Jack Kelly: Give Obama the potato test
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are you planning on thanking us for getting America out of Vietnam?
The only thing your side did was to turn a victory into a defeat. Just as you will do in Iraq.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only thing your side did was to turn a victory into a defeat. Just as you will do in Iraq
We don't have the manpower or the materials we did in Vietnam. Because A. We financed this war with tax breaks instead of tax increases; B. We are rotating the same half-million or so soldiers through Iraq over and over again, rather than instituting a draft - which we have had for every full-fledged war since the 1860's.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Yeah dude that would be you. Take a deep breath, re-read my posts
Geee... since the thread is about Obama and Stan referenced the left and you said "we" I think it is only fair to assume that you meant Democrats. Since that obviously is not the case... If you meant radical leftist protesters then you may want to reconsider your political alliances since the Democratic administrations ignored you in the 60's. It took a crooked Republican POTUS to respond. :rolleyes:
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Geee... since the thread is about Obama and Stan referenced the left and you said "we" I think it is only fair to assume that you meant Democrats.
So since Stan meant "the left", and explicitly said "the left", and no one mentioned either party, you assumed I meant something else entirely that no one mentioned.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
It took a crooked Republican POTUS to respond.
To respond to who?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
radical leftist protesters
Oh, cool, so you'll be shutting up now. When we bail you out of Iraq, will you repeat the mistake of blaming us for "losing" or did you learn your lesson after 'Nam?
-
The Tet Offensive? Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?[^]
oilFactotum wrote:
Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?
Your post is a perfect example of why the left is blamed (and should be blamed) for losing a war that we were winning.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If McCain wins we die with a whimper, if Obama wins we go out the way we came in - with a bang.
Prophesy without dates is no prophesy. Otherwise you aren't even as good a Jeanne Dixon
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I give it two years to get rolling pretty good. The left has simply worked too hard to engineer the current political situation, and it is succeeding beyond their wildest expectations if Obama wins and uncontested control of congress goes to the democrats. There is no way they are going to be moderate about anything. The rush of power will simply be too much for them to restrain. They will be falling all over themselves to implement a full blown European social welfare state as quickly as they possibly can. And I do not believe that American society is ready for it. As the truth finally becomes obvious to everyone, there will be open, armed, rebellion. (I subscribe to the notion of historic cycles, so a civil war of some form or other isn't due until about 2020 or so)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Geee... since the thread is about Obama and Stan referenced the left and you said "we" I think it is only fair to assume that you meant Democrats.
So since Stan meant "the left", and explicitly said "the left", and no one mentioned either party, you assumed I meant something else entirely that no one mentioned.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
It took a crooked Republican POTUS to respond.
To respond to who?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
radical leftist protesters
Oh, cool, so you'll be shutting up now. When we bail you out of Iraq, will you repeat the mistake of blaming us for "losing" or did you learn your lesson after 'Nam?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
and no one mentioned either party, you assumed I meant something else entirely that no one mentioned
Except the thread is about Obama [see his name in the title?], who is a Democrat and was not a leftist protester...
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
When we bail you out of Iraq
Bail who out? I've never been to Iraq and I'm not too pleased the US is there right now.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
will you repeat the mistake of blaming us for "losing"
Show me where I repeated anything even close to that??!!
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?
Your post is a perfect example of why the left is blamed (and should be blamed) for losing a war that we were winning.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Winning? What a laff! A dozen years and 50,000 dead and nothing had changed. The Vietnamese had been fighting for over 30 years, why would they surrender? What would we have 'won' and how would we have won it?
-
I give it two years to get rolling pretty good. The left has simply worked too hard to engineer the current political situation, and it is succeeding beyond their wildest expectations if Obama wins and uncontested control of congress goes to the democrats. There is no way they are going to be moderate about anything. The rush of power will simply be too much for them to restrain. They will be falling all over themselves to implement a full blown European social welfare state as quickly as they possibly can. And I do not believe that American society is ready for it. As the truth finally becomes obvious to everyone, there will be open, armed, rebellion. (I subscribe to the notion of historic cycles, so a civil war of some form or other isn't due until about 2020 or so)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I subscribe to the notion of historic cycles, so a civil war of some form or other isn't due until about 2020 or so
Well, Obama only makes it to 2016. Or do you predict that we'll repeal the 22nd amendment before then? (I'm sure it will make your heart go pitty-pat to hear that the word is out that Jimmy Carter will declare for Obama either tonight or tomorrow.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Winning? What a laff! A dozen years and 50,000 dead and nothing had changed. The Vietnamese had been fighting for over 30 years, why would they surrender? What would we have 'won' and how would we have won it?
oilFactotum wrote:
What a laff!
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
oilFactotum wrote:
What would we have 'won' and how would we have won it?
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I find Europe to be a pretty nice place to live in
As is your right. The people are generally nice, the culture and food are great, the scenery and historic architecture is awesome. But despite all that, its just too damn socialist for my tastes. Hell, current US policy is too damn socialist for me.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
too damn socialist for my tastes.
Please explain what that means. How would you prefer it? And what would be the risks associated with that?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only thing your side did was to turn a victory into a defeat. Just as you will do in Iraq
We don't have the manpower or the materials we did in Vietnam. Because A. We financed this war with tax breaks instead of tax increases; B. We are rotating the same half-million or so soldiers through Iraq over and over again, rather than instituting a draft - which we have had for every full-fledged war since the 1860's.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
On the other hand, the military of the 1960's was designed to fight two major wars simulataneously. It is difficult to believe that we have gone from that to being incapable to taking out a few minor backwater nations without a draft. (However, I do concur with the need for a draft). The problem is that we have not maintained the offensive. If we had kept these assholes in front of us rather them letting them infiltrate the society we are trying to stabilize it would have been much better. Still, things are not looking all that bad in Iraq right now dispite our incompetence.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I give it two years to get rolling pretty good. The left has simply worked too hard to engineer the current political situation, and it is succeeding beyond their wildest expectations if Obama wins and uncontested control of congress goes to the democrats. There is no way they are going to be moderate about anything. The rush of power will simply be too much for them to restrain. They will be falling all over themselves to implement a full blown European social welfare state as quickly as they possibly can. And I do not believe that American society is ready for it. As the truth finally becomes obvious to everyone, there will be open, armed, rebellion. (I subscribe to the notion of historic cycles, so a civil war of some form or other isn't due until about 2020 or so)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They will be falling all over themselves to implement a full blown European social welfare state as quickly as they possibly can. And I do not believe that American society is ready for it.
Really? You may be right. American society does seem quite content with expensive endless wars, expensive gasoline, expensive health insurance, expensive food prices, plumetting real estate values, and a worthless currency. God forbid our next administration and Congress takes steps to curtail those things. :rolleyes:
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Well, if you look at Milikins link a little further down this thread there were only 50 Americans in Vietnam in 73.
There were actually a lot more than that but you are right; almost all units had pulled out by the end of 73.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Active combat units were pulled out by November of '72. After that it was basically only advisors and Naval operations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The Tet Offensive? Irrelevant since the only question that matters is: Who won the war?[^]
We achieved victory by every meaningful military measure. We were not defeated militarily but politically thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Active combat units were pulled out by November of '72. After that it was basically only advisors and Naval operations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
We had some groups, or so I was told, that were with the tards up in the mountains, but basically, you are right. I had a senior moment. I guess the image of the fall of Saigon is so burned into my memory, I forget that the guards there were the only uniforms left.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
too damn socialist for my tastes.
Please explain what that means. How would you prefer it? And what would be the risks associated with that?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
Please explain what that means. How would you prefer it?
I want way less government in my life, way less social programs and less entitlement programs and therefore way less taxes taken from me.
Al Beback wrote:
And what would be the risks associated with that?
The risks of too much socialism is apathy and everything that leads to... The risks of too little government is that people who refuse to even make an effort to be self sufficient may die early.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They will be falling all over themselves to implement a full blown European social welfare state as quickly as they possibly can. And I do not believe that American society is ready for it.
Really? You may be right. American society does seem quite content with expensive endless wars, expensive gasoline, expensive health insurance, expensive food prices, plumetting real estate values, and a worthless currency. God forbid our next administration and Congress takes steps to curtail those things. :rolleyes:
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm just waiting for him to do something in the name of god, like Assnan's butt buddies.
You've considered that possibility, too? I wonder if Chris has a plan of action if he starts posting messages saying the angel of the Lord has told him to lock and load. . . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the angel of the Lord has told him to lock and load. . . .
Is that a religious euphemism for the five-knuckle-shuffle? :)
-
oilFactotum wrote:
What a laff!
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
oilFactotum wrote:
What would we have 'won' and how would we have won it?
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying,
I'm not, and you know it. Yet you seem to be quite cavalier with the lives of 10's of thousands of young American lives to 'win' a war that would accomplish nothing.
Oakman wrote:
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Don't have to. I'm well aware of the differences. Perhaps you need to look at Vietnam today. Strong emerging economy and no threat to it's neighbors. I doubt that American occupation could have created a better result. So, it appears that what you are saying is that what we would have won would have been a South Vietnam not terribly different than what it is now - the only difference is the 10's of thousands of additional American casualties(as well as 100's of thousands of Vietnamese casualties) and billions of American tax dollars spent on the effort. And you haven't addressed how we would have gotten there. Your comparison to Korea suggests that your idea of an American victory would not need to include the conquest of North Vietnam. Without an invasion how could we have possibly compelled them to surrender? No matter how successful COIN could have been, with NV unoccupied and the Ho Chi Minh trail(are you going to advocate for the invasions of both Cambodia and Laos?) still active, when would it have ended?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are you planning on thanking us for getting America out of Vietnam
:omg: Nixon was a lefty? :omg:
-
We achieved victory by every meaningful military measure. We were not defeated militarily but politically thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We were not defeated militarily but politically
Absolutely true. The people who waged the war failed to provide a strategy for victory or even a reason to try.
Stan Shannon wrote:
thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Again, absolutely true. The American people recognized the pointlessness of sending their children to fight and die for no purpose.
