Iraq War Cost US 2 Trillion dollars, 200,000 lives. What a waste.

[Redfish]

.

If the narcissistic, zealous neocons were so proud of the wars, they'd be spending far less time pointing the finger at the Dems and far more time pointing with pride at the Commander in Chief who stuck us there.

But they know.

So they burn terabytes of bandwidth on this board trying to convince themselves that this was all a good idea. Over and over and over.

Tough shit. You wanted it, you support it, you own it. It's all yours.

Here, explain it to HER:

.

Grow up and get over the partisan bullshit, both parties are responsible. That is a fact. Bush did not do it by himself. I know you wish that was the case, but its not.

No one wants wars, to claim that any american wants war is just juvenile and stupid.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If the narcissistic, zealous neocons were so proud of the wars, they'd be spending far less time pointing the finger at the Dems and far more time pointing with pride at the Commander in Chief who stuck us there.

But they know.

So they burn terabytes of bandwidth on this board trying to convince themselves that this was all a good idea. Over and over and over.

Tough shit. You wanted it, you support it, you own it. It's all yours.

Here, explain it to HER:

.

Grow up and get over the partisan bullshit, both parties are responsible. That is a fact. Bush did not do it by himself. I know you wish that was the case, but its not.

No one wants wars, to claim that any american wants war is just juvenile and stupid.

Yet another vivid example of my point, thanks.

.

 

[Redfish]

.

If the narcissistic, zealous neocons were so proud of the wars, they'd be spending far less time pointing the finger at the Dems and far more time pointing with pride at the Commander in Chief who stuck us there.

But they know.

So they burn terabytes of bandwidth on this board trying to convince themselves that this was all a good idea. Over and over and over.

Tough shit. You wanted it, you support it, you own it. It's all yours.

Here, explain it to HER:

.

Grow up and get over the partisan bullshit, both parties are responsible. That is a fact. Bush did not do it by himself. I know you wish that was the case, but its not.

No one wants wars, to claim that any american wants war is just juvenile and stupid.

Yet another vivid example of my point, thanks.

.

Did congress authorize military action in Iraq under Bush? yes or no

Did the UN authorize action against Iraq? yes or no

Did the UK and EU support action against Iraq? yes or no

 

[Mac1958]

.

Evidently you don't see that you're illustrating my point perfectly.

This country has one Commander in Chief at a time. Live it, love it, own it.

.

 

[Billo_Really]

Did congress authorize military action in Iraq under Bush? yes or no

Did the UN authorize action against Iraq? yes or no

Did the UK and EU support action against Iraq? yes or no

The UN did not authorize military action.

 

[Sallow]

Link to anything other than a winger anti-war site that shows anything remotely close to a war crime charge??

And it is you and those like you that are a national disgrace

Unlike you, I don't lust after the blood of innocent men, women and kids in faraway lands.

So..yeah..it was a crime.

To you..it was a video game.

Cheers.

Iraq was a stupid mistake, but it was not a criminal act. congress authorized it, democrats supported it, the UN supported it, as did the UK, the EU, Japan, Spain, Russia, and every other major nation in the world.

You Bush haters need to get your history correct.

It's not about "hating" Bush..it's about international protocol.

The US attacked, invaded and occupied a country that did not attack it first.

The UN would not sanction this action.

Yeah..it was a crime.

 

[Billo_Really]

Iraq was a stupid mistake, but it was not a criminal act. congress authorized it, democrats supported it, the UN supported it, as did the UK, the EU, Japan, Spain, Russia, and every other major nation in the world.

You Bush haters need to get your history correct.

The UN did not support the invasion.

We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

So yeah, it was a crime against humanity.

 

[Redfish]

Unlike you, I don't lust after the blood of innocent men, women and kids in faraway lands.

So..yeah..it was a crime.

To you..it was a video game.

Cheers.

Iraq was a stupid mistake, but it was not a criminal act. congress authorized it, democrats supported it, the UN supported it, as did the UK, the EU, Japan, Spain, Russia, and every other major nation in the world.

You Bush haters need to get your history correct.

It's not about "hating" Bush..it's about international protocol.

The US attacked, invaded and occupied a country that did not attack it first.

The UN would not sanction this action.

Yeah..it was a crime.

There is no set of international statutes that define what is an international crime and what is not. The Iraq military action, while stupid, was legal by US law.

"international protocol" are you kidding. Does that include obama bowing to the saudi king and the japanese emperor? Did Saddam follow "international protocol" when he invaded Kuwait and when he gassed his own people? Is Assad following "international protocol" as he wages a civil war against people who want to remove him from power?

you talk like a 12 year old who has zero experience in the real world.

 

[Redfish]

Iraq was a stupid mistake, but it was not a criminal act. congress authorized it, democrats supported it, the UN supported it, as did the UK, the EU, Japan, Spain, Russia, and every other major nation in the world.

You Bush haters need to get your history correct.

The UN did not support the invasion.

We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

So yeah, it was a crime against humanity.

was viet nam a crime against humanity? before you answer remember is was started and expanded by democrats.

 

[Billo_Really]

was viet nam a crime against humanity? before you answer remember is was started and expanded by democrats.

Actually, Eisenhower was the first President to put troops (advisors) in Vietnam and he's a republican.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no set of international statutes that define what is an international crime and what is not. The Iraq military action, while stupid, was legal by US law.

Article 51 of the UN Charter is the international statute.

It is also a treaty Congress ratified, thereby giving it the same weight as the US Constitution.

So, we violated international and domestic law with the invasion.

 

[healthmyths]

The Iraq war, the afghanistan war, the viet nam war, the kosovo war--------all wasted american lives and american money.

to try to make these blunders into some kind of partisan attack is to ignore history. Both parties are equally to blame.

Explain to me the following:
You buy a car. You agree to make the payments. YOU sign documents stating YOU know what will happen if the payments aren't made!

YOU then after several months stop making payments.

The lender gives you repeated warnings. Call you constantly over several months after you've stopped.

The repossess the car.
Were they wrong? Were they at fault for YOU not keeping your end of the agreement??

I know this is a real stretch for your limited mushy brain cells,, BUT GUESS WHAT???
EVERY one of your illustrations were agreed to by each party!

IRAQ WAR.. "1991 CEASE FIRE" after Saddam invaded Kuiwait got kicked out and signed the 1991 Cease Fire agreement!
Did he keep it? NO! The keys to the dictatorship were taken away and Saddam hung!
Afghanistan.. Obviously you don't remember 9/11?? you know attack planned in Afghanistan by Bin Laden???

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course not because you have NO problem in reneging on agreements you lush!

Vietnam war Again remember the concept of KEEPING AGREEMENTS??
This doesn't mean anything to mealy brained people like you but South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an agreement
that the USA signed and agreed to help...
BUT being the worthless sh..t who's word and signature MEAN nothing you don't care !

My point is that not one of our recent "wars" accomplished anything. What did 58,000 americans die for in viet nam? What did americans die for in Iraq and Afghanistan? What did our kids lose arms and legs for in those stupid wars?

Why do we enter wars and then not allow the military to win them? If, we are determined to wage war on someone, lets go all out and obliterate the enemy and end it quickly. If we are not in it to win it, then we need to keep our military at home.

Thats the point I am trying to make------------Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon accomplished absolutely nothing in viet nam-------nothing, nada, zero----same with Bush and obama in Iraq and afghan, when we leave those countries will degrade back to what they were before we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to bring them to our idea of what they should be--------it never works and we seem incapable of learning from history.

I agree with you on one POINT.. Why don't we allow the military to win them?
I agree!
POLITICAL expediency and Liberal MSM bias are the answers and best illustrated by the Congressional Medial of honor winner Dakota Meyers.

Dakota Meyer rightfully won the Medal of Honor .. no question..
.........but the traitor Obama that put around his neck ,CAUSED the deaths of the Marines!

How can Obama do that when HE KNOWS his orders got the Marines killed!
Here is why.. Obama's NEW rules of engagements did the following:

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties,
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, [/U][/I][/B]
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

The same with Vietnam! The war was won in the trenches but when Walter Cronkite told his nightly news audience..
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.
To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.
To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.
On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could"
Walter Cronkite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Whether Cronkite's observation eventually affected American policy in Vietnam or not, it was one of the first overt cases of liberal bias in TV media.
And despite the initial shock of the Tet Offensive, which led to Cronkite concluding that victory in Vietnam was impossible,
the most trusted man in America got it wrong!
Years after the Tet Offensive, shortly after the Vietnam War was over, Washington Post reporter Peter Braestrup published a two-volume work called "The Big Story" that suggested media reporting on the Tet Offensive was overly negative and contributed to a psychological defeat of American policy makers and the American public. Col. Harry Summers, who wrote a 2001 review of the book, calls it the best book on Tet and the media's treatment of it.

Steven Hayward reports the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese suffered massive losses as a result of Tet.
But Cronkite and the media firestorm that followed, as well as the burgeoning costs of the war, precluded any strategy of capitalizing on what was a clear communist defeat. Tet might well have been a military victory for America and her allies, but partly thanks to Cronkite and the liberal media, it proved to be a psychological defeat.
How Walter Cronkite Helped Lose the Vietnam War 44 Years Ago - Yahoo! News

So to you..Redfish.. I agree the last conflicts the military has had two enemies.. the enemy and the MSM liberal bias!
Keep that in mind everytime you ***** about how bad Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... seemed to be..
REMEMBER the MSM and especially the Democrats WANT the USA to be losers!
Why else pray tell me would leaders of the Democrat Party make statements like the following that ONLY helped the enemy and demoralized our troops?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

 

[Redfish]

There is no set of international statutes that define what is an international crime and what is not. The Iraq military action, while stupid, was legal by US law.

Article 51 of the UN Charter is the international statute.

It is also a treaty Congress ratified, thereby giving it the same weight as the US Constitution.

So, we violated international and domestic law with the invasion.

The UN charter is not law. It has no court to enforce it and no judges to adjudicate it.

There is no international law to violate. no US law was violated, that has already been validated in court.

We agree that going into Iraq the way we did was stupid, but it was not illegal. If you want to try congress and Bush for stupidity, fine, but no law was violated.

 

[Redfish]

Explain to me the following:
You buy a car. You agree to make the payments. YOU sign documents stating YOU know what will happen if the payments aren't made!

YOU then after several months stop making payments.

The lender gives you repeated warnings. Call you constantly over several months after you've stopped.

The repossess the car.
Were they wrong? Were they at fault for YOU not keeping your end of the agreement??

I know this is a real stretch for your limited mushy brain cells,, BUT GUESS WHAT???
EVERY one of your illustrations were agreed to by each party!

IRAQ WAR.. "1991 CEASE FIRE" after Saddam invaded Kuiwait got kicked out and signed the 1991 Cease Fire agreement!
Did he keep it? NO! The keys to the dictatorship were taken away and Saddam hung!
Afghanistan.. Obviously you don't remember 9/11?? you know attack planned in Afghanistan by Bin Laden???

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course not because you have NO problem in reneging on agreements you lush!

Vietnam war Again remember the concept of KEEPING AGREEMENTS??
This doesn't mean anything to mealy brained people like you but South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an agreement
that the USA signed and agreed to help...
BUT being the worthless sh..t who's word and signature MEAN nothing you don't care !

My point is that not one of our recent "wars" accomplished anything. What did 58,000 americans die for in viet nam? What did americans die for in Iraq and Afghanistan? What did our kids lose arms and legs for in those stupid wars?

Why do we enter wars and then not allow the military to win them? If, we are determined to wage war on someone, lets go all out and obliterate the enemy and end it quickly. If we are not in it to win it, then we need to keep our military at home.

Thats the point I am trying to make------------Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon accomplished absolutely nothing in viet nam-------nothing, nada, zero----same with Bush and obama in Iraq and afghan, when we leave those countries will degrade back to what they were before we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to bring them to our idea of what they should be--------it never works and we seem incapable of learning from history.

I agree with you on one POINT.. Why don't we allow the military to win them?
I agree!
POLITICAL expediency and Liberal MSM bias are the answers and best illustrated by the Congressional Medial of honor winner Dakota Meyers.

Dakota Meyer rightfully won the Medal of Honor .. no question..
.........but the traitor Obama that put around his neck ,CAUSED the deaths of the Marines!

How can Obama do that when HE KNOWS his orders got the Marines killed!
Here is why.. Obama's NEW rules of engagements did the following:

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties,
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, [/U][/I][/B]
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

The same with Vietnam! The war was won in the trenches but when Walter Cronkite told his nightly news audience..
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.
To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.
To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.
On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could"
Walter Cronkite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Whether Cronkite's observation eventually affected American policy in Vietnam or not, it was one of the first overt cases of liberal bias in TV media.
And despite the initial shock of the Tet Offensive, which led to Cronkite concluding that victory in Vietnam was impossible,
the most trusted man in America got it wrong!
Years after the Tet Offensive, shortly after the Vietnam War was over, Washington Post reporter Peter Braestrup published a two-volume work called "The Big Story" that suggested media reporting on the Tet Offensive was overly negative and contributed to a psychological defeat of American policy makers and the American public. Col. Harry Summers, who wrote a 2001 review of the book, calls it the best book on Tet and the media's treatment of it.

Steven Hayward reports the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese suffered massive losses as a result of Tet.
But Cronkite and the media firestorm that followed, as well as the burgeoning costs of the war, precluded any strategy of capitalizing on what was a clear communist defeat. Tet might well have been a military victory for America and her allies, but partly thanks to Cronkite and the liberal media, it proved to be a psychological defeat.
How Walter Cronkite Helped Lose the Vietnam War 44 Years Ago - Yahoo! News

So to you..Redfish.. I agree the last conflicts the military has had two enemies.. the enemy and the MSM liberal bias!
Keep that in mind everytime you ***** about how bad Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... seemed to be..
REMEMBER the MSM and especially the Democrats WANT the USA to be losers!
Why else pray tell me would leaders of the Democrat Party make statements like the following that ONLY helped the enemy and demoralized our troops?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

very good summary, we are in agreement.

 

[Billo_Really]

The UN charter is not law. It has no court to enforce it and no judges to adjudicate it.

There is no international law to violate. no US law was violated, that has already been validated in court.

We agree that going into Iraq the way we did was stupid, but it was not illegal. If you want to try congress and Bush for stupidity, fine, but no law was violated.

Any treaty Congress ratify's, carry's the same weight as the Constitution. Now, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Whether you like it or not, that was a law we broke.

And the UN Charter IS international law.

 

[Billo_Really]

I agree with you on one POINT.. Why don't we allow the military to win them?
I agree!
POLITICAL expediency and Liberal MSM bias are the answers and best illustrated by the Congressional Medial of honor winner Dakota Meyers.

Dakota Meyer rightfully won the Medal of Honor .. no question..
.........but the traitor Obama that put around his neck ,CAUSED the deaths of the Marines!

How can Obama do that when HE KNOWS his orders got the Marines killed!
Here is why.. Obama's NEW rules of engagements did the following:

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties,
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, [/U][/I][/B]
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

The same with Vietnam! The war was won in the trenches but when Walter Cronkite told his nightly news audience..
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.
To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.
To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.
On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could"
Walter Cronkite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Whether Cronkite's observation eventually affected American policy in Vietnam or not, it was one of the first overt cases of liberal bias in TV media.
And despite the initial shock of the Tet Offensive, which led to Cronkite concluding that victory in Vietnam was impossible,
the most trusted man in America got it wrong!
Years after the Tet Offensive, shortly after the Vietnam War was over, Washington Post reporter Peter Braestrup published a two-volume work called "The Big Story" that suggested media reporting on the Tet Offensive was overly negative and contributed to a psychological defeat of American policy makers and the American public. Col. Harry Summers, who wrote a 2001 review of the book, calls it the best book on Tet and the media's treatment of it.

Steven Hayward reports the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese suffered massive losses as a result of Tet.
But Cronkite and the media firestorm that followed, as well as the burgeoning costs of the war, precluded any strategy of capitalizing on what was a clear communist defeat. Tet might well have been a military victory for America and her allies, but partly thanks to Cronkite and the liberal media, it proved to be a psychological defeat.
How Walter Cronkite Helped Lose the Vietnam War 44 Years Ago - Yahoo! News

So to you..Redfish.. I agree the last conflicts the military has had two enemies.. the enemy and the MSM liberal bias!
Keep that in mind everytime you ***** about how bad Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... seemed to be..
REMEMBER the MSM and especially the Democrats WANT the USA to be losers!
Why else pray tell me would leaders of the Democrat Party make statements like the following that ONLY helped the enemy and demoralized our troops?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Doesn't matter who you quote.

This was Bush's war. He's the one who lied about it and he's the one who started it.

 

[Redfish]

The UN charter is not law. It has no court to enforce it and no judges to adjudicate it.

There is no international law to violate. no US law was violated, that has already been validated in court.

We agree that going into Iraq the way we did was stupid, but it was not illegal. If you want to try congress and Bush for stupidity, fine, but no law was violated.

Any treaty Congress ratify's, carry's the same weight as the Constitution. Now, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Whether you like it or not, that was a law we broke.

And the UN Charter IS international law.

totally wrong on all counts. the UN charter is not law. the UN charter is not the same as a treaty with another country.

 

[Redfish]

I agree with you on one POINT.. Why don't we allow the military to win them?
I agree!
POLITICAL expediency and Liberal MSM bias are the answers and best illustrated by the Congressional Medial of honor winner Dakota Meyers.

Dakota Meyer rightfully won the Medal of Honor .. no question..
.........but the traitor Obama that put around his neck ,CAUSED the deaths of the Marines!

How can Obama do that when HE KNOWS his orders got the Marines killed!
Here is why.. Obama's NEW rules of engagements did the following:

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties,
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, [/U][/I][/B]
rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

The same with Vietnam! The war was won in the trenches but when Walter Cronkite told his nightly news audience..
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.
To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.
To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.
On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could"
Walter Cronkite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Whether Cronkite's observation eventually affected American policy in Vietnam or not, it was one of the first overt cases of liberal bias in TV media.
And despite the initial shock of the Tet Offensive, which led to Cronkite concluding that victory in Vietnam was impossible,
the most trusted man in America got it wrong!
Years after the Tet Offensive, shortly after the Vietnam War was over, Washington Post reporter Peter Braestrup published a two-volume work called "The Big Story" that suggested media reporting on the Tet Offensive was overly negative and contributed to a psychological defeat of American policy makers and the American public. Col. Harry Summers, who wrote a 2001 review of the book, calls it the best book on Tet and the media's treatment of it.

Steven Hayward reports the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese suffered massive losses as a result of Tet.
But Cronkite and the media firestorm that followed, as well as the burgeoning costs of the war, precluded any strategy of capitalizing on what was a clear communist defeat. Tet might well have been a military victory for America and her allies, but partly thanks to Cronkite and the liberal media, it proved to be a psychological defeat.
How Walter Cronkite Helped Lose the Vietnam War 44 Years Ago - Yahoo! News

So to you..Redfish.. I agree the last conflicts the military has had two enemies.. the enemy and the MSM liberal bias!
Keep that in mind everytime you ***** about how bad Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... seemed to be..
REMEMBER the MSM and especially the Democrats WANT the USA to be losers!
Why else pray tell me would leaders of the Democrat Party make statements like the following that ONLY helped the enemy and demoralized our troops?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Doesn't matter who you quote.

This was Bush's war. He's the one who lied about it and he's the one who started it.

and you continue to demonstrate your partisan ignorance of reality and history.

in summary, you are an idiot.

 

[Freewill]

Yep.

A war crime and a national disgrace.

Link to anything other than a winger anti-war site that shows anything remotely close to a war crime charge??

And it is you and those like you that are a national disgrace

Yes, to the liberal hate filled left going to war with a madman that used WMD against his own people, invaded a neighbor and set their well heads of fire as he left, who exploited his people and attacked our planes, removing him from power is a war crime. Yet Congress and most democrats voted for taking action. Not sure what those turn coats thought was going to happen, Bush announced it before any action was taken. He gave Saddam the chance to step down.

On the other hand the use of predator missiles in countries where we are suppose to be allies is not a problem. Obama can blow up whomever where ever he wants on the pretext of national security. Clinton for that matter terror bombed Serbia which had absolutely NO threat to America. Hell Obama kills Americans without due process and without direct intimate threat and THAT is not a war crime?

Apparently it is only a war crime when there is direct risk to American lives.

So using liberal logic Obama is a far worse war criminal then Bush ever tried to be. Unless of course they would like to tell us how Obama's war in Afghanistan is substantially different then Iraq. 71 percent of the fatalities in Afghanistan came in the four years of Obama and what do we have to show for the sacrifice that Obama demanded? More war and apparently to liberals, war crimes.

iCasualties | Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan

 

[Billo_Really]

and you continue to demonstrate your partisan ignorance of reality and history.

in summary, you are an idiot.

I know exactly how that war started and it was with a bunch of lies Bush constantly told the world.