Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Well, actually, we did win one, although we won it with air power, not ground forces.
4 more years in Iraq
- Thread starter Harve Curry
- Start date
- Status
Well, actually, we did win one, although we won it with air power, not ground forces.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Really? The Empire of Japan declared war on the US prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor? References, please?
Apparently no one told the Mongols about this maxim...or the Czar's military. What a shame. History does not support your stance. The Mongols conquered all of Asia in about 100 years...and beyond. The Czars' armies took generations to do it...but piece by piece...they did it.
So basically, you're claimng that what the Mongols did...starting around 1200 and what the Russians did starting about 1400 and ending about 1880...is impossible to do today?
Lone_Gunman
Member
How many US soldiers were killed in West Berlin 3 years after the occupation began?
Compare that to the number killed in Baghdad in the same timeframe.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Hey Javafiend, Germany never attacked us either, but we fought them and even most Libs consider that a just war. Not because America was in the right, but since Germany was fighting the Libs beloved Communists they rooted for America in that one 
. Also we had plenty of trouble with some Nazi's after the war, ever heard of the "Werewolves".
. Also we had plenty of trouble with some Nazi's after the war, ever heard of the "Werewolves".Monkeyleg
Member.
Without doing a search for posts back in September of 2001, I'm pretty certain that I made comments to the effect that the American people no longer had the stomach to fight protracted wars for long-term goals.
Sad to say, I was right.
All of the flags and the bumper stickers and the rallies subsided quickly. In their place we have endless news stories about how the US is losing in Iraq, and polls that reflect the balance and bias of the news media.
The Nazi's never attacked US soil (with the exception of some small hit-and-run efforts on the East Coast). They torpedoed our merchant ships, giving FDR all the reason he needed to commit troops to Europe. He could have just as easily decided to keep our merchant ships at home.
The Japanese never struck CONUS. They hit Pearl Harbor, and only after we pursued policies that pretty much guaranteed a war with Japan.
In both cases, though, our response wasn't to sit back and wait for another attack, and say, "boy, if you guys try that again, we're going to be angry."
Our response was to take the fight to them, to their continents and, ultimately, to their very homes.
For over thirty years we've been attacked by radical Middle Eastern terrorists. They've killed our soldiers in their barracks; they've bombed our embassies; they've bombed the places where our soldiers relaxed after duty; they've bombed our ships; they've murdered our citizens; blown up our passenger planes; bombed the WTC once in 1994; tried to assasinate a sitting president; and more.
Our reaction? Speeches about "outrage," and a couple of bombs. Yippee. Had those terrorists shaking in their sandals, for sure.
When the terrorists realized that we wouldn't respond after thirty-some years of attacks, they pulled off a doozey in NYC.
And, for awhile, the American people were awakened. Now they're back to Condition White.
Meanwhile, we've finally taken the fight to where it always needed to be: in the middle of the Middle East. We've been watching the cauldron there boil, and hoped against hope that it would never reach us.
It was a false hope then, and it's a false hope now. Our most pressing enemies--the Iranians, the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Saudi's, the Egyptians, and others--are concentrated in one area.
For the first time since elements in the Middle East became a clear and present danger to the security of the US decades ago, we are where we need to be.
Opponents of the war cry that Iraq has become a rallying zone for terrorists. The argument reminds me of the statements from animal-rights folks who complain about hunters putting out feeding bins full of corn: it's not fair to attract the deer to a single spot.
Fish in a barrel.
We need to have a solid victory in Iraq, we need to have a constant military presence in the region (just as we still do in the Far East and Europe), and we need to remind the Mullah's and Ayotollah's that their spawning of suicide bombers will only result in the destruction of entire cities, or even countries, if it hair-lips us.
I have many friends, but my wife and family come first. If a threat looms, I will protect them first, even if it means losing my friends.
Similarly, I will choose to put the United States first, even if it means alienating allies or burning cities I've never even heard of.
Barbaric? Maybe. But it's the way things have been since time immemorial, and always will be. The terrorists understand that. It's about time the American public wrapped their minds around that primeval notion.
Sad to say, I was right.
All of the flags and the bumper stickers and the rallies subsided quickly. In their place we have endless news stories about how the US is losing in Iraq, and polls that reflect the balance and bias of the news media.
The Nazi's never attacked US soil (with the exception of some small hit-and-run efforts on the East Coast). They torpedoed our merchant ships, giving FDR all the reason he needed to commit troops to Europe. He could have just as easily decided to keep our merchant ships at home.
The Japanese never struck CONUS. They hit Pearl Harbor, and only after we pursued policies that pretty much guaranteed a war with Japan.
In both cases, though, our response wasn't to sit back and wait for another attack, and say, "boy, if you guys try that again, we're going to be angry."
Our response was to take the fight to them, to their continents and, ultimately, to their very homes.
For over thirty years we've been attacked by radical Middle Eastern terrorists. They've killed our soldiers in their barracks; they've bombed our embassies; they've bombed the places where our soldiers relaxed after duty; they've bombed our ships; they've murdered our citizens; blown up our passenger planes; bombed the WTC once in 1994; tried to assasinate a sitting president; and more.
Our reaction? Speeches about "outrage," and a couple of bombs. Yippee. Had those terrorists shaking in their sandals, for sure.
When the terrorists realized that we wouldn't respond after thirty-some years of attacks, they pulled off a doozey in NYC.
And, for awhile, the American people were awakened. Now they're back to Condition White.
Meanwhile, we've finally taken the fight to where it always needed to be: in the middle of the Middle East. We've been watching the cauldron there boil, and hoped against hope that it would never reach us.
It was a false hope then, and it's a false hope now. Our most pressing enemies--the Iranians, the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Saudi's, the Egyptians, and others--are concentrated in one area.
For the first time since elements in the Middle East became a clear and present danger to the security of the US decades ago, we are where we need to be.
Opponents of the war cry that Iraq has become a rallying zone for terrorists. The argument reminds me of the statements from animal-rights folks who complain about hunters putting out feeding bins full of corn: it's not fair to attract the deer to a single spot.
Fish in a barrel.
We need to have a solid victory in Iraq, we need to have a constant military presence in the region (just as we still do in the Far East and Europe), and we need to remind the Mullah's and Ayotollah's that their spawning of suicide bombers will only result in the destruction of entire cities, or even countries, if it hair-lips us.
I have many friends, but my wife and family come first. If a threat looms, I will protect them first, even if it means losing my friends.
Similarly, I will choose to put the United States first, even if it means alienating allies or burning cities I've never even heard of.
Barbaric? Maybe. But it's the way things have been since time immemorial, and always will be. The terrorists understand that. It's about time the American public wrapped their minds around that primeval notion.
Harve Curry
Member
When I said, Quote:
"Our part in WWII was done in 4 years."
I meant combat, men getting killed. An extended guerrilla war in Iraq or anywhere else is not the same as a peace time or cold war occupation.
"Our part in WWII was done in 4 years."
I meant combat, men getting killed. An extended guerrilla war in Iraq or anywhere else is not the same as a peace time or cold war occupation.
Didorian
Member
About the WAR IN IRAQ....... Except for the ???? storm called our "war on terror" Which is basically a load of bull. THERE IS NO WAR!!! The war has BEEN over..... Operation Iraqi freedom, Operation enduring freedom, both basically the same thing, are PEACE KEEPING MISSIONS!
The actual war was called to an end damn near three years ago. And our soldiers have been over there dying all in the name of trying to WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!!!
Our soldiers arn't over there in a wartime capacity. Their hands are being tied by burocracy and politics. It's not like we're over there fighting the good fight. Our soldiers are over there were it's dangerous to even drive from one place to another. And do we move in, take a city and move on, eventually securing the whole country? NO!!!!
Every time something bad happens to our soldiers THEY are blamed!!!! Either they wern't situationally aware enough. Or they had been mean, or simply not NICE enough to those poor innocent iraqi people and they were only getting what they should have expected from the iraqi's in retaliation. Our guys are over there trying to survive and carry out a mission that even THEY don't understand. And they are dying.
THE WAR IS OVER AND OUR MEN ARE STILL OVER THERE DYING!!!!
I'm not against the troops, I'm all for them. What I'm against is how our government is handelilng this whole fiasco.
Our soldiers deserve better. Either give them a direction and a fighting chance or bring them HOME.
Four more years my ASS!!
The United States has nothing to gain from being in Iraq in this capacity.
We need to either take it over, leave it alone, or wipe it off of the map.
Anything else, only serves to destroy more of the moral of the armed forces, and lower the numbers that will join.
I'll probably post more on this later.
Formerly Spc. Dexter Chavis Jr. NC National Guard Bravo 105th eng bt.
The actual war was called to an end damn near three years ago. And our soldiers have been over there dying all in the name of trying to WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!!!
Our soldiers arn't over there in a wartime capacity. Their hands are being tied by burocracy and politics. It's not like we're over there fighting the good fight. Our soldiers are over there were it's dangerous to even drive from one place to another. And do we move in, take a city and move on, eventually securing the whole country? NO!!!!
Every time something bad happens to our soldiers THEY are blamed!!!! Either they wern't situationally aware enough. Or they had been mean, or simply not NICE enough to those poor innocent iraqi people and they were only getting what they should have expected from the iraqi's in retaliation. Our guys are over there trying to survive and carry out a mission that even THEY don't understand. And they are dying.
THE WAR IS OVER AND OUR MEN ARE STILL OVER THERE DYING!!!!
I'm not against the troops, I'm all for them. What I'm against is how our government is handelilng this whole fiasco.
Our soldiers deserve better. Either give them a direction and a fighting chance or bring them HOME.
Four more years my ASS!!
The United States has nothing to gain from being in Iraq in this capacity.
We need to either take it over, leave it alone, or wipe it off of the map.
Anything else, only serves to destroy more of the moral of the armed forces, and lower the numbers that will join.
I'll probably post more on this later.
Formerly Spc. Dexter Chavis Jr. NC National Guard Bravo 105th eng bt.
Ya got me, Byron.
I meant to say that Japan initiated the war. (Editing error on my part.) In any event, there was no comparable casus belli with Iraq. 31 October 1941 - While escorting a British convoy, an American warship, the destroyer Reuben James, was torpedoed and sunk by the German submarine U-562.
11 December 1941 - Germany declared war on the United States.
Acutally liberals were running the executive branch at that time. Their eagerness to get into the war was blunted by opposition from the America First conservatives until Pearl Harbor.
Wrong again. The "Werewolves" had a scary name but essentially no presence and did not become a serious security issue for the occupation. Instead of any heroic last stands, many Nazi leaders became the butt of bitter jokes as their promises of enduring heroism culminated instead in hundreds of suicides. The organization merits but two passing mentions in the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946.
As the distinguished German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. …"
See Condi's Phony History.
That's three strikes in three sentences, lunghorngunman. You must've slept during your history classes at UT.
After Germany officially declared war on us, we really didn't have that choice.
You are, I believe, right. In October 1940 a U.S. Naval Intelligence officer wrote a secret strategy memo outlining a series of measures that the USG should undertake in order to sharpen the crisis in the Pacific vis-a-vis Japan. He sent the memo up the chain of command, and FDR immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which climaxed in the Japanese attack. See Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.
The US has been heavily involved in initiating and supporting violence in the ME. The USG has destabilized constitutional governments, installed dictatorships, invaded countries, trained, equipped and directed terrorist organizations. I recommend you hit a library and educate your self about it. Ignorance can be cured.
Did you know that the US installed Saddam and his Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq in 1963?
How many of those governments are US client states?
Listen to this armchair general talk tough. Pretty easy when it's other people who do the fighting and dying.
You are just another ignorant, brain-washed, war-mongering American.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Didorian, you're emotional about an issue that demands cold and rational thought.
"The United States has nothing to gain from being in Iraq in this capacity.
We need to either take it over, leave it alone, or wipe it off of the map."
The US has everything to gain, provided the US citizenry are behind the effort. That's the point I was trying to make earlier: there's much to be won or lost here, and it's only the will of the American public that will determine the outcome.
We don't need to take it over, leave it alone, or wipe it off the map.
All we need to do--granted, "all" is a pretty tall order--is show the people of other Middle Eastern nations what even a taste of freedom is like.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the most formidable military in the region, and arguably the most repressive regime.
His military is gone. His repressive regime is confined to Baathist holdouts and their foreign lunatic comrades who are bent on returning every Islam nation to the Third Century.
All of the nationalist, religious and cultural slurs raised to keep us out of prior wars--Germans like being ruled by dictators; the Japanese can never think for themselves; the Vietnamese prefer serfdom to freedom--all of that is hogwash. Bull.
Every time we help another people gain self-control, we win. Every time we overthrow a genocidal thug--from Pol Pot to Stalin--mankind wins.
If we cave to the demands of people like Senator Russ Feingold and others to set a fixed withdrawal date, if we pull out early, if we give up, then we have lost.
I'm old enough to now recognize that I was too young back in 1968 to know what I was talking about when it came to Viet Nam. The "Cronkite" victory for the NVA and the VC sealed out country's reputation as a "paper tiger."
It invited the sorts of terrorist attacks we have seen.
We just can't have that happen again, or we will become a second-rate nation.
"The United States has nothing to gain from being in Iraq in this capacity.
We need to either take it over, leave it alone, or wipe it off of the map."
The US has everything to gain, provided the US citizenry are behind the effort. That's the point I was trying to make earlier: there's much to be won or lost here, and it's only the will of the American public that will determine the outcome.
We don't need to take it over, leave it alone, or wipe it off the map.
All we need to do--granted, "all" is a pretty tall order--is show the people of other Middle Eastern nations what even a taste of freedom is like.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the most formidable military in the region, and arguably the most repressive regime.
His military is gone. His repressive regime is confined to Baathist holdouts and their foreign lunatic comrades who are bent on returning every Islam nation to the Third Century.
All of the nationalist, religious and cultural slurs raised to keep us out of prior wars--Germans like being ruled by dictators; the Japanese can never think for themselves; the Vietnamese prefer serfdom to freedom--all of that is hogwash. Bull.
Every time we help another people gain self-control, we win. Every time we overthrow a genocidal thug--from Pol Pot to Stalin--mankind wins.
If we cave to the demands of people like Senator Russ Feingold and others to set a fixed withdrawal date, if we pull out early, if we give up, then we have lost.
I'm old enough to now recognize that I was too young back in 1968 to know what I was talking about when it came to Viet Nam. The "Cronkite" victory for the NVA and the VC sealed out country's reputation as a "paper tiger."
It invited the sorts of terrorist attacks we have seen.
We just can't have that happen again, or we will become a second-rate nation.
gc70
Member
Absolutely true - insurgency was not a significant issue during the Allied Occupation of Germany.
Of course, that may have been because different tactics were used against insurgents in Occupied Germany than are being used in Iraq.
I trust that nobody is seriously advocating collective reprisals and mass deportations of ethnic groups to address the insurgency problems in Iraq.
Demonstrably false. On the eve of Gulf War II, the Iraqi armed forces numbered approximately 389,000. (International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2002-2003, Brassey's, London, 2002.) In addition, all Iraqi divisions (except those of the Republican Guard) were estimated by the IISS to be at 50 percent combat effectiveness, with half of all Army equipment lacking spare parts. And as for their morale....well, you get the picture.
See CDI Primer: Iraqi Military Effectiveness.
Israel is and was, of course, the most powerful regional power. Even neighboring Iran had 540,000 active duty troops.
What about every time we prevent another people from gaining self-control? What about every time we support a genocidal thug?
As if the media caused the military stalemate in Vietnam.
Monkeyleg
Member.
javafiend, you are one great friend and a fierce foe. Congratulations.
I'm 54, and well aware of the reasons we supported various regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, from the Shah of Iran to the "insurgents" in Afghanistan.
We did so in a Cold War environment. The Cold War is over.
We won.
"Listen to this armchair general talk tough. Pretty easy when it's other people who do the fighting and dying.
You are just another ignorant, brain-washed, war-mongering American."
No, Didorian, it's not easy for me to talk about war, global strategies, or even dying.
Why? Because I'm neither ignorant, brain-washed, or a war-mongerer. I was always available for service in Viet Nam. But I heeded the warnings of my friends and relatives who went: don't go. I also could read, even at the age of 17, the hand-writing on the wall: Viet Nam was a political war, and not the military war that it should have been. Had the military had command, the US would have won.
You don't say what country you're from, but it would appear you're not American. I say that with no bias either way.
I do say that with some emotion, though, since my father-in-law passed away Friday evening. He served in the Pacific, and in Japan after the occupation. His brothers are all gone, all of them having served in places such as Guam, Iwo Jima, the Phillipines, and other Godforsaken places. My own uncles served and died in the European Theater, at Normandy, the Ardennse, and a couple at outposts that still have no name.
And to what end? Well, here you and I are debating the merits of US intervention in the Middle East. I'd say that those uncles of my wife and mine won a worthy victory.
All I know is what history has shown to happen time and again: appease the aggressor, and the aggressor eats you.
Short-term, the Islamic terrorists are the greatest threat to the US and to the Europeans. Long-term, I think we're facing a nuclear show-down with the Chinese.
I'm 54, and well aware of the reasons we supported various regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, from the Shah of Iran to the "insurgents" in Afghanistan.
We did so in a Cold War environment. The Cold War is over.
We won.
"Listen to this armchair general talk tough. Pretty easy when it's other people who do the fighting and dying.
You are just another ignorant, brain-washed, war-mongering American."
No, Didorian, it's not easy for me to talk about war, global strategies, or even dying.
Why? Because I'm neither ignorant, brain-washed, or a war-mongerer. I was always available for service in Viet Nam. But I heeded the warnings of my friends and relatives who went: don't go. I also could read, even at the age of 17, the hand-writing on the wall: Viet Nam was a political war, and not the military war that it should have been. Had the military had command, the US would have won.
You don't say what country you're from, but it would appear you're not American. I say that with no bias either way.
I do say that with some emotion, though, since my father-in-law passed away Friday evening. He served in the Pacific, and in Japan after the occupation. His brothers are all gone, all of them having served in places such as Guam, Iwo Jima, the Phillipines, and other Godforsaken places. My own uncles served and died in the European Theater, at Normandy, the Ardennse, and a couple at outposts that still have no name.
And to what end? Well, here you and I are debating the merits of US intervention in the Middle East. I'd say that those uncles of my wife and mine won a worthy victory.
All I know is what history has shown to happen time and again: appease the aggressor, and the aggressor eats you.
Short-term, the Islamic terrorists are the greatest threat to the US and to the Europeans. Long-term, I think we're facing a nuclear show-down with the Chinese.
Monkeyleg
Member.
javafiend, you didn't go overboard.
If you have the time to read three books a week about US and European exploits around the world, you'd do us all a favor by sharing what you've learned. I'm serious.
I was passionate in the 1960's about how the LBJ administration was conducting the war. Still am.
But I was more impassioned when I learned that the Tet Offensive was a complete failure for the North Vietnamese, yet our media (Walter Cronkite in particular) spun it 180 degrees.
Small loss? Absolutely not. The US defeat in Viet Nam has kept the American public from engaging real enemies using real tactics. It has emboldened our cowardly terrorist enemies into believing that we will not fight back. The humiliation the US suffered in Viet Nam--at just the time when the North was ready to crumble--gave leaders in Beijing, Tehran, Libya, North Korea, and other authoritarian regimes the audacity to challenge us.
And many of our presidents shrunk to that challenge.
We cannot lose this fight, because this fight is not just about the US, it's about every Western democracy and industrialized nation.
And it's about far more than radical Islam versus Christianity or Judaism. For these bomb-throwers, I really don't believe it's about religion at all.
It's about one small man, whose best life story had something to do with a goat in the back of a shed, being able to cripple the most powerful nations on Earth. Whether he kills one or one hundred, that is power, especially for a man who previously had no power.
Javafiend, think about that small man and what just one man like him can do to you, your family, or your town.
The Western Allies defeated the Nazi's, the Japanese, the Soviets, and Mussolini's Facists. But all of those adversaries wore uniforms and conducted their wars in a style that was more or less in conformity with Geneva Conventions.
Your/our adversary wears no uniform, and does not conduct himself by any conventions, other than his order to kill. Adult, child, mother, father, old, young...it doesn't matter.
"What about every time we prevent another people from gaining self-control? What about every time we support a genocidal thug?"
Well, Javafiend, that behavior on the part of the US seems to be part of Cold War history, to at least a degree. We are pursuing democracy and self-control for people in the Middle East. At the same time, we are turning our eyes at least partly from the acts of Pakistan's government, while simultaneously prodding them to do the right thing.
Hell, if promoting democracy, stopping terrorism, and freeing people from authoritarian regimes was easy, Bill Clinton would have done that in the eight years he had in office, yes?
If you have the time to read three books a week about US and European exploits around the world, you'd do us all a favor by sharing what you've learned. I'm serious.
I was passionate in the 1960's about how the LBJ administration was conducting the war. Still am.
But I was more impassioned when I learned that the Tet Offensive was a complete failure for the North Vietnamese, yet our media (Walter Cronkite in particular) spun it 180 degrees.
Small loss? Absolutely not. The US defeat in Viet Nam has kept the American public from engaging real enemies using real tactics. It has emboldened our cowardly terrorist enemies into believing that we will not fight back. The humiliation the US suffered in Viet Nam--at just the time when the North was ready to crumble--gave leaders in Beijing, Tehran, Libya, North Korea, and other authoritarian regimes the audacity to challenge us.
And many of our presidents shrunk to that challenge.
We cannot lose this fight, because this fight is not just about the US, it's about every Western democracy and industrialized nation.
And it's about far more than radical Islam versus Christianity or Judaism. For these bomb-throwers, I really don't believe it's about religion at all.
It's about one small man, whose best life story had something to do with a goat in the back of a shed, being able to cripple the most powerful nations on Earth. Whether he kills one or one hundred, that is power, especially for a man who previously had no power.
Javafiend, think about that small man and what just one man like him can do to you, your family, or your town.
The Western Allies defeated the Nazi's, the Japanese, the Soviets, and Mussolini's Facists. But all of those adversaries wore uniforms and conducted their wars in a style that was more or less in conformity with Geneva Conventions.
Your/our adversary wears no uniform, and does not conduct himself by any conventions, other than his order to kill. Adult, child, mother, father, old, young...it doesn't matter.
"What about every time we prevent another people from gaining self-control? What about every time we support a genocidal thug?"
Well, Javafiend, that behavior on the part of the US seems to be part of Cold War history, to at least a degree. We are pursuing democracy and self-control for people in the Middle East. At the same time, we are turning our eyes at least partly from the acts of Pakistan's government, while simultaneously prodding them to do the right thing.
Hell, if promoting democracy, stopping terrorism, and freeing people from authoritarian regimes was easy, Bill Clinton would have done that in the eight years he had in office, yes?
fallingblock
Member
Monkeyleg, I know where you're coming from.....
"I was passionate in the 1960's about how the LBJ administration was conducting the war. Still am.
But I was more impassioned when I learned that the Tet Offensive was a complete failure for the North Vietnamese, yet our media (Walter Cronkite in particular) spun it 180 degrees."
*********************************************************
I was in the U.S. Army from 1967-1972. I became increasingly disenchanted with the bumbling and fumbling of policy and objectives.
The U.S. media were certainly largely responsible for the failure of public support for the Vietnam War, but the U.S. political leaders were responsible for the blind and crippling policies leading to the political disaster that was the Vietnam War.
No, javafiend:
*********************************************************
Quote:
The "Cronkite" victory for the NVA and the VC sealed out country's reputation as a "paper tiger."
As if the media caused the military stalemate in Vietnam.
*********************************************************
There was not a "military stalemate in Vietnam" immediately post-Tet '68. The Vietcong were nearly destroyed while the NVA had few operational units south of the RVN border. They were whipped militarily, but the U.S. failed to finish them. It was a failure of political will and policy indecision.
Lyndon had had all he could take of the war competing with his "Great Society" for funds and the Democrats were looking for an out. Nixon's "Peace with Honor" was much the same policy wrapped in what the Republicans hoped was more palatable rhetoric.
That said, the Vietnam War has almost nothing in common with the situation in Iraq. Vietnam was a theatre of the Cold War. Iraq is a struggle to rend the fabric of Islamic fundamentalism.
The one common theme is the determination of the U.S. media to "stop the war" at any costs.
As Monkeyleg writes, the consequences of defeat are far greater in Iraq than they were in Vietnam.
"I was passionate in the 1960's about how the LBJ administration was conducting the war. Still am.
But I was more impassioned when I learned that the Tet Offensive was a complete failure for the North Vietnamese, yet our media (Walter Cronkite in particular) spun it 180 degrees."
*********************************************************
I was in the U.S. Army from 1967-1972. I became increasingly disenchanted with the bumbling and fumbling of policy and objectives.
The U.S. media were certainly largely responsible for the failure of public support for the Vietnam War, but the U.S. political leaders were responsible for the blind and crippling policies leading to the political disaster that was the Vietnam War.
No, javafiend:
*********************************************************
Quote:
The "Cronkite" victory for the NVA and the VC sealed out country's reputation as a "paper tiger."
As if the media caused the military stalemate in Vietnam.
*********************************************************
There was not a "military stalemate in Vietnam" immediately post-Tet '68. The Vietcong were nearly destroyed while the NVA had few operational units south of the RVN border. They were whipped militarily, but the U.S. failed to finish them. It was a failure of political will and policy indecision.
Lyndon had had all he could take of the war competing with his "Great Society" for funds and the Democrats were looking for an out. Nixon's "Peace with Honor" was much the same policy wrapped in what the Republicans hoped was more palatable rhetoric.
That said, the Vietnam War has almost nothing in common with the situation in Iraq. Vietnam was a theatre of the Cold War. Iraq is a struggle to rend the fabric of Islamic fundamentalism.
The one common theme is the determination of the U.S. media to "stop the war" at any costs.
As Monkeyleg writes, the consequences of defeat are far greater in Iraq than they were in Vietnam.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Three books a week huh? Nope, sorry I have to work for a living. And I don't go to UT or I'd probably be spouting off your America-is-bad crap as well. Uh, Saddam tried to shoot down our planes many times over the no-fly zone. That was an act of war. Want to get down to it this is just a continuation of the first Gulf war. We took him out,we have to clean it up. It can be done but it won't be easy or happen overnight. Which is hard on a me-first, want it now society like ours of today.
Harve Curry
Member
No sooner did our soldiers take Bagdad, then the war was declared over.
More soldiers are getting killed or wounded now then when it was a war.
Question:
Why the rush to declare the war over and begin a drawn out police action??
We should have learned our lesson in Korea, then we repeated the mistakes only worse in Vietnam. We also learned by watching what happened to the USSR in Afganistan.
It looks like the handwriting is on the wall for a repeat of bungling BS, don't do this, don't use this, don't go there, :banghead:
If that is what's going on to our soldiers, they deserve much better.
Then this is a crime against them done by the polititians who screwed it up in the first place. Maybe some new age liability/accountability suits should be taken against polititians. They really have nothing to lose and all to gain.
More soldiers are getting killed or wounded now then when it was a war.
Question:
Why the rush to declare the war over and begin a drawn out police action??
We should have learned our lesson in Korea, then we repeated the mistakes only worse in Vietnam. We also learned by watching what happened to the USSR in Afganistan.
It looks like the handwriting is on the wall for a repeat of bungling BS, don't do this, don't use this, don't go there, :banghead:
If that is what's going on to our soldiers, they deserve much better.
Then this is a crime against them done by the polititians who screwed it up in the first place. Maybe some new age liability/accountability suits should be taken against polititians. They really have nothing to lose and all to gain.
I live off of my investments.
Oh, OK. I took a guess based on your handle.
Getting shot at is what happens when you violate the sovereignty of another country by flying your warplanes over his space.
The imperial mentatlity will react with horror at such a simple observation. "But we're the world's superpower! We get to unilaterally declare 'no-fly zones' at will! How dare another country challenge our divine right to violate their sovereignty!"
RealGun
Member
Why discuss this on a gun forum, as if it's not everywhere you look already? It might be comfortabe to consider it among those who tend to share your politics, but that would open the door to all sorts of things that have a connection to guns that is abstract at best.
Harve Curry
Member
Social Situations > Legal and Political
I guess because it's a discussion among like minded firearms oriented people.
I guess because it's a discussion among like minded firearms oriented people.
rwc
Member
Re - Japanese declaration of war
IIRC it was something of an "embarassment" to the Japanese rep. in D.C. that he didn't deliver the declaration before the bombing began at Pearl. they cut the timing too close.
As for the main point of the thread - the military plans for many things, most of which they know are unlikely to happen. IMO if we had done a little more planning for this phase of the war we would be quite a bit better off than we are. To wit - secure the Syrian & Iranian borders contemporaneously with the main military drive to Baghdad. Easier said than done, but we clearly should have done a better job (and perhaps still should...).
Whether Iraq becomes a democratic society will, ultimately, be up to the Iraqis themselves. Only time will tell whether the cost in blood and money will have been worth it. I think it will take about 20 years for a reasonable judgement.
IIRC it was something of an "embarassment" to the Japanese rep. in D.C. that he didn't deliver the declaration before the bombing began at Pearl. they cut the timing too close.
As for the main point of the thread - the military plans for many things, most of which they know are unlikely to happen. IMO if we had done a little more planning for this phase of the war we would be quite a bit better off than we are. To wit - secure the Syrian & Iranian borders contemporaneously with the main military drive to Baghdad. Easier said than done, but we clearly should have done a better job (and perhaps still should...).
Whether Iraq becomes a democratic society will, ultimately, be up to the Iraqis themselves. Only time will tell whether the cost in blood and money will have been worth it. I think it will take about 20 years for a reasonable judgement.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Flying into their soverign airspace? Uh, a ceasefire was declared and Saddam agreed to our conditions, which included the no fly zones among many others. Well Saddam broke this among 17, not two or three but SEVENTEEN U.N. resolutions. If it wasn't for us having such a Pussy Democrat as the POTUS for eight years, Saddam would have been taking out by 1995. Bush made a strategic decision to let the world know after 9/11 we wouldn't be pushed around anymore. Now it's like Zell Miller said are we "gonna be wimps or warriors".
Uh, a ceasefire was declared and Saddam agreed to our conditions, which included the no fly zones among many others. Well Saddam broke this among 17, not two or three but SEVENTEEN U.N. resolutions. If it wasn't for us having such a Pussy Democrat as the POTUS for eight years, Saddam would have been taking out by 1995. Bush made a strategic decision to let the world know after 9/11 we wouldn't be pushed around anymore. Now it's like Zell Miller said are we "gonna be wimps or warriors".Cosmoline
Member
Compare the number killed in a small unit action in WWII with the total US troops killed in Iraq. We still haven't even reached the death totals of a small battle after this many years. This shows that the so called "insurgency" is more of a criminal enterprise than a rebellion.
What amazes me is how many people are eager to declare defeat at the hands of a group of terrorists who barely exist as a coherent force.
Lone_Gunman
Member
It doesn't matter if it is more of a criminal enterprise than a rebellion.
As long as we remain an occupying army there, we will take casualties.
We have done what we set out to do there. We got rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction threat, got rid of Saddam, and have established a democracy in Iraq. Now we need to get out. At this point we have nothing else to gain, and everything to lose.
If we don't get out now then I believe two things will happen. First, the Republicans will lose the next election, as public support has dwindled to 35%. And second, the Democrats will screw things up there even worse, and get more Americans killed.
As long as we remain an occupying army there, we will take casualties.
We have done what we set out to do there. We got rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction threat, got rid of Saddam, and have established a democracy in Iraq. Now we need to get out. At this point we have nothing else to gain, and everything to lose.
If we don't get out now then I believe two things will happen. First, the Republicans will lose the next election, as public support has dwindled to 35%. And second, the Democrats will screw things up there even worse, and get more Americans killed.
- Status
