[cokLoolioli]

I thought it was the North Vietnamese and the Soviets that caused us to lose Vietnam. I did not know that it was the Democrats.

I was also unaware that we were on the way to "victory" in Vietnam at the point when we started pulling out.

The Tet Offensive was a military defeat for the NVK, which no longer really existed after that. A new military was built, but in the meantime, Westmoreland has requested an additional 200k troops to finish the war off. Now, what the Chinese would have done, and how that would affect it? Who knows. But the withdrawl of troops as a result of political pressure was a direct cause of the loss of South Vietnam.

[RilmAlime67]

great idea......lets further not support the troops.............

this wont go well for them might work in 08 cause the media has bushed bush

but in the end...........not a good move

Oh yea, let's support our troops by standing idle, while the President continues to shuffle his cabinet, looking for his missing sock.

Let's support our troops by supporting a yellow bellied President, who sent in our troops ill-equiped, and under-supported, into a war they didn't have to fight, for a cause that had no right?

What is it with you trigger happy neo-Americans? Doesn't matter what the reason is, if it's a war, it's good for you. Hey why don't you just go and play paint-ball.

Let's support out troops by supporting a Republican't administration that won't take care of our wounded, and tries to take away their benefits?

I'm sorry buddy, but we're doing more to support your brothers in arms to bring them home with all of their arms, than any fucking neo-American fascist Republican't who sent them off to war in the first place.

[jinnamys]

Interesting. I am interested to see Bush's response, especially in light of Britain withdrawing a portion of their troops. I'm glad they're taking some sort of action that represents their cause.

Best advice for Pres Bush is to say as little as possible and holding a tight leash on VP Cheney. It will be interesting on how the wording in the Joint Resolution is made. If it is too moderate, it will wind up the same as the previous resolution: little words and no action. If it is worded the way anti-war pundits wants, then there will be a coup by some of the Democrats. What is even more fun is to see how the Democrats are going to talk their way out of this ever ending quagmire.

[jinnamys]

Oh yea, let's support our troops by standing idle, while the President continues to shuffle his cabinet, looking for his missing sock.

Let's support our troops by supporting a yellow bellied President, who sent in our troops ill-equiped, and under-supported, into a war they didn't have to fight, for a cause that had no right?

What is it with you trigger happy neo-Americans? Doesn't matter what the reason is, if it's a war, it's good for you. Hey why don't you just go and play paint-ball.

Let's support out troops by supporting a Republican't administration that won't take care of our wounded, and tries to take away their benefits?

I'm sorry buddy, but we're doing more to support your brothers in arms to bring them home with all of their arms, than any fucking neo-American fascist Republican't who sent them off to war in the first place.

Having bad equipment in the US military has been done before in Korea, WWII, Vietnam, etc. It is nothing new here. It was an accomplishment that has been forgotten.

[Nosmas]

It seems that the Dems have to do SOMETHING, to register their disapproval with the status quo, and I don't see the parallels to Tonkin as clearly here, as sizeable majorities of the electorate want something done, too.

[gimffnfabaykal]

This is the kind of progress I have been looking for. Finally, something real coming from the Democratic Party! This is something the conservatives shouldn't frown upon after slamming Dems on the non-binding resolution saying that they are wasting time and not doing anything real. Conservatives held the Dems feet to the fire and I guess we are finally seeing some results!

You call trying to micromanage a war success? Why doesn't Congress do they one thing they have the power doing ... remove funding?

[DrCeshing]

I love what Bill Maher said this week when commenting on the non-binding resolution about troop escalation: "the Democrats said, 'Oh no you didn't!'" and that's about all they did. The only thing left to do, if anyone's got any balls in them, is to pull the funding already.

[annouhMus]

I actually applaud that the dems are trying to do something real, but to do it in a dishonest way shows that they are no better than the republicans. Yes, it will get vetoed, as it probably should.

I am not actually disagreeing with you, but I question why you think it is "in a dishonest way) How come????

[annouhMus]

Oh yea, let's support our troops by standing idle, while the President continues to shuffle his cabinet, looking for his missing sock.

Let's support our troops by supporting a yellow bellied President, who sent in our troops ill-equiped, and under-supported, into a war they didn't have to fight, for a cause that had no right?

What is it with you trigger happy neo-Americans? Doesn't matter what the reason is, if it's a war, it's good for you. Hey why don't you just go and play paint-ball.

Let's support out troops by supporting a Republican't administration that won't take care of our wounded, and tries to take away their benefits?

I'm sorry buddy, but we're doing more to support your brothers in arms to bring them home with all of their arms, than any fucking neo-American fascist Republican't who sent them off to war in the first place.

HIP HIP Horray

[Keeriewof]

Personally, I think the word is update, rather than repeal. Or can anyone seriously say the troops are still there to capture saddam, and find WMD?

How is it dishonest when Congress does it's job - or do you believe we are a monarchy?

[Intockatt]

IMHO the people spoke loud and clear last Nov. The majority want the war to end either in so-called victory with the Iraqis controlling their country or to pull the troops out. I would imagine in 08 if we are still there, on the same course then there will be alot more republicans out of work.

[replicajoy]

I am not actually disagreeing with you, but I question why you think it is "in a dishonest way) How come????

As has already been pointed out earlier in this thread, Biden seemed to forget the actual resolution passed a couple of years ago and twisted his words in a dishonest way. Not that I am surprised as it's par for the course for politicians...

[jinnamys]

IMHO the people spoke loud and clear last Nov. The majority want the war to end either in so-called victory with the Iraqis controlling their country or to pull the troops out. I would imagine in 08 if we are still there, on the same course then there will be alot more republicans out of work.

Considering that the Dems already control Congress, I do not think Republicans will lose any more seats except maybe one or two. The Republicans Reps are in districts that favor Republicans. It will not be until after the Census in 2010 that the democrats would want to seek reapportionment of the districts.

However, the Presidential race is still much in the air. A change is needed in Iraq. But complete withdrawal and leaving Iraq the same way the US left Afghanistan, under different circumstances, will create different problems for the US in the ME. And with Dems in the House, I bet Sino-US relations will go south very fast under the leadership of Jim Webb, et al. That will be very bad for the US economy.

[jinnamys]

It seems that the Dems have to do SOMETHING, to register their disapproval with the status quo, and I don't see the parallels to Tonkin as clearly here, as sizeable majorities of the electorate want something done, too.

The only way the resolution is going to work is to forget about the Joint Resolution 114 and focus on how the Iraqi government can continue to gain control of the country. It would take encouragement from the US, diplomatic and military assistance, and a willingness from the Iraqi government to keep Iraq together. And until the question of how is solved, the resolution will not pass as anything except as a protest for going to war in the first place.

If complete military withdrawal is made without any committment by the US, the Democrats will show that they have not learned from Vietnam nor Afghanistan.

[w3QHxwNb]

The only way the resolution is going to work is to forget about the Joint Resolution 114 and focus on how the Iraqi government can continue to gain control of the country. It would take encouragement from the US, diplomatic and military assistance, and a willingness from the Iraqi government to keep Iraq together. And until the question of how is solved, the resolution will not pass as anything except as a protest for going to war in the first place.

If complete military withdrawal is made without any committment by the US, the Democrats will show that they have not learned from Vietnam nor Afghanistan.

Umm... the Democrats are doing what they are doing because they did learn the lessons from Vietnam. Bush and Cheney got us into this mess because they didn't learn from the Vietnam war, hence the invasion.

[Intockatt]

Considering that the Dems already control Congress, I do not think Republicans will lose any more seats except maybe one or two. The Republicans Reps are in districts that favor Republicans. It will not be until after the Census in 2010 that the democrats would want to seek reapportionment of the districts.

However, the Presidential race is still much in the air. A change is needed in Iraq. But complete withdrawal and leaving Iraq the same way the US left Afghanistan, under different circumstances, will create different problems for the US in the ME. And with Dems in the House, I bet Sino-US relations will go south very fast under the leadership of Jim Webb, et al. That will be very bad for the US economy.

What I should have said is that both repubs and dems would be unemployed. Dems may control Congress however it's the Senate that counts, it's pretty evenly split which it should be. However they need to learn to work together, if they can't then in 08 there should be major changes on both sides and thats where " We the people " come into play

Thats true, McCain is too much of a warmonger, Mitt's tarbaby comment will most likely bite him in the butt, Rudy might be a good choice but I'm sure Hillery will try to use the fact that Rudy was married to his cousin against him.
Obama might also be a good choice, Hillery scares me, she just seems to phoney to me

[jinnamys]

Umm... the Democrats are doing what they are doing because they did learn the lessons from Vietnam. Bush and Cheney got us into this mess because they didn't learn from the Vietnam war, hence the invasion.

Actually, the Dems are doing this in order to stay in office, not anything else.

Vietnam lessons have not been learned b/c our involvement goes as far back as WWII. Ho Chi Minh was a valuable asset to the allies while fighting the Japanese. Truman administration listened too much to the French while the administration rebuffed recognizing the independence of Vietnam. Then the debacle to divide Vietnam into two parts also proved fatal historically. This all culminated with combat troops arriving in Saigon to support an ineffective South Vietnamese government. From that point, military, intelligence, and civilian leadership failed to understand the enemy.

So, have the Dems, not to mention the Repubs, learned from history. I think the answer is no, comform. However, if you want to act like the French with your tail between your legs,

[Nurse_sero]

From memory didn't someone do the dirty on a promise to Ho about independence from France ?

[annouhMus]

As has already been pointed out earlier in this thread, Biden seemed to forget the actual resolution passed a couple of years ago and twisted his words in a dishonest way. Not that I am surprised as it's par for the course for politicians...

Please be more explicit.

[illerlytoindy]

Yes, finally, some democrats are actually doing something instead of just talking. Luckily, the President can veto anything they put out, and they dont have the numbers to override. But the quote about what the President was authorized to do is wrong:



That doesnt say anything about WMD or Sadaam.

Then why were Bush&Co talking about WMD so much in the run-up to the war?

Gem