Archive for August, 2007

h1

Liberal Media: Destroying The Will Of The People Since 1968

August 14, 2007

Here I go again; back to Vietnam. It’s interesting how many problems in this country started during the Vietnam War. *cough* hippies. What did hippies ever amount to than the liberal democrats that we see today? Anyway, the liberal media has destroyed the American way of life. Some may never admit that, but I think we can all agree that the liberal media has at least destroyed the American way of war. If we can’t all agree now, maybe this entry will change your mind.

Although the media has always played a major role in American wars it wasn’t until the conflict in Vietnam that it turned “anti-American.” Think about it. In all wars previous to the Vietnam War the media had been about continuing American patriotism. Always trying to band the nation together to win. But something changed in the 1960s. The media went from uniting the country, being patriotic, and supporting the military and the battles they fought to reporting that American soldiers were killing babies and innocent civilians, despite the United States being the most humanitarian, law abiding, military in the history of war. The media even went as far as flat-out LYING to the American people about the outcome of battles!

In Vietnam the United States had pretty much contained the insurgency (Viet Cong) in South Vietnam after 1969. In fact, the North Vietnamese had few, if any, successful strategic or operational attacks on U.S. troops. For example, In 1968 the North Vietnamese Army organized a mass attack on South Vietnam called the Tet Offensive. The plan of the North Vietnamese was not only militarily, but diplomatically and psychologically as well. The idea was to invade South Vietnam during a sacred Vietnamese holiday while many South Vietnamese soldiers were on leave. It was supposed to be a surprise invasion by the North Vietnamese simultaneously with an uprising of all of the insurgent Viet Cong in South Vietnam. The diplomatic side was to take advantage of the weak South Vietnamese government and convince them to give in to the Viet Cong and surrender to the North Vietnamese. The psychological side was to destroy the will of the American people, where the war was already so unpopular. To keep things brief, the Tet Offensive orchestrated by North Vietnam was a complete failure and a huge win for South Vietnam and the U.S. military. While the plan was executed perfectly by the enemy, the U.S. was ready for it and fought well in the 136 towns and cities that were attacked simultaneously. The U.S. had less than 1,540 KIA while the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong had up to 40,000 KIA. In addition, the Viet Cong was destroyed and didn’t really exist in South Vietnam. Also, the South Vietnamese government never got discouraged and didn’t give in to the Viet Cong. The North Vietnamese expected all of the South Vietnamese people to join with the insurgency and fight the U.S., but little did North Vietnam realize, the South Vietnamese people didn’t want to. They generally supported the U.S. involvement.

This all sounds like a great victory doesn’t it? Well, militarily it was. But while the battle was victorious, the war was lost. The most powerful weapon was used by North Vietnam…destroying the will of the people. But we ask ourselves: “How was the will of the people destroyed by such a victory?” The answer: The media. THIS IS FACT! No liberal or journalist (what’s the difference?) can argue this. It’s in all the history books. The press lied! They reported U.S. casualties without reporting the North Vietnamese casualties. They reported that there was a huge mass attack on U.S. forces, but reported the outcome as a loss. One journalist involved in this…atrocity is, yep, our very own Walter Cronkite, saying “the war is lost.” *gasp* Those are the exact words Senator Harry Reid used to describe the war in Iraq! tsk tsk tsk…Reid, think of something original.

Can it be that the same thing is happening now? What if the press took the stance that it did during WWII? Would this war in Iraq look more successful than they make it seem? What would happen in Iraq if the American people joined together to fight a more total war? WE NEED PATRIOTISM! Don’t let the media convince you that “the war is lost.”

Advertisements
h1

Iraq vs. Vietnam

August 11, 2007

Lately I have heard the left socialist liberals comparing the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. I pondered this for a while and, being a history major, realized that it is simply not true. In NO significant way is the military effort in Iraq related to the war in Vietnam.

Before I explain the reasons why, we need to have a small history lesson. After World War II, the United States inherited a new responsibility to fight for democracy and capitalism and against communism. It did take a while for the U.S. government to realize this and they found themselves unprepared for the fight in Korea…but I digress. During the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s he sent advisors to Vietnam, as did many other European nations, to see what was going on in French Indochina (Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam). After years of fighting between North Vietnam and France, the French decided that it was not worth the effort to try and contain Vietnam. After careful analysis of the situation, Britain decided that it wasn’t worth the effort either. Unfortunately, the U.S. had the Policy of Containment and wanted to try to stop the spread of communism and so felt that it was important to continue having advisors in Vietnam. When Kennedy took office, he sent more advisors to Vietnam despite having NO allies to help support them. Some people believe that Kennedy had plans to withdraw the advisors, but no one will ever know for sure because Kennedy was assassinated. When Johnson preceded Kennedy, he sent a marine brigade to South Vietnam to help guard an air base and hence the start of American forces in Vietnam. That’s the chronological events leading to the war in Vietnam in a simplified version.

The important thing to note about the brief history is that the U.S. had no allies to help support the war effort in Vietnam. Was Vietnam a mistake? Maybe, but that’s beside the point. The point is that while there was no support for the U.S. military effort in Vietnam there is overwhelming support from U.S. allies for the front in Iraq. Supporters include Australia, Britain, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, and Spain. Although not every supporter physically has troops in Iraq, they still support the movement.

Then the arguments come: “Well if the United States has so much support, then why did the UN deny authorization to invade Iraq?”

Here’s the answer: In the UN there are five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States). No matter what the UN votes on, any one of these five members can veto the proposal. Since one or more of the members of the Security Council vetoed the idea of invading Iraq, naturally the United States took matters into its own hands without the approval of the UN.

Next, during the time of the Vietnam War, there was an active selective service (draft) to fill the military. I do believe a draft would definitely help win the war in Iraq, but at this point in time we have a VOLUNTEER MILITARY! We always hear Speaker Pelosi talk about how “we are sending our boys into harms way” but she NEVER mentions that they are all volunteers. So until the draft is active again, Liberals should stop acting like they are sticking up for our troops in Iraq and saying that they had no choice to be in the military.

Most importantly, the political objectives between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq are vast and relate to the outcome of the two wars. The political objective in Vietnam was simply to defend South Vietnam and stop the spread of communism. It was strictly defensive strategy. The best thing a country can do on the defense is not lose the war. In order to win a war a country must go on the offense, which the U.S. did not. On a side note, the reason the Vietnam War was “lost” was because the North Vietnamese would enter South Vietnam through the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia. Once the U.S. troops attacked the invading North Vietnamese they would escape back to Laos and Cambodia where the U.S. military was ordered NOT to follow. Another contributor to the “loss” in Vietnam is the will of the American people. I would argue that one of the reasons the U.S. has problems in any war is because the American people (mostly the liberals) are too impatient thereby destroying the morale of the troops fighting. In Iraq, the U.S. is fighting a defensive and offensive war. It’s defensive strategy in the sense of maintaining a stable society within Iraq, it’s offensive in finding terrorists and searching for insurgency. Vietnam did have insurgents (Viet Cong) but U.S. forces were also defending against the attacks of the North Vietnamese. In Iraq, the U.S. is not defending one nation from the attacks of another. Also, despite Liberal efforts, the morale of the troops in Iraq is NOT destroyed. They know what they are fighting for, and generally agree with why they are doing it. While some soldiers may or may not agree with certain strategies set forth by officials, they do agree with the overall stances and efforts given.

By and large, In contrast to the war in Vietnam, the war in Iraq CAN be won. Despite the efforts and comments of top Democratic officials, the war is not lost. Hell, if liberal journalists for the New York Times can admit that the war can be won, it must be true. Frankly, I hope and pray that in September General Patraeus is able to give positive reports regarding the troop surge. Maybe then, the American people will see that it can be done.

David Cooper