KLP, re: "If the Dems decide to fund the troops but tie the strings to pay for the troops and equipment, the troops will die a slow death....MANY more of them than have been killed so far."
Do you really believe that's how things work in the real world?
Will they run out of ammunition and fuel, run out of food, be forced to run without equipment, lose medical support...what is in your mind when you say that they'll die a slow death and many more will die than have been killed so far if the Democrats tie the strings on troops and equipment?
Try to question simple statements in a complex world.
Here's a hint: if you were in charge of a crew that had to work underwater, would you send them on a dive without air tanks or would you send them home?
If you sent them on the dive without air and they died, would you blame the company that failed to send the air tanks or would you blame yourself.
Now, do you see it?
The false assumption is that our civilian and military leadership would keep our troops in Iraq if the war was no longer funded.
"This happened in VN. The funds were cut...Dem House, Dem Senate and Dem President. Our soldiers left. SE Asia lost millions of people when it fell to the Communists."
Millions??? You must be adding in the Cambodians who worked hard at killing each other until the Vietnamese stepped in and stopped it.
But, regardless of that opportunistic number computation I have to ask, what was the alternative?...Keeping the war going when the population wanted us out, where we'd had a direct hand in the deaths of millions of them during the time of our occupation, where we'd destabilized the region to the point where more bloodshed was inevitable, and where, had we stayed, we'd still be there, still be losing troops and still be saying that we couldn't afford to lose while steadfastly denying the reality that we'd already lost.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; the war in Vietnam was so ill conceived that when America "lost" the men, women and children of Vietnam stopped dying by the millions, American soldiers stopped dying and coming home to their families maimed and marked, and Vietnam is now a trading partner.
I don't understand your angst about "losing" in Vietnam. If that's what losing is then I'd like to lose in Iraq immediately. Ed |
