Most of theDemocratic House members voted against the Republican resolution not to set a withdrawal-from-Iraq date. I am proud to be a Democrat. Hal Rogers voted not to set a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq date.An attorney I know recently said, "Who expected we'd be in another Viet Nam?" There are ways that the Iraq occupation has less justification than the American military presence in Viet Nam when I was in college. In Viet Nam we sent U.S. troops there as part of the SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) alliance military force to help South Viet Nam; here, we are not participating in any regional military alliance to help any faction in Iraq. Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Anti-American forces in Viet Nam, was a party to the international communist conspiracy that intended the overthrow of the government of the U.S.; Saddam Hussein was a local dictator that had no intention of conquering the U.S.A., and he is now a prisoner. There has been no proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. There has been no proof that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Taliban, nor Al Quaida. There has been no proof that Saddam Hussein was a socialist nor a communist nor a part of any international conspiracy. There was a domino theory in the 1960's concerning Viet Nam; there is no domino theory that the fall of Iraq to the insurgents will result in the fall of any neighboring country. Iraq is further away from the United States that Viet Nam, and of less strategic importance. So, Iraq is no Viet Nam, and we have less reason to have troops in Iraq than we had in Viet Nam. One big difference, we lost 58,000 men inViet Nam, and we have only lost 2,500 to date in Iraq. I say let's get all United States troops out Jan. 8, 2007 from Iraq. Kenneth Stepp.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Iraq Military Occupation contrasted with Viet Nam War.
Most of theDemocratic House members voted against the Republican resolution not to set a withdrawal-from-Iraq date. I am proud to be a Democrat. Hal Rogers voted not to set a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq date.An attorney I know recently said, "Who expected we'd be in another Viet Nam?" There are ways that the Iraq occupation has less justification than the American military presence in Viet Nam when I was in college. In Viet Nam we sent U.S. troops there as part of the SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) alliance military force to help South Viet Nam; here, we are not participating in any regional military alliance to help any faction in Iraq. Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Anti-American forces in Viet Nam, was a party to the international communist conspiracy that intended the overthrow of the government of the U.S.; Saddam Hussein was a local dictator that had no intention of conquering the U.S.A., and he is now a prisoner. There has been no proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. There has been no proof that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Taliban, nor Al Quaida. There has been no proof that Saddam Hussein was a socialist nor a communist nor a part of any international conspiracy. There was a domino theory in the 1960's concerning Viet Nam; there is no domino theory that the fall of Iraq to the insurgents will result in the fall of any neighboring country. Iraq is further away from the United States that Viet Nam, and of less strategic importance. So, Iraq is no Viet Nam, and we have less reason to have troops in Iraq than we had in Viet Nam. One big difference, we lost 58,000 men inViet Nam, and we have only lost 2,500 to date in Iraq. I say let's get all United States troops out Jan. 8, 2007 from Iraq. Kenneth Stepp.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment