The Battle of Bush’s Ass Has Begun
Replacing boots on the ground with airpower didn’t work in Vietnam, did it?”
That was the Nixon-Kissinger master plan. The bombing campaign exceeded those of World War 2. It led to America’s first defeat.
This time, it will lead to every ugly moment of Vietnam magnified, and a world horrified by the result. It will be the straw that breaks the back of any civility at all in Iraq. And the backlash will be seen in other Arab countries as well.
How many women and children will die. Keep watching. This is your country. This is your country run by dopes.
Bush is playing his last desperate card, the card of murder and mayhem, the card that tries to provoke Al Qaida to attack our homeland again, not to save America, but to save Bush’s ass.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
How many women and children will die
Not as many as the number of adult male casualties. Men are the majority of victims in all wars. Why are their deaths ignored and marginalised, even bragged about sometimes?
Look at Faloojeh. The US forces deliberately let women and children leave the city but prevented men from leaving. Well hey — it’s just men, right? No bleeding heart liberals are going to have a cow about killing a bunch of men. they let all the important people out.
This is the pattern again and again in war. Men are separated out from the women and children and the men are executed.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
whenever bushco’s poll numbers dip. either a terror alert is raised or they go to war!!how much longer will the americans stand for this? and to think sen. feingold has to practically stand alone with his censure!at what point will the dems grow a damn backbone?
March 17th, 2006 at 7:14 am
When the US began negotiating with North Vietnam in 1968 there were half a million US combat troops in the South. The negotiations led nowhere. At the end of 1972 when Hanoi finally agreed to a cease fire that recognized the continuing existence of the Saigon government, it came at the end of an air campaign that began in response to the “Easter Offensive.” There were virtually no US ground troops remaining in country throughout that offensive. The air campaign — Linebacker, and Linebacker II — forced Hanoi to acknowledge (as historian Ronald Spector concludes) that they had to get the US out of the war at any cost. Thus, to say that substituting airpower for ground forces led to a US defeat in Vietnam is patently false. When the Paris Accords were signed in early 1973 President Nixon made a widely-pulicized “secret promise” to South Vietnam that the US would reengage with airpower if Hanoi violated the Accords. I think it is significant that Hanoi refrained from such action for more than two years, in the course of which Nixon — the “mad bomber” — self-destructed over Watergate. So I think airpower speaks for itself in this case.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:38 am
to say that substituting airpower for ground forces led to a US defeat in Vietnam is patently false.
My point is that the use of massive bombing at this stage is not a sign of victory ahead. It’s a sign of desperation. It buys time, prolongs war, buys time for Vietnamization of the locals and boosts the body count.
But as military strategy, it’s not the path to victory.
It doesn’t cause defeat. That takes incompetence and ill-conceived reasons for starting a war.