i don't hold it against people when they want to be rich. if they can get paid a ridiculous salary, then good for them. if they can convince their company's board of directors or stockholders or whoever, that they are worth their salary, then they deserve it. sounds to me like you cant deal with the free market. some people makes lots and lots of money, others dont. also lets say for example that company x that sells widgets has a ceo that "robs and pillages" the company. so what, sounds like good news for company y, who also sells widgets. economic darwinism.
I ain't believin' what I'm reading here! Sourdough, you tell BusyBee that she "sounds anti-American" by talking about "monsters like Saddam and other "bad" leaders" and tell her to talk about the "good ones". I'd like to hear about the "good ones" we've supported as well. Noriega of Panama? Nah! Torres in Panama? Nah! Saddam Hussein? Nah! Marcos in the Philllipines? Nah! Suharto in Indonesia? Nah! Nasser in Egypt? Nah! DeGaulle in France? Nah! Chiang Kai Shek in China? Nah? Peron in Argentina? Nah! Castro in Cuba? Nah! Russell in Liberia? Nah! All the corrupt Presidents of South Viet Nam? Nah! The Saudi Royal family? Nah! I'm sure there must be a good one in there SOMEWHERE! Golly gee, enlighten me! And I just love it when people show their ignorance when they say things like"We lost the war in Viet Nam because the liberal press and leftists didn't support it." We lost the war in Viet Nam because we didn't fight it as a WAR, stupid!!! You don't fight a battle and then give up the territory you took and go back to the base only to let the enemy reoccupy it. You don't fight a war by not invading the enemy's territory and beating the $@#t out of him! You don't win "The hearts and minds" in a war by destroying the homes and fields of the people you are trying to "liberate". You don't win a war by throwing away the lives of your fathers and husbands and sons needlessly. You people who think like this better thank the "liberal press and leftists" who protested this debacle and got it over with or many of you might not be here or might still be fighting in it. And I love it to that some people believe everything they read and cite it to support their views but whenever someone they disagree with cites something they've read to support THEIR views, it is dismissed as a lie or a revision of history. What hypocrisy!
You are pretty loose with the terms stupid and moron, but, in reality you are the dumb one. You act as though the lack of support of the American public (which appetite was fed greedily by the liberal media) and the administration's failure to "fight it as a WAR" are separate and distinct issues. In fact, they were intimately intertwined. LBJ knew he should have turned our military might loose and his military advisors urged him to do so. The politician in him wouldn't allow him to "pull the trigger" and his political advisors told him that the public wouldn't stand for it. Like the Democrat that he was, LBJ went the way the public wind was blowing and the result was a travesty. The media is trying the same thing today, but, so far, the hole in the ground holding the remains of 3000 innocent Americans is there to remind us why we are fighting. Plus, Bush ain't no Democrat.
this reply was a given so I didnt respond. How could they be mutually exclusive issues on even the lowest level?
Uh excuse me, Mr. Imperial Moron, but have you seen the HBO movie "Path to War" or read Robert MCNamara's book? I doubt it or you would know that LBJ did EVERYTHING that his advisors, including the military, wanted him to do. And let's not forget, (although it is convenient for Republicans to do so), that much of worst of the war was fought in the Nixon Administration. Upon the advice of Robert McNamara and Gen. Westmoreland, LBJ committed troops, bombed Hanoi and Haiphong harbor, bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia all the while protesters were outside the White House and all across the country. Yeah, I guess he was really doing the will of the so called Left, wasn't he? LBJ fought that war as he was advised and much to the sacrifice of social programs needed at home. Did RMN do any better? Did he invade NVN? Did the tactics change with his leadership? The answer is no. What was his answer to the problem? To negotiate a "Peace with honor", just exactly what that Commie traitor of a newscaster Walter Cronkite (who by the way was once the most trusted man in America) said we should do after the Tet offensive in 1968. I don't have the book anymore and the remarks by McNamara are vague at best but in it he claims that after a certain point, the administration KNEW that we would never win that war, no matter how many troops or how much money we poured into it but in essence didn't want America to be embarassed by pulling out. You reckon that maybe the common people, who were the ones doing the fighting and dying, may have realized something the powers that be were too proud to admit and act on? So many of you are stuck on the notion that every war we fight is like WWII and that the enemy is going to fight it that way. Well it just ain't so. Just because we're the biggest and most well equipped don't mean a damn thing anymore. We whipped the $hit out of the Iraqi army but we're fighting harder now and more are dying than when we first invaded and contrary to what you may think, there is no end in sight. These people would be fighting even if it never got reported. The dissent of me and others like me with the war has absolutely nothing to do with whether these people fight or not and to blame it on the "Liberal press" or "leftists" is nothing more than an excuse for the administrations failed policies. When we do finally pull out, what is probably going to happen is an Iraqi civil war. These people will do just as the NVN did, reach and agreement and then wait for us to go and then do whatever they want.
