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.
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
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?
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.
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.”
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?
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. :-|
longtimecomicsfan over 14 years 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.
Simon_Jester over 14 years ago
oldlego….could that have had something to do with the way the Republicans kept bashing HST for ‘losing’ China?
Magnaut over 14 years 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
johndh123 over 14 years 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….
Dtroutma over 14 years 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?
meowdam over 14 years 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.
ChuckTrent64 over 14 years 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.
kennethcwarren64 over 14 years 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.”
kreole over 14 years 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?
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years 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. :-|