Posted on 03/05/2002 1:30:33 PM PST by Capitalist Eric
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Might see more casualties right here! ;-)
Regards...EV (another redhead)
Stuff happens.
Don't you think concealment and surprise would have to be major goals in an ambush?
'Stuff happens' What are you trying to say?
There is going to be adaptation of some kind because of this incident – it didn’t ‘just happen’, it was planned, even if it was at only a moments notice, and in turn, the enemy fire was reacted to, to whatever possible ability, as per a plan. There will be a lot of people thinking about what happened, trying to make sure it doesn’t ‘just happen’ again.
Too bad most of the others didn't. I'm tired of trying to get x, smart blonde, illbay and the rest of the ignorant (permanent civilian talking heads) up to speed. So it's time to move on from this thread, ignore the rest of the peanut gallery.
Again, thanks.
Be well...
When self-evident facts can't convince you, than nothing can.
Bye.
FReegards to you, sir.
War is never a safe occupation.
My opinion is otherwise.
By caving in to the Left on the Vietnam Conflict, we set the stage for (1) two decades of military decline (despite the one bright spot during the Reagan administration--almost totally wiped out by the administration of the draft-dodging, military-loathing Bill Clinton); (2) the ascendancy of the Left in Democrat Party politics; (3) a subsequent loss of national "self-esteem" that I beieve culminated in Jimmy Carter's "national malaise."
I could go on.
In particular Clinton tried to "convert" the military to a "peaceful" service, providing "meals-on-wheels" or support for Left-leaning dictators like Aristide. Not to mention the military as an experimental laboratory for "diversity" and "inclusion"--even if that meant "affirmative action" for officer promotions and the introduction of women into some combat roles (one of the biggest travesties IMO).
This was ALL a direct result of the "military bad" attitude of the Democrats. While you can argue that the general public doesn't necessarily share that view, it is the voting public that allowed such people a free hand, and continues to vote for people like Algore and "Puff" Daschle.
No, with the horrible calamity of the Vietnam era, we said goodbye to Democrats like "Scoop" Jackson and hello to George McGovern. So yes, I DO believe those men died in vain, if only for this one thing: They sacrificed their lives to make the country LESS free and LESS well off. That's the first time this nation has EVER experienced that.
It was not at all clear at that time, as I vividly recall, as to whether our cause was just or in vain, so these Americans, volunteers or draftee alike, acted from the perspective of loyalty to our country, its laws, and its leaders. It is the socialist bastards to whom you so rightly refer who brought dishonor to that bloody table.
Given the eternal perspective that you and I are so very much blessed to share, I am confident that their place of honor in the arms of a loving Father in Heaven is all the more assured by the way that they lived their lives on this earth. It is for that reason that they did not die in vain, as so many lived and now live their lives.......
Perhaps the 350,000 American dead of WW II escape your characterization as having died in vain because they won their war? That is strategic thinking of the silliest order. We may have lost Indo-China, but the subsequent prosperity and relative freedom enjoyed by the rest of SE Asia is testament to our long-term strategic victory. Moreover, the prolonged war in SE Asia helped exacerbate tensions among the Communist world. It was no accident that there was a Sino-Soviet war in 1969, and a Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979.
Frankly, to label the deaths of combat soldiers as being in vain because of subsequent domestic political developments is pretty low.
And yes, American casualties, as tragic as each one always is, are a good thing. They send a powerful message, opposite of that sent by Bubba after Mogadishu, that we are willing to make the sacrifices necssary to destroy our enemies. Ergo, to become our enemy is an act of self-destruction.
Ever wonder why battles like the Alamo and Bunker Hill stand out in our national consciousness? Because of our willingness to stand and fight to the last (literally, in the case of the Alamo). It is a powerful statement of will. Similar examples include Mexico's Cinco de Mayo, or the French Foreign Legion's adulation of their defeat at Camerone.
Finally, on the simple elevl of military history, one measure of an elite force is its abilities to endure casaulties and continue to fight. Lesser soldiers run when the blood flows, but history's great units, like the magnificent US Marines, notorious Waffen-SS or Napoleon's Imperial Guard, take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.
Nor did I mean to slight them. I include them in my "rant" as it were.
And yes, it is true that the people who were serving did so with honor and out of a sense of loyalty to country.
But you'd NEVER know that given the continuing propaganda against the war from the Left, via Hollywood ("Coming Home," "Platoon," "Born on the Fourth of July," etc.) or from the vaunted NYT or WP, Dan, Peter and Tom, and the whole gang.
My point was that the failure of the American people to ignore all the rubbish being perpetrated by those who HATED this country and "loathed the military," couple with Watergate, ushered in the present era of ultra-left radicalism becoming the mainstream of one of the nation's major political parties.
Old line patriots in the Democrat Party were ushered out, and only those who at least paid lip-service to the cause of "Peace" were allowed to continue. Thus Jimmy Carter though in the past a staunch defender of the American way of life and a supporter of "Scoop" Jackson, had to 'moderate' his stance to where finally he extended a general amnesty to those who fled the country or went underground rather than serve.
This was ALL the result of We The People allowing ourselves to be manipulated by the very forces of Leftist hatred of this nation that we are battling today.
That beast should never have become so strong, WOULD never have become so powerful had the American people rallied behind the war effort.
And now I see the same thing starting to happen today with "Puff" Daschle and the Democrats who continue to define "loyalty to country" in terms of questioning everything about our war effort. They would NEVER have been so bold had We The People allowed them to "win" the debate over the Vietnam War.
So, I say again, those who sacrificed in that war did so, unwittingly or not, so that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and "Puff" Daschle and Barney Franks and Maxine Waters and their ilk could achieve power. That's just plain sad, and if We The People succumb to the Leftist propaganda that started up even while the ruins in New York and Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. were still smoking (if I heard "quagmire" once at the outset of the Afghan campaign I heard it a thousand times).
These people would NEVER have been so bold had they not tasted success in the Vietnam debates.
I don't see this connection at all. "The New Deal" began many years previous to the U.S. involvement in WWII. It was in response to the Depression and the people's cry for the government to "do something."
Much as we might despise the New Deal and see in it the seeds of the bitter harvest we are reaping today in terms of increasing socialism, it had nothing to do with our war effort (unless you agree with the cynical view that FDR had us enter the war to divert attention from the economy which despite years of New Deal policies was still in the doldrums).
The debate was never over the war effort. It was a time of great national unity.
Consider this: Even though our war effort today is the result of an attack that exceeeds that of Pearl Harbor in treachery, and even though most people should be able to plainly see why we are in this, two months hadn't gone by before you had the "nattering nabobs of negativity" yammering on about "mission drift" and "quagmire," even though the war was in its first WEEKS.
And now, barely six months later, and for purely partisan polical reasons, the Democrats are making the same kinds of noises now under guise of Savile Row suits that they did when they were attired in denim with red headband.
Again, I submit: They would NEVER be so bold had We The People not allowed them to "win" the Vietnam War debate and thus cast the United States as the Great Satan, even among those who are in elected office.
Consider the case of Rep. Barbara Lee of California who voted "no" on the resolution to authorize expenditures for the war on terrorism.
In justifying her dissenting vote Lee made it clear she was defending what she understood to be the national interest of capitalist America. She objected to the "open-ended" nature of the use of force resolution, because it “significantly reduces Congress’s authority,” and she worried that things could “spiral out of control.”
You would NEVER have had such rhetoric in World War II. In her vote against the declaration of war on Japan in December 1941, Rep. Jeannette Rankin declared, “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war. I vote no.” In other words, unlike Barbara Lee who thinks everything the United States ever does is in the name of "white privilege" and "subjugation of the poor and downtrodden," Rankin simply said "I don't believe in war and I can't vote for it."
As a result of her vote she was booted out of office in the 1942 elections.
Lee will probably be elected again and again as is the case with tenured Leftists in the Democrat party.
That's the difference between "now" and "then" that we need to understand.
BINGO!!!
Read what I ACTUALLY read.
And don't come telling me that "American casualties are a good sign." Sounds too much like "General Ripper" from Dr. Strangelove.
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.
