At least RFK was honest enough to admit that the protestors (kerry/fonda etc) were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Of course he was wrong when he said he didn't think they were prolonging the war, and we know that for a fact now but again at least he admitted that they were giving "encouragement to the( enemy)"
With Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Gov. Ronald Reagan As Broadcast over the CBS Television Network and the CBS Radio Network Monday, May 15, 1967, 10:00 - 11:00 pm. EDT Charles Collingwood, Host
STEPHEN MARKS: Senator Kennedy, I'd like to ask you what you think of Dean Rusk's recent claim that the effect of anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the States may actually be to prolong the war rather than to shorten it?
SENATOR ROBERT KENNEDY: The war is going on in Vietnam, being extended in Vietnam, really because of the determination of those who are our adversaries, the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, National Liberation Front. I don't think a particular action takes place - military action takes place in South Vietnam because of the protests here in the United States. I think that if all the protests were ended, and even if all of the objections to the war came to an end here in this country, that the war in Vietnam would continue.
I'm sure to some extent the fact that there are some protests gives some encouragement to Ho Chi Minh and to others. But I don't - I certainly don't think that that's the reason the war is continuing, and why the casualties are going up.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I definitely think the demonstrations are prolonging the war in that they're giving the enemy, who I believe must face defeat on relative comparison of the power of the two nations, they are giving him encouragement to continue, to hold out in the hope that division here in America will bring about a peace without defeat for that enemy.
Many of the demonstrations now taking place in this country could not legally take place if there was a legal declaration of war, so we, I think, are faced with a choice here. But again, and I'm sure the Senator agrees with me, America will jealously guard this right of dissent, because I think the greatness of our country has been based on our thinking that everyone has a right even to be wrong.
And of course Reagan was right on the money as usual. He was absolutely correct that the enemy was holding out hoping that the traitors would force us to surrender, and therefore they prolonged the war. It's the same thing that's going on right now. Anyone who says that Bin Laden and his people aren't aware of our history and aren't counting on us doing the same thing again, but ARE aware of how we're tracking their banking transactions and phone calls is either stupid or they're lying or both (my vote is the latter).
So lets review, the protestors during the vietnam era (kerry and co.) prolonged the war and cost additional American lives. The protestors during the Iraqi war (kerry and co.) are prolonging the war, and costing additional American lives. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
18 comments:
What should we have done in Vietnam? In my opinion, we should have not supported the French attempt to re-establish their colony there after World War 2. Everything after that was a mistake.
donsky it is a FACT that the north was ready to quit. they stayed on because they were encouraged by the anti war protestors here.
Ho chi minh wasn't winning anything, except the propoganda war with the help of walter cronkite.
Don't be fooled donsky, if we were to capture bin laden tomorrow there would be a whole bunch of leftys that would be very unhappy! especially the ones that are running for office.
Well Gary, i don't think that's really relevant. Diem was president of vietnam, he won more than one election, AND he offered to have another one with international advisors. It was the commies who wanted the war, it was the commies who started the war, and it was the commies who won the war with the help of the leftist media and protestors in this country.
Daniel Ellsberg, who you probably also consider a traitor, went on a fact-finding mission to Vietnam in 1961. The senior military and intelligence people in the field told him that Ho Chi Minh would win in a few years or less, unless we made a major committment of troops--in which case he would win after we left. After our years there, South Vietnam had, on paper at least, a rather large and well-equipped and well-trained army, which crumbled before the North Vietnamese.
Well, if daniel ellsberg says so, it must be true!
the "senior military and intelligence people" strangely aren't named. I guess that's like the "white house sources" that we read about in the nyslimes.
gary it is a fact that the north vietnamese were going to surrender. i think i showed you the quote from the commander of their army a long time ago.
facts are facts, opinions(if we assume they're true) from 1961, years before we were even officially fighting there really don't mean anything.
JFK got us into war there, johnson/mcnamara didn't have the balls to get the job done, and by the time Nixon got into office, cronkite and kerry, without the checks and balances of cable news, and the internet had succeeded in convincing the public that we were the bad guys.
they prolonged the war, just like Reagan said they would. then they surrendered, just like the french.
I am disturbed here. Not because I think either the argument for or against protesters has any merit (which I think it does on both sides; we are allowed to protest but there are definitely consequences...how could there not be?) but because both sides of the table are assuming that someone won the war in Viet Nam. I don't think that is an established fact (sort of like global warming). Certain sides Vietnamese and Americans alike, think that we won the war because we killed more VC than they killed of us...it certainly isn't cut and dry that anyone won that war even if the commies controlled a portion of the country after the fact...that being said the war was lost but not by us specifically. It was a lost war all the way around. It was a lost cause from inception. I think it was JFK who is idolized by the most lefty of leftists who wanted to squash communism... isn't it ironic? Don't cha think? So damn ironic? Even more so than rain on your wedding day which isn't really ironic but more or less unfortunate. Unfortunate, sort of the way the history of Viet Nam and it's people is unfortunate.
Just an aside but here is a blurb that I just read regarding the Israel/Lebanon sitch-atch. The disturbing part is from "Hot stuff coming through and I'm not talking about the" Kofi Annan. He the SG of our beloved UnUnited Nations fame who has to be the worst leader of any group or organization ever since some long haired plaid wearing mimbo decided to form the Bay City Rollers. Want to hear...here it goes:
"AP - The United States, U.N., European Union, France and Germany expressed deep concern about the fighting. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for the immediate release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers and condemned Israel's retaliation in southern Lebanon."
So which is it Mr.Annan? Is "holla if you're" Hezbollah wrong or is the state of Israel wrong? This is why the world is a mess...not because of the United States like so many would have us think...It's because people who hold important positions in the world community can't seem to make up their minds. Are you against terrorism or do you just want to be a victim forever? Do you condemn these madmen or do you hog tie those that seek to make the world safe? Can't you for once indicate thoroughly and without any hedging that you want to punsih these cowards regardless of their location? If terrorists blew up bombs in Canada but were hiding out in Buffalo NY wouldn't it be right for Canada to invade America if we refused to try and control them and capture them? Why is it that this guy is still Secretary General?
to answer the last question fly, it's because the UN is crooked and anti American and anti Israeli. They and he(kofi) know that Israel is right on this one, just like they know that we're right in Iraq. However since Kofi is in power and he's getting paid under the table, plus he's a Jew hater like most of the world, he's still in power.
Donsky:
In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S.
look it up if you want.
Affirmative action?
Oh and Gary, Yes ellsberg was a traitor. He knew he was a traitor too, which is why he leaked the story to the ny slimes and then went into hiding in canada or where ever he went to.
Actually Ellsberg expected to go to prison for a very long time. He was surprised to find out from his lawyers that it wasn't clear that he had violated the law at all. Nonetheless he was prosecuted under the Espionage statute until the judge killed the case because of gross governmental misconduct.
One man's traitor is another man's patriot.I wish we had a few more men like Ellsberg today.
I would say yes to it being aff.action except, I don't really think Kofi knows that he is black. If he does, he probalby isn't sure that he isn't white or possibly partially Latino. I am almost positive he doesn't know where Africa is...look at all the problems there yet he double parks his diplomatically plated vehicle on the streets of NY. Lets be honest he got the job solely on his good looks and his knowledge of fine wines.
Jane Fonda makes a living off of dated excercise videos and bad movies with J-Lo...How couldn't she hate America and be righteous? Whhhaaaa? We lost the police action in Viet Nam? When did this happen? Next you're going to tell me that the Thing was physically able to get it on with She-Hulk and they both found it to be quite pleasurable and afterwards played a rousing game of Texas Hold 'Em. Contradictions abound...sheer profundity.
PS - that was my moment of McTrixie like fascination with being Kelso's Nuts.
We killed more VC during the Tet offensive and that too is true...so how did we lose?
gadfly --- once again, i find the way your brain works to be absolutely fascinating. just don't forget to donate it to science when you uh, you know.
;)
I dont think the anti-vietnam war movement had as much of an effect on US foreign policy or military engagements as youd think.
Where the real effect has been is in the media's misguided interpretation of vietnam is that they now think they can and should influence the publics opinion and outcome of miltary campaigns through propaganda.
Case in point, although Clinton backed Islamofascist terrorists in Kosovo, it was a just war according to the media because Slobo was a bad guy.
Iraq is an unjust war because, although we deposed the ethnic cleansing murderous torturing tyrany Saddam and are now fighting Islamofascist terrorists because Bush is a bad guy.
I wish we had a few more men like Ellsberg today.
Just pick up a copy of the nytimes.
...and you argue when I accuse you of traitorous tendencies???
What's a brain...are you sure you didn't mean brian as I do know someone by that name but he doesn't work for me and quite frankly I can't donate him because I don't own him. It's not David Wright to own people Anita. It's in the Constitution (I'm sure it's in there somewhere or in one of the letters from Jefferson to his slave girlfriends). Plus even if I did own him, I don't know where science is...I just dropped it. Word.
donsky, you should really do some homework. the tet offensive was a complete faiure militarily by the north! It was the propoganda by the leftists in this country that crippled us!
Please do some research. We kicked the crap out of them during tet. We lost almost NO battles at all during vietnam. there was no 3rd stage of a 100 year war or whatever, they were ready to quit but counted on kerry and friends to weaken our resolve.
They were right! the hippies won. They're trying to do it agian because they HATE America.
Post a Comment