so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-29-2003, 09:57 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
i know the 12 years argument, but in those 12 years, how many peace talks (not threats) did we stage directly with saddam?
I do not know, considering Bill Clinton was Preasident for 8 of those years, how many peace talks did he have with Saddam before the military actions he launched against Iraq?

Or better yet, how about the bill he signed into law saying that the US would work to overthrow his regime?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 10:17 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

I read the the article and everything that has been posted by other people in the thread. Why you feel the need to tell me that you did not read what I had to say is a bit puzzling in addition to making comments about how many times I may have made this or that comment. If your not going to respond to anything I had to say, why bring this up since it has nothing to do with anything I said or the article.

If you and Sula want to make personal remarks about me or what I have read or not read, start another thread. You could call it: STING2
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 10:55 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:54 PM
kids, let's try and be nice, thanks.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Lilly,

Westmoreland's hands were tied by the administration he was serving. Under the large number constraints he was put under he did the best he could. US forces were never given the option in Vietnam to invade the North. The troop levels were also determined by the Administration, not Westmoreland. Airstrikes against the North were severely restricted and there for often ineffective.

In any event, there were plenty of talks with North Vietnam after 1968 as there have been through the UN with Saddam's regime. With Saddam's regime though, there was nothing to talk about. Saddam signed and agreed to the obligations and conditions that he failed to meet after 12 years. In signing the 1991 ceacefire agreement for the first gulf war, Saddam agreed that he understood that failure to comply with the conditions and obligations could result in the resumption of offensive military action against Iraq to insure the resolutions were complied with.

There is really nothing to talk about in that regard. Just as the terms for the surrender of Germany and Japan at the end of World War II were unconditional, so were the obligations Saddam had to meet from the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire. The potential consequences of not cooperating were obvious.

Members of the Cabinet still have to be approved by Congress who of course are elected by the people. Look to see if your Senator or Congressman approved the Rumsfeld and based on that you can decide whether you want to vote for them in the next election.


i think i cried at your first line...his hands were tied? he continually misrepresented numbers to the president(s) he served to make it seem like his war of attrition was doing something. but in actuality, most of the numbers he presented were that of civilians and non-combatants who were killed by things like....agent orange, or the vietcong attacking villages. i don't know how you or anyone could ever defend a war of attrition, it's inhumane and completely worthless.

furthermore, the geneva accords in the late 1950s could have gotten france and vietnam the exact same thing that we fought for: a division at the 38th parallel. we fought a pointless war for close to 20 years for nothing...we weren't interested in it, and we knew by 1964 that it wasn't going to be as easy as was previously projected. but america doesn't lose wars, right? well, maybe we didn't "lose" it, but we sure as hell lost a lot as a result from it. why can't we learn from the assenine mistakes we took then? maybe we can consult kissinger or rumsfeld on that.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 04:17 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Lilly,

"i think i cried at your first line...his hands were tied? he continually misrepresented numbers to the president(s) he served to make it seem like his war of attrition was doing something. but in actuality, most of the numbers he presented were that of civilians and non-combatants who were killed by things like....agent orange, or the vietcong attacking villages. i don't know how you or anyone could ever defend a war of attrition, it's inhumane and completely worthless."

As I said before, Westmoreland was not allowed to engage in several strategies that could have brought the war to a close sooner. He was not allowed to send large scale ground forces into North Vietnam to take over and wipe out bases where the North Vietnames military would recruit arm and send its forces into battle. Westmoreland had to take the limited number of soldiers he had and defend South Vietnam from being attacked. He was never allowed to invade North Vietnam and neutralize the problem.

This meant that the US military could fight off the North Vietnamese in multiple battles every year, only to face a reinforced North Vietnamese military the following year. The only option available to any military commander that has been refused the option of a ground offensive to sieze and hold enemy territory is simply to destroy as much of the enemy when they came South to attack. It would not make any sense to do anything less considering the constraints on military options and strategy. It was hoped that they could inflict losses on the North Vietnamese military fast enough that they would decide to give up the fight. But while the North Vietnamese lost a heavy number of soldiers, they were always able to replace the forces they lost from their base in the North which Westmoreland was never allowed to invade and neutralize.

Ho Chi Minh had no desire for a division at the 38th parallel. He wanted control of all of Vietnam. Certainly he might of been willing to sign a temporary agreement in order to fool others. But longterm, his goal was to reunite Vietnam under Communist dictatorship.

US policy makers were unwilling to commit the resources in South East Asia in order to decisively win the war. There were several reason for this. #1 there was the concerned that such a massive effort would pull resources away from the defense of Western Europe from the Warsaw Pact. The USA and its allies could become vulnerable if to many resources were committed to South East Asia. #2 there was a concern about the repeat of the Korea situation in which as victory become close in an invasion of North Vietnam, the Chinese would enter into the war vastly complicating the situation. #3 it was hoped that a limited military strategy could accomplish the same results of the Korean War without the entry of China into the war.

One possible strategy that was abandon in the middle of the war and then restarted was building the South Vietnamese Military strong enough so they could defend themselves from the North without any large US forces being stationed there. It was felt the situation was out of control in 1965 which is why the first combat troops were committed then. The US took over a lot of the fighting while more an more South Vietnames forces sat on the sidelines. As the US drawdown starting in 1969 increased, this entire situation reversed itself. By 1972, the South Vietnames were doing nearly all the fighting with the aid of US advisors and a small number of US troops. This was enough to repell the 1972 Easter offensive by the North Vietnames which was as large as the TET offensive of 1968.

A year later a peace deal was signed and all US troops left South Vietnam. Congress then passed a resolution preventing the US from becoming involved in the conflict again if it started up. The conflict obvious started up again once the North Vietnames new it was unlikely for the USA to become involved again. South Vietnam held on for two more years without US involvement, but in 1975, a string of military failures led to the collapse of the military and the fall of Saigon in April 1975.

The North Vietnamese final attack on the South in 1975 was similar to the Easter Offensive of 1972 that was repelled by the South Vietnames with the help of US Advisors and US airpower. It strongly believed that if the USA had maintained a limited number of advisors and a large number of aircraft offshore or in neighboring countries that these forces combined with the the South Vietnamese military could of repelled the 1975 offensive by the North, or any future offensive, just as they had repelled the 1972 one.

Of course, this strategy would not lead to an immediate victory, but it was a way of defending the South for the long term without large numbers of US ground troops. The war could potentially of continued for another 10 years with the North finally giving up as the Soviet Union started to distingrate and its problems with China increased. Of course no one can really say for sure if this would have worked but it was indeed a possibility. It would have been more likely if the war had not been so costly for the USA and the backlash to it at home not so large. By 1973, the USA was worn out and there was no political support for any more involvement of any kind.

To sum up, absent being able to put resources in to win an immediate decisive victory over the North, a strategy involving a much more limited military presense that would be easier to maintain over the longterm and not involve nearly as many losses for the USA should of been pursued. This was in fact the original strategy in the early 1960s. It was abandon though because it was felt the South was about to fall apart and North Vietnamese victory was near in 1965. If that was indeed the case then the USA probably had no choice but to commit large numbers of ground troops in 1965, or simply declare South Vietnam a lost cause and use the resources to strengthen other countries in the region to prevent Communist efforts to take them over.

Its unfortunate that the USA and its allies were not able to prevent the Communist take over of South Vietnam. When one looks at South Korea, one of the top 30 wealthiest countries in the world today, one has to wonder where South Vietnam would rank if the Communist had failed to take it over.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 11:05 AM   #20
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 11:54 PM
We did care, we do care but...as of today we are unable to prevent more lies, more wars, more brainwashing...
We are unable to hold them accountable and they just get away with it. Because they are POWERS THAT BE...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 03:59 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:54 PM
I do care that they might not have been straight with us about the WMD's and other such stuff. I know some of you disagree with this but I don't care for Donald Rumsfeld, either. He has too much of an old-school cold warrior mentality for my comfort. I'm not voting for him in a popularity contest if he's in one.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-31-2003, 12:35 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:54 PM
One of the problems, verte 76, of our democratic system (that apparently is the worlds best which is why it has to be pushed through everywhere), is that politicians like Donald Rumsfeld do not need regular popularity contests to stay in power. They just stay in power, even if a majority of citizens despises them.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-31-2003, 03:33 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Donald Rumsfeld is not a politician, he is an appointed official. In any event, he has the support of the majority of the American People.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2003, 06:40 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Donald Rumsfeld is not a politician, he is an appointed official. In any event, he has the support of the majority of the American People.
He is a politician too, isnīt he?

And as far as I can remember, he wasnīt directly elected, but put into his position by President Bush.

Also, percentages of support figures may be subject to quick change. I doubt the majority of the American people would directly elect Donald Rumsfeld, if the position of Sec. of Defense was directly elected.

Anyway, I may be wrong. Maybe I underestimate the power of American media manipulation.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-31-2003, 07:24 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Since we do not elect Secretaries of Defense or other Cabinet officials, it's impossible to tell if the majority of the people do indeed support Rumsfeld. They do all the polls on the president, and he does have a healthy job approval rating now. The war has a healthy approval rating as well. I might be in the minority as per my opinion of Rumsfeld, but hey, it's an opinion and this is a democracy. I don't give a damn if I'm in a minority.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-01-2003, 12:50 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


He is a politician too, isnīt he?

And as far as I can remember, he wasnīt directly elected, but put into his position by President Bush.
The presidents appointees have to be confirmed by the Senate however. Technically the Senators, in a Democratic republic, are voting on behalf of their constituents.

Also, one other note, is that Rumsfeld is a politician, and he 3o or so years ago was one of the Senior Bushes chief rivals. They both wanted to be President. The George HW Bush thought Rumsfeld was trying to sabotage his chances by pushing to make him director of the CIA. This was in BUSH AT WAR by Woodward.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-01-2003, 05:03 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:54 PM
HIPHOP,

I did not consider Rumsfeld a politician because he is serving in an appointed position. I only consider those currently in elected office or running for elected office to be politicians.

"Also, percentages of support figures may be subject to quick change. I doubt the majority of the American people would directly elect Donald Rumsfeld, if the position of Sec. of Defense was directly elected."

"Anyway, I may be wrong. Maybe I underestimate the power of American media manipulation."

Can you name one person that the American people would rather have as Secretary of Defense than Donald Rumsfeld? Who do you think the majority of Americans would prefer to have as Secretary of Defense?

Are you suggesting by that last sentence that Americans including myself who support Donald Rumsfeld do so because we have been manipulated? It couldn't be that myself and others have come to our conclusions based on intelligent research and observation? Would it be fair to conclude that your opposition to Rumsfeld is simply the result of European Media Manipulation?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-01-2003, 03:02 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Rumsfeld has critics, and I'm not talking about anti-war demonstrators or other liberals. One big one is Norman Schwarzkopf. Before the war he was quoted as saying "don't get me started on Don Rumsfeld" and compared him unfavorably to Dick Cheney as a Secretary of Defense. Others are Brent Scowcroft and other members of Bush Sr.'s administration.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-01-2003, 04:28 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Can you name one person that the American people would rather have as Secretary of Defense than Donald Rumsfeld? Who do you think the majority of Americans would prefer to have as Secretary of Defense?

Are you suggesting by that last sentence that Americans including myself who support Donald Rumsfeld do so because we have been manipulated?
I canīt speak for the American people, but I would prefer Ralph Nader as Secretary of Defense. In my opinion, he has a better plan on foreign policy than Rumsfeld.

No, I am not suggesting that Americans including you have been manipulated. I said, if the Sec. of Defense was directly elected, I doubt it would be Rumsfeld; but I donīt know, because media manipulation (in that case American, because Rumsfeld is American) usually paints candidates (not necessarily Rumsfeld) in the brightest colors, when in reality their past is marked by cruel (f.e. foreign policy) decisions.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 06-01-2003, 04:29 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Verte76,

"Rumsfeld has critics, and I'm not talking about anti-war demonstrators or other liberals. One big one is Norman Schwarzkopf. Before the war he was quoted as saying "don't get me started on Don Rumsfeld" and compared him unfavorably to Dick Cheney as a Secretary of Defense. Others are Brent Scowcroft and other members of Bush Sr.'s administration."

Thats true, but the reasons for the criticism are very different from the criticisms listed here or from liberals.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com