Why is "Timetable" a dirty word?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Condor
Timetable = Dayplanner for the terrorists!

Yawn. Doom and Gloom. Yep, they are just waiting for us to leave before the REALLY put their plan into action. This tired old excuss didn't work 30 years ago and it doesn't hold water today either.

It did work 30 years ago. We set a timetable, turned the war over to the Vienies, the Dimocrats deserted them and left them hanging without the promised budget for defense and viola = mass murder! Still proud?

Stop smoking crack. Nixon -> Ford....and South Vietnam fell.

No Democrats involved.

FS

Read your history, defeat your ignorance, then repost.

I was alive for that history. Post yer links if you have a point to prove.

FS

It'll be different now that you can read - Here:

The history:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/hyper_titles.cfm

It was during Kennedy?s presidency that the United States made a fateful new commitment to Vietnam. It sent in 18,000 advisors. It authorized the use of napalm (jellied gasoline); defoliants; free fire zones; and jet planes.

The source of your pride:

http://ngothelinh.tripod.com/A_History_To_Be_Rewritten.html

"Unfortunately, while the Communist bloc was fully and steadfastly supporting an aggrressive North Vietnam, one could witness during the last two years of the war (1973-1974), a defeatist (read Democratic) American Congress cut off large portions of supply and ammunition aid to South Vietnam because of shortsightedness and demagogic political reasons. This betrayal was perfectly orchestrated and preceded by a campaign of denigration and disinformation in favor of the communists, which was fostered by most of the media and intelligentsia in the Western world"



The experience:

http://www.usd250.k12.ks.us/kathy_owsley/4th_Class/Elizabeth_Arthur/Jim_Hurt.htm

As seen by the enemy:

http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/Vietnam/military/military.html

The freedom you liberals helped to win:

http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/Vietnam/military/military.html

The people:

http://www.iumien.com/article-topic-37.html

The fall:

http://www.fallofsaigon.org/final.htm

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0005/ch1.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june00/vietnam.html

The history you want us to repeat:

The United States won every battle it fought against the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, inflicting terrible casualties on them. Yet it ultimately lost the war because the public no longer believed that the conflict was worth the costs.

The war in Vietnam deeply split the Democratic party. As late as 1964, over 60 percent of those surveyed identified themselves in opinion polls as Democrats. The party had won seven of the previous nine presidential elections. But the prosecution of the war alienated many blue collar Democrats, many of whom became political independents or Republicans. To be sure, other issues--such as urban riots, affirmative action, and inflation--also weakened the Democratic party. But many former party supporters viewed the party as dominated by its anti-war faction and weak in the area of foreign policy and uncertain about America's proper role in the world.

Equally important, the war undermined liberal reform and made many Americans deeply suspicious of government. President Johnson's Great Society programs competed with the war for scarce resources, and constituencies who might have supported liberal social programs turned against the president as a result of the war. The war also made Americans, especially the baby boomer generation, more cynical and less trusting of government and of authority.

The betrayal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date...es/april/21/newsid_2935000/2935347.stm

Maybe I'm naive here, but if we had pushed ahead and won the war (assuming, as you seem to think, that this was in fact possible), WOULD it have been worth the cost? Loosing Vietnam, while probably bad for the Vietnamese, doesn't seem to have been a terrible thing. The domino theory proved especially untrue, what would we have got with the additional lost lives and resources? Why was winning Vietnam worth anything at all?

It was a Democratic President who developed the domino theory. You saying that the Democrats best effort for the White House has been proven wrong? Publications in Vietnamese claim that another two weeks of bombing Hai Phong harbor and Hanoi would have resulted in a white flag. Being possibly two weeks from a win and then having liberal protestors cause a loss sure makes me feel good about liberals. So having a Democratic President get us into a war in which we lost 58000 Americans and millions of Asians and then having a Democratic Congress fail to honor treaties and promises we had made to people who were fighting to keep Kennedy's booger man of global Communism at bay so that millions died was just what you want us to do as a civilization?

I didn't say anything about Kennedy or the Democrats. I asked a simple question that, as an apparently die hard vietnam war supporter, you should have an answer to. Why would it have been worth even one more American life to win? What would have been the benefit? WHY do you think the war was a good idea?

 

[Steeplerot]

Becasue he thinks war is a proud and honorable thing, also scared sh1tless of commies, islamofascists or whatever else those he "trusts" tell him are his newest enemy.

Also his hero nixon got pwnd so he wants his revenge with this newest dirty war against those evil commie hippies and put them in their place like the gentleman mccarthy should have been able to do..

In other words he has generational envy, no nazis to fight for him like the generation before so he is looking for war to prove himself before he is too old and never gets to be one of the "greatest generation".




"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
?General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Becasue he thinks war is a proud and honorable thing, also scared sh1tless of commies, islamofascists or whatever else those he "trusts" tell him are his newest enemy.

Also his hero nixon got pwnd so he wants his revenge with this newest dirty war against those evil commie hippies and put them in their place like the gentleman mccarthy should have been able to do..

In other words he has generational envy, no nazis to fight for him like the generation before so he is looking for war to prove himself before he is too old and never gets to be one of the "greatest generation".




"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
?General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

I'm not sure I totally agree with you there, but I have noticed something odd about supporters of Vietnam (or Iraq, at this point). They don't come off as people who are reluctant about the whole idea, sad that it came to this, but accepting it as a last resort. Instead, they come off like they think they are watching a football game. They want us to "kick ass" so they can feel vicariously tough.

Now I'm not a mindreader, and I could be totally wrong here, but I do think the ABSENSE of a certain attitude among war supporters is very interesting. I have yet to hear anyone, no posters here, no talking heads on TV, not even our own leaders, say anything that sounds even remotely like "Well, this sucks ass, but sometimes you just have no choice". Why is that?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Becasue he thinks war is a proud and honorable thing, also scared sh1tless of commies, islamofascists or whatever else those he "trusts" tell him are his newest enemy.

Also his hero nixon got pwnd so he wants his revenge with this newest dirty war against those evil commie hippies and put them in their place like the gentleman mccarthy should have been able to do..

In other words he has generational envy, no nazis to fight for him like the generation before so he is looking for war to prove himself before he is too old and never gets to be one of the "greatest generation".




"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
?General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

I'm not sure I totally agree with you there, but I have noticed something odd about supporters of Vietnam (or Iraq, at this point). They don't come off as people who are reluctant about the whole idea, sad that it came to this, but accepting it as a last resort. Instead, they come off like they think they are watching a football game. They want us to "kick ass" so they can feel vicariously tough.

Now I'm not a mindreader, and I could be totally wrong here, but I do think the ABSENSE of a certain attitude among war supporters is very interesting. I have yet to hear anyone, no posters here, no talking heads on TV, not even our own leaders, say anything that sounds even remotely like "Well, this sucks ass, but sometimes you just have no choice". Why is that?

How about that reality exists and you simply have to deal with it. The Whine is not dealing with it. Facing it front and center does the trick. Don't expect you to understand that.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Becasue he thinks war is a proud and honorable thing, also scared sh1tless of commies, islamofascists or whatever else those he "trusts" tell him are his newest enemy.

Also his hero nixon got pwnd so he wants his revenge with this newest dirty war against those evil commie hippies and put them in their place like the gentleman mccarthy should have been able to do..

In other words he has generational envy, no nazis to fight for him like the generation before so he is looking for war to prove himself before he is too old and never gets to be one of the "greatest generation".




"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
?General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

I'm not sure I totally agree with you there, but I have noticed something odd about supporters of Vietnam (or Iraq, at this point). They don't come off as people who are reluctant about the whole idea, sad that it came to this, but accepting it as a last resort. Instead, they come off like they think they are watching a football game. They want us to "kick ass" so they can feel vicariously tough.

Now I'm not a mindreader, and I could be totally wrong here, but I do think the ABSENSE of a certain attitude among war supporters is very interesting. I have yet to hear anyone, no posters here, no talking heads on TV, not even our own leaders, say anything that sounds even remotely like "Well, this sucks ass, but sometimes you just have no choice". Why is that?

How about that reality exists and you simply have to deal with it. The Whine is not dealing with it. Facing it front and center does the trick. Don't expect you to understand that.

Not everyone so easily doles out life and death over their war egos.

 

[eilute]

The reason the pro-war group does not want to set a timetable is because at our current rate of progress we will never leave.

It's not difficult to put a timetable on these things. There's no reason that there shouldn't be a one. I do not believe the notion that a timetable will somehow help the enemy.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Condor
It was a Democratic President who developed the domino theory. You saying that the Democrats best effort for the White House has been proven wrong? Publications in Vietnamese claim that another two weeks of bombing Hai Phong harbor and Hanoi would have resulted in a white flag. Being possibly two weeks from a win and then having liberal protestors cause a loss sure makes me feel good about liberals. So having a Democratic President get us into a war in which we lost 58000 Americans and millions of Asians and then having a Democratic Congress fail to honor treaties and promises we had made to people who were fighting to keep Kennedy's booger man of global Communism at bay so that millions died was just what you want us to do as a civilization?

Yeah rioght,as if the NVA and Cong would have honored any surrender or treaty. If we had stayed American Soldeirs would have continued to die until we finally did pull out.

We knew they wouldn't honor it. That was why we agreed to provide funding for Thieu's army. Then we didn't! Bloodbath!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Condor
Timetable = Dayplanner for the terrorists!

Yawn. Doom and Gloom. Yep, they are just waiting for us to leave before the REALLY put their plan into action. This tired old excuss didn't work 30 years ago and it doesn't hold water today either.

It did work 30 years ago. We set a timetable, turned the war over to the Vienies, the Dimocrats deserted them and left them hanging without the promised budget for defense and viola = mass murder! Still proud?

Stop smoking crack. Nixon -> Ford....and South Vietnam fell.

No Democrats involved.

FS

Read your history, defeat your ignorance, then repost.

I was alive for that history. Post yer links if you have a point to prove.

FS

It'll be different now that you can read - Here:

The history:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/hyper_titles.cfm

It was during Kennedy?s presidency that the United States made a fateful new commitment to Vietnam. It sent in 18,000 advisors. It authorized the use of napalm (jellied gasoline); defoliants; free fire zones; and jet planes.

The source of your pride:

http://ngothelinh.tripod.com/A_History_To_Be_Rewritten.html

"Unfortunately, while the Communist bloc was fully and steadfastly supporting an aggrressive North Vietnam, one could witness during the last two years of the war (1973-1974), a defeatist (read Democratic) American Congress cut off large portions of supply and ammunition aid to South Vietnam because of shortsightedness and demagogic political reasons. This betrayal was perfectly orchestrated and preceded by a campaign of denigration and disinformation in favor of the communists, which was fostered by most of the media and intelligentsia in the Western world"



The experience:

http://www.usd250.k12.ks.us/kathy_owsley/4th_Class/Elizabeth_Arthur/Jim_Hurt.htm

As seen by the enemy:

http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/Vietnam/military/military.html

The freedom you liberals helped to win:

http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/Vietnam/military/military.html

The people:

http://www.iumien.com/article-topic-37.html

The fall:

http://www.fallofsaigon.org/final.htm

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0005/ch1.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june00/vietnam.html

The history you want us to repeat:

The United States won every battle it fought against the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, inflicting terrible casualties on them. Yet it ultimately lost the war because the public no longer believed that the conflict was worth the costs.

The war in Vietnam deeply split the Democratic party. As late as 1964, over 60 percent of those surveyed identified themselves in opinion polls as Democrats. The party had won seven of the previous nine presidential elections. But the prosecution of the war alienated many blue collar Democrats, many of whom became political independents or Republicans. To be sure, other issues--such as urban riots, affirmative action, and inflation--also weakened the Democratic party. But many former party supporters viewed the party as dominated by its anti-war faction and weak in the area of foreign policy and uncertain about America's proper role in the world.

Equally important, the war undermined liberal reform and made many Americans deeply suspicious of government. President Johnson's Great Society programs competed with the war for scarce resources, and constituencies who might have supported liberal social programs turned against the president as a result of the war. The war also made Americans, especially the baby boomer generation, more cynical and less trusting of government and of authority.

The betrayal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date...es/april/21/newsid_2935000/2935347.stm

Maybe I'm naive here, but if we had pushed ahead and won the war (assuming, as you seem to think, that this was in fact possible), WOULD it have been worth the cost? Loosing Vietnam, while probably bad for the Vietnamese, doesn't seem to have been a terrible thing. The domino theory proved especially untrue, what would we have got with the additional lost lives and resources? Why was winning Vietnam worth anything at all?

At that point (once Kennedy got us into it) the cost was the same whether we won or lost. What we did is sort of like paying on a new Caddie or Jag for 4.5 years and then giving it back, in terms that you may understand.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CBone
Why does the right assume that if a timetable even exists, it will have a date and time for every step, that Osama will be CC'd on it, and then we will give our wives and daughters to the terrorists? What is so hard about saying that we have a series of events predicted and operations planned that will lead to a withdrawal of US forces within the next 6 years? What the hell good is a "plan" consisting of: "Step 1a: Win the war; Step 1b: Stay the course; Step 1c: Accomplish mission" ?

I also think that Dubya could have avoided all of this had he just called a press conference and said: "If we do this, gas will average 85 cents per gallon. It will take approx. 5 years. People will make money. But that isn't anything new. Someone, somewhere always profits. From everything. That's the way our economy works."

I thought that sort of thing would have saved Clinton a lot of pain too. However, with the sore losers in the left, do you really think that if they got an inch, they wouldn't try to whine to the mile?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: eilute
The reason the pro-war group does not want to set a timetable is because at our current rate of progress we will never leave.

It's not difficult to put a timetable on these things. There's no reason that there shouldn't be a one. I do not believe the notion that a timetable will somehow help the enemy.

How about one of you libs coming up with a plan that will finish this off on schedule? Don't see that, just the whine!

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: eilute
The reason the pro-war group does not want to set a timetable is because at our current rate of progress we will never leave.

It's not difficult to put a timetable on these things. There's no reason that there shouldn't be a one. I do not believe the notion that a timetable will somehow help the enemy.

How about one of you libs coming up with a plan that will finish this off on schedule? Don't see that, just the whine!

The academic Paul Wolfowitz had a timetable that had troop levels down to 30,000 by the November 2003.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Condor
Timetable = Dayplanner for the terrorists!

Yawn. Doom and Gloom. Yep, they are just waiting for us to leave before the REALLY put their plan into action. This tired old excuss didn't work 30 years ago and it doesn't hold water today either.

It did work 30 years ago. We set a timetable, turned the war over to the Vienies, the Dimocrats deserted them and left them hanging without the promised budget for defense and viola = mass murder! Still proud?

Stop smoking crack. Nixon -> Ford....and South Vietnam fell.

No Democrats involved.

FS

Read your history, defeat your ignorance, then repost.

carter was president?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: eilute
The reason the pro-war group does not want to set a timetable is because at our current rate of progress we will never leave.

It's not difficult to put a timetable on these things. There's no reason that there shouldn't be a one. I do not believe the notion that a timetable will somehow help the enemy.

How about one of you libs coming up with a plan that will finish this off on schedule? Don't see that, just the whine!

sorry, but last time i checked dems don't have the house, senate, or presidency. Its your responsibility.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: eilute
The reason the pro-war group does not want to set a timetable is because at our current rate of progress we will never leave.

It's not difficult to put a timetable on these things. There's no reason that there shouldn't be a one. I do not believe the notion that a timetable will somehow help the enemy.

How about one of you libs coming up with a plan that will finish this off on schedule? Don't see that, just the whine!

sorry, but last time i checked dems don't have the house, senate, or presidency. Its your responsibility.

No, that's a big gotcha! The Dims couldn't even plan a political campaign, otherwise they would be in the drivers seat. It's obvious that Bush could plan a campaign, so he gets the higher grade there. Now, if he could plan a campaign and the Dims couldn't, how would they plan anything as unpredictable and complex as a war? Moving directly from something as simple as a political campaign that they couldn't execute correctly to the planning of a war seems like a pretty big ambition. The size of the ambition just after such failure says bunches about their abilities. They don't even have the ability to see their own shortcomings. Some of their members have tried to tell them, but they didn't listen then either. Once again, the whine!

 

[conjur]

I guess Bill O'Lielly wants to embolden the terrorists and wants Iraq to surrender to the terrorists, too
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/art..._display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001526357

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: eilute
The reason the pro-war group does not want to set a timetable is because at our current rate of progress we will never leave.

It's not difficult to put a timetable on these things. There's no reason that there shouldn't be a one. I do not believe the notion that a timetable will somehow help the enemy.

How about one of you libs coming up with a plan that will finish this off on schedule? Don't see that, just the whine!

sorry, but last time i checked dems don't have the house, senate, or presidency. Its your responsibility.

No, that's a big gotcha! The Dims couldn't even plan a political campaign, otherwise they would be in the drivers seat. It's obvious that Bush could plan a campaign, so he gets the higher grade there. Now, if he could plan a campaign and the Dims couldn't, how would they plan anything as unpredictable and complex as a war? Moving directly from something as simple as a political campaign that they couldn't execute correctly to the planning of a war seems like a pretty big ambition. The size of the ambition just after such failure says bunches about their abilities. They don't even have the ability to see their own shortcomings. Some of their members have tried to tell them, but they didn't listen then either. Once again, the whine!

So let's see - what was Bush Jr's margin of victory in each Presidential election? Less than 0.5% in popular vote? Even less than 0% (i.e., negative) depending upon how you count Florida votes in the first election.

So, you are basically saying that any party that loses by less than 1% of the popular vote is incompetent and can't be trusted to run anything else? Wow. How much closer would you like it before you can call the party that lost "competent"? And does that mean that the Republican party that lost to Clinton twice, and Carter once, was also incompetent and not to be trusted? I mean, goose...gander, right?

And anyone who thinks "simple as running a political campaign" is not an oxymoron is naive and not to be listened to...

Once again, the idiocy...

Future Shock

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
I guess Bill O'Lielly wants to embolden the terrorists and wants Iraq to surrender to the terrorists, too
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/art..._display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001526357

"We've been training the Iraqi army for almost two years now. Even Gomer Pyle would be up to speed."

You know even if we do accomplish training enough Iraqis to defend themselves I have doubts that they will have the will to do it, well at least defend the Governement we leaves for them. And if this happens there will be the Fools who will blame the Anti War Movement for the Iraqi's failure claiming that we were just months away from total victory before pulling the troops. These are the same fools that make that claim regarding Viet Nam