'I'm trying to prevent another Vietnam'

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. (CNN) -- Unfazed by criticism since he called for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, Rep. John Murtha on Monday said he is simply "trying to prevent another Vietnam."

"This war cannot be won militarily," Murtha told CNN's "The Situation Room." "I'm convinced the only way it's going to be won is politically."

Last week, Murtha, a hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania and an ex-Marine who served during the Vietnam War, said the United States should begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq immediately, with plans for completing the pullout within six months.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan blasted Murtha in initial comments from the White House, accusing him of "endorsing the policies of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." The White House has since softened the criticism, with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney praising the Pennsylvania Democrat for his years of public service.

"I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interest of this nation. But he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot, and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion," Cheney said in a speech Monday.

Murtha said he was pleased by the latest comments from the administration and said he hopes the White House will invite congressional members to discuss the matter with them. (Posted 11:09 p.m.)

[mike black]

Hmm. Isn't that what we're going for? Take the hits for the Iraqis while they get their shit togather and form their own nation?

[t00lverine]

Hmm. Isn't that what we're going for? Take the hits for the Iraqis while they get their shit togather and form their own nation?

No.

[mike black]

No.

Ah, then care to explain it to me? I must have missed that meeting.

[t00lverine]

Ah, then care to explain it to me? I must have missed that meeting.

The initial idea was to stop the terrorists, right?

[The Roman Candle]

His hatred for America sickens me. :miffed:

[mike black]

The initial idea was to stop the terrorists, right?

The initial idea was to depose Sadam in favor of keeping him from using weapons of mass destruciton (I hate that phrase,) against his neighbors, or U.S. interests. The idea being that he was a major focal point of destabalization in the region of the Middle East. It didn't become "about the terrorists" until insurgents from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc, came in and made it essentially the "front lines" in the War on Terror (i.e. we centralized the conflict - sadly at the expense of the Iraqi people.)

[Matt Jay]

The initial idea was to depose Sadam in favor of keeping him from using weapons of mass destruciton (I hate that phrase,) against his neighbors, or U.S. interests. The idea being that he was a major focal point of destabalization in the region of the Middle East. It didn't become "about the terrorists" until insurgents from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc, came in and made it essentially the "front lines" in the War on Terror (i.e. we centralized the conflict - sadly at the expense of the Iraqi people.)
I've got no idea regarding the subtext of this conversation, but the real reason we went to war is because the Bush administration is full of neo-cons. They firmly believe that it is in America's best interests to (forcibly,if necessary) establish friendly governments and a military presence in most parts of the world as preparation for a perceived inevitable confrontation with China.

All the other reasons, some of which you mention, are just what they hide behind because those reasons are easier to get people to go along with. And just because I love this quote:

"A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason."
-JP Morgan

[Ben]

There was a great interview with this guy on Meet the Press last Sunday. He makes excellent points. This needs to be discussed.

[mike black]

I've got no idea regarding the subtext of this conversation, but the real reason we went to war is because the Bush administration is full of neo-cons. They firmly believe that it is in America's best interests to (forcibly,if necessary) establish friendly governments and a military presence in most parts of the world as preparation for a perceived inevitable confrontation with China.

All the other reasons, some of which you mention, are just what they hide behind because those reasons are easier to get people to go along with. And just because I love this quote:

"A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason."
-JP Morgan

Where does China come into this? Isn't it sort of conceeded that our "war" with China will be an economic one? You could have atleast said it was a form of U.S. imperialism having totally to do with oil.

[Matt Jay]

Where does China come into this? Isn't it sort of conceeded that our "war" with China will be an economic one? You could have atleast said it was a form of U.S. imperialism having totally to do with oil.
The rollback, not containment, of communism is central to neoconservative philosophy. I'm sure many people believe that "war" with China will occur economically. I'm equally sure neo-cons wouldn't agree with those people, and if they did, would advocate the same foreign policy as insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States))

[mike black]

The rollback, not containment, of communism is central to neoconservative philosophy. I'm sure many people believe that "war" with China will occur economically. I'm equally sure neo-cons wouldn't agree with those people, and if they did, would advocate the same foreign policy as insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States))

I don't think communism is really central to anyone's policies anymore. I think it might have more to do with the straightforward, no-bullshit, hawkish view on foreign policy (i.e. "Don't fuck around, or we'll get involved.") It just so happens that one of the major offenders (Kim Jong-Ill,) heads up a communist nation that's falling apart.

If we (as a country led by "Neocons",) were utterly invested in rollback, we'd be more heavily involved in Cuba, Vietnam, etc. And I'm sure would be looking at military options therein. As of right now, niether of the above countries are in our cross hairs, and I think the U.S. government would be content to let those governments fall apart on their own.

[Ray G.]

He's trying to prevent another Vietnam......by voting to reinstate the Draft. :?
( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/06/gop_gets_house_to_nix_draft_bill_402_2/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/06/gop_gets_house_to_nix_draft_bill_402_2/))
I agree with a few of the things Murtha says, but the man is full of shit.

[yeamon]

He's trying to prevent another Vietnam......by voting to reinstate the Draft. :?
( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/06/gop_gets_house_to_nix_draft_bill_402_2/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/06/gop_gets_house_to_nix_draft_bill_402_2/))
I agree with a few of the things Murtha says, but the man is full of shit.

He's smart enough to realize a sad, but essential truth. Reinstating the draft ends this war almost immediately. Public support for a war, already at an all-time low, would disappear entirely.

[Amos Moses]

You know what bothers me? Everytime Murtha is mentioned, they always say he's a Vietnam Veteran, but not a Korean one. What gives?

[Matt Jay]

I don't think communism is really central to anyone's policies anymore. I think it might have more to do with the straightforward, no-bullshit, hawkish view on foreign policy (i.e. "Don't fuck around, or we'll get involved.") It just so happens that one of the major offenders (Kim Jong-Ill,) heads up a communist nation that's falling apart.

If we (as a country led by "Neocons",) were utterly invested in rollback, we'd be more heavily involved in Cuba, Vietnam, etc. And I'm sure would be looking at military options therein. As of right now, niether of the above countries are in our cross hairs, and I think the U.S. government would be content to let those governments fall apart on their own.
China is in the crosshairs because they stand the greatest threat toward American global hegemony. Neocons are idealists, but they aren't stupid. They realize there's no need to further galvanize world opinion in order to shoot a dead bear. Furthermore, they only control our foreign policy insofar as they can cloak their intentions with more popular reasoning. I don't believe the majority of America would ever support their actual goals.

The branch of neoconservatives in the PNAC (check it out- it's membership reads like a who's who in the Bush administration leading up to the invasion-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) believes that China is preparing for conflict, and consistently argues that we should too. I can find many articles on point if you need me to, but here's one I found with a cursory search of their website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050808.htm (http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050808.htm)

[Ray G.]

He's smart enough to realize a sad, but essential truth. Reinstating the draft ends this war almost immediately. Public support for a war, already at an all-time low, would disappear entirely.

Murtha supported the draft years ago, when he was one of the strongest supporters of the war. The man is genuinely in favor of the Conscription of young Americans, unlike Rangel, who did it as a stunt. As such, I can not have any respect for him.

[Amos Moses]

I've heard that Hu Jintao said to the Queen of England that he wants to turn China into a Democracy. But not overnight, as to avoid a fuckup like the Soviet Union. Either way, I think Washington is trying to turn China into another bogey man, since the USSR is gone, and terrorism & color alerts just aren't working.

[Ben]

Murtha supported the draft years ago, when he was one of the strongest supporters of the war. The man is genuinely in favor of the Conscription of young Americans, unlike Rangel, who did it as a stunt. As such, I can not have any respect for him.
But are you capable of responding to what he SAYS and not him personally? Yeah, you may not have any respect for him, but that doesn't take away from any value his ideas may have.

[mike black]

I've heard that Hu Jintao said to the Queen of England that he wants to turn China into a Democracy. But not overnight, as to avoid a fuckup like the Soviet Union. Either way, I think Washington is trying to turn China into another bogey man, since the USSR is gone, and terrorism & color alerts just aren't working.

I think we've been seing that ever since the English gave Hong Kong back to the Chinese. It's been a slow move towards westernization (I hate that word - makes me think their giving up their cultural identity,) and democracy.


China is in the crosshairs because they stand the greatest threat toward American global hegemony. Neocons are idealists, but they aren't stupid. They realize there's no need to further galvanize world opinion in order to shoot a dead bear. Furthermore, they only control our foreign policy insofar as they can cloak their intentions with more popular reasoning. I don't believe the majority of America would ever support their actual goals.

The branch of neoconservatives in the PNAC (check it out- it's membership reads like a who's who in the Bush administration leading up to the invasion-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) believes that China is preparing for conflict, and consistently argues that we should too. I can find many articles on point if you need me to, but here's one I found with a cursory search of their website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050808.htm (http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050808.htm)

I'd contend that the greatest threat to American hegemony is American complacency and a lack of training towards a greater stance with new technology. (I'd recomend looking into what Thomas L. Friedmen has been talking about. His new book and what he talks about in the 9-05 issue of Playboy are good places to start.) I don't personally agree with the "Neocons" that China is going to go to war with us. I doubt we'll see a way between two nuclear powers any time soon.

[yeamon]

Murtha supported the draft years ago, when he was one of the strongest supporters of the war. The man is genuinely in favor of the Conscription of young Americans, unlike Rangel, who did it as a stunt. As such, I can not have any respect for him.

I do not support the draft. I'm all for a volunteer army. I hear those who support a draft claim that it would change America's war policy if young Americans from every economic/social class were pressed into service. And normally I would agree with them. But we had the draft. And rich kids still found a way to avoid the service (just look at the member list of the Republican party currently serving in government, including Bush and Cheney).

[Amos Moses]

I do not support the draft. I'm all for a volunteer army. I hear those who support a draft claim that it would change America's war policy if young Americans from every economic/social class were pressed into service. And normally I would agree with them. But we had the draft. And rich kids still found a way to avoid the service (just look at the member list of the Republican party currently serving in government, including Bush and Cheney).


Oh snap!


It's like I said, if you believe this is worth fighting and dying for, you have to go fight and die for it.

[mike black]

Its possible to avoid the draft without being rich or leaving the country, guys. Even without joining the Coast Guard or shooting yourself. It's not hard.

[Amos Moses]

Its possible to avoid the draft without being rich or leaving the country, guys. Even without joining the Coast Guard or shooting yourself. It's not hard.


Don't knock the Coast Guard, they protect us from Jaws and Godzilla. And Cubans.

[Thudpucker]

Hmm. Isn't that what we're going for? Take the hits for the Iraqis while they get their shit togather and form their own nation?

That would be Nation Building. Bush swore he would not Nation Build, and we all know he is a man of his word. So no, that can't possibly be what we are doing.

[yeamon]

Don't knock the Coast Guard, they protect us from Jaws and Godzilla. And Cubans.

I've got a lot of buddies in the Coast Guard. Many of whom were getting shot at, trying to deliver food to Katrina victims.

They always seem to get their hands on the best weed, though.

[Matt Jay]

I'd contend that the greatest threat to American hegemony is American complacency and a lack of training towards a greater stance with new technology. (I'd recomend looking into what Thomas L. Friedmen has been talking about. His new book and what he talks about in the 9-05 issue of Playboy are good places to start.) I don't personally agree with the "Neocons" that China is going to go to war with us. I doubt we'll see a way between two nuclear powers any time soon.
I generally agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that the PNAC neocons in the Bush administration would have fought to get this war regardless of WMD or terrorism. And by their own admission they don't intend to stop at Iraq.