Enough said.

[Michael Tee]

Good posts.

The other factor to keep in mind was the total disillusionment of the Japs at the end of the war.  They'd been taught that the Emperor was a God-King and yet he was completely unable to protect them from American bombing and nuclear weapons.  The Army which had demanded their unconditional devotion was a similar let-down.  So with absolutely no faith in the institutions of the past, they were ready for anything their conquerors proposed.  All the more so when it turned out to be relatively benevolent.

[BT]

So the destruction of institutional faith is a precursor to major changes in any given society?

Is this going on here in America?

[Universe Prince]

it is still a bit hard to understand your question.

What part of "Who said it?" are you finding difficult to understand?

President Bush said the words

Okay, so where is the source for your initial post? Because this sequence of words "Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win. If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever." is not in the speech for which you provided a link. Obviously what you quoted in your initial post did not come from the speech. I suppose this isn't really a big deal, but I'm curious as to why you're not giving a link for the source of your initial post.

Here is what I did find at the link you provided to President Bush's speech. Bush said, "We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that 'the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever.'" Apparently Osama bin Laden sets the parameters of the "war on terror". This is not exactly what I would call encouraging.

[Michael Tee]

<<So the destruction of institutional faith is a precursor to major changes in any given society?>>

Well, yeah if the New Deal is any example.  Wasn't it Lenin who said, "Things have to get worse before they can get better?"

<<Is this going on here in America?>>

Very slowly.  America's a very powerful and very resilient force.  People began with a lot of faith in their institutions and justifiably so.  It'll take a huge amount of erosion before any really radical disillusionment takes over any significant part of the population.  Although I really think the low turnout at federal elections is way ahead of its time.

I always think of America as what sailors call a very forgiving boat.

[Christians4LessGvt]

What part of "Who said it?" are you finding difficult to understand?

when you ask "who said it" i was not sure if you were questioning who said it originally or if you were unsure if President Bush said it
they both said it or at least both said the same basic same content, so thats what made your question unclear

Okay, so where is the source for your initial post?

i did not think a source was needed. see below

Because this sequence of words

"Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win. If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever." is not in the speech for which you provided a link.

You are in fact correct. I just went back and read the entire speech, that was edcuational, so thanks for pressuring me into reading the entire speech which by the way provides more factual data to rebut some of Michael Tee's earlier statements. that source did in fact not get the correct sequence or exact wording correct. It is in fact true that President Bush did speak about Zawahiri and Bin Laden invoking Viet Nam. President Bush in the speech did say "Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever."

Obviously what you quoted in your initial post did not come from the speech.

It did come from the speech, but was not quoted correctly or in correct sequence.
content was basically correct but that was a good catch on your part because that was a
pathethic job of reporting from wherever I copied and pasted from


I suppose this isn't really a big deal, but I'm curious as to why you're not giving a link for the source of your initial post.

To be honest many times I will provide sourcing, but this speech was all over the networks, all over the internet, all over the radio so I just thought it was not necessary to provide a source for something so widely distrubuted. It would be like sourcing the Ten Commandments. Maybe thats a stretch, but you catch my drift. I look at literally hundreds of sources of politcal and geo-political sites on a daily/weekly basis so I can not remember which one this came from. Obviously they got the sequence and exact wording wrong, although for the most part the content is factual and pretty much what the President said.

[Universe Prince]

In any case, I think President Bush is wrong. The U.S. had troops in Vietnam for about a decade (I'm sure those with a better knowledge of history will correct me if I'm wrong), and something like 50,000 U.S. military personnel died during that conflict. For all that effort, time and blood, the "insurgents" (if you will) of Vietnam were not defeated. And the argument can be made that the massive killings in Vietnam that followed the U.S. withdrawal of troops was not because the troops left too soon, but because they left too late. Rather than move in, kick ass and haul out, U.S. troops remained longer than necessary and the situation continued far longer than it ever should have, and that is assuming (the highly debatable position) that U.S. troops had some business being there in the first place. And much of what happened in Cambodia following the Vietnam War grew out of conditions caused by the Vietnam War, at least that has been my understanding. So the suggestion that the aftereffects of the Vietnam War are some sort of lesson that we need to say in Iraq indefinitely seems entirely wrong to me. Seems to me the lesson is that we should be finding a way out sooner rather than later or, regardless of whatever good intentions might be behind remaining, the consequences of U.S. actions in the region could, more likely than not, end up being very bad indeed.

[Michael Tee]

The massacres in Cambodia were a direct result of U.S. interference in that country's government, overthrowing a popular neutralist government in favour of a pro-U.S. military government and secretly bombing the country, both of which led to a tremendous groundswell of pro-Communist feeling and popular support for the Khmer Rouge rebels, which ultimately swept them into power with disastrous results for anyone they deemed tainted by "foreign" (i.e. U.S. or French) influence.

Your "President" being either a moron or a liar or both has decided to take Cambodia to the people as an example of what happens when the U.S. withdraws "prematurely" from a country.  (This is hilarious - - how can you withdraw "prematurely" from a country or a neighbour you have absolutely no right to be in in the first place?)  He forgets that the U.S. did not even occupy Cambodia.  He forgets (well he doesn't really "forget," he is obviously lying about the whole thing) that it was U.S. interference in a country and a region of which it understood virtually nothing that led to the massacre.  Just as any massacre that follows U.S. withdrawal will be the direct result of their interference in another region they understood nothing of.

That your "President" is a liar and/or moron is very old news by now.  Somebody who has lied the entire country into a disaster.  What is very surprising is that there are still credulous souls (fortunately in increasingly diminishing numbers) who take him seriously and even worse seem to absorb even the most obvious and blatant lies and misrepresentations as if they were truth and wisdom personified.

[_JS]

It should also be noted that Bush "forgets" that the United States funded the Khmer Rhouge from 1978 to 1993 after they declared war on Vietnam. Some of the atrocities and mass murders came with U.S. tax dollars attached (as well as Thai training).

I also think we need to look at the bigger picture here, beyond the rhetoric of someone who really doesn't give a damn about what happened in Vietnam 30+ years ago.

This is about Iraq and the Middle East. My concern is this: do we really want Iraq to have a democracy? I have been a supporter of keeping our troops in Iraq as a moral obligation to keep the Iraqi people safe. In other words, to attempt to establish an amount of peace that must exist if any real democratic society is to spring from the ashes of our dubious initial invasion.

I'm having a lot of problems with that now.

Why? Because I'm not sure what our underlying goals really are at this very moment in time.

We seem to be on some anti-Shi'a crusade to prevent Iran from having influence in Iraq. At the very same time, the violence (remember that peace that must be had to establish a democratic society?) is primarily being caused by Sunni insurgents. If we stopped the Sunni insurgency, then we'd stop the sectarian violence.

But that doesn't even seem to be on the list of the top 1000 priorities. Indeed, we've just made huge contracts with the Sunni nations of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Lots of rhetoric aimed only at Iran. Frankly, I don't think we understand Shi'a Islam well enough and I certainly doubt that we want Iraq to be governed by the people of Iraq.

[Christians4LessGvt]

For all that effort, time and blood, the "insurgents" (if you will) of Vietnam were not defeated

so if insurgency is present the us should always "cut & run"?
after "Custer's Last Stand" we should have "cut & run"?

"finding a way out sooner rather than later or, regardless of whatever good intentions might be behind remaining"

if we cut and run from Iraq and Iraq becomes another Iran and like Iran begins funding new Hezbollas all over the middle east and destabilising moderate Arab governments and the the destabilised gvt are replaced with Islamic Theocracies sitting on an endless supply of oil revenues and like Iran they all begin to have nuclear misssles pointed at Europe and the US, and then the same path is followed in Europe, what? just deal with that huge dilemma then rather than stop it in it's tracks right now with alot less money, less pain, less suffering, and less death. out of sight out of mind? put of the filling until it becomes a root canal?

[Michael Tee]

<<if we cut and run from Iraq and Iraq becomes another Iran and like Iran begins funding new Hezbollas all over the middle east and destabilising moderate Arab governments and the the destabilised gvt are replaced with Islamic Theocracies sitting on an endless supply of oil revenues and like Iran they all begin to have nuclear misssles pointed at Europe and the US, and then the same path is followed in Europe, what? just deal with that huge dilemma then rather than stop it in it's tracks right now with alot less money, less pain, less suffering, and less death. out of sight out of mind? put of the filling until it becomes a root canal?>>

I was struck by the number of "IFs" in that whole scenario.  It's comparable to "IF I allow my neighbour to invite tough-looking guys into his home for dinner and IF these tough-looking guys decide to get hold of some high-powered weapons and IF these guys with their weapons take over the house on the other side of me and the one behind me and IF they then manage to win the local cops over to their side by bribery, then I'll be surrounded on all sides by enemies who will throw me out and rob me blind if they don't kill me.  SO . . . easier to just blow up the guy's house tonight.

Logically, from one "IF" to the next, it's not such a big leap.  But when "IF" is piled upon "IF" to the extent that you have done, you have an end-point (nukes aimed from lots of countries at the U.S. and Europe) that is only tenuously connected to the beginning.  You've basically constructed an entire house of cards, based on your ability to predict the future from one contingency to another in a chain of maybe six basic links. 

I would agree that if you were able to predict the future accurately and the events would unfold as predicted you would have some justification for staying and fighting.

However, it's very hard to predict even a single link.  The classic example of course if Viet Nam.  At the time the prediction was very simple: the domino theory, that if Indo-China falls, so will Thailand, then (start picking random South-East Asian countries) and at the end of the day, maybe Japan is the last man standing.   Well, the prediction never even got to the first link.  What was French Indo-China fell and then?  total silence.  All the other dominos remained standing.  Surprise, surprise: 57,000 U.S. troops sacrificed for what?  for a bum theory.  Too bad, mum.  Tough luck, dad.  A small glitch in our crystal ball.  Thanks for your understanding.

The other problem with the speculative house of cards is that just as the events that you predict do not necessarily happen, so too can events that you didn't predict surface and bite you in the ass.  Case in point: the Plan calls for "free elections" which given the demographics will be "won" by the Shi'a, and the Shi'a government will be led by the CIA's hand-picked Iraqi exile, a secular Shi'ite (Chalabi) who can act independently of the religious nuts in Teheran.  Lo and behold, Chalabi is SO reviled even among fellow Shi'a, that he's incapable of forming a government and the religious parties, with much closer ties to Iran, get to form the government.

Try this unforeseen development on for size:  the invasion of Iraq outrages millions of Muslims and floods anti-American guerrilla organizations wth new recruits, while at the same time stoking outrage and rebellion in all the American satellite countries, hastening the day when mobs of radical sympathizers overthrow the pro-American puppets and drag their mutilated corpses thorugh the streets.

If anyone in private life tried to run his life on the principles you advocate, most people would have him declared criminally insane.  But you seem to think it's perfectly OK for the U.S.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"You've basically constructed an entire house of cards, based on your ability to predict the future from one contingency to another in a chain of maybe six basic links"  

micheal it isn't really such a reach to to surmise the Islamic Theocrcay's intentions and how they are going about it
see hezbollah, see Sadr, see huge miltary involvement in Syria, ect.
but i agree with you that my scenario could be altered by world events
i still hold out hope that the younger generation will overthrow the 17th century Mullahs
however the scenario i paint is pretty much their goal and so i think we can't gamble that the "if's" just wont happen
we must prepare as if those chain of events could very well happen because if we wait hoping they wont and they do
we could be faced with armageddon
just recently I am depressingly coming to the conclusion that armageddon is where we are headed because we are too afraid to have the cavity worked on and we are going to let it fester until it's too late and it will become a root canal abcess
it's human nature to avoid pain

[Universe Prince]

For all that effort, time and blood, the "insurgents" (if you will) of Vietnam were not defeated

so if insurgency is present the us should always "cut & run"?
after "Custer's Last Stand" we should have "cut & run"?

No. That isn't what I said. Quite frankly, we should stop getting ourselves into situations where we end up fighting an insurgency for an indefinite number of years. It is bad policy and bad military tactics. In any case, Vietnam is not an example of U.S. troops needing to have remained fighting indefinitely. It is an example of what happens when the U.S. tries to impose its will on another country and gets stuck in a pattern of fighting to stay rather than fighting to defeat. And we need to be mindful of the consequences of such actions. We have historical examples, and worse than ignoring them, we're distorting them to defend ignoring them. People keep saying we have to learn from history of the Nazis and stop the terrorists now. Well, we need to learn from the history of our military excursions into Korea and Vietnam, and stop acting like an indefinite stay in Iraq is the best course of action.

As for Custer's last stand, I think we could have handled not killing American Indians by the thousands if we'd tried. That we did not try is something of which, as an American, I am not proud.

if we cut and run from Iraq and Iraq becomes another Iran and like Iran begins funding new Hezbollas all over the middle east and destabilising moderate Arab governments and the the destabilised gvt are replaced with Islamic Theocracies sitting on an endless supply of oil revenues and like Iran they all begin to have nuclear misssles pointed at Europe and the US, and then the same path is followed in Europe, what? just deal with that huge dilemma then rather than stop it in it's tracks right now with alot less money, less pain, less suffering, and less death. out of sight out of mind? put of the filling until it becomes a root canal?

If we remain in Iraq for another 6 years and pull out late, leaving a destabilized Middle East and a decade of urban warfare as a terrorist recruiting tool and having spent a decade providing terrorists with a real life urban warfare training ground, do you really think that situation is going to be the one with a lot less pain, suffering and death? Part of the problem with your ifs is that you're assuming 'leave Iraq' equals 'never do anything about terrorism'. You're also assuming that the conflict in Iraq is somehow doing something to stop the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of pro-theocracy Muslims, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Well, it isn't. It is, in point of fact, contributing to all three. You're also making the same mistake that liberals make about domestic policy. You're insisting that the government has to Do Something right now to solve the problem. And like folks who try to claim that the current course of the "war on poverty" is necessary and working, you're insisting that the current course of the "war on terror" is necessary and working without considering what the actual current and long-term consequences are. And you're willing to go so far as to accept a complete distortion of historical facts as "Enough said." Yet, you expect me to believe that your position is the correct one. I cannot do that.

[Christians4LessGvt]

It is an example of what happens when the U.S. tries to impose its will on another country and gets stuck in a pattern of fighting to stay rather than fighting to defeat

no it is an example of only going into a fight half cocked and and trying to fight a "pretty war"
but you are right, war can not be won if it is basically goverened by "60 Minutes Approval"
war is not pretty and the only way to win a military war is to destoy your enemy
see germany
see japan
see kosevo
but i agree with you we should be more careful, as long as we have snifling liberal reporters with a pacifism agenda running after headlines of every little story like a dog barking in our enemy's face instead of focusing on the goal to as quickly as possible total destruction of the party we are at war with it.
"pretty wars" don't work
abe lincoln could not have won the war if pacifist agenda reporters had been sensationalizing every possible mistake or abuse
it's war not people magazine

Well, we need to learn from the history of our military excursions into Korea and Vietnam, and stop acting like an indefinite stay in Iraq is the best course of action.

Korea? hasn't the indefinite stay in Korea, Japan, and Germany worked rather well?
are you saying South Korea would be better off like the nightmare of starvation going on in north korea?

 

[Universe Prince]

it's war not people magazine

Exactly why we ought to be trying to avoid it, not see long we can make it last.

hasn't the indefinite stay in Korea, Japan, and Germany worked rather well?

You mean in the places where we are not fighting insurgents? Golly gee yes, that has worked out so well, it must be the best plan for Iraq... oh, wait, no, it is not. Was there fighting insurgents in Korea, Japan and Germany for years after the war itself had ended? No, there was not. We won the war against Iraq. We defeated the Iraq military and toppled the Iraq government. War won. Right now U.S. troops are being used to fight to remain, fighting not to lose, not fighting to defeat. So the comparison to Germany and Japan is not applicable. And frankly, we don't need to have troops in Japan or Germany, and I advocate those be brought home. You could maybe make a case for troops is South Korea, but then part of the result of the Korean War was an authoritarian government in power until the 1980s.

are you saying South Korea would be better off like the nightmare of starvation going on in north korea?

Nope. Are you saying we should support an authoritarian government in Iraq that demands obedience from the populace? If you are, my reply would be in that case we could have avoided the Iraq War and just made a deal with Saddam Hussein.

[Christians4LessGvt]

You mean in the places where we are not fighting insurgents? Golly gee yes,

why be a smartass? whats the point of that?

but i guess i can play too
"yeah golly gee" as you said why were there no insurgents in germany and japan?
because we destroyed an enemy and did not tolerate neighbors sending in tons of fighters/money/arms to support an insurgency
about 80% of suicide bombers (aka "headline grabbers")in Iraq are foreigners
we should not be tolerating Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents
but we did and are and now we are suffering the consequences
if there were insurgents in Japan and Germany they and their towns would have been laid to ashes
allow insurgents to dictate the rules and sure you'll lose
btw kosevo had insurgency elements