Dem's Want to Cut & Run Just Like They Did in Vietnam

[otohara]

how did the US leaving Vietnam work out for the Vietnamese?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. It worked out pretty well for our soldiers

They need to be our first priority.

[Rex]

2. Please tell me the GOPers are saying that.

Evidently they don't pay attention to recent history.

[otohara]

34. Just This AM - Ken Melhman on MTP

Said it a couple of times.

then there's this from Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606300010

Dobson parroted Republican "cut and run" talking point to attack Murtha, Democrats

Summary: Focus on the Family's James Dobson accused "prominent Democrats" such as Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) of "implying we ought to cut and run" from Iraq, then compared Democrats' strategy for Iraq to "the last helicopter," referring to the helicopter evacuation of U.S. embassy employees from South Vietnam in 1975.

We'll be hearing/reading this daily over the next coming months to election day.

[Warpy]

3. I think whoever is floating that meme had better be prepared

for a very quick sinking of it. Remember, it was REPIGS who started that war and REPIGS who cut and ran. (Eisenhower, Nixon)

Our soldiers fared well. They stoppped dying for greed and stupidity.

The Vietnamese had a rough few years, then moved to a mixed economy. They have done very well WITHOUT the support of the US, thank you very much, and are considered quite prosperous by regional standards.

[otohara]

23. You'd Think, But NO ONE in MSM Ever Says BOO

about Vietnam after we left. Vietnam is doing quite well and the killing stopped

[uppityperson]

4. Nixon was a Democrat?

[havocmom]

7. By today's standards

just maybe ;)

The GOP has moved to the right of Attila

[uppityperson]

8. Indeed.

[Rex]

15. I'd take ahem Dick over Bush any day.

I don't think Nixon was insane (paranoid yes) like GW.

[havocmom]

33. Nixon at least NOTICED there were laws that were supposed to be obeyed

He took the time/made the effort to try and conceal his crimes.

Problem now is too many old Nixon era crooks with tremendous sense of entitlement. Some how, they think the world owes them a living... an OBSCENE living.

[Protagoras]

5. Yes the Democratic President Nixon

:D

[bigtree]

6. heh

nixon

[gully]

9. "Cut and run" or "Lie and die"

eom

[bananarepublican]

38. Nixon called "cut and run" "peace with honor"! n/t

[elehhhhna]

10. Or Steal & peel

[raysr]

11. How many more years

would that war have gone if allowed? Until today. The US or any other Army of people with our mindset can never win against a guerilla force that has no fear of death. Remember "the horror" "the genius", it's true. The Isrealis found that out the past few weeks.

[boolean]

12. For Christ's sake...

They're a hell of a lot better off now that they're not getting drenched with Agent Orange.

Have a look

[Rex]

17. No, they found a new way to punish soldiers, DU shells.

I guess people like Rummy and Cheney weren't satisfied with how long it took to kill their own vets. With AO, it took time to soak into the DNA. With DU shells, the radiation build-up tears down cell walls and fucks up the DNA for all time or untold generations.

All thanks to the MIC and their wonderful 'toys'.

[otohara]

18. Horrifying

what we did to Vietnam is shameful as is Iraq.

I hope Iraq will bounce back like Vietnam did after a few rough years. Somehow I fear the worst for Iraq for a very long time.

[rasputin1952]

13. It was the conservatives that got us into 'Nam, and Nixon/Ford did

the "cut and run".

Another thing....Beruit under the Reagan administration......blow up the Marine barracks, run away posthaste...the neo-cons are full of crap, always were, always will be.


Damn chickenhawks piss me off...:grr:

[acmejack]

14. A lot better than it worked out for the two or three million of them

we killed before we left. What the fuck you think we doing while we were there?

[otohara]

20. Excuse Me?

Why are you attacking me in such a nasty ass manner?

This is a republican talking point, that I've heard over and over this week after Lamont's win. Wouldn't it just blow your mind if Tim Russert said "well Ken Melman, leaving Vietnam worked out just fine for the Vietnamese and the killing stopped after a few rough years, what do you say to that?"

You should apologize to me.

[Zhade]

24. You should make it clear this isn't your talking point.

The poster doesn't owe you an explanation; you owed him (and the rest of us) this clarification, because your post gave no sign it's not your question.

[otohara]

25. I Suppose

but "what the fuck are you thinking" is still a pretty nasty.

Stupid me, I thought the ever so informed members at DU knew that statement is a GOP talking point and has been for the past few years. I've heard/read it at least 1000+ times over the past couple of years.

[Zhade]

31. Considering the maddening flow of rightwing rhetoric we see here...

...sometimes (see "Israel defending herself", it's best to make it known up front.

I think you might agree that if the OP *was* your argument, comments like "what the fuck are you thinking" would be putting it kindly!

[acmejack]

35. So have I.

And for some us it is still a raw subject. and I shouldn't have touched it. When I use the term we, it is in a very personal sense.

If I overreact perhaps that is why. If you feel I owe you an apology one is hereby proffered. Sincerely.
a

[A-Schwarzenegger]

41. Correct.

We're supposed to know every piece of RWBS?

[otohara]

42. No

The first thing one must do on DU now, is attack the OP.

Much simpler than answering the question.

Grrrrrr....

[A-Schwarzenegger]

44. Take responsibility for your post. Prrrrrr....

[niyad]

16. and exactly how well did our being their work out for the vietnamese? do

you realize that children are STILL being born with defects DIRECTLY related to agent orange? not to mention all the people we killed, and all for more lies (gulf of tonkin ring a bell?) I would strongly suggest that you actually learn a little of the history of america's shameful involvement in vietnam, and also become VERY acquainted with the after-effects in this country--untold numbers of service members suffering from exposure to agent orange, and the effects of ptsd, and how the military tried, and continues to try, stonewalling them from getting the help they need.

is there some reason we are spewing reich wing talking points today?

[otohara]

21. This is A Republican Talking Point

heard Ken Melhman say it several times today, and of course none of the asshole media whores ever say, "cutting and running from Vietnam worked out rather well for the Vietnamese. The killing stopped eventually, and now it's a booming economy".

[niyad]

28. look, we all KNOW this is a typical reichwing talking point, because we

are, after all, intelligent people. the point being made here is that you didn't indicate that this wasn't YOUR opinion. so don't get mad when people are reacting as if this were, in fact, your ridiculous opinion.

[mnhtnbb]

19. Worked out well for the VietNamese who were able to emigrate

to the U.S. Not so hot for those who had to stay in their country destroyed
by war.

Iraq is VietNam all over again. Lies to get us in--quagmire--and how will it end?

[Zhade]

22. This is an idiotic argument from a rightwinger you want help defeating...

...right?

I mean, it's clearly not an argument a sane liberal would put forth.

[otohara]

26. Exactly

I have never heard one of the top notch pundits out there in MSM land ever follow up with a statement saying "Vietnam worked things out after a few rough years and they're fine, doing quite well, the killing stopped"

[Peace Patriot]

27. Sorry, it was Nixon who "cut and ran"--if you call getting BEATEN

"cutting and running"! Beaten by little brown people in sandals and straw hats, with inferior weapons and almost no air force.

Because they loved their country, had been fighting off invasions for 5,000 years, and had only desired SELF-DETERMINATION after they kicked the French colonialists out, at the end of WW II.

They could have been our allies in the Communist world. They LIKED us! They thought our fight for independence was wonderful! But, no... our MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEEDED another war. And some cabal within that M/I Complex are likely the ones who killed JFK (who had signed executive orders withdrawing US military "advisers" from So. Vietnam shortly before he died; rescinded by LBJ as soon as he was in office). Peace was not permitted as an option. The Beast had to be fed.

We ended up slaughtering some 2 million people--Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and our own--and I supposed Nixon could have nuked them out of existence. That would have been the only way to "win." Nothing else could have beaten them--not the entire humongous U.S. military machine, bolstered by a large Draft of civilian cannon fodder.

"Cut and run," my ass. The Democrats--OUR party--are the best killers in the world. They far outclass the Bush junta. And they never give up, no matter how wrong they are. If anybody might have nuked Vietnam, it would have been LBJ.

My first vote for president was for LBJ. He was advertised as "the peace candidate." Lesson learned. Beware of Democrats talking peace. Today, as then.

[Peace Patriot]

29. Addendum: I stick by what I said. Democrats are much better killers than

Republicans, if you're talking body count. HOWEVER, I will say this. The unjustified mass slaughter in Southeast Asia ripped the Democratic Party to shreds, and resulted in TEMPORARY political representation in Congress of the interests of the majority of Americans, that ended around the time of the Iran-Contra hearings, when Reagan had violated a specific Congressional law against violent interference in Nicaragua's relatively peaceful revolution, and they didn't impeach him. The first tax cuts for the rich also began then. There was also a residue of humanity and ethical behavior among our Democratic politicians that lasted through the Iraq war resolution of fall 2002, when ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE House members and Senators--mostly Democrats--voted against giving away its war powers to George Bush. That was ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE more political representatives than voted against the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution in 1964 (escalation of the Vietnam War).

The Democrats had learned some lessons. Against invading other countries without justification. Against punishing and slaughtering civilian populations for their resistance to invasion. Against LYING to justify UNJUSTIFIABLE war. Against fighting ideologies with guns, tanks and bombers. And against fighting guerrilla rebels (and "terrorists"!) with a military machine, instead of using DIPLOMACY and WISDOM to resolve issues of injustice.

Learning lessons about UNJUSTIFIED war is NOT "cutting and running"--although I wish to God the Democratic Party HAD "cut and run" from the Vietnam War! THAT would have been honorable. Two million people slaughtered FOR NOTHING was the height of dishonor, criminality and disgrace. And opposing the invasion of Iraq is NOT "cutting and running" from "the terrorists." It is opposing the creation of MORE "terrorists, as anybody in their right mind can see.

That said--this pissing contest between Republicans and Democrats about who can slaughter the most innocent people, who can "stay the course" (keep their dick up) for the continued slaughter of indigenous resistance, and for the occupation (torture, imprisonment, death squads, bombing of neighborhoods and villages, shootings at "checkpoints," and private contractor looting of everybody) of any peoples who have the misfortune to live on land that contains oil, HAS GOT TO STOP.

I'm sick of this disgusting male game. The country is sick of it. The world is sick of it. And our Democratic Party leaders should say just that: "For godssakes, put your dick back in your pants--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove!"

Are we a civilization, or are we a bunch of baboons?!

--------------------------------------------

Addendum 2: But it's all crap, you know. It's narrative to "explain" stolen elections. It's not real. The American people will resist invasion, as would almost any population in the world. And we would support a reasonable military budget toward that end--DEFENSE. (--about 10% of the current budget). What all this "dick talk" is about (who would "stay the course") is INVASION and DOMINATION of other countries, for the purposes of, a) stealing their resources, and enriching oil giants and other corporations; and b)--most important--supporting war profiteers!

They call it "defense" in order to make it SOUND patriotic, and fool people into believing that the American people as a whole support global corporate predators, slaughtering innocent people, looting of our treasury, massive war and oil profiteering, and all the crimes of the Corporate Empire. But it's just "talking points," blather. There's no truth to any of it. Nobody (or damn few) are speaking any truth--that what the entire, corrupt political establishment, Democrats (with few exceptions) and Republicans, is doing HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR SAFETY OR PROSPERITY.

The tax cuts for the rich tell you what it's all about.

So when our Dems get their dicks up, and say stupid shit, like the Iraq war is draining resources from "the war on terror," ask yourself this: How many innocent people have the "terrorists" killed, and how many innocent people have the Corporate Rulers killed, and what is the relationship between who the Corporate Rulers have killed and "terrorism"?

It's double-talk for draining all of the fat off YOUR salary--and impoverishing you and me--to pay for something that is NOT a war. In a JUST society--one that was NOT run by war profiteers and giant corporations, for the benefit of the super-rich--"terrorism" would be a MINOR police problem.

So why do our Dems use this Bushite phrase "the war on terror"? Well, my friends, the sad truth is that most of them are millionaires, and they, too, are on the "milk train." No "war," no milk train. Some may have good but hidden motives. For instance, our economy has been based on war, and has needed war to keep it stoked, since WW II. Tragically, we never demobilized, and now the war machine is self-perpetuating. Even the good Dems know this. But almost everyone who makes it through the snakepit of our political system to Washington DC (and, today, that includes the TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation software of two Bushite corporations), has bought into it, and even the best of them have trouble seeing any way out of it.

[otohara]

36. Bravo to Nixon For Cutting & Running

AKA losing!

I don't care who cuts and runs regarding Iraq - just do it, do it now! Call it a victory and get out! Let the Iraqi's work it out.

[theanarch]

30. sorry to burst anyone's bubble here, but Vietnam...

...began as JFK's war, to show the USSR he was still tough after getting stared down over Cuba (they agreed to not accept nuclear weapons in exchange for the US withdrawing its nukes from Turkey). It was also going to be the showcase for "counter-insurgency" (Green Berets and all that). After LBJ assumed the presidency, he was the one who scrapped the counter-insurgency for a full-blown ground war that split the country and paved the way for Nixon (with a little help from G. Wallace). Hell, i remember when more Republicans opposed the war than Democrats; and Democrats were among the last to bail on it as well.

As for how well this worked for the Vietnamese themselves, obviously not very...but much better than had we stayed another few years or decades of bombing/napalming/agent-oranging them into submission. What can be blamed entirely on Nixon and the GOP is the horror of Cambodia...that's his and Kissinger's doing, and their's alone.

[Peace Patriot]

32. Yes, there's no question that JFK was a "cold warrior." I remember all

his blarney about the "missile gap" and Quemoy and Matsu in the debates with Nixon. But I think he was learning and GROWING as he went along. He immediately came up against the "secret government" in their plan to invade Cuba, and possibly signed his own death warrant by opposing it. I think the Cuban Missile Crisis scared the bejeebers out of him, and soon after, he proposed the nuke test ban treaty and made some extraordinary remarks to the UN about peace. We were just barely out of the McCarthy era. It was not easy to see out from other those dark clouds, in those days. And his orders to withdraw the "advisers" from Vietnam (sealing his death warrant, I think) are more the way he was thinking at the end. He was very young, only 43, when he became president. I simply can't imagine the Vietnam War proceeding as did, had he lived. He might have been pressured back into it (his Sec of Defense, McNamara, was certainly gung-ho under LBJ), but it never would have escalated into the bloodbath that it became. I just don't believe it.

And the most convincing argument for that is what happened to Bobby Kennedy's notions about it, by 1968--when HE was ALSO assassinated. RFK was the ultimate "cold warrior," at first. He actually WORKED for Joe McCarthy! But by 1967 or so, he had become convinced that the Vietnam War was wrong. He was also quickly changing his ideas on policy in So. America. He and JFK were very close. They obviously shared the same political philosophy and viewpoints on human life, and on American society. I think RFK's development as a human being and leader is where JFK would have gone, had he lived--toward a more progressive, humanistic view that was trying to see out of the "cold war." Their brightness as individuals, their plain identification with the downtrodden (from their Irish roots, I think), and their many other qualities as men and as leaders, including their charisma (who they drew toward them), all point this way.

It's funny, I had a boyfriend at the time who was an Adlai Stevenson supporter (at the 1960 convention). He couldn't abide JFK. And I was besotted with him (JFK). (I was only 16.) It very much annoyed by boyfriend that I couldn't see how much more of a liberal and a peacemaker Stevenson was. Looking back, I know he was perfectly correct--on the rational level. And I don't defend my hero worship, at the time. It was just silly and brainless. But SINCE that time--now that I'm 60--I've come to have an appreciation for JFK, for what he meant to people, for what he BROUGHT OUT IN people, and for where he was GOING, when he was so untimely cut down. I think the key to him and Bobby were that they had open minds, and were people with the ability to learn and grow. I also think you have to take into consideration that, whatever they were, whatever they meant to people, our secret government could not abide it, and that alone tells me that they were good men.

The word "hope" comes to mind. Hope for change. Hope for democratic self-correction. Hope for progress in human affairs. They had hope, and they conveyed hope to others.

[theanarch]

37. i've always found the Kennedy's a problematic family...

...and my own opinion of JFK/RFK is closer to Gore Vidal's take on them (not very complimentary, to keep it polite and short). Being somewhat younger than you (just turned 55), my memories of the 1960 campaign (and JFK's administration) aren't particularly clear or coherent; i didn't become the political animal i am until 1968, when i 'got clean for Gene' in the NJ primary. I've always felt RFK was opportunistic in waiting for McCarthy to demonstrate the potency of the anti-war vote; and jumped into the race only after it was 'safe' to do so. This is not to say i doubt the sincerity of RFK's (evolved) anti-war position, but that he placed practical politics above or before altruism. I found it quite the irony that, in Reagan's campaigns, the GOP were fond of quoting JFK's anti-soviet/cold war rhetoric, while Democrats were reduced to quoting Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" speech.

And the supreme irony is, after forty years of being warned about the Kennedy's as a politically dynastic family, it turns out the one we should have been worried about are the vulgar, war-mongering, agent-of-imperialism Bushes.

[Richard Steele]

39. Don't you remember how the VietCong invaded the US after we cut and ran?

And how VietNam today is an America-hatin' hotbed of eeevul
commie fascist terrorists?

We can't let that happen again- we hafta keep "fightin' them over there"!

[tsuki]

40. How do you figure 14 years is cut and run? nt

[TNOE]

43. And Viet Nam today

http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/comment.htm#RESULTS

[otohara]

47. "We welcome Pres. Clinton because he was himself against the war"

"The Americans were at fault here but we do not expect him to apologise - it is better to make up for what happened by action." said Lieutenant-General Xuan Vinh Vu.

Will the Iraqi's ever forgive us, as is the case with most Vietnamese according to the above Guardian article from Nov. 15th 2000? While the conflict is not forgotten, for the most part it is forgiven.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,397634,00.html

I see it taking a lot longer than 17 years for Iraq, if ever. Maybe someday the Iraqi's will welcome President Lamont for being against the war, or better yet, President Gore in 08.

Thanks for the link - Vietnam is a beautiful country.

[leftofthedial]

45. umm, wasn't that Nixon?

idiots

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Let's hope they show some courage and cut the funding for Iraq.

Alas, I'm not holding my breath. Better to keep supplying cannon-fodder and killing than to be accused of "cutting and running".