Search Ratttler

Tuesday, September 19, 2006


As I sat watching C-Span a thought occurred to me, how many more unwinnable wars will the republicans back? We had the Vietnam War, War Against Drugs, Desert Storm and now the newest failure of republicans choice of wars, War Against Terrorism. Now I'm going to address each one of these one by one.

Unwinnable Wars of The Republicans part one
Vietnam War:

Let's start with some historic facts, shall we?

The Vietnam War was a conflict in which the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) and its allies fought against the Republic of Vietnam (RVN or South Vietnam) and its allies. By its end in 1975, the Vietnam War had claimed between two and four million lives. It is also known as Vietnam Conflict, the Second Indochina War and colloquially as Vietnam, The ’Nam or simply ’Nam. Vietnamese Communists have often referred to it as the American War or Kháng chiến chống Mỹ, the Resistance War Against America.

North Vietnam’s allies included the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. South Vietnam's main allies included the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea; South Vietnam's allies deployed large numbers of troops. American combat troops were involved from 1959, but not in large numbers until 1965. They left the country in 1973. A large number of civilian casualties resulted from the war, which ended on April 30, 1975, with the capitulation of South Vietnam.

Now that we got the history out of the way, let's break this down. In 1959 Dwight David Eisenhower was president of the US, in fact he was president until 1961 and was a republican with Richard M. Nixon as his vice president. On 20th January, 1953 Eisenhower became the first soldier-President since Ulysses Grant (1869-77). Eisenhower left party matters to his vice-president, Richard Nixon (we all know his story).

Eisenhower's government was severely concerned about the success of communism in South East Asia. Between 1950 and 1953 they had lost 142,000 soldiers in attempting to stop communism entering South Korea. The United States feared that their efforts would have been wasted if communism were to spread to South Vietnam. Eisenhower was aware that he would have difficulty in persuading the American public to support another war so quickly after Korea. He therefore decided to rely on a small group of Military Advisers' to prevent South Vietnam becoming a communist state.

In foreign affairs during this period he relied heavily on Richard Nixon and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles. During the Suez Crisis President Dwight Eisenhower refused to support the Anglo-French action against Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. Afterwards his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, became concerned about the growing influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East.

In January 1957 made a speech in Congress where Eisenhower recommended the use of American forces to protect Middle East states against overt aggression from nations "controlled by international communism"(my, how views have changed for the middle east). He also urged the provision of economic aid to those countries with anti-communist governments. This new foreign policy became known as the Eisenhower Doctrine.

As one can easily see here Eisenhower relied deeply on Nixon for most matters, while in the White House. Now I know that 'Ike' went down as one of the favorite presidents of the United States, but here is some info most don't know or simply refuse to 'remember'.

President Eisenhower is viewed by some Americans as having little or no interest in eliminating racial discrimination and segregation in American society. Others believe that he did very little to promote equal treatment for minority Americans during his presidency. In an entry from Ike's diary addresses his thought about segregation and I quote

"Dwight D. Eisenhower, diary entry (24th July, 1953)
A few days ago I had luncheon with Governor Byrnes of South Carolina, my great friend, a man in whose company I always find a great deal for enjoyment.
He came to talk to me about the possibility of a supreme court ruling that would abolish segregation in public schools of the country. He is very fearful of the consequences in the South. He did not dwell long upon the possibility of riots, resultant ill feeling, and the like. He merely expressed very seriously the opinion that a number of states would immediately cease support for public schools.

During the course of this conversation, the governor brought out several times that the South no longer finds any great problem in dealing with adult Negroes. They are frightened at putting the children together.

The governor was obviously afraid that I would be carried away by the hope of capturing the Negro vote in this country, and as a consequence take a stand on the question that would forever defeat any possibility of developing a real Republican or "opposition" party in the South.

I told him that while I was not going to give in advance my attitude toward a supreme court opinion that I had not even seen and so could not know in what terms it would be couched, that my convictions would not be formed by political expediency. He is well aware of my belief that improvement in race relations is one of those things that will be healthy and sound only if it starts locally. I do not believe that prejudices, even palpably unjustified prejudices, will succumb to compulsion.

Consequently, I believe that federal law imposed upon our states in such a way as to bring about a conflict of the police powers of the states and of the nation, would set back the cause of progress in race relations for a long, long time."

As one can see within the highlighted part 'Ike' was against the possibility of a supreme court ruling that would rid the US of segregation, but hey he was a likable type of guy.

Here are some quotes from people of that era about Eisenhower:

"The incredible dullness wreaked upon the American landscape in Eisenhower's eight years has been the triumph of the corporation. A tasteless, sexless, odorless sanctity in architecture, manners, modes, styles has been the result. Eisenhower embodied half the needs of the nation, the needs of the timid, the petrified, the sanctimonious and the sluggish."--Norman Mailer, The Presidential Papers

"The trouble with Eisenhower is he's just a coward. He hasn't got any backbone at all. Ike didn't know anything, and all the time he was in office he didn't learn a thing."--Harry S Truman, 1961

"I doubt very much if a man whose main literary interests were in works by Mr. Zane Grey, admirable as they may be, is particularly well equipped to be chief executive of this country--particularly where Indian affairs are concerned."--Dean Acheson

Eisenhower also set the record for running up more debt than any earlier president, primarily to serve the requests of what Republican President Eisenhower had, with alarm, termed the "military- industrial complex." this record being broken only by Reagan and George W Bush, both who are/were republican.

Let's look a little further back into Einenhower's past, Hey how about what he wrote during his military career
"God, I hate the Germans..." (Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944.

Wonder how many know about 'Eisenhower's Death Camps' and how horrible they were and how injustice, yet 'Ike' was a nice guy, Americans bend backwards to be nice and friendly among ourselves as well as with foreigners. In our zeal to retain the image of nice guyism, we go to extremes rarely witnessed in other societies and give rise sometimes to very amusing, if not ludicrous, situations. The defeat many years earlier of the eminent intellectual Presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson, at the hands of a grin-gifted Gen. Eisenhower, was nothing but a reflection of the preference of the people for a friendly, nice guy to an erudite, awesome intellectual.

Now that I have bored you to tears the point is, the Vietnam War was NOT won in any sense of the matter, I know many will try to disagree with this statement and I challenge them to explain how the Vietnam War was won. We were engaged in the Vietnam War earlier than most know and it was under the presidential ruling of a republican.

I would strongly suggest the reading of 'Eisenhower's Death Camps': A U.S. Prison Guard's Story. I think if one takes the time to read this, they will easily see the similarities of Unwinnable Wars of The Republicans.

~~~~~~Forever A Facetious Pain~~~~~~
~~~~~~Sweet Smiles~~~~~~

This is only part one of a five part series in the Unwinnable Wars of the Republicans, stay turn for more, same facetious channel, same facetious time. Hope to see you there!!!


PoliticsUnited said...

I hate to burst your bubble, but I don't care for revisionist history for your own agenda.

Perhaps this will help:

That was LONG before Ike .... as a matter of fact, check your history involving Harry Truman and you'll see the word "Vietman" pop up a LOT

Facetious Muse said...

Well politics I dont have agenda, maybe I need to share the info that I don't belong to either party and all this info you can find for yourself.

When the Vietnam war started Eisenhower was in fact president in '59' when US got involved in the war, even though it wasnt in great numbers.

Also nothing I said here was incorrect or not factual.
But I do want to thank you for your comment and I will check out the link you place. I actually was thinking that someone would try to argue how Nam was won. I look forward to more of your comments. If everyone could have an exchange of opinions and debate the world would be a better place.

~~~~~Forever A Facetious Pain~~~~~

Eff25 said...

I've no comment on the Vietnam War, but 1 thing bothers me about your post: Why include his sentiment about Germans to his wife, given that you are aware of the context?

Yes, he's generalizing.

Yes, he should try to be more objective.

But it looks as if you've taken an apparently otherwise good argument and added a straw weight to it.

How many US soldiers during WW2 sent home such letters, and how many reconciled their feelings later?

Honestly, I think you're going overboard in trying to further prove his psychological mindset by using that quote. Historically speaking, it's not as if he had no basis for his feelings, right or wrong.

Facetious Muse said...

Eff reason why I included that quote is it get worst. He thought all in germany including children were scum, this surprised me. I always thought the Einserhower was a great guy till i started to do some reasearch, if one looks at his record while in the military people would be appalled.

From all I know about Germay and conflicts with them, never once they use their children to harm others. Now I am not saying that perhaps some children didnt do things, I am not sure and I will look into that.

Eff thank you for bringing this up and I now know I need to do some more research on it.

~~~~~Forvere A Facetious Pain~~~~~

Facetious Muse said...

please forgive all the typos in my last comment at work and lunch time is over ttys

Eff25 said...

Well, I didn't know he felt that way. Assuming you're correct, the problem would then be that the quote doesn't as strongly imply that sentiment. The immediate assumption for me is that it is the word of an angered soldier, not a person whom outrights hates all Germans, thinking them to be "scum." I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. I understood, though, why you included it, I'm just not sure it was fair.