Comments Posted By skeptical
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
Also, if some historian or other is saying that our adventure in Vietnam was a major cause of the downfall of the USSR, I've never heard it either, but it sounds like a pretty farfetched position since a half million Americans died fighting that war and zero Soviets. I look forward to the links as well.
Comment Posted By skeptical On 14.12.2008 @ 16:00
I've been hearing how this was not a "conservative" war except that consternates backed both the methods and rational in droves, and none were critical until years into witnessing the devastating incompetence, and criticized only the lack of more troops.
It wasn't until Buckley declared it lost that any conservatives began to complain that it hadn't been a "conservative" war after all, and few would sign or to his assessment of its being "lost" except to blame liberals and Democrats for saying so.
Liberals and many Democrat objected to diverting resources from Afghanistan, but were denounced by conservatives as treasonous, as waiting the terrorists to win.
I agree that history in ten years will have its competing narratives, but no one with access to information will be confused about how the war was sold, supported, criticized, demagogued, the careers advanced and destroyed, when and why.
If it had been the cakewalk we'd been told to believe it would be, no conservative would be disowning it on principle. Few conservatives have been vocal about the real costs (not just money) and liberals who do are routinely dismissed by conservatives.
But you go ahead and try to revise history. I was appalled at the lack of spine the "conservatives" exhibited in the run up and first three or so years of this war. Where were the principled conservatives? Why were only liberals vocal when it mattered?
Comment Posted By skeptical On 14.12.2008 @ 15:54
