Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

The Vietnamese won that war in the American press, and the press helped them. Militarily we were beating them. It was a war they couldn't win and would have to capitulate, eventually.

Define 'winning'. We conducted that war as we are conducting the present wars; on terms that make winning, as winning is conventionally understood, impossible.

Vietnam, we sought to win battles, and we did. We did not fight to force them to quit. So, we were NOT winning that war, at all. Unless your definition is the same as theirs; win battles.

Bush did the exact same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are NOT fighting either one with the goal of making the enemy quit.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Define 'winning'.

The North Vietnamese brass was this close to surrender.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

The North Vietnamese brass was this close to surrender.

No they weren't. They were 'this' close to coming to the table and stalling. Again. To clarify, we could have WON that war and, every time we actually fought that way, we pushed them to the brink. And let them off the hook.

That would have presented a whole other set of problems; what then? Another Korea?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Another Korea?

You mean, basically fighting the Chinese, on Vietnamese soil?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

You mean, basically fighting the Chinese, on Vietnamese soil?

Pretty much. I mean, what did WE get out of Korea? What US national interest was served?

The Soviet Union collapsed of it's own weight and I think it is reasonable to think it would have collapsed sooner had we stayed out of Korea and Vietnam.

Vietnam has turned out OK after us losing. They had to deal with their problems. N. Korea is this totally ####ed up place.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Vietnam has turned out OK after us losing..

Well, I suppose if you don't count the million or so South Vietnamese civilians who died, and hundreds of thousands slaughtered after we left. Or a destabilized Cambodia where miliions more left. Or the millions of ethnic Chinese driven out of Vietnam after we left. Or the millions of refugees and boat people who went abroad and into Thailand.

Yeah, I mean, you kill off all your enemies, and then - life is good. Worked for Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Josef Stalin.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Well, I suppose if you don't count the million or so South Vietnamese civilians who died, and hundreds of thousands slaughtered after we left. Or a destabilized Cambodia where miliions more left. Or the millions of ethnic Chinese driven out of Vietnam after we left. Or the millions of refugees and boat people who went abroad and into Thailand.

Yeah, I mean, you kill off all your enemies, and then - life is good. Worked for Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Josef Stalin.

And our 55,000 KIA and several 100,000 wounded paid in blood for...???

You seem to be a neocon and I can appreciate that. I think I was one. However, Bush cured me of ever thinking it's worth leading someone to freedom at the end of a rifle again. The founders warned of unintended consequences and foreign entanglements for many good and sound reasons; they knew well their history and of that which they spoke.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

You seem to be a neocon and I can appreciate that.

Not at all, nor am I a die-hard Bush cheerleader. But I am used to you putting words in my mouth and THEN making arguments with them. It's actually amusing, if not time-consuming.

I certainly wouldn't say that Vietnam is just fine now, or that China is. Millions of people paid and continue to pay for that "just fine" status with their lives and blood. And that would be true if no American lives were lost in Vietnam. They were and still are, fairly brutal regimes. Defending it to me, is like defending Castro.

Bear in mind that the concern during the Cold War was the containment of Communism, and not the spread of democracy or freeing the oppressed. In that respect, I'd have to say the efforts of the United States were a success. Outside of China, Communism is largely a complete failure, and the world doesn't look like a line of toppling dominoes - as it really DID appear in the 50's and 60's and 70's. You see a stable communist state in Vietnam and a crazy regime in North Korea. (shrug) I see an Asia NOT dominated by the spread of communism, with a couple of failures.

I don't know what the world would have been like, but I'd like to think we stopped communism in its tracks.

And I have to go home for the day.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Define 'winning'. We conducted that war as we are conducting the present wars; on terms that make winning, as winning is conventionally understood, impossible.

Vietnam, we sought to win battles, and we did. We did not fight to force them to quit. So, we were NOT winning that war, at all. Unless your definition is the same as theirs; win battles.

Bush did the exact same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are NOT fighting either one with the goal of making the enemy quit.

I agree with this point. If the country feels we must engage an entity, Congress should have the balls to declare a formal war and the President should let the military loose to win that war. If the country wants to nation build - send in the cops.

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I mean, what did WE get out of Korea? What US national interest was served?

We were the greater part of the United Nations forces that entered that fray. Truman wussed out near the end. Strategically Korea is invaluable. Oddly enough, the Koreans don't recognize a North & South, just one Korea.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I certainly wouldn't say that Vietnam is just fine now, or that China is. Millions of people paid and continue to pay for that "just fine" status with their lives and blood. And that would be true if no American lives were lost in Vietnam. They were and still are, fairly brutal regimes. Defending it to me, is like defending Castro.

Bear in mind that the concern during the Cold War was the containment of Communism, and not the spread of democracy or freeing the oppressed. In that respect, I'd have to say the efforts of the United States were a success. Outside of China, Communism is largely a complete failure, and the world doesn't look like a line of toppling dominoes - as it really DID appear in the 50's and 60's and 70's. You see a stable communist state in Vietnam and a crazy regime in North Korea. (shrug) I see an Asia NOT dominated by the spread of communism, with a couple of failures.

I agree for the most part other than one must recognize that China's economic success is due in large part to the government adopting capitalism for large segments of its economy, not Communism.

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Please show me where Fox has ever labeled themselves as unbiased. I'll wait.

They bill themselves as "fair and balanced," which they are.

Yes, I agree, they bill themselves as fair and balanced. And unbiased means what?

Main Entry: un·bi·ased
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈbī-əst\
Function: adjective
Date: 1607

1 : free from bias; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair <an unbiased opinion>
2 : having an expected value equal to a population parameter being estimated <an unbiased estimate of the population mean>
synonyms see fair

Fair and balanced they are not. They clearly tout a conservative point of view in much the same way MSNBC touts a liberal view. Those who watch these channels consider them fair and balanced, as they support their ideological views.

While an individual is expected to have an opinion one way or another, it doesn't make it an impossibility to provide facts. Both these stations do not do this.