When It's Clear To All That Iraq Is A Total Disaster

[cali]

and completely 'unwinnable' , the idiot freepers will blame us and the MSM. Over in delusional freeperdom they still think we've turned the proverbial corner, but they're blaming the 'perception' that things are bad on dems who don't swear fealty to the saintly bushboy, and the MSM. For example, they believe that the MSM shows the same incident over and over whilst pretending that it's a different episode of violence. I even read a thread where someone in Bagdhad was posting and saying things were indeed pretty bad and the vast majority of posters acted like this person wasn't even there.

When the obvious failure is evident to all, get ready for a loud and frenzied wave of blame directed from the right wing towards Dems and the MSM. How fucking crazy is that?

[MSgt213]

1. It's not our actions that are causing the problems it's our preception of

our actions that are causing the problems.

[MadHound]

2. The trouble is that it will never be clear to all,

There are many peope who still insist that we either won the Vietnam war, or that it was winnable if we had continued persuing the suicide strategy that we were following. The Iraq war is going to take take the same track, and when finally the majority of people in this country realize what a fuck up Iraq is, we will pull out. But there will always be a small, but vocal minority of people who will insist that we could have won, and that we didn't is because of all those damned liberals.

[gratuitous]

3. We have a winner!

Yep, crazy as it seems, there are still people in this country (and not just a crackpot few) who think that Joseph McCarthy was 100% right, that Richard Nixon was unfairly hounded from office by a jackal press, and that Vietnam was a noble exercise, thwarted only because of failure of nerve back home (and it was the nerve of those goddammed libruls).

These people also believe that they are the best informed, most logical and tuned-in voters on the planet, and that any facts that contradict them are condescending efforts by egghead ivory tower elites designed to make them look like the ninnies they are.

[Wright Patman]

4. When U.S. soldiers

die by the thousands in a war, any war, there is a desperate need on behalf of the survivors and supporters of such a war that their loss not be seen to have been "in vain."

This desire is so strong that a large part of the recent presidential campaign was devoted to rehabilitating the image of the Vietnam War in the eyes of the American public. For all who lived through it, this is impossible. But there are now people 35 years old and younger who have only read about it in history books. For them, Vietnam is now indelibly etched into their memory banks, as Raygun used to proclaim before every veterans' group, as a "noble cause."

Into the breach we go. The Iraq war still has 10 years to run. And we must continue so that all those who have died will not have died "in vain."

[cali]

7. Your analysis strikes me as spot on

in many regards, but I don't believe the Iraq war still has 10 years to run. I don't know quite how to but this, but time is more compressed now then it was 30 years ago. I don't mean that exactly literally, but due, in part, to the change in communications, events happen more quickly. Shit, as T.S. Eliot said, "That isn't what I meant at all." In any case, I don't believe that Iraq is going to be nearly as long running as Vietnam.

[searchingforlight]

5. I see this every day in my work.

People bring disaster upon themselves and it is NEVER their fault. There is always someone else responsible.

[FloridaPat]

6. Took 20 years in Vietnam. Had to have hundreds of thousand

demonstrators in the streets before the US decided to pull out. I bet we'd still be there if it wasn't for the demonstrations.

[rfranklin]

9. I was among those protesters and I can tell it did almost no good...

We marched and protested for ten years. The general public just said "fucckin' hippies!" It was only when casualties got into tens of thousands and millions of people knew someone killed or wounded that the tide turned and it was Gerald Ford that bailed out.

[barb162]

10. yeah, hundreds of thousands would march; I sometimes

wonder what a march or rally really does. Does it heighten anyone's awareness? Does it change people's thinking? Did the marches before Iraq do ANYTHING to switch the thinking of anyone? Strong letters to congress people might be more effective, like clearly saying if you vote for the war or one more appropriation you will not have my vote.

[Ardee]

11. No no no

The hundreds of thousands of demonstrations against that war were an invaluable tool in ending it.They were also a prime reason that Johnson decided against running for election as well. They plainly showed the deep, deep divisions within this nation and how widespread was Americas dissatisfaction with US policies in Viet Nam.

Had there been no demonstrations the not-so-free press would have remained very biased and reporting events in 'Nam would have not been what they were.The turnout of hundreds of thousands of us around the nation showed a market for the "other side of the story"..

Please,please do not underestimate the power of demonstrations, please,please continue to turn out for the ones you support.

[barb162]

13. you know what? What really lost the war was the other side won

The North Vietnamese beat the US plain and simple. Remember the helicopters pulling the US Embassy people off the roof. No matter how many troops the US sent there, it made no diff. Okay I think you are right and the demonstrations did do some good and as the other poster pointed out, the vets came back and were saying things that opened peoples' eyes. Plus so many military were dying and there became that disconnect between what the military was saying about "Cong kills" but we never seemingly gained any ground. Sort of like WW 1 and the trench warfare where millions were killed and the trench lines just changed by a few miles in the entire war.

[Ardee]

20. Revisionist history

"They" did not win, we lost.....While my happening to have been there doesn't provide any unique insight into strategies neither does your incomplete knowledge of the history of that event.

Firstly there were two unique forces arrayed against the US,the regular NVA, a fighting force of great capability and the so-called Viet Cong, local irregulars similar to those now fighting the US in Iraq.

The decision not to carry the war into North Vietnam together with the complete underestimation of the desire and methodology of the Viet Cong is what lost us that war.While I believe that a guerrilla war cannot be won by an occupation force the simple truth is that we could have made the North Vietnamese presence in the south disappear by bombing their industrial capabilities and reducing their ability to make war. We did not.....

[immoderate]

21. "a guerrilla war cannot be won by an occupation force"

and yet you say we could have won? How? By being an occupation force in the north? I am confused about what you are saying.

Describe what you think winning would have been like.

--IMM

[Ardee]

22. OK then

We could have remained in Viet Nam for decades installing one puppet government after the next (Kennedy first showed us how to assassinate a sitting leader of South Viet Nam and installing one more "suitable"). The elimination of the North in that struggle would have been key to this result.

But, I'm sorry to say, you missed the point of my first post, sorry. I responded to your noting that we lost that war, we did not lose we refused to fight it in any way that would have made a victory possible.This does nothing to detract from the efforts of the heroic people of Viet Nam it is simply an historical fact of life.

We could have used nuclear solutions to this situation and won handily, Gaea forbid!

[immoderate]

24. I don't think sterilizing the land constitutes a win.

You do?

--IMM

[Ardee]

25. stop picking nits

[immoderate]

26. My point is the war was unwinnable. That's not nit picking.

--IMM

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[immoderate]

29. Going nuclear?

That's a nuance? :wtf:

--IMM

[DrWeird]

38. I guess post #2 was spot on.

Huh?

[immoderate]

42. Using nukes on populations is uh "overkill"

We killed almost 4 million Vietnamese. Why? Even if we could declare a military victory, I don't see what "winning" would have got us.

BTW, I haven't personally come across anyone who claims we won Vietnam. I have met plenty who blame the press, or admin for making us lose. We dropped more bambs on that little country than were used in all of WWII, and that didn't get us anywhere.

--IMM

[barb162]

28. hmm

"They" did not win, we lost.....While my happening to have been there doesn't provide any unique insight into strategies neither does your incomplete knowledge of the history of that event."

****Come on, I wasn't attempting to do a "history" in a few sentences as it would need several thick volumes. Also, semantics on won/lost?



The decision not to carry the war into North Vietnam together with the complete underestimation of the desire and methodology of the Viet Cong is what lost us that war.

****Agree

Plus the guerilla warfare, plus the fact that finally it started dawning on people here of what the hell were we ever doing there in the first place, the Daniel Ellsburg stuff, all of the shifting thinking about the war, plus we were fighting a war of nationalism to some extent versus a war against encroaching communism, plus the S. Vietnam puppets we were putting in, plus, plus plus....

[barb162]

30. as I reread this

"demonstrations against that war were an invaluable tool in ending it"

I think the current administration doesn't care about demonstrations nor do I think it cares about divides in the country. So I still wonder if demonstrations make any sense in the current environment. It cares about VOTES. Unless this administration starting seeing multi-million person marches in all cities of RED states they think they own, they wouldn't change their strategy.

[Ardee]

33. Demonstrations

Neither the current administration, nor the ones in power during the Vietnamese conflict cared about such things, they were MADE to care by the hundreds of thousands of people who marched, wrote letters to their elected officials and the hundreds who went further (SDS, Weather Underground etc.)As one who participated in those demonstrations, practically from the moment I returned from 'Nam I would note that our society was being torn asunder over this conflict.No administration could long ignore such a cataclysmic situation.

Despite the anoyingly childish comments of IMM (and Ive just been made aware of h/her history of such annoying interruptions of adult conversations by a long term and respected poster here) I am responding to the original poster , barb162, whos original post needed, imo, a bit of clarification.

When noting that we could not have won that war I felt it important to note that there were two distinct entities involved and that we could have beaten one of them. It is the other that is impossible to defeat as we will see ,once again, in Iraq.So, barb, we are really on the same side here I just need to make things clear and accurate...a grave failing in this society of 10 second sound bytes, to be certain.

[immoderate]

37. I agree with that.

Demonstrations can have an effect. I think Bush is probably more immune than Nixon was. Nixon was extremely vain. But it affects the voters in the long run. Or, at least it may, so it's worth trying.

For the record though, I invite you to check my posts for yourself, before you characterize me. I think some here may be rushing to judgment.

Anyway when you're right, you're right.

--IMM

[barb162]

41. "It is the other that is impossible to defeat as we will see

once again, in Iraq."

Please clarify the "other" as I would like to understand how you are viewing the situation there.

[Old and In the Way]

12. And I think it was the VVAW that finally won back reality.

I really do think it was the soldiers who came back and started to speak out against the war that nuetralized the "pro-war" supporters. When they were marching against it, the public began to change their support of it.

One thing that really bothered me about the Swift Boat liars.....why weren't they forced to defend their position? They claimed that Kerry's actions helped our enemies.....so what were they arguing for? A continuation of American/Vietnamese deaths? To what end? How many more Americans had to die before they'd have joined Kerry in his actions to end the war? 100,000? 250,000? A million?

These bastards attacked Kerry, but they were never asked to defend why we should have continued this senseless and immoral war.

[barb162]

14. oh the Swifties...typical pug assasins. The Dems were

DUMB in defending the charges point by point. The Dems should have replied indignantly to every charge "so what was Bush doing again in 1972? Where was he again? How come his commanders at the Guard base never saw him again? We demand you stop these lies against a decorated military veteran."

[Old and In the Way]

15. I agree............Kerry should have made that rebuttal everytime the

SB liars made a statement. Rove would have had to call off the character assassins eventually.

[barb162]

17. yeah but instead we watched Kerry's numbers going down

weekly and that was so horrible to watch. Awol scumbag won again through disgusting lies, character attacks, etc. ANd we saw what shrub did to McCain in 2000 during the pug primaries so we already saw and knew how to attack the shrub and that is what they needed to do. Gues what; I still don't think the higher ups in the Dem party have learned the lesson. It's as if no matter how much they watch Bush operate, they can't learn the lesson.I keep shaking my head. If they don't learn we will lose again in 2006, 2008....

[barb162]

16. and the Dems made the mistake of not following through

to the point you make in your second paragraph aabout continuing the war. Drives me nuts the way the Dem campaign handled the swifties. The Dems should have taken the offense on it and I would watch these swifties and be going crazy as the dem spokespeople would be responding to each charge.Primal scream. Totally wrong strategy! I would write to the Dem campaign and say here's what to do as I mention in my other post. Don't answer these scurrilous charges; attack the charges and the ones making the charges and the shrub's national guard whereabouts.

[classof56]

8. "Ignorance is strength"--George Orwell, 1984

And then there's the revisionist history thing. When you have to believe something, you have to believe, and the facts get twisted any way necessary to validate that belief. And truth becomes lies. And 1984 is here at last.


:cry:

[BenDavid]

18. I agree and Iraq

is one big "cluster fuck".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. "The stab in the back."

That's what Hitler called Germany's defeat in WWI. It wasn't the heroic German Army that lost the war, but the Communists, Social Democrats, and the Jews who "stabbed" the soldiers in the back.

The same BS is spread about Vietnam. "We didn't lose, we weren't allowed to fight." "The protestors demoralized the troops and the American people", "The politicians..." , "The media.." etc, etc.

The Amercan Government and Military still don't grasp the concept that chalking up kill/loss ratios doesn't win wars. That war really is an extension of diplomacy, but only an extension. The Vietnamese kicked our ass because they did understand that concept. And, the Iraqi insurgents understand the same concept.

We lost the "war" in Iraq, for the same reason we lost the war in Vietnam. The sheer hubris of the belief that everyone in the world wants to shop at Walmart, eat Big Macs, dress their daughters like hookers, and shout "USA! USA!", while ripping off the rest of the world.

The Brits trumpeted bring "civilization and good government" to their colonies. We trumpet bring "democracy and freedom". All brought and maintained by guys with guns paid for by the capitalists who reap a rich reward. Sooner or later, the people catch on and see the the empire has no clothes, and is defenseless against the people.

[barb162]

31. "Sooner or later, the people catch on and see the the empire

has no clothes"


OPTIMIST!!!! (I am not optimistic at all after 11/2 voting, not at all)

"kill/loss ratios" hadn't thought /read that for a long time but I remember that Gen. Westmoreland crowd in Vietnam doing that stuff.
What a memory.

I think there was demoralization of the troops when they would come back on leavefrom Vietnam and people were dissing them and they saw they didn't have 100% support. WW 2 was totally different and when you talk to vets from that day, they were all heroes to the people back home, proud to wear their uniforms, etc.

[jokerman93]

23. If it isn't obvious already

If it isn't obvious already, I'm despairing that it will be far too late when America finally wakes up to what we have brought on ourselves and the world.

Then only the cult fundies will be left to spread freedom and democracy.

Personally, I think we're already f'ked. The bowling ball is on it's way to the pins...

[barb162]

32. when America finally wakes up; but it has not awakened and I don't

think it will.

[Ardee]

34. Sure it will

We have seen, in the long and somewhat checkered history of this nation, many,many bleak moments. We have survived them all and we will survive these current attacks on our freedom and world security.
Precisely because of people like those found here, committed , dedicated, fairminded (well some, the others will tire and go away or, better still, grow up)and tireless.

The most important attribute of the activist is endless ,almost tedious optimism.

[cali]

35. Although it goes against my grain to agree with you,

agree I must- even if you did call me a neocon. You're right about demonstrations; they can, over time, make a difference, and you're right about this country having experienced dark times before this.

[Ardee]

36. Sorry for the unintended insult

if you are insulted to be called one perhaps you arent one.....O8) .

Besides, you arent really agreeing with me you are sharing a truth.

[Dangerman]

39. To put it in math (nothing personal)

Bush lies to public...
America got suckered...
Iraq got invaded...
Saddam went down...

PANDORA'S BOX OPENED!!!

[MRKARNO]

40. What they'll say

Freepers will tell us:

You didn't support the troops and look what happened! You guys increased terrorism in the world by supporting the terrorist causes. It's your fault for Osama and the disaster your treasonous liberals.