Amen to both of you! Very insightful for a newbie!!! lol _X_X_X_X_X_[small]http://www.twinscimitars.freeservers.com/ images/warrior.gif Silent Assasin[/small]
Yes, the US lost the will to fight in Vietnam. Thanks in no part to the efforts of John Kerry & Jane Fonda. Seems to me that after the TET offensive did not bring a swift victory to the north, General Giap (in his Bio) said that they were ready to throw in the towel. They did not because of the moral support of the anti-war activists in the US. They didn't want to get serious about peace talks until they experienced Rolling Thunder I & II. Then after the peace talks were concluded, people like Kerry voted to cease support for the South. We abandonded them. The north had the continuing support of the USSR & the ChiComs. The South was left with nothing. Vietnam was a dirty little war. A war that we probably should not have gotten into. But we were there for our French ally and standing fast against communism. Another fine mess the French got us into. jaree1961 - - - - Thanks for recognizing that right or wrong, the USA did something. After 17 SC resolutions in the UN, someone had to do something. Oh, BTW, how long after WWII ended, did the locals stop trying to kill allied forces in Germany & Japan? TC _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Stretch the cash. Bargain hunting. System is not static.[/small]
And the same thing is happening now! We are so patriotic and gung-ho at the start of things, where is our resolve? Now all people can talk about is how a few idiots in uniform humiliated POW's. Well, I'd rather be humilitaed than dead! Where was the outrage when dead U.S. soldiers were dragged through the streets and had their dead carcasses hung in the streets and hit like pinjatas? And why would the damn news air such damaging footage?! I'll tell you why, because this greedy news media affiliate wanted to be the first to crack a story for ratings. Damn to fallout from their story throughout the world. _ _X_X_X_X_X_[small] Silent Assasin[/small]
Resolve comes from fighting a clear and justified war. Vietnam wasn't clear and Irag wasn't justified.
So am I to conclude that we were not to do anything at all? To letSaddam Hussein continue his reign of terror and to thumb his nose at the world. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the war or disagree, but we are there and we can't change that! What do we do now for the good of all? Those pics of a few dumbass' will dominate the media, and overshadow the U.S. as barabaric. I think our enemy does not have a face. We want to place the terrorist as people who are misguided, but not the enemy. Tney only need to see that we want to help them and they will change their ways. I say that is wrong, lets call a spade a spade and go out and act like we are at war, not on some PR mission.
In my view Saddam's reign of terror was on his own people and neighbors. When he invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis asked us to help. He didn't invade anyone this time. Now that the WMD issue is known to have been exaggerated, our gov't is saying we're there to liberate the Iraqis. If liberating oppressed people is a justification for war, we're going to be real busy for a real long time because there's a whole world of oppressed people out there. We screwed up. Now we're in a huge mess that has no clean ending or way out with everyone else looking at us saying "I told you so". We can stay, lose more people, hand it over to the Iraqis and within a year it will be the same as before, just different faces. Or we can pull out right away and give terrorists a shining example that if they make things bad enough the U.S. will say "fusk it" and leave. Terrorist do have faces and can be stopped, we just have to start using our brains about it.
I couldn't agree with you more, but I think we're heading into more problems with the Secretary of Defense actually considering some type of restitution for the Iraqi;s who were photographed...are you kidding me?! First of all, I think it is unclear as to whether these individulas were POWs or criminals in an Iraqi prison. I know that basic human rights were violated, but lets not go overboard. _ _X_X_X_X_X_[small] Silent Assasin[/small]
Correct, Iraq did not invade anyone this time. Because he did not comply with endless UN Resolutions, the "Ceasefire" ended. He was told what was going to happen if he did not comply and shrugged it off again. Good lord the US was stupid. We actually let Sadam Hussein trick us into believing he WMD's. Oops, guess he did the same to France, Germany, Russia, John Kerry,.....
And now it's being turned into a political platform. Countless hours and resources will be expended on deflecting the acts of a few to discredit the many and their efforts.
I, for one, care not what the rest of the world thinks. That is all they do in the UN. If I were to tell my grandchild that I was going to spank her, after saying it 16 times & she kept doing the same thing, do you think she would believe me? NO This was not a pre-emptive war. It was resumption of hostilities. He failed to abide by his agreements with the UN. As for the WMD's, Guess he might have fooled the entire world. Until the US took him out, everyone said he had them. I think they are well hidden or, perhaps, in Syria. Ya'll have a good day. TC
Just wandered into this thread. Didn't expect to find it in the midst of all the CD/DVD/Audio-Video stuff. Still learning. I'm afraid this subject is sooo complicated that we just might not come to any sort of agreement anytime during this century. I can only figure that the US underestimated the incredible history of unrelenting warfare in the Middle East for the last 2000 years. No matter what the US does: fix the water and electricity, give every Iraqi a yearly lifetime pension, free health care, 8 week vacation and free cable, make Islam the national religion in the US...it still will be considered a Christian invading power. But now that is is there, everybody agrees the US cannot 'just leave'. As I cannot imagine George Bush ever admitting to having made a mistake, I don't expect he will grovel and ask for help. If he wins a second term the present impasse will continue for another 4 years. I expect that in 2005 - if John K wins - or in 2010 - if Bush wins this fall - there will be some sort of international conference to start resolving the issue. At that time a UN force from Moslim countries could take over temporarily and oversee an electoral process. That is my most optimistic scenario. It does not take in account the likely increase in anti-Western terrorism. The war on terrorism has to be understood as a 'neverending war'. The more violently we fight this war, the more numerous and ruthless the terrorists will be. This is depressing me. Anyone for tennis?
Nobody was saying he had them, Nobody but the US & the UK. And after the invasion, David Kay, head of the US's WMD investigative team said: "we were all wrong". read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1134290,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm And why the hell would iraq's supposed WMD's be inside Syria? they are not military allies. Syria voted for the resumption of inspections in 2002, and like much of the world, was opposed to military action. With what credibility does the US accuse Syria of having WMD's? When they made the same claims about Iraq that were false.
It seems to me that the issue of WMD is pretty much dead. They were - at best - a pretext for the war. If the US went after every country - besides themselves - that had WMD and was suspected of being willing to use them, they would be invading North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc. Dethroning a dictator like Saddam, which is now often mentioned as the beneficial result of the war, was also not the motive. Otherwise - and again - why not attack the other members of 'the axis of evil'? Since when does the West hate dealing with dictators? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saoudi's but we do welcome the Saoudi monarchy and call them 'dear friends and allies'... As long as we are so inconsistent in all of this, we can expect to not be considered trustworthy.
Buik, You summed up my argument on why the UN will never have any credibilty in the world. Siber, how can you still believe that the UN will agree to assist us in securing the region in the future. As far as attacking other countries of the axis of evil, we can't spread our forces any thinner than they already are right now. That's what most countries hate about the U.S. is that we start a campaign, but we never stay to complete the task. We leave countries hanging.
DarkmanX: what alternative do you suggest for the UN? I understand that the US considers the UN 'indecisive' and full of hot air, that UN resolutions don't carry any weight, etc. Again, what alternative mechanism do you propose where you can get Western countries, muslim countries, Israel, North Korea and other rebel nations to meet under one roof? And on US soil? One of the reasons why the UN moves so 'goddamn slow' is because just about all problems between nations are so 'goddamn complicated'. I am afraid that there will never be a better solution than the UN. I am not surprised that most Americans do not like the way the UN functions. I don't expect that to change. The small countries are the ones that are best protected by the UN. The true quality of an organization is not measured by how it functions based on majority rule but on how it protects its minorities. The reason the US is not attacking other Axis Of Evil nations is because those wars would probably be even more unpopular and unwinnable. I would hope that - if and when the US pulls out its troops from Iraq in 20-30 years - they won't start thinking they have to continue to solve other countries problems and go invade another one to 'free the place from dictators and WMD's'
Yee Haw That no one was saying that Iraq had WMD's is .......... Nearly (if not all) all of the UN resolutions revolved around WMD's and Iraq's responsibility to account for them. Isn't Syria run by a "Ba'ath" party government? Why not send them to Syria (WMD's)? If I remember correctly, during Gulf War I, he sent his military aircraft to Iran for safekeeping. Did he get them back? NO!!! He depended on a fellow arab/muslim nation to come to his aid because he was being attacked by the US & other christian countries. Where is Vladis Tepis & the White Dragons when we need them? TC
The U.N. is a great concept. Unfortunately, it's made up of a body of representatives who are looking out for their individual country's best interest instead of whats good for the whole. When was the last time the U.N. came to a small countries aid, not counting verbally? All and all, the U.N. seems like a smoke and mirror act with not true substance! Where are they with all of the other issues mentioned, North Korea, Pakistan, etc? No where to be found!
DarkmanX: of course every country looks for its own best interest, who doesn't. But it is the only place where all these countries have a forum to defend those interests. The US has less use for the UN because it has the ability to defend its interests without having to bother with the UN. As far as small countries where the UN has intervened successfully to protect it: have you heard of East Timor? you cannot get any smaller than that...
