Vietnam Revisited by Clinton
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
Clinton also just finished a trip to China and
is working closely with two major hospitals in the
Manchuria and the Canton areas concerning
the huge AIDS epidemic in China.
He is obviously quite ego-centric and wants our love
as he bites his lip in solemn publicity, but it is often
quite paradoxical that this type of man will do some
good as he struts and frets his hour upon the stage.
is working closely with two major hospitals in the
Manchuria and the Canton areas concerning
the huge AIDS epidemic in China.
He is obviously quite ego-centric and wants our love
as he bites his lip in solemn publicity, but it is often
quite paradoxical that this type of man will do some
good as he struts and frets his hour upon the stage.
I really don't understand how Americans could not think that their 50 thousand or so countrymen dying in a foreign country in a war they couldn't and didn't win could possibly have been a good thing.
The one anti-Canadian wacko I met wouldn't even acknowledge that the US didn't "win" in Vietnam. I thought maybe it's because the US is so used to winning they just don't deal with a loss well.
The one anti-Canadian wacko I met wouldn't even acknowledge that the US didn't "win" in Vietnam. I thought maybe it's because the US is so used to winning they just don't deal with a loss well.
JimMoyer
LOL your description of Clinton was right on. The stare, the finger, the lip, the strut - it is absolutely Shakespearian !! :wink:
Clinton has always been a fine actor and I guess it is what draws him to those in the biz as they rarely have reality based moments.
Perhaps he will unwittingly do some good in his peacekeeper role.
LOL your description of Clinton was right on. The stare, the finger, the lip, the strut - it is absolutely Shakespearian !! :wink:
Clinton has always been a fine actor and I guess it is what draws him to those in the biz as they rarely have reality based moments.
Perhaps he will unwittingly do some good in his peacekeeper role.
I really don't understand how Americans could not think that their 50 thousand or so countrymen dying in a foreign country in a war they couldn't and didn't win could possibly have been a good thing.
--------------------------Tracy---------------------------
That article you read is much much more subtle
than your conclusion.
You should re-read the subtlety of the last paragraphs
where the author of the article clearly admits
he opposed the war and got out of the war by going
to college as Clinton had done, and yet still this
peace protester was fascinated enough to write a book about a black man proud of his service in a white
man's war in a yellow man's country and the subtlety
of that can only be found in contemplation.
That article said that war was unredeemable from
start to finish.
And this article is chock full of contradictions not fully explained at length because of time and space.
My take of that article is far more subtle than
your conclusion.
In fact, I do think we picked the wrong side, and did not
understand Ho Chi Minh was more of a nationalist who
tried to get Woodrow Wilson's attention as a Parisian 17
year old dishwasher at the Versaille Peace treaty after
World War I, and who had helped the allies against Japan
during WWII and who died with a book left unfinished
about John Brown who led a slave revolt in America before the civil war, and who was thoroughly knowlegeable of
American history AND WHO in my opinion would have
been America's greatest ally.
But we felt containment of communism was a worthwhile
goal, and the men who sacrificed in belief of that effort
were not unworthy and the leaders who believed it,
felt we had to stop Russian hegemony at all costs and
in that Cold War alot more evil was stopped than we will ever
appreciate, for we can only know the mistakes of that war
and live with them today.
---------------------------------
And Wednesday's Child, I felt sure you would
respond with the rest of that Shakespearean sentence:
...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But Clinton wants to do something pure despite
his personal needs. It's just hard to watch it, and this
is unfair, because his China work is the stuff
of American Soft Power that redounds much to
our national credit.
--------------------------Tracy---------------------------
That article you read is much much more subtle
than your conclusion.
You should re-read the subtlety of the last paragraphs
where the author of the article clearly admits
he opposed the war and got out of the war by going
to college as Clinton had done, and yet still this
peace protester was fascinated enough to write a book about a black man proud of his service in a white
man's war in a yellow man's country and the subtlety
of that can only be found in contemplation.
That article said that war was unredeemable from
start to finish.
And this article is chock full of contradictions not fully explained at length because of time and space.
My take of that article is far more subtle than
your conclusion.
In fact, I do think we picked the wrong side, and did not
understand Ho Chi Minh was more of a nationalist who
tried to get Woodrow Wilson's attention as a Parisian 17
year old dishwasher at the Versaille Peace treaty after
World War I, and who had helped the allies against Japan
during WWII and who died with a book left unfinished
about John Brown who led a slave revolt in America before the civil war, and who was thoroughly knowlegeable of
American history AND WHO in my opinion would have
been America's greatest ally.
But we felt containment of communism was a worthwhile
goal, and the men who sacrificed in belief of that effort
were not unworthy and the leaders who believed it,
felt we had to stop Russian hegemony at all costs and
in that Cold War alot more evil was stopped than we will ever
appreciate, for we can only know the mistakes of that war
and live with them today.
---------------------------------
And Wednesday's Child, I felt sure you would
respond with the rest of that Shakespearean sentence:
...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But Clinton wants to do something pure despite
his personal needs. It's just hard to watch it, and this
is unfair, because his China work is the stuff
of American Soft Power that redounds much to
our national credit.
Re: RE: Vietnam Revisited by Clinton
"anti-Canadian wacko" - I recently quit a Forum with at least a dozen such people... they also truly think Bush walks on water and their Government is beyond reproach for anything whatsoever. (I won't advertise them by listing the site here)
tracy said:
"anti-Canadian wacko" - I recently quit a Forum with at least a dozen such people... they also truly think Bush walks on water and their Government is beyond reproach for anything whatsoever. (I won't advertise them by listing the site here)
Jim Moyer
Ah...I thought if went into quoting Shakespeare, I be run off with mops and brooms hahaha...
But Clinton wants to do something pure despite his personal needs.
I agree - and if and when he accomplishes that elusive goal of cleansing his tortured soul, his impaired persona: If he does it privately, without clamor of cameras and microphones and interviews and sobbing gratitude, the desperately needed validation and acknowledgement..... I will know he has found his way.
Ah...I thought if went into quoting Shakespeare, I be run off with mops and brooms hahaha...
But Clinton wants to do something pure despite his personal needs.
I agree - and if and when he accomplishes that elusive goal of cleansing his tortured soul, his impaired persona: If he does it privately, without clamor of cameras and microphones and interviews and sobbing gratitude, the desperately needed validation and acknowledgement..... I will know he has found his way.
I'd say fully 70 percent of all of the Bush voters
DON'T think Bush walks on water.
A lot of conservatives have been quite critical
of a very weak supreme court nominee that was
later withdrawn, and critical of Congressional
pork barrel spending and Bush's lack of vetoing
anything regarding that.
And conservatives don't find the complicated new
medicare drug program friendly to old tired elderly
who don't deserve the kind of complexity that absolutely
begets bureaucratic nightmare service. And it's cost
begets another cost because of its complexity.
We're also very aware that the Iraq aftermath
planning was totally deficient, and quite support
John McCain's complaints of that, and support his
rightful correction of handling prisoners.
You don't realize that the conservatives have the
best valuable criticism of Bush and the Republicans
there is, and far outbeats the shallow opportunism
of the Democrats.
The world is quite hypocritical how it paints
others in a broad brush, exactly what they accuse
the Americans of doing.
DON'T think Bush walks on water.
A lot of conservatives have been quite critical
of a very weak supreme court nominee that was
later withdrawn, and critical of Congressional
pork barrel spending and Bush's lack of vetoing
anything regarding that.
And conservatives don't find the complicated new
medicare drug program friendly to old tired elderly
who don't deserve the kind of complexity that absolutely
begets bureaucratic nightmare service. And it's cost
begets another cost because of its complexity.
We're also very aware that the Iraq aftermath
planning was totally deficient, and quite support
John McCain's complaints of that, and support his
rightful correction of handling prisoners.
You don't realize that the conservatives have the
best valuable criticism of Bush and the Republicans
there is, and far outbeats the shallow opportunism
of the Democrats.
The world is quite hypocritical how it paints
others in a broad brush, exactly what they accuse
the Americans of doing.
jimmoyer, I don't see all that much subtlety in that article. It's the same old refrain. Soldiers may not have died in vain (ok, so what did their deaths accomplish?). Sending troops to Vietnam may not have been a mistake (knowing what they did at the time... yeah, but now we know more) and that the war may not have been unredeemable from the start (but they lost, so it doesn't really matter anymore).... Those are the things that America has not agreed on according to him. Plus, my favorite part: opponents of the Vietnam war may be the reason America lost (so be sure not to question war when your leaders send you there!!).
Plus, I just think it's stupid to get upset at Clinton for praising a dead man HE admired for doing something HE thought was right. Since when do we need a national consensus before reaching our own conclusions?
Plus, I just think it's stupid to get upset at Clinton for praising a dead man HE admired for doing something HE thought was right. Since when do we need a national consensus before reaching our own conclusions?
Well I can see your take a little better this time, Tracy.
I essentially agree with you points but find your
certainty on the matter might miss something else
that is true.
We should protest, but it is a true irony that such
peace protests often do aid the enemy, just as Saddam
Hussein depended on the largesse of peace protestors.
And sometimes the conservatives need to understand
that such protest MUST reach fanatical and seeming
unreasonable behavior to gain the attention of the
powers to be.
If the war had been won even for the wrong reasons,
it's very likely that Saigon would have developed
into another vibrant Hong Kong by now. That's
another paradox that peace protesters can little
digest.
Had we actually been allies to Ho Chi Minh, the
whole country would be quite a vibrant economic
area similar to Taiwan and Singapore.
Sometimes the certainty in our views can little
accept some paradox to them.
And one of the paradoxes in that article was that
the author was a peace protester just like Clinton
who did understand some thinking of the other side
and who thought of Eugene McCarthy (nor did the man
himself to his own humble credit) as not quite
the lone giant that the solopsistic Clinton gushed about,
although nice for that moment of the funeral, but fake
for the purposes of Clinton's need for public love.
I essentially agree with you points but find your
certainty on the matter might miss something else
that is true.
We should protest, but it is a true irony that such
peace protests often do aid the enemy, just as Saddam
Hussein depended on the largesse of peace protestors.
And sometimes the conservatives need to understand
that such protest MUST reach fanatical and seeming
unreasonable behavior to gain the attention of the
powers to be.
If the war had been won even for the wrong reasons,
it's very likely that Saigon would have developed
into another vibrant Hong Kong by now. That's
another paradox that peace protesters can little
digest.
Had we actually been allies to Ho Chi Minh, the
whole country would be quite a vibrant economic
area similar to Taiwan and Singapore.
Sometimes the certainty in our views can little
accept some paradox to them.
And one of the paradoxes in that article was that
the author was a peace protester just like Clinton
who did understand some thinking of the other side
and who thought of Eugene McCarthy (nor did the man
himself to his own humble credit) as not quite
the lone giant that the solopsistic Clinton gushed about,
although nice for that moment of the funeral, but fake
for the purposes of Clinton's need for public love.
Tracy
Then according to your post, it would be okay if I disagreed with you? That it is my conclusion Clinton wasn't eulogizing McCarthy, he was politicking - even at a funeral, he continues to bash the Iraq war and the decision to invade Iraq. He doesn't see it as a left over from his watch.
The comparisons which go on about VietNam by people who don't see how dangerous all this talk is to the military still stuck in the hell called Iraq. The public/press did it to the military in VietNam and they are doing it now to the Iraq military. It aids and abets the terrorists... gives them courage to continue with the bombing - bombings which the press are happy to report daily to us and the body count as well like they are recapping some football game.
Clinton can be equally to blame for 9/11 because he had eight years or more to read all of the intelligence he was receiving, and ignore it, leaving it for the next guy to worry about and clean up. The USA was attacked a number of times during his tenure and he did very little. The first trade towers bombing, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole...
and so on...
If you think it is stupid to get upset over what Clinton believes - perhaps you know nothing about the man. If you did, you would know Clinton believes very little. He changes daily. A cypher. A Zero.
I really don't understand why Canadians get so mucked up about Clinton anyway - Canadians who don't get all "hollyweird" about silly stuff and sillier people in the news should be able to spot a fake from afar without a problem.
See the thing is - the Bush critics see his diabolical ways with such clarity and yet are snowed by the Clinton ambiguity. It doesn't compute and the only thing I can explain it with is personal opinion and emotional reaction - which isn't wise when it comes to politicians.
Then according to your post, it would be okay if I disagreed with you? That it is my conclusion Clinton wasn't eulogizing McCarthy, he was politicking - even at a funeral, he continues to bash the Iraq war and the decision to invade Iraq. He doesn't see it as a left over from his watch.
The comparisons which go on about VietNam by people who don't see how dangerous all this talk is to the military still stuck in the hell called Iraq. The public/press did it to the military in VietNam and they are doing it now to the Iraq military. It aids and abets the terrorists... gives them courage to continue with the bombing - bombings which the press are happy to report daily to us and the body count as well like they are recapping some football game.
Clinton can be equally to blame for 9/11 because he had eight years or more to read all of the intelligence he was receiving, and ignore it, leaving it for the next guy to worry about and clean up. The USA was attacked a number of times during his tenure and he did very little. The first trade towers bombing, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole...
and so on...
If you think it is stupid to get upset over what Clinton believes - perhaps you know nothing about the man. If you did, you would know Clinton believes very little. He changes daily. A cypher. A Zero.
I really don't understand why Canadians get so mucked up about Clinton anyway - Canadians who don't get all "hollyweird" about silly stuff and sillier people in the news should be able to spot a fake from afar without a problem.
See the thing is - the Bush critics see his diabolical ways with such clarity and yet are snowed by the Clinton ambiguity. It doesn't compute and the only thing I can explain it with is personal opinion and emotional reaction - which isn't wise when it comes to politicians.
Wednesday's Child said:
To the first part, of course you can disagree with me. We don't need to reach a national consensus about my being right or wrong before you can form your opinion :lol:
I am also not a big Clinton fanatic or anything. I find him interesting, just like Bush, because I find American politics interesting. Living here only makes it more so. I like some things about Clinton and not others. Same for Bush. I dislike most things about Ah-nold, but I still manage to live here happily...that's another thread though eh?
Maybe Clinton was commenting on Iraq, maybe he wasn't. I feel sure that the writer of that article was, which brings us to your second paragraph....Your second paragraph is one of the main things I didn't like about the article. Where you see protesters as helping the enemy, I see honest protest as necessary in a free society. I'd rather see a protester screaming something I disagree with than not protesting anything at all. Too many people are apathetic. One of my good friends goes to pro-life rallies. I could not disagree with her stance on abortion MORE than I already do. I think she's wrong, wrong, wrong. I think if she spent one day working with the babies I work with, her opinion would change. But I respect her for standing up for something. I see comments about helping the enemy as an attempt to censor people, to eliminate dissent by trotting out cries of treason and lack of patriotism. I also don't think terrorists attack because of protesters in America. They would kill those peace protesters as happily as they kill American soldiers, so I doubt they are influenced by them.
Re: RE: Vietnam Revisited by Clinton
No, it's better to admire guys that either stayed off the Air Force Reserves radar (no pun intended), or was a FIVE-TIME Draft Deferment case....
:roll: :roll: :roll:
tracy said:
No, it's better to admire guys that either stayed off the Air Force Reserves radar (no pun intended), or was a FIVE-TIME Draft Deferment case....
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Tracy
What a neat rebuttal and I thank you for it. I see your objection to what you feel is a slight against all the people who march in protest of some cause or another - as is their right - and I would agree it is a freedom we must never abuse.
What I am concerned about, and this I believe is the point of the article was the general opinion among the political people, and in turn the press, for creating a defeatism among the people that VietNam was a bad call and the military over there were fighting an inept battle, and they should take their losses and remove themselves (which they did).
This same behavior is giving impetus to the people who would bomb their mothers in Iraq if they had an opportunity - they certainly have their own motives, and now with the press, the politicians, and the public against the war in Iraq, calling for yet another "cut and run" it demonstrates weakness.
Weak or not, our military should not be put in a position they are unsupported by their country. NEVER be put in that position as they were in VietNam. I cry shame to any and every politician who sings that song of death to our young people over there in that wasteland. Read some of the military blogs and see what makes them tick...
I say to their leaders and the floundering politicians....
Bring them home in pride - for whatever lies you wish to tell the world, but never treat them as if they are failures as you did to the VietNam vets.
That is what I mean by the protests....it gives strength to our enemies. If you had family in that place, you might be more concerned about what messages we are sending to the very eager Islamic warriors. They would like nothing better than to conquer their enemy to prove to all of Islam their superiority. It would not stop in Iraq - but continue the world over such as has been started in New York, Madrid, Paris, Sydney, and London..... where will they hit next I wonder?
If I had a call it would be to bring the military home and f'em all in that forsaken pit of land.... but thank god I have no voice in this debate..... She is wise to keep me doing damage at a computer only.
What a neat rebuttal and I thank you for it. I see your objection to what you feel is a slight against all the people who march in protest of some cause or another - as is their right - and I would agree it is a freedom we must never abuse.
What I am concerned about, and this I believe is the point of the article was the general opinion among the political people, and in turn the press, for creating a defeatism among the people that VietNam was a bad call and the military over there were fighting an inept battle, and they should take their losses and remove themselves (which they did).
This same behavior is giving impetus to the people who would bomb their mothers in Iraq if they had an opportunity - they certainly have their own motives, and now with the press, the politicians, and the public against the war in Iraq, calling for yet another "cut and run" it demonstrates weakness.
Weak or not, our military should not be put in a position they are unsupported by their country. NEVER be put in that position as they were in VietNam. I cry shame to any and every politician who sings that song of death to our young people over there in that wasteland. Read some of the military blogs and see what makes them tick...
I say to their leaders and the floundering politicians....
Bring them home in pride - for whatever lies you wish to tell the world, but never treat them as if they are failures as you did to the VietNam vets.
That is what I mean by the protests....it gives strength to our enemies. If you had family in that place, you might be more concerned about what messages we are sending to the very eager Islamic warriors. They would like nothing better than to conquer their enemy to prove to all of Islam their superiority. It would not stop in Iraq - but continue the world over such as has been started in New York, Madrid, Paris, Sydney, and London..... where will they hit next I wonder?
If I had a call it would be to bring the military home and f'em all in that forsaken pit of land.... but thank god I have no voice in this debate..... She is wise to keep me doing damage at a computer only.
Ten Packs said:
Mr. Packs
The beauty of having the "quotation" feature is that accuracy can be maintained in what you are rebutting.
To alter my quote is despicable and beyond forum ethics. If that is how you manage yourself here....I have no more time for you other than to lodge my formal complaint to you directly.
This is my original quote untouched...
Clinton can be equally to blame for 9/11 because he had eight years or more to read all of the intelligence he was receiving, and ignore it, leaving it for the next guy to worry about and clean up. The USA was attacked a number of times during his tenure and he did very little. The first trade towers bombing, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole...
and so on...
I get what you're saying Wednesday, I just don't agree with parts. It's true that America MAY have won the Vietnam war if they could have stuck it out had public opinion been in their favor. It's also just as possible they would have still lost, but the casualty count would have been MUCH higher in the end than it was. Would it have been better to lose after 100 000 dead Americans? Obviously not, so I have a hard time accepting that protesters help only the enemy. If they ended a war that was not winable, then they helped the troops who would have been sent there to die.
I have a good friend/former live in boyfriend serving overseas. I've known him since I was 13. My friend's brother and boyfriend got back from Iraq recently. I work with several girls whose husbands are over there. I've got my yellow bracelet and they have theirs. I see news stories about a diplomat being killed and three soldiers being critically injured and I can't breathe for a moment because this is the first time in my life that deaths overseas feel so real. It could be Nichole's brother, my friend, Joanna's husband.... The disconnect for me is that I just don't see how protesters cause that. I doubt the Taliban are sitting in their caves, watching CNN, and saying "Wow, I was going to surrender, but those protesters reenergized me to go out and slaughter infidels". These aren't people who are going to give up IMO. They will keep murdering as long as they are alive. And they don't fear death, so fear isn't a deterrent. A show of force means nothing if your enemy wants to die fighting you. The only way you win is by giving him what he wants.
I think protesting a war you disagree with is more important than protesting for any other issue, not less, because the stakes are higher. Lives are at stake (altough I know my friend Heather would say the same thing about abortion...)
I do agree the way Vietnam vets were treated was disgusting. I don't see anything close to that today and I doubt we will. People have problems with Bush's decisions, not the actions of regular troops (minus the obvious exceptions like Abu Ghraib).
. It's true that America MAY have won the Vietnam war if they could have stuck it out had public opinion been in their favor. It's also just as possible they would have still lost, but the casualty count would have been MUCH higher in the end than it was. Would it have been better to lose after 100 000 dead Americans? Obviously not, so I have a hard time accepting that protesters help only the enemy. If they ended a war that was not winable, then they helped the troops who would have been sent there to die.I have a good friend/former live in boyfriend serving overseas. I've known him since I was 13. My friend's brother and boyfriend got back from Iraq recently. I work with several girls whose husbands are over there. I've got my yellow bracelet and they have theirs. I see news stories about a diplomat being killed and three soldiers being critically injured and I can't breathe for a moment because this is the first time in my life that deaths overseas feel so real. It could be Nichole's brother, my friend, Joanna's husband.... The disconnect for me is that I just don't see how protesters cause that. I doubt the Taliban are sitting in their caves, watching CNN, and saying "Wow, I was going to surrender, but those protesters reenergized me to go out and slaughter infidels". These aren't people who are going to give up IMO. They will keep murdering as long as they are alive. And they don't fear death, so fear isn't a deterrent. A show of force means nothing if your enemy wants to die fighting you. The only way you win is by giving him what he wants.
I think protesting a war you disagree with is more important than protesting for any other issue, not less, because the stakes are higher. Lives are at stake (altough I know my friend Heather would say the same thing about abortion...)
I do agree the way Vietnam vets were treated was disgusting. I don't see anything close to that today and I doubt we will. People have problems with Bush's decisions, not the actions of regular troops (minus the obvious exceptions like Abu Ghraib).
Tracy
Every time a politician or a "person of import" gets up for the television cameras deriding the Iraq "insurgency" the words gets back to the terrorists through all the media/press outlets available in the middle east - especially AlJazeera.
When large groups gather in protest such as Mother Sheehan's shenanigans all over the country.... words get back to the terrorists. She had every right to protest, but there a thousands of family members who have lost love ones and they are not out on the campaign trail damning their president...even if he is the world's worst fool. If he is that impeach the guy!
Their talk is empty....ridiculous rhetorical circular venting.... and it is doing harm.
It gives terrorists strength and desire that the people in the U.S. are not behind their military and they [the terrorists] are winning.
It's a psychological game much more than a tactical one....because they aren't real soldiers and our people are having to maintain a military stance.....and are in difficulty if they stray from that restriction. The bombs go wild and we are damned for it. The firing of weapons on its civilians...we are damned. Yet they send in human bombs to blow everyone up.....it is insane because there are no "rules of engagement"....just as in VietNam.
It is the same thing here...we give policemen guns and then take them to trial after they injure or kill a perpetrator.
What do we want I wonder? Someone certainly should make up the mind of the people soon..... and stop using the military as
pawns in the game of death.
Every time a politician or a "person of import" gets up for the television cameras deriding the Iraq "insurgency" the words gets back to the terrorists through all the media/press outlets available in the middle east - especially AlJazeera.
When large groups gather in protest such as Mother Sheehan's shenanigans all over the country.... words get back to the terrorists. She had every right to protest, but there a thousands of family members who have lost love ones and they are not out on the campaign trail damning their president...even if he is the world's worst fool. If he is that impeach the guy!
Their talk is empty....ridiculous rhetorical circular venting.... and it is doing harm.
It gives terrorists strength and desire that the people in the U.S. are not behind their military and they [the terrorists] are winning.
It's a psychological game much more than a tactical one....because they aren't real soldiers and our people are having to maintain a military stance.....and are in difficulty if they stray from that restriction. The bombs go wild and we are damned for it. The firing of weapons on its civilians...we are damned. Yet they send in human bombs to blow everyone up.....it is insane because there are no "rules of engagement"....just as in VietNam.
It is the same thing here...we give policemen guns and then take them to trial after they injure or kill a perpetrator.
What do we want I wonder? Someone certainly should make up the mind of the people soon..... and stop using the military as
pawns in the game of death.
The Vietnam war was a big mistake, the idiots in Washington at the time, never bothered to consult history. The Vietnamese were fighting the Chinese for 1000 thousand years to keep them from taking over Vietnam. The Vietnamese government wanted communism and their soldiers were well trained from hundreds of years of fighting the Chinese. Yes, it was a war against communism, fine, we lost, that's the end of it.
As for the moral of the soldiers, I can understand it, but, I think an administration that has no ethics of its own does more to break morale than anything a few noisy politicians could do.
Don't forget in Vietnam none of our allies came to help us, not France, not Britain, not Germany. If we can't persuade allies with comparable values of the merits of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning. And Bush made the same mistake with Iraq.
As for the moral of the soldiers, I can understand it, but, I think an administration that has no ethics of its own does more to break morale than anything a few noisy politicians could do.
Don't forget in Vietnam none of our allies came to help us, not France, not Britain, not Germany. If we can't persuade allies with comparable values of the merits of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning. And Bush made the same mistake with Iraq.