![]() |
|
April 04, 2003
Why do we fight?
George McGovern looks at the war with Iraq and sees Vietnam. Writing in The Nation, McGovern laments the current U.S. involvement in Iraq. But first he sets the stage: Thanks to the most crudely partisan decision in the history of the Supreme Court, the nation has been given a President of painfully limited wisdom and compassion and lacking any sense of the nation's true greatness. Appearing to enjoy his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces above all other functions of his office, and unchecked by a seemingly timid Congress, a compliant Supreme Court, a largely subservient press and a corrupt corporate plutocracy, George W. Bush has set the nation on a course for one-man rule. Later McGovern continues: We hear much talk these days, as we did during the Vietnam War, of "supporting our troops." Like most Americans, I have always supported our troops, and I have always believed we had the best fighting forces in the world--with the possible exception of the Vietnamese, who were fortified by their hunger for national independence, whereas we placed our troops in the impossible position of opposing an independent Vietnam, albeit a Communist one. But I believed then as I do now that the best way to support our troops is to avoid sending them on mistaken military campaigns that needlessly endanger their lives and limbs. That is what went on in Vietnam for nearly thirty years--first as we financed the French in their failing effort to regain control of their colonial empire in Southeast Asia, 1946-54, and then for the next twenty years as we sought unsuccessfully to stop the Vietnamese independence struggle led by Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap--two great men whom we should have accepted as the legitimate leaders of Vietnam at the end of World War II. I should add that Ho and his men were our allies against the Japanese in World War II. Some of my fellow pilots who were shot down by Japanese gunners over Vietnam were brought safely back to American lines by Ho's guerrilla forces. There's much more where that came from. Comments
He's lost it. He's always seemed a bit off, but this... His picnic no longer lacks a sandwich, it is now only a single hard-boiled egg. A friend just returned from that fabled land. He tells me Vietnam, North and South, are the same as they were 40 years ago. Same industry, same commerce, same everything. Same hustle and bustle, for the buck. What that means is 58,000 Americans lost their lives to keep Vietnam from going ...... CAPITALIST!! It tells us that one group of SCUMBAGS (McGovern calls them great men!!!) has replaced the other set, and now are reaping the rewards of those they brutally extinguished, and their poor minions (after brainwashing) are back in the fields. Posted by: john Fillmore at April 4, 2003 09:06 PMMcGovern? I thought he'd have been dead by now. Well, from the neck down, anyway. He always was from the neck up. A truly annoying and fairly mindless rant. George, you should be ashamed. Posted by: DSmith at April 4, 2003 11:50 PMNobody is listening to you George. Get a life! Posted by: 49erDweet at April 5, 2003 03:18 AMYou idiots have no shame. George McGovern is one of the great living Americans, a true humanitarian and a WWII veteran. Have some %&*^* respect for a man who walked the talk...and leave your Dick Cheney-George W-Don Rumsfeld-Country-Club-Armchair-Warrior-love at the door. Disgusting. Posted by: Raja at April 9, 2003 09:55 PMPost a comment
|