Some similarities-
Control of the media
Contempt of the local armies
Stubborness of our government
Failure to acknowledge mistakes

If this war lingers, a credibility gap will come into existence between the people and the government.

This is the gist of his words.

The thing is, it isn't so much government control of the media as the media whoring itself out to the military. Downplay American blunders and play up patriotic asskicking and Jolly Old St. Defense Department puts ratings-grabbing bomb-camera footage and interview access with senior officials under the Christmas tree. Even let the viewer question whether this is right or wrong and its coal for you.

Glaring differences between this war and Vietnam:

Clear goals? Uh...war on terrorism? That isn't specific. Let's not forget the last time the U.S. declared war on a concept. Can the "civilized world" knock out the Taliban? Sure. Can it be done easily and quickly? No.

Secondly, I doubt we or anyone else can stabilize Afghanistan. Everyone who has ever tried has failed, including the Afghanis. Besides which, what do we mean by the word stabilize?

"War on Terrorism" isn't a goal. It's a term describing the operation. The goal is exactly as 1 o' 2 stated: find them and kill them.

Let's not forget the last time the U.S. declared war on a concept.

I do believe that that would be the Cold War against the USSR. You know, that big country that doesn't exist any more?

Can the "civilized world" knock out the Taliban? Sure. Can it be done easily and quickly? No.

Depends on your definitions of ease and speed.

Secondly, I doubt we or anyone else can stabilize Afghanistan. Everyone who has ever tried has failed, including the Afghanis.

How... defeatist. "No one else who's tried has succeeded, so why should we try?" What option do we have? Just walk away?

Besides which, what do we mean by the word stabilize?

This is meaningless. We've declared a war on a vague concept. We might as well pass a law outlawing cancer.

"I do believe that that would be the Cold War against the USSR."

Where the heck did you drag that lovely bon mot from? We're still fighting the War on Drugs, remember. Which has gone smashingly, rendering it impossible for anyone to purchase illegal drugs anywhere in the U.S. And we certainly haven't been paying millions and millions of dollars to very nasty regimes as a result of it.

"How... defeatist. 'No one else who's tried has succeeded, so why should we try?' What option do we have? Just walk away?"

Ooh, a classic all-or-nothing scenerio. Not to mention that they invented the word sisyphean for a reason.

"Prevent chaos and/or opression."

"If you attack us or (presumably) any of our friends, we will destroy you." Hardly vague.

We're still fighting the War on Drugs, remember.

The war on terrorism is an attempt to destroy an external enemy. It boils down to, "Kill specific individuals."

The war on drugs is an attempt to prevent people from obtaining a specific widespread substance. It boils down to, "Control human nature by force."

Not to mention that they invented the word sisyphean for a reason.

Again, irrationally defeatest. Give me one reason why stabilizing Afganistan would be impossible. You've yet to do that.

How [do we prevent chaos and opression]?

The "War on Drugs" isn't.

If it was, we could consider dealers and traffikers as enemy soldiers, and kill them, we could consider incoming drug flights as enemy incursions, and shoot them down, and we could consider the cocaine-growing fields of Colombia and other countries as enemy installations, and blow the bejezus out of them. We don't, so it isn't.

Same with the "War on Crime."

And it's a really poor analogy for you to use cancer... we DO specifically target cancer tumors and growths, and promote attacks on specific cells.

And our short-term goal here is specific... Find Bin Laden, find his lieutenants, and kill them. Eliminate the Taliban as a governing body.

Our long-term goals are similar.. find other terrorists and eliminate same. Eliminate their support structures in the governments that support them.

[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

IMHO, the concept of our goals is indeed somewhat vague. Find 'em and kill 'em. Who is 'em? Taliban? or just Al Qaeda? If we get rid of Al Qaeda, but the Taliban is still around, do we continue to bomb them? They are a gov't. They technically didn't attack us, a group within their borders did. We'll probably still kick them out of power of course, but it'll look a bit weird. Also, IS the destruction of the Taliban our goal? Or is the destruction of terrorism? And if we destroy terrorism, is it just going to be Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? What about militant groups in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Israel, Iran, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon and the numerous groups that will no doubt grow out from the ashes of Al Qaeda? And that's just the Islamic terrorists.

OR is our goal merely to knock out Al Qaeda AND Taliban with no action afterwards? Do we allow the Northern Alliance with its Tajik leadership to take over. How will other ethnic groups feel? How can we establish a gov't that will be mutually beneficial to everyone? Can we REALLY get ethnic groups that hate eachtother to WORK together? Will we OR the UN have to stick around to make sure it works? How long are we willing to wait around?

Also, we've been bombing for nearly a month now, so the question on these country's minds is, what has been accomplished thus far?

then again, it was a FRENCH newspaper, so who's to say. maybe he had some bad cheese. i dunno.

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]

Any terrorist who attacks us, and any government who supports those terrorists. Hardly vague. We destroy Al-Quida. We destroy the Taliban, because they support Al-Quida. Simple as that. Afterwards, the UN moves in and helps stabilize the country.