Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
That's what I thought.
When the history books are finally written on this period, I truly hope they are written by more honest and less politically motivated people than yourself.
Obama's STILL wrong about the war
- Thread starter BeAChooser
- Start date
-
- Tags
- barack obama iraq war
When the history books are finally written on this period, I truly hope they are written by more honest and less politically motivated people than yourself.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Oh really? Perhaps you missed the fact that of all the leaders of countries throughout the world ONLY Saddam openly applauded 9/11 and celebrated the deeds of the hijackers.
And I guess you also missed the fact that al-qaeda terrorists met in Baghdad before the invasion to plot a chemical bomb attack in Jordan that was aimed at killing tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman. And you miss the fact that the Iraqi government was warned about the leader of that plot well before the invasion and did nothing to apprehend him. In fact, when a member of that terrorist leader's entourage was caught by Iraqi police, the top echelons of the Iraqi government (in fact, the CIA says Saddam himself) ordered that terrorist released over the objection of the arresting police.
Frankly, I don't really think you folks believe there is a war on terror. Maybe that should be the real issue of the Presidential race.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Unfortunately for you, the actual facts don't support you.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
One can hope, but unfortunately most of the historians coming out of universities today have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the misguided far-left, America is bad, liberalism that permeates those establishments.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
BeAChooser, I am curious. Do you understand the difference between patriotism and nationalism? If so, what do you think that difference is?
Please tell me since I am also confused. Patriotism by definition is tied to Nations. Are you using a "citizen of the world" type of definition?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
BeAChooser: Did you notice that Obama is considering keeping Gates on as Defense Secretary? I don't think he intends to sacrifice an acceptable outcome in Iraq for a a rigid withdrawal timeline. Also, the Baker Commission was bipartisan. I also hope for the best possible outcome in Iraq, I'm just not prepared to wait forever. I admit that recent trends have been favorable. I hope this allows us to begin withdrawing. If over 100 K troops are tied down in Iraq indefinately, that is not a desirable outcome.
President Bush
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,506
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
What? You don't think Tet was a military victory for the US and South Vietnam? Hate to tell you but it was. Very clearly. Even the North Vietnamese commander who eventually accepted the surrender of the South is on record saying it was (http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp ). And it almost brought the North to it's knees. Until they saw the way the leftest media in the US (headed by Bill Clinton's pal Walter Cronkite) reported it. Then they realized that the US had no WILL and that all they had to do was hold on.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
They were always going to hold on, Tet or not. The US had no will to do to Vietnam what was being done to it. Two million plus deaths is a huge price for the them to pay for a US foreign policy screw up. Look at the US reaction to 3,000 of it's own dead in 9/11.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I think you and I both know that's nothing but political rhetoric on his part. His backers will NEVER allow that. And the rest of what Obama has said makes it very clear that he does not intend to listen to what the generals and intelligence experts have been saying ... that the war is won and that the worst thing we could do is pull out in the haphazard fashion he's STILL insisting on.
What none of you seem willing to admit is that Obama was VERY, VERY wrong in early 2002 when he said the war was lost and then authored a bill that had it passed would have forced ALL US troops out of Iraq as of March 2008 (which would have meant Iraq would now be in utter turmoil and that al-Qaeda would be declaring victory). And he was VERY, VERY wrong again later in 2002 when he declared the surge would not work and the war a lost cause. Frankly, that action took great political courage on Bush's part. The sort of courage that I'm afraid Obama lacks. Now Bush was willing to listen to what his military was telling him. Clearly, Obama is not.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
General Giap has said they were ready to sue for peace after Tet ... until they saw what the US left and democRATS were doing and saying. That's not revisionism. That's what the winners of the war have openly admitted. And they credit their victory in large part to America's 5th Columnists and Defeatists ... many of whom are still active in the democrat party. In fact, one recently was their candidate for President. What a surprise.
Tsk tsk tsk, such imprecision, such a fallacy of ambiguity. Let's take a look at what you originally wrote:
So you were initially claiming it was a "great victory", now you've suddenly changed your tune, according to you it's now only a "military victory" and no longer a great one.
Let's look at what happened with Tet; just before Tet, generals and politicians were claiming that victory had already been won in Vietnam. They claimed this in a big way (sound familiar?). Then ........... Tet happened. And all of a sudden all the previous claims were shown to be false.
Let's look at what happened after Tet; 2 years after, North Vietnam had made good most losses, and also turned it all from largely a South Vietnamese insurgency into a North Vietnamese effort. IOW, the USA and the ARVN had managed to politically change the whole thing without realising it; and that change had consequences. Up till round 1962, it's quite possible that the USA could have won a political victory of sorts in Vietnam; after round 1962 it became ever more impossible, and Tet simply raised the stakes very high indeed -- and while most of the VietCong were wiped out, the North Vietnamese were still able to make up for the losses, and less than a decade later had won the whole shebang.
I do wish you would study some history, BAC.
Which of course completely fails to explain why Saigon is now Ho-Chi-Minh City . Back to your fallacy of ambiguity ......
Yeah, I guess the USA and Australia could have sacrificed double as many casualties in pursuit of nebulous goals and in support of an utterly corrupt regime totally out of touch with its own people just to satisfy armchair warriors chuntering on about Will (so very Wagnerian! So very ....
), but I guess the more responsible of politicians could see there was bugger all point to the USA or Australia being in Vietnam in the first place, and all very ironic in view of the fact that the USA initially supported de-colonialisation after WW2 (and gained much respect worldwide for doing so, and arguably prevented many worse conflicts from happening by doing so; but .... well, just kinda .... buggered up in Vietnam).Thank Nixon.
And don't bother, I know what you would say next..... doubtlessly preparing for the hordes of invading Cubans, UN and Viets.
BAC, either you have no idea what the phrase "fifth columnist" actually means, or you're simply making a terribly perfervid melodramatic claim with no connection to reality whatsoever.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Tell you what. Let's let our readers decide if it was a military victory for the US and South Vietnamese Army. And a political one as well. That is ... before Cronkite turned it into defeat.
General Giap was the architect of Tet. Giap threw all available assets, both NVA and Viet Cong, against every major target across South Vietnam. He anticipated a massive revolt by the South Vietnamese populace, who would overthrow the government and set out the welcome mat for their Communist liberators (call that the political objective of the campaign).
The result of Giap’s plan was a total rout. The South Vietnamese people, horrified at the prospect of a Communist takeover, sat tight (a political victory for the south) while U.S. and government troops crushed the attack in a matter of days (a military victory for our side). The sole holdout was the old imperial citadel at Hue, which required three weeks to be retaken. The government of South Vietnam survived the shock, the ARVN, once recovered from its initial surprise, did a creditable job and US forces performed admirably.
The net result was that Tet totally DESTROYED the VC as a fighting force for years to come and very seriously hurt the NVA. So badly were they hurt that in Hanoi there was talk of sueing for peace ... a feeling that the war was lost (for the North). The commander who accepted the South surrender is on record saying that we could have won the war at that point if we'd just cut the Ho Chi Minh trail in the manner that Westmoreland proposed at the time.
As I said, their own military leaders are on record saying it was the reaction of the American media that led to their eventual victory. Instead of giving up after Tet, they realized they could outlast us ... that the American Public, thanks to the lies the American media was feeding it, saw Tet as a military and political defeat. And a democrat President ignored his military leaders who were telling him victory was in sight and refused to do what they recommended ... cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail on a permanent basis.
Indeed, if there are ANY parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, it is in the attempts of the liberal media and anti-war movement to turn victory (by us) into defeat by lying and distorting the facts presented to the American people.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Why do you regard invasion or war as the immediate option?
He's trapped in Hollywood Thinking, is why. Willpower! Will! Sturm! Drang! Lights! Camera! Action!
________________
"Mut und Wille ergeben manchmal Mutwillen..."
-- Wilhelm Busch
Last edited: