(2)

Frankly, I’m not surprised that you have this horrifically ignorant and asinine recollection of the Vietnam War. — Moho

…..tell all of US how it was back then Moho. You sound as if you were cogent at the time.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. When were you born?

“The Vietcong did not win by a knockout [in the Tet Offensive], but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. . . . We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. . . .

“For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. . . . To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past” — Walter Cronkite, CBS Evening News, February 27, 1968.

That was the challenge confronting Americans–whether to dump more American lives and money into a potential endless moral and financial vacuum. Frankly, I’m not surprised that you have this horrifically ignorant and asinine recollection of the Vietnam War. Its the same kind of attitude that led to our current miring in two wars at once. Its these wars, rather than Barack Obama’s nascent stewardship, that have led to our current state as debt-ridden paupers, something that was never and is never examined here. The fact that if you fight a multi-trillion dollar set of wars in perpetuity you screw over your economy is manifest to just about the dumbest hillbilly you’ll find.

Ed: So you’re OK with the carnage in Vietnam and its neighboring regions after the Democratic Congress of the mid-’70s pulled the rug out from the SVA?

From what I read here, Pajammers would have liked to have a much longer Vietnam war and millions killed. How sweet it is . . . — vivo

….obviously was (1) born much later than that war, (2) was never taught anything useful about it, and (3) doesn’t have the brains to learn anything useful from it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

I think it’s clear that around here the most trusted an in America is Mark Sanford . . . forget that . . . John Ensign . . . forget that . . . let’s go with Todd Palin . . until . . . — Now and Then

….we discover another ‘jackass’. And a rather immature one to boot….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Why is it that when ‘progressives’—what a misnomer—want to deride someone, they bring up ‘sex’, instead of logic?

Hence my comment about this one being rather ‘immature’……

It was clear in 1965 to this young man in Brooklyn that the Americans were mired in the muck in Vietnam; they were unwilling to do what it would take to win; they were unable to walk away, admitting loss; they were unable to think themselves into a victory – one that I envisioned in 1965 as a teenager.

It took over three years for opponents of a waste of blood and money to even begin to get their point across. Three years of American kids dying; three years of American generals getting hot in the pants over the victory they would not be allowed to seek; three years of politicians pretending they knew foreign policy when obviously they didn’t have a clue.

The problem with the Vietnam War was not that it was morally wrong. Morals do not have a place in foreign policy at all, unless you honestly believe you are fighting a war sanctioned by G-d, and you believe you are fighting His wars of justice. [Huh?--Ed]

Vietnam was none of these things. A deal of sorts could have been made with Ho Chi Minh, who was more a nationalist than a communist, to create a Vietnamese “Yugoslavia” in Southesast Asia, a neutral communist state that would give the Russians and Chinese the middle finger with the tacit backing of the United States. American troops could have gone home and conservatives could have spent their time screaming at the butter souring in the Great Society plate, instead of trying to justify the drafting of thousands of young men for a useless war in Southeast Asia. Much of the radicalization of American society could have been avoided, and its subsequent sliding down a moral scale to drug-induced pornographic infotainment could have been checked to a degree before it occurred.

That this did not happen is not the fault of a news-reader, no matter how important he might have eventually deluded himself as being.

It was the fault of the American voter, who believed the pleasant lies of Lyndon Johnson, instead of the unpleasant truths of Barry Goldwater in 1964. It took three years for those voters to wake up; even then, it took anoter eight years of Americans dying in Vietnam, eight years of embitterment and cynicism, eight years for the values that had once guided America to curdle into a sour parody of what they had once been, before the last Americans died in Southeast Asia.

Do not blame Walter Cronkite for any of this. Whatever his faults, these cannot be listed among them.

Ed: We reach Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Jim McGreevy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Gavin Newsom…