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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not sure if this answer is bourne out ignorance or stupidity, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your reason is clouded by the grief of recent loss. Anyhoo, it is common knowledge that I have posted at DU for the last 4-5 years under several prominent (for that board) monikers, and, I daresay, I am one of the more substantive posters on that shitepool.

I was referring to posts of substance on this board. We haven't seen one of those from you in years. Is your substance on DU of the same caliber as it is here?

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account

Dope on a Rope

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually, Haig admitted that many of the things they did failed and said that those involved, like him, had to take responsibility for all the negative consequences of the war. Kissenger did not seem to share this attitute.

Appropos of this, I recently read excerpts of an interview with Gerald Ford, who said about Kissinger that he was a "great Secretary of State" but, in his own mind, had never made a mistake in his life. Thus, Kissinger always ended up defending to the death every single decision he had ever made.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Appropos of this, I recently read excerpts of an interview with Gerald Ford, who said about Kissinger that he was a "great Secretary of State" but, in his own mind, had never made a mistake in his life. Thus, Kissinger always ended up defending to the death every single decision he had ever made.

S_A_M

ncs claims she's 32-0 on this board.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This should make you happy.

I saw that, but thanks. For his sake, I hope he has some real evidence to hold these kids, because if he doesn't, he is going to be finished.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, and Sorenson is either a liar or ignorant if he said that the Kennedy Administration (including Mr. Marilyn Monroe) wasn't involved in the coup to overthrow Diem by at least giving the generals a wink and a nod. And did Kissenger mention his and Nixon's actions via Clare Chennault and Madame Chiang to get General Theiu to scuttle a peace deal in October 1968?

I had thought that Kennedy ordered the coup. When pressed on the issue Soreson seemed to imply that Kennedy wasn't adverse to the coup however, didn't push for one, and made it clear no one was supposed to be killed if there was one.

Sorenson was a little self righteous and the whole thing seemed a little Ripe. He came of the least well of the whole group.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Appropos of this, I recently read excerpts of an interview with Gerald Ford, who said about Kissinger that he was a "great Secretary of State" but, in his own mind, had never made a mistake in his life. Thus, Kissinger always ended up defending to the death every single decision he had ever made.

S_A_M

I always had thought Haig was a little big nutty. But in this conference he came off really well. The othe panelists (including Sorenson) had nothing but praise for the guy.

But what floored me was when Brian Williams asked if we could have won the war: Haig said without a doubt we could have one. There is absolutely no question we could have won we just chose not to. This was an open question to the whole panel, so after Haig said what he said, all the other panelists just nodded seeming to immply that that was the right answer.

That was quite a statement that definitely runs counter to the conventional wisdom out there and yet no one took him on. If I had been in Brian William's place I would have been all over Haig for that statement bringing up every argument I had ever heard about why the war was not winnable.

It is one thing to say it is possible we could have won the war, but to say if we had chosen to, we would have won the war is entirely something else (considering the conventional wisdom was and is we couldn't win). I just couldn't believe that Williams didn't challenge him and make him explain in great detail why the conventional wisdom is wrong. He seem to just accept it is an unarguable point and went on.

Sorenson didn't even object and I guess Sorenson was quite a anti-war activitst in the late sixties and early seventies. Brian Williams sucks as a panelist moderator.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob

That's what amazes me about your take on Vietnam. There is no dispute that militarily, we could have prevented the North from winning. But we also could not prevent the South from losing, and even with half a million US soldiers patrolling the South, and more bombs dropped than in all other wars combined, we were unable to prevent Tet. The government in the South lacked popular support in the South because of corruption and the legacy of French colonialism, and we were hated by many of the people in the South because we propped them up.

Even without the North sending tanks down Highway 1 in the spring of 1975 (and ARVN was larger and supposedly better equipped and trained even then, but they crumbled), it was just a question of time before the South fell from within.

If we chose to prevent the North from winning and did prevent them from winning, how could the South lose?

Your take was my take on Vietnam before I read a "Bright Shining Lie". I used to think that South Vietnam was so corrupt that it didn't have the support of the people and the communists had the hearts and minds of the people so a communist victory was inevitable. But since that time, I have changed my mind. The communists had very little support in the cities. This was true in most communist revolutions. Everyone knew that if the communist took over you would lose all your possessions. You would pretty much lose everything, and would become completely dependent on the government.

This may sound fine to a peasant who is already dependent on the landlord, or who is starving anyway. And it may appeal in theory to a student or academic, but to anyone that has worked hard for the possessions they do have, and has any stake in the system, the communist option is a complete nightmare.

Anyone with even a small ownership stake in the system would prefer almost any government to a communist one. There was always a strong hard core resistance to every communist takeover in any country. That is why most if not all had to take power through force of arms and then exterminate and jail so much of the native population. Communist governments and movements never experienced overwhelming popular support. Even where they had the most support there was always a majority (or at worst a very strong minority) that violently and adamantly opposed them.

That is why even really bad governments got support from their people over the communists. The old argument, that a communist government is better than a corrupt right wing government, or that at least the people of the country in question had taken that position, was way overplayed by the left in America during the cold war.

The South Korean government was incredibly corrupt during and after the Korean War. It was always incredibly unpopular. But the people preferred it to communism. The Philippine government was always corrupt, and so were the governments of Indonesia and Thailand. From a perspective of lesser of two evils, the communists were always the most evil, and in addition, any merchant, or anyone with any possessions no matter how modest preferred anyone, no matter how bad, to the communists..

I now believe that this was true in South Vietnam. There was strong hatred and resistance to the communists throughout the whole society, especially in the cities. The Vietcong were very dependent on support from the North. And the North was completely dependent on support from the Soviet Union. You cripple the North, and then you cripple the Vietcong. I believe that if you cut of the Vietcong’s support system (or without foreign help) they would have withered on the vine.

What makes you think without a foreign support, and support from the North, a VC takeover in South Vietnam was inevitable? Do you really thing the VC had captured the hearts and minds of the majority of the South Vietnamese people?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I was referring to posts of substance on this board. We haven't seen one of those from you in years. Is your substance on DU of the same caliber as it is here?

Your critique is clouded by your densely ignorant adherence to the kool-aid induced politics of personal destruction the rapist/murderer/klan led insurgency of the DNC has spoon fed to you (of course in your case the oppressive Daley family criminal enterprise has softened you up to be receptive to such hate).

I, otoh, continue to enjoy the pieace of mind of knowing that, based on the last two truly national elections, i.e. for the President, I reside in the majority of Americans, the patriotic majority. On the other hand, the Ds, coincidentally fall on the same side of the major foreign policy and economic issues as al-Qaeda and the socialists of Weurope, respectively. Sad. You went to public school right?

As for my posts on the DU, suffice to say, if I wasn't a poster that they considered of high minded substance I would get deleted. As is the course with liberals, rather than entertain and critically debate ideas, they censour those that they don't agree with, eg: the communists of Russia, China et al and the faux intellectual urban liberals of American.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Appropos of this, I recently read excerpts of an interview with Gerald Ford, who said about Kissinger that he was a "great Secretary of State" but, in his own mind, had never made a mistake in his life. Thus, Kissinger always ended up defending to the death every single decision he had ever made.

S_A_M

Isn't Kissinger overdue for a date with devil?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I, otoh, continue to enjoy the pieace of mind of knowing that, based on the last two truly national elections, i.e. for the President, I reside in the majority of Americans, the patriotic majority.

As usual, you are confused. You were in the minority in '00.

Helpfully,

T.S.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, so then explain to me which Americans want us to fail in Iraq because they want Bush to fail, without regard to the cost to the country, and which public statements they made that you deduced this from. Since you're smearing people as unpatriotic, presumably you have specific names and statements in mind.

Bill O'Reilly has made a point of every time he has been a guest on someone else's show of asking the host point blank if they want the US to succeed in Iraq. If you saw the Letterman clip, he asked that question (And of course Lettermen dodged the question), he asked that on the View, Oprah Winfrey's show, and of course he asks it on his own show every time there is a quest and the subject of Iraq comes up.

I don't watch his show much, but happened to see a part of a montage of all the responses. I made a point of watching that particular show again later that evening to see the segment. What I saw blew me away.

You thought it was ludicrous that I said that not everyone understands the importance of us succeeding in Iraq. Before I saw the clip, although I knew there where not a lot of people that did not place a priority on us succeeding, I still thought most people wouldn't mind if we succeeded. There are at least forty people in the montage who you recognize who would not say "I want the US to succeed in Iraq". When you watched it, it was almost like if they said they did, they would lose their liberal card, DNC card or SAG card. He asked the same simple question every time, and they intellectual dance, and rational gymnastic it produced was unbelievable. Why wouldn't they come out and say they wanted the US to succeed? Many of them stated that they didn't care if we succeeded; they just didn't want to see one more soldier die in Iraq, no matter what the cost. That was Rosie O’Donnell position, Chares Rangles position, and a few others' positions.

Why wouldn't anyone, when hearing that questions say immediately at least "yes I would like to see the US succeed in Iraq but.....” But O'Reilly couldn't even get a yes with a qualifier out of the people. Watch the Letterman interview or the View interview again. They all simply refused to say that they would like the US to succeed in Iraq.

So when I say that not everyone understands the importance of winning in Iraq, that is unquestionable. But even if you didn't understand the importance of succeeding in Iraq, why not just say it would be nice if we did.

These people do not want a troop pull down because they think that is the best way to succeed in Iraq. They want a pull out because they don't care if we succeed. Anyone on O'Reily’s show that when faced with the question and who didn't give an unequivocal yes (yes with qualifiers is fine, but there had to be a yes), is either putting their partisan goals above the good of the nation, putting their hatred of Bush above the welfare of the nation, is unpatriotic or incredibly stupid. That includes everyone in that montage.

I said in the begging that for someone to be taken seriously on this issue they have to understand that it is really, really important that we succeed in Iraq. You said that is pretty much everyone in the debate. That is not true. Not only are there a lot of people that don't see succeeding as critical to the success of US foreign policy, but they don't even really care if we do succeed at all.

You would like to think that the majority opinion among Democrats is "we think it is very important that the US succeed, and we think a pullout will help us succeed".

But there are many people who don't want us to succeed, and the ones that do want us to succeed don't think it is worth much sacrifice to succeed.

The people who fall into the category who want us to succeed, and think it is very important for us to succeed and think pulling out will improve our chances are a small minority.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bill O'Reilly has made a point of every time he has been a guest on someone else's show of asking the host point blank if they want the US to succeed in Iraq. If you saw the Letterman clip, he asked that question (And of course Lettermen dodged the question), he asked that on the View, Oprah Winfrey's show, and of course he asks it on his own show every time there is a quest and the subject of Iraq comes up.

I don't watch his show much, but happened to see a part of a montage of all the responses. I made a point of watching that particular show again later that evening to see the segment. What I saw blew me away.

You thought it was ludicrous that I said that not everyone understands the importance of us succeeding in Iraq. Before I saw the clip, although I knew there where not a lot of people that did not place a priority on us succeeding, I still thought most people wouldn't mind if we succeeded. There are at least forty people in the montage who you recognize who would not say "I want the US to succeed in Iraq". When you watched it, it was almost like if they said they did, they would lose their liberal card, DNC card or SAG card. He asked the same simple question every time, and they intellectual dance, and rational gymnastic it produced was unbelievable. Why wouldn't they come out and say they wanted the US to succeed? Many of them stated that they didn't care if we succeeded; they just didn't want to see one more soldier die in Iraq, no matter what the cost. That was Rosie O’Donnell position, Chares Rangles position, and a few others' positions.

Why wouldn't anyone, when hearing that questions say immediately at least "yes I would like to see the US succeed in Iraq but.....” But O'Reilly couldn't even get a yes with a qualifier out of the people. Watch the Letterman interview or the View interview again. They all simply refused to say that they would like the US to succeed in Iraq.

So when I say that not everyone understands the importance of winning in Iraq, that is unquestionable. But even if you didn't understand the importance of succeeding in Iraq, why not just say it would be nice if we did.

These people do not want a troop pull down because they think that is the best way to succeed in Iraq. They want a pull out because they don't care if we succeed. Anyone on O'Reily’s show that when faced with the question and who didn't give an unequivocal yes (yes with qualifiers is fine, but there had to be a yes), is either putting their partisan goals above the good of the nation, putting their hatred of Bush above the welfare of the nation, is unpatriotic or incredibly stupid. That includes everyone in that montage.

I said in the begging that for someone to be taken seriously on this issue they have to understand that it is really, really important that we succeed in Iraq. You said that is pretty much everyone in the debate. That is not true. Not only are there a lot of people that don't see succeeding as critical to the success of US foreign policy, but they don't even really care if we do succeed at all.

You would like to think that the majority opinion among Democrats is "we think it is very important that the US succeed, and we think a pullout will help us succeed".

But there are many people who don't want us to succeed, and the ones that do want us to succeed don't think it is worth much sacrifice to succeed.

The people who fall into the category who want us to succeed, and think it is very important for us to succeed and think pulling out will improve our chances are a small minority.

I, like David Letterman, think Bill O'Reilly is a loudmouth and a moron, a pompous jackass who ought not be taken seriously. Refusing to answer his questions is like refusing to respond when someone asks you -- non-ironically -- "when did you stop beating your wife?" If the basis for your views is this montage of responses to O'Reilly's questions, then you need say no more. If you think that's good evidence of anything -- which is to say, if you think David Letterman wants the US to fail in Iraq -- then we can agree to disagree.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I, like David Letterman, think Bill O'Reilly is a loudmouth and a moron, a pompous jackass who ought not be taken seriously. Refusing to answer his questions is like refusing to respond when someone asks you -- non-ironically -- "when did you stop beating your wife?" If the basis for your views is this montage of responses to O'Reilly's questions, then you need say no more. If you think that's good evidence of anything -- which is to say, if you think David Letterman wants the US to fail in Iraq -- then we can agree to disagree.

The people that bother me are the ones who flipped. Howard Stern was all about invading Iraq, then when he decided he was sour on the FCC he actually had Michael Moore come on, and treated him like a genius. I saw David Sedaris October 2001. He said, and I quote "We should turn the mid-east into a glass parking lot." Now he is stridently anti-Bush. I think both of them still are people who would like the best outcome we can achieve in Iraq.

There are surely people who think failing in Iraq would equal destroying Bush, and thus would be good for the long run. No more American wars!!!!

But I'm afraid i have to agree with Ty, just a little bit, that the answers may have less to do with Iraq, and more to do with the way certain people try to push their points.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
If we chose to prevent the North from winning and did prevent them from winning, how could the South lose?

****

What makes you think without a foreign support, and support from the North, a VC takeover in South Vietnam was inevitable? Do you really thing the VC had captured the hearts and minds of the majority of the South Vietnamese people?

Remember that prior to the mid 50s, Vietnam was not divided, and the Viet Minh had established a network throughout the entire country while fighting the French. That network did not go away when the country was divided on the 17th parallel and the French left.

The US, despite hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of tons of bombs dropped on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, was never able to prevent the VC from receiving support from the North. And since large areas of the food growing countryside of the South was under the effective control of the VC, they were more than self-sufficient in nearly everything.

My point was that the presence of US troops could maintain the South's control of the cities (mostly -- see Tet) from the VC and could prevent a conventional takeover of the South by the NVA.

Korea is different because there had not been an established nationwide (and allegedly nationalistic) insurgency flourishing before the division of the country. It is not merely the corruption of the government that was SVN's problem. It was that combined with a decades old movement that did have popular support in large parts of the country.

Of course there were many millions of people in SVN opposed to the communists. But that is not enough to stop a takeover. There needs to be a government with at least enough popular support that its armed forces will fight for it. The numerically stronger, supposedly better trained and certainly better equipped ARVN would not and did not. That is the bottom line, and our army was crippled and nearly destroyed trying to make it work.