And that’s all I have to say about that…er…gesture…er…whatever the %#$^ you call it. LOL. 
V:
Forgot where this came up but see below:
After Watergate dethroned President Nixon, President Ford’s hands were tied despite his final plea to help South Vietnam amid the North’s all-out assault to capture Saigon. Congress overwhelmingly voted against resuming aid despite atrocious and blatant cease-fire violations by the North Vietnamese. With the exception of a handful of people in the State Department and U.S. military and of citizens involved in the evacuation and refugee resettlement, Americans had had enough. The war had gone on for more than a decade, with 58,235 American dead and countless physical and psychological casualties. For the South Vietnamese, about 300,000 soldiers paid the ultimate price. Vietnam as a people lost 2 million to 3 million.
So I think that the US government did cut Vietnam off without a cent and most of those that voted to do so were Democrats and the reason they did so is because they believed that we had no right to fight communism and that we were wrong and holding back the unification of the country and that a communist takeover was what most Vietnamese wanted. Yet, it was only after the fall of Saigon that the massive refugee flows began and the mass murders began so… I think that we now have a better understanding of the true sentiments of the people.
For Iraq, we are going to have to fight just as long, perhaps longer and it will hopefully have the effect of shaking up the Middle East in the appropriate ways. If not, the major loser will not be the US but the Middle East itself. Witness Vietnam and its present level of development compared with those of its neighbors (minus Laos, Cambodia and Burma).
"In his book, The Final Collapse, General Cao Van Vien, Chairman of the South Vietnamese Joint General Staff, states his personal belief that it was the cutback in U.S. military aid and absence of U.S. intervention with air power (especially B-52s), in response to North Vietnamese and PRG treaty violations, that made defeat inevitable. After the 1973 Paris Agreements, the Republic of Vietnam armed forces (RVNAF) suddenly found it difficult to operate at the greatly reduced level of U.S. appropriations; they were now in a decidedly underdog position. Since their superior firepower and mobility were gone, they found it impossible to maintain tactical balance against an enemy who held the initiative. The most the RVNAF could hope to achieve was a delaying action pending restoration of American military aid to its former level. American military aid to the government of South Vietnam was cut from over $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1973 to $700 million in fiscal year 1975." - Bibby, Thomas M., Major USAF
globalsecurity.org/military/ … 85/BTM.htm
rand.org/publications/R/R2208/
biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm
This was a pretty weird website. Don’t just dismiss it as crazy-talk and zero in on the easy points. There are some good points being made.
Well there is a lot of crazy talk so why don’t you make the points that you believe are salient JB:
I think that you have been hanging around Broon Ale a lot recently and are attempting to be humorous. This could be the only explanation for such a lapse in judgment by a nominally intelligent poster such as yourself. haha
Meanwhile:
Iraqis Get Prosthetic Hands After Saddam Cut Real Hands Off
POSTED: 2:26 p.m. EDT May 18, 2004
HOUSTON – The man tied his shoes. Then he untied them just to do it again.
Liath Aqar was one of seven Iraqi small-business owners who received finished prosthetic hands after almost six weeks of surgery to prepare their arms, along with recovery and fittings in Houston.
The men got their prosthetics nine years after agents of Saddam Hussein’s government cut off their right hands to punish small-business owners for Iraq’s collapsing economy.
The removable hands, cost about $25,000 and although not perfect, can perform many tasks of a human hand.
The Iraqis will spend about 30 hours working with their new hands in Houston in the next week. They will then leave May 24 to visit U.S. soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
They will also meet with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The group will travel to Frankfurt, Germany on June 3 and will return to Baghdad by U.S. military transport a few days later.
Pentagon says it hit fighters – not Iraqi wedding
Pentagon officials Wednesday denied alleged eyewitness reports of a U.S. attack on a wedding party in a remote area of western Iraq that killed innocent civilians.
“Our report is that this was not a wedding party, that these were anti-coalition forces that fired first, and that U.S. troops returned fire, destroying several vehicles, and killing a number of them,” a Pentagon spokesman said.
Prototype:
Hmmm got all the facts on that already? Let’s see the media has been batting oh I don’t know 1 out of 10. By the way, you write like you look. haha
No Fred we saw same scenario before. They have already experience bombing weddings…
lets all remeber that ‘reliable intelligence’ about wmd shall we. People in glass houses…
But for me it was never only about wmds. So that is only 20 percent relevant as far as I am concerned.
Love Fred
[quote=“fred smith”]…anyone that fails to realize that despite its imperfections, our system is far better than the Middle Eastern and Arab alternatives merely has to see how justice is not service, torture is the rule and detention is the least of your worries. We are better. So wail about the mistakes of a few all you want but the Arabs and their culture of violence are what should be analyzed and criticized here.
So when imperfections arise, deal with them but our two systems are in no way morally relative in the slightest. Shame on anyone who thinks so. May they in Alien’s eternal words, be born an Arab or Muslim woman and then be forced to live under said system all the while wouldbe intellectuals in the West defend said system for cultural reasons. [/quote]
The paradox you always aim to set force has grown tiresome since I’m not exactly sure what YOUR side is doing that has helped women in the middle east, or children, or men.
Our side feels it’s wrong for a fierce HUGE military dynamo to go in and scapegoat and kill thousands of innocents while ‘teaching a lesson to’ a stray ‘bad guys’. This is being done all under the guise of what, humanitarian issues? Pbbt! :raspberry:
I resent your comparisons. Perhaps we anti-war advocates don’t have the answers at the moment, but military aggression and the atrocities of innocent people dying on both sides while very few actual ‘terrorists’ have been retrieved and / or reformed, is NOT the answer. It never was.
So, what can be done about corporate greed, rather than terrorism, since we know this is the real reason Iraq was invaded? Not too darn much in our countries at this point. But why should this be the main item (along with what you call democracy) forced upon a nation that’s been subjected to the scenarios you describe above?
And since you’ve actually never voted before in an election, how do think that imposing what you believe is FREEDOM by killing, torturing and excess military dynamism will ‘reform’ a nation that is not willing to be dictated to by an outside presence or FORCE? Anyone who took Psych 101 in college would see why this is a fruitless endeavour. It’s human nature. And we’re all humans, remember?
You really think setting up a Starbucks in Baghdad is going to mean that democracy will prevail? So suit up then, or better yet, be a ‘contractor’ like Berg. I’d love to see you roll up your blazer sleeves and lend a hand over there. Perhaps the bad guys (aka terrorists) will come to see the FRED SMITH WAY and they will kneel before you while you fan yourself with wads of cash and cool your brow with an icy Budweiser. You can explain to them in Arabic how much better their lives would be if they just gave in to the temptations of the modern world.
Yes, i praise the fact that I was born in a country that has offered me freedom, but I despise the notion that my freedom is slowly being taken away by this administration and their dirty blanket war on terrorism.
Why, Fred, according to my understanding of American values, protesting what our country is doing shows a much deeper patriotism than condoning, or like you-- supporting it. It’s disgraceful. Your flag waving is all a front. You might as well be donning a Ronald McDonald wig, it’d be far more appropriate.
I’m not even going to address all of the other stuff you posted… but I do think this needs to be clarified: The US military is VERY restrained.
If the US military used all of its might and really behaved aggressively, this war would be over. If we were really agressive, we would be going after the families of terrorist leaders and “soldiers”.
I’m not even going to address all of the other stuff you posted… but I do think this needs to be clarified: The US military is VERY restrained.
If the US military used all of its might and really behaved aggressively, this war would be over. If we were really agressive, we would be going after the families of terrorist leaders and “soldiers”.[/quote]
They’re not? Who are all those people in Guantanamo?
And what do you mean by ‘aggressive’ exactlly?
Spell it out for me. I’m a woman.
:bluemad:
Alien:
You are so morally confused you wouldn’t know an ethical truth if it fell in your lap.
How many Iraqis have died this year because of US involvement direct and indirect? And how many died last year under Saddam? under the misallocation of funds from the Oil for Food program? Didn’t hear you wailing and gnashing your teeth about those incidents despite the higher numbers of victims. You are in lock step anti-americanism because you have been taught to believe that it is more “sophisticated” and because I doubt very seriously whether you were able to read any of those courses in college with any critical reading ability. Sorry, but them’s my views.
What have you done to bring democracy and human rights to Arab women and children or gays and blacks for that matter in the Middle East? Was this even an issue with you before the US got involved in Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Why? Because white men were not involved and therefore could not be blamed unless you hearkened back to colonialism and by stretching the category by extension blame all white men for what British and French and Spanish and Dutch and Portuguese did 100s of years ago. Spare me.
I know that you believe that I am brainwashed but what if the reverse were true? Given my knowlege and understanding of the Middle East and my frequent and lengthy sojourns there, do you think that perhaps I might just have an independent thought about what it might take to reform that mess?
Interesting that we have this kind of go at each other about once a month. Know what I mean? Grr Grrr Grr. I am a white male so that must explain it?
Also I have reiterated over and over and over again.
Syria is looking at talking peace with Israel and has cracked down lightly on terrorist organizations in the country.
Libya gave up its wmds. Why? Coincidence?
Sudan was talking peace. This has broken down but everyone admits only the US is trying to do something about the millions dying.
Saudi Arabia has cut down on terrorist financing. Independent groups are trying and getting their voices heard.
Kuwait passed a bill to give women the right to vote and own property! as well as be legislators.
Pakistan has cracked down on terrorist groups and funding. It has ceased supporting insurgents in Kashmir. Relations are improving with India.
Oh I don’t know, just another year as usual in the Middle East?
Finally, who is KILLING the Iraqis? Who is bombing in Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. The US? No. The terrorist so put the blame where it belongs and condemn the group who is directly causing the killing. The Islamofascists. There was a time when you were against fascism but only when white males are involved? hah! And as to the Patriot Act, WHAT RIGHTS HAVE YOU LOST? Name one.
[quote=“Alien”]They’re not? Who are all those people in Guantanamo?
And what do you mean by ‘aggressive’ exactlly?
Spell it out for me. I’m a woman.[/quote]
True aggression is no holds barred. The US is far too worried about world opinion to go all out, no holds barred.
I’m not saying that we should go all out and no holds barred… simply stating that we are in fact quite restrained. We worry more about damaging a mosque than we should, IMO.
[quote=“fred smith”]
What have you done to bring democracy and human rights to Arab women and children or gays and blacks for that matter in the Middle East? Was this even an issue with you before the US got involved in Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Why? Because white men were not involved and therefore could not be blamed unless you hearkened back to colonialism and by stretching the category by extension blame all white men for what British and French and Spanish and Dutch and Portuguese did 100s of years ago. Spare me.[/quote]
Fuck you! Is this the argument you use on the men who post here?? Why use it on me, then? I know exactly why.
I’m so glad you think the US is doing the right thing. I doubt those actually DOING what you think is ‘the right thing’ believe so any more.
Rights I’ve lost? Well, I’m going back now while you stay cozy and hidden in your smart Taipei wankerage. I’ll let you when I get on the shit lists over there.
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Alien”]They’re not? Who are all those people in Guantanamo?
And what do you mean by ‘aggressive’ exactlly?
Spell it out for me. I’m a woman.[/quote]
True aggression is no holds barred. The US is far too worried about world opinion to go all out, no holds barred.[/quote]
Why begin to worry now? Hasn’t stopped them yet.
No holds barred? What’s that? TELL ME!!! Nukes?
:bluemad:
But you are already on the shit list Alien:
I have sent copies of your posts directly to John Ashcroft. He will be waiting for you at the airport when you land. Your passport will be taken away and you will be hauled off to Guantamo without even a 35 cent call to your lawyer where you will remain rightless until you turn RIGHT. Right? Yeah Right? Better be careful you know. True patriots like you who stand up against the system will have to fear for their safety in the US. You may even be tortured by someone like that England cow. Course that does happen every day already in US prisons so why not get on a committee to do something about that? After all, it is the civil liberties union and groups like that which ensure that we cannot take the necessary measures in prison to ensure that the wrong people are put away where they cannot harm other inmates. Wanna talk about loss of rights? Why don’t you find out what happens to the “innocent” in prison AND in our own glorious US of A?
Bush’s failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism
By U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings
With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq – and how to get out.
Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in “Against All Enemies,” tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.
On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam’s attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam’s intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message – monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s intelligence, Mossad, knows what’s going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know.
Israel’s survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.
Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel’s security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: “The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up.” And on another occasion: Iraq as “the first Arab democracy … would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world.” Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region.”
Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought – re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don’t come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.
President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney’s man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.
In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops – at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over.
With President Bush’s domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, “Terrorism War.” Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don’t call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right – right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.
Originally published in the Charleston Post and Courier
May 6, 2004