You're not Lincoln Mister Obama.

It was a war we wanted on foreign soil. The Vietnamese couldn't get within 1000 miles of American soil if they wanted. And on top of that, if we really wanted to wipe Vietnam off the map we could. Just like Afghanistan and Iraq. Different type of warfare. More like policing than war.

 

We lost because we had no real objective other than to prop up a serially corrupt and unpopular puppet government that would have never existed had the US not jawboned the UN into partitioning Indo China after the French defeat the Dien Bein Phu.

Maxwell Taylor essentially told Eisenhower that in 1954.

Ho Chi Minh was the rightful leader of the Vietnamese people. Which is why he won in the end.

We could have saved ourselves a lot of money and blood by recognizing that in the first place, and working with him to win the peace.

 

Well no. That is not what happened. The North used recruited, sometimes coerced people in the south, to harass, and harry. In which battles did you see human wave tactics? Nearly always they struck and ran.

Anyone who does not see would-be tyrants in today's political landscape is beyond help already.

 

I liked M. Taylor. We did not fight the right enemy in the right place. That has nothing to do with my point that popular insurgencies can and do win against professional armies. Fifty or sixty million armed men can take down a million. And that was the point of the Second Amendment.

 

It still gets down to the fact that Kennedy and Johnson did not have the will to win.

 

Simplify as far as you wish. Whatever works for you is fine with me. That has no bearing on the Second Amendment's reasons.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Day_Battle_of_1968

One of the many, no the VC and NVA was more then waiting for a US patrol to pass and take a potshot and run.

They had full blown offensive assaults against fixed defenses without any added support of anything more heavy then

Care to give some clear examples of where ths is shown?

 

It is entirely possible that you are using wave attack to mean something completely different. The attack that was described does not look like a wave attack to me. I envision an attacker, constrained by terrain to attack with battalions in column, one after another.

In addition it seems that the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat and a strategic success. You have not proven your case.

I also wrote, "Anyone who does not see would-be tyrants in today's political landscape is beyond help already."

I offer up the lawless Obama.

 

Its clear the vc and NVA used lots of bodys to overcome the lack of heavy weapons. Again, I dont see the vastly spoiled average US citizen repeat that.
Throw away his live for only éa chance to strike at what is precieved by some as a dictator?

Thats not an example or source, I see you having 0 arguments to support what you claim.

Btw: Obama follows the law, USA still has its checks and balances in place and obama works with them.

 

Earlier I wrote, "It is entirely possible that you are using wave attack to mean something completely different. The attack that was described does not look like a wave attack to me. I envision an attacker, constrained by terrain to attack with battalions in column, one after another.

In addition it seems that the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat and a strategic success. You have not proven your case."

Every attack "throws away lives". Do you agree?

Do you believe that Americans are likely to conduct those kinds of attacks? I would encourage the destruction of rail lines, of bridges, of power lines, of sewer lines, of water lines going into military installations. I would not attack the military directly. I want then cold and hungry, wallowing in raw sewage.

Really? He rules by executive order against the Constitution. He is the most dangerous enemy Americans have seen in generations.
He is the Imperial President. What's his name in the White House is angling for an impeachment.

 

lol.. till they meet the US Marine Corps

Oh but they intend to kill the police first, then take out our soldiers who they think are coming to take their phallus symbols.

Here's a heads up... the GOP has zero relationship with Lincoln... anything he spoke, anything he stood for... the party he began with... NOR does this GOP have any relationship to Ronald Reagan... anything he spoke... anything he stood for... and definitely nothing he believed in. Today's GOP is lost in a wilderness of hatred, bigotry and fear... rightwing militia's live a delusion.

So.. as far as I'm concerned... Barack Obama comes far closer to what Lincoln and Reagan stood for...than any tea party Koch brothers, GOP libertarian bigot does today.. In fact... both would be proud that Obama has adopted much of what both men spoke and stood for.

 

Three hundred million weapons. 80 million armed households.
A standing army of about a million. Two million two hundred thousand busybody bureaucrats.

This is why the Framers wanted an armed citizenry.

We are in the early stages of a tyrannical government. We generate 80,000 pages of new regulations every year. We have more than 90,000 regulations with more than 400 more being generated per month. Everyone is a criminal. Everyone has broke one of the hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations the federal government has ensnared us with.

It is time to stop.

Lincoln said he knew he had to die because of the suffering he had caused with the Civil War. He said the Civil War was God's punishment on the nation for the stain of slavery.

What's his name in the White House is constantly provoking ordinary citizens. Why do you think he does it?

 

You do realise this would hurt for 99% the civilian population and barely the military? Do you honestly think they depend on the iraqi or afghani infrastructure while fighting that war?

While the US army is used to this kind of situation, the "freedom fighters" would not only get a huge backblow from the US population they would find it hard themselves unacustomed to this kind of situation.


The problem is you see the AVG US citizen as a rugged outdoors ready to do such thing while threality is a papamered spoiled brat compared to the VC and NVA.


Wich is why I highly doubt they can even get close to mimick someof the things they did and even that was at enourmous expense of human life.

Bs, so many courts, show me one competant that agrees with you.

The USA has checks and balances in place .

What you dont realise that YOUR idea of what constitutes a violation doesnt matter. There is a judicinal system included in the US structure that handels that , and any law violating any of that gets annuled, as it should be, and as it always was.

Not dictatorship simply how its always been.

You seem more controlled by a irrational hate then any argument.

Sorry but bush who got the US in a very expensive needless war and tanked the economy was a lot more dangerous.

 

I had in mind damaging the resources that directly support the military. Why would an insurgency damage infrastructure in general? If I were leading the insurgency I would target the 2.2 million busybody bureaucrats. They are everywhere. I would disrupt power, fuel, water, and sewage that provides resources for the military.

Which is a great argument for not doing it. The goal of an insurgency is to get the government to relent or to overthrow it. An insurgency, if it is to succeed must be seen as a reasonably good alternative to the existing government. One does not do that by harming the citizens unnecessarily.

Such things have always been said of the present generation. Heroes would rise up in every community just as they have always done. Among them a few would have a genius for war.

Fortunately it will not depend upon you.

 

Earlier I wrote,"He rules by executive order against the Constitution."

Unlike some I do not rely upon finding an authority to cite. I am sufficiently aware of the Constitution and the misdeeds of this imperial president to draw my own conclusions.

Maybe, in some cases. But not in enough cases. The imperial president was not able to get legislative action to provide amnesty to illegal aliens so he announced that his executive branch would behave as if he did have legislation. There are many cases. If you have ever heard him say that if the legislative does not do what he wants them to in a timely manner he will act on his own you are listening to a tyrant.

Actually it matters a very great deal. When the citizenry is aroused to arms what we believe will matter entirely. The courts have become part of the problem. How else can one understand the Affordable Care act as a constitutional law? One cannot. Justice Roberts betrayed the nation.

The federal government is a major threat to our liberty and freedoms.

 

And thats absolute BS,

Not only is the military trained for such things, you simply cant believe you can take out bridges without hurting civilian population and economy . Same goes for the vast mayority of the rest.

And if you think disrupting a sewer will halt a dictator ...


It wasnt the bad situation in the jungle that made the US army pack in in vietnam, it was the continued massive casulties and non support back home.

Wich is why what you propose is counter productive or non effctive.

Yeah, you be so naive that suddenly "heroes" would rise up and halt the entire US army, this really isnt a movie you know.

Actually yuu probably would be surpised, but thats besides the point.

If ever the US gouvernement crosses a very fine and very subjective line into "dictatorship" for a large enough group, they would have little to no power to do anything about it, besides (*)(*)(*)(*) of a whole lot of people they would actually need to get anything done.

Wether you like it or not, a hitler style coup d'etat is not going to happen, in no near future is there going to be a sudden clear dictator in full power of the USA, thats why the whole argument is quite frankly BS.

 

Ah you are a jugje and jury then on the very complicated matter of the US Constitution .

Yeah right.

Well in reality the USA has its checks and balances and they go beyond 1 person thinking something.


Remind me (you as a consitution expert) what is Article Three of the United States Constitution about?

imperial ? You dont even know what that word means do you?


And what you describe is the US system as granted by the consitution you so revere. The president has that right, and following the correct rules and regulations described and granted by centuries of congress and courts suddenly makes you a tyrant?



Lets see

"A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character[1] who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, or one who has usurped sovereignty. "

Yes giving citizenship to people exercising the right the US president has, doesnt really match the definition.


But of course you so like to call the president names, even when they make no sense.

A so you want to revolt against your own country AND against that pieve of paper you pretend to like so much.

You , like an spoiled child, just want your way. And the consitution is just an excuse to try and push for it.

By all means revolt against the terrible dictator obama who in his harsh opression gives health care and citizenship to the people in full accordance of US law.

 

Yeah obviously Lincoln was a better public speaker, but Obama is still pretty formidable. Probably the best your country has had from a pure oratory perspective since JFK. Remember, I'm talking purely from an oratory perspective. As a whole communicating to the electorate I'd go with FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan. Of course, being able to communicate your ideas well doesn't matter much if those ideas are tyrannical.

Lincoln miserably fails this test. He is so overrated that I can't comprehend where all this praise has come from. He was arguably the most totalitarian president you had until Wilson.

Notice how all the rankings of Presidents list the few I mentioned in the top 5 without exception. These rankings use superficial measures of greatness - how well they spoke, how daring their policy achievements were, how much they were willing to usurp the constitutional authority of Congress and expand the executive into an office of absolute power.

I highly recommend checking out Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity and Liberty. I got the Kindle version and in retrospect would have paid 5 times the asking price. If you want to learn a lot about each president and how they shape up from a constitutional perspective then this is where to start.

Men like Martin Van Buren, John Tyler and Grover Cleveland were the true great Presidents, not FDR, Reagan and Lincoln.

 

Earlier I wrote, "I had in mind damaging the resources that directly support the military. Why would an insurgency damage infrastructure in general? If I were leading the insurgency I would target the 2.2 million busybody bureaucrats. They are everywhere. I would disrupt power, fuel, water, and sewage that provides resources for the military."

Have you "done" much war? Have you studied insurgencies?
If I drove a truck up to the overpass that leads into some particular Army post and blew it up so that traffic had to be rerouted to less efficient roads would that have an impact on the fort?
If I blew up trucks headed for the fort on those less efficient roads do you think that would have an effect?
If I killed the truck drivers and stole their trucks do you think that might have an effect?
If I blew up power transmission towers leading onto Army posts do you think that would have an effect?
If 50 million armed citizens chose to fight when and where they could against an Army of about a million men do you think that would have an effect?

And if the insurgents began to kill every one of those two point two million busybody bureaucrats do you think that would have an effect?

I do.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Which is a great argument for not doing it. The goal of an insurgency is to get the government to relent or to overthrow it. An insurgency, if it is to succeed must be seen as a reasonably good alternative to the existing government. One does not do that by harming the citizens unnecessarily."

You created that straw man. I didn't.

I did not propose the course of action you claimed. I proposed the opposite. So we do agree. My course of action, of making the government to appear to be noneffective, of providing an alternative to it, of harassing and killing its busybodies, and harassing and killing is military members, is the right course of action for an insurgency.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Such things have always been said of the present generation. Heroes would rise up in every community just as they have always done. Among them a few would have a genius for war."

I now understand that you have no idea of what we speak. You carry a mental model in your head that is so unrealistic as to be worthless.

The Army is not all in one place. Those 2.2 million busybody bureaucrats are not all in one place. And the 50 million armed Americans (80 million is just s good a number) are not in one place.

In every war heroes have risen. The war between the citizens and their government would generate many, I am certain. And a few would discover that they were born to make war. Such is the record of all of history.

 

Do you believe a nation can fall into tyranny in only one way? Hitler did use violence to set the stage. Obama uses regulations and taxation. I see substantial regulatory tyranny today. Everywhere the government touches the people there is friction, discontent, anger, and hatred. The federal government is our greatest enemy and has become the greatest source of danger to the people.

By the time you recognize the danger it will have swept you away.

Fortunately, the solution does not depend upon you.

 

Earlier I wrote,"He rules by executive order against the Constitution.

Unlike some I do not rely upon finding an authority to cite. I am sufficiently aware of the Constitution and the misdeeds of this imperial president to draw my own conclusions."

Why do you make it harder than it is?

It is easy to read. The debates of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists are available to read at very low cost. I am a citizen. it is m right to determine, for myself, whether or not the One, the Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barack Hussein Obama, is now ruling rather than leading the executive branch.

It is my right to determine whether or not the Congress is allowing the Marxist to violate the Constitution with near impunity.

And it is your right as well.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Maybe, in some cases. But not in enough cases. The imperial president was not able to get legislative action to provide amnesty to illegal aliens so he announced that his executive branch would behave as if he did have legislation. There are many cases. If you have ever heard him say that if the legislative does not do what he wants them to in a timely manner he will act on his own you are listening to a tyrant."

Are you familiar with the reasons why one part of the government is to make the laws while another part executes them? It is to prevent tyranny. When power is not constrained tyranny has come. When you no longer get to decide for you and I no longer get to decide for me then tyranny has come.

Explain why you believe the president has the power to create legislation through executive orders? He does not. So every time this imperial president does so he is showing that he has the heart and mind of a tyrant.

You do not understand this do you?