and even insurgents) killed because of it.
I don't hate America. I just don't think the leader of America is doing a good job. |
Well, there you have it -- from the Horses' Faces!:p
|
But seriously, folks: we had far too much of this during Vietnam, and in the end it paved the way for Communist victory and a free hand for their oppressions and abuses, did it not? Not exactly a triumph of the human spirit, here; more a victory for stupidity and weakness -- and for totalitarianism.
How is it that otherwise intelligent people missed the lesson? I got it at age ten -- where were the rest of you? If a ten-year-old can get it it ain't hard. And yet, the War Loser Faction -- doesn't. |
apple pie eating victory monkey
|
Quote:
|
I love this nation and am a Patriot... that is why I want what it best for this nation.
Which is to impeach and arrest the traitors of BushCo. and get the hell out of our illegal actions in Iraq. Pretty simple. |
Quote:
LBJ has been reincarnated. |
And Pol Pot was stopped--not by the glorious Americans--but by the 'scum-sucking' Vienamese army. Anyway, we don't hear much about the domino theory anymore since the end of Pol Pot's misrule, especially since the dominoes tumbled uphill (against Communist advancement, so to speak).
|
We're not necessarily losing. After all, it would be very difficult for them to force us to stop fighting. We could keep troops in Iraq pretty much as long as we want.
However, we are getting farther and farther away from winning. |
I really do hate America.
Well, no. I wouldnt go that far. UG claims to be pro-human... but he is, first and foremost, pro-US. Only AFTER that is he pro-human, and when US interests and human interests are in conflict, he sides blindly with the US, being the unthinking sheep he is. I'm pro-human above all else. Period. |
That's because you haven't had to interact with enough of them yet. :lol:
|
Having seen what else is out there, here's what I have to say: my entire life shows me America's cause is humanity's cause. You'll come to this view too, Ibram. It might take you 'til you're forty, but it's that way with many. I just had something of a head start, it appears.
Deadbeater, I think your view of the domino theory is incomplete. Here's how I understand it: North Vietnam -- first domino. Laos -- domino. Cambodia -- domino. South Vietnam -- domino. Thailand managed to be robust enough to resist becoming a domino, because Thailand's government and people stayed in sympathy. But a domino theory is not invalidated because four dominoes fell and not five. All that means is that the disaster wasn't quite as extensive as we might have feared. I do not entirely understand what motivated South Vietnam to take Pol Pot's boys down -- too crazy for the descendants of the Viet Minh, perhaps? Whether this actually constitutes pushing a domino back up is something that should probably be explored further. It's an interesting notion. |
Isn't it remarkable that you would favor the country that you come from? Against all odds, one favors the familiar. Mind-boggling.
|
Jim Webb Interview with Chris Wallace today
I caught most of the interview of Jim Webb by Chris Wallace this morning (transcript here). I will say it was one of the most brutal interrogations of a politician I have seen in recent years. Considering how many politicians these days, especially high ranking ones like Bush and Clinton, force preconditions on questions, this seemed to be a no holds barred interview.
Wallace asked some tough questions. I think he was acting as a proxy for our own UG. Webb firmly answered back some tough questions, even insisting on addressing what he felt were insinuations built into the questions. There were a lot of good moments in the interview. Here are a few. Quote:
Quote:
|
The War-Losing Faction has even managed to penetrate the military.
|
This is not the first time this has happened, not in this or any war.
I do not believe that they were part of any movement. Most, IMO, would agree that being a conscientious objector should simply be "I will not kill, I will accept a support role" while honoring your military contract if you disagree with the killing of a specific people. Your view is very simplistic. There is no "faction", just those who do not agree with the US breaking international law, invading & occupying a non-threating nation, then stealing their natural resources via a puppet government with a law we wrote, ourselves. |
I suspect that Kitsune was making fun of UG there.
|
Quote:
For the record I really hate the following: freedom of speech, free choice and hamburgers. Most of all hamburgers. Damn America! |
Well, Jebbie, bend over and for your really-hates, I'll inject you your due reward.:p
All we really needed to do was to keep South Vietnam in supplies. Congress was Democratic-controlled at the time, and Nixon, who with benefit of national experience, hindsight and strategic reappraisal in prosecuting the Vietnam War, was employing a more successful strategy, Abrams' style rather than Westmoreland's, disgraced himself all the way out of office with the Watergate scandal. With the President too politically vitiated and distracted to get Congress to measure up to the demands of common decency to an ally, Congress' funds cutoff doomed South Vietnam as an independent political entity -- and more than a few South Vietnamese as living entities, let alone independent ones. Would a Republican-controlled Congress have been that feckless? This is a grievance. It's also a shame. National level Republicans do behave in a genuinely anti-communist manner. Their Democratic counterparts -- "have done everything differently."* And they've failed a lot and lost a lot thereby. When it came to coping with the major threat to the United States and the rest of the world of the twentieth century, the Democrats ran the gamut between singularly imperceptive incompetence and general failure, and they spent a solid fifty years staying hosed up. They're still in this habit, and they're still just as incapable. I'm fed up. South Vietnam's political fault lines seem really to be nothing more or less than the legacy of French colonialism and post-colonialism: in particular a policy -- seen also in Lebanon, to outcomes not very different -- of parceling out portions of a former colony's political power specifically to this or that faction/religion/definable group. The ruling South Vietnamese elite lacked close ties to the rest of the South Vietnamese population, particularly out in the sticks where the North's forces had freest hand. A political structure made from such rotten timber isn't going to handle pressure from outside at all, let alone anything approaching well. One good shove and crrraaackkkk, crunch! Really, we went into Vietnam out of a humanitarian impulse. That we didn't succeed meant blood and sorrow, and no redress. That Vietnam has since enjoyed a measure of anti-Communist success, to the point where Communism is now maintained mainly as a sort of state religion to which one must outwardly subscribe at least if one wants to be an official, largely heals the ulceration. *The words of Sen. John Kerry, a famous Democrat I can't be stupid enough to vote for. |
It's such a shame you're not in charge of anything UG. I'm sure you would have made sure the US came out of Vietnam victorious! Just like if they let you run things in Iraq everyone would be saying how wonderful it is when another country invades your home and starts shooting at your friends and family.
Yeah, it's a shame you're not president UG. I'd feel a whole lot safer going to sleep at night if you were. ;) |
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is run by folks with the same view of history.
Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich of Boston University describes their mindset this way: This convenient amnesia allowed the ISG to overlook a record of bipartisan bungling and shortsightedness extending over a period of decades. Franklin D. Roosevelt got the ball rolling in 1945, promising protection to the House of Saud in exchange for preferred access to Saudi oil. Dwight D. Eisenhower made his own distinctive contribution, engineering a coup in Tehran and forging a fateful partnership with the Shah. John F. Kennedy chipped in with another CIA-assisted coup, this one bringing the Ba’ath Party to power in Baghdad. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon affirmed the Iranian connection and added another, establishing a costly “special relationship” with Israel. When revolutionaries tossed the Shah out on his ear, Jimmy Carter upped the ante: under the terms of the Carter Doctrine, the United States vowed henceforth to use any means necessary to secure its interests in the Gulf. |
Quote:
|
I think you may have stubbed your sarcasm detector.
|
Hard to tell with text... now that I know, it is very funny. Thanks.
|
Fuckin' hamburgers.
|
Why is there no ham?
|
No...ham... ??? Good question. "ham" burger ... Oh... from Hamburg.
|
Exactly. They're made out of Germans.
|
Don't you find it a little strange that Uder disappears, and now they're feeding us this mysterious food, "Uder-braten" ???
|
Well, that's what happened with Frank. The next day the menu had Frank-furters.
|
I don't even wanna know what happened the day before they served us fish tacos.
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Dude, I live within pistol shot of Port Hueneme's City Beach. I've got all the ocean front I can stomach! Look again, though, at what we tried there -- at bottom, I can't see anything but a humanitarian impulse, especially with the understanding that international communism is not humanitarian by any definition, even Pravda's. Your points are well taken; my point is that North Vietnam's winning did guarantee about the worst of all possible government. Pol Pot's government being an example of one that was slightly worse. Yes, Nixon behaved stupidly -- and the thing about H2Ogate was the seeming routineness of it all. It had the flavor of something that had gone on for a very long time, among almost everyone in the political process, but kept behind the scenes. For an exhaustive list of Democratic failures, that's going to take some time and offline composition to get it all down. Stay tuned -- but it makes rather dreary reading. |
well.. that's why america is the 'great experiment'.. this is an evolving process... damn shame that the thing has been co-opted by the jocks and jarheads.
|
Perhaps if you're neither, you should really try beating them at their own game, or playing your game better than they play theirs?
There comes a point when bitching is jejune. |
I thought bitching was losing :confused:
I guess our big deviation, UG, comes from the intent we view. I'd have an easier time believing your humanitarian view if the US did not have such a large number of prisoners and homeless types. Or even national healthcare. If I am not believe Vietnam was for humanitarian reasons then I wonder why the US gov neglects its own people. |
yeah, true that.. good point
|
Note that when the usual suspects decry our prisoners and our homeless, the usual suspects have no program to offer that isn't packed full of socialism, a highly inefficient, bureaucratic, and expensive form of sociopolitical order. This is why we reject these programs. The socialists, delusional in their sense of entitlement and of humane benevolence -- but organized poverty of whatever degree is neither benevolent nor in itself entitling -- then take opportunity to complain of meanness of spirit on the part of those who know an economic order takes one of two choices: either create wealth or organize scarcity. There are no socialist economies not to one degree or another plagued with scarcity. The capitalist ones tend to fix scarcities by the natural, human law of supply and demand: if there's a demand, somebody is going to make a living in its supply. Pleas for additional socialism do not move the capitalist zeitgeist. What's more, they amount to an unscrupulous scam by persons out to write themselves into positions as bureaucrats -- not part of the production, but part of the overhead.
When, moved by socialist impulses, a government starts voting a portion of the treasury to pay out dollars to people who've done nothing to earn dollars, what is created is not social betterment (allegedly what is desired, yet the record shows this simply never occurs) but instead a market for idleness -- and the market for idleness is wholly artificial. For an example of this in full cry, take a long look at downtown Amsterdam -- in the mid Eighties, the place was full of shabby hippies, mainly doing nothing at all. You could smell the spiritual miasma of this rolling in through the tour bus windows. I don't know if it's been cleaned up since, but I declare, that place was a spiritual energy sink. Shut down the market for idleness and the people will enter the market of that which creates wealth. Then everybody lives better. |
You know, for someone who quotes Heinlein like the word of god, you sure dont agree with him at all. Haven't you read FU,tL?
|
Quote:
hahahahaha. \I like that. That made me giggle. Urbane, sometimes you really amaze me. You are clearly a very intelligent, well educated and astute individual. Yet, you persist in wilfully misunderstanding realpolitik and ascribing humanitarian motives to the least humanitarian actions, whilst simultanously ascribing anti-human motives to the most humanitarian actions. Your creed has failed and it has failed abysmally. The people youo support have caused misery and grief to millions of your own citizens and dragged you into an illegal war which has fundamentally altered the way your country is viewed by the rest of the world; destroyed the infrastructure of another sovereign nation and chained them to America's will. For someone who claims a love of freedom you seem pitifully willing to enslave a country. For someone who claims to love humanity you seem woefully willing to support inhumane actions. |
Quote:
you think the earth is 12,000 yrs old too? :rolleyes: |
What? You don't believe he locked into his perception of the world when he was 10 and hasn't changed his position since?
I find his claim totally believable, considering he has the world view of a 10 year old. :cool: |
lol bruce
|
DanaC, at this point you amaze me. There is a bit of difficulty with those outside our borders being willing to believe the most remarkable tripe about the United States -- it's been true for decades. Remember what's been said about the CIA over the years? -- quite a... well, heap of trash talk and bizarrerie. There's really nothing to be done about this, though, as these opinions are based on inexperience. Ignorance, in a word: not a slam on you, just that you're not here on the ground.
I should think if "millions of your own citizens" were suffering "misery and grief" I should have noticed it. I haven't, and I am no Punxatawny Phil, hibernating. (America has more fun with marmots than any society I know.) The war is not illegal. Not only has our Congress, both houses, authorized the Executive Branch to prosecute the Global War On Terror, of which Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters, but we're backed up by sixteen UN Resolutions anent Iraq. We were polite enough to seek a seventeenth, committing the UN to supporting the US to fix the Iraq problem, though this one Resolution out of seventeen did not pass -- to the UN's shame, but not atypical of the UN when it comes to dealing with "the argument of kings." The infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed by three decades of Ba'ath Party neglect, not by US artillery nor planes. Had Saddam Hussein been absent from 1991, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq could have been ongoing since that time; unhappily, it was delayed eleven years. You will also recall that since 1991, British forces were a part of the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones over Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shi'ite provinces. For the least humanitarian of actions, you need only read a comprehensive history of world communism -- the end effect, indeed the whole point of the thing, was oppression, wholesale, nearly psychotic -- oppression was communism's answer to every problem, when you get right down to it. Shoot all complainers: Lenin was power-crazy, Stalin a sociopath, and Mao, under more ordinary circumstances, would have been beheaded as a felon -- but to our sorrow, he was too lucky for justice. We went to South Vietnam because we didn't want to see this sort of thing continue its march. That's humanitarianism, and something the previously great colonial powers were incapable of doing. DanaC, I am afraid you have been duped by the frenetic anti-Americans on every single point you've raised. It is a shame to be led around by a nose-ring in this humiliating manner. Your understanding of the world's doings doesn't exactly qualify you as a commentator. I'm not here to steer you wrong. Turning to Phil: Ronald Reagan described your kind of thinking rather well when he commented that liberals sure know a lot, but it's too bad that what they know ain't so. I can't be as ignorant as you need me to be, and it happens geology is rather a hobby of mine. The tale told in the rocks runs 4.5 thousand million years long, and rocks have no agenda; they just lie there. Something mighty cool to read, by the brilliant John McPhee, is his pentalogy Annals Of The Former World -- five books about rocks, and he makes the rocks sing. I recommend it, with raves, and am rereading it as we speak. I'm not here to steer you wrong, either. Bruce, actually I have evolved in understanding and sophistication since age ten -- I just haven't fallen for pseudosophistication. I recommend this happy course to you, out of esteem for your intelligence. Hell, I recommend such things to stupid people, too, but it's a mark of their stupidity how seldom they take me up. Dullards tend not to get me. Now then, Ibram, in what particulars do you figure I disagree with Mr. Heinlein? I can't follow your reasoning yet. |
The UN never approved of the invasion in any way.
I would be interested in which resolution accepted an invasion as acceptable. I read them. http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2003/sc2003.htm |
That being the matter of the seventeenth Resolution, just off the top of my head, Rk. Look for text in the UN Resolutions about consequences to Iraq should it stay in violation -- there, no?
I direct your particular attention to Resolution 1441: it is hard to imagine what if anything might have been done about the problems set forth therein short of an invasion. While 1441 didn't say "fly at it, USA," it most certainly does not say "don't." Typical UN, really -- its perennial dysfunction (designed into the institution from the beginning, some have said) compromises its international authority to a severe degree. Nations will not cede that authority to the UN, and that has the happy feature of being a check and balance. |
No, there was nothing giving a go for an invasion... there were some conditions setting up discussions for possible actions.
I'll double check, but I'm fairly sure of my facts. The UN never OK'd the invasion & has not to this day. He did open all access at the 11th hour anyway, it was at the last min. but he complied, regardless. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
interesting UG, but i'm not persuaded, as aren't most others who have replied to your posts.
the invasion was illegal : one of the few facts that are black and white in this whole sorry mess. could you give an example of one "war" where America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it? i agree with Dana C : you are an incredibly intelligent person who seems to fall for the bullshit on the spoon they feed you with. |
Quote:
Quote:
Those were the grand old days when you could wave the flag with one hand to distract the suckers while grabbing up real estate with the other. |
They're some mighty big hands to grab real estate with.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.