Liberals unable to wage war successfully?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

TLC caught a fish. He doesn't care about the truth of this or that. He just wants to find something to carp about that has nothing to do with anything. You must think like he does or face pages of refutation. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. TLC is NOMAD.

Do you have proof that Truman did not initially get the US involved in Vietnam, Moonie? If so, present it. If not, stop making yourself look ignorant while trying to talk about "truth."

The Viet Nam was was caused when the Americans took support from the French in the Revolutionary war. If you can't disprove that then shut up. And please stop trying to sound truthful spouting your ignorance.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

The United States had funded approximately one third of France?s attempt to retain control of Indochina. After inheriting the engagement from Truman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, continued to support French occupation without much deviation from Truman?s policy. Eisenhower surmised that continued support would eventually lead to the liberation of the Vietnamese people from communism. The tide of U.S. support receded when the hopelessness of a full-scale occupation of Indochina against the Viet Minh was realized in 1953. The French also had requested an additional $400 million in assistance but, due to pressure from Washington for the French to make good on their promise to cooperate in Europe, they received only $385 million.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
As for liberals vs "conservatives" and war -- for every example of a "liberal" failure I'll give you a "conservative" one and the conservative failures have been more severe.

What a pile of bullsh!t. As if you are a good judge of how "severe" a failure was?

The egos around here are incredible.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

TLC caught a fish. He doesn't care about the truth of this or that. He just wants to find something to carp about that has nothing to do with anything. You must think like he does or face pages of refutation. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. TLC is NOMAD.

Do you have proof that Truman did not initially get the US involved in Vietnam, Moonie? If so, present it. If not, stop making yourself look ignorant while trying to talk about "truth."

The Viet Nam was was caused when the Americans took support from the French in the Revolutionary war. If you can't disprove that then shut up. And please stop trying to sound truthful spouting your ignorance.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

The United States had funded approximately one third of France?s attempt to retain control of Indochina. After inheriting the engagement from Truman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, continued to support French occupation without much deviation from Truman?s policy. Eisenhower surmised that continued support would eventually lead to the liberation of the Vietnamese people from communism. The tide of U.S. support receded when the hopelessness of a full-scale occupation of Indochina against the Viet Minh was realized in 1953. The French also had requested an additional $400 million in assistance but, due to pressure from Washington for the French to make good on their promise to cooperate in Europe, they received only $385 million.

I told you it was Franklin. But the important point is that this was not what we call starting a war. That was for later imbeciles.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

TLC caught a fish. He doesn't care about the truth of this or that. He just wants to find something to carp about that has nothing to do with anything. You must think like he does or face pages of refutation. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. TLC is NOMAD.

Do you have proof that Truman did not initially get the US involved in Vietnam, Moonie? If so, present it. If not, stop making yourself look ignorant while trying to talk about "truth."

The Viet Nam was was caused when the Americans took support from the French in the Revolutionary war. If you can't disprove that then shut up. And please stop trying to sound truthful spouting your ignorance.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

The United States had funded approximately one third of France?s attempt to retain control of Indochina. After inheriting the engagement from Truman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, continued to support French occupation without much deviation from Truman?s policy. Eisenhower surmised that continued support would eventually lead to the liberation of the Vietnamese people from communism. The tide of U.S. support receded when the hopelessness of a full-scale occupation of Indochina against the Viet Minh was realized in 1953. The French also had requested an additional $400 million in assistance but, due to pressure from Washington for the French to make good on their promise to cooperate in Europe, they received only $385 million.

I told you it was Franklin. But the important point is that this was not what we call starting a war. That was for later imbeciles.

I said that Truman got us involved in Vietnam. He did. I proved it. Admit your faux pas and move along please to allow room for people who actually want to have a discussion.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
As for liberals vs "conservatives" and war -- for every example of a "liberal" failure I'll give you a "conservative" one and the conservative failures have been more severe.

What a pile of bullsh!t. As if you are a good judge of how "severe" a failure was?

The egos around here are incredible.

That isn't an example.

 

[TheSlamma]

With Halliburton there it's only going to get worse too.

What moron repubs do not seem to get is they don't hate us for our freedom or hate us because we don't priase Allah.

They hate us FOR BEING THERE.

 

[Rainsford]

Just so I understand the argument being made here...liberals are less successful at waging war than conservatives. That's the basic thesis, right? Now a reasonable way to back that up would be to do a comparison of "war waging" over a time period starting with the first war waging done by modern liberals or conservatives (in other words, Democrats or Republicans a modern day citizen would recognize) and ending with the most recent war who's success can be measured (leaving out Iraq...). A limitation of 50 years makes no sense, a theory that describes liberals that is true for 50 years and not true for longer is ONLY a valid theory if you can show that liberals more than 50 years ago cannot be compared to liberals of today. You can't just throw out data that doesn't agree with your premise, this is (apparently) science.

Same with the conflicts being considered, you can't simply pick a few conflicts that back up your premise, if you really want to make a broad argument of war waging by liberals vs conservatives, you need to compare ALL conflicts waged by both sides and assign a weighted success score to each one based on the impact of the conflict, reaching a sum total of "war waging success". Also, "waging war" is not the same thing as "starting a war", I think most people would agree that if a war is started, and run very poorly, by a Democrat, and then the Republicans come into power and bring the war to a successful close, the obvious place to assign credit would be on the Republican side. Of course the measurment can be even more complex, an apparently unsuccessful start of a war may be necessary for later success. And even beyond that, it's impossible to account for differences in leadership, a failed Republican war may not have done any better under the Democrats, they might have done an even worse job. But I think for the sake of argument, and given the sheer number of conflicts overall, we can ignore that limitation.

Of course I'm assuming anyone really is looking for scientific and factual truth, and that this isn't the Intelligent Design of war fighting theories. I suppose that the OP DOES have the mortar board icon, but I tend to suspect it's mostly for show.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
That isn't an example.

Why on earth would one throw up an "example" when your reply is already mapped on an F-key on your keyboard?

What qualifications do you possess to render judgement on the success or failure, given an example of such?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
That isn't an example.

Why on earth would one throw up an "example" when your reply is already mapped on an F-key on your keyboard?

What qualifications do you possess to render judgement on the success or failure, given an example of such?

I can read and comprehend. You should try it sometime.

 

[dahunan]

People are being killed and you call it success?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dahunan
People are being killed and you call it success?

There is money being made. To a "conservative" that's a success regardless of any other pesky details.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
People are being killed and you call it success?

Iraq has went from a brutal dictatorship to a path to Democracy in less than 2 years and you call it failure?

Liberals just don't get it. Despite your best efforts to marginalize anything and everything good that comes out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) the facts belittle your partisan hackery.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Granted, many think Iraq was a mistake and time will tell, but aside from that, consider this:


Every conflict liberal/democratic leaders have gotten us into over the last ~50 years has turned out very badly, often with even worse consequences (in all likelihood) than no involvement, in large part because there is a tendency among them to tip-toe about and allow themselves to become ineffective because of an unwillingness to do what is necessary to succeed. (Or don't do it at all.)

Vietnam is one example to some extent, but I'd like to focus on the others.



- Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs: Failure, refused to go "all out" to make sure it succeeded by providing air support and marines to get the job done, result: failure, embarassment, Castro still in power and now more keen then ever to get protection from Soviets, leading to Cuban Missile crisis.

Jimmy Carter's handling of the hostage situation in Iran - Failure
Not quite willing to put necessary pressure, although admirable that he wasn't willing to kill Iranians, nevertheless, a failure.

Clinton:

Somalia: Failure. His govt. does not give troops adaquate equipment out of a desire to "escalate" the operation, falls apart, Clinton pulls out, indicates to Bin Laden that America can be attacked and will respond by fleeing.

Bin Laden: Anyone who has studied our actions towards him during the Clinton years will likely come to the conclusion that we could have ended this thing had the administration stopped pussy-footing around in a paralysis of unwillingness to get our hands even slightly dirty, (ie, have US troops/CIA do the job rather than relying on locals) and in that desire to tip-toe about on this issue, we lost several chances to end Bin Laden, the result of which was of course, this whole mess of 9/11 and more.


The point? Well, liberals/democrats tend to be more concerned with nuance and walking softly when it comes to war, doing things "part way" rather than all the way, or not at all.

The result of which we can see from recent history has been utter failure in every conflict handled by a democrat for the last 50+ years, since Truman. With their constant undermining and carping at every aspect of the war effort, why would anyone with any sense think they will do a good job against Islamic terror?

WORLD WAR II B1TCH!

Republicans have this odd habit of funding the people who come back to eat us. Like Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. THANK YOU REPUBLICANS!

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
People are being killed and you call it success?

Iraq has went from a brutal dictatorship to a path to Democracy in less than 2 years and you call it failure?

I've always wanted a new terrorist training ground in Iraq. And George Bush, my savior, delivered it.

Liberals just don't get it. Despite your best efforts to marginalize anything and everything good that comes out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) the facts belittle your partisan hackery.

What you practice is partisan hackery at its finest - we all know that the war in Iraq was for WMD's and not for any real promotion of democracy from dictatorship.

 

[Steeplerot]

If you all are on about the 20th century you are forgetting about democrat wartime president

Dr. Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 ? February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States (1913?1921).

Initially an academician, he served as President of Princeton University and was the 45th state Governor of New Jersey (1911?1913).
He was the second Democrat to serve two consecutive terms in the White House, the first having been Andrew Jackson, and his terms in office spanned his country's involvement in World War I.
Woodrow Wilson

If you look at history in the 20th century:

When dems are in power you see wars with the us kicking ass on fascists, when the reps are in power WE are the one acting like the imperialist jerks and invading.. hmmmm

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dahunan
People are being killed and you call it success?

Correction, American Soldiers being killed and Republicans call it a success.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If you all are on about the 20th century you are forgetting about democrat wartime president

Dr. Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 ? February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States (1913?1921).

Initially an academician, he served as President of Princeton University and was the 45th state Governor of New Jersey (1911?1913).
He was the second Democrat to serve two consecutive terms in the White House, the first having been Andrew Jackson, and his terms in office spanned his country's involvement in World War I.
Woodrow Wilson

Wow Woodrow Wilson said a lot of... bad things.

Thanks for that link.

The more I learn the less I want to know.

 

[Polish3d]

WORLD WAR II B1TCH!

Republicans have this odd habit of funding the people who come back to eat us. Like Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. THANK YOU REPUBLICANS!

LOL, come on, that is never valid.

"Uncle Joe Stalin B1TCH!"

Guess what, we had to ally with him at the time, later, he became a dire enemy. Same with Bin Laden and Saddam. Liberals from what I've seen exaggerate America's role in Bin Laden, and Saddam for that matter.

This thread was poorly composed in the intial post I agree and its at best a vague argument, I made it last night and threw it up to see what people would say about it.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
People are being killed and you call it success?

Iraq has went from a brutal dictatorship to a path to Democracy in less than 2 years and you call it failure?

Liberals just don't get it. Despite your best efforts to marginalize anything and everything good that comes out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) the facts belittle your partisan hackery.

Its success has yet to be proven while we remain in the country. Have the attacks stopped? Nope. Have they decreased? Nope. Has the constitution passed? Nope. Democracies fail pretty easily - especially in a country that has never had one. (Russia ring a bell?)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Frackal

WORLD WAR II B1TCH!

Republicans have this odd habit of funding the people who come back to eat us. Like Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. THANK YOU REPUBLICANS!

LOL, come on, that is never valid.

"Uncle Joe Stalin B1TCH!"

Guess what, we had to ally with him at the time, later, he became a dire enemy. Same with Bin Laden and Saddam. Liberals from what I've seen exaggerate America's role in Bin Laden, and Saddam for that matter.

This thread was poorly composed in the intial post I agree and its at best a vague argument, I made it last night and threw it up to see what people would say about it.

Well despite its flaws I understand your issue. Democrats are touchy feely and Republicans, bold men of action. As I said, this is due to the inferior emotional development that's characteristic of right of center thinking.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I've always wanted a new terrorist training ground in Iraq. And George Bush, my savior, delivered it.

As usual, you can't answer the question without spewing out more off-topic venom to obfuscate the point.

What you practice is partisan hackery at its finest - we all know that the war in Iraq was for WMD's and not for any real promotion of democracy from dictatorship.

That's the liberal mantra, but it isn't working too well, is it?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

The more I learn the less I want to know.

Regardless of the screwed up culture back in the time he kept a level head about the war.

But even W.Churchhill said back then in ww1 the us and wilson were bought out by banks and the profit-driven military industry, whats new?

btw..there is nothing wrong ever with learning, as it is the opposite of death imo.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

What you practice is partisan hackery at its finest - we all know that the war in Iraq was for WMD's and not for any real promotion of democracy from dictatorship.

That's the liberal mantra, but it isn't working too well, is it?

Umm....... It was for WMDs, or did you forget all of those speeches Dubya gave? He even included it in the state of the nation! Or how about the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" Condi liked to say?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Strk
Umm....... It was for WMDs, or did you forget all of those speeches Dubya gave? He even included it in the state of the nation! Or how about the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" Condi liked to say?

How about you quit spewing partisan hackery?

Your buddies Kerry and Clinton both supported the war in Iraq.

If you want to argue about inaccurate intelligence, fine. But claiming this was some secret Bush agenda and that no one supported the liberation of Iraq is asinine and a shining example of just how partisan you really are.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Frackal

WORLD WAR II B1TCH!

Republicans have this odd habit of funding the people who come back to eat us. Like Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. THANK YOU REPUBLICANS!

LOL, come on, that is never valid.

"Uncle Joe Stalin B1TCH!"

Guess what, we had to ally with him at the time, later, he became a dire enemy. Same with Bin Laden and Saddam. Liberals from what I've seen exaggerate America's role in Bin Laden, and Saddam for that matter.

This thread was poorly composed in the intial post I agree and its at best a vague argument, I made it last night and threw it up to see what people would say about it.

Well despite its flaws I understand your issue. Democrats are touchy feely and Republicans, bold men of action. As I said, this is due to the inferior emotional development that's characteristic of right of center thinking.

Tell me more about this idea of inferior emotional development... any links? Obviously someone had to set a standard for what 'correct' emotional development is... I wonder what it was based upon...

Frankly, I find the emotional over-reactions of many liberals/democrats to be a severe fault in real life scenarios... whatever academia may say.