BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...

We've come
to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
nation as a whole.

You think it's bad now? See what the Federalists and Republicans were
saying about one another back in 1798 and 1812. There is nothing new
to this sniping. Hell, there was all sorts of dirty politics being
played out even during WWII.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

"Mark Test" wrote in message
...
"Your Name Here" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:07:18 -0600, "Mark Test"
wrote:

(Snip)

Hmmm IIRC, in 1973 Nixon had brought the N. Vietnamese to the
table, (Paris peace accords), so victory was close. Then the democrats
used watergate to get Nixon out of office and then they cut and run.

My answer: we should have stayed and won the war, not cut and run.

Your chronology is a little faulty. The war ended for us in March of 1973, and
the Congressional investigation of Watergate didn't even start until May of that
year. You need to remember that Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, started
and expanded the war and that in spite of it escalating, Johnson couldn't find a
way to get out of it short of turning it into a nuclear war. Johnson tried his
best to get it won but, although we had continued to win battle after battle,
they just kept coming and kept throwing people at us regardless of how many of
them we wiped out. Anyway, having lived through it, I don't recall that the
decision to negotiate the end of the war was one of those Democrat v. Republican
political things that seem to be so common today. Even if it was, it would have
been a case of the Republicans wanting to bail out of a Democratic war.....they
were the ones who did the cutting and running, if that's what you want to call
it.

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it was hardly
going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened was that we pulled out
and left the South Vietnamese to continue the fight on their own. I think they
only lasted a couple of months after our last troops left.

George Z.

Well, yeah, Karzai (sp) is the mayor of Kabul, not the president of
Afghanistan. However, my point is still valid in that American's died
so that they can have a constitution in Afghanistan that says Islam is
the Afghanistan religion. I don't think that was one of the goals of
the war.


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
wrote:
Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:

'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...076321,00.html

Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
cough) "Mission Accomplished."


I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody claimed
the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe is
the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium (and
heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.

Do we pick our wars, or what!!!

George Z.

I'm not really bent out of shape over what's in the Afghanistan constitution. I
look at TV pictures coming out of Kabul and see women walking around without
those god-awful head-to-toe robes on, and I see girl children in school being
educated, and that's enough of an improvement for me to not worry too much about
how they're going to pray. That's their choice anyway.

George Z.

" wrote in message
om...
Well, yeah, Karzai (sp) is the mayor of Kabul, not the president of
Afghanistan. However, my point is still valid in that American's died
so that they can have a constitution in Afghanistan that says Islam is
the Afghanistan religion. I don't think that was one of the goals of
the war.


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:

'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...076321,00.html

Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
cough) "Mission Accomplished."


I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody
claimed
the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe
is
the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium
(and
heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.

Do we pick our wars, or what!!!

George Z.

BUFDRVR wrote:

The Democrats or the GOP? At
the rate we are going, the post war death toll will be about 3x the
war death toll. What a waste of life.

A waste of life? You sir, not suprisingly, are the lowest form of life I've
seen on these boards. Those young men who have died have only wasted their
lives if Iraq is not established as a stable, peaceful nation and its far to
early to make that determination. I'm looking forward to you political
commercials next year in the run-up to the election, how low can you go?

Even if these guys were against the idea of war in Iraq, it *has happened*!
Now they should move on to dealing with it, rather than fight the "whether we
should" battle all over!

I get the impression that some of these folks are so deep in their anti-Bush
hatreds that they would happily recreate a new domestic political climate
similar to Vietnam War circa 1970 if they could.

Let the US take a huge defeat in Iraq if it will further their anti-Bush
agendas. Really disgusting!


SMH

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

BUFDRVR wrote:
I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
(by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?

Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
is killed in Iraq.

Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and I'm
a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?

I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
there are Democrats who do the same.

Don't know that any Dem is going to "celebrate" the death of another soldier,
but it surely plays into their political plans for capturing the White House.

They do seem to be hyping up every death and my belief is it is for political
purposes.

Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).


SMH

"George Z. Bush" writes:

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it
was hardly going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened
was that we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to continue the
fight on their own. I think they only lasted a couple of months
after our last troops left.

While a Dem personally, I'll point out a flaw in Z's description.
Ford was POTUS, and concluded he could not fly air support for RVN in
'75 because the Democratically controlled congress would not provide
funding for further involvement. Lack of US material and air support
were among the reasons for the RVN's collapse, but their own handling
and behaviour at Ban Me Thuot didn't help.

My opinion is that the country was not prepared to continue, so it
mattered little which party controlled Congress. I admit that is
conjecture.

The point is, Nixon slipped the US out by promising support he couldn't
really be sure would be provided if needed. It was needed, and it
wasn't provided. Thieu rightly believed at the time that he'd been
sold out for empty promises, but there was nothing he could do about it.

(Comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq left as exercises.)

-dB

--
Butterflies tell me to say:
"The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
represent those of Oracle Corporation."

Stephen Harding writes:

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Pot, kettle; it didn't hurt Nixon that Johnson was stuck in Vietnam
either. Depressing as this is, it is business as usual.


-dB




--
Butterflies tell me to say:
"The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
represent those of Oracle Corporation."

Nobody can argue that the people of Afghanistan aren't better off
without the Taliban. Still, I would like to think Christian minorities
could live there without oppression.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
I'm not really bent out of shape over what's in the Afghanistan constitution. I
look at TV pictures coming out of Kabul and see women walking around without
those god-awful head-to-toe robes on, and I see girl children in school being
educated, and that's enough of an improvement for me to not worry too much about
how they're going to pray. That's their choice anyway.

George Z.

" wrote in message
om...
Well, yeah, Karzai (sp) is the mayor of Kabul, not the president of
Afghanistan. However, my point is still valid in that American's died
so that they can have a constitution in Afghanistan that says Islam is
the Afghanistan religion. I don't think that was one of the goals of
the war.


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:

'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...076321,00.html

Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
cough) "Mission Accomplished."


I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody
claimed
the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe
is
the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium
(and
heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.

Do we pick our wars, or what!!!

George Z.

Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

BUFDRVR wrote:

......... There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US
solider is killed in Iraq.

Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and
I'm a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?

I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
there are Democrats who do the same.

Don't know that any Dem is going to "celebrate" the death of another soldier,
but it surely plays into their political plans for capturing the White House.

They do seem to be hyping up every death and my belief is it is for political
purposes.

Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
it alone.

George Z.