1
   

"We dare not tempt them with weakness."

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 03:56 pm
Some have been comparing Iraq with Vietnam. Following is a piece that draws a comparison. If you don't read it all, please read at least the first few paragraphs.

"John F. Kennedy said it all: "We dare not tempt them with weakness." He went to the brink of nuclear war with that philosophy during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 -- and the public supported him.
That is why the Soviets backed down. Had we been bickering among ourselves, the outcome could have been very different."


TITANTIC IRRESPONSIBILITY - PART II

April 14, 2004

Attacks on American and other troops and civilians in Iraq are not based on any illusion that terrorist acts and guerrilla warfare can defeat our military forces there. But the strength of a chain is that of its weakest link -- and the weakest link in American security is in the United States itself. It is the political link.

For those old enough to remember the Vietnam war, this is another version of the Communist "Tet offensive" that marked the turning point in that war. During the holiday period known in Vietnam as Tet, the Communists launched spectacular attacks within South Vietnam, catching American and South Vietnamese forces by surprise -- and shocking American public opinion.

President Lyndon Johnson's administration had for years painted such an optimistic picture of the war that many Americans were shocked that the Communists still had enough strength left to launch such widespread and coordinated attacks. The Tet offensive was such a blow to the administration's credibility during an election year that President Johnson announced that he would not seek re-election.

Support for the war eroded and demands that we get out reached a crescendo. The irony in all this is that the Communist insurgents were beaten decisively during the Tet offensive. But what they lost in battle in Vietnam the Communists won in the American media and in public opinion shaped by the media.

In later years, after the Communists were firmly in power in Vietnam, they admitted that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for them. In a 1995 interview in the Wall Street Journal, a Communist official stated frankly that the key to their victory was the American home front, and that they were encouraged to fight on by all the anti-war demonstrations in the United States.

For much of the American media, their role in turning public opinion against the Vietnam war was among their proudest achievements. For our enemies, Vietnam provided a formula for defeating Americans politically at home when they could not be defeated militarily on the battlefield. Iraqi terrorists are already saying that they will create another Vietnam.
Fortunately, not all of the media today is in Vietnam nostalgia mode. Nor have our leaders repeated all the mistakes of Vietnam.
First and foremost, the Bush administration has never tried to tell us that the war on terrorism would be either quick or easy. On the contrary, the President announced back in 2001 that the war on terrorism was going to be a long and hard war.

Most of us at the time would probably not have believed that we could have gone this long without another and perhaps more catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States. Do you remember how every symbolic occasion -- the World Series, Christmas, New Year's Eve, the Super Bowl -- brought widespread fears that this could be when the terrorists would strike us again?

Yet our respite from terrorist attack has seldom brought even a grudging acknowledgment that perhaps the government's anti-terrorism policies and activities might deserve some credit, instead of the constant barrage of media and political criticism and carping.

Make no mistake, a new and more terrible terrorist attack could happen here at any time -- especially now that Spain has shown how easy it is to panic politicians. But the fact that our enemies see our politics as the weakest link in the chain of American national security means that we need to recognize that as well.

John F. Kennedy said it all: "We dare not tempt them with weakness." He went to the brink of nuclear war with that philosophy during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 -- and the public supported him.
That is why the Soviets backed down. Had we been bickering among ourselves, the outcome could have been very different.
Today as well, weakness is our greatest danger -- whether that weakness takes the form of wishful thinking about the United Nations or other soft options. Politicians who are too irresponsible to recognize that our deadly enemies -- whether in Iraq or North Korea -- are listening to their every word cannot be trusted with the power to shape the future of this nation.
--Thomas Sowell
©©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040414.shtml
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,841 • Replies: 68
No top replies

 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:17 pm
Great article Foxfyre. I hope a more than a few people read it without their hyper-partisan filters working overtime. There is a somber truth to be understood, regardless of which side of the political fence you reside on.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:22 pm
Yup- If the terrorists win, it will be because we gave them the "ammunition". Great article, Foxfyre!
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:23 pm
Excellent article.

Another good example is Mogadishu. They killed a few of our people and President Clinton turned and ran. As I understand it, Mogadishu is the model for what the terrorists are trying to do in Iraq these days. We must never let such a thing happen again.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:29 pm
Ah yes, another article by right wing Republican hack Thomas Sowell. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:35 pm
War weariness is our weakest link. That part of the premise is true. The part that is disingenuous is that it should be any other way.

This article is basically labelling democracy and dissent to teh war as the enemy.

It's on the same intellectual level as those who call Bush the enemy.

This is the type of article that makes perfect sense only to those who support the wars. to the rest it's just a tired old saw used to try to label dissent as the problem.

The hawks herein would do well to remember their own words on other threads and remember who their enemies are, instead of the facile attempts to pin their political opposites with the enemy label.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:35 pm
He's right wing. He's registered Libertarian. And he's right. Smile
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:41 pm
Dissent is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of the battle plan. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:44 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Dissent is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of the battle plan. Very Happy

This may be the stupidest thing I've seen here yet. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:48 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Dissent is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of the battle plan. Very Happy


It's important to remember what the fight is for. It's not a fight to defend that kind of a country.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:49 pm
Quote:
"John F. Kennedy said it all: "We dare not tempt them with weakness."

speaking of JFK lets use the go-back machine and take a look at Vietnam, in the spring of 1963, the U.S. was losing at two fronts successively: military and psycho-warfare. As Kennedy and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, prepared for a graceful exit from Vietnam, destiny took its course. McNamara made his decision to inform PACCOM on his next SecDef conference on next May. And Kennedy intimated his thought about gradual withdrawal to Senate Majority Leader Mark Mansfield around March. But around that time, the situation in Vietnam was too chaotic to implement.
First there was a renew talk of removing Diem--or at least eliminate his brother from the presidential decision-making process. Then there was a beginning of a series of protest from Buddhist monks against alleged religious suppression which started in May in Hue (the month of May marks the Buddha's Birthday). The Buddhist protests produce self-immolation. The Vietnamese government then tried to stop the Buddhist movement by storming the pagodas and arresting Buddhist leaders. That, in turn, set the stage for the U.S. to move against Diem. It's now the time that the U.S. really lost in Vietnam: its ally was bleeding internally; the leader it has been touting was soon to be one of its policy victim.
On August 24, 1963 a top-secret telegram was sent, clearing the way for a coup d'etat against Diem. Diem and his brother were killed on November 1, 1963. The killing sent a shockwave to those who planned Diem's removal in Washington. Kennedy, perceiving the precarious situation in Vietnam, expedited his withdrawal program--to be spelled out in NSAM-263. He planned to announce his program later of the year, and the withdrawal program to be implemented beginning early in 1964. But there was no more time for either Kennedy or his offspring--Vietnam. Three weeks after Diem's death, Kennedy was killed by an assassin's bullet. -----
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:55 pm
Craven writes:
Quote:
This is the type of article that makes perfect sense only to those who support the wars. to the rest it's just a tired old saw used to try to label dissent as the problem.


I wonder Craven if there is anything that could convince you that there is justification for going to war? It isn't always our choice. I don't think there is any American worthy to be called American who would have chosen for 9/11 to happen no matter how badly he or she wanted to rid the world of bin Laden or the Taliban or Saddam or the al Qaida or Hamas or (insert terrorist group here).

Prior to 9/11 none of us were even thinking about going to war with anybody. I doubt there are more than a handfull of Americans who, given a choice, would not choose peace over war every single time.

The enemy is the terrorists. They took away our choice. We were attacked and we are taking the fight to the terrorists wherever they are whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq. If we fulfill our mission there, I believe we will see other terrorist nations, as Lybia did, decide to rejoin the peaceful world community and the necessity for war will be much lessened and of shorter duration. (Disclaimer: "we" in this context = majority of American people.)

If we fail, I believe more 9/11's are inevitable. And more wars.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:58 pm
I deem this thread interesting, and thus decree it bookmarked!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:03 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder Craven if there is anything that could convince you that there is justification for going to war?


Careful with the straw men Foxfyre. I have never said that there is no justification for going to war.

You are coming close to calling me a dove, when in reality I'm closer to a hawk (one that hates a bad casus beli).

Quote:
It isn't always our choice. I don't think there is any American worthy to be called American who would have chosen for 9/11 to happen no matter how badly he or she wanted to rid the world of bin Laden or the Taliban or Saddam or the al Qaida or Hamas or (insert terrorist group here).


9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam.

Quote:
The enemy is the terrorists. They took away our choice. We were attacked and we are taking the fight to the terrorists wherever they are whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq. If we fulfill our mission there, I believe we will see other terrorist nations, as Lybia did, decide to rejoin the peaceful world community and the necessity for war will be much lessened and of shorter duration. (Disclaimer: "we" in this context = majority of American people.)


9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:15 pm
Choices
The present US Govt. had choice. They chose to illegaly invade a sovereign country that was no immediate threat to America.

The war to change the regime of Saddam has been won.The war on the Iraqi people has been lost. The Iraqi people, appreciative of America ridding Iraq of Saddam and his regime now want American and it's allies in the Occuption to leave their country.

General says Fallujah a "rat's nest" that needs to be dealt with


WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Quote:
The top US general said the Iraqi town of Fallujah was "a rat's nest" that will have to be dealt with in part through the use of military force.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged that insurgents were violating a ceasefire, putting women and children in the line of fire, and using Red Crescent ambulances to smuggle in arms and ammunition.

"We went in because we had to to find the perpetrators and what we found was a
huge rat's nest that is still festering today. It needs to be dealt with," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites).

Myers, who visited Iraq (news - web sites) last week, said that although coalition authorities were responding with negotiations and a ceasefire, extremists continued to fire on US marines in Fallujah.

"They are still firing," he said.

"I think it was yesterday or the day before a Red Crescent ambulance trying to get in Fallujah was stopped and weapons were found inside. They are trying to resupply themselves with weapons and ammunition," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_...


Bringing freedom and democracy to those rats in their nest is a tough job.
Will the general have to destroy the nest in order to save it, or to democratize it -- or whatever they're calling it this week?

Hmm, I wonder if the residents of Fallujah wouldn't prefer being called 'Iraqis' rather than 'rats' -- just something to ponder.



excerpt from Stan Goff's essay from yesterday:

snip:
Last April in Fallujah--ancient history now - U.S. soldiers were sent there after local imams had established order. The imams had stopped the looting and vengeance attacks, re-opened public services, and established an interim constabulary. Normalcy was beginning to take hold when the Bradley fighting vehicles rolled into town, and the Americans took over a recently re-opened school for their headquarters, arrested the imams, installed their own mayor, and road blocked the whole city.

These actions were their orders, orders from people who knew nothing of Iraqi society, and this ignorance was delivered into the hands of the Iraqi resistance like a priceless gift.

Popular outrage was swift. The Americans--still tightly strung from recent combat--were besieged by angry demonstrators, who they then began to shoot. Between April 28-30 last year, twenty Iraqis were killed and scores wounded. Lies about weapons in the crowds were concocted, and eyewitnesses were effectively excluded from the Boeing/ADM media. CENTCOM could say anything, no matter the number of witnesses, and it would be given equal weight against all claims to the contrary.

But lies are only misrepresentations of reality. They do not erase reality, which is the problem now for Republicans and Democrats. In Fallujah last year, the masses were served a helping of occupation reality, and they were galvanized by it. Resistance is fertilized by blood, and the American guns in Fallujah nourished the greening fields of Iraqi opposition. The popular basis for a guerrilla struggle had been established by the American military's hand, and it wouldn't be long in coming.

A whole population was now prepared to take a supportive role in an armed resistance. This was a signpost, but it was written in a foreign tongue for the Americans.


http://www.counterpunch.org/


It's the dumbing down of America. The dumb puppet
leading the dumber. Simple people crave simple scenerios.
God loves freedom. America is the land of the free. The world
will welcome America into their country and our freedom.
Simple: America is right. Anybody that doesn't agree with that
doesn't love God and freedom. America must spread freedom.
Our bombs, missles and troops are only used for good.
Why don't the people that America is liberating see that?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Prior to 9/11 none of us were even thinking about going to war with anybody. I doubt there are more than a handfull of Americans who, given a choice, would not choose peace over war every single time.


Regrettably, your president was thinking about war prior to 9/11, and would not choose peace over war. Don't forget, he is the self-described war president.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:39 pm
Craven wrote:
Quote:
This is the type of article that makes perfect sense only to those who support the wars. to the rest it's just a tired old saw used to try to label dissent as the problem.

Would it not be reasonable to interpret this that you do not support the war(s)?


Craven wrote:
9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam
Nothing in Sowell's article or in my posts suggests that it did. Saddam, however, did fit the criteria to define "terrorist" post 9/11 and therefore became a legitimate post 9/11 target though there were even more compelling reasons to take him out not the least of which was his repetitive violations of U.N. dictates. The only difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that Iraq was a preemptive strike while Afghanistan was retaliatory.

As I believe another 9/11 is more than possible or even likely if we screw this up, I prefer to be on the offensive in the war against terror from this point on.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:50 pm
Why has a post giving the history of Kennedy's plan to withdraw from Vietnam not read or consisered?

If you read Dys' post, you will see that it makes Sowell's book meaningless. Intelligent and honorable men realize when they have made a mistake and do their best to halt the destruction with as little further damage as possible.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:51 pm
9/11 may or may not have anything to do with Saddam.

But the war on terror definitely does.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 06:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Craven wrote:
9/11 has nothing to do with Saddam
Nothing in Sowell's article or in my posts suggests that it did.


This is not true. You repeatedly used 9/11 as the reason we have "no choice" but to go to war and named Saddam each time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "We dare not tempt them with weakness."
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 04:58:43