What - No GOP Presidential Debate Thread?

jgmacg · May 7, 2007

The Big Ragu said:

jgmacg said:

Eisenhower was the one who walked us in to Vietnam, Boom, to help prop up the French.
Click to expand...

This is one of the best cases of selectively interpreting history I have seen on this board. I mean, using this logic, someone could actually argue that it was TRUMAN who was responsible for the Vietnam War (which is just as ridiculous as pinning it on Eisenhower)... After China and the Soviet Union recognized the DRV, Truman recognized the French puppet government as a countermeasure because of the fear of Communism spreading--which pretty much sums up U.S. foreign policy from 1945 through 1965. The fear of communism spread all the way through the Kennedy administration. But you somehow selectively pull Eisenhower's name out of a hat? Eisenhower gave the French some money and arms (the Soviets and Chinese were funding the Viet Minh, so let's not look at it in a vacuum), but he wasn't the one who created the quagmire that put U.S. troops there, escalated things in the middle of a losing effort and led to the loss of American lives our involvement brought. That was LBJ's doing and was compounded by Nixon (although Nixon inherited the kind of untenable mess that the next President will inherit).
Click to expand...

I merely point out that our involvement in Vietnam predates Boom's ultra-selective anti-historical fixation on JFK and LBJ. Never said Vietnam was Eisenhower's war. Hence the word "walked."

Nixon inherited a mess, certainly. Then chose to prolong it.

Fenian_Bastard · May 7, 2007

Ike did a little more than that, Ragu. It was on his watch that the US helped cancel the Geneva-proposed countrywide elections in 1954 that were supposed to create a government for a unified Vietnam and which set the US inexorably on the path to supporting the government in the South. It was under Eisenhower that the political path to war was cut. Blame enough to go around, for sure.

Yawn · May 7, 2007

unwitty said:

this is not in order of who i like, only in how i thought they did.

my ranking:
1. mccain
2. romney
3. huckabee
4. brownback
5. giuliani

dear god, i can't believe i put brownback fourth...
Click to expand...

dog428 said:

These debates are sad. You can't even call them debates, because, well, there's no debating. There's just answering. And you can rattle off most of the answers long before the dipshits on stage start talking.

You know why debates used to be important? Because in the midst of the argument, the two or three or 12 guys involved would drop their guard, talk without running through a list of talking points first and reveal their true, honest feelings. Sometimes that was good, sometimes that was bad -- for them. It was always good for the country. Because the wackjob who would invade another country for no reason, break every Constitutional law on the books and fumble through every single speaking engagement that wasn't mapped out to the comma would never make it in such a debate.
Click to expand...

Whatthe hell did you call that so-called Democratic debate?

Yawn · May 7, 2007

Pastor said:

poindexter said:

Three Republican candidates do not believe in evolution.

Oy

Fucking

Vey
Click to expand...

I didn't see the debates and am now searching for a transcript. Who are the three candidates that don't believe in evolution?

Found it:
Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, and Representative Tancredo

This country should deport anyone that votes for either of these three.

Click to expand...

They should shove the transcripts up your ass first.

By the way, REVEREND, this isn't Russia. You don't deport for free speech and belief.

Yawn · May 7, 2007

Fenian_Bastard said:

Boom_70 said:

Joe Rossi said:

I think FB was talking about the cool music and higher approval ratings contributing to the feeling of liberal superiority, which I'll take over conservative hubris any day of the week.

The latter is getting American soldiers killed and has made the world a less safer place.
Click to expand...

LOL - Fenian is still stuck in 1967. The music was cool and the liberal leadership was getting troops killed all over Viet Nam.
Click to expand...

And the conservatives were sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks and preparing to kill another 30,000 to get Nixon re-elected in 1972.
You're right about the music, except for the Doors.
Click to expand...

Paris....peace....what an oxymoron unless it's Peace at any cost.

At least they've elected a Reaganite now. There's hope.

Yawn · May 7, 2007

Boom_70 said:

Fenian_Bastard said:

Boom --
Stop. OK?
This is your Post No. 1A.
I can think of a great number of historians -- from Frances FitzGerald to Stanley Karnow -- who spread the blame quite equally from Ike to Nixon. (It was Ike who stepped in for the French rather than recognize the Geneva Accords of...why do I bother?) But you're point was that all 58K American deaths can be laid at the feel of two Democratic presidents, when about half of them died under Nixon's cynical plan to use the war to get himself re-elected.
Click to expand...

fenian - I know its hard to accept but its time that your realize that Nixon did not get us into Viet Nam war. He got us out.

Look at the numbers between 1965 and 1968 30,000 soldiers wll killed in Viet Nam

Fenian - Do you think that LBJ was a good president?
Click to expand...

Boom, don't confuse Fenian with facts favoring a Republican. Ever watch what happens at a McDonalds when you special order? The chaos that follows is what happens inside his mind when you spew those truths.

jgmacg · May 7, 2007

Yawn said:

Boom, don't confuse Fenian with facts favoring a Republican. Ever watch what happens at a McDonalds when you special order? The chaos that follows is what happens inside his mind when you spew those truths.
Click to expand...

Which Republican?

This one?

Or this one?

The Big Ragu · May 7, 2007

jgmacg said:

I merely point out that our involvement in Vietnam predates Boom's ultra-selective anti-historical fixation on JFK and LBJ. Never said Vietnam was Eisenhower's war. Hence the word "walked."

Nixon inherited a mess, certainly. Then chose to prolong it.
Click to expand...

But Eisenhower didn't "walk" us into Vietnam. He never sent American troops (or any Americans for that matter) to Vietnam. He didn't "walk us in" any more than Truman did when he recognized the French puppet government instead of the DRV. It's still a huge stretch to me.

It's pretty clear to anyone being honest about the history that Vietnam was LBJ's war. You can sort of pin it on Kennedy, because he was the one who actually sent troops there. But if Kennedy hadn't gotten shot, you can be fairly certain that he wouldn't have escalated it beyond the tens of thousands of "military advisors" he sent. Half of Kennedy's advisors were urging a full-scale military attack and half were telling him it was a disaster waiting to happen. And typical of Kennedy, he chose a middle route. If he had remained president, he would have likely stayed with some sort of one foot in, one foot out approach--which wouldn't have been good or successful, but wouldn't have been the botched abortion the war turned into. It took LBJ to turn it into a full-scale disaster.

Point of Order · May 7, 2007

The Big Ragu said:

jgmacg said:

I merely point out that our involvement in Vietnam predates Boom's ultra-selective anti-historical fixation on JFK and LBJ. Never said Vietnam was Eisenhower's war. Hence the word "walked."

Nixon inherited a mess, certainly. Then chose to prolong it.
Click to expand...

But Eisenhower didn't "walk" us into Vietnam. He never sent American troops (or any Americans for that matter) to Vietnam. He didn't "walk us in" any more than Truman did when he recognized the French puppet government instead of the DRV. It's still a huge stretch to me.

It's pretty clear to anyone being honest about the history that Vietnam was LBJ's war. You can sort of pin it on Kennedy, because he was the one who actually sent troops there. But if Kennedy hadn't gotten shot, you can be fairly certain that he wouldn't have escalated it beyond the tens of thousands of "military advisors" he sent. Half of Kennedy's advisors were urging a full-scale military attack and half were telling him it was a disaster waiting to happen. And typical of Kennedy, he chose a middle route. If he had remained president, he would have likely stayed with some sort of one foot in, one foot out approach--which wouldn't have been good or successful, but wouldn't have been the botched abortion the war turned into. It took LBJ to turn it into a full-scale disaster.
Click to expand...

Ragu,
There's a forest-for-the-trees issue here. When you have one asshole telling a bald-faced lie, and trying to stain Democrats and only Democrats with the blood 58,000 American dead in Vietnam, I don't care about the vagaries and suppositions you're making.

1. This was a GOP Congressional debate thread.
2. Boom_71 shifts the topic with an out-and-out LIE.
3. There is complexity and shared responsibility (not an equal share, mind you, but a proportional share historians and those on each side still hotly) debate between the two major political parties.

Boom_70 · May 7, 2007

Point of Order said:

The Big Ragu said:

jgmacg said:

I merely point out that our involvement in Vietnam predates Boom's ultra-selective anti-historical fixation on JFK and LBJ. Never said Vietnam was Eisenhower's war. Hence the word "walked."

Nixon inherited a mess, certainly. Then chose to prolong it.
Click to expand...

But Eisenhower didn't "walk" us into Vietnam. He never sent American troops (or any Americans for that matter) to Vietnam. He didn't "walk us in" any more than Truman did when he recognized the French puppet government instead of the DRV. It's still a huge stretch to me.

It's pretty clear to anyone being honest about the history that Vietnam was LBJ's war. You can sort of pin it on Kennedy, because he was the one who actually sent troops there. But if Kennedy hadn't gotten shot, you can be fairly certain that he wouldn't have escalated it beyond the tens of thousands of "military advisors" he sent. Half of Kennedy's advisors were urging a full-scale military attack and half were telling him it was a disaster waiting to happen. And typical of Kennedy, he chose a middle route. If he had remained president, he would have likely stayed with some sort of one foot in, one foot out approach--which wouldn't have been good or successful, but wouldn't have been the botched abortion the war turned into. It took LBJ to turn it into a full-scale disaster.
Click to expand...

Ragu,
There's a forest-for-the-trees issue here. When you have one asshole telling a bald-faced lie, and trying to stain Democrats and only Democrats with the blood 58,000 American dead in Vietnam, I don't care about the vagaries and suppositions you're making.

1. This was a GOP Congressional debate thread.
2. Boom_71 shifts the topic with an out-and-out LIE.
3. There is complexity and shared responsibility (not an equal share, mind you, but a proportional share historians and those on each side still hotly) debate between the two major political parties.
Click to expand...

Wait LBJ and JFK were members of democrat party right?

POO - I take it that you are a democrat?

Point of Order · May 7, 2007

Boom_70 said:

Point of Order said:

The Big Ragu said:

jgmacg said:

I merely point out that our involvement in Vietnam predates Boom's ultra-selective anti-historical fixation on JFK and LBJ. Never said Vietnam was Eisenhower's war. Hence the word "walked."

Nixon inherited a mess, certainly. Then chose to prolong it.
Click to expand...

But Eisenhower didn't "walk" us into Vietnam. He never sent American troops (or any Americans for that matter) to Vietnam. He didn't "walk us in" any more than Truman did when he recognized the French puppet government instead of the DRV. It's still a huge stretch to me.

It's pretty clear to anyone being honest about the history that Vietnam was LBJ's war. You can sort of pin it on Kennedy, because he was the one who actually sent troops there. But if Kennedy hadn't gotten shot, you can be fairly certain that he wouldn't have escalated it beyond the tens of thousands of "military advisors" he sent. Half of Kennedy's advisors were urging a full-scale military attack and half were telling him it was a disaster waiting to happen. And typical of Kennedy, he chose a middle route. If he had remained president, he would have likely stayed with some sort of one foot in, one foot out approach--which wouldn't have been good or successful, but wouldn't have been the botched abortion the war turned into. It took LBJ to turn it into a full-scale disaster.
Click to expand...

Ragu,
There's a forest-for-the-trees issue here. When you have one asshole telling a bald-faced lie, and trying to stain Democrats and only Democrats with the blood 58,000 American dead in Vietnam, I don't care about the vagaries and suppositions you're making.

1. This was a GOP Congressional debate thread.
2. Boom_71 shifts the topic with an out-and-out LIE.
3. There is complexity and shared responsibility (not an equal share, mind you, but a proportional share historians and those on each side still hotly) debate between the two major political parties.
Click to expand...

Wait LBJ and JFK were members of democrat party right?

POO - I take it that you are a democrat?
Click to expand...

You're incorrect on you first point, and the second is irrelevant. Is there anywhere you do value your integrity? It appears you don't value it much here.

The Big Ragu · May 7, 2007

Point, I don't see the lie. Vietnam pretty much was the Democrat's war, the same way Iraq is the Republican's war—at least if you are looking in terms of who the presidents were at the times we turned each of them into a mess. All the partisanship in the world doesn't really change who was in power when we escalated and mismanaged each of them. You can trace U.S. military action in Vietnam to Kennedy, not Eisenhower, no matter how much you try to stretch the truth. And responsibility for the mess it became really belongs to LBJ. A Democrat may inherit Iraq in the next election, and that Democrat may find a way to even make it worse, but it won't change the fact that the accurate way history will view Iraq is that it was Bush's mess.

Log in or Sign up

What - No GOP Presidential Debate Thread?

jgmacg Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

jgmacg Guest

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Point of Order Active Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Point of Order Active Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

What - No GOP Presidential Debate Thread?

jgmacg Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

jgmacg Guest

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Point of Order Active Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Point of Order Active Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches