Trail-Axe said:
Hit the head on the nail there. So we pulled out of Vietnam to appease a bunch of yellow bellied war protesters, which then allowed the NVA to slaughter the south Vietnamese people. Imagine how it would feel to have fought in a war like that, then find out it was all for nothing, and that because of political pressure from a bunch of socialist war protesters masquerading as American citizens.
This would be the same if we were to pull out of Iraq, and this is why J. McCain has said we will stay in Iraq till the job is done. Congress approved this war, and we should stand behind our commander and chief until Iraq can stand on their own. It's interesting to note that Iraq is now doing much better, and may actually be on its way to peace without US troops supporting it.
Funny how so many kids go to college these days and get their heads brain washed by some yellow bellied liberal professor, then go around repeating the same garbage they heard like it actually means something.
This aimed at several of you: Please Stop posting BS and lies.
We partially left Vietnam because the war ended, and North Vietnam signed a peace treaty. In fact we still had some advisory troops their when the SV government fell. It fell because it was corrupt and gutless. It only survived as long as it did becuase we proped it up for so long. It's fall had nothing to do with the protests here, it had to do with Preisdent Gerald Ford doing nothing to go back and help when NV violated the peace treaty. The NVs saw an opportunity when Nixon screwed up and got impeached for his screw up, and shortly after Nixon resigned the NVs reinvaded Vietnam. President Ford who took Nixon's place did nothing to stop it. By the way, they were both Republicans.
We can't fight every one elses civil wars in the world, Though it would be a noble goal, we don't have the resources to do that, a hard lesson we learned at great expense in Vietnam. In case you are not aware of it, the Vietnam war nearly resulted in a civil war here.
Just because Congress gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, does not mean they approved of his final decision to invade, or the way he and Rumsfeld managed the war. By the way Rumsfeld (sp?) and Dick Chaney (sp?) were two of the idiots that missmanaged the Vietnam war under Nixon, as well! Congress never declared war on Iraq, they gave the President authority to do that in the hopes that Hussien would get the message and finally stop stonewalling the UN. They also assumed that Bush would get more UN and NATO allie support before invading, if it came to that. I don't think Congress approved an ongoing occupation of Iraq, nore did they approve an ill concieved plan to sit it out in Iraq during an insuing civil war after we removed Saddam Hussien.
I suspect more people have died in Iraq since we invaded Iraq, than died under Hussien, not counting the Iran / Iraq war. If I am correct, it says little about our executive branch's ability to handle this kind of war.
Just like wellfare receipients will stay on wellfare as long as they can, Iraq will never truely stand on its own as long as we stay there.
Funny but during the Iran / Iraq war no one was concerned about invading either country, or stopping that war with US troops while millions died, in fact we were too busy selling both sides arms to kill each other with, while we traded arms for oil with both sides. The only show of force we made then (8 years!) was to threaten both sides if they tried to expand the war in the Gulf, as we did not want the oil flow to stop through the gulf. That war happened during the Reagan Bush Republican administration. That war ran for 8 years and durring that entire 8 years our oil interests, and flow of oil from the middle east, including Iran and Iraq's oil, never once stopped flowing to us!
By the way, many of the war protesters during the Vietnam war were Vietnam war vets returing from the war. Would you all also accuse them of treason for protesting the war that they had already served their country fighting?
