CNN's Todd asserted that Gravel's comment that soldiers died in vain "offends America's veterans"
On the July 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while reporting on former Sen. Mike Gravel's (D-AK) assertion that "there's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain -- it's more soldiers dying in vain," CNN correspondent Brian Todd simply asserted that Gravel's "comment offends America's veterans." Gravel's comments came during the July 23 Democratic presidential debate.
In reporting that Gravel's "comment ... offends America's veterans," Todd did not note that Gravel is a veteran himself. According to his campaign's biography, Gravel "enlisted in the U.S. Army (1951-54) and served as special adjutant in the Communication Intelligence Services and as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps." Another page on Gravel's website states that he "served in Germany." A February 19 article in The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts, also reported that Gravel "served overseas."
Todd could have used Gravel's comment as a basis from which to launch a discussion that focused not on Gravel as culprit for articulating what some -- including, apparently, at least one veteran -- regard as the truth, but on the substantive question he raised. In doing so, Todd might have noted that many people, presumably including Gravel, think that saying that "soldiers died in vain" is a criticism of civilian policy decisions, not of the soldiers themselves. He could even have moderated a debate on whether it is appropriate during wartime to assert that soldiers have died in vain. But he did none of those. Instead, he simply passed judgment on Gravel's remark, purporting to speak for all veterans in asserting that they are offended.
From the 5 p.m. hour of the July 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
TODD: Nobody wants to believe it. Few people will say it, except for presidential candidate Mike Gravel.
GRAVEL: Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. You can now, John, go to Hanoi and get a Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone.
TODD: Or you can do what President Bush did and visit the stock exchange in Ho Chi Minh City. So what's the point? Why does the ability to eat ice cream or trade stocks with a former enemy mean America's troops died in vain there? Gravel says it's that Vietnam would have turned out that way whether U.S. troops had been there or not. And, he says, so will Iraq.
GRAVEL: Let me tell you, there's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain -- it's more soldiers dying in vain.
TODD: A comment that offends America's veterans, including this general, who fought in Vietnam.
RETIRED BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (CNN military analyst): In Iraq, soldiers are providing, I think, an opportunity for the Iraqis to have a better life. You can argue whether that's our business or not, but so far, I don't think soldiers have died in vain.
It may offend them, but it's the truth. The truth is painful, sometimes.
I dont see why it should offend them. It doesnt reflect badly on the veterens. THEY do not choose their missions. It reflects badly on Bush, for lying and using the soldiers lives for something not crucial to our nation. For seeing soldiers as fodder instead of people whose lives are precious.
The troops should be offended and mad as hell at Bush. Thank God someone is telling the truth.
After reading over and over here about how we shouldn't "politicize the troops" with comments like "they died in vain" it occurs to me that it's the objection to the phrase "died in vain" that is in and of itself political in nature. And wrong.
To say this war is futile, unjust, and a failure, and was doomed by the lies used to start it, is to protest the war and needless deaths it causes for all countries involved. To object to those words, that the deaths of our soldiers are "in vain" is to deny the opposition an argument against this war.
That is, of course, what conservatives have done all along with regards to this war and this administrations failed policies. They don't want to get into an actual discussion of the merits or justifications for a war (or policy) but would rather instead turn the discussion around and pretend that somehow even the discussion is wrong, cruel, offensive. Unpatriotic.
But it's those difficult discussions that our military is there to defend. Not oil, not some other country, not our notion of Democracy in the Middle East. It's about defending our Constitution and our people and our country. To send our military off to die for a failed cause is indeed asking them to die for nothing. And to deny the opposition to the war the use of the phrase "died in vain" is to tarnish even the pretense that those soldiers are fighting for our freedoms.
But it's those difficult discussions that our military is there to defend.
And by "there" I mean "exists at all." I don't mean "there" as in "Iraq."
I'd have thought veterans would be more offended by the piss poor conditions at Walter Reed, the sorry state of VA benefits and other conditions of great importance to them. But then again, that's just the pansy liberal in me, putting more stock in tangibles than in some right winger's view of what they may or may not be feeling.
vain (vān) adj., vain·er, vain·est.
([link to www.answers.com] they do not achieve their desired outcome for when they entered the conflict then the English definition is clear and not hard to understand.
They will have died in vain.
The two most common definitons for "vain":
1 - Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless
2 - Lacking substance or worth
Viet Nam and Iraq both get a 1.
Todd's blather gets a 2.
Another vet who is not offended by Gravel's comment. I suppose some pole or other might just report on our feelings. I get tired of pundits telling what I'm outraged by. Usually I'm more angry with them than what the supposed subject is about.
"I get tired of pundits telling what I'm outraged by."
I hear you loud and clear. Senator Jim Webb has also expressed his disgust at politicians who put words into the mouths of our soldiers.
The proponents of Bush's bloodbath insist we "listen to the Generals on the ground", but when it comes to the soldiers on the ground who are deep in the **** every day in Iraq, they'd rather do the talking for them. Aggravating to say the least.
I agree with Senator Dodd, who said at the debate that Gravel's comments were offensive.
Senator Dodd is wrong and I find him offensive.
But are you a veteran? That's what this is about.
I'm sure that most republi-crats were offended, but who cares?
I am a veteran. Bush is retarded, cheney should be in irons, this "war" is deeply immoral, and I am not offended.
Well said Senator Gravel. Todd should be ashamed of himself, these soliders have died in vain. They have died over nothing but Bush and his ego and Cheney and his war crimes. I guess according to Todd and CNN the truth offends people? Too bad.
Doris,
This isn't about the "cause" or the nobility or lack thereof at all. This is about politicizing the troops and their service, that's it.
Bush's war has been a mismanaged mess, however the soldiers who gave their life for it did not die in vein. They died during their duty and their honor and memory deserve more respect.
Sorry, vain
Dying with honor and in service to their country is not exclusive of the mission. And in this case, it's a failed mission that was begun under dubious (I'm feeling generous at the moment) causes.
They did die with honor and worthy of respect from those they swore to protect and the country they swore to defend.
That doesn't mean, though, that they didn't die in vain. It'll probably be decades before there is peace in Iraq, and it won't be brought about by the force of the US Military.
There has never been peace in Iraq, never will be. That is something we can learn from history.
I'm more offended by an administration whose leaders didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam than with those who say that our men died in vain.
If they didn't die in vain, what did they die for?
Well said King.
This well worn adage sums it up as well:
"Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them."
Sadly lives were wasted in Vietnam. And now in Iraq.
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Thanks for the Peter Paul and Mary flashback. Makes me feel REALLY old.
I hear ya Nerzog. Makes me feel old too.
But it makes me feel sad as well, because this song could still be sung today.
Apparently we've learned nothing :-/
Thanks Jeter and your post below is very well put too.
Since you mentioned the lyrics to Pete Seeger song here's a little bit from another.
Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health . But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Bring 'Em Home!
and it's one, two, three what are we fightin' for?
love it!
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
They died heroically for a cause they were commandered by their officers to do. Their families would be offended and deeply dishonored if they were told their sons and daughters died in "vain".
Criticize the policies and the war, leave the troops who have died out of it, there is no need to politicize their service.
Channeling Todd?
"Their families would be offended..."
And you know this - how?
Do you assume that I know of noone who has served or died during this war?
I don't, but are you assuming the ones you do know represent all of their views? My experience has been that if you looked, you'd see a whole wave of emotions ranging from one extreme to the other.
Your anecdotal evidence then is countered by my own.
"A cause they were commandered by their officers to do."
What cause would that have been Tommy?
I agree, they died heroically and I'm the last person who would ever dishonor their memory or service or politicize their deaths.
I've been asking the same question since 1970.
Why?
They died heroically for a cause they were commandered by their officers to do.
Tommy, we don't disagree too often but...Iraq was a detour taken by this administration from the real fight in Afghanistan.
Those soldiers that have died in Iraq have died on a fools mission.
While this fact may hurt their families greatly. It is indeed the truth.
J,
I believe that conflating the validity of this war with the troops and their service is wrong. To me, that is politicizing their service, pure and simple.
To say they did not die in vein is in no way saying that the War is just or noble or a commentary on it either way. The planning and execution of the war is not related to the troop's performance, which is exemplary - nor is it related to their deaths, which is honorable.
We disagree, but as always I respect your viewpoint.
I understand where you're coming from Tommy. And the last thing I'm doing here [I hope] is disrespecting the troops. These brave men & woman often give the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
However, when the mission they are sent on is one that should never have been fought, then I have to conclude they have indeed died in vain.
J,
I never meant to say you are disrespecting the troops, if I did, I apologize - it was not my intention.
I just think that by saying the war should never have been fought, whether I agree with that or not, is injecting a political angle into the troop's noble service - and that is where opining on their death being in vein is inappropriate and political, at least it is for me. Their sacrifice and service should be apolitical, in my opinion.
I never meant to say you are disrespecting the troops, if I did, I apologize - it was not my intention.
No problem Tommy, I knew you weren't saying that or even implying it. That was just me hoping that by writing what I had, that I was in no way showing disrespect to the troops. It was sort of self-reflective ruminating on my part.
This is a difficult subject. And I don't know if any of us can claim we're correct in our opinion. I think in this case, each of us will view it differently.
So you arent disputing the factual nature of the comment. Just saying it shouldnt be said. How dare we speak the truth. In a society of blatant dishonesty telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. This is the same argument the right had about Abu Ghraib. It wasnt the torture that made them mad but the fact anyone would DARE say we had tortured. Its all supposed to be kept out dirty little secret. Like telling the kid not to talk about how Uncle Ernie touched him, its an embarassment to the family and THAT would be the real problem. Whatever happened to the truth will set you free? This is NOT in any way a criticism of the soldiers who died because Bush sent them on a fools errand, the troops have no say in what their mission is. It doesnt detract from their actions nor cast any aspersions on THEM.
I don't believe I ever said I agreed with it either.
You are free to say whatever you'd like, this isn't about denying the truth of anything or being politically correct, that is a ridiculous argument. It's about honoring a soldier who has died in combat and their family.
This is about scoring political points against your hated enemy Bush regardless of who gets caught in the crossfire, a soldier's decorated service is no match for that.
Solon, Let me apologize here for what I just said. I just criticized others for politicizing this and then I went and did the same thing.
I misspoke and I apologize, my bad....sorry.
OK. Isnt this tactic about exactly the opposite of what you said though? Your criticisms seem to be politically protecting Bush. The way I see it one of the obligations a citizen has TO soldiers is to protect them from military misadventures. To assure their lives are NOT spent cheaply by an unscrupulous politician who sees them as fodder for his agenda rather than as precious lives who should only be put in danger when it is absolutly necessary. That it is a tragedy when their lives are used for anything less. THAT is the point that Gravel is making and one you would put off the table entirely by saying we cant TALK about whether their lives ARE being used cheaply whether or not Bush is giving their lives due respect. YOUR criticism of this valid point would deny the ability to make this point entirely. This gives a politician far too much cover it takes a potent argument away in the name of protecting them from feeling bad and helping an agenda that would get more of them killed. Putting soldiers in harms way is ITSELF a political act it HAS a political compoenent and you would seemingly allow only the side advocating war take advantage of that political component. How much has BUSH used the soldiers coattails and isnt it relevant that his agenda uses them in inappropriate ways?
Of course Bush has politicized everything, he has no choice because of his failed policies. But I don't get drawn into that argument either. Just because he does it, doesn't make it right for his opponents to do it either.
A soldier's honorable service should be off the political table, from both sides. And to use their death, of all things, in such a way is reprehensible.
Not when it's those deaths that the speaker wants to end.
It seems axiomatic that it is more important to stop the NEXT soldier from dying than to be too timid in fear of hurting another soldiers feelings but there is no reason for any soldiers to take offense at what is clearly a criticism of the administration and NOT soldiers. IT fits a pro war agenda if we simply cannot broach this subject it doesnt necessarily serve the soldiers or vetrens best interest.
The point is you expect critics to unilaterally disarm and let THEM define the argument. So that THEY can politicise this subject but detractors cant. That is asking them to accept an unfair advantage from this administration
But it seems Bush is embarassed by the waste too, preferring not to attend any military funerals and bringing the coffins away from the offending press and in the undercover of the night.
Why shouldn't we be skeptical?
there is no need to politicize their service.
You seem to be arguing that "vain" shouldn't be used - not because it isn't true - but because someone might be offended. Funny... you're advocating politically correct speech.
Call it whatever you'd like. I prefer to think of it as being sensitive and respectful to those who serve their country and their families, speaking for myself alone, nobody else.
If you're OK with it, fine. We disagree.
But, nobody that I know if is disparaging what the troops have done, or are doing in Iraq. Nobody.
Saying someone died in vain is not disparaging to what they did. They gave their lives for lies, and continue to do so, and they also gave their lives because the current administration failed to provide them, initially, with the number of troops needed and the proper equipment. How many soldiers might be alive today if they had armored HUMVEES at the on-set of hostilities and for the 2 years after?
Let's face the facts here. Bush told us we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam would support terrorists and give them WMDs. Right? Wasn't this the whole point of the fiasco? Indeed, if you "believe" what Bushco told us, that was the point. No WMDs. Soldiers perishing in vain, and then a lot more coming home wounded (mentally and physically). We are no safer now from terrorists than we were before we invaded Iraq. If that is not in vain, then I don't know what is.
I commend the military for doing a tough job that frankly, I wouldn't want anything to do with. They are noble, and most have served this country well, and with distinction. But many, have died in vain.
Mag,
Your entire post was a political condemnation of Bush and his bungling of this war - I don't necessarily disagree with it.
But, in my opinion, it has no place when discussing our soldiers and the mission they were trained and ordered to carry out - some were injured or died as a result, and I prefer to honor their memory and their service without politicizing their death.
You seem to assume that because I won't call their deaths in vein, then that is some tantamount support or defense of Bush and his handling of it......well, it is not and has nothing to do with that.
From a military and patriotic point of view, I agree, the lost lives of these soldiers are not in vain. From a point of view which can only be described as futuristic, we will see.
As a vet, I am not disgusted by these comments. Having spoken to the familiy of one of my squad members, they remember their son as a soldier who died for his country but his death did not prove any point whatsoever except that their son was dead and missed since February 12, 1971.
Tommy, I don't think I've ever replied to you, and I want to first thank you for what is often a very unique perspective in the left-right tug-of-war that often goes on here, but I respectfully disagree with you here.
I find it very odd when Republicans say "that's pure politics" or "The Dems are playing politics" -- they're politicians -- that's what they do.
EVERYTHING about this war is political, especially at this point. It is certainly unfair that the soldiers are in the middle. However, the fact that politicians are now at the point where they are debating their merits for public office -- that's just them doing their jobs.
And it's not just one sided. Bush uses the war every day to push his agenda, despite the fact that virtually no one wants the war to continue. I think it is pretty obvious that Bush is at this point "running out the clock" so he doesn't need to come up with a decision. There's nothing more political than that.
Gravel is just stating the obvious to a majority of us. The fact is that the only forum he has to do it is on the political stage. I don't really feel that the soldiers are harmed by it. If anything, it's statements like those made by Gravel that keep the soldiers in the public eye, when the media and Bush try their best to avoid the topic entirely. They seem to make the war out to be a thing to look at, like a snow globe or something -- stuff happens, but we're just on the outside looking in, and there's nothing worth looking at on the inside, anyway.
That, to me, is a greater insult to the troops.
Of course, all wars are political. However, injecting politically charged rhetoric into a soldier's service, especially in death, is not something I care to do.
Their families would be offended and deeply dishonored if they were told their sons and daughters died in "vain".
Yeah, I'm sure Cindy Sheehan was up in arms over Gravel's comments.
there is no need to politicize their service.
Their entire mission is political in nature. The war they are fighting in is the biggest political issue of the day. There is no escaping that the soldiers dying in Iraq is a political issue. That someone is pointing out the fact that the politics of the mission isn't worthy of the deaths of those soldiers is a good thing, and it's far too late that that message is getting a national platform.
Their families would be offended and deeply dishonored if they were told their sons and daughters died in "vain". Tommy
One of the first soldiers to die (March 21, 2003) in Iraq was Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey. His family felt that he died in vain. His father on TV. when he said, "Look, Mr. President, you just killed my only son.". The father, Michael Waters-Bey, told the media he blames George W. Bush for the death of his eldest child and only son. The Marine’s sister, Nakia Waters, told reporters, “This war is all about oil and money. But he (Bush) already has oil and money. It’s about greed.”
Gravel is correct. What are the troops in Iraq actually dying for?
Why, a just and noble cause, of course!
But don't ask Bush to explain what this noble cause is. Cindy has already tried that and Bush ran with his tail between his leg.
It's not a very good idea to use other people's words and phrases, when the subject is something as serious as casualties in battle...
"died in vain": Why use such a phrase as that, and chance being misunderstood, when for the effort of just a few more words, you can avoid perhaps offending your listener, and at the same time you assure that you've been understood...
Nearly 60,000 U.S. Troops were sacrificed in Vietnam, for no reason of U.S. National Security at all... neither North Vietnam, nor any part of the population of South Vietnam, posed any National Security threat to the U.S. and the American People... not at all, not in the least, not one bit.
There. I said it.
If it's not true, then tell me what National Security threat North Vietnam (or any part of the population of South Vietnam) posed to the U.S. and the American People?
If all of those U.S. Troops sacrificed in Vietnam, were sacrificed not in DEFENSE of the U.S., then perhaps what those Troops were doing in Vietnam was getting JUSTICE for something North Vietnam had done to the American People... what was it?
What was the reason to get JUSTICE against the North Vietnamese people?
What were U.S. Troops DEFENDING the American People from, against North Vietnam?
The same things may be asked about Iraq...
...the entire thing can be discussed, in great depth and detail, without ever saying the word "vain", or the phrase "died in vain".
...and this hack todd, he says something, that I wonder if there's even any ideas or concepts behind his words...
He refers to Vietnam (North I take it) to be our "former enemy".
Why was North Vietnam our enemy?
What thing had they done, to threaten the American People's National Security?
Or does he simply borrow the words of other people, when he refers to North Vietnam as an "enemy"... was he picking up on a long past president, from Texas, who told the American People that North Vietnam was their enemy...
...but neglected to give any sensible reason why that was so, why North Vietnam was an enemy to the American People.
And I'd also wonder, if indeed North Vietnam was our "enemy", why are they now our "former enemy"... maybe the hack todd can explain what it was North Vietnam did, to become our "former enemy"...
...in addition to explaining what North Vietnam had done, to become an "enemy" to the American People in the first place.
We can argue the merits of the Vietnam War forever. Some could argue that at that time in the world Communism was a real threat. We considered South Vietnam an ally and came to their defense...some would argue. We were certaintly protecting our interests in that part of the world. If the Korean conflict taught us anything it is that coming to the defense of our friends can be a noble thing. Your argument that North Vietnam posed no threat to us could be used in the same context as with North Korea in 1950. Just imagine if we did not intervene there because the North was no immediate threat to the U.S. mainland. The whole Korean peninsula would be ruled by a psychotic midget with unlimited resources he would have obtained from the South's natural resources. My point here is that many people I know believed in the mission in Vietnam of stopping Communist aggression. Despite the arguments of how or why the war started or whether it was a worthless conflict, North Vietnam became our enemy when they started killing our soldiers and supporting peasant populations to engage in guerilla attacks against their own government and our troops. I don't know if you know this or not but North Vietnamese troops weren't the noble warriors you may think they were. They were just as brutal as any other soldier in war. I would say much more brutal than our own. Those guys did some appalling things to their own countrymen. The bottom line is that if you kill an American troop you become the enemy.
I dont know if you know this or not but according to the Pentagons own experts testifying to Congress the North Vietnamese regulars were not even IN South Vietnam when we first sent out troops there. As for fighting their own government you mean the one torturing and killing them wholesale? The Siagon government never had any legitimacy in South Vietnam which we readily admitted. Whatever we thought about Communism, in Vietnam THEY were the ones with national legitimacy because THEY were the ones that had fought against the French, then the Japanese, then the French while those in the Siagon government had collaborated with all of these invaders. Why did we STOP the reunification elections that the 54 Geneva accord called for THREE TIMES? Well according to Eisenhower we stopped them because Ho Chi Minh would have won with about 80% of the vote. Whatever the strategic arguments about Vietnam no rational argument exists that we did it in defense of the Vietnamese. Like in Iraq we put ourselve in the midst of a civil war. Protecting the priveleged against the vast majority of the people there. WE dont really get to tell other countries how they should run THEIR country.
Solon,
I disagree. There were countless millions who did not want to live under a communist government from the north. To me that is rationale enough for defending the South Vietnamese people against the communist north. Furthermore, the real "meat" of our ground forces were steadily engaging in combat in early 1965. I don't know who testified before congress and stated that there were no NVA troops in the south at that time but that is purely false. One of the largest engagments of the war was fought in 1965 against NVA regulars by the 1st air cav. led by Col. Hal Moore. They made a movie about it based on his book "We Were Soldiers Once and Young". The fact remains that millions of South Vietnamese fought and many gave their lives to preserve their independence from the Communist North. You talk of wholesale slaughter by the South against it's own people, that is conjecture. They were quite rough on Communist sympathizers but the Norths tactics and tactics of the Vietcong were much more harsh. That is a fact.
Yes, the South's government was corrupt and lacked initiative but it wasn't as if the people in the south longed for the day when the NVA would roll in and everything would be alright. It just wasn't that way. The guerilla army known as the Vietcong was functionally impotent after the Tet Offensive in 68' which tells any rationale person that if the masses in south wanted the North to win so bad, support for the VC would not have waned. But alas, it did. Another indication of my point of view would be the millions of boat people who risked their lives to escape the communists after the downfall of Saigon. The North Vietnamese were brutal and never thought twice about civilian casualties. People knew this there. In any event, most supported the idea of reunification not rule under Communism. That is why Ho was so popular during that time. It sure wasn't because 80% of the population was communist.
The U.S., among other powers of the world, has been entirely too quick to resort to force and military action to try to solve problems that have many aspects. Usually military action creates even more problems; always miltary action has tragic consequences.
Many countries in the world are waking up to this. We need to communicate and engage our "enemies." The power of the purse is a valuable tool as well.
in most cases these enemies are a minority that has seized power. With encouragement, they collapse of their own weight.
No much of what you are saying are NOT facts. First IF the South wanted so badly to preserve their independence why did we keep stopping the reunification elections which were mandated by the Geneva accord? Because Eisenhower was right when he said Ho Chi Minh would win with 80% of the vote. We were fighting the SOUTH Vietnamese. We dropped 80% of our bombs in SOUTH Vietnam, NO IT IS NOT conjecture Tens of thousands were crippled by spending more than a year in a Tiger cage, more than 40,000 were killed in the Phoenix program alone a joint US SV venture. As for the boat people if YOU were collaborating with a foriegn invader and a government that had tortured and murdered tens of thousands how safe would YOU feel when those foriegn invaders left? There were a whole bunch of long term collaborators in Vietnam they collaborated with the French then the Japanese, then the French then the Americans, I do not wonder why they wanted to leave the country once there were no foriegners to protect them. Did you know that as many as 40,000 Vichy French were killed by their countrymen after WW2? IF we had allowed free elections to the PEOPLE of South Vietnam there is no question reunification would have passed overwhelmingly to there is no argument we were protecting anyone except OUR ideological interests. The people of a country have a right to determine on their OWN how to run their country. Using the we are protecting the people against themselves argument is unpersuasive. Ho Chi Minh was our ALLY during WW2. When our pilots were shot down over Vietnam fighting the Japanese it is HIS men that brought them back to us a not uncommon occurance. We made our most common foriegn policy mistake in Vietnam helping a small minority of elites against the wishes of the vast majority of the people. It MAY be true we thought we were doing the right thing but there is no reasonable argument we were helping the majority of the people in Vietnam there was really only ONE mass based political party in Vietnam and only two political powers among the people the communists and the Bhuddists. Since we demanded that both of them be excluded from elections (the Bhuddists because of their anti war stance) we showed without argument that we didnt care beans what the people of Vietnam wanted. That war was a mistake and this war is not only the same mistake we are hearing the same discredited arguments to bolster support for this war as failed to bolster support for Vietnam.
The several comments appearing below mine, in which I had asserted that there was no U.S. National Security objective served the American People, by the extraordinary sacrifices of life limb and treasure, in Vietnam...
...those comments illustrate very well, the pointless and endless arguments that ensue, when the truth of a universal justification for WAR, is either ignored or unknown, by those who argue.
That truth being this: That any nation on this earth, is perfectly justified in making WAR, against any other nation, when WAR is made against them...
...which is to say, that we are justified in making WAR against anyone, who threatens our NATIONAL SECURITY.
It's so simple a truth, that even children (and perhaps beasts) could understand it... but it is lost upon fools and intellectuals, even when it is stated right to their faces.
The truth so simple, can be remembered even more easily, in a single word: DEFENSE.
As in, not only nations but all men individually, in all jurisdictions, are forever justified their use of FORCE BATTLE and WAR, when it is in DEFENSE of themselves, or their nation, whichever the case may be.
And it is the ignorance of this simple truth (by fools and intellectuals) that has begotten every unjust and inhumane WAR ever fought on this earth...
Vietnam included, and now Iraq too
...there being no National Security threat to the American People, in either of those places, to justify the sacrfices of life limb and treasure there.
And let it be pointed out, that when any nation (as any individual man also) uses FORCE BATTLE or WAR, in DEFENSE of his nation (or his personal self), then he is often victorious...
As were the American People versus Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany (who truly threatened the American People's National Security) in WWII
...victorious on the field, and in Memory, to those he DEFENDED with his life.
But on the other hand, when men use FORCE BATTLE and WAR, not in DEFENSE of themselves or their nation, but for whatever reasons fools and intellectuals might make, then they are assuredly doomed to an inglorious defeat.
This is all as true as anything ever was true... but it is lost on fools and intellectuals and others, who argue without this truth, as the several comments do, that appear below mine.
I agree that they've died bravely. The fact that their deaths have been wasted does not diminish their personal honor. Millions have died in vain in many wars, but that isn't an insult to them...it's a broader comment on the futility of war, and the abject stupidity of politicians who commit troops unnecessarily.
I would further add that many soldiers died in vain, or unnecessarily if you prefer, during WWII and WWI. There are many examples of soldiers who died because of misjudgements, friendly fire, stupid accidents, foolish orders, etc. This doesn't take anything away from their individual bravery or heroism in serving their country.
Nerzog,
I don't disagree with anything you've said, in fact it was very well said. Except that I am just not comfortable saying they died in vain - maybe it's the verbage, or the inherent disrespect I see that is in the statement.
And I think it hurts the family members, maybe not all of them, but some of them. It's hard enough to see a loved one die in war, but why subject their loved one's service in being a political football.
I see your point, and I understand your concern. I think this over-sensitivity to the phrase "died in vain" is part of the problem we face. Many people, especially the families of the military, still support this war because they've been sold the idea that to stop now somehow devalues those who have already died. In fact, I think Bush has said this very thing. It's simply not true. Even a soldier who dies in a training accident is to be commended for serving,
What we must do is separate the nobility of the individual deaths and the futility of the larger policy. One does not necessarily determine the other. How we get to that frame of mind, I don't know.
Nerzog, Very well said - I can't disagree with any of it. Your last paragraph is better written than any of my attempts.
Why, thank you. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
Ok...I see where you're coming from. However, how else can one respond to proponents of occupation who claim that to withdraw now would devalue or void the sacrifice of those who have already died? Doesn't this have to be addressed directly? I.e., the Administration - and probably we too - already wasted many lives. Sacrificing more isn't going to change the result and, therefore, won't undo the previous error.
Chris,
I don't get drawn into that argument because once again it's politicizing their service. I would say to them that those decisions should be based on the validity and worthiness of the overall effort itself. It does not impact the servicemembers who have given their life during this war.
While your concern for the victims is noble, the Administration's argument is very simple and emotionally appealing. Avoiding it is to likely to be seen as conceding the point and increase the possibility of defeat.
If this was just a matter of an election, I'd say all the more power to you. However, in this case, defeat means maintaining the status quo in Iraq...and sacrificing more lives. I believe those lives are more important that the principle of trying to stay out of the political fray.
In any event, in my opinion, I think you're being too sensitive. I believe it's possible to respond honestly to the Administration's argument, but remain respectful of those who have already died or been wounded.
My refusal to call their deaths in vein has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or my contempt for his mismanaged, arrogant bungling of this war.
It has everything to do with honoring and respecting their service far and above any politically motivated terminology, and if I am overly sensitive on that point, so be it.
Ok, how about this?
The only thing worse than there being all of those who have died without attaining the objective is to have even more die who will not have been able to achieve the objective.
It is the same thing, just longer in words.
To me to pretend that their objective was to die for the glory of their leader or to glorify the national image is sort of a sick gladiator type of event declaration or a magical ritualistic blood sacrifice of some sort.
The "inherent disrespect" you speak of is well deserved by those responsible.
Not by their victims.
Only those seeking to create a straw man view "died in vain" as an insult to the victims.
Soldiers who "died in vain"?
Best example I can think of is those who died in the Carter Admin.'s failed attempt to rescue the Iran hostages in April of 1980. Saying so in no way disrespects those who died...it is a condemnation of those who planned the operation.
Wow, ya really reached into it for that one.
How about those killed when we invaded Grenada? After all those Marines died in Lebanon? You seemed to have glossed over those two in an effort to smear Carter. Alleged poor planning does not reduce the justness of the cause.
I imagine that those involved in rescuing hostages from Iran considered it to be a truly noble cause. You don't seem to be pointing at Ross Perot's similar efforts and saying that that was an effort that uh, succeeded in vain?
No attempt at a "smear" here...take off your partisan blinders for two seconds...I agree the deaths in Iraq have been in vain. I don't think you can only look at whether the 'cause' is just...the planning and execution are also factors.
Me? You reached back to attack Carter, ignoring more recent (not to mention wag-the-dog-ish) military actions. The rescue mission was a noble one, with decent, humanitarian goals. Your comparison is totally bogus.
Zoop...went right over your head, huh?
Read some history, then get back to me.
I think your suggestion to brush up on history is better targeted at yourself -- and this time, don't skip over the parts that aren't fitting in with your political leanings.
Pot meet kettle...You don't know my political leanings and its obvious you don't have a clue what lead to the tragedy April of 80. Try a name change to MoronMarv.
The war in Iraq was an act of imperialism and has nothing to do with our defense our saftey our security. The soldiers died in vain.
Fighting terrorism is not a military matter, it is a police matter. The soldiers died in vain.
War should be fought by having a fresh batch of recruits replacing those on the front lines every six month. Because politicians feared bringing back the draft common sense in fighting wars was thrown out the window. The soldiers died in vain.
To die because a politican fixed the facts to fit the policy is to have died a needless death. The soldiers died in vain.
There is no terrorism, except by Bush. Why even worry about it? Only a police matter, no big deal. Our military needn't be bothered, in fact why even have a military when the police are responsible for thwarting any threats.
I think Harlequinn's point is that this idea of going "on offense" against terrorism by invading countries is a flawed policy. The fact is that invading countries is likely to create as many or more terrorists than it stops. History has shown us this over and over.
No - what really offends America's veterans is knowing that many of their bretheren are now dying for nothing, thanks to that war criminal George W. Bush.
Bush has a gambling problem. He's already lost alot at the craps table. His solution? Increase the bet and keep rolling the dice.
Of course, he's not betting his own life and money...and Cheney and others have a stake in the bank.
We all remember the “reasons” given for this war, mushroom clouds and Wmds.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."(May 29, 2003) George W Bush
Once that lie was reveled, Bush at a black-tie event narrated a slide show with Bush leaning to look under a piece of furniture. “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere” he told the audience. Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, “Nope, no weapons over there,” he said laughing. “Maybe under here,” he said as a third slide was shownSome one said, "War is the single most serious event that a president or government can carry its people into,". "This cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day."
Maybe using the word “vain” causes problems for some but the reality is that men and women have fought based on lies and more lies. The administration held no regard for the sacrifice these soldiers made and continue to make. They placed no value on these soldier's lives.
Dwight Eisenhower warned us against George Bush and the kind of government he would bring to Washington when a president who pursues an obsessive war combines with those who pursue the obsessive profits and corruptions that surround his war
Excessive profits for all except for those who fight and die. Substandard health care, endless red tape for basic benefits, families torn apart.
James Madison warned us about the threats to our liberty from factions that seek to dominate our democracy and fears that are created and exploited in the cause of eroding our freedoms.
Fear, fear and more fear. Not to inform a nation but to keep an greedy and corrupt administration in power.
I am all for a Kucinich/Gravel ticket!
Now, that would be a wish in vain.
Cheney/Manson 2008.
A different Set of "Family" Values.
Lohan/Hilton 2008.
First presidential order, eliminate driver's licenses and patrol cops.
Not enough time to change the constitution. The minimum age is now 35. (I think.)
But we'll be changing the constitution eventually to allow AHHHnold to run so maybe we can lower the minimum age as well.
Stop it, Worrierking. I'm currently Der Gubernators subject, I don't need him in the White House.
Especially now that he's getting older. He's thinking more with the big head, probably decreasing influence of the Kennedy factor.
I'm a veteran. I believe that our soldiers have died in vain, and here are the reasons I feel this way.
I will only list what can be attributed to Cheney, we haven't heard from him much lately, but Bush is still heading to military bases (can you say captive audience) and spouting the same BS he has been mouthing ever since The End of Major Combat Operations in Iraq
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq5103.htm
"We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan. We will stand up a new government under an Iraqi-drafted constitution. We will defeat that insurgency, and, in fact, it will be an enormous success story." – June 25, 2005, CNN Interview (The Taliban are becoming stronger again.) "I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." – May 30, 2005, Larry King Live (Insurgency continued and continues to grow.) "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." – January 22, 2004 (To my knowledge this has yet to be proven.) "When you think about what we've accomplished in terms of taking Afghanistan—we had a total of 30 killed in action in Afghanistan—taking down the Taliban and destroying the capacity of al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack the United States, launching an attack into Iraq, destroying the Iraqi armed forces, taking down the government of Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, capturing 42 out of the 55 top leaders, and beginning what I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again, the price that we've had to pay is not out of line, and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." – September 14, 2003 (He was wrong then and now three and a half years later it is easier to try and blame the Democrats than admit that this was the wrong war, at the wrong time and in the wrong place.) "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." – March 16, 2003 (There is no reply to this ludicrous belief. We were never liberators nor will we ever be looked at as liberators only invaders.)"We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – March 16, 2003 (Not true then and was never proven after we invaded.) "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." – August 26, 2002 (Just a few months before the invasion and the Neo-cons had to make sure that the intelligence fit the plan.) "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." - March 24, 2002 (The big lie to sway public opinion, and get the Congress to agree to the invasion.) Just follow the time line of how Cheney made the case for invasion of Iraq. When your CINC and his VP put you in harms way for no good reason other than to try and reverse a failed policy then they have died in vain.It does offend veterans, this is just ridiculous.
Who appointed you to speak for vets?
I didn't vote for you.
I believe compliantconsent was pointing out, with the second part of his sentence, that the first part of his sentence was ridiculous .
Even he can't help but bust on his posts.
Oh it does because you SAY so. You wingnuts just think all you have to do to make something true is make a baseless assertion. You do realize that is just plain stupid dont you?
Are you a vet? If you are then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.3600 + American dead soldiers is not ridiculous!!
So far, seven veterans have left comments on this thread. None have said that they find Gravel's words offensive.
As a vet, Gravel's comment does not offend me.
Tood is entitled to his opinion, however, his opinion offends me.
On a separate, lighter note, the Baskin Robbins stores in Vietnam closed a couple of years ago. There are, however, two KFCs in Hanoi, and about 20 here in Saigon. Just recently, two Pizza Huts opened here in Saigon.
Many more American franchises will be opening in Vietnam in the next year or so. A law which was concerned with technology transfer inadvertantly made it almost impossible for franchises to operate over here. That law was recinded last year, and as result we are seeing the influx of franchises . . . . . . for the better, or not, that is the question.
Doug Reese
Often the truth is ugly and unpopular. Unfortunately; this does not change the fact that it is truth. We the people carry with our freedoms certain responsibilities including the duty to let our government know that we are not going to put up with a president sending our children into harms way for a situation that is not an iminent threat. And we also have the responibilitiy to demand that our representatives seek impeachment for a president that has usurped the various branches of our government to the point of his cabinet memebers stating the president can do what he wants. We need to put impeachment on the table not to punish this president but to set a different precedent for all future leaders of this country. I am hopeful that more senators and congress will study the criteria for centure and impeachment. We must never have cause to say our children were killed and mamed needlessly again. Our soldiers past,present and future are the cream of the crop in our society willing to give the ultimate sacrafice for America. We should be vigilant that their sacrifice is the very last option.