Did anyone ever read James Webb's "The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty"?

[Toad]

 The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty written by Webb in 1995 provides an interesting example of irony.

The people who directed the antiwar movement did not care whether McNamara had a workable strategy, or whether it could have been adapted to circumstances. They did not care whether Nixon's Vietnamization program might have worked. They did not care whether the South Vietnamese should have been given an adequate chance to adjust their strategy after the American withdrawal. And they did not care whether the communists signed a pledge guaranteeing free elections and a peaceful reunification of the country. Quite simply, they wanted the communists to win. Those who were adults during the Vietnam era know this truth full well. Others, however, particularly our children, have seen it glazed over and even denied as the reality of what happened after 1975 became ever more clear.

[Gunslinger]

There's much truth in that.  

At just about every single "Peace" ralley even today you will see a ton of comunist and socialist propaganda being distributed.  Many of the groups that sponser and organize such events are the same ones passing out the info or organizers of the events themselves.  If you don't beleive me take a gander at all the pictures at zombietime.  They speak for themselves.

I read a recent poll (and I'm not gonna say these are liberal nut jobs, they are probably more or less just nutjobs) but 43% of those polled who oppose the war in Iraq do not even want the US to win.  (by win I mean a stable democratic govt that can secure it's own country.

[Hap]

I knew it!  The Pinkos are STILL to blame.

Regards,

hap

[Debonair]

i nevar read that zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz what ooops, sorry, i must have nodded off there

[Eagler]

there are those that want the terrorist to win out..

An Iraq victory/success is a Bush victory/success

there are those who exist to see that does not happen by whatever means available

in reality, other than the "flower children", there is no comparison btwn Vietnam and Iraq as we will unfortunately see when Iran takes over Iraq when the dems force a funding cut retreat from the region .. then the fun begins, hopefully the cheekboness are not colored blind and can tell a blue city target from a red one...

[Toad]

Originally posted by Hap
I knew it!  The Pinkos are STILL to blame.

Regards,

hap

You know who Webb is right? You listened to his rebuttal to the SOtU address?

Do you see the irony?

[lazs2]

toad.. what killed support for the war was the dishonest way it was run and the appearance that we would not fight the enemy and.... most of all....

The draft.    When your young butt was on the line for the lousy way the war was being fought you tended to get real unsupporting about the whole mess.

We wouldn't attack the bad guys and we were sending kids who didn't want to go over there to be target practice for an enemy who came from places we couldn't attack.

All we need in iraq to turn it into such a fiasco is an "insurgent capital" that we won't attack and.... of course...  a draft.

The democrats want a draft ya know..

lazs

[Toad]

Well, allow me to "update" the quotation from Webb's article and bring it into the present:

The people who directed the antiwar movement did not care whether Rumsfeld had a workable strategy, or whether it could have been adapted to circumstances. They did not care whether Bush's Iraqization program might have worked. They did not care whether the Iraqis should have been given an adequate chance to adjust their strategy after the American withdrawal. And they did not care whether the Islamic radicals signed a pledge guaranteeing free elections and a peaceful reunification of the country. Quite simply, they wanted Bush to fail. Those who were adults during the Iraq era know this truth full well. Others, however, particularly our children, have seen it glazed over and even denied as the reality of what happened after 2006 became ever more clear.


The irony, of course, is that Webb is one of those that would pay any price to ensure Bush's failure in Iraq. He's come full circle. Kind of relates to that "new history/old history" thread.

[FiLtH]

Actually I see alot in common between Vietnam and Iraq. I didnt want to when it started, but since its dragged on, it becomes more like it.

  Fighting an enemy among the civilians, enemy units and equipment coming in across the borders, people at home unhappy with how its being done, an administration confounded on how to get out of it while saving face, celebrities siding with the enemy.

  Bring back the Huey and issue the enemy coolie hats and there isnt much difference, aside from the lack of jungle.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I have not read it yet, but I might if I get the chance. The excerpt provided was good though. Toad's update was pretty good as well.

FiLtH, you have a point. But it that way ONLY because it has been allowed to become that way. And most all of the fault lies within the U.S. The war has become politicized because the public has been foolish enough to allow and tolerate it.

[Maverick]

Laz,

We already have an ""insurgent capital" that we won't attack" or actually more accurately two of them and their countries as well for staging into iraq. They are Syria and Iran. At this time particularly, iran. Congress is already on record opposing action in or agains iran to date.

[1K3]

Originally posted by Eagler
there is no comparison btwn Vietnam and Iraq as we will unfortunately see when Iran takes over Iraq when the dems force a funding cut retreat from the region .. then the fun begins, hopefully the cheekboness are not colored blind and can tell a blue city target from a red one...

Iran will not take over Iraq.  Like the Americans, Iran wants to make Iraq stable too.  If Iraq disintegrates right before our eyes Iran, Iraq, andTurkey's Kurdish population would secede and demand a country of their own.  Kurdish secession  is Iran and Turkey's worst nightmare and middle east will be 10x worse than today.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The only stability Iran seeks in Iraq is a stable Shia controlled Iran friendly regime, preferably a puppet regime run from Tehran.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by 1K3
Iran will not take over Iraq.  Like the Americans, Iran wants to make Iraq stable too.  If Iraq disintegrates right before our eyes Iran, Iraq, andTurkey's Kurdish population would secede and demand a country of their own.  Kurdish secession  is Iran and Turkey's worst nightmare and middle east will be 10x worse than today.

huh?
is that why they are fighting us & the Iraqis in Iraq now because they want a stable Iraq? Or is it because they want a larger Iran with American troops far far away from Terhan?

[Stringer]

Toad,
I see the parrellel between McNamara and Rumsfield...

Do you believe either one had a workable strategy or showed an aptitude to acknowledge the reality of the situation on the ground and make adjustments to those circomstances?

While that quote may be ironic, there is also irony that even though they didn't care if Rumsfield of McNamara had a workable strategy, time has proven that neither one DID have a workable strategy or were willling to adapt it to the circumstances.

IMO, the anti-war movement didn't gain real steam until both of those men's shortcomings in strategizing war and occupation, and specifically, occupation were exposed.