America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~

Date 1975, President Gerald R. Ford Asks a heavily controlled Democratic congress for 380 million dollars to help the South Vietnamese fend off the push by the North Vietnamese to control all of Vietnam.

This happened right after the resignation of Richard Nixon and the Democrats took power in a big way in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Right after President Ford pardoned Nixon. The amount of outrage from the Democrats aimed at Ford for pardoning Nixon was off the scale, Ted Kennedy lambasted Ford for doing so, but in recent years admitted it was the best thing Ford could have done for the country at the time. Most people agree that pardoning Nixon was the right thing to do at the time, so the country could begin the healing process.

Anyways the Democrats refused to even hear the bill For money Ford was trying to get passed, they refused to even hear about it, let alone vote on it. In a few weeks due to the Democrats treachery South Vietnam fell and over 2 and 1/2 million people were "purged" or jailed by the "benevolent" northern communist Vietnamese.

Could the Democrats sell the Iraqis out the same way? I think they could and would if the opportunity presented itself. After all the talk from the left about redeployment and cutting and running I could very easily see the democrat controlled congress refusing to allow any money to continue to fight the war on terror after all there track record is to sell out those they no longer need or those that have become a liability.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 28, 2006
"baker you have been on a tear not only with me but several others, nit picking this and that, you have been acting like you are the final word on everything. Nothing you say will change my mind about what I see you doing. so lets drop it."


You took issue with ME saying almost 60,000. There are over 58,000 names on the wall. I didn't pick this over numbers, you did.


How about this? Your "both" wrong:


1. Harry G. Summers, The Vietnam War Almanac. Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1985.

U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - 57,690. South Vietnamese military killed - 243,748. Republic of Korea killed - 4,407. Australia and New Zealand (combined) - 469. Thailand - 351. The Vietnam People's Army and NLF (combined) - 666,000. North Vietnamese civilian fatalities - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilian dead - 300,000.

2. Marc Leepson, ed, Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.

U.S. killed in action, etc. - 58,159. South Vietnamese military - 224,000. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV military - not listed. DRV civilians - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilians - 300,000.

3. Edward Doyle, Samuel Lipsman, et al, Setting the Stage. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1981.

U.S. - 57,605. South Vietnamese military - 220,357. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV and NLF deaths - 444,000. Combined DRV and RVN civilian deaths -587,000.

A fourth Source, John Rowe's Vietnam: The Australian Experience. Sydney: Time-Life Books Australia, 1987, gives a figure of 496 Australians killed in action or died of wounds.


Link

I'm sorry but about a 2500 difference is not "almost". And Elie, your figures are way low my friend.
on Dec 28, 2006
I was going by the current number on the wall. So far as I know it is accurate.

When dealing with the sacrifice of human lives, I'm a lot more apt to round up 1200 than round down several thousand.
on Dec 28, 2006
(Citizen)drmilerDecember 28, 2006 14:00:03


died of other causes


I will accept a wrong from ytou doc. but this is where I am having a problem. the died from other causes, in the 15 plus yeas we were in vietnam if they count total deaths in the military from accidents, natural causes, murder, training deaths. etc. I can see that would boost the numbers.

The sight I went to had included deaths from cambodia, laos, thailand and china counted in all the way up to 1985, 10 years after the so called war ended.
on Dec 28, 2006
People who die in the service of their country during a war should be counted, whether they are shot by the enemy of succumb to other causes. That's why they are on the official list of killed, that's why their names are on the wall, and they should be counted.
on Dec 28, 2006

Reply By: BakerStreet

Nice way to dodge the question.  And MM is right.  You are on a vendetta.  Of which not many know.

Simply put, the democrats got us into it, and then bailed like sheep.  Today. The repubs got us into it with the help of the dems, and I guess we dont have to guess who is bailing.

Never mind.  No debate here. just sematics and nit picking on non-issues.

on Dec 28, 2006
"Nice way to dodge the question. And MM is right. You are on a vendetta. Of which not many know."


Wow, you guys are agreeing with each other? who would have imagined??? This little circle jerk is getting to be a tighter and tighter circle all the time. Maybe your waning numbers should tell you guys something.
on Dec 28, 2006
the democrats got us into it, and then bailed like sheep.


this is why i keep hopin they'll come out with an 'american history for dummies' series.

while there were a few american observers in vietnam prior to 1954 and truman helped fund the french's effort to keep indochina enslaved, it was ike who first sent military forces to vietnam. eisenhower was in the whitehouse when the us prevented the national referendum on unification of the two vietnams thereby gutting the 1954 geneva conference.

on Dec 29, 2006

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Thursday, December 28, 2006
"Nice way to dodge the question. And MM is right. You are on a vendetta. Of which not many know."


Wow, you guys are agreeing with each other? who would have imagined??? This little circle jerk is getting to be a tighter and tighter circle all the time. Maybe your waning numbers should tell you guys something.

This is such bullshit baker docg and I go out of our way to stay out of each others arguments with other people, but in your land anyone that disagrees with the 'HIGH AND MIGHTY" BAKERSTREET,, the final word on everything must be in collusion.

on Dec 29, 2006

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Thursday, December 28, 2006
the democrats got us into it, and then bailed like sheep.


this is why i keep hopin they'll come out with an 'american history for dummies' series.

while there were a few american observers in vietnam prior to 1954 and truman helped fund the french's effort to keep indochina enslaved, it was ike who first sent military forces to vietnam. eisenhower was in the whitehouse when the us prevented the national referendum on unification of the two vietnams thereby gutting the 1954 geneva conference.

So basically because a democrat only had a few "advisors" and Observors" in vietnam it does not count as getting involved? Maybe that book should be called history for liberal dummies.

on Dec 29, 2006

while there were a few american observers in vietnam prior to 1954 and truman helped fund the french's effort to keep indochina enslaved, it was ike who first sent military forces to vietnam. eisenhower was in the whitehouse when the us prevented the national referendum on unification of the two vietnams thereby gutting the 1954 geneva conference.

Guess you should read it then since you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth with that statement alone.  Nice try at a definite maybe!

on Dec 29, 2006
because a democrat only had a few "advisors" and Observors" in vietnam it does not count as getting involved?


even if--as i'm sure he'll attempt to claim--by 'getting us in it' drguy meant getting involved (or some other equally too-vague characterization), neither north nor south vietnam existed prior to 1954.

ergo, no war for anyone to get us into until then.
on Dec 29, 2006
Guess you should read it then since you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth with that statement alone. Nice try at a definite maybe!


clearly there'll have to be a prerequisite just for you. the big golden book of important historical dates.

on Dec 30, 2006
clearly there'll have to be a prerequisite just for you. the big golden book of important historical dates.


Dates dont matter, nor does english to you. You are going to equivocate to absolve your clowns of blame regardless of dates or actions. No point in arguing with one so inured in their sides propaganda, that they cannot see the truth. But then, facts never were your strong point, only talking points.
on Jan 01, 2007
*feeds the troll*
on Jan 02, 2007
Hi ya MM! How was your new year? My Appologies. 07 is a lucky number so I hope it is for you as well. Have a great one!
3 Pages1 2 3