At least this summary of the Vietnam story includes the truth that the Republic of Vietnam fell to a massive foreign invasion and not to "insurgency."

It neglects, however, the full shame of the post-Watergate Dolchstoss. We won in Vietnam, brought the Communists to the peace table on their knees after the 16-day war, and then turned our backs on our treaty obligations to the RVN.

Everyone knows that Gulf of Tonkin was a pack of lies, misrepresentations, covered-up intelligence signals and twisted information... oh..wait...thats Iraq II also...hmmm.. guess we still have liars in the White House.

Every American war has been premised on lies. That's how democracy works.

Hey... you agree that Iraq is based on lies..Wow. Is that supposed to be a reverse birthday gift?

ok:

The coming wars on NK, Iran, and perhaps VZ will be dressed up in the beginning as well. Better start on your mythology while you can.

And don't forget Zimbabwe - that's something that the SAS and the US Special Forces might do if they get really bored.

ok:

What do you mean? We've said the notion that Saddam posed any threat was a lie all along--it was just tossed out there to try and get the Left and Europe to support good instead of evil.

oldkayaker: Go check out a book about the Lusitania. Or Pearl Harbor, while you're at it.

jim;

wait'll you hear about the new WMD Baby Assad is cooking up in his basement....

the Maine, the Indians, Abe Lincoln, Mexico, the Brits, the French, the Barbary states, the Brits....

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club had a good line, he said Iraq is like Vietnam, for the press.

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club had a good line, he said Iraq is like Vietnam, for the press.

Iraq is just like Vietname except we just captured Hanoi and imprisoned Ho Chi Minh and the enemy holds no ground and has no discernible military acumen and
no 'superpower' sponsor and....

ok, you never seem to get mad at the evil in the world, only our attempts to fight it; why is that ?

The biggest difference betweeen Vitnaqm and Iraq, the one that does it, is that we have no draft: cowardice is no longer in service of treason.

You posters are either really twisted or you think everyone understands your innuendos or you don't care whether you are understood or something else... take your pick.

Vietnam was fought in the wrong place for false reasons and was never lost by US GIs or sailors; but, could never be won as fought and no one had a clear definition of victory; but, I killed strangers and I lost friends there.

"The most important thing to learn from Vietnam is that the most dangerous enemy is across the aisle on the Hill."

Its the same people. Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. They are the enemy. Traitors then and now.

Hey Schwartz... where did you serve in Nam?

ok:

So, you believe the "lies" about Iraq are on a par with the lies about Vietnam? I can understand it, but how can the left compare the Best and Brightest to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and George Bush? I thought Bush was so stupid that everything in the Middle East had turned to rot.

That's what I don't get with the press, with Kerry, and with the rest of the Democrats. Vietnam was started by the Kennedys and McNamara (among others) in 1963, emblazoned by LBJ, McNamara, and the rest of the crew (in 64-66), and then ruined, for lack of a better word, by LBJ and the brights (in 67-68). But to hear everyone talk now, Vietnam was Richard Nixon's private war zone. I wasn't old enough to serve then, but I do remember how little Vietnam affected Nixon politically, while it destroyed LBJ and split the Democrats.

If not for the Cold War, Vietnam would have been over (one way or the other) in a matter of weeks, just like Iraq. With George Bush in the White House, the "war" was over in less than a month.

10 Marines were killed earlier today in Fallujah - are the US and Iraq any closer to 'losing' to the terrorists because of this attack? No. But the press and the Democrats think so. In fact, they yearn for it. That is why Robert Schwartz called them traitors.

You mention that you served in Vietnam - do you appreciate Kerry's characterization of the US Armed Forces in 1971? Don't you want today's soldiers to win, and avoid what happened then?

AK: You are such a loser.

First off, people posting anonymously on the internet don't get to make arguments from personal authority. Maybe you served, maybe you didn't. It makes no difference.

Second, this whole chicken-hawk notion is just bizarre. Leaving aside the whole "citizen control of the military" thing, which until two years ago was our pride and joy, here the military is enthusiastic about the mission. Notonly is everyone in the military a volunteer, but reenlistments, including reenlistment of Iraq vets is over-quota. I mean, it's bad enough that "old men send young men off to die" is a cliche; but it's not even a true cliche.

Third, there were no lies in getting us into Iraq. Your repeating your big lie, Herr Goebels, doesn't make it true. Name a supposed lie, and we'll be glad to explain to you why you're wrong. But I know you won't, since your whole schtick is to avoid any substantive discussion by changing the subject when cornered.

Go get back on your meds and leave the difficult questions to the adults.

ok:

It was won, then congressional Democrats squandered it.

David:

Speaking of meds....

Cohen... you don't know what a 214 is do you?

Maybe Hamlen does.

Hamlen, if you really served in Nam, what do you think a 28 year old Ltjg matters in the whole big picture of Vietnam War? Do you really think Kerry made any difference with his 1971 Congressional testimony? Why do you think the politicians put his testimony up front? Well, it was so they could hide behind him!

Take out that one word..."criminal" from his testimony and do you really believe he was saying anything you didn't also witness? I witnessed all of what Kerry said; and, although I wouldn't have used that one word, all the rest he said was true.

We were fighting in the wrong place... you know that and I know that. If the Gulf of Tonkin incident had NOT been a lie and if those gunboats really did attack the USS Maddox, the attackers were NORTH Vietnamese. The enemy was in THE NORTH not the South. Therefore, if the Vietnam escalation was justified, we should have been fighting in the North.

Fighting in the South against an elusive, here today gone tomorrow enemy was a NO win war from the very beginning.

The smear boat swifties chattered about how Kerry was wrong about the "Free Fire Zone" and how they followed the Rules of Engagement...BS! I know for a fact that we considered all Vietnamese found in the FFZ to be unfriendly and operational commanders authorized shooting at them.

And if we had fought on the ground in the North, every Vietnamese would have been the enemy and there we would have been firing first instead of waiting to be ambushed or checking the rule book.

PS: Cohen... I know what my form 214 says but you don't because you don't know what I am talking about, do you?
John

ok:

And? So the North Vietnamese would have fought in North Vietnam. Good for all concerned.

OJ... did you serve in Nam?
What does your 214 say?

John

I love that, in an effort to be less of an anonymous poster, oldkayaker has signed himself "John." That's hilarious on at least two levels.

Oh... Timothy... you want to send me a message just send to oldkayaker@lycos.com

Where does "timothy" get his mail?

Cohen.... people who don't know what is a form 214 never served in military or combat. When you have confirmed that know what yours says... then you can talk to me like you know something about combat.

JOHN

JOHN:
You first.

A DD-214, by the way, is your record of miltary service. When you get discharged, you get one. It has when your military service started and ended, awards and decorations you received, and your rank. Also, any trouble you've gotten into and a couple of other things I don't remember. I've never even served in the military and I know that, so JOHN, don't think that crying "214! 214! You don't have a 214!" gives you any degree of moral superiority.
I'm sorry that you had to kill people and watch your friends get killed in Vietnam. But I don't see how that gives you any kind superior insight as to the "justness" of the current war. My grandfather used to say that you guys were "weak" and "pussies" because you "lost" Vietnam. He was wrong because he was viewing your war through the lense of his war and you are wrong because you are viewing the current was through the lense of your war.

ok:

Have you watched Starship Troopers too many times or something? Citizenship does not require military service nor does service convey any strategic insight.

ok is helping us clarify our discourse by making inane pronouncements about Vietnam.

BTW, many of us here are quite comfortable with concentrated, terse, allusion-filled language. It is sort of like the poetry of Alexander Pope: if you are too dull to spot the references, you would miss the point anyway.

Now on to Vietnam.

Vietnam was a battle at the edge of the West. Such a battle was won in Poland in the year 966, and in Massachusetts in 1676. (how's that--obscure enough inuendo for you?) We were backing the Westernized Vietnamese just as we had earlier backed the Westernized Wampanoags against Boxerism.

Unfortunately, Vietnam was gravely mishandled and it took us many years to overcome the many errors made. The chiefest error was the attempt to fight a war of policy with draftees. Never again.

As to the "chickenhawk" business, some of us served, some did not--it was never a general mobilization. Of those who served, some experienced combat, many, like Y.O.S., did not. We honor our veterans without forgetting that Benedict Arnold was an American war hero who was for the Revolution before he was against it.

Lou:

Remind us sometime to tell you about what happened to our ancestor in King Philips War.

oldkayaker, I'm a Viet Nam vet, 11B2P. US Army Paratrooper 1967-68. Two Purple Hearts. Maybe we could argue about who killed more people. What's your point? I have no trouble listening to posters on this site talk about war if they didn't serve. As far as telling lies goes, if I were president, I'd make up something about Iran, just so I could kick the snot out of them. Then I'd look at some other countries and tell them: "You're next, if you don't shape up."

ok:

You didn't read my comment thoroughly - I said I wasn't old enough to serve then. My closest friend for the past 10 years did - he was in Cambodia and had to threaten to shoot his lt. one night because the guy was wetting his pants when their group got lost and only my friend knew how to get back. But enough anecdotes.

The war was never fought in the North because LBJ (and Kennedy before him) wouldn't take it there. Everyone remembered what happened in the autumn of 1950 when we crossed the 38th parallel. And that was before China had the bomb (I think it was late 1964 when they had their first test at Lop Nor). If you are advocating that we should have invaded the North in August 1964, well, good for you. In hindsight, it probably would have worked better than what followed.

Which means Barry Goldwater was right, to the shock of the Best and the Brightest (and the editorial page of the NYT).

What I don't understand is why the left wants to give up now. Why not last year, when things were worse? Why didn't the press and the Democrats fight this battle in late 2002, when they could have ostensibly stopped the war (or so they believe)? Why didn't Daschle and Gephardt and Pelosi and Kerry and Edwards and Murtha and Boxer and Kucinich stand on the steps of the Capitol and declare solidarity with Chirac, de Villepin, Schroeder, and the rest?

We know why - and that's why they won't vote for withdrawal now, but they will whine endlessly on TV.

You served in Vietnam - you know what it's like to listen to the bungholes in D.C. Why side with them now?

ok:

i know that it's going to come as a shock, but this is 2005, not 1975. if i or anyone wanted to look up what a "214" is all we would have to do is google it. google is a web based search engine. the web is an internet based system of computers. the internet is a system of networks. networks are a collection of computers that are connected together. computers are machines that do calculations. it really would be trivial for me or anyone else to mimic being a "vet". people on the left do it all the time.

Truth enough.... Kerry's DD214 is online... but saying you have one when you don't is a lie that you know you are making.

TO YOU VETS:

You vets like myself have a lot to recall. When you and I were there we might have been caught up in the moment.. I was. I served on the line and even asked for more duty there thinking, "hey, I can do this". But, later, now, when I know about the lies and manipulation to get young men to fight old people's hate, or to carry out their agenda or their political manuever I want those motives to be crystal clear, transparent for all to witness, don't you?

And I want our military might to be used wisely, effectively and not wasted, don't you?

and playing the "left right" game is such a waste of discussion bandwidth.

As Murtha said, the gravestones of dead soldiers doesn't say Democrat or Republican.

You play a stupid game when you let party politics make or guide your decisions. I am just trying to get you to think for yourselves.

AK: You never fail to meet expectations.

cohen...cohen... cohen... who are you really? You got an e-mail address? You got a real name?
John

ok:

The tombstone of South Vietnam does however blame the Democrats, not the Republicans.

ok:

The military exists to be expended--that's why we send young men.

i want our military to beat down all who threaten the safety of my country...too bad about posse commitatus though (hint, hint).

old, I hope you don't mind if I use your first name. What was your MOS? See a lot of action did you? Who did you serve with? Let me ask you again, what is your point? Knock the chip off of your shoulder. Quit acting like a loser. I served with the 173d Abn. Bde. Who were you with? When and where? Got a problem with me?

ash173@frontiernet.net

With every respect for those who served, we're being dragged off point, which is AK's raison d'etre. AK complains bitterly about the war, and then attacks those who take issue with him. He can't form any coherent objection and changes the subject when faced with any sort of response.

AK: Make an argument and stick to it and we'll demolish it. Change the subject and you simply prove how weak your arguments are.

But he looked snappy in his fatigues forty years ago....

AllenS, was that the same "173" that was referred too in "Appocalpyse Noe" ?

David:

You are of course right about ok. For example, the statement that young men fight for old men's hate - whom exactly do the old men (I presume he means the D.C. establishment) hate? I don't even stoop to believe that JFK or LBJ or McNamara "hated" the commies; they just didn't want them to take over the South. Nixon didn't hate the commies, Westmoreland didn't hate the commies, and so on. Perhaps if they had, the war would have ended sooner.

And as for all the "lies" that led to the invasion of Iraq, that is mythology. The US was committed to regime change from mid-1998 on, no matter what the Democrats say now. But everyone knew that with Clinton in the White House, nothing would happen. After 9/11, Saddam was a lame duck because he was the easiest axis of evil to get rid of, along with all the other reasons.

1. The road to 'peace' in the Middle East really has run through Baghdad.

2. Whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq in March 2003, they were indisputably there before.

3. The UN was at stake, and not even GWB was going to let it die.

4. Removing Saddam was an object lesson to the world.

5. The Iraqi people suffered for 12 years under sanctions - and no US President was going to lift them, so what other alternative was there?

6. There is enough evidence linking Saddam with terror connections that we had to act (as part of the war on terror).

So, oldkayaker, if you want to remember the 'lessons' of Vietnam - the primary one, it seems to me, is that you finish the job. Why do you want to stop now?

Boys, boys, boys... very clever boys you are too!

Glad you are to have others to fight your battles while you espouse patriotism as though it were your cause.

"...the military exists to be expended..." and "...every war being premised on lies..." as though that makes it OK to send our soldiers to fight for your lives and lies when its clear that many of you don't want to or didn't go into harms way.

And you true vets... lets meet elsewhere whether you agree with me or not, at least you know that the hypocracy is a little thick around here!

John
oldkayaker@lycos.com

ok:

Remember the MASH episode when Henry Blake tells Hawkeye he learned two lessons in 'command school':

Rule #1 - In war, young men die.

Rule #2 - Doctors can't change Rule #1.

Sure, we'd like a world where old men would fight. But then we'd have to elect Arnold S. to the Presidency.

I'd still like to see you spell out the lies, though. As much as the left shrieks about them, they just can't provide a list that stands up to scrutiny.

You write as though you don't believe anything is worth fighting for, but I find that hard to believe, as you are a vet. Even the honor of your compadres is worth something, no?

Mr. Hamlen... don't know whether you read the other boards where we discussed other strategies; but, the Afghanistan format was not tried in Iraq, just to mention one alternative to the current mess:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/11/bang_on_the_peg.html

Why, not? Well... on that board there were various opinions expressed but we'll never know whether building a strong internal Iraq coalition BEFORE the use of ground forces would have worked because it was never tried, was it?

Regarding some of your other points:

Its doubtful that Saddam's removal will in any way affect the followers of nutballs like OBL. Eggs and organges... there! One used secular with religious fanaticism while the other used almost exclusively religious fanaticism; but, both are power hungry and too jealous of that power to share or cooperate with each other.

That said, there is a very strong belief among knowledgeable military in the US that keeping the US GIs in Iraq is the best thing to happen for Al Qaeda right now, and the longer the better. That Al Qaeda is used and condoned by Sunni and Shia alike to carry out their agendas not only against our US GIs but against their respective Iraqi rivals. That as soon as US leaves the civil war will become full bloom regardless of whether there is a constitution in place or not, it will be katy by the door. And that as soon as US leaves, Al Qaeda will also be personna non grata..kicked out by Sunni, Shia and Kurd alike.

correction: " it will be katy bar the door." Sorry... got my cute catch phrase crocked or my hackney phrase hacked

AK: Well, we're making progress. I appreciate the effort.

The Afghani resistence only seems strong and reliable in retrospect. At the time of the invasion, elite opinion was convinced that the alliance against the Taliban was weak and corrupt and would fold instantly. Our strategy of using the Northern Alliance was dismissed as ridiculous. Of course, after it worked it became obvious.

There are at least two reasons it wouldn't have worked in Iraq. First, after the Gulf War we promoted rebellion among the Sunnis and Kurds and then left them high and dry. As you're neither a
Sunni or a Kurd, you can't possibly have an opinion, but trust me: they weren't going to fight our war for us. Second, we were coming off of the sanction regime, in which we had spent the better part of a decade suppressing the Iraqi Air Force. We knew the territory. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: we invaded in a cakewalk.

We can trade anonymous military sources all day, but what you hear is exactly the opposite of what I hear. Al Qaeda in Iraq is in dissarray, unpopular with the Iraqis and unable to coordinate the movement of men or material throughout the country. The big problem right now is not AQ, but the so-called rejectionists. Once we leave, the Iraqis will be able to deal with the remnants of the Ba'athist regime and AQ pretty easily; neither group is popular with the Iraqi people, both aim mostly at the Shi'a and so the coming elected Shi'a government will pull out the stops to suppress them. It is probably true that removing the US military will remove one of the factors aggravating the situation and will, itself, promote calm.

The problem is the rejectionists who won't accept the new government because it is US sponsored, or largely Shi'a or insufficiently theocratic. It is that group that we have to train the Iraqi army to fight. Once they're trained, we can pull back and, eventually, leave.

So, you see, you're on the right track. We have to build up a strong Iraqi military. The only problem is that we couldn't do that before the invasion, only afterward.

David:

Didn't we already explain to this guy the effect our betrayal of the Iraqi resistance had on their willingness to trust us? Is he dense or just not listening?

ok:

What's wrong with our young men dying in a good cause? Why shouldn't we lie to the UN and the Brits to try and get thm to help the cause of liberty?

You really favor absolute truth if it aids evil?

OJ: The only kind of learning that takes is rote learning.

Bawk, bwak, bwak. bwak. bwak.

The chickenhawk argument is, of course, classic ad homenium, and all most never relevant.

Robert: It's just a way to try to shut down discussion. Notice that AK isn't actually making a chicken-hawk argument because he doesn't think that vets who disagree with him have any right to an opinion, either.

David: "Our strategy of using the Northern Alliance..." you say that with such conviction like you were personally consulted; and, believe me or not, I wish that were true! The common person consulted, how refreshing that would have been.

But the Afghan format worked and something like that had to be done after 9/11 or heads would have been loped off. Its highly likely that CIA contacts developed over the years of aiding Soviet occupation helped allow special ops make the new contacts with internal Afghans opposed to Taliban. And today we should be grateful that the Pakistanis are still focused on catching the instigators of WTC and Pentagon attacks because this Iraq mess is not catching them.

But in Iraq, the successful Afghan format was abandoned even though it could have been tried albeit requiring a more long term effort. But, no; that was not the format actually used in Iraq whether you think what we have now was justified based on misrepresentations or not.

All this old vet asks is please just cut out the hype, OK? Young men and women dying for the lies and misrepresentations of the rich man and calling it patriotism is just as hypocritical as a radical cleric's promises of a heaven to an impressionable suicide bomber. Just as expecting and requiring the truth from one's elected officials is not disloyality to one's country.

John (not AK)

ok:

Bush has been saying it would be a hard slog since May of 2003 - when did he not? Cheney was probably over the top when he said we would be greeted with flowers, but even in Kurdistan and parts of the South, that has been true.

But consider this, no Arab (Sunni or Shi'a) wants to face the fact that the US had to get Saddam (not them), thereby admitting that their nation was thoroughly eunuched. I can understand that, from a survival viewpoint, but it must hurt anyway. And I'll bet there were a lot of angry mothers in Iraq who told their husbands over the past 25 years "Why can't you do something? He was our son!"

You keep coming back to the word lies (and the word hype), but you won't specify them. We can't take you seriously until you do.

Good point, Mr. Hamlen, about Sunni/Shia not having the will or the way to dethrone Saddam; so, why won't a long term covert operation to restore faith in US integrity and bolster Sunni/Shia/Kurd resources been a better manuever for the US? Resulting in a stronger internal coalition so that when a full ground attack was initiated there would be a strong welcoming force to take over?

What is so wrong with the US acting long term... not short term! With the covert base established there would be no need to rush to war, to hype, and to make misrepresentations about WMDs and nonexistent yellowcake and imminent threats that would not have been necessary.

John (not AK)

John: The problem is that I don't agree with your (and OJ's) premise. I don't think that the President lied. Being found to be wrong after the fact does not prove that people were lying. The Bush Administration's assessment of Iraqi WMDs was no different than the Clinton's assessment. Now, we should be concerned that our intelligence assessments were so far wrong -- but that is a reason to lower the threshold for war, unless we know that intelligence only overestimates and never underestimates.

I certainly disagree that the "lies" were those of "rich men." The war was not for oil, except in the tenuous sense that our involvement in the middle east is historically driven by oil. If all we wanted was cheap oil, we just needed to eliminate the sanctions.

As for yellowcake, Iraq had it, as sources unfriendly to the administration confirmed after the war. Did it come from Africa? That's unknown. The famous sixteen words from the 2003 State of the Union, though, were true: Iraq had sought to obtain yellowcake from Africa.

As for trying to duplicate the Northern Alliance strategy in Iraq, I don't think it would have worked. Regime change had been official US policy since 1998, and unofficial policy before that, but nothing had happened. Arming the Kurds makes the Turks nervous and arming the Shi'a makes the Sauds nervous. Without the Turks and the Sauds, you can't have a long-term strategy to overthrow the Ba'athist regime. After 9/11, all the neighbors wanted the Taliban gone; none of the neighbors (barring Iran) wanted Saddam gone and Iran was hardly going to help us.

Finally, with all due respect for the sacrifices being made, I find it difficult to conclude that the gains we've made haven't been worth it. I would -- chickenhawk that I am -- be more circumspect in coming to that conclusion if retention rates for Iraqi veterans weren't so high.

why not a long-term covert operation to restore faith in U.S. integrity...

A covert operation to restore our image? OK, or John: you realize you've just descended into self-parody. What effect do co long-term covert operations have on our image? Especially once the CIA leaks them to the press and they're not so covert anymore.

The Shi'a had the will--George Bush had to collaborate with Saddam in '91 in order to defeat them. That's why they didn't trust us in '03. That and starving them for twelve years.

Iraq is the short-term. It's a minor skirmish in the easiest phase of the Long War.

Hey Joe Sho: covert worked for US in Afghanistan to help stop the Soviets.. or did you forget that fact? And in Iraq, BushI made promises to the anti-Saddam people that he didn't support, restoring that lost integrity is what I was talking about.

OJ... are you another unknown citizen consultant? You know about "Long War"? Did Bush2 fill you in personally?

ok:

Your belief that military knowledge can come only by participation is queer.

Afghanistan worked because we were arming al Qaeda, not fighting them.

OK everyone... enough said. Lets put it all together gang!

None of the regulars in the forum appear to agree with me... and thats OK. A person learns more from disagreement. And, quite frankly, our discussions here and the other message boards have done more to explain the reasons and why fors of the current mess in Iraq than any of the statements and misstatements coming out of the current administration.

NOW... all I ask is for St. George Bush to get in front of all the loved ones and relatives of all the dead US soldiers to date that have died due to the escalation of war in Iraq from March 2003 to date. Lets call this group, the Families.

When the above group is assembled, St. George should lay out all the things he honestly knew about Iraq under Saddam and honestly explain to the Families why a full scale ground war was the ONLY and the LAST OPTION. St. George had to address the situation in Iraq under Saddam.

Thats all I ask! If St. George does the above in good faith, he will significantly improve his position in my eyes and probably most of the average Americans.

OK: so you're in the market for some grand emotional gesture which you believe will heal all your hurts, and you're going to be bereft and unconsolable until you get it. In other words, you're an eight-year-old, a querulous child, wrapped in the body and status of a man in his fifties or sixties. Which is precisely why nobody here listens to you.

Joe sho... I'm listening and waiting! Go ahead, vent! We'll find out how this current two term Texas president compares with other one.

My bet is the current one will punk out like the first one did!

A grand emotional gesture... eh Joe Sho?

Ha... the grand nerve has been hit!

St. Bush can't face the Families, can he?

Thought so!

He routinely meets with and calls families--what are you talking about?

How many widows did FDR meet?

Oh, and you think St. George tells them what he knew, when he knew and that ground war was the ONLY and LAST OPTION?

OJ... I highly doubt that is what St. George says to any of the Families he may or may not talk to.

ok:

War wasn't the only option, just the best.

No, I doubt he's jackass enough to discuss gepopolitics with grieving families.

Just the best option that didn't involve you or yours... lucky for you OJ.

But, that said, if St. George goes the distance with truth and sincerity, he will improve his image greatly.

Call it jackass, a grand gesture... whatever you like... it will improve his image greatly.

LBJ didn't do it either!

ok:

They're all ours.

Nothing he can do will dent your psychoses. This is about you, not him.

Oh.. its always about the messenger... isn't OJ?

Make it about the messenger... solves all the nasty problems, doesn't it?

My Friends are putting their lives on the line thinking they are protecting me by fighting in Iraq... they have earned and deserve every, EVERY, clarification, consideration, gesture possible from their C in C.

We didn't get one in Vietnam... we got a punk out speech saying he will not run again for office and later we learned about the intelligence lies and LBJ's other agenda.

yea... this messenger is to blame.... you got it!

ok:

No, the rest of us are explaining that your message is wrong as to facts and inane as to analysis, but you aren't listening because it's about you.

We're in Iraq to rempove the old regime and give them a chance at democracy. We went to South Vietnam to preserve it from the North. You're free to think that neither people deserve liberty if it costs a few American lives, but not to rant about the wars being unexplained. Your not listening isn't the same as there being no explanation.

Tell the Families that one... "[they]... are not listening"

My Friends deserve better.

OJ and others never in a position of defending your country. You have your neat little answers all laid out when you don't understand the question!

Go on living in your safe little world, listening to your own rationalizations over and over again!

Real Americans are putting their lives on the line for what they think is your protection and you think they don't deserve explanations!

ok:

They have all the explanation they required. It's you who don't deserve one, because you'll accept none.

OJ... you can explain all you want about what YOU think is going on between St. George's ears.

Until St. George does it, over and over again, it doesn't really matter what you think is going on in that brain.

ok:

Here he is at today's Hannukah celebration:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-4.html

Tonight, as we prepare to light the candles, we are grateful for our freedoms as Americans, especially the freedom to worship. We are grateful that freedom is spreading to still new regions of the world, and we pray that those who still live in the darkness of tyranny will some day see the light of freedom.

He says the same thing every single speech--Iraq is about the freedom of the Iraqis. You're free to oppose that freedom, not to pretend that you haven't heard that's what the war is about ad nauseum.

No pretending on my part OJ. My new Friends are in harms way thinking they are protecting me. Its those folks that need to be reassured that they are there as the last and only option.

No more after-the-fact Pentagon Papers or in the case of Iraq..maybe something called... Baghdad Papers... because then its too late. The perpetrator of the lies is out of office and the damage is already done.

You don't care... but I do...and St. George should care!

ok:

Neither war was about protecting you, just about protecting them. You resent that? Fine.

OJ... you have made almost a complete circle:

By your way of thinking, US citizens are putting their lives in harms way to protect themselves and therefore they don't deserve an explanation for why they are there in Iraq...does that about sum it up for you?

No. We put them in harm's way for the sake of the Iraqis. That is the explanation. You don't think any American should be harmed for the Iraqis. You lost the argument and we went to war anyway. Time to get over it. Saddam isn't coming back. Iraq is going to a democracy--or three. We won.

OJ:

Contrary to your belief, I believe, my Friends are in Iraq believing that they are protecting themselves, me, you and the values we believe that makes our country the best place for freedom to thrive.

ok:

You're half right. They're vindicating our values, which is what American war is always about, not protecting us, which no American war has ever been about with the possible exception of the Revolution, though protecting us from being English is hardly existential.

Not protecting us from WMDs, not protecting us from imminent threats...? Why, for shame, OJ, thats what St. George said was the basis for his decision at least thats the one you keep quoting to me.

no, the President said we were going to remove him because he was in violation of the UN Resolutions, including the one requiring him to democratize:

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.