Learning from your mistakes

[T Grimble]

There is an interesting op-ed piece in the Washington Post written by Henry Kissinger. He discusses the potential for pullout in Iraq with parallels to Vietnam. It is refreshing to read some real content on this issue rather then just listening to both parties repeat (blindly) their rhetoric.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101756.html

[MTBME]

Yes thats a great article. The following quote jumped out at me.

"Or are we in a phase similar to the aftermath of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968, which at the time was widely perceived as an American setback but is now understood as a major defeat for Hanoi?"

The press coverage and the video that was sent into the living rooms of Americans back home created the impression that the war was lost. History now tells a different story. Ya think maybe the press is doing it again???

[TrailBate]

couple of thoughts here....


Why in god's name are we listening to what Kissinger thinks about Iraq? He's partly responsible for the disaster that Vietnam was. This would be like listening to what Rumsfeld says about some stupid conflict 30 years from today.


Why is it that liberals get criticized for comparing Iraq with Vietnam, but now it's okay?

[MTBME]

"Why is it that liberals get criticized for comparing Iraq with Vietnam, but now it's okay?"

You can't be serious. Kissinger's not saying we are bogged down in another Vietnam, like the liberals on the left, instead he seemes to be pointing out the major differences, and why that comparison may not be valid.

[TrailBate]

Right, because in Nam, Americans were dying in the jungles for no reason.
Now they are dying in the desert for no reason.

TOTALLY different.

[slapheadmofo]

Why in god's name are we listening to what Kissinger thinks about Iraq? He's partly responsible for the disaster that Vietnam was. This would be like listening to what Rumsfeld says about some stupid conflict 30 years from today.



Yeah, what do those guys know? They should just pipe down; you'd think they had some experience in these matters, the way they go on. Don't they understand that the real know-it-alls are right here, on the NEMBA boards?

[Mr_Cheeze]

"Why is it that liberals get criticized for comparing Iraq with Vietnam, but now it's okay?"

You can't be serious. Kissinger's not saying we are bogged down in another Vietnam, like the liberals on the left, instead he seemes to be pointing out the major differences, and why that comparison may not be valid.




Except that not just "liberals on the left" (are there other kinds of liberals?), are the only ones making such a comparison. The real difference between Vietnam and Iraq is very simple. Vietnam was a country led by a communist regime. Iraq is a country split between three factions, each with their own ideas for a "free" Iraq. One only need to look at the difficulties in their attempts at coming to an agreement over this constitution. Those of you who continue to believe that democracy will take hold are dreaming. Even if they do come to a consensus, it won't matter. The differences between the factions are too great. The two Muslim sects are
at very great odds. The Kurds want to continue to be recognized independently. It will only be a matter of time before whatever semblance of democracy that they agree to implodes; which is why the US army estimates that current troop levels (100,000 plus) will likely have to be maintained for about 5 years... that and the fact that the administration wants a permanant US presence in the Middle East. Its what they've wanted all along. What the Bush supporters need to decide is whether they feel our presence over there is worth the continuing sacrifice of our military people. Is it?

[Slider]

If we do learn from our mistakes, Kissinger ought to have a Phd in errorology. The man has vast experience there. Next he'll be suggesting that we wait until Christmas, then bomb the hell out of the whole Mideast. Didn't work in 'Nam, won't work now.

What did work in 'Nam? We got the hell out. No domino effect, no mass murder. The only thing that changed was we left where were not needed/wanted/justified to be. Sound familiar?

Kissinger was not the architect of our extrication fron Viet Nam. Protesting Americans, like Cindy Sheehan nowadays, were what ended that war.

Slider

[T Grimble]

I am not so sure that pulling out of Vietnam "worked". My perception is that pulling our troops out of Vietnam was more a matter of accepting that our objective was not worth the cost (both in dollars and in terms of human lives).

The biggest problem with the Iraq conflict is that our objectives were not well defined and/or communicated.

I am not a supporter of the War. I think Sadam had such a tight lid on the country that terrorism (other then his own) could not exist there and his regime was being contained through the no-fly zones. It was a dumb decision to occupy Iraq. A dumb decision that shared wide bi-partisan support by the way. Now that we are stuck with this dumb decision the only thing we can do is evaluate the costs of meeting the objective against the benefits of the same. This brings me back to my point. Rather then asking Bush to pull out of Iraq or "Setting a time table" we should be asking for a clear definition of what our objective is. This should be easy to answer and you wouldn't think that it is a State secret. Once we know what the goal is, we can better decide if the cost is worth the benefit.

[TheHeckler]

But look at all the cheap gas we have now that we are liberating the Iraqie people ???

[nhiker]

But look at all the cheap gas we have now that we are liberating the Iraqie people ???


Yeah Ok ...No offence but personally the price of oil should not have any real place in a discussion about how and when we leave Iraq. Just my opinion. I am not saying it had nothing to do with why GW got us into this mess "that would be plain silly" ;) but Leaving that country as a broken mess in the midst of a bloody civil war. And what ever the reasons for going there were....The Mideast will only remember that the americans came and left a huge mess!

:P

[TrailBate]

And what ever the reasons for going there were....The Mideast will only remember that the americans came and left a huge mess!

:P


God forbid the mideast should like, hate us, or something! I'm sure a long term occupation will win them all over.

[nhiker]

And what ever the reasons for going there were....The Mideast will only remember that the americans came and left a huge mess!

:P


God forbid the mideast should like, hate us, or something! I'm sure a long term occupation will win them all over.


#1 I wasn't recomending a long term occupation that is just ********...
#2 I agree with Powell when he said early on we break it we own it. We morally need to find a way to make this right. I don't know how but if we run home and leave those people in the mess we have gotten them in we the American people deserve the worlds contempt... Just packing are bags and saying to many of our boys have died we don't want to play no more is bull **** lad. We have lost 1900 US troops...how many innocent Iraqis have gotten blown to hell since this began? Do you think they will all hold hands and sing Kumbyah when we pack our **** and leave?

:-\ On the other hand i deeply suspect that the chances of this administration bringing this to a sucessfull conclusion are hmmm unlikley :-[...... So I guess we the Iraqis the Brits and all the rest of our coallition of the "willing" ::) are just screwed. :-[ Yeah I don't have any idea what the answer is.

But we are responsible for this mess...Not just the brilliant minds that put us here.

[catbbq]

But look at all the cheap gas we have now that we are liberating the Iraqie people ???


I agree with Harry. The price of oil should have nothing to do with the war.

Without the war, Iraqi oil would have continued to flow. After all, Saddam was a greedy bastard and selling oil is a good way to be rich.

But, when we arrived in Iraq, the mining equipment was worn out. Saddam had not been reinvesting in maintenance.

Granted, it would have last longer since terrorist wouldn't have targeted it, but probably not THAT long.

Now if the war was about oil, we would be targeting Chinese cities. That is where the demand for oil is.

And if you get in your car this morning and drive to work, look in the passenger seat. Is it empty? THEN SHUT THE HELL UP! Carpooling with 1 person increases gas milage by nearly 100%.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Now if the war was about oil, we would be targeting Chinese cities. That is where the demand for oil is.


huh? And do you suppose that the war is about... I don't know... the spread of Democracy? Finding some elusive WMD? Deposing a dictator who was harboring terrorists? (Yea, before you choose the latter, remember countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan, our "friends" the Saudis, Kazahkstan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia, et. al.)

Of course the war is about oil. What? The Bush administration has denied it? Yes, they had to, else they'd be guilty of outright imperialism. Ironically, they are guilty of it anyway.

[TrailBate]

Just packing are bags and saying to many of our boys have died we don't want to play no more is bull **** lad. We have lost 1900 US troops...

no, what is BS is using the deaths of americans to justify staying in a hopeless situation and getting MORE americans killed.

Monday "well, 1890 americans have died, we HAVE to stay now"

Tuesday "well, 1895 americans have died, now we REALLY have to stay"

wednesday "well, 1900 americans have died, now we have to stay PERMANENTLY"

Thursday "well, 1910 americans have died, now we need to invade Iran"

[nhiker]

Just packing are bags and saying to many of our boys have died we don't want to play no more is bull **** lad. We have lost 1900 US troops...

no, what is BS is using the deaths of americans to justify staying in a hopeless situation and getting MORE americans killed.

Monday "well, 1890 americans have died, we HAVE to stay now"

Tuesday "well, 1895 americans have died, now we REALLY have to stay"

wednesday "well, 1900 americans have died, now we have to stay PERMANENTLY"

Thursday "well, 1910 americans have died, now we need to invade Iran"


Ok lets continue to ignore my primary point, thats fine....But I am confused. You have told me what you don't like, quite clearly. But I still don't understand your POV. And I am intertested. After all I am an openminded Warmonger ::). You need to explain what you think will happen when we pack and leave. And how things will play out. I really am listening. I can be persuaded!

Lets start from common ground. We actually agree that W is useless and probably a criminal! He got us in there with lies, he is carrying out some vendetta useing the lives of other peoples kids.

Convince me that you are right. I really am curious as to what your train of logic is. I am asking for something other than disrespect and contempt! I am asking for your rational!

Quite seriously.
NH

Oh and "Cat" Sorry I do believe that oil and money were the primary factors to get us in there. If this were Somalia or Angola we woulda never stayed this long if we had payed it any attention at all.
It just sickening joke that this wars sucess would be measured by anyone by the price of gasoline. Lets measure war by its true currency dead people! Let W and his cronies in the oil companies measure it by thier profits.

[GeepNutt]

Good reading from Jeff Jacoby....

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/25/iraq_is_no_vietnam/

[TrailBate]

Ok lets continue to ignore my primary point, thats fine....But I am confused. You have told me what you don't like, quite clearly. But I still don't understand your POV. And I am intertested. After all I am an openminded Warmonger ::). You need to explain what you think will happen when we pack and leave. And how things will play out. I really am listening. I can be persuaded!

Lets start from common ground. We actually agree that W is useless and probably a criminal! He got us in there with lies, he is carrying out some vendetta useing the lives of other peoples kids.

Convince me that you are right. I really am curious as to what your train of logic is. I am asking for something other than disrespect and contempt! I am asking for your rational!



I don't think I'm agruing against you, I'm just arguing against the alternatives of not pulling out.

I think it's quite simple. SET SOME GOALS. We need to find some concrete benchmarks for our withdrawal. For instance, we will leave when Iraq security forces reach X amount. Or we will withdraw X amount of americans for every Y amount of Iraqi security forces that get trained. Something TANGIBLE.

[Slider]

Good reading from Jeff Jacoby....

That would be a first!

His central paragraph, point by point:

"Yet in so many ways, Iraq doesn't look like Vietnam at all. Vietnam was never the central battleground of the Cold War, while Iraq has become the focal point of the war on terrorism. "

Why? Because we are there! Solution: leave.

"Americans had no reason to feel that their own security was at risk in Vietnam, whereas 9/11 made it clear that the enemy we face today poses a lethal threat here at home as well. "

Possibly true, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

"The jihadis in Iraq don't have the backing of superpowers; North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were armed to the teeth by China and the Soviet Union. "

It was not Chinese weaponry that lost Viet Nam, it was hand grenades in children's hands. The lesson we learned in 'Nam, and are learning all over again in Iraq since the Treasonator can't "learn from your mistakes," is that a guerilla war can be prolonged and effective, regardless of the enemy's weapon strength. Suicide bombers only add to the potency of the resistance.

"In South Vietnam, the United States was allied to an unpopular and incompetent regime; in Iraq, the United States toppled a brutal tyranny and is trying to nurture a democracy in its place."

Well, maybe, but that is a stretch. But the real question is: So what? How does this relate in any way to the ability of the US to "resolve" the conflict? The mire is very similar to 'Nam, regardless of the popularity of the ousted regime.

We leave Iraq, the factions fight a while, Iran exerts some influence, and the people hate us until they get some other cause. Meanwhile, once the Treasonator is ousted, if we were to offer sincere support when the opportunities arise, rather than try to build an empire on quicksand. we would stand a chance of defusing Musilm hatred for us. It is a long road, but it only starts once we leave Iraq.

Slider

[nhiker]

Ok lets continue to ignore my primary point, thats fine....But I am confused. You have told me what you don't like, quite clearly. But I still don't understand your POV. And I am intertested. After all I am an openminded Warmonger ::). You need to explain what you think will happen when we pack and leave. And how things will play out. I really am listening. I can be persuaded!

Lets start from common ground. We actually agree that W is useless and probably a criminal! He got us in there with lies, he is carrying out some vendetta useing the lives of other peoples kids.

Convince me that you are right. I really am curious as to what your train of logic is. I am asking for something other than disrespect and contempt! I am asking for your rational!



I don't think I'm agruing against you, I'm just arguing against the alternatives of not pulling out.

I think it's quite simple. SET SOME GOALS. We need to find some concrete benchmarks for our withdrawal. For instance, we will leave when Iraq security forces reach X amount. Or we will withdraw X amount of americans for every Y amount of Iraqi security forces that get trained. Something TANGIBLE.


LOL! Yes now this is better this is exactly how I see it. At a stage when the Iraqis can defend themelves we can gracefully exit. Nothing is be be gained by either side for us to stay and continue to forment a resisitance that will likley dwindle when we leave. On the other hand we leave to soon and all goes to ****. The fighting and dying get completey out of control and then we not only live with the huge terrorist sink hole we have created but we show ourselves to the world that we are without any resolution or credibility. But primarily I think we need to do what we can to help these people.

Thanks to "dubayas" leadership we are in a true shithole .

[kernel crash]

By the way, the grenade in the childrens hand as you put it, was supplied by the Chinese and the Soviets. I really don't think that had anything to do with the end results in Vietnam. The Vietcong were on their last legs but so was Nixon as it turned out. Way too much pressure at home. So pull out, and let them have at it. But not much mention of the millions that died in Vietnam and Cambodia in the years that followed. And as to your reference to to "mire" on the ground, seems to me according to that article, the soldiers on the ground don't feel like their in a mire. I'll put my faith in their judgement any day.

[Slider]

By the way, the grenade in the childrens hand as you put it, was supplied by the Chinese and the Soviets. I really don't think that had anything to do with the end results in Vietnam.

Going with Jacoby's "morale" point, it seems to me that not knowing who was the enemy, and who was friendly, especially since it could change day to day, was a key part of our inability to win in 'Nam. The situation is the same in Iraq. The source of the grenade or, in the case of Iraq, the improvised weapons, is irrelevant. The morale problem, even if we accept his point, will catch up. Ask about it again in a year or two, since there are no reserves to send in relief of those now stationed there.


But not much mention of the millions that died in Vietnam and Cambodia in the years that followed.

Millions is a stretch, and not comparable to Iraq at all. There is likely to be some territorial conflict, and ethnic-hatred induced violence, but not systematic genocide as practiced by the Khmer Rouge. So, in that sense, Iraq is not like 'Nam, since the fallout of our departure will be far smaller.


And as to your reference to to "mire" on the ground, seems to me according to that article, the soldiers on the ground don't feel like their in a mire. I'll put my faith in their judgement any day.


Again, give it a couple of years, with no troop rotations.

Slider

[nhiker]

[We leave Iraq, the factions fight a while, Iran exerts some influence, and the people hate us until they get some other cause. Meanwhile, once the Treasonator is ousted, if we were to offer sincere support when the opportunities arise, rather than try to build an empire on quicksand. we would stand a chance of defusing Musilm hatred for us. It is a long road, but it only starts once we leave Iraq.

Slider



Slider personally I had some agreement with you up to this paragraph. I think we pull out to hastily and we have a civil war a shitload of folks die on level that will dwarf what has been happening till now. Probable involvement of the Turks in the north and yes likely involvement of the Iranians on the part of their fellow Shiites (spl) sorry. But in the end a big ol Afghanistan breading ground! Don't forget Iran if they come out on top...no guarantee here...doesn't have much in the way of reason to police this situation or rain in the west haters of which we have certainly created a shitload more.
No unfortunately we need help the Iraqis get setup first. Then we withdraw. I do agree that the insurgency will dissipate as the Us troops are pulled out.....if there is a reasonably stable Iraqi government there to fill the void.


As far as the Jacoby article goes I would have liked to have seen a few Lauer interviews with enlisted men, not just officers.

[kernel crash]

"in that sense, Iraq is not like 'Nam,"

Ah Ha, so we do agree on something!

[kernel crash]

"As far as the Jacoby article goes I would have liked to have seen a few Lauer interviews with enlisted men, not just officers."

I've seen interviews in the local hometown newspapers interviewing returning soldiers and that's pretty much the same message that comes across. They can't understand all the negative publicity.

[TrailBate]

I think we pull out to hastily and we have a civil war a shitload of folks die on level that will dwarf what has been happening till now. Probable involvement of the Turks in the north and yes likely involvement of the Iranians on the part of their fellow Shiites (spl) sorry. But in the end a big ol Afghanistan breading ground! Don't forget Iran if they come out on top


The only thing that will stop this is:

1) We stay forever

2) A brutal dictator takes power

[nhiker]

The only thing that will stop this is:

1) We stay forever

2) A brutal dictator takes power


Jeeze Bait! Don't volunteer on any suicide hotlines ok! :o
The history of the middle east says you are correct. But we gotta try! as this is the mess we are stuck with now.

[kernel crash]

How does a relatively loosely knit band of insurgents with no tanks, no armour, no air support, no high tech means of communications, no visible command and control center, defeat the worlds greatest superpower who possesses all of the above? Well one answer would be a rapid, premature pull out before events on the ground can become a bit more stable.

If Cindy, Trailbait and her ilk had their wish what might happen? Iran on the border certainly wants to protect the interest of the Shite majority in Iraq, as their now doing. With an American "defeat" and the paper tiger label strung across our necks, Iran would be free to accelerate their nuclear program and to meddle in the Iraqui affairs. Israel would have to consider knocking out the Iranian threat before it could be used on them. Turkey to the North would not be happy with the Kurdish problem on their southern border. Syria would likely take an interest in what remains of the former Bath party in Iraq and the Sunni minority.

Jordan would be forced to do what they always do, play all sides against each other. Displaced militants who were pushed out of club Afganistan, would now be looking at new base camp possibilities in the deserts of Iraq. Pro Western Arab countries would now start feeling an increase pressure to deal with the radical elements because after all, you can't count on the Americans. Seems to me the lesser of all these evils is to stay put and find a way to finish the job.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Good reading from Jeff Jacoby....

That would be a first!



Gee, what a surprise that you dislike the Globe's sole conservative columnist. Far be it for you to ever pick apart a Frank Rich or Maureen Dowd column. (Yes, I know they are from the NYTimes. I think you get my point)

You need not even go point by point. It is useless to compare the two wars. There are too many differences in both the politics and the occasions. The only real similarity lies in the half assed planning and support behind the questionable strategies. As much as I hate that we are bogged down in a senseless war by which we were misled as to the reasons for entry, we cannot instantly just pull out. That much is obvious. There would be too much fallout. But I don't see why there cannot be a gradual reduction starting today. Show the Iraqi's that we are leaving. Spur them into some kind of consensus on this hokey constitution that is destined to fail anyway. Pull back progressively so it doesn't look like we are abandoning everything in a huff.

But that won't happen because I believe the Bush administration has grand designs on a permanant presence. One can only hope that the Republicans, as well as their voting supporters, see to it that someone with some sense get the nomination for 2008. More in the GOP are speaking out, as even Jacoby has shown. They need to take back the party from these Neo-Conservatives who have hijacked it.

[Slider]

I think Jacoby is a moron who can't even write well. I think Frank Rich not only writes far more effectively, but also has a much better grasp of reason and persuasive argument. I suspect the only reason the Globe publishes Jacoby is to make rebuttal an easy task.

Read whatever you like, Cheeze. I will, and I will always critically analyze what I read.

Slider

[BrianK]

How does a relatively loosely knit band of insurgents with no tanks, no armour, no air support, no high tech means of communications, no visible command and control center, defeat the worlds greatest superpower who possesses all of the above? Well one answer would be a rapid, premature pull out before events on the ground can become a bit more stable.

If Cindy, Trailbait and her ilk had their wish what might happen? Iran on the border certainly wants to protect the interest of the Shite majority in Iraq, as their now doing. With an American "defeat" and the paper tiger label strung across our necks, Iran would be free to accelerate their nuclear program and to meddle in the Iraqui affairs. Israel would have to consider knocking out the Iranian threat before it could be used on them. Turkey to the North would not be happy with the Kurdish problem on their southern border. Syria would likely take an interest in what remains of the former Bath party in Iraq and the Sunni minority.

Jordan would be forced to do what they always do, play all sides against each other. Displaced militants who were pushed out of club Afganistan, would now be looking at new base camp possibilities in the deserts of Iraq. Pro Western Arab countries would now start feeling an increase pressure to deal with the radical elements because after all, you can't count on the Americans. Seems to me the lesser of all these evils is to stay put and find a way to finish the job.



Problem is, will the job ever be finished? Even if a constitution is ratified and the government is up and running as well as the Iraqi security forces, will the Iraqi government ever be viewed as legitimate? Probably not. The radicals will rant about how it is a puppet regime installed by the Americans and still controlled by the Americans. Enough Iraqis and Arabs will buy into it and the government will never have any real power and be at risk for a takeover.

So you have to wonder which is worse. Pulling out now and "losing" the war to the insurgents. Why is this a negative? Will this increase the recruiting power of terrorist groups? Maybe. But you'd also be removing a short-term recruiting point for terrorists: the occupation of Iraq by the US.
If we stay we won't "lose" now, but we will lose more American lives. And there is still a better chance this whole attempt to bring Democracy to Iraqi will fail than succeed.

Really, a good outcome to all this is hard to find. By staying there, there is still hope for a good outcome although not much of one. And the risk is higher that the overall outcome will be much worse than pulling out and "losing" now.

[kernel crash]

"So you have to wonder which is worse. Pulling out now and "losing" the war to the insurgents. Why is this a negative? Will this increase the recruiting power of terrorist groups?"

Well lets take a look at what's happening in Israel right now for a possible answer. Israel is abandoning settlements in the Gaza strip and elsewhere as a concession to the Palestinians. How's that going over? The radical Palestinians and Hamas are saying it's just a beginning. They wont be happy till all Isralies are out of all settlements and Jerusalem, and the Middle East for that matter. Their using those concession as a PR move for their cause saying they drove Israel out and it may actually encourage further violence. So all I'm saying is that a quick exit from Iraq doesn't necessarily mean a lowering of the terrorist threat to us but may actually encourage some to capitilize on what they see as a weakness.

[GeepNutt]

Let's pull all the troops out of Iraq and send them into France for what they have done to our boy Lance....

After we get tired of occupying France for a while we can give their country to the Palestinian's for a new homeland and then peace can reign over the entire Middle East.... ;D

[BrianK]

Well lets take a look at what's happening in Israel right now for a possible answer. Israel is abandoning settlements in the Gaza strip and elsewhere as a concession to the Palestinians. How's that going over? The radical Palestinians and Hamas are saying it's just a beginning. They wont be happy till all Isralies are out of all settlements and Jerusalem, and the Middle East for that matter. Their using those concession as a PR move for their cause saying they drove Israel out and it may actually encourage further violence. So all I'm saying is that a quick exit from Iraq doesn't necessarily mean a lowering of the terrorist threat to us but may actually encourage some to capitilize on what they see as a weakness.


You bring an excellent point into the discussion. Most of these extremist Muslim groups don't know the meaning of the word compromise. They've said many times that they won't rest until every last Israeli is driven into the sea. And history has proved they mean it.

No matter what we do you can't win with these people. Its a lose lose scenario we've gotten into. I personally am for the gradual pull out of all are involvement in the region. Lets stop funding Israel, lets get out of Saudi Arabia. Let us remove ourselves from the area completely so they can stop blaming the US for their problems. Sure they’ll still hate us for some reason or another, but at least we won’t be in the area accidentally killing people once in a while and creating the deep seeded hate that is driving these terrorists. Its my opinion that if we weren’t in the middle east, we’d be less of a terrorist target.

You see, the Israelis don’t have a choice, they can’t leave as they want to live there. The US on the other hand does have a choice. We don’t have to stick our nose in there. Let the area self destruct. I don’t care. The only reason I can see we care some much about the reason is for oil and perhaps people feel that major conflict in that area will lead to spreading instability elsewhere in the world.

I’m not entitled to all the information and I honestly couldn’t tell you which is better, staying or leaving. I was just pointing out a counter to your argument.

The one thing I do know is that I’m pissed about Bush misleading the country into this war. I wasn’t sold when he tried to convince us of the WMD threat and now look at the mess we are in. And people are ok with this because they voted him in a second term. Saddam in power wasn’t a good situation but this seems worse and I’m not sure how its supposed to get better.

[MTBME]

I wish everybody would take the time to read this letter to the editor that appeared in Fridays Lowell Sun. The author is with the National Guard serving in Iraq. He was home for a two week leave and gives his opinions about what he witnessed first hand in Iraq and what he see's reported back home.

Some examples

"When I was home and watched TV, I couldn't believe I was watching the same conflict I am currently involved in. I was never so depressed. I swear the major networks already have the war lost. News to me. I've been there and seen the construction, driven those roads, met with town governments. I've seen the hope on their faces. It's real. "

"When you say you support the troops, you cannot in the same breath say you don't support the war. When I was home, I found it odd that people would say that. We are all part of a volunteer military. We could not do what we do if we did not believe in our great nation and the mission it asks us to do. "

http://lowellsun.com/letters/ci_2976375

[TrailBate]

I wish everybody would take the time to read this letter to the editor that appeared in Fridays Lowell Sun. The author is with the National Guard serving in Iraq. He was home for a two week leave and gives his opinions about what he witnessed first hand in Iraq and what he see's reported back home.

Some examples

"When I was home and watched TV, I couldn't believe I was watching the same conflict I am currently involved in. I was never so depressed. I swear the major networks already have the war lost. News to me. I've been there and seen the construction, driven those roads, met with town governments. I've seen the hope on their faces. It's real. "

"When you say you support the troops, you cannot in the same breath say you don't support the war. When I was home, I found it odd that people would say that. We are all part of a volunteer military. We could not do what we do if we did not believe in our great nation and the mission it asks us to do. "

http://lowellsun.com/letters/ci_2976375


You can find just as many opinions from Iraqi veterans who say just the opposite. You know who else said you COULD support the troops and NOT support the war? Most Republicans when Clinton committed our troops to Kosovo.

If we invaded Canada today, would you support that too, just because our troops are there?

Silencing opposition is about as unamerican as it gets.

[TrailBate]

Great article from General Wesley Clark:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623_pf.html

[kernel crash]

"You can find just as many opinions from Iraqi veterans who say just the opposite."

I haven't seen any, have you? And Wesley Clark, Hillarys running mate, when was the last time he was in Iraq? His bottom line seems to be to spell out an exit date. If Bush came out and said we will be packing up on such and such a date what do you think would happen. If I'm with the insurgents I say pull back, regroup, save your ammunition and plan on a new offensive when that date rolls around.

[TrailBate]

"You can find just as many opinions from Iraqi veterans who say just the opposite."

I haven't seen any, have you?


um, yeah

http://www.ivaw.net/

http://www.mfso.org/

http://www.sftt.org/

http://www.vaiw.org/

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

Sir,

Thank you for the work you are doing on behalf of the soldiers. I am currently deployed to Iraq. This is my second time here, and I have been stop-lossed. By the time I return to The United States, I will have served more than twelve months past my contract. I hope you continue your work to educate the public, especially now that the conservative right has Been galvanized by the election and perceives itself an unstoppable force in America. Yours is a respected (if not, feared) voice in Washington, and I hope you continue to champion our cause.

The polls don't show it, but there is a lot more dissension here now compared to 2003. More and more of us are becoming aware of the truth. As we continue to serve (whether it be as volunteers or conscripts), we will examine what our leaders say with more scrutiny. I see it happening here already. It may not make a difference now, but maybe in twenty years, when it's these men and women that are running for office. The meantime, though, is what worries me.

Daniel Paul Goetz

Much appreciated. Don't forget us.



I just wanted to thank you for showing the world that some of us, while serving our country with pride, serve our current president and his administration with sadness and remorse. It is not easy to speak out against this meaningless war when you are serving on a remote tour and the only thing giving comfort to your fellow servicemen and women is the false reality that we are fighting for a great cause. This false reality that once brought comfort to my mind now injects anger, sorrow, and fear through my soul. May God forgive us all.

Roland Tellez, Sra. U.S.A.F.



I am a 28yr old SSgt in the USAF with about 7 years of service currently serving in the Midwest USA. Watching our brothers and sisters come home horribly maimed, burned and mutilated fills me with rage. And some say they are the lucky ones as opposed to the hundreds killed in an unjust "war."

Having served in the Persian Gulf during the Enduring Freedom campaign and the onset of the current debacle...I have developed great distrust for my commander in chief and in fact, some in the chain of command who unquestionably support his intentions. This conflict (not a war, since Congress never declared so) has no logic or purpose. Joining military service didn't include a lobotomy -- I still retain the right and ability of thought. However, for the most part, I feel that many of those serving (that have not deployed and seen it first hand) have been convinced of this imaginary threat and resent any fellow serviceman who questions it. It is sad that the patriotism bandwagon that most Americans have hopped has perpetuated this notion that Iraq somehow posed a threat and was connected to 9/11 in some way. In fact, I feel that this idea has been imprinted into our psyche and many people would now be convinced that there were Iraqis aboard those planes. If you repeat something enough times, no matter how absurd, people someday will begin to believe it.

Another troubling pattern that has developed in America is in the overuse of the word "terrorist." It has been redefined to describe any person who would oppose the decisions or actions of the USA. If you invade someone's country- do they not have the right or duty to resist? The Iraqis resist our rule and the administration calls them terrorists. I call them patriots. If the situation were reversed and North Korea was attempting to indoctrinate communism into the American way of life, would there not be resistance by Americans? In America we have that right and duty. If you follow their definition of terrorist...it would include our ancestors who opposed British rule in the Revolutionary War- Including General and later President George Washington.

Personally, I am torn between my love for my country and desire to serve to DEFEND America, and my conscience. I try to tell myself that I am distanced from the actual fighting, but it does no good. My grandfather served in WWII and is a great man for what he did (some might say a hero). No matter how many typical Americans say that they are proud of us for defending their freedom...I don't feel that distinguished and I don't think I'm alone.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think Jacoby is a moron who can't even write well. I think Frank Rich not only writes far more effectively, but also has a much better grasp of reason and persuasive argument. I suspect the only reason the Globe publishes Jacoby is to make rebuttal an easy task.

Read whatever you like, Cheeze. I will, and I will always critically analyze what I read.

Slider


Jacoby is not a terrible writer. Certainly no worse than any of those other asswipes they have on that op-ed page. I mean, Derek Z. Jackson? There are sixth graders who can write better. But I digress. Jacoby is just a token conservative that the Globe can stomach on their payroll because he is also Jewish and pro Israel.

So how about George Will? You would be hard pressed to find a better columnist alive... including the grossly biased Frank Rich. But hey, feel free to disagree. I'm sure there are 900 liberal commentators on Huffington's blog that you prefer.

[MTBME]

" You can find just as many opinions from Iraqi veterans who say just the opposite. "

Then how would you explain the following?

"The Army's Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker told reporters on Thursday that while the Army will probably fall short of its goal of 80,000 new recruits this year, those losses are being offset by soldiers already in Iraq re-enlisting in record numbers."

"But The Washington Post ran the story under the headline, "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal." The Post didn't even mention the unprecedented retention rates... until the seventh paragraph."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167189,00.html

[TrailBate]

ah, a story from fauxnews......

a lot of people re-enlist, and even request to go back to Iraq, to support their buddies.

I'm sure Fauxnews told you how the military is now exceeding it's recruitment goals. What they don't tell you is that they LOWERED their goals.....

[MTBME]

"I'm sure Fauxnews told you how the military is now exceeding it's recruitment goals."

No it didn't say that at all.

[catbbq]

I'm sure Fauxnews told you how the military is now exceeding it's recruitment goals. What they don't tell you is that they LOWERED their goals.....


Isn't lowering their goals a good thing? Means fewer people which means less chance of getting killed and fewer tax dollars.

I find that with lower goals, I tend to be disappointed less.

[TrailBate]

I'm sure Fauxnews told you how the military is now exceeding it's recruitment goals. What they don't tell you is that they LOWERED their goals.....


Isn't lowering their goals a good thing? Means fewer people which means less chance of getting killed and fewer tax dollars.

I find that with lower goals, I tend to be disappointed less.


not sure if you are being sarcastic. They lowered their goals so that they could say they exceeded them.

[catbbq]

not sure if you are being sarcastic. They lowered their goals so that they could say they exceeded them.


Really? Would you mind backing that up with some published reports?

[BG]

"They lowered their goals so that they could say they exceeded them."

Hmmmm, thought that only happened in our educational system. Guess it's pretty widespread.

BG

[TrailBate]

not sure if you are being sarcastic. They lowered their goals so that they could say they exceeded them.


Really? Would you mind backing that up with some published reports?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8155830/

[catbbq]

I was looking for a article that said the army had lowered its goals so it could say it had exceeded the goals.

The article you mention said they lowered the goals and still missed them. Or did I miss it?

[TrailBate]

Do I need to draw you a picture?

They are saying they are exceeding their goals. In May they lowered them. Capiche? Comprende? Ponymayoo?

[catbbq]

Yeah, I need a picture. Re-reading the article, the very first line says "Even after reducing its target for May, the Army missed its recruiting goal by about 25 percent, according to the New York Times."

Just simply copy and paste line that says they are exceeding their goals.

[BG]

Picture please, color if possible.

BG

[catbbq]

Still waiting for the color picture. Or an admission of being wrong.

[TrailBate]

Still waiting for the color picture. Or an admission of being wrong.


yeah, you keep contradicting me and I keep proving you wrong. Give up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165304,00.html

It's a good article. especially the part about how recruitment is down because the economy is so strong. HAHAHAHAH.....check the related stories right next to that article. Links to more articles about how recruiters are meeting there goals. I should hope so! Especially now that they are accepting 39 year olds, high school dropouts, and drug addicts.

http://rncwatch.typepad.com/counterrecruiter/2005/08/rush_limbaugh_f.html


walk on home, boy.