View Full Version : There They Go Again

03-27-2003, 03:18 PM
So Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has to go before Congress to get funds for the war effort.

Senator Byrd says they won't give him a blank check, even though Senator Byrd is in the minority party, and therefore doesn't ultimately have control. Senator Hollings, also a democrat, assured Rumsfeld that he would get what he needs... uh-huh.... both of these distinguished "gentlemen" were in office during the '70s...

Vietnam fell in 1975, and it fell to four army corps of regulars, employing more armor than the Wehrmacht sent into France in 1940.

When the North invaded in 1975, the Democrat Congress of the US refused any assistance to South Vietnam. After spending billions on the war, our military aid to South Vietnam was cut to $700 million. By 1974, South Vietnam soldiers were reduced to two hand grenades per man, and there was a drastic cut in ammunition supplies. Tactical communications were cut in half, and a quarter of the Vietnamese air force was grounded. More than a third of their tanks were idled, and bandages and surgical dressings were to be washed and reused.

According to Lawrence O'Brien, these cuts were made just as US analysts had concluded from an analysis of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 that supply-expenditure estimates for modern air-land battles had to be drastically increased.

That is taken from the editor's introduction to "Caster" by Eric Vinicoff. It is the only editor's introduction to a short story I've ever seen that was so heavily footnoted and documented.

Note that by this time U.S. military involvement was reduced to primarily air cavalry and anti-tank support. It was thought, with U.S. funding and training, that the S. Vietnamese could hold off the north without U.S. military involvement. They got the training; during that invasion at one location, a single ARVN division held off two NVA divisions, while armed with only 20 rounds of ammunition per man.

S. Vietnam fell to a massive N. Vietnamese army, and the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress. Including Senators Byrd and Hollings.

Thank goodness the Republicans control Congress today.

I point this out because the neo-commies are trying to sabotage the war effort. You can already see it in the news coverage on some of the networks, which portray our lack of instant victory with instant defeat. Which toss hostile, not critical, but hostile, questions at the military spokesmen. They failed to anger the people against the war, they failed to portray the U.S. as having evil intentions, they've failed to hide the hideousness of Hussein's regime, they've failed to use the U.N. to hamstring us, they've pretended to support the troops while criticizing their capabilities and tactics, they're attempting, inspired by our own reports of Iraqi violations of the Geneva Conventions, to pretend we are war criminals, and all of this is failing to stop the war effort. Jessie Jackson, never a friend of the U.S., is already pushing for a cease fire, one which he knows the Hussein regime will not obey, and knows that by rejecting the idiotic suggestion, the U.S. once again looks bad in an unsympathetic media, and if we accept we look as though we lack conviction and are betraying the Iraqi people.

And now in a last-ditch effort, the left-wing extremists in our Congress, desperate for any way to grab control of the nation and resume their march toward communism, are reassuring our defense secretary that they can be trusted to pay whatever funds are needed for the war. Maybe. But only if the Republicans stick together like their comm.. err Democrat opposition does, and give Rumsfeld a blank check.

03-29-2003, 09:37 AM
while the lack of cohesion in the Republican party seems to be their worst problem, it is not suprising if you consider that, generally, Republicans tend toward individualism, and democrats toward collectivism. at this point, nothing that democrats do suprises me anymore.