[bluefish]

I think you guys are being unfair to CP. He says it is like Vietnam in that we aren't fighting hard enough. Not that we *shouldn't* be there, as your reaction seems to imply. Nowhere in his / her statement was a DU like statement made. The "Go Back to DU" crap is getting kind of old, don't you think?

[Allegra]

Oh, unwad your knickers. That post reads like something I'd see on an A.N.S.W.E.R. website.

That's my opinion. I've got one; you've got one. Mine doesn't agree with yours.

Get over it.

[carlr]

For what it may be worth,Allegra is currently in Iraq.

She has a pretty good idea of what is going on there and the practical realities of the place.

[FreeReign]

I think you guys are being unfair to CP. He says it is like Vietnam in that we aren't fighting hard enough. Not that we *shouldn't* be there, as your reaction seems to imply. Nowhere in his / her statement was a DU like statement made. The "Go Back to DU" crap is getting kind of old, don't you think?

"We aren't fighting hard enough" is a line of propaganda targeted not for the DU types but for us.

Don't buy into it.

[Allegra]

I think you guys are being unfair to CP.

Who cares what you think?

Had to do it...the devil made me do that...that comment was begging for that...

[Just A Nobody]

I think you guys are being unfair to CP.

I disagree. He/she/it stated ...

Good American men are dying in the 1000's because we are afraid of killing civilians and worried what the world thinks of us.

There have been 1822 hostile casualties in Iraq to date. While each life is precious and is mourned, that is not 1000's.

Also, we are not at war with a hostile country, but a group of hostile individuals that do not represent a country, but an ideology.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

Sorry about taking so long to get back; I was shoveling snow and it sounds to me as though Allegra has responded for the WOT troops.

Now, you want to drag 'Nam into this again? Particularly the bit about: "He says it is like Vietnam in that we aren't fighting hard enough."

First, the libs and their pimps in the MSM have been trying to morph the WOT into "a Viet Nam morass" since two minutes after the first Tower went down. I still can't decide if they believe what they're saying or they've simply run out of pages in the playbook, and since 'Nam was their last visible "sucess", they just go back to 1968 as a last resort. I think that both Allegra and I were perfectly justified in slammin' the door shut on that score alone.

Second, and specifically WRT the "....not fighting hard enough"......well, this old Navy Chief would pretty cheerfully kick your civilian arse around the block for suggesting that of my brothers, but I'll stand 'way at the back of the long, long line of people who actually had time in-country and more personal reasons to point out your gross slander.

Finally, and in caps just so you can see:

IRAQ...IS...NOTHING...AT...ALL...LIKE...VIETNAM.

Got that?

I will state that with such emphasis for one primary reason: Lyndon Johnson is not George Bush. They both held the same office (POTUS) after holding elective office in the same state (Texas). Similarities pretty much end at that.

IMHO, LBJ tried to run Viet Nam like a political campaign, was finally forced to admit his own utter failure at the job, bugged out and let the MSM blame the military; BOTH Bush presidents got handed a bag of crap world situation, established a strategy to address it, turned the military
loose to make it happen and then did the President job of establishing and maintaining support for the troops.

The other big difference, if you haven't noticed, is that the MSM of 2006 is almost a flyspeck when compared to even a dozen years ago. They're still self-absorbed and self-important as ever, but they're running out of circulation and profitability almost faster than they've exhausted their credibility.

Instead of quoting more BS about 'Nam, can you tell me when you saw the last honest, objective, straight news story in the NY Times? On ANY subject?