[Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote

Thu Oct 7 12:38:09 EDT 2004

Roger,

What the hell are you talking about?

I don't have the time to go over this point by point, and I don't really care who you vote for, but your history lesson regarding what we should have learned from Vietnam should be chiseled into the Vietnam War Memorial right next to George Santayana's oft quoted "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Let's just do a fast review.

Ho Chi Minh orgaized the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1930 (before WWII) to throw out the French who had been running Vietnam since before our Civil War.

The Japanese invaded Vietnam in 1940 but let the French keep running the place.  Ho Chi Minh was the resistance to the Japanese invasion.  Because of the Japanese invasion of French Vietnam, the United States finally cut off oil to Japan (we were the Saudi Arabia of the world at that time) after declaring ourselves "neutral" in the mid 1930s so we could continue to ship oil to Germany, Italy, and Japan to fuel their war machines--without which they could not have started WWII.  By the time we stopped shipping oil to the original "Axis Powers", they had captured other sources and didn't need us any more.  Our cut off of oil to Japan was bitterly opposed by the oil interests in the US who claimed Roosevelt did it to provoke Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor.

In 1945 we parachuted special forces teams into Vietnam to save Ho Chi Minh's life when he fell ill because he remained the sole viable opposition to Japan in the region.

Later that year, after the defeat of the Japanese, Ho Chi Minh delcared a democratic Vietnam.

The French decided they wanted Vietnam back, and shelled the country, killing thousands of civilians.  We backed French Colonial rule and their puppet emperor, turning our backs on democracy.

We provided the French with money to support the French attempt to re-occupy Vietnam.

In 1950 we sent 35 guys to help the French.  By the end of the year we were footing 1/2 the bill for the French.  General MacArthur told us the French would do the dirty work "I think that 150,000 elite French troops should have settled the issue in about 4 months."  That's more guys than we've got in Iraq right now.  The populations of the 2 countries are roughly the same.  We're not doing any better.

In 1954 Ho Chi Minh threw the French out.

Ho Chi Minh wanted to hold an election, but we wouldn't let him because we knew he would win in a landslide.  Instead, we imported an exile living in the US and said he's going to be the ruler of the new country of South Vietnam.  (Does any of this sound familiar?)

Fighting breaks out in 1956.

In 1961 we start building up our troops in Vietnam.  (Are you counting the years, Roger--not months--YEARS!)

By 1965 we've got 200,000 troops in Vietnam.

By 1966 we've got 400,000 troops in Vietnam.  

By 1968 we've got 540,000 troops in Vietnam--not to mention the 700,000 man South Vietnamese Army.  We've dropped more bombs on little Vietnam than we dropped on Germany.  We're defoliating the jungle with Agent Orange.  We're dropping jellied gasoline on women and children.  We're declaring "free fire zones" in which we kill anything that moves.

Our military guys are telling us "We've got them now!"

THEN CAME TET!

A one time military offensive?  They held off the French, the Japanese, the French again and then us for 38 years up to that point.  The Japanese decided not to try to fight Ho Chi Minh, but to leave that to the French.  Ho Chi Minh took out the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.  (The French declared Dien Bien Phu a victory.) We had 5 times as many guys over there as we have in Iraq now.  We had trained 15 times as many Vietnamese as we've trained Iraqis.

In 1968 just before the election, Nixon says he's got a secret plan to end the war.  It's so secret he can't tell anybody what it is--we've just got to trust him.  The Bushies don't even have a SECRET plan.

In 1969 we start secretly bombing neighboring neutral Cambodia.  Troop strength is still 480,000 in Vietnam.

In 1970 troop strength is still 280,000.

In 1971 troop strength is still 140,000.

In 1972 Nixon is conducting secret negotiations to cut and run, just before the next election.

In 1973 we split--that is 5 years after the Tet Offensive.  Do you really want to send your own sons to Iraq to bring free elections to that land--(Saddam had free elections, too--at our insistence and with our backing) or is this something to be done only by other people's sons and daughters.  Why haven't your sons volunteered?  Why didn't Bush's girls volunteer if this is so important, and so noble?  Why not Cheney's kids?  Or Wolfowitz?  Or Perle?  Or Rik's kids?  Or Brad's?

Because none of you believes a word of what you're saying!

In 1975--45 years after Ho Chi Minh started his independence movement--the North Vietnamese, who had no army left according to your version of history, took apart the South Vietnamese Army and overran the whole country.  

Is this the history you want us to repeat?

But that isn't my real question, Roger.  Here's my real question, here's what I really don't get:

If things keep going the way they've been going you may never again work in your chosen field.  You tell us you may have to sell your beloved boat.  You have spent your retirement money on retraining, and you still don't have a job.  Is this really what you want for this country?  Do you want 4 more years of idiotic foreign policy coupled with idiotic domestic policy?  You could be on some form of welfare for the rest of your life.  What's wrong with you?

I just don't get it.

Bill Effros  

T

To download a free copy of the electronic book "Quote Without Comment"

Click on or copy this address and load it into your web browser:
http://www.quotewithoutcomment.com/qwc.cgim?template=FreeBook

Want to see more quotes?
http://www.QuoteWithoutComment.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roger Pihlaja 
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:57 AM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote

Well, after watching the presidential & vice presidential debates, I wish to pull a flip flop & change my vote to Bush/Cheney.  Let me explain my thinking.

As a draftable male college student in the early 1970's, I watched developments in the Vietnam war & the protest movement here at home with great interest.  John Kerry's presidential candidacy has made me reexamine my own attitudes towards Vietnam.  There were a lot of mistakes made in the way the United States conducted the Vietnam war - presidential micromanagement of war strategy at the tactical level, overly restrictive rules of engagement, "pin-prick" strikes vs. the use of overwhelming force, allowing the enemy to reoccupy captured territory thus causing multiple battles over the same sites, over reliance on airpower in a jungle gorilla war, forced adoption of weapons like the M-16 assault rifle that were not yet ready for prime time, etc.  The US military shot its credibility in the foot by publishing inflated enemy "body counts" that had no basis in reality.  This was also the 1st war that played out on American television screens on the news every evening.  The Tet offensive was really the turning point.  You really have to give the VC a lot credit for the way they pulled off Tet.  Seemingly under our very noses, the VC had constructed extensive underground tunnel complexes within striking distance of strategic targets all over South Vietnam.  They had spent years building these tunnel complexes & stocking them with weapons and ammunition.  We were completely surprised when the VC seemingly came out of nowhere in a massive coordinated assault on something like 23 targets all over South Vietnam.  Yet, within a month, we had recaptured all these targets.  We took something like 4000 casualties, the largest US body count of any battle in the Vietnam war.  But, reliable North Vietnamese casualty data indicates we slaughtered them something like 4:1.  Some VC units were completely wiped out & were never again an effective fighting force.  The Tet offensive was pretty much an all out, one time attempt for North Vietnam.  Tactically, the VC got decisively defeated & it set their ability to wage war back by years.  But, by then, the US military had lost nearly all of its credibility.  No one believed the US military published body counts, or accounts of recaptured cities, and the US casualties were all over the nightly news.  The American public was horrified at the carnage on display on their televisions & it changed everything.  Before Tet, most of the American public believed the Vietnam war was winnable.  After Tet, the antiwar movement grew exponentially, the talk changed to "peace with honor" & getting the troops home.  So, even though the Tet offensive was a decisive tactical defeat for North Vietnam, their all or nothing gamble paid off and eventually resulted in total victory.

The lesson the world took away from Vietnam was the United States is a military superpower with no staying power.  We'll spend a fortune on weapon systems and training to enable our military to efficiently kill from a distance.  Our military has learned from the mistakes made in Vietnam & has fixed most of them.  We go into a conflict with overwhelming force and just simply roll over our enemy.  But, anyone that can reduce a conflict to a bloody, protracted battle of attrition, especially when it is played out on the nightly news, will eventually win over American public opinion & defeat us.

So, what kind of a president will John Kerry make?  With Bush, we have 4 years of actual presidential record to examine.  With Kerry, we must look at his life experiences that have prepared him to be president.  As I examine John Kerry's resume, I see a rich, privileged kid that went off to war in Vietnam in what might be called "patriotic fervor".  In Vietnam, he looked the horrible face of war square in the eyes & it scared & sickened him.  Kerry's record since Vietnam indicates he has turned into an appeaser.  His voting record in the US Senate is especially revealing in this regard.  Just like the United State's reputation in the world, Kerry makes a lot of blustering tough statements about fighting terrorism & finishing what we started in Iraq during the campaign.  But, when the rubber hits the road & the body count starts climbing, Kerry wants to fold.  After listening to the debates and considering Kerry's record, there is no doubt in my mind; that, if Kerry is elected, the US will make a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the side effects.

Some of you may be saying, "So what, we shouldn't have gotten into Iraq in the 1st place!"  Well, that depends upon what you believe the war on terrorism is.  Is it merely a "law enforcement" issue against groups of isolated radical Muslims?  Or, has it become a life & death struggle between ideologies?  I would argue it has become the later.  The presence of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq will go a long way towards stabilizing the situation in the Middle East.  Yes, the war is not going well at the moment; but, to quit now will only confirm the world's view of us.  The damage to our credibility with our allies might be irrepairable.  The terrorists realize how big a defeat it would be to have stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq.  That's why they are fighting so hard.

Originally, I thought a Kerry election would permit other nations to join our coalition in Iraq without losing face.  Since the debate, both France & Germany have been asked that question & both said, "Huh, no way?"  No one will follow Kerry's leadership when his conviction regarding the mission in Iraq is so weak.

I do not expect the Republicans to lose control of congress in this election.  Therefore, Kerry's chances of passing his domestic agenda are slim to none.  So, as much as I dislike the Bush administration's domestic policies, it is a vain hope to think a Kerry administration would have any significant impact.  More likely, nothing would happen.

So what is it that I expect or want from a Federal government?  Well, I guess 1st & foremost I want the country to be as safe as possible from attack.  Terrorists exploding a nuclear weapon or biological weapon in the midst of a large city is a truly frightening proposition.  Bush is clearly a better choice on this issue.

The 2nd thing I want is a stable supply of critical resources.  Keep in mind the United States uses about 50 million barrels of crude oil per day & about 50% of that is imported.  This is a staggering amount of crude oil, a number so big it's hard to come to grips with.  Modern civilization has become so interconnected that interuption of this resource would be simply devastating.  Think about what happened in New York City in July, 2003 during the power outage.  That was from just one day of power interruption to a major metropolitan area!  A few years ago, James Burke did a series of shows that aired on PBS and The Learning Channel.  I think the television series was called "Connections" and he also published a companion book with the same title.  In this series, Mr. Burke documents how interconnected & intrinsically fragile modern civilization has become.  Basically, our civilization has become so specialized and interconnected that we need to start thinking of critical resources like crude oil in the same category as air, water, & food.  Those of you that live in big cities, just remember your entire lifestyle is enabled by a nearly invisible technological life support system that is massively interconnected, intrinsically vulnerable, and totally dependant upon a stable global flow of goods and services.  You should be very nervous.  At the very least, stop saying things like, "No oil for blood!"  Get real people, in modern civilization, oil is blood!  We're in a global competition for scarce resources.  If we lose this competition; then, our population is much too large to be supported without these resources & the consequences will be real bad.  I would argue this is a really good reason to go to war.

Although the outcome is by no means certain with Bush's vision for Iraq, at least there is a chance of a good outcome with this president.  I see little or no chance for a good outcome in Iraq with Kerry.  If we lose the country to a terrorist attack or can't get the resources to sustain our civilization, the domestic issues have to take a lessor priority.  Besides, I don't think Kerry would be able to get his domestic agenda passed anyway because of congress.

That's why I've changed my mind & I'm voting for Bush/Cheney.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium   

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list