U.S. war ally rips Obama's election bid
-
oilFactotum wrote:
promises of victory unfilled had nothing to do with a disilusioned public is being silly.
This disillusioned public continues to enlist in a volunteer Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force - knowing full well they'll be sent to Iraq. My grandson enlisted in the Marines a few months back, you think he's part of the disillusioned public?
oilFactotum wrote:
So you think we should have killed a few million more by extending the war?
you really are incapable of reading history - millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
oilFactotum wrote:
say that the wholesale destruction of the country is your solution.
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the fucking place. going in with a politically correct approach, to satisfy the whiners, us what allows the current situation.
oilFactotum wrote:
ou didn't call "some one" a coward - You called all Democrats cowards[^]. That is demonization.
that is a recognition of fact.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you really are incapable of reading history
You are apparently being an ass like red.:rolleyes:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you are talking about - What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia? The domino theory? What? I haven't read that the Vietnamese killed millions of their own after the war. Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the f****ing place
And how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is a recognition of fact.
No, that is you demonizing the opposition. -- modified at 11:59 Tuesday 13th February, 2007
-
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you really are incapable of reading history
You are apparently being an ass like red.:rolleyes:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
millions of lives were lost because we left too soon.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you are talking about - What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia? The domino theory? What? I haven't read that the Vietnamese killed millions of their own after the war. Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is not what I said. What I said was we should have gone in with A WWII attitude and carpet bombed the f****ing place
And how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that is a recognition of fact.
No, that is you demonizing the opposition. -- modified at 11:59 Tuesday 13th February, 2007
oilFactotum wrote:
You are apparently being an ass like red.
no, actually he's a rookie. When I put my mind to it I can do much better.
oilFactotum wrote:
What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia?
both, actually.
oilFactotum wrote:
The domino theory?
which, fyi, was a valid concept.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
we could have ended it very efficiently if we had: 1) taken out the dams north of Hanoi, 2) followed with carpet bomb and invasion of the north. the yammering left in our own country, read that as Kerry, Hanoi Jane, Cronkite and compatriots, kept that from happening. and you don't "extend" a war if you stay in it until you've won. How'd you play high school sports? quit when you got hurt or the field got muddy?
oilFactotum wrote:
nd how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
It would have been as wholesale as Dresden or Japan, it took the fire bombing of Dresden to shake up the Germans and it took the atom bomb to stop the Japanese - both morally and ethically justified.
oilFactotum wrote:
You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
by showing the enemy we will not quit - Democrats, coupled with a few additional cowards from the other side of the aisle are giving the enemy all the moral support they need to stick it out. If that bunch, cowards from both sides of the aisle, would have stayed behind the decision to go in and not take every opportunity to diminish Bush, we'd be in a damn sight better position today than we are. Thank God Bush sticks to his principles.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, that is you demonizing the opposition.
so you say. how about we call them, girly men.
oilFactotum wrote:
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You are apparently being an ass like red.
no, actually he's a rookie. When I put my mind to it I can do much better.
oilFactotum wrote:
What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia?
both, actually.
oilFactotum wrote:
The domino theory?
which, fyi, was a valid concept.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said before, we killed 3 million Vietnamese while we were there. You wanted the war extended and kill a few million more? Kill a million to save a million?
we could have ended it very efficiently if we had: 1) taken out the dams north of Hanoi, 2) followed with carpet bomb and invasion of the north. the yammering left in our own country, read that as Kerry, Hanoi Jane, Cronkite and compatriots, kept that from happening. and you don't "extend" a war if you stay in it until you've won. How'd you play high school sports? quit when you got hurt or the field got muddy?
oilFactotum wrote:
nd how, exactly, is that not the wholesale destruction of the country? You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
It would have been as wholesale as Dresden or Japan, it took the fire bombing of Dresden to shake up the Germans and it took the atom bomb to stop the Japanese - both morally and ethically justified.
oilFactotum wrote:
You haven't answered my question of how you believe that Bush is going to win in Iraq.
by showing the enemy we will not quit - Democrats, coupled with a few additional cowards from the other side of the aisle are giving the enemy all the moral support they need to stick it out. If that bunch, cowards from both sides of the aisle, would have stayed behind the decision to go in and not take every opportunity to diminish Bush, we'd be in a damn sight better position today than we are. Thank God Bush sticks to his principles.
oilFactotum wrote:
No, that is you demonizing the opposition.
so you say. how about we call them, girly men.
oilFactotum wrote:
What does your grandson's enlistment today have to do with a public disillusioned with Vietnam in the 1970's?
No doubt you can be a bigger ass than red, but that remark was on his pathetic level.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: What are you talking about? Vietnam? Cambodia? both, actually.
Don't see how you think that staying in Vietnam would have changed things for the better in Cambodia. Pol Pot came to power while we were still there. And clearly the unrest that occurred in Cambodia at that time is a direct result of our war in Vietnam. You know - Ho Chi Minh trail, our invasion of Cambodia(remember the Parrot's Beak?), secret bombing, so on, we aren't responsible for all those deaths because we left, we are responsible because we came in the first place. And Vietnam, you say millions died after we left, perhaps but I am unaware of mass killings after the fall of Saigon. Perhaps you are thinking of the boat people and the like. Well we failed them not by leaving, but by leaving them behind.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: The domino theory? which, fyi, was a valid concept
I don't know how valid it is since it didn't actually happen.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
It would have been as wholesale as Dresden or Japan
Seeing as we laid waste to both countries, I would call that wholesale. And since doing so to Iraq was not required to defeat the military, massacre of the civilian population would not be moral or ethical. It would probably amount to genocide and that never was an option - thank God.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
it took the fire bombing of Dresden to shake up the Germans
Didn't shake them up too much, since they fought to the bitter end. Berlin fell and Hitler committed suicide before they surrendered. In hindsight the bombing had no strategic value.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
by showing the enemy we will not quit
Whatever. Your "stabbed in the back" theory for Iraq just won't fly. This has been Bush's war from the very beginning. He has made it very clear that he is the commander-in-chief and the descisions in this war have been his. From the beginning by assuming that this was going to be as easy occupation (early plans had the troop levels down to 30,000 or so in just a few months). Even though some Generals argued that we needed to go in with more troops. Refusing to change strategies even in the f