"Our nation has been torn apart by a war that has seared its conscience. We have spent lives and wealth without limit in pursuit of an unworthy goal, preserving our own power and prestige while laying waste the unfortunate lands...Free and informed public debate is the source of our strength. Remove it and our democratic institutions become a sham...The American people have never agreed that the performance of their elected officials should be immune from public discussion and review. They have never failed to support their government and its policies, once they were convinced of the rightness of those policies. But they should not be expected to offer their support merely on the word of a President and his close advisors. To adopt that position, as many do today, is to demonstrate a basic mistrust in the collective wisdom of the people and a frightening lack of confidence in our form of government...For it is the leaders who have been found lacking, not the people. Itis the leaders who have systematically misled, misunderstood, and most of all ignored the people in pursuit of a recless foreign policy...Seperated from the public by a wall of secrecy...Nor could they bring themselves to recognize the knowledge and insight of that large number of private citizens who foresaw the eventual failure of their plans. As we now know, they were able even to ignore the frequently accurate forecasts of government's own intelligence analysts...We were told that we had to fight on the coninent so that we would not have to battle on the shores of AMERICA...But the American people too were treated with contempt...papers show that the public statements of potimism, used to sustain public support for an increasingly unpopular policy, were contrary to the intelligence estimates given our leaders at the time...The people do not want, nor should they any longer be subjected to, the paternalistic protection of an Executive which believes that it alone has the right answers. For too long (the people) have been forced to subsist on a diet of half-truths or deliberate deceit, by executives who consider the people and the congress as adversaries...

Mike Gravel US Senator August 1971...

H.G. Wells...

The true strength of rulers and empires lies not in armies or emotions but in the belief of men that they are inflexibly open and truthful and legal. As soon as a government departs from that standard, it ceases to be anything more than "the gang in possession," and its days are numbered.


Not a cut and paste...certainly got me thinking about the circular aspect of history sometims...

"Our nation has been torn apart by a war that has seared its conscience. We have spent lives and wealth without limit in pursuit of an unworthy goal, preserving our own power and prestige while laying waste the unfortunate lands...Free and informed public debate is the source of our strength. Remove it and our democratic institutions become a sham...The American people have never agreed that the performance of their elected officials should be immune from public discussion and review. They have never failed to support their government and its policies, once they were convinced of the rightness of those policies. But they should not be expected to offer their support merely on the word of a President and his close advisors. To adopt that position, as many do today, is to demonstrate a basic mistrust in the collective wisdom of the people and a frightening lack of confidence in our form of government...For it is the leaders who have been found lacking, not the people. Itis the leaders who have systematically misled, misunderstood, and most of all ignored the people in pursuit of a recless foreign policy...Seperated from the public by a wall of secrecy...Nor could they bring themselves to recognize the knowledge and insight of that large number of private citizens who foresaw the eventual failure of their plans. As we now know, they were able even to ignore the frequently accurate forecasts of government's own intelligence analysts...We were told that we had to fight on the coninent so that we would not have to battle on the shores of AMERICA...But the American people too were treated with contempt...papers show that the public statements of potimism, used to sustain public support for an increasingly unpopular policy, were contrary to the intelligence estimates given our leaders at the time...The people do not want, nor should they any longer be subjected to, the paternalistic protection of an Executive which believes that it alone has the right answers. For too long (the people) have been forced to subsist on a diet of half-truths or deliberate deceit, by executives who consider the people and the congress as adversaries...

Mike Gravel US Senator August 1971...

H.G. Wells...

The true strength of rulers and empires lies not in armies or emotions but in the belief of men that they are inflexibly open and truthful and legal. As soon as a government departs from that standard, it ceases to be anything more than "the gang in possession," and its days are numbered.


Not a cut and paste...certainly got me thinking about the circular aspect of history sometims...

Not another Vietnam my ass...

"Our nation has been torn apart by a war that has seared its conscience. We have spent lives and wealth without limit in pursuit of an unworthy goal, preserving our own power and prestige while laying waste the unfortunate lands...Free and informed public debate is the source of our strength. Remove it and our democratic institutions become a sham...The American people have never agreed that the performance of their elected officials should be immune from public discussion and review. They have never failed to support their government and its policies, once they were convinced of the rightness of those policies. But they should not be expected to offer their support merely on the word of a President and his close advisors. To adopt that position, as many do today, is to demonstrate a basic mistrust in the collective wisdom of the people and a frightening lack of confidence in our form of government...For it is the leaders who have been found lacking, not the people. Itis the leaders who have systematically misled, misunderstood, and most of all ignored the people in pursuit of a recless foreign policy...Seperated from the public by a wall of secrecy...Nor could they bring themselves to recognize the knowledge and insight of that large number of private citizens who foresaw the eventual failure of their plans. As we now know, they were able even to ignore the frequently accurate forecasts of government's own intelligence analysts...We were told that we had to fight on the coninent so that we would not have to battle on the shores of AMERICA...But the American people too were treated with contempt...papers show that the public statements of potimism, used to sustain public support for an increasingly unpopular policy, were contrary to the intelligence estimates given our leaders at the time...The people do not want, nor should they any longer be subjected to, the paternalistic protection of an Executive which believes that it alone has the right answers. For too long (the people) have been forced to subsist on a diet of half-truths or deliberate deceit, by executives who consider the people and the congress as adversaries...

Mike Gravel US Senator August 1971...

H.G. Wells...

The true strength of rulers and empires lies not in armies or emotions but in the belief of men that they are inflexibly open and truthful and legal. As soon as a government departs from that standard, it ceases to be anything more than "the gang in possession," and its days are numbered.


Not a cut and paste...certainly got me thinking about the circular aspect of history sometims...

Why don't or why can't people speak like that anymore? It seems our skills for the oratory have gone astray over the years, then again, we're a soundbite nation these days, you probably couldn't get someone to actually listen to Senator Gravel's whole speech there. These days, FoxNews would cut it down, and take everything out of context, and then Rove would attack him as being un-patriotic, and anti military, and accuse him of "playing politics" with his statement.

Our system is in shambles I think.

Why don't or why can't people speak like that anymore? It seems our skills for the oratory have gone astray over the years, then again, we're a soundbite nation these days, you probably couldn't get someone to actually listen to Senator Gravel's whole speech there. These days, FoxNews would cut it down, and take everything out of context, and then Rove would attack him as being un-patriotic, and anti military, and accuse him of "playing politics" with his statement.

Our system is in shambles I think.

This is just a small portion...some of the more pertinant parts of his introduction to the famous (and to some infamous) release of the Pentagon Papers to his constituency (which was Senatorial cover given to the media...we can only imagine.) It does offer us another question to ponder...do we have a Senator Gravel today?

The line that I would like to see adopted today...
"But they should not be expected to offer their support merely on the word of a President and his close advisors. To adopt that position, as many do today, is to demonstrate a basic mistrust in the collective wisdom of the people and a frightening lack of confidence in our form of government..."

To put dissent in the form of our governmental principles is a stronger case to make. Kind of turning the thinking of today on its ear...

Why don't or why can't people speak like that anymore? It seems our skills for the oratory have gone astray over the years, then again, we're a soundbite nation these days, you probably couldn't get someone to actually listen to Senator Gravel's whole speech there. These days, FoxNews would cut it down, and take everything out of context, and then Rove would attack him as being un-patriotic, and anti military, and accuse him of "playing politics" with his statement.

Our system is in shambles I think.


Words are useless without deeds and the strength of character to bring them to life.

This is just a small portion...some of the more pertinant parts of his introduction to the famous (and to some infamous) release of the Pentagon Papers to his constituency (which was Senatorial cover given to the media...we can only imagine.) It does offer us another question to ponder...do we have a Senator Gravel today?

The line that I would like to see adopted today...
"But they should not be expected to offer their support merely on the word of a President and his close advisors. To adopt that position, as many do today, is to demonstrate a basic mistrust in the collective wisdom of the people and a frightening lack of confidence in our form of government..."

To put dissent in the form of our governmental principles is a stronger case to make. Kind of turning the thinking of today on its ear...

I'd say right now, as close as we get is Senator Feingold, yet, he can only go so far without the support of others around him unfortunately, and he's been hung out to dry. What I would really like to see is for someone in the republican party to come to their senses and say, "Hey, Bush and company have a lot to answer for and we should make them answer and be held accountable." But, alas, that is just a pipedream...

We are not holding the executive branch accountable for their actions right now, and that's a shame. I can only personally write so many letters to my Congress-people who then, in most cases are republicans, who summarily dismiss my pleadings to them with a response of, "We must support our President in this time of war." I hate it when that happens. With the approval ratings of Bush, I know that there are lot more folks out there who have questions about what is going on, and we are supposed to have a representative republic here, and yet, our representatives don't seem to be doing or carrying out the will of the people. Blind allegiance is dangerous I think, and it might come back to haunt more than a few republicans during mid term elections this year.

"For it is the leaders who have been found lacking, not the people."

In November of 2004, the people failed.
The people re-elected the leaders. The people showed they think the leaders should be immune from scrutiny. Too many of the people were content to subject themselves to the paternalistic protection of an Executive which believes that it alone has the right answers. The people cowardly chose the status quo over change. The people showed they fear the appearance of weakness more than the consequences of blind, destructive resolve.

Could you name for me ALL of the battles the United States LOST in Vietnam? The KIA ratio of American to Vietnamese?

Or let us change tactics...how long have we been "in" the Middle East...with advisors? A case could be made that the United States has escalated in a way similiar to the years of 1952-3-1975 or so. The Indochinese had been fighting nationalistic battles for nearly a century, similarly in the Middle East with the sectarian violence that has been erupting between sects or nation states since their inception following WWI and beyond.

The quotation which you disregarded involved the American rationale for war...the perceptions and misperceptions behind Ike, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon...and how the country was affected. It asks questions as to what the nature of power is...and why America will back things deemed to be justifiable and wanes when it is proven otherwise...Finally it puts into the proper place the importance of democracy in preserving this principle. Those are the similarities that this quotation addresses it does not include casualties...or the "ease" of "victory"...

No Iraq is not Vietnam...but there are more than a few kernals between or 2 most devisive wars in recent memories.

What was the alternative? Let Israel fen for itself? Let Israel attack Iraq, Iran and whomever? That would have been real nasty. We took Saddam out and Iran might be next. We have no choice, we should act with pre-emption.

One of the reasons we took Saddam out was his financial support of terrorists who attacked and killed Israelis. Saddam did attack Israel in the first Gulf War. Had we allowed Israel to go after Saddam...I think the ME would be a cluster-you-know-what. We went in and did it ourselves, we may do the same to Iran.

Memos between Mendes-France, Eisenhower and Dulles tell the story... It is about Dien Bien Phu and why the United States allowed the French to lose the battle that General Navarre foolishly allowed to happen. In their best judgement...they thought the French lacked the "great power" ability to control and win the situation...we thought we could do better in Indochina...hence we submarined the Geneva accords (1954) and set up shop to prop up our government in the South rather than let Ho win a fair election. We thought we could do it better...your analogy is found in the early years of our presence in Vietnam...when Ike sent the first Advisors to the ground in Southeast Asia. Why let someone else do something...we feel we can do better?

Iraq War began with a Republican, avoided by a Democrat (Clinton was getting oral) and ended by another Republican.

The war is over? Thank god.

Why do you bother arguing history? You don't know it all that well.

What was the alternative? Let Israel fen for itself?

Israel has nukes--Iraq as we find out doesn't. Israel is more than capable of defending itself from Iraq IMO. The US should butt out.

began with Saddam and Iraq 2 began with W2. W the first responded to Saddam's war of agression against Kuwait and threatened the Saudis. W2 started the second war and who knows who will be in charge and when it'll end.

another 50 plus killed today. Insurgent lead car bombs/terrorism on downward trend.execution squads on the up.

"I voted for the $87M before I voted against it."

Vietnam began with some Democrats in office and ended with a Republican in office.

Iraq War began with a Republican, avoided by a Democrat (Clinton was getting oral) and ended by another Republican.

You are correct, the people of America spoke in 2004, President Bush was re-elected. :)

Am I a Democrat? That's news to me.
Insecurity leads to choosing might over right because might was right at hand, while right took too much soul searching. Right was just too inconvenient. In this administration's case, soul searching is a wild goose chase.

We're peacekeepers now. Peacekeepers who are targeted by sickos. In my opinion the War ends when the other side's army etc is defeated and the leader of that country is either killed, taken into custody, signs a truce or commits suicide. With this, I say the War ended.

Hmm. Nine more soldiers dead today. I'm not sure how much more of this peace we can stand. Perhaps we should go back to war, so we can get the hell out of there.

Hmm. Nine more soldiers dead today. I'm not sure how much more of this peace we can stand. Perhaps we should go back to war, so we can get the hell out of there.

We came in spastic
Like tameless horses
We left in plastic
As numbered corpses

We came in spastic
Like tameless horses
We left in plastic
As numbered corpses


And will we all go down together?

This is sad but it is war and they were soldiers. If yours had been the prevalant attitude at Omaha Beach, we would have loaded back on the ships and come home.

This is sad but it is war and they were soldiers. If yours had been the prevalant attitude at Omaha Beach, we would have loaded back on the ships and come home.

That might work with Crows...

Or a murder of terrorists.

Could you name for me ALL of the battles the United States LOST in Vietnam? The KIA ratio of American to Vietnamese?

Or let us change tactics...how long have we been "in" the Middle East...with advisors? A case could be made that the United States has escalated in a way similiar to the years of 1952-3-1975 or so. The Indochinese had been fighting nationalistic battles for nearly a century, similarly in the Middle East with the sectarian violence that has been erupting between sects or nation states since their inception following WWI and beyond.

The quotation which you disregarded involved the American rationale for war...the perceptions and misperceptions behind Ike, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon...and how the country was affected. It asks questions as to what the nature of power is...and why America will back things deemed to be justifiable and wanes when it is proven otherwise...Finally it puts into the proper place the importance of democracy in preserving this principle. Those are the similarities that this quotation addresses it does not include casualties...or the "ease" of "victory"...

No Iraq is not Vietnam...but there are more than a few kernals between or 2 most devisive wars in recent memories.


I agree with this. If we are truly to win, and reshape the nation, then we have to stop trying to be the NICE guy and truly overpower them. We could do this, but like Vietnam, our leadership is too tied to polling data and public opinion to do what is truly necessary. You want our boys home?....You want this over?.......Then YOU....ALL of you have to accept that horror must descend upon Iraq. We should be bombing the sh*t out of any towns with suspected insurgents. We should be posting their heads on spikes in the middle of baghdad as a public reminder of what may happen to you should you try to kill US serviceman. We need to be a little more evil, and if we don't have the stomach for that, then we should leave now with our tails between our legs. The world fought savagely and brutally in WWII and completely broke the spirits of the germans, allowing us to remake that country postwar. MANY lives were lost, including MANY innocents, but great change almost always requires GREAT sacrifice......

I'll tell you the paralell I sse with Vietnam. No matter how many bombs you drop on Iraq, you are dropping them in the wrong place. The problem in Iraq, as in Vietnam, is there are no borders for the insurgents and money and supplies are flowing in from surrounding countries. The kind of scorched earth policy you are advocating has some appeal but it would not solve the problem, only punish people who are not fighting and are trapped between the two ideological forces. What we need is what we are trying to acheive. A strong Iraqi government capable of internal security and a strong American force to limit outside intervention. a strong Iraq is first in the order.

This is sad but it is war and they were soldiers. If yours had been the prevalant attitude at Omaha Beach, we would have loaded back on the ships and come home.

Once again, this ain't WWII. Also, kpcw was very adamant that this is NOT war, it's peace, and we are peacekeepers. That makes it a lot sadder.

I'll tell you the paralell I sse with Vietnam. No matter how many bombs you drop on Iraq, you are dropping them in the wrong place. The problem in Iraq, as in Vietnam, is there are no borders for the insurgents and money and supplies are flowing in from surrounding countries. The kind of scorched earth policy you are advocating has some appeal but it would not solve the problem, only punish people who are not fighting and are trapped between the two ideological forces. What we need is what we are trying to acheive. A strong Iraqi government capable of internal security and a strong American force to limit outside intervention. a strong Iraq is first in the order.

I don't call that a scorched earth policy any more than the US bombing campaigns of WWII were. We killed millions of civilians and destroyed entire cities. If it is truly a world war then we should fight it as such. If the surround nations are providing aid to the enemy, we should take them out too, now, not after we've bled ourselves dry. I liken what we're attempting in Iraq right now to trying to install a new government in Germany in 1942. Let's actually win the war first then worry about setting up governments.

I'll tell you the paralell I sse with Vietnam. No matter how many bombs you drop on Iraq, you are dropping them in the wrong place. The problem in Iraq, as in Vietnam, is there are no borders for the insurgents and money and supplies are flowing in from surrounding countries. The kind of scorched earth policy you are advocating has some appeal but it would not solve the problem, only punish people who are not fighting and are trapped between the two ideological forces. What we need is what we are trying to acheive. A strong Iraqi government capable of internal security and a strong American force to limit outside intervention. a strong Iraq is first in the order.


When you put the fear of god or allah or whoever the hell into them, when they fear you more then they fear the insurgents and terrorists, they will turn them over and succumb to our will. Only then do you win.....I've never understood this modern definition of war. As if it should be clean and friendly, and everyone nice......F THAT.......It pissed me off with gulf one too....War is evil, and it should be fought as such. Luckily I can be too, which is why I understand.

I'll tell you the paralell I sse with Vietnam. No matter how many bombs you drop on Iraq, you are dropping them in the wrong place. The problem in Iraq, as in Vietnam, is there are no borders for the insurgents and money and supplies are flowing in from surrounding countries. The kind of scorched earth policy you are advocating has some appeal but it would not solve the problem, only punish people who are not fighting and are trapped between the two ideological forces. What we need is what we are trying to acheive. A strong Iraqi government capable of internal security and a strong American force to limit outside intervention. a strong Iraq is first in the order.

What we are trying to achieve has never worked in the history of warfare...to build from within while the out is still at war. KENB is spot on with his analogy...ORDER must come first...you cannot have JUSTICE (ie democratic system based on laws)...when there is nothing but chaos. It breaks a fundamental maxim and like gravity it cannot be ignored and when it is...it is done at our own peril.

Just like LBJ before him...who left airstrips open to the Chinese to fly in provisions for Ho's men for years, because "some" civilian traffic came in as well. We are doing the same here. Just as Laos and Cambodia...two staging areas for the Viet Cong were left untouched...we do the same here. Why? Because limited war is just another word for...the best we can do given limited mandates, with limited rationales. And it dooms us to slow bleeding and an interwoving dependence of the Iraqi government (insert Bao Dai, Diem et al here) that only feeds the nationalism/sectarianism that is at the heart of both of these struggles. The Sunnis we like need us...because they know a Shia run army will come and kill them...and the Shias we like need us because they fear the civil insurrgency that will result (and is resulting) in the fact that the Shia militias are killing the Sunnis...BUT WE DONT GET IT...because we didn't do our homework, we have a myopia about nationalism...because our own country was formed without that as a basic framework. We have never felt that level because we are a melting pot...most nations have never even considered surviving in the state in which we have prospered in...

The total destruction of the infrastructure that would be the result of all out warfare would not work either. I agree with yout comparrisons of laos and cambodia, but that would be Iran and Syria. If you want to attack the problem, bomb the hell out of Iran untill they have enough to do without interfering with their southern neighbor. This is going to be a much broader conflict, it already is, just not publicly acknowledged.

Iraq is not Vietnam.

The similarity between the two is that in both, we didn't enter with a clearcut plan to finish what we started. We ignored and underestimated the difficulties ahead, and overestimated our own strength and thus our ability to cause change. Both conflicts became drains on our treasury and our collective spirits. And with both, the longer we spend mired in a holding pattern, the clearer the folly of it all will become.