Politics and War

[Gonzo1]

Professor Packsaddle,

Assignment received, but will take some time. I'm going to guess you're a few years older than I, so my research would be like you doing a similar report on WWII, no real first recollection, just reaserch. BTW, I'm 45. I usually see the glass half full as I'm usually optomistic. And while I agree we don't always agree, I enjoy these chats and others and look forward to a visit 'round a campfire, dinner, maybe a canoe trip, etc.

 

I agree that the people in her district elected her. My question is what in the world is the House Speaker doing over there in the first place. The Speaker belongs in the Capitol and in her district, not the Green Zone and Syria.

 

LH,

 

Interesting. I think it could be extended to both. I think the President, in his original context, suggested that "you" were to mean potential allied nations and "us" to mean the United States of America. As in other countries are with the USA or support and maybe sponsor terrorists, leaving not much wiggle room. I know already, Switzerland is always neutral, Vatican City always wants peace, Lichtenstein doesn't have an army, yada yada yada.

 

LH, another thing is is the old "draw down" of the 1990's. It's one thing IMO to scale down a military, but another to cut it to the bone. Maybe if the military weren't cut down so badly, we would have more troops and equipment to use.

 

[KC9DDI]

Remember, you're either with us, or, you're with the terrorists.

 

Seems like a false dichotomy. I think there's a couple more possibilities: (assuming that, in using the word "with", you actually meant "support")

 

1. You don't support "us", i.e., Bush and his military strategies and priorities, and you do support the terrorists (the terrorists themselves, and those who aid them)

2. You do support "us", and you do not support the terrorists (a good chunk of the American people, probably including yourself)

3. You do support "us", and you do support the terrorists (probably not possible, save for a few wacky conspiracy theories)

4. You do not support "us", and you do not support the terrorists (another good sized portion of the American population, who do not support terrorism, but feel that Bush is not addressing the problem in an effective way)

 

Granted, your rhetoric is nice, but plenty of Americans can disagree with how the president is addressing the terrorism problem, without supporting terrorism itself. Your dichotomy assumes that the president is somehow infallible in how he makes policy, and directs this way, and that assumption is untrue.

 

As far as comments made about Bush not sending his daughters off to die... we still have a volunteer military, and if Bush's daughter decides to enlist, I'm sure she could.

 

As for the original idea of remembering that real people are fighting this fight, I don't think anybody (short of that wacko Phelps guy who protests soldier's funerals) is ignoring the fact the soldiers are putting it all on the line. I think the issue is whether or not the higher-ups, (i.e., the president) is making the best use possible of these people's dedication and sacrifice.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[Gonzo1]

Kilo Charlie,

Wow,

You said:

"Seems like a false dichotomy. I think there's a couple more possibilities: (assuming that, in using the word "with", you actually meant "support")

 

1. You don't support "us", i.e., Bush and his military strategies and priorities, and you do support the terrorists (the terrorists themselves, and those who aid them)

2. You do support "us", and you do not support the terrorists (a good chunk of the American people, probably including yourself)

3. You do support "us", and you do support the terrorists (probably not possible, save for a few wacky conspiracy theories)

4. You do not support "us", and you do not support the terrorists (another good sized portion of the American population, who do not support terrorism, but feel that Bush is not addressing the problem in an effective way)

 

 

If we dice this up anymore, we'll be back to wht the definition of "is" is and "I did not have s#xual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky".

 

Go back, listen to what Bush said about what is now known as the Bush Doctrine when he made his speech to the Nation.

 

[Stosh]

I usually don't get involved in these political he said/she said kinda drivel, but I'll drivel in on this one.

 

First of all Presidents don't declare war, but as Commander-in-Chief they are the sole responsiblity for their operations.

 

Secondly Congress does declare war, but are not in any way responsible for it's operation, only it's fiancial support of the armed forces it sent into the war.

 

These are Constitutional directives. We need to go back to our Citizenship in the Nation MB and review these principles.

 

Stosh

 

 

[DugNevius]

Gonzo, im curious what would lead you to believe the Vietnam war was in anyway a success.

[packsaddle]

Gonzo1, while you're doing research I'll hijack the thread with something more professionally-related. First, to understand what we did a couple of weeks ago, take a look at this:

http://www.avirtualdominica.com/thelake.cfm

also:

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2000/jun/17/dominica

 

You have to realize that this island is extremely vertical and if you leave the coast everything is very, very steep. So on the day we were going to do this hike, an all-day extreme trek, I was clamboring down our steep steps from our cabin in the rain when...slip, BAM! My feet slipped out from underneath me and I went down onto the rock...HARD! The pain was exquisite and I knew that at the least I had badly bruised my coccyx. Every uphill step, no matter how small, was really painful. But...it's only pain and so I took my group on this trek, LOL. It still hurts but a lot less, so I guess I didn't break anything. And the lake, it was fantastic...and the valley of desolation, and the mountains, and the razor sharp ridges and the rain and the mud and Titou Gorge at the end and the hot springs. The pain was well worth it, no doubt at all. THIS is where we should have our campfire.

Edited part: Oops, typo. Sorry

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[SSScout]

1) We have the bravest, best equipped, best trained, most loyal "Citizen army" (note the adjective) in the world (singular scandals not withstanding). They go where they are asked to go and do the best job possible, under the conditions. (and why do we need so many civilian 'support staff'? Paid to what corporation?). And I thank God for the safe return of my step son.

 

2) I pray daily for President Bush, that his decisions will be correct, that he has all the information he needs to make those decisions, and that his health remains good. I also remember that Mr. Cheney is Vice president and Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and I again pray for Mr. Bushes health.

 

3) I marvel that when Iraq was invaded, the places that were guarded included the oil fields and the ministry of finance but not the museums or power plants or other civilian places.

 

4) I marvel that the armaments that couldn't be found previously are beginning to show up and are now killing innocent Iraqis. But the WMDs are still lacking.

 

5) 9-11 was a well defined event and the perpetrators were identified. None of them were Iraqi, if memory serves.

 

6) Saddam Hussein was originally "helped" to take power by...?

 

7) I recommend "War is a Racket" by USMC General Smedley Butler (awarded two Congressional Medals) for some thought provoking reading. Look it up on several web sites.

 

8) "We were knee deep in the big muddy and the big fool said to press on..."

 

9) Let us pray that we can educate our Scouts to not make the same mistakes that their grandparents made...

 

 

[Gonzo1]

SSScout,

 

#2 made me laugh.

 

Regarding guarding places of interest. Many places were guarded, but not all. Oil fields were guarded so terrorists (or Saddam) wouldn't blow them up like Saddam did in 1991. In some cases, Saddam deliberately poured oil into the Persian Gulf from off shore wells.

 

Actually, WMD have been found, got about 2 days newsplay and then it was dropped. (Mustard gas cannisters and mass graves of people executed)

 

The war isn't about WMD, that's only part of it.

 

Pack,

I can't wait to go camping with you. Afterward, I'd like to organize a scouter.com campout, maybe Rainy Mountain or somewhere in the national forest?

 

Dug,

Viet Nam was a greater success than the media allowed to be reported. A quick search shows: " Big Story is sui generis, a book as remarkable as the event it describes. The book punctured not only the myth of Tet, but the myth of the news coverage surrounding it, revealing exactly how the national media acted as a catalyst for the loss of a war." taken from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/12/the_legacy_of_tet.html

 

I firmly believe the media lies to us everyday. I know the government lies to us. They should at times.

[OldGreyEagle]

Not to be too flip about it, but when a Country's military involvment ends in another country with scads of people being taken off the Embassy roof with thousands left behind to face a rather not so plesant future, its hard to say the country that left "won" according to anybody's definition

[DugNevius]

Tet is well documented. From a Vietnamese military perspective it was a failed offensive and was quickly put down. From a stratigic perspective it did exactly what the NVA and Vietcang leaders intended, it sapped the support from America, Walter Conkite pronounced the war unwinnable and the media jumped on it as an example of the Communist resolve. Without civilian support large scale war is nearly impossible to win.

 

The Tet offenseive, or "Myth" as you called it, is no evidence that the Vietnam war was in any way close to a success. The truth of vietnam is that the US killed more of the Vietcong or NVA then they lost, by a huge margin, but not a single long term objective was accomplished and therefore the conflict must be seen as a failure.

[Gonzo1]

Many of you are older than I, some are not. some of you study history, I study the human body and radiology.

 

If General Westmoreland were still alive, he would tell you we won, He was the on the ground commander for much of the Viet Nam War.

 

OK, so people get plucked off roof tops, it doesn't look pretty. The media can paint any picture it wants, the media can be wrong adn the American public will see wahat the media want you to know.

 

Here's another of example of the media "tinkring" with fact. Recent polling data show Mitt Romney low in the polls, BUT, he has raised more money than other republican candidates, how can this be? If he' doing so poorly, why so much cash? Maybe he's not really doing so poorly.

 

Dug, when military commanders were in charge, things went well. When politicians got involved, (you know, we can't upset the chinese or the soviets) things went down hill.

 

Viet Nam really isn't germaine to this discussion anyway. Pack, I'll still do the report.

 

OGE, it's the images, the pictures that the Amercian public see and remember. Recall the presidential campaign with the little girl and the picture of the mushroom cloud? Just a commercial ruined it for one guy. Was that McGovern? How about Dukakis in the tank?

 

Early in this war, things with the media were good. But as usually is the case, anything good for America, bad for liberals, anything bad for Bush, good for liberals. Anything good for America or Bush, bad for liberals.

 

Consequently, the media rarely, if ever, show anything good coming out of Iraq.

 

[DugNevius]

Gonzo, its not like its been much of a stretch for the media to report negative on a war declared won over a year ago yet yeilds more casualties post victory and, as pointed out earlier, a war started on false analysis (or lies?) I think yur anger/frustration/disparagement is misdirected.

 

as for Westmorland, he would say, if alive, he was handicapped and held back from winning, not that he won.

[packsaddle]

If we merely read the subject title of this thread, "RE: Politics and War", I think discussion of any war is germaine, including Vietnam. LongHaul was definitely thinking about Iraq when he started it but it is not clear that he wanted it confined to that conflict.

 

For what it's worth, I'll wait to see what Gonzo1 finds before I comment further on the 'winning or losing' issue. I do note, however, that Lyndon Johnson's mushroom cloud commercial (which I remember vividly - as a Goldwater supporter - because of my training as a child to duck and cover) doubtless did help defeat a good man, Barry Goldwater. In defense, Goldwater, as I remember did say something to the effect of being willing to consider use of nuclear weapons on N. Vietnam. But it was a campaign tactic that was picked up later by Lee Atwater and then honed to a fine art by the current crop, especially during the Reagan and later administrations. I think the only two presidents since Eisenhower that did not lie to the people were Ford and Carter. Thinking wistfully, if only Ford had not pardoned Nixon....

 

But the lies of this administration, while not as stupidly criminal as Nixon's, have been IMHO even more damaging to the country, partly because we DID have such higher expectations when they came into office. And...remember, the mushroom cloud thing resurfaced also, this time from Dr. Rice, herself,

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/

 

Regarding the media: sometimes the power of a photo or a quote, widely distributed, is its ability to accurately communicate an idea. Perception, as is evident in this thread, is left to the recipient and his preconceived notions.

[SSScout]

10) And when the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, it was with the support of whom, as a counter to the Russian presence? And was there somewhere a mention of a proposed oil/gas pipeline ?

 

11) My memory may have some gaps, but when the French were reticent to give up their colony in Indochina, what happened to the elections mandated by the Geneva conference?

 

TBC...

[SSScout]

12) " The business of America is business" =Calvin Cooledge=

Is there still truth to this statement?

 

TBC...