Here's a ethical question

Viet Nam won the war. When you high tail it out of another country while being fired upon - you lost it - lock, stock and barrel. No other definition, period.

Some of our Viet Nam vets are still paying the price for that war, in both physical and mental disabilities, but our government has essentially disowned them. That's a crime too! c.i.

Now, they don't have Veterans benefits as promised (much less the WWII veterans) because USA must given an additional $90,000+ per every one making $1+ a year. Class society!!!!!

Bill, how long would the Northern Vietnam be able to withstand U.S. military in absence of the Soviet and Chinese support? I guess, less than a week, after this the Stars & Stripes flag would appear on the governmental building of Hanoi, and Ho Chi Minh would be brought to the USA for trial (if he did not commit a suicide in the last moment).
The score of the USSR and USA is (in this particular aspect) is 1:1. We defeated you in Vietnam, you did the same to us in Afghanistan. Vietnamese and Afghans were just stunts in the fight of superpowers.

Then, let's get it on - why is it done on others soil? This is a whole new aspect of the Iraqi War. Hadn't heard it before. Or, for that matter, the end of the Viet Nam War. I was over there, didn't see no dead Russians. First time I've heard the Russians won that war. See how history is blind!

Russians did not need being present at the battlefield. I have never seen GIs in Afghanistan either, and no one has. But I saw U.S. assault rifles, mortars, "Stingers"; the U.S. intelligence provided our enemies with satellite surveillance information, it trained them in the camps on the Pakistani territory, they got financial support of the USA, etc. In absence of massive American assistance to our enemies we would be able to send them to personal meeting with the "prophet" Mohammed very fast . But I do not keep any bad feelings toward Americans: this was not personal, just business, and the name of this business was geopolitics.

Why was this done on others' soil? A good question. If this was a direct clash between the USA and the USSR, not only both of us would be unable to survive, none of the other people of the Earth would remain alive.

I have never seen anything saying the US won the war in Afganistan. I recognize support, I also recognize who won.

Afgan and Viet Nam won the war - your quote:


And these are not the only two incidences in history of this.

Everyone in the Soviet military is convinced that the name of the Commander-in-Chief that won a war in Afghanistan is Ronald W. Reagan.

I always thought it was stinger?

The Vietnam War was unlike the proposed upcoming Iraqi conflict.
Vietnam was a civil war. It was a domestic disturbance. Ask any policeman how he feels about answering that type of call. Both are a no win situation whether the policeman is an individual or a nation.
I believe a very old book written by a Chinese general " The Art Of War" states: " He who attacks must win. He who defends must merely survive."

The point is: Vietnam was a lost cause from the beginning because the Americans went in with the attitude they would go in, win, and get out. Even if they did win, once out the North would just return again and again. They had to; it was the only country they had!

This, to me, is ominous when thinking about North and South Korea.
The young inexperienced Koreans are now demonstrating for the U.S. to get out. (This brought to a head by an auto accident)
In fact the new S. Korean President was elected because of his Anti-American platform. (Similar to the political situation in Germany). However, the Old Koreans who fought in the war against the North (who have a collective memory of the conflict and the Communist North) feel much differently then the young whippersnappers.

JM

JM, They just opened up a road between North and South Korea. I'm not sure what significance this will have for their future. c.i.

If the North Korea continues with her nuclear program, I am not sure that this will find understanding in the South. Whom do the N. Koreans develop arms against. No one is going to conquer them in absence of nuclear program (in its presence the casus belli is obvious). So, such a weapon is an offensive one, and it is directed against either Japan or South Korea.

War, good god, what is it good for!
Ah, nothing sparks debate more than a war. Okay, let's kick this puppy in the head right now. WAR SUCKS, but getting SCREWED sucks even more. Let's face the facts here buckoes, Sadam is not a fun-loving boyscout. He's been a very naughty monkey and he doesn't show any signs of straightening up. It's mathematical really: Weapons of Mass Destruction + Jackass with a vendetta = oh crap, this is a BAD situation. He's breaking the rules, that's a no-no. You can muddle the subject with politics and economical diversions but the facts are still hard as a cinderblock upside the noggin: WMDs that are being massively produced have a purpose, to blow sh*t up. What sh*t might that be? Well susie, it ain't sand dunes.
But let's be honest here, we are not saints. We're the ones that invented nukes and USED one first, not a good karma builder but hey, it had to be done. I think ol' W, who--let's face it--isn't the brightest crayon in the coloring box, was stupid for trying to rally misguided support from our allies by "linking" Sadam with Ben Ladin. The two schmucks despise eachother more than Rosie hates Charlton Heston. They aren't exactly swimteam buddies if you catch my drift. And yes, the war is probably a smokescreen from the problems we're facing on the homefront with economy and all. I can definitely see that as a factor in the decision to go to war. So we aren't angels and we aren't friggin innocent okay. Still, this war is necessary.
Let's put it in layman's terms. Let's say you have a wagon full of bricks getting ready to fall over a cliff and right onto your favorite skullcap. Now, you can A)stand there an take it in the head and bleed to death from brain damage or B) stop the wagon from falling on you. Now the UN (heh, the "braintrust" that they are) goes with solution A by telling Sadam our "inspection" dates. Okay, hit rewind on that real quick. It's not the best policy to tell a guy who plans on blowing up your backyard WHEN you're going to drop a line on him. We KNOW that his Biological weapons facilities are in fact used for producing biological weapons (gee imagine that, a factory actually MAKING something), which probably infers directly with an intention of using said weapons. Weapons are usually made for attacking something aren't they folks. Well, when you blatantly tell the guy that you know he's doing bad things but you aren't going to STOP him from doing them--well shucks people, aren't we just asking to get our politically correct tushes kicked all over the place?
So anyhoo, the UN isn't exactly the right muscle we need to STOP our butts from getting wasted. 'Nuff said.
In summation I qoute this rule of thumb. "Evil thrives when good men do nothing" Which is true for the most part. If you let a dog sh*t on your rug, your rug is gonna smell like crap.
Satirically,
John Allen

That is the point. No one (except, maybe Saddam) likes wars. But sometimes there is no choice. I would like the anti-war activists (majority of them being honest people of good will) to understand this.

It is my belief that the great majority of wars are caused by two things.

1. Desired hegemony or down right territorial control of a geographic region by an individual state or individual (WWII or Vietnam conflict).

2. Total misunderstanding or miscalculation of one entity as regards another's intent or seriousness towards a given situation (WWI or the present Iraqi conflict).

Nothing can prevent war caused by the former. One merely has two choices: Let the aggressor pursue his objects and hope he doesn't come after you in the future or (if one can become strong enough) try to remedy the situation by actively resisting or removing the offender. This is GorgeousJohn's cold-eyed practical take on the situation.

The Iraqi conflict seems to be a combination of these two reasons. It started off because of the former reason and continues to hurtle towards final resolution by the "Coalition of the Willing" due to the latter.

Iraq's classical willingness to invade Iran and Kuwait stems from these two nations perceived weakness in Iraq's eyes. (It is this very perception of weakness that should make the coalition think before backing down from Saddam). But in addressing the second reason one cannot help but question that perhaps Saddam misunderstands the coalition's intent and underestimates its resolve. Surely he knows from past experience what the outcome of a military conflict with the U.S. and its allies will be. Does Saddam really think the French will be able to keep its finger in the dike of world opinion forever?

steissd,

I think North Korea developed nuclear devices because they could. Nukes are considered status symbols on the world stage. They are expensive to develop, however, and for a poor nation such as North Korea demand sacrifices. So, why have them? For North Korea's defense? Against who, South Korea or China? No, for many reasons. I believe the answer lies in the Treaty N. Korea just trashed with the U.S. made under the Clinton administration. Essentially the treaty said to the N. Koreans " OK, in exchange for discontinuing your nuclear program we will give you food and fuel".
North Korea has nukes for one reason only: To use as bargaining chips in a dangerous game of nuclear blackmail.
Any other use of nuclear weapons by North Korea would be Suicidal.

JM

This war is immoral - pure and simple!!!!!!!!

BillW,

Re your post of Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:19 pm in which you state:

"This war is immoral - pure and simple!!!!!!!!"

If it were only that simple.

Respectfully,

JM

JM The whole issue is not simple - this war = immoral, that is simple!

Mr. Morrison, that is what I always stated while discussing North Korean nuclear claims: these are nothing more than a creative way of begging for foreign financial aid. If Saddam is defeated and replaced, Kim will understand that he endangers his own power and will beg for the same things in another way, less dangerous for the surrounding and distant countries.