An Open Letter to all the Bleeding Heart Liberals

Discussion in 'World Events' started by sevenblu, May 27, 2004.

  1. sevenblu feeling blu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    355
    Evident by recent polls, more and more Americans are against the war in Iraq and feel that President Bush should respectfully place his tail between his legs and ride off into the sunset like the cowboy dog that he is… “Resign” is the chant that echoes out of the minds the liberals. “Run away!” they bellow, “We don’t want another Vietnam.”

    Each day, newspapers around the country are filled with the dimwitted opinions of people who can’t do basic mathematics. Every time I read a “letter to the editor” that references the Vietnam War as an excuse to pull our troops out of Iraq, my sensibility throws a seizure. Who are these liberal fools who feed on anti-Bush propaganda like laughing hyenas devouring nothing but rancid meat?

    Stupidity is contagious, especially when it is fueled by ignorance. Simply put, Iraq is not Vietnam. Statistically put, Vietnam is not Iraq – so stop making comparisons.

    According to the government archives, the US lost just over 58,000 lives in the Vietnam War. In Iraq, since George W. declared war, we have yet to lose 1,000 troops (that’s only about one third of the innocent slaughtered in the 911 attacks). Understandably, the Iraqi conflict is yet over, but at the rate we are going the Bush Administration would have to extend the current war for over 200 years before it equals the number of casualties lost in Vietnam.

    I reiterate: Iraq is Not Vietnam. Not even close.

    Nobody likes to see young lives taken away because of war, but it has to be expected. What did people think was going to happen? Is it possible to invade a country with force and come away unscathed? Use some common sense.

    There is nothing wrong with being anti-war… anti-Bush… or anti-Iraq. We are lucky enough to live in a country that allows individuals to express their opinions, but unlucky enough to live in a country that allows individuals to dribble claptrap all over the constitution. Freedom of speech is everyone’s right, yes, but in my opinion most people should just keep their mouths shut.

    The horrible images bombarding our senses via the Internet and Global Media have turned many into mindless drones who think with their hearts and not their brains. Analytical thinking is a skill that too few of us possess – yet bravado and opinion swathe the tongues of too many.

    It is too easy to compare Iraq to Vietnam if you know nothing about the numbers. Before you start making ridiculous conclusions on the president’s judgment, do some research – really. Does it make sense to pull all our troops from Iraq? Of course it doesn’t. Doing so would be the equivalent of knocking a schoolyard bully on his back and then letting him get up so he can retaliate with swift kick to the chin.

    Why doesn’t Bush have an adequate exit plan for Iraq? Because we are not leaving; because he’s not going to give up on a job yet finished – not until the oppressed people of the world can enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted in the good ol’ US of A.

    War sucks, yeah, I know. We live in a sad and confusing world, but the uninformed, unaware, and unacquainted attitudes of the bleeding hearts only add to the confusion. So stop abusing the first amendment by uttering echoic phrases that are rooted in nothing but pure emotion and idiocy. Intellect and understanding is available to any person who chooses to engage in even the slightest amount of research. God Bless America, and our troops – we truly need it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    As a concerned, thinking and analytical citizen I agree with you that the majority of Americans seem only capable of swallowing what they are fed from whichever end of the political spectrum they identify with. This is a tragedy for our republic.

    You are also correct that Iraq and Vietnam do not bear comparison. The terrain is different, the political situation is different, and the opposition is very much different - less organized and aimless in Iraq.

    I agree that to pull our troops out now would be even more damaging to our nation than it was to send them in the first place. I'm not even sure it can be done without the last ten thousand being taken prisoner.

    I would, however, like to suggest that we have gone in under (shall we agree?) less than honorable circumstances. Of course deaths are to be expected in war - but how will be necessary to satisfy your definition of honor in what appears to be a dishonorable war?

    Mr. Bush apparently believed that this war would be a simple matter of deposing Hussein and liberating the people of Iraq to a freedom that they hunger for. I am surprised that he failed to understand the reaction of fundamentalist Islam and the reaction of those interested in wielding Hussein's power (sometimes these motives overlap, sometimes they don't). I think he could identify with those motives if he considered them for a moment.

    Now we are in a trap - can't stay and can't leave. You have identified the problem - can you outline a solution rather than railing against those who disagree with you?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hathor Banned Banned

    Messages:
    272
    cant stay, cant leave (te jen)

    "stay the course (bush)"

    neither can articulate an exit strategy.
    a parallel with vietnam...quagmire!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
    Like what you like. Shall nothing.

    New York's landscape, and that of the victim's families, was involuntarily reordered on 9/11.

    Now it's the Middle East's turn.

    Estrogen Warrior males' opinions to the contrary are merely auto-stimulated mis-firings.

    Edit: Worth the go-back edit for true intent.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2004
  8. Hathor Banned Banned

    Messages:
    272
    SEVENBLU

    Stupidity is contagious, especially when it is fueled by ignorance.

    love the slogan

    Simply put, Iraq is not Vietnam. Statistically put, Vietnam is not Iraq – so stop making comparisons.

    what statistics do you refer to? ahhh yes! casualities! assuming you are correct in that particular one, why should it preclude one from drawing other parallels?

    for instance

    1 - gulf of tonkin = nonexistent w.m.d. and al qaeda links.
    2 - "hearts and minds," = "welcome us as liberators."
    3 - "light at the end of the tunnel," = "turned the corner."
    4 - vietnamization = new iraqi army.
    5 - domino theory = with a twist...democracy will bloom all over the ME
    6 = tell it to hanoi = either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists

    and thats just the rhetoric

    oh...7 - "Peace with honor" = yet to be articulated by rowe

    8 - allies korea and aus =allies bulgaria and poland
    9 - search and destroy vietcong = search and destroy fundies
    10 - macnamara = rumsfeld

    Nobody likes to see young lives taken away because of war, but it has to be expected. What did people think was going to happen? Is it possible to invade a country with force and come away unscathed? Use some common sense.

    strawman. who expected to come unscathed?
    however...dep defense sec wolfowitz said. "They are going to welcome us as liberators ." perhaps you should take this up with your man. why mislead the country?

    Doing so would be the equivalent of knocking a schoolyard bully on his back and then letting him get up so he can retaliate with swift kick to the chin.

    with the missing wmd's no doubt

    um g?
    <EMBED SRC="http://www.nexus1.net/STV-Sounds/voy01.wav" AUTOSTART=FALSE LOOP=FALSE WIDTH=145 HEIGHT=55 ALIGN="CENTER">
    </EMBED>
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2004
  9. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
    Empirically, of course.
     
  10. Porfiry Nomad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,127
    That's why there were record-setting anti-war demonstrations prior to the invasion. War is hell, that's why it should only be used as a last resort, not on the whim of a few people in power who want to make a bit more money for themselves and their friends.

    If anyone was under the illusion that war is a friendly and trivial task, it was the war-mongering conservative hawks who promised a "quick" war and their followers who bought into the absurdity that a conventional war could somehow succeed against an unconventional enemy. It's the conservatives that are becoming disillusioned. The "bleeding-heart liberals" knew all along that the war would be a pointless waste of money and lives.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,225
    I'm not sold on the idea of Vietraq yet; I see it on the horizon, but we're not officially committed yet. However, we can't yet invoke the casualty count to defuse the comparison.

    After all, by January, 2004, the casualty count in Iraq was equal to the United States' first four years in Vietnam. Hardly a comparison at all.
     
  12. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I dance around the center rather than going to one extreme or the other, but a post like that is just aching for some debate.
    How can you compare 1000 troops (not the correct number, but I know it's close enough for my purposes) with the total casualty amount of the entire vietnam war? That's ludicrous. Let's look at some stats here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    1956-1960 - 9
    1961 - 16
    1962 - 52
    1963 - 118
    1964 - 206
    1965 - 1,863
    1966 - 6,143
    1967 - 11,153
    1968 - 16,592
    1969 - 11,616
    1970 - 6,081
    1971 - 2,357
    1972 - 641

    Do you see a pattern there? Now I'm not fully up on Vietnam history, but I've done a search and found that the Gulf of Tonking Resolution is basically what began fullscale assault (not war, but we're not in a war now are we? A declaration of war was never declared against Iraq, was it?) and was passed on Aug 7, 1964. Note the numbers that year, 206. As I'm not a vietnam war buff, I can't say how much activity took place that year, whether LBJ waited til the next year to change any strategy or not. But note the numbers the next year, 1863. True, that's double what we're looking at in Iraq. But you have to figure that there had been a buildup over the previous years and the VC were stirring themselves to better efforts. Also, going into Iraq, the memory of Vietnam lingers and dampens certain exuberance by the administration.


    Wow, you know these bleeding heart liberals you're talking about? What are they odds they wanted to got to war to begin with? Hard to believe, I know, but true nonetheless. Now if you want to complain that when Iraq started it seemed that everybody was gung ho, I'd say that's a highly subjective idea. The democrat politicians let us down that's for sure. They should have had the balls to stand up and say that it's not a good idea.


    One might mention certain administrations tearing certain constitutions to shreds.


    Indeed. You do realize this statement seems to speak of those who speak of bravado and such things. I'm assuming this is a typo and you mean sway. If not, and you mean the literal definition of "to bind with a swathe, band, bandage, or rollers" then I don't get your point. Bravo and opinion stop people from talking?


    And you studied tactics where? I'm no tactitioner myself, but even I know you should prepare for a worst case scenario. You don't always get what you want.


    Yeah, and the same can be said for the gung ho.


    If that's how you feel, why don't you follow your own advice?


    So why didn't you?


    You said it.


    -------------------------

    I agree their are differences in terrain, politics, and organization but that doesn't mean it will be any easier. Look at the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. I know you're going to say that they had our help. Yes, they did. They learned well and still use those tactics. There are other sources for weapons than the US. And one can't disavow the effect that religion plays in this mess. Those who oppose us are of extreme conviction. They won't give up easily.

    And don't forget that Iraq is not the only theatre of operations. We have troops in Afghanistan as well. And if the adminstration keeps up with their convictions, there'll likely be more.


    I don't know about damaging to our nation, damaging to the people we are supposed to be emancipating, yes. Our prestige will definitely go down. And the terrorists will be heartened by a victory. These are the things that must be considered before engaging in these acts. They should not be used as an excuse to maintain a poorly thought out action. And I don't know what to think about your 10,000 prisoner scenario. Sounds odd to me.

    That said, I don't think we're at the point where we should just pull out flat. As you say, things would be worse if that happened, in many ways. That is the purpose of a pull out plan. There are ways to do things gracefully.



    As to the solution, I'm not a tactitioner, that's what Generals are paid for. And who's railing against those who disagree? We discuss policies and ideas that we don't disagree with. There are certainly some who just go off with kneejerk reaction after kneejerk reaction, but I think you find most who engage in discussion here are pretty open-minded and able to discuss a point for awhile before the obscenities come out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I could probably go on, but I've got things to do.



    Source for stats: http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/vietnam_war_casualty_lists/statistics.html (interesting about this list, it continues until 1998. Did you know there were 11 casualties in Vietnam in 1991-1998?
    http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm
    Pic: http://www.multied.com/vietnam/fatalities.gif



    I just saw Tiassa's last post before posting this. It is true that we can't see where it's going, but by your statement of the casualty count I'm assuming that you mean the years that we weren't in full combat mode. Once that occured we are half that number.


    I'd just like to make a statement, I'm not a peace-loving hippie (I hate hippies) but I do find the war objectionable on many fronts and would like to see it end. I would like to see Iraq as a free state that can control it's own destiny (democratic I hope) and say that now that we're there we should stay for the moment. It's not that bad yet, let's see what next year brings, eh? And about a month to go for the reduced hand-off of power.
     
  13. sevenblu feeling blu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    355
    Te Gen:

    I'm not sure that there is any honor in warfare, at least not on the side of those who start the war but do not fight the war. The only honor I can imagine are those who fight for their country and/or give their lives. The bigguns who pull the strings, but not the triggers are without the spirit of the soldiers.

    Porfiry

    I very much agree with you here. I think these lies are told to gain support from the fanatic antiwar groups. Truth in government itself is an oxymoron.

    The motives that we are told are probably not the "true" motives anyway. I'm under the impression that common citizen is fed a steady stream of rhetoric and excuse in order to accept the war. Bush's job is not to make the decisions, but to convince the people of the US that the decisions are the right ones. The current spin on the war (the focus on Hussain and weapons of mass destruction) has failed. Americans want reason and sense, and Bush is not giving.

    Why can't we stay? I'm sure we will.

    Harthor:

    Your parallels can be done with anything at all... Using this line of thinking you could rhetorically compare the Civil War with Star Wars (the movie).

    invert nexus

    You'll have to wait. I've got to go to work, and I have too much to say. Your points are sharp and well organized -
     
  14. Hathor Banned Banned

    Messages:
    272


    i am sure you have a point somewhere in there?
    let me hazard a guess. it invalidates and precludes one from making ANY comparison between ANY two situations. yes? or no?

    perhaps you would indulge by making a single comparison using the scenarios you offered up? make it "deep".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,225
    I was just being lazy and sarcastic. I didn't want to go out and put together the numbers you did. So I cited a news article somewhere and cracked a half-wit joke.

    I would have better faith in next year, except this administration seems to take every opportunity to make things worse. Personally, I think Kerry's playing close to the vest and won't bust out an "exit" plan until he feels the campaign demands it. Any exit strategy will be controversial, and as long as Bush continues to hang himself, Kerry's not going to interrupt the rope supply. So as long as the people elect Kerry, there probably won't be, in the long run, any merit to a Vietnam comparison. That's the best-case scenario, but it will be hard for me to believe that Kerry would stumble further into the quagmire. I'm pretty sure his solution is a two-word answer: "Baby Blues." The idea will be to return focus to Iraq and take it off the U.S.

    However, Kerry might be elected and can still easily f@ck up. What is the word for making SNAFU worse? "Bushing" it? Kerry can easily Bush it, but it will be a unique Bushing. So I'm not claiming a guarantee.

    However, if the people legitimize the Bush junta by granting our President a second term, I think we'll see those casualty counts elevate.

    The U.S. is incredibly good at a classic invasion, even if by innovative logistical and strategic principles. But we seem to be horrible at dealing with the small things. With the Bush junta, I make a natural Coruscant coparison, and I'm reminded that the weakness of the Death Star was not found in battleships, but in stunt fighters.

    So while we can draw a line and say, "We've already had invasive combat," I don't think the thick of things has really shown itself if Bush is elected.

    We must always hope for the best. So here's to hoping Kerry's playing close to the vest and can hold out until deep in the election season.
     
  16. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    "Freedom of speech is everyone’s right, yes, but in my opinion most people should just keep their mouths shut. "

    You actually believe people should not invoke their right to say what they think? Everything would be better if people just shut up and took it up the kiester?

    Listen to others and learn from them. Labeling others as liberal or conservatives merely to attack a supposed idealogy is worthless.

    I agree that comparison between iraq and vietnam are a big stretch. But the rest of your letter was too little on content to even comment. Maybe formulating a specific argument would be more productive?
     
  17. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    How can you compare Vietnam to Iraq?
    Did we invade the North? NO
    Did we invade Iraq? YES
    Did the North recieve MASSIVE amount of Material Aid from China? YES
    Is IRAQ receiving MASSIVE amounts of enemy Material Aid? NO
    Was Vietnam a Defensive war? YES
    Is Iraq a Defensive war? No
    Did we attempt to change the Political leadership of the North? No
    Did we change the Political leadership of Iraq? Yes
    Vietnam was a perfect example of how NOT to run a war. It was a defensive peace action. It was restricted by rule after rule. A total WASTE.
    If your definition of a quamire is "causalties, no known exit date, a determined enemy, guerilla warfare, goverment propaganda, etc..etc.." then you might as well include every war that we have ever fought.
    Typical Peace-loving tree hugger cry baby crap.
    Go read a history book.
     
  18. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I don't really compare compare Vietnam to Iraq. I just bristled at the way Sevenblu used the 58,000 casualty count of the whole Vietnam war vs. one year of an Iraq conflict. But some comparisons can be made in some ways. Lets see...

    On your point about the invading the North and invading Iraq. It's true that we have the whole of Iraq, not just half of it like we did Vietnam. But one could say that the rest of the arab world is Iraq's north.

    On your point about MASSIVE material aid (from whatever source). Well, muslim countries all over the world donate to charities that go directly towards terrorism. I don't know about numbers, but there you go. Also, I imagine that there's a foreign government or two that are (or will be) giving aid to terrorist fighters. They'd love to see America get a black eye. Why wouldn't they?

    On the defensive war. You're saying that Iraq is not a defensive war? Seems that way to me. We already have the territory, now we're fighting to keep it. Sounds like a defense to me.

    On changing politcal leadership. We didn't try to change the North, but we did try to back up the south. I'm not aware of the situation enough to say how this was done. The government was probably left over from colonialism. It was already "changed" we were fighting to maintain that change.

    If Vietnam was an example on how not to run a war, let's hope those lessons are still in effect. This is one of the main criticisms of the "war on terror." A war against a faceless enemy. No clear goals.

    I wouldn't say that exit date has to do with an exit strategy. I'm not in on classified information, but I imagine there's secret plans on how to get out. I'd hope the generals aren't that stupid. As I said, one must prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

    Peace-loving tree hugger cry baby crap? Seems like I could say yours is typical gung ho, do-or-die, death before dishonor, baby-killing crap, but I woudn't do that because that wouldn't be nice.

    History book? I've read a few. I said in my post that I don't know much about the Vietnam war. Not much was taught about it when I was in school. Don't know if the situation is changed much. By the way, a whole lot of informative history in your post.

    Let me reiterate a point you must have failed to read. I'm not a peace-loving hippie. I'm not saying we should just pull out and run like scared rabbits. I'm not saying Iraq is another Vietnam. I just couldn't stand the ludicrous comparison of 58,000 dead during the whole of Vietnam and less than 1000 in 1 year of Iraq.

    I do have objections to the war. I do think we shouldn't have gone in the first place. I do suspect that Bush is a moron who is not fully prepared for all eventualities. I do hope that Iraq will become a free (hopefully democratic) country. I also have the same hope for Afghanistan (which everyone has forgotten.) I also have objections to how the administration is violating human rights, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guatanamo, and who knows where else. Once they start doing these things abroad, how long before they bring these tactics home?

    Anyway, I hope you realize I'm merely debating a point and not just going for the quick emotional comeback. I could also argue the other side if spurred into it. As I said in my original post, I dance around the center, I'm not a left-wing bleeding heart and shouldn't be the one defending this issue. However, I couldn't let such a ludicrous statement pass by undebated.
     
  19. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    While Muslim countries give monetary aid, they are not shipping RPG and AK-47s by the millions like China did for the NVA and the Vietcong.
    If they did we would take care of it.
    There is no comparible Ho Chin Minh supply trail. No secret Bombings. We are not in Iran etc..etc..
    In Veitnam there were full blown DIVISIONS of NVA. The North lost over a MILLION people in that conflict.
    The Scale of conflict alone is not comparable. We had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam at anyone time. Bombings day and night. It was a full scale WAR for YEARS.
    Iraq is an OCCUPATION. The war is over. It is NOT Vietnam.
    My "Typical Peace-loving tree hugger cry baby crap" comment was directed towards the 'Liberals' out there who scream "ITS ANOTHER VIETNAM" everytime we have a conflict. Remember the first time we went to Iraq? All you heard was "ITS ANOTHER VIETNAM!"
    This is NOT Vietnam.
    Vietnam was a Defensive, Political, Shithole that will NEVER happen again- unless of course you Elect Kerry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Much better, thank you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm sure that I could dig up a few rebuttals, but I don't have the will. I would say that it is early yet. Talking about scale, we've only just begun. It's entirely possible that the scale will increase and if the adminstration opens up other fronts it will increase more. But as to that only time will tell. The same goes for the enemies we are going up against. It's possible that they will increase over time, as well as weapons and the like.

    All in all, it's way too early to bring about any comparisons. And the only comparison that could be followed would be if we get another black eye. The situation is different, the ideology is different. But the end results could be the same.

    And as to the tree-huggers, yeah, I got a tree-hugger friend who I try to talk politics sometimes. Unfortunately, he's more interested in republican bashing than actually learning or having an honest debate. But I also have a christian fundamentalist friend who I try to talk politics with and he's the same way. Democrat-bashing instead of republican-bashing.

    The problem all around is the extremists. Left-wing, right-wing, christian, muslim, why don't you all come down here to the center? Plenty of room to dance.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Problem with the center is we tend to see problems on both sides and end up paralyzed in thought. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. But, it'll all work out somehow in the end. Hope we get a good deal or at least not screwed too bad.
     
  21. bandwidthbandit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    The War in Iraq does nothing to defend us from anybody. Saddam never was a serious threat to us or anybody else. He was contained. This war is nothing but part of a failed hawkish doctrine that had been floating around in conservative think tanks since Bush's Father was in office. He was smart enough to not adopt it. Unfortunatley Junior was not. The doctrine is a fantasy that put's maintaing the status of the United States as the world's only Super Power above everything else when it comes to american Foregin Policy. The war in Iraq is not about WMD's, regime change, fighting terrorists, or even oil. All those things are secondary prizes in what amounts to nothing less than American Empire Building



    9/11 opened the door for Bush to implent this failed doctrine that so far has caused the deaths of over a 1000 US Servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1000's of Afghani and Iraqi civilians, cost the US 100's of billions of dollars, and allowed al-Qaida to grow as a threat rather than diminish it.

    So you tell me why should I support this war? Because it's a failed policy that is doing nothing to make us safer home. Not now or in the future.

    And if you don't like it you can kiss my bleeding heart liberal ass.
     
  22. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    I would have thought from the Vietnam history quoted above, that it seems obvious there is a parallel between Early Vietnam and the current state of Iraq. Therefore it behoves the USA to step carefully.

    Sevenblu:
    "I very much agree with you here. I think these lies are told to gain support from the fanatic antiwar groups. Truth in government itself is an oxymoron."

    To me, it looks far more like the lies were told to normal "gullible" members of the public. Having read various newspapers and watched TV, all I could see were anti war protesters saying war is wrong and this one especially, and politicians trying to sooth the publics jitters by saying "dont worry, itll all be over by christmas." No anti war group was swayed by such rhetoric, but hte politicians felt they had to say that in order to calm down the waverers who didnt know what they were getting in to.
     
  23. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    "The problem all around is the extremists. Left-wing, right-wing, christian, muslim, why don't you all come down here to the center? Plenty of room to dance. "

    My views are both extremely conservative and extremely liberal (legalize and tax drugs anyone??) so they average out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page