What are your thoughts on the Vietnam War?
“The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was really a great thing and it was the best way to insure peace, so no congressman or senator should have voted against it… but then LBJ actually took the country to war based on that Resolution, and that was just plain wrong!!!”
To paraphrase, if NFBW thinks he can threaten me to continue that ridiculous 1441 discussion, well, that’s where he’s once again wrong. But…and I am only saying that because I care so much about him…there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing, and in addition I really, really think that upping the voltage would be most beneficial.
It was the disastrous and humiliating result of a lose-lose US foreign/military policy ideology that controlled nearly all political thinking during that era, known as the anti-Communist Cold War domino theory. For example we were propping up Catholic Presidents in the South in a non-Catholic nation.
The primacy of Cold War geopolitics and the inability to mount any counter argument opposing it, is the biggest reason for getting sucked into the quagmire of Vietnam. If any policy maker seriously said at the time that they had no problem with allowing spread of Communusm around the globe it would be hard to take that person serious.
Who could be certain what JFK would have done. LBJ was wrong to escalate it for sure. Nixon did manage to shut it down, most likely because we could not afford it. Ford managed the aftermath of the turbulent anti war Sixties. Carter pardoned draft resisters. He was a better president and human being than given credit. But then much of the lesson learned in the book of horrors of Vietnam, were tossed out the window when Reagan became Commander in Chief. It is difficult to define what happened going from post-Vietnam Carter to huff and puff cold warrior Reagan. Some hope got equilibrium on military matters was knocked of kilter.
The US war policy in Vietnam was a loser from the start for policy makers to think that US military power could thwart Vietnamese nationalism into accepting a divided Vietnam. That anti-nationalist fire had already driven the remnants of French imperialism out. It happened because major dissent and enough free thinking didnt rise until it was too late.
And just when I thought the stupid couldn’t get any worse. Good grief.
And whats with the toothpaste all over the place in here? :dubious:
NFBW, curiosity makes me ask ( And even though this is the pit, please regard this as a serious question and not any attempt at insult), is English a second language for you?
I haven’t done much travel internationally, but I’ve circumbulated the lower 48 here in the US, and I haven’t passed through any regions that use some of the turns of phrase you do…
Haven’t you ever been under a bridge?
Regards,
Shodan
Nope,
I’m High School educated - lived on my own a since I was fifteen - raised three daughters and have become a top project manager for one of the worlds largest construction companies. I have just been asked by the president of my division to take charge of getting a thirty million dollar Waste Water Plant back on track because the plant Owner and Design Engineer want me involved because I just finished resolving a major issue and they want me there to resolve some more.
So my language skills may be a little rough but my content is strong.
As you could see if you would look it is evident that XT has it all wrong.
XT attacked me on a thread where everything was going well when XT comes up calling my comment about Blix untrue. Every post and crybaby thread since perfectly shows that XT has no substance behind his accusations and arguments. If he did he could produce something to back his argument that UNSC members needed to pass some kind of ruling that Iraq was complying with 1441. That is fiction. It is not true.
My statement is correct. XT’s statement is false. I can back mine with the facts. XT cannot back up anything he’s claimed about me
That is clear enough English for me.
If you have any specific examples of problems I have with English I will be happy to correct and learn from any genuine friendly suggestions.
I write better when I slow down but don’t always have that luxury. But I try to stick with facts and quotes by the players whenever possible.
I’d be more than interested in seeing you challenge my facts,
I thought that is part of what discussion forums are supposed to be about.
But thanks for your comments.
No, no issues with your language skills other than grammar mistakes we all make when we’re in a hurry.
One thing that might make points easier for people to assess though is brevity/conciseness.
My concise point is this:
“Dr Biix reported in early March, ten days or so prior to the US invasion of Iraq that Iraq had been cooperating from the beginning, and he also stated that you could call it proactive cooperation for prior number of days. That fact plus the fact that UN Res 1441 required Iraq to cooperate immediately in providing access to sites with several other less prominent demands means that Iraq was in full compliance with his obligations with regard to UN Res 1441.” Being in compliance with 1441 did not mean he was in full compliance with all UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq -ntfldbw.
That is what I have stated and that has been declared false by the mob here that for some weird reason seeks to dispute the truth expressed above and defend GW Bush’s false conclusion that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441.
If you could help make a major point more concise I will appreciate it.
Incomplete advice on my part NFBW, the desirability of conciseness is forum dependent.
Here in the Pit, I think it’s actually frowned upon. Verbosity is encouraged, but only in a primal scream manner. Cites and rational argument aren’t as important as a tongue that can chip cobblestones.
Under current circumstances, I would say you’d have been better served with something along the lines of,
" You fucking cognitive challenged DOUCHENOZZLES!! I provide cites out the ass until I’m in danger of succumbing to paroxysmic hemmorrhoid thrombosis and you still don’t see/understand/comprehend/ have become one with the universe after I’ve dispensed my enlightenment?
Well FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKK YOOOOOOOOUUUUUU!"
Or some variation along that basic theme.
Then go on to write shorter posts when sharing information in the other forums. You can get away with longer posts if you’re a creative writer and riffing extemporaneously, but anything longer than a couple sentences and most people are going to skim over it.
In the real world, people might bust their ass, but on the web, most of us are looking for entertainment/enlightenment in as indolent a manner as possible.
Luck and congratulations on your first pitting (Closing in on 300 posts! XT, you’re doing us proud lol, now if only you could find the plug ; )
So, every critique, slam and jest aimed at you was really directed at XT?
Rarely has XT been pitted with such devastating results. I congratulate you. :dubious:
Funny, since Blix said:
"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.
Nope Blix did not say “cooperating from the beginning”. He said the exact opposite.
Now, go fuck a cactus.
Ok Mace. You cited this. Why don’t you read it.
When I look at your reply, I must wonder if you think that Iraq did not cooperate at all from the beginning? Bush said essentially that Iraq didn’t let the inspectors in. Do you believe him? Not letting the inspectors in would be ‘no cooperation from the beginning’… I’ll will grant you that. But Iraq did cooperate from the beginning. And Blix said he did. In January 2003 and he confirmed it in February. On the 14th.
Show me in your Blix quote where Blix said the exact opposite of Iraq cooperated from the beginning. Show me Mace. This is about my posting and here you show up with a complete failure of a cohesive thought and nothing near being a fact.
The exact opposite would be Blix saying ‘Iraq has not cooperated from the beginning’ would it not?
Did Blix say that?
I have quoted Blix saying Iraq cooperated many times in many previous posts. Don’t you read those? What do you read? Only the versions put out by the Bush Library?
Here’s what Blix said on February 14, 2003 to the UNSC.
Most intelligent people would realize that Blix was talking about two areas of cooperation. Look at your cite John Mace. It tells you that Blix is talking about one area of cooperation. ‘proactive cooperation on old unresolved issues’ …That does not negate that plenty of cites of Iraq’s cooperation were in reports from the very beginning. Even Colin Powell as Sec of State on ABC This Week with SnuffleLuffigas around the first of the New Year 2003, said Iraq was cooperating.
Most everyone knew that Iraq was cooperating. Look at your cite. And Again where is the opposite… where is ‘no cooperation from the beginning’ Or even little? Think man. Think. If the **only cooperation **had just started 3-4 months in, what would Blix’s inspectors have been doing all those three months. Bushies try to justify their beloved idiots war on this same premise by citing Blix. But Blix is saying "resolving some long-standing open issues’… Old stuff John Mace. Like what and how much was destroyed in 1991 and 1992.
Here is your reply to what I wrote above:
You take one quote of many. So with the same hairbrained logic such as Bushies use… you have decided to argue against me that there was no or little cooperation at all from Iraq and by-dammit… Hans Blix says so right there.
Wow!!! There was the opposite of cooperation from the beginning.. and that must be ‘none’ right? What else is there.
You can’t cite what Blix said prior to that about cooperation on process which was 'access to sites.
Read what you cited. If the GW Bush propagandists at the Bush Library were reading this they would be kissing you right now.
“the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues”
Now ask yourself what ‘resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues’ might mean. I realize that half-brained people cannot understand a two part thought, but for everybody else’s sake here goes. It of course has already been explained.
Answer me this: Is it a requirement that whenever Blix spoke of the one remaining area of cooperation that was being fulfilled three to four months into the 1441 round of inspections must he repeat every previous statement about all the cooperation that was received from the beginning?
It that a John Mace rule for UN Weapons Inspectors?
I’d bet that most members on the UNSC could remember in March what Blix said in January about all the cooperation he was getting from the beginning.
But in case some out there cannot remember what was written a few minutes earlier I post what Blix said again. On February 14, 2003.
Bushies don’t like to cite those Blix words either John. So don’t feel alone.
Will you ever bring facts and reason to a discussion with me?
Nope.
You said:
“That fact plus the fact that UN Res 1441 required Iraq to cooperate immediately in providing access to sites with several other less prominent demands means that Iraq was in full compliance with his obligations with regard to UN Res 1441.”
Emphasis added.
Bilx says:
“these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.”
Emphasis also added.
There is no other context needed. Blix explicitly states Iraq did not provide “immediate cooperation”, and yet you contradict what Blix said and claim the opposite of what he said as a fact. Sorry, bub, but you are not entitled to make up facts.
Now, there is a cactus out there somewhere waiting to be fucked. Get to it!
I’m rather indifferent to the discussion on the timeline of pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom events, but I daresay it is clearly evident in addition to thoroughly reinforced through his numerous contributions that NotFooled is a doof.
I will not be citing.
Wow. This thread is like one great big game of “opposite day” at primary school. Well, just NFBW’s posts are like that.
Here we can see how incompetent and lost John Mace is:
Notice John cannot respond to the facts outlined in my previous post, so he tries another ignorant and erroneous angle:
Now Mace has topped ignorance and failure to comprehend English with this:
First I must reiterate that Blix was talking about ‘immediate’ cooperation with regard to ‘resolving old outstanding issues’… not cooperation overall and specifically not the real cooperation of providing full access and setting up the inspection infrastructure. That came from the beginning. Blix said that often throughout the whole process.
John Mace could not deny the truth of what I have posted. My posting integrity is intact.
Mace’s posting is based upon falsehood and error and piss poor thinking perhaps due to thinking about fucking cacti too much. Who knows?.
I can do more than fling insults for entertainment.
Now here’s why Mace’s second attempt at misleading everybody about my posting is so stupid and not close to being connected to any kind of reality based thinking"
I did write this factual statement as Mace points out with his ignorant emphasis added, “That fact plus the fact that UN Res 1441 required Iraq to cooperate immediately in providing access to sites with several other less prominent demands means that Iraq was in full compliance with his obligations with regard to UN Res 1441.”
The ‘that fact’ that I was pointing to but John Mace, like every Bush defender does, did not emphasize what ‘that fact’ was in this stupid and misleading reply.
I wrote, that Blix had, “stated that you could call it proactive cooperation” for a prior number of days. . I base the number of days at about 35 because Blix said this about proactive cooperation on old outstanding unresolved issues:
So John Mace has once again made of fool of himself and helps my cause at defending my posting, because the statement by me that Mace is challenging here is still absolutely correct.
Iraq was required to achieve ‘immediate’ cooperation within no set deadline. And Mace has reiterated that Blix declared that Iraq had on one aspect of cooperation Iraq did not begin to show signs of it until the end of January 2003. And Blix said he could not call it immediate but that it was the UNSC members call.
So he passed the word that Iraq had achieved proactive cooperation at some point at least a month before Bush started the invasion, up to the UNSC and the majority of them accepted that the proactive cooperation was immediate and therefore Iraq was not in violation of UNSC Res 1441. Iraq was not in violation fo UN Res 1441 in the eyes of Blix or with the majority of UNSC members.
That is still a fact and Mace will still be dreaming about cactus fucking for a long time to come.
But posting accurate and well thought out and well documented posts will not be part of the John Mace world.
Nope. You can post as many walls of text as you like, and it still isn’t going to change “not immediate” into “immediate”.