View Single Post
  #5  
Old July 13th 05, 01:25 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> Bob Willard wrote:
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>:
>>
>> > I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in
>> > Iraq.

>>
>>> Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties aren't
>>> anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best, for that
>>> matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between the USSR
>>> and the US and this was the real reason the war lasted so long.
>>> We could have won it but we would probably have ended up fighting
>>> the Chinese, just like in Korea. Iraq is not even close to this
>>> type of war. The recent news report seem to suggest that troop
>>> levels will drop by 100,000 next year. I hope they are correct.

>>
>>
>> US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US
>> military ships and planes to help the French move troops and
>> supplies to Vietnam starting in late 1945, until the fall of Saigon
>> in the spring of 1975.
>>
>> To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend
>> Barbara Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only
>> the Dubya gang had read and understood it ...

>
> I'm not familiar with the book you referenced but nobody knows the
> outcome of the Iraq war and no one knows if it will parallel Vietnam
> or any other war.


The lack of a good reason for being there and the lack of an exit
strategy is certainly common to both.

> Time will tell if it was worth fighting and even
> then I doubt everyone will agree. All we have now are opinions
> about it and nobody can prove their opinion is right.


Exactly. And that's just what we're doing here. Posting opinions.

> As I told Joe, history will be the judge of President Bush.


As it is for everyone.

> There
> are also many people who just hate him and there is absolutely
> nothing he can do in their eyes that is acceptable. Basically, they
> have no ability to be objective. Many of the complainers on the
> Iraq war are these people and they ignore the good things that have
> resulted from the conflict and just dwell on the negative. Many
> others are just out to make political hay from complaining about the
> war. For people that are motivated by these reasons it is a waste
> of time to discuss the topic with them. They are not really wanting
> good a debate. They just want to damage President Bush any and
> every way they can.


Michael, I think the polarization you describe is largely due to (a)
the way in which this administration carried out the whole post-9/11
thing (Saddam/Iraq/Bin Laden/WMD/etc.), (b) what they actually did,
and (c) the perception (real or imagined) that the current
administration is patronizing the American public.

I, along with many others, think that the American public was
basically deceived and the present administration continues to this
day to "spin" the whole thing for their own benefit. At this point,
people are downright angry that the administration thinks they are
that gullible. Some people believe that the administration has
downright lied to them.

The question that people ask themselves is: "Are we better off now
than we were before?" I certainly believe that the country is _not_
better off now. In no particular order, we're basically hated around
the world, we've got the worst debt we've ever seen, we're in a war
that was started for dubious reasons and has no end in sight, and
we've got a president that's trying to dismantle Social Security.

I'd say there are at least a few damn good reasons why a lot of people
are upset with this guy.
Ads