Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those damn Republicans always getting us into wars, and fueling the war machine. Lets look at some recent history.
WWI - Wilson, Democrat
WWII - FDR, Democrat
Korea - Truman - Democrat
Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson - Democrat
Bosnia - Clinton - Democrat
Iraq I - Bush - Republican
Iraq II - Bush 43 - Republican
Afghanistan - Bush 43 - Republican
From my count it seems like the Democrats like to go to war.
FYI, more Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon than under Johnson, and the terms under which we left in 1972 could have been achieved in 1968 had not the South Vietnamese been encouraged by Republican operative Anna Chenault to "hold out for a better deal". Nixon was terrified that a peace deal (October Surprise) would swing the election to Hunphrey and to prevent it from happening sent Chenault on her mission. Johnson complained to Ev Dirksen that what was done by the Nixon camp was "treason in wartime". Five years and 26,000 American deaths later we agreed to terms similar to what was being discussed in 1968 and a little over 2 years after that, Saigon became Ho Chi Ming City as the last choppers headed for the U.S. Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Actually Arclight was working but the American people lacked the will to push it to it's limits. Ask the Germans and the Japanese how strategic bombing worked for them???
Strategic bombing did not cause either the Japanese nor the Germans to surrender. It took occupying ground to force Germany to surrender, and it took occupation to ensure the continued surrender of Japan. A war is not won until you can place a 19-year-old with a rifle uncontested in the enemy's front yard.
So... Are you saying the front runners of the Republican Party are not serious candidates? They're just joking around?
As to your question, take a wild guess.
All the candidates from both parties say ridiculous things to get attentions. A better question for you to ask would be, why do Americans take any of these politicians seriously.
I'm sure you weren't born until after the Vietnam War, were your parents even born? I bet they were just children during the last years of the war.
All the candidates from both parties say ridiculous things to get attentions. A better question for you to ask would be, why do Americans take any of these politicians seriously.
I'm sure you weren't born until after the Vietnam War, were your parents even born? I bet they were just children during the last years of the war.
In the early 90s, one of my young troops was on the detail that was permitted back to SEA to recover remains of airmen missing from the Vietnam war. When he came back, one of the things that had impressed him about northern Vietnam was, by his description, "...all these little fish ponds! They were everywhere! Hundreds of them! Sometimes they were in clusters of five or six. But they were everywhere we went, and they were so beautiful!"
I thought about it, still seeing the reconnaissance images in my mind. I couldn't recall fishponds like that. I asked him, "How big were they?" He said, "About fifty feet in diameter." I asked him when he was born. "In 1974."
I said, "Airman, those didn't start out as fishponds, and the Vietnamese did not dig them."
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 12-24-2015 at 04:28 PM..
All the candidates from both parties say ridiculous things to get attentions. A better question for you to ask would be, why do Americans take any of these politicians seriously.
I'm sure you weren't born until after the Vietnam War, were your parents even born? I bet they were just children during the last years of the war.
My father spent 7 years inside a "reeducation camp" after 75.
Again, I came from a country that was carpet bombed to hell.
I know it's hard for American born citizens to understand what kind of serious such a proposal is. But try to understand. Proposing such ideas and then get overwhelming cheers from half the populous is a serious issue.
Since conservatives are overwhelmingly supporting the candidates that support carpet bombing the middle east, why not try to convince me that it's a good idea?
No one has to convince you of anything except language usage, poetic license propaganda and rigid thinking.
Sure, every candidate and repub voter wants to secretly carpet bomb the entire Middle East back into the stone age. Just like moms telling their kids they would kill them, if they did that again!
No one has to convince you of anything except language usage, poetic license propaganda and rigid thinking.
Sure, every candidate and repub voter wants to secretly carpet bomb the entire Middle East back into the stone age. Just like moms telling their kids they would kill them, if they did that again!
Ok, so we now know republican candidates are not serious.
this subject has been beating to death on the talk circuit, its not the carpet bombing that is the question, but the killing of innocent lives that happen to be in the wrong place. instead of holding back the military 70%, you got to accept some innocent might die. with the enemy hiding in churches, schools and hospitals fill with innocent. sometime you just going have to take out the churches and schools to kill the high command. It either some innocent die, or boots on the ground and some of our soldiers die
Ok, so we now know republican candidates are not serious.
The Republicans have much better candidates than the Democrats. I mean seriously, Hilary Clinton, and Bernie Sander.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.