Another Vietnam? No, it's more like WWII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
4,337
Location
Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
Pretty good Opinion letter in the Red Star today:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4120848.html

Published September 27, 2003

By D. Ethan Karle

Along with President Bush's request for $87 billion to fight the war on terror come cries from the left that America is squandering money and walking into another Vietnam.

While the left would be happy to waste countless hours generating absurd comparisons to Southeast Asia, it would be well served to instead compare the war on terror to the United States' effectual $2.8 trillion-dollar war, World War II.

Like WWII, the war on terror is the result of abject, oppressive and dictatorial governments that have been disregarded overseas for far too long. Similarly, we have a weakened and desperate enemy who, because of its own desperation, seeks to blame its failures on someone else. The "Jewish problem" perceived by the Nazis is now the "Judeo-Christian problem" for the militant Muslims. Because of their fear of change they blame "the Great Satan" for their inability to morph into a thriving society that is based upon consensus, instead of one based on religious idolatry.

Like WWII, American politicians have ignored, and continue to ignore, atrocities across the oceans in order to protect short-term political interests. Saddam Hussein's mass graves, the Taliban's torture and murder, the ostracization and molestation of women in Eastern Africa and the Middle East are examples of brutality that is tacitly endorsed every day. If a white person commits a crime against a member of a minority in America, it is labeled a hate crime and Democratic politicians line up to express their disgust at those reprehensible acts. However, the systematic torture, rape and murder of civilians in Muslim nations are simply rationalized by the left as cultural complexities that are none of our business.

As in WWII, our enemy's goal is to eliminate individual freedom in order to advance a radical ideology. Militant Muslims aim to destroy any culture that does not fall within Islamic prescriptions. Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLP, Al-Qaida and countless other Muslim groups have echoed Ayatollah Khomeini's expectation that the Islamic religion is the aggregate determiner of culture and that all state policies must flow from that. This sort of fanatical governance is at the root of their human rights violations. Although members of the left seek to educate America on the peaceful teachings of Islam, they defiantly turn a blind eye to the reality of bellicose Islam.

As during WWII, there is trepidation and division among Americans regarding the correct course of action. Capitalizing on this are the antiwar demonstrators. They continually present themselves as pro-American, much as the misguided German-American Bund, commonly known as the German American Friendship Society, did in the 1930s. This group and other war opponents rallied against the "imperialist" war in Germany as being unjust and illegitimate. Sound familiar?

Just as it was in WWII, some of our allies are unfit to recognize the danger that is in front of them.

The French are best known for their listlessness in this arena. We saved them in World War II and bailed them out of Vietnam. However, both of those failures pale in comparison to their most recent defeat, in which they lost over 15,000 in a battle with a tropical jet stream.

We should not rely on the opinions of a country that, 101 years after the advent of air conditioning, is unable to conquer relative humidity.

So, the left can join its predecessors and proclaim that no threat exists, or maintain the equally oblivious belief that peace and understanding will defeat any potential threats. Either way these actions only serve to bolster militant Islam.

The better choice would be accept that we are in the beginning stages of the war on terror and, as during WWII, it will be long, costly and worthwhile. Regarding the criticism of Bush's request for $87 billion -- the left should realize that anything under $2.8 trillion is a steal.

D. Ethan Karle, White Bear Lake, is a veteran and freelance writer.
 
er....

The French are best known for their listlessness in this arena. We saved them in World War II and bailed them out of Vietnam. However, both of those failures pale in comparison to their most recent defeat, in which they lost over 15,000 in a battle with a tropical jet stream

Actually one of the reasons why the French are reluctant to assist the US stems from the failure of Operation Vulture, a proposed US strike on the Viet Minh siege ring at Dien Bien Phu using B29s out of Clark Field. The planes were on seventy-two hours notice, but the order never came and eventually the operation died before birth.

Whatever one's opinions of the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam War, had Eisenhower authorised the strike and attendant logistical support early enough it could well be that subsequent events would have been very different - even at the end of the Indochina War the French were in control of all the major cities and large swathes of the countryside, and the bulk of the Viet Minh's force was occupied at Dien Bien Phu.
 
had Eisenhower authorised the strike and attendant logistical support early enough it could well be that subsequent events would have been very different

And if Kennedy hadn't prevented the air support during the Bay of Pigs, Cuba would not have been communist for the last 40+ years.

The French don't need an excuse to run from a fight. They are the ones that invented the Preemptive Surrender and have no desire to stand up to anyone.
 
Now if we could just get this on TV

About time someone wrote something sensible. Especially in a time when nonsense is rampant. I am copying and passing that to all my friends. Thanks!
 
Agricola -- Good point and good history on Vietnam. Thank you.

Vietnam was a "quagmire" because of political maneuverings, not because of our fighting forces. I've heard that Pres. Johnson -- running the war out of Washington -- created a list of the top (250?) strategic targets in Vietnam and started bombing them. IN REVERSE ORDER.:banghead: Sounds like a way to lose good men and lose a war.

This article points out that -- despite what most media and the Democrats are trying to tell us -- Iraq is more like WWII than Vietnam. Our troops used force massively and decisively in Iraq -- while still doing things like giving the non-professional soldiers time to climb out of their tanks before final destruction.
 
You know, at first I was all in for the "We're bungling post-combat Iraq" point of view. Lately, though, another view seems to be emerging: some first hand reports that things aren't as bad as reported and that a lot of the "Vietnam" stuff is actually media pushing their anti-Bush, anti-war agenda.

I'm sure things aren't perfect, and I'm still not sure we planned well for the post-conflict, but I just watched a report of some Iraqi kids being taught American football by GIs, and it was a very touching scene. Seems like even some Democrats are questioning the media coverage. Every morning NPR reports that X number of soldires died in Iraq yesterday, or that no soldiers died yesterday. A constant reminder to facilitate an agenda, but what is really happening over there? I am starting to hear of businesses opening, Iraqi citizens finally being allowed to buy refigerators, A/C units, televisions.

Now the more skeptical among us would say that Bush is manipulating the media to force good stories on Iraq to prop up his approval rating. As for me , I originally subscribed to the gloom and doom, but the last week to 10 days have given me hope.

Overall, I think that Iraq has turned into a giant political football: the Democrats have to push the "Bush lied, soldiers died" theme; while Republicans refuse to acknowledge that any mistakes were made at all.
What the truth is, only our soldiers over there know.
 
greyhound,

I dont think seeing Iraq in terms of good and bad news is the right way to go about it. Certainly, in the Kurdish-controlled North things are proceeding well, and aside from one or two incidents (probably caused by Sunni groups on the move) the Shia areas around Basra are improving, especially now the worst of the heat is behind us.

The "Sunni triangle" is however another story and may well prove to be the undoing of the whole thing, and certainly I am coming to the conclusion that grand politics may well have to take a role here and see Sunni Muslim countries (especially the Saudis) taking control of that area while the US bases all of its middle eastern operations in an independent Kurdish state in the North of what is currently Iraq.
 
Agricola-

Good point, I think the separate countries thing was one idea being floated around before the war, i.e. the different ethnic groups there would never get along.

Closer to home for you, what's the deal with these massive protests in Britain today? I heard on our news that they're calling for Blair to resign and for all British troops to come home immediately. They made is sound pretty significant, hence the "massive" tag....
 
Todays demo was about 10000 people, way down on the 200000 or so that went out before the start of the invasion.

As it happens, because of the war (more specifically the WMD issues and the Hutton Inquiry) the Blair government is probably doomed anyway (the only member of the very top of the Labour Party to be untouched by the war and the issues around spin is the one man who is in a position to dethrone Blair - Gordon Brown). There is a widespread (as in the whole country aside from people in Islington probably) lack of trust in anything HMG says now and its starting to hurt them even without the pressures of a General Election. The Labour Party conference is this coming week and it will provide a useful test of party opinion - expect the left of the party and the Unions to make their opinions known.
 
Thank goodness the Brits are helping us in the south. Yes, I think that an independent Kurdistan is inevitable, in addition to being the right thing to do. For the moment though, I believe they will have to put up with their semi-autonomous status. They have been doing quite well for themselves as it is. Under Saddam we gave them air cover and they set up a decent system. Not exactly a liberal democracy yet, but a lot better than its neighbors, and a whole lot better than Saddam's regime. They basically have the run of their part of the country anyway, with some incursions from the Turkish army notwithstanding.
 
their most recent defeat, in which they lost over 15,000 in a battle with a tropical jet stream.

How many Iraqi's did we kill liberating the country? I think it was like 6. But the U.S. is a genocidal, imperialist war mongering beast interested only in sucking the black gold life out of the poor, iddy biddy sand pit dictatorships.

But wonderful, intellectual, enlightened, cultured EURO COMMIE TRASH France manages to let 15,000 of it's weakest and most defenseless citizens suffocate to death- well let's just keep that to ourselves.

Have you seen THIS story blasted and repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum all over CNNABCNBCCBSMSNBCPBSNEWSWEEKTIME and oozing out of DIMWIT KATIE CORIC's mouth like she was sucking a bunch of Polident tablets!

:cuss:

I don't think so.
 
You know, for a war that was all about the oil angle, the gas prices around here sure haven't dropped worth a darn since we won.

The Media and the Left beat the 'War for Oil' drum pretty heavy; so now I'd jolly well like to see some 99-cent gas again.

LawDog
 
Frankly, I think fighting land wars in Asia is a bad idea for the United States. If we allow our resolution to win to waver even a little, we could, indeed, find ourselves in a military quagmire: there are countless millions of locals who are ready, willing, and able to undertake guerilla warfare against us.

I think we should have obliterated Baghdad at the outset, then accepted unconditional surrenders from Iraq and the rest of the Islamic terrorist states.
 
Regarding Iraq, I think the worst of it is behind us. There was no massive war casualities on both sides. There was no massive refugee problem, no massive humanitatian problems and no civil war (yet). Most of the country is quite peaceful, and despite sabotage, much of the infrastructure is coming back on-line. 60,000 Iraqis are now providing security and are even participating in US led counterinsurgency operations.

There are something like 150 newspapers in Iraq now.

After WWII was over, elements of the SS fought on using guerrilla tactics for about a year. In the American sector of occupied Germany we had 400,000 troops for extended period of time, and we still were attacked.

We have captured or killed something like 42 of the 55 wanted bigwigs and we going after the rest with a vengenance. What is key is our in-country intelligence is getting better all the time.

I would not be surprised that a year from now, most of the Iraqi attacks on our forces will have petered out.

However, attacks by non-Iraqis may continue for years. And, maybe it is best to fight and kill those non-Iraqi fighters in Iraq and not closer to home.

Biggest concern is what happened to the WMDs if they still exist? Who has them. Syria? Iran? Islamic extremists?
 
This is the type of essay my teacher would bring into our class on formal logic because it demonstrates virtually every known fallacy of logic:

FOR THE RECORD: In WWII, the world was at war and we went in to save it . We really had no choice, and the objectives were clear, quantifiable, achievable, and supported by every country on earth except germany, japan and Italy. There is no comparison to the Iraq war because it is the exact opposite in every aspect listed above. There was no war until we started it, and the vast majority of the world sees us as the aggressors (not that it matters what they think.. they are "irrelevant".)

In the war on japan, a sovereign nation launched a massive attack on our naval forces and sent half of them to the bottom of the Pacific.... and yet, Roosevelt still somehow believed he had to go before the congress and make a case for war so they would bring a declaration. Where did he get such a silly idea?

Oh, yeah..... the constitution. Wonder what ever happened to that thing..... anybody seen it lately?
 
In the war on japan, a sovereign nation launched a massive attack on our naval forces and sent half of them to the bottom of the Pacific.... and yet, Roosevelt still somehow believed he had to go before the congress and make a case for war so they would bring a declaration. Where did he get such a silly idea?

Just out of curiosity, can anyone find where Thomas Jefferson (Founding Father of the United States and third President) went before Congress and make a case for war before he sent the US Navy and the Marine Corps to "...the Shores of Tripoli..." for a four-year (1801-1805) war against the Barbary pirates?

LawDog
 
>can anyone find where Thomas Jefferson (Founding Father of the United States and third President) went before Congress and make a case for war before he sent the US Navy and the Marine Corps to "...the Shores of Tripoli..." for a four-year (1801-1805) war against the Barbary pirates?

Apparently (I'm no expert) Tripoli declared war against the US:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjprece.html

However, Jefferson did not respond to this by invading Iraq, but by fighting Tripoli.
 
Oh, yeah..... the constitution. Wonder what ever happened to that thing..... anybody seen it lately?
Since the Second World War, no president has went before congress to ask for a declaration of war. However they have went before congress to seek their approval for military action against a foreign country.

North Korea didn't come to America and attack us. Truman (Democrat) saw fit to send troops to fight there. He did manage to swing a UN resolution after the fact.

North Vietnam didn't come to America and attack either. Johnson (Democrat), with congressional approval, decided to start a 10-year war against them. He didn't have UN or coalition support (although a couple of foreign countries did participate on a very small scale).

Guess what, congress also approved the use of force against Iraq prior to the attack. There are "Intelligence Committees" in both houses that saw the same classified information that Bush saw. None of those congressmen stood up in chambers and stated they didn't think we had sufficient proof to attack.

Iraq didn't come to America and attack us, but they did support terrorism and they did have ties with bin Laden. Bush has stated from the beginning there was no evidence that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, but Iraq did aid terrorism. Now they don't.
 
The United States has formally declared war against eleven nations:
  • Great Britain (1812)
  • Mexico (1846)
  • Spain (1898)
  • Germany (1917)
  • Austria-Hungary (1917)
  • Japan (1941)
  • Germany (1941)
  • Italy (1941)
  • Bulgaria (1942)
  • Hungary (1942)*
  • Rumania (1942)

*Of interest is that fact that while we declared war on Hungary, Hungary very carefully abstained from declaring war on us.

Extended military engagements, but no formal declaration of war, were waged against:
  • France (1798-1800)
  • Barbary Coast (1801-1805)
  • Barbary Coast (1815)
  • Africa (1820-1823)
  • Paraguay (1859)
  • Lebanon (1958)
  • Vietnam (1964-1973)
  • Lebanon (1982)
  • Persian Gulf (1991)
  • Iraq (2003)

LawDog
 
Thanks for the list of formal declarations, LawDog. Is this really it? Was there no declaration of war against any of the Indian tribes, or against the evil Southrons in 1860?

>Extended military engagements, but no formal declaration of war, were waged against:

This is a harder list to complete, of course. But just offhand I can recall a dozen Latin American wars in the 20th century, a hundred Indian wars in the 19th century (and of course the War Between the States, if you're right about it being an undeclared war), the campaign against the Filipino Muslims, Laos, Cambodia... the list of American extended military engagements is a lot longer.
 
say telomerase.....

"a hundred Indian wars in the 19th century..."
************************************************************

are we referring to the ones between the Indians and other Indians, the Indians and Mexicans, the Indians and U.S. military, the Indians and settlers (many of whom were not U.S. citizens), or all of the above?:D
 
(agricola)
I am coming to the conclusion that grand politics may well have to take a role here and see Sunni Muslim countries (especially the Saudis) taking control of that area while the US bases all of its middle eastern operations in an independent Kurdish state in the North of what is currently Iraq.

We could also beg the fox to guard the chicken coop.

I don't think so.
 
Vietnam? No. I don't see an NVA Main Force just across the border intervening whenever it feels like it.
WWII? Well, only in the sense that we didn't 'liberate' Iraq anymore than we 'liberated' Nazi Germany. And fears of a Nazi guerilla movement proved unfounded.
Welcome to the Northern Ireland Experience. You too can have the worlds' media second-guessing your split-second actions on the next morning's news. At least you haven't got the Iraqi civil police bringing criminal charges against individual GI's for getting their shoot/don't shoot decisions wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top