DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: richpo64 on October 06, 2008, 05:31:07 PM
-
Simple Truths
What McCain needs to say on the stump.
by David Gelernter
10/06/2008 3:30:00 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/ (http://www.weeklystandard.com/)
McCain might break through the media fortress that protects independents from the truth if he'd repeat a small packet of information word-for-word at the end of every single speech. Soon crowds would anticipate these words and reporters would know them by heart, and they'd start making an impression on the country. Here are mine; but whatever words he chooses, he must start hammering home some simple truths right now.
1. Mr. Obama is the most liberal senator in Washington.
2. Like other liberal presidents, he'd load the Supreme Court with the most liberal judges he could find.
3. Like other liberal presidents, he'd spend tax dollars like they were going out of style--when the economy must have a steady, experienced, pork-hating hand at the wheel.
4. Like other liberal senators, Mr. Obama was prepared to surrender to terrorists in Iraq.
5. Like other liberal senators, he is the wrong man to protect your children against Russia, Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda in dangerous times.
6. I fought for responsible regulation of the mortgage merchants when the Democrats were against it. I don't just talk, I act.
7. My closest Senate colleague is a Democrat, Joe Lieberman. I don't just talk bipartisanship, I act.
8. I picked Sarah Palin because our country needs young leaders who don't just talk; who act.
9. I'll do what I know is right, no matter what China or Germany or the U.N. thinks. You can't protect this nation by talking. You have to act.
10. Don't judge me as a politician or speech-maker. Judge me as a man who is more than talk. I would lay down my life for this country.
David Gelernter, a WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor, is a national fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and professor of computer science at Yale.
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
-
Joe Lieberman is a bogus Democrat.
Claiming dealing with him is bipartisanship is like merrying RuPaul and claiming you are straight.
People LIKE Liberals. They merely tax and spend, whereas Republicans borrow and squander.
Name just ONE occasion in real life where a president actually has had to lay down his life for the country.
Think of all the maimed, blind, armless, legless vets of the Iraq War that would be whgole today if not for warmongering assholes like Juniorbush and McCain.
-
No, I don't think those talking points are going to be much help to McCain. Here's probably what any sane, rational, normal human being would want to reply:
1. Mr. Obama is the most liberal senator in Washington.
We know, that's why we're voting for him.
2. Like other liberal presidents, he'd load the Supreme Court with the most liberal judges he could find.
Oh, YAY!!! No more Clarence Thomas'? No more Scalias? How much better can it get?
3. Like other liberal presidents, he'd spend tax dollars like they were going out of style--when the economy must have a steady, experienced, pork-hating hand at the wheel.
So you're suggesting that we should pick one of the same old gang who sat there for thirty years in the U.S. Senate, a former member of the Keating Five, who accomplished absolutely NOTHING while this country got into the mess it's now in and put HIM in charge now? Someone who'll put pork in its place - - in the military where it's always belonged? Thanks but no thanks.
4. Like other liberal senators, Mr. Obama was prepared to surrender to terrorists in Iraq.
Time to get out of Iraq. The "terrorists" only came to Iraq after the genius Bush, with the full support of that other genius, McCain, decided to invade Iraq because . . . uh, because . . uh, never mind, decided for some reason that made no sense to anyone but their neocon Zionist supporters to invade Iraq.
5. Like other liberal senators, he is the wrong man to protect your children against Russia, Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda in dangerous times.
And Martian invasions too. Don't forget Martian invasions. Maybe the best protection against people who have never attacked us yet is to stop pissing them off, and maybe the best protection against people who have attacked us is to stop pissing them off too.
6. I fought for responsible regulation of the mortgage merchants when the Democrats were against it. I don't just talk, I act.
I guess your leadership skills are pretty inadequate when after decades in the Senate, you weren't even able to convince your own party. Why should anyone vote for a loser like you?
7. My closest Senate colleague is a Democrat, Joe Lieberman. I don't just talk bipartisanship, I act.
Bipartisanship is the problem not the solution. Because of "bipartisan" ass-holes like you and Lieberman, we got ourselves a bipartisan war that is a fucking disaster, three trillion dollars, four thousand American lives, thirty thousand American wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and millions refugees, all for nothing. Take your "bipartisanship" and blow it out your ass. Please.
8. I picked Sarah Palin because our country needs young leaders who don't just talk; who act.
You picked a total fucking idiot, a bimbo barely able to memorize the talking points necessary to get her through a softball debate with a guy who was practically ordered to treat her with kid gloves and now if we were so unbelievably stupid as to vote you into office that cheerleader would be the commander in chief of our armed forces if your melanoma ever comes back for Round Four. At the same time as you passed over Condoleeza Rice, Mitt Romney and other leaders a hundred times more qualified. Thanks a lot, nimrod.
9. I'll do what I know is right, no matter what China or Germany or the U.N. thinks. You can't protect this nation by talking. You have to act.
That's what we're afraid of. Now we've seen HOW you act: "I'll cancel the debate. No I won't. I'll fire the head of the SEC. No I can't. I'll fire someone else who had nothing to do with it. The fundamentals of the economy are strong. We're in the worst crisis since WWII." And on and on and on. Please, Senator, just keep talking. DON'T ACT. Please.
10. Don't judge me as a politician or speech-maker. Judge me as a man who is more than talk. I would lay down my life for this country.
How about this, drama queen? Instead of laying down your 72-year-old life for your country, just lay down your insane political ambition and retire to your eight homes and billionaire blonde wife. Whatever made you think your wrinkled ass belonged in an Oval Office chair, forget it. Please. We need somebody in charge who is in touch with the real world, not some geezer who thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong even as the roof is caving in over his head. Somebody who DOESN'T want to be in Iraq for the next hundred years. Get the picture? Vamoose! Scram!
-
Well put, Tee.
I concur entirely. Except that the tax and spenders are nothing compared with the GOP borrow and squanderers.
Reagan, Olebush, Juniorbush: all ran up the debt and borrowed more from the Chinese. How could that be a good thing?
If you piss the money away on healthcare or even welfare queens, at least it stays in the country. Piss it away in Iraq and lots of it has gone bye-bye, forever. Some actually goes to terrorists, for sure.
-
Once again you're given a look at the Obama supporters.
Do you need anymore reason to vote for McCain?
these are the people who support Obama and the democrat party. Take a good look.
-
If you piss the money away on healthcare or even welfare queens, at least it stays in the country. Piss it away in Iraq and lots of it has gone bye-bye, forever. Some actually goes to terrorists, for sure.
Well, Obama already plans on sending an additional $800+B to other countries.
-
Over how long a period?
For what purpose? I am guessing not for weaponry and colonial takeovers.
On a per capita basis, the US is one of the stingiest nations on the planet.
We'd rather let 'em starve, then invade them when they elect someone we don't like.
-
>>Over how long a period? For what purpose? I am guessing not for weaponry and colonial takeovers.<<
Didn't I say they have no idea what he stands for?
-
On a per capita basis, the US is one of the stingiest nations on the planet.
Where do you get this notion?
-
<<Once again you're given a look at the Obama supporters.>>
Thanks, Rich. I'm very flattered. Sorry only that I can't vote for him.
<<Do you need anymore reason to vote for McCain?>>
There's only one reason to vote for McCain. Only one. Either you're a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem.
<<these are the people who support Obama and the democrat party. Take a good look.>>
Sure. Take a REAL good look. And while you're at it, take a good look at McCain as well. You won't be seeing his sorry ass around much longer.
-
There's only one reason to vote for McCain. Only one. Either you're a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem.
Just one?
His war heroism?
-
Just one?
His war heroism?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If it hadn't been for McCain, we surely would have lost in Vietnam. Wait: we DID lose.
If he had grown a Fidel style beard and rhumba'ed about the room on primetime TV with Jane Fonda, it would have changed not one thing about the war. It would still have been a mistake, and it still would have been ingloriously lost. There just might not have been a Senator McCain.
Big Whoop.
The old fart still insists that Vietnam was a noble and winnable cause.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santayana
-
Just one?
His war heroism?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If it hadn't been for McCain, we surely would have lost in Vietnam. Wait: we DID lose.
If he had grown a Fidel style beard and rhumba'ed about the room on primetime TV with Jane Fonda, it would have changed not one thing about the war. It would still have been a mistake, and it still would have been ingloriously lost. There just might not have been a Senator McCain.
Big Whoop.
The old fart still insists that Vietnam was a noble and winnable cause.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santana
Depends on what you want to learn.
Perhaps we learned the mistakes that made us loose .
Perhaps VietNam has learned that they lost more than ever stood to gain.
The opposition to the forceable imposition of Communism was entirely noble and was a cause populated heavyly with idealists.
-
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santana
George Santana is a musician, and this quote predates him. I think you mean George Santayana, the philosopher.
-
<<Just one [reason to vote for McCain]?
<<His war heroism?>>
If I'm not mistaken, Kerrey had more medals than McCain, so according to your reasoning, more reasons to vote for Kerrey than McCain.
Besides, he doesn't sound so heroic to me. Drops napalm, probably on civilian targets. Never has to face aerial combat with other jets. Basically bombing Third World people without a functioning air force to protect them. Gets shot down, spills his guts out to the "enemy" and even makes propaganda broadcasts for them, then comes home and concocts some phony story about being "tortured" which even his own jailer, finally located in Viet Nam, has denied. Presumably because both his father and grandfather were U.S. admirals, he was never court-martialed for his antics.
You're gonna make me sick. I lived next door to a REAL war hero. And I am honoured to have as a friend, a former Royal Marine Commando, who served in three theatres of operations in WWII and could write a fucking book. Do me a big favour, please: DON'T mention McCain and war heroism in the same sentence, OK?
-
<<Just one [reason to vote for McCain]?
<<His war heroism?>>
If I'm not mistaken, Kerrey had more medals than McCain, so according to your reasoning, more reasons to vote for Kerrey than McCain.
Besides, he doesn't sound so heroic to me. Drops napalm, probably on civilian targets. Never has to face aerial combat with other jets. Basically bombing Third World people without a functioning air force to protect them. Gets shot down, spills his guts out to the "enemy" and even makes propaganda broadcasts for them, then comes home and concocts some phony story about being "tortured" which even his own jailer, finally located in Viet Nam, has denied. Presumably because both his father and grandfather were U.S. admirals, he was never court-martialed for his antics.
You're gonna make me sick. I lived next door to a REAL war hero. And I am honoured to have as a friend, a former Royal Marine Commando, who served in three theatres of operations in WWII and could write a fucking book. Do me a big favour, please: DON'T mention McCain and war heroism in the same sentence, OK?
I wouldn't ,if I thought that any of that were true.
If your friend who served in WWII had been captured would you have lost all respect for him?
-
George Santana is a musician, and this quote predates him. I think you mean George Santayana, the philosopher.
====================================
CARLOS Santana is the musician, at least the most popular of the Santanas, if there are more than one.
GEORGE SANTAYANA is the philosopher.
So you are sort of correct.
-
CARLOS Santana is the musician, at least the most popular of the Santanas, if there are more than one.
His brother. Plays guitar.
-
>>Sure. Take a REAL good look.<<
Your venom is much appreciated. There are dozens of people (guests) reading this forum every day. They can judge for themselves.
-
>> The old fart still insists that Vietnam was a noble and winnable cause.<<
The Vietnam war was winnable. History has born that out. Democrats not only lost the war, they are directly responsible for the deaths of over 2 million Cambodians and Vietnamese.
They want to do it again.
-
NO WAY they could have won Vietnam without dripping the nukes.
By 1969, they could not draft enough men to keep it going. They would have had to arrest draftees to keep the slaughter going.
By the time of the Tet offensive, Americans were convinced that it was a waste of lives, time and money. And they were RIGHT.
There was no reason to get involved in the first place. Just like Iraq.
-
>>NO WAY they could have won Vietnam without dripping the nukes.<<
Once again, you’re wrong. The Vietcong were ready to surrender on several occasions. Particularly after Nixon launched his bombing campaign. Had we been serious about waging war, Dien Bien Phu was another opportunity to win it. That was before we were more than lightly committed, but it could have ended right there. This is simple history. You should try and learn some.
>>By 1969, they could not draft enough men to keep it going. They would have had to arrest draftees to keep the slaughter going.<<
1969? Once again, you’re way off base here. But then, you’re making it up as you go along I suppose. There was never a shortage of troops. I can only image you’re once again making it up.
>>By the time of the Tet offensive, Americans were convinced that it was a waste of lives, time and money. And they were RIGHT.<<
The Tet offensive was a disaster for the North Vietnamese. Only through the rewriting of history is Tet mistakenly seen as an American defeat. Had the political will been there, America could have won the war then. It wasn’t to be though. Democrats and the peace movement (otherwise known as the “get laid” movement) put an end to that.
>>There was no reason to get involved in the first place. Just like Iraq.<<
Once again history proves otherwise. The millions of death after America left are a bloody testament to that.
-
The Tet offensive was a disaster for the North Vietnamese. Only through the rewriting of history is Tet mistakenly seen as an American defeat. Had the political will been there, America could have won the war then. It wasn’t to be though. Democrats and the peace movement (otherwise known as the “get laid” movement) put an end to that.
>>There was no reason to get involved in the first place. Just like Iraq.<<
Once again history proves otherwise. The millions of death after America left are a bloody testament to that.
===================================
History proves no such thing.
If there had been elections as were scheduled at the accords with the French, the entire matter would have been resolved without bloodshed.
The US has no business getting involved in civil warts in other countries
Not then.
Not now.
And you are dead wrong about Tet. After Tet, the number of draft ages Americans running for the borders and just getting lost made it impossible to draft enough to keep it going.
McCain is wrong, you are wrong. Time to put all that Vietnam crap behind us.
-
Take This and Run
Ten things the McCain campaign needs to do to win.
By Lisa Schiffren
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWM3YTNhNjYyNjczMWI4NGVhYzU0OWQyZTAxNTk1OWU= (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWM3YTNhNjYyNjczMWI4NGVhYzU0OWQyZTAxNTk1OWU=)
At this point, the McCain campaign’s goal should be to raise doubts about Obama’s trustworthiness, and thus ability to lead. This will require a strategy and a tactic.
The campaign’s strategy should be to attack from all directions: character, past associations, political practice in Chicago, “present” votes, lack of a record of accomplishment. It should question what it means for a law professor to leave no academic paper trail, yet produce two well-written autobiographies.
Tactically, it should have Sarah Palin and surrogates — Giuliani, Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, Crist, and Sanford — blast away from a few different angles a day. Have the articulate ones make complete, coherent cases on each issue.
Make Barack Obama defend himself, fill in the mysterious gaps, and list concrete outcomes from his work. We shall see how much grace he brings to that situation. Attack hard enough to make the American people pay attention. Any wavering voter should know the reasons that a vote for Obama is a risk, and they should know what it guarantees.
McCain must rise to this moment and be crystal clear about his future economic policy. And it has to be good. Let people know he understand the pain we are all facing together. Because making voters wary of Obama, which they have resisted pretty strenuously heretofore, doesn’t get them to the polls for the Republican candidate.
Here are ten suggestions for the campaign:
1: The economy. Democrats are blaming the current crisis — the one requiring the now-$800 billion bailout — on McCain’s aversion to regulation. Explain the difference between more regulations and useful regulations. Explain that all the regulations in the world, applied to financial institutions, won’t help if government policy mandates that banks issue mortgages to people who can’t repay them. Explain who wanted so badly to expand homeownership, and why, and who benefitted from the work of Freddie and Fannie. List the top three recipients of Freddie and Fannie’s campaign donations.
That’s the history. Here is the abstract point to move to: Obama and his allies truly, deeply believe that markets are bad, and a small group of smart, good-hearted people — them — should be running things. The smart people had the good intentions of having the poor own homes. So they overrode traditional banking norms, which they called racist. Now we are all paying for their leftist ideology. For a real fight, mention the Community Reinvestment Act. Ask what happens in the near future when the “A team” — Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama — are in charge of the economy, during the coming recession.
Don’t sugar-coat the economic situation. If McCain wins, he presides over tough times.
2: Taxes. Contrast McCain’s tax policies with Obama’s by explaining the difference between letting people (and businesses) keep their own money, and giving them benefits at taxpayer expense. The former is what it means to have economic freedom. The latter is a real cost to taxpayers. McCain would not “spend” $300 million dollars, as Obama alleges, by failing to confiscate $300 million from businesses or individuals.
Also explain that Barack Obama’s tax ”cuts” for the poor consist of straightforward, massive redistribution of taxpayer dollars to people who already are not required to pay taxes. Hammer the point that only about 60 percent of American earners even pay taxes. Taxes for the working poor are called the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the opposite of a tax. Cite statistics indicating that decided “tax recipients” are pro-Obama, support higher taxes for those who pay, and want bigger checks.
Ask why Barack Obama wants to make us all wards of the state, with state health care. Is this a good moment to embrace 20th Century Socialism Lite, even if we are facing a year or two of belt tightening? Shouldn’t the future be freer, with less state interference in our lives? And on the matter of the recession we are facing — explain in language a 10-year-old can understand that we will get through it faster if we don’t gum up the job-creating process with new taxes.
3: Spending. McCain should say he will cut spending because he believes that government should be smaller for both practical and philosophical reasons. Enough about earmarks. They are bad. But Obama won when he said they were only $18 billion — a small percentage of federal expenditures. Point out that the “bridge to nowhere” was egregious — but even with more legitimate projects, choices have to be made. Note that when Jim Lehrer asked what new programs each candidate would be willing to cut, Obama offered none but said we should be investing more money in early-childhood education. Here’s a phrase: magic thinking. We’re broke. Ask voters if they personally are focused on cutting spending or buying better services right now, going into this recession.
On Tuesday night, have McCain look at Obama and say, “You think early-childhood education is important? That $972 million you spent on local nonsense, money that went to Tony Rezko, programs administered by your Reverend Wright, and, by the way, the hospital where your wife works, could have paid for a fair bit of it.”
4: A little populism. McCain will have to defend much of the bailout by explaining that Wall Street and Main Street are two sides of the same coin. Of course McCain is not a fan of massive CEO salaries, though he doesn’t think it is the president’s job to level them. Admonish that this is the time for executives to tone down the greed and boards to makes sure they do.
5: Run McCain as his own man, not as a senator. McCain should stop saying “maverick,” and stop being sentimental about the Senate and his place in it. Most voters despise Congress. Stop with the “my dear friend” and “I love him, but . . .” What does he think an insider sounds like?
6: Bill Ayers and other close friends. Discuss the details of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers’ long-term relationship with Obama. Ayers served with the candidate on the Woods Fund board, and Obama was handsomely paid for that work. Who introduced them, and when? Make Obama explain why the Woods Fund gave grants to racial programs (“Juneteenth education”) rather than basic education for deprived minority kids.
Speaking of terrorist buds, Barack and Michelle were close with Rashid and Mona Khalidi, convicted terrorism supporters. What was that about? Make the analogy to the Reverend Wright. Hit the larger point that there are so many of these long-term social relationships with people who hate this country and find it mean-spirited and racist. What does Barack enjoy about hanging with these types?
7: Arrogance bordering on treason. On his listening tour last summer, Senator Obama attempted to undermine Bush administration policy in Iraq. In personal conversations he asked that the Iraqi leadership wait for the next administration (his) to begin serious troop withdrawals — as Amir Taheri has documented. Apparently, he wanted to make it look as if the troops were coming home due to him.
8: Women. Why are women on Obama’s Senate staff in lower positions, and making less money, relative to the McCain campaign’s women? McCain is a feminist now, what with his VP choice.
9: Smart but wrong. McCain has a relatively inexperienced running mate. She’ll be a swell veep, but she isn’t really ready to be president right now. When it comes up, note that judgment matters. Your ticket can boast of no Harvard degrees. But experience teaches that people who are smart and wrong are far more dangerous than people who have solid instincts and less grad school. But by far the worst combination is an inexperienced intellectual who has absolute conviction that his radical ideas are superior.
10: What he’s for. While leveling attacks, McCain should simultaneously convey real empathy for Americans who are in tough economic situations. He can share tales of suffering, show that his heart goes out to his fellow citizens, and promise to do his utmost to help. But it is not possible for the federal government to fix everyone’s problems. Discuss health care, business formation, jobs. Announce that McCain will assemble a new team, and name a few reassuring leaders. Offer a comprehensive economic plan to firm up the economy, shrink government, foster job creation, and make sure that safety nets are in place. In other words, a plan to tweak, not reinvent, the economy.
-
NO WAY they could have won Vietnam without dripping the nukes.
By 1969, they could not draft enough men to keep it going. They would have had to arrest draftees to keep the slaughter going.
By the time of the Tet offensive, Americans were convinced that it was a waste of lives, time and money. And they were RIGHT.
There was no reason to get involved in the first place. Just like Iraq.
You think that General Giap was lieing?
He said that after Tet he was ready to quit.
-
You think that General Giap was lieing?
He said that after Tet he was ready to quit.
==================================
I have yet to see this other than in rightwing blogs. If he said it, he was wrong.
It does not mean that that was not the turning point of the war, because it was.
-
>>I have yet to see this other than in rightwing blogs. If he said it, he was wrong.<<
Wow BO, you're truly amazing. You're so seriously lacking in the history of the Vietnam war than now you're more of an authority than the people WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT IT!?
What a tool.
-
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp)
The LIE that General Giap claimed a huge Tet defeat is declared FALSE in snopes, see reference above. Rich, plane, others who have made that claim, it is a lie. There is no evidence for it. It never happened and it is NOT in his memoirs.
This is just typical of the right-wing lies and bullshit that permeate the internet and need to be exposed at every opportunity.
-
I don't believe a bloody thing you rightwingers say. You worship Joe McCarthy and the John Birchers.
-
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp)
The LIE that General Giap claimed a huge Tet defeat is declared FALSE in snopes, see reference above. Rich, plane, others who have made that claim, it is a lie. There is no evidence for it. It never happened and it is NOT in his memoirs.
This is just typical of the right-wing lies and bullshit that permeate the internet and need to be exposed at every opportunity.
It's possible that the apparently apocryphal General Giap statement is based upon a misattribution of somewhat similar sentiments expressed by other political or military figures involved in the Vietnam War. For example, in 1995 the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:
Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.
(The article notes that this interview was conducted after Bui Tin became "disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism" and left Vietnam to live in Paris, so it's possible that his comments may have been influenced by his changed outlook.)
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp)
From the same link
-
<<If your friend who served in WWII had been captured would you have lost all respect for him?>>
Depends on the circumstances. My late neighbour, who was wounded in France and successfully evacuated at Dunkirk, eventually WAS captured (after his unit was later surrounded in Greece and took 30% casualties.) I have the greatest possible respect for him.
As a matter of interest, according to my neighbour, the British army considered surrender to be acceptable for a surrounded unit if it had sustained 10% casualties. He took a lot of pride in the fact that they surrendered after taking casualties of about 30%. In other words, they didn't give up without a real fight.
We have a friend whose father was captured at Tobruk. He's a nice guy (or was, he also passed away) and what happened wasn't his fault personally, but 25,000 British troops captured without a shot being fired? Come on, who is going to respect THAT? I don't even say they were wrong. That was General Wavell's decision alone, and it may well have been the right one to take. I would respect them the way I respect the other drivers on the road, the other diners in a restaurant, anyone I happen to meet for the first time, but the kind of respect accorded to a real military hero? No, why, why should I?
-
I suppose it depends on what you are looking for,...
did General Giap ever say that the US Forces were defeated in battle?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
The most relevant statement I could find that is actually attributable to General Giap was uttered in a 1989 interview with Morley Safer, as excerpted in The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations by Howard Langer (Greenwood Press, 2005, p. 318):
We paid a high price [during the Ted offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Ted offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory....
The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm)
Giap does not try to conceal that the success of the final North Vietnamese advance to victory depended on the U.S. departure in 1975 and on the politically crippled position of President Richard M. Nixon. ......
There are five principal lessons that come out of Giap's memoirs. The first is the importance of understanding an insurgent adversary's history, geography, and culture. The second is to not underestimate any asymmetric enemy. The third is that the use of military force is but one component of a successful campaign strategy. The fourth is the criticality of ideology and the charismatic energy injected into that ideology. And the fifth is that the people and the governing institutions of North Vietnam were prepared to endure longer than were the people and government of the United States.
The last message comes forth throughout the text. From the outset, as Giap reflects, there was never any thought other than continuing the fight until the United States tired of its involvement in Vietnam. This important lesson--that conflicts couched in the rhetoric of peoples' wars can continue for many years and even decades--is one of the most significant from the Vietnam War and, certainly, an extremely relevant message of this book.
What Giap does not divulge, however, is the enormous strategic leverage of a controlled and astutely manipulated population. He also does not discuss the large-scale military and economic aid the Soviet Union or China provided to the North, or the eventual extinguishing of military aid from the United States to the South.
......................
A final caution: be extremely wary of the data Giap offers as fact. Some of his information is indeed correct, such as the fact that a B-52 was shot down on 22 November 1972 and crashed in Thailand. Other information drifts off the mark, however, and some statements approach the absurd. Giap's claim (citing a communique from the Army High Command) that in one 12-day period North Vietnamese forces shot down 33 B-52s, 5 F-111s, and 24 U.S. Navy and 3 reconnaissance aircraft differs significantly from Western sources that hold losses during that same period to be 17 B-52s and a total of 11 other aircraft.
Giap further contends that eight U.S. warships were set afire at this time. No record of such incidents exists for the period. As a prisoner of war (POW) in Hanoi's prison system, I dispute Giap's contention that American prisoners of war were "al lowed to make wall newspapers, organize singing festivals, welcome Santa Claus at the side of finely decorated Christmas trees, and to pray for peace and repatriation. I can personally report that none of those holiday perks were enjoyed by anyone I know.
........................
Colonel William S. Reeder. Jr. U.S. Army Retired, Ph.D., is Director of the U.S. Army I Corps Stryker Center for Lessons Learned Fort Lewis, Washington.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2_85/ai_n13822002 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2_85/ai_n13822002)
http://www.thingsasian.com/stories-photos/1129 (http://www.thingsasian.com/stories-photos/1129)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1120059/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1120059/posts)
-
<<did General Giap ever say that the US Forces were defeated in battle?>>
I don't know that he did.
An important point that was settled in this thread was this: some of our right-wing friends were trying to get great mileage from a fake statment attributed to Gen. Giap, that the Tet Offensive was such a disaster that he was about to resign.
I think it's conclusively established now that that statement was pure bullshit.
-
<<did General Giap ever say that the US Forces were defeated in battle?>>
I don't know that he did.
An important point that was settled in this thread was this: some of our right-wing friends were trying to get great mileage from a fake statment attributed to Gen. Giap, that the Tet Offensive was such a disaster that he was about to resign.
I think it's conclusively established now that that statement was pure bullshit.
All right ,but this somewhat less definate statement he really made?
The most relevant statement I could find that is actually attributable to General Giap was uttered in a 1989 interview with Morley Safer, as excerpted in The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations by Howard Langer (Greenwood Press, 2005, p. 318):
We paid a high price [during the Ted offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Ted offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory....
The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.
-
Well, nobody knows without going to the library and checking out the book or going to the network archives and playing the tape of the interview, but depending on the reputability of the publisher and/or of the website you found the quote on, you could probably come to a provisional idea of its authenticity.
It sounds authentic to me, and it's not at odds with any of the history that I know. The VC must have taken big casualties during Tet but the results were spectacular. They gambled on a popular uprising in Saigon that never happened, but in all other respects, I think they met all their goals. I remember the excitement I felt watching the battle unfolding on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy with my wife, I was punching the air and predicting the whole thing would be over before the end of the year. The only thing that surpassed that day was the fall of Danang, which was the point of no return, and then the fall of Saigon, from a political POV, one of the happiest days of my life.
-
Well, nobody knows without going to the library and checking out the book or going to the network archives and playing the tape of the interview, but depending on the reputability of the publisher and/or of the website you found the quote on, you could probably come to a provisional idea of its authenticity.
It sounds authentic to me, and it's not at odds with any of the history that I know. The VC must have taken big casualties during Tet but the results were spectacular. They gambled on a popular uprising in Saigon that never happened, but in all other respects, I think they met all their goals. I remember the excitement I felt watching the battle unfolding on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy with my wife, I was punching the air and predicting the whole thing would be over before the end of the year. The only thing that surpassed that day was the fall of Danang, which was the point of no return, and then the fall of Saigon, from a political POV, one of the happiest days of my life.
I find that mildly disturbing.
The Communist takeover of Vietnam made be heartily sorry for the people of Vietnam , and in the time since I havent seen much reason to feel otherwise.
-
We have a friend whose father was captured at Tobruk. He's a nice guy (or was, he also passed away) and what happened wasn't his fault personally, but 25,000 British troops captured without a shot being fired? Come on, who is going to respect THAT? I don't even say they were wrong. That was General Wavell's decision alone, and it may well have been the right one to take. I would respect them the way I respect the other drivers on the road, the other diners in a restaurant, anyone I happen to meet for the first time, but the kind of respect accorded to a real military hero? No, why, why should I?
When did that happen? The Allies captured 27,000 Italians at Tobruk with nary a shot fired, but then the Australians held it for months under siege by Rommel. Eventually they were relieved by British forces after a tough fight. Only about 1,000 Allied soldiers were captured total.
-
>>Rich, plane, others who have made that claim, it is a lie. There is no evidence for it. It never happened and it is NOT in his memoirs.<<
If you're looking for truth, Mike shouldn't be your first option folks.
He can include me, but I never made such a claim. I said the war could have been won after Tet had there been the political will to do so. Several factors, including the liberal antiwar movement created the atmosphere in which it was impossible to win the war and led directly to the death of millions.
-
Again there was absolutely NO REASON for the US to have intervened in Vietnam at all. None.
Everyone would be better off today had they never sent advisers in 1960.
Vietnam. Laos, Cambodia, the US, Everyone.
A "victory" would have been the imposition of a corrupt colonial-style government of those who sucked up to the French for generations.
Not worth any American dying for. Not worth getting a hangnail over.