Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[brownjenkins]

Like I said... perception is reality.

[hectorberlioz]

Yeah but you're missing my point: I'm not saying we can still win Vietnam. But it was a winnable war. And to reiterate: it wasn't a situation born to be against us.

I don't know whether you're saying it was or not, but your opinion includes us losing Vietnam...and my point is, we didn't have to lose it.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The only part I don't understand is the "questionable motives" part. Why do Bush's reasons for going to war have to be malicious and evil? Whatever happened to the argument that good people do bad things because they think they are doing good?

I would like to believe that but the evidence does not stack up.

Here's the scary thing, hector:

I do think we/he/they/whatever wanted to be in Iraq for reasons other than Saddam/WMD: namely, to create another U.S.-friendly middle-eastern country. I don't think that's a bad mission.

You are happy for thousands of people to die in order to serve your foreign policy interests? That's a good mission?

[hectorberlioz]

No, I'm not happy that people are dying...al Qaeda in Iraq is killing them, and we are killing al Qaeda.

Establishing a solid democracy for Iraqis, an ally for the US, and for the world in general. Yes, that is good. It may not be happy, but it is good.

[hectorberlioz]

Romney as Veep talk:

From: Politico

From: Weekly Standard

From: Medved

My brain tells me: no, things have cooled down. It is not imperative that Romney be on the ticket.

My heart tells me: Romney can gain appreciation through familiarity, which is what the Veep spot brings.

[hectorberlioz]

Ok, looks like Geraldine Ferraro has brought up the race issue concerning the Obama campaign.

I hate the race issue being used and abused, I truly hate it. It's annoying to encounter arguments that run along the lines of "you're not voting for Obama because you're racist", or "you're only voting for Obama to try and get rid of your white guilt".

Or the accusations directed at the Republicans and the minorities who are part of it: "you're just trying to make up for all your past racism", or the attitude towards GOP minorities that they are just trying to be "token" Republicans.

You can't win: you're either a racist or you're a racist.

That's why bringing up the race issue can only be bad in a campaign. Isn't it better to let things like this go unspoken? We don't want to divide the african-american electorate from the white electorate, so why would a prominent Democrat like Ferraro bring it up?

It's better if we let people vote: if they are racist, you can't stop them. If they don't like Mormons, you can't stop it. If they don't like Muslims, you can't stop it. If they don't like women, you can't stop it. If they don't like Chuck Norris, you can't stop it. You can condemn it, but you can't stop it.

You can't stop people from voting a particular way. So here's what I propose: let those things go unspoken and not accuse eachother of it, and let's just stick with condeming racism, shall we?

Republicans have not put a serious minority candidate out (unless you count Alan Keyes as serious), and neither have the Democrats till now. We have to start somewhere, so let's leave off the presumed reasons why or why not we are putting forward minority candidates.

Self-righteous enough for you?

[hectorberlioz]

Bwahahaha! *wipes tears of laughter*

[Insidious Rex]

Ok, looks like Geraldine Ferraro has brought up the race issue concerning the Obama campaign.

The thing is how can anyone be so foolish to say that? Ever heard of Jesse Jackson or Alan Keyes or Al Sharpton? Were they lucky for being black when they ran for president? What foolishness.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yeah but you're missing my point: I'm not saying we can still win Vietnam. But it was a winnable war. And to reiterate: it wasn't a situation born to be against us.

I don't know whether you're saying it was or not, but your opinion includes us losing Vietnam...and my point is, we didn't have to lose it.

And my point is that it was not a winnable war, in any real sense of the word, and neither is Iraq. If you think that we didn't try to win in Vietnam, you should really do some reading up on the actual conflict.

The ultimate reason why we couldn't win in Vietnam and won't win in Iraq: the people don't want the solution we are pushing for. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds don't want to live together democratically. Only an oppressive government like Saddam's could keep the country together.

[hectorberlioz]

I have done my reading on it, and we could have won.

You're trying to say that the Vietnam war was an inherently unwinnable war, and I'm saying that's not the case.

I guess we'll just have to force it on them, eh? I guess that's what you think they like.

[hectorberlioz]

More on Geraldine Ferraro/Obama debacle.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9008.html

Now I find out she said the same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988! Ok seriously, she may have a point about how some people feel about Obama, even though I think it ought to be left out.........but Jesse Jackson?!!

I've heard Obama's response, and I have to agree with his comments.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You're trying to say that the Vietnam war was an inherently unwinnable war, and I'm saying that's not the case.

I'm saying that a vast majority of people now realize that it was an unwinnable war from the start, including many conservatives who were behind it at the time. But, a minority refuse to believe this because it conflicts with their view that the US can do whatever it wants in the world and succeed, if we only try hard enough. And this minority feels so strong on this point that this perception becomes their reality.

My guess is that no evidence I could present would get you to even consider that alternative. I too grew up thinking it was a war that could have been won then, after working on a book on the subject with a former ultra-conservative employer, I learned otherwise. We never had a chance.

I think that ultimately, Iraq will end up the same way. We will eventually leave, there will be a lot of violence, and things will eventually calm down to relative peacefulness, like in Vietnam today. The question is how long we drag our feet before admitting this. But I have no doubt that we will eventually.

[GrayMouser]

Certainly the US/Vietnam War was winnable; just like the French/Algerian War was winnable; or the Soviet/Afghan War was winnable.

If any of the above countries had poured the resources into winning those wars that they had into WWII they would have won.

It still would have been incredibly stupid policy.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Certainly the US/Vietnam War was winnable; just like the French/Algerian War was winnable; or the Soviet/Afghan War was winnable.

If any of the above countries had poured the resources into winning those wars that they had into WWII they would have won.

It still would have been incredibly stupid policy.

What does "winnable" mean to you? We could have made the region a glassy hole in the ground, technically. But the fact that the people didn't support an all-out fight for it is part of the equation. Committing to "total war" (universal conscription, war economy, rationing, etc.) is a big undertaking for a country. In a democracy, the intended benefits have to be pretty clear. They weren't, for Vietnam, and they aren't, for Iraq.

Hector, if he really thought the Iraq war was important, could go there. College educated boy like him, they'd have green on him in zip time. Quite possibly his grandfather did that in WWII. All the males in that generation in my family did. People perceived it as important. People now mostly TALK about how it's important. That's different.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hector, if he really thought the Iraq war was important, could go there.

No, I don't have to be there to think it's important. I also don't have the courage to go there. And I won't to only prove a point to you, thanks.

[hectorberlioz]

More Veep talk
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...he_future.html

and...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed..._running_mate/

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, I don't have to be there to think it's important. I also don't have the courage to go there. And I won't to only prove a point to you, thanks.

Hector, I don't think you should go. My BIL has been several times, and my baby sister is there, now. I don't think they should go, either. It's partly because of that that I know EXACTLY what the difference is between "supporting the troops" and "supporting the war", and I don't stand for any BS around it.

But I know a number of people who survived WWII in Europe. And if there was a similar holocaust, well, we'd have to gird up and go in. This was presented as that, so my first reaction, watching Colin Powell in my living room was, "God help us. We need to go. I'll start making baskets for the soldiers."

But that was a lie, hector. I know you don't believe that, but it was a lie. We didn't need to go into Vietnam, and we didn't need to go into Iraq, and it was wrong for us to do so. That's why people are so mad. It's not that the US can't, or couldn't, help people around the world. But we can't walze in and pick new governments for people. We've tried, over and over, and it doesn't work. We wouldn't even HAVE Al Queda to deal with if we hadn't tried to support the Afghan guerillas and created and supplied the Taliban. The TALIBAN, hector. We made that! I'm looking at this war, and I'm saying, "The Irish have been blowing things up to get their country back for 600 years, since William of Orange. What will be the name of THIS horror, 600 years down the road?"

It's not your 'cowardice' that keeps you home. It's the good sense you repress.

[hectorberlioz]

It's not that the US can't, or couldn't, help people around the world. But we can't walze in and pick new governments for people. We've tried, over and over, and it doesn't work. We wouldn't even HAVE Al Queda to deal with if we hadn't tried to support the Afghan guerillas and created and supplied the Taliban. The TALIBAN, hector. We made that! I'm looking at this war, and I'm saying, "The Irish have been blowing things up to get their country back for 600 years, since William of Orange. What will be the name of THIS horror, 600 years down the road?"

And the fact that we made them...means we cannot fight them? A lot of people (including on this board) remind me that we put Saddam Hussein in power. As if that was an argument for leaving him in, and disposing of him as we have?

You approach this from the perspective that America is the sole perpetrator of evil in the world...that our past sins cancel out all our ability to do good. They don't.

You also approach it as "America: Writ Large", as opposed to the individual presidencies making up our foreign policy. (Which is what Democrats like to do when they don't want to acknowledge that LBJ was responsible for escalating Vietnam).

In Vietnam we chose a piece of that country to support: South Vietnam. It didn't start with violence, we introduced a form of democracy to them. They wanted it, they agreed to it. We gave them support to defend themselves against the Communist North, and then we abandoned them. THAT was the sin, not being involved in the Vietnam war, which was an event in the making throughout five presidencies. The similarities with the Iraq war are general and shallow. They are characteristics that can be found in any war. We didn't invade Vietnam and start the war in one fell swoop, proposing to radically change it. We gradually built up our presence there, defending the Southern part of the country.

One of the perceptions people have about the Vietnam war is that it was America's war against "the Vietnamese". If you do your Vietnam history (as I have), you will see that a lot of the conflict had to with certain dynasties warring and trying to get other dynasties to submit to them. Add that to the fact that China and Russia, both enourmous communist countries, were trying to expand their ideologies to other countries.

And that's the crux:

YOU say we can't choose people's leaders for them. I say we can't let other powers, like China, Iran, and Putin's Russia, choose them for them. That's the choice we have, not the naive "do evil or not" option.

I think we can also point to post-Imperial Japan and post-Nazi Germany as successes of introducing Democracy. As Bush pointed out two years ago, a lot of people doubted the Japanese people's ability to become democratic.
So your assertion that "we've tried and tried" and failed, is not correct.

[BeardofPants]

My boyfriend just got back from vietnam, and the general census he got was that they WANTED the US out towards the end, not that they felt 'abandoned' by them.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

My boyfriend just got back from vietnam, and the general census he got was that they WANTED the US out towards the end, not that they felt 'abandoned' by them.

Which is how the Iraqis feel, as well, which puts things into a pretty clear perspective, if you ask me. If there's anyone I think we should listen to in these matters, it's the Iraqi people themselves and our brave men and women fighting in Iraq, who from what I've heard don't think we should be there either and still feel they are owed an explanation for why they're there in the first place. Instead we're trusting the word of a president whose word 70% of Americans feel they can no longer trust.