On my way to work the other day, I noticed a car with a bumper sticker on the back that read, “No more Vietnams, End the war.” Isn’t that self-contradictory? Wouldn’t the only way to have “no more Vietnams” be to win the war, rather than simply end it?
Incidentally, in that same vein, I watched the final episode of PBS’s new documentary “The War” last night. I have to say that I firmly believe that if World War II were to happen today, we would lose. Not because we don’t have military might, but because we wouldn’t be willing to do what it takes to win. People would be driving around with bumper stickers saying “No more Bataans, End the war.” General MacArthur would never have returned to the Philippines, as he would have been forced to resign after lengthy congressional hearings. And, of course, the U.S. would have been bogged down in a Japanese quagmire with thousands of American troops dying every day trying to take the island nation because they wouldn’t be willing to use the bomb.
The “war ” was over a long time ago; this is a policing action where we are in the middle of a civil war which will never end. Let them settle their own differences, however they choose to do so, we have rid them of a vicious dictator which they could not have done themselves, so let’s be on our way and solve the problems within our own country. If you lookd at all the candidates for this coming election for President, can you say we don not have serious problems of our own?
Dang, CJ, I rarely say this, but I agree with you.
not even getting into the difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice, perhaps the reason this country wouldn’t fare as well in a similar confrontation today is due to the fact that the only “support” of the cause would be coming from backseat bloggers who have never heard a shot fired in anger.
Stewie, I doubt bloggers (especially the “backseat” variety) would figure into the equation at all. I think a bigger problem is the number of congressmen who have never seen combat and whose kids are not in the military. You know, in WWII, the president’s own sons were active duty. I’m sure that had an effect on how the war was prosecuted. If that were the situation today, perhaps you’re right and we wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. Who knows? But we’re there now.
Let’s not forget about the role of the media. The element of secrecy was instrumental in the fighting of WWII. How many cover-up conspiracies would have been featured on the evening news and headlining the major newspapers because the military was withholding much of the information?
On the other hand, can you just imagine what an embedded reporter on an LST at Normandy would have reported?
“A few hours ago I was sitting in the depths of the boat (cut to a shot of the boat) behind dozens of young men, the best hope for America’s future, as they prepared to storm the French beachfront. I spoke with a young private from Des Moines about his feelings and whether or not he felt the government was making the right decision. The brave soldier said he believed in the mission and he knew that what he was doing was right.
That was before the landing. Now, after the dust has settled, you can see the death and destruction (as the camera slowly pans up and down the beach) that greeted these poor young men, most of whom, including the young private from Des Moines, would not survive long enough to climb the hill (pan to a shot of the cliffs a short distance away). And those who are left can only pick up the pieces… and wonder whether or not their government had completely counted the cost of their strategy.
Reporting live from Normandy. Back to you in New York.”
The anchor in New York follows up that report with stories about an impoverished French grandfather whose family business is suffering because of the US-led invasion and how the US women working the factories are managing to balance a career and a family, and what the government should do to help them.
C.J., for you to even try to compare the Iraq conflict with W.W. II is not only crazy, but almost sacrilegious (sp?). In W.W. II, you had the Axis trying to take over the world… in the Iraq conflict, you did not even have WMDs, let alone someone who was threatening to drop ’em on us.
In W.W. II, you had Germany and Italy inflicting death and misery on our European allies… in the Iraq conflict, you had a nutcase inflicting death and misery on his OWN countrypeople.
In W.W. II, you had a clearly defined enemy that dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor, and killed hundreds of our servicepeople. In the Iraq conflict, you don’t even have a connection of any type between its former leader and 9-11.
Need I go on? There is no question in my mind that if we’ve been able to go THIS far with the Iraq conflict (deaths, money, misery), we SURE AS HELL would have done the same with something as clear cut as W.W. II.
I’m surprised you stooped this low. This country will fight to the death for a JUST cause. And, IRAQ ain’t it.
“In the Iraq conflict, you had a nutcase inflicting death and misery on his OWN country people.”
Oh, and there was that little invasion of a small, independent state in the middle east.
Oh, and there was the fact that the nutcase sought the total annihilation of one of our allies… namely Israel.
Oh, and there were the NUMEROUS UN resolutions denouncing the atrocities the nutcase had committed, imposing sanctions, and threatening to do something drastic.
But I guess you’re right. This doesn’t add up to a just cause.
Sure doesn’t, Martha. Because if it did, there are about, say, 12 African nations that we should have invaded and deposed the “throne” over the past decade… oh wait, I forgot. The oil reserves aren’t quite as large in those nations.
C.J. is correct about the Iraq – WW2 anaology. Also, people forget so easily that WMD’s were not the only justification for ending Saddam’s regime.
By 2001, the UN sanctions regime on Iraq was crumbling with many countries openly defying the embargo, making it increasingly difficult to contain Saddam. UN weapons inspectors had been shut out of the country for three years, unable to verify the dismantling of Iraq’s WMD’s. Frequently, USAF aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones were fired on. The cost of maintaining bases and troops in Saudi Arabia needed to support the enforcement of the UN sanctions and no-fly zones continued to mount.
Our open-ended presence in Saudi Arabia was one of Osama bin Laden’s gripes (though I say “screw him”) and GWB concluded that OBL and Saddam could form an alliance. Whether or not it would have happened is not the issue. Thus, regime change became the only alternative to years of risking the lives of American servicemen and women patrolling.
We Americans tend to be impatient, entertainment-oriented and easily influenced by television. Thus, the incessant negativity coming from ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and others influence the public’s opinion about the war.
The reason? Because when Bush invaded Iraq he told us to go shopping. We did.
As a Viet Nam vet, comparing Iraq to Viet Nam is not even close. Get a clue CJ.
Anti-Pundit on this issue I agree with you and I too am a Vietnam vet – HH&SVC Btry, 1/84th Arty, 9th INF Div, Camp Bearcat 1967. Bush did only a half-hearted effort to go after America’s true enemy Osama Bin Laden. He was slow to move into Afghanistan, slower to move into Tora Bora, and has done nothing about the so-called tribal regions of Pakistan where OBL is likely hiding. The result is our TRUE ENEMY is still there mocking us and making plans. He should have been planted in the ground nearly six years ago. Instead, what we have is this never ending human and money wasting quagmire in Iraq. Sadaam was contained and watched; sure he was a bad guy to his people, but WE ARE NOT THE EARTH’S POLICEMEN! Bush and his people had plans to go after Sadaam before 9-11; it became easy to do so after the attack because the American people wanted an enemy to defeat and were easily swayed by administration lies. It is most likely that GWB wanted to eliminate Sadaam because of the death threats to his daddy; the Bush family is extremely close and personal revenge was a likely factor in GWB’s plans for Iraq. This conflict (never declared a war by Congress) was stupid and unnecessary and our NUMBER ONE ENEMY IS STILL OUT THERE ISSUING STATEMENTS OF HIS HATRED FOR AMERICANS. It is a time for change.
Anti-Pundit, I wasn’t comparing Iraq to Vietnam — the bumper sticker was.
Response to Martha …
“Oh, and there was that little invasion of a small, independent state in the middle east.”
OK … that was 12-13 years before we invaded Iraq. If I remember correctly, we booted him out of that country rather quickly. The U.S. could have deposed Saddam then (and had a lot more justification for doing so). However, Bush 1’s advisers warned him against getting involved in an “Iraqi quagmire” – ironically INCLUDING then SecDef Dick Cheney. Of course Bush 1 and his cadre encouraged the Shia in southern Iraq to revolt … and then abandoned them to subsequent slaughter.
“Oh, and there was the fact that the nutcase sought the total annihilation of one of our allies… namely Israel.”
The key word in that sentence is SOUGHT. After 12 years of sanctions and frequent U.S. & British air strikes, Saddam posed no threat to Israel. He posed no threat to a wet paper bag outside his own territory (and little more within it … he didn’t even control the northern third of his country!).
Also, Israel can take care of itself. In addition to their extremely capable conventional military forces, they have nukes. They’ve had nukes for almost 40 years and now have a stockpile of 60-80 warheads and a ballistic missile capability of delivering them up to 1500 km. All of Iraq is well within that range.
“Oh, and there were the NUMEROUS UN resolutions denouncing the atrocities the nutcase had committed, imposing sanctions, and threatening to do something drastic.”
There are also numerous U.N. resolutions condemning Israel and their occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights. Should we invade them?
Those U.N. resolutions condemning Iraq were put forward under strong diplomatic pressure from the United States, and were supported in large part for the same reason two dozen countries have sent token forces to support the “Coalition” in Iraq – they’re sucking up to the superpower. That’s hardly meaningful justification for a preemptive invasion.
As alluded to by K.I.D, a very good analysis on the prospect of invading Iraq is offered by a member of the current administration…albeit 13 years ago:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/08/cheney_1.html
BTW, please describe to me what “winning” in Iraq looks like so I can recognize it. Oh wait that was the “Mission Accomplished” banner, or was it everyone holding up blue fingers? I’m very confused…
CJ: you must of agreed with the bumper sticker. You posted about it. You suggested that winning Iraq was better than just ending the war. Well I have been there done that. Too bad we can’t make the politicans fight the wars they start.
It is also too bad that we can’t make the supporters, all of them rich or middle aged, of the politicians who start wars to fight in those wars. They should always be in the front line. They should be the first to die, they should be the first to loose their limbs and be disfigured. Maybe then we will start using better judgment before going to war and not be stampeded by lies off to battle. The supporters of these contrived conflicts sit back and smugly pontificate about their patriotism and the support of “God” for their evil waste of human life. Shame on them.
LVB, it’s just more of the hell-bent ultra conservative crapola that C.J. apparently is currently subscribing to. There is no winnable war in Iraq, and never will be. They have been fighting their own wars for several hundred years, and there is no doubt that a group of infidels from the Great Satan will certainly not quell the problems.
Anyone with any sense would have recognized that 5 years ago. Clearly, George W. Bush has absolutely no sense, whatsoever. But, I don’t believe he invaded Iraq to win anything, other than to remove Saddam, and inflate the pocketbooks of the friends of his with vested interests in the tools of war and oil.
That people like C.J., Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and their compatriots continue to try and “shame” people into submission regarding the conflict is very sad, indeed. You see, to keep fighting the unwinnable war, it just continues to push the American dead numbers and American debt higher and higher. It is so obvious but these supposed “American Backers” are not the ones with their butts on the line, are not the ones whose kids are fighting over there.
How easy it is to puff up your chest when the bullets aren’t aimed for it.
Knight In Dragonland Wrote:
“Saddam posed no threat to Israel.”
Uh, a year before the war it was known that Saddam Hussein paid each family of a Palestinian suicide bomber $25,000. Obviously, Saddam was a threat to Israel (plus, some U. S. citizens were killed by these terrorist attacks).
See the reference to DIA document numbered ISGP200300014647:
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/cms/uploadedFiles/FLOERSHEIMER/transcript.panel5.doc
And here about Saddam’s “Jerusalem Army.”
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/baram20030319.htm
Sure, Israel could have dealt with Iraq, but their response to a devastating attack on their soil would have been nuclear, and every American president wants to prevent that from happening.
Knight In Dragonland wrote:
“There are also numerous U.N. resolutions condemning Israel and their occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights. Should we invade them?”
Moral equivalance doesn’t work here, KID. Recall why Israel “occupies” those territories. I think you already know the answer.
Well guys, I can tell you’re all very passionate about this issue, and I respect your views, even though I may disagree with some of them. I think some of you may be overstating your point, perhaps because it’s such an emotional hot-button issue.
Several of you have made pejorative comments about civilians daring to express an opinion about the Iraq war. I think that’s wrong. The military fights for all Americans’ rights to freedom, including the freedom of speech and the freedom of association. Furthermore, there is no unanimity among veterans over the proper course to take in the Iraq war. So even though I haven’t been in battle or been shot at, there are many who have and believe we shouldn’t abandon Iraq at this time and let it become an uninhibited training ground for terrorists. Which veterans should I as a civilian believe?
As for whether the war was just or not, that’s a separate argument. I was just primarily pointing out what I felt was a contradictory statement on a bumper sticker. In Vietnam, the government tied the hands of the military, then pulled out, letting the whole country fall under Communism. They “ended the war” as the bumper sticker advised. It seems to me that if we do the same thing in Iraq, we would be repeating at least one of the mistakes of Vietnam. That doesn’t mean I agree with the bumper sticker’s comparison, Anti-Pundit. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency of the comparison it makes.
It’s simple guys:
Victory = end to war
Premature pullout = we’ll be back, and it’ll be worse.
Nobody is saying that we should have stayed in Vietnam indefinitely. Our withdrawal in 1973 wasn’t so much a loss as our failure to enforce the peace agreement that N. Vietnam violated when it invaded S. Vietnam in fall 1974. That, and Congress cutting off aid to S. Vietnam led to the fall of Saigon in 1975 and the bloodbath that followed.
Martha, Dave – KID just doesn’t get, does he?
David- There will be no end to this war. The sooner you understand that the better off your interpretation of this conflict will be. We will continue to be caught in the middle of the warring between the tribes in Iraq, and we will continue to be hated and killed by many who despise for being there in the first place.
This ain’t the Nazis. It ain’t even the Rising Sun guys. Even THEY knew when to give up. This is a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT conflict, and we DON’T need to be involved. Period.
WWII, Vietnam, Iraq – a number of good points made by all, but, here is the real similarity between Vietnam and Iraq, and difference with WWII. Partisan politics. WWII reporters did not report on Normandy as Martha suggested, because of secrecy. They didn’t report that way because they supported the United States war effort. Most reporters in Vietnam did not support the war effort, and most do not support the effort in Iraq. Yes, folks, most reporters want the U.S. to go home in defeat and disgrace. Because they think it serves their political agenda. Harry Reid, that disgrace that heads the U.S. Senate, has already proclaimed defeat, for purely political purposes. In WWII partisan politics was set aside for the good of the country. Now, it’s all about politics and the next election. Wail all you want folks, but it’s true. Except for a very few – Joe Lieberman comes to mind – principal has gone out he window. George Washington was right about political parties. They will destroy the county.
You want to see some similarity, look to the media coverage of the U.S. Civil War.
I’d make a comment here, but I have no patience with people too blind to see that we WERE in a struggle with whose who wanted to make the world a communist paradise, just as we are NOW in a struggle with those who want to force the whole world to follow their brand of Islam.
This is the part where liberals reply “b-b-b-but Christianity …”
Also, when watching “The War” – I was amazed by the number of guys who said “Why is Ike calling this a “Great Crusade”? Why are we even invading Europe? Hitler didn’t attack us, Tojo did!”
It wasn’t until later when they were liberating concentration camps when they said, “oh”.
Prego Man Wrote: “David- There will be no end to this war. The sooner you understand that the better off your interpretation of this conflict will be. We will continue to be caught in the middle of the warring between the tribes in Iraq, and we will continue to be hated and killed by many who despise for being there in the first place.”
With all due respect, Prego, as long as you and some of our politicians hold such a view, then yes, there will never be an end to this war. Fortunately, those who make the decisions do not share such a view.
Gen. Petraeus’ “surge” is demonstrating to Iraqi’s that we intend to defeat the insurgents/terrorists. Positive changes have come from that effort. It’s time to recognize it and support the new effort to bring stability to the country.
Prego Man Wrote: “This ain’t the Nazis. It ain’t even the Rising Sun guys. Even THEY knew when to give up. This is a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT conflict, and we DON’T need to be involved. Period.”
Not entirely true as both were FORCED to give up. Germany had been overrun with foreign troops and their fuhrer was dead from suicide before surrendering. They had no other path. (A few, though, waged an insurgency against Allied forces for a decade.)
Japan only surrendered when Emperor Hirohito chose peace. Many fanatics in the military wanted to fight to the death, but one man, considered to be “god” by his people, made the decision.
The major difference between WW2/Vietnam and the Iraq War is that we’re fighting terror organizations, not countries. But the Nazi’s, Imperial Japanese and Islamists share the same megalomaniacal extremism.
David sez: “The major difference between WW2/Vietnam and the Iraq War is that we’re fighting terror organizations, not countries.”
Then why are we in Iraq? Why then aren’t we in North Korea, Cuba, Central America, Lebanon, and any of a bunch of other terroist countries?
Terrorism was an excuse to go into Iraq and I’ll bet that if 9/11 had never happened, we would have still gone into Iraq. Other than our troops shooting people in Iraq, we are not engaged with any other terrorist groups in any other country other than Afganistan and even very limited there. Keep on shoping…
“Victory = end to war
Premature pullout = we’ll be back, and it’ll be worse. ”
You don’t win other people’s civil wars. You sit there in a police action for years or decades on end and when you do pull out, they go back to having a war. Outsiders can’t settle that.
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were military SUPERPOWERS of the era. They had powerful ground forces and naval & air power that they could use to extend their will far and wide. The Soviet Union was a SUPERPOWER during the Cold War. They had nuclear weapons and an enormous conventional military capability. They were a legitimate threat to our security and our way of life.
Bin Laden and his boys attacked us with BOXCUTTERS. No Muslim nation on earth has the military capability to threaten anyone more than a few hundred miles outside their borders. Sure, they could (and do) fund & support terrorist attacks. That threatens American lives, certainly … but it doesn’t threaten our way of life UNLESS WE LET IT.
And that’s what we’re doing. The current administration is violating EVERY fundamental principal that the founders of our nation fought and died for in the American Revolution. Clinton gets impeached for lying about a dalliance in the oval office. Bush numerous fundamental Constitutional principles and folks like Vonster applaud, their heads firmly crammed up their rectums.
This idea that we’re in the ultimate battle for our lives and our way of life is ridiculous hyperbole. I get the feeling some people actually believe the utterly absurd contention that there are ravening hordes of Muslim fanatics waiting to storm the shores and conquer America at any moment. This baseless paranoia just feeds the police state mentality that any self-respecting Libertarian should abhor.
That should be “Bush violates numerous fundamental Constitutional principles” …
Looks like you opened a can of worms with this topic little bro, and allow me to jump into the fire with you with my comments (hoping the Shadrack, Meshack and Obendego scenario repeats itself:-)
I remember back in the days of “Nam,” seeing peace sign bumper stickers that said “Footprint of the American Chicken.” I think Dad even had one. I’d really like to see those make a come back. I also remember seeing media coverage of the fall of Saigon, and people getting slaughtered by the North Vietnamese because America lost its resolve to finish what it started…trying to appease the hippie protesters of the day. That war took a political spin because the liberal media was against it, which caused weak-willed people (who believe everything they see on the news as gospel) to turn against it, which caused the politicians to turn against it knowing their support base would turn against them if they did support the war. I see more of a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam than WWII. I think part of the reason Americans supported WWII was because they didn’t have a CNN propaganda machine rolling 24/7, brainwashing them as they do today. All they had were news reels that showed the progess they were making in the war, which added to the pride they had for their country.
If we pull out of Iraq now, Iran will simply annex it and it will become even more of a threat than it is today. Is that what these “can’t see the forest through the trees” anti-war zealots want to see happen? Do they want to fight these radicals on our home soil? The type of anti-war comments I see on this blog, and others like them, just embolden the enemy. Whether Americans believe it was right or wrong to go to war in Iraq is irrelevant. If we pull together like we did in WWII, we WILL win…I have absolutely no doubt. Unfortunately, just like a basketball team with a weak cheerleading section, we probably will lose and take another step down the rung of the world leadership ladder… It’s pathetic.
I Tivo’d “The War,” but haven’t had a chance to watch it yet. Looks good though.
I am amazed at the number of intelligent people who not only continue to support this hopeless war, but continue to rationalize this failed administration’s foray into the civil war of a sovereign nation. C.J.’s comparison of this war to WWII is too ridiculous to even respond to (although prego man and a few others have done a good job.) In the future C.J., please stick to local issues where your thoughts and opinions are respected.
In response to David Jordan’s comment “Thus, the incessant negativity coming from ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and others influence the public’s opinion about the war.”, you have evidently been spending too much time listening to what is euphemistically referred to as FOX “news”, but is actually right-wing blathering and screeching. Many of our soldiers are battle weary after their tours have been extended 3 or 4 times. The Army needs healthy young people like yourself. Why haven’t you signed up?? Just to help you out, here is the link… http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp
I wrote: “The major difference between WW2/Vietnam and the Iraq War is that we’re fighting terror organizations, not countries.”
Peoria AntiPundit replied: “Then why are we in Iraq?”
(1) regime change (accomplished)
(2) stabilize and rebuild (not accomplished – yet)
(3) destroy “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (underway)
“Why then aren’t we in North Korea, Cuba, Central America, Lebanon, and any of a bunch of other terroist countries?”
North Korea – Kim Jong “Mentally” Il is contained.
Cuba – Castro is not a threat to U. S. security at present (also, we apparently still honor the 1962 agreement with the USSR/Russia not to invade).
Central America – all nations in the western hemisphere, save Cuba, are free. Venezuela and perhaps Bolivia are on their way to dictatorship, but that alone is not justification for intervention.
Lebanon – Syria was pressured to withdraw its troops and the Lebanese Army recently destroyed a terrorist army. The Lebanese government isn’t a threat to U. S. security at present.
Peoria AntiPundit wrote: “Terrorism was an excuse to go into Iraq and I’ll bet that if 9/11 had never happened, we would have still gone into Iraq.”
We never left Iraq following the conclusion to the 1991 war. Our continuing presence – No-fly zones, occasional cruise missile attacks and the December 1998 bombing campaign were the result of Saddam’s lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Lack of will to deal with Saddam after he kicked out weapons inspectors only grew OBL’s resolve to make war with us. With the ability to contain Saddam failing, something had to be done to regain credibility. Right or wrong, UN resolutions were enforced when we invaded in March 2003.
Peoria AntiPundit wrote: “Other than our troops shooting people in Iraq, we are not engaged with any other terrorist groups in any other country other than Afganistan and even very limited there. Keep on shoping…”
You know better than that.
PeoriaGuy Wrote: “In response to David Jordan’s comment ‘Thus, the incessant negativity coming from ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and others influence the public’s opinion about the war.’, you have evidently been spending too much time listening to what is euphemistically referred to as FOX “news”, but is actually right-wing blathering and screeching. Many of our soldiers are battle weary after their tours have been extended 3 or 4 times. The Army needs healthy young people like yourself. Why haven’t you signed up?? Just to help you out, here is the link… http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp”
First of all, Peoria Guy, I’m 33 years old and have had back problems so I doubt the army would take me.:)
Second, I was just at an airshow in Columbus, Ohio over the weekend during which a group re-enlisted. So some wish to serve their country in spite of the comittment. To fight the “Global War on Terror” we need to expand our military. Would you agree?
Third, I could just as well have read your, “I am amazed at the number of intelligent people who not only continue to support this hopeless war, but continue to rationalize this failed administration’s foray into the civil war of a sovereign nation,” on DailyKos, or heard those words from certain politicians. Not exactly original thoughts, but you have the right to make them, and I have the right to be critical of them.
Peoriaguy: I wasn’t comparing the Iraq war to World War II. Read my post again. I said that if World War II happened today, I didn’t think we could win it because the climate of the nation is totally different today than it was 60 years ago. Some commentators here have argued (if I may summarize) that the difference isn’t the climate of the nation, but the nature of the war. They believe that the nation would rally around and win a just and necessary war, but that the Iraq war doesn’t pass that test. A plausible argument, albeit one that hinges on whether one believes the Iraq war was (is) just and necessary.
David …
Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq UNTIL WE INVADED, so that point is ludicrous. As far as us “stabilizing” Iraq … no political structures that we put in place there are going to be seen as legitimate by the Iraqi people. No matter how long we stay, as soon as we leave, it falls down like the house of cards. It happened just about everywhere when colonial powers left the lands that they occupied … even if had been for a hundred years or more.
In response to (the other) David’s idea that Iran will just annex Iraq …
Iran is ethnically Persian. Iraq is ethnically Arab. It doesn’t matter that southern Iraq is majority Shia like the majority in Iran … they still HATE each other. The fought a bloody brutal war against each other in the ’80s. An Iraqi insurgency against an occupying Iranian force would make the current insurgency look like a friendly game of tag. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States wouldn’t tolerate an Iranian occupation. Even Russia and China couldn’t back up Iran on the Security Council if they made an overt power play like that. Iran would end up facing a U.N.-resolution backed multinational force just like Iraq did in the Gulf War.
An Iranian invasion of Iraq would be a great way to insure the suicide of the current regime in Iran. I doubt the Ayatollahs are that stupid.
As far as Vietnam … what exactly were we defending in South Vietnam??? The regime there was NOT democratic. Corruption and graft were rampant and elections were fixed. Nguyen Van Thieu received 94% of the vote in his last “election.” Only Fidel gets better numbers!
That’s why the Viet Cong insurgency was so successful. We were in a power play between one dictatorship and another, propping up a repressive regime just because they weren’t Commies. Because we were afraid of the Commies, we forgot our founding principles and became supporters of tyranny. We did it all over the world, and it always had bad results in the long run.
We forgot our principles and propped up the Shah in Iran. What did we get? The Ayatollahs and I’m-a-dingle-bat.
We forgot our principles and propped up the Batista regime in Cuba. What did we get? Comrade Castro … and very nearly nukes on our doorstep.
We forgot our principles and supported drug-dealing thugs in Afghanistan in the ’80s. What did we get? The Taliban and 9/11.
Marcos in the Philippines. Pinochet in Chile. Sese Seko in Zaire/Congo. Peron and the military junta that ruled Argentina. Apartheid in South Africa. We supported all of them … because they weren’t Communist. All of those decisions turned out poorly for the people of those countries. Many of those decisions turned out poorly for us, as well.
Now we want to start another perpetual war without end against the terrorists, and we’re making the same mistakes all over again. Worse … WE are becoming the tyrants, ignoring the principles of the Constitution even for our own citizens and exerting our will unilaterally and preemptively. Haven’t we learned the lessons of the past??? When we forget the founding principles of our country … when we let fear rule our minds … then we forget what makes our country truly great and unique instead of just another tribe among many.
Geez. With a topic like this…you really find out who your friends are. Contrast and comparison is a dangerous game. In the end it boils down to mere speculation.
WW I and WWII were both wars of containment. We fought a foreign enemy in a foreign land….NOT on U.S. soil [excluding our island possessions in the Pacific, etc.] We wisely took the war to the enemy. We do not wait for the threat to manifest itself here. Occasionally it does; Pearl Harbor, 911, etc. I am sorry, but I see the war in Iraq as a war of terrorist containment.
Religious fanatics who will go back to farming once they claim their chunk of land for Allah? I don’t think so. Professional terrorists will continue to fight anyone, anywhere because this is what they do.
Of course politicians have agendas! Of course economic gain is involved! Please people, stop being naïve. Nobody goes to war without expecting to gain ‘something’ in return. You can always live with Plato in his Philosophers Kingdom.
We blame the media, and rightly so, but I also blame the general public. Sorry, but for the most part we thrive on ignorance, DESPITE all of the media coverage. What your average American knows about world affairs wouldn’t fit in a thimble. Is the crappy media really all that different today? The yellow journalism practiced during the Spanish-American War, would have put CNN to shame!
OK OK, so the 20% or so that still think this Iraqi war is even winnable are posting here, no big deal. Still, every single predection the Republicans have made about this war has been wrong. Every single one. Yet, some people still hang on every word from the Bush Admin. We were not welcomed, we never found WMDs (that was the reason we went in)and we have created more terrorists than ever before. Yes, some people need to get away from FOX news. The war is wrong, was wrong and will never be winnable. We will have to withdrawl sooner or later just like Viet Nam which by the way, in that case we had a peace agreement with the North Viet government which is why we withdrew. They didn’t keep it. Go figure.
Well, C.J.- looks like the naivete runs in the family.
David P. says “First of all, Peoria Guy, I’m 33 years old and have had back problems so I doubt the army would take me.:)”
You never know till you try, David!
Go check it out:
http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp
Gosh, a bad back, huh? Is that what Cheney suffered from? And Rove? And Limbaugh? I think GW’s back was fine…he just suffered from a well-connected family. How come so many of the hawks are actually chickens when it comes to putting their lives where their opinions are?
Knight In Dragonland Wrote; “Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq UNTIL WE INVADED, so that point is ludicrous.”
Doesn’t matter…the “War on Terror” isn’t exclusive to Al Qaeda.
Peoria AntiPundit Wrote: “We were not welcomed, we never found WMDs (that was the reason we went in)and we have created more terrorists than ever before.”
False assertions. Most Iraqi’s welcomed our invasion to rid their country of Saddam Hussein, as otherwise, many more of the country’s 25 million population would be taking up arms against us. The WMD issue was one of many reasons cited for regime change in Iraq. The WMD issue was emphasized because it pertained to UN Security Council resolutions. Even without WMD’s, Saddam Hussein’s ouster was justified.
BTW, I rarely watch anything on FOX news anymore – too much tabloid trash (worse than the networks!). But some people should stay away from CNN 🙂
PeoriaGuy Wrote; “Gosh, a bad back, huh? Is that what Cheney suffered from? And Rove? And Limbaugh? I think GW’s back was fine…he just suffered from a well-connected family. How come so many of the hawks are actually chickens when it comes to putting their lives where their opinions are?”
PeoriaGuy, how long did you serve in our armed forces?
I don’t believe that Peoria Guy is the one saying how we should stay over in Iraq… just so our soldiers can get shot at and killed for no good reason.
David, maybe you can hop a train over there somehow and show ’em how it’s done. I think they’ll take a guy with a bad back who can zip up body bags.
PREGO MAN WROTE: “I don’t believe that Peoria Guy is the one saying how we should stay over in Iraq… just so our soldiers can get shot at and killed for no good reason.”
Your point is? How long did you serve, Prego Man?
Enough with the personal attacks. In debate, they call that “abusive argumentum ad hominem,” and it does nothing to prove your point or disprove the other guy’s point. Why not make your point in a more constructive way that will help others see where you’re coming from? Did you lose a friend or relative in the war? Were you in Vietnam and see parallels here that you don’t want to see repeated because you don’t want others to go through what you had to go through? What’s the source of your passion on this topic?
That kind of conversation would go a lot further toward engendering understanding from the parties who may disagree with you and give them a different perspective. Insulting them just leads to more animosity.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate, but as usual the personal attacks prove the “cut and run” crowd is running out of ideas and must resort to historical revisionism to make their points.
As for Knight In Dragonland’s above history lesson:
(1) Iran is meddling in Iraq at present. They don’t need to invade it to try to stamp out the country’s young democratic institutions. And as far as stupidity, have you heard President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad the last two years?
(2) U. S. actions in Vietnam were stupid, beginning with the CIA-backed coup against Nguyen Van Thieu’s government (during which he was killed). It was a war of choice, though that doesn’t mean communist takeover of S. Vietnam was inevitable, but limited war limits the potential for victory.
(3)The rise of Iran’s mullahs in 1979 was engineered by our 39th president, whose spineless response to the aftermath (U. S. Embassy hostage crisis) green-lighted the USSR’s invasion of Afganistan, which led to the Mujahideen, which led to the Taliban, which led to sanctuary for Al Qaeda. The mullahs weaked Iran’s military by executing experienced officers. This encouraged Iraq to invade in September 1980. Had Iraq not invaded Iran, they wouldn’t have needed billions in aid from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which they couldn’t repay, which led to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, which led to “Desert Storm” and subsequent UN-administered partial dismantling of Iraq’s WMD programs, no-fly zones, military action, weapons inspectors kicked out, “Operation Desert Fox,” suspected continued WMD programs, the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation, leading to the current situation.
(4) Pinochet was no angel but saved his country from communism. Our support for him did not lead to someone worse, as was the case in Cuba and Nicaragua. His market reforms are responsible for Chile’s higher living standards. Pinochet resigned as president in 1990, bowing to international pressure to return his country to civilian rule.
(5) Ferdinand Marcos fled to the United States 1986 after being removed from power. Our support for him did not lead to somethihg worse. The Philippines has been under civilian rule since that time.
(6) The United States placed trade sanctions on South Africa because of Apartheid, lifting them when that system was dismantled.
(7) Islamic terrorists started a perpetual war against the United States nearly three decades ago; we finally realized it after 9-11 and joined in. The president, right or wrong, like it or not, said the WOT would not end quickly. We can’t just hide behind our shores anymore and pretend we’re safe, especially when the Mexican border is not secure.
This has absolutely nothing to do with “personal attacks.” It’s very relevant from previous postings that oft times the person who wants to fight the most never was involved in ANY fight. It’s immaterial if I served or not… because I am not advocating staying in Iraq till the last shot falls. It IS material if David served or not, because he is advocating staying there and keeping our soldiers in harm’s way.
David may not get that (as is apparent from his replies), but C.J., this is not a personal attack of any type.
And, why do I feel strongly about this? Because it has been a tremendous waste of American lives and money for NO GOOD REASON. And, yeah, it p*sses me off when guys like C.J. and David advocate staying there. That’s my opinion… your opinions are different.
I thought that was the whole point of these blogs… to help argue opinions.