O.k fair enough. Although I think the bottom line is that what the general public believed to be right or wrong, and whether the population of either Britain or the U.S supported the war or not, was pretty irrelevant. The figures show that there was overwhelming oppostion to an invasion in both countries. The protests that preceeded the inavasion all accross the world were unprecedented. But what difference did public opinion make at the end of the day? None.
So much for democracy! :rolleyes:
Living in Canada, many, many good people surrounding me felt the war was a good choice. I need only to look to this board through this past 1 1/2 years to hear the mindset of those who were pro-war. Not to mention the periodic posting of polls showing the percentage of Americans supporting the war. Conscientious individuals who believed they were doing the right thing. As much as there was dissent, there was apparently more support for the war, from what I've seen. It sounds like you are disagreeing with that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Living in Canada, many, many good people surrounding me felt the war was a good choice. I need only to look to this board through this past 1 1/2 years to hear the mindset of those who were pro-war. Not to mention the periodic posting of polls showing the percentage of Americans supporting the war. Conscientious individuals who believed they were doing the right thing. As much as there was dissent, there was apparently more support for the war, from what I've seen. It sounds like you are disagreeing with that.
Well, maybe in America the situation was different. Not surprising i suppose, when you consider how skewered and subservient to power the media is over there. I still don't think it absolves anyone. Information is freely available to anyone who makes the effort to find it. There's no excuse anymore. People should have learnt the lesson of the Nazi era that you can't believe anything your government tells you, and that you need to read between the lines. The American and British governments made the job too easy in the case of their justifications for invading Iraq, as their lies and desperation were only too obvious. Shame on anyone who fell for that crap.
Well, maybe in America the situation was different. Not surprising i suppose, when you consider how skewered and subservient to power the media is over there. I still don't think it absolves anyone. Information is freely available to anyone who makes the effort to find it. There's no excuse anymore. People should have learnt the lesson of the Nazi era that you can't believe anything your government tells you, and that you need to read between the lines. The American and British governments made the job too easy in the case of their justifications for invading Iraq, as their lies and desperation were only too obvious.
I agree 100%. The government represents the people. You sure don't see the system raising someone with my point of view to positions of high power in the US. The people are not looking for that. The people cannot hide behind their fears or flaws--they must face what they do, now or later. We must not support them hiding and playing victim. They are far too powerful in numbers. The only solution is to own, acknowledge and accept those fears and flaws in order to learn from them, if we are to progress and finally get these lessons as people. Denial serves no one.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree 100%. The government represents the people. You sure don't see the system raising someone with my point of view to positions of high power in the US. The people are not looking for that. The people cannot hide behind their fears or flaws--they must face what they do, now or later. We must not support them hiding and playing victim. They are far too powerful in numbers. The only solution is to own, acknowledge and accept those fears and flaws in order to learn from them, if we are to progress and finally get these lessons as people. Denial serves no one.
I'll agree with ThumbingMyWay that in early 2003 the majority of Americans were in support of the invasion, red, blue, green or otherwise. However I think this was an instinctive agreement rather than a united one. There is a common hegemony among Americans that war is a necessary evil/pleasure at times, and that everything they have was acquired through bloody battling. The media and those in power led the people to believe they were at risk; and if action was not taken immediately there would be grave consequences. Much of the population are fed form these sources every day, and did they know otherwise? If I were an average citizen, with little awareness of world affairs and international relations, left warm by 9/11 and its aftermath, I may have pledged my support. The ironic thing is, those that told them the invasion was necessary are the same people telling them that now it has become dire.
In the UK however, the war was not supported by the people. Nor by several members of Blair's own cabinet. It was seen for what it was; a needless conflict that would result in major fatalities for all those involved, including Blair himself. His pledge of alliance to Bush was, as cringeworthy as it may have been, a one way ticket to hell for our soldiers at our (reluctant) expense. Why? Most of the newspapers told the public to 'support our boys' and old figureheads would yell 'for Queen and country', perhap it was seen to be an excuse for the government to distract the public from the shoddy work they had been doing at the time at home. In short, I don't always think the government reflects the people, but governments do not always unite either. Blair is not in power because the country supports him, he is in power because there is no viable alternative. Again though, he was left cold by members of his own party, and members of the opposition supported him. So perhaps it can go either ways.
I'll agree with ThumbingMyWay that in early 2003 the majority of Americans were in support of the invasion, red, blue, green or otherwise. However I think this was an instinctive agreement rather than a united one. There is a common hegemony among Americans that war is a necessary evil/pleasure at times, and that everything they have was acquired through bloody battling. The media and those in power led the people to believe they were at risk; and if action was not taken immediately there would be grave consequences. Much of the population are fed form these sources every day, and did they know otherwise? If I were an average citizen, with little awareness of world affairs and international relations, left warm by 9/11 and its aftermath, I may have pledged my support. The ironic thing is, those that told them the invasion was necessary are the same people telling them that now it has become dire.
This sounds much like what I have seen from my view of things in North America. The fear before the war was palpable all around us here. And there is a prevalent approach that war is a necessary evil.
In the UK however, the war was not supported by the people. Nor by several members of Blair's own cabinet. It was seen for what it was; a needless conflict that would result in major fatalities for all those involved, including Blair himself. His pledge of alliance to Bush was, as cringeworthy as it may have been, a one way ticket to hell for our soldiers at our (reluctant) expense. Why? Most of the newspapers told the public to 'support our boys' and old figureheads would yell 'for Queen and country', perhap it was seen to be an excuse for the government to distract the public from the shoddy work they had been doing at the time at home. In short, I don't always think the government reflects the people, but governments do not always unite either. Blair is not in power because the country supports him, he is in power because there is no viable alternative. Again though, he was left cold by members of his own party, and members of the opposition supported him. So perhaps it can go either ways.
I don't have insights into the operation of your country, nor any good guesses, really. The one thing I do believe though is that a system, such as a country, will generate what leadership it will generate. It's an interactive deal. If your country has not generated a viable power to support, it is what it is, good, bad or indifferent. I believe that it's only when we acknowledge the base patterns underlying these dynamics that we can learn to work with them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't have insights into the operation of your country, nor any good guesses, really. The one thing I do believe though is that a system, such as a country, will generate what leadership it will generate. It's an interactive deal. If your country has not generated a viable power to support, it is what it is, good, bad or indifferent. I believe that it's only when we acknowledge the base patterns underlying these dynamics that we can learn to work with them.
Absolutely. Beyond the surface, no matter what is happening above it, there must be some form of unity. There will never be a government, leader or even a board of executives that will bear the ability to satisfy all of those that they serve, no matter how broad their outlook, as one persons best interests are never the same as someone elses. However, like you said, if there can be some common ground, it will restore faith, trust and at least a little bit of unity. The problem is trying to determine what that may be.
So you agree that the U.S invasion of South Vietnam was in essence, a just cause?
Are you saying that if the U.S had won then that would have justified U.S terror in the region, including the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, and the deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese and 56 thousand Americans?
...
No. I do not think Viet Nam was anything other than a testing ground for waepons and tactics to defeat a guerilla war that the Pentagon had predicted would occur in Latin America.
I call it immoral on the part of American politicians and military planners to allow the war to continue after 1969 when they figured out that there was no way to declare a conventional 'Victory' over there. The men and women who died on both sides meant nothing to them. All they were looking for was a way to save their political careers rather than the lives of those lost.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
No. I do not think Viet Nam was anything other than a testing ground for waepons and tactics to defeat a guerilla war that the Pentagon had predicted would occur in Latin America.
I call it immoral on the part of American politicians and military planners to allow the war to continue after 1969 when they figured out that there was no way to declare a conventional 'Victory' over there. The men and women who died on both sides meant nothing to them. All they were looking for was a way to save their political careers rather than the lives of those lost.
Exactly. You can't squander countries resources and welfare if they're not for sale anymore. The US wanted to ensure they remained on the market whether they chose it or not. It's never about spreading democracy, it's about spreading accessibility and power.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, maybe in America the situation was different. Not surprising i suppose, when you consider how skewered and subservient to power the media is over there. I still don't think it absolves anyone. Information is freely available to anyone who makes the effort to find it. There's no excuse anymore. People should have learnt the lesson of the Nazi era that you can't believe anything your government tells you, and that you need to read between the lines. The American and British governments made the job too easy in the case of their justifications for invading Iraq, as their lies and desperation were only too obvious. Shame on anyone who fell for that crap.
Many Americans wanted revenge....they wanted to punish Muslims for what happened on 9/11 and Afghanistan just didn't satisfy their thirst for blood. Thus it was very convenient to overlook the obvious (That Bush and cronies where trumping up charges for war). Also to add to this, I feel many Christians see this as a holy war (and am wondering if this includes ole George) and again wanted to kill as many Muslims as possible finally I believe they love this Civil War........All this is very sad and bleak...but we are a very sad and bleak mamal. Oh I forgot....we're soooo freakin special.
...
I agree. The U.S. military of the late 50s/early 60s was not prepared to fight a guerilla tactics war. After the fall of Batiste's Cuba send a chilling effect and planners worried about 'Communist/Socialist' rebels in Latin America.
Viet Nam provided a perfect testbed for these tactics... and it was far removed from U.S. soil, so we would not experience any side effects, such as pesky war refugees. We took over the war from French Imperialists and sold it to Americans as the stemming of the Communist scourge. We inaccurately labeled Ho Chi Mihn as a Communist, when he was really a nationalist seeking to re-unify his homeland.
Those people died because our 'Best and Brightest' wanted to test out their striker tactics using helicopter transports and gunships in an environment that was not suitable of heavy ground armour.
After the Tet Offensive of 1968, military planners realized that their experiment wasn't yielding the results they wanted to see. From that point, they should have cut their losses and brought home our troops. The war was lead by politicians and the military personel were pawns and guinea pigs in their little test. The deaths of the people (on both sides) should be placed in the hands of the ones who prolonged the war for their political survival. The policy failed, not the soldiers.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Because of the mis-handling of the War by civilian politicians in the Bush Administration... the War is now going to be placed in the incompetent hands of the civilian politicians on Capitol Hill.
This is the NIGHTMARE of Viet Nam... the War under the command and control of numb-nut, fuck faced politician scum sucking assholes who are more worried about their re-election campaigns than the safe return of our soldiers.
And it's NOT just Democrats... it's both Democrats and Republican civilian fucks. To politiize this by blaming one side or the other, you are doing exactly what is needed for this thing to fail. No nation that has been divide has ever succeeded. You should be naseauted by all of our politicians... not just the ones with the (D) next to their names. The ones with the (R)s are just as responsible for allowing this mess to get to the point we are at.
Agreed. I think Congress and the Presindential nominiees using this war for their own purposes should be strung up, regardless of party. It just seems to me that the Democrats are the ones leading the charge at the moment, since they are the party out of power.
Hence my use of the words 'The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.'
fair enough. so maybe we can just send red state troops in the future?
So you agree that the U.S invasion of South Vietnam was in essence, a just cause?
Are you saying that if the U.S had won then that would have justified U.S terror in the region, including the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, and the deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese and 56 thousand Americans?
The United States did not invade South Vietnam. There was a civillian government already present in South Vietnam that was nominally democratic. We never inviaded South OR North Vietnam, even though we should have and could have. Cambodia and Laos is another story. Nixon bombed the shit out of both those countries, true. But both those countries essentially became combatants by allowing the Ho Chi Minh trail to be cut down the middle of their countries.
Again, hindsight is always 20-20. It's easy to say now that Iraq was a bad idea, or that Vietnam was a bad idea. In both cases, look at where the world was when both of these conflicts started. In the mid-60's the US was staring down the barrel of a cocked and loaded Communisit Nuke threat. You all were snug as a bug over there in Europe with our protection guranteeting your safety.
American thinking was very paranoid, but how you can say sitting here today, that paranoia was not justified. The issue in both these conflicts, is, I think, the same. Were in it, now how do we get out of it and maintain any sense of humility?
Hanging the troops in the field out to dry by withdrawing their funding is treasonous. In many cases, troops on the ground are having to buy their own body armor, and plating for their vehicles because there are not enough resources. Here, as with Vietnam, a strong anti-war movement is actually helping to embolden then enemy, which, actually leads to more American deaths in the field. The enemy knows that if it wants to rid itself of the Americans, it need only kill more of OUR troops.
Just look at how many choppers went down in the last 3 weeks as compared to the last 3 years of the war. Insurgents are wratcheting up the pressure on our troops. Why? They smell blood in the water in Washington.
Just look at how many choppers went down in the last 3 weeks as compared to the last 3 years of the war. Insurgents are wratcheting up the pressure on our troops. Why? They smell blood in the water in Washington.
But that's just it. The majority of the worlds populations saw the inevitable invasion as a mistake before the event. Hence, two million people taking to the streets of London, for example.
And let's not forget that evidence has since come to light proving that the decision to invade had already been made as early as 2002. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece The Iraq dossier was a fraud. Most of it consisted of a University students thesis plagiarised from the internet which happened to be 12 years out of date. The rest of it was 'sexed up intelligence' designed to promote the drive to war. There was no mistake being made by the people who struggled to promote and justify their decision to invade. They are guilty of lying to the British and American public and should be charged accordingly.
Why are you still talking about this? No one denies the intel was faulty. That's yesterdays news. Actually yesteryears news. No one here is saying there is justification for the war. The issue now is, how do we stabilize the region before leaving. You Europeans are more dependent on foreign oil than we are. Unless you guys are 100% ready with your Euro electric cars, you need the region to be stable, just like we do.
It looks like you are talking about the power mongers and their accountability. I am talking about the average American who supported the war, and there were many.
Whether the world's populations did or didn't recognize a mistake in the making, we're talking about the US in this case. Good people far and wide believed it was the "right' thing to do and supported doing it. Whether they should have known better is irrelevent in my eyes because I am talking about what they actually did know and how they did feel.
Who would you charge then? Since alot of the faulty Intel was British who would you offer up in your government to stand trial?
So what did the American people know that accounted for their support?
And is this a defence on their behalf? The average German in the 1930's supported Hitler. But are they to be absolved of guilt because they didn't know any better? We are all responsible.
Interesting analogy. Last I checked by the mid-30's Hitler had killed the Republic and was moving towards total dictatorship. Last year we returned the Congress to Democratic control with our votes. Nothing we can do now about George W but wait. You cant exactly say weve done nothing.
O.k fair enough. Although I think the bottom line is that what the general public believed to be right or wrong, and whether the population of either Britain or the U.S supported the war or not, was pretty irrelevant. The figures show that there was overwhelming oppostion to an invasion in both countries. The protests that preceeded the invasion all accross the world were unprecedented. But what difference did public opinion make at the end of the day? None.
So much for democracy! :rolleyes:
Democracy doesn't work in the streets, it works in the ballot boxes. Because a bunch of unemployed Europeans protest, we should change our leadership. Most Europeans protest just about everything. We need to protest with our votes, and we have not been very good about doing that. That is why I argue for supporting realistic candidates in this country and not wasting votes on people like Ralph Nader. Whether we like it or not, this country is strongly conservative. Has been, always will be.
Well, maybe in America the situation was different. Not surprising i suppose, when you consider how skewered and subservient to power the media is over there. I still don't think it absolves anyone. Information is freely available to anyone who makes the effort to find it. There's no excuse anymore. People should have learnt the lesson of the Nazi era that you can't believe anything your government tells you, and that you need to read between the lines. The American and British governments made the job too easy in the case of their justifications for invading Iraq, as their lies and desperation were only too obvious. Shame on anyone who fell for that crap.
So i guess you knew more than, say, Collin Powell did ya? People did the best they could with the information provided. People on both sides of the Atlantic fucked up. But this country was, and still is, in a great deal of shock from the horrors of 9/11. We all weren't thinking so clearly back in 01-02. There was a great deal of fear over here, which wasn't improved very much by the abandonment of our "allies". It's still very injurious to many Americans. Maybe not many here, but many who voted cared more about protecting ourselves than about what our n'er do well "allies" thought about it.
The United States did not invade South Vietnam. There was a civillian government already present in South Vietnam that was nominally democratic. We never inviaded South OR North Vietnam, even though we should have and could have. Cambodia and Laos is another story. Nixon bombed the shit out of both those countries, true. But both those countries essentially became combatants by allowing the Ho Chi Minh trail to be cut down the middle of their countries.
what would you call it then?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Why are you still talking about this? No one denies the intel was faulty. That's yesterdays news. Actually yesteryears news. No one here is saying there is justification for the war. The issue now is, how do we stabilize the region before leaving. You Europeans are more dependent on foreign oil than we are. Unless you guys are 100% ready with your Euro electric cars, you need the region to be stable, just like we do.
...
That's the tough part... where do we go from here?
But, just because we are where we are, doesn't mean we can't beat the fuck out of the asshole that got us here. And at what point do we figure out that listening to this asshole has gotten us deeper and deeper into the shit? When do we say, "ENOUGH! You've been consistantly wrong in the past, why should we believe you now?"
We can stabilize it with tons of troops going out on patrol and living in opolice stations outside of the Green Zone... but, for how long? If I was Muqtada al Sadr... I'd sit tight, knowing that the American HAVE to leave at some point... even if it's 10 years from now... time is on Al Sadr's side. We cannot stay there forever. When we do leave... he can come back in and begin his payback for all those death's under Hussein's watch.
It's tough... but, at some point, we may have to concede that it is a lost cause because the fact of the matter is.. the Shi'ites are in control, now... and it's going to be tough to keep them from eventually teaming up with their brothers in Iran.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Taking custody of the South's side of a Civil War. South Viet Nam (the South Vietnamese government) welcomed us... they didn't invite us... we asked to come in and they let us.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
That's the tough part... where do we go from here?
But, just because we are where we are, doesn't mean we can't beat the fuck out of the asshole that got us here. And at what point do we figure out that listening to this asshole has gotten us deeper and deeper into the shit? When do we say, "ENOUGH! You've been consistantly wrong in the past, why should we believe you now?"
We can stabilize it with tons of troops going out on patrol and living in opolice stations outside of the Green Zone... but, for how long? If I was Muqtada al Sadr... I'd sit tight, knowing that the American HAVE to leave at some point... even if it's 10 years from now... time is on Al Sadr's side. We cannot stay there forever. When we do leave... he can come back in and begin his payback for all those death's under Hussein's watch.
It's tough... but, at some point, we may have to concede that it is a lost cause because the fact of the matter is.. the Shi'ites are in control, now... and it's going to be tough to keep them from eventually teaming up with their brothers in Iran.
If not for Iran becoming as belligerent as it has, I think we could have been well on our way to being out of there. Alot of the reason we are still in Iraq has less to do with Iraq, then it does with Iran. Do you think Bush really gives two shits anymore about whether Iraq becomes a democracy or not? Hell no. Our Gulf State allies are depending on us to stay and stabilize the region from a menacing Iran. That's the only reason we have not drawn back.
Whether we like it or not, the world depends on that oil. If we walk away from the region before it has its shit together, we are just leaving the door open for Gulf War 3 with Iran.
to be historically accurate there was no invasion....at the time they called it an invastion. D=Day was an invasion. i make the distinction for the sake of accuracy.
Comments
Living in Canada, many, many good people surrounding me felt the war was a good choice. I need only to look to this board through this past 1 1/2 years to hear the mindset of those who were pro-war. Not to mention the periodic posting of polls showing the percentage of Americans supporting the war. Conscientious individuals who believed they were doing the right thing. As much as there was dissent, there was apparently more support for the war, from what I've seen. It sounds like you are disagreeing with that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, maybe in America the situation was different. Not surprising i suppose, when you consider how skewered and subservient to power the media is over there. I still don't think it absolves anyone. Information is freely available to anyone who makes the effort to find it. There's no excuse anymore. People should have learnt the lesson of the Nazi era that you can't believe anything your government tells you, and that you need to read between the lines. The American and British governments made the job too easy in the case of their justifications for invading Iraq, as their lies and desperation were only too obvious. Shame on anyone who fell for that crap.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In the UK however, the war was not supported by the people. Nor by several members of Blair's own cabinet. It was seen for what it was; a needless conflict that would result in major fatalities for all those involved, including Blair himself. His pledge of alliance to Bush was, as cringeworthy as it may have been, a one way ticket to hell for our soldiers at our (reluctant) expense. Why? Most of the newspapers told the public to 'support our boys' and old figureheads would yell 'for Queen and country', perhap it was seen to be an excuse for the government to distract the public from the shoddy work they had been doing at the time at home. In short, I don't always think the government reflects the people, but governments do not always unite either. Blair is not in power because the country supports him, he is in power because there is no viable alternative. Again though, he was left cold by members of his own party, and members of the opposition supported him. So perhaps it can go either ways.
I don't have insights into the operation of your country, nor any good guesses, really. The one thing I do believe though is that a system, such as a country, will generate what leadership it will generate. It's an interactive deal. If your country has not generated a viable power to support, it is what it is, good, bad or indifferent. I believe that it's only when we acknowledge the base patterns underlying these dynamics that we can learn to work with them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No. I do not think Viet Nam was anything other than a testing ground for waepons and tactics to defeat a guerilla war that the Pentagon had predicted would occur in Latin America.
I call it immoral on the part of American politicians and military planners to allow the war to continue after 1969 when they figured out that there was no way to declare a conventional 'Victory' over there. The men and women who died on both sides meant nothing to them. All they were looking for was a way to save their political careers rather than the lives of those lost.
Hail, Hail!!!
Seems to me that, like the U.S Government's actions in Latin America, they were trying simply to prevent these countries from setting an example to their neighbours. Popular nationalist movements - whether socialist or communist - which placed the interests of their populations first, were seen as a threat to U.S hegemony.
Check this book out if you haven't already - http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/sr=8-1/qid=1172008240/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9046037-3744641?ie=UTF8&s=books
Exactly. You can't squander countries resources and welfare if they're not for sale anymore. The US wanted to ensure they remained on the market whether they chose it or not. It's never about spreading democracy, it's about spreading accessibility and power.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Many Americans wanted revenge....they wanted to punish Muslims for what happened on 9/11 and Afghanistan just didn't satisfy their thirst for blood. Thus it was very convenient to overlook the obvious (That Bush and cronies where trumping up charges for war). Also to add to this, I feel many Christians see this as a holy war (and am wondering if this includes ole George) and again wanted to kill as many Muslims as possible finally I believe they love this Civil War........All this is very sad and bleak...but we are a very sad and bleak mamal. Oh I forgot....we're soooo freakin special.
I agree. The U.S. military of the late 50s/early 60s was not prepared to fight a guerilla tactics war. After the fall of Batiste's Cuba send a chilling effect and planners worried about 'Communist/Socialist' rebels in Latin America.
Viet Nam provided a perfect testbed for these tactics... and it was far removed from U.S. soil, so we would not experience any side effects, such as pesky war refugees. We took over the war from French Imperialists and sold it to Americans as the stemming of the Communist scourge. We inaccurately labeled Ho Chi Mihn as a Communist, when he was really a nationalist seeking to re-unify his homeland.
Those people died because our 'Best and Brightest' wanted to test out their striker tactics using helicopter transports and gunships in an environment that was not suitable of heavy ground armour.
After the Tet Offensive of 1968, military planners realized that their experiment wasn't yielding the results they wanted to see. From that point, they should have cut their losses and brought home our troops. The war was lead by politicians and the military personel were pawns and guinea pigs in their little test. The deaths of the people (on both sides) should be placed in the hands of the ones who prolonged the war for their political survival. The policy failed, not the soldiers.
Hail, Hail!!!
Agreed. I think Congress and the Presindential nominiees using this war for their own purposes should be strung up, regardless of party. It just seems to me that the Democrats are the ones leading the charge at the moment, since they are the party out of power.
fair enough. so maybe we can just send red state troops in the future?
The United States did not invade South Vietnam. There was a civillian government already present in South Vietnam that was nominally democratic. We never inviaded South OR North Vietnam, even though we should have and could have. Cambodia and Laos is another story. Nixon bombed the shit out of both those countries, true. But both those countries essentially became combatants by allowing the Ho Chi Minh trail to be cut down the middle of their countries.
Again, hindsight is always 20-20. It's easy to say now that Iraq was a bad idea, or that Vietnam was a bad idea. In both cases, look at where the world was when both of these conflicts started. In the mid-60's the US was staring down the barrel of a cocked and loaded Communisit Nuke threat. You all were snug as a bug over there in Europe with our protection guranteeting your safety.
American thinking was very paranoid, but how you can say sitting here today, that paranoia was not justified. The issue in both these conflicts, is, I think, the same. Were in it, now how do we get out of it and maintain any sense of humility?
Hanging the troops in the field out to dry by withdrawing their funding is treasonous. In many cases, troops on the ground are having to buy their own body armor, and plating for their vehicles because there are not enough resources. Here, as with Vietnam, a strong anti-war movement is actually helping to embolden then enemy, which, actually leads to more American deaths in the field. The enemy knows that if it wants to rid itself of the Americans, it need only kill more of OUR troops.
Just look at how many choppers went down in the last 3 weeks as compared to the last 3 years of the war. Insurgents are wratcheting up the pressure on our troops. Why? They smell blood in the water in Washington.
Actually, they may be smelling the sewage system.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Why are you still talking about this? No one denies the intel was faulty. That's yesterdays news. Actually yesteryears news. No one here is saying there is justification for the war. The issue now is, how do we stabilize the region before leaving. You Europeans are more dependent on foreign oil than we are. Unless you guys are 100% ready with your Euro electric cars, you need the region to be stable, just like we do.
Who would you charge then? Since alot of the faulty Intel was British who would you offer up in your government to stand trial?
Democracy doesn't work in the streets, it works in the ballot boxes. Because a bunch of unemployed Europeans protest, we should change our leadership. Most Europeans protest just about everything. We need to protest with our votes, and we have not been very good about doing that. That is why I argue for supporting realistic candidates in this country and not wasting votes on people like Ralph Nader. Whether we like it or not, this country is strongly conservative. Has been, always will be.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So i guess you knew more than, say, Collin Powell did ya? People did the best they could with the information provided. People on both sides of the Atlantic fucked up. But this country was, and still is, in a great deal of shock from the horrors of 9/11. We all weren't thinking so clearly back in 01-02. There was a great deal of fear over here, which wasn't improved very much by the abandonment of our "allies". It's still very injurious to many Americans. Maybe not many here, but many who voted cared more about protecting ourselves than about what our n'er do well "allies" thought about it.
No I meant to be quoting Byrnzie from within your post.
what would you call it then?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's the tough part... where do we go from here?
But, just because we are where we are, doesn't mean we can't beat the fuck out of the asshole that got us here. And at what point do we figure out that listening to this asshole has gotten us deeper and deeper into the shit? When do we say, "ENOUGH! You've been consistantly wrong in the past, why should we believe you now?"
We can stabilize it with tons of troops going out on patrol and living in opolice stations outside of the Green Zone... but, for how long? If I was Muqtada al Sadr... I'd sit tight, knowing that the American HAVE to leave at some point... even if it's 10 years from now... time is on Al Sadr's side. We cannot stay there forever. When we do leave... he can come back in and begin his payback for all those death's under Hussein's watch.
It's tough... but, at some point, we may have to concede that it is a lost cause because the fact of the matter is.. the Shi'ites are in control, now... and it's going to be tough to keep them from eventually teaming up with their brothers in Iran.
Hail, Hail!!!
Taking custody of the South's side of a Civil War. South Viet Nam (the South Vietnamese government) welcomed us... they didn't invite us... we asked to come in and they let us.
Hail, Hail!!!
If not for Iran becoming as belligerent as it has, I think we could have been well on our way to being out of there. Alot of the reason we are still in Iraq has less to do with Iraq, then it does with Iran. Do you think Bush really gives two shits anymore about whether Iraq becomes a democracy or not? Hell no. Our Gulf State allies are depending on us to stay and stabilize the region from a menacing Iran. That's the only reason we have not drawn back.
Whether we like it or not, the world depends on that oil. If we walk away from the region before it has its shit together, we are just leaving the door open for Gulf War 3 with Iran.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
to be historically accurate there was no invasion....at the time they called it an invastion. D=Day was an invasion. i make the distinction for the sake of accuracy.