A Mirror of Vietnam?

[marharth]

I have very intentionally not posted in this thread but the one thing I would like to comment on after reviewing all the posts, is that the only thing that is conspicuously absent is a post from someone who was ACTUALLY there. :whistling:

 

PS: Vagrant you are of the right age and if were 'in country' then I apologize for excluding you but the rest.... :facepalm: .

I am sorry, I will be sure to exclude myself from anything that I was not directly in from now on.

 

I would also advise others to do the same. Clearly we can not possibly have any knowledge or understanding of a event without being directly involved.

Edited August 20, 2011 by marharth

[draconix]

I see what you did there.. :thumbsup:

[Dan3345]

I have to agree with Arielius.. We aren't there, all we see in the media is the anti-war propaganda. And while that's fine there is another side too it. And I personally know a lot of troops who have been there and back and say that the work we are doing is actually helping. They have told me about the kids that look forward to seeing the American troops in their villages, because it means they will be safe. If the Taliban really is our enemy there, then all I can think to call them is bullies. the harass the fathers of the families in little villages and threaten them with "Give us your son so he can fight, or we will destroy your village."

 

In another time and place it would be a justifiable war, but not now. Not while our economy is tanking with the global economy. Not while their are riots in London, Greece, and now America. These politicians (and I may be getting off track) always point the blame on everyone but themselves. But I blame all of them, and if I had my way I would remove everyone from the executive branch down to the senate. Politics is now completely bought out by corporations and greed. I suppose it always has been, but in the past it has been manageable because the economy was good. Now that everyone is hemorrhaging money the corruption becomes so painfully obvious.

 

No flame please ;)

[Aurielius]

I am sorry, I will be sure to exclude myself from anything that I was not directly in from now on.

I would also advise others to do the same. Clearly we can not possibly have any knowledge or understanding of a event without being directly involved.

Even when not singled out you take things personally but your vast knowledge of the subject matter is so much of a boon to the forum in general that it would be a tragedy for you to not to continue with your pithy insightful observations. :whistling:

Edited August 20, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

I am sorry, I will be sure to exclude myself from anything that I was not directly in from now on.

I would also advise others to do the same. Clearly we can not possibly have any knowledge or understanding of a event without being directly involved.

Even when not singled out you take things personally but your vast knowledge of the subject matter is so much of a boon to the forum in general that it would be a tragedy for you to not to continue with your pithy insightful observations. :whistling:

How was I taking anything personally? You seem to be reflecting how you feel on others.

 

Also once again, nice argument you got there.

Edited August 21, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

While we may be doing some good there..... is it worth it? The lives of our soldiers? Burying our country in debt?

 

Some of the things going on there lead me to believe that the answer is "no".

 

We blow stuff up, rebuild it, leave the area, then someone else comes along and blows it up.

 

We are paying bribes to the folks we are fighting, so our supply convoys can get thru, "unmolested", so that we CAN fight them. They in turn, use the money to by arms/equipment so they can fight US.

 

When the taliban was in control, farmers raised wheat. Taliban didn't like growing opium. Today, 80% of opium comes from Afghanistan.

 

The government there is so corrupt, that they would collapse in short order, if we left. Is this another spot we want to be a continual drain on our economy for the foreseeable future? Given current circumstances, I would also give that one a "no".

[LeopoldCrank]

I have very intentionally not posted in this thread but the one thing I would like to comment on after reviewing all the posts, is that the only thing that is conspicuously absent is a post from someone who was ACTUALLY there. :whistling:

 

PS: Vagrant you are of the right age and if were 'in country' then I apologize for excluding you but the rest.... :facepalm: .

 

What people forget is that sometimes you need to be detached from events to make an informed decision. For instance, anyone living in the U.S.A. during the 1950s would believe, whole-heartedly, that America's only reason for their involvement in the Cold War was the detainment of Communism. But now, with facts and detachment, we can say that it in fact had a lot to do with power and money. They couldn't know, because they are too personally invested in those events.

[Aurielius]

"What people forget is that sometimes you need to be detached from events to make an informed decision. For instance, anyone living in the U.S.A. during the 1950s would believe, whole-heartedly, that America's only reason for their involvement in the Cold War was the detainment of Communism. But now, with facts and detachment, we can say that it in fact had a lot to do with power and money. They couldn't know, because they are too personally invested in those events."

 

Having actually grown up in the 50's this little bit of revisionist perspective of history really amused me. You might want to review the advance of Soviet client states from the period 1945 to 1965. It was an ideological conflict that we won in the 90's which gives you the freedom to see it as a esoteric trifle. The Cold War was fought globally through surrogate states and so it was very real and not the least bit about money , everything in one way or another is about power. Participation in an event gives one a perspective that is absent from academic review of the same event, granted given enough distance such as 100 yrs it can be put in proper perspective with the flow of history.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

I'm staying out of this thread for some very good and personal reasons. Just want to say the following. Aurielius you are absolutely correct in your above post. I could not agree with you more.

 

Having said that, I must once again say that I agree with HeyYou, with respect to what he says about where we are going with the current wars and our ability as a Nation to sustain this type of activity.

 

Just my opinion...

[marharth]

The reason for the cold war was due to opposing ideologies and the fear of nuclear power. Its not really much more then that.

 

While I agree with LeopoldCrank that detachment sometimes helps with making a informed decision, the reason for the cold war was defenitly due to ideological conflict and not due to money.