Citahellion makes some good points. And yes, the NV Generals particularly tried to capitilize on the dissent in the U.S. Saddam and Bin Laden both said from the outset that they would make mothers cry and make the streets run with blood until the American people rose up against their government. They made that tactic visible right away, no secret.
In particular I appreciate the good interpretations of the original issue being discussed, I went after only the Viet Nam-Iraq link. That is what healthy, productive discussion is about, I appreciated being amde to think. I may not fully agree with some of the views expressed about echoes of the Viet Nam-era, but it was well put and caused me to think about it.
"we need to get the Dutch to rebuild, and not the French" I try to avoid the French bashing in all this, but that is humorous and almost makes sense
I think my possible final word on this is to use history as a caution. The present day "movement" should avoid falling in to the trap of only wanting to bash a particular individual (Bush) if they want to be taken seriously. Don't follow the lead of the Democratic pundits from the election, it was wrong and failed. Stick to real issues and real events. Leave individuals out of it and stick to the point. There was a tendancy in the early 70s to start leaning that way with Nixon when it became clear he had mental health issues. But that was abandoned and the issue stuck. His transgressions were then addressed as a separate issue to resolve. Let me remind Dabe that Nixon was elected based mostly on his promise to get out of Viet Nam and the belief by many that he could do it, including many from the "movement". They did not vote on who he was or the party he belonged to, they voted on his liklihood to accomplish the goal of ending the war (people from the left of that time I amreferring to).
I also want to caution that the need is there to understand the difference between those we find we have to fight. When Pearl Harbor happened, there was a clear understanding of the need. When Korea and Viet Nam happened, the need was less clear, although not necessarily illegitimate, just less clear. In the war against the extremists, it as clear as Pearl Harbor. Pulling out of Iraq will not end the war with the terrorists, that existed before Iraq. All it will accomplish now is to gibve the extremists breathing space to re-constitute and bring the war back to us, on our front steps. If we had abandoned our fight with the Imperial Japanese Army at Gaudalcanal when we saw how bloody it could get, they would have continued to try and take us out.
The extremists, particularly Bin Laden, have made no secret of the fact that want world domination and conversion to their way of life. They have made no secret that they view the .S. as the main obstacle to their accomplishing that. Don't close your ears and eyes when you see how ugly war can be, look carefully at who we are fighting and what they are saying and then decide if you can live by their rules.
On the point that terrorists did not exist in Iraq until we showed up I remind everybody of the Abu Sayyaf group (active in the Phillipines) and the Ansar al-Islam group who were the main manufacturers of terrorist Sarin. Both called Northern Iraq home base and the latter was in part financed by Hussein as long as they promised to go after the U.S., Turkey and Iran. In fact the only chemical weapon based items found after we entered Iraq were in the al-Islam camps. Try to make Hussain the innocent victim all you want, but he was an active and vital component of the growth of terrorism that wanted to target us in the U.S.
JoeUser Forums
