RE: State of the Union

RE: State of the Union (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 7:43:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I think bush's speeches are well-prepared and intended to satsify customers i.e. the American public. These people are not going to sacrifice what they have - least of all through a lazy, ill-prepared speech. I mean, they have the moeny to buy and pay for a thousand speech writers. If I were American, I'd be much more concerned that people seem to be objecting to Iraq only because US soldiers are dying. For my money, this thought process is fucked up - the idea that it's ok to send the army to another country (knowing full well civilians will die) providing US casualties are kept to a minimum. I would say the neo-cons taking and holding power can be linked to the aforementioned thought process. NorthernGent: I am afraid you have it exactly right. Just like in Viet Nam it was not until middle class white boys started comming home in rubber bags that anyone said anything about how immoral the war was. As long as it is some other nations blood no one gave a shit. Too often we in America look upon these things with a football mentality. My team vs. their team. It is such a laugh to hear someone tell me how many Iraquies died at the hands of the horrible dictator Sodammed Insane...we have killed sooooo many more than he ever did...but then god is on our side and those poor ignorant wogs need to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Then there is the oil and the class A butt fucking the american taxpayer is getting from Haliburton. thompson The sea change in Vietnam was after years of Johnson et al, telling people that it was a police action with minimal activity on the part of the US, came when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt during the Chinese New Year (Tet offensive) and attacked each and every US military base in the entire country. People started to go "huh" and the term "credibility gap" was born. Sinergy

UtopianRanger -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 11:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDogs quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger Didn’t watch, listen or read any excerpts from the speech…..but the mere fact that the original post is centered around Bush’s proclamation that he needs to raise the strategic oil reserves, tells me that oil on the London and New York mercantile exchanges should start to rise by the per barrel price by the opening bell tomorrow. That was a nod for speculators {and alike} to re-enter the market and quash this little glut they were talking about last week. Now.. should a bombing campaign commence and the Iranian's decide to mine the Straights of Hormuz or impede super tanker traffic some other way, well then, the ''free market system'' will suffer a reduction in supply and the price will go way up. We can't be ''cut off '' when we have our own vast reserves {In Alaska and the Gulf} and Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are right on our door step. Who benefits if this happens? Surely it won't be the Iranians. This is but another reason why natural resources vital for existence should never be in a position where they can be exploited by ''free market'' conditions /economics - R Last time I heard THAT conspiracy theory, all the Leftists were screaming that falling gas prices didn't mean a thing because those wascawwy wepubwicans was gonna raise 'em right back up again, right after the mid-term elections. Remember that? Yeah..... I remember that. I made a post here, the DAY after the mid-terms, pointing out how the price of gas increased 8 cents a gallon here in Oregon. Two weeks after that, it had risen 24 cents per gallon compared to pre-election prices. So much for that conspiracy, huh? - R

UtopianRanger -> RE: State of the Union (1/24/2007 11:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I was asked by Moderator 11 to cease and desist my personal attacks. I'm afraid to go check my inbox now. My apologies if I offended anyone. caitlyn: I am never offended by anything you have said...we may not always agree but I have never found you to be offensive in you posts. thompson Ditto. Don't always agree but never offended. We need women on this part of the board to speak up......you and Julia are way ahead of the pack. - R

swtnsparkling -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 5:03:50 AM)
quote: juliaoceania when they fail to support their opinions with any sort of facts. This makes no sense to me what so ever. If it is a person's opinion what facts are supposed to be supported? the fact it is that persons opinion?- then it is supported because they just told you as a matter of fact it is their opinion. opinion-implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute if there were facts! then it wouldnt be an opinion it would be a fact. anyway I see no reason why anyone should have to "support" their own opinion with a "fact" their opinion belongs to them, they don't need to prove itwow I'm dizzy lol

juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 7:14:46 AM)
It makes about as much sense as you referring to someone as a bully because they were trying to debate an issue based upon facts, and yes I find that I like basing my opinions on facts, it is just the way I am. It is also why I have been known to change my mind when I obtain new facts because I am not closed minded or myopic about life. I can state an opinion about the color blue, but if I do not even know what the color blue looks like then I doubt my opinion has little value to even myself. No one has to base their opinions on facts, but those who do tend to be better at debate and also are more persuasive than those who do not do so. First day of my logic course, critical thinking 101, our professor wrote this on the whiteboard "We do not argue about facts, we argue about opinions". He then taught us how to go about doing this, and the way one does this is with facts.... soooooo, ya know, trash those of us that like dealing with facts as opposed to unsupported opinions... I do not really give a rat's ass... Have a nice day!

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 8:52:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The sea change in Vietnam was after years of Johnson et al, telling people that it was a police action with minimal activity on the part of the US, came when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt during the Chinese New Year (Tet offensive) and attacked each and every US military base in the entire country. People started to go "huh" and the term "credibility gap" was born. Incorrect "fact" here. Again. The "entire country of Vietnam" did not raise up in revolt. The Tet Offensive was the effort of the North - through primarily it's conventional armed forces - to finish the war once and for all. It was totally unsuccessful, militarily. The North Vietnamese Regular armed forced were basically destroyed, and not used for a major offensive again until the American services had been pulled out in the early 70s. It was a resounding military defeat for the NVA regulars. However, a certain well known and respected media personality (Cronkite) - who had no understanding about military affairs, and is - now - a well known "left of center" individual, took it upon himself to declare military defeat, without knowing or understanding what exactly had transpired. As a result, he caused the preception of the war within both the American public, and at the White House to change. A major propaganda defeat for the US effort. But "entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt" is misleading, inaccurate and ... not a "fact". FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 9:15:23 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive there is a map of the extent of the Tet offensive, there were many losses in South Vietnam... It showed that there was wide spread resistance, and that it was not isolated in the North. I think I will post the Wikipedia analysis of the Tet offensive... quote: The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. The Viet Cong's operational forces were effectively crippled by the Offensive quote: Effect on South Vietnam The violence witnessed during the Tet Offensive had a deep psychological effect on the South Vietnamese civilians. Confidence in the government was greatly reduced, as the offensive seemed to show that even with massive American support, the government could not protect its citizens. The South Vietnamese army also suffered lowered morale, with the desertion rate increasing from 10.5 per thousand before Tet to 16.5 per thousand in July of 1968[16] The songwriter Trịnh Công Sơn composed the songs Bài ca dành cho những xác người (Song for the dead bodies) and Hát trên những xác người (Singing on dead bodies) as a result of the offensive while the songwriter Trầm Tử Thiêng composed Chuyện một chiếc cầu đã gãy (Story about a Broken Bridge) about the collapse of the historic Trang Tien Bridge. These songs quickly became classics. Now I find your analysis of Walter Cronkite fascinating, but I doubt that he had any significant pull with the Vietnamese people. Perhaps I am wrong about that and they watched his newscast every day. Perhaps he was the reason that pro American Vietnamese felt doubtful about the American presense after the Tet Offensive... who knows

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 9:24:36 AM)
True or False? By the Geneva Accords of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending free elections for a national leadership. The Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated elections. The government of South Vietnam justified its refusal to comply with the Geneva Accords by virtue of the fact it had not signed them.

juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 9:30:15 AM)
My former dominant was in the National guard during Vietnam. He is a peace activist to this day. There is something that he used to say that really hits home about Vietnam, and the reasoning behind that war... we were saving the Vietnamese from.... the Vietnamese

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 9:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive there is a map of the extent of the Tet offensive, there were many losses in South Vietnam... It showed that there was wide spread resistance, and that it was not isolated in the North. I think I will post the Wikipedia analysis of the Tet offensive... quote: The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. The Viet Cong's operational forces were effectively crippled by the Offensive shrugs. I think that your quoted material from Wiki just confirms what I said. I'm not sure your point in quoting it. You seem to have the mis-understanding that I said it occurred in the North, not the South. Read my words again. That was never implied. My point was that the Tet Offensive was primarily a military operation intended to subjugate another nation, and not any kind of "popular" revolt, as Sinergy seemed to be implying. quote:* ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Now I find your analysis of Walter Cronkite fascinating, but I doubt that he had any significant pull with the Vietnamese people. Perhaps I am wrong about that and they watched his newscast every day. Perhaps he was the reason that pro American Vietnamese felt doubtful about the American presense after the Tet Offensive... who knows From what I wrote, how is it that you get that I believe that Cronkite had anything to do with "pull" with the population of South Vietnam? FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 9:53:35 AM)
There was a countrywide revolt, look on the map. And some of those who revolted in the South were South Vietnamese. It was not as clearcut as you are portraying, just like Iraq is not as clearcut as the Bush Admin has been trying to tell us for years now. Talk about a failed propaganda campaign, the Bush Admin is a case study of failures all over the place.

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:15:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There was a countrywide revolt, look on the map. And some of those who revolted in the South were South Vietnamese. It was not as clearcut as you are portraying, just like Iraq is not as clearcut as the Bush Admin has been trying to tell us for years now. Talk about a failed propaganda campaign, the Bush Admin is a case study of failures all over the place. There is a major difference between a military invasion from an outside armed force, and a popular revolt. Just because the actions took place within the borders of South Vietnam, doesn't make it a "revolt" unless you are making the argument that Vietnam was a single nation, and that the invasion by the North was nothing more than an attempt by the legitimate government trying to regain control over rebellious provinces. And if you are, in that case, a "revolt" would have been the South trying to overcome the North's "legitimate" use of force. Alice in Wonderland here. If (and I'm guessing) what you are saying is that the majority of the population of South Vietnam welcomed the invasion by the North, then you'll have to provide some sort of evidence of that. My understanding is that - in general - the majority of the SV population weren't rooting for the North's victory at the time. Like most people, they simply wanted peace. Only the constant interference in the South by the North caused many to eventually just give up, and decide that "peace at any price" was better than constant warfare. Of course, when they finally got "peace", the price was pretty draconian. Many of them later "voted" by taking to the sea, and crossing borders. The ones who weren't forced into "reeducation" camps, or simply dispatched with a bullet to the head, that is. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:17:37 AM)
quote: Just because the actions took place within the borders of South Vietnam, doesn't make it a "revolt" unless you are making the argument that Vietnam was a single nation, and that the invasion by the North was nothing more than an attempt by the legitimate government trying to regain control over rebellious provinces. I do hate repeating myself, but it's apropos. True or False? By the Geneva Accords of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending free elections for a national leadership. The Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated elections. The government of South Vietnam justified its refusal to comply with the Geneva Accords by virtue of the fact it had not signed them.

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:39:17 AM)
Yeah, FB. Just like the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was a "temporary" measure. It was. Temporary for 40+ years. FirmKY edited to add: Soooo .... when where these "free elections" held? ya know ... now that it's a single nation again?

juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:40:13 AM)
Lets see, how many legitmate scholars call the Vietnam conflict a civil war? And in the case of our own civil war, which was legitimate? I think most would say the Union since they won the war. Now the North also won the war in Vietnam, and we were ousted out of that country. Do you really believe that everyone in South Vietnam was pro American?

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:46:50 AM)
Again ... when were these "free elections" held? What I find interesting is that some people seem to find it easy to argue legality and legitimacy in such a case, over the morality of freedom and free political expression. They are against governments that provide at least a measure of self-determination such as the US, but are willing to argue that repressive governments such as Vietnam have the right to do much worse when it comes to enslaving their own populations. Always seemed like a double standard to me. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:49:31 AM)
Why did the US support Diem, when he disobeyed the UN resolution regarding unified elections?

juliaoceania -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 10:49:58 AM)
Also Sinergy never said "popular", that was you putting words in his mouth, he is out making a living right now, but when he gets home I will refer him to your post to him . He just does not happen to be home right now, so I am NOT arguing his point, which what he states is pretty much the way I learned about the tet offensive myself. To be honest, it is getting rather tiresome to read every little attack, every time you take someone's words out of context, restating their positions, why do you not just take what mod 11 asked of us all in that thread and try avoiding the petty go arounds.. I am positive most people on this board are completely sick and tired of what always boils down to a snarkfest

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 11:24:13 AM)
Asking me WHEN the elections were held, is pointless as the US SPONSORED PUPPET Diem didn't obey the UN, and participate in the elections so mandated. The government above the arbitrary line was ready, willing and able, but the US SPONSORED PUPPET didn't want elections. Why? Or are you veering off the conversation and discussing contemporary Vietnam? I'm not sure, in a discussion of the possible illegitimacy of Diem's government, the contemplation of that additional aspect is unwarranted and fruitless.

meatcleaver -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 11:28:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Again ... when were these "free elections" held? Come on FirmhandKY. Talking about free elections is disingenuous, they only count if people vote in the right government. The Palestinians voted in Hamas and the US and the west won't recognize them. Why did the Palestinians vote in Hamas? Because no one took their moderate government seriously. So much for free and fair elections.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625