Democracy not the goal anymore

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Do you read the bible dude? It is going to be fighting in the middle east if we stay or if we leave. This hasn't just started since the neocons took over. The neocons has just stirred a hornets nest. We took our eyes off the ball, Bin Laden is our target and Al Queda.

Who the HELL do you think is attacking US and the Iraqis in Iraq BUT Al Queda. Who has been using suicide bombers to instigate the sectarian violence IN iraq?
Why do you think that Anbar province and much of the baghdad belts are not safer than before?? It's because ourselves and the Iraqi's are now targeting...AL QUEDA.

What does the bible have to do with this? Are you saying that this is armaggedon or something? That Bin Laden is the anti-christ? The middle-east has been in turmoil ever since the caliphate was beaten out of europe. If you are saying that this is a "religious" war then it's a war between christianity and islam. AS WELL as tribes and factions within the middle east.

I know how you feel, to invade Iraq, now we have a battefield to fight Al Queda on. They move around. Again, they was not in Iraq untill we invaded. Now they are. It is many groups trying to get a foot hold on Iraq. Many, not just Al Queda.

You don't know squat about how I feel about this. I would much,much rather have had Al Queda stay out of iraq. That country would probably be relatively stable by now imo. Our leaving certainly wouldn't have the impact that it would now.

The enemy was pouring from countries and places our own government told the generals and they told the troops, do notttttttttttttt cross certains places or lines or go into other countries. This was Vietnam dude. In war it is ugly and you let the troops have a fair shake and do what they can and you do not limit them, by telling them go to sleep now but tomorrow we will walk around and kick up the enemy in these fields and jungles and us get shot at. Then go back and do this again tomorrow as they come in. If you go to war, you go to win but they put to many restrictions on our guys. I know someone that was shot and he ran a boat up and down this river, he was shot in the back and he thought he would never walk again but he did and even fought more. He was always patrolling up and down this river on a boat. He said once he was so happy and proud as all his men was on the boat because they could see where the enemy was running to and hiding. It was a place they was not allowed to cross but from high up, he was told one night at midnight, he could cross that line and chase them and get them with some more boats that would be with him. About 2 hours before midnight he was called on the radio and said no. You have orders to not cross that line, it is called off. He was so let down, because he said it was the same cat and mouse thing, clearing them out to that line as they ran and hid where he could not go. As soon as we left, they came back across. Vietnam was politcal and it was wrong if they wanted our troops there, they should have turned us loose. They had to many restrictions on us.

This i agree with. However form what I understand, the S. Vietnamese had gotten to the point where they were beginning to stand up. But we bailed on them, not only militarily but the democrats wouldn't even provide our ally with financial aid. Pathetic and disgusting.

Pathetic Democrat Reaction to Bush's speech on Iraq

"President Johnson said in 1966, `The solution to Vietnam is patience.' President Nixon said in 1969, 'As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back.' Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this administration. In Vietnam, we were talking about 10 years of patience and, in the end, a U.S. military solution did not work. Now, five year's into the war in Iraq, the president continues to seek a U.S. military solution to an Iraqi civil war. The American people will not accept patience as a strategy while the Iraqi Government continues to ignore key political and economic benchmarks." — Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations' subcommittee on defense.

"Whatever improvements in security that may have resulted from the efforts of our troops since the surge began, Iraqi leaders have not done the hard political work on which the future of their country depends. And therefore, the purpose of the surge — to enable the Iraqis to produce political reconciliation has not been accomplished. That is the standard against which Congress and the American people will judge the White House report of September 15." — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

[dude1394]

Since you wanted to chat about dubya's speech today. Here's another snippet. If you are putting much stock in murtha's and pelosi's blubbering, you really are being taken for a ride.

The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

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." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)