« Hastert Vigil: Dead Man Talking | Main | They Don't Care About You, But Vote For Them, Anyway »

October 25, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d834f4a11569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Without Mentioning 'Tet', WSJ Invokes It :

Comments

So why didn't presnit george come up with a plan to avoid the pitfalls of Vietnam ???

it's not like "Vietnam Syndrome" is an "Unknown Unknown" ???

george is the "decider", why didn't he decide to come up with a plan for dealing with "Vietnam Syndrome" ???

now you begin to understand why all of george's excuses fail to fly

Vietnam occured DURING MY LIFETIME

we ain't talking about ancient history here

There were a number of "lessons" learned from vietnam. We may not, Freepatriot, be talking about ancient history, but we are certainly talking about confused history.

Liberals and antiwar folk learned a very important lesson: It Ain't The Soldiers Fault. That is why we see no crowds of protestors shouting "Babykiller!" and throwing feces at returning soldiers. Perhaps this will lessen the trauma of veterans returning from combat somewhat.

Another lesson we could have drawn from Vietnam (and many of us did ) is Government Lies Breed Domestic Distrust. Clearly Bush didn't learn it, but then, wasnt he drinking heavily and pretending to be a pilot during Vietnam?

Chimpo the Cheerleader-in-chief seems to have leared the lesson (probably by proxy, I think Dick might have been paying attention)that we "lost" the Vietnam War because the citizens, those lefty-limp wussies, didnt have the moral fortitude to watch the body count rise daily, see the body bags being unloaded and carry on undeterred.

The lesson THEY learned from Vietnam is that we "lost" because we could not control the thoughts and expressions of our citizens, and because the governemnt payed too much attention to the aforementioned citizens, and lost it's will to victory. We didn't stay-the-course enough.

It has yet to occur to them that we lost in Vietnam because we FOUGHT in Vietnam. And we are going to lose in Iraq because we are FIGHTING in Iraq.

The Deciderer didn't know about the Vietnam Syndrome because he didn't know about Tet or much of anything, even tho he was in the National Guard at the time. He knew to keep his head down.

"We see no crowds of protestors shouting 'Babykiller!' and throwing feces at returning soldiers."

Citation for "crowds" of people doing either of these things during the Vietnam era? (I'm surprised you didn't add spitting while you were at it.)

Yup -- it's our fault they lost a war we told them would be disasterous. Yes, sir.

Meanwhile there are 3 million displaced Iraqis according to the UNHCR. And some appalling number dead of bomb, murder and torture with electric drils. Yup, all our fault.

This one does seem likely to have more effect on our lives here than some previous foreign killing sprees.

In business, in corporate America, in many places, there are de facto rules.

Don't say you are sorry.
Don't say you made a mistake.
Don't say we were wrong.

Only the worst circumstances bring about a change in adherence to those rules, because these rules "rule" while "coming up," "gaining power or office or rank or position."

Yes, there are mea culpa's, but these usually occur only when the bodies are piled up in the streets.

And in politics, with the video bites, the audio bites, the horrible nasty attack ads, it is even more ironclad.

Vietnam, and Iraq themselves are quite different, except for the Governments refusal to look logically at the situations and redress mistakes. There both are very similar.

If it were up to the editorial staff of the WSJ, the US would stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Which, I'm beginning to believe, is what the Neocons secretely want. The situation is certainly working out to favor such an approach.

It works like this:

US policy in Iraq causes a civil war, the civil war starts spreading, the native government's security forces can't deal with it. That means, of course, that Washington must use more US troops to deal with the situation. This leads to still more strife and bloodshed; more and more blood and treasure invested in a losing proposition, which leads to still more US forces being sent to deal with the situation and so forth.

Meanwhile, the politicians in Washington, having bought into Neocon delusions as some sort of secular gospel, cannot extricate themselves from the situation. Instead they keep repeating catchphrases such as "cut and run" or "stay the course" or "we'll stand down with the Iraqis stand up" --that sort of nonsense, as a way of dealing with the increasing frustration and anger felt by most Americans.

And so it goes, deeper and deeper into the big muddy, until one day the US finds itself a Raj running an Iraq which is little more than a puppet of the US. Something similar to what the Brits did with Egypt from about 1880 till the end of World War II.

Right on about the 'stab in the back' theory. You'd be surprised how many kids who weren't even born during Vietnam parrot that line.
It absolves the people who start wars from any fault when they fail.

Isn't it kind of silly for a nationally read newspaper to be complaining about the media?

The WSJ expresses views that are consistent with the interests of those who profit from large military contracts, whose financial interests are served by continued war.

Before anyone starts a war, they need to ask one question:"Is this worth asking someone to die for?" Sometimes, that answer turns out to be 'yes.' The answer was 'yes' in 1942. It should have been 'no' in 2003.

Cheney, Rummy, Addington, Bush -- all of whom failed to fulfill their own obligations for national service -- all thought they knew better than Shinseki. And Congress turned a blind eye. This has to be absolutely THE WORST Congress in the history of the United States.

I hope that I never meet Cindy Sheehan. I would not know what to say to her. I have a cousin who's son was seriously wounded in Iraq. I hope the Bu$hCo bastards see the full weight of the law brought to bear on them. Because that's what my cousin's kid thought that he was fighting for.

Too bad the WSJ can't figure it out. It's really quite simple.

Cindy Sheehan.

She is a mother that lost her son. That is a terrible tragedy.

But what is forgotten is that her son was proud to serve, as were many that have died. All reports indicate that her son thought that what he was called on to do was worthy.

Men/women are lost in every conflict. Men were lost in Somalia. Should mothers hate Clinton for that. For the mistakes?

readerOfTeaLeaves, you did you homework on
General Eric K. Shinseki. My father knew him. He stated more men would be needed. The tragedy of this war is that Bush decided that if he only used the strike force to occupy the country, he could get his tax cut. Yes others were there backing up that decision, but it was Bush's. He is the President.

As for whether we go to war or not, we elect the President, and the Congress, and the soldiers obey their oath. It must be that way or the system fails.

When my father extended to aid the Iraqi effort, he told my mother "it is a soldiers duty to be there for his country for his fellow soldiers. And without duty, a soldier is nothing more than a rough dangerous man."

A part of that also was that my brother was in Afghanistan, and my oldest brother was gearing up to go to Iraq. My father wanted to be there, in case he was needed, not at home waiting to hear something

(I am crying

The Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam war, Somalia & presently Iraq. All these sums up to one thing, those pencil-pushers in the Whitehouse & DoD micro-managed the actual situations in ground zero, without being at ground-zero itself! Armchair generals, they are.

Setting aside Iraq for the meantime, let's review the record in Afghanistan. If not for the early shift of Bush's war machine into Iran, if not for enjoining Nato & other Allies' commitment early on, at best the Afghan War can be categorized as 'half-full/half-empty'. And as of today, the prestige of leading that war was still an American general. The score... still 'half-full/half-empty'. Have US of A subdued those Talibans? Is Afghanistan been safe or hospitable for its whole territory? Can Karzai run his country without round-the-clock protection from his paid foreign bodyguards?

On Iraq then, let's not talk about Saddam's Sunni surrogates. What about the Shites' Sadr-Mehdis' private army? Had US of A been able to integrate them into the national Iraqi Army? Who effectively are running Sadr City? Isn't it the same situation like Afghanistan, half-full/Hhalf-empty?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad