Yes, and my point is that electing a new president was what caused Viet Nam to be a political failure. LBJ wasn't a very good president when it came to war, but neither was Nixon.
Printable View
Yes, and my point is that electing a new president was what caused Viet Nam to be a political failure. LBJ wasn't a very good president when it came to war, but neither was Nixon.
I'd argue that what caused Vietnam to be a political failure is that no one really wanted to start the war in the first place. Well, not enough people, anyway.
Vietnam was a failure for many reasons. One was there was a lack of support from USA, and second, it was one of those wars that the US couldn't win so easily. And there are many more...
As for Iraq, the US got in there, dumped Saddam, and months later during December, captured him, and a year after all 'major combat' was supposedly over, we still have troops in Iraq to keep things in order as we train the Iraqis to keep themselves in order without out support. Well, it would be nice if the UN were in control, but the UN had a history of botching stuff up in that past.
It's not that we the US couldn't win, it's that winning it quickly would have incited world war 3. Both our embarrasing wars in asia could have been avoided if people had just seen the basic tenant of communism for what it was. We live in the age where using the term communism is ridiculed, but remember that when russian agents were instructed as to how to create propoganda, they had two clear orders. make the world laugh at the words 'communist' and 'conspiricy.' but that's a tangent. Back to why the wars failed. marx's main point is that communsim must expand. no communist nation can be peaceful. It fails to do what it's economy was created to do. as a result of peace, china, vietnam, north korea and cuba are the only communist nations on earth and their economies are far from marxist. Communist forces in china however viewed expantion and conquest as life. The nationalists would no more consent to live in peace with them than we did to live in peace with sadaam or as an old widow would consent to live with a brood of vipers in her living room. Even then the US called for peace, and embargoed the nationalists, leading to their destruction. MacArthur was miles from pyongyang, but was forced to retreat because the communists entered the war. communist china caused the communist influence in vietnam. Liberal vietnam vet's like kerry can whine all they want about vietnam and peace, but when reduced to the basest levels, his philosophies in the liberals of the time created the war. Kerry essentially is saying, I served in a war that I started against my will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protozoa
Yeah, the US couldn't really bring its full forces down upon Vietnam because of China and Russia. It really was unwinnable without causing a fullscale war with the USSR.
Well, it would be nice if the UN were in control, but the UN had a history of botching stuff up in that past. ~ Proto
Unlike America, which is doing a perfect job in Iraq? UN control might have been an option if the US and Britain had decided to go in with UN backing.
Take what you want from the article and what I've said - I can't make you believe or agree with any of it. ~ DocFrance
No, probably not. But if you found the same thing on BBC News, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe it. I'm not too cynical, but I don't trust anti-Kerry rants on a website also featuring adverts for Conservative Anniversaries, George W. hats, Reagan t-shirts, and pictures of Rumsfeld and Bush alongside copies of National Review!!
That is exactly the same logic lead by the bipartidist system invented by Cánovas del Castillo after the Carlists Wars in the XIXth century Spain.Quote:
In the end, if you are an American and support democracy - then vote for Bush. The Democratic party had two terms with the Clinton admin...So it is only fair that the Bush republican party should have two terms.
Next term (that is not this election but the next election) vote for the Democratic party … and so on.
...it ended in the Primo de Rivera dictatorship :D But it was brief, soon we got the republic, then Civil War, and then...DICTAORSHIP AGAIN :D
Seriously, your idea seems to lack of any logic. In fact, the concept of bipartidism is one of the things that makes democracy suck.
"No, probably not. But if you found the same thing on BBC News, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe it. I'm not too cynical, but I don't trust anti-Kerry rants on a website also featuring adverts for Conservative Anniversaries, George W. hats, Reagan t-shirts, and pictures of Rumsfeld and Bush alongside copies of National Review!!"
My sentiments exactly. Though you'd probably be loathe to do so, perhaps if the same info appeared on a liberal website, then it would be easier to completely believe.
Take care all.
Yes, I understand what you mean. I try only to listen to independent news for exactly that reason. It's too easy to find something I believe in and then find "evidence" to back it up. It's why I don't read newspapers: it's impossible to get a non-biased viewpoint from them. If I just stick to the BBC, I know I'm getting balanced reporting with all the facts.
The only section I do enjoy reading in the newspaper is Opinion. There is more information there thatn in the headlines, in my opinion.
The BBC is only relatively unbiased on domestic issues - it DEFINITELY has a bias on foreign issues, such as, say, The Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
They're a good news source overall, but to call them "balanced reporting with all the facts" is foolish.
I actually find that The Onion Newspaper and The Daily Show are the most objective news mediums because they pull no punches on either side.
Take care all.
Agreed. The Onion is probably the most un-biased "news source" in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
The best news source is undoubtely the Daily Star, where you get WORLD EXCLUSIVES of all the things you always wanted to know:
BLIND DATE HUNK DIDN'T WANT TO BED ME
I HAD SEX WITH DAVID BECKHAM AND I WOULD DO IT AGAIN
SOMEONE TOSSED OUR BABY TO THE BIN
GIRL RAPED LIKE TWENTY TIMES OR SOMETHING AND THEN CUT TO PIECES, DETAILED PHOTOGRAPHS INSIDE!!!
INCREDIBLE HULK TOY HAS A MANUFACTURING ERROR THAT LEADS IT TO EXPOSE A GIGANTIC BONER
BOOBS!!! BOOBS!!! BOOOOOOOOOBS!!!
The Sun is also acceptable, along with some other really interesting newspapers, too hard for you to clean your ass with them, tasting too much to ink and paper even if you put salt, and not useful to wrap up fish, since it rots it.
Uh, seriously, I use Spanish news sources. I prefer newspapers.
I don't get an actual newspaper, but I have it sent to me via e-mail every morning. I get the Washington Post (liberal) and the Washington Times (conservative), since I like to see both sides of the issue. Plus, I read the Early Bird for military-related news.