Worse Than Vietnam

[Gary Sisco]

This is the most rational and astute commentary on the war that I've read so far, and the comparison to Chechnya is spot on, for anyone who knows anything about the Russians' first and, now, second war there. Not many, I know. Anyway, this is excellent commentary, from the Independent (UK) today:

Power and vainglory
Iraq isn't another Vietnam - it's much worse. The images of abused prisoners demonstrate not just American depravity, says the philosopher John Gray, but the folly of waging war as a moral crusade
19 May 2004


Misguided from the start, the war in Iraq is spiralling out of control. Any legitimacy the occupying forces may ever have possessed has been destroyed, and there are signs that Iraqi insurgents are coming together to mount a movement of resistance that could render the country ungovernable. With even more damning images likely to find their way into the public realm in the near future, the United States is facing an historic defeat in Iraq - a blow to American power more damaging than it suffered in Vietnam, and far larger in its global implications.

The inescapable implication of currently available evidence is that the use of torture by US forces was not an aberration, but a practice sanctioned at the highest levels. Undoubtedly there were serious breaches of discipline, and the blank failure to understand that they had done anything wrong displayed by some of the abusers does not speak well for the levels of training of sections of the US military.

Abuse on the scale suggested by the Red Cross report cannot be accounted for by any mere lapse in discipline or the trailer-park mentality of some American recruits. It was inherent in the American approach to the war. American military intervention in Iraq was based on neo-conservative fantasies about US forces being greeted as liberators. In fact, as could be foreseen at the time, it has embroiled these forces in a brutal and hopeless war against the Iraqi people. From being regarded as passive recipients of American goodwill, they are now viewed as virtually subhuman. If, as seems clear, British forces are innocent of anything resembling the systemic abuse that appears to have been practised by the Americans, one reason is that they do not share these attitudes.

The resistance mounted by the Iraqi insurgents can be compared to the anti-colonial liberation struggles of the 1950s, but the closest parallels with the intractable conflict now under way are found in Chechnya, which remains a zone of anarchy and terror despite the ruthless deployment of Russian firepower and the systematic use of torture for more than a decade. It was the prospect of an intractable guerrilla conflict that led many soldiers in the Pentagon to express deep reservations regarding the war. When the civilian leadership launched the invasion of Iraq, US forces were plunged into a type of conflict for which they are supremely ill equipped.

In the wake of Vietnam and Somalia, American military doctrine has been based on "force protection" and "shock and awe". In practice, these strategies mean killing anyone who appears to pose any threat to US forces and overcoming the enemy through the use of overwhelming firepower. Effective in the early stages of the war when the enemy was Saddam and his regime, they are deeply counter-productive when, as in Iraq today, the enemy comprises much of the population. As Douglas Hurd has observed, filling the hospitals and mortuaries is not the best way to win hearts and minds. The effect has been to make the conflict more savage. It is in circumstances such as these that torture becomes routine. In Iraq over the past year, as in Chechnya, and before that in Algeria where the French fought a similar dirty war, anyone could end up a victim of torture.

In subjecting randomly selected Iraqis to abuse, American forces are following a well-trodden path, but the type of torture that has been practised has some distinctive features. Unlike the Russians or the French, who inflicted extremes of physical pain as well, US forces in Iraq appear to be relying mainly on techniques that focus on the application of intense psychological pressure. In order to soften up detainees they have swept up from the streets, they have used disorientation, sensory deprivation and sexual humiliation. These are all forms of abuse that would damage any human being, but leading naked Iraqi males around on dog leads and covering their heads with women's underwear look like techniques designed specifically in order to attack the prisoners' identity and values. The result is that an indelible image of American depravity has been imprinted on the entire Islamic world.

It remains unclear how these techniques came to be used in Abu Ghraib prison. What is evident is that from the start of the war on terror the Bush administration has flouted or circumvented international law on the treatment of detainees. It unilaterally declared members of terrorist organisations to be illegal combatants who are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. The detainees held at Guantanamo Bay fall into this category, and so apparently did the Taliban and al-Qa'ida suspects who were captured in Afghanistan. Being beyond the reach of international law, they were liable to torture.

In Iraq, the Bush administration evaded international law by a different route. They outsourced security duties at Abu Ghraib and other American detention facilities to private contractors not covered by military law and not regulated by the Geneva Convention. In effect, the Bush administration deliberately created a lawless environment in which abuse could be practised with impunity.

Some of the lawmakers who watched video stills of the sexual abuse of Iraqi women by US personnel in a closed session on Capitol Hill in Washington last week have described the behaviour they witnessed as un-American. Maybe so, but it was made possible by policies emanating from the highest levels of American leadership. The torture of Iraqis by US personnel is an application of the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror.

Tossing aside international law and the norms of civilised behaviour in this way is self-defeating. Not so long ago, the clash of civilisations was just a crass and erroneous theory, but after the recent revelations it is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In toppling Saddam, the Americans destroyed an essentially Western regime, not unlike the Stalinist Soviet Union in its militant secularism. In doing so, they empowered radical Islam as the single most important political force in the country.

The immediate beneficiary of the torture revelations is likely to be Iran - a fact that seems to have been grasped by Ahmed Chalabi (the Iraqi émigré that the neo-conservatives believed would take the country to American-style democracy), who appears to be forging links with the Iranian regime. At a global level, the principal beneficiary is al-Qa'ida, which is now a more serious threat than it has ever been.

The Bush administration's self-defeating approach to terrorism is symptomatic of a dangerous unrealism running right through its thinking. For Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and other neo-conservatives, the solution to terrorism was to "modernise" the Middle East. For them, that meant overthrowing many, if not most, of the area's regimes and replacing them with secular liberal democracies. They appear not to have noticed that the region's secular regimes were authoritarian states such as Syria and Iraq. In the Middle East today, as in Algeria in the past, democracy means Islamist rule.

In part, the attack on Iraq was simply another exercise in the type of neo-Wilsonian fantasy that is a recurring feature of US foreign policy, but it was also an exercise in realpolitik - and a resource war. A key part of the rationale for the invasion was to enable the US to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, which had come to be seen as complicit with terror and inherently unstable.

If it was to pull out from Saudi Arabia, the US needed another source of oil. Only Iraq has it in sufficient quantities - hence the drive for regime change. In this Dr Strangelove-like vision, once Saddam had been removed and Iraq remodelled as a Western-style democracy, the oil would start flowing. The war would be self-financing, and the world economy would move smoothly into the sunlit uplands.

Things have not turned out quite like that. Oil prices have risen, not fallen, and they could easily rise further. Partly this is a result of the increasingly desperate security situation in Iraq. The Americans did more than overthrow Saddam's despotic regime; they also destroyed the Iraqi state, with the result that the country is now in a condition of semi-anarchy.

Given the ill-judged attack by US forces on the Shia holy city of Najaf and the likelihood that the beheading of Nicholas Berg by Islamist militants will be followed by more such atrocities, the level of violence in the country will almost certainly escalate. In that case, Iraq will be the scene of a mass exodus. International organisations and Western oil companies will leave and any prospect of rebuilding the country will be lost. Where will that leave Iraq - and its oil?

The exodus will not be confined to Iraq. Western companies are already leaving Saudi Arabia, the producer of last resort in the global oil market. Emboldened by the worsening situation in Iraq, forces linked to al-Qa'ida have intensified their attacks on Saudi targets. Economists may say that the world need not fear another oil shock, but they have forgotten the geo-political realities. Saudi oil is still hugely important, and any sign of increased instability in the country is immediately reflected in the oil price. The impact of a major upheaval in the kingdom would be incalculable.

The US cannot afford an ongoing war in Iraq, but the price of a quick exit will be high. Even so, it looks clear that that is exactly what is about to happen. After the torture revelations, "staying the course" is no longer feasible. This is not because the American public has reacted with massive revulsion to evidence of the systematic abuse of Iraqis - as has been the case in Britain and other European countries. Rather, Iraq and its people are now viewed with a mix of bafflement and hatred, and a mood of despair about the war has set in. Most Americans want out - and soon. Locked in internal dispute, the Democrats have not so far been able to grasp the nettle. The pressure on President Bush to announce that America has completed its mission with the handover of sovereignty may well prove overwhelming.

If he decides to cut and run, Bush may yet survive the débâcle in Iraq. No such prospect beckons for Tony Blair. It was his brand of messianic liberalism that dragged Britain into the war. For the Prime Minister, going to war in Iraq offered an intoxicating feeling of rectitude combined with the reassuring sense of being on the side of the big battalions. But American invincibility was a neo-conservative myth, and the notion that Blair can survive the hideous fiasco that is unfolding in Iraq is as delusional as the thinking that led to the war in the first place. It cannot be long before he is irresistibly prompted to seek new avenues for his messianic ambitions.

In the US, American withdrawal will be represented as a reward for a job well done. The rest of the world will recognise it as a humiliating defeat, and it is here that the analogy of Vietnam is inadequate. The Iraq war has been lost far more quickly than that in South-east Asia, and the impact on the world is potentially much greater. Whereas Vietnam had little economic significance, Iraq is pivotal in the world economy. No dominoes fell with the fall of Saigon, but some pretty weighty ones could be shaken as the American tanks rumble out of Baghdad.

The full implications of such a blow to American power cannot be foreseen. One consequence is clear enough, however. The world has seen the last of liberal imperialism. It died on the killing fields of Iraq. It is no consolation to the people of that country, but at least their sufferings have demonstrated the cruel folly of waging war in order to fight a liberal crusade.

John Gray is Professor of European Thought at the LSE. His book 'Al Qaeda and What it Means to be Modern' is published in paperback by Faber & Faber (£7.99)
19 May 2004 09:40

Search this site:

Printable Story








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy, including use of cookies | Sign up for our free daily news update
Freelance contributions | Advertise in print | Other Digital sites | Contact us

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Gary Sisco]

Up for the argumentless tories and kneejerk flagwavers (so long as the "patriotism" costs them nothing, personally).

[john williams]

Good article, however, systematic prisoner abuse in Vietnam and elsewhere by the US is well documented. None of this is new.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/index.htm

Originally Posted by Rainman

Up for the argumentless tories and kneejerk flagwavers (so long as the "patriotism" costs them nothing, personally).

Ah, truly a classic post, Gary.

So which is it, worse than or not worse than? You seem to flip flop on a regular basis.

Operation Rolling Thunder?

The Christmas raid on Hanoi?

A guy that does our air conditioning system at work was in Vietnam. He sat right here at my desk and told me all about the U.S. bombing the shit out of North Vietnamese villages trying to break their will towards the end.

Give it a rest.

[crawjo]

I don't get how Iraq is "worse than" Vietnam. Tell you what, let's build a wall with all the names of the fallen soldiers who have died in Iraq and place it next to the Vietnam wall and count the difference in feet between the two walls.

Lets include civilians in that count as well.

Of course, there was no abuse of civilians or prisoners in Vietnam.

The really fun part about these types of threads is that Gary will eventually come back in here with some long and rambling post where he'll ask us things like our age, where we served, what war we fought in, and other such nonsense.

Thusly "putting us in our place".

Brothre Sisco, you truly kick ass!!!

[john williams]

Same old, same old.

http://www.henryholt.com/nogunri/document04.htm
http://www.henryholt.com/nogunri/document31.htm
http://www.henryholt.com/nogunri/document06.htm


www.duke.edu/web/licep/7/kalyvas-kocher/ kalyvas-kocher.pdf

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Ah, truly a classic post, Gary.

So which is it, worse than or not worse than? You seem to flip flop on a regular basis.

Indeed.

Tell me...what was your position on the draft again?



As Dolan rightly stated: "Give it a rest."




Come back when you have something of consistency to share.

Wow!

Brother Goodz, I thought the only things you and I shared in common were the only two seats available in the outcast shack!

A pleasantly surprising post, my friend.

[Stuckinagroove]

While what is going on in Iraq is atrocious, I would hardly call it worse than Vietnam- let alone "much worse"

Originally Posted by Stuckinagroove

While what is going on in Iraq is atrocious, I would hardly call it worse than Vietnam- let alone "much worse"

Agreed.

Oh, and Stuckinagroove, your avatar has got to be the alltime best avatar on this board.

The name and the avvy go together perfectly!!!

[Stuckinagroove]

thanks

[mke]

It seems to me that the "much worse than Vietnam" thing refers to the war's regional and international repercussions rather than to the number of victims:

In the US, American withdrawal will be represented as a reward for a job well done. The rest of the world will recognise it as a humiliating defeat, and it is here that the analogy of Vietnam is inadequate. The Iraq war has been lost far more quickly than that in South-east Asia, and the impact on the world is potentially much greater. Whereas Vietnam had little economic significance, Iraq is pivotal in the world economy. No dominoes fell with the fall of Saigon, but some pretty weighty ones could be shaken as the American tanks rumble out of Baghdad.

[Gary Sisco]

Typically, (nearly) none of you have answered or even responded to the man's arguments as to why he thinks it's worse. You just mouth off. Indeed, the responses, with one exception, are exactly examples of the non-thought the man is writing about, and which he finds the most dangerous aspect of the whole subject, as do I.

1) Neither he nor I said that there was no systematic abuse of prisoners in Vietnam. There was, clearly. But that wasn't his point, so so what? Nor does the fact that there was amount to anything close to making today's abuse anymore right (or wrong) than it is. For that matter, there's systematic abuse of Americans in American prisons every day. So what, again (in terms of the man's argument).

2) The Vietnam War (for the Americans) went on for *15 years* and in its opening years, American (and Vietnamese) casualties -- especially civilian casualties -- were very much on a scale with those in Iraq today, if you bother to do any research, which I know you won't, so I don't know why I waste any energy responding. Give them a little time, already. It's only been a bit over a year. Indeed, it's only been going on for the equivalent of one tour for a Marine in Vietnam.

3) Dolan -- You'll have to footnote (as you continuously demand of me) where I ever had anything to say about whether or not the war is worse than Vietnam, and in what sense. All I've had to say about it is that there isn't any historical analogy with Vietnam *apart from the behavior of the admin's leadership.* Which is in fact very much like that of LBJ's, and Rumsfeld's in particular is virtually identical to that of McNamara's in the same role -- the man I personally hold responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths (hundreds of thousands of wounded and maimed) and several million dead Asians along with countless wounded and maimed -- many more than the number killed. No one will ever know how many. *Exactly because of his muleheaded stubborness and refusal to face objective reality even when it stomps on his own head.

4. Talking about the Wall is stupid, since the war in Iraq *isn't over yet* -- DUH! -- so no one knows how many American casualties there will be. The fact is, they are increasing at an alarming rate, with April's American casualities alone having surpassed the entire orginal invasion's total. But the most stupid part, and the most American, is to judge all by a simple mathematical body count -- exactly McNamara's idiotic method of determining victory. Let's see, several million dead Asians. 58,000 (more or less) dead yanks. I guess the Americans won that one, alright. Fucking double duh.

5. My position on the draft is completely irrelevant to the guy's argument. Triple fucking duh, for that response, which claims the prize, so far, for DUH responses of 2004.

Try reading the guy's actual arguments and respond to them -- as MKE alone has bothered to do -- not to strawmen and red herrings of your own choosing. Sometimes I think nearly everyone here was a student of Goodie's, but then I remember how many Goodies there actually are allegedly teaching people in the US, and it all makes sense again.

What's obvious is that ideology in the US has, for all intents and purposes, replaced thought itself, by stubbornly refusing to deal with anything that doesn't fit neatly into its demands. McNamara's number one fault again: if the bodycount favors the Americans, they're winning. If it doesn't, they're losing. Completely ignoring the fact that the Americans, again, are an *invading force in someone else's country,* with overwhelming firepower, yes, but firepower brought to bear on the population itself, therefore necessarily engendering further resistance, and so on. So the stats aren't at all surprising, let's face it, if we choose to think for a change. I know, I know, that requires some effort and historical understanding and study and therefore it won't happen, here.

But war is armed *politics,* and, as the Vietnamese showed clearly, at least to the rest of the world -- another factor that matters not to most Americans but was the man's actual point -- ignored of course -- people fighting with a political will and goal -- that is, people who are fighting *for* something -- will often withstand and accept a level of casualties that a foreign invader will not, or cannot. Witness, to remove Vietnam from the picture, the Russians' stubborn and relentless fight against the Germans in WW2, in which no one knows how many Russians died. Five million died from starvation alone, just during the seige of Leningrad. (And on the flip side, witness the Chechens stubborn and relentless fight against the Russians, now for the second time, having kicked their Russian asses once already.)

So, how many dead will it take before the US "just leaves," as it will and must, one day? What's an acceptable number of dead before they call it quits, as they will?

*And when they do, as the man points out, what will it mean about the American's power as the only superpower?*

Like it or not, the Iraqi resistance -- and it is a resistance, not an insurgency -- along with that in Afghanistan and huge sections of Pakistan (including its army and police forces, which have always been dependable allies of the mujahedin, for decades, and still are), is showing the Arab world's youth that it is possible after all to put out Goliath's eyes with a slingshot.

And it's always the youth that fight, wherever you are.

The only sensible thing is to show, for once, that the US isn't absolutely devoid of brainpower and get out before we *can* have a Wall of (American)names. (If the Vietnamese names were listed, the Wall would stretch out all the way to Maryland.)

By the way, is there anyone here who's actually bothered to know about the Russians' two wars in Chechnya? Has anyone actually read, say, a book, even one, about it?

Get a fucking clue, already, or make asses out of yourselves, as the world expects you to -- and with ample reason, given the evidence.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Rainman

2) The Vietnam War (for the Americans) went on for *15 years* and in its opening years, American (and Vietnamese) casualties -- especially civilian casualties -- were very much on a scale with those in Iraq today, if you bother to do any research, which I know you won't, so I don't know why I waste any energy responding. Give them a little time, already. It's only been a bit over a year. Indeed, it's only been going on for the equivalent of one tour for a Marine in Vietnam.

Uhm, no. Here's what he said (since I did read his article, thank you.)

"The US cannot afford an ongoing war in Iraq, but the price of a quick exit will be high. Even so, it looks clear that that is exactly what is about to happen. After the torture revelations, "staying the course" is no longer feasible."

So he's saying that the U.S. is about to cut and run. So, if this is true, how the FUCK is this worse than Vietnam, and more importantly, Gary, why are you being such a combative asshole?

[crawjo]

And here's more of his nonsense:

"In the US, American withdrawal will be represented as a reward for a job well done. The rest of the world will recognise it as a humiliating defeat, and it is here that the analogy of Vietnam is inadequate. The Iraq war has been lost far more quickly than that in South-east Asia, and the impact on the world is potentially much greater. Whereas Vietnam had little economic significance, Iraq is pivotal in the world economy. No dominoes fell with the fall of Saigon, but some pretty weighty ones could be shaken as the American tanks rumble out of Baghdad.

The full implications of such a blow to American power cannot be foreseen. One consequence is clear enough, however. The world has seen the last of liberal imperialism. It died on the killing fields of Iraq. It is no consolation to the people of that country, but at least their sufferings have demonstrated the cruel folly of waging war in order to fight a liberal crusade."

So this is worse than Vietnam because of the fallout, even though the implications "cannot be foreseen." So in other words "I don't know what the fallout is going to be, but it's going to be worse than Vietnam." Then, the only fallout he can actually identify is the end to "liberal imperialism." If that's what it is, why would its demise be "worse" than Vietnam? Wouldn't it be a good thing, if it is indeed, a "cruel folly"?

I would say from the response that your initial post got, that you may be the one making an ass of yourself here, Gary. That along with your cutesy little "up" post.

But if you insist on pushing this fairy tale, I promise when I get home tonight to put something together to explain to a fucking Vietnam vet WHY Iraq isn't even close.

Amazing.

[Groovehigh]

fuck, asshole....I like the words being used - but the problem is, that it should count as argumentation!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Someone else has already pointed it out. Iraq will be worse than Vietnam because of it's effect on the world's economy. Right now we're paying over 2 dollars a gallon for regular gasoline. If the de-stablization of Iraq leads to anarchy in Saudi Arabia, well it'll just get worse (the price of oil that is).

Now if you're talking about body-counts, of course it's not Vietnam.

[bluenoter]

U.S. Military Report Draws Iraq, Vietnam Parallel (Reuters)

U.S. action in Iraq could prove a foreign policy debacle

Could?

if the Bush administration ignores Washington's painful failure at nation-building in South Vietnam

If? Ignores?

But U.S. troops, viewed by many Iraqis as invaders

Many? Just what percentage is that?

lack the advantage of South Vietnam's large domestic security force as they seek to build new institutions under the pressure of a June 30 deadline for transfer of sovereignty

True. But they also lack

Communist fighters backed by the Soviet Union and China

pounding on them.


I mean, really. Do I even need to go further into your "fact" filled story, Rita? This story plays to your every fantasy about how things will end up.

Lets say we all grow up, quit playing a guessing game that validates whatever our own desires are, and wait to see what really happens.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Someone else has already pointed it out. Iraq will be worse than Vietnam because of it's effect on the world's economy. Right now we're paying over 2 dollars a gallon for regular gasoline. If the de-stablization of Iraq leads to anarchy in Saudi Arabia, well it'll just get worse (the price of oil that is).

Now if you're talking about body-counts, of course it's not Vietnam.

Actually, right now OPEC is looking to increase production, which should lead to a drop in prices pretty soon.

[Paul B]

...more importantly, Gary, why are you being such a combative asshole?

I suggest that you (and Dolan) are the combative ones. Sisco has been there; you armchair generals should pipe down and give him a little credit. We know you like war--though you've never fought in one--and love the mayhem in Iraq. Well, fair enough.

But please: spare us the "asshole" comments.

Bye-ya.




*

[Stuckinagroove]

I agree that it has the potential to be worse than vietnam, due to all the oil iraq is sitting on. I guess I'm optimistic in hoping that this will not get dragged out like Vietnam.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

. . . I mean, really. Do I even need to go further into your "fact" filled story, Rita? This story plays to your every fantasy about how things will end up.

Lets say we all grow up, quit playing a guessing game that validates whatever our own desires are, and wait to see what really happens.

What's significant, I thought, is that it's not my story but a story laid out in a 69-page report published this month by the Army War College.

title: "Iraq and Vietnam: Differences, Similarities and Insights"

co-authors:
W. Andrew Terrill of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute
Air Force War College professor Jeffrey Record

I'm sure that reading the whole report would flesh out the arguments for you and allow you to note any instances of distortion by the Reuters reporter who summarized the report. And if the co-authors' informed speculations aren't good enough for you, you could write to them and advise them to "grow up," "quit playing a guessing game that validates whatever [their] own desires are," and "wait and see what really happens."

Waiting to "see what really happens" is precisely what too many people, in and out of government, did during the Vietnam War. Many Americans who lived through that era aren't willing to repeat the mistake.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I suggest that you (and Dolan) are the combative ones. Sisco has been there; you armchair generals should pipe down and give him a little credit. We know you like war--though you've never fought in one--and love the mayhem in Iraq. Well, fair enough.

But please: spare us the "asshole" comments.

Bye-ya.




*

My apologies for my rude language, but both you and Gary have been taking any number of cheap shots at me and others recently. What, am I supposed to be intimidated because Gary's "been there"? He's a smart guy, but he also comes across to me as really angry and bitter about a lot of things, and I don't like it when his venom gets spewed in my direction. And I feel certain that you know you are being disingenous when you claim that I *love* the mayhem going on in Iraq. Any number of statements I have made on this board reveal the absurdity of that comment. But you make many comments like these, for what reason I don't know. I usually ignore them, but please let us not pretend that my declaring that he is acting like an asshole is somehow ramping the rhetoric up a notch. Like you, he's already insulted my intelligence and my morals on numerous occasions, by deliberately exaggerating and distorting what everyone who reads these threads knows my opinions actually are.

And if the co-authors' informed speculations aren't good enough for you, - Rita

You're missing my point, Rita. Whether or not they are good enough for me doesn't matter.

They are SPECULATIONS. That might be well and good for the "AHA!!" crowd, but I think it's incredibly foolish to sit around and see what we can dream up. Oh the possibilities.

Waiting to "see what really happens" is precisely what too many people, in and out of government, did during the Vietnam War.

Again, I find this type of parallel to be somewhat cheap and self serving. At any rate, you don't have that much of a choice, do you?

But, if we're still there 15 years from now fighting a losing battle against some insurgents, then I guess you will have been right.

Originally Posted by Paul B

I suggest that you (and Dolan) are the combative ones. Sisco has been there; you armchair generals should pipe down and give him a little credit. We know you like war--though you've never fought in one--and love the mayhem in Iraq. Well, fair enough.

But please: spare us the "asshole" comments.

Bye-ya.




*

Paul,

I have tried. Really, I have. I have been nice to you, I have address you like a man, I have asked you questions in a polite manner, I have answered your questions in a polite manner.

You continue to take cheap and hateful potshots at me. I do not consider anyone on this board to be stupid, so I know that that isn't what your problem is. But you tend to lash out in an angry and immature way, I have done the same in the past. I've alienated at least 90% of the people here due to my efforts. Many of them simply ignore me now, thats part of the price I pay.

Unfortunately, this will be the last time that I address you, but I thought it would be fair if I at least made you aware of my reasons.




Scott