POLL Which is more ridiculous?
Jun 1, 2017 19:50:02 #
Steven Seward wrote:
This is all somewhat new to me. I don't remember any protests that were about financial drain, but I was 15 years old when the war ended and I didn't pay much attention to the news back then (as I don't pay much attention to it today!)
They weren't about financial drain, that was one of many political reasons for the end.
Jun 1, 2017 19:55:11 #
We went to Viet Nam to thwart the Russians.
There was no thought of benevolence towards the Vietnamese people and their 'oppression' in that decision.
There was no thought of benevolence towards the Vietnamese people and their 'oppression' in that decision.
Steven Seward wrote:
I'd like to add something to all this Vietnam War ... (show quote)
Jun 1, 2017 19:57:20 #
nakkh wrote:
We went to Viet Nam to thwart the Russians.
There was no thought of benevolence towards the Vietnamese people and their 'oppression' in that decision.
There was no thought of benevolence towards the Vietnamese people and their 'oppression' in that decision.
And you know this how?
Jun 1, 2017 19:58:18 #
Jun 1, 2017 19:58:58 #
usnpilot wrote:
They weren't about financial drain, that was one of many political reasons for the end.
I think I misunderstood.
Jun 1, 2017 20:06:23 #
nakkh wrote:
We went to Viet Nam to thwart the Russians.
There was no thought of benevolence towards the Vietnamese people and their 'oppression' in that decision.
There was no thought of benevolence towards the Vietnamese people and their 'oppression' in that decision.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, the original reasons for defending Vietnam are irrelevant if it was a good thing to do. Do you think that some poor Vietnamese farmer was complaining back then that "those Americans came here to defend us just so they could stop the Russkies. Damn those Yankees!"
Sometimes people treat war history as a type of intellectual strategic game, like playing chess, without concerning themselves with the values of right and wrong. You seem to be concerned with having the proper motivations more than achieving good results.
Jun 1, 2017 20:30:10 #
Twardlow
Loc: Arkansas
letmedance wrote:
I am addressing your words Tom not changing a topic. The protesting belonged in the Chambers of American Govt, not in the faces of the returning military.
Not so...
Jun 1, 2017 20:33:34 #
Twardlow
Loc: Arkansas
usnpilot wrote:
Well put. And to add to that, we lost less than 4000 in the Pearl Harbor attack yet we lost over 100,000 fighting back knowing Japan was not a threat to our mainland. We love being the sheriff.
We did not know Japan was no threat to our mainland...
Jun 1, 2017 20:35:06 #
Twardlow
Loc: Arkansas
Steven Seward wrote:
I've often heard that all the Vietnam War protests stopped as soon as the draft was eliminated. If so, that would say a lot about the self-serving motivations of the protesters.
You mean, if they thought it was stupid to lose their asses for a foreign corrupt government? Wait until you see who won't lose their asses for Donald Trump!
Jun 1, 2017 21:06:38 #
letmedance wrote:
I think if you go back and look at it, it was negotiable, but the pres. wanted out.
Would you have signed off on leaving our troops there without a status of forces agreement in place....leave our troops subject to Iraqi criminal charges and courts, no immunity?
Jun 1, 2017 21:52:51 #
Oh yeah, That ...
Note: Bush signed the agreement that took us out of Iraq.
mwalsh wrote:
Would you have signed off on leaving our troops there without a status of forces agreement in place....leave our troops subject to Iraqi criminal charges and courts, no immunity?
Note: Bush signed the agreement that took us out of Iraq.
Jun 1, 2017 22:16:11 #
Jun 1, 2017 22:18:54 #
mwalsh wrote:
Would you have signed off on leaving our troops there without a status of forces agreement in place....leave our troops subject to Iraqi criminal charges and courts, no immunity?
I recall from news sources that the pres. did not attempt to negotiate and wanted out. Maybe when I get home I will try to refresh my memory.
Jun 1, 2017 22:35:02 #
thom w wrote:
What you mean is they don't interpret the constitution the way you do. I missed the part in the constitution where you were appointed as the sole interpreter of the constitution. Are you really begrudging public retirees their pensions?
No I don't mean that. Anyone that doesn't take what our founding fathers wrote in the federalist papers about what they meant with the bill of rights and the constitution is wrong. It has nothing to do with interpretation. They spelled it all out.
The problem is that people today read things into the constitution that were never intended to be there and if you look at what Kegan and other liberal judges say they claim that the constitution is a living breathing document that changes with the times.
Our founding fathers made it clear that it was meant to be taken literally and the only changes to that were to be either constitutional amendments or another constitutional convention.
If you just took the time to read what they wrote there is no other way to interpret what they said.
The problem is that people read the constitution as modern language and since the meaning of some words has changed they then attempt to interpret it from their own background and believes.
If people just took the time to read the federalist papers and realize that the founding fathers were serious about being taken literally there would be no reason to interpret the constitution.
The problem is that at least most liberals think that the country should change with the times, so they change their view of the constitution to fit what they want it to say.
If you don't believe that just look at the difference in how differently Joe Biden views the second amendment from when he was a congressman.
Back then he was on a committee to look at the second amendment and after looking at all the evidence he sided with the majority that the second amendment was absolute. Now he is completely willing to reinterpret it to allow the complete banning of private gun ownership in cities and bans on "assault rifles" etc... The constitution never changed, but the liberal attitude towards it did.
Jun 1, 2017 22:36:01 #
Keenan wrote:
"man-child troll" is an accurate and rea... (show quote)
3rd graders don't know what any of that is. Sheeesh!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.