Posted on 10/02/2001 5:32:34 PM PDT by Libloather
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:31:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A better argument than the Viet Nam argument, which you will note even he didn't buy at the time it mattered, is that for the first time in US history we were attacked.
The surface argument against the Viet Nam war, which took in many people, was that they had not directly attacked the US. To support that war required some basic understanding of geopolitics.
Support for this war requires only the instinct for self-preservation: the opponents of this war are exponentially stupider than those who opposed Viet Nam, such as the young Horowitz.
Any news about Chicago's 7? Where are those former traitors: left, right or neocons?
As opposed to being on the hands of those doing the actual fighting, and who had the actual authority to start/stop this fighting. Very usefull escapism. The fact is there ARE people who had the authority to start/stop that war -- they were in the administration. Of course they will not be charged, like the argentinean generals were after the falklands war. But its a very interesting twist of illogic to take the blame away from those making the decisions, and towards a bunch of kids in the street.
This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "re-education camps" of hundreds of thousands more,
Given that the war killed a million, simple math should tell us which answer is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.