Lets Talk Some POLITICS up in here...

[PhillyLuvsFeat]

Hello Mike!

I'm 51. And didn't go to Nam. Was fortunate enough to be born on the right day (high lottery number). But lost many classmates in that war. My high school was ranked second in the nation for young Americans killed in the jungles of SE Asia. The number one h.s. was also in the "City of Brotherly Love". I know a little of which I speak.

Sorry to answer your questions with questions of my own. ;>)

PhillyLuvs Feat

Wasn't Johnson a Democrat? Didn't he escallate the war? Does Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? Didn't Nixon end the war (or at least try to)? Didn't the liberials (my generation) protest against and call our soldiers "pigs", "baby killers" & "village burners"? Yes, the same things that Kerry admitted doing. ;>)

I think this is going to be fun. ;>)

[BillL]

Liberals got us into Vietnam,

Well, they weren't called liberals then. But Kennedy did send troops to Nam, Johnson escalated the troops into a full blown war and Nixon did indeed pull them out.

then protested Nixon's trying to get us out of Vietnam

I think it was more of a protest against Nixon and less about the removal of the troops.


Hated the US soldiers?

I think the reference is to John Kerry.
Now they want to hold up someone who they hated (a U.S. soldier)

Philly, may I ask how old you are?

I'm not sure how old Philly is, but I'm 35 (as you saw on HoyHoy) and I admittedly don't know enough about the whole Vietnam debacle. Just proof that governments should let the military run wars.

Sounds like an strong dose of Rush & Orielly!

What's wrong with someone listening to who they agree with. And who cares anyway? I wouldn't think any less of someone that listened (and enjoyed) Al Franken or Michael Moore even though I can't stand either of them.

Also, please send me some backing info on this because if it's true then my vote may be going to Lydon LaRouche

Even for this administration it would look pretty rediculous to admit that thier "special guest" was non other than recently indicted Enron CEO Ken Lay.

Bill L

[Scott Hays]

For a rather clear criticism FROM THE LEFT of the liberal (read Kennedy/Johnson) assumptions and arrogance that escalated American intervention in Southeast Asia (since we pretty much laid waste to the economies, political and social institutions of Cambodia, Loas and Thailand as well as we did to Vietnam), read Noam Chomsky's "American Power and the New Mandarins". This treatise has direct connections to the direction we may be heading in terms of foreign relations (the Mideast, in particular, and Central Asia in general) if Kerry does win the election ... liberals, especially when surrounded by liberal intellectuals, tend to arrogantly assume they have all the answers because their "hearts" are "good" ... and it is my primary reservation in supporting the dems in this election (though other concerns outweight them, as I have explained in other posts)

By the way, "Vietnam" did not "begin" with the Kennedy Administration (just as the Bay of Pigs did not start with a Democratic Administration). I remember, as a six-year old, watching President Eisenhower explain on (black-and-white) television, with maps of Southeast Asia behind him, why it was necessary for the U.S. to send "advisors" to support the French and the freedom-loving peoples of Vietnam in 1954. Intransigence, misunderstanding and ignorance of historical realities during the 50's caused the U.S. to lose out on multiple opportunities to support REAL people's revolutions and to become the true champion of democracy around the world, instead of protectors of the status quo (all in the name of what had by then become a "cold" war).

Changing the subject slightly, I would like to point to a recent (and direct) observation I recently made regarding a primary difference between misters Kerry and Bush. While I was in Oregon, both candidates made simultaneous trips to the state as a part of their campaign. John Kerry first scheduled a public address in Medford (Thursday), but had to change it at the last minute due to failure by someone in the campaign to secure the proper licenses -- he moved it to the Jackson County Fairgrounds in Central Point. Now, southern Oregon is 64% Republican. Kerry was the first Democratic candidate for President to EVER speak in the Medford area (and the last candidate, from any party, was Theordore Roosevelt). So to sponsor a rally in a place that is almost 2/3 opposed to you is a pretty gutsy thing to do. Tickets were required for admission, but you could obtain them on-line, or pick them up at a number of well-publicized outlets. Almost 10,000 people packed the fairground arena. Three local television stations chose to broadcast the speech live (I have not seen that in a very long time), so quite a few people had the chance to see him speak. The next morning, he visited a "middle-class" home in Eugene Oregon (I am sure the people he visited were pretty carefully screened ahead of time), and the neighbors were all invited to set up chairs and ask him questions. He conducted a pretty open Q and A session with normal, average Americans and only dodged a couple of questions. This session was also broadcast live. Finally, to end the swing through the state, he flew up to Portland International Airport and spoke at Riverfront Park in Portland on Friday afternoon (Feat played the same stage in 2002). An estimated 50,000 folks showed up for this one -- tickets were not required, and there was a rather large (and loud) contingent of Bush supporters gathered in the middle of the crowd.

In contrast, George W. arrived in Portland and made a short announcement in a hangar at the airport (Air Force One landed at a local Air Force Base) to a hand-selected group of reporters and supporters. He then attended a business "round-table" at a local high school, again attended only by invitation. Both speeches were covered by local television with live broadcasts. To end his stay in Oregon, he did a fund-raising dinner (and, since it was a "fund-raiser", the following highprice ticket items are just things that should be expected) -- $1000 to attend, $2500 for photos with the President, and $25000 for a special reception afterwards.

I think this pattern, with modification (since both candidates have both fundraising events and private events on their calendars) plays out across the country. Mr. Bush cannot address a crowd of people and Mr. Kerry can.

Plain and simple.

[jashley]

The history of our involvement in Viet Nam is rather complicated and it is true that Kennedy and esp. Johnson hold thier share of the blame.

The first "advisors" were sent by Ike, very small numbers but he did begin our involvement.

Kennedy did send some troops but still in limited capacities and numbers. And many have reported that Kennedy was planing a withdrawal when he was killed. I'm not a conspiricy nut but many feel that was why he was killed, be your own judge on that.

Johnson, who I feel could have been a decent pres. otherwise began the large scale escalation of troops. Now Johnson was a democrat but I think it is a stretch to call him a liberal (or even a dem)in the sense that we think of it today.

Nixon again expanded the number of troops and thier duties (large scale bombings etc.) and also expanded the scope of the war (Cambodia etc.) Now while it is true that Nixon finally pulled us out of Viet Nam it was only under the most extreme political pressure, Veterens Against the War (John Kerry et al) and others that he agreed to end the misguided intervention right before the election for his second term. Some thought that he actually extended the war past all sanity to get the greatest political effect by timing the pullout for right before the election.

While there are lesson to be learned from Viet Nam, you have to remember it was all done in the mind set of the Cold War and stopping Russian "agression". I think that the conflict in Irag has more parellels in our involvement in Korea. A quick war (for the time) but a very difficult peace (we still have significant numbers of troops in Korea 50 years later). Yes the dems do have a lot to answer for in Viet Nam, but don't kid yourself that Nixon got us out of there out of the goodness of his heart and not political expediency.

Mike, No one protested Nixon getting us out of Viet Nam(except maybe defense contrators) they protested his expansions of the war and it was the protester who forced Nixon out of Viet Nam not the other way around. This was one of the finest examples in history of the PEOPLE of a country forcing the government to obey the will of the people. I am kind of a history nut and I find it amazing that more of the history of this era (60's & early 70's) hasn't been made available,maybe "Power to the People" scares the wrong people. One book that is suprisingly hard to find but may give you some insight into this time is "Kent State" by James Michner, you may find it in a good library.

Philly, Yes some idiots called Viet Nam vets baby killers etc and that was wrong and done in the emotion of the moment. However, the protesters did not hate the soldiers, they protested government policies that were killing our bothers and sisters (58,000+ of them) in a war that was only for the profit of the rich. Tell me how demanding the safe return of these brave men and woman was not more genuine support for them than putting them in a war to die for no good reason? Sound familiar?

BillL, I don't know if your last post got cut off but it ended with a quote and no answer. Maybe I can help you to vote for LaRouche instead of the Bush gang. The membership of the "Energy Comm" according to all reports did include Ken Lay, also the CEO of Halliburton, CEO of Unocal and several other big oil men with no one from any other type of alternative energy sources (other than maybe coal). The meeting was headed by Dick Cheney. I say according to all reports because Cheney has refused to release not only the findings or studies conducted by this group, but also the names of the people who attended this confab. He has used national security as his screen to hide who was there. Yes it would be embarrasing to admit the Ken Lay was there. But don't you think the American people have a right to know who is determining thier energy future. And don't you see a pattern in this admin. that whenever they want to hide anything from the public they pull down the cloak of national security. Tell me how releasing the names of the members of this comm. adversely affects national security? They do seem to be perfectly willing to release the names of our intelligence agents and sources when it suits thier political purposes. This whole mind set in the worst kind of political profiteering to me. And I find it digusting that this admin. would use the death of 3000 people for thier own political profit. Come on how about a vote for LaRouche (anybody but Bush).

Scott, to expand on your point of the differance between the Bush and Kerry style. While in Columbus, O. Kerry actually spoke at a rally in the driveway of a middle class home that was very well attended by the public and the press, while Bush was speaking at a $2000 a plate dinner that the press was not only not invited to but was not ALLOWED to attend (this was reported by the Col. Dispatch). I'll let you draw your own conclusion about who will provide us with an open government that will allow the most possible access to the most people. Both candidates have been campaiging hard in Ohio (many feel that Ohio will decide the election) and Kerry has turned a state that Bush won last time and where this time Bush held a narrow lead, into as much as a 10 point lead, in some polls, for Kerry.

Peace
j ashley

P.S. Sorry to be such a long winded b*st*rd again and sorry I can't spell.

[PhillyLuvsFeat]

Question?:

Can you name the U.S's longest war?

[Scott Hays]

Is this a trick question? Do you mean War, or "war"? There aren't too many old-fashioned declared wars in the books, but lots that were fought over a long period of time without formal declaration (for example, the "War against Drugs", or the Indian Wars ... view the South Park mini US History course in Bowling for Columbine for details of the latter). One of the shorter ones, of course, is the Mosquito War.

[PhillyLuvsFeat]

Hi Scott!

It was only a trick question because you made it that way. Gotchya! You knew exactly where I was coming from.

The "longest war" in terms of "military action" and loss of American lives in that military action..... That would be the WAR in Viet Nam (ask the Vets if it was a War or not), 1959 (so I was reminded by a fellow poster and a tee shirt worn by a Vet @ the Little Feat concert @ Dewey Beach on the 20th. And yes, I shook his hand and thanked him for his service to "our" country) to 1975.

If the students in the 60's and 70's "stopped the War" or brought it to a quicker end through their protests, why is it that the PROTESTS STOPPED when the DRAFT ended (and the War hadn't)

The WAR on terror will last much longer.

This is fun.

[BillL]

The "longest war" in terms of "military action" and loss of American lives in that military action..... That would be the WAR in Viet Nam

I always thought it was Korea. To the best of my knowledge, a truce was declared but never an "official" armistice. We also still patrol the DMZ that separates North and South Korea and back it with a pretty substantial # of troops (not sure of the total but a friend of mine was/is there. My dad and my father in law were both in Korea. Going on 50 + years?

Bill L

[PhillyLuvsFeat]

Hi Bill!

Good point.

If that were (is?) the case what about Germany and Japan? How's 60+ years sound? I think "occupation" might be different from actual armed conflict. Maybe armed conflict defines the type of War I'm referring to.

I'm not sure that Americans have gotten killed in action in Korea, Germany and Japan (since the "end" of major fighting??).

Neverthe less, 16 years (and 58,000+ killed Americans) is a long. long time. I'm sure most would agree on that.

God Bless! (I hope I didn't offend anyone with that. lol)

[BillL]

what about Germany and Japan?

Wasn't there a formal end to hostilities with both Japan and Germany? I know for a fact there was with Japan (I forgot the official name, though) and I'm certain that Germany surrendered thereby ending the conflict. I know the end of WWI was celebrated as Armistice Day up until recently. Vietnam is considered a retreat (they actually called it a troop withdrawl but that's just spin.) and therefore it was pretty much over though some remained. Korea only has a signed cease fire that occasionally gets pushed aside so both sides can shoot at each other. And if memory serves, there were some fatalities due to said shooting probably not more than 5 years ago. Now my question is, why do they call it the Hundred Years War when it went on for something like 113 years (or whatever)? Just kidding, I know why but it's still tough to explain to kids.

Bill L

[jashley]

Hoy Hoy All

It's ironic but George Will's column today (8/26/04) covered the topic of longest U.S. mititary action and I believe the correct answer was our military action to annex the Phillipines, something like 16 yrs. He got on the topic because before November our involvement in Iraq will have been longer than WWI. He did not include the Indian wars though I suppose that could be considered a series of conflicts and not one military action.

In answer to why the protest against the war stopped when the draft stopped and not the war. I have the unenviable distinction of having the last draft lottery number ever taken. I was inducted in November of 1972. At that time they quit forcing draftees to go to Viet Nam and only those who agreed to go were sent. At this time the US was winding down thier involvement in that wrong headed war. The protest did not stop even with the last troop withdrawals but continued after the war over issues such as MIA's and POW's, vet benefits etc (surprised that the Hippies protested over Vet. benefits, don't be). It is true that the protest did cool off towards the end but that was because it was evident that our involvement was coming to an end. Also, you must keep in mind that the protest of the conterculture was not confined to the war but included many other issues. The movement began over freedom of speech issues (at Berkely, Ca where recently deified Ron Reagan sent the NG to bust heads), cival rights, voting rights, and many other issues.

I was sent to Korea. At that time, 1973, at least one American a day was still being killed along the DMZ. You won't be able to read about it because it was not being mentioned in the press. This does not include GI's who were murdered in other parts of the country because contrary to what was being reported in the press at the time even the Koreans who liked us saw us as an occupying force. I could go on about the lies that were being told to American public that I personnally witnessed but then I would have to kill you all. These are just a few of the reason I see more common themes in our involvement in Korea to Iraq than I do to Viet Nam.

BillL ; A while back you replied to something I posted that I couldn't really believe that our government would do something so dastardly to the people. But all this talk of Viet Nam has brought back memories of what caused me to have such a fundamental distrust of government. The day I became a radical was May 4, 1970. On that day our government murdered 4 of my brothers and sisters at Kent State and then lied and lied to cover thier guilty asses. Since then I have understood that government will do some nasty sh*t to protect thier power.

Power to the People
Peace
j ashley

[Mike]

Atta Boy Jashley! In '70 I had lots of hair, a college deferment, and was walking down Congress St. in Austin along with hundreds of others chanting "1234, we don't want your dirty war!"
I became a Radical when the Warren Commision Report came out. I was 15.
Thanks for having the guts to serve, and thanks for having the guts to speak against it.
This election takes me back to the '70s, for obvious reasons!

[BillL]

BillL ; A while back you replied to something I posted that I couldn't really believe that our government would do something so dastardly to the people. But all this talk of Viet Nam has brought back memories of what caused me to have such a fundamental distrust of government. The day I became a radical was May 4, 1970. On that day our government murdered 4 of my brothers and sisters at Kent State and then lied and lied to cover thier guilty asses. Since then I have understood that government will do some nasty sh*t to protect thier power.


While I agree that government CAN NOT BE TRUSTED (pardon my forwardness in using the caps) I also don't think our government would go into a full blown war for the selfish reasons of one person (I've heard arguments for Bush or Cheney having a personel agenda) or a sub group (part of the GOP wanting a war). The bottom line is that both parties voted for this with the same information. And both parties will blame each other and spin the info (the topic is not essential, they do it with everything) and then try to crucify each other publicly. What cracks me up is how most of those guys hang out even though they are butting heads regarding policy. It cracks me up because, as with everything else they do, it's totally disengenuous (sp?) just like everything else they do.

Regarding Kent State, try to put that in perspective. Granted, I was 9 days from being 1 year old so I can only look at hindsight but the times were very different. Anything different back then and people went ballistic. I'm sure the intention was never to hurt anyone, but things usually get out of hand when a bunch of people that disagree get together. I still say (as I posted to HoyHoy a few weeks ago when Kent State came up) that something like this most probably wouldn't happen today (the least of the reasons is all the law suits that would be filed in our sue happy-get-rich-quick society). I think the lot of us that are still hanging around here should create a splinter group of FeatFans and we should get together and drink our faces off. Of course we'll have to talk politics, but only if a bunch of fans that don't want to talk politics are there so we can annoy the hell out them ;D

Bill L

[Mike]

"I also don't believe that our government would go into a full blown war for the selfish reasons of one person."
It's not for the selfish reasons of one person. It's for the selfish reasons of the groups that he represents! The Carlyle Group immediately springs to mind.

"The bottom line is both parties voted for this with the same information."
Bill-When I was little (yes, there was a time) I bought into the Santa Claus thing because I was told by people that I trusted, certain intel. Now, these individuals knew that they were feeding me false intel, but in order to close the deal, told me untrues anyway. It happens!
Peace!
PS-At 53 now, I have finally forgiven said individuals.

[BillL]

It's not for the selfish reasons of one person. It's for the selfish reasons of the groups that he represents! The Carlyle Group immediately springs to mind.


So then it's for the selfish reasons of one man that only has the selfish intrests of one group (that springs to mind) that this country got involved in this war? I find that very difficult to believe. I understand you don't like Bush (understandable...I really didn't like Clinton) but even at my worst (or Clinton's worst, depending on your starting point) I would have never accused him of doing what you're suggesting. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but, my God, how deep is your hatred of Bush? I think you may need some help with your anger issues (just kidding, of course).

Bill-When I was little (yes, there was a time) I bought into the Santa Claus thing because I was told by people that I trusted, certain intel. Now, these individuals knew that they were feeding me false intel, but in order to close the deal, told me untrues anyway. It happens!


You aren't seriously trying to compare the 2 are you? We are talking about real world issues here. And if the intelligence (which has been deemed less than acurate) was used, and the previous administration held the same line, and many world leaders also agreed that the intelligence was correct (at the time) wouldn't you tend to believe said intelligence? Off topic example, if you read the pump next time you fill up your car it tells you to turn off your cell phone. The reasoning is that a spark created by your phone could ignite the petro vapors thereby creating an explosion hazard. There are others that suggest the spark does not carry enough of a charge to ignite the vapors because there is not enough of a concentration. If you err on the side of caution (trusting the warning) is that wrong? If your not sure and use your phone, what happens if an explosion is the result? Clinton and Gore took the same intelligence, thought it to be true (at least enough to publicly state that something MUST be done) and this administration followed through. You can disagree with it (that is your right) but be very careful trying to bring a very complicated issue down to one man's (or group's) selfishness. There's always more involved and it's not always about how much is in someone's back pocket.

Bill L