Just watched a documentary on Vietnam called "Hearts and Minds". It reminds me of the rhetoric of the presidential candidates who are saying they will destroy ISIS. In particular, Ted Cruz, who said that he will "carpet bomb them". This shows how little Cruz and others like him have a grasp of history. The last time we carpet bombed somebody was in Vietnam. That was totally unsuccessful. Never mind that carpet bombing is borderline war crime. The aim is to destroy an entire area, whatever or whoever is there. In Vietnam, it was not military targets but an entire city like Hanoi. That did not destroy the North Vietnamese army or the Viet Cong. This will work even less against ISIS since they have no country and they are not even the majority in a city. So if you carpet bomb a city you won't destroy ISIS but will get more resentment and more recruits.
All these rhetoric of shouting I will destroy the enemy or make American great again are just rhetoric. There are no reasonable strategy in this. In fact there is a lack of understanding of the world outside America. This remind me of General William Westmoreland, who commanded the troops in Vietnam. He claimed that his counterpart in North Vietnam is fighting a war of attrition by sacrificing thousands of men at each battle. He said that "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner...We value life and human dignity. They don't care about human life and dignity." I find this view racist. Beyond that, this lack of understanding of other people led to our defeat in Vietnam. I think some of these candidates will lead us into the same disaster if one of them is elected.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
8 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I actually think what's sad is that people who believe that their candidate would actually carpet bomb ISIS when they are elected. It's all talk unless these candidates are going to strike actual nations which would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteWestmoreland's comments are interesting because what we did was send our troops into war, sacrificing their lives. At the same time, we were carpet bombing the Vietnamese, so who didn't value life and human dignity?
Maybe his comments were just rhetoric as well, during war.
-LBOAYM
Here's a column by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/01/dear-trump-supporters-hear-me-out-before-you-vote-yours-kareem-abdul-jabbar/
I think he should have waited until Trump won the nomination. There's no need to give another candidate any momentum.
-LBOAYM
Kareem is a smart man and I agree with what he said about Trump and his supporters. Of course no Republican will read and agree with what he says.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the coronation of Clinton is going to take a while. She is neck to neck with Sanders tonight and with his assured victory in New Hampshire, it will be difficult for Clinton to get rid of him. This means she will have to veer to the left to win the primaries and also will have to spend more money than expected. This will make her more vulnerable in the general election.
Marco Rubio scored a surprisingly solid third tonight. When this started, I thought he had no chance due to his youth and being Hispanic. But as he did well in the debates, I wrote that if he does get the nomination, he would be a threat to Clinton, given that he will probably win the biggest toss up state, Florida. So maybe the GOP establishment has found their man. He is the answer to their prayer against a Cruz or a Trump at the top of their ticket. Long ways to go but the races of both parties are more interesting than expected. Now if only I can find a candidate that I actually like!
I actually enjoy reading what Kareem writes. I don't always agree with him, but he seems very introspective and he carefully thinks about what he writes. His personality seems like it has changed over the years. He used to be closed off. Maybe he was shy or very private. But now, he has really opened himself up.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if his column had anything to do with what happened in Iowa. But I still think that the Democrats need Trump to win the nomination for Clinton (yes, I am taking Sanders off) to win. I think it'll be a lot closer if Cruz or Rubio are in it. Though I really think that out of the 2, I'd rather have Rubio win it. Cruz seems to pander too much and I don't trust what he says (not that I trust what any of them say).
Sanders really needed to win last night in a large margin. I don't know if a tie or close win gets him any momentum. We will see what happens on Super Tuesday. It's actually quite amazing how well Sanders is doing. Like Trump, many people like him because he doesn't speak like a politician. He seems genuine in his convictions and doesn't really sway from what or who he is. That's admirable, but in reality, I doubt that this country will vote for someone who is a self-proclaimed socialist.
So the Super Bowl is this week. Who do you have? I'm going with Denver!
-LBOAYM
I think Cruz is too extreme right to beat Clinton. I even doubt that he can win the nomination if any establishment candidate does a decent job. (It looks like Rubio may be the only establishment candidate at this point.} Remember the last two GOP Iowa caucuses were also won by evangelical candidates: Huckabee and Santorum. Both flamed out shortly after. Cruz will do better than those two but he will have to sweep the deep south to hold off Trump and Rubio. And the GOP is worried that having him at the top of the ticket will hurt the party in the Senate and gubernatorial elections. So I think Clinton would rather face Cruz than Trump. Rubio is the best bet for the GOP if he can win the nomination.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think Sanders was supposed to win Iowa and so for it to be close, I think it helps him. But he is expected to win NH and so for him to get any momentum, he would have to win by double digits. Right now he has no superpacs and just depends on small donors. If he wins NH by double digits, he may get better funding. He is still a long shot but unless he loses badly in the next month, he will stay long enough to give Clinton a headache. Also if he stays close and Clinton has a big scandal, he maybe the alternative as oppose to someone like Biden coming to the rescue!
I will take the Panthers just to make it interesting. Anyone can win one game but I think anyone who has lost only once all season deserves to win it all. But it would be good for Manning to go out a winner.
Cruz is one of those candidates where I don't understand how he's getting a ton of support. I can't get a read of what his real ideals are. You might be correct that he won't beat Clinton, but I don't think Trump could beat Clinton. I'd think that Cruz would do better and would carry Texas, which would be huge. Do you think Clinton would talk about Cruz's Canadian heritage?
ReplyDeleteI can see Rubio doing better than the other two, but he's got to win the nomination first and I think Trump still plays a roadblock here.
Like I said, I'm amazed that Sanders has done so well without the deep pockets. Politics is all about fund raising these days. Can you imagine how Clinton would do without the Super Pacs? I don't know if she would be doing so well.
-LBOAYM
I am not sure how accurate this is, but I took it and it does take a little time to fill out. Check it out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz?from=VQfhwsQ4Q
-LBOAYM
I don't think Cruz would do better than Trump. The fact that he would carry Texas is of no importance since any Republican would carry Texas. It would be like saying an extreme liberal would carry California. It would be of no importance in a national election. Rubio, Christie and Kasich would be better than Cruz in a national election since their states are toss ups and they are more moderate.
ReplyDeleteBefore the campaigns started, Bush and Clinton were heavy favorites because of experience and lots of money support. The fact that Sanders and Trump have done so well just to show how the electorate is angry at the establishment.
I think the quiz is ok for domestic policies but there is very little foreign policies involved. I am not surprise by the candidate most close to my believes but the second p;ace person was a complete surprise. I don't see any chance of me voting for him. Of course I am not sure I would vote for the first place person.