When America listened to Anti-War Liberals, people died

[Wndrtch]

In Vietnam, we listened to Anti-War Liberals and pulled our forces out of the country as a defeated army. After that, some 2-3MIL Asians lost their lives when they were over-run by the Communists dictators. Now, the same Anti-War Liberals want us to retreat in Iraq.

Why should we trust them this time?

Think of the blood on their hands for that irrational and irresponsible act. How does a Vietnam-era, Anti-War Liberal sleep at night, knowing they were responsible for so much death?

Fighting the spread of totalitarian Communism was a valid endeaver, much like fighting terrorism today is. Why do so many Liberals always seem to side with the enemy?

[PatrickHenry]

Smoking lies.

[Alonzo]

Wait, didn't we support the khmer rouge? And didn't vietnam overthrow them ending the genocide?

And considering what we did in Vietnam, I'm not sure where the millions more died comes from.

[Truth_and_Power]

So it's the end of wars that causes death, not the beginning? Or is it that the beginning is a 'valid endeavor' and thus we just skip the people dying part? I sure am glad that opening iraq's oil reserves is a valid endeavor.

[Buck Laser]

I don't suppose the OP has a source for his claims, does he/she?

[Wndrtch]

I don't suppose the OP has a source for his claims, does he/she?


Sure.

"Death by Government" by R.J.Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Specific Table: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.2.GIF

When America pulled out of S.E. Asia, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, the Soviets and the PRC were left to thier own devices, and ran amok in the region.

But who cares. They weren't Amercans, right?

[nevadamedic]

In Vietnam, we listened to Anti-War Liberals and pulled our forces out of the country as a defeated army. After that, some 2-3MIL Asians lost their lives when they were over-run by the Communists dictators. Now, the same Anti-War Liberals want us to retreat in Iraq.

Why should we trust them this time?

Think of the blood on their hands for that irrational and irresponsible act. How does a Vietnam-era, Anti-War Liberal sleep at night, knowing they were responsible for so much death?

Fighting the spread of totalitarian Communism was a valid endeaver, much like fighting terrorism today is. Why do so many Liberals always seem to side with the enemy?


Because they are the enemy.

[exigent]

Alonzo said it best. The CIA was funding the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. He was our ally.


The U.S. opposed the Vietnamese military occupation of Cambodia, and in the mid-1980s supported insurgents opposed to the regime of Heng Samrin, approving $5 million in aid to the Khmer People's National Liberation Front of former prime minister Son Sann and the pro-Sihanouk ANS in 1985. Regardless of this, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge remained the best-trained and most capable of the three insurgent groups who, despite sharply divergent ideologies, had formed the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) alliance three years earlier.

[Deadshot]

But who cares. They weren't Amercans, right?


Quite honestly this is exactly true. Look at WWI, how many died before we became involve, something like 6 million.

WWII China and Japan were at each others throats, with millions dying, from 1932 until we came in. WWII in Europe started in Sept. 1939, wanna do the math on how many died between then and Dec. 1941?

If they aren't Americans dying, the majority of the country doesn't care. It's harsh but true.

On the other hand, Wndrtch, if we were as compassionate and fought for the lives of others, as it seems as you're advocating, then we wouldn't have left Lebennon, Somalia and we would be knee deep in Darfur.

So don't blame the Liberals, blame American policy and our attitudes about our young men and women. I, for one, DO NOT want to be the worlds police man.

[Wndrtch]

Alonzo said it best. The CIA was funding the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. He was our ally.


The U.S. opposed the Vietnamese military occupation of Cambodia, and in the mid-1980s supported insurgents opposed to the regime of Heng Samrin, approving $5 million in aid to the Khmer People's National Liberation Front of former prime minister Son Sann and the pro-Sihanouk ANS in 1985. Regardless of this, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge remained the best-trained and most capable of the three insurgent groups who, despite sharply divergent ideologies, had formed the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) alliance three years earlier.



I keep forgetting that America is THE EVIL in the world.

[Alonzo]

I don't suppose the OP has a source for his claims, does he/she?


Sure.

"Death by Government" by R.J.Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Specific Table: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.2.GIF

When America pulled out of S.E. Asia, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, the Soviets and the PRC were left to thier own devices, and ran amok in the region.

But who cares. They weren't Amercans, right?


Ya, Vietnam really ran amok when they waltzed into Cambodia, guns blazing, and brought down the Khmer Rouge.

Actually, considering America funded the umbrella organization fighting Vietnam, of which the Khmer Rouge was the dominant force, I'm sure you're not alone in that view.

Though China did attack Northern Vietnam, though whether we fight them or China fights them isn't much of a difference.

If they aren't Americans dying, the majority of the country doesn't care. It's harsh but true.

That's my problem with Iraq. There isn't a relatively stable, powerful group than can control the country, and especially not one that wouldn't result in mass slaughter.

Many people advocating withdrawal are of the "Save Americans and their money, let the Iraqi's focus on killing each other instead of soldiers" mindset.

[exigent]

I keep forgetting that America is THE EVIL in the world.


The millions that died by their hands did so with our funding.

[PatrickHenry]

I keep forgetting that America is THE EVIL in the world.
Well, start remembering.

USA is a Land of Hypocrisy.

Built upon slave labor, genocide of the original inhabitants, wars on pretexts, training other nations in tyranny.

But hey, thanks for at least linking a source for your claims for sainthood for ol Uncle Sam...

Tell us about Operation Phoenix.

And Operation Paperclip

And Operation Mockingbird

And Operation MK-Ultra

Tell me how big the Black Budget of the US is and what it is spent on. Then let's talk democracy...

[ECW]

I was going to jump in on this one but you seem to have things well in hand, PH. I'll leave this one to you. This should be interesting...

[MizzyAndrea]

Post: #1When America listened to Anti-War Liberals, people died

In Vietnam, we listened to Anti-War Liberals and pulled our forces out of the country as a defeated army. After that, some 2-3MIL Asians lost their lives when they were over-run by the Communists dictators. Now, the same Anti-War Liberals want us to retreat in Iraq.
**************************

........ Ahh, what was it we were fighting for in Vietnam?........ to help the monarchy of South Vietnam? .... To help an oppressive government of a make-believe nation? And for that millions died.
We have no business in Iraq. Bush announced "mission accomplished" so it's done. Time to come home and spend the money where we need it here -- on the 45 million Americans with no health insurance.

[HumanBeast]

Why don't Lefties talk about the Korean War?

[exigent]

What about the korean war?

[Elrathin]

Why don't Lefties talk about the Korean War?


I'd wager that most don't period, left or right, because most people don't know much about it.

[exigent]

Right, most dont know that after Korea's liberation, koreans began constructing local governments, but the US and Russia agreed to split the country into two and dismantle any governments that were being forged. This led to uprisings and US aided bloodshed, such as the Cheju massacre. O Say can you see...?

http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/036th_issue/98040102.htm

[Truth_and_Power]

What about the korean war?


I think we're all hoping the occupation of iraq doesn't last 50 years.

[Wndrtch]

Built upon slave labor, genocide of the original inhabitants, wars on pretexts, training other nations in tyranny.

Built upon slave labor - And we did the right thing by ending it.

genocide of the original inhabitants - No different than the history of most nations. Early civilizations operated under the economics of Scarcity. This states that a society only has a limited amount of resources to exploit, and if you want "more", you have to take from elsewhere (ie, war). It's how we have operated ever since we were living in caves.

wars on pretexts - Which wouldn't be necessary if people were grown-ups and understood the reality that there are bad people in the World, and sometimes you have to go after them.

training other nations in tyranny - One mans "tyrant" is another ones sword. You need to provide an example, as I'm pretty sure we don't just go around creating tyrants for the hell of it. Usually, there IS a reason. Granted, maybe not a good one...

But hey, thanks for at least linking a source for your claims for sainthood for ol Uncle Sam...

Sainthood? Never happen. ACLU will cry about the separation clause.


Tell us about Operation Phoenix.

And Operation Paperclip

And Operation Mockingbird

And Operation MK-Ultra

Tell me how big the Black Budget of the US is and what it is spent on. Then let's talk democracy...


Operation Phoenix - An operation to infiltrate, sabotage, and assassinate, key operational components of the Viet-Cong who were living in the S. Vietnam to do the same. So?

Operation Paperclip - An operation to "extract" German scientists, during and after WWII. Many of whom went to Los Alamos. Again, so?

Operation Mockingbird - A CIA program, to influence both domestic and foreign media. I'll concede that doing this is wrong, domestically. However, if we were doing this in the Soviet Union, then I would be fine with it. I'm a "take-the-gloves-off" kind'a guy, when it comes to foreign enemy states. Believe it or not, there are bad guys that want to hurt the US. Limiting your options, only gives them the upper hand.

Operation MK-Ultra - A program to explore different chemical agents, for the purpose of creating mind-altering compounds that can be deployed/used in covert, counter-intelligence operations. LSD was a main focus. Ok, this project may have crossed a few "ethical" lines. You can't give the elderly and the mentally retarded, experimental drugs. However, if one is of right mind and volunteers, then it's just an exorcise in Natural Selection. Otherwise, this program is no different than the development of a new gun or tank.

Gee, and I thought you throw-back hippy types enjoyed experimenting with drugs. Free, state-sponsored LSD, man! Party on!

Well Pat, I'm sorry you hate and mistrust your Government so much. But look at the bright side, you're just about out of the country. A relatively short flight, and you can eat sushi everyday and watch authentic anime. I don't think they have a Black-Ops programs there, we took care of that in 1945. The evil Imperialist, Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on them. But if they do, I'm sure you will discover it an let the World know.

[Elrathin]

Well Pat, I'm sorry you hate and mistrust your Government so much.


So then you are FOR government health care then right? I mean after all you trust the government so much right?

[Wndrtch]

Well Pat, I'm sorry you hate and mistrust your Government so much.


So then you are FOR government health care then right? I mean after all you trust the government so much right?


Nationalized Healthcare is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of economics.

[Elrathin]

Nationalized Healthcare is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of economics.


Ah so blank check on Iraq war = ok to you, but
Health Care = we can't afford it. Gotcha.

[lily]

In Vietnam, we listened to Anti-War Liberals and pulled our forces out of the country as a defeated army. After that, some 2-3MIL Asians lost their lives when they were over-run by the Communists dictators. Now, the same Anti-War Liberals want us to retreat in Iraq.

After we left, they sorted it out themselves and now we are not only considered an ally, but we trade with them.

How long do you want to be in the middle of a civil war? You know what......I'm all for it. Pick a side, you know it's going to be done sooner or later. So just pick which side you want to run Iraq and let our soldiers do the job they were trained to do. They are second to none......so pick who you want Shia or Suni and let them get the job done. Right now they are just targets for the insurgents. Tell them which side to fight and they will do what they were trained to do and we can get them home.

Untie their hands.

[Pogo]

Ah yes, the old anti-war-liberals-stopped-the-war myth.

The war stopped because it was costing too much money with no end in sight, and because the soldiers were getting more and more reluctant to kill the "enemy".

[exigent]

The war stopped because it was costing too much money with no end in sight, and because the soldiers were getting more and more reluctant to kill the "enemy".


That sounds familiar

[Wndrtch]

Nationalized Healthcare is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of economics.


Ah so blank check on Iraq war = ok to you, but
Health Care = we can't afford it. Gotcha.


Oh please. A bit melodramatic don't ya think?

We do not have a Healthcare problem in the US, unless you're a Socialist/Communist trying to co-opt 1/6 of the US economy. The Dems pulled this old rabbit out of their hat, because they are desperate to accomplish SOMETHING, even if it's just to expand an existing program that is working just fine the way it is.

[exigent]

We do not have a Healthcare problem in the US


Well I guess it's ok as long as you arent one of the 16% who cant afford the minimum coverage.

[Elrathin]

We do not have a Healthcare problem in the US,


We don't? Hmmmm last time I checked there was quite a few Americans and their families that could not afford basic health insurance. Sounds like a problem to me unless you are an uncaring America that doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor.

[Wndrtch]

We do not have a Healthcare problem in the US,


We don't? Hmmmm last time I checked there was quite a few Americans and their families that could not afford basic health insurance. Sounds like a problem to me unless you are an uncaring America that doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor.


First off, "Health-insurance" is not "Health-care". I said we do not have a problem with "Health-care".

Second, tell me how many children die in the US due to being turned away from a hospitol, for lack of insurance.[hr]


We do not have a Healthcare problem in the US


Well I guess it's ok as long as you arent one of the 16% who cant afford the minimum coverage.


see post #31

[Deadshot]

So at what number of dead, children or otherwise, do we decide we need Health Insurance for all?

Also, do we only count the dead, or can we count the suffering and those living in pain too?

I'm curious as to what the threshold is. That way doctors can more easily pass on to parents "Well you're child's death brings us to the half way mark. If another few thousand die then the Federal Govt. will see fit to promote child health insurance." or maybe "You're child's debilitating and painful disease brings us up to 75% of our goal nationally to get health care for all children. If only 25% more get this horrid disease, or something like it, then we can begin to save children like your child. have a nice day."

Again, let me know about that threshold for caring about kids...

[Wndrtch]

So at what number of dead, children or otherwise, do we decide we need Health Insurance for all?

Also, do we only count the dead, or can we count the suffering and those living in pain too?

I'm curious as to what the threshold is. That way doctors can more easily pass on to parents "Well you're child's death brings us to the half way mark. If another few thousand die then the Federal Govt. will see fit to promote child health insurance." or maybe "You're child's debilitating and painful disease brings us up to 75% of our goal nationally to get health care for all children. If only 25% more get this horrid disease, or something like it, then we can begin to save children like your child. have a nice day."

Again, let me know about that threshold for caring about kids...


Nice "bob & weave" there Deadshot.

How many children die in America, because they are turned away for a lack of insurance? If you can't come up with a number, then there is no problem to solve, and your question is irrelevant.

Of course, that would be consistant with Liberal dogma.[hr]
So at what number of dead, children or otherwise, do we decide we need Health Insurance for all?

Also, do we only count the dead, or can we count the suffering and those living in pain too?

I'm curious as to what the threshold is. That way doctors can more easily pass on to parents "Well you're child's death brings us to the half way mark. If another few thousand die then the Federal Govt. will see fit to promote child health insurance." or maybe "You're child's debilitating and painful disease brings us up to 75% of our goal nationally to get health care for all children. If only 25% more get this horrid disease, or something like it, then we can begin to save children like your child. have a nice day."

Again, let me know about that threshold for caring about kids...


LOL!!! :madlaugh:

I just relized that my OP was about Vietnam/Iraq!

How on Earth did we get onto healthcare???

[gpruitt54]

In Vietnam, we listened to Anti-War Liberals and pulled our forces out of the country as a defeated army. After that, some 2-3MIL Asians lost their lives when they were over-run by the Communists dictators. Now, the same Anti-War Liberals want us to retreat in Iraq.

Why should we trust them this time?

Think of the blood on their hands for that irrational and irresponsible act. How does a Vietnam-era, Anti-War Liberal sleep at night, knowing they were responsible for so much death?

Fighting the spread of totalitarian Communism was a valid endeaver, much like fighting terrorism today is. Why do so many Liberals always seem to side with the enemy?


Here we go again, another Authoritarian follower. Like a trained dog that feels compelled to attach whomever its master points it toward.

Have you ever considered the Americans who died in Vietnam? Where is your compassion for them? Blind obedience is what lead many-a nation off a cliff. Learn the lessons of Germany and Japan and their disgrace and destruction in World II. In the predictable pattern of a follower, Republicans have never seen a war that they did not like. You followers simply don't understand that "Wars are the death of Republics".

Wars weaken nations of its blood and treasure. In all cases, both are of limited supply. So, it is best to fight only necessary and you don't go around looking for a fight. But you followers have been lead to believe that wars make you tough guys. Any dweeb can set in a chair welling Yeah, Kill-em all! Especially, when it is some else pulling the trigger, or some else's kid dieing.

Getting deeply involved in Vietnam was a bad idea. Bad ideas never stand the test of time; they fall apart under their own weak foundations. The protesters, who helped us see this, did this nation a favor.

Now, we are seeing the same weak foundations in our Iraq policy. So, here we go again, another unnecessary fight that weakens this country for the bigger fight to come.

Leaders, not followers, founded this country.

[moses2792796]

I'll take communism over democracy, but somehow I don't see a communist rule emerging in the middle-east.

[Alonzo]

How many children die in America, because they are turned away for a lack of insurance? If you can't come up with a number, then there is no problem to solve, and your question is irrelevant.

That's like saying underage kids becoming prostitutes isn't a problem simply because we don't have an actual figure, even though we know most prostitutes start before they're 18.

[Wndrtch]

How many children die in America, because they are turned away for a lack of insurance? If you can't come up with a number, then there is no problem to solve, and your question is irrelevant.

That's like saying underage kids becoming prostitutes isn't a problem simply because we don't have an actual figure, even though we know most prostitutes start before they're 18.


How do you define "problem"?

Set aside for a moment that "problem" is a relative term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_of_children

"In 1992, researcher and expert Ron O'Grady estimated the number of child prostitutes to be 1 million. [5]

In 2001, Dr. Richard Estes and Dr. Neil Alan Weiner estimated that in the U.S., 162,000 U.S. homeless youth are victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CVE) and that 57,800 children in homes (including public housing) are estimated to be victims of CVE. They also estimated that 30% of shelter youth and 70% of homeless youth are victims of CVE in the United States.[6]

One third of street-level prostitutes in the U.S. are less 18 years old while fifty percent of off-street prostitutes are less than 18 years old.[7] Off-street prostitution includes massage parlors, strip clubs, and escort services. According to Estes and Weiner, 12 to 14 is the average age of entry into prostitution for girls under 17 years old in the United States while the average age of entry into prostitution is between 11 and 13. [8]"

Anything deemed a "problem" will have statistics associated with it. If not, then it is not a significant problem. So again, please show me a statistic showing the number of child deaths in the US, for lack of insurance.

[Alonzo]

So let me get your reasoning straight. Before someone estimated 1 million it wasn't a problem. That estimation magically made it a real problem? Ok......

[Wndrtch]

So let me get your reasoning straight. Before someone estimated 1 million it wasn't a problem. That estimation magically made it a real problem? Ok......


1Mill kids don't die for lack of INSURANCE. If this is a PROBLEM, then show me a stat that demonstrates how many kids DIE because they don't have INSURANCE.

It's against the law to refuse medical care if not insured. So, where's the problem?

[Alonzo]

The problem is when people don't go to the doctors until they absolutely have to, when it's often to late, because they can't afford it. Are you honestly suggesting that the odds of living through a disease are equal for those insured and uninsured?

A recent notable example involved this kid: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7018057.stm

Who died when a problem with his teeth spread to his brain. If his mother could have afforded to pay for the extraction of the tooth he may have survived.

And honestly, death isn't the only issue. Long term health and psychological problems that otherwise would have been caught and treated also can plague these children throughout their lives.

[Wndrtch]

The problem is when people don't go to the doctors until they absolutely have to, when it's often to late, because they can't afford it. Are you honestly suggesting that the odds of living through a disease are equal for those insured and uninsured?

Fine. Then show me a stat to support THIS. Give me the mortality rate for children with untreated diseases in the US.

A recent notable example involved this kid: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7018057.stm

LOL!!
You had to go to England, to finds a negative story about American healthcare! Give me a break! :madlaugh:

"Deamonte's mother, Alyce, could not afford private health insurance and in the US there is no state health service."

Of course, the author left out the point that even WITH Nationalized Healthcare, the kid died anyways. So much for that argument.


Who died when a problem with his teeth spread to his brain. If his mother could have afforded to pay for the extraction of the tooth he may have survived.

How about a pair of pliers? Or string and a door? A bit "Old-school" but works just fine. she obviously knew the kid had a problem with his teeth, and was told it has to come out. Pull the tooth, then take him to the hospitol to stitch it up.

By the way, the cost to have a tooth pulled in England is about $88USD ($43 GBP). This woman appears to have been neglectful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2451124

And honestly, death isn't the only issue. Long term health and psychological problems that otherwise would have been caught and treated also can plague these children throughout their lives.

Ok, this is at least a "plausible" argument. Now, prove it's a problem.

[Alonzo]

Fine. Then show me a stat to support THIS. Give me the mortality rate for children with untreated diseases in the US.

This is a variation of the same question you asked before. I don't know of such statistics for children but I'm surprised you seem to think that regardless of your ability to pay you get just as good health care as everyone else and that a huge bill from the hospital doesn't deter people from treating problems early.

We know uninsured adults are less likely to seek treatment. There are statistics, studies etc. on that. This one for example:

When the researchers compared these statistically similar groups, the differences due to insurance were clear. "After gaining Medicare coverage at age 65, health care use by previously uninsured adults not only rose to the level of previously insured adults but exceeded it substantially," says McWilliams. "These greater health care needs persisted at least through age 72."

These findings were especially noticeable in adults with cardiovascular disease or diabetes, illnesses that can be life-threatening when left untreated, but manageable if caught early. "This is a group for whom medical advances in recent decades have had an impressive impact on health. If people with diabetes, hypertension, or heart disease are uninsured, they often have to forego very cost-effective therapies," says McWilliams.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712144615.htm

You're suggesting that for some reasons uninsured children would be entirely different, and that makes no sense.

How about a pair of pliers? Or string and a door? A bit "Old-school" but works just fine. she obviously knew the kid had a problem with his teeth, and was told it has to come out. Pull the tooth, then take him to the hospitol to stitch it up.

Ya, pulling out the tooth with pliers and going to the hospital. Sure fixes the problem of not being able to afford going to the hospital.

LOL!!
You had to go to England, to finds a negative story about American healthcare! Give me a break! Madlaugh

"Deamonte's mother, Alyce, could not afford private health insurance and in the US there is no state health service."

Of course, the author left out the point that even WITH Nationalized Healthcare, the kid died anyways. So much for that argument.

How about a pair of pliers? Or string and a door? A bit "Old-school" but works just fine. she obviously knew the kid had a problem with his teeth, and was told it has to come out. Pull the tooth, then take him to the hospitol to stitch it up.

By the way, the cost to have a tooth pulled in England is about $88USD ($43 GBP). This woman appears to have been neglectful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2451124

Learn to read. It's an america story simply covered by the BBC. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

Maybe if you actually read before running your mouth you'd make more sense.

Look, I debate politics because I enjoy it. But I don't enjoy debating with people who first A. don't read what they comment on and B. go off on LOL trips while commenting on things they know nothing about. For example, you somehow think that the incident occured in England even though it specifically states it took place in Maryland and mentions american political parties throughout.

You debate civilly and I can debate for days. You get sarcastic and arrogant and I have no interest.