Liberals unable to wage war successfully?

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: 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.

True, I can't understand why so many forget how outspoken in support of the Iraq incursion and the threat posed by their WMD's so many democrats were... yet now you'd never know a dem supported this damn thing.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think that sums up your post.

The original post (The one you quoted) stated that we didn't go into Iraq to spread democracy, but to find WMDs - which is what my post was about. Before I posted, however, you called that the "liberal mantra." Which doesn't really make much sense, but seems to be along the lines of "nu-uh."

Then you go about saying I'm a partisan hack and that my buddies are Clinton and Kerry, which makes even less sense, since all I did was restate that the conflict was over WMDs and not spreading democracy. Yet you even further make less sense by saying that I claimed Dubya had some secret agenda, which baffles the mind even more since that appears in, well, no where other than your post.

You're the only one throwing party labels around. All I've done is prove how wrong the original post was. (I.e. that Republican or Democrat doesn't matter for combat, since it's pretty much 50/50 on success and failure; that it's the conflict that matters, not the guy sitting in the oval office at the time, at least not completely.)

Do you know how to argue? Are you capable of following something without inserting your own ideas, instead of using the other person's? Is your only method of arguing to ignore people's comments and quickly label them, so you can try and dismiss them?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Strk
The original post (The one you quoted) stated that we didn't go into Iraq to spread democracy, but to find WMDs - which is what my post was about. Before I posted, however, you called that the "liberal mantra." Which doesn't really make much sense, but seems to be along the lines of "nu-uh."

Let's look at what you said verbatim:

"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?"

Sure looks to me like you implied that "Dubya" or perhaps "Condi" purposely misled everyone (hence the 'secret agenda' reference) on our intentions for going to Iraq. Or did you have some other point?

Do you know how to argue? Are you capable of following something without inserting your own ideas, instead of using the other person's? Is your only method of arguing to ignore people's comments and quickly label them, so you can try and dismiss them?

I'm using your words and the statement you made.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
The original post (The one you quoted) stated that we didn't go into Iraq to spread democracy, but to find WMDs - which is what my post was about. Before I posted, however, you called that the "liberal mantra." Which doesn't really make much sense, but seems to be along the lines of "nu-uh."

Let's look at what you said verbatim:

"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?"

Sure looks to me like you implied that "Dubya" or perhaps "Condi" purposely misled everyone (hence the 'secret agenda' reference) on our intentions for going to Iraq. Or did you have some other point?

Do you know how to argue? Are you capable of following something without inserting your own ideas, instead of using the other person's? Is your only method of arguing to ignore people's comments and quickly label them, so you can try and dismiss them?

I'm using your words and the statement you made.

Surprisingly, when people say things sometimes, there is no hidden meaning; no subliminal messages; no underlying assumptions that must be made - just a cut and dry statement.

I said we went into war for WMDs; that is all. You should quit trying to make things up that I'm not saying.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
The original post (The one you quoted) stated that we didn't go into Iraq to spread democracy, but to find WMDs - which is what my post was about. Before I posted, however, you called that the "liberal mantra." Which doesn't really make much sense, but seems to be along the lines of "nu-uh."

Let's look at what you said verbatim:

"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?"

Sure looks to me like you implied that "Dubya" or perhaps "Condi" purposely misled everyone (hence the 'secret agenda' reference) on our intentions for going to Iraq. Or did you have some other point?

Do you know how to argue? Are you capable of following something without inserting your own ideas, instead of using the other person's? Is your only method of arguing to ignore people's comments and quickly label them, so you can try and dismiss them?

I'm using your words and the statement you made.

Surprisingly, when people say things sometimes, there is no hidden meaning; no subliminal messages; no underlying assumptions that must be made - just a cut and dry statement.

I said we went into war for WMDs; that is all. You should quit trying to make things up that I'm not saying.

Whoa dude! I haven't that level of Anti-Semitism since I watched a Documentary on the Klan years ago. Tone it down!!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
The original post (The one you quoted) stated that we didn't go into Iraq to spread democracy, but to find WMDs - which is what my post was about. Before I posted, however, you called that the "liberal mantra." Which doesn't really make much sense, but seems to be along the lines of "nu-uh."

Let's look at what you said verbatim:

"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?"

Sure looks to me like you implied that "Dubya" or perhaps "Condi" purposely misled everyone (hence the 'secret agenda' reference) on our intentions for going to Iraq. Or did you have some other point?

Do you know how to argue? Are you capable of following something without inserting your own ideas, instead of using the other person's? Is your only method of arguing to ignore people's comments and quickly label them, so you can try and dismiss them?

I'm using your words and the statement you made.

Surprisingly, when people say things sometimes, there is no hidden meaning; no subliminal messages; no underlying assumptions that must be made - just a cut and dry statement.

I said we went into war for WMDs; that is all. You should quit trying to make things up that I'm not saying.

Whoa dude! I haven't that level of Anti-Semitism since I watched a Documentary on the Klan years ago. Tone it down!!

Oh crap, you saw right through me!

 

[imported_Tango]

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?

Somalia was not an american military operation. It was a UN mission. Well, actually two missions...
UNOSOMI 1 and 2
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2p.htm

The US decided to partecipate to the mission, and eventually was given military control operation restore hope. Success or failure, it must be shared with the other nations in the operation. Same for Bosnia, UN stuff. Kosovo was a NATO operation.

 

[judasmachine]

as long as there are social programs for kids there will be trailer park queens who keep spitting out kids for the money. right?

disclaimer: i am all for pro active social programs that really educate people and put them to work if that is what they want, but the loafing isn't good for any of us. if you choose to loaf (which is your right) find a private citizen who is willing to fund you, those people are out there too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Frackal

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.

My take is that the right is authoritarian and the left rebellious. These are the two poles or typical reactions to the concentration camp we were raised in. The former is based on the repression of feeling and the adoption of the strategy that it is better to be the torturer then the victim. The left identifies with the victim and opposes repression. Because neither understands their own origins neither is completely sane, but the right is more cut off from feeling and feels a threat in its display. Feelings, of course, that are the product of insanity are insane, but one has to feel them to get well. The liberal, therefore, has less distance to travel, not that it makes a lot of difference. All real proof of any of this can be had only really by knowing yourself. There can be no proof of the different states of consciousness that people can have because they can only be know by the knowing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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.

I pointed out that Franklin got us involved with the French which got us involved with Viet Nam via Truman which was of equal irrelevance to the topic so I win.

SEE EVERYBODY..............................................I WIN!

I JUST PLUCKED CHICKEN! CHICKEN GOT PLUCKED!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

I pointed out that Franklin got us involved with the French which got us involved with Viet Nam via Truman which was of equal irrelevance to the topic so I win.

SEE EVERYBODY..............................................I WIN!

I JUST PLUCKED CHICKEN! CHICKEN GOT PLUCKED!

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

I pointed out that Franklin got us involved with the French which got us involved with Viet Nam via Truman which was of equal irrelevance to the topic so I win.

SEE EVERYBODY..............................................I WIN!

I JUST PLUCKED CHICKEN! CHICKEN GOT PLUCKED!

You speak of irrelelvance in one breath and then post this kind of trash?

I guess it's what should be expected of a teenager such as yourself. Congrats on your supposed win. I hope you receive your prize of maturity in the mail.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

I pointed out that Franklin got us involved with the French which got us involved with Viet Nam via Truman which was of equal irrelevance to the topic so I win.

SEE EVERYBODY..............................................I WIN!

I JUST PLUCKED CHICKEN! CHICKEN GOT PLUCKED!

You speak of irrelelvance in one breath and then post this kind of trash?

I guess it's what should be expected of a teenager such as yourself. Congrats on your supposed win. I hope you receive your prize of maturity in the mail.

Oh, no, nothing like that. Just showing you yourself. Wanted you to see that as dumb as you could be about Truman, I could be about Franklin. It's not that Eisenhower is on the dime that matters, but what it has to do with bananas. My victory was total. You suffered an utter and crushing defeat. But with all the feathers you can make a pillow to cry in.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

I pointed out that Franklin got us involved with the French which got us involved with Viet Nam via Truman which was of equal irrelevance to the topic so I win.

SEE EVERYBODY..............................................I WIN!

I JUST PLUCKED CHICKEN! CHICKEN GOT PLUCKED!

You speak of irrelelvance in one breath and then post this kind of trash?

I guess it's what should be expected of a teenager such as yourself. Congrats on your supposed win. I hope you receive your prize of maturity in the mail.

Oh, no, nothing like that. Just showing you yourself. Wanted you to see that as dumb as you could be about Truman, I could be about Franklin. It's not that Eisenhower is on the dime that matters, but what it has to do with bananas. My victory was total. You suffered an utter and crushing defeat. But with all the feathers you can make a pillow to cry in.

Yes, it's so dumb to cite actual history. :roll:

Truman got the US involved in Vietnam and it escalated from there. You haven't disproven that and your ridiculous slippry slope argument and even more ridiculous little victory dance to ad hom music is evidence of trolling and nothing more.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

I pointed out that Franklin got us involved with the French which got us involved with Viet Nam via Truman which was of equal irrelevance to the topic so I win.

SEE EVERYBODY..............................................I WIN!

I JUST PLUCKED CHICKEN! CHICKEN GOT PLUCKED!

You speak of irrelelvance in one breath and then post this kind of trash?

I guess it's what should be expected of a teenager such as yourself. Congrats on your supposed win. I hope you receive your prize of maturity in the mail.

Oh, no, nothing like that. Just showing you yourself. Wanted you to see that as dumb as you could be about Truman, I could be about Franklin. It's not that Eisenhower is on the dime that matters, but what it has to do with bananas. My victory was total. You suffered an utter and crushing defeat. But with all the feathers you can make a pillow to cry in.

Yes, it's so dumb to cite actual history. :roll:

Truman got the US involved in Vietnam and it escalated from there. You haven't disproven that and your ridiculous slippry slope argument and even more ridiculous little victory dance to ad hom music is evidence of trolling and nothing more.

Now for the roasting of our plucked chicken. Here is an analysis of the causes of the Viet Nam War. My questions are:

How does the first involvement of the US in Viet Nam to aid the French for the sake of European policy and to shore up Capitalism in Asia against a Communist threat equate to going to war, much less a demonstration that Democrats are unable to wage war successfully? And when did the ideal that winning wars is good when they are unjust and lead to human destruction. Hitler was terrific at winning war for quite some time. What a guy. I believe the Norman Invasion was in 1066. I can quote history too, so I still win. The problem with your posts are that they are too often argumentative only and have nothing what so ever to do with anything. Why not spend your time fixing people's grammar. You can have just as much fun and maintain the same relevance.

Your turn for some cleaver rebuttal. I like the last a lot. "Truman got the US involved in Vietnam and it escalated from there." What, Truman got us involved in a war or in some global strategy that much later others lead us into war over. You might try suggesting that Marx got us into Viet Nam, that dirty bastard. I know, it was Roosevelt and Yalta. Worthless Democrat should have nuked the Soviet Union as soon as Berlin fell.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Now for the roasting of our plucked chicken. Here is an analysis of the causes of the Viet Nam War.

You just roasted yourself with that link.

In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam.

Nor do I care about your questions after your previous trollfest. Having a discussion with you holds no interest for me.

 

[Steeplerot]

served again

Your icon looking like a mc nugget more and more...

 

[Strk]

I still say blame the French; it just sounds better!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Now for the roasting of our plucked chicken. Here is an analysis of the causes of the Viet Nam War.

You just roasted yourself with that link.

In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam.

Nor do I care about your questions after your previous trollfest. Having a discussion with you holds no interest for me.

You don't want a discussion, you want an argument where you can flaunt your pedantry. You pretend to others that I was arguing your point about Truman when what I did was point out it's irrelevance. That is why I blamed Franklin. He was as pivotal in the war as Truman since at the time there WAS no war. You, my friend are the Troll. And for somebody who doesn't care about my questions, I sure get a lot of replies. I have a Masters in bating for Trolls. Your turn to run with the line. The hook is firmly set. Change your name to TastesLikePenguin.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how's the War on Drugs going?

war on drugs? more drugs. war on poverty, more poverty. war on terror, more terrorism. so what's up with that??? the word"war" is disgusting and anyone with half a brain should loathe it as much as any strangers on the side of the road trying to kidnap your kids or steal from you when you are not home.

terrorism = to make the americans (cattle) as afraid as possible to give up their liberty by destroying their constitutional amendments because the fear of terrorist is going to get them. the sky is falling! help us god! someone, anyone save us! :disgust:

What crap are they trying to shove down our throats and the americans just keep buying it without a second thought? on tv 24hrs a day, 911 and terrorist propaganda that are repeated nonstop until your brains fall out. conditioning americans to accept their slogans bs. terrorist is coming to get all of you! be afraid! with alert levels going from yellow, orange, red then back to green. is this a scare tactic game? is it working? I want to take my tv and smash it to pieces! this has gone long enough and is driving everyone insane. It's maddening sickening!

 

[2cpuminimum]

The US hasn't even been at war in over fifty years. The last time the US declared war was June 5, 1942.
That was 63 years ago, for the mathematically challenged.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 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.

The vast majority of American didn't care about Liberating Iraq or the Iraqi's and they still don't..well not at our expense. We only supported invading Iraq because we we led to believe that Hussein was an imminent threat to out National Security. Now while the Dub and his handlers never actually came out and said that they sure as hell implied it over and over prior to the invasion or Iraq. They also used the aftermath of 9/11 to their advantage playing on our fears to drum up support for their pre-conceived Invasion. It's hard to believe they got it so wrong, it would almost be better to know that they were conniving instead of incompetent which is more or less the excuse they are using.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Now for the roasting of our plucked chicken. Here is an analysis of the causes of the Viet Nam War.

You just roasted yourself with that link.

In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam.

Nor do I care about your questions after your previous trollfest. Having a discussion with you holds no interest for me.

You don't want a discussion, you want an argument where you can flaunt your pedantry. You pretend to others that I was arguing your point about Truman when what I did was point out it's irrelevance. That is why I blamed Franklin. He was as pivotal in the war as Truman since at the time there WAS no war. You, my friend are the Troll. And for somebody who doesn't care about my questions, I sure get a lot of replies. I have a Masters in bating for Trolls. Your turn to run with the line. The hook is firmly set. Change your name to TastesLikePenguin.

It's not my problem you make a large and rather wrong ASSumption, Moonie. I didn't say anything about Truman getting us into war. I said he got the US involved in Vietnam. His actions kick-started the whole thing and it escalated after his involvement. That is simply the historical truth. Whether you want to admit it or not, most issues like this have a specific origin, and for Vietnam Truman was that specific origin.

You started off trolling, pure and simple, and generally acting the fool because you seem to believe you can play with people in here with impunity. Now you are going through gyrations trying to save yourself after plainly exposing your foolish and trollish self for exactly what you are. It's not working. Just give it up and go troll someone who doesn't see right through your transparent aspersions.

 

[Pabster]

Moonbeam trolling? Say it ain't so!

Par for the course.

 

[Future Shock]

I find it funny that no one has really analyzed the one military conflict that really almost became WWIII - The Cuban Missle Crisis.

About the actions and cool leadership exampled by the liberal John FKennedy - how he held his ground, how he did not back down, and how tread a fine line between being so aggressive that it would start WWIII, and using diplomacy and the (oh my god NO!) UN to cause the Soviets to back down. How he had the balls to instigate a naval blockade and back it up, knowing the Soviets had promised to begin a countdown to war if it happened.

We could even discuss his veto of the Defense Department's instiation for immediate strikes against the missle sites - and how his way worked out better.

Compared to Pananama and GW1, this was much more important and serious...two nuclear armed nations squared off at high states of alerts...for 13 days the world held it's breath...and waited for a liberal to save the day. Or did we forget that so soon?

Future Shock