Rick Perry -- Socialist!!

TexTushHog's Avatar
I will agree that the "American GI did not lose that war in Vietnam." Originally Posted by bigtex
You can't win a war that doesn't have a definable objective or an exit strategy.

Read either A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and Amreica in Vietnam, by Neil Sheehan; or The Best and The Brightest, by David Halberstam.
You can't win a war that doesn't have a definable objective or an exit strategy.

Read either A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and Amreica in Vietnam, by Neil Sheehan; or The Best and The Brightest, by David Halberstam. Originally Posted by TexTushHog
So true and I might add, we couldn't even see the enemy. American GI's were constantly being ambushed. VC had tunnels for miles under ground, they would appear and disappear. By the time we figured it out we had a huge casualty count, beyond anything we ever expected.
I B Hankering's Avatar
Slick Willie the Rhodes Scholar? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
He didn’t misspeak: he lied.
And that damn liberal press. Printing the truth damn it! Who do they think they are? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Only you and your ilk can call it “truth”. Obviously, you haven’t read some reports that refute that simple-minded notion. That’s right! You can’t read and comprehend: you’re a Dimocrap Kool-Aid drinking zombie that must be led everywhere.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

Furthermore, an in-depth 1974 analysis of how CBS news covered U.S. involvement in South Vietnam during the final months, Ernest Lefever’s TV and National Defense: an Analysis of CBS News, 1972-73, documents how CBS consistently reported – some 80% of the time – the U.S.’ position on the war with a negative bias, i.e., anti-U.S. and/or anti-South Vietnam while simultaneously broadcasting positively-biased reports about North Vietnam’s government and armed forces.
I don't even know what a flag pin is, and to be honest, I didn't lose any sleep over it. Originally Posted by waverunner234
I bet you would know if it had a Sickle and Hammer on it.
Munchmasterman's Avatar
my bad, make that SVN

and there were SVN troops to give bullets to Originally Posted by cptjohnstone
How do you tell the difference? Have any of them ever said "Thank you for all you tried to do" to you?

Have you ever walked the black granite wall in Washington?
You need to say you're sorry 50,000 plus times.
Munchmasterman's Avatar
He didn’t misspeak: he lied.
Only you and your ilk can call it “truth”. Obviously, you haven’t read some reports that refute that simple-minded notion. That’s right! You can’t read and comprehend: you’re a Dimocrap Kool-Aid drinking zombie that must be led everywhere.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

Furthermore, an in-depth 1974 analysis of how CBS news covered U.S. involvement in South Vietnam during the final months, Ernest Lefever’s TV and National Defense: an Analysis of CBS News, 1972-73, documents how CBS consistently reported – some 80% of the time – the U.S.’ position on the war with a negative bias, i.e., anti-U.S. and/or anti-South Vietnam while simultaneously broadcasting positively-biased reports about North Vietnam’s government and armed forces. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
U. B. Full of shit as usual. The luxury of looking back at the past is that we know what was true and what wasn’t. Instead of touting bias, tout lies. What lies were printed? You can point out lies can’t you? Why would we exchange “some reports” when we can exchange examples? You seem to forget another name for bias is spin. Spin and/or bias are applied to existing fact. They don’t change white to black, yes to no, or winning to losing. I don’t care about bias. Multiple sources can remove bias.

I care about lies.

But then you knew that.
JRLawrence's Avatar
What I have to say about this is that I will vote for any Republican candidate over Obama...... Originally Posted by katinsa
Good for you! Most people think that they are voting for an individual: they are not. In the overall view you are always voting for the party, or at least the philosophy of those we put in office. For example, RR was not well though of by the left, but he was a great administrator. He hired those to advise him who expressed his conservative philosophy, and he accomplished a lot because he allowed the government to function instead of calling all of the attention to himself.

Likewise, Eisenhower had the government function as pyramid with the broad base setting on the ground with many government decisions and functions covered at the broad base; fewer decision were made with each successive rise in height. The upper layers of government were for directing the course of actions and the philosophy of the administration - much like the American military and major corporations. Kennedy and Johnson turned the pyramid upside down with many more decisions being made at the White House. LBJ had battlefield decisions made in the oval office (even down to the company level). The result was the same as WWII for Germany when the Army was not allowed to perform as needed because of the interference by someone who didn't understand what he was doing. Both Hitler and Johnson wanted personal glory, and both failed because of it. Both Bushes handed off the decisions of war to the War Department. The results were much different.

Republicans tend to understand management is done by allowing others to do their jobs. Directing where we are going to be and what changes we need to make as a nation is the function of management.

All the Democrats since FDR, except Truman, have tried to gain attention to themselves as a management style. Loosing track of the true function of management is always a problem for those who want to draw attention to themselves as a first priority.

But all politicians tend to be self centered, you answer. No argument about that obvious fact. I do think there are differences in the way the two parties view how government should be administered; I tend to like the Republican view more than the Democratic view.

That being said, I have problems with both the ultra conservative view point (which tend to be be Republican) and the ultra liberal view point (which tend to be Democrat).

JR
The only point you have is on your head.

I never figured you to be a race baiter...but I guess we all know who you are now.

When all else fails for you the hate shines through. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
So are you saying that Doove is a ConeHead
TheDaliLama's Avatar
Coneheads are smarter.
I B Hankering's Avatar
U. B. Full of shit as usual. The luxury of looking back at the past is that we know what was true and what wasn’t. Instead of touting bias, tout lies. What lies were printed? You can point out lies can’t you? Why would we exchange “some reports” when we can exchange examples? You seem to forget another name for bias is spin. Spin and/or bias are applied to existing fact. They don’t change white to black, yes to no, or winning to losing. I don’t care about bias. Multiple sources can remove bias.

I care about lies.

But then you knew that. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Master dick muncher, you have no regard for the truth. When the media engages in biased reporting, the net effect is a lie. You can twist and squirm and equivocate, but that is the real truth to the matter.

Peter Braestrup was a war correspondent for the Washington Post during the 1968 Tet Offensive. Subsequently, Braestrup examined and reported on media bias regarding the Tet offensive incorporating his experiences as a former Marine infantry officer in Korea and as an experienced war reporter in Algeria and in Vietnam. Braestrup used his personal skills and knowledge to evaluate how the media covered the 1968 Tet Offensive.

During the course of his research, Braestrup read every word on the fighting during Tet published by the following media outlets: the AP and the UPI, the New York Times, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek. Additionally, he reviewed the video tapes of every TV news broadcast televised during the offensive by the three major U.S. networks: CBS, NBC and ABC. He collected extensive data regarding both print and TV reports; plus, he reviewed public opinion findings and incorporated his own investigative findings. The product of his research was a book entitled Big Story.

In his book he lays out what he discovered:

First and foremost he maintains the press was not equal to the task; hence, the bias and the “misconceptions” - Braestrup’s polite term for lies.

Lie: The U.S. was completely surprised by the 1968 Tet Offensive. In fact, the press ignored cautionary reports issued by General Earle Wheeler and General William C. Westmoreland some weeks earlier in December and early January.

Lie: The press reported that the Tet Offensive was a tactical victory for Hanoi, when in fact it was a catastrophic tactical defeat.

Bias: When the allies met some initial reverses, the press reacted by emphasizing the enemy's successes. When it was clear that the insurgents had been defeated, the press persisted in interpreting the offensive as a "psychological victory" for the Vietcong/ North Vietnamese Army, who "held the initiative." Furthermore, there was little or no objective analysis of the many enemy failures and troop losses.

Lie: The North Vietnamese offensive exposed the unreliability and decrepitude of the South Vietnamese: the U.S.’s primary ally. The press falsely reported that the offensive shattered GVN control over the country.

Bias: The press reported that the American military response was to destroy city districts and villages with overwhelming, indiscriminate firepower – as evident in journalist Peter Arnett’s description: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” You remember ol’ Peter don’t you? He’s the one that latter fallaciously reported that the U.S. employed sarin gas in Laos during Operation Tailwind.

Whereas it is true that American and ARVN commanders did have to use heavy weaponry in some urban areas, that response was not at all typical of the allies’ counteroffensive. In fact, the Battle of Hue is notable for the limitations that were imposed on the use of artillery and close air support to minimize collateral damage. This decision led to the deaths of scores of U.S. Marines.

Lie: The Viet Cong raid on the American embassy, the fighting in Hue, and the siege of Khe Sanh typified the war as a whole. In fact, these engagements were not typical, but unusual. Nevertheless, biased press reports identified these battles as "universals" typifying the war because they were conveniently visible and afforded dramatic photo ops. The fact that American and GVN troops subsequently prevailed and subdued the attackers was all but ignored by the press.

Lie: The Siege of Khe Sanh was christened America's Dien Bien Phu by the press. The media constantly reported that doom and disaster was inevitable for the beleaguered Marines. The fact is, B-52 Arc Light strikes nearly annihilated the attacking NVA.

The American war effort in Vietnam was undermined by the negativity of these lies and biased reports. Ultimately, it was Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America," who dealt the hardest media blow against the war. In a special CBS News broadcast on February 27, 1968, Cronkite concluded his gloomy assessment: "We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and in Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. . . To say that we are mired in a stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. . . It seems increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out will be to negotiate." Thereafter, other media outlets soon began to portray the war as “unwinnable.”

Based on Cronkite’s biased editorial, LBJ purportedly remarked, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, then I’ve lost Middle America.” A few months later, LBJ gave up the presidency: no small accomplishment for biased reporting.

Several months after Tet had drawn to a close, “an NBC producer proposed to correct the record with a three-part series showing that Tet had in fact been an enemy defeat. The idea was rejected by higher ups at the network because, a senior producer said, Tet was seen ‘in the public’s mind as a defeat, and therefore it was an American defeat’” (Braestrup).

General No Nguyen Giap, the Supreme Commander of the Viet Minh (NVA) forces said, in a 1989 interview with CBS’s Morley Safer, “The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory…The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.” (The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations, Howard Langer, 2005).

No doubt you will equivocate, lie and reject these examples. That is the nature of a liberal Dimocrap when faced with facts. There are many more examples of how the press lied to and mislead the American people throughout the Vietnam War, but you can find them for yourself.
Doove's Avatar
  • Doove
  • 09-26-2011, 01:43 PM
When all else fails....the hate shines through. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
Indeed.

The only point you have is on your head. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
I'm sorry..apparently Herman Cain is being paid for what he is doing according to the wackoo left: Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
Coneheads are smarter. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
TheDaliLama's Avatar
I thought my best quote was the one about you checking the "are you over 18" box when you log on.

You're not really over 18 are you? come on admit it.

How bout those Bills eh?
LexusLover's Avatar
I'll take it that you aren't old enough ... Originally Posted by TexTushHog
Wrong, and I guess it just depends on where in the country one lives. But I forget East Texas is a country.

You really shouldn't judge the rest of the country by your own standards. They don't all think like you do, thank God.
TexTushHog's Avatar
Wrong, and I guess it just depends on where in the country one lives. But I forget East Texas is a country.

You really shouldn't judge the rest of the country by your own standards. They don't all think like you do, thank God. Originally Posted by LexusLover
So how many doctors' and lawyers' kids died in Vietnam from your hometown?
So how many doctors' and lawyers' kids died in Vietnam from your hometown? Originally Posted by TexTushHog
As I recall, the small SE Texas town where I grew up had a population of about 5600 the year I graduated from high school. I can remember at least 7 young men from that small town who were killed in action while serving in Vietnam. There might have been one or two who were killed during the latter years of the war. If so, I would not have been aware of it because I have not lived in that town since the late 60's.

I am certain that none of the 7 killed were the sons of doctors' or lawyers'. (It was a small town and everyone knew everybody else) In fact, I would not consider any of those who were killed to have had wealthy parents. To take it a step further, I do not recall anyone with what I would have considered to be wealthy parents who did a tour in Nam. By the same token, there were not that many wealthy families in the town during that particular era! Those who did have wealthy parents for the most part had college deferments and never served in the military!

I would be curious to know if this was about average and/or typical?