ADN

Jig-A-Meister wrote:

raum wrote:Vietnam was not a war. Neither is Iraq.

Then tell your boy McCain to stop talking about them as such. You do not need to convince me.
When i called it a war in my prior post, I used that phrase very loosely. I see 'nam as nothing more or less than a Tragedy.

My boy McCain? um, my boy for the Republican ticket was Paul... I did like Palin for a VP.


From my stance: here was the best election partisan presentation:

Republican: Ron Paul VP: Sarah Palin
Democratic: Mark Warner VP: Sam Nunn

My list does not include Obama or McCain. I had Mark Warner to win though I wanted Ron Paul myself, with a greater initiative for State's rights, less pork, and bipartisanship coming more into focus and being prime for future elections.

raum wrote:
1. Vietnam was not a war. Neither is Iraq.
2. Vietnam is a solid *unofficial* ally this day, and thriving.
3. Analysts EVERYWHERE say we should not have pulled out of Vietnam.
WE WERE WINNING FINALLY.

Raum you really need to re-think many of your Ideas about Vietnam, seriously dude.

As far as Vietnam thriving lol, In the past 6 months the cost of living has doubled there in some areas, and shit I mean people were doing so well before that too lol.

Millions dead and you guys still don'y want to call it a war. Maybe you would prefer to call it terrorism lol.
Every Vietnamese veteran from the American war I have met call it a war(on both sides) even the vets I have met who fought at Dien Bein Phu, and in the American war, call it a war. The Australian Vietnam Vets I have met call it a war, The Korean I met, who fought there called it a war? The Cambodians I have met who fought there call it a war. I havent met any of the Thai's that fought there, but my bet is they would call it a war too. lol

Sometimes a spade is a spade, no matter how you try to analyse it. But i guess you were there huh?

But this argument is to off topic for this thread.

And comparing Nixons stance to Obamas is a stretch dude. From the begining Obama has know how poorly this war in Iraq would be managed. There are reasons why the rest of the world think Americans are shit at war.

Ho Chi Minh was overwealmingly popular, Saddam was not....big difference.

Even lefty Hollywood paints Vietnam as an American tragedy, doesn't that tell you something?

Doesn't Palin have more experience than Obama? Why does Obama get a pass but not Palin when dealing with the amount of experience between the two?

Just because one has experience on a mayoral level or even a state one, doesn't mean they have the savvy to run shit on a national scale. That's like taking a Blockbuster clerk & making them run AOL.

Simply put: I see agendas on both sides of the McCain/Palin ticket. He has a youngish pawn to draw in voters he cannot & spout his rhetoric w/out questions asked. She knows the old man is not long for this world & clearly relishes the idea of being the first US prez in a skirt who'd nuke half the globe w/out checking what was actually what first.I seriously doubt whether they've considered whether they are worthy or qualified to grasp the brass ring. They just want it regardless. It's boardroom bloodlust at it's purest.

blixa wrote: Raum you really need to re-think many of your Ideas about Vietnam, seriously dude.

Are you a veteran? I am. I honor my small boat Senior Chief Joe Peterson by not calling it a war. He was there, and said never call it that; it wasn't a war because there was no honor. He was a mentor of mine, and we used to play chess and he taught me how to do shit you have likely only seen in movies. i am not saying it was not a tough situation; it was hell. I know far too many vets - and not just Americans. It was a very trying time, and on a primal level "war" was waged without honor. But that is different than it being a War.

As far as Vietnam thriving lol, In the past 6 months the cost of living has doubled there in some areas, and shit I mean people were doing so well before that too lol.

Their GDP per capita growth was over 3000 dollars. I have a vietnamese friend at my work. Everyone he knows is doing well, and he personally thanks us for our sacrifice, as do all of his family and others.

Millions dead and you guys still don'y want to call it a war. Maybe you would prefer to call it terrorism lol.

I served with three small boaters; "mini-mikes with nifty fifties" who were there in vietnam for more than one tour. None of them want it called a war. They were there. Chief Pete, John, and Ross Metcalf told me not to call it a war. I don't know who "you guys" are - I am honoring my own Senior Veterans I served with and respected for far more than a colorful chest.

Every Vietnamese veteran from the American war I have met call it a war(on both sides) even the vets I have met who fought at Dien Bein Phu, and in the American war, call it a war. The Australian Vietnam Vets I have met call it a war, The Korean I met, who fought there called it a war? The Cambodians I have met who fought there call it a war. I havent met any of the Thai's that fought there, but my bet is they would call it a war too. lol

It was a war... but not an American war. We were entered into someone else's war withoutb declaring our own. If another country declared war on vietnam, then they can call it a war. For the Vietnamese, it was a civil war of sorts... For us it was a military action that bore no politicial relevance. It was a special interest that cost LOTS and gave us little. It was not OUR war, and when we entered it, it was not an act of war. It was a liberal atrocity.

Sometimes a spade is a spade, no matter how you try to analyse it. But i guess you were there huh?

I am no stranger to combat. I trained and learned from Vietnam era vets who were on tour there. Don't presume that because I don't call it a war, I dismiss it, or try to validate it.

But this argument is to off topic for this thread.

And comparing Nixons stance to Obamas is a stretch dude. From the begining Obama has know how poorly this war in Iraq would be managed. There are reasons why the rest of the world think Americans are shit at war.

Nixon wanted to "Vietnameze the war again" and pull out, then he had to surge in, and the uproar was disorienting to the effort to move forward or pull out. I suspect that same thing will happen in Iraq. Plain and simple, the most two likely strategies to emerge in Iraq are Vietnam, or Okinawa. Of the two, I choose Okinawa.

Ho Chi Minh was overwealmingly popular, Saddam was not....big difference.

True, but that is not the distinction i was making. There are differences and that is a HUGE one. Good job distinguishing the two... but there are alot of simularities.

Even lefty Hollywood paints Vietnam as an American tragedy, doesn't that tell you something?

I never said it wasn't a tragedy. Please don't paint me with that brush.

Jig-A-Meister wrote:Just because one has experience on a mayoral level or even a state one, doesn't mean they have the savvy to run shit on a national scale. That's like taking a Blockbuster clerk & making them run AOL.

Simply put: I see agendas on both sides of the McCain/Palin ticket. He has a youngish pawn to draw in voters he cannot & spout his rhetoric w/out questions asked. She knows the old man is not long for this world & clearly relishes the idea of being the first US prez in a skirt who'd nuke half the globe w/out checking what was actually what first.I seriously doubt whether they've considered whether they are worthy or qualified to grasp the brass ring. They just want it regardless. It's boardroom bloodlust at it's purest.

A good number of presidents had no more experience than governatorial, and in less trying times than Palin... so I think she can handle being the Chief Executive Assistant of the President. and we have already addressed the reality of "the button" - the president now has final, but not the ONLY say in the deployment of nuclear armaments.

Now would someone else please CDR about Biden's comments about Lebanon. How he and Obama said let NATO troops in, and now Hisb'allah is ingrained in their country. I mean that happened in 1982. Where did Obama say that- junior college?

HAMAS was in Arafat's govt. and Biden and Obama said don't legitimize them?

No, all gaffes and griefs on the dem ticket get a pass. Their ambitions are far more transparent to me than to some other people I guess. Pure simple socialism to engender more incompetence in americans without help from the government.

I like Palin for the Veep, but she needs guidance. McCain is the less of two evils (Biden and McCain) in office, but I am not totally committed to him and he is not "my boy". I think Palin will ride that McCain wave until she is ready to surf on her own... which she has done in the past. I think she is more the loose cannon I want in the VP office, but Presidents need more stability. Obama would make a decent Vice President, but as President, he will either be controlled or ineffectual because he is unstable.

And again on almost every issue but taxes, they are promoting the same ideas within 80% margin by now. I hate political handlers. They altogether create policy mediocrity.

Their GDP per capita growth was over 3000 dollars. I have a vietnamese friend at my work. Everyone he knows is doing well, and he personally thanks us for our sacrifice, as do all of his family and others.

Sorry Raum I guess my wife's family are lying when they talk about the cost of living lol.

It was a war... but not an American war.

So they weren't American soldiers marching under American flags, funded by american taxpayers using American made equipment in violent war like situations?

hmmmm
In Vietnam it is referred to as "The American war".

like I said you need to re think your ideas on it.

But I understand why you respect the wishes of those who taught you how to look after yourself and can't dis you on that.

As far as there being honour in war, I'll follow my grandfathers lead on war being bloody stupid. I not long ago asked a friend of mine who was in the SPLA for eight years, if he thought there was honour in war....his answer was pretty much the same as my grandfathers.

Raum I think you are a genius....but I also think you over analyze

anyway

blixa wrote:Sorry Raum I guess my wife's family are lying when they talk about the cost of living lol.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 10,00.html

The last time I checked in with Vietnam, they seemed to be experiencing some inflation, but I saw alot of people happy with the growth. It does seem things got a bit worse since then. I also don't have family from there, so my global focus doesn't really gravitate there on a frequent basis. I am seeing that they are still on track for their projected 75 growth rate, revised from 8.5 - which is still good...but with inflation, that will quicky create a division of class that leads to the fall of a communist govt.

I hope your wife's family is enduring their economy's challenges.

So they weren't American soldiers marching under American flags, funded by american taxpayers using American made equipment in violent war like situations?

Yes, all of that is true - there were alot of Americans involved in combat, and hard combat at that. But War in our Constitution is not a "let's save the world from itself!" mentality. That is a Liberal ideal of military primacy and surrogacy. Those are not values our forefathers held. I never see where before Woodrow Wilson that we are appointed The World Police.

The Father of the US Constitution (James Madison) wrote:“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

To me, calling vietnam a war was and is a denial of the fact our military forces were highjacked for personal interest. Eisenhower was funding some french efforts, and said "screw this, and it's not worth it." Kennedy's biggest bluder was sending our people there. Then Kennedy keeps moving forces close, but not into the fray FOR NO GOOD REASON OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. and LBJ proceed to fuck things up beyond repair. then comes Congresses vote - gulf of Tonka, which says we will use force to defend our forces and SEATO countries that ask for help.

WHAT THE FUCK. That in no way is war - that is privitation of our military dignity. A horror a travesty and a bullshit liberal idea of lending people troops who have no will or means to fight their own battles. Then Nixon just kept fucking it up, tried to withdraw and let south vietnam handle it, and they couldn't.

But even before Nixon, we were highjacked.

hmmmm
In Vietnam it is referred to as "The American war".

In the South, they refer to the Lousiana Purchase as "the occupation of the French territories." I know the French led the effort in intitial vietnam war... alot of South Vietnamese simply did not know why they should fight. the French told them aLOT of lies to inspire them to fight and caused alot of confusion... for some reason Kennedy wanted a piece of that clusterfuck, prolly cause he was pissed about Cuba. He was a great speaker who was a HORRIBLE leader... and turned America's eyes from apple pies to an empty promise. I mean look at Brazil and the monstrosity he created there in the name of military primacy. That wasn't war, that was attempted genocide!

like I said you need to re think your ideas on it.

It was privitation of our military forces for expansion of democracy at gunpoint. that is not what war is, nor should it ever be. War is an undesirable thing, but with honor and providence, that simply never EVER was present in Vietnam.

But I understand why you respect the wishes of those who taught you how to look after yourself and can't dis you on that.

I thank you for that. i also am not saying ever should have happened or was a good thing. just did not follow our conventions for war, because it would have NeVER been declared. They loop-holed it out of a war, and made it a war on an ideal. wars against nations are horrible, but also inspiring. wars on "terror", "communism", "tyranny", "drugs" - these are bullshit and doomed to fail - regardless of being instigated by a republican or democrat.

As far as there being honour in war, I'll follow my grandfathers lead on war being bloody stupid. I not long ago asked a friend of mine who was in the SPLA for eight years, if he thought there was honour in war....his answer was pretty much the same as my grandfathers.

the need for war is stupid. War is a convention that tries to properly measure and contain the discontent that makes us feel the need for war, without sacrificing our values, or allowing us to be drawn into someone else's special interest. Congress declares War in the US, not the president, who simply requests the declaration be made.

Kennedy sought to act with military force in Vietnam and sought authorization to engage Nth Vietnam forces without the measures of War. The practice was continued by LBJ, and the price was terrible for at least 5 countries, including the US who gained nothing from the intrusion on another country's national affairs as it made an iffable transition to communism.

Raum I think you are a genius....

probably

but I also think you over analyze
anyway

Definitely, heh.

Aw you two...

Jig-A-Meister wrote:Aw you two...

For the record, I like Blixa, and you two Jiggahmeister!

Kumicho is a pain, tho ;)