Giuliani is making the same argument---the only way to deal with the world is through military strength. Peace by force is the new Republican mantra.
Maybe they can get Jesse (The Body) Ventura to be Secretary of State so he can body-slam world leaders into dazed submission.
This media campaign by Bush-whacker and Radio Rudy is clearly designed to get out in front, by a couple of weeks, what will be an all-out effort to sway public opinion by overselling the significance of the Petraeus report next month. "Limited military success" will be spun into "victory is at hand."
Bush seems to think he can defeat the comparisons to Viet Nam by making the argument that Viet Nam should serve as an example of why the U.S.A. should never withdraw without a clear victory.
The logic is so bent it's hard to believe that these knuckle-draggers manage to dress themselves in the morning.
2007-08-22
19:57:45
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Elections
Even Robert McNamarra, Secretary of Defense for John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, admitted in his book that he lied to the American people to keep the war going.
2007-08-22
20:19:04 ·
update #1
I read about that.
The man who hid in daddy's drawers during Vietnam.
If I was a Vietnam Vet, I would be pissed as hell right about now.
2007-08-22 20:00:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by powhound 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
That's rather a frightening thought as the people who ran the Viet Nam war have now admitted that we never should have been there and it was a waste of people and money and a war that couldn't have been won. It was a war we never should have gotten into, but just seemed to get involved more and more and didn't know how to get out of and we had a silly idea that if we left we would be left with the domino theory that the whole world would turn communistic. None of this plays here, it's apples to oranges. They are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to find some reason to verify why we are over there and why we aren't leaving and why Bush won't accept the plans set out by the house and the senate for withdrawal. It just proves that the Republicans can sink lower and lower. They have to be gotten out of the White House and out of the major parts of politics.
2007-08-23 03:08:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by lochmessy 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
The "great disaster" in viet nam was when the puppet government we'd been propping up for years collapsed.
If that was such an awful thing then it would have been better never to have set up the country for such a fiasco in the first place.
Oh well. At least the North Vietnamese didn't "follow us home." Inexplicable ain't it? Viet nam was supposed to be the first domino or something as I recall. Whatever happened to that scary old boogey man?
Say, you don't suppose our government was Completely Full of Baloney on that subject, do ya?
BTW, I heard some pundit on the radio the other day, saying it would be best to bring in "another strong man" in Iraq. Just for the duration you understand. All in the name of democracy of course.
Then he suggested we should bribe immigrants to fight our war for us by offering them citizenship.
Getting a little hard for these geniuses to keep pretending they aren't just playing the same old game over and over again I guess.
2007-08-23 03:20:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You weren't listening. The bad guys, having seen how the US bugged out of Viet Nam, are relying on the US doing it again, as long as they can make the situation nasty enough for long enough -- and have said so, publicly and repeatedly. So far, among the Democrats, the strategy is working fine. Once upon a time, a great President said that the US would pay any price in defense of liberty; evidently, that is no longer true.
2007-08-23 03:07:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
My bad...I sent a letter to McCain on 5/26/07
Mr. McCain,
I agree with the general direction you have taken with immigration, Iraq however is another story.
I beg you to consider that this war will not be won on any single battlefield, that purely criminal elements in Iraq will prevent any stability from being imposed by an occupying force.
Could we not have remained in Vietnam and still be there today? Would remaining there in Vietnam have served American interests more than withdrawing ?
I believe the war won't be won or lost in Iraq. President Bush has said the Iraq war, is not the Vietnam war...I take that as yet another simplification. Battlefield to battlefield I believe it is Vietnam, politics to politics however, I believe it is post Nazi Germany.
------------------letter ends---------------
Pfft- republicans
2007-08-23 03:53:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by in pain 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Viet Nam will be the next country to benefit from globalization, and it would be wise to invest there right now. Looking backwards as a way to criticize Bush is one reason why some people will never prosper.
2007-08-23 03:27:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
George Bush is a tool.
Counting the days until the insane clown posse is out of office.
2007-08-23 03:03:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's disgusting how partisan politics twists things around and causes rivalry among men.
2007-08-23 03:26:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by s.reichenberger 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
I like how you try to argue with facts. Like the fact that after we pulled out it became a communist nation. Like the fact that after we pulled out millions of southern soldiers were murdered. I could go on but you won't listen because as a wise man once said... "You talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish."
2007-08-23 03:01:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋