Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (141550)	7/27/2004 2:09:30 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Neocon, we must be wired to think differently. I can see the glimmer of light in your responses but often it's only a pinprick in a black shade. For instance, you say: Vietnam became a volatile issue, and since the electorate was mostly following the political leadership, and ultimately wanted to wrap things up, it was just as likely that one could gain by supporting withdrawal. Remember, Nixon won on Vietnamization and his "secrete plan" to get us out, once again showing his brilliance in positioning himself on both sides of the issue. But I'd say that without Vietnam there would have been no Nixon presidency and certainly he'd have never been able to position himself as a "war president" and thus contrast himself to the "weak" McGovern at a time when most of the voting nation was still pro-war and anti the anti-establishment radicals that were speaking out. And the "secret plan" to get us out was not touted as a "secret plan" at all but rather as a plan for "peace with honor." We're only a step away from that now by the way. See eg Kerry. You say: Contractors? I daresay that they would have made as much on urban renewal contracts, without the risks, as they did in Vietnam. If their interests prevailed, we should have expanded the War on Poverty, not the war in Vietnam. But I'd say that anyone who didn't recognize that the potential for profits during wartime for contactors is exponentially greater simply hasn't paid any historical attention. Do you follow Haliburton's profit and loss statements? Do you really think they'd be so sound if they were involved in "urban renewal" competitively bid projects? Don't you know what happens when the government opens up the war bank? It's not just Haliburton. Who's making the bombs and bullets and tanks and choppers and armor and clothing and humvees and telecommunications? Who's taking emergency orders and working overtime in Houston to satisfy those demands? You say officer's promotions weren't a part of the "benfits" of war when you say: Officers? This was a very civilian- run war. Johnson picked targets to bomb back in Washington. The misgivings of the military were mainly centered around the insufficiency of strategy to achieve the objectives, or, to put another way, the fact that the war was not run on sound military principles. But I say you have a poor concept of what happens during wartime in the officer's ranks. The ferocity with which many officers compete for the trappings of combat and promotion are well known to those of us who paid the price for their self promoting ways. From lying about their successes and covering up their failures, to attempting to be the "biggest balls" officers at the cost of the lives of their men, some, although not all, officers have little conscience. The game is played all the way up the line as each officer up the chain of command knows that failure of his "troops" will reflect poorly on him while putting his troops into "action" and claiming victory will garner him ribbons and promotions. As with all cheating, those who play square tend to get left in the dust while the cheaters create a grading curve that requires more and more cheating to compete. The end result is that we're always "winning" even though we sometimes never win, and sometimes we end up in war conflicts where we NEVER WILL WIN. And that's the problem with your claim that the "war was not run on sound military principals." You are, of course, right, however the implication that "it would have turned out differently if we'd just done it differently" is another red herring. There are some conflicts designed for some ends that will NEVER, EVER, TURN A PIG'S EAR INTO A SILK PURSE. Vietnam was one, and Iraq is another. What makes that so sad for me is that one failed and the other is doomed to failure FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS. I've posted on the why's of that before and it makes me disgusted that we'd have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, or Russian Afghanistan, or the French in Algeria, so soon after they occurred. But then there are so many Neocons who still believe that we "could have won in Vietnam." Oddly enough, none of them seem to have fought there and they certainly don't listen to men like Colin Powell and other Generals who did. As far as your last point that: "Anyway, none of this has to do with my point, which is that there were no clearcut vested interests dictating the original commitment to Vietnam, on the Chomskey-esque "corporate interest" paradigm" all I can say is that you've changed the question substantially. Now you say "no CLEARCUT vested interests." Now you say you were talking about only the "original commitment to Vietnam." Now you say you were referring to "Chomskeyesque 'corporate interest' paradigm." But, unless I'm mistaken, and I bet I'm not, those qualifiers are all new. It's better to let your ego go and admit it when the facts are against you. Even if you believe that the powers that be "must know something you don't know," that doesn't excuse a person who fails to take the time to exercise the intellect to weigh their opinions in light of the obvious facts and commonly known information. If you fail to learn that lesson then you'll be little better than the quack lawyer that opportunistically seizes on any claim or defense, no matter how ill grounded in the truth or ill founded in reality it is.