In the previous thread, about the Loudmouth who sits with Colmes, someone compared Iraq to Vietnam. It's an interesting theme for a new thread.
I for one don't like this whole "Vietnam" analogy about Iraq for several reasons.
1. Iraq is more important than Vietnam. First, Iraq has oil and is strategically located between two of our long-time enemies. Second, the actions of Saddam against his own people, Kuwait, Iran, and Israel have already had far more impact on the world than any potential Vietnamese act. Third, Saddam had already created an used chemical weapons and was serious in his pursuit of nuclear ones. While the WMD intelligence was clearly off, he was at least always a festering and unpredictable threat. Saddam used uncertainty about WMDs to keep the Kurds and Shiites at bay. Iraq had the know-how to create chemical WMDs at any time.
2. Iraq has already had several free elections now. They are a fledgling democracy and it is clear that the Iraqi people are threatened by the most vile and evil terrorists imaginable. I'm not a big fan of Islamic culture, but I wouldn't turn my worst enemy over to Zarqawi and company. The Iraqi people clearly deserve more support from the international community.
3. Zarqawi and company are part of Al Queda. He is referred to as a "Prince of Al Queda" and his terrorists often refer to themselves as "Al Queda of Iraq" and he comunicates and coordinates actions with Bin Laden's Al Queda. He is an integral part of the enemy terrorist apparatus that must be defeated.
4. It's not clear that Iraq is Vietnam. We receive a variety of mixed messages from the media. There are some clear successes and some clear failures.
Many of the boomer generation see everything through the prism of Vietnam. In the global war on Islamic fascism, I believe we need to take our cues from the greatest generation rather than the boomers. Defeat in any form is completely unacceptable.
I for one don't like this whole "Vietnam" analogy about Iraq for several reasons.
1. Iraq is more important than Vietnam. First, Iraq has oil and is strategically located between two of our long-time enemies. Second, the actions of Saddam against his own people, Kuwait, Iran, and Israel have already had far more impact on the world than any potential Vietnamese act. Third, Saddam had already created an used chemical weapons and was serious in his pursuit of nuclear ones. While the WMD intelligence was clearly off, he was at least always a festering and unpredictable threat. Saddam used uncertainty about WMDs to keep the Kurds and Shiites at bay. Iraq had the know-how to create chemical WMDs at any time.
2. Iraq has already had several free elections now. They are a fledgling democracy and it is clear that the Iraqi people are threatened by the most vile and evil terrorists imaginable. I'm not a big fan of Islamic culture, but I wouldn't turn my worst enemy over to Zarqawi and company. The Iraqi people clearly deserve more support from the international community.
3. Zarqawi and company are part of Al Queda. He is referred to as a "Prince of Al Queda" and his terrorists often refer to themselves as "Al Queda of Iraq" and he comunicates and coordinates actions with Bin Laden's Al Queda. He is an integral part of the enemy terrorist apparatus that must be defeated.
4. It's not clear that Iraq is Vietnam. We receive a variety of mixed messages from the media. There are some clear successes and some clear failures.
Many of the boomer generation see everything through the prism of Vietnam. In the global war on Islamic fascism, I believe we need to take our cues from the greatest generation rather than the boomers. Defeat in any form is completely unacceptable.
[SIZE="Small"]------------
I have several telescopes, but none are semi-APO, APO, or in anyway valuable.
[/SIZE]
