The PC War Against the CP....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The problem is, we have forgotten how to fight. One could argue, the pain of Vietnam broke our will to fight, or maybe it was caused by the complacent attitudes of the "Me" Generation, but indeed, we have lost the will. It's an amazing testament to the job of our veterans, that we have survived as a nation this long, without having the will to fight. Our lack of resolve would have been exploited by the enemies of a lesser nation.

The more I listen to the left, the more I am convinced it is hopeless, we are destined to fall as a nation, and it's just a matter of time. Too many people think we should fight a Politically Correct war, with the Corrupted Politically. Whether is was Socialist propaganda that brought them to this view, or being spoiled for generations, by the riches of past US military victories, or perhaps it is simply an inability to comprehend the outside world as we know it? I don't have the answer, but the problem is identified.

I don't let the current administration off the hook at all, they are the most guilty of attempting to wage a "politically correct war" on the Islamofascists. Painstakingly enduring loss of American life, to strategically pinpoint the enemy hiding amongst the civilians... In real war, this strategy has always been defeated with carpet bombing, incineration of cities, and a total disregard for collateral damage. In WWII, the Liberal Icon, FDR, killed millions of innocent civilians in Germany and Japan, before Truman ever dropped the nukes. But... we are in a Politically Correct war, we are more "enlightened" now, and have a humanitarian need to insure no innocent civilians are harmed in war. This makes us no better than "them", and so we engage in the futile efforts to wage war in a humane and PC manner.

In a real war, you wouldn't have to worry about the Corrupted Politically at Gitmo, they would all be dead. We wouldn't see pictures of Abu Grahb detainees in pyramids, they would be dead as well. We wouldn't have the CNN news crews showing us sobbing mothers who lost their child in yet another stray smart-bomb from the US, the whole town would be an inferno, and CNN would be filming it from Turkey, if we allowed them to do that much. But... we are fighting a Politically Correct war with the Corrupted Politically, and we have to infer our Constitutional rights to those detained, and we have to put our most courageous foreign battlefield soldiers on trial for murder in US courts.... it's the PC thing to do!

We allow debate in this country, over whether or not we should sit down at a table and negotiate with our enemies. After all, it's politically correct to be peace-loving, and we should all be big enough to set aside our differences and live in harmony... Yet we are using the PC mindset, to apply PC logic and virtue on people who are CP. They will take every advantage of our profound stupidity and lack of understanding, and as long as we want to wage a "politically correct" war, they will kick our asses. They are Corrupted Politically. They have no intention of negotiating in good faith with Infidels and Jews, but they will allow you to assume they might. Diplomacy is used as a tool of strength for them, it enables them to gain credibility and time to rebuild and expand. And really... what IS supposed to be negotiated? They seek to rid the world of anyone other than their own kind. I don't know of a clearer way to say it. Unless we are all willing to crawl in a hole and die, there is nothing we have to offer them in negotiation.

Do you believe, if the Islamofascist had US military capabilities, they would still be worrying about 'changing the hearts and minds' of western culture? Would they be worried about panties on the heads of American detainees... or would they more likely be worried whether the headless corpses, hung like upside-down crosses, formed good compositional balance for the videos? We are fighting people who are not politically correct, they are corrupted.

Meanwhile, we continue to debate the NSA wiretaps program, as if our nation has never, ever, made such an encroachment on our civil liberty. When our fledgling government was broke, and couldn't pay the troops, a bunch of them deserted and demanded their pay, the dispute was resolved, and the men agreed to return to their units, and were promptly ordered shot, by George Washington... not George Bush. Habeas Corpus is one of the most basic foundations of law in America, and President Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, which was as unpopular as the war in Iraq. FDR interned Japanese-Americans, and countless other Presidents have ordered surveillance on countless individuals and enemies of the state, pursuant to their Constitutional obligation and authority to do so. But with PC run amuck, we seem to have forgotten all about history, we seem to have come to some profound enlightenment, that we can wage a Politically Correct War Against the Corrupted Politically.

[Cypress]

I nodded off in the middle of the second paragraph.

Nice try though.

[Sir Evil]

I nodded off in the middle of the second paragraph.

Nice try though.

Tis' no big surprise, most kiddies do shortly after the story starts......

[Gaffer]

Excellent post Dixie. my thoughts exactly. Looks like the US has peaked out and starting down hill from here. The libs will be thrilled until they realize they are going to lose everything along with the rest of us. But then it will be too late.

[evince]

I love the way these bone heads bend history to suit their ideas.

[Sir Evil]

I love the way these bone heads bend history to suit their ideas.

I got a nice bone head for ya!......:cof1:

[evince]

that bent shriveled little thing????

you should have put that little fish back in the pond to grow for a few more years.

[Sir Evil]

that bent shriveled little thing????

you should have put that little fish back in the pond to grow for a few more years.


:clink: Not too bad, yer learning!

[evince]

you are one flame fest lover arent you?

[Sir Evil]

you are one flame fest lover arent you?

Just in the name of fun! I always look to the reactions and for the most part they are comical. I can be serious as well but ya just gotta have some fun now and again!

[Gaffer]

I love the way these bone heads bend history to suit their ideas.

And the history was bent how?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Our founders would spit on the man who suggested such a ridiculous and unnecassary war. You, my friend, are an Anti-American scumbag. It's not that we've lost our "stomach" to fight. To compare the Vietnam and Iraq wars to any more reasonable war in history is ludicrous. I'd compare it more the sacking of the Phillipines - an act of imperialism.

[Sir Evil]

Our founders would spit on the man who suggested such a ridiculous and unnecassary war. You, my friend, are an Anti-American scumbag. It's not that we've lost our "stomach" to fight. To compare the Vietnam and Iraq wars to any more reasonable war in history is ludicrous. I'd compare it more the sacking of the Phillipines - an act of imperialism.

Brilliant post assmark, was that your opinion? Hmmm, I guess you are entitled just like everyone else eh?......:rolleyes:

[Sir Evil]

Oh yeah buttmark, hows about explaining that imperialism remark? I would love to hear how you see it that way...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's an insult to the dead WWII veterans to say this war is just the same as WWII.

[Annie]

It's an insult to the dead WWII veterans to say this war is just the same as WWII.

Iraq? Afghanistan? War on Terror? I'm confused about which war you are referring to.

[Sir Evil]

It's an insult to the dead WWII veterans to say this war is just the same as WWII.

Yeah Imperial thought there!

[Sir Evil]

Iraq? Afghanistan? War on Terror? I'm confused about which war you are referring to.

Or which one was the act of imperialism?

[Annie]

Or which one was the act of imperialism?

Well actually, I would say Vietnam more fit that bill, than Iraq. :cof1:

[Sir Evil]

Well actually, I would say Vietnam more fit that bill, than Iraq. :cof1:

LOL, well an answer either way would be cool but they can be difficult to get around here sometimes.....


Wasssssssup Runyon? :cof1:

[maineman]

for Dixie to claim that even in "real wars" that Americans acted as barbarians is really insulting to generations of GI's who fought by the rules....

but being a chickenhawk who craftily avoided serving his country, Dixie feels free to wax nostalgic about the good old days he never had the courage to participate in...but he can blather on like that in America because he IS free here..and that freedom was ensured by those generations of GIs that fought and died while Dixie hid.

[Sir Evil]

and that freedom was ensured by those generations of GIs that fought and died while Dixie hid.

Well on that note they have secured the freedom of anti-war demonstrators as well.

[Sir Evil]

Oh well, the buttmark signed off avoiding the question....Guess another time..

[Gaffer]

Here's a bit of history the libs won't like but its a fact. There are many many books on it, find one.

The libs love comparing iraq to vietnam. Except for the casualties you can compare it and find some similarities. But the important factor comes at the end. When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military. Then over the next two years our wonderful democratic congress took away all the funding and support to south Vietnam so they had literally no equipmnet or ammo to fight with. At the proper time the NVA began their assault on the south. With no ammo or equipment they could not defend against the north and collapsed. A complete demcrat victory. There were actually two wars, the first won by the US military the second lost by the US congress.

Our democratic congress sold the south Vietnamese down the tubes and they want to do it again in iraq.

[Sir Evil]

I think all can say they have heard this before, the comparison thing that is.
But to be called a scumbag for an opposing view is so damn typical of the kind of attitude this fartknocker has..... what a shame, another perfectly destroyed mind..:cof1:

[maineman]

nice spin....

[Damocles]

H2O is actually a pretty sharp kid. Give him a chance, I'm sure he has a reason behind his assertion.

[maineman]

I think all can say they have heard this before, the comparison thing that is.
But to be called a scumbag for an opposing view is so damn typical of the kind of attitude this fartknocker has..... what a shame, another perfectly destroyed mind..:cof1:

who is the fartknocker or whom you speak?

[Annie]

Here's a bit of history the libs won't like but its a fact. There are many many books on it, find one.

The libs love comparing iraq to vietnam. Except for the casualties you can compare it and find some similarities. But the important factor comes at the end. When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military. Then over the next two years our wonderful democratic congress took away all the funding and support to south Vietnam so they had literally no equipmnet or ammo to fight with. At the proper time the NVA began their assault on the south. With no ammo or equipment they could not defend against the north and collapsed. A complete demcrat victory. There were actually two wars, the first won by the US military the second lost by the US congress.

Our democratic congress sold the south Vietnamese down the tubes and they want to do it again in iraq.

Actually there's no comparison with casualties in general, other than in wars soldiers and civilians die. But in Iraq, far fewer of either.

[Sir Evil]

who is the fartknocker or whom you speak?

That was shot at watermark!

[Annie]

LOL, well an answer either way would be cool but they can be difficult to get around here sometimes.....


Wasssssssup Runyon? :cof1:

Been a busy, busy weekend! Lots of preps and little time. The whole house is painted inside, so it's quite nice. Still lots to put away, but I guess that will be mostly next weekend.

Yesterday I pulled together the upstairs.

[Sir Evil]

H2O is actually a pretty sharp kid. Give him a chance, I'm sure he has a reason behind his assertion.

Ima waiting sir, just love to jump on the jumpers sometimes is all. You know, the ones that instantly wanna hate ya for a different opinion????

[Sir Evil]

Been a busy, busy weekend! Lots of preps and little time. The whole house is painted inside, so it's quite nice. Still lots to put away, but I guess that will be mostly next weekend.

Yesterday I pulled together the upstairs.

And I can tell you are mutli tasking the boards as well!:cof1:

Glad to hear ya are making some headway...:)

[Gaffer]

for Dixie to claim that even in "real wars" that Americans acted as barbarians is really insulting to generations of GI's who fought by the rules....

but being a chickenhawk who craftily avoided serving his country, Dixie feels free to wax nostalgic about the good old days he never had the courage to participate in...but he can blather on like that in America because he IS free here..and that freedom was ensured by those generations of GIs that fought and died while Dixie hid.

War is barbaric. That's the problem Dixie was addressing. If we are not ready to fight it that way then we need to not do anything and just let them run over us.The rules of today were made after WW2 . And they only apply to our side. Which means we tie our own hands and can't properly fight the war. Its a silly concept and will eventually cause the collapse of this country.

Exactly what combat did you see mr big bad mInUteman?

[Annie]

The only part I would go along with MM on, is that war should be declared; but that is more the fault of Congress than the Executive.

[Gaffer]

The only part I would go along with MM on, is that war should be declared; but that is more the fault of Congress than the Executive.

True. But even a republican dominated congress has no balls. Declaring war might hurt someones feelings.

[Sir Evil]

True. But even a republican dominated congress has no balls. Declaring war might hurt someones feelings.

Commendable sir, without making that statement they may of mistaken ya for a neocon! :cof1:

[Annie]

Actually, I think once the UN came into existance, the Legislators found it easier to just give the president the ability to wage war on his own, they would pass the funding.

Then if and when things go South, it's not their fault. If things go well, they authorized the spending, right? It's worked ever since Korea.

[Damocles]

True. But even a republican dominated congress has no balls. Declaring war might hurt someones feelings.
It gives them an out and a way to blame war on the Executive only... That way the wimpiest can vote for it and say things like, "Well, I thought he would use it as a threat, not actually do it!" or some other silly wimp-assed waffle.

It is also considerably against the document that limits their power...

[Damocles]

Actually, I think once the UN came into existance, the Legislators found it easier to just give the president the ability to wage war on his own, they would pass the funding.

Then if and when things go South, it's not their fault. If things go well, they authorized the spending, right? It's worked ever since Korea.
It has failed ever since Korea.

[Gaffer]

Commendable sir, without making that statement they may of mistaken ya for a neocon! :cof1:

At times I go beyond neocon. Do they have a name for right of neocon?

[Annie]

It has failed ever since Korea.

True, for the country. But that is not what most Congressmen seem to care about. It's wrong. If they insisted on excercising their powers, we probably would not have ended up with Vietnam, or they would have prosecuted it to the finish.

Clinton should not have been able to dither with missiles and small efforts, same with Reagan.

The whole business is way wrong, but I doubt it will change.

[Gaffer]

It has failed ever since Korea.

Korea was the first of many failures. Both by the UN and by congress.

[Annie]

At times I go beyond neocon. Do they have a name for right of neocon?

Neocons are not that 'conservative.' I think that's the word you are going for. I might tend more towards neo-con, with libertarian tendencies on the domestic side, sans homeland security figured in.

[Sir Evil]

At times I go beyond neocon. Do they have a name for right of neocon?

Yes sir, and I already placed dibs on it if ya look under me username! :chesh:

[Gaffer]

Yes sir, and I already placed dibs on it if ya look under me username! :chesh:

Ok you get credit for that one. But there's two of us.:clink:

[Sir Evil]

Holy moly, do I see the Trinity I know reading this thread? Superb! Sorry I did'nt forward the invite to you as well, did'nt thin ya had the time anymore!
;)

[Sir Evil]

Ok you get credit for that one. But there's two of us.:clink:

:clink:

LOL, we will be hated for this one!......:cof1:

[Gaffer]

Holy moly, do I see the Trinity I know reading this thread? Superb! Sorry I did'nt forward the invite to you as well, did'nt thin ya had the time anymore!
;)

Another meglocon to join our party.

[Sir Evil]

Another meglocon to join our party.

Very good! most excellent to see that she has joined.......:thup:

[Trinity]

Holy moly, do I see the Trinity I know reading this thread? Superb! Sorry I did'nt forward the invite to you as well, did'nt thin ya had the time anymore!
;)


Yep that be me, I see a 4 man tag team event in the works!

[Annie]

Yep that be me, I see a 4 man tag team event in the works!

Maybe better than that. The numbers on the other side are overwhelming! :cof1:

[Sir Evil]

Yep that be me, I see a 4 man tag team event in the works!

Now, now, would we do something like that?:cof1:

Nah, the most are seeming pretty good around here, it's been fun, well from my vantage point anyway.

[Annie]

Now, now, would we do something like that?:cof1:

Nah, the most are seeming pretty good around here, it's been fun, well from my vantage point anyway.

Says he who loves to stir... :p

[Sir Evil]

Damn, do I know how to get a thread rocking or what?

But now I have to declare myself.........:sexy:

[Annie]

Oh man!!!!

[Sir Evil]

Says he who loves to stir... :p

yeah but I do it well......:clink:

[Trinity]

I would love to jump in this thread however I do need to get to bed.........I will say though the biggest problem with most libs is, they do not use critical thinking.

ok here I go again................. critical thinking

Definition: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion.

Yeah I know I'm a B#$@& but i enjoy that position.

[Sir Evil]

Oh man!!!!

Yeah, that's what eveyone else thinks when I have to go and make those claims... What can I say, I'm a legend in my own mind.... :cof1:

[Annie]

yeah but I do it well......:clink:

Tis true. A one man flaming crew! It's sometimes fun just to watch.

[Gaffer]

There will be more, I am just now starting to get the word out.

[Damocles]

It's starting to even up... I'm looking forward to seeing what it will be like with an almost even board. There is still a Liberal and Libertarian numbers superiority, but it will still be interesting to see how this all comes out...

We are all addicts to the sport of messageboarding..

:D

[Sir Evil]

I would love to jump in this thread however I do need to get to bed.........I will say though the biggest problem with most libs is, they do not use critical thinking.

ok here I go again................. critical thinking

Definition: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion.

Yeah I know I'm a B#$@& but i enjoy that position.

:eek:

Holy toledo Trinity, where did that come from? totally agree though!

[Annie]

Between Gaffer and Damo, I think this will get more and more interesting. Thanks guys!

[Gaffer]

Tis true. A one man flaming crew! It's sometimes fun just to watch.

we have about six that can flame with the best of them and we do it with facts, not talking points and name calling. Well, Evil does some name calling, and I have been known to rename posters to something more appropriate.

[Damocles]

Between Gaffer and Damo, I think this will get more and more interesting. Thanks guys!
I just hope y'all enjoy the board. I'm having fun watching it grow.

[Gaffer]

:eek:

Holy toledo Trinity, where did that come from? totally agree though!

She's in her second year of college and studying psycology. She'll be picking liberal brains apart soon.

[Damocles]

She's studying Psychology and her Professors haven't forcibly removed all Conservative thought with prods and tongs? What college is she going to?!! They have been derelict in their duty!

[Sir Evil]

we have about six that can flame with the best of them and we do it with facts, not talking points and name calling. Well, Evil does some name calling, and I have been known to rename posters to something more appropriate.

Who meeeeee? LOL, I just like to have a little fun... Ya have to appreciate the element of the flame, catch em' off guard and they are pissed, throw a bit humor into it, and they start to get creative, it works for me anyway...:cof1:

[Sir Evil]

I just hope y'all enjoy the board. I'm having fun watching it grow.

That we do sir, it's a fun place to be!

[Sir Evil]

She's in her second year of college and studying psycology. She'll be picking liberal brains apart soon.

Good for her, I'm glad to hear that as I know she is a happier camper these days!

[Gaffer]

I just hope y'all enjoy the board. I'm having fun watching it grow.

I sure am. I know the others that I have contacted will too. :cof1:

[Gaffer]

She's studying Psychology and her Professors haven't forcibly removed all Conservative thought with prods and tongs? What college is she going to?!! They have been derelict in their duty!

Oh she definately has her run ins with the professors. You know how out spoken she is just from her posts on the other boards. She hits them with facts in everything she does and they can't argue. When the other students are bowing down to the prof's she's flipping them the bird. I just can't figure out where such an independent attitude came from.

[Gaffer]

Good for her, I'm glad to hear that as I know she is a happier camper these days!

She is sooooo happy now. The change is fantastic. And I got a great son-in-law along with it.

Now if I could just become incrdibly wealthy.

Money won't buy happiness but it will buy everything that makes me happy.

[Sir Evil]

She is sooooo happy now. The change is fantastic. And I got a great son-in-law along with it.

Now if I could just become incrdibly wealthy.

Money won't buy happiness but it will buy everything that makes me happy.

LOL, that money sure has a mysterious way!

[Care4all]

War is barbaric. That's the problem Dixie was addressing. If we are not ready to fight it that way then we need to not do anything and just let them run over us.The rules of today were made after WW2 . And they only apply to our side. Which means we tie our own hands and can't properly fight the war. Its a silly concept and will eventually cause the collapse of this country.

Exactly what combat did you see mr big bad mInUteman?

the cost of WARS is what has made every great empire that existed collapse... :( not the so called ''tied'' measures to fight them....
care

[maineman]

War is barbaric. That's the problem Dixie was addressing. If we are not ready to fight it that way then we need to not do anything and just let them run over us.The rules of today were made after WW2 . And they only apply to our side. Which means we tie our own hands and can't properly fight the war. Its a silly concept and will eventually cause the collapse of this country.

Exactly what combat did you see mr big bad mInUteman?

no...what Dixie is saying is that in earlier wars, Americans would have killed all the POWs now in Gitmo... that we would have slaughtered all the prisoners in Abu Ghraib - even though, in THIS war, we ended up letting the majority of them go because they had not done anything wrong. That thinking is wrong, it's barbaric, and it is an insult to those who served.

The only combat I ever "saw" up close and personal was two years as an unarmed UN Observer and Crisis Mediator in Lebanon in 1981-82. Why do you ask? Do you somehow think that a life spent as a commissioned naval officer is no more honorable than one spent purposely avoiding military service and then sitting back and calling those who served cowards?

[Gaffer]

no...what Dixie is saying is that in earlier wars, Americans would have killed all the POWs now in Gitmo... that we would have slaughtered all the prisoners in Abu Ghraib - even though, in THIS war, we ended up letting the majority of them go because they had not done anything wrong. That thinking is wrong, it's barbaric, and it is an insult to those who served.

The only combat I ever "saw" up close and personal was two years as an unarmed UN Observer and Crisis Mediator in Lebanon in 1981-82. Why do you ask? Do you somehow think that a life spent as a commissioned naval officer is no more honorable than one spent purposely avoiding military service and then sitting back and calling those who served cowards?

The prisoners in Gitmo and other places are there more for information purposes than humanitarian purposes. Though once there they are watched over by the bleeding hearts who want to give them constitutional rights even tho they are not Americans. In past wars just due to how they are dressed and acting they would not have survived to make it back to the prison camps. They release certain prisoners who promise not to fight any more and the same ones are captured or killed in actions against our troops. we need a little more barbarism in our dealings with these fools.

You are real quick to jump on Dxie and anyone else that doesn't think like you as to their military service or lack of and call them cowards that run from military service when you know nothing about them. There are a lot of good patriotic peole out there that have never served in the military. If you don't like what he has to say then counter it with facts or your opinion of why you think he's wrong. Not go after his lack of military experience. And I never once saw a post where Dixie called anyone that served a coward.

your the one bringing up peoples lack of service like its a special deal that you have the only right to talk about military actions and that those who didn't serve have no right to do so. Why don't you try explaining why some idea can't work instead of degrading someones lack of service. You have the experience use it.

[Sir Evil]

your the one bringing up peoples lack of service like its a special deal that you have the only right to talk about military actions and that those who didn't serve have no right to do so. Why don't you try explaining why some idea can't work instead of degrading someones lack of service. You have the experience use it.

I'll credit him with one thing though Gaff, he will at least make a point with his own thought's unlike many others here. I have read that he has been called out on this before but just the same he has served so credit given where credit due, but I do believe everyone should be able to express opinions regardless.

[maineman]

The prisoners in Gitmo and other places are there more for information purposes than humanitarian purposes. Though once there they are watched over by the bleeding hearts who want to give them constitutional rights even tho they are not Americans. In past wars just due to how they are dressed and acting they would not have survived to make it back to the prison camps. They release certain prisoners who promise not to fight any more and the same ones are captured or killed in actions against our troops. we need a little more barbarism in our dealings with these fools.

If you read Dixie's opening post, his assertion is, that in former wars, American soldiers would have KILLED ALL the people in AbuGhriab and in Gitmo. That is insulting to veterans.


You are real quick to jump on Dxie and anyone else that doesn't think like you as to their military service or lack of and call them cowards that run from military service when you know nothing about them. There are a lot of good patriotic peole out there that have never served in the military. If you don't like what he has to say then counter it with facts or your opinion of why you think he's wrong. Not go after his lack of military experience. And I never once saw a post where Dixie called anyone that served a coward.

I asssume by those italicized comments above that you were not a regular on fullpolitics.com or its predecessor politics.com. From those sites, I know a lot about Dixie and I have in fact been called a coward by Dixie.... so I would suggest you STFU if you don't know what you're talking about.

your the one bringing up peoples lack of service like its a special deal that you have the only right to talk about military actions and that those who didn't serve have no right to do so. Why don't you try explaining why some idea can't work instead of degrading someones lack of service. You have the experience use it.

again...I assume you don't know Dixie... I am not saying that anyone's LACK of service denies them the right to talk about military actions. I am saying that it is particularly insulting for Dixie to claim that in the good old days, US military personnel would have just killed all out POWs and why are we being such pansies today when 1) that is incorrect, and 2) he has no right whatsoever to besmirch veterans who served by suggesting such barbarism on their part.

[Care4all]

The prisoners in Gitmo and other places are there more for information purposes than humanitarian purposes. Though once there they are watched over by the bleeding hearts who want to give them constitutional rights even tho they are not Americans. In past wars just due to how they are dressed and acting they would not have survived to make it back to the prison camps. They release certain prisoners who promise not to fight any more and the same ones are captured or killed in actions against our troops. we need a little more barbarism in our dealings with these fools.

You are real quick to jump on Dxie and anyone else that doesn't think like you as to their military service or lack of and call them cowards that run from military service when you know nothing about them. There are a lot of good patriotic peole out there that have never served in the military. If you don't like what he has to say then counter it with facts or your opinion of why you think he's wrong. Not go after his lack of military experience. And I never once saw a post where Dixie called anyone that served a coward.

your the one bringing up peoples lack of service like its a special deal that you have the only right to talk about military actions and that those who didn't serve have no right to do so. Why don't you try explaining why some idea can't work instead of degrading someones lack of service. You have the experience use it.

but gaffer, IF WE are fighting for ''rights'' that we feel we deserve and need to ''protect'' for ourselves thus ''war'' with others over them, and have also come to expect these rights for ourselves as humans... could we NOT expect and offer these same ''rights'' as Americans, to ALL others, regardless of their obedience to it or not? Do we believe in the Bill of Rights because it is ONLY meant for us?

it is hypocritical to our own constitution imo, to hold a detainee indefinately, without a hearing and without charging them, and without giving them the right to defend themselves before a jury...

the writ of habeas corpus is so important to freedom and justice, that it is THE ONLY RIGHT that is mentioned in our great constitution TWICE, as a protection.

it was and is also hypocritical to approve of ''torture'' when we have signed an agreement that says that we won't do it and we don't want it done to us BECAUSE it is INHUMANE. treaties are constitutionally binding, not there to reinterpret and rewrite the rules midstream ...with no other parties involved, which is what has happened, again, imo.

care

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it is hypocritical to our own constitution imo, to hold a detainee indefinately, without a hearing and without charging them, and without giving them the right to defend themselves before a jury...

the writ of habeas corpus is so important to freedom and justice, that it is THE ONLY RIGHT that is mentioned in our great constitution TWICE, as a protection.


Too bad you weren't around during the Civil War to protest Abe Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

it was and is also hypocritical to approve of ''torture'' when we have signed an agreement that says that we won't do it and we don't want it done to us BECAUSE it is INHUMANE.

Too bad you weren't around to protest FDR's inceneration of Dresden or Truman's obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thanks for brilliantly demonstrating the point of this thread!

[Care4all]

it is hypocritical to our own constitution imo, to hold a detainee indefinately, without a hearing and without charging them, and without giving them the right to defend themselves before a jury...

the writ of habeas corpus is so important to freedom and justice, that it is THE ONLY RIGHT that is mentioned in our great constitution TWICE, as a protection.


Too bad you weren't around during the Civil War to protest Abe Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

it was and is also hypocritical to approve of ''torture'' when we have signed an agreement that says that we won't do it and we don't want it done to us BECAUSE it is INHUMANE.

Too bad you weren't around to protest FDR's inceneration of Dresden or Truman's obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thanks for brilliantly demonstrating the point of this thread!

just because someone has jumped over the bridge's side before does not mean you should do it also. two wrongs DO NOT make it right.

you are suppose to learn from history and mistakes and change for the BETTER, not use mistakes to JUSTIFY making them again!

what the heck were YOU TAUGHT when you were growing up for goodness sakes dixie?

care

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

just because someone has jumped over the bridge's side before does not mean you should do it also. two wrongs DO NOT make it right.

you are suppose to learn from history and mistakes and change for the BETTER, not use mistakes to JUSTIFY making them again!

what the heck were YOU TAUGHT when you were growing up for goodness sakes dixie?

care

Oh yes... "Two wrongs don't make a right!" ...."Turn the other cheek!" ..."We are better than that!" ...."We have become more civilized!" ..."Learn from your mistakes!" ...blah blah blah....

More Politically Correct bullshit to throw out there, whilst discussing the proper strategy for WINNING a WAR! Is it any wonder you people can't be taken seriously on matters of national security? Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date. If this were ANY other war in our history, that would be the case. But since we live in a PC society, and our president is up to his nuts in political correctness as well, we have to put up with idiots like you, telling us how to get our asses handed to us in war. It's incredible!

[maineman]

what a flatulent gadfly!

[Cypress]

Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date.

Nicely done.

However, No american president has ever had the policy to murder and incinerate prisoners or detainees.

[maineman]

the fertilizer bit is certainly more appropriate for the Third Reich than for the United States..... but it's Dixie....does anyone expect intellectual honesty or intellectual ANYTHING from him?

[Cypress]

Dixie, I remember when the polls started going south for Bush on the abu ghraib scandal, you managed to feign some crocodile tears and claim you were against sexual abuse of detainees.

Yet, here you say they should be incinerated and turned into fertizler.

Question: Which time were you telling the truth?

[uscitizen]

When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military.
//

What you been smokin ? Our govt never set out to win. I was there.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date.

Nicely done.

However, No american president has ever had the policy to murder and incinerate prisoners or detainees.

Exactly, which is why most wars involved presidentially ordered carpet bombing and completely burning or nuking entire cities, there were very few people left to deal with, as prisoners. It's part of the problem with our PC War... we are capturing and holding them instead of killing them, and you idiots want to give them Constitutional rights. My argument is, they should be dead and forgotten, not sitting in a jail cell awaiting an ACLU lawyer!

[Cypress]

It's not PC to refrain from murdering or torturing detainees. Its the law.

A law signed by Ronald Reagan: the "International Ban on Cruel, Inhumane, and Abusive Treatment" of prisoners, detainees, and other human beings.

[maineman]

Ghengis Khan with a skirt

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's not PC to refrain from murdering or torturing detainees. Its the law.

A law signed by Ronald Reagan: the "International Ban on Cruel, Inhumane, and Abusive Treatment" of prisoners, detainees, and other human beings.


Hey dumb shit... how many times do I have to make the same point, before it makes it's way into your ignorant head? For the THIRD time, the problem IS the prisoners! If this were ANY OTHER WAR we've EVER fought, we would NOT have these people locked up in Gitmo, they would be D-E-A-D! Got it?

Of course, you are abso-fucking-loutely RIGHT, it IS the LAW that we treat these people with all the dignity and humanity we can muster! THAT is the POINT! THAT is why they should be DEAD! If we weren't so concerned with fighting PC War, these people would not be an issue, because they would have never existed, they would have died in the first round of carpet bombing and fire-storming! We wouldn't be debating what to do about the nut in Iran, if anything, we'd be discussing how to get the oil out of a middle east nuclear waste dump covered in glass.

[Cypress]

Hey dumb shit... how many times do I have to make the same point, before it makes it's way into your ignorant head? For the THIRD time, the problem IS the prisoners! If this were ANY OTHER WAR we've EVER fought, we would NOT have these people locked up in Gitmo, they would be D-E-A-D! Got it?

Of course, you are abso-fucking-loutely RIGHT, it IS the LAW that we treat these people with all the dignity and humanity we can muster! THAT is the POINT! THAT is why they should be DEAD! If we weren't so concerned with fighting PC War, these people would not be an issue, because they would have never existed, they would have died in the first round of carpet bombing and fire-storming! We wouldn't be debating what to do about the nut in Iran, if anything, we'd be discussing how to get the oil out of a middle east nuclear waste dump covered in glass.

Perhaps your not even aware that many, perhpas most, of the detainess in Gitmo weren't picked up "on the battlefield", but were picked up in nations were not even "at war" with? The CIA is rendering people picked up in africa, europe, and southeast asia to gitmo.

So how would they have been "killed" on the battlefield?

[uscitizen]

Hey dumb shit... how many times do I have to make the same point, before it makes it's way into your ignorant head? For the THIRD time, the problem IS the prisoners! If this were ANY OTHER WAR we've EVER fought, we would NOT have these people locked up in Gitmo, they would be D-E-A-D! Got it?
//
So we never had POW camps Dixie ? Wow!

[Care4all]

Oh yes... "Two wrongs don't make a right!" ...."Turn the other cheek!" ..."We are better than that!" ...."We have become more civilized!" ..."Learn from your mistakes!" ...blah blah blah....

More Politically Correct bullshit to throw out there, whilst discussing the proper strategy for WINNING a WAR! Is it any wonder you people can't be taken seriously on matters of national security? Instead of debating what we should do with the "detainees", they should be making good use of themselves as fertilizer for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we shouldn't even be concerned with them at this late date. If this were ANY other war in our history, that would be the case. But since we live in a PC society, and our president is up to his nuts in political correctness as well, we have to put up with idiots like you, telling us how to get our asses handed to us in war. It's incredible!

If this were ANY other true war, and handled properly, it would be over already...WW2 was what 2 and half years?

this is a never ending fight against an ideology, not even a country or a person but a war against Terrorism crapola, like the war on drugs that will go NOWHERE until we look at the WHOLE PICTURE dixie...

And locking someone up without charging them is not necessary...if they are terrorists trying to kill us, then we should be able to present such a case before a judge or military commission. If they are POW's then they are due their Geneva convention rights too..

This President and Donald Rumsfeld as his advisor has made one mistake after another fighting this war on terror that they claim they are fighting and the operation freedom in Iraq...personally, I and many others including many republicans in office, think it is time for Rumsfeld to go...

we need some fresh thinking and some fresh blood to do it...imo.

We won the war in Iraq already, now you are hanging on in Iraq to lose that win we already had....

no one is talking leaving the area completely, we just are saying we need to change our course from what we have been doing, because it is not working well....

maybe it is time to make three Iraqi states with one federal government...?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And locking someone up without charging them is not necessary...if they are terrorists trying to kill us, then we should be able to present such a case before a judge or military commission. If they are POW's then they are due their Geneva convention rights too..

And if we did like Patton, McArthur, Grant, and other great generals, they wouldn't be an issue because they would be pushing up daisies right now. That IS my point!

[maineman]

all three of those generals took PLENTY of prisoners in battle. Dixie's ignorance about warfare is astounding.

and his arrogance is nauseating.

[AnyOldIron]

By 'politically correct war' Dixie is lamenting the US not acting more like her enemies.

Dixie, long known as someone in favour of terrorism (commited on our behest), now wishes the US to act like its enemies, murdering and kidnapping etc etc

If the US acts like its enemies, where is the difference between you?

What makes the US any better than those it opposes?

Why shouldn't the rest of the world turn on the US?

Truth is, Dixie is a first-class fuck-wit and thankfully too dim to enter into politics to enact his barbarity.

[AnyOldIron]

all three of those generals took PLENTY of prisoners in battle. Dixie's ignorance about warfare is astounding.

Typical of someone who wouldn't dream of stepping onto a battlefield...

He seems to think soldiers are little more than hired murderers...

[AnyOldIron]

And if we did like Patton, McArthur, Grant, and other great generals, they wouldn't be an issue because they would be pushing up daisies right now. That IS my point!

Hundreds of people have been released without charge because of innocence that you would have murdered.

You should change your name to Osama Bin Dixie.

[AnyOldIron]

Dixie's comments show a distinct lack of understanding of how to deal with insurgencies (which is what the Islamic issue is), the same lack of understanding that led to America's defeat in Vietnam. Dixie's notion that you will defeat your enemy by being more brutal than them failed then and is failing now.

The only times when an insurgency has been successfully defeated have been through boxing clever, by isolating the enemy from their mandate, by undermining the arguments they use to generate support and resources, by withering them from within.

Acting like a bullet-headed retard such as Dixie reinforces the arguments they use, and makes them seem relevant to the people from whom they garner support and resources.

An example would be Israel's recent 'incursion' into Lebanon.

Who here thinks that by Israel using terrorism, targeting civilians in the manner of their enemies has achieved anything. Hizbollah is now back in southern Lebanon, rebuilding destroyed homes and issuing grants to the Lebanese people. They are more popular than ever, reinforced, and Israel's brutal terrorism has ensured another generation of Lebanese kids will join Hizbollah to fight Israel..

[maineman]

and Hezbollah was strengthened by Iran as a result of the US's removing the only effective foil to Iranian hegemony in the region. We have pulled this house of cards down upon ourselves by our hamfisted and ignorant approach to the middle east and to the islamic extremism that emanates from there.

[AnyOldIron]

and Hezbollah was strengthened by Iran

And vice versa...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

By 'politically correct war' Dixie is lamenting the US not acting more like her enemies. --- PC Bullshit!

Dixie, long known as someone in favour of terrorism (commited on our behest), now wishes the US to act like its enemies, murdering and kidnapping etc etc --- PC Bullshit!

If the US acts like its enemies, where is the difference between you? --- PC Bullshit!

What makes the US any better than those it opposes? --- PC Bullshit!

Why shouldn't the rest of the world turn on the US? --- PC Bullshit!

Truth is, Dixie is a first-class fuck-wit and thankfully too dim to enter into politics to enact his barbarity. ---Ad homenim attack!

You're getting good at this, Arnold. It's like a programmed patern response to everything I say lately... PC Bullshit... PC Bullshit.... PC Bullshit... Ad hom attack! When you grow up and decide to start presenting some tangible information to discuss, as opposed to blowing pure socialist rhetoric and PC blather at everyone, let me know!

[Gaffer]

When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military.
//

What you been smokin ? Our govt never set out to win. I was there.

I was there as well. And its true. Johnson never set out to win. But that was not the point of my post. we did win when Nixon began bombing Hanoi and the NV decided it was time to quit. A truce was signed and we pulled out. Then the dems took over and cut all the funding for SV.

It was a democrat war just like korea.

We could start a whole thread on this issue alone.

[maineman]

does Dixie really think that he can escape any and all uncomfortable arguments by yelling "PC Bullshit"?

[Sir Evil]

does Dixie really think that he can escape any and all uncomfortable arguments by yelling "PC Bullshit"?

Or even better yet can Waterfart explain the imperialism part!

[AnyOldIron]

does Dixie really think that he can escape any and all uncomfortable arguments by yelling "PC Bullshit"?

Well he's highly unlikely to utilise reasoned argument is he...?

[AnyOldIron]

When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Bollocks. Who runs Vietnam now?

The US lost Vietnam because it didn't know how to fight an insurgency, a very similar approach to that taken in Iraq.

It believed that overwhelming military force would suffice, a basic and fundamental error. Hence dropping more bombs in Vietnam than was dropped throughout WWII.

It failed and the US lost. It seems like the same Arden Pyles (read The Quiet American) are in command today, given the US approach to Iraq.

If it continues, the US will lose this war as it did Vietnam.

This time it is serious however. We are involved....

[Gaffer]

When the Vietnam war ended. We had a military victory. For all their efforts the NVA could not beat our military.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Bollocks. Who runs Vietnam now?

The US lost Vietnam because it didn't know how to fight an insurgency, a very similar approach to that taken in Iraq.

It believed that overwhelming military force would suffice, a basic and fundamental error. Hence dropping more bombs in Vietnam than was dropped throughout WWII.

It failed and the US lost. It seems like the same Arden Pyles (read The Quiet American) are in command today, given the US approach to Iraq.

If it continues, the US will lose this war as it did Vietnam.

This time it is serious however. We are involved....

I stated the actual historic facts in my post. You obviously know nothing about the history of what went on. The democrats started and escalated the Vietnam war. Nixon came in and ended it. The NV wouldn't negociate in good faith and he escalated the bombing in the north to include hanoi. They finally decided they had enough as they were fighting a losing war militarily in the south. The US pulled out and everything was relatively peaceful for two years until the NV invaded SV. The democratically controlled congress at that time voted to deny funding to SV completely. SV's weapons and ammo was all US made. So with no more coming in and no rreplacement parts they were effectively disarmed and unable to fight off the invasion from the north. SV fell because of our wonderful demcratic congress. When the country fell there were only a few military people there and they were not combat troops. The NV did not defeat American troops in taking SV. They defeated unarmed SV troops thanks to our congress. That's the true history of it.

The US military can handle insergencies or armies. Doesn't matter. Now how the US handles the media and its propaganda messages is another matter. Liberal media and commies like you always twist the truth. But we have freedom of speech so you always get to spout your garbage. But if your going to spout about Vietnam at least read up on the facts.

[uscitizen]

Gaffer who was president when we were aiding the French in Indochina ?

[maineman]

I stated the actual historic facts in my post. You obviously know nothing about the history of what went on. The democrats started and escalated the Vietnam war. Nixon came in and ended it. The NV wouldn't negociate in good faith and he escalated the bombing in the north to include hanoi. They finally decided they had enough as they were fighting a losing war militarily in the south. The US pulled out and everything was relatively peaceful for two years until the NV invaded SV. The democratically controlled congress at that time voted to deny funding to SV completely. SV's weapons and ammo was all US made. So with no more coming in and no rreplacement parts they were effectively disarmed and unable to fight off the invasion from the north. SV fell because of our wonderful demcratic congress. When the country fell there were only a few military people there and they were not combat troops. The NV did not defeat American troops in taking SV. They defeated unarmed SV troops thanks to our congress. That's the true history of it.

The US military can handle insergencies or armies. Doesn't matter. Now how the US handles the media and its propaganda messages is another matter. Liberal media and commies like you always twist the truth. But we have freedom of speech so you always get to spout your garbage. But if your going to spout about Vietnam at least read up on the facts.

well...that's the Nixon apologist version of history....here's another:

http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume4_number2_aug05/review_wilbanks_sherwood_aug05.htm

[Sir Evil]

well...that's the Nixon apologist version of history....here's another:

http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume4_number2_aug05/review_wilbanks_sherwood_aug05.htm

Maine - why is everyone with an opposing view an apologist? I noticed that term is used quite often around here. I can tell ya now that Gaffer is not one to be an apologist for anyone!

[maineman]

to blame the collapse of Vietnam solely on a democratic congress and apportion none of the blame to Nixon and his policies is precisely that.

that...and it's fuckin' funny, too

[Sir Evil]

to blame the collapse of Vietnam solely on a democratic congress and apportion none of the blame to Nixon and his policies is precisely that.

that...and it's fuckin' funny, too

So laying blame makes you an apologist?

Well I must admit that I am an apologist of late, ya see I can see what the majority had to put up with here, with the likes of cypress the mudflap, the victim Darla, the brain within the dish..I mean desh, I can say that I am real sorry that anyone had to put up with it!.....:cof1:


Seriously, if ones accusations of blame makes them apologists I would think you seriously screw up by calling a conservative a bush apologist. seems all ass backwards to me.

[Cypress]

I stated the actual historic facts in my post. You obviously know nothing about the history of what went on. The democrats started and escalated the Vietnam war. Nixon came in and ended it. The NV wouldn't negociate in good faith and he escalated the bombing in the north to include hanoi. They finally decided they had enough as they were fighting a losing war militarily in the south. The US pulled out and everything was relatively peaceful for two years until the NV invaded SV. The democratically controlled congress at that time voted to deny funding to SV completely. SV's weapons and ammo was all US made. So with no more coming in and no rreplacement parts they were effectively disarmed and unable to fight off the invasion from the north. SV fell because of our wonderful demcratic congress. When the country fell there were only a few military people there and they were not combat troops. The NV did not defeat American troops in taking SV. They defeated unarmed SV troops thanks to our congress. That's the true history of it.

The US military can handle insergencies or armies. Doesn't matter. Now how the US handles the media and its propaganda messages is another matter. Liberal media and commies like you always twist the truth. But we have freedom of speech so you always get to spout your garbage. But if your going to spout about Vietnam at least read up on the facts.

This is the frickinest funniest post of the week!

Nixon "Won" the Vietnam War

LOL

[Sir Evil]

:lolup: :lolup:

See what I'm saying maine? Just plain feel bad for y'all.....:D

[Cypress]

SV fell because of our wonderful demcratic congress. When the country fell there were only a few military people there and they were not combat troops.

So what? The North Vietnamese took over, and here we are three decades later and vietnam is an emerging psuedo-capitalist country that we have good relations with. They're not perfect, but we get along with them fine.

So what was the point of slaughtering 58,000 americans and half a trillion taxpayer dollars, in the first place?

[Cypress]

SV fell because of our wonderful demcratic congress. When the country fell there were only a few military people there and they were not combat troops.

So what? The North Vietnamese took over, and here we are three decades later and vietnam is an emerging psuedo-capitalist country that we have good relations with. They're not perfect, but we get along with them fine.

So what was the point of slaughtering 58,000 americans and half a trillion taxpayer dollars, in the first place?

I'd say the wonderful Democratic congress made the right call. We didn't waste any more american lives or money, and it still turned out OK in the end. We're on good terms with vietnam.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Or even better yet can Waterfart explain the imperialism part!

Waterfart, why, that's brilliant. Even Schoolchildren would never think of anything so ingenious.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

SV fell because of our wonderful demcratic congress. When the country fell there were only a few military people there and they were not combat troops.

So what? The North Vietnamese took over, and here we are three decades later and vietnam is an emerging psuedo-capitalist country that we have good relations with. They're not perfect, but we get along with them fine.

So what was the point of slaughtering 58,000 americans and half a trillion taxpayer dollars, in the first place?

Actually, the figure "half a trillion" belies the true cost, because it isn't inflation adjusted. In modern dollars it's probably somewhere around 1.5 trillion.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Which was actually almost the size of the US budget (before Bush came into power, of course).

[Sir Evil]

Waterfart, why, that's brilliant. Even Schoolchildren would never think of anything so ingenious.

LOL, liked that one? I thought it was pretty good! But please feel free at anytime to finish up the imperialism part...........:rolleyes:

[Sir Evil]

Waterfart, why, that's brilliant. Even Schoolchildren would never think of anything so ingenious.

Oh, and for a guy that calls someone a "scumbag" for an opposing view I thought I was rather nice in my description. Now, anytime you are ready to give that imperialism view I would like to read it, if not just go ahead an follow the mantra around here on opposing views, I'm cool with that.....:cool:

[AnyOldIron]

The US military can handle insergencies or armies. Doesn't matter. Now how the US handles the media and its propaganda messages is another matter. Liberal media and commies like you always twist the truth. But we have freedom of speech so you always get to spout your garbage. But if your going to spout about Vietnam at least read up on the facts.

Yes, Dr Evil, it was people that me that lost the US the Vietnam war...

Nothing to do with losing the battle for the minds of the people of Vietnam, nor the US habit of using sledgehammer style overwhelming force to crack a nut.

People like to spout that 'the US never lost an open battle in VN'... In this shows the misundersanding that lost the war.

An insurgency rarely fights open battles. An insurgency uses hit an run tactics. As Sun Tsu states, let your enemy crawl over you and then attack its soft underbelly. It slowly bleeds the army to death.

When your enemy is losing the fight to win the local population, the enemy has little fear of losses.

By 1972 the majority of the US population realised that the US had started using poor strategic thinking and, when that genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back in. The damage is done. They realised that they couldn't win and pulled out. The ARVN was, since the beginning of the war, as ineffective and corrupt as the SV 'government' it represented. By 1972 VN was flooded with weaponry, if the ARVN had any decent fighting capability to combat the forces of the VC and NVA they would have been able to from '72 onwards.

They, like the US, had already lost the war long before '72.

This fundamental misunderstanding of the complexities of fighting an insurgency has continued in US military thinking, the stench still pervades that overwhelming force will always win out.

If only the US had learnt the lessons of Malaysia, * a situation very similar to that in the early days of Vietnam but dealt with properly, it might have had a chance. But the US government is extraordinarily slow at learning from its mistakes and this is evident in its 'battle' against Islamic extremism...

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

[AnyOldIron]

How VN could have been won

The Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA in this text) was a guerrilla force created by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and, to some extent, led and dominated by ethnic Chinese communists. It was a successor of the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), another guerrilla force which the British had secretly trained and equipped with arms during World War II in the fight against the Japanese Occupation. The Communist Party, which had been banned in the pre-war years, was thereafter granted legal recognition by the British after the war as a reward for its wartime effort, but had secretly kept most of the MPAJA's weapons for future clandestine use.

The actual conflict began when the MCP disagreed with the British post-war policy of a Malayan Federation, mainly because the plan was part of a wider strategy of anti-communism. The party's new leader, Chin Peng, decided that an armed conflict would be the only way to bring the communist revolution to Malaya and to dispel the threat to its communist ideals.

MRLA guerrillas killed three British rubber planters at Sungai Siput, Perak on June 16, 1948. The British declared a state of emergency to deal with the insurgents. The enemy was nicknamed "Charlie Tango" - "communist terrorists", or "terrs" or "CTs" for short. This term would later be used again in Rhodesia to describe ZANU or ZAPU guerrillas.

Despite the usage of the term "emergency" it was in actuality a full-scale guerrilla war between the MRLA and British, Commonwealth, and Malayan armed forces; some have gone as far as to characterise it as a civil war. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyds insurers if it had been termed a "war". The MRLA commonly employed hit and run guerrilla tactics, sabotaging installations, attacking rubber plantations and destroying transportation and infrastructure.[1]

Support for the MRLA was mainly based on around 500,000 ethnic Chinese then living in Malaya (there were 3.12 million Chinese in total); the ethnic Malay population for the most part did not support them. The MRLA raised the support of the Chinese because they were denied the equal right to vote in elections, had no land rights to speak of, and were usually very poor. The MRLA's agents within the Chinese community were known as "Min Yuen."

The MRLA had its hideouts in the rather inaccessible tropical jungle with limited infrastructure. Most MRLA guerrillas were ethnic Chinese, though there were some Malays, Indonesians and Indians among its members. They were organized into communist political regiments with political sections, commissars, instructors and secret service. They also had lectures about Marxism-Leninism and had political newsletters to be distributed to the locals. MRLA also stipulated that their soldiers had to get official permission for any romantic involvement with local women.

In the international scene, the emerging Korean War eclipsed the developing conflict in Malaya. Part of the British attempt at resolving the situation was the implementation of the so-called "Briggs' Plan" which meant the resettlement of people - especially 400,000 Chinese - living in jungle areas to the relative safety of new, partially fortified villages with full round-the-clock armed sentries. People resented this at first but some soon became content with the better living standards in the villages. They were given money and ownership of the land they lived on. Removing a population which might be sympathetic to guerrillas was a counter-insurgency technique which the British had used before, notably against the Boer Commandos in the Second Boer War (1899-1902).

At the start of the Emergency, the British had a total of 13 infantry battalions, comprising 7 partially formed Gurkha battalions, 3 British battalions, 2 battalions of the Malay Regiment and a British Artillery Regiment being utilised as infantry. (Defense & Decolonization in South-East Asia By Karl Hack, p 113.) This force was too small to effectively meet the threat of the Communist Terrorists or "Bandits", and more infantry battalions were needed in Malaya.

The British brought in soldiers from units like the Worcester regiment and Royal Marines. Another effort was a re-creation of Special Air Service as a jungle commando unit in 1950. The Permanent Secretary of Defence for Malaya was Sir Robert Thompson who had served as an officer in the Chindits during World War II which meant that his vast experience in jungle warfare may have proved invaluable during these times.

In 1951 some British army units began a "hearts and minds campaign" by giving medical and food aid to Malays and indigenous Sakai tribes. At the same time, they put pressure on MRLA by patrolling the jungle. Units such as the SAS, the Royal Marines and Gurkha Brigades drove MRLA guerrillas deeper into the jungle and denied them resources. The MRLA had to extort food from the Sakai and earned their enmity. Many of the captured guerrillas changed sides. In comparison, the MRLA never released any Britons alive.

In the end the conflict involved some 35,000 British and 60,000 Commonwealth troops against a possible army of 30,000 communist guerrillas.

On October 7, 1951, the MRLA ambushed and killed the British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Gurney. The killing has been described as a major factor in causing the Malayan psyche to roundly reject the MRLA campaign, and also as leading to widespread fear due to the perception that "if even the High Commissioner was no longer safe, there was little hope of protection and safety for the man-in-the-street in Malaya."[2]

Gurney's successor, Lieutenant General Gerald Templer was instructed by the British government to push for immediate measures to give ethnic Chinese residents the right to vote. He also pursued the Briggs's Plan, installed Malay executives and sped up the formation of a Malayan army. His most important deal was a promise of independence once the insurrection was over. He also instituted financial rewards for detecting guerrillas by any civilians and expanded the intelligence network (Special Branch).

Australia was willing to send troops to help a SEATO ally and the first group of Australian troops arrived in 1955. Realising that his conflict has not come to any fruition, Chin Peng sought a referendum with the ruling British government alongside many Malayan officials at Baling in 1955. The meeting was clearly intended to pursue a mutual end to the conflict but led by Tunku Abdul Rahman, representing the Malayan government at the Baling Talks, all of Chin Peng's demands were dismissed. As a result, the conflict would appear to have been heightened and in response, New Zealand sent NZSAS soldiers, No. 14 Squadron RNZAF and later No. 75 Squadron RNZAF, and other Commonwealth members also sent troops to aid the British.

With the independence of Malaya under Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman on August 31, 1957, the insurrection lost its rationale as a war of colonial liberation. The last serious resistance from MRLA guerrillas ended with a surrender in the Telok Anson marsh area in 1958. The remaining MRLA forces fled to the Thai border and further east.

On July 31, 1960, the Malayan government declared the Emergency was over, and Chin Peng left south Thailand for Beijing where he was accomodated by the Chinese authorities in the International Liaison Bureau, where many other Southeast Asian Communist Party leaders were housed.

During the conflict security forces killed 6,710 MRLA guerrillas and captured 1,287. Of the total number of guerrillas, 2,702 surrendered during the conflict and about 500 at the end of the conflict. There were 1346 Malayan troops and 519 British military personnel killed. 2,478 civilians were killed and 810 recorded missing as a result of the conflict.

Although the conflicts in Malaya and Vietnam differed on many points in so far as the details of their wars, it has been asked time and again by historians as to how a British force of 35,000 succeeded where over a half million soldiers of the U.S. and others failed. One of the main points that differentiated the two was that the MLRA never had a dependable ally close at hand like the Viet Cong did with the North Vietnamese Army.

Another key point was the effectiveness of the Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerilla movement.[3] .

The MLRA was also, as mentioned above, a political movement almost entirely limited to ethnic Chinese; support among Muslim Malayans and smaller tribes was scattered if existent at all. The British war effort never suffered from anything approaching the criticism that hammered the U.S. in Vietnam, and the USSR and China were too involved in Korea to give serious aid to the MLRA. Also, many Malayans had fought side by side with the British against the Japanese occupation in World War II, including Chin Peng. This is in contrast to Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) where French colonial officials often operated as proxies and collaborators to the Japanese. This factor of trust between the locals and the colonials was what gave the British an advantage over the French and later, the Americans in Vietnam; Commonwealth troops saw ordinary civilians as allies, not enemies.

[Gaffer]

pigiron that was a totally different war.

The VC in vietnam ceased to exist in 1968 when they were virtually wiped out with the 68 tet offensive. Vietnam was a propaganda war. and not fought to win but to simply contain. That sounds like a liberal plan I have heard before.

And as I repeatedly said the congress cut off all funding to SV. Without the equipment to fight with it doesn't matter how good or poor your troops are they will lose.

The brits know so much about insergent fighting and you have been battling it out in Ireland for how long? If you took all the troops out of NI and cut off all funding and support for it, how long would it remain seperate from the rest of Ireland? especially if the Irish army moved in.

The malasian thing and vietnam were two different events. Britain supported their allies their. the US stopped supporting SV after 1972. You took a long time and effort to support an apples and oranges comparison. You obviously read a lot and are familiar with British military history. You need to look into some of the Vietnam books written by American Vets who were there. They include interviews with high ranking communist commanders of the time. They will give you a different perspective on the war then you currently have.

But we need to take it to another thread instead of hijacking this one.