Comments (16) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   striper77 said, about 1 month ago

   It is said and very unfortunate for our military personal to be in the situation above.
   They gave it all for the country and at the bare minimum we should take care of them.

   Due to this is a political carton, it was a democrat president that started the Vietnam War.

2. 

   oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

   Yes it was, Harry Truman let the French take back their “colony” Indo-China instead of letting the viet minh, who were our allies in fighting the Japanese take over.

3. 

   longtimecomicsfan said, about 1 month ago

   Unfortunately, it was a Republican that interrupted our efforts to destroy the Taliban and Al-Queda (the guys who planned and launched the attack on 9/11) with an ill-considered foray into Iraq, in a quest to bring to justice the guy who didn’t.

4. 

   NeoconMan said, about 1 month ago

   Don’t see what all this hoopla about wounded soldiers is. They volunteered to go die for their country and only lost a leg or two. Got off easy; what are they complaining about?

   Have you ever slipped and fallen on ice? Notice how you throw your arms and hands out to break your fall, willing to sacrifice them in order to save your head and vital internal organs. Soldiers are the expendable hands and wrists, banks and businesses are the vitals. It’s a trade-off we’re all willing to make.

   Of course, the hands and wrists keep thinking they are important too, so we have to keep feeding them stories of “honor” and “glory” and “sacrifice” to keep them motivated.

5. 

   Simon_Jester said, about 1 month ago

   oldlego….could that have had something to do with the way the Republicans kept bashing HST for ‘losing’ China?

6. 

   Magnaut said, about 1 month ago

   its a very sad situation……we needed to repond to the 9/11 attack…but where?…probably Waziristan and Saudi Arabia..in spite of the mistakes made by the Civilian overseers of our military our vets need our committed support

7. 

   michaelwme said, about 1 month ago

   After WWI, Wilson said the Europeans should give up their mercantile empires. I was taught that they ignored all of Wilson’s 14 points, but then I read them, and the 14 points mostly demanded the punishment of Germany for US costs in WWI, and his wishes were mostly granted by the UK and the French (for their own reasons, of course).

   After WWII, the US was much stronger, and again demanded that all the European mercantile empires be dismantled, and the Labour party in the UK agreed, but France resisted.

   The Brits have documented what really happened in Vietnam, as opposed to the US propaganda version: the US was officially supporting the French against the Communists in Vietnam, but was also supporting a tiny, corrupt, impuissant group of Christians against the French and the Communists. And probably the Communists against the French, though that’s only implied by US anti-European mercantilism, but not documented since the US was officially anti-Communist to the point of officially supporting the European mercantile empires over Communism (but only officially).

   In any case, the French Indochinese Empire collapsed in ‘54, and the US then supported the tiny, corrupt, impuissant Christian group against the Communists, though the Communists had the tacit and sometimes active support of the majority of Vietnamese who were anti-Christian and anti-unbridled corruption.

   And now the US is supporting a tiny, impuissant group that never had any power in Afghanistan and is trying to decide if it should prop them up or just turn Afghanistan back over to a Taliban that promises never again to allow anyone under their protection to demand the destruction of the US.

   What a choice.

8. 

   johndh123 said, about 1 month ago

   Simon Jester…..in fairness to HST….I don’t think ANYONE badgered him into anything…his decisions were based on the realities of those times….

9. 

   dtroutma said, about 1 month ago

   We were in “Viet Nam” before WW II, and Ho Chi Minh was our strong ally, far better than the French ever were. We betrayed him after the war, and again in ‘54.

   We have betrayed most of our “friends of the moment” in the middle east as well. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and the list is longer of those we’ve betrayed. It is that duplicity that kills our soldiers, as with “patriotic fervor”, they actually put their lives on the line cowards and politicians draw in the sand.

   Economic conditions have made many of those “volunteers” grasp at the straw of survival by taking the only jobs available, in the military. That so many “Guardsmen” have been repeatedly sent to fight overseas, rather than defend the actual homeland their initial contracts called for, like in New Orleans, Texas, and elsewhere, is yet another betrayal by an economic and political machine crafted by the right, but accepted across the very warped board.

   All the “neocons” either real or pretending, should join the fight, and be first to take the risks for what they create. After all, wounds heal rapidly in all those red-blooded patriots, right?

10. 

    meowdam said, about 1 month ago

    We will never see the casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan that we saw in ‘nam , although by percentage more are ending up in wheel chairs.

11. 

    ChuckTrent64 said, about 1 month ago

    Bet that makes all the current casualties feel a lot better.

    Eisenhower was the first president to commit troops to Vietnam. If we hadn’t had anyone there, we couldn’t have escalated, could we? He also warned us of the Industrial-military complex that dtroutma is referencing.

12. 

    Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

    Vietnam was a mistake – we should learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

    Iraq was is a bigger mistake because we should have never gone there.

    Afghanistan will be worse then Vietnam because Nam was a country, Afganistan is just a collection of War Lords, and War Lords don’t “Play well with others.”

13. 

    oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

    Ken, You got that right this time.

14. 

    kreole said, about 1 month ago

    Ken— I agree that Afghanistan is a worse situation than ‘Nam in terms of “country status”, but that doesn’t mean we should do nothing. OK Ken, (you seem smart), if you were in charge, what would be your plan?

15. 

    omQ R said, about 1 month ago

    Me, I’d stop trying whack-a-mole in Afghanistan. Going after the few and far in between Al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan produces far more civilian casualties (and thereby exponentially increasing enemies by turning grieving relatives into insurgents or Taliban supporters). Instead pour the billions spent on military hardware into rebuilding infrastructure projects channelled through grassroots leaders, bypassing warlords and the Talib drug traders by encouraging alternative crops and/or legalising poppy/heroin production (why not try the EU & US route of subsidising their farmers? If it “works” for us, it should work for them). Provide security to the communities instead of terrorising them. Man, that was easy! Who’s next, Somalia, Burma?… pfft, nah, I think the Palestinian dispute!

    Or continue with the current route, it, er, seems to be working well. :-|

16. 

    NeoconMan said, about 1 month ago

    The war in Afghanistan has been a resounding success. Since we turned the warlords against each other, Uzbekistan oil is flowing into American coffers. Not to mention American arms manufacturers.
    And as for American soldiers, there’s plenty more where THEY came from.