History's verdict on Viet Nam is in, FS.

It's pretty much accepted fact that the Viet Nam was was a mistake from start to finish.

Furthermore, a "peace" was negotiated with the North Vietnamese that allowed us to withdraw with supposed "honor."

Sure it was the American people's lack of will to continue that fight which speeded up our withdrawel, and it was a good thing for that or we would have been there who knows how much longer at the cost of who knows how many more lives.

I should also point out that the South Vietnamese people did not exactly have the will to carry on the fight themselves, either.

So what should we have done? Stayed there anyway even longer and continued to fight a war that was unwinnable?

And that is exactly one of my points with Iraq and it's people. I will be the first to say that we should stay the course and support them until they have a government and a military in place. I believe that we should not cut and run if these people need us and sincerely want us to help them. But if the Iraqi people, like the south vietnamese, fail to show us that they have the will and the drive to stay the course themselves, then I'll be the first to say that we should tell them to take care.


Don Cardi

My 2 cents whatever it is worth.

We stay we piss somebody off. We leave we piss somebody off. MHO we are fighting this war the wrong way. I believe it was Cardi who said that our leaders are calling the shots instead of the generals who are there. And that is part of the problem. The insurgents or whatever you want to call them are hiding in the mosques(sp) where they know we won't shoot at because of civilian casualties. IMHO if we had a General in there like Stormin Norman (like the 1st gulf war) calling the shots we wouldn't be in this mess we are now. Another problem is my origional question What is taking so long to train the Iraqi forces? Do they want us to stay there forever so we can fight the insurgents/terrosists for them? :rolleyes:

This is the link I posted ("poll") in my first post on this thread. I think it sort of fits here and is worth a read. Doesn't sound encouraging to me.


TIS


Iraq, Israel, brew deep Middle East mistrust of US : poll Fri Dec 2, 8:07 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - People in Arab nations believe the Iraq war has brought less peace, more terrorism and contrary to Washington's claims, will result in less democracy, according to a poll.

The survey of six Arab countries, also found a plurality of respondents got their news from the Al-Jazeera satellite television network, currently at the center of a storm over an alleged US idea to bomb its headquarters.

When asked which country was the biggest threat to them, most respondents chose Israel or the United States, while France was nominated as the country most respondents would like to be a superpower.

The University of Marylan Zogby International poll published Friday was conducted in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in October.

Eighty-one percent of respondents said the Iraq war had brought "less peace" to the Middle East, while only six percent believed it had enhanced peace.

Seventy-eight percent of people questioned believed the Iraq war had resulted in more terrorism than before, while 58 percent said it brought less democracy, with only nine percent believing it enhanced democratic development.

While the administration of President George W. Bush frequently argues that it has liberated Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, only six percent of those surveyed believed that the Iraqi people were better off after the war. Seventy-seven percent thought they were worse off.

"In addition to the Arab-Israeli issue, which has been the prism of how Arabs have looked at the US, there is an added new prism, and that is Iraq," Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland told AFP.

"They think the Iraq war has brought nothing but disaster."

Only six percent thought spreading democracy was an objective in the war in Iraq, while seventy-six percent thought control of oil fields was important, and 68 percent believed support for Israel was key motivating factor.

"The American presence itself is something they fear ... the perception of threat is there, because it does mean that in general people are rooting against the US in Iraq," said Telhami.

The survey makes unwelcome reading for US diplomats, who have repeatedly tried to improve US standing in the Middle East. Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes confronted some of the hostility during a regional swing in September.

"In as much as there are misperceptions or misunderstandings about US policy, whether it be in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe, we have made it a priority to expand our public diplomacy efforts," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

He declined to comment directly on polling data, but argued the US drive to promote democracy in the region would not reap instant results.

"This is also going to be a generational project; it's going to take a long time," McCormack said.

The poll also asked, in a world with one superpower, which nation respondents would like to fulfill that role.

Twenty-one percent said France, 13 percent said China and 10 percent said Pakistan. Only six percent voted for the United States, which came in just behind Britain, at seven percent.

French President Jacques Chirac, emerged as the most popular leader.

Forty-five percent of those surveyed said they watch Al Jazeera most for international news, followed by 11 percent for Dubai-based MBC.

Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper reported the existence of a memo which summarised a conversation between President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in which the US president was reported to have wanted to bomb the channel's headquarters.

Telhami said that he proved in a statistical analysis of similar findings regarding Al Jazeera last year, that the station was not coloring Arab views of the United States.

He said Arab viewers without satellite television access were no less resentful of those who did subscribe to the channel.

American officials have often castigated the channel, arguing it is presenting a biased view of US policy to Middle Eastern viewers.

I believe that both you and TIS asked the very same question. And I wish that I knew the answer for sure. But the only thing that I can think that it seems to be taking so long is because we forget that many of these people that we are training were never a real part of society in their country. Many of them were kept oppressed by Saddam and his cronies, and therefore never were given the opportunity to be educated. And their lack of opportunity for a real education may be one of the reasons that it is taking so long to teach them things that our very own kids who go into the military, and our very own kids who go into the police force, seem to learn much more quickly.

It is not a knock on those Iraqi people, because it was never their own fault that they weren't given a chance to learn and get an education. But this may be one of the reasons that it is taking so long for them to learn.

It's a good question and a legitimate one.

Stormin Norman! Ha!

I've always wondered why someone like Tommy Franks decided to retire. I've also always wondered why someone like Colin Powell decided to retire. Two brilliant Military men, who could run a war with their eyes closed, both retire during a crucial time of war. Makes one wonder if they, both being military men with a military mentality, got fed up with how the politicians were invoking their own startegies on how to fight a war. Maybe they simply got totally fed up with the politics of this war period.


Don Cardi

I don't know about Franks but for Powell would you want Clinton as your Commander in Chief? :rolleyes:

As far as training the troops goes, I most likely am not thinking of some essential reason why it isn't done faster. However, even in the U.S., we have say, the geeky, non-violent, perhaps high school drop-out (in some cases), timid 18 yr. old, naive kid, who goes thru the process of basic training in the same amount of time as everyone else and he finishes the training within the time span.

My point being, whether or not these young men are physically or emotionally ready, why is it taking so long??? I really don't know. If anyone knows the process please fill me in.

Also to consider, are the Iraqs volunteering to fight? Do they force them or draft them? If it is a voluntarily, perhaps not enough are coming forward. The only conclusion I've been able to come to is the language barrier.

TIS

Easy to say after the fact. Hind sight is always twenty-twenty and it makes it that much easier to twist things around. They still stuck it to them back then.

Sure after you are left out to dry, what will to fight would they have. They couldn't do crap before we got there, in fact they had crap to fight with if it wasn't for the US pumping in things to them.

"peace" was negotiated with the North Vietnamese that allowed us to withdraw with supposed "honor."

Yes, don't you just love it.

Sure it was the American people's lack of will to continue that fight which speeded up our withdrawel

Yes and so did the politics that went with that lack of will, just like is happening now.

Too bad the people who should see that, don't.

[/b][/quote] I don't follow you Enzo. A statement is made that we are no longer able to simply bomb the shit out of an entire country and you say that it's too bad that the people show should see that don't.
Where and when did we just simply bomb the shit out of Iraq?
Am I misunderstanding your reply?[/b][/quote]In the beginning it was that way, but never mind.
My point is, you can also replace 'bomb the shit out of the country' by 'being messy in the places of the world Bush is interested in and invading it with an army'.

With my statement, I meant that Bush (+ his warlusted neocon staff) should realize; invading, overthrowing current regime, replacing by friendly regime, leave in silence, everybody happy; just isn't how it works.

Well, I've been asked to post my opinion on an exit strategy and i'll be frank, there is no real strategy that we can follow. Although I don't belive much in the War of Terrorisim or at least the path that it's taken in Iraq, I simply can't allow us to leave either without a democratic governemnt being installed for the people, if not then our boys over there will of truly died in vain.

It's not a question of 20-20 hindsight, FS.

Allow me to give you a sports analogy:

The Jets have a fourth down and a yard to go. I say nothing, as they go for the first down.

Then, after they don't make it, I chime in and say "They should have punted."

That's 20-20 hindsight. Saying after the fact what should have been done.

In the case of the Viet Nam War, people were saying we should pull out while the war was still going on, before we left.

How can you say, then, that Viet Nam was an example of 20-20 hindsight?

If anything, you could argue that it was not 20-20 hindsight. Since South Viet Nam fell to the communists almost the moment that we left,you could argue that we made the wrong decision in pulling out.

Enough with the twist Pee, anything that has already happen and you know the outcome would make it a 20-20 hindsight as far as I'm concerned.

And I am not arguing a point with you.
You have a nice night, you hear!

Just like they have done to our boys in the past.

When something has already happened, then of course you know what the outcome is.

There's nothing to argue about here; you're simply wrong.

The South lost the Civil War. If I say "The South lost the Civil War", that is not an example of 20-20 hindsight.

All I'm saying is, you're misusing the term. I think it's important that we be precise with our terminology when possible.

(Gosh, I missed not having you around. Please stay this time. )

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have some flower baskets to hang. :p

Actually Mig, I was talking about Powell leaving THIS administration in the middle of a war. This administration lost TWO great military people in the middle of a war. It makes me wonder what these guys saw going on that they didn't like.


Don Cardi

TIS, you must have missed my reply to Mignon. Here are my thoughts as to why it may be taking so long to train these Iraqis :

I believe that both you and TIS asked the very same question. And I wish that I knew the answer for sure. But the only thing that I can think that it seems to be taking so long is because we forget that many of these people that we are training were never a real part of society in their country. Many of them were kept oppressed by Saddam and his cronies, and therefore never were given the opportunity to be educated. And their lack of opportunity for a real education may be one of the reasons that it is taking so long to teach them things that our very own kids who go into the military, and our very own kids who go into the police force, seem to learn much more quickly.

It is not a knock on those Iraqi people, because it was never their own fault that they weren't given a chance to learn and get an education. But this may be one of the reasons that it is taking so long for them to learn.

It's a good question and a legitimate one.


Don Cardi

DC, don't you think your post sounds so much like Vietnam?

Pat,

Go back and read Plaws post in regards to the south Vietnamese and my reply to it. Both on page 1. I think that you may find the answer to your question in that reply.


Don Cardi

Actually Mig, I was talking about Powell leaving THIS administration in the middle of a war. This administration lost TWO great military people in the middle of a war. It makes me wonder what these guys saw going on that they didn't like.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Sorry My bad. I wish George would have put Powell as the defence Sec. instead of the one we have now.

Can we both agree that Rumsfeld needs to go, Mig?

Let's also consider the possibility that, upon further reflection, they didn't think that this war was one we should be fighting.

Powell in particular, got up in front of the United Nations with "indisputable" proof that Iraq had WMDs.

Assume the possibility that he later found out that the intelligence reports were bogus and that he and the American people were lied to, and he didn't like being played for a fool.

Just a possibility......

You got it!!!

Pat and Mig agree!

I'm notifying Neal Pulcawer!

What's a matter with me? I agree with you to sometimes plaw

Let's also consider the possibility that, upon further reflection, they didn't think that this war was one we should be fighting.

Powell in particular, got up in front of the United Nations with "indisputable" proof that Iraq had WMDs.

Assume the possibility that he later found out that the intelligence reports were bogus and that he and the American people were lied to, and he didn't like being played for a fool.

Just a possibility...... [/b][/quote]A very good possibility at that. I saw Powell in an interview a while back and he claimed that he had asked if this info was "solid", and was assured that it was, but still had his own doubts but still went on to report it as fact. He said something in the line of "this was the worst or darkest (something like that) time in my life." I am sure he knows much much more that he's not telling.


TIS

Yes Plaw, TIS. A very good possibility.


Don Cardi

Good morning DC!

To elaborate further for those who may not be following this story. The Niger document indicating that Sadam was attempting to buy "goldcake uranium" was, they say, obviously "fake". The Administration was not only told that they weren't reliable, but this is also what Joseph Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) was investigating, when he came back and said there was no proof. Then of course his wife was "outed" and thus this investigation.

Now Patrick Fitzgerald (Special Prosecutor) says that his investigation will "not" be how/why we got into the war, but I have to believe that the two issues are intertwined.

Am I the only one following this investigation? PLaw????

TIS

Not really, I'm afraid

I was following it more closely at the begining, but haven't really been on top of it lately.


Don Cardi

Alrighty then!


Gotta get to work you guys. See ya later. Have a good day everyone.


TIS