Why is "Timetable" a dirty word?

[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.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Has it ever occured to you that those that want a timetable might have studied history, especially military history, a bit more than you have? I suggest you do some research.

I would start by reading the recently released Nixon White House papers. Perhaps you should take a look at their own assessment of the state of South Vietnam's government, which they admitted was rather precarious in supporting itself, let alone carrying on the war. And, as they admit, amazingly unpopular with it's own people...

The fact of the matter is, you can't BUILD a government with a forgein military. PERIOD. All you do is fan nationalistic forces that play into the hands of our enemies. The US military CAN and SHOULD support solid, democratic regimes in ways that strengthen our interests. But we can't simply build one where one doesn't exist, nor where a significant portion of the population does not believe in the authority of the government we would back. That's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what's happening in Iraq. It is what also happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets, and has happened repeatedly throught history. (In fact, I challenge you to find ONE example in history where a successful, legitimate government has been secured and built from forces from abroad rather than natively).

Basically, we can't fight and resolve other country's civil wars for them...at least not successfully.

Those of us that want a timetable recognize that the insurgency is just that, a civil war by another name, and all we can do is keep a lid on it for a while. We really can't defeat it, because it is an ideology, not just a miliary force, so it can't be beaten on the battlefield convincingly. And the longer we stay there, the longer we look like tools of the Iraqi Shiite-dominated government, rather than freedom providers. And that just fuels more flames against us...leading to more recruitment for the Sunnis.

The key to this civil war is to prevent Sunnis from taking up the insurgency, not in defeating the insurgency in the battlefield. But our presence seems to be increasingly hurting that goal, not helping it.

Future Shock

NB - my real fear is that after we pull out, we will have trained a nice Iraqi army with all the tools needed to be beat policemen - but Al Quida has been training the insurgents to be guirilla fighters and revolutionaries. The Iraqi military will be more defensive minded - and quite possibly lose a civil war.

PS - Hey Pabster, welcome back, btw...

 

[imported_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?

 

[smashp]

Time table is an evil word because if a real honest timetable was laid out, The Us military would need to make a commitment for 5 to 10 more years to achieve desired results to make an honorable withdraw.


Its difficult for anyone to swallow considering we were sold a quick and easy war back during the lead up to War.

Until the higher ups accept the fact we will need to be there that long atleast, and get some order, and realize the mistakes made so far, We are objectively extending the time needed to achieve the desired results and possible setting ourselves up for a future cut-and-run withdraw.

 

[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

 

[TGS]

Now what would have been nice, had the CPA not disolved the Iraqi Army. Then we wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel and train fresh recruits. It still boggles me that even with the infrastructure and logisitical issues the Iraqi armies had, we wouldn't want to cut off the leadership install new appointies to top level positions and ramp up operations under Iraqi/Coalition forces. Supplies can be provisioned at a later time, but to disband armed military members without a plan on how to replace the entire personel infrastructure seems way out in left field to me.

 

[Genx87]

The fact of the matter is, you can't BUILD a government with a forgein military. PERIOD. All you do is fan nationalistic forces that play into the hands of our enemies. The US military CAN and SHOULD support solid, democratic regimes in ways that strengthen our interests. But we can't simply build one where one doesn't exist, nor where a significant portion of the population does not believe in the authority of the government we would back. That's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what's happening in Iraq. It is what also happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets, and has happened repeatedly throught history. (In fact, I challenge you to find ONE example in history where a successful, legitimate government has been secured and built from forces from abroad rather than natively).

Japan
Germany

The difference between the two above examples and say a vietnam was vietnam was a civil war that we couldnt win without expanding the war. The north was off limits to us so it was simply impossible for us to win that war.

This insurgency is not a civil war. What is their platform? What do they stand for?
The people in Iraq spoke by voting in the booths. If they felt the terrorists were the better option they would not have bothered to vote.

This can be won but that means toughing it out and making sure the Iraqi govt continues on a path to sustainability. At some point the Iraqis need to take over security details of their own country. It seems like every day more and more of them are becoming proficient enough to do this.

Hopefully within the next 12 months it will expand and allow our servicemen to stay within a base, only to be called out if needed.

 

[piasabird]

Duh. . . . You are telling the enemy when you plan on leaving. Might as well just invite the terrorists to your planning meetings.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The fact of the matter is, you can't BUILD a government with a forgein military. PERIOD. All you do is fan nationalistic forces that play into the hands of our enemies. The US military CAN and SHOULD support solid, democratic regimes in ways that strengthen our interests. But we can't simply build one where one doesn't exist, nor where a significant portion of the population does not believe in the authority of the government we would back. That's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what's happening in Iraq. It is what also happened in Afghanistan to the Soviets, and has happened repeatedly throught history. (In fact, I challenge you to find ONE example in history where a successful, legitimate government has been secured and built from forces from abroad rather than natively).

Japan
Germany

The difference between the two above examples and say a vietnam was vietnam was a civil war that we couldnt win without expanding the war. The north was off limits to us so it was simply impossible for us to win that war.

This insurgency is not a civil war. What is their platform? What do they stand for?
The people in Iraq spoke by voting in the booths. If they felt the terrorists were the better option they would not have bothered to vote.

This can be won but that means toughing it out and making sure the Iraqi govt continues on a path to sustainability. At some point the Iraqis need to take over security details of their own country. It seems like every day more and more of them are becoming proficient enough to do this.

Hopefully within the next 12 months it will expand and allow our servicemen to stay within a base, only to be called out if needed.

No - in Japan and Germany, there was no substantial political opposition to the ruling party prior to the war, or even during the war. Japan and Germany were reconstructions of defeated, conventional war enemies.

The insurgency, IMHO, IS a civil war - it is Sunnis vs. Shiites for political and economic control of Iraq - and what each side stands for is an Iraq where they are in power. It is a religious war - with political overtones.

And unfortunately, a large number of the Sunnis stayed away from the voting booths, rendering the election (while not fraudulent) unlikely to ease the insurgency.

Don't get me wrong - I too wish that Iraqi military and police units will be trained up enough to patrol in a meaningful way in the near future. But it just appears to be bloodly unlikely...

Future Shock

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What we need to do is set a timetable for transistion.

Say Jun 1, 2006 - all police and patrol is done by the Iraqis. However, if they need an airstrike, or the marines sent in to shock and awe an insurgent stronghold, then fine, we can help take care of that.

Woah, a reasonable proposition. I think your date may be wildly optimistic, but that's not a bad idea.

Edit: I think that the Bush administration should have the balls to at least try to set a firm date on a goal such as this.

 

[Genx87]

No - in Japan and Germany, there was no substantial political opposition to the ruling party prior to the war, or even during the war. Japan and Germany were reconstructions of defeated, conventional war enemies.

Oh? Your litmus test was whether or not there was an opposition party prior to the defeat of said nation? You tell me what party was opposing and had a say in Saddams govt pre-war.

The insurgency, IMHO, IS a civil war - it is Sunnis vs. Shiites for political and economic control of Iraq - and what each side stands for is an Iraq where they are in power. It is a religious war - with political overtones.

Like you said, in your "opinion", which means nothing. If there was a civil war as you say then what is the unified platform for the people detonating bombs at schools, sewer main openings, and markets?

And unfortunately, a large number of the Sunnis stayed away from the voting booths, rendering the election (while not fraudulent) unlikely to ease the insurgency.

Don't get me wrong - I too wish that Iraqi military and police units will be trained up enough to patrol in a meaningful way in the near future. But it just appears to be bloodly unlikely...

I would say our civil war, which was a real civil war, put this nation in more harms way than these thugs are putting Iraqs new govt in harms way.

I dont think you thought when the mob would blow up bombs on our streets or gun down people in daylight it was a civil war do you?

So why when thugs and terrorists kill each other or civilians does it raise it a civil war?

 

[irwincur]

The basic concept of warare is shrouded in chaos. Yes you can plan, but can you really plan for every eventual outcome? No.

The Dems want the best of all worlds every time, because they operate in the world of hindsight. Furthermore, you have to be a complete IDIOT to think that the Pentagon, a collection of 20,000 of the worlds best military planners and thinks did not plan this war correctly. The point is, war is difficult, too many people think it is easy. An urban insurgency during Vietnam (a few notable battles followed this format) killed hundreds of soldiers per day. It is obvious that we are doing a lot better than that.

Why? Because of PLANNING.

I would like some of the dim wits here to explain how the Pentagon (after all it is the Pentagon's job and not Bush's) failed to plan... They planned for an insurgency, all of the pre war reports expected this. They planned for regional and ethnic issues, all of the pre war reports expected this. What exactly did they miss.

Why doesn't the left just come clean and admit that they would like nothing more than for the military to lose another war. I mean come on, if we keep allowing the left to win these battles we will have more and more empowed dictators pushing us around - BECAUASE THEY KNOW WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIGHT BACK. Mogidishu was a great example of this. Clinton's history of being liberal, supporting the Commies in Vietnam, and the loss in Vietnam spurred the Somali warlords to ignore us. A strong military is not built around failure. If I wanted the US military to be as well regarded as the French I would move to France.

 

[ExpertNovice]

I didn't know that it was? However, here is a case you might understand.

Assume you are undergoing an operation that has never before been attempted. It is a delicate operation that requires the actions of many to accomplish and it is known in advance that along the way there will be problems that must be dealt with before continuing.

Would you want them to set a "timetable" so that after, say 8 hours, they pull out? Or would you want the "timetable" to be that they pull out when you will have the best chance for survival.

Now, tell me exactly why liberals hate liberty and freedom so much that then want millions of people to die. Is Fascism or Communism really that important that human lives are meaningless as long as the elites prosper?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The basic concept of warare is shrouded in chaos. Yes you can plan, but can you really plan for every eventual outcome? No.

The Dems want the best of all worlds every time, because they operate in the world of hindsight. Furthermore, you have to be a complete IDIOT to think that the Pentagon, a collection of 20,000 of the worlds best military planners and thinks did not plan this war correctly. The point is, war is difficult, too many people think it is easy. An urban insurgency during Vietnam (a few notable battles followed this format) killed hundreds of soldiers per day. It is obvious that we are doing a lot better than that.

Why? Because of PLANNING.

I would like some of the dim wits here to explain how the Pentagon (after all it is the Pentagon's job and not Bush's) failed to plan... They planned for an insurgency, all of the pre war reports expected this. They planned for regional and ethnic issues, all of the pre war reports expected this. What exactly did they miss.

Why doesn't the left just come clean and admit that they would like nothing more than for the military to lose another war. I mean come on, if we keep allowing the left to win these battles we will have more and more empowed dictators pushing us around - BECAUASE THEY KNOW WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIGHT BACK. Mogidishu was a great example of this. Clinton's history of being liberal, supporting the Commies in Vietnam, and the loss in Vietnam spurred the Somali warlords to ignore us. A strong military is not built around failure. If I wanted the US military to be as well regarded as the French I would move to France.

You are a complete troll, or incredibly ill-informed - I'm not sure which.

Some of the most vocal critics of the administration's planning have been active duty military (to the rank of General), and ex-military, including some of the senior leaders in country in Iraq. General Shinseki was canned for his criticisms of troop levels and planning - and he was frickin' running the show. More pointedly, US Army Lt General William Scott Wallace gave the following interview (excerpted) with PBS

Q: The military did their job. They won the war in three weeks. ... [In the] post-war, [have] the politicians [mishandled it]?

A: The military did their job in three weeks. I give no credit to the politicians for detailed Phase Four (the reconstruction of Iraq) planning. But I don't think that we, the military, did a very good job of anticipating [that] either. I don't think that any of us either could have or did anticipate the total collapse of this regime and the psychological impact it had on the entire nation. When we arrived in Baghdad, everybody had gone home. The regime officials were gone; the folks that provided security of the ministry buildings had gone; the folks that operated the water treatment plans and the electricity grid and the water purification plants were gone. There were no bus drivers, no taxi drivers; everybody just went home.

I for one did not anticipate our presence being such a traumatic influence on the entire population. We expected there to be some degree of infrastructure left in the city, in terms of intellectual infrastructure, in terms of running the city infrastructure, in terms of running the government infrastructure. But what in fact happened, which was unanticipated at least in [my mind], is that when [we] decapitated the regime, everything below it fell apart. I'm not sure that we could have anticipated that. ...

Doesn't sound like HE thinks they did a good job of planning - and oh yeah, Gen Wallace was canned after that interview...seems that the neo-con draft dogers don't like it when real men in real uniforms actually criticize them for being incompetent...

But go ahead, just blame all the criticism on "liberals" and defeatists...the simple fact of the matter is that Bush and Co. are incompetent leaders of the world's greatest military, and Rumsfeld had proven time and time again to make terrible choices (yeah, a smaller, lighter force - to fight an embedded insurgency - DOH!). Their planning has SUCKED compared to the planning and execution that went into GW1, the levels of equipment have been totally insufficient, especially compared to GW1 (read more on that in Wallace's interview), and the promises of a "fast and easy victory" just so much poppycock that those uttering it should feel embarrased. As for that last point, let's not forget that MANY prominent Republicans, including ex-Sec of State Brent Scowcroft, predicted this exact scenario for if we invaded - in August 2002, prior to the invasion.

Stop being an apologist for terrible leaders...or claiming that those that call them on it are defeatist. Unless you think that two ex-battlfield commanders of the US Army in Iraq are defeatist...

Future Shock

 

[imported_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.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
The only ones using the word 'timetable' are the cut and run, surrender and defeat, liberal left of this country. The same ones that took us out of Nam when the going got tough.

I want all those using this 'timetable' nonsense to explain to the rest of us why they hate America so, and whose side are they on??? providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treasonous.

Welcome back from your vacation early.

A time table is a very bad idea. We will leave Iraq based on a series of events that occur that will allow us to leave and have iraq be stable at the same time. It would be a very bad idea to set dates to go along with these events.

Did anyone expect FDR to set a time table for removal of troops from germany and japan?

Why would it be a bad idea to attach dates to those events? Their events that should be at least partially under our control...we're planning on bringing them about some time, right? I'm not suggesting we set unreasonable dates for anything, but working towards a goal "sometime in the future" is different than working towards one that needs to be done September 2006. Forget for a second that we're talking about a war, suppose your boss gave you something that needed to be done. How many of us would still have our job if we told him that we'll have it done "someday" and refuse to give him any sort of completion date?

What happens if we set a date for withdrawl, and the situation doesn't improve at all? Do we 1) Leave anyway, effectively leaving the country in chaos and giving the country to terrorists or 2) Decide to stay, making the timetable pointless and going back on our plan?

Either option is bad, so IMO, a timetable is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

But the situation isn't some random thing we have no control over. We broke it, it's up to us to make sure it gets fixed. I think we all agree on that. But you are looking at a timetable for that the wrong way. What if we don't meet our timetable deadlines? Well that's why come up with a workable plan. War is never neat, but build that into the plan. I see no reason we can't work on a timetable, what's so magical about Iraq that it defies analysis and planning?

Now look at it the other way. Suppose, as you suggest, a timetable is "one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard" because it is possible, even highly likely, that we will be unable to meet a deadline, no matter how well thought out or planned. That is what you're saying, right? Great, this suggests we either don't have a lot of control over victory in Iraq...or we're incapable of coming up with a reasonable plan to take advantage of the control we do have. See the problem? If we have the ability to win in Iraq, why would we not have the ability to make that happen as part of some sort of plan. I don't think victory in Iraq can be had by simply slugging away at the insurgents, wack-a-mole style. We need to accomplish many things before we can leave, killing terrorists as they appear is only part of that. That, I admit, is hard to plan around, but the rest of it not only can be planned around a timetable, but it NEEDS a timetable in order to make sure we reach the goals at all.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What we need to do is set a timetable for transistion.

Say Jun 1, 2006 - all police and patrol is done by the Iraqis. However, if they need an airstrike, or the marines sent in to shock and awe an insurgent stronghold, then fine, we can help take care of that.

I agree, that's more the kind of thing I'm talking about. People say timetable, and a lot of people hear "withdrawl". That's the very last step, getting Iraqi police and military up to speed and transitioning control to them is certainly something that could belong on the timetable...along with a lot of other stuff.

 

[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

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The basic concept of warare is shrouded in chaos. Yes you can plan, but can you really plan for every eventual outcome? No.

The Dems want the best of all worlds every time, because they operate in the world of hindsight. Furthermore, you have to be a complete IDIOT to think that the Pentagon, a collection of 20,000 of the worlds best military planners and thinks did not plan this war correctly. The point is, war is difficult, too many people think it is easy. An urban insurgency during Vietnam (a few notable battles followed this format) killed hundreds of soldiers per day. It is obvious that we are doing a lot better than that.

Why? Because of PLANNING.

I would like some of the dim wits here to explain how the Pentagon (after all it is the Pentagon's job and not Bush's) failed to plan... They planned for an insurgency, all of the pre war reports expected this. They planned for regional and ethnic issues, all of the pre war reports expected this. What exactly did they miss.

Why doesn't the left just come clean and admit that they would like nothing more than for the military to lose another war. I mean come on, if we keep allowing the left to win these battles we will have more and more empowed dictators pushing us around - BECAUASE THEY KNOW WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIGHT BACK. Mogidishu was a great example of this. Clinton's history of being liberal, supporting the Commies in Vietnam, and the loss in Vietnam spurred the Somali warlords to ignore us. A strong military is not built around failure. If I wanted the US military to be as well regarded as the French I would move to France.

It's interesting you bring up the Pentagon. I agree, there are some smart folks working there. Folks with decades of experience planning for conflicts of every kind imaginable, both winning the initial battle and dealing with the occupation after. I have no doubt that in the run-up to Iraq up till today, there have been reams of reports and plans and even timetables generated. Why do I have no doubt of this? Well because almost since the beginning of the war, the Bush administration has ignored most of what was being said by the Pentagon. It seems like lately you can hardly swing your arms without knocking into some disgruntled general, or former civilian administrator, who really tried to push an opinion or plan that turned out to be a really good idea, but the Bush administration just wouldn't listen. The most obvious example is General Shinseki, the formed Army Chief of Staff, who said we would need far more troops than were planned in order to successfully occupy Iraq and keep the peace after the invasion. He was not only ignored in private, but in public as well, with administration officials suggesting his estimate was "wildly off the mark". As it turned out, he was right, and ignoring him was almost certainly a move that cost lives.

Shinseki isn't the last example, just one of the most well known and most obvious. Like I said, there seem to be a LOT of experts out there with plans for winning in Iraq...the kind of plan that SHOULD have been followed from day 1. This isn't some wacko liberal thing because we hate winning wars, it's something that should be a part of any operation, and could have been if the Bush administration had listened.

 

[imported_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

 

[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?

 

[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?

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?

 

[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.

 

[smack Down]

Any real plan faces two problems. First it will have to be a decade long plan and some jack ass anounced 2 years ago mission acomplished. Second any short term goals are going to fail.

 

[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."