DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on April 30, 2007, 01:37:47 AM
-
http://www.cagle.com/working/070425/plante.gif
Oh, and let's not forget...
Iraq has WMDs...
And Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda.
-
Kinga rehashing old wounds, isn't it?
The Congress is about to bring an army home. Over time the legends of what happened will grow. They were able to convince the army that it was defeated in Viet Nam, when it wasn't; but that was the hollow army, not the nearly invincible Legions we have today.
We started this. We brought Saddam down. We disbanded the Iraqi Army, so that there was no central authority other than our own. This was done deliberately. Now we are pulling out, blaming the Iraqis for their problems. If this were part of a new policy of minding our own business, restoring the Republic and allowing the world to take care of itself, it might be comprehensible, but it is not: the very people who wanted to intervene in Bosnia, who put our troops into Somalia and then did not support them and eventually ran (telling Bin Laden what he had suspected all along) will be in charge of this withdrawal and of the army they bring home. They are still interventionists albeit rather stingy and politically sensitive interventionists. They are still the people who ask, seriously, what is the good of this splendid army if you can't use it to go Do Good all over the world.
Bush meant well, but history will never forgive him for starting a war with no idea of what to do next. This was compounded by sending in an incompetent proconsul (who subsequently got the Medal of Freedom).
And Republicans and Democrats are now playing political games. Both seem to consider the soldiers as pawns.
The Republicans, whom I voted for including President Bush, miscalculated, misjudged, etc. etc. etc. and so will go down in history not favorably, shall we say. That being said, Democrats are guilty as well, let us not forget. Many voted for the Iraqi incursion, including our next President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Kinda hypocritical to vote for the incursion and then turn tail and run, all the while acting like the Republicans are the only "evil" ones...
-
Kinda hypocritical to vote for the incursion and then turn tail and run, all the while acting like the Republicans are the only "evil" ones...
It may be for them, but remember - I was against the war before it started. A lot of us were, because we were able to see through the bushit leading up to it. Another thing to remember is that many of those who were for the war were misled by that same bushit. Remember WMDs, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, chemical weapons factories in trailers, mushroom clouds over the US, ad nauseum? A lot of folks fell for that crap. Some of the more gullible still believe it.
-
If the dem congress has their way johnny will come marching home anyday.
Be happy!
-
Hard to be happy when I see the mess my country has made of Iraq under the leadership of this administration. We're going to be paying for this for a long time to come.
And yes, there's enough blame to go around, from the administration relying on false and misleading intelligence to lead the country to war, to the Congress' abdicating it's responsibility to verify the facts and rein in the executive branch.
Even at this late date, though, it's good to see Congress seems to finally be growing a pair.
-
Even at this late date, though, it's good to see Congress seems to finally be growing a pair.
Yes it will be interesting to watch congress turn rhetoric into action.
-
Does Congress even know how to anymore? :-\
-
Another thing to remember is that many of those who were for the war were misled by that same bushit. Remember WMDs,
Yea, the ones all the intel organizations said he had
Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda,
Yea, the ones that have been chonicled, both direct & indirect (read; NOT operational)
chemical weapons factories in trailers,
Yea, the ones our intel had deduced were the case, not to mention the shells found with residual chemical traces
mushroom clouds over the US,
Well, that'd be a li.....an incorrect application of what was being said
A lot of folks fell for that crap. Some of the more gullible still believe it.
Funny how believing common sense, supported by overwhelming intel is "falling for that crap". Well, whatever. I guess it's easy to debunk such a proliferation of intel by simply claiming it crap, and more on. So much easier that way
-
Even at this late date, though, it's good to see Congress seems to finally be growing a pair.
Yes it will be interesting to watch congress turn rhetoric into action.
Well, if their current course of rhetoric --> action, is along the lines if what Murtha was stating, it'd be sad to see rather rationally minded folks like H supporting such a completely egregious use of impeachement, simply to try to influence Bush to do what they want. Congress has a specific function and responsibility, as it relates to war, they can defund it, if that's "the will of the people" Then again, for some, ends justify the means for some. :-\
-
It doesn't appear that the President even really thought about other options.
via Dan Froomkin in Washinton Post:
[....]
Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was immediately out with a response on NBC’s Today Show: “This president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision,†he said. “He understands as a president the most solemn responsibility he has is when he sends people into harm’s way that he try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint, and that’s what he did. . . . I’ve seen meetings, I’ve listened to the president, both in conversations with other world leaders like Tony Blair as well as internally, where the president did wrestle with those very questions.â€
But author and editor James Fallows writes that Bartlett is lying: “To be precise about it, no account of the Administration’s deliberations, by anyone other than Bartlett just now, offers even the slightest evidence that this claim is true. Innumerable accounts offer ample evidence that it is false. I have asked this direct question to many interviewees who were in a position to know: was there ever such a meeting or discussion? The answer was always, No. The followup challenge to Bartlett should be: show us a memo, show us a policy paper, show us a scheduled meeting, show us notes taken at the time to substantiate the idea that the Administration ever seriously considered what the nation would gain or lose by invading Iraq, and what the alternatives might be. What the Administration actually considered, according to all known evidence, is how it would invade Iraq, and when.â€
[........]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/30/BL2007043000729.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
-
It doesn't appear that the President even really thought about other options.
via Dan Froomkin in Washinton Post:
[....]
Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was immediately out with a response on NBC’s Today Show: “This president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision,†he said. “He understands as a president the most solemn responsibility he has is when he sends people into harm’s way that he try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint, and that’s what he did. . . . I’ve seen meetings, I’ve listened to the president, both in conversations with other world leaders like Tony Blair as well as internally, where the president did wrestle with those very questions.â€
But author and editor James Fallows writes that Bartlett is lying: “To be precise about it, no account of the Administration’s deliberations, by anyone other than Bartlett just now, offers even the slightest evidence that this claim is true. Innumerable accounts offer ample evidence that it is false. I have asked this direct question to many interviewees who were in a position to know: was there ever such a meeting or discussion? The answer was always, No. The followup challenge to Bartlett should be: show us a memo, show us a policy paper, show us a scheduled meeting, show us notes taken at the time to substantiate the idea that the Administration ever seriously considered what the nation would gain or lose by invading Iraq, and what the alternatives might be. What the Administration actually considered, according to all known evidence, is how it would invade Iraq, and when.â€
[........]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/30/BL2007043000729.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
What are the possible other options?
-
Plane:
<<What are the possible other options?>>
"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."
-
Plane:<<What are the possible other options?>>
"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."
Try IT WAS
-
Plane:
<<What are the possible other options?>>
"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."
That was indeed done , in my estimation.
What was left undone in your estimation?
Diplomacy works not at all for someone who has nothing to offer and nothing to threaten . If Saddam could have been made to beleive that the US might actually do what it wound up doing perhaps he would have been more co-operative .
But How ?
-
"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."
That was indeed done , in my estimation. What was left undone in your estimation?
Diplomacy works not at all for someone who has nothing to offer and nothing to threaten . If Saddam could have been made to beleive that the US might actually do what it wound up doing perhaps he would have been more co-operative . But How ?
Perhaps it's Lanya's position that everything to be done is everything excluding military intervention, that it not even be an option, which takes us back to your excellent above noted question.........How do you facilitate co-operative behavior out of an oppressive Dictator?
-
They were able to convince the army that it was defeated in Viet Nam, when it wasn't
It wasn't? How do you figure that?
There is more to war than winning a few ultimately meaningless battles Professor. I think you ought to consider that when you answer.
-
Please try not to be condescening. It is beneath you, _JS.
Some rambling may be in order. First, it should be noted that the Viet Nam War was not a mistake; it was a campaign of attrition made necessary by the ultimately successful strategy of Containment. We had no interests in Viet Nam per se other than denying the South as expansion territory; had the North Viet Namese not been Stalinist (and later Soviet) clients, it wouldn't have mattered too much to us who controlled the old provinces of Tonkin, Anam, and Cochin China; and once communism ceased to be a world threat (ceased so thoroughly that there is a generation and more who never understood that it WAS a world threat, and many of those who now seem so bold cringed at thought and blubbered that it was better to be Red and Dead, and better to live on our knees than die on our feet).
America can be a good friend (I said WE CAN BE not that we usually are, sad to say). Had we merely toppled Saddam and got out, who knows what might have hapened in Iraq? But we will never know now. We are good at winning peace. So much better that it's amazing how many seem to prefer war when it is not in our interest.
Back to Vietnam. Our efforts to isolate the population from guerrilla forces by relocation were reported in the press as deportation of peasants from ancestral lands of many generations. In spite of these and similar US handicaps, and in part because of the losses of the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong had largely been eliminated as a threat. Our "incursion" into Cambodia had so weakened the North Vietnamese forces that we were able to return nearly all the combat troops to the US, leaving behind mostly supply and liaison forces. As you may know, the first assault by the North Vietnamese was handily defeated, with the second succeeding because we removed all support. Yet antoher instance of politicians micromanaging events.
Now many folks take it for granted that our military mistakes caused us to lose in Vietnam. Many pundits and politicians talk knowingly about "another Vietnam" without bothering to characterize the way in which they see a similarity.
The point to be made here is not whether we won or lost in Viet Nam. The point is that We (the People) let ourselves be manipulated by the press into accepting at face value something that may or may not have been fact and in doing so, allowed ourselves to desert an ally who we had promised to defend; And we are getting ready to do it again.
Few seem to understand what really happened in Viet Nam. We had won in the same sense that we had won in Korea; stabilizing against infiltration and having built the South to capability of resisting invasion provided we gave support. The press never seemed to understand that, and Jane Fonda sympathizers didn't want to understand. We abandoned our allies to the tender mercies of Tonkinese invaders with communist ideology. Then the dominoes fell, as predicted, and Pol Pot took charge in Cambodia. By then Fonda was concerned with slaughter in Africa or somewhere.
One key to effective intelligence is to understand who the enemy is. It is quite one thing to be looking for insurgents with ties to the local population, and quite another to be looking for invaders from the north.
I will point out that after Nixon's inauguration and the reorientation of our strategy to "Vietnamization", the US was able to clean out the infiltrators and close much of the border, so that invasion by infiltration was no longer a viable strategy; which is why the 1972 campaign of invasion by armored corps. Insurgency was defeated at Tet.
There was no more active recruiting of local Viet Cong. Many NVA units had been sent into the South, and it took time to eliminate them partly by starvation, partly by combat, partly by amnesty -- a lot of them just gave up -- and all that tended to be exponential, so that by 1971 it was no longer possible to mount any serious operation by infiltration. After that it took armed invasion. But during 1968-1971 there were many battles; and it was never made clear to the US that we were winning.
Of course, most of the media and the academics in the US insisted that the Viet Namese War was a "civil war" and that is why we could not win. If you assumed that, then you would assume that if we could eliminate the insurgents we would win. Given that everyone was insisting that it was Civil War and nothing else, why is it astonishing that many including in the military believed it, and thus said that once the insurgency was over the war was over? But in fact that was never true. There had always been infiltration. The problem was that those of us who insisted all along that this was not Civil War but Invasion From The North could never get much of a hearing.
Now any analysis of insurgency and invasion by infiltration needs to look into the matter of Sanctuary areas. Clearly it is quite difficult to stop infiltration if there are major sanctuary areas to which the infiltrators can withdraw and which are safe. Now both sides in that war had homeland sanctuaries: we didn't bomb the USSR where their tanks were made, and the USSR didn't mount attacks on Detroit (we destroyed Detroit with Free Trade, but that was later and another story). But so long as the DMV and north was safe territory, it wasn't possible to stop infiltrations. Once the Sanctuaries were no longer safe, infiltration stopped.
Regarding what intelligence we got and ARVN got: of course no one in his right mind wanted to be an US informer while the enemy could get to him and his family. Why would they? Keeping the population safe from the enemy is difficult. It was a bit easier, later, in Cochin China among the Chinese ethnic populations since infiltrators stood out, but protecting the population so that the price of cooperation with the government is no longer a horrible death is an important objective; and it is not reasonable to expect much cooperation so long as battalion sized infiltration units are operating. But infiltration can be prevented by closing borders; sanctuaries can be bombed; sponsors of infiltration can be punished; infiltration routes can be interdicted by air power and Spectre and electronic fences in conjunction with air power.
That is quite different from insurgency. The war changed fundamentally after Tet. It is interesting that US history doesn't seem to include any study of that, yet it is key to understanding what happened in Viet Nam.
If we could get Iraq as stable as Viet Nam was after Tet we would be a long way toward victory. If Iraq could be stabilized against insurgents and the enemy action reduced to infiltration we would be able to win and win big, with an exponential in our favor. But if we do not see the difference, and apparently few do, we truly are doomed.
Also --
So, after Tet we had won the war, and everyone but the New York Times understood that; surely MI did? And after 1972-1973 it should have been obvious to everyone that (1) there was no civil war, (2) South Viet Nam was about as well governed as any nation in that region -- certainly as well as Taiwan and approaching Singapore, and no worse than South Korea under the early regimes following the Korean War's termination, (3) the only threat to South Viet Nam was invasion from the North, and (4) invasion from the North could not succeed if we gave the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam the supplies needed and air support.
So, the North Vietnamese evidently believed that by spring of 1972 their strategy had succeeded. They believed that the United States was no longer capable of supporting South Vietnam. They then selected a new center of gravity – the destruction of South Vietnamese Armed Forces – and once again massed their forces to assume the tactical offensive. On 29 March 1972 North Vietnam launched what was to become known as the Eastertide Offensive. It becan with an armored attack across the DMV. Leaving two divisions on Laos and one as a strategic reserve, North Vietnam committed some 12 divisions – a total of about 150,000 men – to the attack on South Vietnam. Supported by tanks, heavy artillery and mobile antiaircraft units, they had some initial success. But they had severely miscalculated both the fighting ability of the South Vietnamese Army and the ability of the United States to react. As President Nixon said, “The bastards have never been bombed like they’re going to be bombed this time.†By July 1972, the North Vietnamese had reverted to the tactical defensive. Their attempt to mass had proven disastrous – again over 100,000 battle deaths.
Note that this was in 1972, and it was an invasion from the North, not some kind of insurgency or guerrilla warfare or civil war. This was flat out invasion by World War II sized forces, equipped with Soviet trucks and armor and ammunition; and the result was total defeat for the North (many fewer than 50,000 of those sent south ever got home again) and a total VICTORY for the United States and our South Vietnamese allies.
Why would anyone call this a defeat for the United States?
Because, of course, in 1975 the North did it again. Not an insurgency, not a guerrilla war, not a civil war, but a flat out invasion by more than 12 divisions, a World War II sized operation; and this time, instead of supporting our South Vietnamese allies, the United States, on orders from the Congress of the United States, did not give any air support and limited our materiel aid to twenty (20) cartridges and two (2) hand grenades for each South Vietnamese soldier. South Viet Nam accordingly fell, the United States bugged out with the pathetic scenes of escapes from the roof of the embassy and pushing helicopters off the decks of carriers to make room for incoming. We bugged out, and the Reeducation Camps, Boat People, Killing Fields, and other horrors began.
_JS: But we were not defeated. We withdrew on orders from the Congress. That wasn't defeat.
The last time we engaged in Viet Nam we, with our South Vietnamese allies, won a great victory.
Breaking an alliance with phased withdrawal is not defeat. It only feels that way. Perhaps it ought to feel that way -- but our troops were ready to engage the advancing North Vietnamese armored divisions. They didn't cut and run. They were ordered to stand down and watch the slaughter of their former allies and friends and soldiers they had trained. -- Col. Harry G. Summers On Strategy
And that is why understanding what happened in Viet Nam is important. Those who cannot remember history...
'Nuff said. For now...
-
I apologise for being condescending.
On the other hand, I disagree with this point of view on Vietnam completely. First, let me say that I don't like the comparison of Iraq with Vietnam and I do think we need to stay in Iraq.
Now to Vietnam.
We had not won in the same sense that we had won in Korea. That is an outright falsification of what really happened. The truth of the matter is that we had routed the communist Koreans and were doing exceedingly well until a certain general decided to play chicken with the Chinese.
That was never the case in Vietnam, no matter how much revisionism is done. Even after Tet was contained there were roads around Saigon which were occasionally closed due to enemy activity (and it doesn't get much further south than that). We never placed a leader in South Vietnam for which the people of the so-called "Republic of Vietnam" had any real faith or belief. Quite the opposite, the South Vietnamese government was more often loathed and hated.
You make the same mistake that we made at the time. You consider it a war over communism. It was never that. All those Vietnamese who died so willingly weren't dying for communism. They could have given a damn less about Moscow, or economic theory. They were dying for Vietnam and their nationalism. They loved Ho Chi Minh, and Eisenhower said so. He famously said that if an election were held across the entire country, Ho Chi Minh would win in a landslide. Everyone knew that.
What we did Professor, was ignore the British and followed the French. The British succeeded in Malaysia and Singapore because they realised the lesson of World War II. The Japanese had taught these Southeast Asian nations that they no longer required colonial rule. This was especially true of Vietnam who had a large insurgent army, battle-hardened from fighting the Japanese, ready for the French upon their return (the French who did nothing when the Japanese invaded).
So we picked up the French banner, talked about a bunch of horse shit that involved massive communist evils, and waged war. We never had the decisive victories we had in Korea. We never had the people's support (I mean the Vietnamese). Sure, we had the same people who supported the French. The few, who benefitted from colonialism.
Yes, we won the battles. We had to, we were better trained, better equipped, had a decisive firepower advantage. But we were in a country that did not want us. What were we going to do? Massacre the people? How many millions of Vietnamese were going to be killed? They weren't going to stop. The Vietnamese had fought for years in something they believed very strongly in. Quite frankly we did not have the ability to control an entire country of that size and magnitude. South Vietnam could not even control their own cities.
Could we have won Vietnam? Sure. If we were willing to fight like the Chinese in Korea or the Soviets in World War II, but why? To prevent Vietnamese nationalism? It was a fool's errand and we lost when we first took up the French banner.
As for the Dominoe Theory, it was self-fulfilling prophecy to a large degree. We destabilised Cambodia. We turned a bunch of useless thugs (Khmer Rhouge) into national saviours. Then when the Vietnamese went into Kampuchea to throw their murdering asses out, we supported Pol Pot!!
So no, I don't think your view is altogether accurate. It is the victim's view of the war. We were never "winning" Vietnam. We won battles, but the war was lost very early on.
-
The big looser in Viet Nam was the Vietnameese people.
They lost their freedom , they lost a lot of wealth and they lost an astonishing number of persons .
In the end what they got was a really bad government , this was what they were getting anyway , but they could have had it with much less fighting.
To the USA the battle was worthwile because it helped to contain and exaust Communism , we certainly could have succeeded more, but it was not a waste of time. If we had not fought the Communists in Vietnam they would have had it unearned and rolled more dominos over before they were exausted.
Perhaps Vietnam is an extreme example of a dog catching a truck, although the Vietnameese communists fought with great determination and courage , when they prevailed they were poorly prepared to make anything of the place. We should learn ourselves to have an endgame in mind during the decisions of the first few moves.
-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1574887424/sr=1-3/qid=1178134572/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-4620164-4311006?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1178134572&sr=1-3
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178096595906&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
-
This "what else could Bush do BUT invade?" line is ludicrous.
The first thing they could have done was investigate the sources of the "intel" suggesting that there was evidence of WMD. All of it came from Iraqi emigre sources with a clear axe to grind, most of it from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi. The laughably inept hoax of the yellowcake purchase attempt was exposed by a simple internet search as a crude forgery and twice revealed as such by CIA reviews before it found its way into Bush's lying State of the Nation address.
I'm a little more concerned about the way the conservatives in this thread excuse the Bush administration's lie that they explored all the other alternatives. When the lie is exposed: "Show me one memo of one meeting where other alternatives were explored," the defenders of this lying war-mongering bastard simply can't comply. So they "defend" him by asking "What else COULD he do?"
IF there had been nothing else he could have done, then why lie about him exploring all the other alternatives?
-
I'm a little more concerned about the way the conservatives in this thread excuse the Bush administration's lie that they explored all the other alternatives.
Oh man! I do agree with that.
The day after 911, Osama said he had nothing to do with 911. I believe that was true, Osama was not the person behind the attack. Osama realize a few days latter that accepting responsibility for 911 was the key to become the leader of anti-Americanism. Unfortunate for us that gave the real people behind the attack a get out of jail free card.
The facts are, Saudi Arabia, attack the United States on Oct 17, 1973, The Arab oil embargo. That was a World changing event and 911 was also a Saudi Arabia attack on the U.S. That was also a World changing event.
The questions that need to be ask are: What was Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney up to in 73/74. The answer is establishing the Conservative Revolution. You know the one that brought us a fascism dictatorship under President George W. Bush.
-
You know the one that brought us a fascism dictatorship under President George W. Bush.
Larry i guess it is chic to throw out labels like fascist and find conspiracies around every corner, but the simple fact of the matter is what you say is not true, i'm pretty sure you know that.
Case in point, the political opposition took over both houses of congress without a drop of blood being shed.
That happen much in fascist dictatorships?
-
You know the one that brought us a fascism dictatorship under President George W. Bush.
Larry i guess it is chic to throw out labels like fascist and find conspiracies around every corner, but the simple fact of the matter is what you say is not true, i'm pretty sure you know that. Case in point, the political opposition took over both houses of congress without a drop of blood being shed. That happen much in fascist dictatorships?
OUCH.....major internal bleeding following that body blow
-
This "what else could Bush do BUT invade?" line is ludicrous.
The first thing they could have done was investigate the sources of the "intel" suggesting that there was evidence of WMD. All of it came from Iraqi emigre sources with a clear axe to grind, most of it from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi. The laughably inept hoax of the yellowcake purchase attempt was exposed by a simple internet search as a crude forgery and twice revealed as such by CIA reviews before it found its way into Bush's lying State of the Nation address.
I'm a little more concerned about the way the conservatives in this thread excuse the Bush administration's lie that they explored all the other alternatives. When the lie is exposed: "Show me one memo of one meeting where other alternatives were explored," the defenders of this lying war-mongering bastard simply can't comply. So they "defend" him by asking "What else COULD he do?"
IF there had been nothing else he could have done, then why lie about him exploring all the other alternatives?
So what was the better alternative and why would it be better?
I disagree with you that Bush was lying about exploring other alternatives even if I don't get White House Memoranda , I don't see why I must assume that it is a lie.
I like the result of Bushes decision so far , Iraqis were dieing under Saddam so they had nothing to loose ,what thy have gained is an opportunity to find their own freedom and perhaps even prosperity . The wealth of Iraq should be going toward the welfare of the people of Iraq and Saddam was not doing that , neither will the Al Quieda waste any money on uplifting the people if they take over.
-
The day after 911, Osama said he had nothing to do with 911. I believe that was true, Osama was not the person behind the attack. Osama realize a few days latter that accepting responsibility for 911 was the key to become the leader of anti-Americanism. Unfortunate for us that gave the real people behind the attack a get out of jail free card.
Why would you think this?
How much more than the mountain of evidence that there aready is do you need?
Has Osama got a track record of being peacefull or trustworthy?
-
Larry i guess it is chic to throw out labels like fascist and find conspiracies around every corner
Well BT I'm not a supporter of conservative authoritarianism. It is not a label, it is a definition of conservative legislation from Nixon to W. Bush. The U.S. has become a military encampment with swat teams in every city, Zero-Tolerance policy and practice, propaganda campaigns, spy networks and a system of justice that has become compromise by political appointments. Fascism is not a label. It is a definition of conservative policy, practice and law. BT, Motive, Opportunity and Means. 15 of the 911 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. They were not from Afghanistan or Iraq. The continuity of evidence was totally ignored. Why?
Halliburton was paid 9.3 billion dollars for 2004-05 Iraq contracts. How much money did the Saudi Government make from its oil?. Did Bush and friends profit from attacking Iraq? This is not a conspiracy theory. This is called investigating the evidence at hand.
-
Larry
Most major cities are dem controlled. And they all have swat teams. So when you lay the blame for the police state on the likes of conservatives like Nixon (who wasn't) to Bush 43 (who isn't) are you saying these dem urban areas are conservative run?
You are smarter than that.
You proven it with your fight against the Baker Act.
-
Most cities are not dem controlled they are crony controlled. Nixon and Bush 43 were both in the conservative camp. However, Nixon was in power before Reagan took conservatism to the level fascism policies.
-
Nixon and Bush 43 were both in the conservative camp.
Nixon was a country club republican. Goldwater was a conservative. Rockefeller was a northeast liberal republican.
Nixon was in the middle of that spectrum.
Same way Bush is.
-
It is not a label, it is a definition of conservative legislation from Nixon to W. Bush. The U.S. has become a military encampment with swat teams in every city, Zero-Tolerance policy and practice, propaganda campaigns, spy networks and a system of justice that has become compromise by political appointments.
You realize that most of this referenced legislation was initially promulgated by Democrats?
-
<< All those Vietnamese who died so willingly weren't dying for communism. They could have given a damn less about Moscow, or economic theory. They were dying for Vietnam and their nationalism. >>
I'm not so sure how true that is, JS. I think you'd find that Ho Chi Minh was probably a lot more flexible on doctrine than some of the other revolutionary Communist leaders, and that over the years, his policies towards the bourgeoisie, the small businessmen and small landowners, varied according to the overall fortunes of the Revolution. At times, these elements were welcomed into the Party and later into the National Liberation Front and at times they were more or less discouraged, depending on how much pressure Ho was experiencing from his left to implement land reform programs which sometimes were left on the back burner for base-broadening purposes. This waxing and waning of accommodation for the bourgeoisie is not (IMHO) so much an indication of nationalist leanings, as an indication of the pragmatism of Uncle Ho.
Certainly the backbone of the Revolution and the War of National Liberation was the front-line cadres of Party men and women who set a standard of determination and self-sacrifice that remains unequalled to this day. Those cadres were formed and trained by the Party, and I would expect that, whatever problems in recruiting standards had existed in pre-WWII days due to base-broadening principles, had by the mid-Sixties been resolved in favour of Party discipline and Party indoctrination. I won't deny the contribution of purely nationalist and other non-Communist sentiment to Vietnam's defeat of America, but to claim that Communism had nothing to do with it is just not the case.
-
plane: <<The big looser in Viet Nam was the Vietnameese people. They lost their freedom , they lost a lot of wealth and they lost an astonishing number of persons .>>
1. They weren't free, they were a colony of France.
2. They had no wealth, they were one of the poorest countries in the world.
3. The persons they lost was the price of freeing themselves from Japanese, French and American occupying forces. That was the price they paid to be masters in their own home. I would think most of them consider the sacrifice to have been worth-while. Why live under foreign domination? Don't they have a right to be free?
I consider the Vietnamese people to be the big winners despite the loss of 2 million victims to U.S. aggression. They won freedom from foreign occupation.
The big loser was the U.S.A. - - hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain, 57,000 Americans killed and countless more maimed and crippled for life, not even counting the number of American victims lost to psycho Vietnam vets who returned as trained killers without scruples or morals of any kind. And what did America get for all this? Zero. Zip. Nada.
-
You realize that most of this referenced legislation was initially promulgated by Democrats?
You are missing the point of my argument. This country has been opperating under a conservative political doctrine since the Arab oil embargo. The Democrats are in control of congress right now, but what are they doing? They are sending war funding bills they know that will not be signed by the president, nor will it be over ridden by congress. Then they get in front of the news camera and tell the people of America, We tried. This is a smoke screen. The truth is the Dem's and the president are not at odds, but they must make look as if they are, because the people of this country are at odds with the conservative doctrine.
The idea that Nixon was a country club republican. Goldwater was a conservative. Rockefeller was a northeast liberal republican, is crap. The fact is they all get their money from the same people. If you want campaign financing you must sell your soul to those in control of the money. The CEO and the Board of Directors of corporations. Both Dem's and Reps cater to that syndicate of elite World crime bosses.
-
Actually, the Arab oil embargo was during Carter's Administration, wasn't it? If so, there has been eight years of Clinton hegemony, correct?
-
Actually, the Arab oil embargo was during Carter's Administration, wasn't it?
No; Nixon. By the time Carter got in, the embargo was over but inflation was rampant.
-
No; Nixon. By the time Carter got in, the embargo was over but inflation was rampant.
Correct. Lets not go off the thread here. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Saudi Royal Family. The Reagan conservative strategy was to sabotage the World economy and that is what the Saudi Royal family did for the conservative cause. The white house was lost because of Watergate and Carter was set up for failure. That was the conspiracy. Six years later, enter, Ronald Reagan, the stage is set and the show does go on. Reagan chose George Bush as vice president because George was Reagan's man in the House Of Saud. The Saudi Royal family has never been apposed to fascism and Reagan, preferred fascism to communism. The Reagan Revolution became the conservative revolution and the idea of the New Contract With America, was an attempt to nullify much of the U.S. Constitution. They, the conservatives, did not achieve all they had hope to achieve, but they did establish a kindlier gentler for of fascism within the United States Of America. What is George W. Bush doing with that authority today?
-
Lets not go off the thread here.
Any time you talk about worldwide conspiracies, you're into la-la land.
-
And it is....(drum roll, please)...The King of ConspiracyTheories!
-
<<The truth is the Dem's and the president are not at odds, but they must make look as if they are, because the people of this country are at odds with the conservative doctrine. >>
The truth in a nutshell. Very well said and very true.
-
Any time you talk about worldwide conspiracies, you're into la-la land.
It is not a World Wide conspiracy. It is a conspiracy between a small group of people to influence events in a desired direction. A better plan than the 911 attack could not have been conceived to achieve the objectives of George Bush and the Saudi Royal family. The two primary objectives were, one, control of Iraq oil and, two, killing Osama, and vilifying him in the eyes of his followers in Saudi Arabia. Yes the Saudi Royal family did have two motives for planning and executing the 911 attack. President Bush had one motive for not investigating the Saudi connection. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and blaming 911 on Iraq and Osama was his only opportunity. Motive, means and opportunity. They can all be established, however, Osama, was not wise enough to see he was being set up as the fall guy. Osama had visions of grandeur but he blew it by accepting responsibility for something he did not do. It was not a World Wide conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of a few rich and politically powerful people.
-
Any time you talk about worldwide conspiracies, you're into la-la land.
It is not a World Wide conspiracy. It is a conspiracy between a small group of people to influence events in a desired direction. A better plan than the 911 attack could not have been conceived to achieve the objectives of George Bush and the Saudi Royal family. The two primary objectives were, one, control of Iraq oil and, two, killing Osama, and vilifying him in the eyes of his followers in Saudi Arabia. Yes the Saudi Royal family did have two motives for planning and executing the 911 attack. President Bush had one motive for not investigating the Saudi connection. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and blaming 911 on Iraq and Osama was his only opportunity. Motive, means and opportunity. They can all be established, however, Osama, was not wise enough to see he was being set up as the fall guy. Osama had visions of grandeur but he blew it by accepting responsibility for something he did not do. It was not a World Wide conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of a few rich and politically powerful people.
Was Clinton in on it?
-
plane: <<The big looser in Viet Nam was the Vietnameese people. They lost their freedom , they lost a lot of wealth and they lost an astonishing number of persons .>>
1. They weren't free, they were a colony of France.
2. They had no wealth, they were one of the poorest countries in the world.
3. The persons they lost was the price of freeing themselves from Japanese, French and American occupying forces. That was the price they paid to be masters in their own home. I would think most of them consider the sacrifice to have been worth-while. Why live under foreign domination? Don't they have a right to be free?
I consider the Vietnamese people to be the big winners despite the loss of 2 million victims to U.S. aggression. They won freedom from foreign occupation.
The big loser was the U.S.A. - - hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain, 57,000 Americans killed and countless more maimed and crippled for life, not even counting the number of American victims lost to psycho Vietnam vets who returned as trained killers without scruples or morals of any kind. And what did America get for all this? Zero. Zip. Nada.
the U.S.A. - - hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain
Vietnam ,they were one of the poorest countries in the world and unlike their Capitolist brotheren countrys are still.
57,000 Americans killed
2 million Vietnamese people killed and countless more maimed and crippled for life not even counting that psycho Viet Cong vets wound up running the place
Communism should win such victory in its every endevor!
Oh wait , it did..............