Posted on 01/11/2007 6:06:07 PM PST by Rodney King
I can't think of anything more harsh then surrendering to our enemies. That alone should drive them away.
The battle of Saigon wasn't a battle, it was shameful surrender (after the military battle had already been won) brought about by the treasonous media and longhaired pinko commie hippy scum. The same people that are working overtime now to lose the battle of Baghdad. And how many millions were killed as a result of us surrendering to the commies in Viet Nam? And how many millions will die now if we surrender to the Islamic Jihadists?
I agree .. and he can be of big help for our military
There is no comparsion!!!! I have always maintain that the American people have gone soft. They would rather wait to be killed then to take the offensive to make sure it doesn't happen. I fear the terrorists are correct when they call the United States a paper tiger...inflict enough causalties and they will tuck their tail and run. Politcians are so power hungry they would prefer to destroy the country to get in power. To undermind a commander in chief in a time of war for political gain is nothing short of treason. It's east to retreat. It takes courage and fortitude to stay and fight to get the job done. We seem to have a lot of the first and sadly lacking in the second.
Sure, recognition has to start somewere. Why not support them a bit now.. perahps if they get noticed a little in the primaries it will set them up for wider name recongition so they can run again in 4 years. They will never get name recongition if those who like them write them off.
Not sure about the Govenor slot ... CA has big liberal cities
Same problem we have in PA
Please educate me on Ron Paul. Isn't he sort of a Bob Dornan, tell it like he sees it whether anyone likes it or not, kind of guy? If you don't remember Bob Dornan, then just think of John Wayne with an attitude. BTW, I like both Bob Dornan and John Wayne.
Certainly not when you're planning to enter a protracted ground engagement.
Immediacy is the mother of big profits.
You mentioned "9 month long". How about this: democracy's are born, but may take a little more than nine months. What's the gestation rate here, boys? Two years, ten years?
What we're looking at is likely a still-birth. And who were we to think we could 'deliver' it in the first place? Shouldn't we have at least had a certification? A plaque on the wall, reserved only to those who've successfully delivered 'democracies' in the past?
If nothing else, we're guilty of practicing without a license. And, I don't care if we made a few bucks in the process, as it is work. Nobody else was willing to try (perhaps that should have been our first clue).
I don't pretend to know anything about war strategy, (after all, I am a girl) but I can observe. IMO, we're fighting in too much of a PC fashion to please the rest of the world. We're fighting civilians, yet we must take extreme caution to not kill civilians. How does that work?
I support President Bush, our military and the mission. Having an Iraq much along the lines of Muslim Turkey, would (and will) help to serve peace interests in the ME.
Absolutely agree with you.
Oh good grief.
Do we really need more self-aggrandizing candidates who can't win?
Ron Paul is an important voice in Congress, but he's a non-starter in the Presidential race and everybody who knows anything knows it. He should be focused on winning re-election to the House.
Did you know that Ronald Reagan considered libertarianism to be the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
bigtom, *you* made the statement and *you* should be able to back it up with solid links. I am simply challenging your so far unfounded accusation against "the president and his buddies".
I admit, I don't have much to vote for yet, but I'll wait for Newt before deciding.
And when you look at troop morale and recruiting figures you'll see that a whole lot of our young people understand this.
The only way they won't succeed is if they are sold out here at home. The thing to remember is that they aren't the draftees of Vietnam and they don't have the same attitude towards this war as we had in Nam.
They would not take being sold out kindly.
Oh man are you unarmed for this fight. Battle of Saigon? The great 1975 battle?
That's true. After Tet 68, Cronkite pontificated that we had just lost the war in Vietnam and the politicians took him at his word. But I think what McNamara was talking about was that very thing... that the crop of politicians at the time, just as with the current ones, did not have the WILL to see it done... He obviously did not...
And Dubya does not have the will to do what should have been done from the beginning of Iraq: Go in full-bore and don't stop killing people and breaking things until there is ZERO opposition from either the Sunnis OR the Shiite-heads. He tried to fight a "compassionate" war instead of a war of national survival and then tried this "nation-building" thing, for which there is no Constitutional provision. Now I think it's too late in Iraq to go back to the "right" kind of war, so what do we do?
Exactly so.
Does he really? Weird, considering he was a flight surgeon in the USAF from 1963 to 1968. Maybe he had a bad experience. I'll see if I can find a link where he states his anti-USAF views.
Snap!
*** crickets ***
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.