Originally posted by BP:

that's not the reason we lost/withdrew from vietnam. we lost and left because of miscalculations that caused extreme casualties and failure to devise a realistic plan to win peace. very similar to iraq...



OK, this is my TOP reason why Kerry should NOT be elected. Because he is of similar philosophy...I do not want somebody planning to win the peace.

WAR is won by winning WAR...

No one EVER wins a war by focusing on winning peace. NO real precident exists for lasting end to war without a victor through negotiation soley. We "revist" the issue again...years later.

Blunt as it sounds...you crush the enemy unambiguosly, break his will to fight, demonstrate YOUR resolve to smash him like a bug! THEN & only then..peace may have a chance. Otherwise, the losing side STILL has will to fight, STILL thinks he may win if he tries this or that, may question YOUR lack of will. Lasting PEACE has unfortunately come at the end of a BEATING.

We would not be in Iraq now had we finished the job in 91 and not worried about "peace" on UN terms. You could even argue that 9/11 my have been avoided had we done then what we are doing now. Had we eliminated Sadam, rebuilt the country (instead of leaving nothing but oil well smoking & a corrupt UN policy that helped impoverish the people), installed a democracy in the heart of the middleast.AND LEFT, we would have made it clear by now we are not occupiers and the inherent, infectious GOODNESS of democracy may have already spread to Iran, Syria, and the hate spewing madrassa schools in Saudi Arabia...replacing a decade of anti-US hate speach/teaching. Think about the 3000 lives saved at the price of 1000 soldiers in those terms. I look at the loss of those brave soldiers now in those terms. The Palestinian conflict is a good example as well...no peace is likely to occur as one side is "artificially" being held back from flatting the other.

We would have won Vietnam had we taken off the gloves, crossed the borders to cut off supply and retreat and scoarched earth as indicated..Focusing on winning the peace would have done nothing to win that war or the present war.

Read "the art of war" sometime & see if winning peace is discussed..

Make no mistake, miscalculations occur in EVERY war...both sides do it! Kerry WILL lose if that's his best pitch BTW. Sadam miscalculated more than we did...he misscalculated that we would not dare come to Iraq without UN blessing and he KNEW that France would prevent THAT from happening...he is now awaiting trial. The side that RECALCULATES, ADJUSTS, and hit again with MORE, wins.

It was time in Iraq for all out war...partial war failed, 12 years on negotiation failed, cruise missile strikes failed. We now know why...Sadam was making billions in UN/French sanctioned "oil for food" scams every year, building palaces & funding terror with the cash. It was a good deal for him & was not going to end but by the sword. But when it is over we WILL have a good shot at peace, of that I am confident.

Still we each pick our candidate based on how we think peace will be achieved....even if war is the path..





Last edited by Dan Nixon; 09/08/04 08:40 PM.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)