Vietnam and Iraq: Tyrants defended, tyrants toppled

A comparison

from JoeUser Forums
When the war in Iraq is discussed on JU, many times the debate will devolve into a discussion about the US involvement in the Vietnam War, and then a debate will begin about the pros and cons of that situation.
One fellow JUer, in a discussion about protest, pointed out that he wanted to keep the discussion on his thread in the "now", but since I had mentioned Vietnam in my comment, he’d support me on it.
It is my feeling that such a comparison between the two wars is not only correct, but inevitable. After all, the divide between Americans on the subject of this present war often seems to stem directly from the hurts and differences of opinion from 30 years ago. The voices that would today shout their desire for peace at any price are merely echoes of those that rebounded across campuses and city streets in the 1960s and 70s.
Not only that, but the divide we presently observe has no other real parallel in all of our history, but that one caused by the Vietnam War. The rift that exists in our society now has no other reflection but that one, so it is only natural that we hark back to it for reference.

"Support for the troops", to me, involves at least tacit support for the war, by the way. It’s not possible, and is in fact pointless, to support one but not the other. Could you support the upholding of laws, but not support the police, too, at least in some way? The extinguishing of fires, but not the Fire Dept.?
Dissent and protest are perfectly understandable and of course perfectly legal. Correctness of the protest, however, depends upon how it is undertaken. If the protest is tasteful, controlled and positive, then no problem. Protest away. It is, after all, one of the very things we now fight to bring to Iraq; the right to dissent.
If, however, it is an undisciplined, virtually uncontrolled disturbance full of screeching calls for impeachment (at best, murder at worst) and arrest for war crimes, immediate withdrawal of the troops, and the yelling and waving of obscene signs and slogans and gestures, then no….it’s no good for anyone. News of it damages troops morale, no matter what some may think, and just causes hard feelings and a bigger divide here at home.



Often, I’ve seen that those who oppose the war will point out the various shortcomings of the US as revealed by the Vietnam War. They then try to draw some parallel between a jungle war against a disciplined, uniformed foe, and a desert war against ragtag, loosely-banded terrorists, to point out the shortcomings of the US today.

Let me just say this to those who want to draw such a parallel:
In Vietnam, despite a supposed lack of proper training, flaccid to no support from on high, and attitudes at home ranging from mild support to blase indifference to raging opposition, our forces held the Communist North Vietnamese at bay for 16 long and very bloody years, from 1959 to 1975. We defeated them soundly on every field of face-to-face battle on which we met.
The North made no significant territorial gains, as I pointed out on another thread, until 1973, when we started to withdraw. Even then, with our much-reduced involvement, it still took them two years to conquer a country about the size of Vermont. Our troops then did a terrific job, and I applaud them. Just as I do now.

I have also, at some points, seen moderately hysterical comparisons of body counts between the two wars. How this is even possible, I do not know.

Between the years 1959 and 1975, our nation lost approximately 58,000 young men and women to the war in Southeast Asia. That’s about 3,625 a year. That’s a lot of lives cut short, isn’t it? Yes it is.
Especially when compared to the loss of life so far in our present conflict. Losses of any type in a war are tragic, of course, but though our military’s Iraq body count now stands at well over 2,000 at just under three years of war, the terrorists in Iraq are providing nowhere near the sausage grinder utilized on us by the North Vietnamese. Or the North Koreans and Chinese, for that matter; 57,000 combat deaths in just three years.

The difference, as if I have to point it out, is that we’re looking at two completely different types of wars, no matter what comparisons one may wish to make.
The Viet Cong were terrorists in a way, using similar tactics then as our enemies today in Iraq; suicide bombings, booby traps, sudden attacks on civilian areas and other crowded targets. But, though committed and admittedly menacing, our main enemy was the North Vietnamese Army. We’re not facing a cohesive, disciplined force here. We’re only facing the "VC"----partisans that may fight well enough, but fight disjointedly.

Another difference is that our government seems committed to some kind of victory here, despite its oft-touted questionable reasons and beginnings.
Iraq lost a dictator and now has its own fledgling democratic government. For the first time in its history.
That’s another difference; in Vietnam, we supported a brutal, pissant dictatorship against a bigger, more brutal and more organized type of dictatorship….in Iraq, we toppled one. We seek now to defend and nurture it against the towel-headed tyrants that surround it, and who would deny the dangerous growth of democracy in their midst.
May we be as successful in that goal as we were in keeping the North at bay, until we gave it all away, that is.
Something tells me that we won’t be seeing that this time, however.

politics
14,649 views 39 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
If, however, it is an undisciplined, virtually uncontrolled disturbance full of screeching calls for impeachment (at best, murder at worst) and arrest for war crimes, immediate withdrawal of the troops, and the yelling and waving of obscene signs and slogans and gestures, then no….it’s no good for anyone.

It's when the protestors start singing "The Times They Are a Changing" and "Give Peace a Chance" that I just want to beat them to a pulp.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Support for the troops", to me, involves at least tacit support for the war One can indeed be against the war and still realistically support the troops sent there. Protestors--reasonable ones, that is--as much as the hawks want assurance the troops have the best damned equipment, and leadership to chart out an seffective strategy.
Ant-war protesting today is far from what it was concerning Vietnam. The draft, particularly effected much greater hostility then.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's when the protestors start singing "The Times They Are a Changing" and "Give Peace a Chance" that I just want to beat them to a pulp.
---BenUser

Well, if it's a part of the "tasteful, positive" protest I mentioned, then okay. Otherwise, I agree.

Stevededalus:

I have to go to work right now, and your answer will be a bit longer than I have time for. See you in 8 hours.

Thanks to both of you for posting.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Iraq and Vietnam can be comparable.  If we cut and run before stablizing the country.  For then the parallel will be the same.  We went in and did not do the job, and ran when the going got tough.

As you correctly point out, we won every battle in Vietnam, but thanks to the media and the politicians in Washington, we lost the war.  And Millions of South Vietnamese (who I understand are lesser people than Americans - just as Iraqis are) paid the price for our failure.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well it was the South Vietnamese who fought the war - at least according to CIA statistics, which suggested that at no time did North Vietnam have more than 90 people in South Vietnam. So while they were failed by the US, it's hard to distinguish in what way they were failed - whether through the enforced dictatorship of their nut of a 'democratic' leader or through the failure of the US to protect them against the Communist foe they apparently liked more.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I pointed out in my previous post,Link
the present War cannot be compared with previous battles where the enemy used conventional forces, even comparing its similarity with the alliance of the North Vietnamese with an unconventional force (Vietcong)because ,simply put, the geography involved, is global.
To fight this War effectively the majority of our forces should be hidden and unconventional as we estimate the enemy to be. If ever conventional troops are committed,they should be token forces, complementary to the operational strategy on hand.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
One can indeed be against the war and still realistically support the troops sent there. Protestors--reasonable ones, that is--as much as the hawks want assurance the troops have the best damned equipment, and leadership to chart out an seffective strategy.
---stevend

I have to disagree, of course, but only to a point; I'll go along with you as far as dissenters wanting what's best for the troops.
I have to wonder sometimes, though, how many of them feel that way, and how many of them just want the US to pull out so we can be embarassed and remain the neutered superpower with its tail tucked firmly between its legs that we were through most of the 90s.
That's not happening right now; we're showing off our ball sack, and many of them don't like it. I feel, personally, that at least some of the protesters are of this vein; for whatever reasons, they want to see us fail.


Ant-war protesting today is far from what it was concerning Vietnam. The draft, particularly effected much greater hostility then.
---stevend

How? You often have large, rowdy demonstrations of, often, raggedy-looking leftie types waving signs with, and yelling out, obscene, inane things. Sounds like a pretty good match for Chicago 1968 to me.
The reason, the only reason, they're out there like that is because it's what they learned from the legacy of the 1960s. War-Bad, Peace-Good. And many of those who lived it then, too, are out there with them, because all they know is "Give Peace a Chance". Grey-haired old hippies, marching around in tie-dye shirts and sandals and yelling things like "Hey, hey, GWB! How many kids did you kill today!"
Fer cryin' out loud, they're so old and so burnt out, or perhaps desperate for a return to the old days when they had youth and "purpose" in their lives, that they can't even come up with a new slogan that rhymes. 'Don't trust anyone over 30', right, man?

As far as the draft goes....two points:

1.) No, there's no draft, and hasn't been since, what, 1973? This removes any actual, personal reason for people under 36 to demonstrate.
The war in Iraq does not directly affect young people today unless they volunteer to serve (unless, of course, we pull out, as they'd have us do, and the terror-mongers start filtering in and working their magic over here). They have no reason other than simple dissent and contentiousness to be out there chanting and marching. Why should they care?

2.) The Vietnam War was a war of ideologies; it had no direct effect on Main St. USA, other than reducing the number of people walking down it, and ultimately had no effect on our security at all. But this one does; people want to kill us for no reason other than they don't like our way of life. We're attacking terrorism where it begins and lives, rather than letting it come here to attack us. You can't convince the short-sighted protesters of that, though. "Give peace a chance, man!"






Iraq and Vietnam can be comparable. If we cut and run before stablizing the country. For then the parallel will be the same. We went in and did not do the job, and ran when the going got tough.
---DrGuy

Precisely. Thanks, Doc

Well it was the South Vietnamese who fought the war
---cacto

Maybe on paper, but ask any Vietnam vet and he/she'll tell you it was us much more than them. Many of the ARVN troops were conscripts, snatched off the streets by their government and handed a rifle and uniform and sent off to fight with little or no real training.
One of my favorite lines from a movie is from "Full Metal Jacket"....a Vietnamese pimp approaches some US Marines and offers them the services of one of his girls for a negotiable price. They offer to pay with South Vietnamese rifles...."only dropped once and never fired."

at no time did North Vietnam have more than 90 people in South Vietnam.
---cacto

I'd really like to see a link to that fact; I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe. If that were really the case, the Tet Offensive, for example, would have had no effect at all on the war. Did 58,000 people kill themselves? With North Vietnamese weapons and ammo?


So while they were failed by the US, it's hard to distinguish in what way they were failed - whether through the enforced dictatorship of their nut of a 'democratic' leader
---cacto

One of the many reasons we lost. A lack of noble purpose. Not that Vietnam wasn't a noble crusade on the surface, at least; we were attempting to turn the tide of Communism in Asia. But, well, see below:


or through the failure of the US to protect them against the Communist foe they apparently liked more.
---cacto

I don't think they liked them more; I think that, by and large, they were simply ambivalent about the outcome of the war. If the Communists won, they'd have a dictatorship ruling over them. If the South won, they'd have the same government, a dictatorship, ruling over them. What's the difference?



even comparing its similarity with the alliance of the North Vietnamese with an unconventional force (Vietcong)because ,simply put, the geography involved, is global.
---scatter69

I understand and agree with your position, but the "global" aspect of the terror war is lost on many people. They see, and protest, the war as landlocked in Iraq, and not a threat to us at home. They're wrong, of course.
For this reason, though, I'm referring, and sticking to, our present military action within the borders of Iraq. We are fighting, in essence, a well-armed, well-funded partisan force. That's all it is. Committed and zealous as any in history, even moreso is many ways (how many French partisans blew themselves up to kill Germans, for example?), but a partisan force nonetheless. For this reason, they lack the discipline, and the ability to properly coordinate their movements, of a cohesive military force.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd really like to see a link to that fact; I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe. If that were really the case, the Tet Offensive, for example, would have had no effect at all on the war. Did 58,000 people kill themselves? With North Vietnamese weapons and ammo


In the search for a link for that evidence (I remember it from a book by Chomsky) I went back to the book and, to be honest, I'm starting to have second thoughts about the whole thing. He does claim it can be found in CIA papers, but there's no footnote and after reading this webpage criticising his research: Link I'm starting to get cold feet about the legitimacy of his claims.

I do think it's fair to say though that most of the enemies the US faced in South Vietnam were South Vietnamese, presumably armed and equipped by the north, but southerners anyway. But that's were fought in the Cold War - you send in the proxies and try not to get your feet too muddy. The US didn't learn til after Vietnam.

I don't think they liked them more; I think that, by and large, they were simply ambivalent about the outcome of the war. If the Communists won, they'd have a dictatorship ruling over them. If the South won, they'd have the same government, a dictatorship, ruling over them. What's the difference?


True. But the Communists seemed more distantly oppressive. Their beloved president was repressing them right there and then; oftentimes people prefer the devil they're not sure about to the devil they know. So I reckon that's why so many southerners signed up with the NLF and not the South Vietnamese army.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rightwinger: First, I want to commend you for a very well-written article.

"Support for the troops", to me, involves at least tacit support for the war, by the way. It’s not possible, and is in fact pointless, to support one but not the other.


I disagree, obviously. There is a distinction that can be made between our service members and the tasks they are compelled to do.

I have concerns about the war in Iraq. I do not support our choice to invade Iraq (particularly not *when* we chose to invade Iraq). However, I do support the troops. I want our government to provide them with every tool they can to keep them safe. I support their honorable choice to serve our country and subject themselves to danger in order to defend the Constitution and protect the US from enemies both foreign and domestic.

While I do not agree with the war, I do applaud our service members for their military successes and altruistic work in Iraq.

I support the troops. I feel the war in Iraq was a bad decision, and I am able to understand that our service members are not responsible for US foreign policy. Their commitment to our country is to be appreciated and honored, regardless of whether I agree with the military action they are tasked with or not.

News of it damages troops morale, no matter what some may think, and just causes hard feelings and a bigger divide here at home.


Think for a second about this: Our service members don't make the policy decisions. They do not get to "pass" on serving in a war or other military action that they don't feel is warranted or just. They serve. It's what they do.

People who express dissent can be a voice for the service members who do not agree with what they are being called to do, but serve faithfully anyway. Protesters give a voice to the service members who are fighting and dying in the name of the US but are not allowed to fully express their opinions.

I'd consider that good for morale.

Especially when compared to the loss of life so far in our present conflict. Losses of any type in a war are tragic, of course, but though our military’s Iraq body count now stands at well over 2,000 at just under three years of war, the terrorists in Iraq are providing nowhere near the sausage grinder utilized on us by the North Vietnamese.


Two thoughts about this:

1. We can minimize the impact of the US service member deaths in Iraq by comparing them to deaths in previous wars, but for many people we cannot JUSTIFY the deaths. Many Americans do not believe that we HAD to go into Iraq, therefore, a single death is appalling.

2. Do we not have the technological means to fight a war with far less loss of life? Perhaps our sensitivity in our attempt to selectively "free" foreign nations has softened us to the point that we value the life of an Iraqi citizen more than the life of an American citizen.

The Vietnam War was a war of ideologies; it had no direct effect on Main St. USA, other than reducing the number of people walking down it, and ultimately had no effect on our security at all. But this one does; people want to kill us for no reason other than they don't like our way of life. We're attacking terrorism where it begins and lives, rather than letting it come here to attack us.


This rationale works well for the war in Afghanistan and anti-terrorism military actions elsewhere, but it does not work for Iraq.

Further, I absolutely don't think that the war in Iraq impacts the average American the slightest bit as they read the latest death tolls on the news crawler and sip their morning coffee.

What have we had to give up? What sacrifices have Americans had to make to support the war in Iraq? It's a very far-away rhetorical type discussion for many Americans, imo.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Uh people....."if" you truely support the troops then by default you support their job, which is war. Ergo if you support the troops then by default you support the war.

What have we had to give up? What sacrifices have Americans had to make to support the war in Iraq? It's a very far-away rhetorical type discussion for many Americans, imo.


Bad answer here Tex. What have we had to give up? Only friends, family and loved ones! And just an fyi.....I have shed tears for each and every soldier who has given their all for this country in Iraq!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler:
Uh people....."if" you truely support the troops then by default you support their job, which is war. Ergo if you support the troops then by default you support the war.


Perhaps for you it only works that way. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly am capable of detesting the war while fulling appreciating and wishing the best for the troops.

What have we had to give up? Only friends, family and loved ones!


Have you lost a family member or loved one? Most people might know someone who knows someone who has, but how many Americans have lost those they care about? Military families have carried the sacrifice and pain of this war. Generally, civilians have not.

I have shed tears for each and every soldier who has given their all for this country in Iraq!


Hmmm...
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have shed tears for each and every soldier who has given their all for this country in Iraq!


Poor guy. You have my sympathy, to feel deep and crippling bouts of sadness over 2000 times in two years. You really might need to consider treatment for depression. There's no good reason to take all the horror of the war upon your shoulders.

Uh people....."if" you truely support the troops then by default you support their job, which is war. Ergo if you support the troops then by default you support the war.


That doesn't even make any sense! Vegetarians can support friends who work as butchers without supporting their job; why should soldiers be any different? Most of the people fighting enlisted before war was declared, so can't all be considered to have made a completely free choice to fight in Iraq (I rarely consider being jailed to be a rational option). As Texas says, the best way to support those troops who oppose the war is to, well, oppose the war.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have you lost a family member or loved one? Most people might know someone who knows someone who has, but how many Americans have lost those they care about? Military families have carried the sacrifice and pain of this war. Generally, civilians have not.


Yes, I have. And so have over 2000 other families. And lets not forget the wounded and maimed and their families.

And before I go, I'd like to ask you a question. I know your husband is in the military. Do you support him in what he does for a living?


I have shed tears for each and every soldier who has given their all for this country in Iraq!


Hmmm...


No hmmmmm about it. Ask any vet on this site if they personally feel anything when they think about our dead. I've got a funny feeling that you will be amazed at the answers you get.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler:
Yes, I have. And so have over 2000 other families. And lets not forget the wounded and maimed and their families.


I'll take your word for that. Trust me, I don't forget. Where I live, it's a daily reality.

Do you support him in what he does for a living?


Absolutely. He's a medic. I feel he's chosen one of the most honorable professions in the military. He's done some amazing things abroad, and I am very proud of him.

His job is not to take life, but to save it. There's nothing to NOT support about that.

However, I also support our service members who are tasked with other, less pleasant, jobs. They serve faithfully when called.

Ask any vet on this site if they personally feel anything when they think about our dead. I've got a funny feeling that you will be amazed at the answers you get.


I consider you a man of your word, drmiler, so I believe you. It does strike me as a bit odd, though...I'm a sensitive sort of woman, and I have bawled my eyes out over our war dead from time to time, but it would be an outright lie for me to state that I have shed tears for every single service member who has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
(I remember it from a book by Chomsky)
---cacto

That should have been enough of a red flag for you right there.

Tex: Thanks for the compliment. Your comments were thought-provoking, fa shizzle, but I only got on to check and see what was up before hitting the sack. I'll get to your replies ASAP, okay? Too tired to think just now. Goodnight.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rightwinger: Notta problem. Thanks for acknowledging my comment(s). Sleep well.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
(I remember it from a book by Chomsky)
---cacto

That should have been enough of a red flag for you right there.


Cacto, RW is right. Chomsky is not an objective source. Unless you think that Mao is a moderate.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cacto, RW is right. Chomsky is not an objective source. Unless you think that Mao is a moderate.


Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that there is no such thing as an objective source; all writers, regardless of how thoroughly they claim to pursue the truth and nothing but it, cannot help but allow their own personal opinions to infiltrate their work, whether through selection of materials or through the phrasing of their sentences. I personally prefer to rely on the works of those who make no claims on objective truth but instead use plenty of referencing in their polemics. They're both more enjoyable to read and they don't use words like they're political ninjas.

Chomsky tends to use US government documents as primary resources to make his arguments, which means that often if he makes a contention about US action (particularly historical US action) it can be verified rather easily. Note I didn't say policies; his opinion of the US is rather well-known, but that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong in his contentions about what the US has done. Two seperate things. In the case above I couldn't do it, so, with his post-Bosnian work entirely up in the air legitimacy-wise (I'll take Christopher Hitchen's views on this as more persuasive than most), I'm prepared to doubt that particular unreferenced claim.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I personally prefer to rely on the works of those who make no claims on objective truth but instead use plenty of referencing in their polemics. They're both more enjoyable to read and they don't use words like they're political ninjas.


Actually, I like the honest ones as well, whether right or left! It is refreshing to read them, as they pontificate their bias, and acknowledge it. As Patton said "Hell, I know I am a prima Donna. I admit it. WHat I dont like about Montgomery is he refuses to admit it!".
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okey-dokey; after a long, restful weekend (Go Steelers!), I can finally (Go Steelers!) get to Tex's comments (Go Steelers!):


Rightwinger: First, I want to commend you for a very well-written article.


Thanks again, Tex.

I disagree, obviously. There is a distinction that can be made between our service members and the tasks they are compelled to do.

I have concerns about the war in Iraq. I do not support our choice to invade Iraq (particularly not *when* we chose to invade Iraq). However, I do support the troops. I want our government to provide them with every tool they can to keep them safe. I support their honorable choice to serve our country and subject themselves to danger in order to defend the Constitution and protect the US from enemies both foreign and domestic.
---Tex W.

I understand what you mean, I really do.
But see, I have trouble perceiving those as two separate things. You say you support them, but not the war. You support their decision to serve, but don't support their mission; how is that possible?
By supporting them in their service, you, indirectly, at least, have to support their mission. This, as I see it, is BECAUSE it's what they're DOING.
By supporting them, you ARE supporting the mission. Every time you send them a care package, an e-mail, a card or letter, you're supporting them in their mission. The two are inextricable; this means that you're giving at least a little support for the war in which they're engaged.






Think for a second about this: Our service members don't make the policy decisions. They do not get to "pass" on serving in a war or other military action that they don't feel is warranted or just. They serve. It's what they do.

People who express dissent can be a voice for the service members who do not agree with what they are being called to do, but serve faithfully anyway. Protesters give a voice to the service members who are fighting and dying in the name of the US but are not allowed to fully express their opinions.

I'd consider that good for morale.
---Tex W.

Look, I have no problem with dissent, as I said in the article. Just keep it clean and respectful is all I ask.
I do feel, however, that the culture of protest and demonstration in the 1960s had a big effect on the conduct of the troops in Vietnam, though, and I feel the same way about the war we're in now.
We always hear stories of how low overall morale was in that war. How no one really cared, after a point. Yes, it was mismanaged and poorly led.
But let's not forget that the American troops who fought it were coming from a country where unknown numbers of their peers, and many others, had already shown their dislike for the war,and their contempt and hatred for them. Knowing this, and hearing more and more about continued anti-war protests and violence isn't going to have any effect on the way you act when you get there? How you conduct yourself and carry out your duties? Bull.
Such protests may speak for some, yes, but for those who believe in what they're doing, it's not a good message at all. It's poison.



1. We can minimize the impact of the US service member deaths in Iraq by comparing them to deaths in previous wars, but for many people we cannot JUSTIFY the deaths. Many Americans do not believe that we HAD to go into Iraq, therefore, a single death is appalling.
---Tex W.

This is entirely a difference of opinion, or rather, perspective.
First off, I'm not trying minimize anything. As I said, any death in any war is tragic. No question there.
All I was saying was that people who hysterically try to make their point by drawing a comparison from the deaths in Iraq to the body count in Vietnam are being facetious. There's simply no comparison; an average of 3,625 deaths per year in Vietnam versus a little over 700 per year in Iraq. That's not to minimize anything.....combat death is tragic, and I would never dishonor their memories in such a way.
As to justifying them....once again, that's a matter of simple opinion.
To me, I look at Iraq and see American troops fighting not just for America, but also to assure and safeguard the freedom of people who have NEVER known anything like it in their entire history, which for them is almost unutterably vast.
Also, I can't help but notice that, despite repeated threats and warnings, we've suffered not one single terror-related incident here in America since 9/11. How can that be a coincidence? Our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan are having a negative effect on the enemy. It's a distraction for the terrorists, and it's keeping it over there, trying to keep Iraq unstable.
Let the suckers keep getting conned into killing themselves trying to kill our soldiers; our people are getting wiser to them. As I said elsewhere in this forum, on another thread, our military there is much, much better equipped to handle them than anyone I know here at home.








Do we not have the technological means to fight a war with far less loss of life? Perhaps our sensitivity in our attempt to selectively "free" foreign nations has softened us to the point that we value the life of an Iraqi citizen more than the life of an American citizen.
---Tex

Yes, we have the technological means. We could fight this war with far less loss of life----American lives, at least. We could very easily raze completely to the ground every nation that sends insurgents into Iraq. All it would take is a few good mushroom clouds. If we did that, I'd be willing to bet money that it would end this war as effectively as it did WW2. But, thank God, we're civilized, and not willing to do that.
Now, our enemies----would they have the same compunction? No. They want a nuke so bad they're sweating blood to get one.
We're fighting this war to keep that from happening. If we can secure a strong, self-sufficient democracy in Iraq (yes, a pro-American democracy, to be sure), I have little doubt that it would spread to the entire Middle East like dandelions in a meadow.
I agree that we do need to be less sensitive, though. If we're going to die for you, towelhead, we'll let our women wear whatever they want and walk astride their male counterparts. We'll also carry Bibles while we do it, if you please. Go get screwed.


Further, I absolutely don't think that the war in Iraq impacts the average American the slightest bit as they read the latest death tolls on the news crawler and sip their morning coffee.
---Tex W.

I do agree here, but that's not a bad thing. Read on:



What have we had to give up? What sacrifices have Americans had to make to support the war in Iraq?
---Tex W.

Not a damn thing, and that's exactly what the war is all about. Remember "if we don't go about our daily routines, the terrorists have won"? Very true.
That's why we fight. Bring the terror to them rather than the reverse.
If we had to sacrifice our regular routines in order to be safe from injury and death, would the mission be considered a success? Of course not.
Every day nothing happens to disturb Joe Average American and his morning cup is another day of victory, in my opinion.

I don't think I answered you very well on a few things, Tex, but I hope I managed a little, anyway. thanks for posting....and waiting.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okey-dokey; after a long, restful weekend (Go Steelers!), I can finally (Go Steelers!) get to Tex's comments (Go Steelers!):


Enough with your Steelers! I rooted for them! I am glad they won! I am going to root for them in XL!

Dont make me hate them again! it took me 20 years to get over the immaculate reception! Dont make me regret that!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okey-dokey; after a long, restful weekend (Go Steelers!), I can finally (Go Steelers!) get to Tex's comments (Go Steelers!):


How bout them "Steelers"?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
How bout them "Steelers"?


You guys are so Evil!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
great article rightwinger, I must have mised this while I was "out sick" many good points, now if only the lefties would suck it up and se the harm they DID and the harm they DO to our troops.