Michael Welch wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:44 PM:
" When I was in a war in Vietnam in 1968 there had been conscription for two decades (I however was a 'volunteer'!); consequently the guys I knew represented ALL sorts of opinions and attitudes, politically, socially AND culturally. There was no one rigid 'mindset' re: 'liberals' or 'conservatives.' Most folks started counting down the days until they completed the one year required tour of duty in the 'Nam' the very day they arrived. Some rather 'liked war'; most only wished to survive it. Generally they found our south Vietnamese ally and in particular its army 'wanting' but 'Charlie' (the Viet Cong -- 'Victor Charlie' in military parlance) 'had his s--- together.' And per Francis Ford Coppola's great film 'Apocalypse Now' -- 'Charlie didn't get much R & R'... "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:33 PM:
" Republicans used to be skeptical of wars; Sen Robert La Follette of Wisconsin strongly opposed entering WWI; Sens Robert Taft of Ohio and Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan were VERY wary of FDR's assertion in the 1940 election that he wouldn't 'send our boys to fight in foreign wars.' Taft for one was none too thrilled with the Korean 'police action' either. Eisenhower as prez REFUSED to come to the rescue of an ally, France, in Vietnam; Ike depended mainly on covert 'destabilization' of governments we didn't like (Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia) which in time by the way led to many of the problems we have today. Would say Ike have invaded Iraq in 2003? His son John S. D. Eisenhower who supported John Kerry in '04 said No way... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:03 PM:
" Republicans finish wars that Democrats start. Just using recent history, it was under a Democrat that America ignored the threats of Germany and Japan until we were attacked. It was a Republican that was personally involved in stopping that and the Korean War, Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower) The Korean War began under a Democrat too, Truman. The Viet Nam War was begun under a Democrat, Kennedy or Johnson (depending on when you recognize the start). Nixon, a Republican, did end America's involvement and our troops left with the South secure. Bush fought and won the War with Iraq. Right now we are not fighting Iraq but terrorist who wish to destroy a free Iraq. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:51 AM:
" Mack, try this...instead of just making empty accusations, why not state something specific that I have stated or backed and then show me where I'm wrong. Until you do that, your cries will only be regarded as empty whining. And by the way, when was it that you served in the military? "
dean wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:54 AM:
" The last time a repub won a war was 1865 "
Mack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:20 PM:
" Phil, many of your statements have been so wrong or you said things that you have no way of knowing that you are either ignorant or lying. To be generous one could assume that you are simply wrong which would be a middle ground that you do not seem to be capable of acknowledging even exists. If you want to compare accolades, you are a little on the light side. "
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:53 PM:
" The soldiers suffer first, but it is ultimately the American public that suffers the consequences when civilian opinions lead to bad military decisions in light of those opinions. (I understand both sides can use that argument, but it is true none-the-less). Let the military make military decisions in able to properly accomplish what needs to be accomplished and the whole world is better off. "
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:52 PM:
" Early in my career, I had an old First Sergeant (a Vietnam veteran) who always used to say "The only good civilian is a dead civilian!". I always thought those were harsh, demented words, and I wondered how a person could get that jaded. I know fully understand what that means. It is more figurative, than literal. Civilians always manage to mess up a perfectly good military operation. From our elected officials, appointed officials like the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the Army (both civilians),to the press, and finally the court of public opinion, there are too many factors that are non-military in nature that affect the outcome of military affairs. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:37 PM:
" Mack, I served 6 years in the Navy during the Cold War. I have seen some of the sacrifices personally, but not to the same degree that these soldiers who are voluntarily reuping and doing 2 and 3 tours in Iraq. I have liberals in my own family who will never know the great sacrifices or understand what a person in the military feels or thinks. Since you think you know what I don't, why don't you post everything you know about me and prove it. By the way, how many years did you serve in the military. "
dean wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:17 PM:
" Only a Repub can have a war AND a recession at the same time coupled with Inflation and a mortgage meltdown too boot "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:27 PM:
" I never wanted ANY soldiers to have to fight an unnecessary war, be away from their families, have to repeat tours twice, three times, suffer horrid mental and physical wounds, get bounced out on the street for post traumatic stress or stuck in moldy 'hospital' rooms or denied the proper disability designation because the military has got its use from you and doesn't wish to incur any more expense. I NEVER wanted ANY of those things to happen; I NEVER wanted this war or saw any 'need' for it. Your REAL argument is with those who fostered a false 'mission' and sent you on your way as THEIR 'cannon fodder' and then they cry their crocodile tears over your broken minds and bodies... "
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:26 PM:
" Luckily, I have a supportive family, and even then the adjustment isn't problem free. The problem for soldiers now versus Vietnam, is now you don't know who your enemy is at home. At least back then they wore flowers in their hair and spit in your face. Now they don't have the dignity to identify themselves and stab you in the back. I assume that everyone is against me until they identify themselves as a supporter. At least if they spit in my face, I would know who to punch in the nose. And yes I would put my freedom and career on the line for my beliefs, after all I have already done that for my country. Maybe it is time I do it for myself! "
Mack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:22 PM:
" Phil, how do you mange to say so much about things you know nothing about? "
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:20 PM:
" Phil, you are so right about the sacrifice and the lack of understanding. Most of them have no clue what it is like to leave your family, only to come home and have to leave your family again. The other part that is missed is that the families also sacrifice their loved ones for a long time and some cases forever. Even if you come back whole, physically and mentally, there have to be adjustments as both parties, family and soldiers, change over time. Sadly many can't handle the change and families break up right when the soldier needs their support the most, often leading to suicide. Who do they turn to when the public, and sometimes their fellow soldiers, are against them too? "
dean wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:07 PM:
" When the war started oil was $24 a barrel and the war was estimated to cost $60 billion electricity was on 24 hours a day in Iraq now look at things NOTHING GOOD will come out of this war its going to Bankrupt this country and they will come after Your benefits especially the younger people to pay for it just wait and find out for Yourself "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:46 PM:
" When Marc writes of the 'River valley' blogs it's largely Jimmy Gillman's 'where the action is.' When ol' Dean Martin drawlingly queries 'Who's got the action?' yep the apt reply is 'Jimmy'! Partly it's because his is the 'old fashioned' blog wherein folks can disguise themselves under a number of personas but Jim also picks VERY hot topics and then watches 'em (including me of course) GO! A blog on the bad behavior of Palestinians segues into an argument about -- homosexuality! Uh NOT Laurence of Arabian pederasty stuff but gay rights in the USA. The Obama-Wright flap is now getting a thorough discussion -- some dopey, some paranoid and nasty, some thoughtful -- but it's THOROUGH! Thanks Jim!... "
Mack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Willie, you are right comparing Vietnam to Iraq. They are both unjust, hobby wars started by the U.S. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Willie, liberals like Mack will probably never see what you mean. To them, a job is simply a means to get cash and socialize. If they don't like the job or people they just quit. If they run low on cash, they mooch off of the government or their friends until another job comes along. They have the lifestyle of a leaf on the wind, so they naturally want their wind source to blow them in the left direction. People like you who serve in the Military have a job that they volunteer for knowing that they can't quit when the going gets tough. They have a job that may require the ultimate sacrifice of their own life. They do the job, more out of duty and honor then out of cash rewards. These high standards don't just happen and therefore libs will never know them. "
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:00 AM:
" after Tet, overall violence was down and we had more control over the situation than it probably appeared, even to the grunt. It was still dangerous to be in the jungle. I see the same thing happening now after the Surge. Overall violence is down, but it is still a dangerous place. There are now only 500-600 civilians dying every month as opposed to 1500-3000 right before and during the surge. The same with the troops. We are losing 30-40 monthly versus 80-120 before and during the surge. How often does the nightly news cover the war as opposed to the Surge? The American people has lost interest right along with the press. Now the focus is the elections and the economy. See what I mean?
"
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:59 AM:
" When I was in college 15 years ago, I was convinced that the media was to blame for losing Vietnam. It was the thesis of one of my term papers. I was right but not in the way that I thought. It was a more indirect relationship. The correlation was that early in the war the reporting was more up front and intense. After Tet, the reporting was more decentralized and visual depictions were from a distance. This appeared to show more disinterest in what was going on and the focus was more on policy, not people. Tell me the same thing isn't happening now.
"
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:58 AM:
" I blame negative press and one-sided reporting by the media for both the soldier and citizen phenomena. After-all you will see some of the public and media's perception reflected in the soldiers' perception of what is going on. Soldiers don't live in a vacuum. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The in-your-face news now method is very damaging to this country, and not just because of Iraq. Domestic problems have become everyone's problem in you living room too. "
Mack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:51 AM:
" Actually we are 'closer' to a consensus as most Americans oppose the war and even the Bush followers are seeing the evidence that we over-reacted to a handful of nutjobs. "
Willie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:45 AM:
" What anti-war people fail to realize is that right now our presence is the closest thing to stability in the region right now. Iran is already rattling their sabers because they think we are weak and want us to leave. They lust over Iraq's resources. The protests because of the unpopularity here at home only further fuel Iran's saber rattling. The Iranians see us as even weaker because our government can't control its' citizenry. You have the legal right to dissent in this country, but buyer beware. You just might get what you ask for. If we pull troops out prematurely, what will happen next, and how will this involve the U.S. in the future? Just food for thought. "
Advertisement 
