Well, that seemed to work, so I will try this:
Botnst - 3/29/2006 9:55 PM
The nation wasn't divided in the begining in the war in Vietnam. That developed as a result of Lyndon pretending he was a general and MacNamara pretending he knew more than anybody how to do anything.
What exactly was at stake in Vietnam? And other than the lives of more than 50,000 soldiers, and some gross multiple of that number who were forever damaged physically or mentally, and a bunch of national "treasure," and our national stature, what that was at stake and warranted the start of the war was lost when we quit and went home? What was to "win" that was "lost" in the final outcome? How would winning have changed our national security for the better? Had we not lost I believe we would still be there, spending tax dollars and trying to use force to subjugate a smaller nation.
At the moment the public seems aware enough to separate bad political judgement that got us into a similar dead end war from the actions of our soldiers carrying out orders to implement the bad political judgement of the President. The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era was off base with the reaction to soldiers returning. But even worse is the idea that a President has the authority spend the lives of American soldiers to further his personal political agenda. The result of supporting this philosophy will be the return of the draft and another Vietnam-like national upheaval. While we remain exposed to real dangers.
Botnst - 3/29/2006 9:55 PM
Things started f-ing-up in Iraq with Paul Bremmer. With his 'leadership' the military lost the initiative and became defensive. Now the party politics in Washington have infected the perception so completely that most Americans conflate increasing political confusion at home with violent, diverse and competing interests among criminals, theocrats, fascists (Baathists), and so forth. Meanwhile, polls in Iraq indicate that most Iraqis believe their lives are better now than before the war and that their lives will get even better when the coalition leaves. That is excellent news, given the level of extreme violence in some areas.
Especially promising is their optimism for the future and their desire to see us leave. That combination means that they are becoming increasingly self-confident and self-reliant. After the years of oppression from Saddam and his fascists, these people are becoming confident in themselves and their future.
Well Bot, that sure was peculiar.
As I recall the "Yankee go home" chant started even before 100 Americans died there. Why didn't we just leave then? I think the "polls" showed the same data.
I am all for leaving. The sooner the better. There is no rationale for any other result, and putting it off just costs more lives. But, I have never been able to figure out exactly what those poll responses mean. What exactly is better? Do Iraqis find the suspense of not knowing if they will be killed while shopping or applying for a job today by "insurgents" more tolerable than wondering if Saddam's thugs were going to collect them in their sleep? What is their definition of what makes them optimistic? Is it really just us leaving?
KV, give the general or whatever he is a break. It is getting pretty stressful over there. The general is no more in a position to end the occupation than the GIs. Fucking up like that is a sure sign we are losing our grip. It is a bad agenda issued by a team of unqualified people. It is time to make Congress do their jobs and save this country from these traitorous imposters of American leadership. Jim