Unintneded Consequences
 

[I would like to weigh in seriously on the issue of supporting the troops by opposing the war. I think this approach leads to more dead troops and/or a US withdrawl which results in throwing away the sacrifices of those were killed or wounded.

I will start of with a simple premise, no country in the world can defeat the US on the battlefield. The only way we can lose is because we decide to QUIT.

Since Viet Nam the goal of every enemy we have encountered was based on convincing the left in this country to undermine the War internally until the politicans decide to quit, as a result of public & media pressure. In his memoirs General Giap was very explicit in saying that the media and Anti War movement was their key to victory He stated that they NV knew they couldn't win. Their strategy was to hang on until the US decided to quit.

The same tatic worked in Somolia, We went in without the committment to do what it took to win. We got punched in the nose and quit. Indeed OBL looked at the US weakness in Somolia (and our tepid response to Al Queda attacks on the US around the world) as proof that if he hit us hard we wouldn't have the stomach for it and we would QUIT.

Al Queda and the Baathist are basing their hopes on the same premise, it they make it painful, the US won't have the stomach to follow through and win, that internal dissension will cause us to quit.

When Kerry calls for a predetermined date for withdrawl he is telling the enemy that if we can hang on until ____ the American will quit and we can win. This encourages resistanence, and more determined resistanence to out troops.

If we commit troops to war, play to win and argue after you win if you did it the right. If we wre to leave Iraq it would be a huge boosr to Al Queda, they would have volunteers than they could handle. There would be more terrorism not less. Winning brings peace not appeasement. If you want a quicker end to the war and fewer US casualities, let the neemy know that cannot win, give them no hope of victory.

I am not saying that all who oppose the war are not patriotic (although sime hate the US more than the terorist), I am saying that they are naive and stupid. They are causing more casualties not less.

I have owndered what would have happened if Gore had been President? Would we have gone to the UN and have a commission to try to understand why the terrorist hate us (Gore actually suggested we try to understand the terrorist after 9-11)? How many more times would we have been attacked since 9-11 if we hadn't responded forcefully?

So when on your high horse about 'caring' about the troops consider the unintended consequences of your actions.

If you are going to begin a progression of logic based on a premise, the premise must be grounded in fact and reality. You must also justify your premise with a series of cogent statements that support the premise and direct the reader to the end via a continuous flow of related and logically progressive statements.

Or you could do what you've done here and make a foolish premise based on what you would like reality to look like. And then you jump to a conclusion that is unrelated to your statements (not to mention insulting and arrogant) that are supposedly designed to connect the premise with the conclusion.

But I'll bite. Maybe the premise should be that there are no winners in war and only losers. Maybe another premise might be that all of the military engagements you cite are the result of stupid planning, unjustified paranoia, or outright evil goals of selfish rich men. When you fight such a "war" and have no moral authority other than the fact that you're there already, and the natives want you out, you lose! Notice a pattern here?

A couple weeks after I was home from Vietnam, there was a big anti-war rally in the city that I was going to school.

I stood there and watched the demonstrators go bye mostly to check out the babes. Then I saw come jerks coming down the street carrying NVA flags. I felt like I have been punched in the stomach. Why did they need to support the NVA because they were opposed America's role in the war?

I really believe that then we had men killed becasue of the "peace" demonstrations gave the NVA a big morale boost. They had films of the demostrations here and showed them to their troops. It was how they demonstrated that made a difference. Carrying photo's of Ho Chi Mihn????

Moving back to the present time, it is NOT unpatriotic for people to oppose the war in Iraq. Also, people who do support it are not aiding the killing of our troops as one poster keeps repeating over and over again.

So, if you oppose the war, then fine. The difference between us and them is that we allow dissent, they don't. But, how you oppose the war can make a big difference in how our enemies view things.

We all can oppose and support in a more moderate way and make our views known.

IMO the premise is not foolish. YMMV.
Jump to a conclusion? I just referred to statement by enemies of this country who have conducted wars againsy yhis country and felt the anti war left to be their best weapon in that war.

There are winners and loser in Wars, In WW2 Hitler and the Nazi's lost. The US and Allies won. The Empire of Japan lost. Wars are certainly costly for the victors but the consequences of losing are far worse. I won't play the game of the US being on the same moral plane as the Islamist. I'll let the elites play that game at their ****tail parties in Hollywood and DC.

The natives BTW don't want us to leave them hung out to dry. Just ask the Cambodians left to the tender merices of Pol Pot and the Vietnamese communist.

I'm going to frame this one. Well at least cut and paste.

Followers of HoChi Mihn who lived in the United States are possibly the most foolish people I have ever heard of. It's like a guy in China circa 1955 wearing a t-shirt with Uncle Sam - it makes no sense. But the big difference, you'll agree, is the guy in China gets shot.

There were lots of reasons guys got killed in Nam, and it's possible that protesters at home indirectly led to the deaths of some of our troops, but it was not intentional. I'd bet the chief cause of death of Americans - probably 99% of the - over there during the conflict was most likely being there, armed to the teeth, and not being welcome by a very tough home-team military. How much more motivated were the NVA and VC compared to the US soldiers? I think motivation goes a long way in a situation like that. The fact that Nixon carpet bombed Hanoi and we killed many more Vietnamese people than we lost, might have also been a contributing factor.

Blaming protesters at home is cheap. It is quintessentially American to protest in the streets. Did the civil rights marchers down south cause any deaths by their actions? Possibly a few, indirectly, but should people have sat on their hands while our black American brothers and sisters were being treated like garbage and being beaten and killed? I doesn't happen anymore because the government has much tighter control over people and people are soft and unwilling to get off their arses - for anything.

Thank you Patsfan13, That was very accurate and truthfull.

Its always when a person drops "Vietnam" into the post which sends my blood rushing and the brain images flashing, and I wasn't even there. Not quite draft age, but old enough to see the atrocities happening every day. My crewcut MIT grad. uncle was arrested protesting the war. Millions, millions, millions of people were marching. Four unarmed students were shot down and killed for protesting as 28 National Guardsmen fired 61 shots into the demonstrators. Charlie Company opened fire on hudreds of old men, women, children and babies. Some were tortured, raped, some shot execution style. For six months it was called a military victory. The White House continued to lie (Time Magazine ,during conflict) about escalation of the war. You said, from the "Left"? What is your calculation of percentage of people supporting Vietnam in 1969-1970? There were indeed extreme left groups, SLA, Black Panthers, protesters, ,celebrities,etc, but they were the minority, not the vast majority or ordinary citizens that wanted out of that war.

Why start with, "since Vietnam"? Lets go back to that good ole' lefty boy George Washington. He knew he didn't have to "win" the war against the Brits, just occupy them while the Brits back home had heard enough. Besides the Americans were using guerrilla warfare tactics, ahhh the history. I rather think people who speak about history should know history because it might make them look "naive and stupid".

Well, I guess my attempt to add reason and rational thought to this forum has gone over well.

My fault, I should have known better. I'm not angry about the reponses. I'm just not going to argue points with people who can't be rational.

Go ahead with your irrational venom and extremist rants if it makes you feel better . My father always told me not to argue with crazy people, they don't know that they are crazy. Hey, I have a mother in law how is totally nuts so I recongnize it when I see it.

The person on this forum that I dispise is Mikey. He rejoices at very soldier killed. I really think he masturbates over it. If that can be called a personal attack, then so be it.

But, I may drop back from time to time and give a rational post just to give some of you a chance to rant on. :rocker:

You have to feel sorry for them, they're liberals, they can't understand that there are people out there that don't agree with them, (liberals are kind and caring) as long you are one of them, now their Hatred for bush is driving them all insane, they will never get over the fact that they lost, TWICE.

Mikey purposely goes through all the news sites looking for another dead soldier so he can rush and get the word out, he loves to be the first "to report". He never has a bad word for "the enemy".