Damned if we do and damned if we don't

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 6693
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Damned if we do and damned if we don't

Post by Walker » Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:20 am

Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuela ... -ourselves

Commentary: yes, I suppose they do have some regrets about that.

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Damned if we do and damned if we don't

Post by gaffo » Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:48 am

Walker wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:47 am
Walker wrote:No, the US wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Remember?
gaffo wrote:I rem, that the US refused to leave and was forced to 5 yrs after the general pop mandated it!

you rem different apparently.
The gen pop is the US, we the people.

I remember a large and influential anti-war movement.

*

There are many things that the US doesn't want, but the politicians push.

They are the ruling class, and know better than us peons.
Hello Walker, I value historical accuracy and even my dad (a flaming Liberal who voted of McGovern) who work in the defense industry (martin marietta - nukes-ballistic missiles) fully support our efforts in Nam - until Teit. I think he was one of most americans (i.e. we supported the war until Tiet). Yes i know we won militarilly, but the optics just looked bad anyway, i think we were becoming war weary and had assumed we are about to win it, then this all out offensive (though it failed). showed us we would have many more years on the ground need to win, and folks from 68 and after turned against it.

our gov, knew it was lost then, but to save face, continued the charade of "peace with honor"/veitnamization etc (I think the latter Veitnamization was what we should have done from the start - 65, why didn't we? and its a concept that i support (train them to fight their own war) - why they failed? i really don't understand. it was not like SV was unable to fight, they belly rolled on hue, then after it was too late to turn the tide they defended Siegon admerably. their leadership was just so corrupt it infected the peoples faith in themselves i think (what is now happening to us sadly).


"the system" is so corrupt and out of touch with the pleabs.

i feel for the SV, at least the NV were not butchers (unlike the Khamer latter) - and allowed SV to live a good life after "re-education" for a couple of years for the higher ups in camps.
Walker wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:47 am
For instance, whatever the hell "climate change" is supposed to represent, it consistently scores low in polls of public interest, although with all the Green hysteria going on in the news these days, especially since the weather is about the only platform the Dems can push after the success of the Trump administration (despite unprecedented opposition), younger folks may think it's important (the weather).

Basically, just say the word "green" in a polling question and you'll get an affirmative, which will be translated by activists into "climate change" being in the forefront of public consciousness.

This cring clip is either :lol: or :shock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IITaN7SJGpw
I affirm global Warming, but know that we have had much warmer temps 30.000.000 yrs ago and life continued then, as it will now. with or without man. so really not my "Thing". I welcome lower CO2, and drive a small Yaris (40 MPG) for over a decade (love small cars - wish they offered even smaller ones like the Kei Cars in Japan - something like the old 70's cars we used to have on offer - Le Car, original Fiat500, Minicooper, Bugeye sprite, etc.....but today all the cars are bigger and heaver than those (not offered here - not since the 70's).

my previous cars were a TR7 and Ford Fiesta - smallish very funn to drive, excellent handeling in curving roads - esp the TR (peice of shit mechanically though!). ford was good mechanically though (made by Worke in West Germany).

I'm weird though, love small cars and big butted gals (should be the opposite here in Murica - love Huge Trucks, and skinny buttless blonds with big boobs (not pears)). hell and i ain't even black! but i like big booty ;-).

---i've strayed off topic, it happens.

Dachshund
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Damned if we do and damned if we don't

Post by Dachshund » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:38 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:49 pm
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/67981357 ... rawal-plan

Quote from a Syrian Kurd in the article:
"If they [US forces] will leave, we will curse them as traitors," he says. "The Kurds helped them to destroy ISIS. ... I have seven people from my family who were fighting ISIS and who were killed. And they were very young, not even in their 20s."
This is so weird. I thought ISIS was the one running around remorselessly killing people (like the Kurds) and that we were there helping the Kurds defend themselves from them. Now the story seems to be that we weren't defending the Kurds at all, they were fighting for us to help us get what we wanted or something?

It's so difficult to follow who is helping who anymore. This is why I really hate it when our leaders send our troops ANYWHERE for ANYTHING (unless it was to actually repel an invasion force that was about to land on US soil or something). We literally can't do ANYTYHING right. If we keep our troops there, we're just a bunch of militarists who are interfering in someone else's politics. If we withdraw, then we're betraying the people we were supposed to have been defending. It sounds like what happened with Vietnam when the "communists" finally won and people were fleeing in droves from all their reprisals. Or maybe that's what happened with OBL when the US stopped funding the rebels in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. OBL suddenly found himself surrounded by a bunch of poorly armed but angry malcontents who decided to turn around and take it out on the people who were at first aiding them. International politics is nothing but a shit show.

Had we just stayed out of all this to begin with, things would have been so much better. There wouldn't have been anything to have reprisals over. No one would be angry at us or feel like we betrayed them. Or maybe we should just stick it out and "finish what we started". Maybe the problem is that we're giving up when we should be fighting harder and fighting to the finish?
Are you saying that America should not have "fought" in the "Cold War" ?

Be under no illusions, the Soviets would have crushed the US if they thought for a moment that they could get away with it.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Damned if we do and damned if we don't

Post by Gary Childress » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:40 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:38 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:49 pm
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/67981357 ... rawal-plan

Quote from a Syrian Kurd in the article:
"If they [US forces] will leave, we will curse them as traitors," he says. "The Kurds helped them to destroy ISIS. ... I have seven people from my family who were fighting ISIS and who were killed. And they were very young, not even in their 20s."
This is so weird. I thought ISIS was the one running around remorselessly killing people (like the Kurds) and that we were there helping the Kurds defend themselves from them. Now the story seems to be that we weren't defending the Kurds at all, they were fighting for us to help us get what we wanted or something?

It's so difficult to follow who is helping who anymore. This is why I really hate it when our leaders send our troops ANYWHERE for ANYTHING (unless it was to actually repel an invasion force that was about to land on US soil or something). We literally can't do ANYTYHING right. If we keep our troops there, we're just a bunch of militarists who are interfering in someone else's politics. If we withdraw, then we're betraying the people we were supposed to have been defending. It sounds like what happened with Vietnam when the "communists" finally won and people were fleeing in droves from all their reprisals. Or maybe that's what happened with OBL when the US stopped funding the rebels in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. OBL suddenly found himself surrounded by a bunch of poorly armed but angry malcontents who decided to turn around and take it out on the people who were at first aiding them. International politics is nothing but a shit show.

Had we just stayed out of all this to begin with, things would have been so much better. There wouldn't have been anything to have reprisals over. No one would be angry at us or feel like we betrayed them. Or maybe we should just stick it out and "finish what we started". Maybe the problem is that we're giving up when we should be fighting harder and fighting to the finish?
Are you saying that America should not have "fought" in the "Cold War" ?

Be under no illusions, the Soviets would have crushed the US if they thought for a moment that they could get away with it.

Regards

Dachshund
Are you saying we were right to fight in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Vietnam ended up a fiasco and we still "won" the "Cold War", so what was the point in having fought there at all? And what was the point in invading Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. The attack on 9/11 was carried out by Saudi citizens.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests