Why Iraq?

[Guest George Burdell]

Do you think the people of Vietnam, and Laos and Cambodia for that matter, were better off before the war?  Why don't you interview them? Oh wait you can't, because millions of them were killed by their governments. 

Do you think, just because those people don't know anything about the modern world, that they don't have dreams of a better life.

President Kennedy, who everyone still feels was on of the greatest Presidents in US History, was behind the war and felt that there were benefits to being in Southeast Asia.  The facts are that people like Johnson, Nixon, and MacNamara took over and, influenced by people like you, they lost the guts to finish the job.  In other words they didn't "stay the course."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To say Kennedy was behind the war only exposes your ignorance of the truth and/or your unwillingess to believe it. It's well documented in the writings of many in his inner circle that even in its early stages Kennedy was questioning US involvement in VietNam and its unlikely that involvement would have increased had he survived.

You continually fall back on "the people like you", you know NOTHING about me and you only spout uninformed opinion. MacNamara has admitted in interviews we were wrong in our involvement in VietNam and he never attempted put the blame on the influence of people like me unlike you who seems to have no other argument.

You apparently have a very large ego as you continue to feel you have the right to speak for other people. Yes, I have spoken with people who have done tours in Iraq and they are not universally approving of our involvement and/or strategy, that is not what they may say when forced to speak in frot of superiors and it's certainly not what you'll hear from the PR people.

[Guest George Burdell]

Stop talking about facts. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU are obviously a true disciple of George W Bush, "Stop talking about facts", you've learned well.

I'm going to sink down to the "people like you" level. The "might makes right" strategy of "people like you" has one major flaw, sooner or later, inevitably there is someone bigger and tougher and you're going to get your butt kicked, history will confirm that.

And you follow a great hypocrite, he made great use of calling his opponent a flip-flopper when George W Bush is truly a master flip-flopper. Thirty years ago he thought the National Guard was where you went to hide from an ill-advised war, now he thinks it's what you use to fight one. THAT is TRULY being a flip-flopper.

Iraq is a war of choice, not necessity, I think it was a poorly planned choice.

[Guest Guest]

The spirit of George P. Burdell remains alive. He continues to post letters to the editor, baffle insurance salesmen, and get paged at football games. He's also displayed a generous nature-his signature has appeared on numerous product rebate checks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WHO is this masked man? Is he people like you or people like them? IMWTK

[Guest Radagast]

Stop talking about facts.  Everything you spout is pure opinion.  I doubt that a war in Iraq is going to "better" Bush or anyone in his administration.  Why would he set himself up for the constant negative criticism?

I seen soldiers interviewed and read their statements in the papers and what they say is the vast majority are comfortable with their mission.  Have you personally interviewed any?  If you have are they against the war?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We all have opinions, Guest, that's why we're here. As far as 'bettering' anyone in the Administration, you don't have to look any farther than our war criminal Vice-President and his merry band of theives at Halaburton to see where billions of our tax dollars are being stolen. Criticisim means nothing to GW Bush. He is acting on a message from God to kill the heathen Islamists.

Any active duty soldier who speaks out against the war can be be punished ... that's a fact. It explains why most won't say anything critical until they are out. Besides, it would be very hard to risk your life everyday for something you don't believe in... so, you make yourself believe.

[Guest Radagast]

Do you think the people of Vietnam, and Laos and Cambodia for that matter, were better off before the war?  Why don't you interview them? Oh wait you can't, because millions of them were killed by their governments. 

Do you think, just because those people don't know anything about the modern world, that they don't have dreams of a better life.

President Kennedy, who everyone still feels was on of the greatest Presidents in US History, was behind the war and felt that there were benefits to being in Southeast Asia.  The facts are that people like Johnson, Nixon, and MacNamara took over and, influenced by people like you, they lost the guts to finish the job.  In other words they didn't "stay the course."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must look a bit closer at history, my friend...

The Vietnaese were fighting the French before we even got there. The French were defeated by Ho Chi Minh in 1955. Then we came in and lit the fires of hell all over again until we were defeated in 1975.

During our 'liberation' of southeast asia we bombed and burned to death hundreds of thousands if not more than a million civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Yet when Pol Pot was forcing millions of Cambodians into the killing fields ... we did nothing. We set up a phony government in Cambodia which laid the ground work for Pol Pot's take over, much as we may be repeating that mistake again in Iraq.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat mistakes over and over again.

[Guest Loki]

You must look a bit closer at history, my friend...

The Vietnaese were fighting the French before we even got there. The French were defeated by Ho Chi Minh in 1955. Then we came in and lit the fires of hell all over again until we were defeated in 1975.

During our 'liberation' of southeast asia we bombed and burned to death hundreds of thousands if not more than a million civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Yet when Pol Pot was forcing millions of Cambodians into the killing fields ... we did nothing. We set up a phony government in Cambodia which laid the ground work for Pol Pot's take over, much as we may be repeating that mistake again in Iraq.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat mistakes over and over again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To repeat the sins of the past is indeed a tragedy. In Vietnam, we suffered a political defeat, militarily we did not lose. The loss, I fear, was a result of those rooting against the U.S. Who, pray tell is repeating those mistakes!!

BTW, in the 90's genocide was rampant in Rwanda, Clinton did nothing. You see, everyone can be faulted for something.

[Guest Guest]

To say Kennedy was behind the war only exposes your ignorance of the truth and/or your unwillingess to believe it.  It's well documented in the writings of many in his inner circle that even in its early stages Kennedy was questioning US involvement in VietNam and its unlikely that involvement would have increased had he survived.

You continually fall back on "the people like you", you know NOTHING about me and you only spout uninformed opinion.  MacNamara has admitted in interviews we were wrong in our involvement in VietNam and he never attempted put the blame on the influence of people like me unlike you who seems to have no other argument.

You apparently have a very large ego as you continue to feel you have the right to speak for other people.  Yes, I have spoken with people who have done tours in Iraq and they are not universally approving of our involvement and/or strategy, that is not what they may say when forced to speak in frot of superiors and it's certainly not what you'll hear from the PR people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our involvement in Vietnam was not wrong. Our methods of prosecuting the war were

I think you miss picking up women at those peace rallies.

[Guest Guest]

We all have opinions, Guest, that's why we're here. As far as 'bettering' anyone in the Administration, you don't have to look any farther than our war criminal Vice-President and his merry band of theives at Halaburton to see where billions of our tax dollars are being stolen. Criticisim means nothing to GW Bush. He is acting on a message from God to kill the heathen Islamists.

Any active duty soldier who speaks out against the war can be be punished ... that's a fact. It explains why most won't say anything critical until they are out. Besides, it would be very hard to risk your life everyday for something you don't believe in... so, you make yourself believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are blinded by your hatred of GW Bush.

[Guest Guest]

You must look a bit closer at history, my friend...

The Vietnaese were fighting the French before we even got there. The French were defeated by Ho Chi Minh in 1955. Then we came in and lit the fires of hell all over again until we were defeated in 1975.

During our 'liberation' of southeast asia we bombed and burned to death hundreds of thousands if not more than a million civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Yet when Pol Pot was forcing millions of Cambodians into the killing fields ... we did nothing. We set up a phony government in Cambodia which laid the ground work for Pol Pot's take over, much as we may be repeating that mistake again in Iraq.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat mistakes over and over again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop with the history lessons. The French were there for totally different reasons.

[Guest Guest]

We all have opinions, Guest, that's why we're here. As far as 'bettering' anyone in the Administration, you don't have to look any farther than our war criminal Vice-President and his merry band of theives at Halaburton to see where billions of our tax dollars are being stolen. Criticisim means nothing to GW Bush. He is acting on a message from God to kill the heathen Islamists.

Any active duty soldier who speaks out against the war can be be punished ... that's a fact. It explains why most won't say anything critical until they are out. Besides, it would be very hard to risk your life everyday for something you don't believe in... so, you make yourself believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're quite a character. Your about as liberal a tree hugger that has ever posted on this board yet, because you hate GW and his buddies so much, you aren't willing to let him try and save those poor down trodden Iraqis.

Maybe you're spending to much tome trying to get a stay of execution for Tookie.

[Guest Guest]

To say Kennedy was behind the war only exposes your ignorance of the truth and/or your unwillingess to believe it.  It's well documented in the writings of many in his inner circle that even in its early stages Kennedy was questioning US involvement in VietNam and its unlikely that involvement would have increased had he survived.

You continually fall back on "the people like you", you know NOTHING about me and you only spout uninformed opinion.  MacNamara has admitted in interviews we were wrong in our involvement in VietNam and he never attempted put the blame on the influence of people like me unlike you who seems to have no other argument.

You apparently have a very large ego as you continue to feel you have the right to speak for other people.  Yes, I have spoken with people who have done tours in Iraq and they are not universally approving of our involvement and/or strategy, that is not what they may say when forced to speak in frot of superiors and it's certainly not what you'll hear from the PR people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy would have done whatever got him the most chicks.

[Guest Radagast]

You're quite a character.  Your about as liberal a tree hugger that has ever posted on this board yet, because you hate GW and his buddies so much, you aren't willing to let him try and save those poor down trodden Iraqis.

Maybe you're spending to much tome trying to get a stay of execution for Tookie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All Bush has done is get tens of thousands of Iraq's killed. Try getting your news from some other source than Rush or Hannity.

[---M]

To repeat the sins of the past is indeed a tragedy.  In Vietnam, we suffered a political defeat, militarily we did not lose.  The loss, I fear, was a result of those rooting against the U.S.  Who, pray tell is repeating those mistakes!!

BTW, in the 90's genocide was rampant in Rwanda, Clinton did nothing.  You see, everyone can be faulted for something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Loki,

I must say sir that you truly disappoint me. It seems that every time someone talks about out about Bush in any way you jump on the “Bill got a b**w j*b in the White House” band wagon.

You must formulate a newer, more original argument, something more than a small moment in time, a lapse of moral judgment, so to speak. It is starting to sound like the ranting of a madman.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest George Burdell]

Our involvement in Vietnam was not wrong.  Our methods of prosecuting the war were

I think you miss picking up women at those peace rallies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course our involvement remains a matter of opinion but I have yet to see any true justification. I think it's safe to say the so called Domino Theory, which was often give as the main reason for US involvement has been proven incorrect

It seems during that era America became afraid of just the word "communism" as if the word itself could cause physical harm. Tail gunner Joe did have his followers who in the clarity of hindsight do look very misguided at best. I think the lack of justification for US involvement is what made it impossible to prosecute the war "correctly" if that term can even be applied this way.

And the peace rallies? I do miss that era Maybe it was just silly youthful optimism but I had more hope then

[Guest Guest]

You're quite a character.  Your about as liberal a tree hugger that has ever posted on this board yet, because you hate GW and his buddies so much, you aren't willing to let him try and save those poor down trodden Iraqis.

Maybe you're spending to much tome trying to get a stay of execution for Tookie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe he's trying to save those "poor down trodden" Iraqis FROM GW.

[Guest Radagast]

To repeat the sins of the past is indeed a tragedy.  In Vietnam, we suffered a political defeat, militarily we did not lose.  The loss, I fear, was a result of those rooting against the U.S.  Who, pray tell is repeating those mistakes!!

BTW, in the 90's genocide was rampant in Rwanda, Clinton did nothing.  You see, everyone can be faulted for something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We were fighting in Vietnam for twenty years to some degree or another and we didn't win. When one retreats one's military out of a country on short notice while the other guys are taking over, I think you can safely call that a military defeat. Lets not mince words.

Both in Vietnam and now with Iraq, at first the protestors were ineffective peacenik jerks and then they became the reason why the greatest fighting force on the face of the earth got defeated ... because somehow we were 'rooting' against them. Please!

We were defeated in Vietnam and will be in Iraq because in 1955 and in 2003 our government made a mistake by getting involved in fights we could not win politically or militarily. I just hope we don't stay in Iraq for 20 years and lose another 55,000 young Americans to learn that lesson again.

There are no innocent parties here... Eisenhower made the initial mistake but Kennedy continued and Johnson made a complete mess of it. I think Nixon saw the writing on the wall (although, he wouldn't admit it) but by that time it was too late.

Yes, Clinton did nothing to prevent the Rwanda genocide but at least he had the humility to admit to his inaction and appoligize. Will Bush even shed a tear for the 100,000 Iraqs that he is personally responsible for killing? I doubt it.

[Guest Devil's Advocate]

No one has yet posted what would seem like a good argument for the war in Irag.

The consensus seems to be not in retaliation for 9/11 so that's not the reason.

Why Iraq?

If it's to spread democracy and freedom, Why not Belarus? Why not not North Korea? Why not Myanmar? Why not any number of ***istans? Why was Iraq chosen?

Some claim due to non-compliance with UN sanctions. Two big snags here. If that's the reason why not insist on and wait for UN action? And for those who would argue the ineffectiveness of the UN, why would you then give so much credence to the sanctions of such an ineffective group? Why Iraq?

Because of sanctioning of Al Qaeda activities? Really no proof and certainly not the only country that fits that description. Why was Iraq singled out?

And yes, I remember our actions in Afghanistan also

I'm sure there are reasons on many levels but:

Haliburton is already well net-worked in the area?

The wayward son proving to his targeted daddy that the son is worthy of his place in the privileged life he has enjoyed?

[Guest Loki]

No one has yet posted what would seem like a good argument for the war in Irag.

The consensus seems to be not in retaliation for 9/11 so that's not the reason.

Why Iraq?

If it's to spread democracy and freedom, Why not Belarus?  Why not not North Korea?  Why not Myanmar?  Why not any number of ***istans?  Why was Iraq chosen?

Some claim due to non-compliance with UN sanctions.  Two big snags here.  If that's the reason why not insist on and wait for UN action?  And for those who would argue the ineffectiveness of the UN, why would you then give so much credence to the sanctions of such an ineffective group?  Why Iraq?

Because of sanctioning of Al Qaeda activities?  Really no proof and certainly not the only country that fits that description.  Why was Iraq singled out?

And yes, I remember our actions in Afghanistan also

I'm sure there are reasons on many levels but:

Haliburton is already well net-worked in the area?

The wayward son proving to his targeted daddy that the son is worthy of his place in the privileged life he has enjoyed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In order to play Devil's Advocate, you need a logical and reasoned argument. (While I totally disagree with the argument itself, Radagast usually delivers.)

However, you resort to simple Bush bashing and name calling. References to evil Halliburton are all that are needed to give you away.

[Guest Devil's Advocate]

In order to play Devil's Advocate, you need a logical and reasoned argument.  (While I totally disagree with the argument itself, Radagast usually delivers.)

However, you resort to simple Bush bashing and name calling.  References to evil Halliburton are all that are needed to give you away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush bashing? Name calling? He's a self admitted recovering drunk, I hardly think calling him a wayward son is either name calling or bashing. And the amount of no bid contracts awarded to a company well connected to the administration is questionable at best

So instead of anwering the question Why Iraq? you simply make false accusations. I'm still waiting to hear a logical and reasoned argument about Why Iraq? Blind faith in a president doesn't qualify.

[Guest Guest]

Loki,

I must say sir that you truly disappoint me.  It seems that every time someone talks about out about Bush in any way you jump on the “Bill got a b**w j*b in the White House” band wagon. 

You must formulate a newer, more original argument, something more than a small moment in time, a lapse of moral judgment, so to speak. It is starting to sound like the ranting of a madman.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"A small moment in time", what a joke!

[Guest Guest]

We were fighting in Vietnam for twenty years to some degree or another and we didn't win. When one retreats one's military out of a country on short notice while the other guys are taking over, I think you can safely call that a military defeat. Lets not mince words.

Both in Vietnam and now with Iraq, at first the protestors were ineffective peacenik jerks and then they became the reason why the greatest fighting force on the face of the earth got defeated ... because somehow we were 'rooting' against them. Please!

We were defeated in Vietnam and will be in Iraq because in 1955 and in 2003 our government made a mistake by getting involved in fights we could not win politically or militarily. I just hope we don't stay in Iraq for 20 years and lose another 55,000 young Americans to learn that lesson again.

There are no innocent parties here... Eisenhower made the initial mistake but Kennedy continued and Johnson made a complete mess of it. I think Nixon saw the writing on the wall (although, he wouldn't admit it) but by that time it was too late.

Yes, Clinton did nothing to prevent the Rwanda genocide but at least he had the humility to admit to his inaction and appoligize. Will Bush even shed a tear for the 100,000 Iraqs that he is personally responsible for killing? I doubt it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US can win any fight that it is determined to win, that is the lesson you should take away from Vietnam. You are so blinded by your hatred for George W. that you can't even think clearly.

[Guest Devil's Advocate]

The US can win any fight that it is determined to win, that is the lesson you should take away from Vietnam.  You are so blinded by your hatred for George W. that you can't even think clearly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you define "win" or victory? The US certainly has the firepower to annihilate at least any smaller country and leave nothing but a smoking hole in the ground but is that victory?

And for those who have championed JFK's 'backing' of the VietNam War it should be noted that two of his closest advisors, Thedore Sorenson and Arthur Sclesinger Jr. recently stated in a co-writte OP-ED article that:

"In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to VietNam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today Iraq is an even clearer example"

RFK and others confirmed at later dates that JFK's thinking did indeed become that the VietNamese must win their own battle and he would seek to limit the US effort to an advisory role.

It's unlikely the US can "win any fight" unless the people it claims to be assisting are themselves determined.

My question is with a constitutionally determined state religion of Islam and two different sects apparently at constant odds and the Kurds thrown into the mix, how do we gurantee that we are not merely sowing the seed for the growth of a future civil war? It may be possible to make Iraq seem a somewhhat peaceful, democratic state by the next round of elections but if this result does not hold for 30, 40, 50 years we're are merely wasting our efforts.

[Guest Guest]

For those who would happily sit fat, dumb, and happy and believe anything that is fed to them by the administration I would urge them to read Paul Mulshine's column in this past Sunday's Star Ledger.

I'm not that familiar with his leanings or causes and I won't try convincing anyone. Since everyone reading this has internet access I'm nerely suggesting you take some of the names/incidents he refers to and "Google" them. It seems relatively easy to confirm much of what he says from several sources.

It at least makes more sense to do your own research rather than refuse to be confused with the truth.

[Guest Guest]

How do you define "win" or victory?  The US certainly has the firepower to annihilate at least any smaller country and leave nothing but a smoking hole in the ground but is that victory?

And for those who have championed JFK's 'backing' of the VietNam War it should be noted that two of his closest advisors, Thedore Sorenson and Arthur Sclesinger Jr. recently stated in a co-writte OP-ED article that:

"In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to VietNam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today Iraq is an even clearer example"

RFK and others confirmed at later dates that JFK's thinking did indeed become that the VietNamese must win their own battle and he would seek to limit the US effort to an advisory role.

It's unlikely the US can "win any fight" unless the people it claims to be assisting are themselves determined.

My question is with a constitutionally determined state religion of Islam and two different sects apparently at constant odds and the Kurds thrown into the mix, how do we gurantee that we are not merely sowing the seed for the growth of a future civil war?  It may be possible to make Iraq seem a somewhhat peaceful, democratic state by the next round of elections but if this result does not hold for 30, 40, 50 years we're are merely wasting our efforts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes that is a win.

The US is not there to promise anything. As far as I've read and heard, we are there to clean up their mess, kill a bunch of terrorists and bad guys as a bonus, turn it over to the Iraqi's, and get out. What they do with it after we're gone is their business.

[Guest Guest]

For those who would happily sit fat, dumb, and happy and believe anything that is fed to them by the administration I would urge them to read Paul Mulshine's column in this past Sunday's Star Ledger.

I'm not that familiar with his leanings or causes and I won't try convincing anyone.  Since everyone reading this has internet access I'm nerely suggesting you take  some of the names/incidents he refers to and "Google" them.  It seems relatively easy to confirm much of what he says from several sources.

It at least makes more sense to do your own research rather than refuse to be confused with the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Instead read the cover story of the Bergen Record from 12/13. Iraqi's happy for a chance at freedom and democracy. Or is this also being fed to us by the administration?