Cronkite's Bloody Legacy

[native]

Back to cleets point about our unwillingness, as a country (politically), to EVER do that (even if we perceive we're RIGHT) and I repeat my point again: disband the military and spend the money somewhere else.

So, in reality all Cronkite was doing was spouting the political views of the government from his pulpit behind the news desk. Imagine that....MSM being a puppet for the government.

That's the real concern (or should be)
We can wage a war - in the right - and with the correct motives...
But no matter what (Conservative majority or not) congress will not allow our military to fight to win
It's been that way for about 50 years...

So all the monkey chatter about liberal and conservatives and who's smarter... is meaningless

Points well taken all around, except for the "monkey chatter" nonsense.

[Cleets Part 2]

Pin-point strikes - sorry I'm not buying that load of rotten bananas
Only about 500 visual accounts from the Red Cross of hits that consisted of 75% civilian casualties - the idea that collateral damage is "minimal" can be sold elsewhere fella - a few too many (like over a million) dead Iraqi pedestrians forces me to say: You can call it whatever you want - so you can sleep at night - I call it carpet bombing"

Now, Do I care... let me put it this way: It's out of my control

Stop wasting your IQ on what you want to believe, Cleets!

Says the guy with years of Military mind alteration training
Look - I don't care what you believe - We need guys like you (this cannot be denied)

Your beliefs have no effect on my research into topics of personal interest...

[native]

...

One of the reasons that Tet failed militarily for North Vietnam was the fact that many of the VC cadre (VC=Viet Cong = South Vietnamese insurgents) never showed up for the big event. Those that did show up were wiped out. The only way the North finally won in 1975 was to "pour several hundred thousand more troops in [to South Vietnam] and turn the country in to [a] holocaust."

Gotta disagree there, native. True, the North DID do that, but only after we'd already thrown in the towel and started winding down (hmmm.....sounds a lot like Iraq).

Not sure what part you are disagreeing with, AZGrizFan. ???

I am not saying that all the VC were banished during Tet, only that many of them did not show for their assignments from Hanoi, and that those who did show were decimated. (Those who did not show were subsequently suppressed very successfully by the ongoing Phoenix program.)

As a result, the Northern cadres took operational control the southern insurgency after Tet, because the southern VC had neither the manpower nor the trust from Hanoi to maintain their previously pre-eminent role.

If you are only saying that the North could not have invaded the South without the benefit of U.S. withdrawal, then we are in agreement.

My point was that the North could not and did not win in the South by either political means or an insurgency, and thus had to invade with hundreds of thousands of troops.

[native]

Stop wasting your IQ on what you want to believe, Cleets!

Says the guy with years of Military mind alteration training
Look - I don't care what you believe - We need guys like you (this cannot be denied)

Your beliefs have no effect on my research into topics of personal interest...

Thanks. I also have the highest regard for both your educational accomplishments and your IQ.

I am just baffled by your lack of fact checking and scientific method.

Already know everything so no need to check facts or test your hypothesis?

Too bored or lazy or important to condescend to engaging with someone of lower IQ and educational accomplishments?

[Cleets Part 2]

Says the guy with years of Military mind alteration training
Look - I don't care what you believe - We need guys like you (this cannot be denied)

Your beliefs have no effect on my research into topics of personal interest...

Thanks. I also have the highest regard for both your educational accomplishments and your IQ.

I am just baffled by your lack of fact checking and scientific method.

Already know everything so no need to check facts or test your hypothesis?

Too bored or lazy or important to condescend to engaging with someone of lower IQ and educational accomplishments?

You don't have anything you need to prove to me...
your personal fact checking apparently ends at "faith" and picks back up again at convenience and I have no issue with that - You believe I'm just making stuff up - I believe you're brainwashed (in all kinds of ways)

we mostly disagree with each other and I'll try to find a way (emotionally) to get over that... but in the meantime you complimenting me with your backhand isn't really fooling me

[native]

Thanks. I also have the highest regard for both your educational accomplishments and your IQ.

I am just baffled by your lack of fact checking and scientific method.

Already know everything so no need to check facts or test your hypothesis?

Too bored or lazy or important to condescend to engaging with someone of lower IQ and educational accomplishments?

You don't have anything you need to prove to me...
your personal fact checking apparently ends at "faith" and picks back up again at convenience and I have no issue with that - You believe I'm just making stuff up - I believe you're brainwashed (in all kinds of ways)

we mostly disagree with each other and I'll try to find a way (emotionally) to get over that... but in the meantime you complimenting me with your backhand isn't really fooling me

It is not a backhand you brilliant idiot!!!! You are only fooling yourself!!!

With regard to civilian deaths, my fact checking includes Professor Rummels' studies in democide, along with government reports of bomb damage assessment and non-government reports. Of course I don't take any one source at face value.

[AZGrizFan]

...

Gotta disagree there, native. True, the North DID do that, but only after we'd already thrown in the towel and started winding down (hmmm.....sounds a lot like Iraq).

Not sure what part you are disagreeing with, AZGrizFan. ???

If you are only saying that the North could not have invaded the South without the benefit of U.S. withdrawal, then we are in agreement.

My point was that the North could not and did not win in the South by either political means or an insurgency, and thus had to invade with hundreds of thousands of troops.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

[D1B]

Not sure what part you are disagreeing with, AZGrizFan. ???

If you are only saying that the North could not have invaded the South without the benefit of U.S. withdrawal, then we are in agreement.

My point was that the North could not and did not win in the South by either political means or an insurgency, and thus had to invade with hundreds of thousands of troops.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Z, why don't you and native get a room.

[AZGrizFan]

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Z, why don't you and native get a room.

I realize it's dangerous for you when two conservatives agree....you'll get over it.

[Ibanez]

"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert

conks couldn't handle the truth Cronkite told that night, and so began a great conk tradition, despite mocking others who do so, embracing the culture of victimhood that the "big bad media" was the reason they were full of shit, and so they began assembling their own little pravda-esque fiefdoms, and declared "the truth" up for grabs and something to be filtered for partisan purposes.

piss and moan all you'd like, try to revise history if you must - but Cronkite was a lion - a legend and a hero and the pathetic nature of right-wingers in this country who need to keep rehashing the 60's because they've got nothing else stands as a testament to respect Cronkite held and how for 40 years conks just "can't handle the truth"

Democrats got us into that war. Republican's got us out.