War. Iraq; Vietnam. Thoughts...

[amicus]

War. Iraq; Vietnam. Thoughts...




Let me qualify, if I may…I am closer to 70 than 60, so perhaps one might consider that age and experience add a little gravity. Secondly, I have been involved in major talk radio and television encounters in two major markets, Honolulu and Portland, Oregon and, let me tell you, I came up against some of the best.

It was a hard learning process for me as I found out the hard way that I damned well better know what I was talking about and be able to support whatever contention I put forth or be raked across the coals and pilloried in local newspapers and chastised by my fellow pundits; and yes, I learned.

Thus this miniscule ‘Author’s Hangout’, in the small pond of Literotica.com, is child’s play for me; a diversion, from the writing I have immersed myself in, to fill the spaces in the dry spells writers often encounter.

I doubt, seriously, that few if any, have had similar experiences and that this, and perhaps other online forums, provide the limits of your experience in discussing matters of import. That’s fine, although your arguments are mundane and sophomoric, I do learn that the continuance of ignorance continues in a most haphazard way as you pursue some understanding of world events and the nature of the beast and it broadens my understanding.

But, like the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, I also have that, ‘fire in the belly’, to contribute to the explanation and the defense of the principles of human freedom.

Thus, I may, if circumstances permit, once again enter the fray in a major market talk radio venue. And yes, I am an arrogant son-of-bitch; you go before the cameras and the microphones otherwise and see what happens. “Never let the bastards see you sweat.”

And I never do.

I guess thas enough of a qualifier…

I watched a program on the Military Channel the other evening, called, “Dust Off”. It was about Vietnam era, Helicopter pilots and crews, what we call, ‘Medevac’, now, who went into hot ,“LZ’s”, landing zones, to evacuate wounded soldiers. I was staggered by the number, 900,000 injured men and women who were rescued and of whom, 97% survived.

I have also watched every program I could find on ‘Desert Storm’, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, and everything available about the current conflict, including, “Baghdad ER”, and it is a heart rending viewing experience for many, many reasons.

I also served eight years active military duty, but as a ‘radio pussy’, as the gunners called us, communications specialists, but we served in the manner in which we were called upon, as many do.

My point, and yes there is one, after this long introduction, concerns the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of US Veterans, who have served and are serving, (I have a son in law in Iraq now, and his wife, my daughter, is counting down the 51 days he has left), and how they may feel about reading the anti war rhetoric here and elsewhere in the news.

I find the views expressed by some on this forum to be shallow and uninformed not only about the actual events that occur, but about the import and impact of American influence and extension of power around the world.

I sense that most are just innocently ignorant, some immersed in political belief, and only a few essentially malevolent it terms of basic human dignities.

Should I gain a foothold in the market again, it is to you I owe a debt of gratitude, for you have changed how I shall approach virulent detractors in the future.

Never give the bastards an inch!

It may not mean much to you, and you and you, but…one does not, one cannot compromise, appease, or negotiate the basic principles of human dignity. We either live with honor and dignity, or we do not.


And I am really pissed that I have only a few stories on the ‘Top List’ of Novels and Novella’s and not a single one in the ‘Romance’ category, damn…I need to write something!

Amicus…

 

[TheEarl]

Why do you feel you need a qualifier? Listing your qualifications just makes you sound like you're uncertain of your intellectual prowess.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

TheEarl]Why do you feel you need a qualifier? Listing your qualifications just makes you sound like you're uncertain of your intellectual prowess.

The Earl

[/I]

~~~

Earl...I know you are going through finals...you told us so...thus I do not wish to tax you...I was being kind and gentle to the undecided, and offering a foundation for the novices.

I need nothing and no one. Thank you.


amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

War. Iraq; Vietnam. Thoughts...




Let me qualify, if I may…I am closer to 70 than 60, so perhaps one might consider that age and experience add a little gravity. Secondly, I have been involved in major talk radio and television encounters in two major markets, Honolulu and Portland, Oregon and, let me tell you, I came up against some of the best.

It was a hard learning process for me as I found out the hard way that I damned well better know what I was talking about and be able to support whatever contention I put forth or be raked across the coals and pilloried in local newspapers and chastised by my fellow pundits; and yes, I learned.

Thus this miniscule ‘Author’s Hangout’, in the small pond of Literotica.com, is child’s play for me; a diversion, from the writing I have immersed myself in, to fill the spaces in the dry spells writers often encounter.

I doubt, seriously, that few if any, have had similar experiences and that this, and perhaps other online forums, provide the limits of your experience in discussing matters of import. That’s fine, although your arguments are mundane and sophomoric, I do learn that the continuance of ignorance continues in a most haphazard way as you pursue some understanding of world events and the nature of the beast and it broadens my understanding.

But, like the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, I also have that, ‘fire in the belly’, to contribute to the explanation and the defense of the principles of human freedom.

Thus, I may, if circumstances permit, once again enter the fray in a major market talk radio venue. And yes, I am an arrogant son-of-bitch; you go before the cameras and the microphones otherwise and see what happens. “Never let the bastards see you sweat.”

And I never do.

I guess thas enough of a qualifier…

I watched a program on the Military Channel the other evening, called, “Dust Off”. It was about Vietnam era, Helicopter pilots and crews, what we call, ‘Medevac’, now, who went into hot ,“LZ’s”, landing zones, to evacuate wounded soldiers. I was staggered by the number, 900,000 injured men and women who were rescued and of whom, 97% survived.

I have also watched every program I could find on ‘Desert Storm’, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, and everything available about the current conflict, including, “Baghdad ER”, and it is a heart rending viewing experience for many, many reasons.

I also served eight years active military duty, but as a ‘radio pussy’, as the gunners called us, communications specialists, but we served in the manner in which we were called upon, as many do.

My point, and yes there is one, after this long introduction, concerns the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of US Veterans, who have served and are serving, (I have a son in law in Iraq now, and his wife, my daughter, is counting down the 51 days he has left), and how they may feel about reading the anti war rhetoric here and elsewhere in the news.

I find the views expressed by some on this forum to be shallow and uninformed not only about the actual events that occur, but about the import and impact of American influence and extension of power around the world.

I sense that most are just innocently ignorant, some immersed in political belief, and only a few essentially malevolent it terms of basic human dignities.

Should I gain a foothold in the market again, it is to you I owe a debt of gratitude, for you have changed how I shall approach virulent detractors in the future.

Never give the bastards an inch!

It may not mean much to you, and you and you, but…one does not, one cannot compromise, appease, or negotiate the basic principles of human dignity. We either live with honor and dignity, or we do not.


And I am really pissed that I have only a few stories on the ‘Top List’ of Novels and Novella’s and not a single one in the ‘Romance’ category, damn…I need to write something!

Amicus…

I've highlighted 'your point' in the centre of your post to facilitate others in finding your current bone of contention - by the way, this is probably not the best post if you wish to attract readers to your stories in Romance catagory.

I can't answer the question you ask, valid though it is (and something I would like to learn - preferably in an unbiased and reasoned dialogue rather than a diatribe, which I fear would be the response) I'm not a veteran of anything, other than my generation.

I do have an opinion on the shift in the cultural values of a nation, and I suspect something of the kind may be happening in the USA. It is complicated, in the USA by the almost equal division of political ideology pitting opposites on ideoligical lines even to the point where ideology over rules human values. Human values have a way of riding to the fore and you forget to cite the 'popular revolution' that eventually contributed to the USA withdrawal from Vietnam, a similar thing may be happening now.

In asking why this should be so, what was important (to human values) was not the lies that got the USA and UK into a war with Iraq but that having started the battle, we don't know how to finish it. An overwhelming victory - even at the cost of barbaric loss of life and destruction of property - would have been a victory, and the doubts and fears that fuel discontent on the conduct of 'State' (since 'state' is an ideaological division) find their natural repository in 'human values' which always seeks to protect the innocent and 'human values' eventually finds friends on both sides of the ideological divide. The ground swell on anti-war sentiment of Iraq (just like Vietnam) is centred on the innocent loss of life, and given the conduct of the war, the commbattants are also seen as 'the innocent'. Each body-bag reinforces this idea. The war is lost because it was never won.

Good luck with the writing.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I am closer to 70 than 60, so perhaps one might consider that age and experience add a little gravity.

Usually, yes, but I think I might make an exception as far as you're concerned. To be brutally honest with you, I find the torrent of homophobia and sexism that comes from your quarters downright silly.

And please don't patronise the Earl. If you have something to say, have the balls to come out and say it instead of wrapping it up pseudo-polite passive-aggressive nonsense.

 

[amicus]

Neonlyte...I respect your views, opinions and commentary and perhaps if I offer a different perspective, you might see where I am coming from, agree or not...


I was there during the 60's and 70's, while Vietnam was going on, I took a side and participated and was involved, in rather a major way as my radio programs were re-broadcast in Hanoi and there were several other events that may still be classified, that occured as a result of my radio program.

"...The ground swell on anti-war sentiment of Iraq (just like Vietnam) is centred on the innocent loss of life, and given the conduct of the war, the commbattants are also seen as 'the innocent'. Each body-bag reinforces this idea. .."

The 'Ground Swell', then, as now, is being perpetrated by the 'Media',` and before you dismiss me entirely, think about it. A full 90 % of print, radio and television news, and the same for college and high school instructors, are of the same political bent...so...the 'ground swell', is a coordinated effort by the left to counter basic American values and the direction of the government.

You perhaps forget, it was the Russian, Communist funding that supplied the North Vietnamese to invade South Vietnam, after the French and after the Japanese occupation, there was no solution, we knew that...there was only abest effort to contain expansion of Soviet influence.

And although many choose to ignore, it was French and Russian weapons in Iraq, fighter aircraft and tanks, that made up the armaments of the 1 milliion man Iraqi army in 1991.

There is loss of innocent life in every war, we all mourn that and wish it were not an ingredient in the protection of basic human values and rights. But we have also determined that the alternative is not acceptable.

We either fight for human freedom and liberty or succumb to totalitarianism.

Not a hard equasion.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

scheherazade_79]Usually, yes, but I think I might make an exception as far as you're concerned. To be brutally honest with you, I find the torrent of homophobia and sexism that comes from your quarters downright silly.

And please don't patronise the Earl. If you have something to say, have the balls to come out and say it instead of wrapping it up pseudo-polite passive-aggressive nonsense.

[/I]

~~~~~~


You know, Scheherazade, I am usually fairly tolerant of you twats who continually push upon all of us your 'queer' lifestyle and your feminist agenda that a woman should be President and running everything.

Someone needs to tell you, I guess I be the one, that you live in a surreal dream of fantasy; queers and females will never rule anything anywhere, we don't like you, we don't want you and if you keep on pushing you will not like the outcome.

So rather than attacking the person, why not address the issue? Oh, yes, I forgot, you are female and do not have the ability to be objective.

My bad.


amicus..

 

[scheherazade_79]

[/I]

~~~~~~


You know, Scheherazade, I am usually fairly tolerant of you twats who continually push upon all of us your 'queer' lifestyle and your feminist agenda that a woman should be President and running everything.

Someone needs to tell you, I guess I be the one, that you live in a surreal dream of fantasy; queers and females will never rule anything anywhere, we don't like you, we don't want you and if you keep on pushing you will not like the outcome.

So rather than attacking the person, why not address the issue? Oh, yes, I forgot, you are female and do not have the ability to be objective.

My bad.


amicus..

Amicus, I think you should put this post as your entry in the AH Directory, because it sums you up extraordinarily well. Perhaps it's a little on the harsh side, because I'm sure you must have some good features lurking deep inside you, but I don't think a camera could have done a better job of getting a snapshot of The Essential Amicus.

Thank you for enlightening me. I hope your sulk doesn't last too long. If it does, you might want to consider pulling that lip right over your head and swallowing.

 

[amicus]

Scherazade, your comments reflect the wimpy little homeless puppy you chose as an avatar...

You continue to illustrate, demonstrate and expose that you can only deal with subjectivem, personal issues...does the objective import of my post really escape you? Or dost thou simply have nothing more than emotions to call upon?

amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

Neonlyte...

I was there during the 60's and 70's, while Vietnam was going on, I took a side and participated and was involved, in rather a major way as my radio programs were re-broadcast in Hanoi and there were several other events that may still be classified, that occured as a result of my radio program.

You perhaps forget, it was the Russian, Communist funding that supplied the North Vietnamese to invade South Vietnam, after the French and after the Japanese occupation, there was no solution, we knew that...there was only abest effort to contain expansion of Soviet influence.

And although many choose to ignore, it was French and Russian weapons in Iraq, fighter aircraft and tanks, that made up the armaments of the 1 milliion man Iraqi army in 1991.

I've re-ordered you post a little to add coherence to my reply.

Yes, the ideology of the West was anti-Soviet / anti-communism. A useful plank, if nothing else, to shore-up Western economies post WWII reconstruction, through an armaments industry, while we waited for the rest of the world to gain the economic strength to buy our domestic goods and services. An ideology is no bad thing, but it is (communism and capitalism) in the end no more than the two sides of the same coin. Vietman was lost but Communism was defeated, it could easily have happened the other way around.

The French and Russians were major contributors to the Iraq military but the 'courting' of Iraq by the west began long before. In the early 1970's I was lead architect working for a British company of Architects designing the Iraqi Ministry of Research and Development, complete with its nuke proof shelters, research laboratories, computer centres. It was complex housing 50,000 people, adjacent to a 'palace' structure. Sound familiar? I am still technically under the UK Official Secrets Act with regard to my work on that project, but I somehow don't imagine I'll be joining the ranks in the Internment Camps.

We changed sides, so what. Ideologies change, we didn't like what Saddam was doing, though made precious little effort to stop him until our hand was forced. And why was it forced? Bad timing. If he'd invaded Kuwait a decade earlier and guaranteed the West's oil supplies it might have been a different story. By the early 1990's he'd become 'demonised', in the media, probably as a result of not being prepared to 'play ball' with economic interests outside Iraq. Communism was a declining force, the invasion of Iraq was a stroll, and it made us look good, the mistake was thinking he could be cowed, he should have been finished off then, and we might have avoided all this nonsense.

"...The ground swell on anti-war sentiment of Iraq (just like Vietnam) is centred on the innocent loss of life, and given the conduct of the war, the commbattants are also seen as 'the innocent'. Each body-bag reinforces this idea. .."

The 'Ground Swell', then, as now, is being perpetrated by the 'Media',` and before you dismiss me entirely, think about it. A full 90 % of print, radio and television news, and the same for college and high school instructors, are of the same political bent...so...the 'ground swell', is a coordinated effort by the left to counter basic American values and the direction of the government.

There is loss of innocent life in every war, we all mourn that and wish it were not an ingredient in the protection of basic human values and rights. But we have also determined that the alternative is not acceptable.

We either fight for human freedom and liberty or succumb to totalitarianism.

Not a hard equasion.

amicus...

No dispute on the media point. Be interested to know how media politics has changed in the time frame, but that is another topic.

Where I do have dispute, and any thinking person might have dispute, is your opinion is conditioned by your ideology. I know better than to attempt to reason with that. It doesn't both me that we are ideologically divided on political issues, I would only suggest, as in my first post, the 'ground swell' - orchestrated as it might well be by leftists - is not entirely ideologically positioned on 'the left'. It spans both political parties to some degree, which is why it is becoming something of a nuisance. The recent elections in your country show the effect, ours will likely do the same, though we have a couple of years breathing space, and the ability to change party leader before the election, a luxury the USA does not have.

The awful truth, and it stretches back to nuclear proliferation after WWII, is we lack the will to utterly defeat our enemies. We have developed a collective conscience, perhaps out of fear of the might of nuclear retaliation, but a collective conscience we have and thus it will remain until some ideologue takes it upon themselves to change the rules of the game and commits the attrocity that demands absolute revenge. That bothers me. Blair's recent speech demanding immigrants conform to the 'UK Way of Life' is naive and misguided. Marginalising cultures / religions results in cultural / religious backlash. If you can't accommodate them, destroy them, it is the better option, but I'm too squeamish.

 

[scheherazade_79]

You continue to illustrate, demonstrate and expose that you can only deal with subjectivem, personal issues...does the objective import of my post really escape you?

amicus...

Totally. The first few paragraphs were a dull-as-ditchwater ego trip on your part, and nearly every paragraph afterwards started with 'I'. It took just a few lines before I tuned out.

Now what was it you were saying about subjectivism and personal issues again?

 

[TheEarl]

Earl...I know you are going through finals...you told us so...thus I do not wish to tax you...I was being kind and gentle to the undecided, and offering a foundation for the novices.

I need nothing and no one. Thank you.


amicus...

Really? This whole thread seems like nothing more than a cry for attention.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

neonlyte
propinquus


"...The awful truth, and it stretches back to WWII, is we lack the will to utterly defeat our enemies. ..."

"...
"...Where I do have dispute, and any thinking person might have dispute, is your opinion is conditioned by your ideology. I know better than to attempt to reason with that. It doesn't both me that we are ideologically divided on political issues,.."

~~~

Is it not "propinquities", or does my automatic head spellcheck betray me?

Yes, I use every edge I can find in a debate, discussion, argument or conversation, I have to be right...know the feeling?

The first that I copied and pasted from your post, fits well with my new novel when one tribe conquers another, do they kill all, men, women and children, or spare some? That is not a new concept, but still a valid one for discussion, but complicated in modern times.

Your second assertion, about 'ideology', is misplaced, I think. I have no 'Ideology', in the terms you suggest; I rather have an accumulation of congruent and contiguent, non contradictory axioms that provide the foundation for my thoughts.

I have no beliefs and no ideology, regardless of my critics.

amicus

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=TheEarl]Really? This whole thread seems like nothing more than a cry for attention.

The Earl[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~

So much for you...adios...


amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

So much for you...adios...


amicus...

Have I just been ignored? What happened to being objective?

The Earl

 

[scheherazade_79]

Have I just been ignored? What happened to being objective?

The Earl

At least you got a response, Earl. My last comment was completely ignored. Probably because I didn't have a penis to go with it.

*Mental note - must change av to one of Zade With Strap-on for future debates with Amicus*

 

[amicus]

Have I just been ignored? What happened to being objective?

The Earl

Read your response, how else would one reply?


I don't mind being disreguarded, happens all the time, but you want a pat on the back? Gimme a break...


amicus..

 

[672]

I have three things to say, ignoring the original post. Bluntly.

One - STAY THE COURSE, LOLOLOL!

Two - A WAY FORWARD, ROFLOCOPTOR!

Three - We went looking for Saddam, because he was supposedly linked to Osama. Osama being the one who initiated the terrorist scare of my generation. We caught Sadam, so where is Osama?

As an aside, be gentle. I'm experiencing finals, too. Youngin' that I is.

 

[TheEarl]

Read your response, how else would one reply?

Maybe with an objective discussion of why the thread that began with a 300 word essay on your qualities wasn't a cry for attention, rather than demonstrating that you have nothing to call upon but emotion when you are questioned?

But you go with what you're comfortable with, Amicus.

The Earl

 

[TxRad]

I know beter but I'm going to anyway...

Hows that for a disclaimer....

First off i was in Vietnam and combat. not once but three times....

Yes there were Russian advisers there from time to time and Russian weapons but the fight was with the Chinese communist that needed the rice to keep their nation from starving.... It as food that drove this conflict, that an an army in place that had hundreds of years of experience in jungle warfare.

On our side, it was a war that kept our economy afloat for ten years and took out a generation of 19 year olds. the average age of the men killed was 19 and their life expectancy was less than six months. I didn't even want to know a greenies name until he had been there at least three months.

A lot of the college priotesterts were there only to keep themselves from being drafted.... or their friends.... Of course the peace and love movemnet was a direct backlash to the whole thing...

As for Irag, I don't know. I had my war and it was one to many....

As for the news media.... In Nam they were visible but not in the field, In Iraq, they are up the grunts ass 24/7.... Oh and you better check on who owns most of your radio, TV, and news papers.... it ain't the left..

Oh and since when do they have cameras for a radio show.... just wondering on that one...

If you want to discuss things, quit making it a personal agend, you might actually get someone to take you seriously.

Okay, lets see your personal attack.... You've jumped me before in a place i didn't feel was right to respond... In this case, the gloves are off..

 

[oggbashan]

War and the Military

There is a significant difference between questioning the rationale and objectives of a war and criticising the troops involved on the ground.

When a democracy goes to war it is a political decision, unless the war is a response to an attack. Whether that decision was justified, whether the war should be continued, whether the objectives of military action are or are not being achieved - all those are political questions and are valid points for discussion within a democracy.

The conduct of the war on the ground should be left to the professional troops on the ground. The war might be unjustified, illegal, impractical or downright stupid - all of which words could reasonably be applied to the UK and France's action over the Suez Canal in 1956. That does not excuse attacks on those actually fighting the action. The troops do, or try to do, what they are asked to achieve.

The US and allied military in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing what they were sent to do, to the best of their ability. If they do not have the correct resources, the correct rules of engagement - that is the responsibility of the politicians who sent them there and should be corrected. One UK politician famously expected British troops in Afghanistan to achieve their objectives 'without firing a shot'. British troops have died and are dying to prove him wrong.

The only criticism of the military I think could be justified is that the senior officers up to and including the generals did not get their governments to be realistic about what would happen in Irag and Afghanistan after the immediate military objectives were met. That is a failure of command, not a failure of the troops.

It is acceptable to criticise the war and still support the troops who are fighting it. The troops deserve support. I'm not sure that the politicians who sent them should wrap themselves in the same flag.

Og

 

[amicus]

well, Earl, you were the one who kept claiming you were not one of the 'usual suspects', and I granted you that...but the reasons I kept suspecting your loyalties was that you kept vacillating between objective and subjective, as you are again doing.

I said then, and I say again, my 'qualifications' were not attention getting, I could
care less, and if not that, then what...? maybe what I said?


geez....here I am about to don myself in my 70's leather elbowed sport Jacket,aviator glasses and all and venture forth to some pissant, bean counting, general manager of a radio station, 30 years my junior and tell him I can give him a number one arbitron rating within six months....gimmee a break, I gotta hoist my ball up a notch...


amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

I know beter but I'm going to anyway...

Hows that for a disclaimer....

First off i was in Vietnam and combat. not once but three times....

Yes there were Russian advisers there from time to time and Russian weapons but the fight was with the Chinese communist that needed the rice to keep their nation from starving.... It as food that drove this conflict, that an an army in place that had hundreds of years of experience in jungle warfare.

On our side, it was a war that kept our economy afloat for ten years and took out a generation of 19 year olds. the average age of the men killed was 19 and their life expectancy was less than six months. I didn't even want to know a greenies name until he had been there at least three months.

A lot of the college priotesterts were there only to keep themselves from being drafted.... or their friends.... Of course the peace and love movemnet was a direct backlash to the whole thing...

As for Irag, I don't know. I had my war and it was one to many....

As for the news media.... In Nam they were visible but not in the field, In Iraq, they are up the grunts ass 24/7.... Oh and you better check on who owns most of your radio, TV, and news papers.... it ain't the left..

Oh and since when do they have cameras for a radio show.... just wondering on that one...

If you want to discuss things, quit making it a personal agend, you might actually get someone to take you seriously.

Okay, lets see your personal attack.... You've jumped me before in a place i didn't feel was right to respond... In this case, the gloves are off..

Thanks Tx, I was feeling lonesome.

Didn't know the thing about the rice - so... no different from oil really, except we need the oil, the Chinese needed the rice.

 

[TxRad]

There is a significant difference between questioning the rationale and objectives of a war and criticising the troops involved on the ground.

When a democracy goes to war it is a political decision, unless the war is a response to an attack. Whether that decision was justified, whether the war should be continued, whether the objectives of military action are or are not being achieved - all those are political questions and are valid points for discussion within a democracy.

The conduct of the war on the ground should be left to the professional troops on the ground. The war might be unjustified, illegal, impractical or downright stupid - all of which words could reasonably be applied to the UK and France's action over the Suez Canal in 1956. That does not excuse attacks on those actually fighting the action. The troops do, or try to do, what they are asked to achieve.

The US and allied military in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing what they were sent to do, to the best of their ability. If they do not have the correct resources, the correct rules of engagement - that is the responsibility of the politicians who sent them there and should be corrected. One UK politician famously expected British troops in Afghanistan to achieve their objectives 'without firing a shot'. British troops have died and are dying to prove him wrong.

The only criticism of the military I think could be justified is that the senior officers up to and including the generals did not get their governments to be realistic about what would happen in Irag and Afghanistan after the immediate military objectives were met. That is a failure of command, not a failure of the troops.

It is acceptable to criticise the war and still support the troops who are fighting it. The troops deserve support. I'm not sure that the politicians who sent them should wrap themselves in the same flag.

Og

Hear hear.... In vietnam the politicians tried to run the war, it didn't take them long to find out that it didn't wortk, a lot of good men lost theri lives for it. When i have to call in to base, so they can call headquarters, who calls Washington to see if I can return fire, stupidity reighjns....

 

[TxRad]

Thanks Tx, I was feeling lonesome.

Didn't know the thing about the rice - so... no different from oil really, except we need the oil, the Chinese needed the rice.

You're welcome I've been meaning to have a little discussion with Mr. Amicu for a while now and this was jsut the place for it....

Oh btw check on Argintine oil, it was more of a cause than Iraqi oil.... They're a member of OPEC and screwed up the whole deal....