2006-09-18 15:37:31 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If we stay & pay, this country is going to be in so much
financial trouble that generations will be paying for it for
decades to come.
I think that's already happened.
Heaven help the sinking middle class.
2006-09-18 15:48:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all I need to say that I am not a right winger. Next I need to explain some misunderstood history about Viet Nam, and I also need to say that Viet Nam is not Iraq - the situation is different. Viet Nam: as shocking as this might sound to you now, the U.S. did NOT lose in Viet Nam. The source of this information is the publication "Der Spiegel" - a German publication, so it is from outside of U.S. sources. After the Tet offensive the victory was so decisive the U.S. Army could have pretty much walked into Hanoi, but the political reaction in the U.S. was such great shock that the North Vietnamese could stage such an attack was so profound that the U.S. citizens and politicians "realized" the situation was hopeless (or so they believed), so the U.S. began to withdraw. Militarily, the U.S. won, and then... left! It took another two years for South Vietnam to fall to the north, and the U.S. did not realize that the war was not about the spread of communism, but about re-uniting the country. It was a civil war. The situation in Iraq is different, but war is still war. The difference in Iraq is such that the very presence of the U.S. military is a big part of the cause of the "insurgency" - the Iraqis don't trust or like the U.S. soldiers in their country and want them to leave. Interestingly, if the U.S. really sticks to what it said it would do it HAS to leave Iraq eventually - it is the only way to show that we are not a permanently occupying power. It appears that this might happen in about 18 months, but ultimately what happens over there is definitely not under my control, so the only way we are going to know is to wait and see. The U.S. does need to get out of Iraq, but "we" are waiting for the Iraqi government to tell us to "go home". Let's hope the Iraqi government gets things done ahead of schedule... way ahead of schedule.
2006-09-18 23:06:42 · answer #2 · answered by Paul H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well ask that dead Italian Nun murdered in Somalia by Islamic scum if Cut & run works? You'll have a hard time shouting to heaven..... I suggest you read your history on Vietnam again. It was the inceased use of force in 1972 that ended the war. For years we played games with bombing halts and off limits targets. We never stopped the free flow of Chinese & Soviet arms. That changed when we bombed Hanoi to the peace table. In 1975 we could have saved South Vietnam. But You left wingers left our friends to die and be tourchured by Communists. Men who fought side by side with us like the Hmog were left in the cold. What didn't work in Vietnam or Somolia are the left wing Jane Fonda ******* like you. The lesson OBL learned was that if you make American bleed, they run...... We ran from Somolia. We ran from Beruit. That is the weakness the our foes meeting in CUBA last weekend prey on. We stay, train & equip the Iraqis. In the meantime, we kill every rat bastard bad guy we find with a AK or RPG. Fewer to ship to Gitmo that way. It is better to pay a small price over there, than a big price here.
2006-09-18 23:22:08 · answer #3 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, we lost Vietnam when we didn't stay the course. Our campaign in Vietnam was so successful that it brought the N. Vietnamese to the table. We negotiated a ceasation of hostilities and pulled out with the understanding that if the North invaded, we would be back again. Well, our country was so wrapped up with Watergate that when the North invaded, we didn't hold up our end of the agreement.
Now as for the cut-and-run strategy in Iraq: do you really want Iran to control Iraq?
2006-09-18 23:03:33 · answer #4 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're right, but the troops are really stuck there now. There is no easy way out without Iraq being left in a sectarian bloodbath.
After the next presidential election, you might see a move for drastic reductions .. I don't mean troops, I mean prisoners!
2006-09-18 22:49:42 · answer #5 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stay the course only didnt work because we didnt have enough cash, we were to busy using the money on the home front expenses (such as riot controll and national guard) but now the only thing we lack is will power to fight so dont be a hippie and just support the country because thats all we need.
2006-09-18 22:47:54 · answer #6 · answered by hazard_sk8r 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is a direct quote from your question.
"Stay the course didn't work in Viet Nam either?"
It should read: "Cut and run didn't work in Viet Nam either."
We did not "stay the course" in Viet Nam - we caved in to the ignorant demonstrators and Hollywood celebrities who got all the press - sound familiar?
To err is human - to err twice is downright stupid!
2006-09-18 22:56:06 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We did'nt stay in Vietnam, but we stayed in 45 and what happen? We won.
2006-09-18 22:39:59 · answer #8 · answered by razeumright 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the looney left thinks cut and run is better. As much as it costs to stay it will cost many times over to leave.
2006-09-18 22:45:34 · answer #9 · answered by damndirtyape212 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think we learned anything from Vietnam.
2006-09-18 23:08:36 · answer #10 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋