Today I was kicked off of Redstate. I'm sure you are curious as to why. I wasn't kicked off for my support of Israel. I wasn't kicked off for various heretical religious beliefs. I wasn't even kicked off for being a social liberal or opposing the Iraq War. I wasn't kicked off for any reason that you can possibly fathom, from Scooter Libby to David Vitter. I was kicked off because I stated that the Vietnam War could not have been won.
I know. WTF!?!
Let's get the story.
I was responding to this diary where the author accuses Democrats of being "cowards" and "tucktails." Here is the statement that caught my attention:
Relive the 1970s. Show us that you accept the inevitable slaughter of millions as irrelevant so that we can all watch the evening news without being bothered. Prove that refugees dying on boats and in camps are merely pictures, and not men, women, and children possessed of human dignity, being tortured because the United States won't live up to its promises. Remind the world again that we are a paper tiger, and then grieve when another embassy is held hostage.
This is all stated below a photo of Vietnamese "boat people."
I responded thus (my Redstate handle was Mojo):
They are doing what they can to stop it, albeit slowly. The only ones that seems to think that a grand victory is still attainable with lovely parades and confetti is the White House and a few that refuse to see reality.
Relive the 1970s? Are you seriously implying that Vietnam could have been won? I'll remind you that the main enemy of the United States during the Vietnam War was South Vietnamese in the form of the Vietcong, a partisan organization devoted to the downfall of a weak, impotent American backed government full of corruption and the removal of, what was perceived as, the American military invader. Is this sounding familiar?
Also, you speak of the Iran embassy crisis but, conveniently, omit the fact that it was American involvement in Iranian affairs that led to that event. It was anger at an American backed coup, engineered by the CIA, that deposed a legitimately elected government and imposition of the Shah upon Iran. Again, American involvement and manipulation of world governments caused the crisis. Is this sounding familiar?
Finally, it is the Democratic Party not the Democrat Party. Such elementary insults should be beneath any rational person.
A David Hinz responded to me by saying my history was based upon faulty public school education:
like most of the Democrat Party, all you learned about Vietnam was the US was bad, we should never have gotten into it, and its all about oil (oops, sorry, that the talking point for THIS battle)
There is so much ignorance in your post I hardly know where to begin.
In fact, I'll not bother, since you cannot be swayed by logic anyways. But YES, the US and the South Vietnamese could have won, and in fact would have won had congress not pulled all funding away from our ally.
Again, shocked that anyone would actually believe that the Vietnam War could be won I responded to this Hinz:
I think my public school education was adequate. I grew up in a small town in southeast Georgia so there were two choices, the public school and the private school and as my family were poor I attended the public school, but my reasoning is not based upon any failing of the public school system but upon basic established fact. Facts that I learned in high school. Facts that I learned in history courses in college. And, facts that I have learned upon my own reading.
The war was lost long before any funding was cut off. The war was lost in 1945 when the United States said that it did not dispute French claims to the region. With the long history of French brutality to the natives of Indochina this would not exactly endear the United States to those native groups. The war was lost when at Potsdam the United States did not support the idea of self rule for the region, instead supporting a plan of dividing influence/control of the region at the 16th Parallel, with the Chinese controlling the northern region and the British/French the southern. The war was lost when President Truman stated, "My government offers no opposition to the return of the French army and authority in Indochina."
The war was lost with U.S. support of the corrupt Ngo Dinh Diem, a Catholic leader in a Buddhist nation. Barbara Tuchman described him thus, "Rigid in his ideas, unschooled in compromise, unacquainted with democracy in practice, he was unable to deal with dissent or opposition except by fiat of force."
The war was lost with U.S. support of Diem's denial of the 1956 elections that were agreed to previously in Geneva because the vast majority of northern and southern Vietnamese supported the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh. Leo Cherne stated that "the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese would vote Communist." JFK, then a Senator, spoke of the popularity and prevalance of Minh and his Communist Party. President Eisenhower supported Diem's denial of the election and refused to agree to it taking place. The war was over decaded before any funding was even denied.
Then again, that is a public school education speaking.
Also, I wonder if the author of this piece believes that the majority of decent Americans who opposed the Vietnam War were also "cowards" and "tucktails?"
Of course, someone responded that they did believe the majority of Americans were "cowards" and "tucktails."
Now, read my last post again. Is there anything worthy of removal? I've stated various liberal principles time and again on Redstate, yet my account was never removed, but stating Vietnam was a lost cause was grounds for removal.
Moe Lane, I'm assuming an adminstrator, removed my account and stated:
Mojo, I look forward to your 2,000 word essay on the fall of South Vietnam. Be sure to focus on the troop strengths on each side; please also include a 'what-if' scenario discussing possible outcomes if the South Vietnamese military had not been denied the military aid previously promised them by the United States government.
No, you're right: that's a lot for a 2,000 word essay. 3,000 words, then.
As always, send it in via the Contact link and we'll think about turning your account back on.
I felt like I was back in grade school for a moment.
The author responded to my initial response and while crafting my reply my account was removed and so my response was lost. I'll recreate just to piss them off. The author, Thomas, responded:
"They are doing what they can to stop it, albeit slowly."
Is this with or without the giant puppet-heads? I lose track. Because if we're talking about the crying little girls in Congress, you're not holding them to their words. If every American dollar and life spent in Iraq is wasted, then they are complicit in that waste of gold and blood by not ending this thing now. If American public opinion is so very much on their side, and if the morality of this is clear, then they are just as bloodstained as the man they oppose.
But of course, you're prepared to make excuses for them. So go for it. I can't wait.
"The only ones that seems to think that a grand victory is still attainable with lovely parades and confetti is the White House and a few that refuse to see reality."
The only ones who think a grand victory would entail parades and confetti are the one who think the White House does.
"Relive the 1970s? Are you seriously implying that Vietnam could have been won?"
(1) No, I'm implying that retreating from Vietnam brought on the 1970s.
(2) It is, however, a statement of no controversy that the Vietnam War was effectively won as a result of the Tet Offensive. It was only because of American hesitance to bomb North Vietnamese supply and military centers for fear of dragging the Soviets and Chinese into the war (who were funding the NVA and the VC), and that because of a similarly situated group of tucktails, that the conflict dragged on as long as it did.
"I'll remind you that the main enemy of the United States during the Vietnam War was South Vietnamese in the form of the Vietcong, a partisan organization devoted to the downfall of a weak, impotent American backed government full of corruption and the removal of, what was perceived as, the American military invader. Is this sounding familiar?"
Yes, I've heard bad history before. Did you have a point?
"Also, you speak of the Iran embassy crisis but, conveniently, omit the fact that it was American involvement in Iranian affairs that led to that event."
I also conveniently noted that it was the perception of American weakness that not merely caused it, but perpetuated it. Had major Iranian cities gone missing for violating the single oldest law of nations, the issue would have resolved after the first two glowing wastelands appeared.
"It was anger at an American backed coup, engineered by the CIA, that deposed a legitimately elected government and imposition of the Shah upon Iran."
I'd say sophistry ill-becomes you, but you're defending murderers, so it doesn't: Anger at a coup 26 years before, that in fact simply removed a prime minister for a sitting Shah, you mean.
Grow up, or get your facts right.
"Finally, it is the Democratic Party not the Democrat Party."
It is not my fault that my opposites insist on continuing a two-century-old mistake. The Party descends from the Democratic-Republican Party; they dropped the Republican and left a nonsensical adjective in its place.
"Such elementary insults should be beneath any rational person."
You're in a profoundly poor position to offer advice with that predicate.
My response was supposed to be:
There are three problems with the immediate defunding of the Iraq War by Democrats: first, GOP obstructionism and the filibuster; second, some Democrats do not support withdrawal from Iraq, notably Senator Lieberman and Reps. Barrow and Marshall; and, third, President Bush frequently denies the powers of Congress and I see him pulling a sneaky one and running around a similar defunding of the war by Congress.
See my above post about how the United States lost the war long before any defunding occurred.
Your statement that radical Iranians were responding to perceived American weakness is, in itself, weak. Why would these radicals attack our embassy if there was no reason to do so? We provided them the reason when we involved ourselves in the manipulation of their internal affairs.
You state that I am "defending murderers" and such insults are too typical of those who would rather blindly react to immediate events rather than understand the root causes of conflict. It is easier to do so.
One statement you make confuses me, "Anger at a coup 26 years before, that in fact simply removed a prime minister for a sitting Shah, you mean." You imply that the Shah was removed by Iranians and that the Shah was legitimate b/c he was a "sitting" leader. The fact is that the Shah was removed by the Allies during WWII b/c of his close ties to Nazi Germany. In 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh was legitimately elected Prime Minister of Iran (I find it interesting that you oppose a democratic government and favor the autocratic goverment of the Shah), but b/c he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company the British enlisted the aid of the U.S. and CIA to topple Mossadegh's government and replace it with that Nazi loving Shah. Of course, as typical of the times, we justified it by stating he was a Communist sympathizer.
Also, in response to your slander of the Democratic Party I'll state it like this: the reasoning for the use of the term Democrat Party is not due to any "nonsensical adjectives" but a creation by opponents of the Democratic Party who state that there is nothing Democratic about it.
God that was too easy.
Too bad I was removed before I was ever able to respond or bring some reason to such a barren community. This is what happens with Republicans and conservatives, a removal of dissent. That is why I prefer Democrats and liberals b/c they are a true idealogy and party of inclusiveness and the big tent. This is all too typical of the handful of Republican community blogs, a quick removal of any dissent or anyone who fails to strictly walk the party line. I can understand if I was removed for continuously speaking out on liberal causes or supporting Democrats, but to be removed for stating the Vietnam War was a lost cause, or that it was lost long before defunding of the war occurred, seems to represent the very emptiness and lunacy of the modern Republican Party.