Looking Back: Was Vietnam "Worth It"?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Squid, I even believe that deep down your a good person.

 

:lol:

there goes my street rep...

 

Anytime you start a project and don't finish it, it makes the whole venture a waste and an embarrasement.

If you going to have an agenda.. count the cost, pay the cost and get the job done and go home.

Pussy footing around and letting so many people confuse the agenda ends up getting nothing accomplished but frustration and efficientcy and effectiveness is twarted.

Another story talks about how a foolish man goes to build a house and doesn't count the cost and runs out of money and supplies and so stops when the house is half way built and becomes a laughing stock to the community.

Those that are against the war have a right to thier beliefs, but don't agree and support the war and then whimp out when the going gets tough.... its war ... for crying out loud!... what did you expect a cool-aid party?

We would just go over there and wipe them off the map?.. or maybe scare and intimidate them into submission?

There is no reason, when dealing with a madman or men... the only solution is to let them do as they will or stop them by force, but you can't do both at the same time!
And you can't talk them down with reason.....

You have to remember, they do not reason and you and I, they follow a different drummer.

 

Both of us base our experiences based on life in the US. I have very limited international travel but I have seen enough to appreciate all that we have in this country. I mean I'm sitting in front of a computer in the middle of the night debating someone thousands of miles away.

 

true... true...

thinking about it a bit further, i think i wrote too quickly on that one... it s been my ex erience that eo le are actually FRIENDLIER, and more family oriented in almost any lace other than the US. Now, Ive done a fair amount of travelling (but robably not as much as maggieddd and her dad, and that is what i have ex erienced... i su ose the ercentage of evil is the same throughout, we are all humans...

however i STILL insist on the .45...

 

Whatever garbage propaganda you've been reading lately, get yourself weaned off of it. You're spouting fearful, anti-democratic nonsense. It might even be called cowardly and un-American.

Conservatives (or insert whatever group here) don't have all the answers and conservatives (or whomever) are not always right, nor do they always know everything. Everyone needs to hear input from "the other side" in order to avoid making huge errors or acting too fast.

Sorry but you don't get to split the nation up. Ever. That was settled in the 1860's and we don't need to explore that road again. Matter of fact, considering it as an option is an insult all those who died to settle the question.

***

Get it into your skull: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11. Even Bush admits that.

Not only terrorists would like to kill me bacause I'm an American. There are fellow US citizens who would like to "silence" or "neutralize" me because I don't fit into their vision of what an American is supposed to be like. I'm not white, I'm an "uppity" female because I'm not readily agreeable and I don't automatically kowtow to anybody, be they my President or some low-life hooligan trying to grab my butt.

Being Americans doesn't give you or me an automatically better vision of what the world should look like. And our "way of life" is not necessarily better than another. (Besides, I don't want my nephew, Major Jason, dying to protect my right to dine at McDonald's!)

When I interview battle-bloodied vets, none of them indulge in empty bluster. They don't chant "USA, USA" or talk about "nukking 'em off the face of the planet". They don't mention any glory in battle. They would be the last to send an army of our boys off with hurrahs and singing.

 

+1

Bush made it VERY clear from the start this was NOT going to be easy, and to NOT ex ect a quick and decisive victory. From day ONE, much to the left s chagrin, he has ex licitly stated that, over and OVER.

Of course, it is easy to overlook those fine oints when you blindly hate someone because everyone else does...

 

and why cant you get it into YOUR skull there is a good argument to be made for Iraq being a nexus of terrorism like Afghanistan... To back track a bit, name any other dictator who not only ossessed WMDs, but actually USED them. Name ONE.

you know what REALLY gets me about those like you who selectively choose to see a side more absolute than another.... the way you exclude anything other.

the FACT is, you cant pROVE Iraq was any more a non threat than a threat.

Above all, you, nor i for that matter, know the situation recisely other than from what we read and conclude for ourselves, but lets kee that out for the moment...

There IS a good argument for Iraq as o osed to any other similar country... had WMDs, used them, extreme hate for the US, etc, etc, etc,

Of course, you, and many others, tend to gloss over this small, ugly, facet of logic...

sorry, but you just lost all your rational cookie oints. thats crazy talk, what, so we should sim ly not exlore, shut our minds off, just becuse it might be considered an insult....

think about it, our country is so s lit on this, what if it WERE two se arate countries.... do I DARE think such thoughts... that would retty much end artisan olitics as we know it wouldnt it.... think of how ha y the religious right would be, likewise for the inverse contingency... then again, if you were, for a moment, to consider CANADA, art of the US :lol: somewhere jayman is twitching, then this is already the case, exce t for that whole fuss about a border and citizenshi issues... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Hey Sqiud,
the lis(p) is kind of cute, but . . .
you know you can cut and paste the letter "P" if your keyboard won't give you one.

 

Vietnam involvemnt was a mistake!

Unless the death of over 2 MILLION of Vietnamese and 50 THOUSAND of our troops reflects as a measure of success!

All the sacrifices and the country is still communist (although evolves slowly into "experimental market economy al la China")

Perhaps one should ask this question to all those that are left with missing limbs and are psychologically altered on both sides. Was it really worth it? And what are the accomplishments?

Hardly a positive period of our contemporary history, rather shameful. If one has doubts one should visit any history textbook in any country on the planet for an objective overview including our own.

 

What about most everything else that's made in China-a communist/nuclear country? Makes Vietnam look small. It was a tragic "Conflict." It was not officially called a war. The North ran over the South as soon as we left. It was all for nothing.

 

The Bush's were born into "old Money." Nobody that's born rich could ever know what it's like not to have an endless supply of money. Of course, Bush's family is making mega bucks over the oil business.

 

Exc. post! My same thoughts. Who are we to tell others how they should run their countries?

 

Dude, could you not make this lie a little bit less obvious?

From your own website:

"Ok, so, once I get settled into life in Florida, where will I go for vacations? Welp, I've always thought about implementing a weird-nice person-way-the-****-off-the-beaten-path-in-some-other-country-far, far-away plan. So far, I've managed to squeeze in various odd places in Lithuania, a skip through London, and a brief whiz through Helsinki"

Did you count your numerous trips to Florida into your conclusion of "fair amount of travelling"? Because if not, that may even make you a true world traveller.

You are a joke.

 

Iraq IS a "nexus of terrorism".

Although Afghanistan was a training and aid center for al Qaeda, reports were that Iraq was not. When we invaded Iraq, it was over reports of WMDs, reports which turned out to be false. Again, even Bush says Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq BECAME a nexus for terrorists AFTER we invaded and took over. Al-Zarqawi, who is an al Qaeda leader, entered Iraq and began organizing after we occupied Baghdad. He is now so powerful he can manage strikes outside that country, as he oversaw those wedding bombings in Jordan. All this during our watch.

***

The term, WMD, was first used to refer to fire bombing, as in the destruction of Guernica (Spain)* in 1937, then the term came to be applied to non-conventional weapons. But WMDs were used before 1937. The tyrant King George used smallpox against Native Americans, mustard gas and other poisons were employed during WW I and WWII.

Because modern WMDs require intense and expensive research and development programs, and dictators tend to reign smallish, unstable and poor countries, most have been unable to accquire WMDs. (This fact puts the salesmanship of Pakistan's AQ Khan in an especially damning light).

Of course we knew Saddam once had WMDs, e.g., he used them against the Kurds. What we did not have were credible reports of existing WMDs in 2003, when we decided to invade Iraq.

***

We are citizens of a democracy. Therefore we have a special responsibility to promote a free press, at least attempt to keep up with the news, communicate our wants and displeasures to our government, debate issues like mad, and vote rationally.

Of course you or I or the press don't have access to the same info that the President or the Senate has. We're forced to depend on them to make the big decisions. That's their jobs. If this were a dictatorship, then we wouldn't be allowed to second-guess or "fire" our leaders. But this is a democracy so we are obligated to think and act, even if all we can do in some situations is react after the fact and try to patch things up.

***

Splitting up the country in two might seem like a good solution to squabbling- you go your way, I'll go mine. That might work for a dead marriage or failed business partnership but lwould be lousy for populations. What's to stop the Irish Catholics from pursuing a separate state from the Hispanic Catholics or the Polish ones? Perhaps blacks and whites will want to "toss out" the yellows and Hispanics or the under-thirty crowd won't want anything to do with their elders. Or how about we get rid of the poor? Hey, we could be like the Spartans and remove all young boys from their families and send them to be raised in military camps. That'll show those yahoos.

States are not allowed to secede and they must kowtow to federal decisions. That was what our Civil war was about, that question has been settled and sealed in blood.

Democracies need arguments, discussions, lots of seemingly empty word play. It's a wearying, inefficient process and sometimes the results are just plain wrong. But it's the best system we've got.

***

If it'll make you feel any better, here's what I agree with Bush on.

He's right about not leaving Iraq in a lurch.

The military does need to be updated and parts of the UN do need overhauling.

The British sale of the management of some US ports to UAE members was OKAY. They're our allies, damn it, and we need to get over the "all towel-head Arabs are alike" myth.

Bush made a stab at addressing our coming retiree crisis; Medicare and Social Security. It wasn't on the mark but at least he tried to bring the matter into some kind of focus.

Can't think of other issues at the moment but they do exist.




*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

 

YES it was worth it in a number of ways.

It taught us how not to fight a war. It taught us if you are going to fight, fight to win.

It taught us that we don't always have to clean up after the french and the mess they seem to always be making -- and i refer to the mess they are currently cooking in the own house -- let them stew.

It taught us that fighting a war is a undertaking of both the military and the citizans whose support is vital.

It taught us that once you commit to a military action, agree or disagree with it, you must (should) support the troops AND the mission. The only way we lose a war is from within. To support the troops and NOT the mission is disingenuous and endangers our troops.

 

I would LOVE to support the mission in Iraq.

But just what exactly was the mission, again?

 

"To support the troops and NOT the mission is disingenuous and endangers our troops."

I thought the mission was accomplished. I saw it on that aircraft carrier.

 

Either way, we must support our troops and their mission together. By not doing so we embolden our enemies - we do not need to learn again about losing the war of public opinion during wartime - one of Vietnam's main lessons.

 

Vietnam tore the fabric of this country apart, son against father, neighbor against neighbor. It diverted our energies away from a once in a millenium opportunity to have our culture flower at a rapid pace. It scarred our families and thus our country forever. It disraced us in our own minds as well as the court of world opinion. It weakened us militarily, socially, economically to the extent we still haven't recovered. It ruined the baby-boomer generation via hate, drugs, distrust of all things 'old'. It was an unforgivable disgrace to our society and tainted us forever. The only upsides were for those who invested in the military industrial complex. It caused some of our best and brightest to live in foreign lands instead of giving back to the society in which they were born. It was an utter and total failure and here we go again. Only those who instigate wars (and their supporters) should fight them. To have rich white men send poor youngsters out to die is a crime against humanity and should be treated as such. Wars were on a whole different level when they were fought hand to hand combat. To have teenagers fly miles above the battlefield and drop bombs and not personally see the personal trageties and destruction they personally have caused is simply not right.