Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

KOREA SYNDROME....Matt Yglesias makes a point that's crossed my mind several times lately: even assuming arguendo that liberals suffer from "Vietnam Syndrome," conservatives have them beat to hell and gone. As near as I can tell, liberals have pretty much let go of Vietnam. It's conservatives who continue to be hypersensitive about our loss there.

Anyway, shouldn't we call it "Korea Syndrome"? After all, that was the original quagmire. For all the deification of Harry Truman that we hear from both sides of the aisle these days, it's worth remembering that he left office deeply unpopular primarily because we were bogged down in Korea and nobody trusted him to get us out. That's why Ike got elected: to go to Korea and put an end to the damn thing. Following in Truman's footsteps might not be the wisest course for a liberal wartime president.

Kevin Drum 4:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (121)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So maybe it's really Post-WWII Syndrome? As in, WWII was the first major war to cause heavy civilian casualties, and that (very serious) concern has affected our abilitiy to fight and win wars since, both in reality and on the PR front.

Posted by: PapaJijo on June 14, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

As in, WWII was the first major war to cause heavy civilian casualties

In 1257, the Mongols invaded Persia and put 800,000 civillians to the sword. Maybe you should say "first major modern war" -? just a thought.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Like there will ever be a liberal president!
Just go on thinking it possible, and scratching your heads the day after elections...

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on June 14, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

When the conservatives talk about the will to win they do mean the willingness to engage in mass murder of civilians at a scale bordering on genocide.

In that sense, we all should be relieved that we do not have the will to win. At least I am.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Osama_Been_Forgotten: In 1257, the Mongols invaded Persia and put 800,000 civillians to the sword.

So what Iran is actually looking to do is nuke Mongolia. Ok, then at least the US should be pretty safe.

Posted by: alex on June 14, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

I wish we'd go back to Gulf War I Syndrome - ya know, where we go in, have a clearly defined mission, get-r-done, and come home. But I guess that is sooooo 1990's...

Posted by: Robert on June 14, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

I wish we'd go back to Gulf War I Syndrome - ya know, where we go in, have a clearly defined mission, get-r-done, and come home. But I guess that is sooooo 1990's...
Posted by: Robert on June 14, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ironically, this strategy was referred to as "The Powell Doctrine."

Interesting, when you consider that Powell originally said "no way in hell" was he interested in working for the Bush Administration, pre-2000-election. Then he apparently got an offer he couldn't refuse (I'm guessing photos of Michael Powell with a hooker) and signed up. Powell gave the Bush Administration the credibility it needed to go to war in Iraq, since Powell had succeeded there before. This is just another one of those coincidences that prove to me beyond any doubt that Bush planned to invade Iraq in 1999.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Ike did not end the Korean War. The Korean War ended because Stalin died and the men who took over immediately reversed course and agreed to meaningful negotiations.

Yet another right-wing fable gets internalized by us liberals.

Posted by: dan on June 14, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

It's worth remembering that we haven't won that many wars. Maybe we wouldn't be so eager to start them.

Posted by: Moe is me on June 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

That's why Ike got elected: to go to Korea and put an end to the damn thing.

And why General Wesley Clark is a legitimate contender for the Dem nomination for the 2008 race.

Posted by: Edo on June 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

"arguendo" Goddamn it Kevin will you stop reading conservative lawyer blogs with all of their fancy pretensions.

Try fucking using English.

When you see "arguendo", LEAVE IT OUT. It is redundant and pretentious.

even assuming arguendo that liberals...
even assuming that liberals...
even assuming for the sake of argument that liberals...

What the hell do you think "even assuming" means?

jebus save me!

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's worth remembering that we haven't won that many wars. Maybe we wouldn't be so eager to start them.
Posted by: Moe is me on June 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

It's even more worth remembering that the only people who ever win wars, are the sword manufacturers.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Don't use graf, worse don't use graph, and try not to use conflate.

Don't be an overly ingroupie legal-media-blogger jerkwad.

Are.we.clear?

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Some goddamn overly hip ingroupie legal media blogger jerkwad, and a liberal one at that, said yesterday, "Here's teh graph." And then guess what jerkface proceeded to show us?

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

You never win nut, hence the lack of will. Get use to it.

Do you guys just not read current events and just make up your own alternate universe? Iraq is far from your delusions of quagmire. Maliki has a handle on the country and the permanent government, Zarqawi's dead, the Iraqi military is gaining ground everyday and now Iran has now made overtures towards helping us out in Iraq.

But please tell the voters this fall how displeased you are with all of that.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone considered that the incorrect illogical decision to start a war might somehow relate to it's conclusion? If it's well thought out, not a plan to win re-election, there is a well thought out exit strategy, all the reasons for the war are well considered and fully backed by a very high majority of Americans (above 75%)then the potential for victory is much greater. Perhaps if we didn't start stupid wars then we wouldn't fail at them.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 14, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hey jerry...shut the fuck up.

Posted by: STFU on June 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'm glad to see Kevin admit that when George P.Bush is running his uncle will be remembered as the Harry Truman of the turn of the century.

Posted by: minion of rove on June 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK
In 1257, the Mongols invaded Persia and put 800,000 civillians to the sword. Maybe you should say "first major modern war" -? just a thought.

I think, in this context, "the first major war in which the United States was a party" would actually be the proper phrase.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Iran has now made overtures towards helping us out in Iraq.

Certainly, which way did you come in?

Posted by: Iran on June 14, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Re Vietnam and Korea (and Iraq, and even WWII): see "Stabbed in the Back!" by Kevin Baker in the current (June) issue of Harper's. Not online, very unfortunately.

Posted by: penalcolony on June 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK
What the hell do you think "even assuming" means?

Its kind of a shorthand for "Even if I/We were to assume"; the addition of "arguendo" adds the connotation "which, were we to make that assumption, would only be for the sake of argument, not because such an assumption is reasonable or even remotely plausible", which is not really redundant. Admittedly, arguendo adds more when used when you aren't already using "even", which adds a certain connotation that the assumption discussed isn't necessarily being endorsed, but "arguendo" is considerably more emphatic about the lack of endorsement.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq is far from your delusions of quagmire.
Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yesterday, in neocon paradise:

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: ... even assuming arguendo that liberals suffer from "Vietnam Syndrome," ...

There is indeed a "syndrome" that liberals such as Kevin suffer from. It's the syndrome that compels them to wail and moan and gnash their teeth and twist themselves into quivering knots of self-doubt over every stupid, vapid, vacuous slander that fake, phony pseudo-"conservative" poseurs hurl at them.

The Vietnam War, like Bush's war in Iraq, was founded on lies, and sustained by lies; and caused the needless deaths of more than 50,000 Americans and some TWO MILLION Vietnamese civilians, and the maiming, poisoning and impoverishment of millions more.

Disgust with that wretched and hideous exercise in pointless destruction and a strong determination to never let such a thing happen again is not a "syndrome". It is common sense and common decency.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Amen, Kevin. It's the right that can't let go of Vietnam, or indeed of the 1960s in general. Their whole outlook on governing, such as it is, is based on essentially erasing the years 1960-1980 from the history books. (And among the even nuttier of them, they'd prefer to start the erasures at 1932.)

Our reactionary friends never hesitate to hang Vietnam around our necks if it suits their rhetorical purpose ("Vietnam was a liberal war! And look what happened!"), but we all know good and goddamn well that, back then, their wingnut forefathers were gung-ho for the war -- and, if it were occurring today, we also know good and goddamn well that Instapundit and all his brethren would be hysterically in favor of the war. And, indeed, even today those who protested the war (like a certain Senator from Massachusetts) are reviled as "traitors" for having done so.

So, shorter conservatives: the Vietnam War was wrong, but it was also wrong to criticize our presence there.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on June 14, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't "Conservatives" that cannot let go of Nam. It is Republicans. Republicans have to be vigilant to ensure that the blame for "losing" Vietnam is placed on our military and the soldiers who served there like Gore, Kerry and Cleland rather than Republican politicians like Nixon and Ford.

Posted by: bakho on June 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Arguendo, STFU, that I should STFU, are you the man that's going to come over here and STFMEUP?

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, "Admittedly, arguendo adds more when used when you aren't already using "even","

Thank you for conceding the point.

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Osama, did you realize that there are over 120 people murdered everyday in this country? Why not post all of the murders in this country everyday and claim it a quagmire?

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK
Arguendo, STFU, that I should STFU, are you the man that's going to come over here and STFMEUP?

More importantly than avoiding using arguendo because it is (arguably) redundant in some contexts should be avoiding misusing it by itself to be mean "Assuming, arguendo,..."

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Elements of Style 13. Omit needless words.

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Please! Think of the readers!

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Osama also doesn't realize that the jihadists are playing him for the fool he is. They know him better than he knows himself. In fact they know the left better than the left and they play on your fears every single day of your pathetic victim based life.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans have to be vigilant to ensure that the blame for "losing" Vietnam is placed on our military and the soldiers who served there like Gore, Kerry and Cleland rather than Republican politicians like Nixon and Ford.
Posted by: bakho on June 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Don't forget;
When we leave Iraq, and the shit hits the fan (ie. a massive genocide of Sunnis) - Liberals will be blamed. We didn't clap loud enough.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

And, additionally, shouldn't it be SMeTFUp, not STFMEUP.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hey that's my point, I don't know what it means. I am not a lawyer and the goddamn word isn't English.

Please use English or Spanish Mr. Calpundit!

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kerry keeps bringing up Vietnam and how long was he there, four months?

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, you're right about that. I dickered between STFmeUP and STFMEUP and didn't consider STFMeUp. Thank you.

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Poor little victim osama. If it just wasn't for those big bad republicans, the jihadists could treat me like the bitch I am and want to be.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway, I need to get back to work. I am going to STFU right now.

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

jerry,

Granting, arguendo, that the advice from Elements of Style can be fairly taken as gospel, it is insufficient to argue against the use of "arguendo" that you have complained about, because that use makes clear authorial intent which is otherwise not clear; the word does "tell".

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

four months?
Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Four months longer than:
Bush,
Rummy,
Cheney,
Rove,
Wolfowitz,
Pearle,
Fleischer,
Rice,
Limbaugh,
Hannity,
O'Riley,
Jay,

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

and your point? oh that's right liberals never really have a point. Nevermind.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Fairless unimportant debate as to which side is worse at letting go of Vietnam. I think it depends on what one means by letting go.

Some conservatives continue to be upset that we withdrew from Vietnam with (what they believe to be) horrendous consequences for Vietnamese and Cambodian people. That they are still upset means that they haven't let go of Vietnam.

Some liberals tend to see other wars through the lens of Vietnam. E.g., both Afghjanistan and Iraq were called "quagmires" within a short time of the beginning of hostilities. E.g., during Bush's press conference this morning, a reporter asked if Iraq was like Vietnam. I believe that was a liberal reporter. In fact, I believe the meme that Iraq is another Vietnam is mostly supported by Bush's opponents. (For the record, Bush said Iraq wasn't like Vietnam.)

So, in the sense of thinking all wars are like Vietnam, liberals haven't let go.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 14, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Chickenhawks

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK
Hey that's my point, I don't know what it means.

I thought your problem was that it was redundant, not that you didn't understand it. The objections seem inconsistent.

I am not a lawyer and the goddamn word isn't English.

I think arguendo is widely understood by Kevin's target audience such that there is value in using it in favor over less-concise synonyms like "for the sake of argument" that aren't neolatinisms.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

True American Hero

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

and your point? oh that's right liberals never really have a point. Nevermind.
Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I was kind of wondering what your point was. I found it. On the top of your head.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives are still hung up on their "stab in the back" myth, like certain other right-wingers in a certain other country once were.

Posted by: Red on June 14, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Osama, did you realize that there are over 120 people murdered everyday in this country? Why not post all of the murders in this country everyday and claim it a quagmire?

Breathtaking in its complete lack of a relationship to common sense. Just goddamn breathtaking.

Posted by: craigie on June 14, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, great news everyone!

Dubya's tax cuts are working so great, the DJIA went up 100 points today to close at 10,706. That brings us back up to the level it was at in, oh, um. ... . November 1999!

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

A perfect example of the right wing's Vietnam Syndrome (from the Corner):

Iraq and Vietnam [Cliff May]

Much as I hope to see a free and democratic Iraq, I dont think democratization is the key distinction or the key issue.

We lost in Vietnam because we didnt have the will and the skills to prevail. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people and millions of Cambodian victims of the Khmer Rouge paid the stiffest price.

Americans went home and got on with their lives. But notice was taken of Americas failure.

That led to the seizure of our embassy in Tehran in 1979. When we responded fecklessly to that act of war, the Ayatollahs let loose Hezbollah to slaughter U.S. Marines, diplomats and intelligence agents in Beirut. We retreated again.

And we were tested again in Mogadishu in 1993. We did not pass that test either.

So Osama bin Laden was inspired to train thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan. We knew what he was doing. We did nothing serious in response. Before long, they came after us in Kenya and Tanzania, off the coast of Yemen and then in New York and Washington.

Eliminating Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaedas commander in Iraq, was a great victory. But its important to continue to pursue the enemy not stop fighting prematurely as we did in both 1991 and 2003.

If we fail to prevail against al-Qaeda and the remnants of Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq, why would we not falter also in Afghanistan? And why wouldnt the same strategy and tactics lead to victory for the Islamo-fascists in Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere?

We either develop the will and the military and intelligence skills to defeat the enemy we now face on the battlefield in Iraq, or we retreat not just from Iraq but from anyplace our enemies dont want us.

We either overcome our enemies or we resign ourselves to cowering behind concrete barriers for the remainder of this century.

Who knew that Ho Chi Minh beget the overthrow of the Shah of Iran beget Somali warlords beget Afghani jihadist! And who knew the domino theory could be so readily resuscitated?

Posted by: LY of Brooklyn on June 14, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like an endorsement of Gen. Wesley Clark in '08.

Posted by: dk on June 14, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, I see that the same Cliff May post is what Yglesias was commenting on in the first place! My bad. Always click on the link!

Posted by: LY of Brooklyn on June 14, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Korea, vietnam, Iraq, all my fault ....

Confessions Of A Traitor

They are going to blame the failure of the Iraq war on me. They always blame me for these things. Im almost used to it by now. I almost dont mind being called a traitor.

I was a traitor in 1950 when I said that the military decision to push beyond the 38th parallel, after expelling the North Korean army from South Korea, was foolishly inviting disaster. I believed that China would surely intervene to keep us from threatening its borders. My commanding officer called me a traitor for predicting the bloody retreat and disaster that followed.

I was again a traitor in 1965 when the group I belonged to, Veterans For Peace, warned that the growing military adventure in Vietnam was doomed to end in failure and disgrace. We were accused of treason for not supporting our troops. But it was not us who failed to support our troops. It was the foolish and deluded men in the Pentagon, State Department, and White House who sent 65,000 young Americans to die in an unwinnable war fought under impossible circumstances.

Now it is happening again. After it became clear three years ago that Iraq was a target for invasion, tens of thousands of my fellow traitors and I began protesting against the persistent stupidity of pursuing this tragically failing war. We see the same old vehement ignorance at work once more. We can hardly be blamed for believing that Iraq is Korea and Vietnam all over again. And once more we are called traitors for not supporting our troops.

I said Im almost used to being called that. Almost. Considering the sort of people doing the accusing, I should be content to wear the label, but I prefer to think of myself as a patriot. After all, my ancestors were called traitors in 1776, but today are thought of as great patriots. So I prefer to think of my kind of treason as a family tradition. And to paraphrase an old family friend: If this be treason, then I shall try to make the most of it.

Posted by: buddy66 on June 14, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

OBF, thanks for bringing the DJIA up. It had been in the high 11's for months almost hitting 12 (highest ever) until the recent sparring with Iran. It's now climbing again. Can you say 12,000.

Also, federal revenue receipts up 13% over forecast.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

buddy, you have nothing in common with our ancestors of 1776. They had a firm belief in God, a firm sense of right from wrong, extreme self confidence and never played the victim. You possess none of those qualities.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Can you say 12,000.
Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

I do, I do, I DO believe in faeries!

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not at all worried about losing elections. Who cares about that inferior rabble?

We don't need to control the White House or Congress, or even the Supreme Court. We don't need influence in the corporate boardrooms of giant media conglomerates.

All we need is a couple of obscure blogs on the internet. That's it!

Just by being pessimistic about Iraq, and saying how we're in a quagmire, I ensure defeat! Just like I did in VietNam. I have that power. (maybe because I'm in league with Satan). There's nothing that the President, or the Congress, or the American Enterprise Institute (even with their paid blog trolls) can do! I'm a pessimistic liberal, and I kick ass! I rule the world HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: Liberal Strawman on June 14, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, i said MY ancestors, not "our"s. Mine were Deists, traitors, slaveowners, and were victimized when the British burned them out of their homes. You talk shit, kid.

Posted by: buddy66 on June 14, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Sombody should have told them to build another home, protect it, and quit whining.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

It had been in the high 11's for months almost hitting 12 (highest ever) until the recent sparring with Iran. It's now climbing again. Can you say 12,000.

The jokes write themselves.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, thanks for that reminder about how short-term the US's collective memory is about its recent past. I'm astounded at how Truman's reputation has been rehabilitated and he's now become a iconic American president. The focus on his years in the White House has been moved from the quagmire in Korea to his resoluteness in stopping the Communist juggernaut from enveloping the entire world.

That revisionism probably has a lot to do with Americans' attitudes towards its wars. It seems crucial to our self-image that we are always triumphant in war. When we aren't, we tend to slide the focus to something else we think did well in. Today, it seems the American experience in Korea is a fuzzy memory at best to most Americans. I'll bet not one in ten can accurately describe the genesis of the war and how the various participants fared in it.

I've noticed the same process is beginning for Vietnam too. I wonder how future Americans are going to view our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Will George Bush be an iconic president to Americans some 60 years from now when time has blurred the actual facts? It seems to me this is less of a liberal-conservative issue than a question of maintaining a national self-image that ignores our warts.

Posted by: Taobhan on June 14, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Jay wrote: ... never played the victim

No one "plays the victim" more than so-called "conservatives."

Rush Limbaugh has made himself a multi-millionaire by preaching every day to his ditto-head followers that they are the poor little victims of the "liberal elites" who run the country. And they are victims of women. And they are victims of blacks. And they are victims of Latinos. And on and on ad nauseum. Poor little white male conservative victims.

Actually, they are indeed victims -- of the far right-wing ultra-rich corporate elites and their bought-and-paid-for political servants and shills like George W. Bush and their lying-sack-of-shit hate-radio windbags like Rush Limbaugh -- but Rush does a good job of keeping them too ignorant and stupid to realize that.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

You don't listen very closely do you secular. Rush laughs at the left who wants the masses to believe just what you described, knowing that conservativve Americans are the most aggressive A-Type personality people there are.

The fact that you perceived the opposite is hysterical.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

I have not let Vietnam go. The US has not adequately asked forgiveness for killing millions of people.

Posted by: Hostile on June 14, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are like mosquitos. Annoying and blood sucking but so insignificant they're hardly worth much time and effort.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Hey hostile, forgive this........

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

When the conservatives talk about the will to win they do mean the willingness to engage in mass murder of civilians at a scale bordering on genocide.

One often hears the lament the military was prevented from winning the war in Vietnam. I respond that if ony we could have killed 25 million more people we would have won.

Posted by: Hostile on June 14, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, did you just rape, murder and eat the liver of a little Iraqi child?

Posted by: Hostile on June 14, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, it's true that as I'm riding my limousine, eating brie, and chatting with my freinds in France on my encrypted, NSA-proof satellite phone, I'm often worried that the American working class will catch on to the things Rush Limbaugh is telling them, and that their aggressive A-Type personalities will kick in, and they'll start voting even more republican.

I talked to some Ivy League tenured college professors (while we were banging their students, male and female) about this problem, and they told me not to worry, because I can continue to just criticize America, and keep spending George Soros' money, and the Power of Liberal Pessimism will ensure defeat in Iraq, and the massive takeover of the world by the New Muslim Caliphate Empire, where we Liberal Elites will be rewarded for our multicultural sensitivity, with harems selected from the finest Red State debutantes. (as if we don't debauch them as things are today; simply by brainwashing them with our Hollywood movies that we force them to watch).

Posted by: Liberal Strawman on June 14, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

If those "civilians" engage in suicide bombing, car bombing, and jihadism, then hell yes. Wipe them all out.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

I cooked it first.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

If those "civilians" engage in suicide bombing, car bombing, and jihadism, then hell yes. Wipe them all out.
Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh!

I get it now.

Terrorists are people who attack civillians.
Liberators attack "civillians".

I wonder if they attack the "civillians" that "Speak English" also. . .

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are like mosquitos. Annoying and blood sucking but so insignificant they're hardly worth much time and effort.

Just the time and effort it takes to post on this site I guess.

Posted by: cyntax on June 14, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Osama_Been_Forgotten, I'm nor sure one can measure the results of Bush's tax cuts by how the stock market did. There are many other factors.

However, if you're going to do that measurement, your point of comparison should be where the market was right before the tax cuts went into effect. As I recall the tax cuts started around 2002, but didn't take effect all at once. For what it's worth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up about 50% from its low point in fall, 2002.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 14, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Just don't get it do you OBF. Quit listening to Howard Dean and Cindy Sheehan. That might help.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: ...As I recall the tax cuts started around 2002, but didn't take effect all at once. For what it's worth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up about 50% from its low point in fall, 2002.

Personally, I don't think it's worth all that much unless one goes on to note all the other factors that were working at that time:

"A more comprehensive look at the evidence, however, indicates that, while the dividend and capital gains tax cuts were indeed correlated with the upturn in the recover, they were not the cause of the improvement."

Posted by: cyntax on June 14, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Terrorists are people......" OBF

I just now realized I overlooked that. It's priceless.

Terrorists are people.....who just need hugs.

Right? OBF, Hostile?

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

There's one "Vietnam Syndrome" aspect of our Mesopotamian adventure that right-wingers seem suspiciously quiet about: According to their myth, we would have won easily, if only LBJ and his gang hadn't "meddled" with the geniuses in the Pentagon. Ever since the rug got pulled out from under Army Chief of Staff Shinseki, it's been clear that the Bush crowd doesn't hesitate to scrap the professional advice of uniformed officers. Now, sure, civilians are supposed to be in charge, and honestly, given modern communications the general who expects no oversight from politicians may as well be studying cavalry tactics or swordsmanship. Still, I keep waiting for howls of outrage about how Bush and Rumsfeld almost certainly browbeat the theater commanders into saying that they have enough resources.

Posted by: sglover on June 14, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

knowing that conservativve Americans are the most aggressive A-Type personality people there are.

Um, it's clear you don't see the connection between the constant state of paranoia about being victimized and the fact that right-wingers lash out with irrational agression, egged on by jokers like Rush who convince them that they're besieged by "librul elites."

Posted by: Constantine on June 14, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Still, I keep waiting for howls of outrage about how Bush and Rumsfeld almost certainly browbeat the theater commanders into saying that they have enough resources.

Note to sglover: don't hold your breath. Before that could happen there'd have to be a sea-change in the administration such that they valued the military for something more than politically expedient grand-standing and photo-ops.

Posted by: cyntax on June 14, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Constantine, the liberals are legends in their own minds and that is what entertains us. We hardly need "irrational aggression" to fend off the mosquitoes, the next election will do.

Speaking of irrational aggression, the collective left, exemplified by Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton and Al Franken seem to be going off the deep end more and more.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Cool game, Jay, can I play?

If those "civilians" engage in suicide bombing, car bombing, and jihadism, then hell yes. Wipe them all out.
Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

"I. . . . engage in suicide bombing,. . . "

Priceless!
Wish it were true. I'd enthusiastically supply the explosives if it were.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

When the conservatives talk about the will to win they do mean the willingness to engage in mass murder of civilians at a scale bordering on genocide.

So-called "conservatives" not only do not have the will to volunteer for the armed forces in sufficient numbers, let alone consider a draft, they insist on paying for the war with a tax cut.

Will to win, my eye. Sure, as long as it doesn't cost them anything. The world trembles at the conservative bravado...not.

Posted by: Gregory on June 14, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

. . . Wipe them all out.

By the way, Jay, I sure hope you weren't holding your breath waiting for Bush to do that (wipe them all out) - because if you haven't figured it out after three years, he does not have the BALLS to do that. There is nothing stopping him, right? I mean, he says he doesn't have to obey laws, he's got Congress, the Judiciary on his side - so why doesn't he do what you want him to do, and "wipe them all out?"

Answer: If he did, then he'd have to pack up his toys and go home, and his war profiteer buddies would have to stop billing the taxpayers, and we might peacefully get some oil out of the ground, and his oil company buddies wouldn't be able to charge $70/bbl anymore.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Greggy, you might want to check out the conservatice to liberal ration in our armed forces. You might be surprised to learn that the far far majority of them are conservatives. Thanks for playing though.

Your claiming that GW doesn't have the BALLS to take care of business when you have been sniveling and crying for four years now about "civilian" deaths. I am surprised you even had the BALLS to post that comment, knowing that you don;t have the brains to know the difference.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jay,

Why not post all of the murders in this country everyday and claim it a quagmire?

Are you saying that the USA is an occupied country?

Posted by: Edo on June 14, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

No, moron, simply trying to pin down the left's definition of a quagmire.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

We were in Vietnam because Kennedy said we would bare any burden and pay any price. I agreed. When we left Vietnam we were victorious. Don't re-write history. Vietnam was abondoned. North Vietnamese causualties were over 1 million. N. Vietanm could only win after we left them and cut S. Vietnam off, while the Russians and Chinese supplied N. Vietnam with all they would need. Afterward over 1 million S. Vietnamese were murdered.

Posted by: Fuck You on June 14, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Greggy, you might want to check out the conservatice to liberal ration in our armed forces. You might be surprised to learn that the far far majority of them are conservatives. Thanks for playing though.

Jay, we don't have enough troops in Iraq to provide even minimal security. If Iraq was as important as you Bush Cultists claim it is, it'd be imperative that you join up. As has already been established, though, your ass is comfortably Stateside along with your chickenhawk brethren. I notice you didn't address Bush's ludicrous insistence on paying for the war with a tax cut, because, no doubt, the cognitive dissonance is too much.

Bottom line: Bush knew all along the American people -- indeed, his own so-called "conservative" base -- would be unwilling to pay the price of his Iraqi adventure, so he lied about it. Now that things are heading south, the American people show signs of buyer's remorse. But, true to form, the Chickenhawk Brigade are still cheering for the war -- and why not? They have no skin in the game.

Yeah, real ballsy. Real brave.

Posted by: Gregory on June 14, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Jay's obvious pain and ability to fall into sophomoric name-calling must be an indication that he also can see the end of the road soon to the average American's ability to stomach anymore rightwing lies and incompetence.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

I think, in this context, "the first major war in which the United States was a party" would actually be the proper phrase.

Yes, sorry, I should have made clear I was referring specifically to wars involving the United States.

Anyway, it was just a hypothesis I put out to maybe start a discussion about the reasons for these Korean/Vietnam/Iraq Syndromes. But I see the comment thread, as usual, devolved quickly into troll spats.

Posted by: PapaJijo on June 14, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Et tu, Brute?

But see, that's not redundant. "Even assuming, argudeno" is redundant and pretentious. If you want to get me in a tizzy, tell me about your trip to the La Brea Tar Pits. (Doesn't get me in a tizzy either.)

For cmdicely, If I understand what arguendo means, it is not because I understand Latin, but because I can read a dictionary meant for layman. But that doesn't mean I think that dictionary is authoritative.

law.com suggests it means "for the sake of argument", at which point I have to chuck out all of your niceties about the subtleties of when to use arguendo and when not to. But it also seems perfectly reasonable to say,

"For the sake of argument, I should STFU, then...."

And if so, by law.com, what would be wrong with,

"Arguendo, I should STFU"

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And the claim that Kevin's audience all understands what that means? Cool, let's just speak to the hip lawyer media cognoscenti. I guess that would explain the different numbers of audience for say, the Washington Monthly and SI.

What is really being said, and this is the key graf, so don't conflate it with this key graph referenced in the other post, is that even assuming for the sake of argument and arguendo, that we wanted to win an election, what's more important is that we look cool than actually speak english.

Color me Feh.

Posted by: jerry on June 14, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

'When we left Vietnam we were victorious. Don't re-write history. Vietnam was abondoned. North Vietnamese causualties were over 1 million. N. Vietanm could only win after we left them and cut S. Vietnam off, while the Russians and Chinese supplied N. Vietnam with all they would need. Afterward over 1 million S. Vietnamese were murdered.'
--FU (how cute...)

Actually, we weren't victorious. But history has been re-written by the conservatives, who equate militarism with patriotism. A little history lesson -

The conflict in Vietnam (previously French Indochina) began as an insurgency against French colonial rule , not unlike what the U.S. is facing in Iraq right now. The U.S. supported the French and were a party to the Geneva Accords that partitioned Vietnam into North and South in 1954. When Ho Chi Minh moved in 1957 to re-unite the country, the U.S. intervened, first with military advisers, then with troops in the 1960s. After the Tet offensive in 1968, the American public grew disillusioned and protests gathered steam, notably culminating at Kent State in 1970. The U.S. fled Vietnam in 1975 and the country re-united, which we had been trying to prevent since 1957. How this constitutes a victory is beyond me.

Further, if 1 million people were slaughtered after we left, a number at least that large were slaughtered by the United States in the years 1963 -75, including the most egregious use of WMDs (chemical weapons) against civilians since, well, we used them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather than learning from our mistakes, we now find ourselves smack in the middle of another civil war in Iraq, with our inevitable retreat without accomplishing our "goal" looming large.

You can go on believing in fairy tales if you wish, smart guy. I like to believe that the march of civilization is a march away from barbarism. And, I like to learn from my mistakes...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 14, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

jerry: you on the east coast? Let's work something out, sweetheart.

And I guarantee you, when I'm done, you will have shut the fuck up.

Posted by: STFU on June 14, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Vietnam has been described by leftists as a "fool's errand." I guess that actually explains why Uncle Sam had to send me! Fool that I and my friends were at that young age, we did pretty well with a situation that Lyndon Baines Johnson had screwed up from the get-go. By the time I passed through in late 1972 we had achieved a Korea-style stalemate, only with the critical difference that the American left were now hell-bent on throwing away the ultimate sacrifice of a lot of good people.
Our retreat was not at all inevitable and I will always believe that we did not kill nearly as many civilians as did the Viet Cong and the NVA in their quiet but quite deliberate murders of anyone who disagreed with their political aim.
I sure hope the leftists of today don't think that they can get away with throwing away another hard-won victory because it suits their America-hating view of the world.
Vietnam may be "united" today, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a nation that tolerates either freedom of conscience or a pluralistic type of democratic rule.
It is hopelessly obvious that post modern American leftists really don't give a damn about democracy or even quaint liberal values. If you guys had your way American red staters would obviously not enjoy any input at all into any national policy, but all policies would be dictated by some type of single-party Politburo who all believe with the passion of the truly dogmatic fanatic that the Haditha marines are guilty, the Duke Lacrosse players are guilty, and that human beings have something significant to do with the very slight climate change of the last 80 years.

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 14, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

"When the conservatives talk about the will to win they do mean the willingness to engage in mass murder of civilians at a scale bordering on genocide."

It is the liberals objecting to the small, mission oriented army rather than the human wave cannon fodder war that Rumsfeld got away from. No other army ever put itself at risk to reduce civilian casualties as we have.

Ike's "If I am elected I will go to Korea and end the war" kept me from ever considering the republican party. I belive that killed lots of our guys because it said kill enough Americans and they will quit.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on June 14, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

What if we never went into Viet Nam? Would anything have changed? After all is said and done it's their country and if the wanted to be commies who cares.
Same with Iraq, I don't recall getting a postcard from Bagdad Bob requesting troops. Iraq as a military threat come on.
All this moaning and groaning about Soviet Union feels like we get a little more like them all the time. You know all the domestic spying on each other. We have more people behind bars than any place on earth.

Posted by: jmb on June 15, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

Fool that I and my friends were at that young age, we did pretty well with a situation that Lyndon Baines Johnson had screwed up from the get-go.

You participated in killing between one and two million Vietnamese civilians in order to achieve a stalemate that kept a brutal, weak, corrupt and incompetent dictatorship in power in Saigon -- one so feeble, divided and unpopular that it could be propped up only by hundreds of thousands of US troops and massive US air support. At the first sustained offensive by the NVA after the US left, the RVN literally dissolved into thin air, largely ignored, despised or hated by its own citizens. No doubt the stalemate could have been maintained indefinitely if the US had been willing to keep a minimum of 100,000 troops in South Vietnam forever. Then South Vietnam would have been able to enjoy its vicious and corrupt dictatorship for another few decades, before ultimately arriving at pretty much the same place it's in today: an authoritarian capitalist country gradually becoming more transparent and instituting the rule of law, with, hopefully, an eventual transition to democracy on the horizon.

Except, of course, you probably would have had to kill a few hundred thousand more people.

You went to Vietnam because your country called. You don't have to take responsibility for the atrocities that went on there. But if you choose to, then may the lives of those millions who died for no reason be on your head.

Posted by: brooksfoe on June 15, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

To a leftist war is hell only to be used when absolutely necessary. Our military is called a defensive military so the necessity first would be an attack upon us. Vietnam nor Iraq attacked us but in the 40's, Japan did. The support for a war with Japan was tremendous from the beginning until surrender. Surely even a rightwinger can see the difference. The reasons for going to war must be ones that are sensible, right, necessary and meet rational criteria that deem war the only answer to defend the US. Vietnam nor Iraq reaches this level so they were/are doomed to failure. Osama bin Laden attacked the US yet he remains free. Is Bush afraid of Pakistan where Osama hides? The American people would support bringing Osama to justice but yet Awol can't seem to do it after nearly 5 years. He was/is our enemy not Iraq. Why don't rightwingers scream their heads off about Osama's freedom-if liberals were in power and had failed to find him they would be. Hmmm. Instead the worry about a war with the wrong country where Osama was not. Do they really care about defending the USA?

Posted by: Where's osama on June 15, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

If you guys had your way American red staters would obviously not enjoy any input at all into any national policy

Mike Cook, you're right. If I had my way, people like you would not enjoy any input at all into any national policy. And if you had your way, people like me would not enjoy any input at all into any national policy. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, with rules that are supposed to ensure we both have our say. Of course, under your President, the traditions of compromise in our lawmaking bodies have been thrown out the window in favor of total rule by the narrow GOP majority, so in point of fact while you guys did have a say under our governments, we have had no say under yours. But that's because people like you have fascist instincts.

Posted by: brooksfoe on June 15, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure I understand mike cook's position ... I think it is completely sound policy to ignore input from the bigoted religious fanatics he represents.

I tolerate these ignorant fucks, but I certainly don't want them dictating policy ... the body count is high enough as it is.

Posted by: Nads on June 15, 2006 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

Mike Cook:

It seems like you are filled with hate. Get help.

SK

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 15, 2006 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

The Repub'ns crow abt putting "the VietNam syndrome" behind us, but they themselves have "learned" one big lesson from VietNam: if they want to have their little wars, they must *never again* have a draft.

Posted by: Steve on June 15, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

It is hopelessly obvious that post modern American leftists really don't give a damn about democracy or even quaint liberal values. If you guys had your way American red staters would obviously not enjoy any input at all into any national policy, but all policies would be dictated by some type of single-party Politburo who all believe with the passion of the truly dogmatic fanatic.....

I think the Republican Party is already occupying that position, though it's the blue-states (you know, the ones that lead the country in quality of life, technological innovation, etc.) that are being shut out.

Posted by: sglover on June 15, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK


jay: Can you say 12,000.

DID YOU KNOW....WHEN CLINTON CAME INTO OFFICE..THE DOW WAS 3241....WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE....IT STOOD AT 10,587...

DID YOU KNOW WHEN GWB CAME INTO OFFICE....IT STARTED AT 10587 AND AFTER 5-YEARS IS CURRENTLY AT 10,800

the difference?

since bush and the gop took over.....about 3-trillion dollars has been added to the federal debt...

that's 3-trillion...

with a "t"

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 15, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

jay: federal revenue receipts up 13% over forecast.


for those who missed it earlier...


In dollar terms, federal receipts from personal income taxes, at $802 billion in 2004, are still lower than they were in 1998 ($826 billion) and much lower than in 2001 ($994 billion)...

SOURCE: "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates." - Congressional Budget Office 12/10/05

Federal reciepts (measured in contant dollars) were less in 2004 than 2000

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

Tax revenues hit "all-time highs" on a regular basis because the economy is constantly growing. Like home ownership.

DID YOU KNOW Clinton had "all time highs" in Federal tax revenues 8-years in a row, before and after Republican congresses, before and after tax increases.

DID YOU KNOW that Federal tax revenues FELL in 2001, AGAIN in 2002, and DOWN even more in 2003. That hasn't happened since the GREAT DEPRESSION.

jay knows this....he and the president hope you don't...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 15, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

"DID YOU KNOW WHEN GWB CAME INTO OFFICE....IT STARTED AT 10587 AND AFTER 5-YEARS IS CURRENTLY AT 10,800

the difference?

since bush and the gop took over.....about 3-trillion dollars has been added to the federal debt...

that's 3-trillion..."

Bush et. al., wanted to prove Keynes wrong, and well, this is a pretty good example of that.

(Not true of course because of how the 3T was spent, and clearly it wasn't in anything like a jobs program)

Posted by: jerry on June 15, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen Kriz,

You are an idiot. If you knew anything about that area of the world you refer to as "French Indochina" you would know that there has always been a cultural and social division between the northern and southern areas to which you refer. You ignore all the geo-political forces at play during that time.
I am sorry you don't think dropping the bomb to save millions of lives, Japanese and American, in an assault on the Japaneese mainland was not worht it but it was worth it to me.
I am afraid it is you who need help. You need a proper history lesson. It seems today some people are really ignorant of what happend in WWII, Vietnam , Korea, all of it.

If you think your way is enlightend you are wrong. The North Vietnamese were utterly defeated. The only reason they are in power today is because we left South Vietnam and cut off need armaments.

Brooksfoe,

I suppose the North Vietnamese Government wasn't corrupt. You people are real stupid.

Posted by: Fuck You on June 15, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK


jerry, so its your contention that bush knows who keynes is?

and is it your contention that 3-trillion worth of tax cuts and deficit spending...

do have an effect on the economy?

or dont?

make up your mind...

and the total fed. debt grows more each day....


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 15, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans have two old nazi tactics: The Stab in the Back (liberals and media caused us to lose Vietnam), and the Persecuted Majority (war against christianity).

They forget that most of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam were against it, not just Jane Fonda liberals.

Big deal, we lost in Vietnam. But we won the cold war.

I don't get these guys, on the one hand they always got to have an enemy, on the other hand they always got fight a war and win every war. You can't have both.

The liberals didn't lose Vietnam - it not only wasn't winable, it wasn't worth fighting.

The majority, christians, are not pursecuted, we have freedom of religion.

Its the pathological state of fear in the minds of the conservative that is the albatross around America's neck.

Good grief.

They should trade their fear in for courage. The world is never completely safe. Live with that.

Posted by: Bubbles on June 15, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

One other point.

Grahem Greene predicted the next 25 years of history in Vietnam back in 1952.

He then wrote a book on it that was published in 1954: Called the Quiet American.

He was being polite. He really meant the ignorant American. We saw every war, including local and colonial wars in terms of the cold war. Its the old saying "we want to say that we see things the way they are, but more precisely we see things the way we are."

If Graham Green could predict the subsequent 25 years of history back in 1952, that is the futility of American attitudes and involement in Vietnam, if he could predict it then, when it was still the future, why can't reactionary conservatives except it as fact now that its in History - Vietnam was unwinnable and unpurposeful.

Posted by: Bubbles on June 15, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

What Kevin misses is that the obvious point should be a desire to have a president who does good things for the cournty, which Truman often did, not to have a president with good ratings or even one who necessarily gets re-elected.

Posted by: brian on June 15, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Because Vietnam was not unwinnable and fighting for freedom is never unporposeful. I viewed our own freedom at the time as being on the line because the struggle against communist totalitarianism was a global struggle. I viewed Hitler as only the third bloodiest genocidal tyrant of all time, far lagging both Mao Tse Tung and Stalin in total number of lives ruined.
I viewed the actual continued presence of open Stalinist sympathizers in the USA as an extremely ominous situation, especially when these proto-genocidal idealists so easily morphed into the anti-war protestors of the 1960's. I viewed Che Guevara as the establisher of Stalinist labor camps in Cuba (yes, he did!)

Moreover, when I last touched the ground in late 1972 there were probably not 10,000 Americans left in the whole country. The Republic of South Vietnam had its own forces quite adequately deployed to deal with resurgent guerilla activity, of which there was little because the Viet Cong never recovered from their suicide campaign during the Tet Offensive.

The only thing that toppled South Vietnam was a massive, conventional invasion of tanks, trucks, and artillery that openly rolled down the highways to the south--looking for all the world like Saddam's motorized army that later invaded Kuwait. This was an invasion force that begged to be bombed.

Had it been bombed, I have little doubt that South Vietnam today would have a raucous democracy along the lines of Taiwan, would be about ten times as prosperous, but would have open freedom of expression and conscience, something folks here on this blog seem to value not at all.

Vietnam was worth fighting. The tactics and strategy could have been a whole lot better and one of the consequences would have been fewer civilian casualties. Our military learned a lot of lessons in Vietnam that have made the extremely difficult struggle in Iraq go easier.

Iraq is worth fighting for, it's worth staying the course, and in fact, we are probably about to win a battle in the war against terrorism that is extremely significant. I really don't care that leftists (including some who supported the intervention against Saddam) now have changed sides.
The unfortunate past can not be changed, but maybe I can prevent today's leftists from once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and throwing away (and then cursing) the troops who died to win a small victory for freedom.
All those Iraqi voters who waved their purple fingers in the air proudly simply can not be shrugged off, dismissed, and insulted by you leftist pukes. They are winners as freedom craving human beings, you are losers. Come November, you will get the message, big time losers you!

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 15, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, seriously. Get.Help. See a shrink.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 15, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

No shrink for me, because I'm on to something here. Islamo-fascism is not really having a good year. It's worse than Canada foiling a little plot that may well have amounted to something five years ago. It's not only the Western democracies that are fighting back, but the Russians are doing it their way in Chechnya.

Ten years ago in Grozny Russian tanks were burning in the streets and dead Russian soldiers were everywhere. Despite numerous major terror attacks on Russia itself, the Chechen rebels are losing their war. The American MSM stays completely focused on Iraq almost triumphing every bad thing they can find, but in a lot of the rest of the world terrorists are fighting for local causes, only without a lot of success against Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush.

Afghanistan is very interesting right now. The Taliban are making a desperation push and being chewed up by an increasingly international force. Don't you imagine that across the border in Pakistan old Osama is pretty nervous? The sky over the Pashtun villages is so full of drones that he will never hear the bomber coming to kill him.

I'm thinking that by 2008 the War on Terror will be a worn-out topic because Bush will have won it. Of course, Iran will have its nukes and its missiles capable of hitting Israel, maybe even Paris, but that other nations have learned that having nukes doesn't mean you dare ever use them.

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 16, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, man, you need to find another self destructive habbit. I think you must have wasted more brain cells on this post than if you had pounded a 1/5 of vodka.

I think we are all dumber for having read it.

Obsessing about who obsesses too much. DING, DING, DING!

Who cares? They are all assholes, there's nothing you can do that'll change that.

Posted by: aaron on June 16, 2006 at 6:54 AM | PERMALINK

"As near as I can tell, liberals have pretty much let go of Vietnam."
_______________

I wonder if Kerry toyed with the idea of wearing his Swift Boat uniform when he saluted the Democratic convention and proclaimed: "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for Duty!"

Kerry was THE Vietnam candidate. Vietnam was one of the themes of the convention.

Every single day Iraq is compared to Vietnam by liberal bloggers.

Posted by: Jose Chung on June 16, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, the quagmire of it all! I guess the American frontier from 1750 to 1911 (Pancho Villa's raids) was one continual quagmire. The optimistic pioneers with the manifest destiny dreams were much too busy making the most of freedom to notice what an impossible quagmire they faced, not to mention impossible mountain passes, uncrossable deserts, raging rivers, hostile Indians (most carrying Hudson Bay rifles) plus a nearly complete lack of affordable medical care. If you knew someone with a pair of pliers, they were your dentist! If you suffered a natural disaster, nobody would come to your rescue. If the crops failed, you better learn to like insects and bark.

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 16, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia -
Buy meridia -
Discount meridia -
Buy meridia online -
Generic meridia -
Cheap propecia -
Buy propecia -
Discount propecia -
buy propecia online -
Generic propecia -
Cheap proscar -
buy proscar -
Discount proscar -
Buy oproscar online -
Generic proscar -
Cheap finasteride -
Buy finasteride -
Discount finasteride -
Hair loss pills -
Weight loss pills -
Cheap Rogaine -
Buy Rogaine -
Discount Rogaine -
Generic Rogaine -
Discount minoxidil -
Buy minoxidil -
Cheap cialis -
Discount cialis -
Buy cialis -
Buy cialis online -
Generic cialis -
Cheap tadalafil -
Buy tadalafil -
Discount tadalafil -
Cheap hytrin -
Discount hytrin -
Generic Hytrin -
Buy hytrin -
Buy hytrin online -
Cheap terazosin -
Discount terazosin -
Buy terazosin -
Cheap viagra -
Generic viagra -
Discount viagra -
Buy viagra -
Buy viagra online -
Cheap sildenafil -
Buy sildenafil -
discount sildenafil -
discount anafranil -
buy anafranil -
cheap anafranil -
generic anafranil -
buy anafranil online -
discount asendin -
buy asendin -
cheap asendin -
buy asendin online -
generic asendin -
cheap celexa -
buy celexa -
discount celexa -
buy celexa online -
generic celexa -
cheap effexor -
buy effexor -
discount effexor -
buy effexor online -
generic effexor -
cheap elavil -
discount elavil -
buy elavil -
buy elavil online -
generic elavil -
buy endep -
cheap endep -
discount endep -
cheap luvox -
discount luvox -
buy luvox -
generic luvox -
buy luvox online -
cheap pamelor -
discount pamelor -
buy pamelor -
generic pamelor -
buy pamelor online -
Cheap paxil -
discount paxil -
generic paxil -
buy paxil -
buy paxil online -
cheap prozac -
generic prozac -
discount prozac -
buy prozac -
buy prozac online -
cheap
sinequan
-
buy sinequan -
generic sinequan -
discount sinequan -
buy sinequan online -
cheap
tofranil
-
buy tofranil -
discount tofranil -
generic tofranil -
buy tofranil online -
cheap
wellbutrin
-
generic wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin online -
cheap bupropion -
buy bupropion -
cheap zoloft -
generic zoloft -
buy zoloft -
discount zoloft -
buy zoloft Online -
cheap
vermox
-
discount vermox -
buy vermox -
buy vermox online -
generic vermox -
cheap aralen -
discount aralen -
generic aralen -
buy aralen -
buy aralen online -
cheap sporanox -
buy sporanox -
generic sporanox -
discount sporanox -
buy sporanox online -
cheap zyprexa -
discount zyprexa -
buy zyprexa -
generic zyprexa -
buy zyprexa online -
cheap compazine -
generic compazine -
buy compazine -
discount compazine -
buy compazine online -
cheap
claritin
-
discount claritin -
generic claritin -
buy claritin -
buy claritin online -
cheap
allegra
-
discount allegra -
buy allegra -
generic allegra -
buy allegra Online -
cheap benadryl -
discount benadryl -
generic benadryl -
buy benadryl -
buy benadryl online -
cheap periactin -
discount periactin -
buy periactin -
generic periactin -
buy periactin online -
cheap advair -
discount advair -
generic advair -
buy advair -
buy advair online -
cheap albuterol -
generic albuterol -
buy albuterol -
discount albuterol -
buy albuterol online -
cheap salbutamol -
buy salbutamol -
buy theophylline -
generic salbutamol -
cheap singulair -
discount singulair -
buy singulair -
generic singulair -
buy singulair online -
cheap aceon -
buy aceon -
generic aceon -
discount aceon -
buy aceon online -
cheap altace -
buy altace -
generic altace -
discount altace -
buy altace online -
cheap avapro -
buy avapro -
generic avapro -
discount avapro -
buy avapro online -
cheap capoten -
discount capoten -
buy capoten -
generic capoten -
buy capoten online -
cheap diamox -
discount diamox -
buy diamox -
generic diamox -
buy diamox online -
cheap lipitor -
buy lipitor -
discount lipitor -
generic lipitor -
buy lipitor online -
cheap zocor -
buy zocor -
discount zocor -
buy zocor online -
generic zocor -
cheap lopid -
discount lopid -
generic lopid -
buy lopid online -
buy lopid -
cheap mevacor -
generic mevacor -
discount mevacor -
buy mevacor -
buy mevacor online -
cheap pravachol -
discount pravachol -
generic pravachol -
buy pravachol -
buy pravachol online -
cheap actos -
discount actos -
generic actos -
buy actos online -
buy actos -
cheap
avandia
-
generic avandia -
buy avandia -
discount avandia -
buy avandia online -
cheap precose -
discount precose -
generic precose -
buy
precose
-
buy precose online -
cheap micronase -
discount micronase -
generic micronase -
buy micronase -
cheap glucovance -
discount glucovance -
generic glucovance -
buy glucovance -
buy glucovance online -
cheap lamictal -
discount lamictal -
buy lamictal -
generic lamictal -
buy lamictal online -
cheap mysoline -
discount mysoline -
buy mysoline -
generic mysoline -
buy mysoline online -
cheap neurontin -
generic neurontin -
buy neurontin -
discount neurontin -
buy neurontin online -
Cheap sodium valproate -
Generic sodium valproate -
Buy sodium valproate -
discount sodium Valproate -
buy sodium valproate online -
cheap tegretol -
discount tegretol -
buy tegretol -
generic tegretol -
buy tegretol online -
cheap dilantin -
discount dilantin -
buy dilantin -
generic dilantin -
buy dilantin online -
cheap aciphex -
discount aciphex -
buy aciphex -
generic aciphex -
buy aciphex online -
cheap bentyl -
discount bentyl -
buy bentyl -
generic bentyl -
buy bentyl online -
Cheap carafate -
discount carafate -
buy carafate -
buy carafate online -
generic carafate -
cheap cephulac -
generic cephulac -
discount cephulac -
buy cephulac -
buy cephulac online -
cheap colace -
generic colace -
buy colace -
discount colace -
buy colace online -
cheap dulcolax -
discount dulcolax -
buy dulcolax -
generic dulcolax -
buy dulcolax online -
cheap imodium -
discount imodium -
buy imodium -
generic imodium -
buy imodium online -
cheap nexium -
discount nexium -
buy nexium -
generic nexium -
buy nexium online -
cheap prevacid -
discount prevacid -
buy prevacid -
generic prevacid -
buy prevacid online -
cheap prilosec -
discount prilosec -
buy prilosec -
generic prilosec -
buy prilosec online -
cheap protonix -
discount protonix -
buy protonix -
generic protonix -
order protonix -
cheap reglan -
buy reglan -
discount reglan -
generic reglan -
order reglan -
cheap zantac -
buy zantac -
discount zantac -
generic zantac -
order zantac -
cheap zofran -
discount zofran -
buy zofran -
generic zofran -
order zofran -
cheap rebetol -
discount rebetol -
buy rebetol -
generic rebetol -
order rebetol -
cheap ribavirin -
buy ribavirin -
order ribavirin -
cheap zovirax -
discount zovirax -
order zovirax -
buy zovirax -
generic zovirax -
cheap epivir -
discount epivir -
buy epivir -
order epivir -
generic epivir -
cheap pyrazinamide -
discount pyrazinamide -
order pyrazinamide -
buy pyrazinamide -
generic pyrazinamide -
cheap retrovir -
discount retrovir -
buy retrovir -
order retrovir -
generic retrovir -
cheap viramune -
discount viramune -
order viramune -
buy viramune -
generic viramune -
cheap zerit -
discount zerit -
buy zerit -
order zerit -
generic zerit -
cheap aldactone -
discount aldactone -
buy aldactone -
order aldactone -
generic aldactone -
cheap calciferol -
discount calciferol -
buy calciferol -
order calciferol -
generic calciferol -
alfa calcidol -
order alfa calcidol -
buy alfa calcidol -
cheap danocrine -
discount danocrine -
order danocrine -
buy danocrine -
generic danocrine -
cheap decadron -
discount decadron -
order decadron -
buy decadron -
generic decadron -
cheap deltasone -
discount deltasone -
buy deltasone -
order deltasone -
generic deltasone -
cheap provera -
discount provera -
buy provera -
order provera -
generic provera -
cheap cycrin -
cheap synthroid -
discount synthroid -
buy synthroid -
order synthroid -
generic levothroid -
cheap levothroid -
cheap robaxin -
discount robaxin -
buy robaxin -
order robaxin -
generic robaxin -
cheap soma -
discount soma -
buy soma -
order soma -
generic soma -
cheap zanaflex -
discount zanaflex -
buy zanaflex -
order zanaflex -
generic zanaflex -
cheap alphagan -
discount alphagan -
buy alphagan -
order alphagan -
generic alphagan -
cheap betagan -
discount betagan -
order betagan -
buy betagan -
generic betagan -
cheap mydriacyl -
discount mydriacyl -
buy mydriacyl -
order mydriacyl -
generic mydriacyl -
cheap propine -
discount propine -
buy propine -
order propine -
generic propine -
discount tobramycin -
buy tobramycin -
cheap tobramycin -
order tobramycin -
buy flour-op -
order flour-op -
cheap flour-op -
discount flour-op -
cheap advil -
generic advil -
order advil -
buy advil -
discount advil -
cheap celebrex -
discount celebrex -
buy celebrex -
order celebrex -
generic celebrex -
cheap imitrex -
discount imitrex -
buy imitrex -
order imitrex -
generic imitrex -
cheap ponstel -
discount ponstel -
order ponstel -
buy ponstel -
generic ponstel -
cheap timoptic -
discount timoptic -
buy timoptic -
order timoptic -
generic timoptic -
cheap tylenol -
discount tylenol -
order tylenol -
buy tylenol -
generic tylenol -
cheap anacin -
buy anacin -
cheap ultram -
discount ultram -
buy ultram -
order ultram -
generic ultram -
cheap benadryl -
order benadryl -
discount benadryl -
buy benadryl -
generic benadryl -
cheap ditropan -
discount ditropan -
order ditropan -
buy ditropan -
generic ditropan -
cheap eldepryl -
discount eldepryl -
buy eldepryl -
order eldepryl -
generic eldepryl -
cheap arava -
discount arava -
order arava -
buy arava -
generic arava -
cheap feldene -
discount feldene -
order feldene -
buy feldene -
generic feldene -
cheap mobic -
discount mobic -
buy mobic -
order mobic -
generic mobic -
cheap naprelan -
discount naprelan -
order naprelan -
buy naprelan -
generic naprelan -
cheap naprosyn -
discount naprosyn -
buy naprosyn -
order naprosyn -
generic naprosyn -
cheap relafen -
generic relafen -
order relafen -
buy relafen -
discount relafen -
cheap zyloprim -
discount zyloprim -
order zyloprim -
buy zyloprim -
generic zyloprim -
cheap ambien -
generic ambien -
discount ambien -
buy ambien -
order ambien -
cheap aygestin -
discount aygestin -
order aygestin -
buy aygestin -
generic aygestin -
cheap clomid -
discount clomid -
order clomid -
buy clomid -
generic clomid -
cheap diflucan -
order diflucan -
discount diflucan -
buy diflucan -
generic diflucan -
cheap evista -
discount evista -
order evista -
buy evista -
generic evista -
cheap fosamax -
discount fosamax -
order fosamax -
buy fosamax -
generic fosamax -
cheap nolvadex -
discount nolvadex -

Posted by: top choice on June 17, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Discount pharmacy UK:
cheap cialis cheap cialis
discount cialis discount cialis
generic cialis generic cialis
buy cialis buy cialis
order cialis order cialis
cheap tadalafil cheap tadalafil
discount tadalafil discount tadalafil
order tadalafil order tadalafil
buy tadalafil buy tadalafil
cheap propecia cheap propecia
generic propecia generic propecia
buy propecia buy propecia
order propecia order propecia
generic propecia generic propecia
cheap proscar cheap proscar
discount proscar discount proscar
order proscar order proscar
buy proscar buy proscar
generic proscar generic proscar
cheap meridia cheap meridia
discount meridia discount meridia
meridia pills meridia pills
order meridia order meridia
buy meridia buy meridia
generic meridia generic meridia
cheap soma cheap soma
generic soma generic soma
discount soma discount soma
order soma order soma
buy soma buy soma

Bad credit: stuff for all with bad credit:
bad credit mortgage bad credit mortgage
bad credit loan bad credit loan
bad credit home loan bad credit home loan
bad credit home equity loan bad credit home equity loan
bad credit personal loan bad credit personal loan
guaranteed bad credit personal loan guaranteed bad credit personal loan
bad credit refinance bad credit refinance
bad credit auto loan bad credit auto loan
bad credit auto loan financing bad credit auto loan financing
bad credit used car loan bad credit used car loan
bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation
bad credit debt consolidation loan bad credit debt consolidation loan
bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards
credit card for people with bad credit credit card for people with bad credit
unsecured credit card for bad credit unsecured credit card for bad credit
unsecured credit cards unsecured credit cards
bad credit military loan bad credit military loan
bad credit lone mortgage bad credit lone mortgage
bad credit loan mortgage bad credit loan mortgage
bad credit mortgage lender bad credit mortgage lender
bad credit repair bad credit repair
credit repair credit repair
bad credit motorcycle loan bad credit motorcycle loan
bad credit unsecured loan bad credit unsecured loan
bad credit boat loan bad credit boat loan
loan for people with bad credit loan for people with bad credit
second mortgage bad credit second mortgage bad credit
bad credit signature loan bad credit signature loan
bad credit motorcycle financing bad credit motorcycle financing
bad credit home mortgage bad credit home mortgage
bad credit lender bad credit lender
bad credit lenders bad credit lenders
bad credit home improvement loan bad credit home improvement loan
bad credit cash loan bad credit cash loan
california bad credit mortgage california bad credit mortgage
erase bad credit erase bad credit
bad credit visa card bad credit visa card
bad credit secured loan bad credit secured loan
bad debt credit card bad debt credit card
bad credit card bad credit card
online freelance online freelance
freelance jobs freelance jobs
bad credit help bad credit help

discount viagra discount viagra
generic viagra generic viagra
buy viagra buy viagra
order viagra order viagra
cheap viagra cheap viagra
discount levitra discount levitra
generic levitra generic levitra
buy levitra buy levitra
order levitra order levitra
cheap levitra cheap levitra
discount cialis discount cialis
generic cialis generic cialis
buy cialis buy cialis
order cialis order cialis
cheap cialis cheap cialis
mens health pills mens health pills
adult DVD rental adult DVD rental
adult DVD adult DVD
Wholesale adult dvd wholesale adult dvd
adult DVD rentals adult DVD rentals
adult sex movies adult sex movies
adult video adult video
adult DVD movies adult DVD movies
adult DVD empire adult DVD empire
adult video and dvd adult video and dvd
cheap adult DVD cheap adult DVD
adult porn DVD adult porn DVD
adult DVD download adult DVD download
adult xxx DVD adult xxx DVD
rent adult DVD rent adult DVD
online adult DVD rental online adult DVD rental
adult DVD now adult DVD now
Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online
Prescription drugs prescription drugs
Drug prescription drug prescription
drug online prescription drug online prescription
drugs store drugs store
Drugs online drugs online
Discount prescription drugs Discount prescription drugs
Discounted prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs
Prescription drugs discount prescription drugs discount
Cheap prescription drugs Cheap prescription drugs
Prescription drugs prescription drugs
Discount drugs Discount drugs
Drugs store Drugs store
Adult dating personals Adult dating personals
personal adult dating personal adult dating
dating personals dating personals
Adult dating Adult dating
Adult personals Adult personals
Adult dating personal Adult dating personal
Adult dating services Adult dating services
Adult dating online Adult dating online
Adult dating Adult dating
Online adult dating Online adult dating
dating online dating online
Online dating Online dating
Adult dating services online Adult dating services online
online dating service Online dating service
Adult dating site Adult dating site
Adult sex dating Adult sex dating
Adult dating service Adult dating service
Adult dating online Adult dating online
internet portal internet portal
internet search engine internet search engine
online portal online portal
seek and find seek and find
pay per click search engine pay per click search engine
ppc search engine ppc search engine
internet dating internet dating
free internet dating free internet dating
free online dating free online dating
Posted by: top choice on June 17, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly