Murtha: Swift-Boating Another Viet Nam Vet - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

irateplatypus · 01-19-2006, 09:46 AM

bah. shakran, either you're not reading me carefully or i'm not expressing myself well enough... definitely not communicating well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Dissenting from a war one believes is unjust is the most patriotic thing a person can do.

that is, most certainly, not true.

the trouble with war protestors is that no matter what their real motivations are... the stated/broadcasted/shouted motivation is always an unjust war. so you have the cowards, the bored, the simple, the uninformed, the impressionable and the true believers all shouting the same tired slogans.

dissent in this country rarely requires any personal investment. it takes no real risk of bodily harm, a small investment of time, no real financial hardship. the fact is that cowards and charlatans can easily blend in with the protest crowd precisely because (thankfully) the free-speech requires so little of the participants.

filtherton · 01-19-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the trouble with war protestors is that no matter what their real motivations are... the stated/broadcasted/shouted motivation is always an unjust war. so you have the cowards, the bored, the simple, the uninformed, the impressionable and the true believers all shouting the same tired slogans.

dissent in this country rarely requires any personal investment. it takes no real risk of bodily harm, a small investment of time, no real financial hardship. the fact is that cowards and charlatans can easily blend in with the protest crowd precisely because (thankfully) the free-speech requires so little of the participants.

I think you could say the exact same things about most of the people who favor any given war.

irateplatypus · 01-19-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think you could say the exact same things about most of the people who favor any given war.

it could certainly be said of some of them. but the "put-up-or-shut-up" scales will always tip in their favor in a free society.

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

Poppinjay · 01-19-2006, 11:18 AM

Uh, the previous having been said, back on topic.

CNS's sources for the story are all people Murtha has defeated in elections. Wow. That's about as sleazy as it gets.

You know, I think the GOP actually has it right. Military service is a BAD thing. it hurt Kerry, it was used to smear Gore, it's being used to smear Murtha, it was used to smear McCain - one of their own.

On the other hand, Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton, and GWB all were elected to office.

The real message here? Don't serve. It won't do you any good, and if you do it out of love for your country, it will be turned into something to be used against you.

filtherton · 01-19-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it could certainly be said of some of them. but the "put-up-or-shut-up" scales will always tip in their favor in a free society.

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

I would say most. Most of the people that supported and continue to support our current extracurricular activities support them only so much so as to not be willing to actually fight them. America is a nation of chicken hawks, one need look no further than the tfp to see this. How many of the pro-war members have actually made a single significant sacrifice for the war effort (yellow ribbons don't count)? I don't have the stats, but i would guess less than 20%.

It is exceedingly easy to sit on one's ass and scream for an invasion when one doesn't really have anything at stake beyond some vague notion of national pride or a false sense of security. It is also exceedingly irresponsible and cowardly to call for others to die for a cause when one is unwilling to do so oneself.

Protesting is another means to another end. It worked in the civil rights movement, where a war would certainly have failed miserably.

pan6467 · 01-19-2006, 11:48 AM

I find it pathetic that ANYONE would use a man's COMBAT history against him. It's bullshit and the GOP knows it is.

This man put his life on the line for us in a war that many didn't like and dodged the draft..... Limbaugh, W, O'Reilly, Cheney, and so on.

Yet, Gore, Murtha, McCain, Kerry and so on went and served and did what they believed was best. Gore could have easily not gone at all, being a Senator's grandson and son had to have perks. But he went didn't he?

I wonder how many on this board, who are so gung ho about Iraq are willing to enlist, or would have gone to VietNam.

Pathetic pieces of greedy, power hungry shit are the only ones that will question or bring up any man's service in combat to use against him. Noone knows what it is like until they are there and even then every man reacts differently, sees things differently and is affected differently.

I am deeply saddened the party that supposedly is soooooo military minded....... (which is a joke, in and of itself, because our retired GI's can't get prescription glasses, can't get dental and have a hard time getting prescriptions filled, even though our government promised those services to them when they were in)....... yet will attack decorated combat veterans for their own political and power gains.

Fucking pathetic pieces of shit that don't deserve the office of dog catcher.

pan6467 · 01-19-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I would say most. Most of the people that supported and continue to support our current extracurricular activities support them only so much so as to not be willing to actually fight them. America is a nation of chicken hawks, one need look no further than the tfp to see this. How many of the pro-war members have actually made a single significant sacrifice for the war effort (yellow ribbons don't count)? I don't have the stats, but i would guess less than 20%.

Very easy, just look how many of these pro-war supporters fight over tax cuts.

Tax cuts in time of war.... Jesus Fucking Christ.... how marvellously sacrificial..... hypocrites. You cry about how people protest the war, but you aren't willing to sacrifice your fucking tax cuts?????? ASSWIPES.

Quote:

It is exceedingly easy to sit on one's ass and scream for an invasion when one doesn't really have anything at stake beyond some vague notion of national pride or a false sense of security. It is also exceedingly irresponsible and cowardly to call for others to die for a cause when one is unwilling to do so oneself.

Quote:

Protesting is another means to another end. It worked in the civil rights movement, where a war would certainly have failed miserably.

We have the right to protest, and protesting is a way to keep government in check.

I would rather protest and pay my taxes knowing the soldiers are getting money they need for armor and the best protection possible..... than sit on my fucking greedy ass and worry how big my tax cut will be (like some here do).

You make the sacrifice of putting your life on the line for the US whether it is a righteous war or not..... you deserve the best our government can give you. But those who want tax cuts, obviously don't feel they need to sacrifice or pay for your sacrifices. What hypocrites.

A lot can be said about a country in how they treat their military and veterans. And this country's leadership in doing so FUCKING SUCKS.

Marvelous Marv · 01-19-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Pathetic pieces of greedy, power hungry shit are the only ones that will question or bring up any man's service in combat to use against him. Noone knows what it is like until they are there and even then every man reacts differently, sees things differently and is affected differently.

I am deeply saddened the party that supposedly is soooooo military minded....... (which is a joke, in and of itself, because our retired GI's can't get prescription glasses, can't get dental and have a hard time getting prescriptions filled, even though our government promised those services to them when they were in)....... yet will attack decorated combat veterans for their own political and power gains.

Fucking pathetic pieces of shit that don't deserve the office of dog catcher.

Hmmm. Is it okay if I send this quote, along with your e-mail address, to this site?

Grunt.com

Here are a few samples. To be fair, in other threads, there were people who support Murtha, but by my count, quotes like the following were present in MUCH larger numbers.

Quote:

[Directed to Murtha] Keep your piehole shut, mister. You're lowering my son's morale and making me want to cry. You aren't one of the giants on whose shoulders my sons stand. You make me want to puke.

Quote:

I am writing a letter to Murtha now. My sons go to boot camp in 5 days. I think their mind is focused on defending our country and Murtha's is focused on partisan gain. Disgusting.

Quote:

As a followup, whether you agree with this Administration or not, how can you defile the men and women serving? The Lib's and Dem's try their damndest to dispel the fact that they hate the Military. Then this clown comes right out and says it. He says basically that we are stupid and foolish to enlist now. Well, Mr. Murtha, I only wish that you were in my part of the State so I could vote you OUT!

Quote:

Just remember that "intelligence officer" is an oxy-moron with MORON being the key syllable! Once a Marine, always a Marine but this POS Murtha is making me wish there was a way to courtmartial and drum him out of the Band of Brothers that he seems to detest so much!
David Weihausen
Gunnery Sergeant, USMC, Ret.

Quote:

Murtha owes GIs apology

I am an infantry soldier with Task Force Panther from Pennsylvania. We are currently deployed in the Anbar province of Iraq.

I have also been a registered Democrat for 25 years. Over the years I’ve watched and warned that our party was falling into an abyss of absolutely reprehensible behavior.

Was the Democratic Party so afraid of a victory in Iraq that, three weeks before its national election, it would coerce its last respected member in Congress to abandon U.S. soldiers while still in the field? How dare John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, sell out soldiers in combat right before the end of a successful mission! His behavior is inexcusable; he should be ashamed.

I am sure the terrorist insurgency is grateful to him for announcing our defeat days before yet another victory in this country. He owes every American soldier a formal apology.

He could have been remembered as a distinguished member of Congress, but now he’ll only be remembered as a foolish old man who sold out his country to a den of vipers in the Democratic Party. I thank him for proving once and for all that the Democratic Party is the party of the sore loser, the selfish whiner and the gutless coward.

Sgt. Mark Russak
Camp Habbaniyh, Iraq

Poppinjay · 01-19-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Hmmm. Is it okay if I send this quote, along with your e-mail address, to this site?

Grunt.com

Here are a few samples. To be fair, in other threads, there were people who support Murtha, but by my count, quotes like the following were present in MUCH larger numbers.

Wow. You went to a site, GRUNT.COM, which is a a site for military people (many retired) and you found many of them suppoprt the war and disregard Murtha. There is no flash on the road to Damascus there, it's pretty expected.

Rather than playing the tired game of offering up sites with a decided ideology, why don't you tell us how YOU feel about the swift boating of Murtha's war record? Is it worth it because you disagree with him?

pan6467 · 01-19-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Hmmm. Is it okay if I send this quote, along with your e-mail address, to this site?

Grunt.com

Here are a few samples. To be fair, in other threads, there were people who support Murtha, but by my count, quotes like the following were present in MUCH larger numbers.

Where did I say that you or anyone cannot attack a man for his PRESENT VIEWS??????????

I talked about his military service and being attacked for such.

People can and should speak out against a public official when they disagree with his stances. That is our right and a duty to keep government in check. (Which is not in use much right now as people are so hateful they will back their party's views no matter how ignorant or fake, or corrupt.)

But I still maintain to attack his service when, he put his life on the line and defended us honorably enough to be decorated.

(BTW where were Limbaugh, and Cheney and W and O'Reilly and Rove and other prominent leaders of the Draft Dodging party that attacks decorated war heroes' military records, maybe you can refresh my memory? OOOOO yeah they were DODGING THE DRAFT, REFUSING TO FIGHT IN WAR FOR OUR NATION!!!!!!!!!!) How dare those pieces of shit rip a decorated war veterans military record...... FUCKING HYPOCRITES.

And please by all means post this in Grunt.com..... I dare ya.

shakran · 01-19-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

Bull. Shit.

pan6467 · 01-19-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Hmmm. Is it okay if I send this quote, along with your e-mail address, to this site?

Grunt.com

Here are a few samples. To be fair, in other threads, there were people who support Murtha, but by my count, quotes like the following were present in MUCH larger numbers.

BTW, I like the way you "conviently" snipped the begiining of that post to get what you wanted out of it to try to use against me.

I thought you were better than some of the more radical rights on here. I thought you would at least show ALL the post. But instead you, sunk to a level where you only wanted to attack and not answer any of the charges.

Here's the rest of the post you conviently snipped:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I find it pathetic that ANYONE would use a man's COMBAT history against him. It's bullshit and the GOP knows it is.

This man put his life on the line for us in a war that many didn't like and dodged the draft..... Limbaugh, W, O'Reilly, Cheney, and so on.

Yet, Gore, Murtha, McCain, Kerry and so on went and served and did what they believed was best. Gore could have easily not gone at all, being a Senator's grandson and son had to have perks. But he went didn't he?

I wonder how many on this board, who are so gung ho about Iraq are willing to enlist, or would have gone to VietNam.

irateplatypus · 01-19-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Bull. Shit.

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

pan6467 · 01-20-2006, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

Irate,

I like and respect you, but he had a good point. YOU said

Quote:

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

and he was simply showing that yes, there are deaths and danger. To treat it the way you did with the above quote and laughing emotes is sad and disrespectful to the people who did lose their lives at Kent.

And you are full of shit about the deaths and danger originating from protesting..... read your history, see what union busters (some government sponsered) even into the 50's used to do to some of the guys as they protested for their right to form.

I'm not saying there is in anyway shape or form the same danger or death in protesting as in war. I am simply saying that, yes there is danger and death. And Shakran was pointing that out also.

shakran · 01-20-2006, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

Actually I'd kinda like to see you back that one up, especially if you put it on a global perspective. Because i think you're full of crap about it.

I've noticed your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I realize that you're on the losing end of this one, and that there really IS no defense for what the president that you support has done, but really, these techniques you're resorting to - laughing and deriding valid points made by others - makes you look pretty foolish.

Poppinjay · 01-20-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

Quote:

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

Quote:

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

Quote:

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

Quote:

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

Quote:

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-20-2006, 08:21 AM

In an American context, post Kent-State? On idea on how many have died? I mean I know Bush has been having mass executions of dissenters while suffocating babies with copies of the Bill Of Rights which he personally defecated on, but I can't recall protesting in freedom and libertly loving America being as dangerous as say communist anywhere or somewhere not here.

But good point poppin jay and Pan, however I think if you stick to a strictly American perspective, things are not that bad.

Ustwo · 01-20-2006, 08:31 AM

Poppinjay what does the execution of a communist commando who just killed children, have to do with protesting being dangerous? Perhaps you don't know the history of all those photos.

Also I think you are not stupid enough to assume that irrate meant anything past the United States where protesting is more a fashion statement than anything else.

Poppinjay · 01-20-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Also I think you are not stupid enough to assume that irrate meant anything past the United States where protesting is more a fashion statement than anything else.

A fashion statement....

Alrighty.

Back on topic, so I can assume by the lack of reply on the swift boating of Murtha that it's fine and dandy to smear vets for political gain, as long as it's "the other guy".

The electoral college must be on break, nobody has class.

filtherton · 01-20-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think you are not stupid enough to assume that irrate meant anything past the United States where protesting is more a fashion statement than anything else.

And you can relate because you find being prowar just as fashionable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

In an American context, post Kent-State? On idea on how many have died?

In an american context, post september 2001, any idea how many american civilians have been killed by terrorists on u.s. soil?

I think if you stick to a strictly american perspective things aren't that bad.

Rekna · 01-20-2006, 09:04 AM

So standing up for what you believe in, even when it is not popular, and you run the risk of being called a traitor, treasonist, and unpatriotic is a fashion statement? I guess we have different tastes in fashion. Reversing your argumentrunning around with a yellow ribben and shouting out praise to Bush and troups could also be considered a fashion statement... except in this case it is a more popular fashion.....

Ustwo · 01-20-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

A fashion statement....

Alrighty.

Back on topic, so I can assume by the lack of reply on the swift boating of Murtha that it's fine and dandy to smear vets for political gain, as long as it's "the other guy".

The electoral college must be on break, nobody has class.

I take it that you just did a google image search for those photos then since you ignored the first part and don't know the history behind them.

roachboy · 01-20-2006, 09:08 AM

"protest is a fashion statement" is as deep an explanation for dissent as saying that people join the military because they like boys in uniform.

who knows, maybe both are true in some cases.

but hey, why worry about actually thinking about what you write since we can always bypass such expenditures of effort and revert to the low-effort, low-thought plane of stereotyping (it's great to have the lumpenconservatives around, lest you forget the centrality of stereotypes to that benighted belief system)....

so let's see what these new shallow waters look like:
irate, dousing what amounts to a nonsequitor with self-righteousness like a cheap perfume, apparently would have us believe that

(1) everyone in the military puts their lives on the line every day.
(but much of the military is support/logistics/coordination...)

2 therefore being in the military represents some kind of "authentic" committment while political opposition does not.

anyone can play irate's facile game: to the notion that any nitwit can show up for a demo, one could juxtapose the equally facile argument that any fucktard can sign away their personal autonomy by joining the military. it just requires a signature on a contract....
neither says anything.
both are worthless.

(3) irate apparently sees some kind of opposition between political engagements and the image of matyrdom that he attributes to military service. a marytrdom that is pure image in that it encompasses everyone in the military, from front-line troops to folk who procure food, from helicopter mechanics to secretaries for generals, from line cooks to waiters in officers' clubs--all martyrs in the world outlined by irate above--so it follows that everything thought or done by any of this vast legion of martyrs is better--more considered, more "real"--than anything done by people who are not of the corps.
this claim operates as such a deep level of idiocy that there is really nothing more to be said about it.
it doesnt even describe the military, much less political opposition.
it says nothing--but it does get people riled up

i think the word for this kind of thing in messageboard land is a troll.

Rekna · 01-20-2006, 09:52 AM

is it just me or are the arguments from the conservative side on this forum become more and more like ramblings from madmen and sounding like rhetoric? In every forum they seem to be getting more and more desperate and because of it they are throwing out hate rhetoric twoard other peoples views...

pan6467 · 01-20-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

is it just me or are the arguments from the conservative side on this forum become more and more like ramblings from madmen and sounding like rhetoric? In every forum they seem to be getting more and more desperate and because of it they are throwing out hate rhetoric twoard other peoples views...

Not all posts, and there are still some good debaters.

But yes in the majority of threads, they get to a point where they no longer can defend because the evidence shows differently, their lies and "facts" have been called, and they get to the point where Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter have no longer given them any way to response, so they become kids and attack personally, ignore the topic or try to change it to a tired old argument, and result into "we flag wavers.... you commy pinko treasonist terrorist sympathizers...."

This thread is a good example, when I stated my opinion on the treatment and nastiness regarding Murtha and the topic...... someone tried to snip my total post into what they wanted it to say, and had to rely on quotes from others instead of giving their own opinion.

The rebuttal proved more substantial then they or others ccould handle so they went for the "welll.....protest is cheap and easy and not dangerous" .... nice subject change.

Again they are proven otherwise.

OOOO well Post Kent State, Only in the US and on Sunny Days when it is under supervision.

It is becoming more obvious the Right just has no defense or true personal belief for the issues anymore. All they do is rely on others quotes, attacks and finally, just total non topic good for any criticism of Bush responses.

silent_jay · 01-20-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I take it that you just did a google image search for those photos then since you ignored the first part and don't know the history behind them.

Yes one of the pictures isn't of a protest, it is of a Viet Cong agent being executed on the streets of Saigon by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnams police chief, the picture was taken by Eddie Adams. The victim is Nguyen Van Lam AKA Bay Lap. Is that enough of the story Ustwo or would you like more?

Also I hope you aren't referring to the self immolation as not being a form of protest, because clearly it was a protest by Buddhist Monks against Diems government and their religious persecution of Buddhists.

pan6467 · 01-20-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Yes one of the pictures isn't of a protest, it is of a Viet Cong agent being executed on the streets of Saigon by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnams police chief, the picture was taken by Eddie Adams. The victim is Nguyen Van Lam AKA Bay Lap. Is that enough of the story Ustwo or would you like more?

Also I hope you aren't referring to the self immolation as not being a form of protest, because clearly it was a protest by Buddhist Monks against Diems government and their religious persecution of Buddhists.

Damn good research

Poppinjay · 01-20-2006, 11:10 AM

Ustwo,

The first and last were of Tiananmen Square - I'm well aware of what happened there, I was working at an NPR affiliate when the killing started and switched to the network for coverage. It was very.... unpleasant.

The second was a protest regarding an earlier protest in which a massacre occured. the fifth was the same thing, different country.

The self immolation of the Buddhist Monk is about as notoriuos a protest that the world has ever seen.

The Bay Lap photo is also one of the most famous in the world, and it took place during a war in which the native population clearly wanted to be free of French, then American interference.

What else would you like to know? How does this pertain to the right wing's repeated attempts to smear vets instead of debating issues?

pan6467 · 01-20-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

What else would you like to know? How does this pertain to the right wing's repeated attempts to smear vets instead of debating issues?

It doesn't, but it was a great attempt to control the threads direction and try to start a new debate and argument so that people don't pay attention to the main topic.

I'm still anxious to see someone defend attacking a decorated war veterans military record, while their party is led by draft dodgers.

silent_jay · 01-20-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Damn good research

Thanks Pan, it finally paid off to have Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History close by, what a great book that was, covers the entire history of the country.

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Wow. You went to a site, GRUNT.COM, which is a a site for military people (many retired) and you found many of them suppoprt the war and disregard Murtha. There is no flash on the road to Damascus there, it's pretty expected.

Yes, but according to Pan, "Pathetic pieces of greedy, power hungry shit are the only ones that will question or bring up any man's service in combat to use against him." I even quoted it.

Quote:

Rather than playing the tired game of offering up sites with a decided ideology, why don't you tell us how YOU feel about the swift boating of Murtha's war record? Is it worth it because you disagree with him?

I'm going to need a definition of "swift boating." Is it not allowing a person you thought was a piece of shit while serving alongside him to exaggerate his record beyond recognition? (By the way, I looked up Kerry's bronze star award--it's signed by John Lehman, who wasn't SECNAV until over ten years after Kerry was out. The only way that could have happened is if Kerry managed to have it "edited" after he made some congressional connections.

Is it bringing up a 35-year-old DUI a week before the election, like Gore did to Cheney?

My opinion is that it's sad for a legitimate war hero to sell out. Randy Cunningham did it for bribes, and Murtha did it for political gain.

Both are reprehensible, but I think Murtha's actions are likely to get more of our troops killed.

Elphaba · 01-20-2006, 08:25 PM

Marv, your military experience is what, exactly?

You know precisely what "swift-boating" means, why pretend otherwise? Show us your research on Kerry's bronze and anything else you choose to defend your remarks. Make it mainstream evidence, or you will continue to embarrass yourself.

Your have joined those that choose to demean Murtha. Prove to me that he achieved "political gain" from his opinion regarding Iraq. Hillary continues to support the Iraq war for political gain. Show me how you reconcile one's war stance based upon their political affiliation and ambitions.

I have done my best to try to understand your point of view, but it appears to consist of nothing more than talking point jingoism. You have been a distraction to this topic long enough.

Shall we all move on and leave Marvelous Marv to the back button sewer where he belongs?

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Yes, and he was right, wasn't he? The job of a journalist is to report the truth, even if it upsets the warmongers. Vietnam was lost, and blaming it on cronkite is about as disingenuous as it gets. Vietnam was lost because our fighting strategy was appallingly stupid. Take a hill, then go away, wait for the VC to take it back, then go take it again. Who the hell came up with that? Sure as hell it was lost before we even got into it.

Coming from someone who claims to be a "journalist," or at least to be affiliated with it, your statement is downright appalling.

Wikipedia on the Tet Offensive

Quote:

The Tet Offensive (January 30, 1968–1969) was a series of operational offensives during the Vietnam War, coordinated between battalion strength elements of the National Liberation Front's People's Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF) or "Viet Cong" and divisional strength elements of the North Vietnam's People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), against South Vietnam's Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), and United States military and other ARVN-allied forces. The operations are called the Tet Offensive as they were timed to begin on the night of January 30–31, 1968, Tết Nguyên Đán (the lunar new year day). The offensive began spectacularly during celebrations of the Lunar New Year, and sporadic operations associated with the offensive continued into 1969.

The Tet Offensive resulted in a crushing operational defeat for the Vietnamese, crippling the PLAF. The Tet Offensive is widely seen, though perhaps incorrectly, as a turning point of the war in Vietnam, in which the NLF and PAVN won an enormous psychological and propaganda victory leading to the loss of popular support for the War in the United States and the eventual withdrawal of American troops.

Neither the NLF nor PAVN achieved any of their strategic goals, and the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high. Additionally, while US public opinion polls continued to support American involvement in the war, the US public was increasingly critical of Lyndon Johnson's particular war policies. Perhaps the group most affected by the offensive was the Nguyễn Văn Thiệu government in the Republic of Vietnam, whose military and political reliance on the United States was demonstrated to the majority of the Republic's population. The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as a example of the value of propaganda and media influence in the pursuit of military objectives.

"Wait", you say. "Wikipedia is full of shit when it disagrees with me."

Another view

Quote:

Tet Offensive

The Tet Offensive was a series of battles in the Vietnam War. It was a major offensive by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong (VC or NLF) beginning on the night of January 30-31, 1968, T?t Nguyên Ðán (the lunar new year day). It involved military action in almost every major city in southern Vietnam and attacks on the US firebase at Khe Sanh. The NVA suffered a heavy military defeat but scored a priceless propaganda victory.

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 08:40 PM

This sentence posted to make the reply upload.

Quote:

The Communist forces had taken a series of military defeats. the US/ARVN forces had pacified much of the south by the end of 1967 (222 out of 242 provinces). Operation Junction City (February-March 1967) and other sweeps had seriously disrupted NLF activity in the south and forced the COSVN into Cambodia.

At a July 1967 meeting the Communist Party leadership recognised their failures and decided to re-orientate their operations to target two key political weaknesses. Firstly, the deep gulf between the US public and the US government over support for the war and its actual progress. Secondly, the tensions existing between the US military and their Vietnamese allies.

The leadership decided to concentrate on a few high profile operations, that would take place in the public (and the US media) eye rather than fighting the conflict away from major urban centres. This would bolster Northern moral, possibly inspire uprisings in the South and provide the impression, and hopefully the reality, that the US/ARVN were not winning the war and it was likely to be a long time before they did. The new policy also marked a victory for the 'hawks' over the 'doves' in the Communist Party leadership, in late 1967 around 200 senior officials were purged.

The overall planning of the operation to match the policy was headed by the commander of the NVA, Vo Nguyen Giap. He planned a series of audacious, prominent raids across the south, involving every significant city and utilising almost every unit to hand in almost forty major attacks and countless smaller incidents. In pure military terms this was almost madness, but Giap was pursing the overall policy and was acutely aware that the weaknesses in US military policy could produce success in the longer term from a short term disaster. He also strongly hoped that the NLF and NVA efforts would provoke a general popular uprising in the south.

Tet had traditionally been a truce during war in Vietnam, the NLF had had some form of truce since fighting began against the French. With the need for surprise paramount the NLF and the NVA announced that they would respect a seven day cease-fire from January 31. This unusually long period was designed to comfort the US military, who would interpret it as the action of a force in real need of a break, and also encourage ARVN commanders to give their troops home leave. The NVA was aware of the resentment attacking at Tet would cause amongst civilians.

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 08:44 PM

I wonder how Host used to pull this off.

Quote:

As another part of the NVA deception they opened tentative peace talks with the US military. They hoped to foster the impression of their weakness and also hoped that the US would try to force concessions from the South Vietnam government in response to NVA conditions.

The most significant and costly deception was to offer the US a major threat away from the urbanised south. Two major US bases to the north, near the border, were targeted. With the memories of Diên Biên Phû it was hoped that the attacks on isolated outposts would draw heavy US military (and media) attention. The two bases were at Dak To and Khe Sanh. Dak To was attacked over November and the Khe Sanh attack would begin a few days before the other operations in the south.

The similarities between Diên Biên Phû and Khe Sanh were intended to beguile US advisors. Khe Sanh was near the Ho Chi Minh Trail, only 20 km from the north-south border and 8 km from Laos, in high and difficult terrain resupply could be impossible in poor weather and the base sprawled over a wide area. The nearby Special Forces base at Lang Vei also looked vulnerable. Khe Sanh was defended by two regiments of the USMC commanded by Colonel Lownds and a numerically similar ARVN force.

In the face of all the intelligence the US military response was uneven. The belief that Khe Sanh was about to be a major battle was well established, MACV staff became certain that a decisive clash was imminent. The base was reinforced and thousands of UGSs were scattered in the surrounding jungle in Operation Niagara. US intelligence identified at least 15,000 NVA troops in the vicinity.

The fighting was most intense around Khe Sanh. There were three divisions of NVA regulars around Khe Sanh, possibly 25,000 men. Action began there around ten days before Tet, with probing attacks and exchanges of artillery fire. Two hill positions were captured on January 20, cutting the base from land routes. Attention in MACV and Washington was obsessed with Khe Sanh and other indicators of trouble were overlooked or down-graded. The main assaults did not begin until February 5. Lang Vei was over-run on February 7 and the lines at Khe Sanh were very heavily attacked, the camp only being preserved by massive airstrikes and artillery barrages (over 30,000 sorties were flown in defence of the base). After this the tempo slowed, the battle became more of a siege, although there were further NVA assaults on the 17-18th and the 29th. Khe Sanh was officially relieved on April 6 and fighting ended around April 14. Possibly 8,000 NVA soldiers died around Khe Sanh.

To the south the fighting began on January 29 as a number of NLF units began their attacks prematurely in four provincial towns. The rest of the NLF/NVA attacks began on the night of 30-31st. All but eight provincial capitals were attacked, five of the six autonomous cities, and 58 other major towns. Major attacks were aimed at Ban Me Thuot, Quang Nam, Dalat, My Tho, Can Tho, Ben Tre, Nha Trang, and Kontum. It was only in Hué, the ancient capital, and Saigon that the NVA had any significant success. The hoped for popular uprising (khnoi nghai) almost completely failed to occur, many South Vietnamese demonstrated stronger support for the ARVN.

Hué was attacked by ten battalions, the city was almost completely over-run and thousands of civilians were chosen for execution. The city was not recaptured by the US and ARVN forces until the end of February. The historical and cultural value of the city meant that the US did not apply the air and artillery strikes as widely as in other cities, at least at first. There was a tough street-by-street battle (all caught by the US media), heading towards the Citadel, the imperial palace, which was cleared of NVA troops after four days of struggle. The US and the ARVN had lost 482 men and the NVA around 7,500.

There were a number of attacks in and around Saigon, around five battalions of NLF had infiltrated the city. Tan Son Nhut airbase, the headquarters of the ARVN and MACV, was attacked by around 700 men and there was heavy fighting but only 110 American casualties. Bein Hoa airbase was also attacked and twenty aircraft were destroyed. The Vietnamese casualties in these two assaults and other actions in Saigon were over 1,100 men but they took control of large parts of the city. Fighting lasted almost a week and some sections of the city were badly damaged by US airstrikes and artillery, the suburb of Cholon was very badly damaged as fighting there lasted into mid-February. One especially potent assault was on the US Embassy by twenty NLF commandos, while quickly contained it became a highly symbolic assault producing memorable images.

The NLF and the NVA lost around 35,000 men killed, 60,000 wounded and 6,000 POWs for no military success. The US and ARVN dead totalled around 3,900 (1,100 US). But this was not the conflict as the US public saw it. Without there being an active conspiracy the US media reports were extremely damaging and shocked the American public and politicians. Apparently the depth of the US reaction even surprised the North Vietnamese leadership, as well as delighting them.

The heavy US shelling of Ben Tre produced the famous quote, "it became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it."

Khe Sanh was abandoned by the US on June 23, 1968.

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

And that one is awarded first prize in the "I don't like freedom of speech" contest. This idea that the public has to shut up when we're in a war, even if it's an unjust, immoral, illegal war that was justified with lies on top of lies, and even if thousands of American soldiers are dying and many thousands more are coming away maimed for life is ridiculous. By your logic, once someone lies, cheats, and steals us into a war, they've won 100%, and no one can ever say anything against it again. Sorry, we're not buying it.

Nice attempt to wrap yourself up in the constitution while plugging your ears to avoid logic. I'm sure glad you weren't a "journalist" after Pearl Harbor--we'd all be speaking Japanese now, after you reported that we didn't have a prayer of winning the war.

Quote:

Wouldn't that be refreshing.

I notice you aren't interested in betting.

Quote:

And your quote - the guy's running around calling people "gooks," his quote is laced with profanity, and shows his shining ignorance to what was actually going on. Cronkite was reporting the facts. Others took those facts and actively tried to bring people like your friend home, because they realized that we shouldn't be over there, and it wasn't right to ask the young men in the military to sacrifice their lives, their limbs, and their health (look up agent orange if you want an idea of health problems vietnam vets are STILL going through today, and that's only a small part of the problem) for a war that we was none of our business, not our problem, and that we shouldn't have been in.

First of all, I'm sorry that the guy didn't refer to the people who tortured him as "underpriveleged Asian freedom fighters." And as you can see from the quotes above, your version does not equate with the reality. While I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't have been there, once we WERE there, you had to be an absolute idiot to ignore the facts and claim "all is lost." Not to mention the harm it did to POWs, not that Cronkite gave a shit.

Quote:

I say those who support bringing the troops home are far more supportive of the troops themselves than are the people who support sending them out to be killed and maimed for nothing.

Funny how on overwhelming majority of the service members I meet disagree with you. Yes, that's my personal experience, and I haven't seen any "polls." I doubt our media is anxious to take any, considering the result they're likely to get.

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And please by all means post this in Grunt.com..... I dare ya.

You forgot to add your e-mail address for all of the personal greetings you'll get.

Marvelous Marv · 01-20-2006, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

is it just me or are the arguments from the conservative side on this forum become more and more like ramblings from madmen and sounding like rhetoric? In every forum they seem to be getting more and more desperate and because of it they are throwing out hate rhetoric twoard other peoples views...

It's just you.

Elphaba · 01-20-2006, 10:19 PM

Back Button

Rekna · 01-20-2006, 10:24 PM

somehow I don't think it is... especially since others have said the same thing now.

01-19-2006, 11:18 AM	#44 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Uh, the previous having been said, back on topic. CNS's sources for the story are all people Murtha has defeated in elections. Wow. That's about as sleazy as it gets. You know, I think the GOP actually has it right. Military service is a BAD thing. it hurt Kerry, it was used to smear Gore, it's being used to smear Murtha, it was used to smear McCain - one of their own. On the other hand, Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton, and GWB all were elected to office. The real message here? Don't serve. It won't do you any good, and if you do it out of love for your country, it will be turned into something to be used against you. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

01-19-2006, 11:48 AM	#46 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I find it pathetic that ANYONE would use a man's COMBAT history against him. It's bullshit and the GOP knows it is. This man put his life on the line for us in a war that many didn't like and dodged the draft..... Limbaugh, W, O'Reilly, Cheney, and so on. Yet, Gore, Murtha, McCain, Kerry and so on went and served and did what they believed was best. Gore could have easily not gone at all, being a Senator's grandson and son had to have perks. But he went didn't he? I wonder how many on this board, who are so gung ho about Iraq are willing to enlist, or would have gone to VietNam. Pathetic pieces of greedy, power hungry shit are the only ones that will question or bring up any man's service in combat to use against him. Noone knows what it is like until they are there and even then every man reacts differently, sees things differently and is affected differently. I am deeply saddened the party that supposedly is soooooo military minded....... (which is a joke, in and of itself, because our retired GI's can't get prescription glasses, can't get dental and have a hard time getting prescriptions filled, even though our government promised those services to them when they were in)....... yet will attack decorated combat veterans for their own political and power gains. Fucking pathetic pieces of shit that don't deserve the office of dog catcher. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-20-2006, 08:21 AM	#57 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	In an American context, post Kent-State? On idea on how many have died? I mean I know Bush has been having mass executions of dissenters while suffocating babies with copies of the Bill Of Rights which he personally defecated on, but I can't recall protesting in freedom and libertly loving America being as dangerous as say communist anywhere or somewhere not here. But good point poppin jay and Pan, however I think if you stick to a strictly American perspective, things are not that bad. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-20-2006, 08:31 AM	#58 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Poppinjay what does the execution of a communist commando who just killed children, have to do with protesting being dangerous? Perhaps you don't know the history of all those photos. Also I think you are not stupid enough to assume that irrate meant anything past the United States where protesting is more a fashion statement than anything else. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 01-20-2006 at 08:34 AM..

01-20-2006, 09:08 AM	#63 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	"protest is a fashion statement" is as deep an explanation for dissent as saying that people join the military because they like boys in uniform. who knows, maybe both are true in some cases. but hey, why worry about actually thinking about what you write since we can always bypass such expenditures of effort and revert to the low-effort, low-thought plane of stereotyping (it's great to have the lumpenconservatives around, lest you forget the centrality of stereotypes to that benighted belief system).... so let's see what these new shallow waters look like: irate, dousing what amounts to a nonsequitor with self-righteousness like a cheap perfume, apparently would have us believe that (1) everyone in the military puts their lives on the line every day. (but much of the military is support/logistics/coordination...) 2 therefore being in the military represents some kind of "authentic" committment while political opposition does not. anyone can play irate's facile game: to the notion that any nitwit can show up for a demo, one could juxtapose the equally facile argument that any fucktard can sign away their personal autonomy by joining the military. it just requires a signature on a contract.... neither says anything. both are worthless. (3) irate apparently sees some kind of opposition between political engagements and the image of matyrdom that he attributes to military service. a marytrdom that is pure image in that it encompasses everyone in the military, from front-line troops to folk who procure food, from helicopter mechanics to secretaries for generals, from line cooks to waiters in officers' clubs--all martyrs in the world outlined by irate above--so it follows that everything thought or done by any of this vast legion of martyrs is better--more considered, more "real"--than anything done by people who are not of the corps. this claim operates as such a deep level of idiocy that there is really nothing more to be said about it. it doesnt even describe the military, much less political opposition. it says nothing--but it does get people riled up i think the word for this kind of thing in messageboard land is a troll. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-20-2006, 09:04 AM	#61 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So standing up for what you believe in, even when it is not popular, and you run the risk of being called a traitor, treasonist, and unpatriotic is a fashion statement? I guess we have different tastes in fashion. Reversing your argumentrunning around with a yellow ribben and shouting out praise to Bush and troups could also be considered a fashion statement... except in this case it is a more popular fashion.....

01-20-2006, 09:52 AM	#64 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	is it just me or are the arguments from the conservative side on this forum become more and more like ramblings from madmen and sounding like rhetoric? In every forum they seem to be getting more and more desperate and because of it they are throwing out hate rhetoric twoard other peoples views...

01-20-2006, 11:10 AM	#68 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Ustwo, The first and last were of Tiananmen Square - I'm well aware of what happened there, I was working at an NPR affiliate when the killing started and switched to the network for coverage. It was very.... unpleasant. The second was a protest regarding an earlier protest in which a massacre occured. the fifth was the same thing, different country. The self immolation of the Buddhist Monk is about as notoriuos a protest that the world has ever seen. The Bay Lap photo is also one of the most famous in the world, and it took place during a war in which the native population clearly wanted to be free of French, then American interference. What else would you like to know? How does this pertain to the right wing's repeated attempts to smear vets instead of debating issues? __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

01-20-2006, 08:25 PM	#72 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Marv, your military experience is what, exactly? You know precisely what "swift-boating" means, why pretend otherwise? Show us your research on Kerry's bronze and anything else you choose to defend your remarks. Make it mainstream evidence, or you will continue to embarrass yourself. Your have joined those that choose to demean Murtha. Prove to me that he achieved "political gain" from his opinion regarding Iraq. Hillary continues to support the Iraq war for political gain. Show me how you reconcile one's war stance based upon their political affiliation and ambitions. I have done my best to try to understand your point of view, but it appears to consist of nothing more than talking point jingoism. You have been a distraction to this topic long enough. Shall we all move on and leave Marvelous Marv to the back button sewer where he belongs?

01-20-2006, 10:19 PM	#79 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Back Button

01-20-2006, 10:24 PM	#80 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	somehow I don't think it is... especially since others have said the same thing now.