WHY IRAQ IS BECOMING VIETNAM

Liberals have long dreamed of turning our occupation of Iraq into another Vietnam, a scar on the face of America that they could revel in. I believe in many ways, they are succeeding.

Their latest victory is their success in turning incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison into an indictment of American foreign policy and the President. Our Defense Secretary was dragged before a motley group of Senatorial inquisitors, many of whom don’t have the moral standing to tie his shoe, much less interrogate him.

The “scandal” is the Mai Lai massacre to this generation of liberals, and it reaches them like manna from heaven. They are hoping it is the turning point that allows them to toss dirt onto our Iraqi operation. It follows close on the heels of the Fallujah debacle, where America flinched instead of laying down the boot on crazy cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of fanatical thugs.

America essentially let human scum get away with murdering our countrymen and desecrating their bodies on worldwide TV. Everyone knew the appropriate response would be to cordon off the city, allow the innocent to escape, and liquidate the terrorists. But we didn’t have the will to follow through, fearing the world would view too many civilian casualties on TV.

The failure cannot be blamed on liberals. After all, they’re not failing—they’re succeeding. It is the decent people of America who are suffering the failure of will. Our president is guilty of the same.

President George W. Bush has proven himself to be a very capable war president, but an uneven president in non-war matters. The reason is that he correctly perceived a need in war to do whatever it took to prevail. But once the hot war was finished in Iraq, he began to filter his decisions through the prism of political consideration. That is a recipe for failure.

When will we learn, I wonder. Vietnam was a humiliating defeat. Not because it was an immoral war, as liberals like to say, but because we failed to let the troops win due to political considerations. Iraq is no different. The Marines could have subdued Fallujah in days, if not hours, if they were given a free hand.

What has all of this political consideration gotten for Mr. Bush and for America? We are so worried about the “Arab street” and what they will think about everything. To hell with the Arab street! The Arab street are the same people who cheered on 9-11.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that America is a decent nation, and that terrorists are evil. When wrongdoing is found on our side, it is an anomaly. With terrorists it is their modus operandi. Yet CNN and their ilk continue to produce pieces spotlighting America’s errors in war, and not the daily routine of our bloodthirsty enemies.

President Bush had it right when he long ago called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil.” We would have done well to quickly move as needed against these enemies. But indecision, weakness, and lack of preparation have caused the Iraq campaign to languish. Its overall slowness is killing whatever support and goodwill the administration may have had for future campaigns.

On September 11th, 2001, fanatical terrorists made clear that they had declared war on us. This would be a war of annihilation—either theirs or ours—there was no third solution.

Currently we have the world’s terrorists right where we want them—coming to us in Iraq. Would we prefer they come back to New York City. Or perhaps Los Angeles, or Chicago?

Are we naïve enough to think that if we walk away from Iraq, we won’t be followed home? That the world’s terrorists won’t correctly gather that we are running away with our tail between our legs? Look what happened when we left Vietnam—mass graves and lost prestige.

Lack of will was our true enemy in Vietnam. We must exorcize this demon, or we will be condemned to repeat history.

Patrick Rooney is the Director of Special Projects at BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.”

For more information, please visit www.bondinfo.org, call 1-800-411-BOND (2663), or write to patrick@bondinfo.org.

...is needed are programs such as job creation

What is needed is to educate the population that they are not Slaves of Allah. Inform them that their lot in life is not cast, they have free will and can better their position in society. Even Timothy Leary was saddened by some other cultures that perceived there as being no hope for a better life in this world; some take it as being a better world "in the afterlife" (see 72 virgins) while others see a cycle of life where they will be reincarnated and live a better life on Earth "next time".

A reformation MUST occur in Islam to eradicate the violent elements, to change the law that permits slavery (of prisoners seized in war), etc.

Until they have their reformation, Islam will be a prison.

Muslim nations must also be open to other faiths being practiced in their lands. A man who voluntarily comes to Islam is worth more to muslims than a man who remains a muslim under threat of death.

Forced conversion to Islam fatal for Christian boy (Islamics torture Xian boy for 5 days)

Disregard the labels and simply choose which is right and which is wrong:

-Involuntary redistribution of wealth from producers to the poor. Moral and ethical?

The "poor" are not producers? Tell that to the countless working poor who scrape by on minimum wage salaries. I assume what you meant was people on welfare or some form of government assistance, though I can only infer. Welfare abuse, which is both unethical and immoral, does occur. Exploitation of the poor, usually by the "producers," is also immoral and unethical (and commonplace).

- Claiming the right to kill a defenseless human for convenience sake. Moral and ethical?

Again, I can only assume you mean abortion, and not the too-frequent occasions an innocent or improperly convicted person has ended up on death row. This is a complex issue, and your simple binaries don't help. At what point is a fetus a human? We all have to make a personal decision on that one. Even people who support the right to an abortion agree that it is a difficult decision. Especially in cases like rape or incest. It's a little more complex than you allow.

- Decrying the injustice of racial discrimination while ardently supporting racially based quotas for college admissions. Moral and ethical?

I notice that conservatives get apoplectic at the notion of "reverse" discrimination, but are usually not the first to defend Arab-Americans and others who are regularly discriminated against. Whose ethics are really suspicious?

The protests against affirmative action and quotas are often based on a worldview that whites are somehow being systematically discriminated against in America. This is due more to the 'victim' culture we live in than any genuine discrimination. Having said all that, I would prefer that all job and school applicants were treated equally and do not agree with quotas. I'm not sure if that makes me immoral.

- Banning Christian prayer in schools on the basis of the 1st Amendment while supporting school programs that teach the tenets of and require participation in the practice of Muslim religious rituals in the name of 'tolerance.' Moral and ethical?

Yes, prayer should be banned in public schools. Period.

Okay, it appears there's a good deal of hope for you. You're able to concede a lack of previous knowledge. Most liberals I know are completely unable to do that. Coming to this site may have been a very good thing.

Now, I want to ask you something. You seem to be a person who's interested in what's going on - you're here, after all, discussing this stuff.

Don't you think there's something rather WRONG about the fact that you never heard any of this? That you've been told a billion times, over and over, by the liberal media that there are NO connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, or terrorism?

And you do know they have told you that, flat out - no subtlety. They've told me that. The pundits repeat it, in a never ending meme, over and over and over. "No evidence!" To hear them tell it, nothing I've cited for you ever existed.

Do you really believe they were unaware of these dozens of links?

So how, in light of the thousands of hours of news coverage of this war that you've probably seen by now, could you never have seen these things mentioned even once? Aren't they RELEVANT?

Doesn't the far-left caricature of Republicans, that we're all just greedy unthinking morons, -require- that you not be made aware of any of the reasons we hold our positions? That all our beliefs and positions are based on bigotry, or racism, or bloodthirst?

You need to realize that your ongoing disagreement with this war was based on utter and complete media propaganda. They -told- you what to think about this, and purposefully completely left out the other side of the argument. Why would they do that if a fair presentation would support their point of view?

Look at how much new information you've been given after being on this site, what, 3 days? Do you think you've tapped the well dry already?

Stick around. Once you see the absolute -tons- of information that has been withheld from you by the monolithically liberal media (and I can -prove- that bias beyond a shadow of doubt too, if you're interested), you'll realize that there has been a deliberate campaign to mislead you going on for decades. Once you realize this, you may be able to break the indoctrination. I personally have always been Republican (I'm Cuban, it's kinda inborn) but there's lots of other ex-liberals around here who could give you an idea of the kind of epiphanies they had when they realized how they'd been played for dupes for so long.

Qwinn

I won't shovel a whole lot more hard facts at you until you've had some time to digest my last post, cause I consider it pretty important. Opening the mind after so many years of indoctrination (and yours does seem to be more open than most) is far more important and difficult than anything else.

But I saw this, and I -have- to tell a little story.

"Welfare abuse, which is both unethical and immoral, does occur. Exploitation of the poor, usually by the "producers," is also immoral and unethical (and commonplace)."

As I said, I am Cuban-American, and had the fortune of understanding the inevitable corruption endemic to socialism as a result of my heritage. I was pretty much predestined to be Republican, and I'm glad of it. But I want to tell you when my conservatism -crystallized- for me, when it became emotional as well as intellectual.

My parents owned a small mom-and-pop convenience store in central New Jersey. I was only about 10 when I started working there, and worked there until I was 17.

One day (it took a while, I -was- a kid), I noticed a pattern. Every single 1st day of the month, the line at the lottery machine would extend -around the entire building-. I always assumed prior to that that the jackpot just occassionally got huge and that spurred the massive demand, but nope, one day I noticed the jackpot was as low as it could be and still we had people parking in the firehouse across the street to get tickets.

Under normal circumstances, we had at most three or four people at the lottery machine at any given time. But on the 1st, you could count on 20 people waiting, almost from open to close.

And then I noticed that every single person was walking up to the machine with a similar looking envelope in their hand. And putting every last bill in them into the lottery machine.

It really hit me when I turned older and was allowed to start selling lottery tickets. I wasn't able to -move- from that machine for hours at a time. The line never let up. And the welfare checks pouring into that machine was continuous. And this wasn't even that large of a town!

Then I talked to Jeff one day. Jeff was a guy, dressed nice, amiable enough. But he stood around all day, every day, drinking our coffee and hitting on the 15 year old girl I worked with behind the counter (yes, I found out he did sleep with her). One day, I finally had to ask - how come he never -worked-? I mean, he barely missed a day of hanging out at the coffee machine in almost two years.

That's when I found out that he'd been given Permanent Disability. For life. On what basis? "The unbearable stress incurred from trying to find a job."

If I had a conservative epiphany, those were mine. I never had any doubt of the inherent corruption of socialism again.

Believe me - the abuse is far more "commonplace" among the "poor". It's human nature. The only people more likely to become completely corrupted by socialism are the government authorities who are given the power to distribute the wealth that they did nothing whatsoever to earn.

Qwinn

Exploitation of the poor, usually by the "producers," is also immoral and unethical (and commonplace).

And illegal so that's a non-issue.

The "poor" are not producers? Tell that to the countless working poor who scrape by on minimum wage salaries.

Very few people "scrape by" on minimum wage salaries. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs the majority of which are held by students. Even most illegals hold jobs at higher than minimum wage. But the question remains; why should a man who earns a good salary have some of it confiscated and given to someone who earns less? Moral and ethical?

At what point is a fetus a human?

According to the Sutras, the Bible, Science and common sense human life begins at conception. Not complex at all. Perhaps the figures in this post will help you understand who is having abortions and why.

I notice that conservatives get apoplectic at the notion of "reverse" discrimination, ...

Meaning that you are not a conservative or that "reverse" discrimination is acceptable in your view? I'm shocked. Looks like .30Carbine was right.

... but are usually not the first to defend Arab-Americans and others who are regularly discriminated against.

What Arab-Americans have been discriminated against and in what way? Please provide a link to some supporting evidence.

Yes, prayer should be banned in public schools. Period.

OK. Should the teachings of Islam be banned from public schools along with acting out of Muslim rituals by students on the same grounds?

Exploitation of the poor, usually by the "producers," is also immoral and unethical (and commonplace).

And illegal so that's a non-issue.

As non sequiturs go, that one's a doozy. Exploitation of the poor is not only legal but pervasive; overseas, it is evident in the sweatshops that support companies like Nike and just about every clothing line offered in the U.S.

Many people scrape by on minimum-wage or low-wage salaries. Look at employee data for Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other companies that depend on a low-wage labor force. Sure some of them are kids, but a signficant percentage are poor adults who work hard and see little return. Yet the government does not fail to tax them. Why should a man who earns little have his salary confiscatedt?

According to the Sutras, the Bible, Science and common sense human life begins at conception.

That's a pretty big claim you're making for "Science." Many scientists would argue that an unfertilized egg is technically 'alive.' Whether it is human is another issue. I am sure you could find a couple of scientists who could tell you that although a fertilized egg is also 'alive' (in the sense of being a living thing), there is no way to determine its 'humanness,' except by a private moral decision. There are millions of miscarriages each year in America within the first few weeks of pregnancy; is each one of these the death of a person? If so, the mortality rate is about to take on a steeper curve.

What Arab-Americans have been discriminated against and in what way? Please provide a link to some supporting evidence.

If you want some stories and news reports of Arab-American discrimination, post 9/11, check here. Or just talk to a person who looks Middle Eastern about what's it's like to regularly cross a border into the U.S., regardless of their citizenship. Anti-Arab racism is also rampant all over the Internet; anytime someone talks about what animals "they" are, they are guilty of racism.

Should the teachings of Islam be banned from public schools along with acting out of Muslim rituals by students on the same grounds?

Yes. The teachings of any religion, Islam, Christianity or Zoroastrianism, should not be promoted by a public school.

Exploitation of the poor is not only legal but pervasive; overseas, it is evident in the sweatshops that support companies like Nike and just about every clothing line offered in the U.S.

The U.S. does not control the laws in other countries. I thought we were talking about the U.S.. Employees in other countries accept employment on the terms available to them. It is their choice to work for the wage offered. Should we boycott foreign made goods and render them unemployed? Is that moral or ethical? Would it make you feel good?

Why should a man who earns little have his salary confiscatedt?

Good question. One answer is to pay for Rx drug benefits for seniors many of whom are financially well off. There is no financial qualification for those benefits, just age. Is that ethical? Keep in mind that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the taxes.

There are millions of miscarriages each year in America within the first few weeks of pregnancy; is each one of these the death of a person?

Yes.

If so, the mortality rate is about to take on a steeper curve.

And your point? Statistics are just accumulated data. The manner in which data is manipulated doesn't change the reality of the phenomena it is used to describe.

Many scientists would argue that an unfertilized egg is technically 'alive.'

All scientists would admit (unless they are kooks) that gametes cannot replicate themselves or repair their own structure or take in nourishment or excrete wastes. Gametes contain only 1/2 of the DNA necessary to make a living body that can do those things. The moment a sperm unites with an ova a complete set of DNA is formed, unique from every other set that ever has or ever will exist, and replicative growth begins immediately.

Whether it is human is another issue.

A human sperm combined with a human ova forms a body with a unique and complete DNA complement and begins growing in a set progressive pattern. Given the source material what does common sense tell you the typological classification of this living being would be?

Or just talk to a person who looks Middle Eastern about what's it's like to regularly cross a border into the U.S., regardless of their citizenship.

You can also talk to Scandinavian looking grandmothers about what it is like to be probed and searched merely to fly within the U.S.. Should we drop security measures entirely for the comfort of all? It's not discrimination if it is applied to everybody. It is also not discrimination to apply suspect descriptions to the public at large in an effort to apprehend criminals. Can you give me a general description of an Al Queda operative based on the 19 9/11 hijackers? What general profile do 90% of these ME terrorists fall into?

Anti-Arab racism is also rampant all over the Internet; anytime someone talks about what animals "they" are, they are guilty of racism.

Are you sure these comments you have seen are about Arabs in general or are they more particularly about terrorists? Do you have warm and fuzzy feelings for the people who fly planes into buildings and strap bombs on their chests? Put another way; there is a saying "if you want to have friends you have to be a friend." In light of that concept consider Joe Lieberman's recent observation when he asked "has anyone apologized for 9/11? Has anyone apologized for the U.S.S. Cole? Has anyone apologized for the Khobar Towers or the U.S. Embassies in Africa?" IOW's can you think of one single Arab/Muslim man or woman, much less an Arab/Muslim national leader, who has expressed regret over or repudiated those acts?

There is no institutionalized discrimination in our government and no significant discrimination in the private sector here. In fact a small town in Mich. or Wisc. has recently voted to allow a local Mosque to broadcast a call to prayer five times a day over a loudspeaker in town. I would say that indicates a rather tolerant and benevolent mindset amongst average Americans considering the catostrophic atrocities so recently committed against us by ME terrorists. Were you expecting that there would be no emotional reaction to the systematic and random murders of thousands of Americans? That might explain why you have trouble discerning between a non-replicative gamete and a fully formed sentient being. You have to have a genuine concern for the welfare of others not just a concern for how things make you 'feel.'

Yes. The teachings of any religion, Islam, Christianity or Zoroastrianism, should not be promoted by a public school.

I would ask you where in the Constitution the Federal gov. gets the authority to regulate prayer but I think you are not ready yet to consider a subject that profound. I will simply note that, generally speaking, Democrats support 'diversity' programs that have children acting out Muslim rituals, Native American rituals and other religious rituals yet also support the autocratic judicial decisions to ban Christian prayers in school or even the display of Christian symbols like crosses worn on neck chains or bracelets. It may be to your credit, whether I agree with its Constitutionality or not, that you don't agree with the inconsistency of that double standard.

The U.S. does not control the laws in other countries. I thought we were talking about the U.S..

I mentioned U.S. examples. This is a global example. However, it is one that is very pertinent to the ethics and morals of way the U.S. does business.

Keep in mind that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the taxes.

Nominally true, yet misleading. You make it sound like the middle class are bearing a disproportionate portion of the tax burden. In fact, the 96.03 number cited by Rush Limbaugh from 2003 IRS data tells a very different story when you break it down, as this site does pretty well. In fact, the tax burden of the 50th-95th percentile earners is basically proportionate to their earnings. It is the top 5% who are taxed very highly.

There are millions of miscarriages each year in America within the first few weeks of pregnancy; is each one of these the death of a person?

Yes.

I respect your belief that this is true. However, I disagree with that definition of 'person.'

I don't think we are just talking about biology. We are talking about belief. You are right that the DNA in the zygote could not belong to any species except Homo sapiens. However, it is still a zygote. I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference. I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.

Obviously, this is only my opinion. Sorry, in this case, I think that's all any of us have to offer.

The rest of the points I would also be glad to discuss with you -- though I have a feeling this debate is taking place in the wrong forum. Maybe the "General Interest" forum? No doubt I have allowed my zeal to take this thread out of its original context. Not that that's uncommon on any Internet forum!

This is a global example. However, it is one that is very pertinent to the ethics and morals of way the U.S. does business.

Yes and it begs the question, "is it moral and/or ethical to boycott foreign made products and eliminate the only jobs available to many people in those under developed countries?"

It is the top 5% who are taxed very highly.

Exactly. Which is why it is ridiculous to state that low wage earners are unfairly burdened by taxes. We all are in light of runaway spending but low income workers pay the least as a percentage of income.

You are right that the DNA in the zygote could not belong to any species except Homo sapiens. However, it is still a zygote.

A human zygote, to be more accurate.

I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference.

Genetic complexity doesn't count? Life processes of growth don't count? Is a human with an artificial heart not a person? Is a human whose cognitive brain functions have ceased due to disease or accident no longer a person?

I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.

Ah, ignorance is bliss? As long as we remain uninformed of millions of Rwandans being massacred and have formed no emotional attachments to them then they effectively don't exist as 'persons.' Is that it? That's the logic.

Obviously, this is only my opinion. Sorry, in this case, I think that's all any of us have to offer.

True. Do you ever look at your opinions critically and ask yourself if they are formed on the basis of logic or emotion? Consider the last one I addressed ie 'miscarrying with or without knowledge of the pregnancy.' Is it the amount of emotion generated that forms the basis of reality? If someone totals my brand new Hummer II I'll be crazy with the sense of loss. If someone totals my old beater '78 Datsun wagon I won't care. Does that mean that the Datsun wasn't really an automobile? Does logic enter into the actual determination of the truth there?

I have a feeling this debate is taking place in the wrong forum. Maybe the "General Interest" forum?

You're not getting squeamish on me now are you? Now that I've challenged some of your assumptions? ; )

This thread is pretty much dead, I don't think anyone will mind.

If you are just getting tired of me that's fine too. You won't be the first.

re : My idea of winning a war is what we did in Japan. Crush them, totally, and then install an American military dictatorship.

There is a whole difference between Iraq and the war against Japan and Germany.

The main difference no one seems to grasp, is that the Second World war was a war fought between industrial Nations, on may fronts. The Germans and Japanese nations were bled to death on many fronts over many years.

This is not the same, you want the same sort of war we have to withdraw from Iraq and Start the war all over again going for a hard struggle where we bleed the Iraqis on may fronts.

This is not a war between Industrial nation this is a counter insurgency, no differant to the colonial wars Britain and France fought during the 19th and early 20th century, and your country in Vietnam.

The only front that counts is that in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi People.

And I will bet you a pound to a penny there is no one with an Intelligence, Special Forces or Counter Insurgency back ground who will disagree with me.

Also point to note Japan and Germany were strictly hierarchal nations which is why is why there developed as militaristic states in the 19th and early 20th century.

They swapped one hierarchy for another.

The Arabs are more family and tribal oriented. There loyalty is harder to define.

Tony

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.