Why Is the Far Left Putting the Military and All Americans in Danger?

[Ronin]

Tuesday, November 13, 2007
By Bill O'Reilly

First the background: When President Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000, some Americans thought Bush stole the election and the hatred set in.

Then 9/11 happened and most Americans supported the president when he aggressively went after Al Qaeda and their enablers.

Then came Iraq, again most Americans supported the action — but the far left did not.

Subsequently the Iraq war became extremely difficult and the far left became increasingly strident and bitter towards Mr. Bush.

And even though things are getting better in Iraq, that bitterness is still in play.

FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311036,00.html)
:listen:

[Sarah]

The lefties have a long history of being against America and the military.

[PaulRevere]

The real extreme America-hating wackjobs applauded 9/11; thought that we deserved it.

A few more opposed invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban; began preaching their hope-for defeat before the first troopers arrived.

The entire Far Side Left opposed overthrowing Saddam even when they beleved, like everyone going back several years, that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was a secular ruler, ostensibly socialist, and all of his shortcomings (mass murder, rule through fear, gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians, etc.) they were willing to overlook the same way the overlooked Stalin, Castro, Allende, Ortega, Chavez, and every other oppressive leftist dictator.

The reasons for this are unclear. I have two theories:

1. It goes back to the old quesiton, "Are leftists evil or are they just stupid?"

2. The left is all about sado-masochism and death, and they have a sick fascination with oppression. It's not that they don't know that Saddam, Stalin, et al are mass-murdering tyrants, it's not that they don't care (they don't), it's that they like these people. I could go into detail in defending this opinion, but I won't at this time.

[Ronin]

The real extreme America-hating wackjobs applauded 9/11; thought that we deserved it.

A few more opposed invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban; began preaching their hope-for defeat before the first troopers arrived.

The entire Far Side Left opposed overthrowing Saddam even when they beleved, like everyone going back several years, that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was a secular ruler, ostensibly socialist, and all of his shortcomings (mass murder, rule through fear, gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians, etc.) they were willing to overlook the same way the overlooked Stalin, Castro, Allende, Ortega, Chavez, and every other oppressive leftist dictator.

The reasons for this are unclear. I have two theories:

1. It goes back to the old quesiton, "Are leftists evil or are they just stupid?"

2. The left is all about sado-masicism and death, and they have a sick fascination with oppression. It's not that they don't know that Saddam, Stalin, et al are mass-murdering tyrants, it's not that they don't care (they don't), it's that they like these people.
==============
JMO, the far left [communists and fellow travelers] are all about gathering political power in order to supplant the current gov't with a socialist one.:biggrin:

[The_Elucidator]

The real extreme America-hating wackjobs applauded 9/11; thought that we deserved it.



I could really take this and run with it but I won't flame another thread. :thumb:

[Ronin]

Flame away! :thumb:

[The_Elucidator]

Flame away! :thumb:

Ronin, you know exactly what I am talking about - I'll let you have at this one... :biggrin:

[Lazarus]

The answer to the question is "The Leftists are Evil"... They are in fact Marxists or Marxist puppets... And as such their ultimate goal, which they never take their eyes off of, is the complete downfall of America...

Communists are patient... Once they have declared a target for their revolution and takeover, they will never stop their attacks, no matter how many generations it takes... They just train more silly children to carry on the fight...

The Leftists do in fact want to harm America - They want America to fall and become the latest slave state to Communism... In fact we are the golden prize... If they can cause our collapse, the world will fall to them...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why Is the Far Left Putting the Military and All Americans in Danger?
It's not just the far left, however. There is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination that fits that bill.

[The_Elucidator]

It's not just the far left, however. There is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination that fits that bill.

Ronin - did you catch that? :evilgrin:

[ThomasMore]

It comes down to one word: Pride.

The belief that you are better than everyone else. That you know better. That man is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by ... another man (or woman). That man can play God.

That the United States is not perfect, but good, and has power in the world, they hate above everything else. They will pick at flaws, but overlook enormities of evil elsewhere ... because evil is not their enemy.

If the United States was led by Jesus Christ Himself, they would hate the US -- even more, in fact. It gets in the way of their arrogant pride. Their sense that they know better than everyone else, and that they want to rule others.

[Ronin]

Ronin, you know exactly what I am talking about - I'll let you have at this one... :biggrin:
==============

I'll start with the Vietman War:

VIETNAM VET REFORM GROUP SAYS 60'S LIES ABOUT VIETNAM WAR MUST BE EXPOSED NOW TO DISCREDIT ACADEMIC VIEWS ON FOREIGN POLICY AND THREAT OF POLARIZATION. -

a V.V.A.R. newsnote from Leonard Magruder- President (Part 2)

The main focus of lying by the anti-war movement was two White Papers issued by the State Department in December l961 and March l965. The claims of these two papers, based on a great deal of evidence, were that Hanoi was directing a campaign of overt and covert subversion and aggression against an independent South Vietnam. In a sustained attack over the years, the anti-war movement claimed that the war was a civil war between "U.S. puppets" and "indigenous resistance" in South Vietnam.

This denial of a North Vietnamese presence in the South was the major contention, and the biggest lie, of opponents of the war. They portrayed the two White Papers as a calculated campaign of disinformation by the U.S. Governement. Destroying the credibility of these two White Papers was the chief objective of the anti-war movment and the first step in its ultimate victory over U.S. policy. But it was done by lying, and if they do it again with regards to current U.S. policy on the war on terrorism, they will destroy the homeland.

The l961 White Paper said outright and, as it turns out, correctly,"The Viet Cong are not indigenous freedom fighters; Hanoi is behind the guerrilla war in South Vietnam. The Lao Don party, that is, the Communist Party, is the vangard of the "liberation" movement." This first White Paper was the one that presented John F. Kennedy's case for assistance to South Vietnam as legal, moral, and proper.

The Second White Paper, released in Februrary of l965, after Lydon Johnson took over, again made the point that the conflict was caused by Hanoi's policy of conquest. It stated, "South Vietnam is fighting for its life against a brutal campaign of terror and armed attacks inspired , directed , and controlled by the Communist regime in Hanoi. It is established beyond question that North Vietnam is carrying out a carefully conceived plan of aggression against the South... a violation of the United Nations Charter and directly contrary to the Geneva Accords to which North Vietnam is a party."

The entire anti-war movement rested on the lie that North Vietnam was never involved in aggression. This was done to take the issue out of the arena of Cold War containment policy. This is what was taught to students in the notorious teach-ins at major universities. as well as spread by leading anti-war figures such as I.F.Stone, Stanton Lynd, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Abbie Hoffman, Francis Fitzgerald, and Hans Morganthau.

Later George Kahin and John Lewis in a text that was widely used in the teach-ins ,"The United States in Vietnam", wrote, "There is no evidence to assert, as does the U.S. White Paper of 1965, that the Liberation Front for South Vietnam was formed at Hanoi's order." They completely ignored all of the evidence that went into the two White Papers. Since then, of course, we have had numerous testimonies from disenchanted leaders of the North confirming the accuracy of the White Papers, men such as Van Toai Doan, author of "The Vietnamese Gulag" and Truong Nhu Tang, author of "A Vietcong Memoir."

As to the lie by the anti-war movement that the Viet Cong was an independent South Vietnamese political movement, Bui Ten, the North Vietnamese colonel who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam said in "The Wall Street Journal " recently, "It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960."

But the most important confession of involvment by Hanoi is found in the report "Summary of Fact", issued in l987 by Hanoi's Military History Institute describing key decisions made by Hanoi regarding South Vietnam from the Geneva Convention in l954 until the final conquest by the Communists in l975. Stephen B. Young in an article to which I am indebted for some material in this article, summarized the impact of this material when he wrote, "The Summary confirms the two American White Papers and utterly refutes the position of the anti-war movement.

Hanoi's document reveals how, step by step, the Vietnamese Communist leadership in Hanoi made the decisions to forment a war in South Vietnam and then, again and again, to escalate that conflict." From the start of South Vietnam's existence following the Geneva Conference, Hanoi was resolved to crush its autonomy and bring its people under Communist rule. Those who supported the war were never confused about this, but the lies of the anti-war movment came to be embraced by so many that the U.S. was threatened with serious internal conflict, and the flawed solution of Vietnamization offered by Nixon was accepted.

The "Summary of Fact" contains this statement, "Following the road set out by the Party Congress, on December 20, l960, the People's Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam was established." That is, the NFL, or Viet Cong is thus revealed by the Summary as having been the creation of Hanoi's Communist Party. That one sentence destroys the arguments of the anti-war movement.

The White Papers of 1961 and 1965 had assessed the intentions of Hanoi with complete accuracy. The credibility gap, or cynicism, of the 60's was not created by any fabrication on the part of the Kennedy or Johnson Administrations. It was created by deliberate lying by the leaders of the
anti-war movement.

Said Stephen B. Young in his article commenting on celebrations of the thirtieth anniversaries of the Vietnam War,"A generation congratulates itself once again for doing what the North Vietnamese never could have done -defeat the United States. History, as they say, is written by the victors, and the victor in this conflict was the American anti -war movement. It is no wonder, then , that our national recollection of the war matches that of the New Left.

It is no wonder too that certain questions are no longer asked, chief among them the question, a central one thirty years ago, of whether the U.S. involvement resulted from a tissue of lies Washington was spinning out even before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or whether its factual assessment of conditions in South Vietnam , Laos, and Cambodia and its consequent policy response to the plight of the South Vietnamese people was rational and justifiable."

We now know, with much of the evidence coming from the enemy itself, that the response was rational and justifiable. Therefore, what is taught on campus about the Vietnam War can no longer be tolerated as it is largely based on lies. By far the most widely used textbook on the Vietnam War in our universities is Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History." So biased is the book that when translated into a PBS series it caused protests and riots by Vietnamese refugees and Americans in New Orleans, Houston, Los Angeles, Washington, Paris, and London. A documentary , narrated by Charlton Heston was produced exposing the errors, and also a book, "Pirates are Losers."

The time has unquestionably come for Vietnam veterans, who were the primary victims of this massive academic conspiracy against truth to speak out strongly in demanding that this change, and that this matter of the two White Papers and the evidence that the anti-war movement was a moral fraud, be a central part of presenting to students a new and more honest view of the Vietnam War.

The only way that the American campus is going to be able to present the absolutely necessary unity with the rest of the nation that is required in the face of the terrorist crisis is to admit that it was wrong on Vietnam, admit they fell for and propagated enemy propaganda, as there are already signs that this may be happening again.

As the Chief of Military History, U.S. Government wrote in his "Final Report", "If there is to be an inquiry related to the Vietnam War, it should be into the reasons why enemy propaganda was so widespread in this country, and why the enemy was able to condition the public to such an extent hat the best educated segments of our population have given credence to the most incredible allegations."

http://www.leatherneck.com

=======

Anyone of you guys feel free to jump in. :)

[Ronin]

Ronin - did you catch that? :evilgrin:
=============
Not sure? I'm slow today.:D

[Lazarus]

Post....too....long.....

Must.....not.....read..........




:biggrin:

[Ronin]

Post....too....long.....

Must.....not.....read..........




:biggrin:
===============
Just read the first two paragraphs. That will tell you all you need to know.:biggrin:

[Ronin]

Ronin - did you catch that? :evilgrin:
===========
Rudy? :D

[Naturalized-Texan]

Just read the first two paragraphs. That will tell you all you need to know.:biggrin:
I suspect that everyone here already knows that. I know that I do and I have posted similar information here.

[Maggie_T]

1. It goes back to the old quesiton, "Are leftists evil or are they just stupid?"



Both, I would say. The evil ones are the elites, the stupid ones are their followers. However, that's not really the point. The point is that the far left has always hated America and the military (in general; the American military in particular). The left considers both as the epitome of "oppression."

And anyway, just because you're stupid does not mean you can't be evil at the same time. The left is proof of that. ;)

2. The left is all about sado-masochism and death, and they have a sick fascination with oppression.

3rd world dictators' oppression, that is. As I said above, they consider America to be the great oppresor. As usual, they use the word selectively.

It's not that they don't know that Saddam, Stalin, et al are mass-murdering tyrants, it's not that they don't care (they don't), it's that they like these people.

Because they were against America. In the far left's twisted, sick view, America is the evil, capitalistic, heartless bad guy, who oppresses the poor and robs 3rd world countries of their oil, and doesn't care about the fckuing environment. Therefore, anyone who is against America is by default pure and wholesome, good to the poor, and all that tripe.

Also, the far left is all about self-loathing. After 40+ years of indoctrination by imported dread-locked, dark-skinned, America-hating Marxist "professors" - not to mention the local pony-tailed, Birkenstock-clad, Woody Allen-looking variety - the far left is convinced that Western imperialism (lead by big bad America) has to go. It's the "other guys'" turn now. Dark skin and primitive cultures are a fetish with the left (far and near).

[Wyatt_Junker]

The Catholics had a very apt word for this particular leftist syndrome; scrupulosity. It was an out-of-balance disorder where the deranged would constrain themselves only while real evil was allowed a moral pass much in the same way T cells would turn against the very body that they were supposed to fight to protect.

IOW, its like moral AIDS. Envision a morality that is inverted, a morality that chooses to kill its own. NOT suicidal mind you. No, if it was merely suicide, we would have won already. No. Their sickness is worse than suicide because they want to live while killing their own neighbors.

Its not anti anything. That's just marketing. Its very pro. Its pro-death, pro-mayhem, pro-dictator, pro-luddite. That's what hippies are. They aren't passive. There is no such thing as a pacifist. The human animal is always for SOMETHING. And if its 'anti-war' in America what that means practically is that its pro-some-force-other-than-America. Because war itself is immaterial since its neutral.

Anti-war venom is not just the belief that we should not defend ourselves. Its not against something. Anti-war fervor is very for something. Its that we should be defamed and destroyed. Its syrupy coating is merely used to fool the taste buds into getting us to swallow their load.

If a pacifist were true, if the anti-war activist was integrous, if Ron Paul had a real clue in his rhetoric, it would mean that Hitler's death camps had moral weight. If war has no value, then it cannot be used as a vehicle for change at all, ever. Either an absolute is an absolute or it is not. Either Ron Paul is right about wars outside our borders or he is wrong. And for the hippies out there, what in the fuk does FREE TIBET mean if not for a military solution? How does one really expect to 'free Tibet'? It won't 'free' itself? Unless, of course, it is merely a chant used to make one feel good about themself.

Then the problem of the left becomes one of action itself. They view action as an evil force. Entropy is preferable than order. Being still over industriousness. Being lazy over hard work. And war is hard work, thus war is evil.

[Seabee]

And even though things are getting better in Iraq, that bitterness is still in play.

This statement about Iraq is the one that really pisses me off. Things are getting better? How in the hell long has the Right been saying this? It is a freaking war, nothing will be better until you destroy the enemy and give Iraq a true peace. We are at war, the freaking left needs to get over it, right, wrong, or indifferent. Setting goals is a reasonable thing, making sure you are making real gains and being accountable for that is fine also. But having to pander to these limp wristed panty wastes because they are looking for a political talking point to get elected is ludicrous. America needs to freaking grow up and stop trying to be phucking arm chair generals and admirals safe in the confines of middle class suburbia. Quit getting your information from talking heads on the idiot box, learn, read, educate yourself in the ways of history and wafare. You might start understanding.

Off of Soap Box.

[Rhino]

Most everyone here wants to win, but less violence and less casualties is indeed better.

[DoctorDoom]

Colonel Bui Tin

In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former Colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30,1975, confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was."

On strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war. It was the only way we could bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units, etc. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us ... those people represented the conscience of America ....part of it's war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor."

Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the Official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris.Colonel Bui Tin (http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapons/colonelbuitinpage.htm)

[Naturalized-Texan]

I've posted the following here previously, but it's worth repeating given the context of this thread:

From the memoirs of General Giap, Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army: The Tet Offensive launched by the North Vietnamese in 1968 was the last gasp of a defeated army much as the Battle of the Bulge was in World War II. The Tet Offensive was a huge military defeat for the North Vietnamese Army. Our military commanders knew that the North Vietnamese Army was defeated and wanted to press our advantage but the politicians in Washington chickened out. Consequently, that huge military defeat was turned into a giant propaganda victory for the North by the anti-American press and pro-Communist demonstrators like Bill Clinton.

More from Gen. Giap’s memoirs: Gen. Giap, Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army, gloats in his memoirs about how the American press and the pro-Communist demonstrators prolonged the war and helped him to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Gen. Giap also confirmed another fact that we who supported our troops in Vietnam knew all along: The war was clearly an invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese Army. It was NOT a civil war as the press claimed. Gen. Giap tells us that the Viet Cong were really crack units of the North Vietnamese Army that were infiltrated into the South during the 1950s to pave the way for the full-scale invasion that followed.

We know from Gen. Giap’s memoirs that the Viet Cong were really crack units of the North Vietnamese Army. The Viet Cong’s recruitment techniques were particularly gruesome. When the Viet Cong needed to “recruit” more cannon fodder, they would go into a South Vietnam village and execute the village elders either by decapitation or disembowelment. Then they would start raping and torturing women and girls until enough men and boys decided to join them. If that didn’t work, the Cong would begin killing babies and young children until they got enough “recruits.” When they went into battle, they would often use the women and children they had just raped and tortured as shields.

If you say that you never heard of Gen. Giap’s memoirs, I’m not surprised. The left-dominated American “mainstream” media can’t acknowledge a book that provides proof positive that they lied about the Vietnam War.

[Seabee]

Most everyone here wants to win, but less violence and less casualties is indeed better.

It is indeed better, but, you don't fight a war with pillows and let your enemies use bullets. We need to be particularly gruesome and inflict alot of casualties on the enemy. Hunt them down like wild dogs, make examples of them, and then kill them indiscriminantly.

[DesertFox]

The problem with the Left ever understanding a thing about war is that it's full of dilettantes who think that they are geniuses and that there's after all nothing much to fighting a war and any dummy can grasp it after a few days of reading war novels. They remind me of no one so much as Adolf Hitler, who thought himself a better general (with no training) than all his trained generals. He had no idea how powerful the Soviet Union really was and refused to believe it when accurate reports of their growing strength reached him.

Thus today's Left. Like Joe Stalin, they believe their own press and disbelieve anything by real experts who really do know what they're talking about. Ideology takes precedence over reality with the Left.

[Jack_Savage]

The problem with the Left ever understanding a thing about war is that it's full of dilettantes who think that they are geniuses and that there's after all nothing much to fighting a war and any dummy can grasp it after a few days of reading war novels. They remind me of no one so much as Adolf Hitler, who thought himself a better general (with no training) than all his trained generals. He had no idea how powerful the Soviet Union really was and refused to believe it when accurate reports of their growing strength reached him.

Thus today's Left. Like Joe Stalin, they believe their own press and disbelieve anything by real experts who really do know what they're talking about. Ideology takes precedence over reality with the Left.


Well you gotta remember that the decision makers live in there own little world, like the private island Brad and Angellenia just purchased in Dubai. A whole bunch just sold.

Compounds with tall stone walls, G-5's to whisk them to any place on earth in a couple of hours. No. Its only a handfull making the decisions, with train loads of fools carrying the water. The ship of fools who follow, do so thinking they can finally be somebody. Ha! thats funny. They actually think celebrities like signing autographs. C'mon, they hate the fools who follow them around.

They do what they do, because they like knowing they are part of the very select few who have it, and intend to do everything they can to keep it that way. Edwards new house should have answered any questions on that score. Why should they think they are at risk when they set it up for average Joe, Bubba, to take the spear.


Can't the worker bees of the elitists-left understand what is coming. The movie studios are going to some safe beach. If we don't wake up this whole country will be the worlds slum. You will do what your told and live in some converted home that will house three families in one two room flat. Your old 2000sf house will be home for six familys, all going out in the morning, doing tomorrows heavy lifting, blaming it all on Reagan and Bush. Who will stop them, the people who let it happen? C'mon, get real.

I really think if your under 50, your at real risk.

[Maggie_T]

Well said, D4R.