3996 ! ! ! George what are you doing this Easter? Having dinner with your dad,mom,brother,sister,kids,uncle,aunt,? Bet alot of people wish they had it so good. O by the way,tell Dick happy Easter..

Outstanding!

These are not statistics they are great Americans that died for their country.

Unlike Mr. Clinton who could not even bring himself to serve.

Check to see how many great Americans had to die in the Democrat war, Vietnam.

God Bless them all

How sad, trivializing Vietnam on the basis of Democratic vrs. Republican leadership, when they both were at fault. Never should have gotten involved in Vietnam, never should have dragged it out so long. Old soldiers never die, they just send younger ones to die.

And I must remind a7 of Five-Deferment Cheney.

How dare you, Sir!

All you have EVER said about this war in Iraq is that it is a Mr. Bush and/or Republican war. Now when I bring out the fact that the Vietnam war was a Democrat war you scream foul.

But I have no idea why I should ascribe honor to you, you have none.

Another thing, a deferment is a much different thing than lying and cheating to get out of serving.

Personally, I really don't like ether but at least one is legal and the other is just typical Clinton, i.e., illegal.

Choosing to defend freedom and having no choice are world's apart.

However, I'm sure you and your ilk would look at it as children who didn't have to grow up to die defending the rights of people to pursue all the things you and I have?

The point, a7, is that Bush voluntarily invaded Iraq when Iraq was no threat to the US. It literally is Bush's war. Instead of quashing the Taliban and al Qaida in Afghanistan, he diverted his attention and our resources to Iraq.

Republican Ike got us into Vietnam, which was not threat. He should have known better. Kennedy and Johnson should have left. Nixon prolonged Vietnam to save face.

Ike? Check a little further back. I think it must have Millard Fillmore.

wasn't there a vote?

Facts aren't important to some people, Hendo....he probably meant "figuratively" speaking and not "literally"....

If you believe that tripe then you really ought stay out of any serious discussion about this and the other wars of this nation. You know nothing! How pathetic.

Poor old man, trying to remember your glory days.

At least I had some.............

Longing for the days when you believed your leaders, giving them unquestioning obedience, believing that no matter what the USA did, it was right.

June Cleaver called. She, Wally, and the Beav have your dinner ready.

But the USA was right. Then and now!

The fact that you choose not to do your homework is not my problem.

"But the USA was right. Then and now!"

Therein lies your problem, and why Iraq will bleed this country dry, and weaken the US for years to come.

Hey, Tall!

Run away! Run away! Run away!

Kennedy started the escalation with more advisors..( I know because my wife lived there as her dad was an advisor.) in Viet Nam, Johnson blew numbers way up and Nixon started the drawdown.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/mcnamara.htm
http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon2/ps17.htm
http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html

From your link:

"Nixon and Kissinger quickly agreed upon two premises about American policy in Vietnam. First, the war in Vietnam was not "winnable" in any conventional sense of the term. Public opinion would tolerate neither an escalation nor the continuation of a status quo that included over 1,000 killed per month. Second, a unilateral withdrawal was not feasible because the political costs, both domestic and international, were unacceptable. Withdrawal would dissolve Nixon's political base at home and, as Kissinger continually emphasized, undermine American credibility abroad. [2] Apart from the military situation in Vietnam, the political problem confronting President Nixon was complex. How could Nixon "buy time" to achieve his understanding of "peace with honor" without succumbing to Lyndon Johnson's fate of eroding public support?"

How many US servicemen died while we gradually withdrew to save face and credibility?

After Eisenhower took office in 1952, US aid to the French effort in Vietnam increased. The U.S was paying 80 percent of the financial cost of the war against the Viet Minh by 1954.

Nixon prolonged the war way too long.

"In his public statements, for example, Nixon had emphasized the primacy of ending the war, extricating American troops, and gaining the release of American POWs. In practice these policy goals were held hostage to his other policy goal of protecting the credibility of the United States as a loyal and effective counterrevolutionary power and his personal political goal of winning the 1972 election."
http://hnn.us/articles/3073.html

This is just my opion so go easy on me but if I'm not mistaken (and I was once) part of Iraqs surrender terms after desert storm was the right to have inspecters access anytime anywhere in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, I can't count the times the inspectors
were denied access to certain areas and even told to leave on several occasions, even though no weapons were found the terms were broken the very first time the inspectors were denied access. I beleive the U.S. showed extreme patients with Iraq, this would still be going on if someone hadn't have done something, however saddam is dead and the war in Iraq now is a civil war and we know there are no weapons of mass destruction so our job should be done, from now on we should support the new government finacally but let them die for their own country now, just an opinion

In term sof manpower, Kennedy escalated...Johnson escalated...Nixon took too long to get out. All the blasted politicians tried to micromanage the war rather than letting the fighting men do their jobs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. War is a blunt political instrument. If the politics and reason are wrong to begin with, the war effort is wrong.

That does sound so good and tough, doesn't it?

"...letting the fighting men do their jobs."

Does it make you feel good to say it? Feel more like a man?

yep, Saddam was in violation of seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions ...plus constantly shooting at our jets. and as far as dying for their own country, they have been. By the hundreds every time a bomb goes off in a crowded market, or at a funeral, or on the street. But I would like to see us force the hand of the government and make them step up to the plate and get it in gear. We will be there for a long time though...if we retreat as O'blabby wants to do, then it will be worse than it was before we went in.

Back away from the crack pipe.. I need nothing to feel more like a man, especially not the remarks of a libber koolaid drinker. I am stating a fact. I bet you would take a rubber knife to a gun fight wouldn't you? If the military is sent to do a job, then it should be done by whom? SanFranNan Paloosi?

"Saddam was in violation of seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions"

How wonderfully ironic. Bush, his cronies, and people like you trash the UN at every opportunity, but use a violation of a UN resolution as part of the excuse to invade a country that was no threat.

I notice you could not debate the basic statement that if the political reasons are wrong, the war is wrong. It holds true for Vietnam and Iraq.

But just let the fighting men do the fighting. No matter what the reason. Do you feel manly now?

I'm sure you would like to know if there is a man out there for you have never felt what it is to be a man.

What was the wrong political premise of the the Vietnam war?

What was the wrong political premise of the Iraq war?

Can you say Quagmire?

1. The Domino Theory. It never was a threat. Vietnam was a civil war. The US should have learned from the French defeat.

2. Way too numerous to list, you know the wrong premises.

Amen. For those who dont like it too much, there is always a visa and a one way ticket to another country.
We may not always agree with why the USA handles business, but Im sure there is alot more going on than what we the public know. We must all believe that even if Iraq was not an immediate threat, they would have been in the NEAR future. Saddam did violate UN treaties and had to be dealt with. He was also a violent dictator and someone has to help with humanity of other countries. (vietnam? sound familiar) Staying number one is harder than becoming number one.
We as a nation should back our country and its decisions 100% My father is in Kuwait and has been for 4 years. Is my family happy, no, but we support him 100%. Let us not demean? the fallen soldiers, contractors, etc that have gone over there and given their lives for us, Iraq, vietnam or ANY other conflict.
Personally, I believe we should bomb any country that harbors terrorist. Have we forgotton sept 11th already.
just my 2 cents or maybe a little more.
By the way, thank you a7 for your service and thank you to all the veterans out there and on this forum. Its nice to go to bed and know that I will wake up and all should be fine.

ridculous sad & should have never happened in that country

As I thought. You have not done your homework.

You have the wrong answer for the Vietnam war. You give nothing for the Iraq campaign.

Think!

There are plenty of mean dictators out there. Is the US the world's policeman? We should immediately invade North Korea based on your logic. We should also invade Saudi Arabia based on your reasoning. Oh, and Pakistan. Not to mention about a dozen other countries.

Contractors? They are in Iraq for the money. Are they "giving their lives" for us?

When things get out of control, yes. The US is the worlds police. Not immediately invade but if it threatens OUR interest, yes.
By the way, not all contractors are out there for the money. I know that for a fact. I have a father who is a contractor who is not out there for the money. He contracts through the air force in communications and trains pilots on how to use the updated computer equipment. There were also contractors during the first invasion who put out the oil fires that were started by a dictator who was just burning everyones oil supplies, which were our interest.
So yes, there are contractors who are risking and giving their lives to protect the interest of the US.
Touchy subject there.

As I recall, Kennedy himself promised we would defend our allies in Vietnam. Isolationist thinking leaves you with no allies.

Also, arent you in kansas? Why are you on a texas fishing forum. Things may be a little different here. You know, a lot of us here are a little patriotic.

You couldn't be more wrong in saying that contractors are only in it for the money!!!!!!

Internet = global.

Oh, Iraq was out of control so we, as the world's policeman, went in? How's that working out so far? So we're the current Roman Empire?

The oil in Iraq was our interest, you say. That's justification for invading?

Unfortunately because he can and he likes to stir the pot with half truths and other silly carp!

When was the mission of the Roman Empire to protect its allies? If I recall my history correctly, it was pure expansionism.

Which allies were we protecting when Commander Guy invaded Iraq?

None that I can think of. However, the belief was that Iraq posed a threat to us and/or our allies via WMDs. While they may not have existed as thought, this belief was held by the Clinton administration and congress, not just W.

Great post

You nor I know the real impetus behind our going into Iraq. One thought provoking explanation I've heard has to do with a dollar vs euro conflict. Nothing is as simple as you try to make it sound. And unfortunately most conflicts follow this premise.


You are not a member of any group steering national/world politics so you have no real knowlege ... just some liberal hippy notions. One real shame is you are able to pollute some poor skull(s) full of mush with your propaganda on a regular basis!

Small thinkers use terms like this!

The oil in Iraq is EVERYBODYS interest. Just because it is in thier soil doesn't necessarily make it only theirs. It was placed by God or the big bang or however you want to believe for us all to use. We depend on oil for everyday living. Maybe Im being close minded, but hell yea. Lets go take it if we need. However, I dont think at 3.19 a gallon we have. If we had, we would have more than we need and not getting raped at the pump.

This war was NOT over oil, evidenced by our payments at the pump. There were other reasons.

You are way off comparing this to the roman empire. We did not invade to take land. We took a ruthless dictator who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own people out of business. Not the same. I guess with your logic, we should have left Germany alone in WWII. It didn't affect us at first. We should have stayed out. NO WAY. Eventually it did.
We should have let communism spread as in Vietnam. We should have backed off of Russia in the cold war and bowed down. I think not. Hell, maybe we should revoke our independence from England.
You and I belong to a country that not only protects its freedoms as necessary, but with a strong show of force. You should be thankful to be blessed to be here, otherwise, buy a ticket and a turban and go fight the fight you think is right. Ive got an AK you can use for a while, but I want it back after they pick the 2000# bomb out of your arse.
You want to know how thats working out. Look at all the good that has come out of this war so far. And you know there has been, dont deny.
I'll show how its working out as well. I will go to bed tonight and wake up in the morning knowing that I will have a great day just being here. I can celebrate easter or what ever religious cerimony I want and not worry about being killed. My wife can wear shorts and not be beaten in the streets. My kids and daughter can go to school and get an education. My toilet flushes. And no one is going to come here and start something without there being a strong counter action.