|
|
|
November 06, 2006
A key difference between Iraq and Vietnam
Via Glenn Reynolds, Donald Sensing quotes American Thinker on a very important distinction between Vietnam and Iraq: It doesn't matter how we got there. It doesn't matter how you think you were lied to. It doesn't matter if you think there was a connection between Sadam and Al-Qaeda. The only thing that matters now is that both Al-Qaeda and Iran and the terrorist groups they back and inspire believe that Iraq is their decisive battle. They have chosen it as the place where they will defeat America, and unlike the Viet Cong, they will not stay put. They will follow us home.Yes, they will, because if you think 9/11 still "counts," they already have. posted by Eric on 11.06.06 at 09:35 PM
Comments
This argument is rubbish! We heard the same thing in the Korean War and Vietnam. "If we don't stop them here in Korea, then we'll have to try to stop them on the shores of California." (There's a line like that in the movie 'The Bridges at Toko-Ri'). The pressence of U.S. troops in Iraq is creating anti-American terrorists, and their numbers grow the longer we stay. Chocolatier · November 7, 2006 02:44 PM "The pressence of U.S. troops in Iraq is creating anti-American terrorists." Wasn't that essentially Osama bin Laden's argument about U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia? Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from? Eric Scheie · November 7, 2006 04:07 PM Yes, that was and is Osama's argument. He has always said that he became an anti-American terrorist because U.S. troops stayed in Saudi Arabia well after the Gulf War ended and made it clear that we wanted permanent military bases there. Although Osama lies all the time, on this point I think he spoke the truth, because this viewpoint is widely held in Saudi Arabia. Most Arabs felt that the pressence of an 'infidel' army in their holy land was offensive. Chocolatier · November 7, 2006 05:40 PM Well what are all these people doing living next to militarily crucial oil supplies if they don't want to be bothered? Vietnam was being cocky - Iraq is being desperate. Petroleum est potestas. Will · November 7, 2006 08:19 PM Chocolatier: I don't buy your argument. Someone said something similar in the past, and they were wrong. But, in this case, based on previous history and the enemy's nature, it seems much more likely to be true today. What was said about the enemy in Viet Nam doesn't matter. Will: If we just wanted the oil we could have purchased it, or, if for some reason, we had to control the oil (something we don't have to do with any other material, despite the economic importance of other raw and manufactured imported goods), we could have easily taken and fortified the oil wells, something we've placed remarkably little emphasis on, all things considered. Jon Thompson · November 7, 2006 08:24 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• The right to be irrational?
• I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts • art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Either fight in Iraq, or fight at home, seems to be a logical conclusion,
the choice is ours.
Terrorists do not wear uniforms, consider themselves civilians and consider American civilians the enemy.
Regards
Hugh