Notes from a solider in Baghdad

[Sarah]

http://webx.tennessean.com/webx/cgi-bin/WebX?***@24.NaVVaJXhniB^***@.ee6ea9c/88

From a soldier's father:

"My son is in the U.S.Army and currently stationed in Baghdad. I hear
from him every three or four days. He is like most of the young men
and women who went to fight over there inasmuch as he was proud to go
and achieve what President Bush said was necessary. I have seen his
attitude take a U-turn during the last month. At first he was saying:
"I wonder why we are not doing this or that to help make life better
for our soldiers?" Then he started to wonder why we were not doing
more to help the Iraqi people who are suffering under terrible
conditions. Not enough water or food, no electricity most of the time,
a terrible shortage of medical supplies and medical staff, basically
they are living like animals. Then he started to worry about the
safety of our troops in the area. He says they are sitting ducks and
easy targets for Iraqi people bent upon gaining revenge for slain
family members and by those who hold the U.S. responsible for the
terrible conditions they find themselves in. Yesterday he had a
different message altogether."

"Get us out of here now! There is nothing we can do to pacify the
Iraqi people except get out of their country and allow them to restore
order in whatever way THEY wish."

And, allow me to give you his remarks when he was informed of
President Bush's brash remarks saying "Bring them on." He said:

"Myself and every last man in my unit are deeply offended that our
President would make such a statement inviting us to be attacked.
President Bush has lost the respect of every soldier I have spoken to
because of his speaking those irresponsible words. Those words spread
like wild-fire amoung the troops. We are here because he ordered us to
be here and now for him to make such a ridiculous statement inviting
violence towards us causes us to lose respect for him and his
judgement. We are learning that we never should have come here in the
first place. Believe me Dad, there is a completely different attitude
now. The fact that the President gave rich people a tax cut and didn't
do anything for military families is hurtful. Where there was once
pride and satisfaction in
defeating an enemy there is now regret and shame. God Bless America.

Your loving Son, Donny"

[John Slade]

Post by Sarah
"My son is in the U.S.Army and currently stationed in Baghdad. I hear
from him every three or four days. He is like most of the young men
and women who went to fight over there inasmuch as he was proud to go
and achieve what President Bush said was necessary. I have seen his
"I wonder why we are not doing this or that to help make life better
for our soldiers?" Then he started to wonder why we were not doing
more to help the Iraqi people who are suffering under terrible
conditions. Not enough water or food, no electricity most of the time,
a terrible shortage of medical supplies and medical staff, basically
they are living like animals. Then he started to worry about the
safety of our troops in the area. He says they are sitting ducks and
easy targets for Iraqi people bent upon gaining revenge for slain
family members and by those who hold the U.S. responsible for the
terrible conditions they find themselves in. Yesterday he had a
different message altogether."
"Get us out of here now! There is nothing we can do to pacify the
Iraqi people except get out of their country and allow them to restore
order in whatever way THEY wish."
And, allow me to give you his remarks when he was informed of
"Myself and every last man in my unit are deeply offended that our
President would make such a statement inviting us to be attacked.
President Bush has lost the respect of every soldier I have spoken to
because of his speaking those irresponsible words. Those words spread
like wild-fire amoung the troops. We are here because he ordered us to
be here and now for him to make such a ridiculous statement inviting
violence towards us causes us to lose respect for him and his
judgement. We are learning that we never should have come here in the
first place. Believe me Dad, there is a completely different attitude
now. The fact that the President gave rich people a tax cut and didn't
do anything for military families is hurtful. Where there was once
pride and satisfaction in
defeating an enemy there is now regret and shame. God Bless America.
Your loving Son, Donny"

In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.

John

[bylo]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:26:40 -0700, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade
In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about the future of this country or the
people who live in it...

[Marie A.]

Post by John Slade
In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

[Skip Freeman]

Post by Marie A.
You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

I love our troops. And if those Iraqis think they can kill anymore of
our boys, then bring 'em on. Bring on their guns. Bring on their
rocket propelled grenades. Oh, and while their at it, let them bring
on their land mines and their...their...hey, Marie! What did I leave
out?

-Skip

[allan]

when you invade a country under a hidden agenda, and are an occupying
army you had better expect causalities, you have to remember, the US
Army was not invited, and they are not a liberating army. I do not like
to see american soldiers being killed either, and the only solution is
to get them out of where they should not have been in the first place.
the only people responsible for their deaths is G. weasel Bush's and his
cronies.
I was in that vietnam in 66 & 67, I for one was glad for those who
protested. they are the one's who got us out of there.

Post by Skip Freeman

Post by Marie A.
You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

I love our troops. And if those Iraqis think they can kill anymore of
our boys, then bring 'em on. Bring on their guns. Bring on their
rocket propelled grenades. Oh, and while their at it, let them bring
on their land mines and their...their...hey, Marie! What did I leave
out?
-Skip

[Raymond Luxury-Yacht II]

Post by Marie A.

Post by John Slade
In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

We all remember how liberal Democrats spat on Vietnam Vets during
JFK's Vietnam War.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110003632

In the event, President Kennedy negotiated the Laos accords, a
coalition arrangement that gave the Communists de facto control of the
Ho Chi Minh trail vital to infiltration into South Vietnam. By 1963
the South erupted in crisis, with conflicting battlefield reports and
political turmoil in the Buddhist crisis and burning bonzes. The
notion spread in the Saigon press corps and a Kennedy administration
faction that Diem, an inflexible Catholic, had to go in order to win
the war. After the coup, the military situation deteriorated rapidly.

Mr. Dallek lists the reasons JFK was reluctant to withdraw from
Vietnam: failure at the Bay of Pigs, the Vienna summit with
Khrushchev, defending Laos, the Berlin Wall, the Soviet resumption of
nuclear testing. He feared the international and domestic reaction to
another defeat. By November, sanctioning a coup against an ally in the
name of winning the war had been added.

Then withdraw? Joe Kennedy's competitive kid? The "green berets" guy?
The "bear any burden" guy? Give me a break.

Acolytes love this myth dearly, of course, and Mr. Dallek was writing
not a focused examination of it but a broad portrait valuable in its
own right. But he need not adopt the withdrawal notion so uncritically
or champion it in magazines. For the purpose of the myth is to obscure
a salient truth. To wit, Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's war.

JFK also put Saddam in power using the CIA. See Miles Copeland's
book. Copeland was Saddam's CIA controller.

[Jerry Johnson]

Post by Marie A.
You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

We were waiting for my brother, who was on crutches, to make his way off a
med flight from Nam which was landing in San Fran. And where protesters and
various other ranters out numbered family members.

On young lady was successful in getting through the barricade where she then
knocked my brother and another soldier (also on crutches) to the ground and
began kicking them with eager enthusiasm.

When the MPs pulled her away we noticed that the now-cheering crowd was
suddenly concerned that their protesting representative might possibly be
mistreated by the MPs. Where she continued to kick and scream and swear
while being escorted (more like carried) back to the otherside of the
barricade.

My brother and the other soldier were taken off the on stretchers -- to
the further cheering of the crowd. Which was then followed by the crowd
offering advice to their sister protester on how to file charges regarding
her abuse by the MPs, and how to get further publicity for her attack on
the 'baby killers'.

When I read about liberals today I often recall that incident. Which
helps me to understand the behavior of the political left. And those who
would have done anything to beat on my brother are the same ones holding
state and federal offices today.

[JoettaB]

Post by Jerry Johnson

Post by Marie A.
You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

We were waiting for my brother, who was on crutches, to make his way off a
med flight from Nam which was landing in San Fran. And where protesters and
various other ranters out numbered family members.
On young lady was successful in getting through the barricade where she then
knocked my brother and another soldier (also on crutches) to the ground and
began kicking them with eager enthusiasm.
When the MPs pulled her away we noticed that the now-cheering crowd was
suddenly concerned that their protesting representative might possibly be
mistreated by the MPs. Where she continued to kick and scream and swear
while being escorted (more like carried) back to the otherside of the
barricade.
My brother and the other soldier were taken off the on stretchers -- to
the further cheering of the crowd. Which was then followed by the crowd
offering advice to their sister protester on how to file charges regarding
her abuse by the MPs, and how to get further publicity for her attack on
the 'baby killers'.
When I read about liberals today I often recall that incident. Which
helps me to understand the behavior of the political left. And those who
would have done anything to beat on my brother are the same ones holding
state and federal offices today.

Please do not assume that all liberals behave in this manner. I am a
liberal, and I do not condone the mis-treatment of our soldiers anymore now
than I did during Vietnam. I believe they deserve the utmost respect and
support.

JoettaB

[Frosty]

What trick, what device, what starting-hole on 31 Jul 2003 08:27:25

Post by Jerry Johnson

Post by Marie A.
You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

We were waiting for my brother, who was on crutches, to make his way off a
med flight from Nam which was landing in San Fran. And where

protesters and

Post by Jerry Johnson
various other ranters out numbered family members.
On young lady was successful in getting through the barricade where she then
knocked my brother and another soldier (also on crutches) to the ground and
began kicking them with eager enthusiasm.
When the MPs pulled her away we noticed that the now-cheering crowd was
suddenly concerned that their protesting representative might

possibly be

Post by Jerry Johnson
mistreated by the MPs. Where she continued to kick and scream and swear
while being escorted (more like carried) back to the otherside of the
barricade.
My brother and the other soldier were taken off the on stretchers -- to
the further cheering of the crowd. Which was then followed by the crowd
offering advice to their sister protester on how to file charges regarding
her abuse by the MPs, and how to get further publicity for her attack on
the 'baby killers'.
When I read about liberals today I often recall that incident.

Which

Post by Jerry Johnson
helps me to understand the behavior of the political left.
And those who
would have done anything to beat on my brother are the same ones holding
state and federal offices today.

This is SO true!
And the bitter irony is that they have turned 180 degrees to be PRO
violence now...oh wait, I guess they were always for violence, just
their brand, their enemy.

Meet the new boss...

[Frosty]

What trick, what device, what starting-hole on 26 Jul 2003 18:25:30

Post by Marie A.

Post by John Slade
In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

You know, John, those of us who are older remember well the bleats
from the anti-war crowd about their undying love for the troops. Yep,
they loved them so much that we probably lost about 40,000 more than
we might otherwise not have lost owing to the encouragement it gave to
our enemies. Liberals always do it this way. But we know better, John
- oh, do we ever! (Cordially, Marie)

Oh yeah, she's right you know!
Just like the Viet Namese, the Iraqi's have no electricity and no TV's
or daily newspaper deliveries, and their radios have coat hangers for
antenna's, and they are all reading THIS NEWSGROUP on their computers
with probably Windows 3.1 and Free Agent newsreaders so we dasn't
speak badly about Our President (God bless him!) or say anything that
smacks of defeatism because you KNOW that the Iraqi press ONLY prints
the truth all the time and even if we always spoke highly of our
government as Ms. Marie suggests they'd NEVER say we were discouraged
or wanted the war to end!

For those who haven't picked up on my sarcasm, Ms. Marie is an Agent
Provocateur probably planted here in this newsgroup by the feds to
entrap someone into saying something against our Great and Glorious
Leader, King George W. Bush, Right Hand of God and Lion of America!

Kill, Kill, Kill! (I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my
teeth! I wanna eat dead, burn bodies!)

[Jeremiah]

The most constipated minds can't see beyond party labels. Vietnam was
Kissinger's war, if was anybody's. More to the truth of the matter, it was
a conspiration of capital interests that propelled us into that war. JFK
seems to have realized his mistake and when he tried to back out, bring down
the CIA and issue new REAL money - he was off'ed.

watch http://gnn.tv/war_conspiracy/

read the new introduction:
http://gnn.tv/war_conspiracy/war_intro.html

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade

Post by Sarah
"My son is in the U.S.Army and currently stationed in Baghdad. I hear
from him every three or four days. He is like most of the young men
and women who went to fight over there inasmuch as he was proud to go
and achieve what President Bush said was necessary. I have seen his
"I wonder why we are not doing this or that to help make life better
for our soldiers?" Then he started to wonder why we were not doing
more to help the Iraqi people who are suffering under terrible
conditions. Not enough water or food, no electricity most of the time,
a terrible shortage of medical supplies and medical staff, basically
they are living like animals. Then he started to worry about the
safety of our troops in the area. He says they are sitting ducks and
easy targets for Iraqi people bent upon gaining revenge for slain
family members and by those who hold the U.S. responsible for the
terrible conditions they find themselves in. Yesterday he had a

ss America.

Post by John Slade

Post by Sarah
Your loving Son, Donny"

In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good. Then when the troops came back -
the liberal Democrats who sent the troops to JFK's war - spat on them.

[Gogarty]

In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@netzero.com says...

(Snip)

Blame any or all of the 1945 - 1975 administrations for what we
suffered in Vietnam. Now, please name, with specific and verifiable
information, any groups of Vietnam vets who were spat upon by liberal
Democrats, then or now.

Good summary. In the end, it was Nixon's war by a long shot. But you can't
argue with these people who get all their history and opinions from Limbaugh
and his ilk. They are, in theological terms, invincibly ignorant.

[King Pineapple]

Post by Jeremiah
The most constipated minds can't see beyond party labels.

You're a prime example.

Post by Jeremiah
Vietnam was Kissinger's war, if was anybody's.

No, he inherited it from the Democrats. It wasn't Kissinger who sent
thousands of troops there in 1965.

Tin hat material snipped.




Why do we american keep get the most idiotic canidates to chosen from?
DNC Deep Thought
"xombi13"

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Post by King Pineapple

Post by Jeremiah
The most constipated minds can't see beyond party labels.

You're a prime example.

Post by Jeremiah
Vietnam was Kissinger's war, if was anybody's.

No, he inherited it from the Democrats. It wasn't Kissinger who sent
thousands of troops there in 1965.

True enough about the troop increases.

Kissinger's crimes were the indiscriminate bombing of civilians---what all
Republicans routinely call "collateral damage" nowadays-----outside the
territory of Vietnam (and in the territory of Cambodia and Laos). For
Henry and all the McCarthyites of the Nixon Adminstration, there were
Commies everywhere...comin' outta our ears...and certainly on the streets
of American cities where you'd find long-haired, sandal-wearing "traitors."

[cRaZeE_sAcK_hEaD]

Yeah--real funny how after the war there were about 3 million people killed
by the commies there and in Cambodia. Great job USA!

Post by Jeremiah
The most constipated minds can't see beyond party labels. Vietnam was
Kissinger's war, if was anybody's. More to the truth of the matter, it was
a conspiration of capital interests that propelled us into that war.

JFK

Post by Jeremiah
seems to have realized his mistake and when he tried to back out, bring down
the CIA and issue new REAL money - he was off'ed.
watch http://gnn.tv/war_conspiracy/
http://gnn.tv/war_conspiracy/war_intro.html

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade

Post by Sarah
"My son is in the U.S.Army and currently stationed in Baghdad. I hear
from him every three or four days. He is like most of the young men
and women who went to fight over there inasmuch as he was proud to go
and achieve what President Bush said was necessary. I have seen his
"I wonder why we are not doing this or that to help make life better
for our soldiers?" Then he started to wonder why we were not doing
more to help the Iraqi people who are suffering under terrible
conditions. Not enough water or food, no electricity most of the time,
a terrible shortage of medical supplies and medical staff, basically
they are living like animals. Then he started to worry about the
safety of our troops in the area. He says they are sitting ducks and
easy targets for Iraqi people bent upon gaining revenge for slain
family members and by those who hold the U.S. responsible for the
terrible conditions they find themselves in. Yesterday he had a

ss America.

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade

Post by Sarah
Your loving Son, Donny"

In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the

NVA

Post by Jeremiah
and

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush

didn't

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit

over

Post by Jeremiah
there

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good. Then when the troops came back -
the liberal Democrats who sent the troops to JFK's war - spat on them.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the Vietnam disaster. Toward
the close of World War II, France asked for American help to reconquer
its colonies there. FDR refused, saying, in effect, that WWII wasn't
fought to make the world safe for overseas empires. Truman, howver,
recognized the importance of French ports in a war with the USSR, and
caved in to French demands for aid, mainly transport. Eisenhower
refused to recognize the Vietnamese victory in their French war, and
tried to create a new "state" in the south. JFK sent US "advisors" to
the South, and LBJ multiplied their numbers. Nixon was offered, on his
first day in office, the peace plan that was eventually (many deaths
later) approved.
Blame any or all of the 1945 - 1975 administrations for what we
suffered in Vietnam. Now, please name, with specific and verifiable
information, any groups of Vietnam vets who were spat upon by liberal
Democrats, then or now.
--Russ

[dmtsymphony]

Post by Sarah

Post by John Slade
In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops. Hey and Tommy Franks said as Franks is
coming home for a nice cushy life. Too bad our troops have to sit over there
in harms way cashing checks with their asses that Tommy Franks and Bush
wrote with their mouths.
John

You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good. Then when the troops came back -
the liberal Democrats who sent the troops to JFK's war - spat on them.

You are wrong.
Eisenhower was sending US troops to support French troops in the 50's war for Indochina, and US troops took
over the training of S Vietnamese troops from the French in 1956.
Several million dollars were also contributed towards the French efforts in Indochina prior to these events,
money which came from the US.
Kennedy inherited the situation.
Learn your history.

[Rex the Reaper]

Post by Sarah
You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good. Then when the troops came back -
the liberal Democrats who sent the troops to JFK's war - spat on them.

JFK did not start Vietnam, dumbshit. It began under Eisenhower's term.
This is, what, the 50th time I've told you this?

By the way, bitch. The most casualties in Vietnam happened under
Tricky Dick. He was a Republican president, in case you forgot.

[Alan McIntire]

Post by Rex the Reaper

Post by Sarah
You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good. Then when the troops came back -
the liberal Democrats who sent the troops to JFK's war - spat on them.

JFK did not start Vietnam, dumbshit. It began under Eisenhower's term.
This is, what, the 50th time I've told you this?

Nonsense. There were just a few observers during the Eisenhower
years. The full blame goes to Kennedy. I suppose he got what he
deserved after encouraging the assination of Diem.

[Droopus]

Post by Sarah
You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good.

Strictly speaking, it was Eisenhower who "started" our involvement, as the
Dems here will desperately tell you. But even they cannot deny that it
really was Lyndon's war.

I'm not a "Dem" but I agree...most escalation in Vietnam proper was
under Johnson, and though I can't see how he could have just "gotten
out of it" he pumped it up in typical Johnson style. It really became
his war, though "advisors" had been involved since 1960-61. Fucking
Texans will kill us all. ; )

However, just like I can kill using your gun, Nixon took the war and
drove it to a whole new level. When he took over there were about
540,000 US troops in SV, mainly sent by LBJ. But Nixon was the one who
began the incursions into Laos and Cambodia, and started dropping the
serious tonnage on Hanoi in 72 (hehe one would think he would have
been preoccupied with certain domestic issues then.). He reduced troop
strength so that by 1971 there were fewer than 150,000 US troops over
there, but Nixon actually suffered more casualties. Still, those
casualties were sent over there by LBJ.

When we cut and ran in March 73, it was still two years till the North
toook Saigon.

It may have started with Ike, and built under JFK, but LBJ was the one
who hit the NOS button and kicked it up. LBJ's main saving grace IMVHO
was his insistence in keeping to Kennedy's space exploration plans,
leading to Apollo, again IMO, the greatest technological achievement
man has ever seen. To the moon on 36k word memory? Amazing.

Eventually, Nixon was smart enough to look out his window, see the
masses of people protesting, and got the hell out, even without the
honor he so desperately wanted.

"Individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together"
Major Frank Burns

LOL, not bad,


"Just give the great unwashed a pair of oversized breasts and a happy
ending, and they'll 'oink' for more every time."
Private Mongomery Burns

[r***@rogers.com]

Post by Droopus

Post by Sarah
You must remember that Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's War. He started
it and LBJ got it going real good.

Strictly speaking, it was Eisenhower who "started" our involvement, as the
Dems here will desperately tell you. But even they cannot deny that it
really was Lyndon's war.

I'm not a "Dem" but I agree...most escalation in Vietnam proper was
under Johnson, and though I can't see how he could have just "gotten
out of it" he pumped it up in typical Johnson style. It really became
his war, though "advisors" had been involved since 1960-61. Fucking
Texans will kill us all. ; )
However, just like I can kill using your gun, Nixon took the war and
drove it to a whole new level. When he took over there were about
540,000 US troops in SV, mainly sent by LBJ. But Nixon was the one who
began the incursions into Laos and Cambodia, and started dropping the
serious tonnage on Hanoi in 72 (hehe one would think he would have
been preoccupied with certain domestic issues then.). He reduced troop
strength so that by 1971 there were fewer than 150,000 US troops over
there, but Nixon actually suffered more casualties. Still, those
casualties were sent over there by LBJ.
When we cut and ran in March 73, it was still two years till the North
toook Saigon.
It may have started with Ike, and built under JFK, but LBJ was the one
who hit the NOS button and kicked it up. LBJ's main saving grace IMVHO
was his insistence in keeping to Kennedy's space exploration plans,
leading to Apollo, again IMO, the greatest technological achievement
man has ever seen. To the moon on 36k word memory? Amazing.

NASA was superb. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager.
Then it all went to Hell.
-Rich

[James Hall]

king pisspot & "Raymond Luxury-Yacht II" unable to
comprehend are once again flaborgasted to learn that
the Viet War went through 5 americaaaaaan presssies
and totaled some 20 years of overt interference {covert
interference has always been constant and neverending}
beginning and ending with republicos, which is only fair
in an americaaan sort of way.

The Geneva Peace Accords, July 21, 1954
The final declarations of the Geneva Conference, formally concluding
the war between France and Viet Nam.

The American Response to the Geneva Declarations, 3 July 21, 1954
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles's official response to the
Geneva Peace Accords.

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), September 8, 1954
Protocol to the SEATO Treaty.

President Eisenhower's Letter of Support to Ngo Dinh Diem, October 23,
1954
Eisenhower's offer of American aid to support Diem in "developing and
maintaining a strong, viable state."

Law 10/59, May 6, 1959
Excerpts from Law 10/59, Diem's repressive legislation against
suspected Communists.

Duong Loi Cach Nang Mien Nam [The Path of Revolution in the South],
1956
The southern Communists' statement of opposition to the U.S.-Diem
regime and commitment to armed violence.

National Liberation Front (NLF)
Statement of the goals of the NLF, the united front that brought
together Communists and non-Communists to liberate Viet Nam from foreign
control.

Rusk-McNamara Report to Kennedy, November 11, 1961
Excerpts from the November 1961 "White Paper" advocating an increase
in military, technical, and economic aid to South Viet Nam.

Phone Conversation between Ngo Dinh Diem and Henry Cabot Lodge,
November 1,1963
Lodge's implied withdrawal of support for Diem's regime.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 6-7, 1964
Excerpts from the Senate debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution,
authorizing (with two dissenting votes) an escalation of U.S. involvement.

McGeorge Bundy Memo to President Johnson, February 7, 1965
Excerpts from Bundy's memo to Johnson, advocating "sustained reprisal
against North Vietnam" in response to the NLF attack on two U.S. army
installations.

Thu Vao Nam [Letters to the South], 1965
The Hanoi Politburo's letter to the Communist Party in the South,
outlining the Party's commitment to a protracted war strategy.

National Security Action Memorandum Number 328, April 6,1965
Memo signed by McGeorge Bundy and addressed to the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
documenting Johnson's approval of a 20,000-man increase in U.S. military
support for South Viet Nam.

Excerpts from Speech Given by President Johnson at Johns Hopkins
University, April 7,1965
Johnson's justification of U.S. involvement in Viet Nam.

Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's Memo to President Johnson,
July 20, 1965
A summary of McNamara's memo advocating further increases in the
number of combat troops committed to Viet Nam.

Democratic Republic of Vietnam Peace Proposal, June 26, 1971
Hanoi's peace proposal, presented at the Paris talks in 1971.

Peace Proposal of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Viet Nam, July 1, 1971
The Southern Communists' peace proposal, presented at the Paris talks
in 1971.

President Nixon's Speech to the American Public, November 3, 1969
Nixon's "Vietnamization" plan.

President Nixon's Speech to the American Public, April 30, 1970
Nixon's justification of the offensive in Cambodia.

The Paris Accords, January 27, 1973
Excerpts from the Paris peace agreement, formally concluding the war
between the United States and North Viet Nam.



|| Overview || Documents || Links || Credits || Home ||
Vassar College
124 Raymond Ave. * Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12604 U.S.A. * tel. (914)
437-7000 *
© 1997-99 Vassar College
16 Aug 99

[Frosty]

What trick, what device, what starting-hole on Sun, 13 Jul 2003
03:26:40 -0700, canst thou now find out, to hide "John Slade"
<***@pacbell.net> from this open and apparent shame?:

<snip>

Post by John Slade
In all fairness not all troops feel this way but many of them are
beginning to wonder. It's almost like Veit Nam except there is no real
organized opposition. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson telling the NVA and
the Veit Cong to "bring it on"? When I heard those words I knew Bush didn't
give a rats ass about the troops.

So that was your first clue?

[basilod]

strength and resolution for a task that MUST be completed.
that you have fathered this noble young man must surely be a medical
mystery.

This phrase shows the level of your mental development: "a task that MUST be
completed" no matter what. You are just a military automaton unable to
think beyond the ways to execute orders. It will never occur to you that so
many orders are plain stupid to the point of defeating the original task.
The soldier is right - we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Iraq has never threatened our country. Now and for long time to come
because of our "help" we will become a symbol of evil for generations of
Iraqis. The only way to amend the situation is for us to get out of Iraq
ASAP and to start investigation of how and who decided to commit American
lives and money to this erroneous task. I believe that you have never
questions the reasons for your presence in Vietnam - your brain has never
evolved to that point.

no justice, no peace.
dt

[basilod]

Post by basilod
The only way to amend the situation is for us to get out of Iraq
ASAP and to start investigation of how and who decided to commit American
lives and money to this erroneous task. I believe that you have never
questions the reasons for your presence in Vietnam - your brain has never
evolved to that point.

That's right leave Iraq now </sarcasm>.
It is a beaten and broken country and leaving now it would only
increase anti-American sentiment and would make Iraq a fertile
breeding ground for terrorists hell bent on killing innocent
Americans. You obviously have no clue on what it takes to defend and
protect a country.

Sure, Iraqis show to us every day how much they need our defending and
protecting them. If you watch the current TV footage from Iraq (even on
Fox!) you will stop wondering why they hate us more and more. Every day of
our continued stay there will be increasing their hatred towards us.
Unless, of course, you make your living as a prison guard - in that case I
understand where your idea of protection is coming from - like protecting
prisoners. Iraqis don't want their country to stay forever as an
American-run prison. Saddam was a brutal ruler? - At least he was able to
maintain order in the country. Now they have neither order, nor democracy -
only country-wide chaos.

[Lawson English]

Post by basilod
raqis don't want their country to stay forever as an
American-run prison. Saddam was a brutal ruler? - At least he was able to
maintain order in the country. Now they have neither order, nor democracy -
only country-wide chaos.

If you have the recipe for instant democracy please post it.

UN/NATO control. WOuldn't be instant, but would completely squelch many of
the protesters' claims. Of course, if the UN walked in and decided that a
Shi-ite controlled government was the will of the vast majority of the Iraqi
people, there would be hell to pay.

[OrionCA]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:53:30 -0700, "Lawson English"

Post by Lawson English

If you have the recipe for instant democracy please post it.

UN/NATO control.

LMAO. Name *one* UN peacekeeping mission that has resulted in
democracy. The only ones that have ever even come close were led by
US troops.
--
"Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal
casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure
by government to fulfill its primary role of
national defence. But Democrats who complained that
Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence
re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too
quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This
is not a serious party."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-07-19&id=3319

[dt]

Post by basilod

Post by basilod
raqis don't want their country to stay forever as an
American-run prison. Saddam was a brutal ruler? - At least he was able

to

Post by basilod
maintain order in the country. Now they have neither order, nor

democracy -

Post by basilod
only country-wide chaos.

If you have the recipe for instant democracy please post it.

UN/NATO control. WOuldn't be instant, but would completely squelch many of
the protesters' claims. Of course, if the UN walked in and decided that a
Shi-ite controlled government was the will of the vast majority of the Iraqi
people, there would be hell to pay.

iraqis don't want their country to stay forever as an

Post by basilod

Post by basilod
American-run prison...etc.

iraq is no more an american run prison than san francisco.
chaos? sure. how can there not be chaos when people who have been
terrorized and slaughted for over thirty years finally sense
liberation and freedom.
how can there be an orderly transition from slavery to freedom without
the necessary political institutions to bring it forth?
what is it precisely, that makes people (like us americans, thousands
of miles away)think these aspirations (freedom, liberty, self
governance) can spring, athena like, from a citizenry that can barely
percieve them as a reality? I mean, there's an irony in the statement
iraqis don't want their country to stay (and I'm paraphrasing here) an
american run prison.
shouldn't we be encouraged that a people who would have been stuffed
into a shredder for uttering that kind of statement six months ago can
do so now?
order? well sure, but hitler was a mad dog for order. hell, castro,
assad, mugabe and the house of saud are real big on maintaining order.
how bad do you want it?
Nor do I believe the presence of the un or nato would completely
squelch all protesters claims. or even come close. the un has proven
itself notoriously inept at the reconstruction and rebuilding of
nations.
they're very good at passing out condoms and performing abortions on
whomever will stand still long enough. they are very good at
restructuring educational systems to reflect their one world, one
citizen agenda. they are very good at reinstating criminals, murderers
and thieves in former postions of power. rebuilding?
kosovo is still experiencing brown outs.
no justice, no peace.
dt

[basilod]

Months before our current aggression in Iraq I have been posting my thoughts
about Iraq not being ready for a democracy. Any socio-economic system has
to be ripe enough for a democracy - you cannot enforce a democracy in a
country, neither can you bring it in on bayonets. Even though Iraq
(formerly Mesopotamia) is known as a cradle of civilization, every
consecutive invasion has been throwing it centuries back. A thousand-years
rule of Persians contributed to this decline, so did the Arab conquest, so
did the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols in 1258. It is anybody's guess
how far our invasion will throw the poor country! - It will probably have to
go back to nomadic tribalism (sill in existence among the Shi'a tribes in
the South.)

P.S. I wanted to post here one of my pre-invasion posts about Iraq not
being ready for a democracy, but I simply have no time to search through
hundreds of my posts.
--
"Man is the negative entropy of the Universe"
(Buckminster Fuller/Norbert Wiener, 1957)

Post by basilod
raqis don't want their country to stay forever as an
American-run prison. Saddam was a brutal ruler? - At least he was able to
maintain order in the country. Now they have neither order, nor democracy -
only country-wide chaos.

If you have the recipe for instant democracy please post it.

[OrionCA]

Post by basilod
Months before our current aggression in Iraq I have been posting my thoughts
about Iraq not being ready for a democracy.

<snip>

So you think the Iraqi people would rather keep Hussein around?
Here's a clue: You can't "hand" people a democracy; no one is "ready"
for it. Democracies evolve naturally when you disarm the strongmen's
thugs and chase the bullies off the playground. Within a year there
will be free elections in Iraq and a strong central government whose
authority does *not* arise from its control of the police and the
army.
--
"Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal
casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure
by government to fulfill its primary role of
national defence. But Democrats who complained that
Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence
re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too
quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This
is not a serious party."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-07-19&id=3319

[az-willie]

Post by OrionCA

Post by basilod
Months before our current aggression in Iraq I have been posting my thoughts
about Iraq not being ready for a democracy.

<snip>
So you think the Iraqi people would rather keep Hussein around?
Here's a clue: You can't "hand" people a democracy; no one is "ready"
for it. Democracies evolve naturally when you disarm the strongmen's
thugs and chase the bullies off the playground. Within a year there
will be free elections in Iraq and a strong central government whose
authority does *not* arise from its control of the police and the
army.

===============
Are you really that stupid are or you only paid to act that way?

No democracy has "evolved naturally" in the Middle East. The area
historically has been run by theocracies or dictators or a combination
of both.

There may be elections but they will be held at the point of American
guns. And the authority of the resulting government will be overseen by
our troops and enforced by our control of the police and army. The
elections wlll only be held because of American troops forcing them to
be held. That's hardly "evolving naturally".

If we left the Iraqi's to take care of themselves ( as many want us to
do ) they would / will install a religious government. The question is
which religion would wind up in power.

But " democracies " are actually rare in the history of human
governments and relatively new and it still isn't sure how they are
going to work out. Our own here in America is threatened right now with
the advent of the religious right and many politicians kowtowing to them.

Our own current pResident said that he would like to be dictator. Yes he
did ... it 's a fact. Reported as though he was joking but don't bet on it.

Iraq may wind up with a "democracy" but it will be enforced by American
troops and if we leave they will likely abandon it and go back to
military / religious strong men running the show. It's their history and
that's the way they like it. Their religious leaders are calling for
Americans to leave / be thrown out right now.

[dt]

Post by az-willie

Post by OrionCA

Post by basilod
Months before our current aggression in Iraq I have been posting my thoughts
about Iraq not being ready for a democracy.

<snip>
So you think the Iraqi people would rather keep Hussein around?
Here's a clue: You can't "hand" people a democracy; no one is "ready"
for it. Democracies evolve naturally when you disarm the strongmen's
thugs and chase the bullies off the playground. Within a year there
will be free elections in Iraq and a strong central government whose
authority does *not* arise from its control of the police and the
army.

===============
Are you really that stupid are or you only paid to act that way?
<snip>

evolving naturally?
Well, clearly our own democracy, threatened by the headlong rush to
self annihilation exhibited by the left (witness california, whose
left inspired policies and programs have bankrupted the state),
evolved naturally enough as a result of a long war of independence. at
the point of american guns.
as for the region, I believe israel is a democracy is it not? at
least, as much as it can be under the circumstances. how bout india?
how bout japan after ww2? they seem to be doing pretty well and they
hadn't a clue as to the inner workings of the democratic process
before we shoved them, at the point of american guns, in the right
direction.
as for leaving the iraqis to their own devices? no, clearly that would
be the wrong thing to do, for them, and for our children.
Just because the people in the region have a sad history of religious
intolerance, poverty and state sanctioned brutality doesn't
necessarily preclude them from true self determination.
does it?
no justice, no peace
dt

[dt]

Post by basilod

strength and resolution for a task that MUST be completed.
that you have fathered this noble young man must surely be a medical
mystery.

This phrase shows the level of your mental development: "a task that MUST be
completed" no matter what. You are just a military automaton unable to

sooooo, am I to assume that you equate completion of a specific task
with a lack of mental development? hmm. interesting take. kinda makes
graduating from college seem pointless. I guess raising a family's
silly too huh? why bother.
I'm sure you're right about the iraqis hating us for generations to
come. why wouldn't they? we've just toppled one of the most vicious
dictators in modern history and put their future in their own hands.
for the left, that's an unforgivable crime against humanity. I think
we all know how attached you leftist choates are to your dictators.
ok, i won't waste time here. this nation is in a conflict that will
continue for at least a generation. we, as a nation, are faced with an
enemy that can't win on the battlefield so they attack us while hiding
behind unarmed non combatants. that is called murder and cowardice.
Two things people like you love and adore. (as long as the dead and
injured are americans or israelis)
we, as a nation, are finally waking up to the foulness and venality
that your ideology represents. I, for one, choose to point it out and
denounce you poorly educated riff raff when you lurch across my path.
oh yeah, you might want to actually read a book once in a while.
no justice, no peace.
dt

[Skip Freeman]

Post by dt
I'm sure you're right about the iraqis hating us for generations to
come. why wouldn't they? we've just toppled one of the most vicious
dictators in modern history and put their future in their own hands.

Too bad we haven't and won't put their oil in their own hands.

Post by dt
for the left, that's an unforgivable crime against humanity. I think
we all know how attached you leftist choates are to your dictators.
ok, i won't waste time here. this nation is in a conflict that will
continue for at least a generation. we, as a nation, are faced with an
enemy that can't win on the battlefield so they attack us while hiding
behind unarmed non combatants. that is called murder and cowardice.

The only reason Iraqis are now considered our enemy is because we made
them so by going to war with them in the first place. Before the war,
Hussein was not a threat to the US in any way, shape or form. And so
if our troops are becoming victims due to murder and cowardice, then
their blood is on Bush's hands.

-Skip

[m***@merde.com]

Post by Sarah
And, allow me to give you his remarks when he was informed of
"Myself and every last man in my unit are deeply offended that our
President would make such a statement inviting us to be attacked.
President Bush has lost the respect of every soldier I have spoken to
because of his speaking those irresponsible words. Those words spread
like wild-fire amoung the troops. We are here because he ordered us to
be here and now for him to make such a ridiculous statement inviting
violence towards us causes us to lose respect for him and his
judgement. We are learning that we never should have come here in the
first place. Believe me Dad, there is a completely different attitude
now. The fact that the President gave rich people a tax cut and didn't
do anything for military families is hurtful. Where there was once
pride and satisfaction in
defeating an enemy there is now regret and shame

Dear Danny,

Your President said "Bring it on" to enforce the fact that American
soldiers are readily equipped to handle the problems that might arise
in Iraq. I know you are scared and who wouldn't be scared? War is a
scary thing. I just hope you can crawl out from underneath your
blanket and be brave. Flunking out of beauty school was hard for you
but just hang in there. You are in a war. People die. That is a fact.

Danny, the President gave EVERYONE a tax cut because the country you
are defending is fair and equal to all (hence Liberty For All on the
Coins here).

Hang in there kid. Others with you have courage and guts and they will
protect you. When you get back you can re-apply for beauty school.

love,

Your Ashamed Father

[dt]

Post by m***@merde.com

Post by Sarah
And, allow me to give you his remarks when he was informed of
"Myself and every last man in my unit are deeply offended that our
President would make such a statement inviting us to be attacked.
President Bush has lost the respect of every soldier I have spoken to
because of his speaking those irresponsible words. Those words spread
like wild-fire amoung the troops. We are here because he ordered us to
be here and now for him to make such a ridiculous statement inviting
violence towards us causes us to lose respect for him and his
judgement. We are learning that we never should have come here in the
first place. Believe me Dad, there is a completely different attitude
now. The fact that the President gave rich people a tax cut and didn't
do anything for military families is hurtful. Where there was once
pride and satisfaction in
defeating an enemy there is now regret and shame

Dear Danny,
Your President said "Bring it on" to enforce the fact that American
soldiers are readily equipped to handle the problems that might arise
in Iraq. I know you are scared and who wouldn't be scared? War is a
scary thing. I just hope you can crawl out from underneath your
blanket and be brave. Flunking out of beauty school was hard for you
but just hang in there. You are in a war. People die. That is a fact.
Danny, the President gave EVERYONE a tax cut because the country you
are defending is fair and equal to all (hence Liberty For All on the
Coins here).
Hang in there kid. Others with you have courage and guts and they will
protect you. When you get back you can re-apply for beauty school.
love,
Your Ashamed Father

well said. and thank you.
dt

[Skip Freeman]

i think we will have to admit that the all volunteer armed forces
consist of, for the most part, young men and women who enlisted (prior
to 9/11) for job skills and the subsequent educational benefits upon
discharge. again, they have my respect and gratitude for their
patriotism. However, I don't believe the majority of them ever
believed they would be involved in a shooting war.

And the ones that thought they might probably assumed it would be a
war in which their country was being defended and not someone else's.
Liberation of an oppressed people is a laudable goal but it is not
right to ask our soldiers to do such a thing when that is not what
they signed up for. I don't believe Iraq was a threat to the US, nor
do I think Bush really thought they were a threat, and so I see no
reason why our troops should have been sent over there.

-Skip