Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and Bush's Desert Shield Jr.

[Ivan Seeking]

Another example of Bush's Catch 22 tactics is a favorite used to justify any war indefinitely: You can't argue against the war without demoralizing the troops. Once a war has begun, forever more those who oppose it in any fashion can be labeled as un-patriotic. This in fact was a favorite tactic used to defend the Vietnam war; until everyone realized that people like Kerry were right.

Kerry has every right to criticize Bush's rush to war. This is a legitimate political issue that certainly has a place in the discussion. Bush is trying to hide behind the war and use it as a shield to avoid serious discussion of his decisions. Maybe we should call his hiding behind the troops Bush's Desert Shield Jr. The reason that he needs to do this is that he made a lot of bad decisions that he would rather not discuss.

Sie sind entweder für uns oder gegen uns

That the war is on is another issue entirely. Now what is needed is intelligent, thoughtful, and skillful leadership; someone who can actually manage this mess. We need John Kerry.

 

[polyb]

Questions concerning legality of this "War"

Read through this and see if Jr. has a legal foot to stand on:


PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002[/URL]

It seems that he has had a difficult time proving:

1)That there were WMDs

2)That Suddam had any links to 9/11

Will there be legal ramifications considering that these two conditions were not met?

What of the legal standing by UN rules?

 

[kat]

Mmmm, methinks you're neglecting some history as to how we began to lose the vietnam war.

 

[polyb]

kat

Please enlighten me, for my researches have not allowed such privilaged detail to events that I was not cogniscent of as they were happening. Besides, why were we there in the first place and more importantly, who profited?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Support for the war was lost and we got out. Militarily, we fought a limited war plagued by politics. For example, Johnson pulled some real boners! On one occasion he [in a Bush-like manner] announced to the world that we would bomb a certain NV military target. This was a "show of will and force" much like the rhetorical nonsense that we get from Bush. Of course, the enemy had moved the weapons of interest and prepared with anti-aircraft artillery. He sent our boys into a trap because of his big mouth.

In fact we could have won the war in a week were it not for the Soviet and Chinese threats, and the politics. We were never going win because we couldn't risk winning. People like Kerry saw the futility of this; and how the Vietnamese were caught in the middle.

 

[Gokul43201]

We were never going win because we couldn't risk winning.

I'm not sure I follow this part.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The threat of a broader conflict with the other superpowers was too great. Our hands were tied. This is why the war was limited. Surely everyone knows that we could have eliminated N Vietnam from the face of the globe. It was not about winning.