View Poll Results: When its all said and done will we win the war in Iraq?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Beyond the shadow of a doubt I say yes.

    6 17.65%
  • No. Iraq is Veitnam 2.

    12 35.29%
  • I am not sure either way..........

    6 17.65%
  • This is a stupid question - The only way to lose is to lose our will and surrender.

    10 29.41%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 50
  1. #1
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515

    Three more hostages in Iraq. Poll: Will we win?

    Three Turkish hostages were taken in Iraq. They will probaly be beheaded too. While they are not Americans I am mad none the less. So I pose this question.

    Will we win this war?

  2. #2
    BOUNCER is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    IRELAND.
    Posts
    4,185
    I voted 'I'm not sure. I hope America does win, but I doubt it very much.

  3. #3
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    I hate to say this - but you kiddies have no perspective at all - do you have any idea how many THOUSANDS died in vietnam? the entire difference being that China was supplying the war, not al Queda or even Iran or Syria?

    1 person dies and everyone goes screaming home to thier mommies - that is indeed the lesson Osama learned when the US tucked tail in Somalia before - and when you ask such silly questions

    what the hell does a couple of fanatics kidnapping 3 turks have to do with the US winning the war?

  4. #4
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    do either of you know that in in Iraq more people die from regular murders, etc than are killed by kidnapping up untill very recently? You sheep are only watching the news who cant do enough to try to get Bush unelected - why? because they care about the middle east? no... so they can impose their socialist agenda right here at home

    WAKE UP!!!!

  5. #5
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Well it's not just hostages that are dying, it is just an example of the fact we are fighting an unconventional war. In this war the enemy walks among us in our country, they are backed by multi-billionaires, and we aren't very welcome over there and the enemy has lots of civilian help. Not to mention they will give their live to kill us. This is almost the same script of Vietnam with the exception that the veitnamese weren't welcome in our country and embraced and protected by idiot liberals.

  6. #6
    KAEW44's Avatar
    KAEW44 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,340
    It depends on the definition of 'win'

    if you mean will we destroy all terrorists? The answer is no there will always be someone out there with nothing to lose that has gathered hatred for americans and will take every life (including non-americans) to make themselves feel better adn to feel that they have won.

    Will there be stability in the world?
    Absolutly not...not now, not in 5 years, not ever!!!! sorry to break the news to everyone but after september 11th there is no way there will ever be security, and attacking countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea will only cause more instability and chaos, it will not make their lives better!!

    You can lie to yourself all you want or allow others to lie to you but Iraq is NOT better off than it was before!! Not one bit!! The reason Saddam Hussein managed to rule Iraq efficiently was because Iraq is full of internal cicil conflict and many many criminal cut-throats...the only way to rule these people was with an iron-fist!! wich saddam did excellently!! Now after being removed Iraq has more crime, more rape, more kidnappings and murders than ever before in all its history!! This is never covered by the news because they want to show that iraq i smuch better without saddam!! the truth is its worse than ever! one third of the new-government have already been assassinated before the government has even taken control!!!!

    As for afghanistan then thats even a sadder story!! Once again the only reason the Taliban ruled efficiently was because Afghanistan was full of internal conflict..a huge orgy of murder, rape and war between different ethnc groups...Taliban was harsh but they managed to stop people from fighting for many years!!! Now the soldiers go in and take about 500farmers to guantanamo bay cuba just to convince peope that they captured 'al-qaeda' forces!! and what happens then??? the news does 2stories about how life has imporved because some hairy girls can now show us their beards in public!!! and what is really happening now??? no one knows because no one cares anymore!! afghanistan is full of civil war between tribes and the massacares continue once again!!!

    Thsi world is going down the drain!!! i just hope i reach my fitness goals before these **** terrorists kidap me!!!

  7. #7
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    so where do we quit? do you not realize that the EU is next? have you EVER seen the bully go away just because you kiss his ass? No! all that teaches him is that he can get further by doing more bullying

  8. #8
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    do either of you know that in in Iraq more people die from regular murders, etc than are killed by kidnapping up untill very recently? You sheep are only watching the news who cant do enough to try to get Bush unelected - why? because they care about the middle east? no... so they can impose their socialist agenda right here at home

    WAKE UP!!!!
    Bush needs to be unelected, he started a war to boost his oil holdings or did everyone forget thats where his families wealth comes from. This war is very profitable to alot of people. This war is about money, not the Iraqi people. Bush hand picked their leadership to benefit him. He doesnt need to be reelected he has what he needs to up his income. I say send his and all those mother ****ers in congress's kids over there and see if they still think this war is a good idea.

  9. #9
    Da Bull's Avatar
    Da Bull is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    X
    Posts
    0
    I'd like to see ONE person give a detailed explanation as to how the Vietnam war and this war can even be compared at all.IMO,not even in the same ballpark.

  10. #10
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    It never ceases to amaze me at the shear ignorance of people - but then again, I forget that most of you get your information from mainstream media sources and dont spend your waking hours figuring out policy positions

    I cant waste my time enlightening you but it saddens me - well, perhaps when you grow up a bit - or travel more - you guys think somehow that Bush manufactured the war, fine - but when the next bomb goes off in the US or in the EU, tell me where we should go get them

    and bouncer - every God blessed Israeli and jew had better kiss both cheeks of GW's ass for having eliminated a major source of funding (25K each) and arms for suicide bombers - in the same way, if you want to eliminate the mosquitos....drain the swamps they breed in

  11. #11
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    I cant waste my time enlightening you but it saddens me - well, perhaps when you grow up a bit - or travel more - you guys think somehow that Bush manufactured the war, fine - but when the next bomb goes off in the US or in the EU, tell me where we should go get them
    OK well can you please enlighten me on where these "bombs" are??????

    1. No weapons of mass destruction have been found.

    2. There are no reputable links between Osama and Saddam.

    I agree we need to be hunting Osama, but the whole war in Iraq is manufactured. Just like you challenge me to prove it, I challenge you to prove that it wasn't. This war was over weapons of mass destruction (according to Bush) however they have NEVER been found.

    Can I prove this war is about oil....no I just use common sense, but can you prove it wasn't??????????????

  12. #12
    KAEW44's Avatar
    KAEW44 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,340
    Cycleon would a good 'drain of the swamp' be nuking the entire middle east? with a nuke proof shield around isreal that is?

  13. #13
    KAEW44's Avatar
    KAEW44 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,340
    i was being sarcastic by the way!

  14. #14
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycleon the poll changer
    (no disrespect bro I know you are a Mod.) This is a stupid question - The only way to lose is to lose our will and surrender
    This is a question of someones opinion, that is entitled in the US. You are allowed to believe what you choose to believe, therefore there are no stupid questions. Just illiterate stupid Republicans. Talking about Bush not you.

  15. #15
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Bull
    I'd like to see ONE person give a detailed explanation as to how the Vietnam war and this war can even be compared at all.IMO,not even in the same ballpark.
    The Striking Similarities Between Vietnam and Iraq: Can You Say Quagmire?
    by Bruce Mulkey

    We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. . . . Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why.
    --Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense in the 1960s

    In the late 1950s and early ’60s, I was the model American boy. I was an Eagle Scout who made good grades. I was captain of my high school football team who played in an all-American game and earned a full athletic scholarship to the University of Tennessee. I was regular participant at Sunday school and Methodist Youth Fellowship.

    I believed in mom, apple pie and the flag. I loved guns and spent a lot of time at Boy Scout camp shooting .22 rifles and earning NRA badges. Audie Murphy, the most decorated American combat soldier in World War II, was a childhood hero of mine. Thus it was natural for me to support President Lyndon Johnson when he said we needed more U.S. troops in Vietnam. “The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole,” Johnson declared. “A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us.”

    Despite the culture in which I lived and the values I’d taken on, it quickly became obvious to me that something was amiss. Politicians’ promises of a limited conflict morphed into a huge military build up. While some military leaders claimed we were making Vietnam safe for democracy, a U.S. officer proclaimed that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” We heard reports of atrocities committed against civilians by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers, but there were also reports of Lt. Calley’s massacre of unarmed civilians at My Lai. Our nation’s leaders predicted “light at the end of the tunnel,” yet the war drug on. Most disturbing of all, of course, were the inflated enemy body counts that were somehow supposed to offset the horror of the thousands of body bags returning to our shores. And no one, including Congress, seemed to have a solution to end the slaughter of Americans and Vietnamese except to increase the U.S. troop and munitions levels. The phrase “credibility gap” entered the lexicon.

    I was dismayed, saddened, ashamed and, finally, angry as hell. All my life I’d thought my country could do no wrong. We were, after all, supposed to be the good guys. My loss of innocence was sudden and intense.

    But, along with thousands of others, I channeled my anger into action. I worked to end the conflict, participating in demonstrations and supporting political candidates who challenged our sitting president. And I vowed that I would never go to Vietnam to fight in this unjust war.

    It eventually became obvious that the Vietnam War (the Vietnamese call it the American War) would not be won unless we were willing to bomb the little Third World country back to the Stone Age, as some had suggested. But I knew the tide had irreversibly turned against the war on February 27, 1968, when CBS television news anchor Walter Cronkite broadcast his poignant special report: “We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. . . . For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.” The public had had enough. A March 1968 Gallup poll indicated that only 26 percent of Americans supported Johnson’s handling of the conflict. On March 31, 1968, I watched an anguished Johnson address a national television audience. He saved the best for close to last: “ . . . I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

    After being elected to the presidency on a “peace with honor” campaign pledge in 1968, Nixon continued the war for several years more. But finally we declared victory and turned things over to the South Vietnamese. The final body count: more than 50,000 American and one million Vietnamese soldiers killed. In addition, more than 300,000 American and 1,500,000 Vietnamese troops were wounded. The Vietnamese government asserts that 4,000,000 civilians were killed during the conflict.

    Decades later it’s pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback. We underestimated the tenacity and resourcefulness of our foe. We underestimated the resources that it would take to wage such a conflict. We underestimated the amount of time it would take. We underestimated the recalcitrance of soldiers who lacked a clear mission. We underestimated the lives that would be lost on both sides. Johnson’s doubts about his actions were overshadowed by his flawed perception of manhood and his belief that he could not let a “little pissant country” prevail over the most powerful nation in the world.

    Johnson died a broken man on his ranch in Johnson City, Texas in 1973.

    Fast-forward thirty years.

    While on vacation in Crawford, Texas, Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush must have been drinking from the same well as Lyndon B. Johnson when LBJ got American boots stuck in Southeast Asia’s unforgiving swamps. . . . LBJ consequently lost his job and caused millions of American and Vietnamese casualties. Let’s hope that GWB isn't leading us down another rocky road.
    --Col. David Hackworth, U.S. Army Retired

    The tragedy of 9/11 presented us with an immense opportunity. A few days after that horrendous event I wrote that one thing had been accomplished by the appalling actions of the terrorists: We had come together as a nation in support of those in need. And not only that, but the peoples of the world joined in mourning our loss. Many nations pledged their support in confronting the challenge of terrorism, and we had considerable solidarity in this effort . . . for a while.

    When, however, we tried to drum up support for an assault on Iraq, the majority of the people of the world, including millions in this nation, rose up in powerful protest. For the first time massive peace rallies took place prior to the first shot being fired. And members of the UN refused to condone what many regarded as an illegal, if not immoral, action.

    The cycle of change continues to accelerate. While it took years to grasp the contradictions in the arguments for the war in Vietnam, in Iraq it has only taken months. President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney told us that we’d be welcomed with open arms. We were not. We were told that weapons of mass destruction would be discovered. They were not. We were told that the conflict would be over quickly. It is not. We were told that we’d be pulling most of our troops out in a matter of months. We have not. We were told that selling Iraqi oil would pay for rebuilding that nation. It will not. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, we’ve already spent $74 billion on the war and Bush has asked our enabling Congress for an additional $87 billion. Is this another example of a huge credibility gap or are these guys utterly incompetent?

    In a September 6 Zogby poll, Bush’s overall approval rating had dropped to 45 percent. A few emboldened politicians have challenged the administration’s handling of the Iraq war. But I knew the tide had turned when I recently heard an NPR reporter referring to Bush’s claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria as “bogus.” Faux (Fox) News may still have their blinders on, but much of the mainstream media has cast off the pseudo-patriotism that consisted primarily of going along with almost everything that the current administration said and did that was in any way related to the war. And for Bush and company, there’s no turning back the clock. Wagging the dog will not help. Raising the terror alert level to orange or red won’t do it. Playing on our fears has run its course. You can only yell “wolf” so many times and get away with it. Of course, danger does exist in the world, but we must avoid being manipulated by our fear of these dangers.

    Let’s do a little quarterbacking, and this time let’s do it before decades pass. Again the president and his advisors appear to have underestimated the tenacity and resourcefulness of our foe. Again our political leaders have underestimated the resources that it would take to wage the war in Iraq. Again our military experts have underestimated the amount of time it would take to complete our mission. Again the president has underestimated the importance of a clear mission for our soldiers and for the nation (WMD? Democratic Iraq? Objective du jour?). Again the presiding administration has underestimated the casualties that would result on both sides (so far 292 Americans dead and 1,478 wounded, 52 coalition troops dead, more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians dead and an estimated 10,000 Iraqi troops dead).

    As with President Johnson, we have begun to see what happens to those who believe that they are all-powerful. Inevitably life intercedes. The pretenders are brought down to earth. We are witnessing another presidency being undone by its unwillingness to acknowledge reality and change course accordingly. We are witnessing what happens when someone believes that machismo is a proper way of expressing one’s masculinity. We are witnessing the steady decline of a president who thinks he can validate his manhood by risking the lives of others.

    As those of you who read this column regularly know, I have opposed this war from the beginning. I do not believe that Iraq posed a threat to us. I do not believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I do not believe that Iraq was in league with Al Quaeda (though we may now have helped create such an alliance). I do not think war is a just and moral means for settling political differences. Our armed forces are now in an untenable situation in Iraq. As in Vietnam the only solution to the conflict being discussed in Washington is to throw more troops (ours or someone else’s) into the fray and more money at the infrastructure problems. As in Vietnam, there are those who say we can’t cut and run or we’ll lose face. Well, guess what, folks: We’ve already lost face . . . with the millions of people around the world who thought this irresponsible adventure was deadly folly in the first place.

    Get the UN in and the U.S. out . . . now. Then turn Iraq over to Iraqis as soon as possible, and let them decide what form they want their government to take. We are not the rulers of the world. In fact, if there’s one lesson that we can learn from this misadventure, it’s that empire building is not as easy as the armchair warriors have made it out to be.

    One more thing: It is imperative that George W. Bush be removed from office in 2004. His recklessness has shown him to be unfit for the job. I personally support Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, (www.kucinich.us) for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, I’m also excited about the entry of General Wesley Clark (www.draftwesleyclark.com) into the race for the Democratic nomination. And I could also get behind current frontrunner Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, (www.deanforamerica.com). Regardless of the candidate you choose, now is the time to put our money, our sweat and our energy toward the creation of the kind of nation and world we envision for ourselves and our children.
    How about we get together and send another demagogic president back to his ranch in Texas?

  16. #16
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,769
    CYC you made some interesting points in each of your above posts so naturally my inquisitive ass has a few questions/comments:

    No doubt that few people die from being randomly kidnapped and murdered but don't you think the sheer volume of media these days will increase the political pressure on the US gvt to pull out of Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    do either of you know that in in Iraq more people die from regular murders, etc than are killed by kidnapping up untill very recently? You sheep are only watching the news who cant do enough to try to get Bush unelected...
    If you can explain in more detail please do, it's a lot of work to write a decent in depth post but if nobody goes to the trouble of sharing a good argument or viewpoint we are all worse off. As for GW manufacturing the war, I seriously doubt any one thinks he is solely responsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    I cant waste my time enlightening you but it saddens me - well, perhaps when you grow up a bit - or travel more - you guys think somehow that Bush manufactured the war, fine - but when the next bomb goes off in the US or in the EU, tell me where we should go get them

  17. #17
    Da Bull's Avatar
    Da Bull is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    X
    Posts
    0
    Lozgod...poor attempt at a cut/paste to prove your point.Try again please.I know quite a lot about Vietnam,being I grew up in that era.Your arguement is weak thus far.

  18. #18
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    As for GW manufacturing the war, I seriously doubt any one thinks he is solely responsible.
    You would be suprised how many do. After the release of Fahranheit 9/11 I think that number has grown immensley. Every single showing was sold out in the US.

  19. #19
    Doc M's Avatar
    Doc M is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    2,480
    I am going to respond to this post as I have first hand experience and knowledge of the events that have unfolded in Iraq over the years.

    1.) There are WMD in Iraq..How do I know..Because during the first Gulf War I saw them in many different regions throughout Iraq

    2.) I feel strongly enough about the manufactured war as people like to put it that I am going back over there in just a matter of days..Leaving a successful carrer and family behind..Why? Because these people need to be hunted and elimintated..There is much more to this war then "Money" issues..People use that as an excuse and it sickens me..The fact is that we are at war..Here in the states and abroad..Most people can't grasp the idea that the enemy we are fighting is a totally differnet monster and needs to be dealt with in unconventional methods..

    Will we win the war..I don't believe it's a win or lose position..It's a matter of protecting our country and freedoms from people that are intent on destroying our way of life..

    Most of you younger guys don't realize that estimates of casualties for the first Gulf War was in the tens of thousands..This number is for US troops, not the enemy..America was prepared for that number until it never happened..ANd now several hundred have died and American's are all upset and feel the war was unjustified..Sadly casualties are a raw fact of war and we need to remember that our way of life is the way it is because those before us made the same sacrifices..War is ugly..Troops die..I strongly support Bush and his method of taking the fight to these people instead of sitting here helplessly waiting for them to attack us again..People can think Bush is just lining his pockets with the war..But stop and realize hispockets are getting lined whether we are at war or not because the oil industry will not stop when the war stops..

  20. #20
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Bull
    Lozgod...poor attempt at a cut/paste to prove your point.Try again please.I know quite a lot about Vietnam,being I grew up in that era.Your arguement is weak thus far.
    Yes it was a cut and paste. When I make the argument this is another Vietnam here is my point.

    1. We are minding another nation's business. Bush LIED to get public support to go over there. He claims it was also for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If that is our policy, to help the oppressed citizens of countries like Iraq, why didn't we invade South Africa during the period they were under apartheid. Please don't start a South Africa discusion to throw out some smoke, it is just an example.

    2. We are fighting in an environment we are not prepared for. We train to fight in the desert but the reality is that it is harsh and takes years to adjust to. I had 3 friends that have come back from over there and said it isn't like anything that they could describe.

    3. Kids (our soldiers) are dying in a war that will not benefit them or their children or their grandchildren or so on. They are dying for at best the Iraqi people, however they are really dieing for the intersts of big oil.

    4. Civilians are joining the enemy at high numbers to fight us and get us out of their country.

    I can think of more, but I would like to give you the oppurtunity to rebuttal if you have one.

  21. #21
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    This is a question of someones opinion, that is entitled in the US. You are allowed to believe what you choose to believe, therefore there are no stupid questions. Just illiterate stupid Republicans. Talking about Bush not you.
    having spent a few minutes earlier this week actually speaking face to face with Bush after hearing him deliver a 50 minute speach, I can tell you for a fact that he is not illiterate and he is not stupid

    and for all of you who take michael moore's creed at face value without quesitioning that, I feel sad for your intelectual laziness to support your beliefs

    Chica - I could go into it, but honestly, I dont have time - I am doing somethign about it - but beyond that, I dont think it would change peoples mind who want to believe things in spite of whatever teh facts are - and the reality is that most people have a very narrow view of things - very idealistic and unrealistic also - I am currently an advisor to a former head of state as well as a current one and have personally met 2 more, with numerous lower levels - and I can tell you flatly, that the world is a very tricky place - and while they will complain about many things... in the end, the only thing that really MOVES them is strength, love and good feelings are nice, but they will all screw you in a second if they feel that you are not strong

  22. #22
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    in the end, the only thing that really MOVES them is strength, love and good feelings are nice, but they will all screw you in a second if they feel that you are not strong
    Well when Bush is honorable enough to send his child to die in the desert like he did many other Amercans let me know, and I will vote for him. Till then I'll continue to be against that snake in the grass.

  23. #23
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    and for all of you who take michael moore's creed at face value without quesitioning that, I feel sad for your intelectual laziness to support your beliefs
    Michael Moore's movie presented evidence, not his opinion, not propaganda, hard evidence. Check it out, it might help you see the reality of this war.

  24. #24
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,769
    I totally understand, writing on a subject this complex is a big hassle.

    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    Chica - I could go into it, but honestly, I dont have time....

  25. #25
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Asian Times account of the similarities and differences of Iraq and Vietnam.


    Middle East

    COMMENTARY
    Iraq vs Vietnam: Similarities and differences
    By Ehsan Ahrari

    The United States invasion of Iraq is a 24 hours a day, seven days a week war, which the international media have been covering on a minute-by-minute basis. In such coverage, only the performance of the US military is under severe scrutiny, but not that of the Iraqi military. That is a source of great consternation for the Pentagon. But then Iraq is not a democratic polity, and it is defending its homeland from the world's foremost military power.

    What is also a major reason for apprehension for the US is that it is not winning the war for the "hearts and minds" in the international arena. Increasingly, comparisons between the Iraqi campaign and Vietnam are popping up. The US invasion of Iraq resembles the Vietnam conflict in many ways, while it is also dissimilar in others.

    The most remarkable similarity is that, as a dispatch of Los Angeles Times noted, "The war with Iraq has begun with almost the same level of public support that the Johnson administration enjoyed when it began the concerted buildup of US troops in Vietnam in 1965." It was only as a result of three years of bloody conflict and intense journalistic scrutiny "before popular sentiments turned decisively against the war in 1968".

    Second, in Vietnam the larger fight was against international communism and the perceived threat of "falling dominos" in East Asia, first introduced by president Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, was the rationale for starting America's military involvement. To quote Eisenhower, "You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."

    In 2003, toppling Saddam Hussein is being justified to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, President George W Bush has attempted to link Saddam with the larger threat of global terrorism and his alleged cooperation with al-Qaeda terrorist groups. In the aftermath of Bush's press conference days before the invasion began, he used a nuanced technique of linking Saddam with al-Qaeda. Commenting on that technique, The Christian Science Monitor of March 14 noted, "Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr Hussein was 'personally involved' in September 11, about the same figure as a month ago."

    Third, in the case of the Vietnam conflict, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 - which was passed in the aftermath of US claims that a US destroyer was reportedly attacked by the North Vietnamese - later proved to be untrue. Bush's assertion about linkages between Saddam and al-Qaeda also has not been backed by American intelligence sources. The above dispatch of the Monitor also noted, "Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the September 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding al-Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime."

    Fourth, in the Vietnam imbroglio, the North Vietnamese relied heavily on guerrilla warfare and did not follow the conventional principles for the conduct of war. In a more than week-long war in Iraq, the Iraqis have established a record of not following the "laws of war". Referring to the intensity of Iraqi attacks, General William S Wallace, the army's senior ground commander in Iraq said, "The attacks we're seeing are bizarre - technical vehicles [pickups] with .50 calibers and every kind of weapon charging tanks and Bradleys," Wallace added, referring to the M1 Abram tanks and M2 Bradley fighting vehicles used by the army. "It's disturbing to think that someone can be that brutal."

    In fact, Iraq has been quite explicit on this point. A dispatch of the New York Times of March 30 quotes Iraq's Vice President Taha Yassin as saying, "Any method that stops or kills the enemy will be used. What are they doing in our land?," he asked. "Let them pack and go."

    The most surprising aspect of this development is that the US did not anticipate Iraq's desperate tactics. It takes no amount of imagination for the weak fighting force to start using asymmetric warfare tactics in the earliest possible phase of a military conflict, since that is the only method left to convert the speedy battlefield gains of an awesome military force into a protracted war. And in this instance, a potential protracted war remains America's Achilles heel.

    Speaking of protracted wars, Saddam has reportedly studied the battle of Stalingrad and the Vietnam war at great length. It will be interesting to find out how much of that interest has been institutionalized in the curricula of Iraq's military schools and academies. Regardless of how prepared the Iraqi regular forces are in protracted or guerrilla warfare, they are about to use heavily all tactics of asymmetric warfare in order to level the playing the field.

    The most significant dissimilarity between Vietnam and Iraq, however, might be the duration of the conflict. In the case of Iraq, the actual military action may not last longer than an additional week or two. Even if the US forces decide to put Baghdad under siege, as press reports currently indicate, that siege may not last long, given the possibility of a combination of air attacks and Special Forces probing that will follow during the siege to exploit any openings and thereby minimizing its duration.

    That possibility leads one to think about the future dynamics of insurgency campaigns in Iraq. Thus far, a standard American argument is that Iraqi resistance is the product of fear of Saddam's potential reprisals in the case of manifestations of cooperation with the invading forces. As dubious as that argument is, there is no way of knowing whether such resistance will disappear during the American occupation of Iraq, once the current leadership of that country is wiped out.

    All of these developments, according to the aforementioned Los Angeles Times dispatch, are generating a number of concerns in the minds of the American populace. "Americans don't think the Bush administration explained clearly how much money the war with Iraq will cost, or even how long the war will last. And almost three-quarters don't think the president has clearly explained how many military casualties there will be."

    Such feelings are reviving another awful phrase of the Vietnam era: "quagmire." Referring to that phrase, CNN's pollster William Schneider was quoted as saying, "The fact remains, though, that when President Bush tells the American people that the war will last 'as long as it takes', the polls show people are frustrated with that response. In this case, people don't think the administration is lying, they just think it's not answering the question and that's frustrating, which is potentially dangerous."

    If the US government has learned one lesson from the Vietnam conflict, it is about being somewhat more up front with the media. Thus, this variable remains one of the major points of difference from that conflict. Still, people's frustrations are likely to remain, since they want this conflict to be over with minimum American casualties.

    From the American perspective, the sooner the Iraqi campaign ends in a clear-cut victory the lesser are the chances of comparisons between this conflict and Vietnam. From the viewpoint of the current Iraqi leadership, however, the longer the conflict prevails, the better the chances are for the survival of Saddam's regime.

    Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.

  26. #26
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse
    by Robert Freeman

    A virtual cottage industry has sprung up comparing Iraq with Vietnam. And well that it should. Vietnam cost the lives of not only 58,000 Americans but of three million Vietnamese. Neither the US nor the Iraqi people nor the world need another such horror.

    The similarities between Iraq and Vietnam run both shallow and deep. The shallow similarities are obvious and can serve to signal our attention. But it is the deeper similarities, those that shape policy and drive alternatives, that should signal our fears. For they point to the possibility of an outcome perhaps even more calamitous than in Vietnam.

    Both Iraq and Vietnam were founded on lies. In Vietnam, the original lie was that an impoverished nation of pre-industrial age farmers posed a threat to the mightiest empire the world had ever known. The Gulf of Tonkin hoax was the manufactured excuse to jump in with all guns blazing. And the Pentagon Papers were the meticulous, irrefutable chronicle of the litany of all the rest of the lies.

    With Iraq, we don’t need to wait for a Pentagon Papers to know the trigger or the extent of the lying. It is already notorious. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Connections to Al Qaeda. Complicity in 9/11. A “cakewalk”. Being welcomed as “liberators”. A “self-funding” war. “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction.” Reducing global terror. Mission Accomplished. The real question in Iraq is not whether the Bush administration has told any lies but rather, almost literally, whether it has told any meaningful truths.

    Both wars quickly became guerilla wars. In Vietnam, the battlegrounds were jungles, rice paddies, and small rural hamlets. It was the antithesis of the set-piece battle style of warfare the U.S. military had been built and trained for. In Iraq the battlegrounds are city blocks with houses, apartments, stores and schools. In both settings, the enemy controls the timing, scale, and place of engagements.

    They shoot opportunistically and quickly melt away into their surroundings. Combatants are indistinguishable from civilians with the result that eight civilians are killed for every combatant. This understandably alienates the civilian population from its “liberators” while increasing its support for the resistance—an inescapable and fateful cycle. In Vietnam, this process became mockingly known as “winning the hearts and minds of the people.” It hasn’t been graced with a name yet in Iraq.

    Both wars used the palpable fiction of “democracy” to pacify the American public into quiescence. In Vietnam, “democracy” took the form of a clique of wealthy, urban, Catholic dictators running a country of poor, rural, Buddhist peasants. After the US had its puppet, Diem, assassinated in 1963, it took two years and seven different governments before a suitably brutal but still obeisant figurehead could be found.

    In Iraq, a “governing council” of US-appointed stooges pretends to represent Iraqi interests by handing over almost all industries to large U.S. corporations—all of which just happen to be munificent donors to the Republican party. Commenting recently on the handover of “sovereignty,” US proconsul Paul Bremmer noted in seemingly oblivious irony that, “There’s not going to be any difference in our military posture on July 1st from what it is on June 30th.” This is democracy™ for foreign subjects, American style.

    But there are still deeper bases for comparing Iraq with Vietnam. It is these that are most disquieting for America’s prospects.

    Both wars were against victim nations already deeply scarred by colonial domination. It is this legacy that poisons all U.S. sanctimony about installing “democracy” in Iraq. Vietnam was dominated for over a century by first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and eventually the Americans. But all the Vietnamese people ever wanted was to be free of such domination, to craft for themselves their own destiny, much as the American colonists had done in their revolutionary war.

    Iraq, too, bears the scars of a long and repressive colonial legacy. It was created in the aftermath of World War I, literally carved out of the sand by the British for the sole purpose of controlling the world’s oil supply. The US helped Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party overthrow the uppity Karim Qasim in 1963 but its purposes were the same as the British’s: to control the world’s supply of oil. The aggressively disinformed American public is unaware of this legacy and, therefore, the reason behind Iraq’s vociferous resistance to its would-be “liberation.”

    Still deeper in meaning is the strategic context of the two wars. Both wars were fought in the vanguard of grand U.S. strategy. In Vietnam, the strategy was “Containment,” George Kennan’s famous formula for stopping the Soviet Union from expanding its empire. Eisenhower’s overwrought and ultimately disproved version had dominoes falling from Laos and Cambodia, on to Thailand and Burma, all the way to India.

    In Iraq, the grand strategy is global hegemony. It is the neo-conservatives’ vision of the once-in-a-millennium chance to dominate the world. With the Cold War ended and no plausible military challenger in sight, such a chance must not be let to pass, certainly not for want of sufficient “manhood”. Iraq is simply the first tactical step in this vision, the basis for controlling the world’s oil and, thereby, the US’s strategic competitors. This is the reason the Pentagon plans to leave 14 military bases in the country indefinitely—to project military power throughout the Persian Gulf, site of 55% of the world’s oil.

    Finally, it is the ideological context that perhaps most eerily presages (and dooms) the U.S. role in Iraq—just as it did in Vietnam. The Vietnam quagmire was formed in the toxic aftermath of World War II. When China fell to the communists in 1949, Republicans mounted an ideological dragnet to purge the government of those who had “lost China.” This morphed into Joe McCarthy’s witch hunts of the 1950s that targeted supposed “communist sympathizers” throughout the country.

    It was close personal knowledge of these ideologically-driven purges that drove Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and even Nixon to aver that they would never allow the U.S. to fail in Vietnam for fear of being portrayed as “soft on communism.” Despite the fact that all of these presidents were warned—repeatedly—that Vietnam was unwinnable, all “soldiered on”, dooming ever more soldiers and civilians to death and destruction.

    For years, the public rationale for U.S. involvement in Vietnam had been to keep Vietnam out of the hands of communists. But in March 1965, before the massive escalation that would make the war irreversible, Pentagon briefers told President Johnson that the true U.S. goals in Vietnam were, “70% to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat; 20% to keep South Vietnam (and adjacent territories) from Chinese hands; 10% to permit the people of Vietnam a better, freer way of life.” This is the smoking gun of the ideological aversion to withdrawal.

    And so, because of the strategic imperatives of containment and the ideological pressures of McCarthyism, the U.S. couldn’t stay out of Vietnam. But because of the colonialist taint, the nature of guerilla war, the ludicrous fiction of “democracy”, and the foundation of lies that undergirded the entire venture, it could never win either. This was the essential, inescapable, tragic dilemma for America in Vietnam: it could not manage to stay out; but it could never manage to win.

    Much the same can already be said of Iraq. Bush’s latest post-hoc rationale, that “we’re changing the world,” betrays a near-messianic obsession to stay. Such compulsion is impervious to mere logic or facts. Steadily increasing violence and chaos are cheerily parried with ideological divinations that these are actually proof we are winning! In psychiatric wards, this would be dismissed for what it actually is: dangerous delusion.

    But as was the case with successive presidents in Vietnam, the necessity “to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat” now drives Bush policy more than anything else. And we should be clear: this goes far beyond the need to simply maintain appearances until November. If the U.S. is driven from Iraq, the credibility of U.S. force and the potency of U.S. power in the world will be irreparably damaged, far more than it was by the loss in Vietnam. This is why Iraq may actually become worse than Vietnam.

    The reason is that military force has increasingly become the principal tool of persuasion for the U.S. in the world. Unlike the 1960s when its economy was still the envy of the world and its ideals were still the model for many nations, the U.S. economy is now a wreck and U.S. ideals are in tatters.

    The private U.S. economy is so uncompetitive it runs a half trillion dollar a year trade deficit with the rest of the world. And the U.S. lives so far beyond its means it runs a half trillion dollar a year federal budget deficit. It must go, hat in hand, to the rest of the world to borrow these sums, well more than two billion dollars a day. This is hardly a model of economic vibrancy. And the U.S.’s civic culture—what the neo-cons once lauded as “the soft power of ideas”—is now feared and mocked by much of the world, including former allies. And herein lies the danger.

    What is the point of spending more on the military than all of the rest of the world combined if it cannot deliver when called upon? In Vietnam, General Curtis LeMay answered this question with his famous dictum: “We’ll bomb them back into the stone age.” And Nixon tried, mightily. During one twelve-day period in December 1972 (the “Christmas Bombings”), the U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on North Vietnam than it had dropped during the entire period from 1969 to 1971, the military height of the war. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

    This is now the danger for both Iraq and the U.S. Because of Bush’s strategic commitment to global hegemony and his messianic ideological persuasions, the U.S. cannot get out of Iraq; but because of the realities of colonialism, guerilla war, phony democracy, and the foundation of lies to justify it all, it will not be able to win either. Does this sound familiar?

    Worse, the forces for moderation in Vietnam (such as they were) are nowhere in sight in Iraq. There is no independent media capable of calling out the emperor’s nakedness. There is no China next door to threaten another Asian land war should U.S. aggression become too heinous. There are no allies the U.S. needs to heed for its Cold War against the Soviet Union. In fact, without the Soviet Union, the U.S.’s former allies look more and more like its future competitors. Hence its public derision for their counsel of restraint.

    Finally, if Iraq falls, Bush’s cabal of neo-conservative policy makers, never so much concerned with American interests as they are with their own, will be decisively, publicly, embarrassingly repudiated. All of this is a formula for potential catastrophe.

    The damage to U.S. prestige in the world for its illegal invasion of Iraq is already done. The danger now is that in his desperation to “avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat,” the repudiation of his entire presidency, and a generation-long disdain for U.S. military power, Bush will resort to apocalyptic barbarism. This is exactly what Nixon did trying to salvage “peace with honor” in Vietnam. It is this temptation that only the American public can force Bush to resist.

  27. #27
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    Michael Moore's movie presented evidence, not his opinion, not propaganda, hard evidence. Check it out, it might help you see the reality of this war.
    So does CNN and Fox - do you think that even with the same information that they portray the same view?

    WAKE UP!!! its hollywood - cant you remember "wag the dog"? dont you think liberals know that too? not saying that Republicans dont have an agenda...of course they do - but so do the dems...yet they deny it loudly, and too many simpletons suck up their drivel as if it were gospel - I really wish you guys would get out a bit

  28. #28
    Da Bull's Avatar
    Da Bull is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    X
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    Yes it was a cut and paste. When I make the argument this is another Vietnam here is my point.

    1. We are minding another nation's business. Bush LIED to get public support to go over there. He claims it was also for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If that is our policy, to help the oppressed citizens of countries like Iraq, why didn't we invade South Africa during the period they were under apartheid. Please don't start a South Africa discusion to throw out some smoke, it is just an example.

    2. We are fighting in an environment we are not prepared for. We train to fight in the desert but the reality is that it is harsh and takes years to adjust to. I had 3 friends that have come back from over there and said it isn't like anything that they could describe.

    3. Kids (our soldiers) are dying in a war that will not benefit them or their children or their grandchildren or so on. They are dying for at best the Iraqi people, however they are really dieing for the intersts of big oil.

    4. Civilians are joining the enemy at high numbers to fight us and get us out of their country.

    I can think of more, but I would like to give you the oppurtunity to rebuttal if you have one.
    Alright..

    #1..Americans weren't lied to about why we went to Vietnam.It's was made quite clear we went there to stop communist aggression.That was our sole interest.This war has onderlying factors we aren't told about.So no comparrison there.

    #2True,the desertis a harsh place.Americans aren't used to it.I agree.We've been fighting in jungles for over 50 years.No comparrison there either.

    #3 Sad reality of war,but ppl do die.

    #4This could be the only similarity you've made thus far.But we were fighting Russia and China in the Vietnam war,not just a bunch of peasants.What super power is backing the Iraqi ppl?
    Last edited by Da Bull; 06-26-2004 at 09:07 PM.

  29. #29
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Bull
    Alright..

    #1..Americans weren't lied to about why we went to Vietnam.It's was made quite clear we went there to stop communist aggression.That was our sole interest.This war has onderlying factors we aren't told about.So no comparrison there.

    #2True,the desertis a harsh place.Americans aren't used to it.I agree.We've been fighting in jungles for over 50 years.No comparrison there either.

    #3 Sad reality of war,but ppl do die.

    #4This could be the only similarity you've made thus far.But we were fighting Russia and China in the Vietnam war,not just a bunch of peasants.What super power is backing the Iraqui ppl?

    I could be wrong but other than #1 your rebuttal wasn't that strong. Also by making the statement that they aren't similar because we weren't lied to about Veitnam then you are agreeing we were lied to about Iraq.

  30. #30
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    7,846
    Its similar to campaign finance - Im sure that most here believe that Republicans are the big money people - but in truth, McCain Feingold stopped republican money by curtailing individual donations - yet it has been DEMOCRAT orgs who organize 527s and billionaires like Soros who spend major money for the dems - and yes, they spent a lot more - they also get the money from union dues - NOT from individuals

    again, dems point to the repubs as the evil big money, but the reality is that they spend far more and do it to circumvent the laws that they say will help keep money out

  31. #31
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    I agree with that 10000%. They are both crooks, I don't support Nader's ultra liberalism, but I do support the idea of we need more choices at the ballot. If it comforts you any I am voting for Nader for that reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    Its similar to campaign finance - Im sure that most here believe that Republicans are the big money people - but in truth, McCain Feingold stopped republican money by curtailing individual donations - yet it has been DEMOCRAT orgs who organize 527s and billionaires like Soros who spend major money for the dems - and yes, they spent a lot more - they also get the money from union dues - NOT from individuals

    again, dems point to the repubs as the evil big money, but the reality is that they spend far more and do it to circumvent the laws that they say will help keep money out

  32. #32
    Da Bull's Avatar
    Da Bull is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    X
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    I could be wrong but other than #1 your rebuttal wasn't that strong. Also by making the statement that they aren't similar because we weren't lied to about Veitnam then you are agreeing we were lied to about Iraq.
    I'm not saying Bush is right or wrong for attcking Iraq.I'm saying to compare Vietnam to this war is totally rediculous.Two totally different wars,with different agendas.

  33. #33
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Bull
    I'm not saying Bush is right or wrong for attcking Iraq.I'm saying to compare Vietnam to this war is totally rediculous.Two totally different wars,with different agendas.
    Yeah I see that's what you are saying, what I am really saying is we are gonna lose a war we should of never been involved in. hat is the biggest similarity.

  34. #34
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,769
    IMO a person would have to be insane to think that both parties are not extremely adept at funding their campaigns.

    And George Soros, though he is one of my personal heroes, is an ass for getting involved in the manner he chose to. I remember reading his anti-Bush interview in Time magazine and all that came to mind was STFU already. IMO, he should act like Buffet, a very wealthy but quiet Democrat.

    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    Its similar to campaign finance - Im sure that most here believe that Republicans are the big money people - but in truth, McCain Feingold stopped republican money by curtailing individual donations - yet it has been DEMOCRAT orgs who organize 527s and billionaires like Soros who spend major money for the dems - and yes, they spent a lot more - they also get the money from union dues - NOT from individuals

  35. #35
    Soldier of Misfortune's Avatar
    Soldier of Misfortune is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,458
    First off, a big HOOAH to Doc M. Second, this war in Iraq is alot like Vietnam. The NVA, VC, south vietnamese army, and all civilians looked the same. Our soldiers couldnt tell them apart. They would be on patrol and go through a village that was thought to be in a safe zone and the "civilians" would reach inside thier hay piles and paddy dykes and pull out AK-47's and shoot our boys in the back, so our boys would call an airstrike and blow the whole village. Yeah the enemy was killed, yeah a few civies died, but didnt a few more die in HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI!!! When fighting an unconventional war, you have to use unconventional tactics. Iraqi people in militias switch sides all the time, all that has to happen is the US storm a building w/ one or two in it and they immediatly say they are on the US side and start shooting at thier friends. A special forces captain that helps train my ROTC unit told us they teach the insurgents the 10-12 second rush. Get up rush for that long and hit the ground. (The US uses the 3-5 sec rush, so you dont get mowed down.) This is for when the b@stards switch back to the al quefag side they can easily be taken care of.

    Another huge problem with this war is all the media coverage. The cameras need to get the hell out and let the military do thier job. Let the cameras come in after the Army (HOOAH) has gone through and secured the area. In WWII, 295,000 soldiers died in about 4 years, becuase thats the size of forces that were needed to get the job done. In Vietnam 58,000 died in 10 years. It was such a big deal because there were cameras recording every death just like they are now. Get the cameras out and let the military do thier job.

    Regardless the outcome, we are going to be in Iraq for a long time. We are still in Germany after WWII, Ramstien AFB. My instructors tell us outright that when we graduate we WILL get deployed. I know I am going overseas. As of now I am going into the armor branch which would make me a tank commander. By gum if they dont have M1A1 tanks in the desert.

  36. #36
    Da Bull's Avatar
    Da Bull is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    X
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NIU ROTC
    Second, this war in Iraq is alot like Vietnam. The NVA, VC, south vietnamese army, and all civilians looked the same. Our soldiers couldnt tell them apart. They would be on patrol and go through a village that was thought to be in a safe zone and the "civilians" would reach inside thier hay piles and paddy dykes and pull out AK-47's and shoot our boys in the back, so our boys would call an airstrike and blow the whole village. Yeah the enemy was killed, yeah a few civies died, but didnt a few more die in HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI!!!
    LOL...that is your only statement to say this war and Vietnam are going to be in the same classification.In every war you can find similarities,but again,to compare this war to Vietnam is rather silly.

  37. #37
    KAEW44's Avatar
    KAEW44 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,340
    can anyone involve anabolic steroid in this discussion?

  38. #38
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by KAEW44
    can anyone involve anabolic steroid in this discussion?
    This is the lounge, it is open to anything not too vulgar. We don't have to discuss roids in here, but if you want to, feel free.

  39. #39
    Psychotron's Avatar
    Psychotron is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,556
    Check it, We are going to be involved in a huge war in 4-5 years. John Titor from the future told us so. yup, get ready lol

    anyone ever read the **** from this guy who claimed he was from the future?

    i think il start a new topic.

  40. #40
    Soldier of Misfortune's Avatar
    Soldier of Misfortune is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Bull
    LOL...that is your only statement to say this war and Vietnam are going to be in the same classification.In every war you can find similarities,but again,to compare this war to Vietnam is rather silly.
    I was gonna write more but my friend came over and rushed me and I said F-this, imma go to this other dudes house, have a beer, and watch bad santa. which by the way, sucked for the most part. It coulda/shoulda been waaay better.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •