I was born in 1949 and lived through this time. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Again - We didn't lose **** in Vietnam. We left in 73 - Vietnam fell in 75. They fought good until the libs yanked the rug out from under them. Look for Foreign Assistance Act of 1974.
Your inability to refute my points is AMAZING..
How can a political solution work when the left takes our ability to respond militarily away from us (by pulling out) to defend the politcal solution, obviuosly once we are out we can't go back in.... that was what happened in Vietnam! This is what Von Clauswitz meant, that politics is only as forceful and meaningful as the ability to back up your agreements and make them stick.
The U.N. has just voted for implementing a no-fly zone in Libya.
I was born in 1949 and lived through this time. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Your inability to refute my points is AMAZING..
How can a political solution work when the left takes our ability to respond militarily away from us (by pulling out) to defend the politcal solution, obviuosly once we are out we can't go back in.... that was what happened in Vietnam! This is what Von Clauswitz meant, that politics is only as forceful and meaningful as the ability to back up your agreements and make them stick.
Vietnamization was a policy of the Richard M. Nixon administration, as a result of Tet, to "expand, equip, and train South Vietnam's forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops."[2] This referred to U.S. combat troops specifically in the ground combat role, but did not reject combat by U.S. air forces, as well as the support to South Vietnam, consistent with the policies of U.S. foreign military assistance organizations. The mistrust of the government that had begun after Tet and worsened with the release of news about US soldiers massacring civilians at My Lai (1969), the invasion of Cambodia (1970), and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers (1971). After Nixon's election in 1968, this became the policy of the United States. While it was a deliberate policy, the name was rather accidental. At a January 28, 1969, meeting of the National Security Council, GEN Andrew Goodpaster, deputy to GEN Creighton Abrams, commander of the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, said the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN) had been steadily improving, and the point at which the war could be "de-Americanized" was close. Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense, agreed with the point, but not with the language: "what we need is a term like 'Vietnamizing' to put the emphasis on the right issues." Nixon immediately liked Laird's word.[3]
Vietnamization fit into the broader Nixon Administration detente policy, in which the United States no longer regarded its fundamental strategy as containment of Communism, but a cooperative world order in which Nixon and his chief adviser Henry Kissinger were basically "realists" in world affairs, interested in the broader constellation of forces, and the biggest powers.[4] Nixon had ordered Kissinger to negotiate basic U.S.-Soviet policy between the heads of state via Kissinger and Dobrynin, with the agreements then transferred to diplomats for implementation. In like manner, Nixon opened high-level contact with China. U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and China were seen as far more important than the fate of South Vietnam, which certainly did not preclude South Vietnam maintaining its own independence.
Nixon said Vietnamization had two components. The first was "strengthening the armed force of the South Vietnamese in numbers, equipment, leadership and combat skills. The second component is the extension of the pacification program in South Vietnam." The first was achievable, but it would take time. For the U.S., it was trivial to have a U.S. helicopter pilot fly in support, but helicopter operations were too much part of ground operations to involve U.S. personnel. As observed by LTG Dave Palmer, to qualify an ARVN candidate for U.S. helicopter school, he first needed months of English language training to be able to follow the months-long training, and then additional field time to become proficient. In other words, adding new capabilities to the ARVN would often take two or more years.[5] Palmer did not disagree that the first component, given time and resources, was achievable. "Pacification, the second component, presented the real challenge...it was benevolent government action in areas where the government should always have been benevolently active...doing both was necessary if Vietnamization were to work."
You attack THE LEFT and you attack LIBERALS and blame them for the loss of Viet Nam. You sound like someone who was not even alive to live through a decade of daily Viet Nam news and events. I also suspect everything you know about Viet Nam came from reading about it long after the war was ended.
The LEFT and LIBERALS were not in charge of the decisions which lost Viet Nam. That came from a Republican President Richard Nixon. His policy was called Vietnamization.
Vietnamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
there is plenty more in the article.
It was a long and deliberate process which took years to carry out and was the intentional drawdown of US forces in favor of Viet Namese forces to carry out the war.
The LEFT had precious little to do with its adoption or its implementation.
The facts are clear and well remembered for many who lived during this time. When US troops left the nation at the orders of our Republican Commanded In Chief Richard Nixon, the Northern forces soon won over the nation and unified it. The side that the USA had fought for lost.
You attack THE LEFT and you attack LIBERALS and blame them for the loss of Viet Nam. You sound like someone who was not even alive to live through a decade of daily Viet Nam news and events. I also suspect everything you know about Viet Nam came from reading about it long after the war was ended.
The LEFT and LIBERALS were not in charge of the decisions which lost Viet Nam. That came from a Republican President Richard Nixon. His policy was called Vietnamization.
Vietnamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
there is plenty more in the article.
It was a long and deliberate process which took years to carry out and was the intentional drawdown of US forces in favor of Viet Namese forces to carry out the war.
The LEFT had precious little to do with its adoption or its implementation.
The facts are clear and well remembered for many who lived during this time. When US troops left the nation at the orders of our Republican Commanded In Chief Richard Nixon, the Northern forces soon won over the nation and unified it. The side that the USA had fought for lost.
Your so-called "disease of the human spirit" is most accurately applied to the fundamentalist Islamists. The ever-warring Shia and Sunni factions at each others throats over Q'ran interpretation. So you would have us do what? Insert ourselves in those Middle East nations to show them the way by enabling discourse. By sending agronomists there to teach them. By sending teachers in to replace the madras schools. Give me a break. Your high-minded commentary provides no practical solutions. The indigenous peoples have to have the courage to rise up and however possible reject the notion of totalitarian religious states. We cannot pay the blood bounty to do that for them. This has been ongoing back into the Ottoman Empire and will continue until those very people reject it. So now we shall see, with all the current turmoil, whether regimes that fall are replaced by a worse fate, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and equivalent interests or a secular uprising of the people to take the first step towards some form of democratization. We have no business inserting ourselves in the middle.[/FONT][/SIZE]
So what? Obama can't do a damn thing, cause he doesn't have an official Declaration of War.
The President of the United States has the Marine Corps. Marine Expeditionary Units (4 Naval ships with a submarine tag along) are positioned around the globe for emergency cases. And it only takes the President to declare one. There was no Declaration of War to send Marines into Beirut, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc. He doesn't need a Declaration of War to send in an entire Battalion (reinforced with armor, air, and logistics) with a snap of a finger. A MEU just so happens to be sitting right off the coast.
Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi
Appeal to be made as G8 foreign ministers consider whether to back French and British calls for a no-fly zone over Libya
Mustafa Gheriani, spokesman for the revolutionary national council in its stronghold of Benghazi, said the appeal was to be made by a delegation meeting the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in Paris on Monday, as G8 foreign ministers gathered there to consider whether to back French and British calls for a no-fly zone over Libya.
"We are telling the west we want a no-fly zone, we want tactical strikes against those tanks and rockets that are being used against us and we want a strike against Gaddafi's compound," said Gheriani. "This is the message from our delegation in Europe."
But with diplomatic wrangling focused on the issue of the no-fly zone, there appeared to be little immediate prospect of a foreign military assault on Gaddafi's forces, let alone an air strike against the Libyan dictator.
But the rebels' appeal is also a recognition that while a no-fly zone would provide a boost to them, their military defeats of recent days have largely been under an onslaught of rockets and shells, and air strikes have been relatively peripheral.
A no-fly zone alone may not be enough to prevent the continued advance of Gaddafi's forces toward Benghazi, the revolutionaries' de facto capital.
The talks are being closely watched in Benghazi and other areas under the control of the revolutionaries where Libyans are increasingly concerned at the direction of the conflict and the west's failure, so far at least, to follow through on calls for Gaddafi to go with action in support of the rebellion.
A large French flag hangs on the front of the courthouse used as the revolutionary council's headquarters after Paris recognised the rebel leadership, and the tricolour is often seen on the streets of Benghazi. But Libyans are also increasingly vocal in their criticism of Washington in particular for what is seen as a failure to back up rhetoric against the regime.
However, Gheriani said that if the west failed to offer practical help to the revolutionaries to free themselves from Gaddafi's rule it risked frustrated Libyans turning to religious extremists.
"The west is missing the point. The revolution was started because people were feeling despair from poverty, from oppression. Their last hope was freedom. If the west takes too long – where people say it's too little, too late – then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about them," he said.
"Most people in this country are moderates and extremists have not been able to penetrate them. But if they get to the point of disillusionment with the west there will be no going back."
Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi | World news | The Guardian
Libyans have the courage to fight for themselves. The free world should have the courage to support them.
Well the left said Bush went to war without one, and I just want to make sure Obama doesn't get into trouble.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?