Yeah, you were what, 8 or 9 years old when it was all over?

You are so clueless. You just make it up as you go along. No facts necessary. Just make these allegations, in the hopes that it would serve to discredit me. Well, you fail yet again, just like your contentions that I post from work, which was also stupid lying slanderous bullshit.

"Galvanized Peace Movement" my ASS.

Well, I don't think even your ass will be big enough. The movement in Crawford was only those who could make it there. The antiwar movement is just growing. March on DC, Sept. 24th, with hundreds of thousands expected to show, just like the vietnam demonstrations. the joke, for lack of a better term, is on you.

5 by dabe Wednesday, August 31, 2005

there is no nostalgia for the vietnam era. that's bullshit. What the problem is is that it's same shit, different day. A conservative president leading his sheeple into a quagmire of a war based on lies and deception

ummmmmmmm drab??? lbj escalated the war btw he was a democrap,, nixon the thief and liar was a republican and ended the war. get your facts straight lemonhead.

Nixon ended it because he was thrown out of office for the watergate break-in, you know that lil scandal wherein he tried to get the democrat's playbook against him. OK, he wasn't thrown out. He retired in disgrace, because he would have been impeached.

It had nothing to do with his "ending" the war. As for LBJ, just because he was a democrat does not mean squat. I was against that war from the outset, regardless about who lied to whom to keep it going.

minisculeman, get your facts straight, or at least your story.

PURJURY about a blow job. I don't think there is a man out there who would not lie about this. In fact, there were a whole lot of liars and thieves in congress who had extramarrital affairs. Big deal. NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.

As for my age, in that you seem to be so obsessed with it, I am 54 years old. I graduated from high school in 1968. I was an adult when Vietnam and the antiwar movement was peaking. Now, go back to hubby for a beating and stop obsessing about me.

Clinton may have avoided the draft, but at least he did so honestly, and didn't make up excuses about "having better things to do."

That is the most assinine statement you have ever made!  There is nothing honest or honorable about Clinton or his episode!

You want Honorable?  Try learning about Muhammed Ali!  That was Honorable and why he is one of my greatest heros. 

That was pathetic even by your standards.

So you say, mr guy, without anything to back up your contention. Yet, you offer nothing else.

I have already refuted you point by point with facts.  That is called back up my dear Dabe.

The quickest way to ensure that a comparison between Iraq and Vietman will EVER be accurate is to do EXACTLY what you lame-assed liberals want us to do..."BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOWWWWWWWWWW."

Bingo!  And that is EXACTLY right.

Well, I don't think even your ass will be big enough. The movement in Crawford was only those who could make it there. The antiwar movement is just growing. March on DC, Sept. 24th, with hundreds of thousands expected to show, just like the vietnam demonstrations. the joke, for lack of a better term, is on you.

The joke is on you.  A few thousand?  Out of 300 million?  A gnat on the butt of humanity.

get your facts straight lemonhead.

Impossible for the sanity challenged.

Nixon ended it because he was thrown out of office for the watergate break-in,

You are an idiot!  he was thrown out in 74 (august).  He ended it in Jan 73!  You really were a thumb sucking infant!  And you did not even bother to learn the history!

Reply By: dabePosted: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 minisculeman, get your facts straight, or at least your story.

I would say that to you.  He is a lot more accurate than you are!

Yeah, too bad your boy Clinton didnt have the sense to do the same, he was impeached as well, remember that?

Nixon was never impeached.

PURJURY about a blow job.

It is Perjury.  ANd no, it is for lying under oath. You know the thing that sent Martha Stewart to Jail cause she was not a democrat President?  You really dont know shit do you!  You have not been right on one fact you have regurgitated yet!  Sheesh!  You are half armed in a battle of wits!

As for my age, in that you seem to be so obsessed with it, I am 54 years old. I graduated from high school in 1968. I was an adult when Vietnam and the antiwar movement was peaking. Now, go back to hubby for a beating and stop obsessing about me.

Chronologically.  Not mentally.  Cause you must have been stoned as you got all your facts wrong.  No one died when Nixon Lied either, but he had the DECENCY to resign instead of dragging the country and office down.  in that, he is a much better man than Slick Willy ever will be,

Guy, you really are a sicko whacked out sob. Nixon never got impeached. I said that. But, he resigned in shame. Hello, you moron. It wasn't about decency. typical rightie spin, though. It was about avoiding impeachment. He was a scumsucking crook. Nothing more. As for anyone dying when nixon lied, that's really a specious argument, as the discussion is referring to Clinton's blowjob lie and dubya's lying to congress to go to war. NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.

As for Clinton, I did not support his blow job escapade, but so what? As for getting a Rhodes Scholarship and avoiding the draft, well good for him. At least he never lied about his disdain for the vietnam conflict. He got out like thousands of others. what he didn't do was go around spouting what a wonderful endeavor that American fiasco was, while at the same time getting in the Champagne Unit of the guard, and couldn't even fulfill his enlistment oath because he was too doped up on coke and alcohol. Hypocritical freakin' sob. No wonder you like him. You're just like that dubya chimp. Like a rock, only dumber.

You obviously do know shit, cuz that's all you spout.

Dabe - "Yes, I sure was. It was a hidious time for this country, split down the middle with those who supported the war, those who came home in body bags or damaged, and those who used whatever their daddies could conjure up to keep them out of the battle, even though they said they supported the effort."

Clearly you are only looking at one side of the picture. There was the part that did not happen in the USA as well. There was the part in this country that was not protesting. There was the part where returning troops were spit on and ostracized. I do agree with you about the hypocrits.

In a later post to you someone pointed out that 1000 does not equate to 100,00 and clearly defeats the claim of "galavanized" the same as during the Viet Nam era.

In later posts you made references to then and now to try and make it justified as a comparison. It is evident that you did not know much about actual events at the time. LBJ did not escalate a war based on lies. Everyone was quite upfront that it was to step the "Communist Menace". Although often a method of rhetoric at the time, in the case of Viet Nam, it was true. What happened after we left? What happened to Cambodia and Laos as a result of that same end? It was a quagmire because it was led by politicians and an incompetent general. Iraq is no where near the level of quagmire in the context of Viet Nam. We do not have every other man, woman and child over there trying to kill us as we walk down the street. We have a very small minority made up almost entirely of foreigners on a holy quest and left overs from Saddam that hope to revive the "old days".

In the last few days we saw Sunni tribesmen take up arms against Zarqawi'a followers. In Ramadi last month Sunni tribal people took arms and protected the Shi'a that were ordered out by Zarqawi. Make no mistake, neither Hussain nor Zarqawi are Ho Chi Minh. Neither one commands the popular support he did. Neither one has almost the entire population galvanized or terrorized against us or the new government. Even though Zarqawi has tried repeatedly to use the VC tactic of killing and maiming innocent women and children to turn them away from us. Quite the opposite, more and more people from all walks are starting to fight them, not us.

Just because we have to fight a tenacious and capable enmy there does not automatically make it the same as Viet Nam. And let us not forget, the majority of this enemy would be attacking us here if we did not have them tied up over there. Yes, yes, I know, the old line that it is just scare tactics like the "Comunist Menace". However, they actually have attacked us here and elsewhere. The NVA and VC never did. It is not just a threat of what might happen like stated then, it is an event that has already occurred.

So, again, I say do not make claims and statements as though they are rooted in fact unless you back it up with all the actual facts. Leave Viet Nam out of this, it is a ridiculous argument meant to cause fear and consternation, just as the "Communist Menace" statements were meant to do. Do you even realize the anti-war movement is using "McCarthyism" tactics when they argue based on those kind of statements? The protester so the Viet Nam war used actual events and facts to back up their arguments, why don't you try that for a while and you might find a few more ears willing to listen instead of marginalizing yourselves.

Yes. someone lied or did an incredibly inept job at having good intelligence and we went to war primarily on the predication that it was to stop WMD, that turned out not to exist. I do not think Bush, Blair, Powell or any of the others in the forefront lied. I do believe that they followed very bad intelligence. I also believe that the head of the CIA for most of that intelligence gathering (Tenet-appointed by a Democrat) was incredibly incompetent and politically motivated. Bush's mistake was giving too much credibility to the old gaurd placed there by his predessor instead of listening to a more tried and competent general like Powell.

Well, I don't think even your ass will be big enough. The movement in Crawford was only those who could make it there. The antiwar movement is just growing. March on DC, Sept. 24th, with hundreds of thousands expected to show, just like the vietnam demonstrations. the joke, for lack of a better term, is on you.

The anti-military, blame America crowd is not growing. It's just getting the usual preference in the media.

That is true Island Dog, it is getting preferential treatment in the media. Oddly enough a media led by mostly older voices that made their mark and name on the turmoil of the Viet Nam era. If it were to undergo a good thorough psychological analysis I would guess that it might turn out to be fame junkies trying to re-capture the old glory days. In the absense of sufficient substance in the present, they try to use the past that worked before.

As far as the crystal ball prediction of hundreds of thousands in DC, I have seen nothing that even remotely resembles the fire and organization that allowed that to happen in the 60s and 70s. If that many actually show, then go ahead and laugh at who the joke is on. But as I keep saying to you Dabe, base it on actual events and facts, not crystal ball statements, wishful thinking or outright twisting of the facts to make it sound good.

I do not think Bush, Blair, Powell or any of the others in the forefront lied. I do believe that they followed very bad intelligence. I also believe that the head of the CIA for most of that intelligence gathering (Tenet-appointed by a Democrat) was incredibly incompetent and politically motivated. Bush's mistake was giving too much credibility to the old gaurd placed there by his predessor instead of listening to a more tried and competent general like Powell.

This is where you and I truly disagree. I'm convinced that bush wanted a war so badly that he disregarded any intelligence that did not point towards the remotest of possibilities that Iraq had WMD's. He dismissed that intel out of hand, and dragged us into it. Now, he's even saying that we need to protect the oil from the terrorists. Always spinning a new story for our reason for going to war. Our intel wasn't great, but the neocons spinned it. that spinning process is tantamount to lying. They lied plain and simple, whether you acknowledge it or not.

As for fighting the terrorists so they don't fight us here, well that's not quite right either. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, no matter how many times bush and cheney and any of those liars try to convince us of it. they didn't even have terrorists until we invaded. Now, Iraq is a training ground of terrorists, and they hate eachother as much as they hate us. America and Britain created this quagmire, and how to get out is the problem, and the reason it's called a "quagmire".

I was around during the vietnam protests. The soldiers came home to lots of hate and disdain, and that was a hard lesson learned. But, that didn't define the vietnam era. We were fighting communism, which is about as bogus as this war on terror. Upwards of 60,000 GI's died fighting that war, and all for naught. Communism didn't spread, and admittedly I do not know what happened after the Americans left. I do know that Vietnam and the US have normalized relations, and Vietnam is a viable country now, after having recovered from the Americans, French and communists. God only knows how many Vietnamese died during those years, burned to death with napalm and gunned down by anyone with a gun.

We attacked Afghanistan and routed out the taliban, the perpetrators of 9/11. Had we left Iraq alone, we could have finished the job, caught bin laden, and rebuilt Afghanistan. Now, we've virtually abandoned our efforts in Afghanistan, while we chase after a monster of our own creation. In that respect, vietnam and iraq are surely different.

Quantifying a statement as a beliefe as you did the opening is completely legitimate. It is when a preference or "belief" is portrayed as a historical fact that arguments fall apart. In that regard we can agree that we have a difference of "beliefs" on that particular topic.

How many died in that Asia by guns, bombs abd napalm? No where near as many died after we left Viet Nam, as people who could not be "re-educated", nor even remotely as many dies under the communist regimes that sprouted in Cambodia and Laos after the war (you know the places where communism did not spread). BTW - the current government in Viet Nam is still communist, again make sure you have the facts straight before making claims of alleged fact to bolster your arguments.

How do you know for a fact that the sources of the intelligence (primarily hold overs from the Clinton admin) did not do the spinning? All the documents and trails seem to lead to those people. The Bush admin was faulty for not being more thorough and giving too much credibility to those sources.

On fighting the terrorists, I was referring to your attempts to make comparisons to Viet Nam, not whether it was a reason to go there in the first place. We are fighting an entirely different kind of foe, with entirely different reasons behind it (from both sides) than Viet Nam. They will fight us here or there. We are keeping the battle with them for the moment and out of your front yard. Be grateful for that, I am sure those who died on 9/11 would have been grateful to have the war kept from them. BTW - Chamberlain of England believed that if they gave Hitler what he wanted he would not do anything to attack the English people. Check your history, Hitler and Hussain are cut from the same mold. Hussain would definitely have done all he could to help the terrorists attack us once the UN stopped looking over his shoulder. He stated, publicly, many times that he would get us back for Kuwait. He hatched 2 different plots to asassinate Bush Sr. Documented attempts.

I have a son and two co-workers that were in Iraq and I was in Viet Nam Their first hand accounts tell me more than your pre-determined pronouncements of what is or is not. You are trying to make a case for what you already believe and are willing to omit and alter facts and history to make it sound more convcincing. Have you ever heard of the "Lie of omission"? Do you defeat those you believe to be liars by lying yourself? That is not how the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s was conducted by the majority of those who led it. That is why it could muster such huge support and turn out and that is why the current movement can not. BTW - attending a protest does make someone a protester or an expert on the subject being protested. Did you ever speak before a microphone on your beliefs during those demonstrations? Did you speak to the press? Did you help plan some of those protests? Did you work with everyone, official and average person, to get your point across? I did when I returned. I also based my arguments on actual facts and acknowledged facts that fit the other side of the argument. The pain of that time was not hideous, it was necessary for our society to take its next step up. It was a growing pain and we faced it like a proud, intelligent and meaningful people.

Your repeated vague references as though they are the whole story, your repeating the words of others with an axe to grind or fame to capture without knowing yourself and your heightened emotionality when someone disagrees with you defeat your purpose. I may be disagreeing with you, but I am also trying to give you tools to make a better case so you can be heard. Stop knowing all the answers and listen a bit, you might find you can get a point across with more strength. You also might find that there always 2 sides to a story and the one you started with may not be the one you end up with.

You can start by not using the rediculous and totally false comparison to Viet Nam. As far as your re-defining what you mean by quagmire, where did you get your facts on our exit plans? Where did you get the information that demonstrates the same thing for Iraq as it applied to Viet Nam? Are you basing that solely on the fact that it is an actual war with a difficult enemy? Good thing the Russians did not take that view when that started to take Berlin or Hitler's thousand year Reich would still be around. I know where mine came from then and now, first hand account, documentation and listening to both sides of the argument. How about you?

--"Her original stated goal was an admirable one that many people gave her respect for."--

When I first heard about Cindy Sheehan wanting to meet President Bush I was all for it. What person who lost a loved one didn't feel for her. As each day followed though I have become more tired of it all. Especially when she disrespected other Gold Star Moms.

--"So apparently the purpose was not to see Bush, but to 'galvanize' a peace movement.  And of course allow her to erroneously compare herself to Rosa Parks."--

Is it because she loves the spotlight? It seems like she is walking a fine line now between honoring the memory of her son and being a puppet. Comparing herself to Rosa Parks is a joke. Rosa Parks inspired others and those others inspired others and a real movement was made. Where are Cindy's 'others' now? If it's such a movement in Crawford, where was all the inspired 'others' to step up to the plate when Cindy Sheehan left to visit her sick mother.

--"Cindy is preaching to a small choir which, by objective measures, has not grown since her circus act opened. The media have jumped on it in hopes it would help them enlarge the choir, but it does not appear there is any serious "movement" anywhere."--

I think her "movement" might've had a chance if she was only a grief-stricken mother looking to our leader for some kind of answer on why her son was taking away from her so soon. Unfortunately, she let herself be used by people who's hatred of Bush destroyed her credibility. Do you think her "handlers" care more about soldiers dying or trying to make Bush look bad? One more thing if her "movement" was really a movement that has captured the nation isn't it strange there isn't a high profile Democrat in Crawford, too?

It only damaged those who were victims of the hate and vitriol that is now resurfacing

that's such a foolish statement, it's difficult to know where to begin.

in addition to the combat casualties and their repercussions (i'd be willing to bet 95% of people born between those years had at least one relative, friend, classmate, lover, co-worker, etc who was killed, lost or injured in se asia), it caused caused millions of young americans to put their lives or plans on hold for one or another reason related to the war.

the war was also a huge sinkhole into which an incredible amount of the country's wealth (both in cash, energy resources) was dumped. it hurts the mind to imagine the huge quantity of oil consumed by the military during those years.

the loss of all that treasure caused the collapse of what had been an economy in which it was difficult not to make money. it also hastened the beginning of the end of america being the world's greatest manufacturer.

Guy, you really are a sicko whacked out sob. Nixon never got impeached. I said that.

Nixon ended it because he was thrown out of office for the watergate break-in

The above is what you said.  He was not thrown out of office as I told you.  So now who is the stupid sick moron?  You must be on drugs as you dont evern remember what you wrote!  What a whack job!

NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.

Except a bunch of aspirin factory workers in Sudan.  Sheesh what an imbecile!