The enemy within

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
April 5, 2004
T Kennedy said:
The result is a massive and very dangerous crisis in our foreign policy. We have lost the respect of other nations in the world. Where do we go to get our respect back? How do we re-establish the working relationships we need with other countries to win the war on terrorism and advance the ideals we share? How can we possibly expect President Bush to do that? He’s the problem, not the solution. Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam, and this country needs a new President.
Speech Text

April 7 2004
Muqtada al-Sadr said:
``I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army,'' he said in a statement issued from his office in the southern city of An-Najaf. ``Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers.''

San Jose Mewrcury News

In the 1960's we were at war. It was a largely unpopular war. The people didn't stand behind the troops. The people didn't stand behind the commander in chief. We won the battles yet eventually we lost the war.

We now face a similar situation. It is less unpopular than Vietnam was. However, this time we not only have college kids making fools of themselves, we have American politicians making nuisances of themselves. When our federal politicians put words into the enemies mouth are they not also the enemy?
 
In the 1960's we were at war. It was a largely unpopular war. The people didn't stand behind the troops. The people didn't stand behind the commander in chief. We won the battles yet eventually we lost the war.
You missed the point.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.
 
freako104 said:
but isnt the idea that Bush is for the people :rolleyes:

The only legitimate comparison I can think of is that the Iraq war is just as much about stopping the spread of terrorism as the Vietnam war was about stopping the spread of communism.
 
What does all this mean to me, a person in uniform? Nothing. Why? Because I know that the world isn't perfect, and that, no matter how hard anyone tries, it never will be. Most people don't want to believe the one simple fact that people are selfish. I'll watch this get blown out of proportion in this thread, but, bottom line, you all know I'm right. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
What does all this mean to me, a person in uniform? Nothing. Why? Because I know that the world isn't perfect, and that, no matter how hard anyone tries, it never will be. Most people don't want to believe the one simple fact that people are selfish. I'll watch this get blown out of proportion in this thread, but, bottom line, you all know I'm right. ;)

I do know you're right Gato. It does mean nothing to people in uniform. I always thought that failure to support (and childishly blaming it on) the men and woman in uniform was one of the most unconscionable things that happened during the Vietnam era. There is a huge difference between supporting the people willing to fight for your way of life and supporting the spurious reasoning behind a military action. My son is in the military, after all (just made tech sergeant? my understanding of rank is sketchy at best). It's the reasoning I disagree with.

Oh, and trust me, I fully understand that people are selfish. :D
 
chcr said:
The only legitimate comparison I can think of is that the Iraq war is just as much about stopping the spread of terrorism as the Vietnam war was about stopping the spread of communism.

I have to disagree on both points.

The battle for Iraq has multiple reasons. The handiest & most legal was the ignored UN sanctions. It probably even had, to a small degree, a bit of revenge. Not enough to go over there but that played a part. As did oil. As does getting a foothold in the middle east. Turn their hokey pokey dictatorship into a valid democracy. Remove a cruel tyrant & replace it with a far scarier tyrant-the people. Use that as a building block. It's already paid dividends. Libya. Them and no more attacks on American soil.

Communism stopped spreading didn't it?
 
Gonz said:
We won the battles yet eventually we lost the war.
Gonz said:
Communism stopped spreading didn't it?
Sad thing is, even when you get it, you don't get it.
Vietnam was wrong. Iraq is wrong. For different reasons, but the fact remains.
The handiest & most legal was the ignored UN sanctions.
Agreed, legal reason for the UN to intervene if the UN deemed it necessary. Point is, this is a war sold to the American people as part of the war on terror and as a direct threat to the US. Niether of these points was ever true, and I think they knew it from the beginning.

Edit: I think Gato has the best grasp. In the end, the soldiers get fucked (again) and the responsible parties skate.
 
Aiding and abetting the enemy is treasonous and seditious: Section 3 of the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918: (be you average anti-war protester or U.S. senator)

"Whoever, when the United States is at war.... shall by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years."

Perhaps Teddy's mind is more than a little warped. Kennedy will never forgive GM for not recalling the defective steering box of that damned Olds:

On the evening of July 19, 1969, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts drove his Oldsmobile off a wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, drowning his passenger, a young campaign worker named Mary Jo Kopechne. The senator left the scene of the accident, did not report it to the police for many hours, and according to some accounts considered concocting an alibi for himself in the interim. :drink:
Probably more than any other single factor, Chappaquiddick – a frenzy without end – has ensured that Ted Kennedy would not follow his brother John to the White House.

Poor Mary Jo.


WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) --
Iraq will only be another Vietnam if the home front collapses, as it did following the Tet offensive, which began on the eve of the Chinese New Year, Jan. 31, 1968. The surprise attack was designed to overwhelm some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other strategic objectives simultaneously.

The Vietcong offensive was depicted by American reporters as a military disaster for the United States. America's most trusted newsman, CBS' Walter Cronkite, appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost.

Whatever one thought about the advisability of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States is there with 100,000 troops and a solid commitment to endow Iraq with a democratic system of government. While failure is not an option for Bush, it clearly is for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who called Iraq the president's Vietnam. It is, of course, no such animal. But it could become so if Congressional resolve dissolves.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.
 
Yep, it's sad how communism ran rampant and took over the world after those self-righteous Americans told their government what to do, wasn't it. :rolleyes:
 
Treason? I think not. T/Kennedy is allowed to speak against the war in Iraq if he so choses to do so. While I tend to dissagree with his comparison of Vietnam with Iraq...I don't think that he should be censored for it.

His speach appeared on major news networks...someone in Iraq watches TV, it seems ... and liked what Kennedy said enough to paraphrase him. It's hardly the same as passing over GVT papers.

"Whoever, when the United States is at war.... shall by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years."

America isn't at war...'member? When was the last time this law/act was actually acted upon?

I'm curious...how does this play against freedom of the press or freedom of speach?
 
Since Kennedy is an acting agent of the United States, isn't he required to choose his words more carefully? He is, after all, a Senator. Especially in light of admissions like
he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

I think treason may be a little harsh but we are at war. Every "act" passed by Congress has added some form of "This entitles this act to pass the legal standards of the war resolution act. The question is, what does constitute a declaration of war? WW2 had an obvious declaration. The Constitution does not mandate the wording of such a document.
 
Gonz said:
Since Kennedy is an acting agent of the United States, isn't he required to choose his words more carefully? He is, after all, a Senator. Especially in light of admissions like

I think treason may be a little harsh but we are at war. Every "act" passed by Congress has added some form of "This entitles this act to pass the legal standards of the war resolution act. The question is, what does constitute a declaration of war? WW2 had an obvious declaration. The Constitution does not mandate the wording of such a document.

Can he be held accounteable for what he said or the fact that someone quoted him? If someone in Iraq started a speach with "I have a dream..." should that be considered treasonous? I'm stretching the point...but Kennedy is mirroring what his constituants are thinking. There aren't a whole lot of people who are fans of this war.
 
chcr said:
The only legitimate comparison I can think of is that the Iraq war is just as much about stopping the spread of terrorism as the Vietnam war was about stopping the spread of communism.



but see Chcr, there wasnt any real relationship between Iraq and any terrorist organisations. they investigated it. There may have been some very good reasons for it but they werent the reasons we went there
 
freako104 said:
but see Chcr, there wasnt any real relationship between Iraq and any terrorist organisations. they investigated it. There may have been some very good reasons for it but they werent the reasons we went there
But see, Eric, neither did the war (okay, the police action) in Vietnam have anything to do with stopping the spread of communism. Notice that we bailed (at the public's insistence) and yet communism did not run rampant. It was all part of a silly game of cold war one-upmanship, and it meant nothing. A lot of people were killed over a piece of land smaller than Rhode Island.

Note that sadly, the only thing we seem to have learned from the lessons of Vietnam was to call it a war if it was one.

Edit: I remember pointing out over a year ago that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists.
 
I thought the actual arms race was the one up and Vietnam was to stop it from spreading. As far as it being a war I thought ti was like Korea: A skirmish. I dont know that Congress approved it since it was before my birth
 
Vietnam in itself had very little strategic value. The US involvement there was largely to combat communism. It may not have been the smartest turf to pick a fight with the commies on, but at the time the US leadership felt it was now or never.

As far as it being a war I thought ti was like Korea: A skirmish.

If that's what you consider a skirmish, then I'd love to know what you consider a campaign, or even a war for that matter.

Notice that we bailed (at the public's insistence) and yet communism did not run rampant.

Well, it may have not run rampant, but it didn't exactly stand still in that part of asia either. Laos and Cambodia both fell to communism right after Vietnam did.

A lot of people were killed over a piece of land smaller than Rhode Island.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Vietnam is a whole heck of a lot bigger than rhode island (almost 100X); are you talking about a specific battle for a small area of vietnam or what?
 
Exaggeration to make a point, RDX. 66,000 square mile country with no strategic value whatsoever. No danger to national security either. Nice to know that so many people blindly accept the rationale the government put forward at the time. We knew better when it was goiing on.
 
Back
Top