SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

[Paul]

[Paul]

"Could it be there has been an anti-war movement in the U.S. since the 1600’s that varies from 45% to 55% of the voting public? {Lima Charlie}

Hi LC:

The answer is no. Because the US didn't exist in 1600.

Is that what you were looking for in this one with the "Keep It Simple Stupid" principle?
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Neither do I believe that it's explained by the latest revisions of idiosyncratic interpretations of Dispensationalist's of the Book of Revelation or the Prophecy of Daniel in the bible and who are expecting the imminent return of Jesus Christ to re-establish an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem from which He will then offer animal sacrifices (even the thought of which I personally find bizarre).

Animal sacrifice as practiced in the Old testament is generally agreed to be a foreshadow of the sacrifice of Christ.

And the many found universally in numerous pre-Incarnation cultures as well as those in the Old Testament which is the reason for my reaction to this.

Granted there are an endless number of variations on the Christology of one sect to another at the moment. However, sticking with the most common, including over time, of Christians viewing Jesus Christ as perfect man (or else He would only have pretended to suffer and to die and His sacrifice would not have been a true sacrifice) and perfect God (or else there would be no atonement as a result of His Crucifixion for the sins of all that many might be saved through Him -- only God, and not a mere man, being able to atone for offenses against God), Redeemer of the world, Who died in the one eternal sacrifice of Calvary, and then rose from the dead . . . then the image of Jesus Christ Who Thomas referred to as "my Lord and my God" returning not in the Second Coming at the end of time but so as to establish an earthly kingdom and a restored temple in Jerusalem from which He will offer animal sacrifices (to Himself?) held by folks who call themselves Christians is one not only novel in that it was first introduced in the 19th century in Britain and the US, but, as noted, and in view of Christ and His Sacrifice, is an image that I can't help but find quite bizarre.

Beyond that the heavy emphasis upon wars and disasters coupled with the so-called "rapture" is quite disturbing as well. It's also quite novel and not a healthy combination. It's difficult not to envision the Ukraine in the mid 17th century and the bad results of the similar combination at that time, only among the eastern Polish Jews.

PS. Just curious, why do you add "sic" in your own replies when it's not a quote of anyone or anything that it's added to?

It means I think I made a spelling mistake but am in too much of a hurry to check it out. Spelling used to be one of my strong suits until I had to proof read some of my colleagues works as well as my childrens papers. I sometimes get anal about it.
[/quote][/quote]

Good deal. I wondered after I asked if it might not have to do with uncertainty on spelling. But, still I'd have asked because I wasn't sure. Thanks!
_________________
Paul

[I B Squidly]

Somehow we've digressed to 1600. In 1600 native Americans still had the military advantage both in numbers and relative military superiority (arrows had a rate of fire 6:1 over muskets). The Iroquios League could trade off the Dutch, the Brits or the French to their own advantage. In the southwest the Apaches had stolen the horse (hmm good eatin') to dominate the southern plains and begin centuries of depradation on what would become Mexico.
Later, the American Revolution would command the endorsement of about 34% of the population. 1812 less and the Mexican War even less. The Civil War is a wierd statistic because a basically Democratic country split on the future of slavery, split for a Republican electoral victory and re-united to protest Lincoln's call for troops. Northern Dems were worse than anything we see in today's Dems (Unlike Bush, Lincoln threw them in jail). Like the Brits the Spanish-American War was fought in an absence of mind. WWI was very unpopular as so many were recent immigres, few trusted the motives of our British ally, and only Wilson cared about the Peace 'Over There'. Benighted we are but there were many unhappy with the second war.
But the subject was Viet Nam and losing.
The fact is there was never anything to win in Viet Nam.
Ho Chi Minh had requested our help at Versailles in 1919 but was ignored. He saved our fliers in WWII and was recommended by the OSS in '46. We wanted the french in NATO/anti commintern program. They spent the next decade using former Wermacht troops to restore Algeria and 'Nam and lost. In '56 Matt Ridgeway reported to Ike that it would take 2 million troops to 'win' Viet Nam (that included the north) and another 1 million garrison troops indefinitely! The dubious hero of the lost PT109 sent observers that got stuck in the replacement of one Catholic plutocrat with another in a budhist state.Then LBJ determined that he would not lose Viet Nam as Truman lost China (hubris?) and opened the flood gates to the pent up Military Industrial Complex (Ike warned us about). Nixon's secret was to accept LBJ's peace after another election cycle. Winning was never a possibility or a consideration.
Yes, the North was vicious in victory and with abandoned US equipment bloodied the Chinese counter effort. They didn't take Thailand, the 'Domino Theory' was disproved and we're all left to wonder if decades of frustrated nationalism wasn't the cause the bloodbath.
The first Command Master Chief of the Army went to jail for stealing 5 million dollars from MACV. Officers got their tickets punched. And today the valiant vets of that sorry war are denied their just dignity.
The sorry truth is that no administration ever thought we could 'Win' Viet Nam.
Comes to mind the troops before Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga in November 1863. Grant ordered a demonstration against the ridge while Sherman took the emplacements on the left. Sherman never took those emplacements (he attacked the wrong hill) and the troops before the ridge got tired of taking fire and on their own swarmed Missionary Ridge and the Democraric rebs fled in terror. Grants command was baffled. Were that a war was determined by the men who fought.

[Paul]

"Somehow we've digressed to 1600." {I B Squidly}

Very good. I admire any attempt made to summarize 400 years, no matter how bad, good, mediocre or whatever it may actually be. This deserves a star for effort at least.

Although, by 1600, Mexico was already firmly established and the Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico City had already established the Diocese of Manila in the Philippine Islands that John Kerry was to visit in the 1960s (just to make at least a token attempt at at getting him back in this string . . . ) and Spain was about ten years into the colonization of New Mexico, as well as vast other portions of the Americas and around the world.

The Brits hadn't even arrived in what was to become the US yet. The tiny failed James colony (Elizabeth’s only rather pathetic colonization attempt during her reign -- lousy location -- middle of a swamp, hot and mosquito infested in the summer, bitter cold in the winter, and surrounded by hostile natives -- unsurprisingly disappeared never to be heard from again) was still seven years distant and the puritans arriving at Plymouth Rock was still decades away.

The various Apache (not their own name) tribes were primarily in the mountainous region of the present day southwest US and northern Mexico. Comanche’s and other tribes became the horseman that dominated the southern plains.

What, no mention of the Seminole war?

"Winning was never a possibility or a consideration" {I B Squidly}

Badly phrased. Winning, even on the basis of the US policy of stopping Communist Aggression, was more than possible.

The only thing there was never a possibility of winning in the first place or consideration of winning was a conventional war against north Vietnam.

This gets back to a point made earlier about the US effort in Vietnam that one can't win what one has never set out to win in the first place.

The US never declared its intention to win a war against north Vietnam. The US never formally declared war against the north Vietnamese in Vietnam (a mistake on the part of the US).

A consistent policy was not to extend the conflict into north Vietnam (the PRC put the fear of "Chinese hordes" into US leaders with its application of its military doctrine of Active Defense in Korea 1950-1953). US leaders rightly believed (since the PRC policy has now been confirmed by PRC files) that if US forces entered north Vietnam, then the People's Liberation Army Forces would enter the war against them in order to prevent the defeat of north Vietnam.

The US did fail to meet its full objective of stopping Communist aggression in southeast Asia from Indochina and southward across the straights of Malacca. On the basis of failing to accomplish its steadily declared goal of stopping Communist aggression in Indochina, the US lost in Vietnam (Laos and Cambodia) by abandoning it's anti-Communist allies.

The biggest losers were those fighting to win their own countries and resist the Soviet-backed Soviet-PRC supplied North Vietnamese invasion but lost and whose countries were subsequently conquered as a result: The South Vietnamese, the Laotians and the Cambodians. One Quarter million South Vietnamese & 58,000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and 1.4 million north Vietnamese died in the Vietnam Conflict.

Attaining the objective was more than a possibility. It could have been done. The US could have won its goal and defeated the Soviet-backed, Soviet-PRC supplied north Vietnamese invasion.

"bloodied the Chinese counter effort." {I B Squidly}

"counter effort" is a strange term. It's not at all descriptive of the PRC assault on Vietnam in 1979 for the purpose of 'teaching the Vietnamese a lesson.'

The Red Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) lost tens of thousands of soldiers in the month or so long assault on Vietnam by Chinese armor, artillery and infantry (no PLA air or naval support was ever employed) that occupied about a 15 mile strip across the entire north, bloodied the Vietnamese militias that resisted them (due to the regular forces being committed to the Soviet equipped Vietnamese Army invasion of Cambodia at the time) even worse than the Vietnamese bloodied them, inflicting far more casualties on the Vietnamese, destroyed most of the structures in the strip it occupied and then withdrew, declaring that it had taught the Vietnamese (who the People's Republic of China derided publicly as the "Cubans of Asia", a lesson).

The PRC did demonstrate to the Vietnamese that the Soviets (who the Vietnamese had just signed a mutual defense pact with) would do nothing to assist Vietnam (the Soviets failed to even mobilize Soviet forces on the northern Chinese border in response) and did exert some modifying effects on other VN policies.

There were no protests or marches in the streets anywhere around the world in protest to that blatant act of naked aggression. . . Jimmy Carter was President of the US at the time, was notified in advance by the PRC of its intention, but has never spoken much about it over the years. . .

"They didn't take Thailand, the 'Domino Theory' was disproved" {I B Squidly}

No, this is incorrect. The 'Domino Theory' has not been disproved (only in the minds and imaginations of some individuals. . . ).

The Soviet-backed Soviet-PRC supplied north Vietnamese conquered the US and allied abandoned Republic of Vietnam. The PRC-backed Kmer Rouge conquered Cambodia. Sophisticated Piracy activities (that continue to this day) began in the straights of Malacca shortly thereafter. . . The Soviet-backed Vietnamese conquered the former Kingdom of Laos. . . The Soviet navy occupied the former US naval station at Cam Ranh Bay. . . The Vietnamese then invaded Cambodia. . . The People's Republic of China invaded Vietnam to teach the "Cubans of Asia" Vietnamese it's lesson. . . .

The extent of the impact the internal conflicts between Soviet and PRC backed Communist forces had in the region of blunting any further conquests beyond the RVN, Laos and Cambodia still remains to be objectively studied.

However, enough exists to at least be curious about it, particularly with the recent release of PRC records from the time indicating the effects of the US diplomatic efforts with the PRC of 1972 (the Nixon initiatives did serve to create mistrust and further divide the Soviet Union and the PRC while also resulting in the PRC vastly increasing its immediate materiel and munitions support to north Vietnam '72 through '75. . . ).

Not least of all due to the negative image of Richard Nixon, among a good deal else, it probably won't be objectively studied by a member of the Boomer generation, but then again, who knows, anything is possible. . .

The extent of the time purchased for the new and existing states of Southeast Asia to develop so as to block Communist aggression across the straights is indicated by the results themselves:

Thailand was sufficiently strong enough in 1975 to be a quite formidable obstacle against Communist aggression. Indonesia had defeated the PRC-backed coup attempt by 1966 and by 1975 was firmly anti-communist and a sufficiently developed nation itself. The same for Singapore and Malaysia. And the Communists were fighting each other in the mid to late 70s in Indochina.

The fact is there was never anything to win in Viet Nam. {I B Squidly}

Well, one may think that there was nothing 'worth' winning, particularly if one is not a south Vietnamese, Laotian or Cambodian (actually, even north Vietnamese), but obviously this statement is grossly wrong.

Ho Chi Minh's efforts in 1919 and 1945 or his 'declaration of independence' indicate nothing whatsoever beyond the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a determined man. He was one among many and nothing more. . . They are of no more importance than the similar efforts of and declarations made by Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy in the Philippines. Only the final end results of the movements led by the respective leaders were different. Emilio and his people were a genuine insurgency that stood alone. Ho was a Soviet puppet. The two men died within about five years of each other. The US response to the efforts and declarations of both men at the time they made them was correct and proper.

Which Iraqi movement would one really want to bet on today will be around 30 years from now? Which of the many individual Iraqis making claims today should be acknowledged? Probably none of them at the moment.

Ho Chi Minh's Soviet-backed Communist Vietnamese movement is merely the one to have survived and to have ultimately won.
_________________
Paul

[USAF66-70]

Gawd, fantastic thread Paul & SL!

Confirms my own bottom line view of the Vietnam War issue regarding winning/losing: As LBJ indicated (on his tapes), “It wasn’t winnable.” And even if in theory it may have been winnable, “groupthink” of those in charge precluded that possibility. (Nevertheless, millions of us served honorably, which is another issue.)


However Paul, regarding current events, you say: “Bottom line, ask me today what I think knowing what we know now, then the US attacked the wrong target for a lot of very bad reasons given since.”


The reality is that we never “know” everything, still don’t as far as I can tell, and frankly probably never will. And there will always be dissenting POVs among various experts.

An indecisive Jimmy Carter almost certainly would not have gone into Iraq; I doubt he’d have gone into Afghanistan either, or if he had, he’d probably have done it half-ass. (I have no idea what Kerry would do.)

On the other hand, Bush, Rummy, Tenant, etc. believed WMDs were slam-dunk, as did most other world leaders, regardless of whatever dissenting POVs may have been out there. If I’d been in their shoes, decisive guy that I am, I’m reasonably certain I too would have made the same call, especially in light of our 9/11 prior history of not having acted decisively enough regarding terrorist threats.

Consider this: Say next week we do indeed finally find those elusive WMDs. Perhaps it’s unlikely, but I don’t think it’s entirely impossible, even at this late date, so humor me: Wouldn’t that make your Monday morning analysis rather flawed? (Although I suppose your point about Iraq being an inadequately prepared for crap hole after our swift victory (I paraphrase) would still have some validity.)

Bottom line, IMHO: Based on the circumstances and all that was known, a decisive leader had to deal with Iraq.

USAF 66-70
Fred H.
Atlanta GA

[LimaCharlie]

[sore loser]

Hi Paul,

The replies are getting too complicated to keep quoting, so let me make a few points. At this point in my life, I'm trying to lauch a new truck in the next few months which requires 10 or so hours a day, plus plant about 10,000 square feet of grass at home, repair/re-new a 1000 sq foot deck, and about 30 other tasks. So if I misread your replies, write it off to haste. I can't stand to not read and reply, I've been waiting 30 years to talk to somebody who understands where I've been.

Epistomology is the study of how to "know" something. It's a branch of philosophy. Fortunately I've never know a philosopher who wouldn't say in 100,000 words, what we could say in just a few. Which is the long way around the barn to say a semesters study can be reduced to a few paragraphs.

There are 3 ways to know something.

You can make a theory and then gather the facts to back the theory up. The problem with this mode is you tend to discard facts that don't agree with the theory. The prime example, one that I beat over my colleagues haeds is the earth is the center of the universe. Back in the day, the Scientists, by decree had to prove the earth was the center of the universe. So they invented equations that would predict the movements of heavenly bodies based upon the notion that the earth was the center of the universe. It worked amazingly well except for one exception called epicycles. Some of the bodies would be moving say west to east as predicted, and then would suddenly reverse direction for a short time, and then again resume the predicted path. No matter what they did, this phenomena was totally unpredictable. But other than that the theory worked. But there was only one problem, and that was the earth isn't the center of the universe. So epicycles got blown off until Copernicus died and published his book that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, gave the correct theory and then life went on. The church had deceed the earth was the center of the universe by misinterpreting the scriptures, and death was the penalty of disagreement, which is why Copernicus waited until he was almost dead before telling somebody else about his book and what to do with it.

Another way to know something is to gather all of the facts and make a theory. The problem with this mode is you never know if you have all of the relevent facts. This is what I was saying earlier. I was possessed of a few facts, made a theory (Saddam was involved with 9/11). As more facts became available, I adjusted my theory.

The last mode is to go to the source of the truth. For some, this doesn't have a practicle application, but we still use it all of the time. If a child says he did poorly in a class because the teacher hates him, we go to the teacher to find out why. It often turns out the child may have failed because of other reasons.

Next!

Leveling down was a notion included in my "It's gonna suck for awhile" statement. All else you said about it is true also. We are going to end up being a hamburger flipping nation before things get better, so to speak. Again haste was needed when I wrote that.

Next!

My point was that our politicians know that taxes are too high and while not the total solution, they are a significant part of it. They can help make us competitive. Toyota focuses on no more than 10 models. Their quality is the envy of the world. But as they expand their line up their quality is suffering. GM has almost 70 models, and has several models that rank higher than Toyota, albeit Lexus still rules the roost. Not to mention GM has the UAW and the higher wages, higher retirement costs, higher medical bills, at al. If the American buying public ever gets it, the the quality differences between the Big 3 and the japanese are rapidly approaching zero, we'll be able to compete on equal footing with them, other challenges notwithstanding. Sooner or later the challenges of the Big 3 are going to catch up with everyone else too. But I digress. They, the politicians, also ought to know by now that putting people to work both gets people off the dole, and gets more people paying the lower taxes. Everybody who has tried this has found it to be so. Kennedy, Reagan and others I don't recall tight now. 20% of the people pay 80% of the dollars in taxes. Give more to them, ie reduce taxes, they can only stick so much in the mattress (consume), so they invest the rest, put people to work. We just got through this with Reagans cuts, and the so-called Clinton prosperity of the 90's. Dubya weathered the correction of that period, and who knows whats next. He lowered the taxes so we should see another period of prosperity and the next guy, whoever it is will get the credit, not Dubya if he doesn't get re-elected. Like everything else there is no doubt this can go too far, like the old needle on the carburator, you can make the engine too lean and too rich. But get taxation at the right point, life is good. I agree, nothing is going to be done about it soon.

I don't think I said getting into the war to depose a brutal tyrant like Saddam is ok. I think I said even if we were wrong about the WMD, I'm glad we did it. But I don't think we are wrong about the WMD. I think they will turn up sooner or later. Also we now don't have him, Saddam, paying $25,000 to the family of a bomber. Not the big reason to go there either, but one less reason for somebody to blow themselves up. There are upsides to our actions. And yes we are not in the cold war arena we've spent the last 60 years preparing for, and yes we made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. We didn't do so hot at Kasserine Pass either(our first battle in WW2), but we sucked it up, made the adjustments, and got on with it. As you have pointed out here, we sucked in Vietnam at first, but by the time I got there, 71, we were running out of paper to take the names of all of the butts that were getting kicked. I see no reason we won't do the same with these butthead terrorists and ultimately prevail, assumming the peaceniks don't prevail. But even if they win out, a few more incidents like the Trade Towers will put them out of favor. I don't see us not ultimately winning out, even if it costs us more lives at home here.

By the way, you are right I did say I lived in London Ontario for 3 years somewhere in here. I understand the confusion now.

Even if a boost in wages doesn't help with recruiting, it will get the lower ranks off Food Stamps etc, which is a disgrace to my way of thinking. When I was fixing A6's I used to get told I was making equal wages with my civilian counter part. I don't know who they were comparing me to, but the crabs we had from Grumman and every other supplier were living in WO country aboard ship, in the hotel paid by Grumman when we were in port, and having ther liberty charged to Grumman, not to mention basic wage difference. I guessed I missed something somewhere.


Don't underestimate the real threat posed by radical Islam. They want to take over the world and convert everyone, usually at the point of a sword, if all else fails. Most just want to live their lives. My grandfather was Shia. He was low key. But I wish I still had that link to an article about the mullah in France who was getting expelled because he wrote a book on how to beat your wife in accordance with the Koran. On his way out he was calling for the Muslims to rise up and take over France like they have done in other places in eastern Europe. If that isn't exactly right it's something like that.

With no disrespect to our Air Force friends here, I think that is an outfit that needs to be broken up. Give whatever they call MAC and TAC these days back to the Army, the Nukes to a Nuke central command that owns everything nuke, assuming there is still a need, I think there is, but I'm not as current as I ought to be, and I don't really know what to do with the rest. Them boys can do research like nobody else. I guess things have changed, the air force works more with the ground forces now, but I still think they spend way to much on research and not enough on trash haulers, unglamorous as that is. That the the Army Chief of Staff has to go hat in hand to the Air Force for a ride to the war is UNSAT in my alleged mind, especially since it take months to get everyone and everyting in place. More trash haulers, less F-117's that can't fight, more trash haulers, less planes that cost $550 meg apiece. We've never won a war from 50,000 feet yet, with anybody who shoots back that is. We won WW2 because we had tens of thousands of substandard things like P38's, and boots on the ground.

We have to eliminate these radicals wherever they are, what ever it takes, one by one if necessary, and every single one. Some day they will grow up and enter the world community like so many of their muslim fellows. In the mean time.....

I gotta get to work again friend. I look forward to your reply.
_________________
The Supercarrier.
95,000 tons of diplomacy.
4.5 acres of sovereign US territory.
Any time. Any place.
CVAN-65 and VA-196
The Big "E" and The Main Battery

[Paul]

[Paul]

"Confirms my own bottom line view of the Vietnam War issue regarding winning/losing: As LBJ indicated (on his tapes), “It wasn’t winnable.” And even if in theory it may have been winnable, “groupthink” of those in charge precluded that possibility. (Nevertheless, millions of us served honorably, which is another issue.)" {USAF66-70}

Hi Fred:

Keep in mind, the public rhetoric about ultimate US success in Vietnam and the strength of US "resolve" by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and members of their administrations, was quite consistent and quite forceful, 1961 through to the end of 1967.

Talk is cheap, no? Even if it's a US President or Senator who's running his mouth.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"However Paul, regarding current events, you say: “Bottom line, ask me today what I think knowing what we know now, then the US attacked the wrong target for a lot of very bad reasons given since.” {USAF66-70}

Hi Fred:

That was only my summization in that portion of the reply to SL in that one post. Don't read too much into this. I've provided more than enough above regarding how much was questioned and some of why back in 2002 and why it's not a matter of "20/20 hindsight" only [more on that to come].

As to this, I got to the point in the reply that I wanted to end the reply to SL and the question posed by President Bush to Senator Kerry a month or so back came to mind.

I only used an answer the question that was posed in public by the President to Senator Kerry. I should have preceded that summation with something like, ‘in response to the question posed by President Bush. . .”

By the way, that exchange over that question, and including it, I believe to have been quite worthless -- The debate in 2004 about what one would do in 2002 if known now is only one more an example of the problem of the cowardice of our national leaders right back to 2001, Executive and Congressional, in their failure to have made a formal declaration acknowledging the state of war we are in and instead only providing a 2002 version of an updated "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution -- my friends heard my complaints about it and disgust at it and them back at the time the gutless wonders pass it as well -- this is NOT a new lesson that we should have to be relearning; although, in the case of our present national leaders, I think it's more "re-experiencing" than it is "re-learning". It’s all the more pathetic coming as a result of an attack on our nation that dwarfs the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941. We really are burdened with sorry national leaders at the moment -- and from both major parties.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Consider this: Say next week we do indeed finally find those elusive WMDs. Perhaps it’s unlikely, but I don’t think it’s entirely impossible, even at this late date, so humor me: Wouldn’t that make your Monday morning analysis rather flawed? (Although I suppose your point about Iraq being an inadequately prepared for crap hole after our swift victory (I paraphrase) would still have some validity.)" {USAF66-70}

Hi Fred:

First, thanks for asking this.

Granted since the exchange between SL and myself is spread out, it can be missed, however, if you look back above, then you’ll see that I make no “Monday morning analysis” whatsoever. I questioned it in 2002.

You’ll also see that I address the question that even if Iraq had WMD, then even the mere possession alone was not enough to justify invading Iraq. What was the relation to 9-11 and to those who have been waging war upon openly since 1993?

As to the discovery of WMD, if one should be made, no, it wouldn’t automatically make my analysis flawed. It might only understate its soundness, depending on what’s found?

If something is found, then first I’d be curious what it is. If a chemical or the majority of biological weapons, then, where the majority of chemicals and biological agents are concerned, no it probably wouldn’t change the analysis at all or automatically justify the US invasion. Unless we found a couple squadrons of pirated Iraqi B-52s with aerosol delivery systems with them somewhere as well. Let’s face it, those cheap little drones were a joke. . .

If nuclear material were found, which wouldn’t surprise me in the least, then that’s not an automatic either. A small nuclear device would be of interest.

In the end, however, it’s the ties to terrorist that are of importance regarding how violable or not a threat of attack by Iraq against the US truly was, or wasn’t.

By the way, a small nuclear device is of concern to me, especially where an enemy like Al Qaida is concerned. It’s why I emphasis that the rabble being fought now in Iraq or such as the rabble on the West Bank are NOT of importance in the matter of fighting the organizations that have waged war upon us since 1993 on the basis of the very public and specific reasons that they’ve give (which don’t include overthrowing the West and depriving us of our hedonistic way of life . . . other such nonsense that we hear ad nauseum. . . BEGINNING, I will remind you, stated publicly by numerous of those who opposed any US military response at all as early as October 2001).

However, and in spite of the fact that Senator Kerry has stated it, it is all quite useful to Al Qaida and other similar enemies. They'll make substantial use of this in their propaganda. It will probably aid recruiting.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Bottom line, IMHO: Based on the circumstances and all that was known, a decisive leader had to deal with Iraq. " {USAF66-70}

Hi Fred:

With all due respect:

The US spent one year dinking around over the question of whether or not to invade Iraq. Most of it was spent arguing about irrelevancies such as un-enforced Security Council resolutions in the UN and other such nonsense.

That after a brief and limited campaign in Afghanistan where we blew up a bunch of old Soviet garbage equipment in our air campaign [dependant totally upon the Air Force for lack of the navy's new fighter bomber at the time thereby leaving what aircraft naval aviation has relied upon since the decisions of the first Bush Administration placing the theatre out of range), had the local rag-tag militias do the fighting for us, and allowed the bulk of Al Qaida, along with Osama Bin Laden to escape.

All took place in the context of a period that included the various events in in the western Pacific with the PRC and North Korea that the US was amazingly (as it has continued to do since) kow towing to.

There are no questions whatsoever regarding North Korea's possessing WMD now or in 2002. Since the North Korean admission in June of this year, there's no question regarding the military compoent of the nuclear program they admitted to having in 2002 and after the missile launches (in reply to the US?) of 2002 and since, there's no question about their ability to deliver thermo-nuclear warheads in strikes against the western United States.

All of the dragging out and arguments on irrelevant issues at the UN was for the purpose of gaining a UN "blessing" for the invasion of the WEAKEST of the three nations dubbed the "axis of evil" and the one with the LEAST to no history of supporting international terrorism.

Iran was listed in 2002 by our own state Department as the number one supporter of international terrorism. It has a long history of supporting NGO Para-military organizations, nationalist, nihilist, Marxist. . . that engage in terrorist tactics. Another "context" of 2002 was the illegal arms shipment from North Korea that was interdicted in the middle east while the absurd debate about invading, or not invading, Iraq DRUG ON at the UN.

Dragging it all out over the course of a year also gave time for the new anti-war pacifist movement to organize world-wide; effectively in fact.

In the end, the UN "blessing" being sought through all of that nonsense over all of those MONTHS was never received (no surprise - the illegal oil contracts with Iraq and other nations has been a think tank issue for years now, prior to 2001 even).

If you call THAT "decisive," then you either didn't pay attention to very much in 2002 that was public information and publicly available or I believe that you have a very LOW standard regarding what you call "decisive."

I can list a great deal more. These were the most obviuosly public.

Further, if Iraq was associated with 9-11 or posed an immediate and imminent threat to the United States, then months of debate at the UN were not necessary.

And neither was any NONSENSE rhetoric about invading so as to "liberate" Iraq.

This is the United States of America. Not Khrushchev’s Soviet Union.

Given the philosophical and political background of most of the so-called "neo-conservatives" (and self-named by the way--and it's a ridiculous and in no way descriptive label), the old Marxist rhetoric and reasoning inherent in the "liberation" nonsense doesn't surprise me. I do find it disturbing.

At any rate, I'm old fashioned. I believe that enemies that pose an immanent and direct threat or that have attacked us directly (as has happened) should be engaged, defeated and if a nation, occupied. Repair the infrastructure out of decency and then withdraw.

Hey, even in April of this year -- NOTHING-little Fallujah and the insurgents should have been ground into the sand. President Bush ran his mouth and then ordered our forces to back down.

Primarily however, is my disgust with our national leaders for their failure to aggressively focus upon those who attacked us on 9-11 so as to annihilate them.

Our “leaders” have been decisive in stupid matters and indecisive in critical ones. That's a bad combination. Hence my agreement with Sore Loser's statement about the administration being surprised by the post-invasion resistance. In other words, they were inept even in their attack of the wrong target. Would to God they'd have been as indecisive about Iraq as they've been with those who have attacked us and who we are at war with.

Indecisive in dealing with a very capable enemy that has been attacking us since 1993 and whose first attack inside the United States in 1993 resulted in about a thousand casualties and whose 2001 attack resulted in a about 3,000 deaths (but which intended tens of thousands).

I've made no secret of my disgust for Senator Kerry or even that I personally view George Bush as the 21st century Republican version of Jimmy Carter and see him as decisive in precisely the way that Jimmy Carter was always decisive; making bad and stupid decisions, setting bad precedents and with bad long-term consequences.

In this case, a big one in that we attacked the wrong target. And a VERY major target at that.

With that said, then I'll add that I don't entirely agree with Sore Loser's remark here that:

"a few more incidents like the Trade Towers will put them [the peaceniks] out of favor. I don't see us not ultimately winning out, even if it costs us more lives at home here."

It may be the result of further attacks. However, it's possible that the converse will be the result of further attacks.

I do believe because of our inability to have decisively responded to the September 11, 2001 attacks in 2001, and the inept "GWAT", that such attacks are likely.

Because we've failed to aggressively go after the enemy who has been waging war on us, and because of attacking the wrong target and the bad consequences associated with it, and the failure to have even begun to substantially address the security of our borders that further attacks on our nation are VERY likely. And, most likely on the scale of 9-11 or worse.

However, if our nation has sunk so low that this has been the response to an assault as deadly and as competent as 9-11 that murdered thousands and intended to murder tens of thousands, then further such assaults may actually result in a defeat.

It won't be an "Islamic overthrow" of the United States. That's a fantasy.

Hence my disgust even to the point of referring to the President is the 21st Century Republican version of Jimmy Carter, which I don't believe is an exaggeration.

Jimmy Carter, by the way, was not indecisive. Would to God that he had been on a number of bad policies that he rammed through and which bad precedents and consequences remain to this day. Not the least of which is the Department of Education that he founded in 1979, which the Republican Party pledged in its ‘Contract with America’ in 1995 to abolish and that the Bush Administration led the Republican leadership in the Congress in the most massive Federal Funding of via the "No Child Left Behind Act" of Ted Kennedy.

Someone needs to tell our "decisive leader" that this is not the US of the 1960s and 1970s. It can't afford a war and a Great Society splurge of social spending, or, we no longer have a nation capable of a "guns and butter" budget. That's what it means to be a Debtor Nation. This further destablization of our economy and culture does not bode well for the US.
_________________
Paul

[USAF66-70]

Paul: Your characterization of the Iraq/WMD 10/02 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq as a “2002 version of an updated Gulf of Tonkin resolution” strikes me as out of all proportion. Saddam had and used WMD, most people in the world were convinced he still had them and was crazy enough to use them again, and there were lots of UN resolutions he wasn’t complying with regarding the WMD.

And actually Paul, you ARE making a “Monday morning analysis” when you state: “…ask me today what I think knowing what we know now, then the US attacked the wrong target…”

Be that as it may, I’m not seeing where you: “…address the question that even if Iraq had WMD, then even the mere possession alone was not enough to justify invading Iraq.”

What I do see is your following statement (Sep 02, 2004 4:45 am post):

Quote:

The lack of ability to address the questions [whether “Iraq did not have WMD”] by those who were advocating something as serious as the invasion of another nation I did find disturbing. Especially since we dinked around for almost a year arguing it with the UN security council. . . There was no real substantial debate on Iraq in this country and it wasn’t due to lack of time or lack of anyone raising questions and objections. Those who did were frequently enough claimed to be anti-Semite, racist, defeatist, anti-American.. . . It was ridiculous.

However, if indeed it’s your view that “if Iraq had WMD, then even the mere possession alone was not enough to justify invading Iraq,” then that is another issue, and really the only issue; and you and SL, and I too, have wasted lots of verbiage. What’s your rationale for that POV? It’s looking like your gripe may be with the neo-cons? Perhaps I should just pick up Pat Buchanan's new book?

And also brother Paul, proverb for the day: In many words and in many dreams there is great vanity.

USAF66-70
Fred H.