It's official- Bush asks congress for declaration of war on Iraq

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I disagree that our strategy in Vietnam was ever sound and only failed because the Vietnamese were "tough."

I didn't say our strategy was sound, but strategy is drawn up by the Pentagon, not Congress. Contrary to popular opinion, it was the military who screwed up the war, but not understanding the people whom they were fighting nor the so-called government they were aiding.

The war in Vietnam was unwinnable on its face. Even if the US invaded the North, they would have had to face millions of screaming Chinese. The Chinese have recently released their plans for intervening in Vietnam, had the US invaded.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
but they can't say "You may not go beyond this limit" or "You must end the war right now".

Where does it say they can't? A declaration of war doesn't have to be a simple statement that says a state or war between the two countries now exists. It could, as in the Tonkin Resolution, delimit the area of fighting and how that fighting is to be prosecuted. The President manages the resources of the nation, but Congress says how they will be used.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I didn't say our strategy was sound, but strategy is drawn up by the Pentagon, not Congress. Contrary to popular opinion, it was the military who screwed up the war, but not understanding the people whom they were fighting nor the so-called government they were aiding.

The war in Vietnam was unwinnable on its face. Even if the US invaded the North, they would have had to face millions of screaming Chinese. The Chinese have recently released their plans for intervening in Vietnam, had the US invaded.

I think we knew full well that if we invaded North Vietnam that China would intervene - they did so in Korea.

Which makes the Vietnam War a tragedy. Because of China, we could not invade the North. This means we could never defeat the North. So long as they were willing to accept mountains of dead, they could not lose. They knew this. We should have known this as well.

The US military in the South could have been 100%, nay, even 1000% more efficient. Still they could not win because they could not invade the North.

Vietnam was unwinnable.

[chequita guevara]

I think the Vietnamese would have kept fighting until the last Vietnamese had been killed, regardless of whether we could invade the North or not. Bascailly, we'd still be fighting in Vietnam today if we hadn't decided to leave, finally (assuming the resulting political crisis in America wouldn't have completely changed America).

[SlowwHand]

All it would have taken would have been to let the military fight the war, not the politicians.
North Vietnam, nor the Chinese, stalled us. Our government stalled us.

I get so sick of hearing b.s. about SE Asia.

[David Floyd]

Where does it say they can't? A declaration of war doesn't have to be a simple statement that says a state or war between the two countries now exists. It could, as in the Tonkin Resolution, delimit the area of fighting and how that fighting is to be prosecuted. The President manages the resources of the nation, but Congress says how they will be used.

I certainly see the argument you are making, and I can see a Congressional power for mandating an end to a war, but I find it difficult to envision a Constitutional power allowing Congress to determine how the war is actually fought, outside of using the spending power as an enticement.

Slowwhand,

All it would have taken would have been to let the military fight the war, not the politicians.
North Vietnam, nor the Chinese, stalled us. Our government stalled us.

Why should we have fought a war that had little popular support here in the US, little popular support among the soldiers fighting the war, and even less support by the average Vietnamese, even those in the south?

[Ned]

Che, What you say about the Vietnamese certain was true of the Japanese. And yet, that war ended when their leader called a halt. Someting similar may have happend in Vietnam.

However, I still think that China would have taken over the conflict had we attacked the North. The senario you paint would never have happened because the Chinese would now be calling the shots. In the end, Vietnam probably would have been divided between China and the US - somewhat like Korea.

[SlowwHand]

1) North and South were 2 distinct and separate countries.

2) China was involved. No "might have got involved" to it.

[David Floyd]

2) China was involved. No "might have got involved" to it.

That's true, so why cause the deaths of even more Americans a war no one cares about, not the soldiers fighting, US civilians, or most Vietnamese civilians, and is none of our business anyway?

Yes, we could have wiped the floor with China in a war, but what possible purpose would that serve, except limit the prospects of economic growth in both nations?

[SlowwHand]

You should have seen the evacuation, if you think the civilians didn't care.

[David Floyd]

Let me amend that: many of the South Vietnamese civilians did not want the US in the region. Some did, especially those living in Saigon.

But the Vietnamese living in rural areas generally tended towards the communists, which partly explained the VC and how they were able to operate as much as they did in the south.

But how Vietnamese civilians felt is of decidedly secondary concern when compared to the facts that the war was not supported in the US, and was none of our business.

[SlowwHand]

Khmer Rouge. I'm just saying...rural or urban, Khmer Rouge started in Cambodia and scared the crap out of all SE Asians. With damned good reason.
BTW, we'd have still been in-country, you and I.
It was people like Lefty that got evacuated.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Saddam isn't a threat to get ICBMs anytime in any of our lifetimes.

DD,

He has been asking, begging the N. Korean for a few missiles for years. However the North has yet to give him any.
The North missile now has a range of about 2 to 3,000 miles. The one they fired over Japan in 2000 went somewhere in the range 2500 miles.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nowherre in the Constitution does it define how Congress must declare war. It is therefore left to Congress how to define this. If Congress simply wants to authorize the use of force, that's a legal declaration of war.

At least Bush isn't foring a Constitutional crisis on the matter. But Congress will still give him his war.

Actually the Gulf war of 91 is not over. Saddam had to agree with certain terms to stop the fighting. He did not surrender. He just agree to the term, which he has now violated, so technicality we can still go after him for violation of cease fire agreement. Bush can re-start the war without Congress approval.

[David Floyd]

Khmer Rouge. I'm just saying...rural or urban, Khmer Rouge started in Cambodia and scared the crap out of all SE Asians. With damned good reason.

That's true, but I'm talking about the Vietnam War, not a hypothetical Cambodian War, which would have been none of our business either.

My bottom line is that we should not fight wars for the benefit of other people, ever.

Joseph,

2500 miles won't let him hit the US. He can hit Western Europe with those, but that's Western Europe's problem.