1
   

Is Zell Miller Suffering from a Mental Disorder?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:18 am
Lightwizard wrote:
And despite Eisenhower's warning, the Republicans in both houses had complicity in that war.


Our serious involvement began under President Kennedy. The worst follies occurred under President Johnaon and Secretary McNamara. I believe they were Democrats. Moreover, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in those years. What is your point?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:18 am
swolf wrote:
Again, my brother and others I've spoken to tell me it wasn't possible to keep that sort of thing a secret very long in Nam and that there were only a very small handful of such incidents. The basic story which Kerry was trying to tell is fiction.

The basic reality is that despite all the problems of the Vietnam war, our military generally conducted itself well and the vast majority of the people in it believed they were fighting a good cause. That's the thing which the left has still not come to grips with.


No offense to your brother or george but isn't it possible that an administrator and a pilot might not have the best vantage point to observe what a typical guerilla battle might look like? Vietnam was big mistake and most of our leaders acknowledged it then by passing the War Powers Act. The idea was to keep it from ever happening again. It was a nice try.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:20 am
His point is the same one that Republicans like to bring up when Democrats criticize the Iraq war - they voted for it as well, therefore, they are just as complicit.

Besides, we all know that the democrats and republicans have flipped positions somewhat in the last half century.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:21 am
When you get down to it, the best example we have (at least since Pol Pot) of a war in which terror tactics were employed with official sanction was Kosovo. After the first month and the discovery that the USAF could not hurt the Serbian military from 25,000 feet, the rest of the Kosovo campaign amounted to an orchestrated series of wa rcrimes, the basic intent of which was to make the lives of ordinary Serbs so miserable that they would somehow or other force Milosevic and his government to hand the ancient heartland of Serbia (Kosovo) over to the KLA, which was and is basically a branch of AlQuaeda.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:25 am
Quote:
the vast majority of the people in it believed they were fighting a good cause


The Iranians climbing over the dead bodies of their comrades and getting shot by Iraqi forces, thus adding to the piles believed they were fighting for a good cause.

The Hutus hacking up Tutsi women and children with machetes believed they were fighting for a good cause.

The Japanese pilots aiming their planes towards the American ships believed they were fighting for a good cause.

The German gestapo herding Jews into boxcars believed they were fighting for a good cause.

Soldiers always believe they are fighting for a good cause. And they almost never are. They are often brave, often honorable in their way. But they are usually pawns in the designs of others whose goals are pride and greed, and who themselves are at no risk.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:47 am
The point (which you missed) was that the American soldiers fighting in Nam, at least the overwhelming majority of them, conducted themselves well. The overwhelming majority of them did believe themselves to be fighting a battle for the hearts and minds of the VietNamese people.

Moreover, there is no instance of communism prevailing in a land and anybody prospering on account of it, and VietNam is no exception to that rule. The VietNamese, at least the South VietNamese, would have been manifestly better off if the American backed side had won, regardless of how corrupt that government might have been.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:48 am
Blatham,

Well-stated, even poetic and moving, but also cynical and depressing - and not entirely accurate. Leaders do not exclusively define causes. Causes have their own existence and they can reside in the hearts of everyone involved in an enterprise, including those who do the fighting. I fought for my own reasons - not those of President Johnson.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:49 am
The real point is, Swolf, that while the majority of American service personnel did conduct themselves with dignity, there are still a bunch who didn't.

More who didn't than there should have been.

Why was this allowed to happen? Why did so many abuses go on? Kerry's speech in front of the senate wasn't about blaming soldiers, it was about blaming those running the war for not doing what is neccessary on the higher levels to prevent such things from happening.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:02 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Blatham,

Well-stated, even poetic and moving, but also cynical and depressing - and not entirely accurate. Leaders do not exclusively define causes. Causes have their own existence and they can reside in the hearts of everyone involved in an enterprise, including those who do the fighting. I fought for my own reasons - not those of President Johnson.


george

Yes, it is cynical and depressing. I'm certain you did fight for your own reasons, not those of Johnson.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:04 pm
Quote:
Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.

In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.

Still, it is worth setting the record straight...
More
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:08 pm
Quote:
I fought for my own reasons - not those of President Johnson.


yes, george, but you wouldn't have been fighting at all, nor would people have been killed by Americans, and Americans wouldn't have been killed had the powers that be not started a war.......an unnecessary and fruitless war. And it doesn't really matter who started it.....a Republican president or a Democrat......it was a completely unnecessary loss of life. Some wars, I believe are necessary, maybe inevitable....as long as someone is willing to attack others. Those others have to defend themselves. But to start and carry out a war for the sole purpose of achieving the personal goals of the those in power is unconscionable.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:17 pm
Why the Republican neoterds decided to roll this traitor out at the RNC is beyond me, but it'll certainly play right into the Dems hands. He contradicted himself so many times as to make his address positively meaningless. It was a joke.

I coulda sworn I saw horns and a tail when he spoke up there at the christian podium...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:18 pm
What is a "christian podium"?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:21 pm
Easy to spot, McG. Look for the dripping goat's blood.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:22 pm
Jon Stewart had some fun with the not-at-all subliminal crosses on the podiums.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:23 pm
Heh.

The podium used in the RNC had a big cross right in the center of it. It's immediately noticeable.

The small table to the right did too. A subtle nod to the religious right?

I noticed that they didn't show any shots with the podium being featured during the president's speech, whereas they had during those leading up to him.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:26 pm
Look at the cross on the podium itself. Christ, anyone who knows anything about marketing caught that on the first night.

Gotta make a pitch to the religious right SOMEHOW, as there was hardly a hint of the Christian rightwingers out there. It was ALL bullsh*t moderation, peppered with nothing but attacks against Kerry, with hardly much mention on domestic issues, Usama bin Laden, and the rising terrorist attacks around the world.

Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:29 pm
Did you watch the convention?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:30 pm
They made something different for Bush, a cake-y thing.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 12:46 pm
sozobe wrote:
They made something different for Bush, a cake-y thing.


We thought it looked strangely like a target... all those circles.



Here's the pulpit... I mean, podium.
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/31/nyregion/mayor.184.1.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2025 at 12:08:48