September 11th

The media keeps telling us that September 11 changed everything. If we believe that, we are going to get into the biggest and bloodiest war we have ever fought and I am talking about the sort of battle where everybody loses. I hope, for the sake of the young heroes who are going to be sacrificing their lives, that this stupid, endless war is averted, before it is too late.

I am too old to be involved in this battle, and I therefore am not motivated by self interest, to express these views which need to be vigorously debated, before lives are needlessly sacrificed. I think that somebody as distinguished and as intelligent as Walter Cronkite would share these views, and therefore believe that they should be taken very seriously.

First and foremost, I do not think that September 11 changed everything. I think that the Gulf War changed everything. With all due respect for Mr. Bush Sr. whom I greatly admire and respect because he is a good man, I think he made a big mistake during the Gulf War. I will never forget when Mr. Bush said that the Gulf War was essentially an effort to exorcise the ghost of the Vietnam War. It was Mr. Bush's view that America lost the Vietnam War because it was fought with 'one hand tied behind its back' and I believe that it is this faulty view which is responsible for failing to avert the Gulf War.

America did not lose the Vietnam War because it fought with one hand tied behind its back. America lost the Vietnam war because it was a country with principles, and it refused to massacre the Vietnamese, to the extent it was capable of. If we are to deserve our strength and our power, we should understand the difference between a war and a massacre, and I am not sure that we do.

If I was the President of the United States, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, I would give Sadaam Hussein two choices. 'Get out of Kuwait or we will blow your brains out.' The CIA had already provided the intelligence that Bush needed, to make his word stick. Hussein was not suicidal. Bush could have and should have made Sadaam Hussein back down, without firing a single shot. I believe that those beautiful young Americans who died during the Iraq war, should be alive today. Have you seen their pictures? Why don't we acknowledge that loss of life, the way we do, the victims of September 11? The young Americans who died during the Iraq war are forgotten heroes, and if you look at pictures of all their beautiful, young and smiling faces you will understand that they are no less important, than the victims of September 11. Why have we forgotten them?

I believe that if Bush had forced Hussein to back down without firing a single shot, there would be no Timothy McVean, there would be no Oklahoma City and there would be no September 11. Violence begets violence. The proper use of strength, controls villains.

I believe that if Bush Jr. further destabilizes Iraq, there will be more violence and more unecessary slaughter, and there is no telling how many lives will be lost.

I believe that the best thing that Bush can possibly do is to turn Iraq into an American ally who clearly understands that any threat against any of its neighbors spells the end of Iraq. The people of Iraq have suffered enough, and the world does not need any more terrorists.

This world is spinning out of control, and we need to promote justice at home, before we can demand it abroad.
http://www.skakel.shorturl.com

Biggest and bloodiest, eh? anything like the Civil War, which cost 600,000 plus out of 31 million? Proportionally, that would mean that to equal _that_, 3.6 million U.S. troops would be casualties.

But even by straght numbers (600,000 - remember?) you're full of shit. The United States did not suffer that level of casualties in _World_War_II_! And _that war was fought against multiple industialized nations, who fielded modern well-equipped armies. Iraq has neither industry nor a modern army.

Idiot. Go take a history class.

accordance with The Prophecy prognosticated:

I'm just nit picking, but in a way it was. The Viet Cong destroyed themselves with Tet and that left the North without any political competition when the South fell.

That, on top of how it was handled in the media here.

It was a military failure, but a pyrrhic victory for Giap.

says...

Please stop cross-posting this political bullshit to rec.arts.fine unless you can find some artistically redeeming value for such discussions here!!! And notice I prefaced the above with PLEASE...

That's pretty idiotic...'prove it.' Let's see, crank-up the old time machine. As it stands, I have 'we lost' to back up my claim. I'm just saying we lost fair and square - this 'hands tied' excuse is a bunch of bull. Both the VC and NVA were brilliant fighters.

Another idiotic observation. And could the ARVN have lasted w/o US support? Oh, what happened to ARVN when we left?

Sure, being there is important. It took me 6 months just to figure out what was going on, since there were so many lies floating about.

1968? Well, you know that Giap is recognized as the greatest military strategist of the late 20th century. Tet worked well for the NVA and VC, especially politically. There was one great mistake made, however, and that was that the NVA regiments in the north were using a new calendar, and in the south the old calendar. So the surprise only worked in the north, as the offensive started a day late in the south. Even so, the Americans were caught off-guard and unprepared. I'm glad I wasn't there (I had returned to the states 6 mos. before.)

Prove what, that they are not 'minimal' figures?

Actually, Hussein's all over negotiation, we're the ones who were unwilling to negotiate

The reason Bush Sr. didn't finish off Saddam IS because in *negotiations*, Saddam agreed to numerous conditions that would have rendered his threat nil while upping his helpfulness quotient. Alas, he didn't quite fulfill his end of the bargain. Surprise surprise. You can't negotiate with a snake in the grass. You can either run away (and hope it doesn't take you by surprise some other day), or slam it with an axe, hoping your aim is good.

They said that for months before we actually attacked.

We did not know where Saddam was. If we did, Saddam would be dead. You don't think we tried to kill him in the gulf war?

Oh, that's all, that shouldn't be too hard!

Jeremy Olson

Y'all have both forgotten that Iraq *was* an American ally. Remember Iraqui tankers fitted with American flags to keep the Iranians from sinking them? It wasn't until the invasion of Kuwait that Saddam Hussein didn't enjoy very cozy relations with the United States

'Eve of destruction' could very well be appropriate if nuclear attack now felt to be a very real probability becomes reality. My comment was directed at taking discussions of politics, religion, etc to the forums where those subjects are openly discussed in context. I'm perfectly willing to discuss issues related to art and how an artist can express themselves on such subjects. That's NOT what's going on here.

Exactly my point: From your list, it would seem you are just reading things that agree with your point of view. That hardly gives you a good understanding of the *reality* of the situation.

I doubt many Generals have idealized versions of the situation. The cowards I refer to are the ones who say that all war is baaaad and killing in any and all cases is baaaaad, that sorta thing. Those people, rather than face reality, spout idealism. When in reality, they are cowards. Humans are what they are. Maybe someday humanity will overcome the quite prominant remnants of their monkey mentality, but not anytime soon I'm afriad. To believe otherwise is naive and ignorant at best, suicidal at worst.