House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout
 

House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

Well put. The time to be out of Iraq was before we ever went in...

Am I the only person that a) Doesn't see our pullout as necessarily a failure? and b) Doesn't really care if we "lost" anyway, because we're bound to lose a few battles?

Let's see. We "lost" Vietnam. Currently, Vietnam is a trading partner of the United States.

We have 58,000 names on the Vietnam War memorial. 30 years after the war we are buying tea and fish from our former enemies, the ones who 'won' the war.

Could we have stopped at 10,20,30,40,000 and gotten the same results? How many more would it have taken for us to 'win'?

I still see people interviewed who think if we had been willing to sustain more losses we could have won Vietnam. Many of them are people who never served there.

SO, the question becomes how many more dead and wounded for a 'win' in Iraq? What constitutes a win?

I am agnostic on pulling out. I extremely disagree with the reasons we went there for and think we should have never been there in the first place but we created a new mess that is even bigger than Vietnam. 50-500 thousand Iraqi civilians have died already and if we pull out, we will only make it worse for them.

If we do pull out, there is likely to be a very bloody civil war that will last a few years and then stablize (hopefully). If we don't, we can wait for it to stablize, which may never happen, or eventually just give up. Assuming Iraq will stabilize, we have to choose between a short war with many deaths or a long war with fewer deaths.

If we stay, that blooshed becomes inevitable. However, because the threat of an America pullout exists, suddenly there is massive talking and a massive interest in peaceful compromise.

Great point. If it gets the silent majority to start speaking we will have accomplished something great.

We "lose" more every day we leave our ladies and young men in there.

An Iraq vet I spoke to is pretty sure things will degrade once we leave. I'm not sure what will happen; only that our presence there is not healing the divide.

Going into Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. Pulling out now may cause a catastrophe, and with a potentially a cascading effect. The Iraqi army and police cannot manage on their own. They freely admit this, and US troops on the ground have no faith in the Iraqi army or police. If you do not believe me, take the time to listen to this - it goes for just over 6 minutes, but please listen to it.

The situation in Iraq is far worse than some elements of the media would have you believe. This is *not* a reason to pull out. It shows how desperate the Iraqi people are. Remember, "we" invaded them. "We" were supposed to make life better for them. It is now "our" responsibility to see this through to a peaceful end.

Then I guess it's time for the Iraqi people to get their shit together.

Believe it, or not, I agree with your sentiment, but "we" bombed their country into a dust bowl. You cannot expect them to spring up out the the dust, and emerge with bright, shiny armour - and as a unified country.

Iraq was an artificial country to start with. The disparate social groups would never have agreed to form a "unified country" in the first place. The West forced this upon them. Then we then invaded in 2003. This makes Iraq "our" problem.

Yes, I know I am not over there risking my life every day. I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Allied troops doing a nearly impossible job. Our politicians got us into this mess, but our troops are the ones who have to carry the weight. I fully understand this, and if I was a US soldier, I would want "out" too, just as most Allied troops wanted out of WW1 and WW2, but 99% of them stuck to it, and saved our world. You have to realise that pulling out prematurely could create a situation that makes the current one look like a piece of cake.

The proposal in the House will never make it out of committee and if it does the president will veto it. Neither house has the votes to over ride a veto. This puts it squarely back in the lap of the Congress. They need to figure it out, or come up with a unified plan that all can agree on to over ride the veto, I doubt that will happen.

Everyone wants us out of Iraq, so do I. I never thought we should have gone in. To late. We bought the place with our blood and the blood of many others. So will you all except a genocide as an exceptable end to our desire to quit? I doubt it.

I never get a good answer for this. Why wouldn't splitting up the country work? It would force some people to move but we can at least establish some peace, wouldn't it be worth it?

That really is the best option. The two main problems are the allocation of oil reserves and the discomfort the Turks would have with the Kurds being independent right across the border from their large Kurdish minority.

I agree with this plan and have proposed this very thing for a number of years. Partition is the only path to peace IMHO, with Bagdad becoming the only area shared by the three areas with the seat of government there.

Am I the only one who remembers India/Pakistan - and wasnt even alive for it?

Partition, especially imposed partition, will leave us with even worse than that disaster.

The biggest problem with it is the wholescale movements of peoples. This is something the UN is completely against. But of course this is the same UN that sat on it's hands (including the US) while 800,000 were murdered in 4 months in Rawanda. It would be quite upsetting but it may avoid another Rawanda or similar genocide. Put like peoples together. What is the other option if we do what most on here and in the US are chanting, "US Out!"?

The one remark I have to make here is that the national leadership of the Dem Party is behaving as I said it would: either treasonably or stupidly. And Nancy Pelosi says she's proud of this? Dumb.

Since they are so incapable of serving the Republic's interest and that of humanity at large, the Dumbs should go the way of the Whig Party.

Meanwhile, I need to go yank the chains of a couple of Senators, and bitch out at least one Representative. The other one's a Republican, and has not been caught trying to lose the war.

Foreign wars don't serve the Republic.

Griff, if you believe that one, you don't believe in libertarianism at all.

Allow me to explain.

Just as a Republic prospers best in a world full of other Republics, and a libertarian republic ditto -- this is a neocon idea no one can refute -- a democratic republic is best served by actively making other democratic republics. There is also history to consider: democratic republics make far less trouble for other republics and the world at large than un-republican un-democracies do. This game, I think, is well worth the candle. And does anybody really care what the fascists think, or whether their feelings might be hurt as we deprive them of power and of bloodshed on a whim? Exempli gratia, Uday and Qusay. Does anyone really want what such as these want, aside from the remarkably submissive?

We've got the better idea. We should propagate it. And we should wipe out all resistance, either by conversion (best) or the sword (second best, but tolerable). Foreign peace, I agree, serves the Republic best, but since when was the world ever that perfect? Note that we do not start wars, not within living memory. That takes it out of our political tradition. We let those other guys do the war starting.

Wow...

We started the Iraq war, in every sense of the word. Moving backward in time: We obviously started it when Bush invaded. We started it when Bush 1 attacked. We started it when Bush 1's ambassador gave Saddam the go-ahead to invade Kuwait. We started it when we supported Saddam's ascent to power.

WOW! Got something to back that up? I haven't heard that one before. Enlighten me...:eek:

So we told them to invade so we could then go kick thier asses? Oh, ok, I think I get it. But I don't really believe it.:D

So you have taken one side of the controversial interpretation as fact? Clearly there is disagreement as to what was said and how it was interpreted. Given Saddams obvious intention to invade, he was going to see her comments in what ever light suited him. The guy was not an idiot, except for the fact that he continually underestimated what our response to his action would be.

"Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, writing in the New York Times on September 21, 2003, disagrees with this analysis: "In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest." Tariq Aziz claimed in a 1996 PBS interview that Iraq "had no illusions" prior to the invasion of Kuwait about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention."

"In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."

One cannot be enlightened when one already knows from a political agenda. Diane Sawyer's 60 Minute interview, Amb. Glaspie's statements, and statements made by a visiting American congressional delagation all told Saddam that he could invade Kuwait.

Glaspie's comments in your own post are correct. She told Saddam that Kuwait was not to be invaded. And as the tape even shows, that same comment from Saddam's perspective is permission to attack Kuwait.

But then this is common knowledge to those who learn from history rather than know how history should read. Others have accurately stated why Saddam invaded. He thought he had American permission. He was rather surprised and unprepared for what happened next.

What Happy Monkey posted has long been known fact. You own quotes are correct and agree with what Happy Monkey when we include all facts. Saddam repeatedly thought of himself as an ally of the US. A fact that gets lost when political agendas automatically paint Saddam as a vicious enemy just waiting to attack America. He never was. Saddam never had intent to attack America. Saddam’s objectives were limited to the Middle East.

In fact that is incorrect and if you would have read the link he posted as evidence to support his position you would have learned that the issue is controversial. In fact there is no agreement as to what Saddam thought or how he interpreted the comments by the Ambassador. In fact, as I clearly pointed out, his intentions were obvious when he massed troops on the border. Either way I find it a somewhat mute observation, I was not a mystery what he had intended to do. And in the end he got his eye blackend and his nose bloodied for it. Your myopic interpretations of my assessment are continually deluded by you own personal bias.

You are the only one arguing for the fascists on this one.

I must have been out the day that the small potatoes, local nutter, Hussein attacked the USA. Quit pretending to have libertarian beliefs. Bottom line, NEO-CON = NAZI, the Republic cannot survive much more of this nonsense.

I would agree. But don't you think we need to cautious about the swing of the pendulum?

To what? What is the "Democrats are equally bad" thing that the Democrats will do?
Exactly. So the ambassador's protestations that she had no idea what he meant ring hollow.

Sadly, all we have right now for organized opposition is the Democrats.

You were out on February 26, 1993?

And they do not merit the least support. I'm not sad at all, though. I am annoyed.

Really, I just can't see doing anything to oppose the democratization of the entire globe. If you oppose democratization, look at what you end up supporting: fascism/communism and objectionable-isms of every stripe. Who'd be that inhuman?

It's rather like the example of "You have only to look at what some women marry to know how much some women hate working for a living."

You left out two very important words from this sentence: "removal of" between "the" and "fascists."

That I advocate a tougher sort of libertarianism than you and Radar do doesn't make me wrong. There is something lacking in Libertarian Party philosophy that has largely prevented Libertarian candidates from acceding to office. I mean to find that lack and fill it. We need a libertarianism that will stand any environment whatsoever, and not a mere debating society that can only flourish in the benign environs of the USA. If anyone wants libertarianism to start happening, one of the things they have to do is win more offices.

Is there any overall evidence of such desire?

For the time being, I'll pretend I didn't read that. There are three things you refuse to understand: I am not pretending; you do not define my libertarian beliefs; and you can't stop me from being a libertarian no matter what you try. Nor do I concern myself in the slightest with who is "more libertarian" than whom. I have not taken Radar's advice on these points, and I'm still not taking Radar's advice on these points, nor yours.

Damn, Griff, you really need to deepen your education. No one who's read the source writings of the neocons or the Nazis would ever mistake the one for the other. You mistake the one for the other. You can correct the mistake with just one read-through of The Neocon Reader. See also how their ideas could be done with a libertarian twist. I conceive that they can be; find out why.

The Neocon Reader

The Essential Neoconservative Reader

This one's probably worth a good look too.

Yeah, you are, and I don't think there is a single person on this forum that buys it. You can brand yourself with whatever label you desire, but that doesn't mean you subscribe to the accepted ideals of that organization.

You are a neocon, plain and simple, and you subscribe to an interventionist policy that aligns directly with the ideals and goals of PNAC. No genuine libertarian supports that, period. You're doing nothing more than wrapping yourself in the banner of another organization that receives more support than the one with ideals you subscribe to.

Well, receives more support on this board, anyway. Last I checked the Libertarian party wasn't holding the Presidency.

Shouldn't a Libertarian Administration acknowledge and defend the property of Americans on foreign soil as well? They'd better if they want to stay an Administration, democracy being what it is -- fail in this and the statist parties will grab power right back from you. Attacks from abroad, whether across our nation's borders or in foreign areas, amount in the libertarian view to assaults upon property rights. Libertarianism is sworn to defend these.

But never does and never did. And what means have we to cause other governments to adopt the non-intervention/non-coercion principle?

Coercion. Nations are notably slow to respond to the simple presence of a good example.

And should the LP ever find itself with the responsibility of leading and managing the country, it will be unable to do any of this with the world as it is currently constituted. The "imperialist adventures" idea, as far as the United States is concerned, is simply a straw man. Our political instinct is remarkably non-imperialist, and I do not see any likelihood it will change. Capitalism is of itself anti-imperialist, for imperialist thinking is supported not be determinedly freemarket capitalism, but by mercantilism, to which the United States has never subscribed. We shall always have to enforce -- by coercive means -- the libertarian principle of free trade so long as one nonlibertarian nation remains on Earth.

To become a truly viable political entity in the world, libertarianism and its practitioners must be prepared, baldly put, to make war. We've shrunk from considering what we should make war about. This won't help libertarianism come into being. It may well make it vanish.

Ask yourself this: does a libertarian republic prosper better, or worse, if it is the sole libertarian republic on Earth? Would it prosper better, or worse, in the company of other libertarian republics?

You know what answer to give.

Now how do unlibertarian nations become libertarian ones? What is the likelihood of some interest group opposing the libertarian liberation?

How libertarian do the nations have to become? Is there only one model of libertarianism or is it a varied continuum?

Can you realistically expect a withering away of the State?

Seriously, you are high right now, aren't you? The answer to your question is no. You would find common ground on this with certain millionaire Democrats with Balkan holdings though.

(Back to the topic for a second)

As far as a pullout in Iraq is concerned does anyone else feel that to do so too soon could potentially scar the region much longer than an extended occupation would?

I'm not arguing a point, merely asking a question.

Only a high school student so I would like to see what some of you believe on this subject who are potentially more informed than me on this matter.

By the way I understand that much of what I feel about this is influenced by the fact that I live in an extremely conservative community.

I'd like to see some views from people outside "the bubble" as my home is sometimes called.:neutral:

The defeat in Iraq was de facto last summer when George Jr did not give military commanders what they needed and what military doctrine requires for a victory - 500,000 troops. Details based even in Military Science 101 are posted repeatedly in The Cellar even many years ago. How many full days do you have this week to read reason after reason?

The Iraq Study Group provides the only alternative for minimizing that defeat. Of course, you read all 79 points? If not, why not?

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is also approaching defeat. Those who don’t learn from a military perspective will deny this second and approaching defeat. Afghanistan (a war justified by a smoking gun) is going just like Iraq because George Jr administration violated military doctrine repeatedly. Conservatives who did not see that have acted just as anti-American. Ignorance is not an excuse especially after the lesson called Vietnam.

George Jr has only done same things that were proven wrong Nam. Any patriotic American learned those lesson because a partiotic American has so much respect for the American soldier. George Jr even violated basic military doctrine defined in 500 BC. Conduct of “Mission Accomplished” was so bad that every general who served in Iraq and has since retired has bluntly criticized this anti-American administration. Even every living ex-president has spoken out against this war; Gerald Ford being the last because he asked his comments withheld until after he died. Of course you know this well published facts? If not, then why not.

Ask yourself whether a conservative neighborhood had respect for the American soldier as to list the many reasons why George Jr has created defeat and civil war. It's no accident that Brent Scowcroft – a George Sr closest friend – described the disaster we were creating years ago. Again, search the Cellar to read Scowcroft's comments supported by reasons and facts. This “Mission Accomplished” defeat was obvious years ago – complete with reasons that have only proven in time to be accurate. Any decent conservative without contempt for American soldiers would have known these facts. Too many call themselves conservative but so hate the country as to not learn underlying facts and principles.

Use a full week to read the reams of reasons why “Mission Accomplished” was obviously a defeat long ago. In Vietnam, we had to massacre 30,000 more American soldiers for 5 more years before the public finally saw what was obvious to military strategists even in 1968 – even see references to the Wise Men. Today some without grasp still deny what the informed knew about Nam before Nixon was even elected president. So how many more Americans did we massacre?

ISG is the only hope we have to minimize the defeat. Every month we ignore ISG is every month we only make the defeat worse. We have lost this war because of George Jr, Cheney and other who used a political agenda rather than reality. Iraqis will therefore suffer the consequences. Worse: due to ‘mental midget” intransigence, Afghanistan is on the verge of also being lost.

You knew that well over 50% of Afghanistan had fallen back into Taliban hands years ago? If not, search posts in the Cellar back then to see how long ago the Afghan war was being lost. The Cellar is a perfect archive for learning how long ago we knew things were bad.

There are extremist liberals and conservative – both dumb. On the other end of that rope are those who instead use facts, logic, and lessons from history. The latter saw a “Mission Accomplished” defeat last summer by using facts rather than a political agenda. See comments from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft posted in The Cellar back in Jan 2005 to appreciate what people who use intelligence (rather than a political agenda) were accurately predicting.

Those who used political agendas to think - by definition - have contempt for the American soldier. To remain ignorant is another lession from Nam; why we wasted 30,000 Americans to protect the legacy of Nixon.

I think the violence level in Iraq is going to continue getting higher as long as the country is occupied. We haven't manged to prevent the civil war we fear would occur should we leave. They are currently in a state of civl war, with one side having some little access to state resources, such as the police. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Iraqi police force (which is predominantly of one sect) is carrying out a policy of sectional terror against civilians who belong to the other main sect. The presence of coalition troops does not seem to mitigate this behaviour at all.

Meanwhile, the groups who are conducting a guerrilla war against coalition troops are almost impossible to root out and will continue to fight ferociously against them for as long as they are present. Remove the troops and their ability to recruit will be severely diminished.

It's almost impossible for anybody to say exactly what will happen when the troops pull out, but what can clearly be seen is the fact that their presence is not promoting peace within Iraq, it is having the opposite effect.

And just like in Vietnam - another civil war - the violence increased. And the enemy kept getting smarter. See quotes from the 16 Apr 2007 NY Times article in Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone.
Exact same events happened in Vietnam. Just as a mental midget and anti-American president denies it is a civil war and ignores the Iraq Study Group; in Nam, the president denied it was a civil war and ignored the Wise Men. Deja vue just too many times - or why those with only "political agendas" never learn how to be patriotic American.

One who refuses to learn from history and 'supports the troops' in a lost cause has only contempt for those troops.

In some ways, it reminds me of the battle of Syracuse - and what happened to Athens as a result of their 'big dic' stupidity.

I'd say it's probably due to the fact that I've lived in life that so far has been cultivated to respect and maintain the ideals my parents hold.

I'll look into some of the information that you've listed here, thanks for the information.

This sort of got me fired up because a generalization of any kind is almost always wrong. In this case, my community has a tremendous amount of respect and love for the troops in Iraq right now, many of whom has sons and daughters serving in the military now.

I'd agree with the fact that our president has failed in many respects regarding the war in Iraq and foreign policy.

But I wonder, will the pullout of troops in Iraq really accomplish anything other than to quiet the anti-war, anti-bush group? I mean what kind of effect will that have on the fledgeling government in Iraq and potentially the entire middle east especially since Iran recently announced its achievement of nuclear proliferation. How will Israel respond to these events? Seems to me like they are more than willing to use the weapons they possess to insure their security as a nation is not threatened.

I went way off topic:redface:

Anyways thanks for your time and opinions so far.

The Cellar has been a great way for me to see the world outside my community since I found it a few months ago. You guys are awesome:earth:

A better question is what the continued occupation will accomplish. The default behavior ought to be no war, and justification should be required to continue waging it.

What is the situation that we can consider to be a "win"? Does our continued presence as one (among many) cause and target of violence really move us toward that situation?

A) Your emotions have no place in a checklist of reality. One can express extreme love for every soldier. But if one sends them wastefully to death out of ignorance (ie battle of Syracuse or Vietnam), then the conclusion remains same: total contempt for that soldier.

If emotions are involved, then one becomes his own worst enemy. I don't care how blindly one is devoted or in love with the troops. If one does not think logically, then one has 100% contempt for those troops.

B) Troops don't decide to go to war. Enlisted men particularly must go to war blinded from any knowledge of the purpose or strategic objective. Enlisted men in particular must ignore everything but their tactical objectives - such as keeping their buddies alive.

Enlisted men especially are dependent on us for demanding and performing logical thought. When we so hate our beloved soldiers as to waste them in places like Nam, then that is 100% contempt for the same soldiers we emotionally love. Love - the emotion - is irrelevant. Love - by being responsible - only matters.

C) People such as Goering in 1930s Germany and Karl Rove today play on emotions of the weak. And so we even had mythical WMDs. Patriotic Americans instead are intelligent - divorced from silly emotions - instead think judiciously. Why? One reason: because those enlisted men have no choice. WE decide whether they go to a foolhardy war.

So ask yourself. Were you thinking emotionally - and therefore acting with contempt for the troops? Or did you think logically and therefore recognize that logic existed to justify war? A patriot is never one to blindly wave flags. A patriot is the person who thinks – pushes out the envelope – sees things long before failure happens – is innovative. Name anyone who was a great and patriotic America – and you show us a person who is instead smart and therefore really is patriotic.

D) Let's look at the checklist to justify war. Notice flag waving, "god and country", etc don't appear anywhere on this checklist. 1) Was there a smoking gun? Was there a Pearl Harbor or an 11 September event? 2) Was a strategic objective defined? 3) Is there an exit strategy? Did you first ask these fundamental three questions? If not and if you advocated "Mission Accomplished", then that is contempt for the enlisted man. Emotion appears nowhere in that checklist because patriotic Americans don’t let silly emotions create conclusions. A patriot’s checklist demand coherent and unemotional thinking.

Nothing new here. Demonstrated is why America lost the Vietnam war or why anti-Americans are also so quick to get into bar room fights. Demonstrated is why the book “Making of a Quagmire” made obvious in 1965 the defeat that would finally occur in 1975. Ever hear of “The Ugly American”? Or for that matter, the so many books from Kurt Vonnegut. No difference. In every case, logical questioning must replace wacko extremist principles of ‘good verses evil’. What was the ugly American? A classic ‘big dic’ thinker who believes in ‘might makes right’ and ‘we are good; they are evil’. Just more examples of conclusions based in emotions; not in what is required to be a patriotic American.

E) So that post made you angry. But then you responded with a logical reply. Kudos. That is how one starts becoming a patriotic American. One starts asking many questions. One does as Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis so that we are still alive. He kept demanding of his staff answers to questions that 'big dics' like Gen Curtis LeMay would not ask, such as, "What does he see? What is he being told? What is his perspective? Why does he say this? What does he want?" Questions that patriots ask are not found in emotion, 'good vs evil', righteousness, or a "political agenda". Those emotions are sources of anti-American thinking that even created McCarthyism, black-listing, and Nixon's enemies list. Remember, an enlisted man counts on us to think logically. WE send him to war. Therefore WE must ask hard and unemotional questions.

Above was a checklist? When did an extremist 'liberal or conservative' ever mention that checklist? Provided was a simple benchmark for those who really love the troops; who work to be a patriotic American.

Perhaps i communicated my feeling incorrectly. I never get angry about anything really. I would agree that in most cases excess emotion gets in the way of proper decision making.

When i say "fired up" I could have used replaced it with "eager".

But if it really all boils down to contempt for the soldier and his/her life doesn't the absence of some form of emotion undermine the advocacy of those life's?

I think that is an entirely valid question. I would say at least looking at what our history texts say that pulling out of places such as Korea and Vietnam was counter-productive to peace and democracy but at the same time the results of America's continued involvement can't be determined.

I'm concerned about global peace and wondering if it is even possible or if America wants to be the ostrich with it's head in the hole.

Either way, I don't know. Some more food for thought, thanks for your input.

There are more positions for the US than "ostrich with its head in the sand" and "bull in the china shop".

I completely agree! If only a candidate with such views would pop up.

Are you totally emotionless about other drivers around you? Yes. You don't know any of them. But you don't have contempt for them. Why? They are members of your team.

Some never get it. Adjacent drivers - complete strangers - are members of your team; working together to make the road work; traffic to flow. If you run a light or cut someone else off, that is contempt for him. You did not do it intentionally or based in an emotional tirade. That contempt is not based in emotion. But lack of respect - a failure to take necessary precautions - is contempt for other members of your team.

Yes, driving is a team sport. It's not usually described that way. But with any team, it does not matter whether emotional love exists between team members. Necessary precautions taken for complete strangers - your team members - are both reasonable and required action.

Some will have a problem with this concept. Some never grasp this concept of team play. They may even consider themselves road warriors - out to beat the other guy - weaving between lanes to get there sooner. Periodically a team gets non-team players as demonstrated by high insurance rates, numerous crashes, suspended license, etc. To understand why those failures occur repeatedly, simply note their contempt for other members of the team. They don't know anyone round them. They have no emotional attachment (love or hate) of other drivers. And yet still, one can have or not have contempt for strangers - other drivers. No emotional attachment need exist for one to have or have not contempt.

One can have complete absence of emotion and still have great respect for another's life. It is, after all, essential for a productive and prosperous society; essential to have what we call civilization; defined by what we call civil people - civilians.

All this for complete strangers for which we have neither emotional love nor hate. We do all this for reasons logical. We may use emotion to do it even better. But then emotion is subservient to logic. When emotion is not, well, that is not a civilized person.

None of this can be explained in sound bytes – to attach to what Happy Monkey has posted. Some who never grasp these conceptsm are easily educated (manipulated) by Rush Limbaugh propaganda. Same person would never grasp a difference between strategic and tactical objectives.

Those same people assume since we won virtually every battle in Nam, then we should have won the war. They will then go looking to blame ‘liberals’ for the loss. Vietnam War was being lost in 1965 long before most of the battles were won. That defeat finally became obvious to strategic thinkers (ie the Wise Men) in 1968. How does one win every battle (tactical victories) and yet lose the war (a strategic defeat)? Does winning every bar room fight win anything? And yet some never understand how battles fought without a strategic objective win nothing. That 'bar room' mentality is so characteristic of 'big dic' thinking.

As said before, it is contempt to not understand simplest of military doctrine and then send soldiers into that unwinnable situation. “Mission Accomplished” today was once described as ‘rope-a-dope’ by a very smart man. 40+ years later and still some Americans never learned simplest military doctrine even demonstrated by 'rope-a-dope'. Again classic contempt for American soldier just like that 'non-team play' driver.

No emotion is required to be smart, to be a team player, to be civilized, and a patriotic American. Understanding ‘rope-a-dope’ as it applied to Nam and applies to “Mission Accomplished” is too hard for some who instead wave flags and call themselves patriotic. That ignorance is contempt.