From Iraq to Iran

[Nupe2]

You’re not all alone (sadly), there are many like you that have never understood the why we went there. And based on your statement here it seems unlikely that you have read the IWR as those arguments for why we went to war were directed solely at Iraq and are not interchangeable as you seem to believe.

Too busy to debate you. We just don't and probably won't agree on this one. Time will tell whose position was correct. Have a great day!

 

[ylexot]

No, Saddam is no longer in power (ignoring the Bathhists involved in the "insurgency"). However, wasn't the grave threat the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? The very same weapons that have now disappeared into thin air? Maybe Osama has them, remember him?

"Drain the swamp"...remember that? I'll have to look that up. As for Osama, we're still looking...one of those walking and chewing gum things.

As far as the Iraqi people being free, I'm on the fence on that one. The situation on the ground is pretty dicey for the average Iraqi these days. I'm probably wrong about that too though.

Yup, you're wrong...at least according to my brother-in-law who is in Iraq. But why should we actually listen to the people who are there?

BTW, I hate the "sons and daughters" comment you keep saying. Everybody is somebody's son or daughter. The people in Iraq are adults...adults who volunteered to serve as soldiers. Our soldiers in Iraq, for the most part, believe in what they are doing and they want to see it completed. Do you dare speak for them?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Vrai: You know we never agree on anything!
However, we really can't know what would have happened in Vietnam if the U.S. had chosen to bomb the North in a strategic manner. I think we might have won the war if we had done so but we would most likely have been stuck there in much the same manner as we are in Iraq; trying to win the peace. That one is a tougher nut to crack. I think we would have seen the North continue to support the VC in the south and would have had to endure many years of so-called "insurgency" before we would have been able to secure the country, if ever. Again, we'll never know.

Also, the climate in the country changed when it appeared that we had no viable strategy to win the war and the deaths continued to mount. Walter Cronkite and others were indeed instrumental in putting forth the notion that we needed to get out. Like it or not, the ability of a free press to express ideas is part of what our Nation is about. Ultimately, the American people demanded that we extricate ourselves from that mess and eventually we did so. I think we're heading toward a similar fate with this Iraq mess.

As far as "finishing the job" what exactly is that? How long will that take and are American voters willing to stay the course if it takes 10 years and 53,000 lives? I understand that this is a nasty business and that the world changed on 9/11. Maybe I just hope too hard that ultimately John Foster Dulles won't just be the name of an airport and that we can find a way to more or less peacefully coexist. Our other choice is non-existance. I don't think any of us wants that.

Good to hear from you.

Peacefully coexist? The radical Islamic people do not want to "peacefully coexist" with you; they want to kill you because you are not a Muslim. The only way you may "peacefully coexist" with them is to become a Muslim and not just any Muslim but their particular brand of Muslim. And some other radical band of Muslims will want to kill you, because you are not their brand of Muslim. You are a dreamer. It is nice to dream, but you have to wake up to reality eventually.

A press that promotes an ideology is not a "free" press.

"An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." —Joseph Pulitzer

The majority of the current press corps is very cynical, mercenary, and demagogic.

I was against the war in Vietnam in the 60's; I was a "hippy", if you will. I was against the war for a bit different reason. The war was being run by politicians from Washington and not by generals in the field. No one can win a war that way. There is no sense in fighting a war in a fashion that cannot be won.

The generals and admirals during Vietnam wanted to destroy the dredges in Hanoi harbor. It could have been done easily and in very few air strikes probably with little to no loss of life. The Washington politicians would not let that be done. If the dredges had been destroyed, the harbor would have silted in in a matter of weeks and the harbor would have been useless to bring in supplies. As I remember it, the Navy was also not allowed to intercept shipping on the high seas to inspect the cargo to see if war supplies were being brought into North Vietnam or to blockade the North's ports. Targets of opportunity could not be struck without approval from Washington. By the time approval would come back, the loitering time for the aircraft had run out and they had to return to base or the target had disappeared from view or crossed the border into Cambodia and the U.S. forces were not allowed to pursue. All very bogus restrictions when fighting a war.

The majority of the press, Democrats, and people like you are trying to make Iraq into a Vietnam and to destroy the national identity of the United States by being PC.

"The name of American...must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." --George Washington

I desperately hope you fail. If you succeed, the U.S. will eventually be destroyed by our own lack of will as a nation. There is no place for African Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Euro Americans. We should be just Americans. Is dissent good? Yes and it is necessary. But once we are at war, right or wrong, the time is over for dissent and debate. We must win. To not win means eventual annihilation.

 

[ylexot]

I am not alone in asking where was the threat from Iraq? Why not North Korea why not China? Come on, this was about more than the reasons stated in the resolution. This decision was made before Bush/Chaney (the $30 million man) declared war on Iraq. For example:

• Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000.
• Halliburton's board of directors voted to give Cheney a $20 million retirement package when he resigned, in addition to providing him with a massive salary and a bonus for just eight months of work in 2000.
• Following his departure from Halliburton, Cheney retained possession of 433,333 options of Halliburton stock.
• Although Cheney insisted that he severed his financial ties to Halliburton, the Congressional Research Service recently released a report saying that federal ethics laws consider both Cheney's deferred compensation and his stock options as lingering financial interest in the company.

Halliburton's Contract with the Federal Government

• The Pentagon knew it would need help after the war rebuilding Iraqi oil fields and putting out oil field fires. Rather than following normal procedure and asking companies to bid on the job, the Pentagon turned the entire project over to Cheney's former firm, Halliburton. The Army Corps of Engineers said that Halliburton's compensation for rejuvenating Iraq's oil industry could be up to $7 billion. In postwar Iraq, Halliburton is the largest private contractor, with potential deals totaling over $11 billion.

• Last September, Cheney said that he did not influence the decision to award Halliburton a no-bid contract: "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal
government."

Since then, we have learned that:

Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, received a Pentagon briefing in October 2002, one month prior to directing Halliburton to develop a secret plan for restoring and operating Iraq's oil infrastructure. The vice president's office was also made aware of a second contract worth up to $7 billion awarded to Halliburton four months later for implementing this plan.

• Time Magazine uncovered an e-mail indicating that the $7 billion contract awarded to Halliburton was "coordinated" with Cheney's office.

CHENEY! HALLIBURTON!

Got links to back your stuff? Here's mine...

As far as I can tell, Cheney has done everything humanly possible to insulate himself from Halliburton. I'm actually impressed by how thoroughly it has been thought out.

 

[ylexot]

Is descent good? Yes and it is necessary. But once we are at war, right or wrong, the time is over for dissent and debate. We must win. To not win means eventual annihilation.

Looks like you fixed one...but you missed the other

 

[Bruzilla]

I am not alone in asking where was the threat from Iraq?

Look we live in the greatest nation in the free world, I just wish we could figure out that we are being lied to and coerced into supporting policies that are absolutely insane and ultimately immoral.

This is the crux of the entire Iraq debate problem. There are two many people who can't keep their focus on the real issues. I disagree that we were lied to, but some American people were coerced. Why were some Americans coerced? Because there are a lot of people who wanted to politicize national security.

The threat from Iraq was not in the form of WMDs. As has been repeatedly pointed out, Hussein is not a religious zealot, and only a religious zealot would attack the US with WMDs. The threat from Iraq was that Hussein had a single-minded goal to take over all of the Middle East. He needed the deep water ports of Kuwait to do that and he lost his chance due to Desert Storm. He then turned his attention to WMDs not to attack the US, but to threaten his neighbors... first on a defensive basis as he regrouped his military, and then on an offensive basis if he could be the first to get nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons he could do whatever he wanted in the region and no one would be able to stop him. Also, once he gained control of the biggest stake in the World's oil supply, he could start making demands of most any major country he wanted. We saw two of our longest-term allies turn their backs on us because of loan guarantees and foreign trade, just imagine what they would do if he threatened their economies? And what damage could he do to our economy if he controlled the Middle East? He wouldn't need WMDs to attack us as he could do just as much damage finacially.

But, try to explain that to most Americans and get them to understand the threat of having any leader, who's hostile to the US, taking control of a large portion of the World's oil supply, and see where you get. Add to that debate the fact that you have a political opposition that can't see past getting back into power, and you have an impossible task ahead. The threat of attack by WMDs was slight at best, but it was something that most people could relate to and that is tough to be opposed to, so that became the reason for the war.

I keep seeing references to WWII, but never any references to the numerous stands that Republicans took during that war. Roosevelt made mistake after mistake, but Republicans placed national unity and resolution above politics. Today's Democrats show no such concern today, in fact they are doing the exact opposite. No war has ever been won by killing every member of your enemy, they are won by destroying your enemy's willingness to fight and how can you possibly ever achieve that goal when close to half of your country is loudly telling your enemy to keep fighting because you're close to quiting? Having a bunch of Dem politicians going on CNN and proclaiming how we shouldn't be fighting this war, and how we can;t win it, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BTW, there's absolutely no difference between Muslims and Nazis. You have a very vocal minority leadership representing the masses, and they are in power because they play off the fears and concerns of the majority. These radical Islam leaders get power and support because their followers believe that they have the ability to make their lives better... just like the German people thought about the Nazis. Once you can show that these leaders are dooming their people, their support quickly fades away.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Looks like you fixed one...but you missed the other

 

[2ndAmendment]

.... There are two many people who can't keep their focus on the real issues. ...

Following in the footsteps of ylexot, that would be too and not two.

 

[Nupe2]

Maybe we should all apply for the vacant T-Bone and Heather spot on 98.3. We could have revolving hosts (each of the posters in this thread gets a turn) with political fights every morning interspersed with Frank Dawson's "latest" SOMD news. We could do without the music but will need snappy opening and closing tunes! This could work! (speaking of which, back I go...)

p.s.: Would one of you find a "liberal Democrat" to join my "side" it's lonely out here!

 

[itsbob]

Maybe we should all apply for the vacant T-Bone and Heather spot on 98.3. We could have revolving hosts (each of the posters in this thread gets a turn) with political fights every morning interspersed with Frank Dawson's "latest" SOMD news. We could do without the music but will need snappy opening and closing tunes! This could work! (speaking of which, back I go...)

p.s.: Would one of you find a "liberal Democrat" to join my "side" it's lonely out here!

I actually think that is one hell of an idea.. and would probably draw in a hell of a listening audience..

 

[Nupe2]

I actually think that is one hell of an idea.. and would probably draw in a hell of a listening audience..

They couldn't afford us, we may be cheap but we're not easy! (wonder what they would offer?)

 

[Kerad]

Would one of you find a "liberal Democrat" to join my "side" it's lonely out here!

Sign me up!

 

[Nupe2]

Sign me up!

Where you been man, I'm taking a beating here!

 

[Kerad]

Where you been man, I'm taking a beating here!

Yeah...sorry about that. I've been in a couple of these "me vs. the righties" battles myself a bit ago. Every now and then I'll jump in and try to prove a point...but I've found it a completelly futile exercise. The sheep completely bought into what the GOP have sold them. Hell...they REALLY believe that FOX "News" is fair and balanced!

 

[SamSpade]

With the right leadership, that war could have been won shortly after the Tet Offensive.

Funny thing - I was a kid during Vietnam - I had uncles and cousins who fought there - and as a teenager I worked alongside Vietnam vets - and I remember news items daily about the goings-on there. I remember us discussing My Lai in grade school. I remember those times fairly well.

But I was nearly forty when I first learned - that the Viet Cong LOST the Tet Offensive. That we were beating the crap out of them, and after Tet, they had almost nothing left. I didn't learn until the movie "We Were Soldiers" that we won every battle in Vietnam. My perception growing up was that we were losing badly - our troops were terrible - we had no concept of handling or conducting that war - and that the Tet Offensive was a *colossal* loss that we never bounced back from.

EVERYTHING, every book I've read on the war since tells me, we were always capable of beating the ever living crap out of the North. The very WORST we could have been worried about is that the Chinese would do the same thing they did in Korea - come pouring over the border by the millions and kick our butts all the way back to Saigon. And that repeatedly, and verifiably, the North Vietnamese were totally behind the PR campaign to wear down the American will to continue. They knew the only way to "win" was to persuade the American public that it was unwinnable - and they accomplished that.

No more Vietnams? Damned straight.

 

[ylexot]

Yeah...sorry about that. I've been in a couple of these "me vs. the righties" battles myself a bit ago. Every now and then I'll jump in and try to prove a point...but I've found it a completelly futile exercise.

It helps if you have more than the voices in your head.

The sheep completely bought into what the GOP have sold them. Hell...they REALLY believe that FOX "News" is fair and balanced!

I recognize that FNC slants to the right (same for Drudge BTW). I believe all of their hosts/anchors are right wing. However, I do give FNC some credit for having left wingers on quite a bit and they do present opposing views. Hell, they'd have even more left wingers on if they could get them to appear (i.e. Howard Dean refuses to talk to FNC). Can you recognize that CNN, MSNBC, etc slant left? How often do they present the right wing point of view? I have no problem with slant since it is impossible to prevent. I just recognize and accept it.

 

[itsbob]

Funny thing - I was a kid during Vietnam - I had uncles and cousins who fought there - and as a teenager I worked alongside Vietnam vets - and I remember news items daily about the goings-on there. I remember us discussing My Lai in grade school. I remember those times fairly well.

But I was nearly forty when I first learned - that the Viet Cong LOST the Tet Offensive. That we were beating the crap out of them, and after Tet, they had almost nothing left. I didn't learn until the movie "We Were Soldiers" that we won every battle in Vietnam. My perception growing up was that we were losing badly - our troops were terrible - we had no concept of handling or conducting that war - and that the Tet Offensive was a *colossal* loss that we never bounced back from.

EVERYTHING, every book I've read on the war since tells me, we were always capable of beating the ever living crap out of the North. The very WORST we could have been worried about is that the Chinese would do the same thing they did in Korea - come pouring over the border by the millions and kick our butts all the way back to Saigon. And that repeatedly, and verifiably, the North Vietnamese were totally behind the PR campaign to wear down the American will to continue. They knew the only way to "win" was to persuade the American public that it was unwinnable - and they accomplished that.

No more Vietnams? Damned straight.

I was a kid during Vietnam, my dad was IN Vietnam, and Cambodia with the 1st Cav (2nd tour, can't rememember which unit he was in his first tour). I remember going to bed at night, my mom crying watching Walter Cronkite as he ran through that days firefights, and casualty list. Then got to watch the long hairs on TV calling him a baby killer, but I don't remember my dad ever backing down or being ashamed of what he did. He wore his uniform in public, he wore it in parades, and I don't remember ONE of those cowards ever confronting him in public about it.

He's told some stories ONE time, and I'm the only one in the family he shared them with. He came back from the first trip the same as he left other then he came back REAL thin and I didn't recognize him. He got into the front seat of the car, kissed mom, and I screamed for him to get out of the car, get away from my mom, I was hysterical, still hurts to think how that must of made him feel.. I must of been four or five, but remember it like it was yesterday.

The second trip over changed him, never quite the same dad after that trip. He was wounded twice that trip, never made it home to recuperate, came off the line, recuperated and was sent back.. finally got medevaced back to the states after the wounds led to complications in his legs, and again, me being the idiot that I was.. he calls the house from NYC, he's in the hospital right outside of the airport there, probably took him close to a week to get there on successive medevac's, and the first thing out of my mouth.. "What did you buy me??" I was probalby 7 or 8 that time.. 1970, 71 time frame. I guess I just never really understood at the time where he was, what he was doing, and what my mom was so upset about everyday.

To this day he refuses to go to the Vietnam Memorial, or watch any movies about it. I know he's lost quite a few friends, but he's never shared names or memories.

 

[itsbob]

Sorry for the rant, but I feel better..

 

[SamSpade]

It helps if you have more than the voices in your head. I recognize that FNC slants to the right (same for Drudge BTW). I believe all of their hosts/anchors are right wing.

You only have to watch the morning show for about a minute to see that.

But this is where critics of Fox aren't seeing the whole picture.

A few years back, Sam Donaldson was on "This Week with David Brinkley" which is now just Stephanopoulos's show. He was answering the idea that journalists are biased, or are left-leaning. He said he could see that, but that for his job, what *mattered* was, are they *FAIR*? Chris Wallace - who does FOX News Sunday (and who is most *certainly* not right-wing) will ask questions that demonstrate he is trying to be tough with both sides - that he's trying to present a "fair" representation of the news. That's what Sam was aiming at - it was ok to him if they were ALL left-leaning, just so long as they were fair about how they treat the news.

I think he's over-reaching just a tiny bit, because when 80-90% of your industry leans one way, it's very difficult to give the opposing view a fair shake - because you haven't got a really good perspective on it. You can't fairly represent right-wing views when you detest them, anymore than Osama bin Laden can explain Christianity to Muslims. It wouldn't matter how much he knew; his perspective is far too biased to even grasp his lack of objectivity.

If nothing else, it helps to watch Fox from time to time, just to get a balance of your own personal influx of news, because you can't expect to get a balanced perspective from the LA Times or the Washington Post.

"Fair and balanced" *DOESN'T* mean, "we show no bias" - it means "hell yeah we have bias, but we give equal time to the other side and try to show both sides fairly". Something I really don't even expect from the other sources. Does ANYONE think Chris Mathews is fair and balanced?

 

[Nupe2]

Sorry for the rant, but I feel better..

No need to apologize. My brother was in Vietnam during the tet offensive as were several guys in my neighborhood. I really wanted to join the Marine Corps because of those guys. However, I saw how the war changed them. Fortunately, for the most part they eventually recovered. I've only had one conversation with my brother about his time over there and it was probably the only awkward time I've ever spent with him. One of the the other guys in the neighborhood was so gung-ho that they decided it was best that he not come directly back to the states after his third tour. I remember walking with him up to Coral Hills one day in a snowstorm and him turning to me and saying "you know I could kill you right now and you wouldn't know what hit you" and then just returning to our conversation as if nothing had happened.

I know this kind of crap happens to soldiers in all wars but that was a f*cked-up war and we should never have been there.