GatewayRedbirds.com

G. Keenan wrote:

cpebbles wrote:

UK wrote:Sacrificing one's life for this country whether it be as a policeman, firefighter, veteran, etc. is what honor should be about. The actions of our gov't by going to war in a war we should not have fought does not diminish those sacrifices nor the honor of those fighting in those wars.

Tell it to McCain and Palin, who are pushing the notion that those who have died in Iraq will not have sacrificed for a worthy cause unless some unspoken conditions of victory are attained.

Seriously. McCain keeps going on about "bringing the troops home with honor," as if that is synonymous with victory. Nevermind that they shouldn't be there in the first place.

ghostrunner wrote: That's a little strong. At the time there was a lot to be afraid of from the Communist countries. Nearly all of them were extremely oppressive, and Kennedy (among others) felt a stand had to be made. People fled into South Vietnam from North Vietnam because they didn't want to live under that oppression. Certainly there's some nobility in defending those people. You can argue about whether or not it was worth sending troops over, and how we eventually carried out the war. I'd have problems with both. But I don't agree that there wasn't anything good about what we did.

I really don't think that's accurate. South Vietnam was only created to be a temporary state after the 1954 Geneva conference. Diem refused to hold elections because the communists would likely win and set out on a systematic campaign of imprisonment, torture, and execution of south Vietnamese communists. The massive influx of north Vietnamese into the south was largely the result of a CIA propaganda campaign to get religious minorities, namely Christians, in an attempt to increase anti-communist sentiment in the south. Then Diem just went ahead and rigged the elections anyway.

What was really just a long standing war for Vietnamese independence against foreign occupation the US turned into a proxy war with Russia and China. We then sent a whole bunch of well-meaning volunteers and draftees into a hell hole of a war they had no chance of winning.

As a matter of national policy there was absolutely nothing good about what we did. Laos and Cambodia went communist anyway (where were we on the Khmer Rouge?) and Vietnam still is communist. Somehow the world didn't fall apart. It has to be one of the most pointless wars ever fought.

The thing that scares me most about John McCain is that he, to this day, thinks Vietnam was a war worth fighting. After decades of evidence to the contrary, and the benefit of hindsight, what does that say about his judgment?

cpebbles wrote:

UK wrote:Sacrificing one's life for this country whether it be as a policeman, firefighter, veteran, etc. is what honor should be about. The actions of our gov't by going to war in a war we should not have fought does not diminish those sacrifices nor the honor of those fighting in those wars.

Tell it to McCain and Palin, who are pushing the notion that those who have died in Iraq will not have sacrificed for a worthy cause unless some unspoken conditions of victory are attained.

Arthur Dent wrote:Since we're reporting polls, today Gallup shows Bush's approval rating at 25% which is only 3 points higher than the lowest they've ever recorded. Only Truman after firing General MacArthur and Nixon just before his resignation have shown a worse number.

Popeye_Card wrote:So who's connection is more significant to the presidency? Obama's rather loose connection with Ayers, or McCain's connection with his father, who was the commander of all US forces in Vietnam under Nixon?

IMO, connections are pretty meaningless, because you aren't responsible for someone else's actions. But to me, a family history of some questionable military decisions are more applicable to the presidency than some loose connections to an old rioter.

planet pujolsian wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote: My preferred method would be a consumption tax, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't think the consumption tax is the answer. You'd have a great deal of people paying a much higher percentage of their income (the lower and middle classes) than the wealthy. I also take issue with single issue voters. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're a relatively young man. Why would the death tax and capital gains tax be your deciding factor?

ghostrunner wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:So who's connection is more significant to the presidency? Obama's rather loose connection with Ayers, or McCain's connection with his father, who was the commander of all US forces in Vietnam under Nixon?

IMO, connections are pretty meaningless, because you aren't responsible for someone else's actions. But to me, a family history of some questionable military decisions are more applicable to the presidency than some loose connections to an old rioter.

Obama's response is the only problem I have with it. He's definitely misrepresented and/or lied about it, and there's no reason to do that from what I can see. He'd be better off just being straightforward about it, while still denouncing the things Ayers did in the past.

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

cpebbles wrote:

UK wrote:Sacrificing one's life for this country whether it be as a policeman, firefighter, veteran, etc. is what honor should be about. The actions of our gov't by going to war in a war we should not have fought does not diminish those sacrifices nor the honor of those fighting in those wars.

Tell it to McCain and Palin, who are pushing the notion that those who have died in Iraq will not have sacrificed for a worthy cause unless some unspoken conditions of victory are attained.