John Fitzgerald Kennedy is inaugurated as the 35th U.S. President and declares "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to insure the survival and the success of liberty[/b][/i]"ť.
This was our stated goal.
Pay any price;
The financial cost to the United States comes to something over $150 billion dollars.
Bear any burden;
The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans.
Meet any hardship;
304,000 were wounded.
To insure the survival and success of Liberty, that was the stated goal.
Did our government have a responsibility/duty to the American citizenry-civilian and soldier alike- to use its resources responsibly?
After $150 billion, 58,000 dead, and 304,000 wounded, we just left. We were no closer to our stated goal in Vietnam when we left than before we arrived.
Did our withdrawal from Vietnam make the war, for the American public, meaningless?
In hind-sight, was the Vietnam War pointless?
Did America lose the Vietnam War to a superior military force?
Did America lose the Vietnam War to a superior force of "śWill/Desire"ť?
If you or I were responsible for the loss of $150 billion of stockholders money due to a lack of "świll/desire"ť to finish the project, should we be fired?
If you or I were responsible for the loss of 58,000 lives due to a lack of foresight and stewardship of a project, should we be fired?
If you or I were responsible for the wounding/maiming of 304,000 Americans in a failed project, should we be fired?
As you ponder the above, consider this; would the answer be any different if we had archived the stated goal?
If America"™s defeat had been declared in the Vietnam War after the loss of 2214[/b], USA military lives, how would you have felt[/b]?
I know there is the desire to say, "śWell at least 56,000 lives would have been saved"ť. However I do believe you would have been in a very small minority if you had "śfelt"ť that way back in January of 1961.
That is where I see America at, in considering the future of the War in Iraq.[/b]
Do we remain committed to the stated goal? (Committed, regardless of the cost?)
Do we cut and run after a historically minor loss of life and abandon the stated goal? (Is it simply a lack of "świll/desire"ť to achieve a desired goal this early in the process or is it criminal if it is purely partisan politics?)
Simply put, do we stay or do we go?[/b]
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
Lota questions there. To bad polticans are always involved in such things-If we lost anything it was because of the polticans(with the American medias help).Of course the polticans making the rules /choices ussally dont pay the piper- the ppl do
Even tho it might not seem like it - the cold war(ruskis) in part anyways was also fought there& also the comminest chinese too.That was not a matter of win lose- ithas to be done.
I would like to see world leaders go at it instead with sabers.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
We stay- with any changes & modifacations needed -to any stated goalsmade by the polticans(most are not generals by far)
Its pretty obvious things wont be fine& dandy in the region(or over or solved)-even if we left iraq tommorrow.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
John Fitzgerald Kennedy is inaugurated as the 35th U.S. President and declares "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to insure the survival and the success of liberty"ť.
This was our stated goal.
Pay any price;
The financial cost to the United States comes to something over $150 billion dollars.
Bear any burden;
The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans.
Meet any hardship;
304,000 were wounded.
To insure the survival and success of Liberty, that was the stated goal.
Did our government have a responsibility/duty to the American citizenry-civilian and soldier alike- to use its resources responsibly? Yes, we sure did.
After $150 billion, 58,000 dead, and 304,000 wounded, we just left. We were no closer to our stated goal in Vietnam when we left than before we arrived.
Did our withdrawal from Vietnam make the war, for the American public, meaningless? It wasn't meaningless although many opposed to that war and pretty much all other wars often have that opinion. Those who were in favor of or supported the war did not view it as meaningless.
In hind-sight, was the Vietnam War pointless? No, I think valuable lessons were learned about being willing to finish a war that you start, not having politicians micromanage a war, have clearly defined expectations and goals, etc.
Did America lose the Vietnam War to a superior military force? No, absolutely NOT. We quit on a war because our politicians did not want to continue the war under public opposition. The NV were never a superior force and often wasted their troops foolishly. Tet new year offensive comes to mind. It was a horrendous loss and all around bad military tactics on the NV's part but politically, U.S. citizens made it into some kind of watershed event where we needed to get out of the war.
Did America lose the Vietnam War to a superior force of "śWill/Desire"ť? See above. Our troops had all the will and desire necessary. Our politicians and many countrymen did not.
If you or I were responsible for the loss of $150 billion of stockholders money due to a lack of "świll/desire"ť to finish the project, should we be fired? Yes.
If you or I were responsible for the loss of 58,000 lives due to a lack of foresight and stewardship of a project, should we be fired? Yes and thoughts of prison come to mind also.
If you or I were responsible for the wounding/maiming of 304,000 Americans in a failed project, should we be fired? Maybe. This question does not impute such negligence as the above question's wording.
As you ponder the above, consider this; would the answer be any different if we had archived the stated goal? I think winning a war always gives you the luxury of determining the aftermath and final result. When you wind up with freedom, prosperity, a nation at peace and its' citizens gain an increased standard of living, it makes a much more favorable impression than a country continuing to be a 3rd world dump with no real freedom and a crappy standard of living.
If America"™s defeat had been declared in the Vietnam War after the loss of 2214, USA military lives, how would you have felt? Like the wrong people were in charge and they would also forfeit a football game if they were behind at halftime.
I know there is the desire to say, "śWell at least 56,000 lives would have been saved"ť. However I do believe you would have been in a very small minority if you had "śfelt"ť that way back in January of 1961. We only had advisors back in 1961 and we weren't involved per se in a war back then. It would have been an entirely different perspective back then as you pointed out. Certainly not one in which anybody could have predicted the outcome.
That is where I see America at, in considering the future of the War in Iraq. Ironically, many of the same anti-war people are continuing to voice the same opinions and make comparisons to Vietnam, even as they deliberately ignore many things that are quite different from Vietnam.
Do we remain committed to the stated goal? (Committed, regardless of the cost?) I think we should since we're almost at the end with a successful outcome. Pulling out now would make us another France with the resulting riots and other problems. I don't think we should accept an unlimited cost but we're not talking about that as a reality. We're almost done and the cost is manageable.
Do we cut and run after a historically minor loss of life and abandon the stated goal? (Is it simply a lack of "świll/desire"ť to achieve a desired goal this early in the process or is it criminal if it is purely partisan politics?) Both. Some people truly oppose the war and are not out to make that political. Others (a lot but not all who are democratic politicians) are trying to make political hay out of the situation and are not honestly trying to represent the best interests of our country, our troops or even simply being honest.
Simply put, do we stay or do we go? Finish what we started. It's down to the 4th quarter and we have a war to finish.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
[/quote]
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
When I asked about the Vietnam War being pointless, I have to ponder this; what did our soldiers die for? If we aren"™t going to finish what we start, then we shouldn"™t have started it.
The life of the American soldier is just one of the resources our government manages (and one of the most precious). What did our soldier"™s loss of life accomplish?
The Iraq War.
If our stated goal was to just remove Saddam from power, then we have done that, and with an amazingly minute loss of American life.
Is removing one despot only to leave so another can rise to power a prudent use of our military? (I know that there are those who say we should have just left Saddam in place, but I have yet to see that position successfully defended).
GWB set the goal toward something more noble, to not only remove a despot but to also try and set up a "śchecks and balances"ť system of governance so that the next despot will have a much harder time rising to power.
Given the nature of the Iraqi belief system, is this an attainable goal? I have strong doubts.
What I have no doubts about is that it is much too early to give up on the stated goal.
Your statement "śOur troops had all the will and desire necessary. Our politicians and many countrymen did not."ť
Brings to mind this, how would a senator have been treated during WW-II if he was publicly calling for us to quit after the loss of 2,200 lives.
The argument has been made that Saddam didn"™t attack nor support those who would attack the USA.
That argument is pure bunk. He who supports Hamas supports those that Hamas supports.
If the public figures that are calling for the USA to cut and run are doings so because they believe the stated goal is un-attainable, I would say they have an arguable position and a duty to make that argument.
But that isn"™t what Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are arguing, they are simply saying we should cut and run.
At this point in Iraqi War their position borders on cowardice during a time of war.
What I find even more despicable about their statements is that the statements seem to be made for purely partisan political reasons.
Our soldiers deserve representation in Washington that is above such things.
Our soldiers deserve leadership that won"™t ask them to die for an un-attainable goal, but that also doesn"™t ask them to stop short of an attainable goal.
If you are going to ask that first soldier to die for a cause, you owe it to him to have thought the end-game through and the guts to stick with it.
I don"™t believe GWB fulfilled his role/duty of carefully planning this war and its fulfillment/attainability of the stated goal, and I certainly don"™t feel Pelosi and Kennedy have fulfilled their role/duty to rise above partisan politics.
Our Soldiers deserve better, and I dare say it borders on criminal to give them less.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
If you are going to ask that first soldier to die for a cause, you owe it to him to have thought the end-game through and the guts to stick with it.
I agree completely. I think the proper plans should be in place and possible outcomes thought through well before any orders are handed out.
Vietnam was well before my time, but from what I have seen and read on the subject, I wouldn't call it pointless or meaningless. We were going up against a military supplied and somewhat trained by the Soviets, and Vietnam gave us a good idea what they were willing to do as well as give them an idea of what we were willing to do. I think the most glaring mistakes made during Vietnam were the rules of engagement imposed upon the military. I believe once it has been decided war is necessary, the decision to win atall costs must have already been made. If it is worthy of putting any American's life at risk, it is worthy of putting as many live's at risk as the task requires.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
I think the most glaring mistakes made during Vietnam were the rules of engagement imposed upon the military.
Bingo. America had to fight a war with both hands tied behind the back to avoid offending the communists.[:@]
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Vietnam War, a Crime?
