60 minutes
 

did anyone see the segment on 60 minutes tonight with general zinni? really interesting stuff here's a link to the story
"they screwed up"

Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.

“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,” says Zinni.

“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.”


So, who wants to tell a retired Marine 4 Star that by critizing the war and the military that he isn't supporting our troops?

I have to agree that there have been some big military mistakes in this war.

I can agree with the Administration on the need for removing Saddam and the fight against terrorism but a four-star can speak his mind.

To paraphrase what the Judge in A Few Good Men said to Nicholson in the courtroom: I'm quite certain he's earned it -

he is supporting them he was a general! and he stood by his country but he feels it necessary to bring this to light... I think he's standing by them the best way he can by telling the truth... I admire him especially by coming forward because that takes courage

So by supporting our troops (which I do and I had my best friend just returned from afghanistan/iraq so its touched me personally) we're supposed to not say anything when there are injustices being done? I think the war is wrong- this is going to be another Vietnam if things keep going the way that they are- and he is saying htat things need to change and we need to either get more forces in and get this taken care of or we need to get the hell out of there.... thats saving lives and isn't that the point??

We don't need to be in afghanistan anymore- al queda is practically gone and I think we're in there to keep a hold on Pakistan- Iraq- yes we need to get things settled there- but why aren't we in north korea??? we KNOW they have nuclear weapons and the like- but you don't see our gov't running over there to get rid of them... b/c they know we'll get our asses killed- so we stay out of there- what about the people that are starving and being slaughtered/ maimed and tortured under kim jong II???

(i know its not wise to be in two places like that at the same time- but my point is- we were in iraq trying to get a hold of it and saying there were weapons- when there weren't- and then we know they have them elsewhere- and nothing is being done (well- not on the same level) but thats just pure hypocrisy...)


so... my point is- the general is bringing up these ideas and they need to be said- i hope more people take heed (and even though i don't like bush- he wasn't pointing the finger at him- he was saying it was his administration- so even if bush was capable- he's still not getting the intelligence he needs in order to make capable decisions and I think thats wrong too- he's still the president...)

Al Quaeda is gone? Wow.

We're in Afghanistan to control Pakistan? Wow.

When someone wants to point out how Iraq is like Vietnam I'd like to hear it. Until then you're just spouting crap. DeltAlum still owes me an explanation. Last time her just posted a link to another thread that had nothing in there so I replied to that extent.

And why didn't we attack North Korea? Since you're such a great expert on military attacks, please let us know how. That would be a very scary consideration knowing they can destroy several countries with their nuclear weapons. There is no parallel on N. Korea and N. Korea is infinitely a more complex situation.

-Rudey

As I pointed out, Rudey, if you scroll down to my second posting on that page, I talk about how the present war reminds me of the problems we had in Vietnam. Which is what you asked.

You only said two things, one really, about Vietnam:
1) We decided they want freedom.
2) If we pull out now it would spell disaster for the country just like it did in Vietnam.

And "As I pointed out", DeltAlum, if you scroll down to my last posting on that page, I talk about how none of that is something unique to Vietnam.

-Rudey

You're absolutely right. It's not unique to Vietnam. It's also true of the present conflict. Which is what I was pointing out.

Stop being childish. If we had pulled out of Bosnia would things not have falled apart? What would have happened if we weren't in Europe after WWII?

So let me get this straight, you are saying Iraq and Nam have only 1, maybe 2, things in common. And even then the things that are common aren't only common to those two. And on top of that you didn't talk about the contrasts.

You have nothing.

-Rudey

here you go rudey:
Boston Globe Letter (editorial letter)


The Psychology of War: Iraq and Vietnam

US military draws parallel between Vietnam- Iraq

i thought this was interesting:
Is Iraq Bush's Vietnam?

How about you take points out of there for me instead of just posting a ton of links?

Actually I'll give you a little to think about. If you had actually read the Army War College Report that you cited it said the "two conflicts bear little comparison". When you actually want to read the study, go ahead...it's nothing special but it's nothing that will prove your point and will prove mine instead.

Of course DAWN "Pakistan's most widely circulated English language newspaper" leaves that bit out...probably because of bias.

Next time try thinking for yourself. Don't copy other people's op-ed's without understanding the topic, don't post biased articles that reinterpret studies, and you might be a better educated "liberal".

-Rudey
--There you go