Liberals, If you knew for a fact that THE WAY in which you critisize?

Question

our President, and the war in Iraq was getting more soldiers killed, would you still go about things the same way?







The reason i ask is becuase the General of the North Vietnamese Army said they were ready to surrender the vietnam war years before the actual end of the war, but seeing the dissent in the U.S. gave them the strength to continue, and i'm wondering if you are capable of learning from history.

p.s.---and if you are spineless enought to give this question a thumbs down, explain why you choose to do so.

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp

I never said dissention was not "allowed", I am merely questioning the integrity of those that chose to use it for political gains.

Answer 1

Explain why Bush and his group of "geniuses" did not think of that before we went in without enough troops to begin with? Why was their such a rush to war? Iraq had not attacked anyone since Desert Storm. The country was a wreck before the war how did they think they could fix it by blowing it up again?

Answer 2

Well, let's see if people are actually capable of "checking the facts" before agreeing to the notion you just made.....

Fact about the dissent in the U.S. during the Vietnam war. 80% of the Americans durning that war were for the war in Vietnam and only 20% were against it at least this is what the media projected in the final years of that particular war.

Fact about the dissent in the U.S. during the Iraq war. 70% of Americans whether Liberal or Conservative agree on a few things at least.... Bush handled this war the wrong way, and that there were absolutely no WMDs in Iraq and finally that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The President and even Rice have both atested to these facts during Press Conferrences thus leading Bush to an all time low approval rating of 32%. Not to mention that 70% of our soldiers in Iraq today disagree for being there in the first place.

So we have 2 totally different contexts with which to explore. And one final thing......it is not the dissent of the Americans today that is getting the soldiers killed today. It was Bush's misleading the American people for the reasons of going in there to attack is what has led to the bloodshed. .....and the 53 million ignorant Americans that voted for him in the first place....that continues to get our soldiers killed today.

But hey....can we all at least agree that whether we win or loose this war in Iraq.....Terrorism will still be around and even has gotten worse.

Answer 3

I wonder if you will give my answer a thumbs down if you don't agree with it? Oh, I didn't thumb your question at all, just so you know.

Here are my thoughts, in brief. This war started ok. We thought there were WMD's (there weren't). We got Saddam (that's good).

But, beyond that, the war has been mismanaged. Not by the soldiers, but the resources they were given. Rummy tried to run the occupation "fast and light". But toppling a government and uniting a country that is religiously split in two requires manpower on many levels. We should have focused heavily on creating meaningful employment and self-defense capabilities from the get-go.

That didn't happen...the insurgents (or whatever you prefer to call them) were then able to gain a foothold, and haven't let up.

We should have dropped the hammer at the beginning. Not now.

That is why the Republicans are out of the house and senate, not because Americans in general don't support the war, but because they believe the war has been mismanaged to high heaven.

I don't think anyone is capable of learning from history. There will always be criminals - even at the highest levels. And they are screwing up the world.

Why is the American government so intent on ignoring the fact that the planet is getting warmer? To me, that is criminal.

Answer 4

two things:

first, wars are fought against people not straw men - the straw man arguement that you present is preposterous.

second, if you want to start a society that is not founded on, among other things, freedom of speech, you are free to do so, just not in the usa.

seriously, if you don't love the usa just the way it is, freedom of speech and all, you are completely free to leave it any time you like.

i have seen and read extensively about the vietnam war and no where was there any NVA officers who ever said they were ready for surrender - i actually believe you just made that up - hence the 'general' of the north vietnamese army has no name.

i saw in interview with ho-ch-mihn where he simply stated that eventually america would get tired of the war and go home - which is exactly what happened.

i don't understand this need that cons have to refight vietnam and how this is so intricately linked in their minds to iraq.

to the standard issue neocon nutbag (you) the hippies of the 1960's are still among us today (even though polls show that they are now corprorate leaders and far more establishment than their parents ever were).

you wish you could have the 60's back.

the rest of america wishes you were all a bit more focused on the CURRENT situation in iraq.

i think out of respect for america, you cons should start coming up with better lies about why we're in iraq.

hope this helps...

Answer 5

I gave you question a thumbs down for several reasons.
1. You said, it's "the way" we criticize that is getting more soldiers killed. Which way is that? What would be a more productive and less harmful method of expressing our dissidence?
2. Also, I read the article you provided a link to and no where in it did he say they were ready to surrender years before hand. Please provide the quote if I managed to miss it.
3. Also, the name calling. Calling those who disagree spineless...that was just unnecessary.

Answer 6

Based on everything that happened before and since the invasion, no. I wouldn't stop dissenting. There have been some questions on here expressing concern about Hugo Chavez and his desire to rule by decree. If we do not criticize the president when we feel his policies are contrary to the good of the country then we are giving him the same power that Chavez wants. Not criticizing the president out of some miss guided sense of loyalty gives him free reign to do what ever he wants. Vietnam was a different place, a different time, and a different set of circumstances.
All that said, it has to be constructive criticism. Rants like "Bush is a Nazi" are meaningless and nonconstructive.

Answer 7

I think your statement about north viet general is bull, what's the source. Yes, if the war is immoral as an American you have a duty to speak out, just as those who think the war is moral have a duty to speak out. In the present case I don't think you can dispute the fact that more and more of those who initally supported this war are coming out in opposition to it. Sincerely yours, 'Nam Vet.

Answer 8

The Liberal focus on peace and human life is only of the U.S. military members, certainly a worthy sentiment, but it never takes into consideration those we leave behind. (Ironic considering the internationalist and human rights motivations of most libs.)

If they were capable of learning from history, they would not advocate the withdrawal of troops so loudly. Why?

Because after the U.S. military left Vietnam, recall what happened in Cambodia. A mere two million slaughtered and many more displaced. Was that "peace" ?

Answer 9

I agree, I think that's the reason behind the terrorists being able to give our troops a hard time in Iraq. It's all political. We are losing politically. This is what they wanted, and we're giving it to them. I think it's sad that we can fall for this. They've made people scared, so they got what they wanted.

It's funny that people give this a thumbs down, but don't respond to your question.

Answer 10

Sorry to let you down but dissenting opinions are allowed in this counrtry and just last night you claimed the war in Iraq was over? So which is it pal?