Reliving Vietnam...
07:39:00 AM - 2005-08-23
Every day I get up, look at the newspaper and see more and more stories about how the American people are becoming weary and disenchanted with the war in Iraq. Are the American people going to turn this into another Vietnam? You see, regardless of your personal stance on the war today, when it started, the vast majority of American people were for it. Yes, the intelligence was flawed upon which our decision was made, but it wasn't only our intelligence, but also the British and Isreali intelligence information. Doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow, but how many times in our own lives, with no pressure, have we made a decision which future developments and information prove to be wrong? I'm definitely not saying we should follow whatever the politicians say blindly, but we also have to take our part of the responsibility in this. Afterall, we did re-elect President Bush DURING the conflict! So what does this have to do with Vietnam? Everything! If you talk to the troops who where in Vietnam (not the hippies over here) you might be surprised to find that very very few of them resented going. What they resented was being sent into a war and not being ALLOWED to win it! Without public support of our troops, the political support goes, and so does any ability to allow our troops to finish the job and come home. But how many Americans have the fortitude today to actually do what it takes to end this? War isn't supposed to be pretty, it's not supposed to be a bunch of neat, clean, tidy (if somewhat grainy) laser-guided video clips of bombs hitting empty buildings. It's dangerous, it's bloody, it's heart-wrenching agony! This is not to say that I personally believe how the military is being used currently in Iraq is correct. The US Military is NOT a "peace-keeping" force. It specializes in coming in, kicking A$$, and taking over or coming home. We knew from the beginning the goal wasn't to "take over" Iraq (as we did with Japan at the end of WWII)... So let them finish the job and get home! But that is a choice the American people will make, by their support or lack there of. If you don't support the war in Iraq politically, fine! The election is in Nov. 2007 and we elect someone else. If you really abhor the war, change the protests to "Impeach Bush" or whatever! But coming from someone with both friends and family over there, support our troops and let them finish their job! We asked them to do it, let's not ask them to relive Vietnam by not allowing them to finish it!
Post Comment | Read Comments (3)
Comment posted by evajmah at 2005-08-23 08:21:58
I lived 5 blocks from a Naval Air Station and went to high school with "military brats." I know many people who enlisted after graduation. Military life is hard on family, and I have nothing but respect for those who chose to live that way in order to serve and protect our country.
I am all for letting the troops "finish the job and get home." I'm just confused about what exactly "the job" is. Saddam is in custody. Iraq held elections. Who are being served and protected by American troops in Iraq now? What the hell is "peace-keeping" anyway? How many bombings have been prevented? How many more Americans are going to be kidnapped and beheaded on the Internet? I don't really keep up with political news so maybe I'm missing some important piece of information. But I haven't heard Mr. Bush or Dr. Rice say anything that makes this whole situation "click" for me. What exactly needs to be finished?
I vaguely remember from high school US History class that the US had an isolationist foreign policy at one time: we stayed out of everyone else's business. Remember as a kid being yelled at for leaving the front door open because Mom and Dad weren't paying to air condition the entire neighborhood? Mr. Bush, CLOSE THE DAMN DOOR! |
Comment posted by gweiss at 2005-08-23 18:35:03
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in that same month. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
Consider this: FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Bin Laden has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation (against American men, women and children). We've been looking for
evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida! |
Comment posted by PrairieMade at 2005-08-31 15:02:42
Great article Aaron! Gina, I wish I knew statistics like you do!
I think it is a shame that people still take everything the media say as 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. It's a shame we don't believe our leaders as much as we do the media. (Not that most leaders can be believed most of the time which is also a shame. I always say though that a country's leaders are only as honest as the people who elect them! But that's another subject!) You are right Aaron, the leaders follow the feelings of the people and more's the pity it probably is the minority who are complaining. The squeeky wheel gets the grease!
It is too bad people wouldn't get as upset about all those deaths that happen in their own country as they do about people who are in a war.
As far as I'm concerned it still is a war in Iraq. When innocent people get killed by terrorists and dictators people don't seem to be as upset as when
the country who is trying to help ends up killing the innocent people that the terrorists and dictators hide behind. Also the soldiers are there doing their job, they know the risk they are taking. Actually I hate to even say that because I would be terrified if I had a loved one over there. It would be even harder if I didn't think they should be there. But as you say Aaron they need to be allowed to do their job.
It is easy to say let those people defend themselves it's their country. That is what they would have to do if the allies left Iraq. The trouble is there would probably be the same kind of evil people taking over. If bullies have the advantage they will rule.The terrorists and dictators are evil people and we who call ourselves civilized cannot allow evil to take over. It is truly the innocent who are the ones who suffer, mostly women and children. They are the ones who need to be protected, especially when most of the men think women are dispensible. They think they are men but to me they are cowards!
Now after all that I have to say I hate war! I would not go to war because you would not want me as a soldier beside you. As a soldier you would want
me to protect your back. To do that I would have to kill someone and I couldn't do that. At least I don't think I could. As a human maybe if my life was in danger I would defend myself but I know I would rather be killed myself than kill someone else. I know .. that's easy to say and if I was in that situation I would probably defend myself!
As far as I'm concerned, a so called or at least what used to be a Christian country shouldn't go to war at all. All a truly Christian country needs to do is get down on its' collective knees and pray to God for protection and it would be granted. We all know that ain't going to happen now don't we? So as a consequence countries have to go to war to protect freedom.
Another thing, I think it is dispicable when a country condemns its' soldiers for obeying the orders of their commanders! Every time I think of the Vietnam War it upsets me when I think of how the soldiers were treated when they returned. They were only trying to do their job and a lot of the times I'm sure they had to do it with their hands tied. I imagine there were a lot of soldiers who deserved to be condemned because there are always evil people in all situations. The trouble is, man just loves to stereotype, we are all quilty of it. The thing is we should all walk in another person's shoes before we condemn.
I'm a Canadian and I'm not always proud of it but I will always stick up for my country because basically it is a great country to live in. I don't know how long that will be but for now it still is. The decision my country made, I didn't agree with. The thing is we don't know all the details so it's hard to say. I think now though maybe it was a good decision because our defense system is pretty pathetic. I have loved ones in the forces and I don't think I would want them going to war with the outdated and lack of equipment that Canada has.
Anyway the trouble nowadays is the fact that it is the people with power who run a country and the minority who change things. The honest , ordinary people are busy making a living and more concerned with their families and communities then trying to get some useless self-centered law passed. That is also another subject.
Sorry if this is exceptionally long. Sometimes I like to get on my soapbox. This is your page Aaron, for ranting not mine. lol |
|
