Chopped Liver
 

This blog is so on-the-truth, "speaking truth to power, that I just had to share it.
http://carolynbaker.org/archives/whe...-chopped-liver

DTS: I don't think it's the same at all. One thing is apparent...America continued to buy or curry favor/influence for decades....no matter which party was in power(Dems for 40 straight yrs) We've done the same in Middle East. It was probably this fact that caused me to lose faith in the whole deal. Naturally, the little man took cheap shots at Bush,but that was expected!

Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, etc... the list continues. Anywhere we go its always Vietnam. Each situation has its own peculiarities and lessons. The entire Middle East is so complex that I would have to be very careful in how I related our current situation to anything.

But I do remember Democrats and Republicans being critical of the George the 41st when he did not go into Baghdad. And when the truth came out that Saddam in power meant that Iran will not run amok does not seem so strange now... Desert Storm of course seems to be forgotten. Go straight to Vietnam, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

thought this was about that Cherokee Run horse named Liver that broke his maiden out west not too long ago.

nice name for a horse.



Repent

Pgardn,
Negroponti (sp) explained the difference between Vietnam and Iraq quite well. He said that unlike Iraq, the major cities were under control.
the commonality is seen in the last paragraph of this, if you take the time to read it.
http://carolynbaker.org/archives/whe...-chopped-liver

Subtitle to this book: As long as I'm selling my trash,let me add a few cheap shots! Part of the conspiracy book club,I'm sure! As far as Nixon perpetuating the war...did you know that LBJs' family owned the construction company that made/constructed all the barracks and buildings in 'Nam? No fiduciary interests there! The country was in the mess before Dicky showed up. That war theory is nuts! The Isrealis' lost? News to me,although they are to be commended for no using human shields as the scum Hezobollah did. Just to refresh your memory,half the world have intel on Hussein and Al Queda and deduced the same as the US. So blame the world!

timm,
Your memory of history is far different from mine.
Nixon was elected on his promise to end the Vietnam war. Unfortunately, he had no plan. So he came up with something called "Vietnamiztion".
It only took four years and over 30,000 more American soldiers lives to demonstrate the fallacy. After he resigned in disgrace and Ford gave him a pardon, people were evacuated from the rooftop of the US Embassy with helicopters.
Do you remember anything?
"Those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

ps...I'll do a seach and show you a pic of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. You might be right, we had intel, but not intelligence.
I don't blame the world...the jokers that sold the war to the gullible deserve the questions, and any and all answers they can fabricate.

DTS: love the way you parse everything together there...the world community agreed with US stance...so your outrage should be aimed at them as well. If I remember correctly...DEM congress...so plenty of blame to go around. One thing is sure(11/19 post)..we've shared the bed of many whores,and unfortunately the offspring are biting us in the butt!

That woman Carolyn Baker is as bad as a KKK member. She is full of nothing but lies and hate. She wrote an article entitled "The Religious Right: An Anti-American Terrorist Movement".

Extremists like Carolyn Baker are just as intollerant as any KKK member or fascist. It is obvious from reading her articles that she despises Christians. She is so ignorant that it is incredible. Here is what she thinks that Christians think about non-Christians: "They are a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned or killed." The funny thing is that I think this is a psychological defense mechanism known as "projection" on Baker's part. In another words, she is accusing Christians of wanting to do to her, what she actually wants to do to them.

None of the Christians I know want to conquer, imprison, or kill non-believers. It is incredible that Baker would say this.

Here is a quote from Baker:

"The religious right of twenty-first century America is anti-American, inherently violent, and a cruel, tyrannical, punitive, force of death and destruction. In its mindset, adult human lives do not matter because the human condition itself is inherently evil resulting in eternal and everlasting punishment in hell unless its members are redeemed in a prescribed manner by the fundamentalist God/man/savior, Jesus Christ. Moreover, with an embarrassingly adolescent flamboyance, Dominionists shamelessly rape, pillage, and desecrate the earth because in the first place, their Bible has given them authority over all things human and in the second place, their "imminent" apocalyptic rapture, transporting them from the human "veil of tears" to live happily ever after in heaven, entitles them to do so. Meanwhile, we the unredeemed, the unbelievers, the poor, the feminists, the gay and lesbian, the disabled, the homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, and those who are conscientiously following divergent spiritual paths of their choice, are suffering in the wake of Christian fundamentalism's devastation of the economy, the earth, and the human race. But this is what we deserve for not becoming born-again devotees of their Jesus. And we deserve even worse-to burn in hell for all of eternity. Hence, we are expendable, inconsequential, and a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned, or killed."

I have no interest in silencing people like Baker. Quite to the contrary, let her speak and let her speak loudly. The more she speaks, the bigger fool of herself she makes. The more she speaks, the more you realize how full of crap she is. But even a hate-filled fool such as Baker will find a few followers out there.

Timm,
Do you remember anything?
The "world community" consisted of a small "coalition". They were sold the same false "intelligence" as the American people.
Now, most of those countries have bailed out. Italy was the most recent.
Considering the results of the Nov 7 elections, so have the majority of Americans.
Dubbya (if that's the whore you're referring to) has the blood on his hands.
No amount of stuttering, stammering, or "Iraquiazation" (building security forces in a civil war) will wash it off. He sold it. He owns it.

If you get a chance, read Shakespeare's "McBeth".

Sick broad, to be sure! Probably had a God-challenged upbringing.

Isn't it amazing how these Republican bashers will blame the Republicans for the Vietnam war? It's incredible. What's funny is that I don't think these people even think that we will notice. They may not even notice it themselves. When you keep lying to yourself and brainwashhing yourself for years, you finally start believeing all the lies. I think that some of these people may have actually forgot who the President was that got us into the war with Vietnam.

How dare you call her a sick broad. There is at least one person on this board that is a fan of hers. LOL.

Rupert,
You might be interested to know that the first president to commit "advisers" to Vietnam was a Republican named Dwight Eisenhower. Look it up.

You are wrong! It wasn't the coalition that manufactured..the entire intel community(enemies/allies)knew the info..coalition were the few who decided to take a stand! As I said in my 1st post on this thread..America bought and curried favor and influence as demonstrated during the past 50 yrs! The whores are the ones our govt. paid and worked with over those years to get us into this predicament. To lay it all at Bushs' feet is intellectually dishonest! I don't do Shakespeare,either!

In that case I guess we should blame the Republicans for Vietnam. I don't know why people would blame the Democrats. They should blame Eisenhower.

Timm,
Are you serious?
Who was the president at the time of the invasion of Iraq?...The "commander-in-chief"? Who sent his Secretary of State to the UN (Powell) to claim that there were weapons of mass destruction? Who said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"? Who repeatedly tried to connect the invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein with the events of 9-11?
Sorry Timm, you can't reconstruct history once it's happened.
Intellectually dishonest! Indeed!

btw...try reading Shakespeare, you might learn something.

DTS: Dude...you are so stuck on Bush! Go back thru the last 50 yrs. Did you understand anything I posted on this? We are reaping what we've sown...To set it at any one persons' feet is preposterous. You freakin know there where WMD's..but its convenient to your theory that they were moved. I'm not the one spinning history. Maybe our ancestors will clear out the bull in order to have the facts! btw...W.S. is for high school...that's where I left him!

Timm,
You are certainly entitled to believe anything you want.
The WMD's (supplied by the USA) during the Iran/Iraq war had deteriorated.
Saddam bluffed. Hans Blix spent years, YEARS!, looking for them.
Do a google of Scott Ritter (one of the inspectors). You might learn something.
The Iraq debacle belongs to G W Bush and his administration.
That's a fact.

btw...Shakespeare's words gain more meaning if you read them after high school. Truth endures, whether over days or centuries.
Deny all you want to.

You may well think I'm learning deprived...I've been called worse. If you can find joy in this mess,so be it. I didn't like W.S....I liked Dantes' Inferno,tho..did Willie write that per chance?

DTS. Did you ever read what Eisenhower said about actually committing troops militarily, ie going to war? He sad no way in hell, it would be a quagmire... you forgot that part.

DTS: It was probably a Saturday nite potluck!

Pgardn,
It was deGaulle that is quoted concerning "quagmire".
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm

You, like others that have posted on this thread, are entitled to express your opinions. Facts and history are not subject to manipulation (unlike opinions, they speak on their own).
DTS

DTS: Of course they are! That's why schoolbooks have to be re-written every 5 years, to spin the shades of history! You knew that,right?

Live and learn! And here all the while I thought the texts were rewritten by McGraw-Hill so that the makers of the tests (also McGraw-Hill) could get the "kiddies" smart enough to maintain their "No Child Left Behind" funding.
Timm, you know so much! Thanks!

Always happy to help!

Eisenhauer is on record as saying he opposed entering the Vietnam conflict. I have read it from 3 different sources. I put the quagmire in myself. Where have you found that Ike said he wanted to enter the conflict?, I would like to see how historians have manipulated what I have read. I have read he was opposed to the United States getting into this conflict militarily, that is all I have personal read, so I would appreciate the update. Historians do disagree.

ANd I hate to disappoint, but history is constantly manipulated. People on this very board have said we entered the Iraqi conflict to get rid of Saddam. We got into Iraq to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. I have already read the manipulation. GW even did it after we found no weapons.

pgardn,
You are correct that Eisenhower was reluctant to enter a land battle in South East Asia. He did provide advisers. He also realized that if the 1956 elections had been held as scheduled, Ho Chi Min would have have won.
In my view, he was correct in opposing communism. This decision, given the atmosphere in the US at the time, was sensible.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

Regarding the rewriting of history and manipulating events, you are also correct. The "victors" write the history books. A review of the "Indian Wars" testifies to that. The "story" on Iraq remains unwritten, though the "editing" is ongoing.
DTS