Go back to History 101, chief. We didn't surrender anything in Viet Nam. We didn't lose anything, we won every battle. We left because it was in our best national interests to do so. We thought we were fighting the spread of communism and it turned out we were babysitting a civil war that was not going to go away. So we left it to them and went on to prosper as a Superpower while Vietnam continues to be an unimportant backwater. We've got nothing to surrender here. We won the friggin' war already. We don't want Iraq. We don't need to sit there taking casualties for nothing. When you are in a hole, you don't keep digging it deeper, you dig a way out and regain all of your options. Well, so what? Do you have a point? There is no surrender crowd. There is a "wake up and smell the coffee" crowd. Tell me, amigo, just exactly what constitutes catastrophic success at this point? Be specific. Just what is the milestone that will mean "victory" to you? This I gotta hear.
Interesting. One one had, anti-administration rhetoric touts a looser definition of democracy. "Who are we to tell the Iraqi's what kind of democracy to have." On the other hand, Morrocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Jordan just aren't democratic enough. Interesting. For actual analysis, this site is useful - if a bid dated. I'm with you with regard to putting the neo-cons on the hot seat. They're nothing but Social Liberals with a love of money and guns - a recipe for autocracy. "I know better and I'll take care of you - whether you like it or not." I think we've seen the last of their movement in government for awhile.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Well, according to your link, Morrocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan do not have a freely elected head of state. There is always a strongman in the middle east. Jordan has a king, for heavens sake! Knock on wood! While it is true that the neocons are aberrant republicans, the other republicans still back their failed foreign policy, as you have done in this thread. Why is that? :huh: And I don't think anyone would call them "social liberals". Are they for gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, social welfare, etc.? :grin: I would describe them as irresponsible in financial matters and reckless in geo-political matters, but completely conservative. You can't blame liberalism for the failures of the Bush administration. It was impetuous conservatism.
Red. I know my history very well. We left because we lost the political will to see the thing through. The same generation of spoiled peaceniks that won thier little domestic battle in DC at the cost of a million lives in Cambodia are, with the help of a new generation of spoiled peaceniks, calling for this surrender as well. Myopic. It's a good thing you don't write strategy or policy.
See what through? We backed one side on a civil war and it turned out to be the side that was corrupt and incapable of winning. We spent 8 years there and accomplished nothing. You think we should still be there? "Peaceniks"? What a stereotyped view of Vietnam you have seen on TV. After 8 years, it was a lot more than "peaceniks" that opposed that war, it was Joe Average, it was everybody. The blame for Vietnam goes to Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara, not to US citizens who exercised their constitutional rights to disagree. And nobody here has been lobbying for "Peace". Your objection is completely misplaced. I challenge you to find a single post I've made advocating "Peace". I'm advocating fighting smarter wars. I've never criticized our effort in Afghanistan or Kuwait or against Serbia, Grenada, or Panama because those wars were fought smartly and were in our interests. I opposed Lebanon, Vietnam, and Iraq because they were foolish wars and not in our interests. I'm totally in favor of a larger and more capable military and I ain't afraid of the draft if that is what it takes to get there. What I object to is incompetent political leadership putting our highly capable military into situations that they were not designed for . . . like this occupation and nation-building effort in Iraq. The American way of war is airpower-intensive, very violent, and quick. Getting involved in lengthy guerrilla insurgencies is playing by the enemy's rules instead of our own. We must change this! Our military commanders can do better if left to their own plans and not directed by politicians. You might be surprised what I write . . . and how well I see. :wink: It's not. Surrender is something very specific, check a dictionary. That hasn't happened. We have proven that we can stay in Iraq as long as we want to. Nobody can force us out. When we decide to leave, on our own terms, it simply ain't a surrender. Now, if we stay, as you advocate, until Iraq is capable of defending itself and maintaining a government, the first thing they are going to do is order the US to leave. Would you prefer to slink out after being kicked out or to leave under our terms at a time of our choosing and in charge of all the conditions? Which sounds more like surrender to you? Right now, we can leave on our terms. We don't even have to bring them all home, we can redeploy troops to friendly Kuwait and they'll just as easily influence Iraq and the middle east to behave. It is a discredited neo-con concept that resolve alone is the solution to all problems. We have to fight smarter than that.
Red pointed this out, but was nice enough to not show it's futility. I think this is the misconception among common Americans and politicians alike. Our biggest mistake is thinking that people of middle eastern cultures value things in the same way and therefor will appreciate the inherent values of democracy. Iraq probably is capable of handling it's own business, but not in a way that many Americans would find tasteful. I understand the desire to share our values of democracy with the world but the cultural divide for some people is too great, IMO. I also understand the goal of stability in Iraq, though I think our concept may be unachievable. Like it or not, democracy and capitalism have thrived in the last few centuries as a result of the Protestant ideal. You rarely find those values outside of white Europe/America. It's a quandary.
What really gets me about the war in Vietnam is the following story that goes back to ww2.During ww2 japan has control of french indochina{the french seem to get their a$$ kicked by just about anybody}.Gen Claire Chennault is heading a group of American fighter pilots out of China battling the Japanese.An american fighter pilot is shot down 200 miles behind enemy lines and is helped to safety by none other than Ho Chi Minh.The Americans thank this small little man and ask if they could do something for him to show our appreciation.Ho chi Minh responds by asking for an autographed picture of Clair Chennault,a pistol,and his country's freedom when this war is over.We give him the Picture and the pistol and promise to help him after the war.With the picture and the pistol ,Ho chi Minh was able to go back to his people and say "look,I am friends with the Americans,and they are our friends." So now the war is over,and initially we live up to our part of this little bargain.Ho Chi Minh actually read our Declaration of Independence at his own country's independence day. Then the French step in.The French want their colonies back and return to their pre ww2 status.We have a choice to make:live up to our word to this little man and tell the French to stick it,or give in to the French and let them have Vietnam back.We choose the big country over the little man . I saw one US officer speak about the day the French got off the plane in Vietnam .he says "with the smirks and cockiness on their faces he wishes he would have kicked their a$$es all the way back to Paris.Too bad he didn't
