Another Vietnam? Yeah, if the liberals have their way...
It still amazes me when I hear the tired, liberal, anti-war accusation that our involvement in Iraq is just another war in Vietnam revisited. While many on both sides of the ideological fence agree that this war may not have been waged in the wisest and most efficient manner, and that many challenges still face our troops on a daily basis as they attempt to suppress rebel uprisings, the comparison between our actions in Iraq and those in the Vietnam War are absolutely preposterous. The "quagmire" in Iraq is by no means comparable to the one we faced in the latter days of the Vietnam conflict. While over 1,000 troops have been killed in Iraq, an unfortunate and heartbreaking byproduct of war, by no means does it compare to the 58,000 (plus) men lost in the years between 1957-75, not to mention those missing in action, wounded and mentally scarred from the conflict.
Yet the left never tires of the comparison, and continually lays blame at the feet of, you guessed it, the Bush administration. Never will you hear the left criticizing it’s own leaders, the one’s who believed Saddam was a threat, stated it on record and voted to go to war, like ex-presidential candidate John Kerry. Nope, it’s all Bush, Cheney, and Rummy’s fault. (If we’d just had that international coalition, damn.) And now our boys are up to their ears in car bombs, suicide bombers and an insurgency that will, without doubt, turn into another Vietnam War.
What foolishness.
And now the same crowd who called for the impeachment of the President who "lied to us" to get us into Iraq in order to line his own pockets, and have since day-one called the Iraqi conflict "another Vietnam" are themselves threatening to turn Iraq into another Vietnam, of their own admission!
Follow me on this. In the latter years of Vietnam, Congress began halting the allocation of funds to the Vietnam conflict, funds that would have, had the war been waged in a less political fashion, allowed us to win. But the national outcry from the 1970’s "peace-at-all-costs" crowd (many of them a few years older and just as vigilant today) turned the collective congressional spine to mush and defense spending dried up. Thousands of our men were left in the jungles of Vietnam, some never recovered, and even more returned home to the scorn of their own countrymen (see John Kerry and Jane Fonda). The war in Vietnam was considered "the first war America lost." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vietnam was not the first war America lost; it was the first war America was not allowed to win. It’s awfully hard to fight a jungle war against a vicious enemy when the funding dries up.
And now, after months of referring to Iraq as Vietnam II, liberal mouthpiece ex-Democratic State Senator Tom Hayden, in an article on the leftwing website www.alternet.org called "How to End the War in Iraq" calls for the anti war crowd to put a halt to the conflict (i.e. American "imperialism") in the following fashion,
"The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy for dominance."
This from someone representing the ilk calling for a stronger alliance with United Nations member countries, claiming that we lacked the manpower in Iraq to do the job right and screaming that our troops are under-funded, under-protected, and lacking loyal friends in our battle for Iraqi sovereignty.
What blatant hypocrisy.
But then again, how can we expect anything else from this crowd.
So just who’s turning Iraq into another Vietnam? From the sound of it, the liberal camp would like nothing more than to leave our troops high-and-dry in the Iraqi desert. They’d prefer America be stopped in its attempt to liberate and bring democracy to the Iraqi people, even when it means following exactly the same path as those in power during the Vietnam War and giving our valiant troops the (often fatal) short end of the stick.
Sad isn’t it?
Yet the left never tires of the comparison, and continually lays blame at the feet of, you guessed it, the Bush administration. Never will you hear the left criticizing it’s own leaders, the one’s who believed Saddam was a threat, stated it on record and voted to go to war, like ex-presidential candidate John Kerry. Nope, it’s all Bush, Cheney, and Rummy’s fault. (If we’d just had that international coalition, damn.) And now our boys are up to their ears in car bombs, suicide bombers and an insurgency that will, without doubt, turn into another Vietnam War.
What foolishness.
And now the same crowd who called for the impeachment of the President who "lied to us" to get us into Iraq in order to line his own pockets, and have since day-one called the Iraqi conflict "another Vietnam" are themselves threatening to turn Iraq into another Vietnam, of their own admission!
Follow me on this. In the latter years of Vietnam, Congress began halting the allocation of funds to the Vietnam conflict, funds that would have, had the war been waged in a less political fashion, allowed us to win. But the national outcry from the 1970’s "peace-at-all-costs" crowd (many of them a few years older and just as vigilant today) turned the collective congressional spine to mush and defense spending dried up. Thousands of our men were left in the jungles of Vietnam, some never recovered, and even more returned home to the scorn of their own countrymen (see John Kerry and Jane Fonda). The war in Vietnam was considered "the first war America lost." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vietnam was not the first war America lost; it was the first war America was not allowed to win. It’s awfully hard to fight a jungle war against a vicious enemy when the funding dries up.
And now, after months of referring to Iraq as Vietnam II, liberal mouthpiece ex-Democratic State Senator Tom Hayden, in an article on the leftwing website www.alternet.org called "How to End the War in Iraq" calls for the anti war crowd to put a halt to the conflict (i.e. American "imperialism") in the following fashion,
"The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy for dominance."
This from someone representing the ilk calling for a stronger alliance with United Nations member countries, claiming that we lacked the manpower in Iraq to do the job right and screaming that our troops are under-funded, under-protected, and lacking loyal friends in our battle for Iraqi sovereignty.
What blatant hypocrisy.
But then again, how can we expect anything else from this crowd.
So just who’s turning Iraq into another Vietnam? From the sound of it, the liberal camp would like nothing more than to leave our troops high-and-dry in the Iraqi desert. They’d prefer America be stopped in its attempt to liberate and bring democracy to the Iraqi people, even when it means following exactly the same path as those in power during the Vietnam War and giving our valiant troops the (often fatal) short end of the stick.
Sad isn’t it?
posted by Matt Haver at 7:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home