Posted on 01/28/2007 10:59:35 AM PST by quidnunc
Well said.
Thank you for your service to our country and a great post.
DMZFrank
Thank you for your service! I was in high school and college during the Viet Nam war, and joined the Navy in Dec. 1974. I was in OCS with a number of people who had, as enlisted in the Navy, served in Viet Nam. I got lots of information from them that was never discussed by the MSM. In April 1975, with the fall of South Viet Nam, some of these Officer Candidates were so disgusted with the betrayal of the South Vietnamese allies by the U.S., because of Congress's actions, that they stated that they felt their sacrifices (and those of many who paid the ultimate price) had been devalued and discarded. Many of them removed the ribbons and medals that had been earned in Viet Nam.
There is lots of information available about how all the battles and war were won in the field, but the "5th column" back home was ready to rip defeat from the jaws of victory. People like Jane Fonda, who stated that if we knew what communism was, we would be on our knees praying for communism to come to the U.S., were doing everything possible to prevent the communists from loosing.
J.F.Kerry went out of his way to lie, and smear the veterans. There is adequate information available to refute the many lies that are still perpetrated by the Main (Lame) Stream Media. The Viet Nam vets are claimed to be suffering from PTSD, were uneducatd, have high rates of suicide, drug use, etc. Bill Burkett wrote a book (Stolen Valor) to clearly prove that those MSM "facts" are lies ... yet the MSM continues to follow liberal lies - becuase to do otherwise, would undercut their messages.
The failure of the U.S. to support South Viet Nam in 1974 was costly - it cost the people of South East Asia big time. Hundreds of thousands died, millions put in "re-education camps" (variations of the Soviet Gulag). Cambodia didn't fear the U.S., and Pol Pot's regime proceeded with "cleansing" (a polite name for mass murder that killed almost 2 million people.) Those deaths are on the Democrat party - because that is the result that they were willing to accept. The Democrats don't want the U.S. to be a world power, and don't want impediments to a "global world community" that embraces the U.N. and all things socialist.
Now - the Democrats are more willing to accept the risk of turmoil in the Middle East when they might be able to defeat the Republican Party, using the same tactics they used 30+ years ago. The Democrat party is the same party that used tactics that led this country to Civil War in 1861 - they didn't mind slavery and separation into the C.S.A. and U.S.A. was okay by them. After the Civil War, the Democrat party was the "insurgency" - as they worked above board to repeal Republican-passed Civil Rights legislation and to pass onerous laws that targeted the African-Americans, and below-board - as the K.K.K. As the Democrats didn't care about the oppression of the black man, the Democrats today don't care about the oppression of the Arab. Iraq has an insurgency that is a very active minority (similar to the KKK of the 1870's and 1880's). But today, the Republicans must fight for the 90% of the Iraqi's that want us to succeed. In the U.S., the insurgency was actually very successful, and the Republicans were driven out of the South - and the blacks suffered for many more years - all due to the Democrats.
Bottom line - the failures of U.S. policy can be laid at the feet of the Democrat party.
Mike
The goal is to embarass the president .. pure and simple.
They hate him for "stealing" their elections and they hate him because he won't listen to them. They're even whining about it on the senate floor, "it's obvious he won't listen to us". When is somebody going to tell these arrogant SOB's .. the President NEVER HAS TO LISTEN TO THEM in matters of national security.
Carter wasn't their golden boy. He was their Anyone-but-a-Republican. They turned on him when the country ran into economic problems.
I am hopeful the media smells their defeat in this WOT and Iraq - ALL, keep up the letter writing etc. to get the truth of success in Iraq out - don't let the Media claim another defeat for the U.S.for the United States.
Contact this murderous traitor -FREEP the heck out of him:
Raven
If you have a son or a young friend considering serving in the military - you might tell them the following:
The military of the U.S. represents the most powerful force on this earth that has ever existed, and unlike other military forces, it does not seek to support an empire, it does not seek land or plunder. Unlike military of old, it seeks to serve by liberating people. We have liberated countries and set them on paths to freedom, and we didn't exact reparations for our efforts. As Sec. of State Colin Powell commented - we have asked for little more than plots of land to bury our dead.
But some of our "enemies" include "globalists" or one-worlders who decry the power that the U.S. has used so effectively, and would prefer a toothless U.N. that permits genocide to go unchallenged (see Sudan, Darfur, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.) rather than to support an international effort that would support the spread of freedom to oppressed people.
Unfortunately, some politicians will either deliberately or inadvertantly support the efforts of the globalists, and they will hinder the statesmen who would make our country safer and the world better. Democrats who decried the politicians of old who sought stability over freedom now critize George Bush, who recognized that the cost of "stability" was too high (in addition to being morally wrong.)
As a member of the military, you MUST accept that, as a part of the oath to support and the defend the Constitution, from time to time you might be blessed with leaders (Commanders in Chief) such as Ronald Reagan or G.W.Bush, while there will be times when you are stuck with a Bill Clinton, or a J.F.Kerry (or a Hillary Clinton.) As such - you must suck up and "soldier on". But long term, the military is a force for good - and during the 90's, under Clinton, the military was still highly rated by the public. In serving, you might have the opportunity to liberate oppressed people - but you will always be able to regard your time in the service as being ready to protect and defend this country!
good post,not only we lost but millions lost their lives when the commies invaded SV. and 20 years of a crapy country.
Raven
I understand your concern - but I don't think that the number of "anti-American" Americans is very large.
Our problem is we have a traitorous Main Stream Media that "informs" the bulk of Americans. Joe Six-Pack is lazy, ignorant and mis-informed. But when Joe Six-Pack gets the correct information, the bulk of Americans will support the troops, support what we are doing, and do the patriotic thing!
During the Viet Nam war - the bulk of the Americans supported the troops, and the DemonCrat party was hurt by their close alignment with the anti-war movement. Nixon wasn't that likeable of a guy - and he garnered much higher support because the public wouldn't vote for a cut and run Democrat - in 1968 or in 1972 - especially as it looked like we were bringing the war to a successful conclusion (which was then undermined by the Defeatocrats in 1974, after Watergate torpedoed Nixon.)
I would suggest that we be positive on the general direction of Americans!
Mike
Senators:
Byrd (D) 1959
Kennedy (D) 1962
Inouye (D) 1963
Stevens (R) 1968
Domenici (R) 1973
Biden (D) 1973
Leahy (D) 1975
Reps:
Dingell (D) 1955
Conyers (D) 1965
Obey (D) 1969
Rangel (D) 1971
Young FL(R) 1971
Regula (R) 1973
Stark (D) 1973
Young AK(R) 1973
Murtha (D) 1974
Waxman (D) 1975
I don't know what their votes were, but this is who was around.
Thank you for the reminder.
Some of the more horrific photos need a caption: "Brought to you by Ted Kennedy and the Democrats."
Mike
Yes! The peaceniks and appeasers first led the Nixon Administration to prepare the South Vietnamese to defend themselves without us. Then, the leftists in Congress moved to make that very difficult. Finally, Watergate, a media-inspired "scandal" that was nothing compared to what teh Clintons have done, led to Nixon's resignation and a massive shift leftward in the elections of 1974. Then, the Watergate-induced, media-driven shift led to a cut-off of aid to Vietnam and victory for the Commmunists.
Watergate was pretty much a "shoot myself in the foot" episode for Nixon and the Republican party. I mean, was it worht it? Not in my eyes. Non liberals have zero room for forgiveness/tolerance in the eyes of the media.
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.