King: Cut and Running Liberal

[iAmerican]

All of you need to watch "The Fog of War", where Robert McNamara tells his side of the Vietnam story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War#11_Lessons_from_Vietnam

Near the end of the documentary, he's asked about Iraq and it is clear that he feels we are making the same mistakes in Iraq we made in Vietnam. I think everyone should read the list of 11 lessons and see if they agree.

Robert McNamara was a Roman Catholic altarboy and "Eagle Scout" consciously pursuing his Catholic masters' interests in their Indochinese fiefdom through the political framework established by their Fifth Column/Rockefeller/CFR operatives. Dr. King, a true son of America's creation by Black and White Whigs, described perfectly, from a Jeffersonian perspective, just what they were doing to us and why, and so they killed him.

 

[geni]

That war was still winnable even without Diem, we never lost a single battle,

I think the term Pyrrhic victory might be relivant here.

You've never heard the motto; never give up, never surrender?

Tends to be used by groups involved in last stands. Generly such activities are best avoided. It makes sense to an extent when figting on your own turf defending the homeland. Elsewhere it simply result in unessacery losses.

These are the same "peace loving" hippies, when those brave men got home who incorrectly convicted just about every single U.S soilder to wear a government Uniform of being a rapist and baby killer.

You say that like it is a bad thing. Fortunetly for you the US militry understands better an employees people who will when ordered kill very large numbers of babies.

While those real men of honor

Um please 20th centry here not 13th.

were fighting in north vietnam NATO-style

NATO style is well exicuted fighting retreate backed up by stratigic nukes if required.

these upper middle class brats who had an ocean between them and real conflict were single handly turning america into a narco state.

There were other factors at work there.

Not to mention, creating violent and aggressive organizations, starting brainwashing cults, and spreading alot of sexual diseases

Are we talking about the army or the hippies here?

So excusses aside you agree it was winnable?

Sure the US had the capacity to turn north vietnam into glass.

Suggesting nukes would have been deployed is incorrect. America nor the Ussr really wanted that end game it was only to be a very last resort.

Bits of america maybe.

The real plan was to surround america with vast arry of nukes from strategic positions which would eventually lead to america signing their defeat on the dotted line.

No that has more in common with the US plan against the USSR. Wouldn't have worked either way.

Russia and America never fought directly during the cold war.

Not true.

Vietnam was a proxy-war... So your analogy alluding to too many wars caused disinterest doesn't fit.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example of a case where raw militry might didn't result in a win. From a tactical perspective the UK could have continued it's blockade and continued to raid and probably have gotten some land or the like out of the US. Wider concerns made this imposible.

 

[bjb]

Robert McNamara was a Roman Catholic altarboy and "Eagle Scout" consciously pursuing his Catholic masters' interests in their Indochinese fiefdom through the political framework established by their Fifth Column/Rockefeller/CFR operatives. Dr. King, a true son of America's creation by Black and White Whigs, described perfectly, from a Jeffersonian perspective, just what they were doing to us and why, and so they killed him.

You need to hear what McNamara says about the subject. He advised Kennedy that Vietnam was un-winnable and Kennedy was leaning towards getting out but once Johnson took over, he made the decision to stay. You're better off blaming Johnson instead of the pope. Seriously, watch the documentary. I used to think a lot like proxywar until I saw what McNamara had to say. Also, watching Johnson knowingly tell lies to the American public reminds me of watching George Bush give a speech in Iraq. Maybe it's a Texas thing but they both have the same mannerisms when they lie.

 

[Leif Roar]

So excusses aside you agree it was winnable?

No. There was no substantial benefit to the USA that could be won in Vietnam. The US might have been able to keep up military operations in Vietnam for practically ever, and even completely demolish the ability of the North Vietnamese army or Viet Cong to mount military operations, but what ever for?

The US did not lose the Vietnam war because the people at home grew opposed to it. The people at home grew opposed to the war because it became more and more clear that there was nothing there to win in the first place.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." To win a war doesn't mean to defeat the enemy, but to achieve the goals which the war is a means to achieve. There was nothing the USA could do in Vietnam to achieve its political goals. The war was unwinnable from day one.

 

[iAmerican]

There is no way McNamara did not know "Americans" killed the president he was sworn to serve, or that, as the former president of the Rockefeller Foundation, it was not Vatican-banker Rockefeller interests being served by the false war in Vietnam. It was Lodge and Taylor who told JFK Vietnam was a no-win. McNamara can slide and skate all he wants, now, but he is a criminal, with the blood of our military and untold millions of other innocents on his soul, and I'm sorry he was slippery enough to prevent the outraged citizen from tossing him off the ferryboat.

 

[proxywar]

Tends to be used by groups involved in last stands. Generly such activities are best avoided. It makes sense to an extent when figting on your own turf defending the homeland. Elsewhere it simply result in unessacery losses.

I think it makes sense in any form of warfare it's a good motto of inspiration to put forth when morale is low.

You say that like it is a bad thing. Fortunetly for you the US militry understands better an employees people who will when ordered kill very large numbers of babies.

It's a incorrect and jerkoff thing to say ass. You don't go around accusing innocent American soilders of doing such things they never did. Unfortunetly for you the US military never ordered such a thing it goes against protocol. People who break that protocol are subjected to a Military tribunal. It's obvious were you're coming from.

Um please 20th centry here not 13th.

it was used in ww2 --> 20th century.

NATO style is well exicuted fighting retreate backed up by stratigic nukes if required.

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm?topic=h
NATO : North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an international defense alliance between the United States, Great Britain, and others formed in 1949 as a response to the spread of communism.

Are we talking about the army or the hippies here?

I'm talking about Hippies --> your family.

Bits of america maybe.

conjecture.

No that has more in common with the US plan against the USSR. Wouldn't have worked either way.

Actual no it wasn't. USSR --> CUBA.

Not true.

Actually it is.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example of a case where raw militry might didn't result in a win. From a tactical perspective the UK could have continued it's blockade and continued to raid and probably have gotten some land or the like out of the US. Wider concerns made this imposible.

Actually it was, but this redherring works for me even better. VC got a pyrrhic victory, but it could of been a America's total victory. Our concerns were a Hippie/revolutionary coup as I've been saying.

No. There was no substantial benefit to the USA that could be won in Vietnam. The US might have been able to keep up military operations in Vietnam for practically ever, and even completely demolish the ability of the North Vietnamese army or Viet Cong to mount military operations, but what ever for?

Domino theory, preventing the Indo-china genocide!

The US did not lose the Vietnam war because the people at home grew opposed to it.

Wrong, they did withdraw because of it. It was a huge factor.

To win a war doesn't mean to defeat the enemy, but to achieve the goals which the war is a means to achieve. There was nothing the USA could do in Vietnam to achieve its political goals. The war was unwinnable from day one.

I would disagree the war offically ends when the enemy signs on the dotted line. Japan signed on the dotted line that is when that war offically ended. Other wise you embloden the other side and the war never offically ends. One side just runs away from it all to Bury their head in the sand. The cold war is still on going you just don't want to realize it. Look at your mind "The war was unwinnable from day one" that says it all. Similar people said similar things about ww2.

I'll be out of town starting tomorrow.
But I enjoyed the discussion. Peace out.

 

[Puppycow]

unbeknown to you, You're just the by-product of the upper middleclass/hippie/baby boomer ideology. I don't fault you for it.

Well that's a relief!
I'm sure glad that someone with a mind of their own figured that out for me.

 

[geni]

I think it makes sense in any form of warfare it's a good motto of inspiration to put forth when morale is low.

Yes I undestand that the arabs in sudan used it back when they went up against kitchener. Battle of Omdurman bravey refusal to surrender and 2 to advantage of numbers are wonderful things but maxim guns and artillery shells don't care. There are times when withdrawing with your forces intact is a far more rational option.

It's a incorrect and jerkoff thing to say ass. You don't go around accusing innocent American soilders of doing such things they never did. Unfortunetly for you the US military never ordered such a thing it goes against protocol. People who break that protocol are subjected to a Military tribunal. It's obvious were you're coming from.

The US has nuclear weapons? The US retains the right to a premtive strike? How many babies exactly do you think would die if you detonated a 15 megaton bomb over moscow?

it was used in ww2 --> 20th century.

Used by who? The Russians? No. Germany? Well in some places maybe but for the most part no. Japan? Well they followed their code of honour I supose. The US? I don't think traditional codes of honour allow for reducing opposeing cities to radioactive dust. Briatian and france never really had the opotunity to do otherwise.

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm?topic=h
NATO : North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an international defense alliance between the United States, Great Britain, and others formed in 1949 as a response to the spread of communism.

Yes and as a result all their tactics and weapons were focused towards a clash in centeral europe. Given the soviet advantages in numbers a well exicuted fighting retreat was the best hope to stop the war going nuclear.

I'm talking about Hippies --> your family.

I'm british hippies had nothing to do with our not getting involved in vietnam.

conjecture.

No there are historical records showing that at least one of your generals wanted to deploy nuclear weapons in korea.

Actual no it wasn't. USSR --> CUBA.

Umm Turkey?

Actually it is.

Might want to think about who shot down a few US planes.

Actually it was, but this redherring works for me even better. VC got a pyrrhic victory,

They ended up atchiveing all their objectives with acceptable casulties.

but it could of been a America's total victory.

Not with people like you arround.

Our concerns were a Hippie/revolutionary coup as I've been saying.

You were worried by a bunch of protesting students? What are you france or something?

I would disagree the war offically ends when the enemy signs on the dotted line. Japan signed on the dotted line that is when that war offically ended. Other wise you embloden the other side and the war never offically ends.

There have been quite a number of wars not ended by signing. Thw who documents of surrender is quite a new idea.

One side just runs away from it all to Bury their head in the sand. The cold war is still on going you just don't want to realize it. Look at your mind "The war was unwinnable from day one" that says it all. Similar people said similar things about ww2.

Nope. Back on day one of World war 2 people were fairly confident of a win. Only after the fall of france that they got worried.

I'll be out of town starting tomorrow.
But I enjoyed the discussion. Peace out.[/QUOTE]

 

[proxywar]

There are times when withdrawing with your forces intact is a far more rational option.

Veitnam didn't have to be one of those times our forces were winning every battle of conflict and because we were I was saying I could see using that line only to help raise some morale.

The US has nuclear weapons? The US retains the right to a premtive strike? How many babies exactly do you think would die if you detonated a 15megaton bomb over moscow?

Why are you talking about America dropping nukes on Moscow? That's your hypothetical. I think your hypothetical question really should read how many american babies would die if the Ussr detonated/dropped a 15 megaton bomb over America.

The US? I don't think traditional codes of honour allow for reducing opposeing cities to radioactive dust. Briatian and france never really had the opotunity to do otherwise.

How dare you question the Honor of those men from ww2. If it wasn't for those men you'd be under the rule of Tojo, Mussolini, and hitler today.

Oh Really? Try reading operation down fall.

Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well, who were able to accurately deduce the Allied invasion plans and adjust their defense plans accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyushu, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties, and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet would have cost more casualties on both sides than the atom bomb ever did had we went with operation downfall. Yes they were men of honor during a war, a war japan started with us I might add.

It is you the jobless coward who has no honor, courage, or bravery.

Given the soviet advantages in numbers a well exicuted fighting retreat was the best hope to stop the war going nuclear.

The proxy-war in vietnam was never going to go nuclear it was nothing more than huffing and puffing threats when it came to actually using a nuke on either side.

I'm british hippies had nothing to do with our not getting involved in vietnam

.

That explains your distain. I enjoyed watching ricky hatton get laid out, didn't you?

No there are historical records showing that at least one of your generals wanted to deploy nuclear weapons in korea.

Did it happen? no.

Might want to think about who shot down a few US planes.

I'll give you Air crafts, But that's trivial to your fallacious comparsion.

They ended up achiveing all their objectives with acceptable casulties.

You call 1.1 - 2 million acceptable casulties? If by achiveing objectives you mean reling on their propaganda and waiting for american sentiment to do Us in as they expected it, to cause a withdrawl, I'd agree.

Not with people like you arround.

Ditto.

You were worried by a bunch of protesting students? What are you france or something?

A factor why our government changed course was because of that whole movement. That is how politics work in the United states by public opinion. You're more of a french man than a english man aren't you?

There have been quite a number of wars not ended by signing. Thw who documents of surrender is quite a new idea.

The leader must state I give up to another leader, wave a white flag, or sign on the dotted line. Cutting and running is not an ended war it is cutting and running from something that is not over which emboldens and creates power vaccums.

Only after the fall of france that they got worried.

Ok but look at that, France fell, and american opinion shifted to were going to lose the war. However we stuck it out and won it. Lucky for us less people like you existed back then other wise it would of been curtains for us analogous to Vietnam.

You ---> Charles Lindbergh.

I'll see you next week when I get back.

 

[Leif Roar]

Domino theory, preventing the Indo-china genocide!

At the time, stemming the march of Communism was a percieved goal, yes. In hindsight, however, it's clear that the Domino theory was wrong, and that there was actually was not any benefit to be won: the fall of the South Vietnamese regime to the communist north did not lead to communist revolts in the neighbouring countries.

Wrong, they did withdraw because of it. It was a huge factor.

The US government decided to end its military engagement in Vietnam in large part because of massive opposition to it at home, yes. But that wasn't when the war was lost.

As I asked earlier, what if the US had stayed in Vietnam, defeated the North Vietnamese army and VietCong resoundly militarily -- what would that have won the USA? Nothing at all.

The withdrawal was simply the admission of what had become increasingly clear over the last years: that the USA had nothing to gain by staying in Vietnam.

I would disagree the war offically ends when the enemy signs on the dotted line. Japan signed on the dotted line that is when that war offically ended.

And when was that? (It's a trick question, so be careful.)

The cold war is still on going you just don't want to realize it.

The cold war was never a war as such, and, no, it is not still going on.

Look at your mind "The war was unwinnable from day one" that says it all. Similar people said similar things about ww2.

Well, they would be wrong. However, the war under discussion was the Vietnam war. That's a different story. The USA could not, in any meaningful sense of the word, win, as there was nothing substantial to gain but quite a bit to lose.

 

[geni]

Veitnam didn't have to be one of those times our forces were winning every battle of conflict and because we were I was saying I could see using that line only to help raise some morale.

You were intialy suggesting it as a tactical doctrain. Do you withdraw that?

Why are you talking about America dropping nukes on Moscow? That's your hypothetical. I think your hypothetical question really should read how many american babies would die if the Ussr detonated/dropped a 15 megaton bomb over America.

Why are you in denial about the lynchpin of your countries strategic security for much of the postwar eara?

How dare you question the Honor of those men from ww2.

Because I have a reasonable knowlage of events during that conflict and during other conflicts.

If it wasn't for those men you'd be under the rule of Tojo, Mussolini, and hitler today.

Tojo had no interest in the UK and Stalin was more of an issue that Hitler.

Oh Really? Try reading operation down fall.


Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet would have cost more casualties on both sides than the atom bomb ever did had we went with operation downfall. Yes they were men of honor during a war, a war japan started with us I might add.

With the desruction of the japanese army by the soviet union there were other options.

It is you the jobless coward who has no honor, courage, or bravery.

Ammusing.

The proxy-war in vietnam was never going to go nuclear it was nothing more than huffing and puffing threats when it came to actually using a nuke on either side.

This has nothing to do with NATO tactical planning. The soviet plans as far as we can tell were to invade at a weekend and and present a fait accompli by monday moreing before anyone had time to deploy tactical nukes. The NATO stratergy was focused on stopping this by slowing the soviet advance while inflicting the highest posible number of casulities.

That explains your distain. I enjoyed watching ricky hatton get laid out, didn't you?

We are disscusing war not boxing.

Did it happen? no.

So?

I'll give you Air crafts, But that's trivial to your fallacious comparsion.

I didn't compare it to anything.

You call 1.1 - 2 million acceptable casulties?

For the vietnamese yes.

A factor why our government changed course was because of that whole movement. That is how politics work in the United states by public opinion. You're more of a french man than a english man aren't you?

I understand the the miners tried something simular in the UK. For some reason it didn't work out too well for them.

The leader must state I give up to another leader, wave a white flag, or sign on the dotted line.

This would involve recogniseing the validity of the other ah "leader".

Cutting and running is not an ended war it is cutting and running from something that is not over which emboldens and creates power vaccums.

Power vacumes have their uses. Get it right and they will be too busy fighting each other to worry about you. Irland for example.

Ok but look at that, France fell, and american opinion shifted to were going to lose the war. However we stuck it out and won it. Lucky for us less people like you existed back then other wise it would of been curtains for us analogous to Vietnam.

America wasn't involved at that point. Actualy public opinion in the UK shifted towards beliveing in victory.