[TheRealThing]

Solution:

1) Embrace Fracking and be Energy Self Sufficient,
2) Get the hell out of the mid east,
3) Let Russia, Syria and Iran worry about refugees!

Thinking we could transform the mid east into Democracies has resulted in failure after failure with tremendous loss of life and treasure.

I agree with Trump. "Saddam was a bad guy, but he was good at killing terrorists." So shall Bashir!

We've been in agreement on a lot of things lately. I would like to see the US expand the number of troops in Afghanistan from the projected number for this year's end, which is 8,400 troops, to a force which is unmistakably formidable. I know that will not happen under Hillary, but I believe it may be possible under a Trump administration.

But the purpose of the force would not be to nation build. When I served in the US Air Force, the many US bases around the globe were a welcomed and appreciated sight for all the host nations lucky enough to have them. We need such installations for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the strategical advantages of not being thousands of miles from people who can lend a hand on purely logistical grounds. The training the troops get in such surroundings is nearly beyond measure.

[Pick6]

I am a believer in using special forces to accomplish specific, defined missions. Invasion forces to remove foreign governments is not defence of country.

Going into Afganistan was necessary because the Taliban was clearly allied with and supported our enemy, and as such, had to be destroyed. We had a responsibility to leave a stable government behind. The longer we stay there. the more we become perceived as a foreign occupier.

[TheRealThing]

I am a believer in using special forces to accomplish specific, defined missions. Invasion forces to remove foreign governments is not defence of country.

Going into Afganistan was necessary because the Taliban was clearly allied with and supported our enemy, and as such, had to be destroyed. We had a responsibility to leave a stable government behind. The longer we stay there. the more we become perceived as a foreign occupier.

Agreed and I'd be fine with the foreign occupier label. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the vast majority of Afghans would love to see us there indefinitely. The only people who'd want us out are the terrorists and Putin.

If we put a proper force over there and rehabilitate the bases we once had, the danger to our troops though present, would be much less than if we continue to dance around with a skeleton crew. Further, we will ultimately pay in much greater loss of life if we do not maintain a viable force in the region. And by viable I mean pull out the stops and move in like we meant it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Revisionist thinking if I ever saw it. In this case, W tilled the soil, planted the seeds, and with the garden coming along nicely, the world saw an abundance of the green sprouts of promise to brag about under his watch. In fact, there would surely be big red tomatoes ready for harvest by July 4th in the metaphorical sense.

But then the garden was turned over to a new tender and that new tender had a completely different rationale as to the best way to reap the fruits of all that hard labor. The irrigation was shut off, the gardeners were given pink slips and shown the door, new tractors and roto-tillers were left abandoned, barns full of fertilizer and farming implements of the highest quality and in vast quantities, were left with doors standing ajar. Even maintenance facilities replete tools and equipment were left, complete with stores of fuel and spare parts. But alas, the harvest could not reap itself and what little yield which managed to survive untended, was left to spoil in the burning desert.

Of course, the new gardener-in-chief spoke with great vitriol as he blamed his predecessor for the gardens' failure to produce fruit.

It appears you favor twenty and thirty year occupations in lands where we are not seen as liberators, but as what we are, occupiers.

Iraq was not a manicured garden in January of 2008.

[TheRealThing]

It appears you favor twenty and thirty year occupations in lands where we are not seen as liberators, but as what we are, occupiers.

Iraq was not a manicured garden in January of 2008.

Listen, I'm not going to argue with a guy who obviously has had his opinion given to him by other libs about the role of the US military in this world. I served, both in combat and in the normal function of military life. And might I add, my service was the single most stabilizing and influential secular force in my lifetime. And in retrospect, I wouldn't take a million dollars for the experience. In the Armed Services, one is always impressed with the knowledge that what he's doing is a big deal. In saying that, I've been all over Europe and the far east and I have first hand knowledge of what I speak. As a matter of fact, there was one 3 year stint in which I was not stateside at all. The people of the world love Americans. They love to entertain us and they love the protection we give their land. You don't have the first darn clue how we're seen because I know for a fact that we are still seen as liberators. Now, ISIS sees us as occupiers and the extremists that dream of a restored Caliphate see us as occupiers along with regimes such as Red China, Russia and North Korea. If you ask them, we're occupiers. Why? Because with a viable US military presence their hands are tied in any efforts or designs they may have on pushing everybody else around.

America is in fact a force for good, and absolutely everywhere we have installations, the area is far more similar to American neighborhoods as far as stability and orderliness are concerned. And don't think the locals don't know it. So your occupying force argument is leftist propagandist fiction, pure and simple. While overseas, I travelled extensively. Never in all those travels did I get so much as a condescending shrug because I was an American. I got smiles and pats on the back and was always made to feel welcomed and appreciated. And that included all of at least 15 countries in which I was privileged to enjoy quite a lot of interaction with the people.

Since BGR is a sports first website, let me use the appropriate analogy. A professional baseball team which does not practice, and drill, and train, and do the required level of study of the game and their opposition, will simply stink up the field at gametime. Usually at that point the manager gets run off in rather unceremonious fashion. The US is stinking up the field. Our competition who at one time would just call up and tell us to name the score and save themselves the grief of getting walloped, now laugh at us. There is always a number 2 and a number 3 waiting in line behind the top team. And as soon as they beat #1, no matter how long that team had been #1, the respect is gone unless and until they put another good thrashing on them.

We need a new manager. The whole 21st Century thinking rationale is nothing more than a bucket of liberal monkey puke that many of us will never lift to our lips. But you guys go ahead.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ I want to be clear here. You are stating that in Afghanistan, in Iraq, that the majority of the populations view the United States favorably? The last comprehensive study I saw, a large poll of Middle Eastern societies and views, showed that by broad plurality it was the United States and Israel who were viewed as the most dangerous actors in the region. Granted, that study preceded the rise of ISIS.

So, again, you are stating as a fact you know that the United States is viewed favorably in the Middle East by plurality opinion?

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ I want to be clear here. You are stating that in Afghanistan, in Iraq, that the majority of the populations view the United States favorably? The last comprehensive study I saw, a large poll of Middle Eastern societies and views, showed that by broad plurality it was the United States and Israel who were viewed as the most dangerous actors in the region. Granted, that study preceded the rise of ISIS.

So, again, you are stating as a fact you know that the United States is viewed favorably in the Middle East by plurality opinion?

I don't know what your polling shows. I do however know, how the people act toward soldiers of this nation. And I know they are glad we're there. Had you the first glimmer based on your own life experience, you'd know it too.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I don't know what your polling shows. I do however know, how the people act toward soldiers of this nation. And I know they are glad we're there. Had you the first glimmer based on your own life experience, you'd know it too.

First, it wasn't my polling.

Second, then, it is your assertion that the plurality of people in Afghanistan and Iraq are "glad" the United States is there.

Third, in many, many villages in Viet Nam, the mood of the people was not "glad" at the approach of US soldiers. (See "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam" by Nick Turse)

I have great respect for the soldiers of this nation, but not blind, unthinking carte blanche.

In my view, a certain "Nathan Jessup" attitude pervades a lot of folk in the military. Not all, but a lot. This is not a good thing.

[TheRealThing]

First, it wasn't my polling.

Second, then, it is your assertion that the plurality of people in Afghanistan and Iraq are "glad" the United States is there.

Third, in many, many villages in Viet Nam, the mood of the people was not "glad" at the approach of US soldiers. (See "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam" by Nick Turse)

I have great respect for the soldiers of this nation, but not blind, unthinking carte blanche.

In my view, a certain "Nathan Jessup" attitude pervades a lot of folk in the military. Not all, but a lot. This is not a good thing.

First I served and I know what I'm talking about. Second you didn't. Third, you're clueless about the US military, but you are a world class sidestepper. Fourth, I'm done arguing with you and the internet. And finally, somehow I must have missed the great respect part of your posts.

[The Urban Sombrero]

First I served and I know what I'm talking about. Second you didn't. Third, you're clueless about the US military, but you are a world class sidestepper. Fourth, I'm done arguing with you and the internet. And finally, somehow I must have missed the great respect part of your posts.

"You sleep under the blanket of freedom and security I provide, then dare to question the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just say thank you. If not, then grab a weapon and man the post. Either way, I don't give a damn..."
-Nathan Jessup


If the "manner in which I provide it" includes atrocity, let us hope that our military is not above being held up to scrutiny.

"Sidestepper"... I hardly think so.

[TheRealThing]

"You sleep under the blanket of freedom and security I provide, then dare to question the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just say thank you. If not, then grab a weapon and man the post. Either way, I don't give a damn..."
-Nathan Jessup


If the "manner in which I provide it" includes atrocity, let us hope that our military is not above being held up to scrutiny.

"Sidestepper"... I hardly think so.

Here again we see the jurisdictional overlap that fantasy exacts over reality. Your addiction to video production, whether it be documentary or Hollywood fiction, affords you the reality you prefer.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Here again we see the jurisdictional overlap that fantasy exacts over reality. Your addiction to video production, whether it be documentary or Hollywood fiction, affords you the reality you prefer.

Actually, discourse in the real world affords the extension of analogy.

[TheRealThing]

Actually, discourse in the real world affords the extension of analogy.

Which in this case still means I actually did what you can only talk about.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Which in this case still means I actually did what you can only talk about.

As tired a refuge as they come in the land of logical fallacy.

With that said, your own personal service isn't the issue here. One man experiences things in one space. Just because a man is being rained on in Prestonsburg doesn't mean the man in Paintsville saying, "It's not raining" is mistaken.

[TheRealThing]

As tired a refuge as they come in the land of logical fallacy.

With that said, your own personal service isn't the issue here. One man experiences things in one space. Just because a man is being rained on in Prestonsburg doesn't mean the man in Paintsville saying, "It's not raining" is mistaken.

Fine, you still don't have the first clue what you're talking about. On that point of fact and the substance of my posts on the matter, I am not mistaken.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Fine, you still don't have the first clue what you're talking about. On that point of fact and the substance of my posts on the matter, I am not mistaken.

If you are suggesting that every soldier in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq shares your "thought of as liberators," story, you must talk to folks and read selectively.

[TheRealThing]

If you are suggesting that every soldier in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq shares your "thought of as liberators," story, you must talk to folks and read selectively.

No. What I am trying to impart to you is not a matter of politicized perception. I am speaking purely from the perspective of the many nationalities of people I met overseas. Fully fifteen different countries across Europe and the far east. My experiences were not the stuff of conjecture, they were very real and devoid of political spin. They were personal and every bit as genuine as the associations with my own countrymen. I did have one guy ask me in a bar in Lyon once, how in the world I could hold my head up when my countrymen were dumb enough to elect a guy like Richard Nixon to the Presidency. I couldn't give him a good answer at the time, but I took one very important proviso away from our conversation. The French and therefore the rest of the world, are acutely aware of the current intricacies of US politics. And we have been our own worst enemy in the soiling of the image of that shinning city on a hill, as increasingly, Democrats have taken the liberal agenda to the people in order to stir up voter ire, which according to going wisdom puts more pressure on conservatives to give in on the issues. Such acts BTW, in and of themselves circumvent the people's business getting properly done on the Hill. Republicans are one half of government, but are none the less excoriated routinely in the Congress. And in so doing, they have aired dirty laundry that in many cases were dishonest, but in all were ill-advised. Wonder of wonders, the French had TV too, and they like the rest of the world are fascinated with the machinations and unraveling of the fabric of freedom here in the US.

Can you go to some website or political platform that purports to speak for GI's who are less than proud of their country? Of that I have no doubt. But like I keep telling you, you merchandize in opinion and you're doing exactly that right now. Politicized opinion in fact, and just because birds of like feather flock together via media outlets and in very limited personal exchanges, does not mean you can foist the views of that very narrow collective on people like me. Again, I was there. I know the reality of the perceptions in this world with regard to US military presence in the various nations across the globe through experience.

The Middle East is a bit of a different animal to that end however. They are a war torn nation where murder, want and mayhem are facets of daily life. And I'm not talking about Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation New Dawn either, I'm talking about the citizens of the region who've been radicalized and can't kill enough to satisfy themselves. For every one GI you can find to say they hate us over there, I can find 10 to disagree. It is a matter of dueling rationales. Obama shares your opinion and has prosecuted that philosophy in a practical sense for the past 8 years. Things are only much worse but as I say, the truth is always sharp and clear. Whether or not one chooses to accept it or not seems to be a matter of politics.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ I was speaking of Iraq, Afghanistan and the ME.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ I was speaking of Iraq, Afghanistan and the ME.

No you threw Viet Nam in there too.

I don't have a thing against you personally there taco breath. However, you come on here, which I am certain that you are as welcome as any of the rest of us, and speak authoritatively about subjects that you read about. Like the deal with Ali and the case you're trying to make in which American military intervention is ultimately supposed to be a bad thing, and the people of the world hate us for it.

Both of those are liberal talking points 101, and they're nothing more than a politicization of the real world. They are the liberal's college classroom interpretation, shaped and clouded, (and revised) by an ideological whim. In other words, not real. Here is what kills me about all of this. You say you were there for the Reagan days, right? So you're what, early 40's possibly late 30's? You had to have seen the relative stability of the Middle East during most of your life. How you could dodge the steely missiles of reality with regard to the explosion the Middle East during the Obama Era is mind numbing.

If you know your history you are aware that the political structure of the Middle East as it is, was put in place at the end of WW2. There is and was a very good reason for that as that region has always been a powder keg. Though the peoples there will never co-exist in any form of harmony or long term peace, the past 65 years or so have been among the most peaceful in history. Now, I am in the camp which holds that had we left a viable force in Iraq, ISIS would have not proliferated into the threat they represent today. I am also a realist however, and believe that the region must have a military presence there to act as both referee and enforcer to hold things, tenuous as they may be, together. And BTW, when they started flying our own 767 jumbo jets through buildings like the World Trade Centers, it was time to act.

The reason, I believe, that operation Desert Storm did not reap long term lucidity (attitude adjustment wise) among the bad actors in the region, is because they are driven by a radical extremist religious ideology. Many of them don't really care if they die for the cause of Islam and the rebirth of the Caliphate because of the rewards they think await on the other side. Therefore military strategists have rightly determined the only likely course of action in the Middle East is that of the moral enforcer mentioned above. For that to work would mean our motivation would have to be on it's face pure. Though the radicals would never buy in, the regular folks would.

Like it or not, mankind is moving inexorably toward the apocalypse of Biblical prophesy. It doesn't matter what we do, the so-called two state solution, Nancy Pelosi's and John Kerry's epic and myriad diplomatic failures notwithstanding, will all ultimately fail. We are being pushed toward Armageddon by the irresistible force spoken of by God Himself as history has already been written in the form prophesy within the Scriptural texts. There is a concept or God's character that I find fascinating, and as you are no doubt familiar with it too, I would like to do a touch-n-go on it one more time for the sake of understanding here;
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

In other words because God is omnipresent, He is in no way constrained by time as are we. He is free to look forward and backward in time, sort of like we would run a VCR tape forward or back. Prophesy from our view, is history written by His hand, before it happens and yet knowing with certainty that it will. Therefore I am more than comfortable in using Scripture to make heads and tails of current events. In that light then, I say that men in so many ways have no real ability to change the course of history. But, as I have said, my hope is that within that scope of unalterable certainty, it will turn out that we Americans will have shown the backbone and character this election season, to reject the drive towards liberalistic government, and return again to the more conservative and traditional form. If we do that, it could mean that the Lord may yet use this nation to act as salt and light in this world, and that we may therefore have a bit more time than it looks like we do. If we do not turn from the drive towards liberalism, then in my mind that is an indicator that we have as a society, passed by certain sign posts which indicate we have lost our moral authority to do the things both domestically and globally which once made us great. We can't expect the people's of the world to respect us if our priority policies are things like the advancement of homosexuality, the wholesale slaughter of our own precious unborn, or the laughable and naïve pursuit of the brotherhood of man, 21st Century thinking style.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆

"I don't have anything against you personally, taco breath."

You seem to think because you were in Vietnam that burned out villages and civilian death tolls and "regular people" don't matter, unless they are US citizens. That's not a "liberal talking point." That's reality.

Your worldview, TRT, is a curious mixture of prooftexting Bible onto a very politicized worldview. It is interesting that you point out this line of reasoning when you yourself are so deeply absorbed in it.

I learned long ago not to take personally the cocksure smugness of hyper-politicized Christians.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆

"I don't have anything against you personally, taco breath."

You seem to think because you were in Vietnam that burned out villages and civilian death tolls and "regular people" don't matter, unless they are US citizens. That's not a "liberal talking point." That's reality.

Your worldview, TRT, is a curious mixture of prooftexting Bible onto a very politicized worldview. It is interesting that you point out this line of reasoning when you yourself are so deeply absorbed in it.

I learned long ago not to take personally the cocksure smugness of hyper-politicized Christians.

Your having mischaracterized my joke about you being a taco breath is what I find interesting. But yeah, we all learn things as we go. For example, I learned something on the elementary school playground that did not actually snap into focus for me until some time after. And that is the fact that just because people may not have the first glimmer of what they speak, does not mean, as is the situation in this case as you continue to lecture me about the US military, that they will hesitate to open their mouth about it anyway.

Since you brought my faith into question, let us pursue the facts from that perspective. The Scripture teaches us that only a few will find that narrow door which opens to a life lived for Him. Jesus said He was the door of the sheep and He said the following; John 8:12 (KJV)
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

I've attempted to come at this concept from several different angles in the past but I'll try once more for you. All truth exists simultaneously and is completely devoid of the slightest contradiction. Therefore secular truth never contradicts spiritual truth. That is to say for example, that the laws of thermodynamics never contradict the other laws of nature, or the Biblical account of the Creation. Truth is like light, there are no gaps or voids and there is no darkness which can resist it's power to illuminate. And separating scientific truth from God's truth, is not only impossible, but destructive. Therefore when Jesus said I am the light of the world and he that followeth Me shall have light/understanding, that means all truth will be revealed to the believer. Scientists who wrongly separate Spiritual truths from scientific truths have shortchanged themselves. But such is the inescapable plight of the unsaved, as they are condemned to "walk in darkness." As the result, when the Evolutionist insists that the fossil record supports natural selection, they are in error and in such error bring shame and damnation to themselves. God has said it was He Who created every living thing.

You have a problem with me I take it, because I seem sure of myself. I have the light of life, and make no excuses for what may seem a reluctance to compromise on some of the issues we speak about on this forum. You can call my 'illumination' hyper politicized Christianity if you like. But Christ did not say backing up from the truth was sometimes necessary to make friends or gains for His cause. I choose to honor Him by honoring His Word, even when doing so is not convenient. And in the spirit of complete transparency then, I always back up my Biblical analysis' with Scripture.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Your having mischaracterized my joke about you being a taco breath is what I find interesting. But yeah, we all learn things as we go. For example, I learned something on the elementary school playground that did not actually snap into focus for me until some time after. And that is the fact that just because people may not have the first glimmer of what they speak, does not mean, as is the situation in this case as you continue to lecture me about the US military, that they will hesitate to open their mouth about it anyway.

Since you brought my faith into question, let us pursue the facts from that perspective. The Scripture teaches us that only a few will find that narrow door which opens to a life lived for Him. Jesus said He was the door of the sheep and He said the following; John 8:12 (KJV)
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

I've attempted to come at this concept from several different angles in the past but I'll try once more for you. All truth exists simultaneously and is completely devoid of the slightest contradiction. Therefore secular truth never contradicts spiritual truth. That is to say for example, that the laws of thermodynamics never contradict the other laws of nature, or the Biblical account of the Creation. Truth is like light, there are no gaps or voids and there is no darkness which can resist it's power to illuminate. And separating scientific truth from God's truth, is not only impossible, but destructive. Therefore when Jesus said I am the light of the world and he that followeth Me shall have light/understanding, that means all truth will be revealed to the believer. Scientists who wrongly separate Spiritual truths from scientific truths have shortchanged themselves. But such is the inescapable plight of the unsaved, as they are condemned to "walk in darkness." As the result, when the Evolutionist insists that the fossil record supports natural selection, they are in error and in such error bring shame and damnation to themselves. God has said it was He Who created every living thing.

You have a problem with me I take it, because I seem sure of myself. I have the light of life, and make no excuses for what may seem a reluctance to compromise on some of the issues we speak about on this forum. You can call my 'illumination' hyper politicized Christianity if you like. But Christ did not say backing up from the truth was sometimes necessary to make friends or gains for His cause. I choose to honor Him by honoring His Word, even when doing so is not convenient. And in the spirit of complete transparency then, I always back up my Biblical analysis' with Scripture.

I am not lecturing you on Vietnam. I am saying one man's experience and viewpoint does not the world make. This does not cheapen your military service, but it also points out that broad generalizations based on that experience are not necessarily binding on debate, or overall truth for that matter.

I firmly believe there is one who is before all things and in whom all things hold together (Colossians). That includes Truth. But, how subservient to Christ were the founders of this nation when they left it perfectly legal to own, buy, sell, and trade human beings? And not let women vote, or hold public office, or have legal standing? It is, in my view, wise to look to the most noble reading of the principles they put forth, but to look at the men themselves as those who but saw through a glass darkly at best, and as ignoble brutes dwelling in the flesh at worst.

[TheRealThing]

I am not lecturing you on Vietnam. I am saying one man's experience and viewpoint does not the world make. This does not cheapen your military service, but it also points out that broad generalizations based on that experience are not necessarily binding on debate, or overall truth for that matter.

I firmly believe there is one who is before all things and in whom all things hold together (Colossians). That includes Truth. But, how subservient to Christ were the founders of this nation when they left it perfectly legal to own, buy, sell, and trade human beings? And not let women vote, or hold public office, or have legal standing? It is, in my view, wise to look to the most noble reading of the principles they put forth, but to look at the men themselves as those who but saw through a glass darkly at best, and as ignoble brutes dwelling in the flesh at worst.

I said the US Military, not just Viet Nam. You're the one hyperbolizing with the burned out village talk. And please by all means, see this world through your own eyes. I'm just telling you that what you're describing is not what I saw when I was there.

[The Urban Sombrero]

1968 campaign of General Julian Ewell in the Mekong Delta region?
As but one example. This is not the world as I see it. This is the reality of history.

[TheRealThing]

1968 campaign of General Julian Ewell in the Mekong Delta region?
As but one example. This is not the world as I see it. This is the reality of history.

War is a horrible business, we do what we must to win. But like I said you always manage to steer the conversation into a liberal rat hole. The VC did the same thing terrorists do today, they shield themselves with civilians and blend in to escape notice. Then, undercover of darkness or disguise they would attack our forces. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate fact of war which, once under way, always produces many thousands and even millions of. That was certainly true of WW2, and though the left likes to kid themselves about it, will certainly happen again in the great war to come.

[The Urban Sombrero]

War is a horrible business, we do what we must to win. But like I said you always manage to steer the conversation into a liberal rat hole. The VC did the same thing terrorists do today, they shield themselves with civilians and blend in to escape notice. Then, undercover of darkness or disguise they would attack our forces. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate fact of war which, once under way, always produces many thousands and even millions of. That was certainly true of WW2, and though the left likes to kid themselves about it, will certainly happen again in the great war to come.

I don't disagree with most of your post here. However, Vietnam, with examples like General Ewell in abundance, and the MGR a well known moniker that was applied to mass civilian casualities, if not targeting? Yes, war is horrible. But, my point holds: large swaths of Vietnamese do not hold positive remembrances of what happened in their rural villages.

[TheRealThing]

I don't disagree with most of your post here. However, Vietnam, with examples like General Ewell in abundance, and the MGR a well known moniker that was applied to mass civilian casualities, if not targeting? Yes, war is horrible. But, my point holds: large swaths of Vietnamese do not hold positive remembrances of what happened in their rural villages.

I disagree with you. Having been there I can tell you that the civilian population knew what was going on, and many chose not become complicit to the VC cause. The VC were North Viet Nam insurgents, who fought against the people and the government of South Viet Nam. They were therefore trained, equipped, supplied, paid, were part of and commanded by a battle plan executed by the north. Those who harbored the VC in the vast majority of cases, were a part of that guerilla network and certainly not innocent. The US Military had very good intel on the matter, and knew full well that the families of those villages by day were the fighters of the north by night. The parents were the ones who victimized their own children by inserting them into a combat situation.

Further, the VC were ruthless and sadistic mercenaries whose guerilla roots went back generations. You can focus on the innocents, whose numbers are far less than your side would ever admit. But from a rational standpoint, the fighting had to be stopped by force and our pretending to go along with the VC ruse was unacceptable to our political and military leaders of the time. You hear the words blood and treasure used a lot, and the phrase is not newly coined by any means. “I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means…” —John Adams (1776)

Frankly we've lost the vision of John Adams and George Washington, as somewhere along the way the liberal voice gained the upper hand. (Hopefully Clinton will not ascend to continue the madness) And it's not that they were not present and accounted for back in the days of our founding, and frankly at the beginning of WW2 for that matter, but they were in such minority that clearer thought prevailed. As a matter of fact, there were those (liberals) who thought King George would hang every one of the Framers for treason. They were wrong then, they were wrong when they marched in protest at the beginning of WW2, and they are wrong now. Nobody questions the horrors of war. But wining as quickly and as surgically as one can, does in fact save lives. We saw that to be the case in WW2 when millions of civilian casualties were seen both in Europe and Japan.

Post war quarterbacks who did whatever they had to in order to avoid service in wartime and peace, endured to now lead the US in the annals of compromise and appeasement. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama come to mind. Those who would appease have always been with us, and they have always been on the wrong side of history. It's nothing new and certainly not profound.

That being said, Viet Nam is only a small portion of the world in the broader Geopolitical sense, but the horrors of war are always the same. I can tell you that our enemy's record of murder and reckless wartime tactics is far and away more heinous than anything the US has ever been caught up in as the result. In other words, when the US has been responsible for causing civilian deaths in the past, it has been because unsubdued enemy forces have retreated back behind their own borders, sometimes to the interiors of elementary schools and hospitals. In such case, unfortunate and horrible as that may be, they still must be taken out though I am sure we would never knowingly take out school kids with them. As I said, I did not see the contempt and offense on the faces, or in conversation with those which we have vanquished in the past, and I spoke and interacted with them at relative lengths.

What you've put forth here is liberal spin and I am genuinely offended by your arrogance. Don the uniform and serve your country, then we'll talk.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ It is, in fact, not liberal spin, but rather history, though, again, much of your post is, in my view, on point.

The "don the uniform and man the post" is Nathan Jessup mentality.
Yes, you were there, and I take your description as valid. However, you weren't everywhere, and your personal experience isn't the sum and end all of the debate.

At the policy level, Vietnam and WWII are not compareable. I do not understand how it is "arrogant" to put forth historical facts that are widely held. Julian Ewell manifested a certain attitude (the MGR) at the top that was not uncommon. I was not old enough to oppose the Vietnam War. However, I would like to think that I would have distinguished between those who make policy, those who formulate strategy and tactics, and the soldiers who carry out orders.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ It is, in fact, not liberal spin, but rather history, though, again, much of your post is, in my view, on point.

The "don the uniform and man the post" is Nathan Jessup mentality.
Yes, you were there, and I take your description as valid. However, you weren't everywhere, and your personal experience isn't the sum and end all of the debate.

At the policy level, Vietnam and WWII are not compareable. I do not understand how it is "arrogant" to put forth historical facts that are widely held. Julian Ewell manifested a certain attitude (the MGR) at the top that was not uncommon. I was not old enough to oppose the Vietnam War. However, I would like to think that I would have distinguished between those who make policy, those who formulate strategy and tactics, and the soldiers who carry out orders.

Right, my opinion is not the end all of the debate, it is however the end all of the experienced and enlightened part of the debate. The liberal slant on the US military as you have presented here, is widely held only within the 24% of America which is liberal. The rest of us plus the more lucid from among those in your own ranks, do not hold US Military commanders in such contempt.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Right, my opinion is not the end all of the debate, it is however the end all of the experienced and enlightened part of the debate. The liberal slant on the US military as you have presented here, is widely held only within the 24% of America which is liberal. The rest of us plus the more lucid from among those in your own ranks, do not hold US Military commanders in such contempt.

If anybody on here ought to know there's more to wrong or right than a show of hands, I would have thought it was you.

General Julius Ewell committed war crimes. Soldiers under his command did as well. Nick Turse, and others, plus Pentagon documents themselves, establish this. If you deny these facts in favor of your own experience, what is there to say to that? It speaks for itself.

To believe that the United States military is not immune to bad actors does not mean one has contempt for all its commanders. To believe the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake does not mean one holds the country in contempt.
I am surprised you feel this way.