Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine to fend off Putin-backed rebels
Washington Times ^ | July 23, 2014 | Maggie Ybarra

Posted on 07/23/2014 7:24:41 AM PDT by tcrlaf

A team of Pentagon officials is heading to Ukraine to help the country rebuild its fractured military, a mission that lawmakers and analysts expect will result in recommendations for greater military assistance in the country’s fight against pro-Russia separatists amid international outrage over the downing of a commercial airplane.

Within the next few weeks, a group of Defense Department representatives who specialize in strategy and policy will head to Kiev to evaluate specific programs that the United States may want to help bolster, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.

Their objective is to work with Ukrainians to “shape and establish an enduring program for future U.S. efforts to support the Ukrainian military through subject-matter expert teams and long-term advisers,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: advisors; civilwar; ukraine; ukrainianrussianwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
Well, here we go again....

This now puts us in direct involvement in a civil war. Another one... Hopey, Changey, and all that.

1 posted on 07/23/2014 7:24:41 AM PDT by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Let the fab EU countries take care of it.


2 posted on 07/23/2014 7:26:52 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

So now that obama has Iraq in turmoil, he wants to bring down Ukraine. He’s leading the world into absolute destruction.


3 posted on 07/23/2014 7:31:42 AM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
"This now puts us in direct involvement in a civil war. Another one... Hopey, Changey, and all that. "

Within the next few weeks, a group of Defense Department representatives, who specialize in strategy and policy will head to Kiev to evaluate specific programs that the United States may want to help bolster, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman. Their objective is to work with Ukrainians to “shape and establish an enduring program for future U.S. efforts to support the Ukrainian military through subject-matter expert teams and long-term advisers,” he said."

4 posted on 07/23/2014 7:33:15 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obama's Storm of Illegal immigrants, aka, new democRat voters and his 2016 FDR 3rd term attempt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
The Putin-backed rebels are probably asking themselves what a captured US Advisor would be worth?

...at least as much as a know deserter!

5 posted on 07/23/2014 7:34:19 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Would all those who believe Clown Prince nobama is a foreign policy genius please raise their hands...


6 posted on 07/23/2014 7:35:09 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

May 1961 - President Kennedy sends 400 American Green Beret ‘Special Advisors’ to South Vietnam http://tinyurl.com/2sj4xr


7 posted on 07/23/2014 7:37:05 AM PDT by wdk535
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine to fend off Putin-backed rebels

Sounds like Vietnam all over again.

8 posted on 07/23/2014 7:38:27 AM PDT by McGruff (If you tell a lie often enough the weak minded will accept it to be truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

‘advisors’...Uh huhhh.

I like THAT! We have all seen THIS movie before.


9 posted on 07/23/2014 7:39:48 AM PDT by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

War with Russia won’t look anything like Vietnam. Not even remotely close.


10 posted on 07/23/2014 7:41:00 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Yeah, this time it won’t be N Vietnam and a smattering of Chinese we’ll end up fighting...It will be Russia...

Way to go, you dipsh*t.....


11 posted on 07/23/2014 7:41:47 AM PDT by Boonie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Well it’s one two three what are we fighting for

Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn

Next stop is the Maidan.....


12 posted on 07/23/2014 7:41:59 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

AntiChrist


13 posted on 07/23/2014 7:44:55 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (NO MORE IRS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Those US advisors had better bring some oil with them. Its going to be getting cooler in the Ukraine soon.


14 posted on 07/23/2014 7:45:24 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

We won the war in Vietnam only to see the politicians lose it. Vietnam was being invaded by the North. Ukraine is being invaded by the Russians.


15 posted on 07/23/2014 7:49:21 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Boonie

The Soviets were in North Vietnam flying planes and manning anti-aircraft missile batteries.


16 posted on 07/23/2014 7:50:38 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

This is the kind of provocation that could prompt Russia to sweep into eastern Ukraine and be done with it. Throughout history Russia has been invaded through Ukraine, so having this strategic borderland fall into Western hands would be untenable for Moscow. Today the likelihood of anyone invading Russia appears absurdly remote, but nations do not base their strategic decisions upon current assumptions. Things change, and we are threatening the legitimate strategic defense concerns of Russia. Beneath the recycled Cold War jingoism, one is hard pressed to explain why the United States is entangling itself in a distant civil war.


17 posted on 07/23/2014 7:50:54 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boonie

Obama has a phone and a pen. Putin has pipelines and pro-Russian separatists.


18 posted on 07/23/2014 7:51:55 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Better rebuild OUR military before you go toe to toe with the Russkies, Barry.


19 posted on 07/23/2014 7:52:49 AM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

Good post. I don’t think we fully appreciate Russia’s historical experiences and existential worldview. Not defending Putin, just more or less agreeing with you about what Russia considers as “untenable”, from their point of view. Obama and his merry band of clowns have no idea that Russia has a red line, and means it.


20 posted on 07/23/2014 7:56:14 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Yep, you are correct...I was in Can Tho and worked along the Bassac and Mekong rivers. Never got further north.

it was all VC and NVA in my AO...


21 posted on 07/23/2014 8:00:56 AM PDT by Boonie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

“””””””ADVISORS””””””


22 posted on 07/23/2014 8:03:07 AM PDT by showme_the_Glory ((ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
We won the war in Vietnam only to see the politicians lose it. Vietnam was being invaded by the North. Ukraine is being invaded by the Russians.

Ukraine is not being invaded by the Russians, but it might be soon if the West continues to meddle in Ukraine. There is a civil war raging in eastern Ukraine, pitting the Kiev government against a region that does not want to be governed by Kiev. If self determination is justified for western Ukraine, why not for the eastern oblasts?

Russia clearly has an interest in the success of its allies in eastern Ukraine, and the West perceives an interest in having eastern Ukraine remain under the rule of the new Kiev government that we helped to install. As a result there is a proxy war raging between the US/EU and Russia on Russia's southern border. Now we are upping the ante, making the situation needlessly worse and setting up another "ally" to be slaughtered when our interest turns elsewhere. As tcrlaf remarked earlier, "We have all seen THIS movie before."

23 posted on 07/23/2014 8:03:54 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

What could possibly go wrong?


24 posted on 07/23/2014 8:04:15 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus

the Wimp-in-Chief still has the community organizer mentality. Thinks he can send in a few people, make some noise, and rattle a few politicos into giving in. No, this is big time geopolitical chess played for keeps. Agree with you; better be prepared if you want to run with the big dogs.


25 posted on 07/23/2014 8:06:35 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Boonie
USSR ‘secret' Vietnam soldiers speak out

Soviet Involvement in the Vietnam War

I spent a year in Danang (1967-68) including during the Tet Offensive. The Soviets are like the NVA and the Ukrainian "insurgents" are similar to the VC. The Soviets and the Chinese armed both of them.

26 posted on 07/23/2014 8:06:59 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]



No surrender, no retreat!!

Do not sign away your freedom!!

Do not submit to the godless leftist wannabe dictators!!

Free Republic
PO Box 9771
FResno, CA 93794

Keep freedom ALIVE!!

Thank you all very much!!

God bless.

27 posted on 07/23/2014 8:10:53 AM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

What could possibly go wrong?

**********
When it all goes south, the media will refuse to report it. Gotta protect Barry, don’t you know.


28 posted on 07/23/2014 8:13:07 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf; All

By OFFICIAL US involvement, Obama is setting the stage for the Russians to do the same, overt assistance to the rebels.

Up until now, it has all been “under-the-radar” unofficial stuff. Is anybody in DC using a brain??? This is one hell of an escalation.


29 posted on 07/23/2014 8:15:54 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
War with Russia won’t look anything like Vietnam. Not even remotely close.

As we have seen in the Ukraine. Ethnic Russians do not wait until fired upon, to fire back. They know, after having suffered many invasions, that you must always keep the initiative, whenever possible. So I would expect them to respond in another part of the world, if their hands are more or less tied up in Ukraine. Perhaps one of the Balkand states. And this is not supportive of Russia, just wild guesses as to how they will react.

And this is now the third position Obama has now taken with respect to the Malaysian plane shoot down.

#1 - Horrible tragedy. Looks like Russia did it.

#2 - We find no evidence Russia was involved.

#3 - We are sending Pentagon advisers to Ukraine.

#4 - He will end up taking the worse possible decision with respect to the Malaysian plane incident.

My guess at this point in time is that Obama cannot make any decisions. Especially tough ones. So we have a group of advisers running the Presidency. Could be as many as 12.

30 posted on 07/23/2014 8:17:21 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen

Would all those who believe Clown Prince nobama is a foreign policy genius please raise their hands...

Unfortunately, 42% of Americans still think he is great. They feel that you and I, and others, who dare to disagree with him are racists.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3183864/posts


31 posted on 07/23/2014 8:23:13 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obama's Storm of Illegal immigrants, aka, new democRat voters and his 2016 FDR 3rd term attempt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

By the weekend or next week, we will be due for a new scandal, terrorist act or horrible tragedy to occur to take Ukraine off the front page.


32 posted on 07/23/2014 8:23:25 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Beneath the recycled Cold War jingoism, one is hard pressed to explain why the United States is entangling itself in a distant civil war.

But it is okay for the Russians to seize Crimea and send train loads of weapons to the so called insurgents in Eastern Ukraine? One could easily make the comparison with what the Russians are doing in Ukraine to what Hitler did in Sudetenland. The Russians are claiming they are protecting ethnic Russians.

Throughout history Russia has been invaded through Ukraine,

Really? What about the invasion of Russia by Napoleon and during the two World Wars. Should the same logic you are using for Ukraine, i.e., Russia's strategic concerns, be also used for Poland, which is a member of NATO?

33 posted on 07/23/2014 8:23:25 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Meanwhile, Turkey is publicly saying they won’t even bother to talk to Obama anymore...

Once one of our strongest allies, and still a member of NATO.

Hopey....
Changey...
And all that.


34 posted on 07/23/2014 8:30:15 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine to fend off Putin-backed rebels. Obama to Make Case for Sending Special Forces to ? Fill in the blank ________- (Now he wants ‘boots on the ground’)

Sounds like Vietnam all over again.

A brief history lesson how JFK and LBJ, democrats who used advisors got us mired down in Nam.

We have been there and done that under rat presidents in Nam.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html

January 20, 1961- John Fitzgerald Kennedy is inaugurated as the 35th U.S. President and declares “...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to insure the survival and the success of liberty.” Privately, outgoing President Eisenhower tells him “I think you’re going to have to send troops...” to Southeast Asia.

The youthful Kennedy administration is inexperienced in matters regarding Southeast Asia. Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense, 44-year-old Robert McNamara, along with civilian planners recruited from the academic community, will play a crucial role in deciding White House strategy for Vietnam over the next several years. Under their leadership, the United States will wage a limited war to force a political settlement.

However, the U.S. will be opposed by an enemy dedicated to total military victory “...whatever the sacrifices, however long the struggle...until Vietnam is fully independent and reunified,” as stated by Ho Chi Minh.

May 1961 - Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visits President Diem in South Vietnam and hails the embattled leader as the ‘Winston Churchill of Asia.’

May 1961 - President Kennedy sends 400 American Green Beret ‘Special Advisors’ to South Vietnam to train South Vietnamese soldiers in methods of ‘counter-insurgency’ in the fight against Viet Cong guerrillas.

The role of the Green Berets soon expands to include the establishment of Civilian Irregular Defense Groups (CIDG) made up of fierce mountain men known as the Montagnards. These groups establish a series of fortified camps strung out along the mountains to thwart infiltration by North Vietnamese.

Fall - The conflict widens as 26,000 Viet Cong launch several successful attacks on South Vietnamese troops. Diem then requests more military aid from the Kennedy administration.

October 1961 - To get a first-hand look at the deteriorating military situation, top Kennedy aides, Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow, visit Vietnam. “If Vietnam goes, it will be exceedingly difficult to hold Southeast Asia,” Taylor reports to the President and advises Kennedy to expand the number of U.S. military advisors and to send 8000 combat soldiers.

Defense Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend instead a massive show of force by sending six divisions (200,000 men) to Vietnam. However, the President decides against sending any combat troops.

October 24, 1961 - On the sixth anniversary of the Republic of South Vietnam, President Kennedy sends a letter to President Diem and pledges “the United States is determined to help Vietnam preserve its independence...”

President Kennedy then sends additional military advisors along with American helicopter units to transport and direct South Vietnamese troops in battle, thus involving Americans in combat operations. Kennedy justifies the expanding U.S. military role as a means “...to prevent a Communist takeover of Vietnam which is in accordance with a policy our government has followed since 1954.” The number of military advisors sent by Kennedy will eventually surpass 16,000.

December 1961 - Viet Cong guerrillas now control much of the countryside in South Vietnam and frequently ambush South Vietnamese troops. The cost to America of maintaining South Vietnam’s sagging 200,000 man army and managing the overall conflict in Vietnam rises to a million dollars per day.


35 posted on 07/23/2014 8:30:43 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obama's Storm of Illegal immigrants, aka, new democRat voters and his 2016 FDR 3rd term attempt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Ukraine is not being invaded by the Russians, but it might be soon if the West continues to meddle in Ukraine.

There was no Russian presence in the seizure of Crimea, which is part of Ukraine? Do you really believe that there are no Russian advisers in Eastern Ukraine helping to arm and train the insurgents?

There is a civil war raging in eastern Ukraine, pitting the Kiev government against a region that does not want to be governed by Kiev. If self determination is justified for western Ukraine, why not for the eastern oblasts?

That is a matter for Ukraine to sort out. The Russians are heavily involved on one side. They are getting involved in a "civil war." Should we allow them to prevail?

Russia clearly has an interest in the success of its allies in eastern Ukraine, and the West perceives an interest in having eastern Ukraine remain under the rule of the new Kiev government that we helped to install. As a result there is a proxy war raging between the US/EU and Russia on Russia's southern border.

How can it be a proxy war when only the Russians are involved militarily. Where do you think the insurgents are getting their weapons including anti-aircraft missile batteries? There are claims by the Ukrainian government that the two jet fighter planes shot down today were by missiles launched from Russian territory.

You are acting as an apologist for that slimy, KGB punk Putin.

36 posted on 07/23/2014 8:33:03 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

Thanks for your history lesson. I’m taking the liberty to repost it. Thanks for your service.

This is the kind of provocation that could prompt Russia to sweep into eastern Ukraine and be done with it. Throughout history Russia has been invaded through Ukraine, so having this strategic borderland fall into Western hands would be untenable for Moscow. Today the likelihood of anyone invading Russia appears absurdly remote, but nations do not base their strategic decisions upon current assumptions.

Things change, and we are threatening the legitimate strategic defense concerns of Russia. Beneath the recycled Cold War jingoism, one is hard pressed to explain why the United States is entangling itself in a distant civil war.


37 posted on 07/23/2014 8:33:55 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Obama's Storm of Illegal immigrants, aka, new democRat voters and his 2016 FDR 3rd term attempt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

You didn’t go back far enough in your chronology.

January 1955 - The first direct shipment of U.S. military aid to Saigon arrives. The U.S. also offers to train the fledgling South Vietnam Army.

May 1955 - Prime Minister Diem wages a violent crackdown against the Binh Xuyen organized crime group based in Saigon which operates casinos, brothels and opium dens.

July 1955 - Ho Chi Minh visits Moscow and agrees to accept Soviet aid.

October 23, 1955 - Bao Dai is ousted from power, defeated by Prime Minister Diem in a U.S.-backed plebiscite which was rigged. Diem is advised on consolidating power by U.S. Air Force Col. Edward G. Lansdale, who is attached to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

October 26, 1955 - The Republic of South Vietnam is proclaimed with Diem as its first president. In America, President Eisenhower pledges his support for the new government and offers military aid.

Diem assigns most high level government positions to close friends and family members including his younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu who will be his chief advisor. Diem’s style of leadership, aloof and autocratic, will create future political problems for him despite the best efforts of his American advisors to popularize him via American-style political rallies and tours of the countryside.

December 1955 - In North Vietnam, radical land reforms by Communists result in land owners being hauled before “people’s tribunals.” Thousands are executed or sent to forced labor camps during this period of ideological cleansing by Ho Chi Minh.

In South Vietnam, President Diem rewards his Catholic supporters by giving them land seized from Buddhist peasants, arousing their anger and eroding his support among them. Diem also allows big land owners to retain their holdings, disappointing peasants hoping for land reform.

1956

January 1956 - Diem launches a brutal crackdown against Viet Minh suspects in the countryside. Those arrested are denied counsel and hauled before “security committees” with many suspects tortured or executed under the guise of ‘shot while attempting escape.’

April 28, 1956 - The last French soldier leaves South Vietnam. The French High Command for Indochina is then dissolved.

July 1956 - The deadline passes for the unifying elections set by the Geneva Conference. Diem, backed by the U.S., had refused to participate.

November 1956 - Peasant unrest in North Vietnam resulting from oppressive land reforms is put down by Communist force with more than 6000 killed or deported.

1957

January 1957 - The Soviet Union proposes permanent division of Vietnam into North and South, with the two nations admitted separately to the United Nations. The U.S. rejects the proposal, unwilling to recognize Communist North Vietnam.

May 8-18 - Diem pays a state visit to Washington where President Eisenhower labels him the “miracle man” of Asia and reaffirms U.S. commitment. “The cost of defending freedom, of defending America, must be paid in many forms and in many places...military as well as economic help is currently needed in Vietnam,” Eisenhower states.

Diem’s government, however, with its main focus on security, spends little on schools, medical care or other badly needed social services in the countryside. Communist guerrillas and propagandists in the countryside capitalize on this by making simple promises of land reform and a better standard of living to gain popular support among peasants.

October 1957 - Viet Minh guerrillas begin a widespread campaign of terror in South Vietnam including bombings and assassinations. By year’s end, over 400 South Vietnamese officials are killed.

1958

June 1958 - A coordinated command structure is formed by Communists in the Mekong Delta where 37 armed companies are being organized.

1959

March 1959 - The armed revolution begins as Ho Chi Minh declares a People’s War to unite all of Vietnam under his leadership. His Politburo now orders a changeover to an all-out military struggle. Thus begins the Second Indochina War.

May 1959 - North Vietnamese establish the Central Office of South Vietnam (COSVN) to oversee the coming war in the South. Construction of the Ho Chi Minh trail now begins.

The trail will eventually expand into a 1500 mile-long network of jungle and mountain passes extending from North Vietnam’s coast along Vietnam’s western border through Laos, parts of Cambodia, funneling a constant stream of soldiers and supplies into the highlands of South Vietnam. In 1959, it takes six months to make the journey, by 1968 it will take only six weeks due to road improvements by North Vietnamese laborers, many of whom are women. In the 1970s a parallel fuel pipeline will be added.

July 1959 - 4000 Viet Minh guerrillas, originally born in the South, are sent from North Vietnam to infiltrate South Vietnam.

July 8, 1959 - Two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.

1960

April 1960 - Universal military conscription is imposed in North Vietnam. Tour of duty is indefinite.

April 1960 - Eighteen distinguished nationalists in South Vietnam send a petition to President Diem advocating that he reform his rigid, family-run, and increasingly corrupt, government. Diem ignores their advice and instead closes several opposition newspapers and arrests journalists and intellectuals.

November 1960 - A failed coup against President Diem by disgruntled South Vietnamese Army officers brings a harsh crackdown against all perceived ‘enemies of the state.’ Over 50,000 are arrested by police controlled by Diem’s brother Nhu with many innocent civilians tortured then executed. This results in further erosion of popular support for Diem.

Thousands who fear arrest flee to North Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh will later send many back to infiltrate South Vietnam as part of his People’s Liberation Armed Forces. Called Viet Cong by Diem, meaning Communist Vietnamese, Ho’s guerrillas blend into the countryside, indistinguishable from South Vietnamese, while working to undermine Diem’s government.

December 20, 1960 - The National Liberation Front is established by Hanoi as its Communist political organization for Viet Cong guerrillas in South Vietnam.


38 posted on 07/23/2014 8:46:21 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Wonder what the new name of the reincarnated MACV-SO will be?


39 posted on 07/23/2014 9:03:35 AM PDT by wally_bert (There are no winners in a game of losers. I'm Tommy Joyce, welcome to the Oriental Lounge.q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
What's wrong with upping the ante with the Russkies. They have doing the same to us by arming and providing nuclear advice to Iran. Time for some payback.
40 posted on 07/23/2014 9:05:15 AM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Not really interested in US troops getting in a fight against the rebels but am interested in securing Kiev against Putin’s invasion, which I think is inevitable. Why would he stop at the Crimea? It is the domino effect all over again. First Ossetia, then Crimea, then Ukraine, Poland, ect...


41 posted on 07/23/2014 9:08:59 AM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

They have a full share in it behind the scene.


42 posted on 07/23/2014 11:51:40 AM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
oops.

Perhaps one of the Balkand states.

Should read.

Baltic

Sorry about that.

43 posted on 07/23/2014 12:08:21 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
By the weekend or next week, we will be due for a new scandal, terrorist act or horrible tragedy to occur to take Ukraine off the front page.

I make this very point about every two weeks. We are experiencing Cloward-Piven on overdrive, with each successive shock greater than the one before. I like to ask people to name the major crisis that we faced last week, two weeks ago, last month, and the months before that. The GOP remained passive for too long, and now they are swinging at old ghosts while getting sucker punched by new ones. Our nation is on its heels, reeling with every new punch. And the hits just keep coming...

44 posted on 07/23/2014 1:41:57 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kabar
[Beneath the recycled Cold War jingoism, one is hard pressed to explain why the United States is entangling itself in a distant civil war. -AAM]
But it is okay for the Russians to seize Crimea and send train loads of weapons to the so called insurgents in Eastern Ukraine? One could easily make the comparison with what the Russians are doing in Ukraine to what Hitler did in Sudetenland. The Russians are claiming they are protecting ethnic Russians.

Crimea has been Russian for a very long time, and was only given to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev at a time when the Soviet breakup was unthinkable. Russia never gave up its naval base at Sevastopol or the airfields that protect it, and its annexation of the Crimean peninsula was a logical defensive step to prevent those strategic bases from falling to NATO's hands -- especially in light of the West's role in this February's overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected leader who was allied with Russia.

We can draw all the Hitler parallels we want, but Russia's real concern is NATO's expanding military presence all along its borders. That is a legitimate for any nation, and is the reason why we have enforced the Monroe Doctrine since 1823 throughout our hemisphere. Just imagine if a hostile power signed a mutual defense treaty with Mexico or British Columbia and stationed its troops, planes and ships there.

[Throughout history Russia has been invaded through Ukraine... -AAM]
Really? What about the invasion of Russia by Napoleon and during the two World Wars. Should the same logic you are using for Ukraine, i.e., Russia's strategic concerns, be also used for Poland, which is a member of NATO?

Yes, really. The Germans invaded through Ukraine before being stopped at Stalingrad (now Volgograd), which is only about 200 miles east of Ukraine. And Poland is definitely a concern to Russia, as it has always served as a strategic buffer between Germany and Russia to the defensive benefit of both larger powers. NATO promised the post-Soviet CIS that we would not expand eastward if Russia pulled its troops out of the former SSRs, and then added 12 new member countries in Central and Eastern Europe in 1999 and 2004. Russia has to wonder why NATO is pressing all the way to its borders -- a legitimate question to ask of an alliance that was chartered as a defensive shield. Borderlands serve as strategic buffers to prevent wars, while their absence increases the likelihood of small conflicts escalating into major wars. Almost all of those buffers have vanished.

As far as I am concerned, this is a matter to be settled between Russia and Ukraine and is not our business. What occurs on Russia's border does not affect our national security, but is of vital, existential interest to Russia. Why in the world do we want to stick our nose into such a mess that is infinitely more important to Russia than to us?

45 posted on 07/23/2014 2:23:06 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
What's wrong with upping the ante with the Russkies. They have doing the same to us by arming and providing nuclear advice to Iran. Time for some payback.

What would be our goal in doing that? How would we define success, or failure? Are will willing to go to war if the ante keeps increasing? This not some distant neutral corner of the world but Russia's own border, so total war would be on the table with Russia's existence threatened. If we aren't willing to go all the way then we should not go at all. Our strength would be diluted by overreach, and our stature would be further diminished by half-measures and failure. And economically, waging a major war in our newly weakened state would be catastrophic to the US Dollar.

46 posted on 07/23/2014 2:31:33 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kabar
You are acting as an apologist for that slimy, KGB punk Putin.

No, I spent a career planning and training to fight the old Soviet Union that threatened to invade Western Europe. I am thinking rationally because too many people are letting their emotions sweep them into irrational war fever without knowing whether it is justified and without counting the potential costs. Now is the time to step back and examine "Who's zooming who?" before the world stumbles into a major war that almost nobody but Satan wants.

It does concern me that NATO -- a government program that once served a useful purpose -- is looking for a new mission and is hell-bent on finding one by pressing all the way to Russia's borders. Old scores always itch to be "settled" but borderlands serve to keep the old antagonists at bay. While I was willing to fight to defend the British, Germans and Italians, but I am not willing to shed American blood for Albania, Bulgaria, Romania or Slovenia. It concerns me that NATO is seeking to erase the borderlands, and that one of these newly-joined little angry chihuahuas is going to bite the bear so it can drag us by our treaty into fighting their battle for them. No thanks! Our national security is not threatened there.

47 posted on 07/23/2014 2:51:52 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Crimea has been Russian for a very long time, and was only given to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev at a time when the Soviet breakup was unthinkable. Russia never gave up its naval base at Sevastopol or the airfields that protect it, and its annexation of the Crimean peninsula was a logical defensive step to prevent those strategic bases from falling to NATO's hands -- especially in light of the West's role in this February's overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected leader who was allied with Russia.

Pure rationalization. Crimea is part of Ukraine. It became the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within newly independent Ukraine in 1991, with Sevastopol having its own administration, within Ukraine but outside of the Autonomous Republic.

The Russian Ukrainian Naval Base for Gas treaty, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Accords or the Kharkiv Pact in the Russian and Ukrainian media, was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea would be extended beyond 2017 by 25 years (to 2042) with an additional 5 year renewal option (to 2047) in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas. The agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of the two countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was a continuation of a treaty signed in 1997 between the two nations. Shortly after the (disputed) March 2014 accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation Russia unilateral terminated the treaty on March 31, 2014.

We can draw all the Hitler parallels we want, but Russia's real concern is NATO's expanding military presence all along its borders. That is a legitimate for any nation, and is the reason why we have enforced the Monroe Doctrine since 1823 throughout our hemisphere. Just imagine if a hostile power signed a mutual defense treaty with Mexico or British Columbia and stationed its troops, planes and ships there.

Why is NATO perceived as a threat to Russia? NATO is a defensive alliance among democratic countries. It has been in existence since 1947. NATO now includes such former Warsaw Pact countries as Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. And it includes the former Soviet Republics of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Why do you think those countries eagerly wanted to join NATO?

The Monroe Doctrine is a false comparison. The relation that the Soviets had with its former empire is not the same as our relationship to the rest of the countries in this hemisphere. And Russia is currently on establishing Russian bases in Latin America. It is reopening a spy base in Cuba.

Yes, really. The Germans invaded through Ukraine before being stopped at Stalingrad (now Volgograd), which is only about 200 miles east of Ukraine. And Poland is definitely a concern to Russia, as it has always served as a strategic buffer between Germany and Russia to the defensive benefit of both larger powers.

Operation Barbarossa used three routes of invasion with only one being thru Ukraine. Belarus serves as the current buffer between Russia and Poland.

NATO promised the post-Soviet CIS that we would not expand eastward if Russia pulled its troops out of the former SSRs, and then added 12 new member countries in Central and Eastern Europe in 1999 and 2004. Russia has to wonder why NATO is pressing all the way to its borders -- a legitimate question to ask of an alliance that was chartered as a defensive shield. Borderlands serve as strategic buffers to prevent wars, while their absence increases the likelihood of small conflicts escalating into major wars. Almost all of those buffers have vanished.

You may be able to peddle this BS to the uninformed, but not to me. I lived two years in Communist Poland during the days of Solidarnosc'. The countries of the Warsaw Pact as well as the Baltic countries (aka captive nations) were really occupied by the Soviets and their puppet governments. You may call them buffers, but the reality is that the Soviets were oppressing the people and individual liberties.

When the Soviet Union collapsed these countries sought almost immediately a way to get into NATO. They wanted the collective protection of the alliance fearing that the old Soviet Union would emerge again and try to regain control over their country. NATO has no territorial ambitions, but the Soviets and now the Russians have looked to expand their empire for over 300 years. The Crimea and Georgia are just the latest examples. There is no moral equivalency between the Soviet Communists and Western democracies. I witnessed firsthand what it is like to live under a communist dictatorship. The Poles hated the Soviets and wanted them out of their country. The same can be said in Hungary and Czechoslovakia where the people challenged their Soviet masters.

As far as I am concerned, this is a matter to be settled between Russia and Ukraine and is not our business. What occurs on Russia's border does not affect our national security, but is of vital, existential interest to Russia. Why in the world do we want to stick our nose into such a mess that is infinitely more important to Russia than to us?

I don't know how you define "sticking our nose into such a mess" means. We should support Ukraine's sovereignty to the maximum extent possible. We should support all people who want to be free. When JFK went to the Berlin Wall, was he sticking his nose into a mess? Or in his inaugural address when he said,

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

I also lived four years in Berlin before the Wall came down. I was at Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate. I was present when Sharansky was exchanged at the Glienicke Bridge. You have no idea what it means to the oppressed people of the world when an American leader champions their cause and lets them know that they are not forgotten. Our containment policy, a product of Kennan's Long Telegram, caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. It took many years, but it worked.

Tony Blair addressed Congress in 2003 and said this,

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior.

Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere...

Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal.

Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.

48 posted on 07/23/2014 4:32:03 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
You are called a Putin Lover or FSB Agent by the Putin Haters if you question anything the US is doing right now with regards to the Ukraine. Like playing chess with pigeons.

Great posts BTW.

49 posted on 07/23/2014 4:32:05 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
No, I spent a career planning and training to fight the old Soviet Union that threatened to invade Western Europe. I am thinking rationally because too many people are letting their emotions sweep them into irrational war fever without knowing whether it is justified and without counting the potential costs. Now is the time to step back and examine "Who's zooming who?" before the world stumbles into a major war that almost nobody but Satan wants. <

You are creating a phony strawman. No American politician is suggesting that we fight a war in Ukraine. There is no public support for boots on the ground. There are other choices. We can support the legitimate government of Ukraine in other ways.

It does concern me that NATO -- a government program that once served a useful purpose -- is looking for a new mission and is hell-bent on finding one by pressing all the way to Russia's borders. Old scores always itch to be "settled" but borderlands serve to keep the old antagonists at bay.

NATO is expanding because those countries formerly under the heel of the Soviets want protection from the Russians wishing to return to the days of the Soviet empire. "Borderlands" don't keep nations free or protect them from invasion. Strong and credible defenses do. Do you honestly believe that NATO is a threat to the Russians? Or that the Russians fear NATO? Give me a break. The US has just a token force in Europe. Most of the NATO countries spend about 1% or less of GDP on defense.

I served in Italy as a naval officer 1968-70. There is no comparison between force levels then and now. It is preposterous to paint NATO as a threat to Russia.

While I was willing to fight to defend the British, Germans and Italians, but I am not willing to shed American blood for Albania, Bulgaria, Romania or Slovenia. It concerns me that NATO is seeking to erase the borderlands, and that one of these newly-joined little angry chihuahuas is going to bite the bear so it can drag us by our treaty into fighting their battle for them. No thanks! Our national security is not threatened there.

Nonsense. First, Sovenia and Albania have no contiguous border with Russia. And neither do Bulgaria and Romania except they are on the Black Sea. The NATO Charter requires all members to support Article 5. The only time that was implemented was NATO's support of us after 9/11, which is why Afghanistan is under NATO command.

The real threat is a Russian miscalculation by asserting its right to protect ethnic Russians in the Baltics or elsewhere. This is why the Russian Ukrainian adventurism sparks such fear in Europe, especially among those countries that were freed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They understand the Russian mentality far better than apparently you do. It is precisely the reason why they elected (read desperate) to join NATO.

50 posted on 07/23/2014 4:58:16 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson