Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Remember the vote in Nam?

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 03:46 PM
    [b] you are comparing apples and oranges- unlike Iraq the whole of Vietnam did not vote in '67. [/b][/quote]
    i disagree - from several accounts the Sunnis heeded the call to boycott - in one polling place in Mosul the only voters in the first 3 hours were the 15 security guards assigned to the location.

    [url=http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050131/topstories/78930.shtml]http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050...ies/78930.shtml[/url]

    if it comes out (from reputable sources) that the Sunnis did not vote then will the comparison be more accurate?

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    deleted

  3. #23
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,014
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 03:04 PM
    [b] those that do not heed the failures of history are doomed to repeat them [/b][/quote]
    Perfect summation of the hopeless 2008 Democratic Presidential campaign.


    "EEEEEYYEEEEAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" said the new DNC Chairman.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    deleted

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Feb 1 2005, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Feb 1 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by bitonti@Feb 1 2005, 03:50 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 03:46 PM
    [b] you are comparing apples and oranges- unlike Iraq the whole of Vietnam did not vote in &#39;67. [/b][/quote]
    i disagree - from several accounts the Sunnis heeded the call to boycott - in one polling place in Mosul the only voters in the first 3 hours were the 15 security guards assigned to the location.

    [url=http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050131/topstories/78930.shtml]http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050...ies/78930.shtml[/url]

    if it comes out (from reputable sources) that the Sunnis did not vote then will the comparison be more accurate? [/b][/quote]
    Sunnis are less than 20% of Iraqis, and were the oppressive minority prior to the war...i.e. had the most to lose.

    They were also eligible to vote.

    Your initial posts had a line about "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." To me, that seems that you have drawn conclusions from this election already, which is simply absurd. Wait a while...not a few days, not a month...but a while, Matt. You are impatient and seem to draw premature conclusions. But yes, the other side has been prematurely calling this a success when that is not even conclusive yet either. But, politival forces are at work here that are undeniable. Both sides have vested interests in painting the events in a light favorable to their positions of record on Iraq.

    Patience, that is all I ask. [/b][/quote]
    calling for a boycott of an election and not being allowed to participate are too totally different things.....

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bitonti -

    I apologize for attacking you. It was bush-league. I&#39;ve deleted my posts.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 03:54 PM
    [b] However, I have yet to see you admit that Bush was doing a good job in ANY apsect of the Iraq War or the broader war on terror. Or, if not Bush, I have never seen you admit that ANY aspect of the Iraq War was going well, or at least appears to be going well. [/b][/quote]
    you want me to make stuff up? I don&#39;t believe the war is going well - how can it go well when there is no clear goal? no exit strategy?

    also I don&#39;t believe using our troops as a human shield is anything but a short-term fix.

    why should i get in line to pat Bush on the back, he&#39;s got enough people blowing sunshine up his ass for no real reason as it is.

    as for the differences between iraq and nam obviously they are not 100% analgous situations but there are some similarities - the saddest of which is that by design we were BOUND to lose both wars before we even started fighting.

    That&#39;s an unfortunate side effect of a war with an unrealistic or unachievable final objective.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 04:01 PM
    [b] Bitonti -

    I apologize for attacking you. It was bush-league. I&#39;ve deleted my posts. [/b][/quote]
    was not necessary to apologize or delete - you had some good points in there, especially the last post about both sides declaring an outcome when there is none yet -

    i just wanted to draw attention to a situation that i thought was REMARKABLY similar to the election of this weekend.

    Apparently i was wrong since the details don&#39;t match up 100% it is a worthless comparison. I know that&#39;s how i go through life... never comparing anything to any other thing because they are not 100% matched up in every explicit detail.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 04:12 PM
    [b]

    as for the differences between iraq and nam obviously they are not 100% analgous situations but there are some similarities - the saddest of which is that by design we were BOUND to lose both wars before we even started fighting.

    That&#39;s an unfortunate side effect of a war with an unrealistic or unachievable final objective. [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti,

    You have said recently, regarding Iraq, that:

    1) we don&#39;t have an objective
    2) that our objective exists, but it unrealistic (democracy, etc)
    3) that our objective is oil profiteering

    I am sincerely confused as to which one you really mean.

    BTW - I obviously disagree about being bound to lose both wars before the fighting started.

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 04:19 PM
    [b] You have said recently, regarding Iraq, that:

    1) we don&#39;t have an objective
    2) that our objective exists, but it unrealistic (democracy, etc)
    3) that our objective is oil profiteering

    I am sincerely confused as to which one you really mean.
    [/b][/quote]
    consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. if you want me to be consistent you are going to be dissapointed. I say different things depending on the context of the conversation and who is going to be involved in it -

    for example i am willing to grant certain things for the sake of the argument - so that i can better argue in the framework of the current mindset (whosever that may be) - the truth is if i stuck by all of my beliefs 100% all the time then alot of people would turn off before they got through the first line.

    if i am forced to pick one objective for the sake of this thread i would say the objective is the PNAC belief that a democratic Iraq would be a beacon for the other ME countries and hence stop terrorism. It is an unrealistic objective.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, that&#39;s a thoughtful response. Yes, everyone needs to be pragmatic.

    But being contradictory is another thing entirely. Don&#39;t you think it&#39;s impossible to think that the war is simultaneously about "oil" and also about the PNAC democracy domino affect? It&#39;s one thing to think Bush is trying to stop terrorism and make us safer, but is just wrong (and perhaos counter-productive). It is quite another thing entirely to say it&#39;s all b-s and is all about oil. Both can&#39;t be true, it seems.

    Or, can&#39;t you at least appreciate that readers of your posts could possibly start to pay less attention to them or take them less seriously when you post such seemingly contradictory things?

    BTW - You are consistently anti-Bush, in every possibly way imagineable.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 1 2005, 03:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 1 2005, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 03:22 PM
    [b] If you want to make a good comparision why don&#39;t you talk about the liberal demonstrators from &#39;68-&#39;72 and how the dirtbags on the left, many who hold office today as democratic politicians, helped the enemy with their anti-American actions-something the NVA has come out and said was a huge benefit to them???? [/b][/quote]
    what are you even talking about? we lost VIETNAM not because of protestors but because it didn&#39;t have a realistic goal. let me guess you believe that if there were no protests South Vietnam would be a democracy RIGHT NOW?

    we lost because we had no reason to be there in the first place... sound familiar? [/b][/quote]
    Bit, I think you are right to an extent that in Vietnam we did not have a clear and precise goal, and we can thank LBJ and McNamara for as CBNY said "Hog tying the war effort". However, the turning point for the war, the Tet Offensive, was strategically a failure. Most North Vietnamese including prominent NV Generals thought the war would be lost soon after. But because the media and the proportion of people already protesting the war made it out to be this huge loss for the Americans, the north got the psychological victory. Protesting wasn&#39;t [i]THE[/i] sole reason the Americans lost a war but it played a big part of it. How could you possibly build the morale of thousands of U.S. troops in Vietnam when people back home were calling them "baby-killers" Instead of having the support of their own people, they got s*** on during the war and long after.

    It would have been interesting to see what the result would have been if U.S. support of its troops had been positively unwavering throughout the entire war.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    mavrik that&#39;s a fair and balanced response - morale probably wasn&#39;t great but again it&#39;s a chicken-and-egg question - you and Come Back admit freely that the administration&#39;s strategy was poor - if that wasn&#39;t the case there wouldn&#39;t be protests right?

    you all label me a liberal but i consider myself to be conservative ... in the consitutional sense - i feel we should only go to war when DECLARED by an act of congress. Administrative police action is a constitutional loophole that has been exploited since the 50&#39;s. the last real war we as a nation have fought was WWII - the rest of these actions have been half-baked affairs at best.

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 08:21 PM
    [b] mavrik that&#39;s a fair and balanced response - morale probably wasn&#39;t great but again it&#39;s a chicken-and-egg question - you and Come Back admit freely that the administration&#39;s strategy was poor - if that wasn&#39;t the case there wouldn&#39;t be protests right?

    [/b][/quote]
    Theres a difference between protesting a war and attacking our soldiers. People right now are protesting the war, but arent neccesarily personally attacking our soliders, or mistreating them when they come home. Some do, but not to the extent it was done during Vietnam.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by TheBrodyMan+Feb 1 2005, 09:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (TheBrodyMan @ Feb 1 2005, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bitonti[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 08:21 PM
    [b] mavrik that&#39;s a fair and balanced response - morale probably wasn&#39;t great but again it&#39;s a chicken-and-egg question - you and Come Back admit freely that the administration&#39;s strategy was poor - if that wasn&#39;t the case there wouldn&#39;t be protests right?

    [/b][/quote]
    Theres a difference between protesting a war and attacking our soldiers. People right now are protesting the war, but arent neccesarily personally attacking our soliders, or mistreating them when they come home. Some do, but not to the extent it was done during Vietnam. [/b][/quote]
    But when politicians denigrate our troops or the mission like kennedy, boxer, kerri have done it aids the enemy.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us