[Update] Mortars Injure 10 U.S. Troops in Iraq

D.O. please don't misunderstand me...I am, or was, NO fan of S.H. but the world is full of sick little dictators running around.

To a certain extent I agree. I don't like the idea of us getting involved in every issue around the world. Terrorism is one area where I think we need to be global. And you're looking at a guy who has lamented our involvement in so many nations around the world. Are you aware that we have troops in over 145 nations around the world, and have for at least fifteen years? Some of this isn't even related to the military from what I understand. There's very little talk about it, but I believe some of it is environmental etcetera, saving the rain forrest or some such. I to think we should re-evaluate our troops deployments and remove them from most nations.

The sad part is, we've put some of them there.

There are times when the choices we are presented with, are dismal. I think you can look at our own elections and see a correlation, althought not to the same degree. Is there anyone who thought a choice between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton was a shining moment in our history?

We cann't be the policeman of the world. We aren't supposed to be the policeman of the world.

I don't think we should be the policemen of the world. Right now there is a problem boiling over in Liberia. Neither you or I want to see US troops there. The problem is, who do we want to see there? Do we want a group led by the French? Oui! Do we want a Russian or Chinese contingent in there? Do we want Kofi Annan to pick another group to head it up, lending him more credence on the world stage? I don't like it, but US troops seem like the best of the choices on the table these days.

I absolutely believe we should have the biggest, toughest, most well equipped military in the world.

I agree with you here. It's vitally important.

But I also believe it should only be used for defensive purposes,

And on the surface this sounds pretty good. I know you don't agree with this, but I truly do see the Iraq effort as a defensive move. I do think Iran is going to have to be next. When it has been freed, we're going to be looking at a whole new middle east.

Many of the Eastern Persian Penninsula states are freindly to the U.S. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and a couple of others work with us. They aren't stricly western by any means, but they are headed in a better direction. With a freed up Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and a modernizing Pakistan, I think we're headed in the right direction. Defensively I don't think it's possible to state that we aren't in a better position today than we were on 09/11, in that region. Even states like Syria are going to have to moderate thier activities due to Bush's efforts. If they don't, they know they'll be next. Better to wise up and establish working relationships with the US than go it alone in a suicidal pack with the Devil.

Even Sauda Arabia is beginning to take some steps to reign in their set of idiots. They just booted six sons of Osama Bin Laden. Five still remain, but evidently they have sworn off terrorism.

we are not a conquring empire. I like that walk softly and carry a big stick approach.

I also like the talk softly and carry a big stick approach. That approach doesn't mean that we keep our troops on our own shores all the time though. If it did that would mean that our homeland would be the battlefield for every conflict in our future.

I know that causualties are a part of any war, that's why we should question every war we get into.

The questioning isn't the problem. We all question. That's very healthy. At some point we have to come to the realization that we may differ, and that when the Presdient puts men and women in harms way, we have to back them. Not unconditionally by any means. At the onset we fall in line behind both, unified against the enemy. When things cool off, we continue to support the troops, but the Presdient is fair game when it comes to policy. There are times when we are going to have to understand that our President will take a different course than we would have liked. I see Military efforts in a completely different light than other issues. Unless the President is clearly off the reservation, you have to allow some slack.

When Bill Clinton bombed targets on the night an impeachment vote was to be conducted in Congress, it was one such time. I would have voted to impeach him on that issue alone.

I lived through Vietnam...I know the government lies for their own purposes.

Yes, the government does lie. At times it might be for the best. At other times it clearly isn't.

The loss of 50k on the alter of lies is not acceptable.

And I would agree with that. The Vietnam war is a very complex studdy IMO. There are issues with untruths, mismanagement, execution, treason, abuse of troops, a Congress out of their minds, and two Presidents who were under a lot of pressure. I still say Johnson and McNamera bordered on the criminal with regard to the execution of that war. Nixon doesn't get a complete pass from me, but he inherited a complete reem job from Johnson and the Democrats. Even after Johson was out of the picture, the Congress thwarted Nixon's efforts to exectute the war to success. Every time he'd get the NVC on the ropes, the Congress would demand a ceasefire, allowing resupply.

I don't remember all the players, but McGovern, Drynan and others might as well have been on Ho Chin Min's war planning-committees.

I don't like that we were fed a carrott (WMD) to start this war.

Do you believe that the 19 men involved in the 09/11 events were WMDs? Sounds like a crazy question, but I do think of them that way. Every terrorist camp is inhabitied by the world's best electronic devices. They are capable of turning many neutral devices into terrible killing and wounding entities. There were Al Qaeda traning facilities in Iraq. End of story in my book. If Hussein was paying terrorist bombers's families, then he was funding WMDs. There's no question in my mind but that we did the right thing by invading Iraq.

I believe China and Russia are a much bigger threat to this country than Iraq.

I too keep a leary eye on China and Russia. I believe that our old ways of looking at things are very outmoded. Since 09/11 we look at threats that cross border lines much better than we used to. I see alliances between Russia, China and the middle east to be a very important study. To the extent that we neutralize terrorists and unstable unwesternized governments, the less Russia and China will be able to capitalize against us globally.

Most of the people on 9/11 were Saudi nationals not Iraqs anyway.

That is true. And I do believe our Saudi Arabian relationship must be looked at. This isn't exactly black and white either. While they have allowed too much freedom to terrorists in their midst, and could even be said to have given them some funding, Saudi Arabia has at times helped keep oil prices moderated, which is very favorable to us. If they wanted they could lead the oil cartel to decrease supply, drive up profits and make much greater financial gain from selling a lot less of their oil assetts. We can take them to task from time to time, deservedly so, but there is more than one issue at stake here.

If we are involved in this war on terrorism and those in charge are so concerned about another attack that they have to pass this orwellian Patriot act, can you please tell me why our boarders are wide open?

My friend, you have touched on the question of the ages haven't you! God only knows why our borders are wide open, and that we still allow Muslem individuals from the middle east to immigrate into the United States. I haven't a clue why.

"You will kill ten of us for every one we kill of you, but you will tire of it first."

-An NVA Colonel who, BTW, was right.

Actually, it is well documented that the North Vietnamese were willing to throw in the towel after the Tet. They tired of it first. But they were astounded to see the Americans regard a victory as a defeat. In the case of Iraq, most of the American kills are targeted at the Ba'ath leadership. I should say we are killing ten colonels to every one of our privates.

There is no danger that we will lose the war on the ground. The only danger is that we will lose the war in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

By the way, the kill ratio of Americans to Nokors and Chicoms in the Korean war was far lower than Vietnam; the 8th Army retreated hundreds of miles from the Yalu; and the first Marine Division had to fight it's way to the coast. But we didn't lose that war in the papers, which it seems, is what counts.

Actually, it is well documented that the North Vietnamese were willing to throw in the towel after the Tet. They tired of it first. But they were astounded to see the Americans regard a victory as a defeat.

If the Vietnam war had been executed properly, I don't think it would have lasted one year. We should have bombed the north into utter oblivion. The ports of Hanoi should have looked like the rice fields when we were done. Government buildings should have obliterated. Leadership should have been assasinated.

Johnson and McNamera were complete fools. Johnson wanted to be a general from the Oval Office. Gag me.

Johnson and McNamera were complete fools. Johnson wanted to be a general from the Oval Office. Gag me.

Of course you are correct. The Vietnam war was planned, produced and executed first by Kennedy, then Johnson. Nixon ended the war by first handing the NVs a defeat with Linebacker. That's how he brought the POWs home. Yet every media portrayal skirts around this basic fact, and have managed to associate Vietnam in the public mind with either Eisenhower or Nixon.

By the way, with General Frank's retirement on July 7th, the era of the Vietnam vet comes nearly to a close. John Abizaid graduated from West Point in 1973. Some Southeast Asian combat vets still linger, like Myers, but they will be gone in the next couple of years. Unfortunately, the press never runs out of Vietnam vets. They didn't even have to be there to qualify. In some twilight zone, the Caravelle bar is still open, and the year is forever 1965.

Thanks for your additional comments. It was nice talking to you.

Yes I agree that the media likes to vilify Nixon for Vietnam. The funny thing is that Lyndon increased the combat presence in Vietnam from 15,000 to 550,000. Nixon took ever with over half a million men in the field, but the media acts as if he started it.

Hey, it's the same story with Clinton v Nixon. The liberal media likes to act like Clinton was a paragon of virtue, but Nixon was a crook.

LOL, Nixon didn't even think of doing 10% of the stuff Clinton did. Rape? Nixon? There's no question Clinton was worthy of prison. The man was very likely a traitor, although I use that term somewhat loosely compared to what it's actual definition is. To me any person who dares give away state secrets to a nation whose insiders are giving his political party millions, is an out and out traitor.

You take care.