No one, anywhere, will be held responsible for anything relating to the 'war' on terror while Bush is still in office.

The short version for those that don't want to read my rant is; the people simply can't deal with that level of complicit guilt.

The longer version, if you care, is I get more specific into the 'Vietnam generation' regardless of what side they fell on, as they not only let another one slip by but actively cheered it, and again, that is a level of guilt the American people simply can not face.

Because no matter which angle you look at it from, the American people are still complicit. They were asked no sacrifice, they paid no price, in fact they've been repeatedly paid off with multiple tax cuts during war time for possibly the first time in recorded human history, the troops were all volunteers, none of the war cost has been actually added to a budget or has even been fully counted, all people had to do to support this war was give up some arbitrary civil liberties they really don't understand or use anyway, so no one lost.

There is no investment into this war by the vast majority of Americans. About 1% of the population makes up our active military. You can go six degrees and still come up with only 6% of the entire US population has a personal stake in this war, past those troublesome lost liberties mentioned earlier.

If there is not cost being paid, and thus no cost to recoup by not continuing to pay it, then there is really no incentive to hold anyone accountable and deal with the complicit guilt as a consequence.

It cost us nothing to support the war, and it costs us nothing to oppose it. Of course people will spout off with righteous indignation, but it won't matter. Congress, whom, by the way, are made up of people, won't get serious until Bush is long out of office and the time difference is safe enough to bring it all up without remembering our own involvement.

I've talked to people that wondered, and often wondered myself, how the people of the time let Vietnam get so out of control, but I understand it better now. In fact, they were actually one up on us. They actually stopped the war after enough time, we won't. The 'war' on terror will continue to wage long after Bush is gone, no matter who is in office, or what party is in power. The only difference will be the degree.

Who was held responsible for Vietnam? Who went to prison, who lost their careers, who was actually punished for a failed war based on wrong and misleading information? Who was held responsible for the Gulf of Tonkin and punished?

No one. And no one will be held responsible now, because the people won't hold themselves responsible to their own complicity. And it's far easier to ignore the war today than it was then, when far more people paid the price.

No cost war is folly. A nation goes to war, not just it's military. America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, not just the president.

Oh, right, we didn't have to fight, and we didn't have to sacrifice, and we didn't even have to pay for it. Maybe it was just Bush, then.

I concur that no one will be held accountable in the Administration while Bush is still in office. Guilt, although rampant from the beginning, and sadly, lasting until now may never be punished.

Your insight into Vietnam and its parallels with Iraq are very perceptive. I have always wondered why protests, and demands for accountability, have not been louder from Americans, who are patriots no matter which side of the war they are on.

Now I realize, since we didn't have to pay for it (yet), and had no personal stake in this war, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. will go free.

I pray that history will tell the truth about Iraq and hope that we learn from our mistakes once and for all.

Well put.

Sadly as long as a "volunteer" army does the fighting with BILLIONS spend on outsourcing to Blackwater style contractors, the real cost will never be apparent . . . it could last indefinitely with continual griping but in the end more funding. It has become a "painless" war, with the costs put off "until later" and the fighting and dying focused on an invisible powerless class. Unlike Viet Nam, no one is facing the prospect of actually going to war unless it is a choice, either by economic or social pressure (Daddy was a Marine . . .).

Until the public actually pays though increased taxes or a universal draft, it will continue like a tire with a slow leak . . . a pain in the ass, but won't stop to fix it . . . .

Whether Bush is in office or not is completely irrelevant. Nobody will be held responsible because there is nothing to be held responsible for. We were attacked on 9/11/01 and immediately after those attacks we were at war. Going to war was the right thing to do. Unfortunately Bush, who is an average president on his best day and a terrible president on his worst, has made mistakes. This does not change the fact that going to war was the right thing to do. If Obama is elected then he will screw it up and our chances of getting attacked again go way up. If McCain is elected then we will have someone that has the military and government experience necessary to know how to run the country during a time of war, much like Eisenhower.

Complicit implies that the American people actively chose to involve themselves in an illegal act. The problem with this is that no applicable laws were broken. The international court (often cited by liberals) does not have any authority over the United States, which is a sovereign nation. In addition, the US Constitution grants the President the authority to override any and all treaties that he/she feels will inhibit the United States from protecting herself, her people, her allies, or her interests. As such what the UN thinks about this is completely irrelevant. You cannot be “complicit” if there was nothing illegal going on. Only those people with a limited understanding of history would ever consider going to war to protect the country as questionable.

Those on the logical side of the Vietnam generation remember that we won every battle, but lost the war at home because of weak kneed and indecisive leadership here at home. Rather than listen to Eisenhower (military genius), Kennedy listened to his advisors that had no military experience. Rather than fighting to win he fought to not lose, which is the best way to make sure that you do in fact lose. Johnson simply continued and escalated the mistakes made by Kennedy. Those on the overly emotional side of the Vietnam generation were against war, any war, regardless of the reason or circumstances. They simply embarrassed themselves.

Many of us were against the tax cuts during a time of war, but we still picked the best candidate available. The Democrats simply do not get it. As long as they come up with these uber liberal candidates the moderates, who are the deciding vote in any election, will not vote for them. The last Democrat in office made it because he is moderate enough to be presentable. In 2000 we had the lame duck Bush versus the new world order activist Gore and in 2004 we had the still lame duck Bush versus the traitor to his country Kerry. Both times was an easy vote for Bush. In 2008 we have the moderate, experienced, intelligent McCain versus the uber liberal, radical, racist, lying, complicit Obama and his merry men. This is an easy vote for McCain.

If you take the time to look through the history of the United States you will find that certain civil liberties were suspended during every war we have ever been involved in. this is one of the aspects of war. The well informed and well educated know this. You may not understand which liberties were suspended, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has your level of knowledge and understanding.

The level of investment is largely irrelevant since it is true of most wars. I have 3 sisters currently serving in Iraq and my husband is subject to call back. I would be there as well if I hadn’t failed the physical (too short). Do you have any personal investment?

Since nothing illegal has happened then there is no reason to feel any guilt. If you wish to feel guilty that is your choice, but I will pass on that myself.

Congress gave their authorization of the use of force. Nothing will happen after Bush is out of office because it was the right decision to make. Alterations in current policy will be made as they do often, but that’s about it.

Vietnam got out of control because Kennedy was weak and he allowed his weak advisors tell him what to do. He didn’t build up our forces, he didn’t go in with everything we have, he put handcuffs on our military as to when, where, and how they could engage the enemy, and he fought to maintain a stalemate rather than fighting to win. The American people didn’t have any more control over that war than they do over this one. They simply elected the wrong man in Kennedy over Nixon, who had every intention of using Eisenhower’s plan. Then the weak Johnson moved in after Kennedy was assassinated and he wasn’t qualified. He simply continued what Kennedy had done because he lacked the experience necessary to make his own decisions. By the time the strong, conservative Nixon was elected in 1969 the American people were no longer behind the war and the only prudent thing left was to try and figure out how to get out without leaving our allies too badly off. In the end we limped away in defeat rather than walking away in victory had Nixon won in 1960.

The war failed because of ineffective leadership, but the war was not based on wrong and misleading information. We went to war against North Vietnam to come to the aid of our South Vietnamese ally. We were there in an attempt to keep Communism from spreading, which is the same reason we went to war against North Korea before that. The difference between the two wars is the leadership and that is reflected by their respective outcomes.

The people that should have gone to prison and/or executed hid underground (literally and figuratively) or they fled to other countries until Carter finally pardoned all domestic terrorists and traitors in 1980. There are always two accounts of any event the United States government and any of its agencies are involved in. there is the official report and then there is the unofficial report. Often elements of the official report will be used for classified reports with the idea that if they ever become declassified they may or may not add new details, but they will not reveal the unofficial report. Nobody was held responsible and punished because those that were in power at the time know the details of the unofficial report. Assuming that the government ever tells you the truth or that any unclassified reports reveal something super secret is rather naïve.

Those of us that are well educated and well informed would never ignore something as important as the country being at war, especially if we have a personal stake in it.

Cassandra

Opus512, while i really enjoyed your post, one error I had to point out,

About 1% of the population makes up our active military. You can go six degrees and still come up with only 6%

If you are referring to 6 degrees of seperation, that would cover 100%, not 6%. it goes from 1 to 6 to 36.

If not, i stand corrected.

Well said though.

America went to war without even investigating 9/11. To this day there still has been no actual investigation. The result, it appears, is that anything and everything can be justified by 9/11.

Bananaboat, I certainly don't doubt your boast about feeling no guilt--you clearly had no standards to begin with. Your lame 'conservatives know all, liberals just don't get it' claims are beyond cliche', and no one asked or cares who you're voting for in this election. Besides, condoning torture doesn't make you a conservative, it makes you an amoral savage as far as I'm concerned. Your man McCain doesn't condone torture by the way, and in fact he (along with many others in the military) says it doesn't even work. What makes you think you know something he doesn't? And might I ask, do you consider yourself a Christian?

Your hypersimplified version of the world isn't convincing anyone. You are of course free to believe the war was justified, but your reasoning is flawed to say the least: we were not attacked by Iraq on September 11th. None of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens. How this has escaped your attention for 7 years is beyond me. I guess to you, as long as we're killing some Muslims you're happy, right?

"Those on the logical side of the Vietnam generation remember that we won every battle, but lost the war at home because of weak kneed and indecisive leadership here at home. Rather than listen to Eisenhower (military genius), Kennedy listened to his advisors that had no military experience. Rather than fighting to win he fought to not lose, which is the best way to make sure that you do in fact lose. Johnson simply continued and escalated the mistakes made by Kennedy. Those on the overly emotional side of the Vietnam generation were against war, any war, regardless of the reason or circumstances. They simply embarrassed themselves."

"We went to war against North Vietnam to come to the aid of our South Vietnamese ally."

"Won every battle" means setpiece battles and, to be sure, we won every setpiece battle that happened. The problem was that neither the VC nor the NVA were quit stupid enough to expose themselves very often to setpiece conditions. Guerilla warfare (both the political and military parts of it) is what they did best and they very definitely did win that war.

I suggest a history lesson or two, maybe read a history of the time, so that you know what really happened since your account of things leaves much to be desired. Among others, the Tonkin Gulf incident, upon which the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was based and which utlimately served as the rationale for wholesale expansion of the war, was a fabrication. Eisenhower had very little to do with how the war was fought, and Kennedy, had he survived, likely would have withdrawn American advisors. Finally, more Americnas were killed and wounded after Nixon was in office than before.

I'm guessing, then, Bananaboat, that you were in the hole next to mine during one of the countless firefights and ambushes in which we got our asses kicked and lost more guys than I want to count. Oh wait, guess not. You were that chickenshit bastard that got himself REMFed back to white sheets, porcelein, and air conditioning in DaNang.

Enjoy your day at the mall.

You addressed this to the wrong person. :-)

Cassandra

We went to war based on the unofficial as well as the official reports. Any investigation into 9/11 will only reveal the information found in the official reports. Doing the right thing can be justified by 9/11.

Cassandra

“You clearly had no standards to begin with.”

You are supremely unqualified to make such an assertion since we’ve never met and don’t know anything about each other. As such, nothing is clear to you. I don’t feel any guilt because I have nothing to feel guilty for. Boasting does not apply.

“Your lame 'conservatives know all, liberals just don't get it' claims are beyond cliché', and no one asked or cares who you're voting for in this election.”

I never stated that conservatives know it all, but I do believe that new liberalism (starting in the late 50’s to early 60’s) is a failed ideology and political leaders that follow it (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry, Obama, and others) are doomed to failure.

When someone says, “no one cares” or asks “who cares?” they’re really saying that they don’t care. If you’re going to speak then you should speak for yourself. I understand and accept that you don’t care whom I’m voting for. I don’t care that you don’t care. Now we’re even.

“Besides, condoning torture doesn't make you a conservative, it makes you an amoral savage as far as I'm concerned. Your man McCain doesn't condone torture by the way, and in fact he (along with many others in the military) says it doesn't even work. What makes you think you know something he doesn't?”

I never stated that condoning torture makes you a conservative. You are free to believe whatever you wish. McCain believes that some forms of interrogation techniques qualify as torture and do not work. I happen to disagree with him on that issue, but I honor and respect his position. I believe that everyone that has the ability to comprehend also has the ability to look at a situation and come to his or her own conclusions. The belief that I know something that he doesn’t does not apply.

If someone has information that will save American or allied lives and they will not give it up I fully support making them give it up by any means. I know that if one of my children was missing and some dirt bag knew where he/she was and would not tell me I would make them. I would make them beg me to kill them if they didn’t give me the information. But then I haven’t been sheltered in a cushy home where everything was handed to me. I wasn’t born in the United States and like most foreign-born Americans I have a keen understanding of what life is like outside the protective borders of this country. Whining, crying, complaining liberals that have never had it hard make me sick.

“And might I ask, do you consider yourself a Christian?”

No, I am not a Christian.

“Your hypersimplified version of the world isn't convincing anyone.”

Again, you're talking about yourself and convincing you is irrelevant.

“You are of course free to believe the war was justified, but your reasoning is flawed to say the least. We were not attacked by Iraq on September 11th. None of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens. How this has escaped your attention for 7 years is beyond me.”

I believe that the war on terror is in fact more than justified. We are talking about an enemy that has sworn to kill us and has shown repeatedly throughout history that they are fanatical and rabid enough to do just that if given the chance. As infidels we became their enemy back in the 7th century AD when Islam was invented. The fact that this country didn’t exist at that time is irrelevant. For someone that hasn’t taken the time to do extensive research into the origins, history, methods, beliefs, and behavior of the different Muslim tribes (as I have) this might be hard to understand.

Yes, I know we were not attacked by Iraq on 9/11. I never said we were. You’re limiting your scope to just Iraq when that has never been the case. We are against Islamic terrorists wherever they may hide. Most of the hijackers were in fact Saudi’s and I am not happy with our pretend friendship with that country. You have a talent for making assumptions out of thin air. When and where did I ever say that it was all about Iraq? You insult my intelligence while revealing your own ignorance in the same post. Bravo!

“I guess to you, as long as we're killing some Muslims you're happy, right?”

And now you’ve just underlined your ignorance. What would make me happy would be to see the enemy destroyed and our people back home. There are 2 major forms of Muslim. The first group follows the first Koran and they make up the vast majority of Muslims. These are the ones that claim that Islam is a religion of peace because their version of the Koran is peaceful, if twisted. The second group follows the second Koran and they make up the terrorists that are trying to kill all infidels, which includes us. These two groups are then split between the Sunni and the Shiite. There are terrorists in both groups. My enemies are the ones that are trying to kill our country, our allies, our people, and our assets. These are the people that I want dead. The fact that they’re Muslims is simply a detail rather than a motivation.

You should be more careful about making assumptions based on how you feel rather than what you know.

Cassandra

“Won every battle means setpiece battles and, to be sure, we won every setpiece battle that happened. The problem was that neither the VC nor the NVA were quit stupid enough to expose themselves very often to setpiece conditions. Guerilla warfare (both the political and military parts of it) is what they did best and they very definitely did win that war.”

We didn’t win those guerilla skirmishes because Kennedy and Johnson handcuffed the military. If Kennedy had followed the plan set out by Eisenhower the VC and NVA would not have had many opportunities to attack.

“I suggest a history lesson or two, maybe read a history of the time, so that you know what really happened since your account of things leaves much to be desired. Among others, the Tonkin Gulf incident, upon which the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was based and which ultimately served as the rationale for wholesale expansion of the war, was a fabrication.”

I appreciate your advisement of a history lesion or two. I will see what my history professor (served 2 tours in Vietnam, 2 bronze stars, soldiers medal) and my uncle in law (3 tours in Vietnam, silver star, bronze star with combat V, 3 purple hearts). The true events of the Tonkin Gulf incident have never been released and never will. Such is the nature of government. They were simply trying to fix a problem that was mishandled from the beginning.

“Eisenhower had very little to do with how the war was fought, and Kennedy, had he survived, likely would have withdrawn American advisors. Finally, more Americans were killed and wounded after Nixon was in office than before.”

This is exactly what I said. Eisenhower was a military genius and he knew how to fight a war. He informed Kennedy (like all outgoing presidents do with the incoming president) of the potential problems going on. Being a military genius he drew up a plan for how to fight the Vietnamese and win. Rather than following Eisenhower’s plan Kennedy ignored it and followed the advice of his inexperienced advisors. If Kennedy had survived he would have continued his weak kneed and spineless approach by handling it ineffectively and half-assed, much like all new liberals (starting from the late 1950’s to early 1960’s). Rather than fighting to win he would have withdrawn prematurely.

Yes, more Americans were killed after Nixon was elected because it was already so messed up that it was only a matter of time before the enemy was able to build up and push back. This wouldn’t have happened if Kennedy had followed the plan or Nixon had been elected in 1960.

“I'm guessing, then, Bananaboat, that you were in the hole next to mine during one of the countless firefights and ambushes in which we got our asses kicked and lost more guys than I want to count. Oh wait, guess not. You were that chickenshit bastard that got himself REMFed back to white sheets, porcelain, and air conditioning in DaNang.”

Nope, I wasn’t there since I wasn’t born until 1982 in Nan King, China under communist rule. Apparently you missed it where I mention my husband and then signed my name as Cassandra. I am in fact a woman. If I had been there I would have fought right by your side and do my best to keep you alive just as you would have done for me. My husband fought in the USMC and was honorably discharged as a Gunnery Sgt. He is subject to recall. 3 of my sisters are currently serving in Iraq.

I rarely make it to the mall since I work at home.

I honor and appreciate your service to our country. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Cassandra

Cassandra, while I appreciate you clarifying your opinions (long winded though they may be), the fact remains that your first post was much less clear, and contained many false assumptions and tired, stereotypical generalizations. You say I should be more careful about making assumptions based on what I know instead of what I feel. That's fine, you're right. So you mean like this?:

"But then I haven’t been sheltered in a cushy home where everything was handed to me. I wasn’t born in the United States and like most foreign-born Americans I have a keen understanding of what life is like outside the protective borders of this country. Whining, crying, complaining liberals that have never had it hard make me sick."

I'm sure you'll try to tell me you weren't referring to me, but if not, then it's a sweeping generalization that everyone who sees the war as a flawed, somewhat misguided, and potentially endless endeavor must be a whiny, wealthy liberal. And needless to say, that is a completely inaccurate assumption. If you were referring to me, which it sure looks like you were (otherwise it was an out-of nowhere rant), I guess you should know I lived outside the US for a number of years, the idea of a "cushy home" is completely relative and therefore irrelevant here, I am far more of a libertarian than a liberal, and I rarely cry unless I'm watching a really sad movie about animals. :)

I wasn’t referring to you specifically when I mentioned whining, crying, complaining liberals that have never had it hard. I don’t know enough about you to make that assertion about you, but that type of person dominates the anti-war crowd. This isn’t an assumption or even a stereotype, but rather an observation from years of working with and around politicians from both sides of the political aisle while working for various campaigns and ballot measures.

When I said cushy home where everything is handed to them and have never had it hard I meant that they’ve never faced real adversity. They’ve never had anyone pull a gun on them, threaten their family, burn their house down, or had to kill someone in self defense. They’ve never seen how harsh life is outside of the United States and they judge the world according to an idealized picture rather than reality. If they ever traveled and I mean beyond the tourist traps and saw what the world was really like they would be blown away. Assuming that they lived through it of course. I’d love to see them go to China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, or through much of the Middle East as I have. Then they might wake up. At the very least it might scare the crap out of them.

Sad movies and shows make me cry as well. Extreme Home Makeover tears me up every time. Bastages. :-)

Cassandra

man o man cassandra you definetly need to crack open a history book or two.JEZZZ!