Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Lose a War (A MUST-READ! Really! An article to disseminate as widly as possible!)
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ^ | January 28, 2007 | Bradley R. Gitz

Posted on 01/28/2007 10:59:35 AM PST by quidnunc

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: DMZFrank

Well said.


41 posted on 01/28/2007 5:04:17 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Thank you for your service to our country and a great post.


42 posted on 01/28/2007 6:48:28 PM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

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


43 posted on 01/28/2007 9:36:29 PM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard
"more South Vietnamese (SVN) died fighting for their country than French died defending France from the Germans"

Excellent point! Thanks! I feel that the VN war was primarily lost due to the USA's effort to reach a negotiated solution (remember the year arguing over the shape of the table?) Secondarily, it was lost due to South Viet Nam looking at the USA's presence as an economic stimulus rather than an opportunity for them to stand up and develop their country's own strength. I recall that WWII had its share of anti-war types too.
44 posted on 01/28/2007 9:48:42 PM PST by raftguide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

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.


45 posted on 01/28/2007 10:12:18 PM PST by CyberAnt (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Swede Girl

Carter wasn't their golden boy. He was their Anyone-but-a-Republican. They turned on him when the country ran into economic problems.


46 posted on 01/28/2007 10:21:50 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard
"Bottom line - the failures of U.S. policy can be laid at the feet of the Democrat party. "

Perhaps the real "bottom line" is a question:

After watching the Democrats undermine two major war efforts in the past forty years, obviously trying to ensure defeat for US forces in order to ensure political victory for themselves, how does a father advise a son who is thinking about joining the US military? How, after watching Democrats work to frustrate and invalidate the sacrifices of American heroes, how do you tell a young man that this country is worth the risk of his own life?

So, the real question is this: When we know that the Democrats will undermine any war fought by a Republican president, how do we honestly tell a young man that this nation is still worth fighting for?
47 posted on 01/28/2007 10:24:06 PM PST by RavenATB (Patton was right...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Felis_irritable
I am reading the Moyar book; it is historically correct. I had a newspaper editor last summer, gleefully tell me how we lost the Tet - the dumb smuck still doesn't see the horrible damage he and his 'colleagues' did to not only our country but those brave souls left still fighting with no hope of more ammo or U.S. help because of the media and a cowardly congress.

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.

48 posted on 01/29/2007 7:25:57 AM PST by yoe (Hell is coming now for sure...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"The reason South Vietnam was unable to resist that offensive was because our Congress had weakened its military capabilities, left it politically isolated and refused to allow us to help when help was most needed. It is with this horrible lesson of pusillanimity and dishonor that one must view current Democratic Party proposals to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. Remarkably, senators like Patrick Leahy are now actually advocating going further than Democrats did back then, proposing a cutoff of funds not just to an allied government following a peace settlement but to American troops still fighting the enemy in the field. Even more remarkable have been the comments from Leahy and some of his colleagues holding up the cutoff of funding to South Vietnam as a model for how the war in Iraq should be ended. One wonders if he and the others in the surrender-now clique have heard of the boat people, the killing fields of Cambodia or any of the other horrors that befell Southeast Asia after we left the region. "

Contact this murderous traitor -FREEP the heck out of him:

SENATOR PACTRICK LEAHY
(202) 224-4242
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

49 posted on 01/29/2007 7:37:53 AM PST by yoe (Hell is coming now for sure...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RavenATB

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!




That is what I would tell the youth considering serving. That is what I recognized, all the years that I served in the Navy and Navy Reserve. That is what I told my 3 children - and all have chosen to serve in the military.

Mike


50 posted on 01/29/2007 11:11:55 AM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

good post,not only we lost but millions lost their lives when the commies invaded SV. and 20 years of a crapy country.


51 posted on 01/29/2007 11:16:32 AM PST by PATRICK HENRY USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard
"...while there will be times when you are stuck with a Bill Clinton, or a J.F.Kerry..."

It's not serving under scum bags that I'm referring to...it's the fact that a large percentage of Americans are happy to see young US heroes die in vein in order to achieve political victory.

It was easy to make your argument when referring to weak and failed leadership. That was a discussion for a few years ago. Now, however, it's not just weak leadership, but weak citizenship. Now we have a large contingent of US citizens actually hoping and working for their defeat.
52 posted on 01/29/2007 4:12:58 PM PST by RavenATB (Patton was right...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RavenATB

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


53 posted on 01/29/2007 4:41:53 PM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CGVet58
Besides the manslaughterer from chappaquiddick, who else currently serves in the Senate who also was in the chamber back then (and voted for death like that slug did...)?

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.

54 posted on 01/29/2007 5:00:55 PM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
I VOW to the 58,000 + Brothers and Sisters on The Viet Nam Wall who never came home and to those who died at home from injuries and from broken hearts. I will do everything I LEGALLY can to expose Hanoi Kerry once and for all. I will not tire, I will not falter, and I will not fail. I solemnly vow to do all I can to restore your honor until I give my last breath on earth. 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub


55 posted on 01/29/2007 6:54:12 PM PST by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; Ajnin; ...
Sophie Stagg’s first trip back to Cambodia in 20 years was a mixture of sorrow and joy, a chance to purge bad memories and revisit the homeland that haunts her. She was taken from her family and put to work in the Khmer Rouge killing fields when she was 9.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/cambodia/
http://www.dccam.org/
http://www.cybercambodia.com/dachs/
http://www.dithpran.org/
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/

56 posted on 01/29/2007 6:55:45 PM PST by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: freema

Thank you for the reminder.

Some of the more horrific photos need a caption: "Brought to you by Ted Kennedy and the Democrats."

Mike


57 posted on 01/30/2007 7:01:38 AM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Coachm
So Vietnam might have had a different ending if we didn't have Watergate?

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.

58 posted on 01/30/2007 7:05:58 AM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

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.


59 posted on 01/30/2007 7:35:52 AM PST by Coachm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; Lando Lincoln; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; dennisw; monkeyshine; ...

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

60 posted on 01/30/2007 12:06:55 PM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson