A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Penske, Slave and i read the DU. For balance, and for you to convey value here you need to promise to read Littlegreenfootballs.com next year.

For you reading one more blog will be like stretching a 200 guy gang bang film to 201 guys.

I'm not sure how reading a blog that noone here contributes to is adding value.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Professor Terguson:
"You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?
Then take the fucking wall apart brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever? Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!"

Thornton Melon:
"All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a pussywimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those Commie bastards!"

Professor Terguson:
"Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you."

Video link, for a laugh

Did anyone watch that panel on C-Span last night on the Vietnam war at the Kennedy presidential library with Sorensen, Valenti, Kissinger, and Al Haig?

Haig and Kissinger both pointed out that the Christmas bombings of Hanoi were the most effective strategic move of the war. Once they started the North was willing to negotiate all sorts of things after the bombing that before the bombing were "off the table". Haig said that Nixons biggest regret was not continuing the bombing. He said that eventhough Congress might have impeached him for it, he should have kept it up until the war was over.

Haig said there was no question we could have won the war, and the North Vietnamese response to the Christmas bombing demostrated that. He also said we did not lose the vietnam war, we just quit the war. If we had wanted there was no question we could have won.

Kissing seemed to reconfirm this and no one else on the panel disputed what he said.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did anyone watch that panel on C-Span last night on the Vietnam war at the Kennedy presidential library with Sorensen, Valenti, Kissinger, and Al Haig?

Haig and Kissinger both pointed out that the Christmas bombings of Hanoi were the most effective strategic move of the war. Once they started the North was willing to negotiate all sorts of things after the bombing that before the bombing were "off the table". Haig said that Nixons biggest regret was not continuing the bombing. He said that eventhough Congress might have impeached him for it, he should have kept it up until the war was over.

Haig said there was no question we could have won the war, and the North Vietnamese response to the Christmas bombing demostrated that. He also said we did not lose the vietnam war, we just quit the war. If we had wanted there was no question we could have won.

Kissing seemed to reconfirm this and no one else on the panel disputed what he said.

I could be wrong, but to my recollection, neither Hank nor Dick said anything remotely like that in their memoirs (which were written closer in time to the events at issue, and had the benefit of all of their records).

Hank seemed to blame the corrupt South Vietnamese government in general for the loss of the war, while noting that the conventional attacks by the NVA in 1975 could have been stopped or slowed at a minimum by the use of US air power. I haven't read RN in a while, so I don't recall Dick's take.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
President Bush likely just turned my Tuesday funding into a Wednesday funding, which probably will mean an earlier beginning to the long weekend for me (after an incredibly long last work week of the year). If this is the case, I will retroactively take back one bad thing (of my choosing) that I've ever said about him. Though really the debt of gratitude should be shared with Ford for the whole dying thing.

Foiled! Still working! No retroactive taking back of negative Bush utterances! Humbug!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Which part?

what did Bush do? Court holidae?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Did you hear that Mao ordered the murder of various US nationals (missionaries and, IIRC, at least a few government employees) in the closing days of the Commie takeover of China? And gave the order sending the Peoples Liberation Army across the Yalu River to kill thousands of US troops in 1950? Then Nixon negotiated with him? NWTF?

cite please?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm not sure how reading a blog that noone here contributes to is adding value.

I have posted on littlegreenfootballs, albeit in the guise of my DU sock, but, a post is a post. why are you opposed to seeking the blogospheric insight of blogs with a much broader reach than this one? Afraid you will find out the ideas of the loonie liberals here are, well, loonie????

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Foiled! Still working! No retroactive taking back of negative Bush utterances! Humbug!

I'm drinking. sorry. I'll still hit 230 this month, but booze before 9 is good nonetheless.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
what did Bush do? Court holidae?

George closed the federal government. It seems that some states thought that it would be a good idea to close down their governments as well. Including secretary of state offices. Do you see where I'm headed with this?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I could be wrong, but to my recollection, neither Hank nor Dick said anything remotely like that in their memoirs (which were written closer in time to the events at issue, and had the benefit of all of their records).

Hank seemed to blame the corrupt South Vietnamese government in general for the loss of the war, while noting that the conventional attacks by the NVA in 1975 could have been stopped or slowed at a minimum by the use of US air power. I haven't read RN in a while, so I don't recall Dick's take.

Who is Hank? Henry Kissinger?

I had heard of the Christmas bombings but didn't know much about it. According to Al Haig and Kissinger in this dicussion the bombing was really effective. They implied that the North Vietnamese were willing to do almost anything to stop it. They seemed to assume that everyone knew that it was really effective. They assumed wrong about me. I was not in the loop on this conventional wisdom about the Christmas bombing.

But they also said that there was incredible international outcry in the US and throughout the world over the bombings. The fact that people were upset at us bombing North Vietnam when they were invading the South seems a little ripe to me, but hey, I have never understood liberals and never will.

The criticism of Johnson for limiting the bombing was also brought up. I guess John McCain had complained that he was given more places not to bomb than to bomb when he flew his missions. But Valenti defended Johnson in saying that Johnson did not want to start WWIII, and was constantly afraid that some pilot was going to bomb a soviet ship or something sparking off a larger war. So in that context the decision to fight a limited war made perfect sense. He said this also explained why Johnson micromanaged the war so much. If WWIII was going to be started he wanted to make sure that it happened even though he had oversaw every little skirmish and he did everything in his power to prevent it.

Sorenson, special counsel to Kennedy, denied that Kennedy approved of the Coup and assasination of Diem.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
George closed the federal government. It seems that some states thought that it would be a good idea to close down their governments as well. Including secretary of state offices. Do you see where I'm headed with this?

Yes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, sts.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who is Hank? Henry Kissinger?

I had heard of the Christmas bombings but didn't know much about it.

The key points are that on Christmas 1968 President Nixon (notwithstanding that he was not yet president yet) sent John Kerry into Cambodia on a Swiftboat, notwithstanding that President Johnson, who was president at the time sent no troops in Cambodia.

Got it?

[Penske_Account]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I could be wrong, but to my recollection, neither Hank nor Dick said anything remotely like that in their memoirs (which were written closer in time to the events at issue, and had the benefit of all of their records).

Hank seemed to blame the corrupt South Vietnamese government in general for the loss of the war, while noting that the conventional attacks by the NVA in 1975 could have been stopped or slowed at a minimum by the use of US air power. I haven't read RN in a while, so I don't recall Dick's take.

One point that Kissinger made, that the whole panel agreed with, was in order to have a serious discussion about Vietnam, the underlying assumption had to be, that for all the decisions made concerning Vietnam, from whichever administration, that such decisions were made by serious people (in other words, people that were experienced, well qualified and studied the issues intensely), for serious reasons, that compelling arguments could be made for every decision made and that no one could claim the moral high ground over any of these decision makers.

It seems to me that these same rules apply to discussing the current situation in Iraq.

Other parallels to Iraq:

1) Quitting not losing When Al Haig said that we did not lose Vietnam; we quit Vietnam that seemed to be very apt today. It seems to me that many people want us to quit Iraq like we quit Vietnam.

2) Concern over international opinion. Another parallel is that International opinion effected decisions on how to conduct the war. In other words, bad strategic decisions, like discontinuing the bombing, were made because of international pressure. Or another way of looking at it, if we had stopped worrying so much about world opinion we could have increased our chances of succeeding in Vietnam. People seem to constantly argue that we should change our conduct in Iraq because of international opinion.

3) Concerns on how we treat the enemy. Outcry from members of congress and pundits on how we treated the enemy hampered out ability to fight the war. Many members of Congress complained of our foray into Cambodia, when divisions of North Vietnamese troops were launched from safe havens in Cambodia that were killing thousands of American soldiers. And Prince Norodom Sihanouk said that he had lost control of those areas that they were controlled by the NVA and he had no problem with us going in there. Yet people complained about bombing and attacking those safe havens. In addition, people complained about us bombing Hanoi and other areas of North Vietnam. Unfortunately these complaints influenced Nixon not to make decisions that were in the best interest of our troops and the country.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, sts.

Unfortunately for me, although we are not funding until Wednesday now, I am stuck here trying to finalize a document (waiting on opposing counsel) so that it can be dated and effective before the end of the year. It seems as though I estimated my time on this matter today (at least) a bit too low in light of the hour and the fact that I'm still here.