marmadogg wrote:
“Right wingnut hack”
The proper nomenclature is: Winner.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.[/quote]
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack?
Maybe in a couple of decades we’ll be able to answer that question…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe in a couple of decades we’ll be able to answer that question…[/quote]
I actually meant his Vietnam analysis.
It is still a bit too early to call the present war.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack? [/quote]
So you agree with him that we won Vietnam? We won, went home, and then the South Viets lost? Twit.
First of all Marm and Dean, Dunnigan started working for Pentagon under Carter. He is not a politcal guy, let alone a right wing hack or twit. He’s also a professor and does financial modeling for investment banks. As a New Yorker, lifelong, he’s most likely a Democrat…sorry.
The line or two about Vietnam was a juxtaposition to the intent of the article which was “who wins the War on Terror”. Determing what metrics are important in an unconventional war for strategy purposes and resource allotment.
Thorough analysis, w/o bias, is not hack like behavior now is it.
To be honest US forces did not suffer a major battlefield defeat in Vietnam as any amatuer historian can tell you. The US chose not to escalate the Vietnam war due to politcal pressure back home. Right or wrong we pulled out and let the country become over run. Had the US chose to escalate the siutation no doubt the outcome would be different. It’s what a lot of Veterans talk about.
However, the point of the article is not Vietnam. Your missing the view of the forest by focusing on a single tree.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack?
So you agree with him that we won Vietnam? We won, went home, and then the South Viets lost? Twit.
[/quote]
As the article states Nixon “declared victory” and we pulled our troops out.
North Vietnam fired up the tanks and drove to Saigon.
We certainly did not lose Vietnam militarily. We lost the will to fight and went home.
For a history teacher you sure don’t seem to have a good handle on the subject matter.
Back on topic guys.
This is a very funny thread. Really it is.
Jeff claims Iraq wasn’t invaded over the WMD only. There were “many reasons”.
And to proove his point, he quotes one of Dubious’ speeches.
The only problem is, WMD are mentioned in every paragraph of that speech. I challenge Jeff to point out 1 single paragraph that doesn’t try to put WMD in Saddams hands or tries to link him with Al Quada and the 9/11 attacks. We know these claims are false now. So later on Dubious changed his tune and claimed he had “other reasons”. And Jeff believed him.
However Jeff, you’re doing your hero a poor favor by quoting his speech. It exposes his lies so well.
Just 1 question Jeff: did you even bother to read this speech before you copied it?
Why can’t you lib’s realize you are bloody wrong??? By the way, serving gives a different perspective for YOU and nobody else.
It’s at a personal level rather than just country. While i admire serving I do not admire one’s touting it as a “Better understanding”. It’s a different understanding at a more personal level. I’ve had friends lose their women or had them leave them as they served, then they blame all that on the war… Every one has a differnt view but…
No disrespect…you signed up to serve in the US MILITARY, and it has it’s function and we all know what it is. What did you think, you were going for tea with the Queen when you signed up?
I’ve lost some family in war and am a by-product of war. I understand the need for military action. It seems to me many are just plain against our Free Leader no matter what the path.
I’m glad we don’t have a “roll me over” leader like liberal rhetoric breeds and sponsors.
NEWS FLASH:
If you don’t like war don’t sign up for the military.
reckless wrote:
Back on topic guys.
This is a very funny thread. Really it is.
Jeff claims Iraq wasn’t invaded over the WMD only. There were “many reasons”.
And to proove his point, he quotes one of Dubious’ speeches.
The only problem is, WMD are mentioned in every paragraph of that speech. I challenge Jeff to point out 1 single paragraph that doesn’t try to put WMD in Saddams hands or tries to link him with Al Quada and the 9/11 attacks. We know these claims are false now. So later on Dubious changed his tune and claimed he had “other reasons”. And Jeff believed him."
Hey reckless, I wondered when you’d get over the shock.
Anyway, I have a quick question: Is English your first language? If it isn’t then I have phrase for you to look up: I don’t think it means what you are trying to say.
If it is your first language, then you are one sorry, little european.
Quick point: Plenty of al qaeda links between saddam and al qaeda. Not to mention plenty of other terrorist groups. Do they have electricity in your little hole? Are you at a “cyber cafe?”
Here we go with the paragraphs:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I’m honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability – even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, “Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.”
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people – and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein’s regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that’s why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that’s why two administrations – mine and President Clinton’s – have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.
Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.
That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history’s course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance – his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I’m confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better da
I’m sorry, I lost count of the number of paragraphs.
Just 1 question Jeff: did you even bother to read this speech before you copied it?
I read it clearly. I remember the speech. Unlike some, I don’t need it repeated 8,000 times to remember it. As you can clearly see, the stockpiles of WMD were not and are not the only reason for invasion.
Thanks for your attention Mr. “We’ve been at relative peace in Europe for the last 50 years.”
Relative for you, maybe.
JeffR
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack?
So you agree with him that we won Vietnam? We won, went home, and then the South Viets lost? Twit.
As the article states Nixon “declared victory” and we pulled our troops out.
North Vietnam fired up the tanks and drove to Saigon.
We certainly did not lose Vietnam militarily. We lost the will to fight and went home.
For a history teacher you sure don’t seem to have a good handle on the subject matter. [/quote]
I understand the subject matter pretty well, thank you. To move this discussion laterally, you could say we are not ‘losing militarily’ in Iraq either. The kill count favors the US, oh, about 10 to 1 or more? (Maybe Dubya should ‘declare victory’ too? Oh, I forgot, he already has. Remember ‘Mission Accomplished’?) But that would be an incorrect assessment. The thing is, history does not judge the final outcome of a war on casualty counts. We lost Vietnam and no splitting of semantic hairs can change that fact. We are bogged down in Iraq, maybe losing, maybe a stalemate, as it seems no amount of troops on the ground or F-15s screaming overhead can subdue the implacable will of the insurgents.
Dean
Again you missed the point because of your bias.
“Implacable will of the Insurgents”. First of all they are terrorists. They don’t even have the support of the people. They are fighting among themselves right now as well as with us. Ever hear of “Red on Red” fighting. That’s what’s going on in western Iraq.
dean wrote:
“subdue the implacable will of the insurgents.”
I noticed that Hedo referenced this quote as well.
Did anyone else think this sounded suspiciously like praise? Maybe even respect?
JeffR
South Vietnam was lost because the North INVADED after we pulled out!
It was not the terrorist acts of the VC that lost South Vietnam.
I do not think anyone will invade Iraq after we draw down our troops. I believe the new government stands an excellent chance of success. I just wish we could speed up the process.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is argueing about who one the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
He’s a strategist not a politico.
Strategy requires thought. Perhaps too challenging?[/quote]
News Flash:
We did not win the Vietnam War and Communism failed because it was based on a faulty premise. All our soldiers and civilians died for nothing.
He is spot on regarding the muslim word and you will notice I did not take issue with that.
Are you saying we won the Vietnam war?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack? [/quote]
You just admitted that we did not win the Vietnam war.
Got flip flops?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack?
You just admitted that we did not win the Vietnam war.
Got flip flops?
[/quote]
You are playing the old strawman argument. No one is claiming we “won” the war.
The facts are simple. Nixon “declared victory” and pulled the US troops out. A couple years later North Vietnam tired of trying to win by using guerrilla tactics and semi-covert infiltration and just overtly invaded.
Anyone that points out the obvious is a right wing hack?
The facts don’t sit well with your perception of the world?
I honestly don’t see that there can be any argument on these points. They are not opinions. They are simple historical facts.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
However his analysis is 100% correct.
Who is the hack?
You just admitted that we did not win the Vietnam war.
Got flip flops?
You are playing the old strawman argument. No one is claiming we “won” the war.
The facts are simple. Nixon “declared victory” and pulled the US troops out. A couple years later North Vietnam tired of trying to win by using guerrilla tactics and semi-covert infiltration and just overtly invaded.
Anyone that points out the obvious is a right wing hack?
The facts don’t sit well with your perception of the world?
I honestly don’t see that there can be any argument on these points. They are not opinions. They are simple historical facts.
[/quote]
I understand the facts and I do not have a problem with the facts but Dunnigan states the following:
“People kept saying the U.S. lost that war, but American troops were long gone by 1975. Even during World War II, when it was obvious that Japan was defeated, they still would not surrender.”
I would like to draw your attention to the following snippet:
“People kept saying the U.S. lost that war, but American troops were long gone by 1975.”
The word ‘but’ implies that the first part of that sentence that clearly states:
“People kept saying the U.S. lost that war”
This is like when a person apologizes and then say ‘but’.
Everything before the word ‘but’ becomes irrelevant.
This sentence shows that Dunnigan supports the theory that we did not lose in Vietnam. In war there are only winners and losers (some would argue there are only comparative losers) and Dunnigan believes that we won and did not lose.
The only people that believe we won are right wingnuts.
Democrats got us into that war and I blame them period.
Marm
I am going to state an opinion as a student of James Dunnigan. I mean this as a person who has read all of his books and seen him lecture a half a dozen times in NYC.
He is not stating that we won a clear and decisive victory in Vietnam. What he did was draw an analogy. He was trying to state that we never lost a major battle in Vietnam and killed many more then we lost, but the perception of the public is that we “lost the war”. This was written in the context of an article trying to determine the metrics of victory against the war on terrorism.
Before you defame a well known military affairs scholar try and learn a little aboout the guy. He doesn’t favor any political party and has criticized both the left and the right with equal vigor. And by the way, as I stated before, I am pretty sure he is a Democrat. He lives in NYC and he has described himself as " pretty much a Southern Democrat" in a lecture to the world affairs council.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
dean wrote:
“subdue the implacable will of the insurgents.”
I noticed that Hedo referenced this quote as well.
Did anyone else think this sounded suspiciously like praise? Maybe even respect?
JeffR
[/quote]
You’re drawing assumptions out of your ass.