More reasons to distrust Rudy Giuliani over foreign policy matters

[Phokus]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do ? which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you?re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We?ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an ?eight-point peace plan? calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

First he has 'never heard' of the CIA explanation about blowback causing 9/11 (nice job skipping those 9/11 commission meetings rudy) and now this.

This man does not deserve to be the commander in chief.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do ? which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you?re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We?ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an ?eight-point peace plan? calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

First he has 'never heard' of the CIA explanation about blowback causing 9/11 (nice job skipping those 9/11 commission meetings rudy) and now this.

This man does not deserve to be the commander in chief.

Who does... Hillary?

 

[1EZduzit]

What a loser

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do ? which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you?re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We?ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an ?eight-point peace plan? calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

First he has 'never heard' of the CIA explanation about blowback causing 9/11 (nice job skipping those 9/11 commission meetings rudy) and now this.

This man does not deserve to be the commander in chief.

Who does... Hillary?

How about neither!

 

[Stunt]

I like giuliani's positions on social issues and fiscal policy...but this man's views on foreign policy and the war on terror are scary as hell. Rudy would be a very dangerous person to run the country; I would go as far to say he'd be much worse than Bush.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do ? which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you?re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We?ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an ?eight-point peace plan? calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

First he has 'never heard' of the CIA explanation about blowback causing 9/11 (nice job skipping those 9/11 commission meetings rudy) and now this.

This man does not deserve to be the commander in chief.

Who does... Hillary?

Yes. She has more b@lls and more brains than anyone running for the GOP nomination.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Considering the last three Republican presidents, I would think that an abject ignorance of history and foreign affairs is no impediment to getting the nomination.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do ? which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you?re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We?ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an ?eight-point peace plan? calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

First he has 'never heard' of the CIA explanation about blowback causing 9/11 (nice job skipping those 9/11 commission meetings rudy) and now this.

This man does not deserve to be the commander in chief.

Who does... Hillary?

Didn't have to wait long for the subject to get changed did we?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I like giuliani's positions on social issues and fiscal policy...but this man's views on foreign policy and the war on terror are scary as hell. Rudy would be a very dangerous person to run the country; I would go as far to say he'd be much worse than Bush.

I have said that whoever wins makes it a win-win for everyone compared to Bush; they're all far better. I'm starting to have some doubts about that stance and a bit worried that Giulliani could indeed be as bad as Bush in some ways.

But, don't worry. The more he draws parallels between Bush the more he secures his defeat. I think he would be a bad president anyway, though, I don't much care for him. He's full of hubris in a way that doesn't rub me the right way.

At this point I'd like one of two people to win:

- Hillary because she'll be highly influence by Bill, and no I'm not kidding.
- Ron Paul because, hell, let's take the chance!

Course, I'm not a citizen so cannot even vote.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ummm during the Vietnam withdrawal we had a cease fire with the North. That was part of the peace plan. Now I highly doubt we can get AQ to agree to a plan that allows us to withdraw without them trying to kill us.

 

[theeedude]

So we need to wait for "peace with honor" all over again?
Who cares what Al Qaeda agrees to?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm during the Vietnam withdrawal we had a cease fire with the North. That was part of the peace plan. Now I highly doubt we can get AQ to agree to a plan that allows us to withdraw without them trying to kill us.

Hard to agree on anything when our policy is not to talk with them.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm during the Vietnam withdrawal we had a cease fire with the North. That was part of the peace plan. Now I highly doubt we can get AQ to agree to a plan that allows us to withdraw without them trying to kill us.

Hard to agree on anything when our policy is not to talk with them.

What would you say to "them"?

 

[Craig234]

First, I think that a communication channel is generally useful, to hear what they want to say and be able to speak to them outside of public channels.

Second, I wouldn't make any agreements with them if I didn't think that they would honor them enough to be useful; but we've been able to do so in the past, the North Vietnamese government above being one example of adequate cooperation for a deal.

Third, I'd ask them what their goals were (if we'd listened to North Viet Nam, we'd have understood their goal was freedom from colonialism, not to be a commie pawn in the cold war), and whether there were any mutually beneficial agreements. It's a bit funny that we're serving much of Al Queda's agenda now - from our removing the troops in Saudi Arabia that was a main demand, to our ridding the region of Al Queda's enemy, the secular Saddam Hussein.

Probably, the talks would not do anything at this time, given the difference in agendas, but why not talk? If nothing else, that helps the issue move from permanent war with a faceless enemy who is not quite human, to one in which each side better understands the other and the road to peace might better be opened. Of course, that assumes this administration doesn't want the war with Al Queda to be ongoing, for its own purposes.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, I think that a communication channel is generally useful, to hear what they want to say and be able to speak to them outside of public channels.

Second, I wouldn't make any agreements with them if I didn't think that they would honor them enough to be useful; but we've been able to do so in the past, the North Vietnamese government above being one example of adequate cooperation for a deal.

Third, I'd ask them what their goals were (if we'd listened to North Viet Nam, we'd have understood their goal was freedom from colonialism, not to be a commie pawn in the cold war), and whether there were any mutually beneficial agreements. It's a bit funny that we're serving much of Al Queda's agenda now - from our removing the troops in Saudi Arabia that was a main demand, to our ridding the region of Al Queda's enemy, the secular Saddam Hussein.

Probably, the talks would not do anything at this time, given the difference in agendas, but why not talk? If nothing else, that helps the issue move from permanent war with a faceless enemy who is not quite human, to one in which each side better understands the other and the road to peace might better be opened. Of course, that assumes this administration doesn't want the war with Al Queda to be ongoing, for its own purposes.

I don't know what effect it would have, but generally even the most hated of enemies will allow a dialogue. The stance of many in this nation, though, is that they will not lower themselves to the level of the enemy and engage in dialogue...not talk to syria about anything, dito on Iran. Some of these silly notions have been reversed in recent times because they are ineffective, arrogant, and simply puerile.

Digressing a bit, this is why the US has an embargo on Cuba. I don't even know if anybody knows why there is one now. It's obviously not done anything to weaken Castro's hold on his country and his successor will have just as much of one, so what is the point? It doesn't hurt him at all, merely his people.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, I think that a communication channel is generally useful, to hear what they want to say and be able to speak to them outside of public channels.

The level of naivety displayed here is breathtaking.

Who exactly are "they" and which "public channels" are you referring to?

We're not dealing with a legitimate government, sitting around a boardroom table sipping coffee here Craig.

Such mentality is precisely why this country cannot afford a Billary style candidate in the White House.