Discussion is fine, but most of TFP avoids the Politics board because it ISN'T discussion, it is browbeating each other until one side gives up out of shear fatigue.

This is what is not enjoyable to me anymore and one of the reasons why I have been extremely scarce.

If you choose to believe that's a copout, I can live with that.

Since you asked a simple question without the embellishing sarcasm (another thing that is endemic to this board and something I've given into more than once, to my shame), I'll answer you.

The enemy in Vietnam was not only the VC, but also the North Vietnamese. These were the people who were supporting the rebels and destabilizing the South.

As it was, we dealt with the simptoms, not the disease, while the fifth column was hard at work in America undermining support for the war.

As you said, Tet was a huge loss for the VC, but if you ask the average semi-informed US adult, they think that we lost big...and we did where it mattered, in the arena of public opinion.

So the VC won not because they were better but because they used basic game strategy: they caused us to keep from committing all our forces while they strung out the war, undermining support for it back home...which is what the left is trying to do now in Iraq.

So in that regard, yes, Iraq has the potential to become another Viet Nam.

I don't believe I was browbeating you, or you me. And I hopefully wasn't being sarcastic. In fact, I was rather enjoying this discussion.

The ultra-corrupt South Vietnamese regime itself was also not helping. In fact, it later became an embarrassment for the US to be seen propping them up. But, yes of course the NVA were also the enemy. That's why you bombed the shit out of their capital. To no avail.

The fifth column?! Come on! You honestly don't believe that the anti-war movement was being funded or directed by the North Vietnamese? Because that's what a fifth column is. Another group of enemies.

You mention elsewhere you were glad you lived in a country where you could state your opinion. Does that right not extend to those opposed to the Vietnam war? Or was the shooting dead of those student protestors by the National Guard justified. Be consistent.

I don't think the VC had anything to do with undermining the support for the war "back home". 40,000 US military deaths, pictures of attrocities, war fatigue, the utter corruption of South Vietnamese President Thieu and his extravagant wife... all these contributed to the anti-war movement.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Iraqi "elements" are funding/supporting a secret fifth column in the US today? Don't you think that's a bit unlikely? Perhaps the people now, as they did back in the Vietnam era, just don't want the war?

Yes. Yes it does.



Mr Mephisto

Perhaps we can change this format to where we are asking questions of eachother instead of preaching at eachother.

LOL... fair enough.

That's what I thought I was doing.

Mr Mephisto

Yeah. I just tried that in the What would America do thread and I got accused of hijacking it.

Oh well.

I lost all respect for Bill Maher when he said that it wasn't the executive branch but the judical branch that carries out the law. Most off the time he is talking out of his ass with only his opinions and incorrect facts.

id just like to pop in and say thanks halx, for this wonderful service. ive been a member off and on for at least 4 years (maybe more) and i really dig this forum. discussions like this turn ugly REALLY fast in other places, like fark, et al.

that said, america, please dont re-elect bush. if you do, you will have been dumbed into submission. this campaign and his admin are masterful manipulators, and i suspect at LEAST 30% of his votes come from simply being fooled.

of course, it WOULD help if the dems picked a decent candidate....

1st, Halx, thankyou for being aware of life outside the US. Every year fewer high school students can identify europe, asia, or even the middle east on a map.
as an american resident in europe for more than 13 years, I´ve watched the temperature rise and fall. It´s never been as ugly as it is at the present. GWB really has alienated the entire international community. Relations between US and historically valuable and untouchable allies have been damaged to an almost unknown degree. Bushgang politics have reinforced the arguments of paranoid anti global corporation orwellian drum beating hippies worldwide. Not to mention some of the most intelligent political thinkers and analysts of our time.
you would think that experience and sheer common sense would have taught us a few things. why do we daily sink deeper into national fear and mistrust of any country lacking 7-11s? because we are told this is the new reality. this is how it´s going to be. forever.
thankfully, you folk are the exception to the law of american ignorance and apathy.
even you sad misguided bush buddies.You actually search out information that you would never recieve otherwise. american media has never hit a lower point. in europe we get casualties and informed opinion. in the US you get martha stewart and fox news.
when i tell people i´m from the states, i always feel obliged to add, "but, i´m one of the good ones. there´s a bunch of us. scouts honor."

I think blindly following the fucktard currently at the helm of this country is a mistake- and I see a lot of that. I am honestly shocked by some people's total infatuation with him. I am in complete confusion as to how anyone could think Bush's reign has had any positive effects on this country.

I have come to the conclusion that I do not want a President who runs the country by what he thinks is God's will, despite my religious beliefs. I do not want a president whose ass is occupied by the puppeteer hand of the country's "vocal minority" fundies, when it's not being licked clean by corporations. I do not want a president who caters to special interest groups to the point where a shift in their thought causes him to make different decisions for the entire country as a whole.

There is NO REASON the legal binding and association of two people, regardless of sex, is still not legal.
There is NO REASON why stem cell research, which could very well cure some of the most long-standing incurable diseases and end suffering and death, is still not legal. The restrictions he's placed on their use are laughable at best from a scientific viewpoint.
There is NO REASON why our schools continue to lose money, why they cannot properly train and educate young people due to a lack of budget. Education is key to our collective future.

This is the year 2004, people. I thought by now we'd be past petty bullshit and be able to coexist without trying to force our own will onto other people. There is no way that Bush can move this country in a positive direction from here- he will only take us backwards, put us more in debt, and turn the entire world against us. I voted the asshole in, and now I will cast my vote to see him out. If he wins for another 4 years, i'm placing bets on him causing WWIII... not as an "if", but as a "when".

This is why I have come to the conclusion that on election day, I will be selecting "anyone but Bush" as the next President.

I've finally decided, I think, who to vote for. It's Kerry, but not for different reasons than most folks.

I don't care about their war records and/or dodging efforts. This time around I think my assault weapons are safe from Kerry and that abortions are safe from Bush. I also don't really care about the Patriot act. Yes, it makes me a little nervous, but, that's what the Supreme Court is for. Besides, if I end up caring about it I'll take my voting out on congress. :) As an athiest the Bush God stuff makes me uneasy, but I'm also fiscally conservative enough that the Kerry economic plan makes me nervous also.

The US invasion of Iraq earns Bush a few points. SH is evil and needed to be removed. Doing it without some European/world backing gets him a plus also: I want someone who will tell the world to piss off and do what he thinks is right, up to and including invading another country. In addition, the world needed to know that our attitude towards hostility has changed. I'm sure there's not a world leader who now doesn't know we're serious about active defiance of the US in area of security.

Iraq also looses Bush a few points. I may like it when you tell the world to piss off, but you also need to work vigerously to convince the misguided nations of the Earth to join you. Invading Iraq because you/theCIA _think_ they have WMD is ok. Invading Iraq because it's time to make a statement about the US commitment to security is also ok. Invading Iraq because God told you to free the peoples of the Earth (60 Minutes) is not Ok. Improper oversight of the CIA, where your WMD information comes from, is also not ok (even though I suspect Kerry would have had the same problem with the CIA - every president seems to have this problem with the CIA.)

I want to know that John Kerry will invade a country that is in open defiance of the US and/or harboring terrorists. If he would come right out and say that then I'd be a lot more comfortable. He's said some things lately that make me think that might actually be his position, even though he seems to be obfuscating it (for the benefit of the majority of his party?)

I know Bush will act unilaterally. I now think Kerry will also, so the most important issue to me is now a push. Added in to the mix are the VP and the Speaker of the House telling me I should vote for them because if I don't the terrorists will attack us. Naughty naughty. Intelligent voters don't like it when you pander to the masses with scare tactics. That pushes me over to the Kerry camp.

If Kerry comes out and says he won't invade a country unilaterally, then I'll have to reevaluate. I'll also have to reevaluate if I believe Bush knew there was no WMD/the CIA was wrong. (Invading to make a point is ok. Lying about the reasons are not.)

This is the statement that pushed me in to the Kerry camp:
============(from CNN)================
"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Qaida where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people," Edwards said.

I don't know. I don't read it that way at all. I have serious doubts that Kerry/Edwards will say invade Somalia or Yemen should Osama be there. It appears to stand in contrast to their position on invading a "sovereign" nation without world approval. But hey, that's just me. I've been wrong before.

I finally got around to researching his pre-emption policy. Googling on Kerry pre-emption returns this from a site called commondreams:

"Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am," he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.

Kerry said the intelligence needs to be improved so that the word of a U.S. president "is good enough for people across the world again."

But he added, "I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation."

Hmmm, so unless the US's very existence is threatened or there's a humanitarian reason it won't happen. That kind of goes against pre-emption in my eyes. Pre-emption keeps the threat of our very existence at arm's length rather than at the door knocking.

exactly when did pre-emption become our policy and a 'good thing.' Pre-emption kinda makes me nervous as it seems a president could say, 'this country is a threat, we are going to invade" and bam, we're in a war with no way out....oh wait, we are....

still, I can understand why it could be seen as a good thing, an imminent threat from a country should be stopped asap, but I believe the intelligence required and the evidence against the country should be a bit more substantial than current requirements seem to be...

Besides, could you imagine if the entire world adopted a pre-emptive strike policy?

Of course, what qualifies as "imminent?" Me and Pres. bush seem to disagree on that definition. Maybe we can cut 'n paste the arguments from half a million Iraq threads and save ourselves some effort in this one :)

You are so RIGHT. George has to go. We have committed so many international crimes against the world, that George could be tried for war crimes by an international court except that we are the most powerful Country, and the world has no way of bringing him to trial, except if we the people hand him over and that will never be done. Our current policies and actions in the world has been fertilizer to world terrorism and soon the whole world will be against us. We presently do not walk the talk of our Constitution and if you also look at Bush's campaign promises of 2000 and his actions and bills passed, they do not match up. Bush is not a President of the People, by the People and for the People. Bush is only for the land owners and the american aristocracts, riches 1%. Remember his grandfather H.W. Bush was King of Nicaragua for two years and George W. Bush wants to be King (Fuhrer) of the United States.