Thanks Canning4,

One only needs change the name and the shoe fits.

“neoconservative hypocrites like “Commander Cod Piece”, if placed in combat, would lose the “will to fight” with the first mortar round that explodes within 100 meters of his position.

If those that started war were in the front lines, things would be different, I suppose Napoleon was the exception.  As for the Neocons go, they are busy accumulating and counting their profits from death.

Blackspeare,

OK, let’s look at Korea.  Still divided after all these years.  Half is very prosperous.  The other half his desparately poor, with only one area of export: weapons which threaten America and its allies.  Like having one hand in a block of ice and the other in boiling water, on average, you’re quite comfortable.  I’m not saying that we should have allowed the Commies to take over the peninsula and threaten Japan; just that we shed a lot of blood and spent a lot of money just to get the line of demarcation back to about where it had been.  It was in no way a complete victory.

Geographically, Korea and Viet Nam are so disimilar that any assumption based on the military situation in Korea is not applicable to SE Asia.  There are no jungles to hide in, in Korea.  The Korean War was fought between uniformed forces; the Cong may have worn black pajamas, but could easily change into civies and elude our troops.

Viet Nam could have been won, theoretically, and Iraq could be also.  But either case would have required a complete commitment to an American Empire, dedicating much greater portions of our industry and taxes to the effort.  I am not convinced that Americans want empire as much as certain government and corporate figures do.  If it were put to a vote, without any B.S. about terrorists, etc., and the public said “Yeah, let’s go for it!” I would accept that decision.

But I think, in a fair and open debate, Americans would rather develope alternative energies and let the Muslim world sort itself out.  (Israel could solve all its problems by pulling all settlements out of occupied territory and apologizing to Iran for helping us impose Shah Reza Pahlavi on them.)

Vietnam Vet—Blackspeare did not answer your question because he cannot answer it without revealing that he never served in combat.  He speaks of a loss of a “will to win,” but I have no doubt that neoconservative hypocrites like Blackspeare, if placed in combat, would lose the “will to fight” with the first mortar round that explodes within 100 meters of his position.

Blackspeare claims he speaks from “historical fact,” but there are no facts to suggest that the U.S. was ever close to achieving General Westmoreland’s “light at the end of the tunnel”—let along a U.S. “victory.”  The entire notion that Vietnam was “lost” because the media exposure led to a “loss of will to fight” on the part of the American people” is pure right-wing revisionism.  The anti-war movement understood all too well that Vietnam entailed an imperial conquest.  The ARVN never had the support of the people of South Vietnam.  The nation of South Vietnam was an arbitrary entity erected by the Eisenhower administration after the French defeat at Diem Bien Phu, and, had the Vietnamese people been afforded the vote in a fair election, Ho Chi Minh would have won a landslide and Vietnam taken its current form.  (All of that was contained in the Pentagon Papers, which the U.S. government sought to conceal from the American people until Nixon’s suppression efforts were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Finally, as Vietnam Vet notes, the American right-wing spun the same canard then that they spin now—we have to fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them here.  They also claimed there would be a genocide if we pulled out.  There was a genocide, but not in Vietnam—in Cambodia.  The U.S. did nothing to stop it.  Instead, it was those horrible Commies from Vietnam who invaded, ousting the Pol Pot regime.  Instead of fulfilling the “domino theory,” the Vietnamese turned Cambodia back to the Cambodians.

Rocky…

I meant no insult to regular army ground troops.  Of course to seize, hold, and occupy territory you need “the ultimate weapon.”  But Vietnam was already divided into two separate territories.  After the French were set back by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu, the country was temporarily partitioned after Ho Chi Min agreed to a referendum in the south to decide the country’s fate.  Whether you believe the referendum was being fixed, the US took no chances and cancelled the referendum leading to another round of insurgency under the Viet Cong, but make no mistake whether Minh or Cong they were largely North Vietnamese troops.

My stance remains unchanged.  North Vietnam was paying too high a price and they would have soon accepted the permanent partition vis-à-vis North and South Korea under continued pressure.  Having a US presence in South Vietnam would not have been a bad thing——just look at South Korea vs. North Korea.  And may have prevented the Khymer Rouge from claiming power and initiating their murderous regime.  Of course you could argue that if there was no Vietnam War, the Vietnamese would have politically dominated the area much sooner and prevented much of the chaos that followed.

Blackspeare

By your dismissal of “ground troops,” you reveal the arrogance and detatchment that led certain people to believe that we could “shock and awe” the Iraqis into servile submission, “welcoming us with flowers,” and thanking us for liberating them by selling us oil at a discount.  There is a statue of a WW II infantryman at Ft. Dix, NJ, bayonet fixed, titled “The Ultimate Weapon.”  Puzzled by this, I was told that the boots on the ground are the only way to hold territory.  The Air Force will never accept that, but it is true.

John McCain, flying from a carrier a safe distance offshore, may never have seen a Vietnamese person had he not been shot down.  As risky as it is to fly from and land on a carrier, ground combat is worse.  His lack of appreciation of that showed when he took his PR photo op stroll down a Baghdad street, needlessly endangering at least 500 troops responsible for protecting him.  A vet who had been among the “ground troops” would not have been so cavalier.

“General Giap’s memoirs are interesting because he relates that the famous Tet Offensive was really a massive failure for the VietCong, but the US media gave it such play that it inspired them!”  And the huge handwringing fuss and mobilization this country has indulged in since 9/11 has equally inspired al Quaeda.  Declaring a “War on Terror,” Bush elevated a criminal gang of egomaniacal thugs to the equivalent of a nation.  Great recruiting tool for Muslim losers.

Even if North Viet Nam had given up the fight, the Viet Cong would still have kept up resistance to the American occupiers.  They would have blended into the civilian population, and harrassed us until we left.  And Hanoi would have found ways to sneak supplies to them.

You are probably right, though, when you say that Iraq is not the same as SE Asia.  It’s probably worse, because the troops have had to avoid social interaction with the local women.  Violence, fear and loneliness…. there are going to be a bunch of real headcases running around in this country for a generation.

Yes we should have bombed the shit out of them in the North, great insight.

Canning said it best.

“And 58,000 Americans lie in their graves because of idiots like you.”

“As for my adversaries on this site who claim to be Vietnam Vets, they were probably ground troops.” Sounds like you are talking through you nose, maybe most of those that died claimed to be on the ground, are instead they could by like you and McCain real heroes.

Warmonger mentality must be a sickness, reason is absent from war, some people love it as we have seen.
Yes people like to claim what they are not, in someones case it would be a compassionate human being.  None of us are Vietnam Vets, because we were on the ground.  Come across like a Great one ass hole.

McSwan:

As to my statement on warfare you can only win a war with a military victory.  Conversely, you can lose a war two ways; through defeat or in the case where you have superior forces, through lack of will or support to carry on which is what McCain knows full well.

As for my adversaries on this site who claim to be Vietnam Vets, they were probably ground troops.  The Vietnam war could never be won on the ground because of its asymmetrical conduct by the VietCong——it had to be won in the air by taking the war to the north.

The Internet is loaded with information on the life and writings of General Giap who first led the VietMinh against the French and then the VietCong against the US.  General Giap’s memoirs are interesting because he relates that the famous Tet Offensive was really a massive failure for the VietCong, but the US media gave it such play that it inspired them!  But the saturation bombing, if continued for a little while longer, would have brought the North to accede to Kissinger’s partition formula.

In spite of my hindsight view, I believe that the Vietnam War was more of a debacle than the Iraq War.  Vietnam was a straight ideological battle against Communism for which the US had and still has a pathological fear!!!  I say pathological rather than neurotic because the USA’s political position and alliances have caused massive casualties in many parts of the world.

The Iraq War was initiated to assure a US presence in the ME while suppressing other aspiring political entities such as Iran.  Remember the ME before the war had three military powers, Eqypt, Israel, and Iran——two of them are aligned with the US——not a bad situation.  Hussein and Iraq had to be sacrificed for the US to play a dominating role in the ME——it was too good to pass up!  And not to worry——even if BHO is the next president the US will dominate Iraq for a long time to come——oil it’s that important!

Blackspeare, (July 25 at 11:09 am)

Please would you elaborate on: “While there is only one way to win a war, there are two ways to lose and one of those ways, as John McCain insightfully knows, is to lose the political will to fight to victory.”

Not because I disagree, but because I am curious as to your opinions.

Furthermore in (July 26 at 8:54 am)

“How the Iraq/USA/Iran/Afghanistan imbroglio turns out will be very interesting, but I offer no guess since my claim to fame is hindsight.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t think your claim to fame is hindsight, I imagine you know more than you are saying.

As for the abuse: I don’t see why it can’t be POSSIBLE (note ‘possible’, I’m not saying it is so) that both your opinion, and your critics opinions as to the reality of the ‘end’ of the Vietnam War, could have been true.

I mean the Vietcong Command could have been seriously considering capitulating, in the face of more bombing, and at the same time, given their final push on the ground to attempt that NOT to occur, to push America out. Those further down the line, may not have been aware of the Vietcong Command’s official position. Is that possible?

Of course in the absence of evidence therefore, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t possible, but it does make it very much less likely. I admit I know nothing about any writings of any Vietcong Generals, as to their opinions, during those times. I can only imagine that a competent General knows that a lost battle does not mean a lost war, however that requires knowing when in a particular battle winning the battle has been lost, and withdrawal and regrouping is required for the next one. Vietcong General’s being Buddhists, might also give them a slightly different perspective, to a conventional Western military perspective.

Beyond that, I found all the other opinions and experiences interesting. Vietnam Vet, your energy reminds me of my Vietnam Vet Marine buddy. Thanks.

Lee, it will probably take a generation or so to realize it, but humanity has reached a point at which technology has made war a no-win venture.

Nuclear weaponry makes full scale conflict unthinkable.  Even if Iran developed a nuclear arsenal, Israel would not be targeted; the Israeli retaliation would kill more Iranians than the entire population of Israel.

But “small war” is a losing proposition, too.  The $40.00 IED’s blowing up multimillion dollar armored vehicles means that occupation of a foreign land is just too costly for the benefits.  And last year’s border war between Israel and Hezbollah served as a wakeup call to both sides.

It is very unusual for a war to result in a total victory.  Most conflicts end when both sides realize it is too costly to continue.  The Neanderthals who still cling to the fantasy that force is a solution to problems may never evolve past that point, but the rest of the human race will learn.  Building bridges is more profitable that blowing them up.

The only victory would be to bring back the dead. War is only a game for those that do not have to be in it.

Vietnam 1968, seems some of us were forced to be away from our families, but made it back, I cry for those that did not.

War should never be an option unless every other one is expired.  We do not need to be in any war, unless to protect our borders, but the new world order may be the change that was not for seen by all of us.

The reason the invective is being heaped on you is you don’t know what the hell you are talking about! Find another subject where you might be proficient.

Tell us about your tours in Nam?

Tell us where we can find out that North Vietnam was about to capitulate? Internet links will do.

Iraq is a “much more critical part of the world.” Why, because of the OIL? Not the threat of those WMDs, of course.

No one factually refutted your claims? Several of US that were there have commented. It is YOU that have provided no substantive evidence that we were about to WIN that fiasco.

By the way, in your previous post, you mentioned that the US would have a “...secure presence in South Vietnam…” Now, just why would the US need that? Do we need secure presence in every corner of the Earth?

While speech and writing is free, I suggest you get your facts straight before digging in. It really helps your credibility!

Wow, so much abuse and invective is heaped at me——I know not why!  All I do is speak from historical facts using hindsight as 20/20 vision.  Since no one factually refuted my claims, then I must have been on to something.  As for Vietnam, victory was always viewed as a partitioned country——the US had no intention of invading, occupying and reconciling the North.  The facts remain that the North was very close to capitulating with continued saturation bombing.  Now that may sound callous as, no doubt, many additional North Vietnamese would have been killed, but the rationale behind that is to blame the enemy for starting or continuing and the conduct of the war——much like Churchill’s reasoning for the fire bombing of Dresden and the Israeli’s bombing of civilian areas in Lebanon.

Today, we have Iraq and with some similarities to Vietnam, but also some vital differences.  Both wars were predicated on false premises. However, Vietnam was in a remote part of the world where rice and flip-flops, made from spent rubber tires, were major commodities.  Iraq on the other hand is in a much more critical part of the world and an alleged member of the “Axis of Evil!”

How the Iraq/USA/Iran/Afghanistan imbroglio turns out will be very interesting, but I offer no guess since my claim to fame is hindsight.

As a Navy pilot, flying bombing runs off a carrier, McCain would have had no contact with the government and people of Viet Nam.  The war might have looked winnable from up in the sky, and from a hundred miles offshore.

America lost the will to keep fighting there because we came to feel that victory might be possible, but not worth the cost.  Absolute victory in Iraq and Afghanistan would be possible, too.  But only if we dedicate our every resource to the task, as we did in WW II.  That means a massive buildup in military numbers, requiring a draft, and big tax hikes, because it will not be possible to keep financing empire with loans.

“Talk is cheap!”  In other words, diplomacy is much less expensive than war.  Americans are finally realizing that the money being wasted in SW Asia could be better spent rebuilding our bridges.

Cann4ing, no disrespect, and I just looked up when the Vietnam war was started, I was 5. When most of the news on the TV covered this war, I was in my preteen-17 years, I spent most the time avoiding an extremely abusive parent. You are right, we should have never gone over there. It is interesting to know they used the same lines for fighting them over there and they will follow us home scenario. I don’t remember hearing that on the news back then.

As with most wars, hindsight is terrific, you can usually find out the real truth after the lies that put our military people and other people in harms way, for some over blown ego trip of a bunch of lies, usually by the very same people who managed to avoid actually serving their country.
PEACE!

VietnamVet:  I suspect, but do not know for sure, that our Blackspeare never served in combat.  Amazing how brave someone can be about war from a distance?

(Note:  Elsewhere on Truthdig, Blackspeare posted on what he believed to be the utility of torture and how “the best wars” entail low intensity conflicts.)

The only good war is the one that never has to be fought.

Peace, bro.

Cann4ing is absolutely right; I too was there in the period 67-68, and again from 70-71. During both tours, I never heard, nor saw ANYTHING that indicated we were “winning” that fiasco. Apparently, Blackspeare is simply stating what he “thinks” and was never there to bear witness. All I ever heard, during both tours, was: “we are fighting them there so we don’t have to here.” “If we leave prematurly, they will just follow us home.” And, if Vietnam falls, so will the rest of SE Asia. Well, we did leave Vietnam (chased out is more appropriate?) and they DID NOT follow us home, nor did the rest of SE Asia fall like so many dominos. From what I read, the country is not doing too bad without our presence. Just like Iraq: we should never have been there to start with! It was trumped up a la Tonkin Gulf, just as Iraq and the WMDS.

Blackspeare, as usual you don’t have a clue.  I served in Vietnam when our troop levels were at there greatest—525,000 in 1968.  We were “never” close to “winning” that war; never should have fought that war, and, frankly, fought on the wrong side of the conflict for a bunch of drug-dealing thugs from Saigon.  Of course, McCain never knew what it was like to be in-country in South Vietnam in 1968 because he was booked into the Hanoi Hilton.  He didn’t come home until the end of the war.

Vietnam, like Iraq, was an imperial conquest—and an entirely unnecessary one, even from the perspective of U.S. corporate greed, given that today, Vietnam is major trading partner for U.S. business interests.  And 58,000 Americans lie in their graves because of idiots like you.

While there is only one way to win a war, there are two ways to lose and one of those ways, as John McCain insightfully knows, is to lose the political will to fight to victory.  Vietnam is the prime example for the US as Afghanistan is the example for the USSR.

McCain is correct when he says victory in Vietnam was at hand——just a few more months or even weeks of intensive bombing of the North would have forced Hanoi’s hand at the bargaining table and Kissinger would have had a negotiated partition separating South and North Vietnam a la Korea.  Why even General Giap admitted shortly before he past away that the North was ready to acquiesce if subjected to more profound aerial bombing.

Today, The US would have a secure presence in South Vietnam and a dynamic trading partner, vis-à-vis South Korea and we’d now have TV’s and cell phone labeled, “made in South Vietnam.”

Remember the spirit behind the military is not to die for your country, but to have the enemy die for there’s!!!!!

Rockeytonker:  McCain cannot define what a “clear victory” is in Iraq precisely because none of the reasons for invading in the first place were true—Iraq was not a threat, had no WMD, no links to 9/11 or al Qaeda, and both Bush & McSame knew as much.  The war was not intended to bring democracy & freedom to Iraqis.  The reasons for the invasion were spelled out by the PNAC in 1998—to secure a permanent base for extending U.S. hegemony over the whole of the oil rich middle east—an imperial conquest, pure and simple.

McCain knows full well that his vision of “victory” translates to a permanent occupation, which is why he said he had no problem with our troops remaining for 100 years. For imperialists like McCain, victory means a permanent presence—that is why “time lines” for leaving are not acceptable but they have no problem with discussing general aspirational goals.

The only “winners” in this war are the oil cartel, the military-industrial complex, KBR, Blackwater, and the other war profiteers.  The more than 4,000 working-class American service personnel and more than one million Iraqis who were liberated from their obligation to breathe were not “winners,” neither were the tens of thousands more who have been maimed and permanently disfigured both physically and emotionally.

For the ordinary citizens of all nations the only winning war is the one that never has to be fought.  That is why I disagree ever so slightly with purplewolf.  The problem was not that we stayed too long in Vietnam.  The problem was that we had no business occupying that nation to begin with.

When Bush started this mess in Iraq, I said it would become another Vietnam, yet all I heard at that time is it WOULD NOT be another Vietnam. Then, last year we started to hear the comparison. It is a know fact that we stayed in Vietnam too long. As we have with Iraq.

As for claiming to bring democracy to Iraq, as the other poster wrote, “you cannot force democracy at the end of a gun. It is like the gang members in my hometown who demand respect at the end of a gun, it doesn’t work.

If McCain wants to keep living in the past, perhaps some of the countries of the world where they still do would be a better fit for him and his mindset. Also,living in the past as he does most of the time, could be Alzheimer’s, as those who have it remember the past very clearly and the current is very confusing to them, just as McCain has exhibited every time he speaks on the campaign trail. Denying the facts, claiming things are one way when they are just the opposite, getting confused and either not answering a direct easy question or acting distracted or giving a totally different answer to the question, just like George W. has his whole stolen terms as president. His behaviour and attitude and general knowledge show he is not capable of running the country. Having worked in geriatrics many years and having taken care of the elderly with personalities and behaviours very much like John’s, I would never secure in allowing someone with these types of infirmities manage anything, let alone the country.

If we have to stay in Iraq until there is a clear victory, whatever that means, Senator McCain, don’t you think we should pay as we go, rather than borrowing?  Are you so committed to a foreign policy based on military power rather than diplomacy that you will ask Congress to raise taxes to pay for it?  Shouldn’t the tax increase fall on those who are not already contributing time and blood?  Shouldn’t the cost of empire be met by increases in corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and the upper bracket income taxes?

You aren’t willing to pay higher taxes to give the troops the support they need?  Why do you hate America, Senator McCain?

Going by what McCain has been claiming recently and his harping on what could have been in Vietnam as well as his references to the impending perils facing Israel and what he would do as President he ought to seriously consider a move to Israel where he would be the right man, at the right place at the right time.

To his credit though one has to admit its hard to give up on the ways of the good ole days. No matter how bad they may have really been.

.....the repubs hate Chuck Hagel so much and why Max Cleland wasn’t
patriotic enough for them.

In December of 1941, following the debacle of the German armies at Moscow,  Adolf Hitler assumed both the supreme civilian leadership of Germany and the supreme command of the German ground forces. He did not include the German Navy because he did not know anything about warfare on the sea, nor did he include the Luftwaffe because he did not wish to insult his buddy Goering.
Slowly but surely a similar development has happened in our country with the result that our Presidents not only determine the objectives and missions of a war* but as commanders-in-chief also determine how that is to be carried out. Furthermore, our homespun Kings control all of our armed forces, not just the army. That, folks, is the same power that George III of Great Britain had. No wonder that the current colonies of Iraq and Afghanistan are in rebellion.
There is not the slightest indication that a President Obama will be any different from Bush in this respect. He will “consult with the commanders on the ground” when, instead, he should consult first and foremost with my elected representatives in the US Congress. It is Congress that should determine objectives and missions as well as exit strategies for the commander-in-chief to avoid that we get what we in essence already have, namely a commander-in-mischief.
I hope that the next Congress will pass a resolution which states that the conditions in Iraq at the time of the 2002 “war resolution” no longer pertain hence that ALL troops must be withdrawn as speedily as possible from that country. Let’s see if a President Obama will veto such a resolution of discover a Presidential Finding that the Congress has no right to command him, the commander-in-chief. I hope that the Congress, even a Democratic Congress, will have the guts to set firm time-lines for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as a condition when President Obama comes begging for funds next year which he will have to. I fear that they will say: “well, President Obama is not President Bush, so let us trust him” and leave the regal Presidency in place. Rats.

*The original stated objective for the attack on Iraq was: “disarm Hussein.” Then it became: “democratization” cum “nation building”. The it became “surge” to establish “security.” Our Congress was never asked by the Bush administration, nor did it demand a “yes” or “no” vote other than always giving the funds asked for.

Vietnam Vet, I suspect that your experience in Nam was similar to mine—on the ground, 4th infantry, Central Highlands, 1968.  Aside from one no doubt frightening moment when his plane was shot out from under him, McCain did not experience what the average “grunt” experienced on the ground.  I have no doubt that his imprisonment was an horrific experience, but that is not the same as being shot at, hearing a buddy scream as his guts spill out, or lying to him telling him he’ll be okay when you know damn well he ain’t gonna make it.  And you certainly can’t take in the smell of death from 30,000 feet.

The biggest difference is class.  Whether it was Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq, the average infantryman and marine comes from the working class.  McCain was the privileged son and grandson of powerful admirals.  This got him into the naval academy where he spent his time womanizing, smoking and drinking, finishing 894th in a class of 899 at the naval academy.  That should have disqualified him for flight school, but as they say, rank has its privilege.  At the time McCain was shot down, McCain’s father was the commander of all U.S. naval forces in Southeast Asia.

McCain’s true character was revealed upon his return to the U.S.  He promptly dumped his first wife, an former beauty queen who was terribly disfigured in an horrific auto accident, so that he could take up with Cindy, the heiress to a beer fortune.  More recently, when Cindy made an innocent quip about his loss of hair, he turned on her, telling her she dressed like a tramp and calling her the C-word.  What a guy!

Sen. John McCain, in not acknowledging that the reasons for invading a sovereign nation with nothing to do with the “war on Terror,”  has missed the mark by more than a mile.  His obdurate and misleading statements regarding the reasoning behind the invasion leave us to believe that he is “shrub lite.”
Yet Sen. McCain’s focus not on the reasoning behind the war, but on an unfocused and unreasonable measure of victory cannot help but lead to a prolonged occupation of a nation that does not want our troops present in their country.
To the informed in our nation, Sen. McCain’s position is lacking in foresight and wisdom. His is the position of the Neo=Conservative, wrong-headed idea that “democracy” can be given to the world at the end of the barrel of a weapon.
Are we to have another 4-8 years of a failed foreign policy that will only lead to the further isolation of America from the rest of the civilized world?  Right now, the parliament of England is in heated debate about whether to send anyone, terrorist or not to American soil for prosecution because we have repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions against torture.  Britain, being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions cannot by their own law send a prisoner of war, whether or not they are “an illegal combatant” or not, to America because of our governments statements regarding the use of torture on these prisoners.
Why is it, that the rest of the world recognizes the fact that “enhanced” interrogation techniques are torture and the U.S. of A. cannot?  Is it because of some toady, yes man, who, with different interpretations of the Constitutional powers of a “war time,” president, gave this administration what it wanted in the way of a memo of understanding?  I find it hard to believe that Sen. McCain, would continue the failed and illegal policies of an administration that cannot even acknowledge the fact the it was deceptive in toto regarding the reasons for the current debacle in Iraq.
Yet, here we have the classic example of a man, for whom power is the greatest aphrodisiac, and who would at any price, continue the policies of the administration before him.
Does the fact that he, Sen. McCain, would continue these same policies, and firmly, living in the land of make believe, truly believe that we can “win” this debacle by any measure, make him the only candidate for whom this office is right?  I, say emphatically NO!  Without doubt he has placed himself as the least qualified for the position of President of the United States and surely he needs a wake-up call as to the results of the so-called surge. 
America is now in the untenable position of having to leave the country of Iraq, without any measure of victory. The rulers of Iraq have in the last few days made it very clear, that America has overstayed its welcome and we are now occupiers, of a country that does not wish us to remain. Should we stay, we, the American armed forces, will become the most sought after and hated people on the earth. Nouri al Maliki has made it abundantly clear that 16 months is the outside limit of the occupation of Iraq. He, has listened to the voices of his people and made statements that are unequivocal in nature regarding the presence of the armed forces of our nation.
Should we, the American people, place into office a man for whom the “war” in Iraq, is winnable, we the American people will be facing protracted and prolonged presence in a nation that will be standing against us, conscription of our young men and women, and the chance or chances of more terrorist attacks on our soil.
This I say, is reason enough, for the orderly removal of our troops in a timely manner, that ensures the safety of all concerned.  As regards the election of Sen. McCain, to the office of the president of the U.S., would you elect a man, for whom the land of make believe is the land where he lives?  For the sake of America, I surely hope not.

McSame, like thousands of others, have STILL not admitted that Nam was a sham, just like Iraq. Those of us old enough to remember and have become informed now know that the Tonkin Gulf episode that kicked us into that country was trumped up, just like the lies about those WMDs allegedly in Iraq. The two times I was sent over there, all you heard was “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to here!” And, “...if we leave prematurely, they will just follow us home.” Well, we left Vietnam and they DID NOT follow us home, like the war hawks were claiming they would do. Nor did the dominos fall around the rest of SE Asia. McSame needs to admit that Nam was a trumped up war, just like Iraq. He is apparently still living in that “make believe world.”

Leaving aside the bad luck days, presidential campaign’s gaffes, exaggerated rhetoric and flip flaps, which all candidates are likely to have their share of, let’s consider some of the most serious and substantial issues that should be used to evaluate McCain. Here are some that I gathered from my latest readings on the McCain’s lives:

1. In his first year at the Naval Academy, as a young cadet, McCain spent his time womanizing and drinking, and was failing to the point that he was slated for being kicked out from the Academy. I am sure he only got a second chance because of his father and grandfather’s connections as Admirals.

2. Then he was sent as a pilot in an evil imperialist war to kill people and destroy their infrastructure and was shot down; more likely for his poor performance or by a lucky chance, and not as heroism as he’s been selling himself.

3. In his early years as a Senator, he was involved in a big money scandal, later to be known as the “Lincoln Saving Scandal.” He was investigated by a group of his peers in Congress, who naturally went soft on him in case they are caught in the same situation, and their verdict was that “McCain exhibited poor judgment” in this matter.

4. It’s known now that his current wife Cindy established a charitable organization, I am sure for the purpose of tax-deduction. Then later when she became drug addicted, she stole money from that very same charity to support her habit, before she was forced to declare her addiction and starting receiving treatment.

In light of these known facts now about the McCain’s: Failure of duty,womanizing-drinking, participation in an evil war, poor judgment and theft, I am wondering if there is anyone, beyond partisan politics, who really wants this couple as the Commander-in-Chief and the First Lady! That would be another disaster worse than the eight years of Bush’s!