The killing fields of Iraq continue to run with the blood of warriors and citizens (men, women, and children) - innocent participants and non-participants alike. When will it end, this is the question being asked by millions of people the world over. The only person that might be able to answer this question climbs onto his soap box and mouths platitudes, slogans and tap dances to music that only he can hear every time he is put on the spot. If it is not the president trying to hide behind the wrapper of national security and patriotism, then it’s his direct representatives and members of his administration going into attack mode to attack those who don‘t agree with the administration policies and political stances. It used to be that an American used to be able to comment on administration issues and policies without fear of reprisal on the part of their government.

This is no longer true - the Patriot Act has changed the playing field when Americans question government actions. How sad - our forefathers would not recognize the way that their democratic principles have been twisted to fit a changed world environment. We can now hold our own citizens in durance vile without allowing judicial representation, or disclosing the charges. Not only are these unconstitutional violations considered legal, it is now possible to get a phone tap on an American’s phone by going to a ‘secret’ court where a ‘secret’ judge will sign a ‘secret’ order to allow the police or a government agency to place a ‘secret’ tap on a legal citizen’s private conversations. I realize this is not a 100% verbatim definition of the Patriot Act but it comes darn close.

And now we have a President and Vice President that are fighting tooth and nail to keep congress from passing legislation that would officially ban the use of any form of torture to elicit information from any prisoner our country holds (either here in the US or anywhere in the world where we house prisoners). This would apply to military prisoners and suspected terrorists alike. Bush and Chaney’s stance is that it is alright for everyone except the CIA - they want the CIA to be exempted from this new legislation. What Bush and Chaney seem to be blind to is the fact that our society is an open society and that everything they say in public and much of what they say in private is known around the world bare minutes after they have uttered their utter nonsense. Many of Bush’s stances have only added fuel to the fires of hatred aimed at our country.

When reports began to circulate about the excesses at Abu Ghraib, President Bush had the audacity to appear before the world’s press and publicly state that the scandal was the work of “a few American troops who dishonored our country.” Seven or eight troopers who had no training on how to run a prison full of “enemy combatants” allowed a few bad apples to lead them into “abuse” that was more collegiate hazing than torture and were treated as scapegoats by the administration and military hierarchy. Don’t believe I am excusing this kind of treatment of prisoners because I am not. Lack of a public policy lays directly at the feet of Bush and his administration supporters and directly contributed to the standard operating procedures used when dealing with these suspected enemies and suspected terrorists.

Why do I blame Bush - it was Bush’s war was it not? He was and is responsible for setting the policies and tenor of treatment for how we deal with Iraq and Iraqi issues.

Now we have liberal whackos who seem to think it is a simple thing to "just bring our people home" - how blind do they think the rest of us are? It is too late to just pull out of Iraq - our country can't stand to have another Vietnam on our record and that is exactly what we would face if we leave a "broken" Iraq. After all the rest of the world believes that we broke it (Iraq) and it's our responsibility to fix it (Iraq). Until that mission is completed, we are a captive to our own humanity and decency.

no - definitely

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2...r-vietnam.html

i dont know mush but...naaah, dont think so. No jungles!!

I said "no-maybe". I never rule out the impossible but I don not believe that history is an equation that repeats itself regardless of the variable you enter.
The political climate, world order and most other dimensions are different and therefor non-copyable. I do, however, think that this could turn into Vietnam-proportional disgrace. Leave now and the US will lose it's face for the next generations to come. You can't just invade a country on dubious grounds, say you bring democracy and freedom and leave when it doesn't work. That bit happened in Vietnam and that bit could very well happen again in Iraq!

I'm not sure your post had anything to do with your poll.

Whispering Death
The term "Killing Fields" will evermore be linked to the War in Vietnam. This was the description of one of the famous (or infamous) reporters of the time when he described what he saw when he observed the bodies of the dead and wounded after a major firefight outside one of our Special Forces firebases. He decried what he called the inhumanity and waste of the human spirit. I wish I could give you his name but the years have blurred the memory of those times in my mind (for which I am thankful).

I chose the thread name with this view in mind. If Iraq were to become another Vietnam then the Killing Fields description would be apropos. A wasted field of dead and dying soldiers with no clear purpose or an incomplete mission due to lack of backbone (a loss).

I'm confused isn't the "killing fields" refering to Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge rule, and not Vietnam?

I voted no, but it will turn into a Vietnam if the left wing press gets it way.

Originally Posted by gladius

I'm confused isn't the "killing fields" refering to Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge rule, and not Vietnam?

Yes you are correct.
But I voted yes.

First I would like to say that perhaps those who served in Vietnam would be best qualified to answer this question.

Second, I would like to say that I do not claim to be an expert on military history, economics, or politics. I do not intend to preach or overstep any boundaries. I am merely stating my opinion based off of the information presented to me.

Chief Bones; I would greatly appreciate it if you were more respectful of our dualy duly elected Commander in Chief. I do not agree with everything he says and does, but as official head of the United States government and Representative of the PEOPLE of the United States, he must be respected.

As far as being political, that is what politics is all about. Anymore, politicians, particularly those in the higher echelons care not about the right thing, but about re-election and book deals. It becomes necessary that if you are going to survive a swim in the big pond, that you swim like a big fish. How many times have we seen someone deliver a speech, and really say nothing at all because of all of the political mumbo jumbo thrown in to avoid offending a group of constituents. I dislike this seemingly spineless 'politically correct' mode as much as you do, but that is the reality of American Politics. That is why we are in a Milforum, openly expressing our views regardless of others conflicting views.

Granted, the PATRIOT Act COULD pose a danger to our right of privacy. Key word is COULD. One thing that we need to remember is that in order to get access to ones personal information and communication is for REASONABLE SUSPICION to exist. Ask any FBI agent or Police Detective who has known of a criminal event, but did not have sufficient evidence to obtain a warrent what the difference between the common useage of the term and the legal definition. Judges arent going to hand out warrents on a whim. There must exist some proof in order to merit a tap or search. The 'secrecy' seems warrented, does it not? I think that it makes sense that if we are investigating a person who could possibly pose a threat to national security, that they not know about the surveillance and we can determine whether or not they do present a threat and discover other possible suspects. Its like the cop hiding on a side street, waiting for speeding cars to pass; you dont put a neon sign in front of the cop car saying "There is a cop right here>>>>>>>>>> "

Following the resistance Police get, every one wants protection, but no one wants to submit to that authority. When the US is attacked by terrorists, everyone is up in arms about how there arent enough laws providing security. But as soon as you look at an individual, they are upset that you are investigating them.

Perhaps the reason it the administration is fighting the measure is because of how things can be twisted. If we pass strict legislature against abusive interrogation techniques, how long until things like c-rations are considered abusive? How long until being imprisoned is considered torturous and we are forced to release an incarcerate. Granted this may be a play on the meaning of the measure, but if you pass a measure, before too long the original meaning becomes distorted. Do I believe in excessively abusive interrogation techniques? Absolutly not. Do I believe in giving prisoners a comfy bunk with all the comforts of home? Absolutely not. There needs to be some balance inbetween. On one hand, the prisoners are are the people who would kill any one of us in a second. On the other hand, our consideration for humanity is exactly what separates us from them.

You say that the stances our President has taken add to the hate aimed at our country, but like what??? Other than take action to protect the people of the United States of America and people around the world, what stance has he made that enrages these people? If after 9/11 President Bush had sat back and said 'We dont want to offend anyone', the public would have demanded his head. And now, it is the very thing demanded by the public (protection from terrorists) that is being tongue-lashed by the public.

You say that Bush had no right to say that the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was the act of a few soldiers. That is was actually his fault. Do you suppose that had these policies been in place that that would have altered the actions of the men and women??? They knew that what they were doing violated the geneva convention, not to mention moral law. Granted, the commander accepts some responsiblity for his troops, but to lay the blame on Bush seems ignorant of the fact that those troopers made the choice to do what they did.

Now, in relation to the poll (which doesnt seem to fit the post), No I do not believe that Iraq will turn into a 'Killing Field' like Vietnam. It is not anywhere close to being like vietnam other than the fact we are fighting a guerilla enemy.

So Spartacus you don't think there is any similarity between Iraq and Vietnam in terms of the divide it is causing in American society vis a vis the divergent views of the press at large and the government in Washington?