The New ' Nam, or We seen this before [Archive]

KafirChobee

11-06-2005, 03:03

Blame it on Wilma (the hurricane), she gave me to much time to catch up on the back issues of my reading (Time, Newsweek, USN&WR, NewYorker, Washington Weekly, Washingtom Spectator, and Playboy (I really do read the articles - honest; after looking at the centerfold of course).

Point is, the new investigations in Washington are more about why we went to war in Iraq, than who lied or perjured themselves about giving up the name of a CIA opperative (btw, Ms. Plame was no simple clerk, she ran a counter-terrorism cooperative - which has now become compromised; to think it is other wise is to acknowledge that giving up a CIA employee is OK under any circumstances. Those in the know, know that those on top play down their real roles - those that don't .... die, or their agents do).

I don't believe that Bush43 actually understood what his mentors, prodders, and "friends" were doing - primarily because I have little if any respect that he actually comprehends anything beyond maintaining his familys' fortune (which seems to be his main intent for supporting the legislation he so fervently believes in).

Now, first off. The comparrisons between Iraq and 'nam are bogus - well not exactly. You see, there were mitigating circumstances - primarily people that wanted us (USA) to go to war. Now the difference is that in the first there were men that spoke out against it, in the latter there weren't (well, there were - but, they were either fired, retired, or embarrased - "Plame case", etc). Now in 'nam LBJ feared being the first Prez to lose a war, and he suffered for every man lost during his term (he actually signed all the "it is with great sympathy .... etc and actually attended more than a few brials of the men that died during his watch); he was regretful for his part in going along with the MilitaryIndustrialComplex's plan to keep us there. Bush43's team on the hand planned theirs.

First off, ever hear of the PNAC? Project for the New American Century, I kid you not. It was formed right after Desert Storm's conclusion - you know the "Powell fiascal", where we didn't finish the "job" (that the PNAC boys wanted, and many felt needed - but, then what? Now we know). Who is the PNAC? Well, it go find out - they must have a blog, website (did) etc.

PNAC:
Purpose:
1. Military Expansion - to secure "American" interests (as in Halibutons, Exxon's, etc.
2. Action against Iraq - name it, Christianic Jihad (the new Crusade).
3. "Star Wars", missle defense an Space Weapons; including nukes - "we are willing to destroy ourselves before ....." Rational geniocide.
4. ............(mine) take over befor the American people wake up that other powers are controlling them (offer them $50 a week in tax breaks, while we give millions to billionaires - "thy're" to left behind to figure out the reality of what we do.

The Members (PNAC):
Founders: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield + + + [think of any billionaire that may fit?]
Chairmen and members: (same +)
Charles Krathammer (appears weekly on ABC-TV & syndicated with the Washingtom post - of course).
Lewis Libby (guess we all know who he is)
Wm. Kristol - go look it up, he really is sorta important
Tom Donnelly - samosamo
Robert B. Zoellick - Deputy Secritary of State
Peter Rodman - Asst. Sec. of Def. for Int'l Security
Dov S. Zoellick - Deputy Sec. of State
John R. Bolton - US ambassador to the UN (who also has ties to Taiwan - especially financially)
Ramdy Scheuneman - was President for "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", it ain't like this fiascal wasnot planned. You know? btw, the CLI was funded by defense and security contractors (you know those good old boys in thar fund the GOPp coffers).
Stephen Cambone - Under Sec. fo Defense for Intlligence; a pawn - one of those they use to leak untruths, or truths they think will embarress those that oppose their will (refferance "Plame")
R. James Woolsey - former CIA Director
---- Now VP at Booz-Allen-Hamilton (sound familiar? Cheney just awarded them a multi-billion$$$ unconteste contract in Iraq/ well, maybe not Cheney - but it wasn't congress.

So? Comparrisons to 'nam? Well, we (as citizens) were lied to about our reason to got to these regions. Those leading us didn't understand the regions or comprehend the impact of our presence to the surrounding areas.
Er, tbc

Kaiser of Arabia

11-06-2005, 03:30

Propaganda at it's finest.

KafirChobee

11-06-2005, 03:30

Newsweek, Oct. 31st - Last Word. by Anna Qindlen.
Now, first off, I rarely quote this rag - because tend to be to honest (I prefer real liberal gist stuff me self, but ... I liked this bit)

I will post it in its entirety. For now, the principle of it:

First, she asks Bush43 to go visit the WALL - not that he knows anyone on it, but just to see his face in the names of the men that died without a cause (except to serve their country - what a crock that is).

Then she explains how Bush43 disavowed the war becoming personal by not allowing photos to be taken of the coffins returning home, and how his admin decided it was a good idea not to keep track of how many Iraqis' were dying (100,000 - to date). She then goes into the nut case crap about stations (TV) refusing to broadcast the Koppel show that depicted the faces of those that had died (well below 2.000 I might add).

She then goes into an explanation of how Bush43's Iraq policy became a moving target:
1) WMD
2) The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were trained or came from there (er , weren't they form Saudi Arabia?)
3. Getting rid of Saddam -removal of.
4. Bringing freedom to Iraq
5. Spreading democracy througout the Middle-East (well, why not? I'm sure the Saudis love to hear that - don't you?)

Point is, Bush needs to visit the Vietnam Memorial. He needs to realize - we already done this. We really don't need to lose more sons to a useless cause.

IMO. Too. TBC

Reverend Joe

11-06-2005, 04:16

Xiahou

11-06-2005, 04:24

Kaiser of Arabia

11-06-2005, 05:10

Grey_Fox

11-06-2005, 12:47

That's why Moderates are on the Path of Enlightenment.

ichi

11-06-2005, 19:43

Well Kaf you just barely touched on one of the biggest reasons, and that is to distract the public from real issues and create a climate where rational dissent is impossible.

Just before this war started Enron had collapsed and there were many other potential PR disasters awaiting the Bush White House. Hard to worry about little things like corporate malfeasance when we are at war.

And even today, no one in this country can have a productive discussion of the current situation without 'left', 'right', and other posturing overwhelming any meaningful content.

We are on a collision course with some serious conflict, both internally and abroad, and we have to address important issues before they cripple us.

ichi:bow:

Reverend Joe

11-06-2005, 20:00

That's why Moderates are on the Path of Enlightenment.

Suuuuuuuuuure... ~:rolleyes:

Moderates are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

Sjakihata

11-06-2005, 20:04

Moderators are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

gives a whole new meaning, eh? ~D

Red Harvest

11-06-2005, 21:02

Suuuuuuuuuure... ~:rolleyes:

Moderates are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.
And there is the problem, right there. Those trying to span the gap are assaulted by both sides. No wonder the parties pull to each extreme. Twits that would be dismissed by the public in rational government are instead given more air time than anyone in between.

The country is operating like a dysfunctional team, concensus decision making is gone. The team is working against itself, rather than pulling toward common goals. It is now about trying to wrest control for one side to impose their own will on everyone else. That is the legacy of this Administration.

Papewaio

11-06-2005, 23:45

Suuuuuuuuuure... ~:rolleyes:

Moderates are on the path to oblivion. I despise moderates with every ounce of my body, even more so than facists, nihlists and anarchists combined.

So if you don't have a strong feeling about something you are to be despised? ~:confused:

Surely politics should not require an emotional response. I get worried if people get a woody over fiscal policy.

What happens if you are a moderate about say school uniform. You think each school should decide for its self on its code of uniform. Instead of all students must wear a uniform... the right, or no uniforms except sandals as given by the state ... the left. So as the moderate you are to be considered worse then Nazis, Pol Pot and random terrorists?

~:joker:

Togakure

11-07-2005, 00:11

... no one in this country can have a productive discussion of the current situation without 'left', 'right', and other posturing overwhelming any meaningful content.

We are on a collision course with some serious conflict, both internally and abroad, and we have to address important issues before they cripple us.

ichi:bow:
Indeed. On the latter, my take is: it's too late. Now, it's just a matter of time.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-07-2005, 00:19

Zorba is a bit harsh toward the moderates -- even harsher than is Rush Limbaugh (the radio host, not Gawain's avatar). Rush derides them for indecision and lack of guiding principles, suggesting that all they are doing is waiting for a majority to form so that they may jump on the bandwagon and feel good about themselves. Rush is, no doubt, describing some of them.
On the other hand, there are a few -- like Bill O'Reilly -- who take it more "issue by issue" and may well come down at different points depending on the subject area.

Despising them seems a little harsh. I don't, myself, understand how you can read/hear/think about any of this without developing an opinion. Especially in the case of Iraq -- where some of our own are dying -- I do not understand the lack of engagement.

Finally, we have the even larger crowd (ever larger?) who simply can't be bothered with anything aside from their own daily/weekly existence and remain ignorant about most political issues. They are moderate only in that they haven't developed any staunchly-held opinion.

I too have wondered about why Iraq and why that moment in time. Saddam was hardly unique in being a quasi-fascist thug who supported terrorism. At the time, I found the continued nuclear program disturbing. I have been subsequently disappointed with the quality of information used for this decision. In retrospect, all of the information gathered pointed to renewed nuclear efforts as a "distinct possibility" (later disconfirmed) as opposed to the "near certainty" as it was presented. I do not think anything was fabricated, merely poorly analyzed by decision makers who were alreadly leaning toward a political decision. Group communication scholars call this "groupthink" and note that it can adversely affect decision-making. It is an easy, and very human, thing to do however and virtually every government worldwide and throughout history has been prone to it.

However, we are there -- alea acta est -- and need to make it work. Either we prod Iraq into a semi+ successful democratic state (or better) or we will lose some ground. Even a successful three-state devolution would be acceptable, as long as it was accomplished along the lines of the devolution of Czechoslovakia. The long term advantages of a successful democratic state(s) in the Middle East will end up justifying the cost incurred, but the job is far from over and the cost is not yet paid in full. Cutting our losses now, pulling out and leaving it to the Iraqis at this juncture, will very likely not yield a positive enough outcome.

On a positive note, there is far more buy-in to this effort on the part of everyday Iraqis than the USA ever enjoyed in Vietnam. It is far easier to garner support for a nascent democracy than for a corrupt dictatorship such as we had originally backed in S. Vietnam.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2005, 02:29

Just wait for Gawain to show up... he will "tear this thing apart" with wierd, nonsensical facts and made-up propaganda. The truth is not a popular thing amongst the right these days. Keep it up, Kafir.

I think its the left who cant face the truth. Kafir like all liberals would like nothing better than for this to be another Nam. There is little if any comparison. Thats all I have to say. No need for propaganda or nonsensical facts. I leave that to you Libs.

Papewaio

11-07-2005, 03:01

Leet Eriksson

11-07-2005, 03:56

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 04:05

I think its the left who cant face the truth. Kafir like all liberals would like nothing better than for this to be another Nam. There is little if any comparison. Thats all I have to say. No need for propaganda or nonsensical facts. I leave that to you Libs.

https://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8755/zorba4js.png

A picture is worth more words than I can ever write down.

Papewaio

11-07-2005, 04:14

I still don't understand one thing, how come the US spends more than the world combined on the military, yet are not able to do what you mentioned.

Maybe the dollar value doesn't go as far?

Over reliance on technology? Maybe.

Actual amount of people in patrols?

Ratio of support to frontline?

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 04:15

Kafir like all liberals would like nothing better than for this to be another Nam. There is little if any comparison. Thats all I have to say. No need for propaganda or nonsensical facts. I leave that to you Libs.
That is a specious argument. There are undoubtedly some liberals who want to see it fail, but I do not believe that most feel that way. Your are living in "Gawain's World" of "nonsenical facts." ~:joker: I don't believe 60% of the population is liberal, but 60% of us (the general population) do not feel that this has been worth it. Now where was that "conservative mainstream" Gawain?

In terms of casualties, I don't see Iraq ending up like Vietnam. In terms of damage to our prestige, and national psyche, it is already doing the same sort of number as Vietnam did. We had shaken the paralyzing effects of that and the cries of "it's gonna be another 'Nam" had finally become nearly silent. Then Dubya went and made this mess of it. "It's deja vu all over again." Now for decades, every time there is some need to act, we will be paralyzed by the "it's gonna be another Iraq" mantra.

As for political outcome...different animal. I don't believe any of the stated goals will be achieved, other than ousting Saddam. Security will be worse, and Iraq will end up fractured. I expect low level warfare and anarchy to prevail for a decade or so.

Leet Eriksson

11-07-2005, 04:23

Maybe the dollar value doesn't go as far?

Over reliance on technology? Maybe.

Actual amount of people in patrols?

Ratio of support to frontline?

I thought it was more about the current adminstration being incompetent, becuase i honestly think they can do it and more.

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 04:25

Well I'm on the Left of some and I reckon they should triple or quadruple the amount of soldiers. Including bodyarmour and equipment. Get them on foot patrols in the streets. Have full backup from wheeled troop transports to tanks to overhead patrols. Curfews, stronger border patrols, focus on building vital infrastructure (electricity and water to the people).

Need a large visible presence on the streets. Constant patrols and awareness of changes in the local environment. Disarming of gangs and militia.
Yes, this was done "on the cheap" by an Administration that can't add, subtract, multiply or divide. Moderates and liberals had pointed out that the occupation "plan" appeared insufficient.

One of the angry fathers whose son had been killed was venting about the fact his son was killed during the FIFTH time they had gone into retake an area. He referred to that as being the definition of insanity. He also said it illustrated the basic failure to put enough boots on the ground. I agree, and had come to the same conclusion after hearing the same old story over and over again. If you can't secure a place, then playing "whack a mole" is a fruitless excercise.

The big problem though came early on. If the perception had been established that security would be maintained, I believe it would have given the average Iraqi some confidence. That didn't happen. Way too many mistakes were made and set the wrong tone. You only get one shot at a first impression.

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 04:26

Redleg

11-07-2005, 04:27

Maybe the dollar value doesn't go as far?

Over reliance on technology? Maybe.

Actual amount of people in patrols?

Ratio of support to frontline?

I suspect you are correct. The technology of the United States Military costs a lot of money. I don't think we are over reliant on the technology because you still have to have soldiers to operate the equipment. The cost of training soldiers to use their equipment is also very expensive. A five day field exercise (training for an Artillery Battalion) often costs over $250,000 dollars when they train on the post they are assigned - its gets even more expensive when they go somewhere else. And this was just for the supplies to do the exercise. Factoring in maintenance and wear and tear of equipment.

Combat troop ratio is about 1 combat soldier to over 6 support soldiers. Can't remembe the actual number - but I am sure its worse then 1 to 6.

Patrols by soldiers is a high intensity training issue - because in the situation they find themselves in they are soldiers first and policemen at almost the same time. Not an easy task to do.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2005, 06:27

I don't believe 60% of the population is liberal, but 60% of us (the general population) do not feel that this has been worth it.

Going by those biased polls I suppose. More propaganda by the mainstream press. I saw the base for those polls.

ichi

11-07-2005, 06:29

Just because Liberals would like this to be another 'nam doesn't mean it isn't.

Well said, and quite true

ichi:bow:

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 07:09

Going by those biased polls I suppose. More propaganda by the mainstream press. I saw the base for those polls.
R-I-G-H-T.... Gawain's World! Gawain's World! :thrasher: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant: :thrasher:

Edit: Sorry, Gawain, but the idea of those smilies and the Wayne's World theme just came together. Pretty entertaining little effect I think. In fairness, we probably need a dancing donkey too.

Ironside

11-07-2005, 10:46

The numbers of dead every week is now equalling Vietnam. We are fighting wild, ideal-driven partisans in a land they think we have occupied to prop up a false/illegitimate government. What more do you want? It is Vietnam, and to believe otherwise is hiding in a world of idealistic stupidity. Just accept it so that we know how to deal with this situation.

Saturation and fire bombing. Big time. Starting with Fallujah. Blow the mother ****ers to hell.

You do that and you'll end up with a goverment that are so friendly with the US that Iran will look like they're currently licking USA:s boots. And that's if you're successfulv with installing democracy. Otherwise you'll install a new dictorship, that considering what usually happen, will be ousted by president Jenna Bush in about 2025, whose words about Iraq will be "third time the charm". Well that US friendly dictorship could be exposed to a coup d'êtat before that, but the third war will still happen. ~;)

And I'm still wondering why they haven't sent in more troops, when it's obvious that the current amounts of troops is too few, even now.

ichi

11-07-2005, 15:09

R-I-G-H-T.... Gawain's World! Gawain's World! :thrasher: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant: :thrasher:

Good one RH, LMAO

ichi~:cheers:

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 16:37

Well I'm on the Left of some and I reckon they should triple or quadruple the amount of soldiers. Including bodyarmour and equipment. Get them on foot patrols in the streets. Have full backup from wheeled troop transports to tanks to overhead patrols. Curfews, stronger border patrols, focus on building vital infrastructure (electricity and water to the people).

Need a large visible presence on the streets. Constant patrols and awareness of changes in the local environment. Disarming of gangs and militia.
IMO, that would be the exact wrong thing to do. Putting hundreds of thousands more American soldiers out on foot patrols would increase casualties and increase resentment. Definitely not what we need to be doing now- we should continue to move to a support role for Iraqi troops and only use large scale deployments for the coming elections. The plan should be, and I think now is to put less American faces in the streets and to let Iraqis who speak the language and know the neighborhoods and their people take the lead.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2005, 17:29

The numbers of dead every week is now equalling Vietnam

You sir are out of your ever lovin mind.

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 17:35

You sir are out of your ever lovin mind.

Yes, I am out of my mind, but you are avoiding the point. We are seeing 20-30 people dead every week- those are Nam numbers. I know this from several people who lived during that time, and I can trust to be unbiased (and from a couple who are biased, but that's beside the point.)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2005, 17:43

The fact is that the last polls were heavily weighted. In most only 30 % of the rrespondents were conservtives and 40 something percent going to liberals and 30 something percent by independents. Even though the majority of Americans classify themselves as conservatives. Its more like Lib Land than Gawains world here.

Yes, I am out of my mind, but you are avoiding the point. We are seeing 20-30 people dead every week- those are Nam numbers. I know this from several people who lived during that time, and I can trust to be unbiased (and from a couple who are biased, but that's beside the point.)

As one who actually fought in that war I tell you once more your out of your mind. Oh that we only lost 20-30 people a week. Also I doubt thats what we are averaging now. We lost more than that in a skirmish nevermind a week. WE lost 50000 men. Do the math.

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 18:00

yesdachi

11-07-2005, 18:11

I still don't understand one thing, how come the US spends more than the world combined on the military, yet are not able to do what you mentioned.
The US does spend a lot on the military but most of the money is spent on tech and equipment and research. Did you know that a cruse missile costs around a million bucks (how many of them have we used?) each and an M1A1 (I saw one this weekend! Sweet!) tank is around 4+ million each and an F-18 comes in at around 28 million and an aircraft carrier costs in the neighborhood of $5 billion! IMO the US military is designed to smash and use/endanger as few troops as possible but operations in Iraq call for an occupying force and that is not what our military is setup for and frankly I think we have proven that we (for a number of reasons) suck at it.

Also, the things that made Nam a mess were the fact that it was (as I have argued about in the past) communism, China and Russia vs. democracy, the US and allies all focusing into the quagmire that Viet Nam turned into. The US couldn’t go all out against the enemy, even though we knew exactly where they were, because there would be incredible global consequences. But in Iraq we can go all out, there are no superpowers backing the terrorists, the trouble is, we can’t find them! The big reasons are way different but there are some similarities between Iraq and Nam, like it is taking a long time, the death toll is a consistent trickle and the results are not clear. No one really knows what we are still doing there. :bow:

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 18:26

Think about the beginning of the war, when things were just getting heated up. That's where we are now. I'm not saying that was the average for the entire war- perhaps that is the misunderstanding.
What a bogus comparison. In the "beginning of the war" in Vietnam there werent nearly the number of American troops in Vietnam that there are in Iraq. In fact, I believe there werent any combat troops at all until 1965 and it took until the end of that year before US forces were there in numbers close to what we have in Iraq now.

Maybe if you researched your own facts instead of relying on hearsay you wouldnt make such baseless comparisons. Im not going to pretend to be an expert on Vietnam- but this is just basic statistics.

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 19:11

What a bogus comparison. In the "beginning of the war" in Vietnam there werent nearly the number of American troops in Vietnam that there are in Iraq. In fact, I believe there werent any combat troops at all until 1965 and it took until the end of that year before US forces were there in numbers close to what we have in Iraq now.

I know that there are more troops there now than there were at the onset of Vietnam. I have spent a lot of time studying Vietnam, and hearing about it from various reliable sources- they are not "hearsay." The number of troops, however, is not nearly as important as how the resistance in Iraq is building itself up to become a new Vietminh. They have not come close to their maximum levels of effectiveness, and when they do, I fear for the troops in Iraq.

The resistance is also building itself under a different set of circumstances than the Vietminh; they have not had to face a major invasion by a brutal imperial power (before now ~;)) and thus the people were not immediately prepared to take up arms, nor did they have the opportunity to hone their tactics beforehand, as the Vietminh did with the French. Also, we did not train and equip them. Frankly, under the current set of circumstances, it is incredible that they are already killing 20-30 soldiers a week without being wiped out, especially considering that there is no equivalent of the NVA base of support, as there was in Vietnam. If they are doing this well, with their only support being foreign combatants who are not nearly as well trianed or organised as the forces of Ho Chi Minh, they have the potential to become an even greater force than the Vietminh ever were. I highly suspect that, in just a few years, they will be.

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 19:18

All you've just done is lay out more reasons that the 2 are not that similar. ~:handball:

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 19:20

No, I am showing how they will become similar, despite their differences. The partisans in Iraq are going to become just as effective as the Vietminh ever were.

I have to work for a while, I will be back to argue without any gain in an hour or so.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2005, 19:33

No, I am showing how they will become similar, despite their differences. The partisans in Iraq are going to become just as effective as the Vietminh ever were.

They are doing a miserable job of it. Most of those they kill are Iraqis. Also the Vietcong were wiped out. Only our spineless politicians cost us that war. Well that and the liberal media. Thank you Water Conkrite.

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 20:04

No, I am showing how they will become similar, despite their differences. The partisans in Iraq are going to become just as effective as the Vietminh ever were.Is that like voting for something before voting against it? ~D

Well, you're wrong anyway- they are getting outside help. One of the reasons they're still hanging on is because of help and supplies from Iran and Syria, explosives and bomb making materials in particular.

Papewaio

11-07-2005, 20:31

IMO, that would be the exact wrong thing to do. Putting hundreds of thousands more American soldiers out on foot patrols would increase casualties and increase resentment. Definitely not what we need to be doing now- we should continue to move to a support role for Iraqi troops and only use large scale deployments for the coming elections. The plan should be, and I think now is to put less American faces in the streets and to let Iraqis who speak the language and know the neighborhoods and their people take the lead.

It is doing things half-right that gets people in the situation. More patrols and more people will clamp down on the zones meaning that the insurgents cannot retake areas. You cutoff their rallying points, cutoff the borders, and heavily patrol the areas already taken over.

You end up losing less men because you have an overwhelming presence and knowledge of the terrain. It is like standard warfare, field to little and you get more casualites. The reason it is not being done is lack of guts of the electorate and the lack of setup for high intensity urban conflicts.

In the end of the day this is looking like lack of resources is causing the issue.

If Iraq is not stabilised, then every casuality was for naught, because Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorism that makes Palestine look benign in comparison if it goes south.

Reverend Joe

11-07-2005, 21:04

Is that like voting for something before voting against it? ~D

:stare:
John Kerry was not a flip-flopper. That was a load of crap invented by the rightwing media. Anyone says different and I'll belt them in the throat.

I give up. This is like five-year-olds arguing; noone's opinion is going to change, and everyone is going to leave feeling a lot more pissed.

Also, the belt-in-the-throat line is a joke. I'm not that bad.

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 21:36

The numbers are tricky to compare, as we've stayed understrength in Iraq, etc. The killed to wounded ratio was higher in Vietnam as well: by a factor of about 1.5 from what I've read.

1965 Vietnam troop strength was 184,000 with 2,432 killed.

2004 Iraq was around 140,000 (give or take) with 848 killed.

1966 Vietnam strength was 365,000 with 6,053 killed.

2005 Iraq strength has been around 140,00 with an *annualized* rate of ~850 killed.

Once you adjust for troop strengths and the killed/wounded ratio, losses in Iraq in 2004 were very much like Vietnam. However, 2005 is also very much like 1965 Vietnam on that basis, but about 1/4 the 1966 Vietnam rate.

So things are not really improving casualty wise, nor does the insurgency show signs of waning. Quoting from a recent Time article: Major Dan Williams tells members of Fox Company after another fruitless day of chasing enemy fighters. "But you've almost had insurgency Darwinism. All the stupid ones are dead."

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 21:41

:stare:
John Kerry was not a flip-flopper. That was a load of crap invented by the rightwing media. Anyone says different and I'll belt them in the throat.

...

Also, the belt-in-the-throat line is a joke. I'm not that bad.Don't worry- I thought it was funny. ~D

Once you adjust for troop strengths and the killed/wounded ratio, losses in Iraq in 2004 were very much like Vietnam.I would love to see your math for that. ~;)

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 21:45

It is doing things half-right that gets people in the situation. More patrols and more people will clamp down on the zones meaning that the insurgents cannot retake areas. You cutoff their rallying points, cutoff the borders, and heavily patrol the areas already taken over.

You end up losing less men because you have an overwhelming presence and knowledge of the terrain. It is like standard warfare, field to little and you get more casualites. The reason it is not being done is lack of guts of the electorate and the lack of setup for high intensity urban conflicts.

In the end of the day this is looking like lack of resources is causing the issue.

If Iraq is not stabilised, then every casuality was for naught, because Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorism that makes Palestine look benign in comparison if it goes south.
That is exactly right. But it is counter to what Bush thought it would take. Xiahou missed the point. If we really want to win, no matter what, our best shot is to put enough boots on the ground to HOLD places and secure them.

We haven't really tried to strangle the insurgency, Instead we let it grow by having inadequate forces in place to counter it. We couldn't provide security, and the insurgents seized upon this weakness.

The truth is that it is too late for that. Politically, you can't make a good case for sending 100,000+ more troops to Iraq while you try to set up a functioning Iraqi army and govt. No, we are stuck with consequences of earlier mistakes.

My conclusion is this: if we are not going to commit to doing a job right, we should leave as soon as possible. This half-assed approach isn't working. Give it 1 year, then pull the plug unless things are much, much better.

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 21:51

We haven't really tried to strangle the insurgency, Instead we let it grow by having inadequate forces in place to counter it. We couldn't provide security, and the insurgents seized upon this weakness.

The truth is that it is too late for that. Politically, you can't make a good case for sending 100,000+ more troops to Iraq while you try to set up a functioning Iraqi army and govt. No, we are stuck with consequences of earlier mistakes.Indeed- that's my point adding half a million US soldiers now wouldnt solve the problem. I think it's likely that we could've benefitted from more troops in the first stages of the occupation- but that's well in the past and adding more now won't help what happened back then. I think the bigger mistake was the wholesale disbanding of the Iraqi military. They definitely needed to clean house in a big way- but disbanding it in its entirety was a mistake, imo. Even if they had just paid them to sit around and do nothing it wouldve stripped the insurgency of much needed man-power very early on.

But again, there's no helping that now- what's done is done in that respect. I did think it was good to see the Iraqi government take some iniative on its own and call for the return of former army mid-level officers. (captain thru major I believe) With proper vetting, they should be an asset to the growing Iraqi military.

Papewaio

11-07-2005, 21:57

Quoting from a recent Time article: Major Dan Williams tells members of Fox Company after another fruitless day of chasing enemy fighters. "But you've almost had insurgency Darwinism. All the stupid ones are dead."

And the smart ones are becoming vets and if we are particularly unlucky they will follow the Allies model in WWII... have the vets start training the green ones.

Depends on their level of organisation... one disadvantage of being a cell (resistance to terrorist doesn't matter) is that their knowledge base is not easily shared with others by design. This protection also is a hinderance in knowledge transfer.

However if they rotate the best out to training camps and teach the next wave then we really have issues. All the more reason to have more people on the borders.

====

One of the comparisons I would make with Vietnam is the recapturing multiple times of zones. And then giving the zones to the locals to look after and then losing the zone so you have to send in your troops again.

A cost-benefit analysis should be done. Is it more deadly to patrol an area thoroughly or is it more deadly to reinvade an area repeatedly. Common sense would say that patroling is less deadly, however I wonder what the stats say.

====
The other part of it is training and intergrating the Iraqis.

Are there any units like the Gurkhas. In the sense that you have Iraqi Soldiers lead by American Officers.

Also combined patrols, hardening of police outposts. Integrating them into the communication structure so they can get support when attacked etc

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 22:39

I would love to see your math for that. ~;)

For the lazy...or mathematically challenged--because conservatives love to have people waste their time: To do the full analysis you need the wounded figures too. I shortcutted with the 1.5 times higher fatality rate in Vietnam. I also used a round figure for the troop count. It was a shortcut and causes a small skew that I'm not satisfied with.

Let's check that 1.5 figure to see if it made sense. I don't have a breakdown of Vietnam wounded by year, but I have been able to find a figure of 304,000 for the conflict with 58,169 killed (quoted together as a set.) Wounded/killed ratio = 5.23

In Iraq it was 15,477 wounded as of Nov. 1, with 2,029 deaths. Wounded/killed ratio = 7.63.

Comparing the two ratios we get: 1.46. Whoever did the analysis of that appears to have been correct. I'll treat it more rigorously here, since it is a more conservative approach.

So total casualties for 1965 Vietnam would be something like:

2,532 * (1 + 5.23) = 15,774

Casualties per troop strength = 15,774 / 184,300 = 0.086 ( 8.6%)

For Iraq in 2005
848 * (1 + 7.63) = 7,318

Casualties per troop strength = 7,318 / 140,000 = 0.052 (5.2%)

Using more ballpark numbers with simplified treatment of the ratio it was 6.1%. Regardless, the numbers are rather similar in the comparison. They are certainly not an order of magnitude different.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-07-2005, 22:44

R-I-G-H-T.... Gawain's World! Gawain's World! :thrasher: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant: :thrasher:

Edit: Sorry, Gawain, but the idea of those smilies and the Wayne's World theme just came together. Pretty entertaining little effect I think. In fairness, we probably need a dancing donkey too.

Red H:

You and I disagree 4 outa 5, but for this I just gotta say Thanks.

Still ROTFLMFBO.

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 22:55

Indeed- that's my point adding half a million US soldiers now wouldnt solve the problem. I think it's likely that we could've benefitted from more troops in the first stages of the occupation- but that's well in the past and adding more now won't help what happened back then. I think the bigger mistake was the wholesale disbanding of the Iraqi military. They definitely needed to clean house in a big way- but disbanding it in its entirety was a mistake, imo. Even if they had just paid them to sit around and do nothing it wouldve stripped the insurgency of much needed man-power very early on.

But again, there's no helping that now- what's done is done in that respect. I did think it was good to see the Iraqi government take some iniative on its own and call for the return of former army mid-level officers. (captain thru major I believe) With proper vetting, they should be an asset to the growing Iraqi military.
I disagree. The problem is not in the past, it is still with us. Earlier I believe you said that we would have more casualties from more patrols/forces. If we are having to keep a low profile to keep down casualties, then we have already lost. We are unable to keep zones suppressed. It's whack-a-mole. That is because we don't have the forces on the ground for the job. If you can't hold a position, you are not making progress. Instead, you are doing a Ground Hog day scenario.

The Iraqi military isn't likely to handle this because it is Shiite military vs. Sunni insurgents. To them it is still going to be a "foreign occupation" type of problem whether it is U.S. or Shiite. Sure there are plenty of foreign insurgents, but the Sunni districts are the home for it now, and they oppose the new govt on average.

What really bothers me is how many officer reports I'm reading that are saying the people won't speak out or help the U.S. troops because they know the troops will be gone in a few hours, but the insurgents are amongst them all the time.

Right now the grand strategy seems to be to just hang around, hoping things eventually get better. I don't have much faith in this working. If we can't come up with something better--something that gets tangible results within 6 months, then we need to be planning to pull out 6 months after that. It's not like we haven't been there two and a half years already.

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 23:06

What a mind boggling twisting of numbers....Those calculations are statistically worthless and make way too many assumptions. You're taking numbers from many years and trying to extrapolate and apply them to just one year- that doesnt work.

Here are some numbers I found:

1965: 22655/3144 = 7.2

March 2004 - March 2005: 8516/930 = 9.16
link (http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/01/4368135b81dd3)

So, in a sense your statistic may be right- but it's a totally pointless red herring that tries to hide the real truth. The important point is that in two 1 year periods, with similar troops levels, casualty rates are approximately 1/3 that of Vietnam.

Similar wars, my foot. ~:handball:
People have been trying to tie this war to Vietname since day one. It was bogus then and it still is now.

Papewaio

11-07-2005, 23:16

Actually the wounded to killed ratio is a useful number in figuring out intensity of the conflict and the amount of medical support/flight time/assests etc

Red Harvest

11-07-2005, 23:24

So, in a sense your statistic may be right- but it's a totally pointless red herring that tries to hide the real truth. The important point is that in two 1 year periods, with similar troops levels, casualty rates are approximately 1/3 that of Vietnam.

Similar wars, my foot. ~:handball:
People have been trying to tie this war to Vietname since day one. It was bogus then and it still is now.
And that's not what I said. ~:angry: How friggin' dense are you? ~:eek:

I wasn't trying to "hide" anything. I just supplied some numbers to the most similar year in the comparison. I wasn't saying they were identical. That's your myopia warping your perception. I also supplied the following year showing that it was diverging and commented about that as well.

Get it right before you try to attribute something to me I was NOT saying. :knight:

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 23:26

Actually the wounded to killed ratio is a useful number in figuring out intensity of the conflict and the amount of medical support/flight time/assests etcAnd? Sure it can be a useful statistic- but not while comparing casualty rates, which are clearly not close at all. If anything, a higher wounded to kill ratio is good news for Iraq in the terms you mention- it means less of those wounded are dying.

Again, really, this line of comparison between the wars has no basis at all.

Tribesman

11-07-2005, 23:33

People have been trying to tie this war to Vietname since day one. It was bogus then and it still is now.
Nah its just the same , a war fought over a pile of lies , with unclear or unattainable goals , little understanding of the situation on the ground , and so many mistakes made in the initial phases that its near impossible to put right .
One big difference is that this time it is America that wants to start the domino effect instead of stopping it .

Xiahou

11-07-2005, 23:39

And that's not what I said. ~:angry: How friggin' dense are you? ~:eek:

I wasn't trying to "hide" anything. I just supplied some numbers to the most similar year in the comparison. I wasn't saying they were identical. That's your myopia warping your perception. I also supplied the following year showing that it was diverging and commented about that as well.

Get it right before you try to attribute something to me I was NOT saying. :knight:I guess when you said this:
Regardless, the numbers are rather similar in the comparison. They are certainly not an order of magnitude different.You were really trying to say the numbers were different? I see....

Now, if you're trying to backtrack and say that wasnt supposed to be evidence of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq... why the hell did you post it? ~:confused:

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 00:08

I guess when you said this:You were really trying to say the numbers were different? I see....

Now, if you're trying to backtrack and say that wasnt supposed to be evidence of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq... why the hell did you post it? ~:confused:
THAT WAS FOR 1965! I did one year (1965) fully for you since you asked for it. I commented on that one year. I had already talked about 1966 separately in the original post. I didn't feel a need to work it out as well or to comment on it again, since I had already said:

" However, 2005 is also very much like 1965 Vietnam on that basis, but about 1/4 the 1966 Vietnam rate."

Self explanatory. ~:rolleyes: You are seeing things that aren't there. I'm not backtracking, and I fully understood what the numbers meant. The level of conflict in Iraq is similar to 1965 Vietnam. It doesn't reach 1966 Vietnam levels. The problem with Iraq is that it isn't getting any better, either. Instead it is staying in the same rut.

I posted the numbers because I thought actual figures might be useful rather than relying on someone else's spin. Heaven forbid that someone should actually try to inject data into this... :duel:

Xiahou

11-08-2005, 00:59

The level of conflict in Iraq is similar to 1965 Vietnam.No it isnt- that should be obvious to everyone by now. The casualty rates are a fraction of what they were in Vietnam. Sheesh...

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 02:48

No it isnt- that should be obvious to everyone by now. The casualty rates are a fraction of what they were in Vietnam. Sheesh...
:no: Wrong. The numbers speak for themselves, casualty rate similar to 1965 Vietnam.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-08-2005, 02:51

Wrong. The numbers speak for themselves, casualty rate similar to 1965 Vietnam.

Yes before the war escalated and took off. What are you trying to prove here? Do you have any battle sense? Im telling you theres no comparison between the two. Wheres their airforce? Where are their regular soldiers?

Xiahou

11-08-2005, 03:06

:no: Wrong. The numbers speak for themselves, casualty rate similar to 1965 Vietnam.
Ok.... let me post the numbers for 1965 and 2004 again....

1965: 22655/3144 (wounded/killed)

March 2004 - March 2005: 8516/930 (wounded/killed)Considering similar troop levels 125,000 - 140,000, you're saying casualty rates are similar? Looks less by about two thirds to me. :shrug:

I guess one person's 'similar' is another's 1/3. ~D

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 03:15

Yes before the war escalated and took off. What are you trying to prove here? Do you have any battle sense? Im telling you theres no comparison between the two. Wheres their airforce? Where are their regular soldiers?
I would say Vietnam was in the process of escalating and taking off in 1965 rather than in a "before" state. Hence the ramp up in forces, and increase in casualties. I'm saying the level of violence for our forces is similar to that time period. I didn't try to read a bunch else into it.

Yes, the sources have changed. This is a different style of insurgency, but the effective intensity level appears similar. It hasn't ramped up, that is the good news. Hasn't declined either, that is the bad news. So which way is it going to break? I'm looking for some good signs, haven't seen much to get excited about.

Considering how far we've come training wise, personnel protection wise, etc. the similarity to 1965 figures does give me pause. Clandestine groups rarely fighting open gun battles are causing substantial casualties, without air support, without artillery, without much more than urban cover and primarily IED's.

At a strategic level, this doesn't appear well managed at all.

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 03:52

Ok.... let me post the numbers for 1965 and 2004 again....

1965: 22655/3144 (wounded/killed)

March 2004 - March 2005: 8516/930 (wounded/killed)Considering similar troop levels 125,000 - 140,000, you're saying casualty rates are similar? Looks less by about two thirds to me. :shrug:

I guess one person's 'similar' is another's 1/3. ~D
The link looks dubious. It's numbers are not self consistent which sets off all the alarms. The ratio of wounded to killed is way different than the total for the war. That's a tip off that something isn't right. His troop count looks low too. Of course, that's a tricky one as it was ramping up.

So I'll repeat myself, based on numbers that I looked up independently, there was a good match. You can make what you like of it, but I was consistent in my method. I didn't go cherrypicking for numbers, I found a complete enough set with both strengths and casualties by year. Was it a good set? Don't know, haven't seen anything else as complete so I copied them into Excel. I've seen the same numbers quoted elsewhere...and I've seen a whole range of others now.

I would of course like some better hard numbers to work from. Unfortunately, I've been seeing a wide range of values out there. (Some have a casualty count 1/6th of what you quoted for 1965--boy, would that screw up your numbers, LOL.) There are a bunch of other delineations that can be made as well. Most agree on the total number killed for the whole time period, but the other numbers are all over the map. One has ~150,000 wounded total...appears to be a wounded non-return to duty figure, but just a guess.

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 04:15

The link looks dubious. It's numbers are not self consistent which sets off all the alarms. The ratio of wounded to killed is way different than the total for the war. That's a tip off that something isn't right.

Hi.

Because of better armor, better technology, better firepower, better everything, the number of wounded is drastically higher than compared with deaths as far as casualties are concerned.

And before you give me some tripe about "not all the troops have body armor", that's because not everybody needs it. All Marines have it, but as for Army they get armor depending on where in-country they serve. Hot spot=armor. Quite w/ no conflict and local support=no armor. And there is a specturm in between the two. Any way, that is not my point.

Any casualty comparison to vietnam is ludicrous. You are lieing in an attempt to justify how terrible you think this war is. If you are not lieing, then you are in great error.

The American political lanscape represents another battlefield in this war, and the presentation of information through filters is the weapon. Most Americans are too lazy and dumb to critically think about the information that is fed to them by mainstream sources. Thus, when you say that the Iraq war is just as violent as Vietnam, they will believe you and spread the rumor. I know this is what many in the left want since many Americans think with emotion instead of logic. The left believes that by stirring the pot, even with lies when necessary, many in the American public will turn against the War. Unfortunatley, this is the truth.

I am all for a candid discussion on facts. It honors our courageous vets to present the truth as it is.Your erroneous distortion of facts is damaging to American interests and creates a danger to national security strategic imperatives. Almost as bad is the disservice you do to the vets of vietnam. By misrepresenting the casualty tallies in Iraq to compare them against Vietnam is to minimize the totality of their terrible sacrifice. Your political agenda dishonors them today just as they were dishonored then by the 60's liberal agenda.

Talk facts. I will be persuaded by honest information and logical arguments. In this discussion you show neither logic nor integrity.

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 04:22

:wall: It is Vietnam. You are being nitpicky and stubborn. Observe the big picture- the way the **** is going down- it is just like Vietnam.

Frankly, I could see this was going to become another Vietnam, long before it became a talking-head point. It was no that hard to figure out (although I also predicted that Iran was going to send in independant forces to try and capitulate the Iraqi government and create a Shiite revolution- but there is still a strong possibility of that happening.) I mean, look at the situation- as it was said, it was a war based on lies, a war that was unnecessary by any sensible standards (and DO NOT feed me a bunch of crap about what Saddam was planning to do, or what he was doing to his people- he was doing it in his own country, and it was not our right to intervene) and it has led us down the road to a massive waste of money, materials and manpower. If we had not invaded, Saddam would still be piddling around with his V-X and Mustard gas, and we would not be losing soldiers every day without making any gains. There would also not be a major threat to the stability in the region, which does currently exist, and will continue to exist after we leave, because Iraq has become a breeding ground for extremists and armed fighters. We ****ed the middle east as well as Iraq. So great going, Conservatives- you have punched a hole in the dike.

Man, that was meandering... I'm tired.

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 04:23

Oh- hi, Divinus. I was responding to everyone, not just you. It took me a while.

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 04:29

Oh, man- completely forgot about this backroom gif until now- it's perfect!

https://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5831/yesno0qw0dg.gif
Image courtesy of Soly.

Xiahou

11-08-2005, 04:32

The link looks dubious. It's numbers are not self consistent which sets off all the alarms. The ratio of wounded to killed is way different than the total for the war. That's a tip off that something isn't right. His troop count looks low too. Of course, that's a tricky one as it was ramping up. My best guess would be that the numbers look high because he's probably including all deaths in theatre- not just combat deaths. If so, that would be accurate for comparison since the deaths reported in the media include more than combat deaths as well. Deaths in Iraq would be less by at least 500 or so if including only hostile deaths.

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 04:38

I think this is a relevant editorial analysis on the topic.

Iraq 2004 Looks Like Vietnam 1966. (http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/)

Here is my summary of the article, for those of you do not want to read all of it:

The author makes a comparison of casualty rates in both Iraq and Vietnam, and adjusts the Iraq figures for such factors as technological advances, medical advances, and size of troop deployment. His goal is to compare the lethality of the two conflicts, adjusting for these factors. To put it another way, the author attempts to calculate how deadly this war would be if the factors we enjoy today were brought to the level of 1966. He concludes that the lethality of both wars are roughly equal. This means that the level of intensity of the two conflicts are equivalent.

I concur with this evaluation. I believe this is an objective analysis. The hard facts in the quantitative analysis are uncontestable. I do find fault with the author's qualitative analysis of modern-advance factors. These factors do not qualify as data and can be easily manipulated to support or refute the author's argument. Despite this error, I concur based upon the foundation of his argument. Which is to say that modern warriors enjoy far greater protections from technological and medical breakthroughs. As a consequence, an ordinarily lethal battlefield has been made less so.

Papewaio

11-08-2005, 05:02

Simply, a soldier was nearly 1.5 times more likely to die from his wounds in Vietnam than in Iraq today.

So the article is in line with Reds thinking of 1.5

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 05:03

So the article is in line with Reds thinking of 1.5

Do you like milk?

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 05:06

Do you like milk?
~:confused:

Papewaio

11-08-2005, 05:11

Do you like milk?

Just thinking that either Red is referencing the same materials and/or there is another independent methodology of arriving at the same answer.

1 by itself is useful, 2 separate methods that yield the same answer is a powerful tool.

And yes I drink about 1.5L of milk a day... 2.5 pints. And I would appreciate the cookies... but I think others need to be shown the dots because if Red says it, it must be automatically wrong...

Xiahou

11-08-2005, 05:52

Just thinking that either Red is referencing the same materials and/or there is another independent methodology of arriving at the same answer.

1 by itself is useful, 2 separate methods that yield the same answer is a powerful tool.

And yes I drink about 1.5L of milk a day... 2.5 pints. And I would appreciate the cookies... but I think others need to be shown the dots because if Red says it, it must be automatically wrong...Only when he is wrong- Im sure he appreciates you sticking up for him though. ~;)

I came across DA's article earlier when digging for stats and it too talks about wound to fatality ratios. Where it goes wrong is when it tries to use that ratio difference as some sort of inflation rate to allow for misguided comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. You yourself, Pape, said there are many things to be found in that ratio including combat intensity and medical treatment. However, it's mind boggling that the author tries to use the difference in ratios as a multiplier to massage the statitics so they match. The casualty numbers dont match up and the mortality rates for wounds are lower. It's not the same war and I dont understand the eagerness to link them.

Aurelian

11-08-2005, 06:00

Ways that the Iraq War is unlike the Vietnam War:

1) No Vietnamese involved.
2) Less foliage.
3) Less whoring with local girls.
4) Iraq is more of a "dry heat".
5) Music better during Vietnam.
6) In 'Nam, you could go home after serving a year.

Ways that the Iraq War is like the Vietnam War:

1) Both wars were optional.
2) Both wars were started by guys from Texas.*
3) Most of the casualties involve ambushes by unseen enemies.
4) WMD lies similar to Gulf of Tonkin lies... just much worse.
5) New Iraqi army and South Vietnamese army eerily similar.
6) Children of the rich and powerful still not serving in the military.

* Yes, I know that Johnson inherited the involvement in Vietnam from Kennedy and the French, but he was the one who decided to escalate to full deployment.

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 06:04

if Red says it, it must be automatically wrong...

Whilst my milk comment appeared to be a clever deflection of your response, the point I must now make is thus:

moo.

No, but seriously, I consider myself objective. I simply identify with many conservative party platform values.

I listen to the information, then consider its source. I want data and logical arguments.

For example, saying that Bush lied to take us into Iraq is not a logical argument. don't get me wrong, I understand the logic behind the statement:that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq + Bush oil = lies and war for oil.

But this isn't a logical conclusion based on facts. It's conjecture.

He lied? Where is the proof? Lemme guess: No weapons? That the argument? That means he was wrong, not that he lied.

So, whenever I hear this point made by anyone, all of their other comments are suspect.

The opponents of Bush believe that if they scream this point over and over, that people will eventually begin to buy into it. And to some degree, they are right. I find this argument insulting to my intelligence. Prove it. Prove it and I will be looking to impeach the guy myself.

I'm sorry, but the mainstream media has lost my faith 100%. I cannot trust it as an information filter.

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 06:06

Because of better armor, better technology, better firepower, better everything, the number of wounded is drastically higher than compared with deaths as far as casualties are concerned.
Yes, I know that. The problem was with the VIETNAM numbers for the year having a ratio far different than the VIETNAM data as a whole (entire operation) that the same link quoted. Internal consistency was lacking, yet the author failed to mention it. I've never seen the numbers he quoted anywhere else. So I do suspect some sort of mistake on the casualty side for his 1965 figures. I also saw a ridiculously low value of ~500 quoted as well in one article for 1965, which was 1964 level...I rejected it out of hand of course.

But thanks for pointing out what I was saying...~D

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 06:07

6) Children of the rich and powerful still not serving in the military.

Its an all-volunteer force. And we don't send "children" to war. And don't gimme your 17 yr old warrior BS. I know some damn fine young men in my Corps.

edit: spelling errrororr

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 06:33

So the article is in line with Reds thinking of 1.5
Yes, but I had remembered the number from months ago when I first saw that article DA quoted. ~:) I don't like to just "accept" numbers like that even if the basis seems sound on the surface. Hence, I took a stab at analyzing it here, for everyone to see whether or not it was valid, or if it had a major obvious flaw.

And I'm not saying the numbers I used for Vietnam are correct. They were nicely tabulated, and I've seen some of them stated before. The first blush consistency checks looked ok, but it was a website source without attribution. (It was actually a cached link I think.) The other article Xiahou quoted might be correct or using a better basis, but the numerous differences with other articles and that self consistency check didn't add up. Habit for me is to throw it out with an "assignable cause" tag when that happens.

Back to the article DA quoted. I think the author took his methodology too far with the 1966 comparison. Elements look right, but as a whole it is like adding more and more terms to an equation until it exactly fits all the data...but doesn't necessarily fit any other data set, or any newer data.

The comparison with Hue and Fallujah was on the money though.

Aurelian

11-08-2005, 06:47

Its an all-volunteer force. And we don't send "children" to war. And don't gimme your 17 yr old warrior BS. I know some damn fine young men in my Corps.

Children is used in the following sense: "A son or daughter; an offspring."

Example: "Barbara and George had six children.: President George W.( former Governor of Texas), Robin, Jeb (Governor of Florida), Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy."

President Bush is one of Barbara Bush's "children", even though he is now chronologically an adult.

By the way, I have no "17 yr old warrior BS" to give you. Sorry. I'm all out. ~D

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 06:50

Talk facts. I will be persuaded by honest information and logical arguments. In this discussion you show neither logic nor integrity.
Missed this part before...

I was, and I was doing it with the numbers I found available that appeared credible. I wasn't trying to flavor it one way or another, which is why I accepted the 1965 comparison based on the numbers I had, and rejected the 1966 comparison.

~D Are you flip-flopping on this one? It kinda looks that way... ~:cool: ...but maybe I'm misreading this.

I'm still trying to figure out how one could conclude I've shown neither logic nor integrity. Most people here won't risk the potential embarassment of showing their full basis--with potential for making public outright mistakes. I try to whenever I can/have the time. I don't just quote some hack, and then say, "refute this!" That's why I get so fired up when I see a quoted stat that I know to be an intentional misrepresentation of the data, that is then being repeated by the faithful who don't know what sleight of hand is being used. (Slave ownership in the South in 1860 is one...that one had me fooled until I actually dug through the census data myself! The ironic part is that a secessionist editor of the day had written an essay that perfectly confirmed the conclusion I was creaching. Tax proportions is another...)

Aurelian

11-08-2005, 06:54

In Vietnam, there was Agent Orange. In Iraq, there is Depleted Uranium.

U.S. Iraq vet warns DU a threat to SDF troops (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/20051108TDY04005.htm)

Funny thought: US troops more at risk of chemical, biological, and radiological attack from enemies or from own government?

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 07:04

re: logic and integrity

This is what I wrote:

I am all for a candid discussion on facts. It honors our courageous vets to present the truth as it is.Your erroneous distortion of facts is damaging to American interests and creates a danger to national security strategic imperatives. Almost as bad is the disservice you do to the vets of vietnam. By misrepresenting the casualty tallies in Iraq to compare them against Vietnam is to minimize the totality of their terrible sacrifice. Your political agenda dishonors them today just as they were dishonored then by the 60's liberal agenda.

Talk facts. I will be persuaded by honest information and logical arguments. In this discussion you show neither logic nor integrity

My point is this: The data that is represented here in order to make Iraq appear as deadly as Vietnam is distorted. You admit it later yourself:

I think the author took his methodology too far with the 1966 comparison. Elements look right, but as a whole it is like adding more and more terms to an equation until it exactly fits all the data...

Which is identical to what Xiahou wrote:

However, it's mind boggling that the author tries to use the difference in ratios as a multiplier to massage the statitics so they match.

To conclude that Iraq and Vietnam offer comparable casualty statistics is a leap in logic as a result of either error or 'intentional misrepresentation of data' as you put it. So Red, are you wrong or are you lieing?

bmolsson

11-08-2005, 07:56

I think that the only reason to bring in Vietnam in the Iraqi debate is to learn and make sure that it NEVER turns out that way. It is in everyones interest that Iraq becomes stabile again, regardless if one like Bush or not....

Papewaio

11-08-2005, 08:15

I think the intensity is on par if not the frequency... the wound to kills is similar based on DAs article.

The total amount is far less in Iraq. So less frequency. However when there is a conflict it is at the same intensity.

The attrition rate is far less in Iraq. The problem is that modern society is even less accepting of deaths then it was 30 years ago. So back to Battlefield Home... how many before it becomes a political swing of just 1%, 2%, 5%?

And I think the death rate per soldier fielded would drop dramatically with more control of the zones... ie more boots on the ground will drop the relative danger on a per soldier basis.

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 08:17

To conclude that Iraq and Vietnam offer comparable casualty statistics is a leap in logic as a result of either error or 'intentional misrepresentation of data' as you put it. So Red, are you wrong or are you lieing?
That is the most idiotic thing imagineable. I haven't misrepresented it. I pointed out the problems with '66 compared to '65, and found support for the '65 basis, but not '66--AS I WAS STATING IN MY ORIGINAL CONTESTED POST. Now you totally hypocritically accuse me of misrepresenting this, while you yourself agree with it??? The only distortion I see in this is YOURS, yet it totally escapes your grasp.

I'm speechless. Congratulations, you have just presented the worst argument I've ever seen posted on the Web, magnificent for its hoary use of perverted logic in opposing and refuting itself. It is simply a masterpiece. I should have just stood back and watch you debate yourself into a stupor.

And people wonder why I could be so utterly disillusioned with the conservative movement.

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 08:37

That is the most idiotic thing imagineable. I haven't misrepresented it. I pointed out the problems with '66 compared to '65, and found support for the '65 basis, but not '66--AS I WAS STATING IN MY ORIGINAL CONTESTED POST. Now you totally hypocritically accuse me of misrepresenting this, while you yourself agree with it??? The only distortion I see in this is YOURS, yet it totally escapes your grasp.

I'm speechless. Congratulations, you have just presented the worst argument I've ever seen posted on the Web, magnificent for its hoary use of perverted logic in opposing and refuting itself. It is simply a masterpiece. I should have just stood back and watch you debate yourself into a stupor.

And people wonder why I could be so utterly disillusioned with the conservative movement.

Wow. You must be Bipolar. ~:) First you play nice with smilies and such. I was having fun. Now you rant like Dean with emotion. Good God, Man! The very idea that you may be wrong or misrepresenting your information! What a mockery! A sham! It's a shamockery!

~:joker:

Look, I will clarify it further. I think that we are on the same page for some of this, but I am simply failing to articulate my point. '65, or '66. That point was irrelevant to me. And I cede that point to you. I never even cared about that to begin with. Why?

My point is that the entire argument for comparing the two wars based on casualties is ludicrous. Period. Done. End of story. No comparison can be made because there exists none.

Let's make it easy on everyone. You are making the argument that Iraq is another Vietnam so far as casualties are concerned. Do I understand that correctly? Are you supporting that argument?

If you are, then let's play this game together. Find annual casualty data for the duration of the Vietnam conflict. For each year, let's see hostile action induced deaths and injuries. Now find casualty data for Iraq. Again: hostile action induced deaths and injuries. Now see if you can find average annual deployment levels in Vietnam. We know what the deployment op-tempo is in Iraq. About 140,000. Agreed?

Now look at the numbers. What is the deaths per thousand in Nam? Injuries per thousand? Now how about in Iraq? I am going to take a wild guess and say that there will be a huge difference. Show me the numbers. If you can prove yourself right with simple data, then I will concede this point to you and my entire perspective on the Iraq conflict will be permanently altered.

However, if you want to "massage" the statistics (as Xiahou put it) by throwing out factors like that author did, then you will lose all credibility. But then, You agree with Xiahou and I that the relationship between these fcators and casualties is incalculable. So, I am not to worried about that.

I just want a solid fact-supported argument. Let the data talk for you.

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 08:50

And I think the death rate per soldier fielded would drop dramatically with more control of the zones... ie more boots on the ground will drop the relative danger on a per soldier basis.

Sure. But the long term consequences would be far more detrimental to our strategic interests in the region. We need the Iraqi to take the lead in providing for their own security. By increasing our troop levels and visual presence, we will also be increasing local sympathy for the insurgency. We need Iraqis to see Iraqis patrolling. We need Iraqi to feel safe and secure becasue of the Iraqi presence, not the American presence.

At the same time, we need to be more aggresive in rounding up weapons. Did you know that each Iraqi household is allowed to have one assualt rifle? We confiscate excess, but they get to keep that one rifle. How do you enforce security in an environment where everyone has an assault rifle?

Well, not with an American presence.

Remember, the Iraq campaign in the War against Terror is not just about Iraq. It is about democratizing and freeing the middle east from tyrants and extremist theocrats. Iraq provides a foundation for other societies in the region to gaze upon as a model of success. Iran is full of reformists. Who is our resident Iranian exile? Dairuish? Mouszhphaterts? Other-butchered-name?

Let's give the people of the middle east a light of success to gaze upon so that they may light their own vision and free themselves from archaic institutions and petty tyranny.

Ironside

11-08-2005, 13:20

Sure. But the long term consequences would be far more detrimental to our strategic interests in the region. We need the Iraqi to take the lead in providing for their own security. By increasing our troop levels and visual presence, we will also be increasing local sympathy for the insurgency. We need Iraqis to see Iraqis patrolling. We need Iraqi to feel safe and secure becasue of the Iraqi presence, not the American presence.
Well first and foremost we need them to feel safe, no matter who provides it. While Iraqi troops would be better than US troops, the currently trained Iraqi army seems to have an abysmal loyalty.

At the same time, we need to be more aggresive in rounding up weapons. Did you know that each Iraqi household is allowed to have one assualt rifle? We confiscate excess, but they get to keep that one rifle. How do you enforce security in an environment where everyone has an assault rifle?

Well, not with an American presence.

Lol, I hope that you aren't against any form of guncontrol. And I really hope that you haven't used the argument that taking away your guns is the first step to dictorship (has used on this very forum). ~:joker:

I agree that temporal confiscation of weapons in more troublesome zones is a sound move though, no matter the other gunlaws.

Remember, the Iraq campaign in the War against Terror is not just about Iraq. It is about democratizing and freeing the middle east from tyrants and extremist theocrats. Iraq provides a foundation for other societies in the region to gaze upon as a model of success. Iran is full of reformists. Who is our resident Iranian exile? Dairuish? Mouszhphaterts? Other-butchered-name?

We can only hope that this hopeful dream succeeds despite the incompetence and wishthinking from several of the American leaders.

And Iraq is not Vietnam. For starters Saigon was a much better place than Bagdad for a leave. ~;p
But seriously there's some similarities (the partisan war, the quagmarish conditions) and there's differences (no pure, supporting enemy like North-Vietnam, the terrain as examples). The main reason that it can actually work to compare is that these two are the most simular conflicts fought by the US in recent history, but that has more to do with few major conflicts fought by the US in recent history.

Major Robert Dump

11-08-2005, 13:43

Vietnam=draft, prez assasinate and prez near impeachment in 10 yrs, 3 major wars in 30 yrs, largely undeucated public with few news sources, disco, civil rights movement, WWII postwar asian countries still rebuilding

Iraq=fat ppl used to McWar, now in it for the long hall, public goes on about business as usual, pass the cheetos everyones a pundit these days.

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 13:50

I assume we'll be ousting the Saudi royal Family in due time then, Divinus? :knight:

Sounds good to me. They make our prez look like their bitch with those kissy faced hand holding pictures. And I mean bitch in the most literal sense of the word. As in a dog. A female one.

Bartix

11-08-2005, 14:04

we need to be more aggresive in rounding up weapons. Did you know that each Iraqi household is allowed to have one assualt rifle? We confiscate excess, but they get to keep that one rifle. How do you enforce security in an environment where everyone has an assault rifle?
~:eek:
They have the right to keep a weapon??
How can American Forces permit a thing like this?~;) ~;) ~;) ~;)

Is it in their constipation too?

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 19:52

This thread is goin' nowhere. But it sure is funny if you step back and look at it. It's like three-year-olds playing tug-of-war, and neither side is winning, nor will either side win, because political dogma has made us blind to all that surrounds us.

Jesus... that whiskey is making me philosophical.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-08-2005, 20:00

Yup the point was made long ago

let me post the numbers for 1965 and 2004 again....

1965: 22655/3144 (wounded/killed)

March 2004 - March 2005: 8516/930 (wounded/killed)

Considering similar troop levels 125,000 - 140,000,

Look at these numbers. The causalty rate in Nam was three times that of Iraq at least since the troop level was lower. You are a casualty whether your wonded or die. Thats irrelevant. There was far more fighting going on in Nam than there ever was in Iraq. This whole thing is ludicrous. I dont see these guys attacking our firebases. They havent got the balls. I have to hand to those vietcong they had a pair.

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 20:06

I dont see these guys attacking our firebases. They havent got the balls. I have to hand to those vietcong they had a pair.

They aren't attacking our firebases because they are not that dumb. They understand, unlike the Vietcong, they do not have numbers or the strength to take on firebases. They are learning from Vietnam. And etc... you see where I'm going.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-08-2005, 20:14

They aren't attacking our firebases because they are not that dumb. They understand, unlike the Vietcong, they do not have numbers or the strength to take on firebases

Thank you. Case closed.

Reverend Joe

11-08-2005, 21:40

Thank you. Case closed.

That's silly, Gawain. You are nitpicking. Like I said earlier, you have to look at the big picture. I think you also misunderstood what I said.

What I was saying was that they have learned from the Vietcong- the Vietcong never should have been attacking firebases, because they didn't have the numbers for it, either. They, like the Iraqi partisans, were an army of organised, indirect resistance, and they were at their best doing the things the Iraqi partisans are doing now: terrifying the populace, disrupting our soldiers, and causing general difficulties for the American factions in Iraq/Vietnam. The engagements with American soldiers, however deadly to our own troops, were more debilitating to them than they were to us, aside from the morale reprucussions (which would have been a lot more serious if they had been operating correctly.)

Red Harvest

11-08-2005, 21:43

They aren't attacking our firebases because they are not that dumb. They understand, unlike the Vietcong, they do not have numbers or the strength to take on firebases. They are learning from Vietnam. And etc... you see where I'm going.

No, he doesn't see where you are going, but don't be surprised... It's a different kind of warfare, but with the same basic goal. I agree, they have learned not to attack the hard points. They don't have the benefit of the kind of terrain, cover, and direct external national logictics support the VC had. They have learned and adapted and will continue to do so--and that is a problem, the potential for them to gain momentum or for this to boil over.

The idea that Iraq matches any of the peak Vietnam years is not one I support. However, the intensity does have similarity some of the earlier happenings, particularly 1965.

Regardless of the combat considerationss, the domestic politcal damage, damage to the national psyche, and international prestige problems are approaching Vietnam (in some areas exceeding it--particularly with regard to international diplomacy.) It is still early by comparison. With luck things will turn around--I emphasize *luck* because I don't see much chance of an improved Bush strategy accomplishing it. If we aren't lucky, then these non-combat areas are only going to deepen.

The worst thing of all is that Iraq has been detrimental to the "war on terror." It has become an unnecessary distraction, cost us focus, and cost us support.

Aurelian

11-08-2005, 21:56

Sounds good to me. They make our prez look like their bitch with those kissy faced hand holding pictures. And I mean bitch in the most literal sense of the word. As in a dog. A female one.

I though you meant bitch as in holding onto another guy's inside-out pocket in prison. ~D

Anyway, slightly on-topic and somewhat funny story:

My friend's uncle (we'll call him "Uncle Jamie") used to be in the CIA. He was stationed in Iran before the revolution and worked closely with Iranian intelligence. After the revolution, a close friend of his, a colonel in the Shah's secret police, fled to America. The first thing the Iranian wanted to do when he got here was to take a trip to Disney World.

Unfortunately for Uncle Jamie, as we've seen with Bush and the Saudis, Middle Eastern men sometimes hold hands in public. So... poor Uncle Jamie (a middle-aged CIA guy) had to spend a whole weekend running around Disney World holding hands with this Iranian SAVAK colonel. Very embarrassing, but the guy was so excited he just didn't want to rain on his parade. ~D

Divinus Arma

11-08-2005, 22:31

Unfortunately for Uncle Jamie, as we've seen with Bush and the Saudis, Middle Eastern men sometimes hold hands in public. So... poor Uncle Jamie (a middle-aged CIA guy) had to spend a whole weekend running around Disney World holding hands with this Iranian SAVAK colonel. Very embarrassing, but the guy was so excited he just didn't want to rain on his parade. ~D

I love the idea of hard core terrorists holding hands while they talk about jihad during a casual stroll.

"Oh Mohamed, your hands are so soft, praise be to Allah!"

"Yes, my vengefull tulip, I wash them in the blood of the infidel swine everyday, Allahu Akhbar!"

(yaya I know about the swine fear. Its a joke.)

Adrian II

11-08-2005, 22:33

"Oh Mohamed, your hands are so soft, praise be to Allah!"

"Yes, my vengefull tulip, I wash them in the blood of the infidel swine everyday, Allahu Akhbar!"~:cheers:

yesdachi

11-08-2005, 23:01

I love the idea of hard core terrorists holding hands while they talk about jihad during a casual stroll.

"Oh Mohamed, your hands are so soft, praise be to Allah!"

"Yes, my vengefull tulip, I wash them in the blood of the infidel swine everyday, Allahu Akhbar!"
The guy I know who was a guard in the gtmo bay prison told me it was weird that they were always trying to hold each others hands when they talked and when they were separated beyond reach they would get angry.:dizzy2:
Prisoners holding hands is not a scene I want to think about.:ahh:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2005, 00:54

Tribesman

11-09-2005, 00:58

Yes thanks to people like you and the press
Thanks to incompetant leadership and half baked ideas:duel:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2005, 01:02

Thanks to incompetant leadership and half baked ideas

Yeah well that dont help either.

Red Harvest

11-09-2005, 01:56

Yes thanks to people like you and the press ~D
No, it is not thanks to people like me. It is thanks to people like you. I didn't elect the incompetent moron that misled us into this, and muffed the operation once we were there. The press is reporting what is happening, not creating it. People like me are reacting to the inability of the Administration to plan or adapt in war. If the Admin, can't handle it then we as a people need to provide them with a new course.

You can dislike my views all you like, but it is eminently more sane to either commit fully, or get out. Half measures only cause misery for everyone. It is time to force this to a decision. That might require an advertised timetable. A good leader wouldn't have let it get that far, but the guy now in charge needs to be told to "s*** or get off the pot." He doesn't know how to finish what he started (look at his Guard record...or lack thereof.)

We supposedly went into Iraq with the intent of finishing what had been started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I'm not seeing that we are doing that.

yesdachi

11-09-2005, 02:59

Regardless of the combat considerationss, the domestic politcal damage, damage to the national psyche, and international prestige problems are approaching Vietnam (in some areas exceeding it--particularly with regard to international diplomacy.)
As far as international diplomacy goes I think we in better shape now than we were during Vietnam. Wasn’t there a lot more tension between the super powers (causing all sorts of issues with countries that are now “friends” of ours) back during Vietnam? :bow:

kiwitt

11-09-2005, 04:28

Can someone please explain ...

Why do "National Guards" troops get deployed when I assume most of the guardsmen joined to defend the "Nation", that being continental USA. These are normally lower quality troops.
Why are there not enough quality troops deployed, rather than "part-time" guardsmen.
Wouldn't better trained troops give a stronger response?
Have the good troops being held back ? for another later role ?

It seems to me that the deployment level was insufficient in terms of both quality and quantity.

This is very much a strategic blunder, based on faulty intelligence "They will welcome us as liberators", under-estimation as to level of resistance, the time required to train the Iraqi's to fight their own people and the lack of sufficient international support rallied..

Redleg

11-09-2005, 05:22

Can someone please explain ...

Why do "National Guards" troops get deployed when I assume most of the guardsmen joined to defend the "Nation", that being continental USA. These are normally lower quality troops.

Why should I explain - you have already cast judgement on the National Guard troops without really knowing if they are lower quality. You ever conducted training with the 39th eSIB, the 45th eSIB, and the 256th eSIB. Each one of these units have deployed in part or whole to combat operations. I personally trained parts of the Artillery Units in the two light infantry brigades. They are not the lower quality troops that many of you would image. Were they weak in parts of their training because of the roles they had in civilian life - yes but lower quality troops nope - they have strengths that the active army does not have, just like they have weakness that would not be present in an active duty unit.

Why are there not enough quality troops deployed, rather than "part-time" guardsmen.

Try being a guardsman sometime, most are quality troops - they have a few more bad apples then the active duty soldiers - but recent reports would show not by much now wouldn't it.

Wouldn't better trained troops give a stronger response?

Do you have any idea about how much training goes on before a unit is deployed? Do you happen to know how much training is given during the year to the National Guard Units that have gone to Iraq? Do you realize that at least two of the National Guard Brigades deployed have gone to either Bosnia or Kosovo - often with the same unit structure and personal 5 -8 years between deployments - which is greater unit cohesion then any active duty unit. I know of artillery gun crews in the National Guard that can out shoot and out maintain a howitzer over any active duty unit.

Have the good troops being held back ? for another later role ?

A little research will show that all but one or two Active Duty Divisions have been deployed to Afganstan or Iraq over the last 4 years. Those that haven't been deployed the Division has another assigned mission, and even then you will be hard press to find units from within those divisions that have not been deployed.

It seems to me that the deployment level was insufficient in terms of both quality and quantity.

Ony in terms of occupation duty would that assessment be correct.

This is very much a strategic blunder, based on faulty intelligence "They will welcome us as liberators", under-estimation as to level of resistance, the time required to train the Iraqi's to fight their own people and the lack of sufficient international support rallied..

So do you want to blame National Guard Troops for what you percieve as blunders of the National Command authority? Now I might agree with parts of this assessment - your earlier comments in this post lead me to question.

When you come back wanting an honest answer about the National Guard - just ask without the pre-judgement already establish. I might just share with you my experience of being a 13E for 2 years in the National Guard, 3 years as a Reserve Officer in an Army Reserve Artillery Unit, and my last 3 years of active duty training National Guard Soldiers. But until then let your preconcieved notions about the National Guard remain.

Major Robert Dump

11-09-2005, 05:31

The NG does have higher casualty rates than the regular army, but that has more to do with fish out of water than training, and also has a lot to do with the fact they are being used soooooo much. I was reading 3 months ago in the Ft Sill newsletter that OKNG MLRS units were being activated to go to Iraq for........foot patrols. Man that must suck, all that training and knowledge of that artillery platform and now they are grunts kicking in doors

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2005, 05:32

No, it is not thanks to people like me. It is thanks to people like you. I didn't elect the incompetent moron that misled us into this, and muffed the operation once we were there.

Well neither did I. If this was Clinton leading this war you would be all for it.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-09-2005, 05:33

bmolsson

11-09-2005, 05:56

Red Harvest

11-09-2005, 06:01

Well neither did I. If this was Clinton leading this war you would be all for it.
Not if he was mishandling it. And I would want him impeached if he used false pretenses to get us into such a war.

I was disappointed with Clinton's decision to go *into* Somalia for example. It was exactly the sort of occupation that is hardest for a democratic nation to do--it takes a strict and often draconian hand to establish order. While the cause was noble, the place was anarchy. It was a bad decision and we paid a price. I do give Clinton credit for pulling out, painful as it was to our pride. The Somalis wanted to live in absolute squalor and hell, so be it, let the fools starve in their ruins. (I'm beginning to feel the same about the Sunnis in Iraq.)

Reagan made the same sort of miscalculation (as Clinton) in Lebanon, and responded the same way.

Redleg

11-09-2005, 06:36

So if I understand it correctly, National Guard is civilians in green ? And their quality depends on where they are from ?
I guess there would large casualites from a National Guard regiment from Hollywood, while they would be impossible to kill if they came from Bronx..... ~;)

LOL - funny guy - the 39th eSIB comes from Arkansas and the 45th eSIB comes from Oklahoma - and the reports I have seen in the media and from the collation web sites indicate that they performed well.

Try again.

yesdachi

11-09-2005, 15:00

Unfortunately, we have a culture that all too often expects the fighting to be over in a few hours and everyone to come home the next day. So the US military is, quite possibly, the only military in the world that has to perform with a real-world "battle-timer" in place.~:rolleyes:
Nice analogy.~:cheers: Spot on if you ask me.:bow:

KafirChobee

11-09-2005, 17:28

Many interesting perspectives; and many still living in denial that it was lies that brought us into both wars. Some comments made me smile [Aurelian,s "Ways the wars ('nam - Iraq) are alike and unalike], others with their mathematical and political comparrisons made me think.

First, the article (editorial) I promised:

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/newsweek/2005/10/31/1061974

Consider it biased, but realize also that much of what Ms. Quindlen says is true.

Gen. Peter Pace (USMC, the newest Joints Chief of Staff), was on the "NewsHour with Jim Leher" the other night (Monday) - he admitted that our previous policies in Iraq (military conduct of the war) were lacking. But, that, that was being corrected with our new improved version of doing it all over again. It was a relatively long interview with him and Jim - I kept hearing things I had heard before, 40 years ago. Things like "Hearts and Minds", rebuilding of infra-structures, training of our new allies military (so they can step in and take over), how democracy will win the day. How, "Yes, there were mistakes made in the past - but, we're correcting them on a daily basis. How, a few more troops will make a difference. How, we (and the Iraqis', of course) are better off today than we were when Saddam was in power. How, that the reasons for going to war are less important than our winning it (say what?). How, we are changing our tactics to deal with this "new" style of insurgency.

Yes, indeed, it's a whole new deal. Maybe...

Thing is when I went through basic and AIT in 1967, the Army showed us maps of Vietnam showing us the areas we "controlled" - year by year, up to that present - and how we (USA) were winning the war. It was bogus - but, it looked good on paper. Reality was, we walked in a big circle around our base areas "keeping them clean from Charlie", went on occassional "seek and Destroy" outtings, etc. We ruled the day, Charlie ruled the night. No areas were ever secured. It is also a bogus idea that had we invaded North Vietnam (which would have brought in the Chinese and forced us to use "the bomb", escallating it into a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets), Cambodia (oh, wait we did that), Laos, and then China - we still could not have won. All we gained was a memorial to the boys and girls that gave their all for an ungreatful nation. Remember the old saying, "We the unwilling, led by the unqualified, to do the unthinkable, for the ungreatful." I do. Pity Bush and his Chickenhawk compradres didn't.

Today, it is pretty much the same thing. Even the language has not changed that much. General Pace's new strategy is to go into the towns, citys, hamlets (we've rescued 4, 5, or 6 times) again - only this time we stay. We leave forces behind to prevent the insurgents from returning. Sounds good, eh? It did 40 years ago, too. Pace's "plan" is an exact duplicate of Westmoreland's "hearts and minds" plan of the 'nam era. The deviations are so minimal as to be the same plan. One would or could almost believe we were fighting the same war - which we aren't, we are just using old tactics that didn't win then and can't win today. We are employing the same time honored methods that lost us the Vietnam war, the same tunnel vision, the same ineptitude, and the same rhetoric ("We must stay the Path" - what path?).

Iraq is not Vietnam, it is simply being treated as though it were - atleast militarily.

"In Vietnam we didn't have the lessons of Vietnam to guide us," says David Halberstam - Pulitzer prize winner for his coverage of this war, "In Iraq we did have these lessons. The tragedy is that we didn't pay attention to them."

Still, there is no comparrison for the leadership from the top - LBJ was disturbed over the loss of Americas' sons (and daughters), Dubya isn't. That is in fact the major difference between the two wars, one prez's advisors debated and argued about the virtues of protecting us from Communism (domino theory and all that), and the others' had a plan for their war even before their boy was sworn in (the spread of democracy - or Bush Doctrine, as it is now called).

It is time for Bush43 to go to the "Wall of Healing", to look at the names of another "greatest generation" (men that gave their lives in an unjust conflict, simply because their nation asked them to). To see his reflection in those names, and to realize that soon enough there will be another war memorial near by for the sons and daughters of those he sent to war in Iraq, without true cause or justification. Maybe, we can call it the "Wall of ignorance" - for ignoring the previous lessons learned in 'nam, but ignored out of arrogance and avarice.

So, yes, 'nam-Iraq are similar. In the way they were and are being conducted, and in the lies that kept and keep them inplace. A main difference is how long it took for the American public to wake up to the fact that Vietnam could not be won, and should not have been fought. This time, they know. This time they want the killing of their sons to stop - ASAP (like last week).
:bow:

ichi

11-09-2005, 18:04

Nice post Kafir, pretty much the same way I see it. I remember when we finally woke up and realized that we had been lied to in Vietnam, it set us back for a very long time (until Desert Storm in 91).

There is one big difference between Vietnam and Iraq, and that is the enemy. We worried about the domino theory and the communistication (I just made that word up - it means the slow creep of communism across a region) of SE Asia. Well it really didn't happen, the damage had already been done in Tibet of course, but the fear that Asia would become totally communist never happened. The only thing lost in our retreat from Vietnam was our pride.

But this enemy is different, and it seems to be that Bush is correct about retreat from Iraq. There would be a bloody civil war, and the Baathists are still capable of fighting hard. I think that a bloody civil war would brutalize an already brutulized civilian population and lead to an even more powerful Iran.

A retreat now would also reenergize Syria. It would vindicate terrorism as a tool and strengthen the radical Muslim jihad cause, perhaps emboldening them. As long as the Palestinian issue exists, as long as India and Pakistan grapple with one another, as long as there is money in the drug trade and other illegal activities that fund warlords, and as long as the Imams keep pumping out hate and vitriol to an impoverished, disenfranchised people, we should expect to see attacks on American/European interests around the world.

So, when we pulled out of 'Nam very few of the predicted problems occurred. But if we pull outof Iraq I think its different enough that things could actually be worse than before we went in.

So what we have no is a war we aren't winning, and probably can't win by any obejctive standards, started by ideologues for their own selfish reasons then sold to the people using lies and falsehoods, that has no clean way out. If we stay we continue to agitate the 'insurgency' (when was the first time I heard that word? -1967) and lose troops, equipment support, and credibility, but if we pull out all hell breaks loose.

So I leave you with lyrics from the The Clash

"Should I Stay Or Should I Go?"

Darling you gotta let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
If you say that you are mine
I'll be here 'til the end of time
So you got to let know
Should I stay or should I go?

Always tease tease tease
Siempre - coqueteando y engañando
You're happy when I'm on my knees
Me arrodilla y estás feliz
One day is fine, next is black
Un día bien el otro negro
So if you want me off your back
Al rededar en tu espalda
Well come on and let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I Stay or should I go?
¿Me debo ir o quedarme?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An' if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know

This indecision's bugging me
La indecisión me molesta
If you don't want me, set me free
Si no me quieres, líbrame
Exactly who'm I'm supposed to be
Dígame que debo ser
Don't you know which clothes even fit me?
¿Sabes qué ropa me queda?
Come on and let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I cool it or should I blow?
¿Me debo ir o quedarme?

Should I stay or should I go now?
¿Yo me frío o lo soplo?
If I go there will be trouble
Si me voy - va a ver peligro
And if I stay it will be double
Si me quedo es doble
So you gotta let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I stay or should I go?
¿Yo me frío o lo soplo?

ichi:bow:

Reverend Joe

11-09-2005, 21:12

So I leave you with lyrics from the The Clash

"Should I Stay Or Should I Go?"

Darling you gotta let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
If you say that you are mine
I'll be here 'til the end of time
So you got to let know
Should I stay or should I go?

Always tease tease tease
Siempre - coqueteando y engañando
You're happy when I'm on my knees
Me arrodilla y estás feliz
One day is fine, next is black
Un día bien el otro negro
So if you want me off your back
Al rededar en tu espalda
Well come on and let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I Stay or should I go?
¿Me debo ir o quedarme?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An' if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know

This indecision's bugging me
La indecisión me molesta
If you don't want me, set me free
Si no me quieres, líbrame
Exactly who'm I'm supposed to be
Dígame que debo ser
Don't you know which clothes even fit me?
¿Sabes qué ropa me queda?
Come on and let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I cool it or should I blow?
¿Me debo ir o quedarme?

Should I stay or should I go now?
¿Yo me frío o lo soplo?
If I go there will be trouble
Si me voy - va a ver peligro
And if I stay it will be double
Si me quedo es doble
So you gotta let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I stay or should I go?
¿Yo me frío o lo soplo?

ichi

I prefer "Machine-gun"- but that works.

Also, very good points. That is what I have been trying to get at, but I could not seem to formulate the idea whilst writing.

kiwitt

11-09-2005, 22:10

Thanks for the explanations on the NG. I was under the impression that the NG gets lesser equipment training and the like.

Is the modern American Division a development of the "Rapid Deploment Force Division" developed/trialled in the 1980's. If so I can understand the issues.

"Patrol" work is certainly different to "Strike" actions, where the hi-tech equipment is used.

yesdachi

11-09-2005, 22:22

...started by ideologues for their own selfish reasons then sold to the people using lies and falsehoods, that has no clean way out.
I am not sure it was all falsehoods that sold us on the war. Everyone wanted to kick Iraq and Sadam in the rump. As an example back between 98 and 02 the NY Times ran dozens of articles and even cover stories on how Iraq harbors terrorists, has WMD’s and is just evil and everyone should support going to war with them, other papers too, the media followed the pulse of the people and supported war. And the public became bloodthirsty for our Afghanistan war to spread to terrorists and to Iraq. The President (not thinking long term, big surprise) decide to appease the people and take this as an opportunity to take out the guy daddy couldn’t and asked everyone if we could/should we go to war. Everyone said yes. No one asked any questions about exit plans or questioned (half ass) information reports, we jumped on our horse and rode over to kick some tail! Ye-Haw!! It wasn’t until things started to be dragged out and cost money and piss off the people that politicians started to cover their asses and say they opposed it and were lied to and tricked so they can still try and look good in their voters eyes to keep their jobs, they have tried to pass the blame right up the ladder.

IMO if we based the war on falsehoods no one knew it at the time because we didn’t take time to investigate it, we didn’t care. George W, in true Texan style, asked if we wanted to go kick their asses and we as a country said yes. Unless someone can show me some information that was not accessible to congress at the time of their vote to go tot war, some secret intel that only the White House knew about, that we had at the time, not stuff we found out later or after the fact, there was no “sold to the people” because the people were already, ready to go.

Hardly any politicians opposed the war because they would have been lynched by the people they represented if they did, the people wanted war! If it had ended a year or two ago everything would have been fine but now that our “battle timer” has gone off the people are ticked off and want to point fingers when the only people we can be pointing at are ourselves. IMO we can point fingers and complain about the methods and tactics used in the war but not about the reasons for going, we weren’t lied to (at least no more than normal), we didn’t need to be. The nation was fired up and would have gone after anyone we could, shame on us for being rash and for acting without thinking, it was stupid, but I don’t think we were lied to. We need to come together and figure a way out, not draw lines, point fingers and fight for votes. Stupid politicians are making this worse by trying to cover their butts.

Wow I wrote a lot, it probably sounds like a rambling rant, oh-well, take it with a grain of salt.~:)

Brenus

11-09-2005, 22:57

Yesdashi, I fully agree wit what you wrote. However politicians are supposed to be better informed…
Difference between Vietnam and Iraq: In Vietnam US were sucked in the conflict (post Indochina war and French succession, Green Beret, then Marines then GIs due to the South Vietnamese incapacity to fight for Diem), in Iraq, it was a deliberate choice from W to go. The reasons will be studied in future history books and thesis…~D

ichi

11-10-2005, 00:35

I am not sure it was all falsehoods that sold us on the war.

as Homer says to Marge,

"It takes two to make a lie, one to lie and the other to believe it"

ichi:bow:

Redleg

11-10-2005, 00:47

as Homer says to Marge,

"It takes two to make a lie, one to lie and the other to believe it"

ichi:bow:

So are you attempting to state Clinton lied when he also stated Iraq had WMD several times during his term in office?

Edit: Forgot to put in the smart ass emoticon - take your pick on which one would be best. The Dancing elephant comes in mind with a dancing donkey.

yesdachi

11-10-2005, 02:29

as Homer says to Marge,

"It takes two to make a lie, one to lie and the other to believe it"

ichi:bow:
I am kinda fond of “It’s not uter-YOU, its uter-US”.
Homer trying to get Marge to be a surrogate mother for the $$$.

But I think I get your point and I admit to occasionally being a bit gullible especially when it is something I want to hear.:bow:

KafirChobee

11-10-2005, 02:57

bmolsson

11-10-2005, 03:59

LOL - funny guy - the 39th eSIB comes from Arkansas and the 45th eSIB comes from Oklahoma - and the reports I have seen in the media and from the collation web sites indicate that they performed well.

Just what I mean. People in Arkansas and Oklahoma are grown up on raw meat and with a gun under the pillow, so they must be excellent warriors...... ~D

bmolsson

11-10-2005, 04:17

So are you attempting to state Clinton lied when he also stated Iraq had WMD several times during his term in office?

Based on Homer, he never lied since nobody believed him...... ~:joker:

Seamus Fermanagh

11-10-2005, 04:21

Reverend Joe

11-10-2005, 04:47

bmolsson

11-10-2005, 05:14

Is it, in your opinions, ever possible for the "conventional" forces to win a guerilla war, or does the very existence of an insurgency condemn the conventional forces to eventual defeat (politically if not militarily)?

I think that the fact is a FOREIGN conventional force. Occupation are in the end not possible, if an assimilation of either the population or the force is done.

KafirChobee

11-10-2005, 05:31

Kafir & Ichi:
Is it, in your opinions, ever possible for the "conventional" forces to win a guerilla war, or does the very existence of an insurgency condemn the conventional forces to eventual defeat (politically if not militarily)?

Extending on that, if guerilla efforts are unbeatable, does that not condemn the world to chaos and balkanization?

As my questions imply, I lean towards disagreeing with you, but it is only fair to hear you perspective on these issues.

To defeat a guerrilla force requires a 10-1 ratio of typical military to them. taht is what it took for the French to win in Vietnam. You do know they won there? It took them from 1880 something until like 1920 something, but they did win. Vietnam had a whole 20 years of peace - well, actually there still were "insurgents", but their actions were rare and sporadic (they didn't have access to RPG's or IRDs, etc).

That is the ratio, accepted and taught in military classes - 10-1. The reason for such an excessive force being require is obvious. First off, securing and maintaining areas. Secondly, search and destroy. Thirdly, securing the populace and enforcing your "hearts and minds" policy - or converting them to your ways (were a buncha Catholics in 'nam, if you recall - or go look it up). Forthly, if you as the invader out number them by such an overwhelming amount (remember, the Pentagon advised Rummy to use 350,000 men to invade and secure Iraq - to which he guffawed. and fired or retired the nay sayers. After all, he'ld been in the Navy - secure no doubt behind some desk his Daddy had secured for him), you as the invader can win a war of attrition.

See, Westmoreland, wasn't wrong in his policy - he was wrong in his perseption of how many Charlies there were - and that the NVA could and would stand nose to nose with us (had they done it more often .... maybe we coulda stalemated. Fact is, they understood the war they wanted to fight - we understood the one we wanted too, but we had to fight their war. Not the one we wanted.) as long as it suited them, then they could simply withdraw to Cambodia, regroup, rearm, resupply, replace lost troops - and do it all again.

Same-o, Same-o. We learned nothing. Well, we did, but those that learned it are no longer allowed to voice their opinion. Somehow, the Powell Doctrine got lost in the Rummy/Bush Doctrines. Rummy's being light and fast, and inadequate to finish the goal - and Bushy's being to democratize the world (whether they want it or not).

So, remember - 10-1 ratio to defeat a guerilla force. That be it, that not be what we are doing in Iraq. Sending 120,000 men to subdue a nation of 30,000,000? Hmmmm, that is either optomism gone mad, or a madman left incharge.

KafirChobee

11-18-2005, 01:48

The idea that we must now stay in Iraq is a necessity despite everything is a dilema. But, the idea that we must stay indeffinately, never name a date or set goals for our withdrawal - is BS.

By establishing the parameters for our withdrawal, establishing REAL benchmarks (not elections, constitutions, or political ambitions) allows the Iraqi people to understand that we are there for them - and not there as an occupying force. Instead, everything is a secret - like Nixon's secret plan to withdraw from 'nam. Today the rhetoric concerning our withdrawing is based on the stability of the area (political, economic, military, and their infrastructures being restored), which we (our military presence) being there doesnot allow - simply because our very presence is a disruptive psychological and propagandic force in its self.

All nations go through periods of strife - all. Look at France, Europe for that matter today. Iraq is no different. The big fear for us, is Iraq will become an Iran - or that we (our oil companys) won't have access to those huge oil deposits in Kurdistan. A nation can not be a sovereign entity (which Iraq was prior to our invasion) while it is occupied by an uninvited army (please lets not go back to WWII about Japan and Germany, the comparrison is shameful). So what? Our greats fears - Iraq harboring terrorists, Iraq becoming the center of turmoil in the Middle-East, have already come to pass. What is losing another 2,000 or 58,000 men going to do to alter it?

By setting down a precise and detailed withdrawal strategy we can accomplish what we set out to do - liberate Iraq, and establish a new governing force. It may end up not being the style of government we envisioned - but, it will envoke the will of their people and not our politicians (all 6 of them that planned it).

We need to leave. We need to cease making excuses for our staying where we have worn out the welcome (all 2 or 3 days of it), and we need to do so gracefully this time. Sure, I can see the need for initially sending in more troops (the original numbers the Pentagon asked for - 350,000) seems reasonable - if it is for a year and no more. Even a permanent base maybe OK - if the Iraqis' want it (right now Rummy has plans for 18 permanent US bases - Haliburton is building them as we speak).

Already heard the arguement "We got to fight them there or fight them here in our streets" - 40 years ago. It flew for me then (Young and dumb, and full of vinegar), not today. Diplomacy is our only leverage, we need to begin using it. Brute force can only get you so far - especially when the opposing force begins using it as well.

Walking in big circles. Guarding, unguardable roads. Losing men for no set goal or purpose. It all sounds so damnable familiar, because it is - 40 years ago familiar.

With the advent of "Bush Fights back", I felt it was appropriate to resurrect this line of debate.

Bush is using his time honored rhertoric of: "With us or against us" (first used by Hilliary, adopted by Bush43).

"It is unpatriotic to ...........(pick any line that opposes the administrations stand on any issue, regardless of its rellovence to facts).

"We must stay the path" - and ignore all information that is counter to what we want people to believe or what the administration believes.

"Saving lives, by pulling our men out of Iraq would be counterproductive to what we are doing and going to do" - don't understand it, so .... no comment.

Point is Bush was and is wrong on all levels about Iraq. We cannot win, without a policy - and he has yet to present one that demonstrates that he and his administration have even the slightest clue as to how to create one. They seem to believe that by throwing irellevent rhetoric at the American public that, that is somehow going to solve the problem.

Today, Bush lost a number of "true believers" from his cause - Rep. Muther (ms) for one. More and more are turning against the war daily. Seems the more adament he is to preserve his imaginary policy there, the more people realize he is not the man to finish the job.

And now, things seem to be getting grim in Afghanistan ... again. Seems while he and his cronies were semi-focused on Iraq, the Taliban and AlQada have moved back in. Oh, well - what can one expect from guys that build industrial parks ... but, forget to get them electricity. Or, promise things they have no intent to keep. If the sound bite is good though, they will say it, After all, rhetoric is free.

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-18-2005, 02:15

After all, rhetoric is free.

Fortunately for you. :bow:

Xiahou

11-18-2005, 02:21

Today, Bush lost a number of "true believers" from his cause - Rep. Muther (ms) for one. More and more are turning against the war daily. Seems the more adament he is to preserve his imaginary policy there, the more people realize he is not the man to finish the job.Murtha? A true believer? He's been talking about pulling out for months... it's amusing that the papers are making so much of his pronouncement.

The sad part is, there is no way that statements like Murtha's are not giving comfort to our enemies. :no:

Red Harvest

11-18-2005, 03:30

Murtha? A true believer? He's been talking about pulling out for months... it's amusing that the papers are making so much of his pronouncement.

The sad part is, there is no way that statements like Murtha's are not giving comfort to our enemies. :no:
There is no way that bungling the conflict has not given comfort to our enemies. Statements like "Bring 'em on." "Mission Accomplished." "Axis of Evil" and calling the invasion of Afghanistan a "crusade" did nothing but hurt our cause and encourage our enemies/discourage our allies.

The approach to Iraq has been broken. If the guy in charge can't figure out how to fix it very quickly, then we need to get out.

I'm for giving them a year, no more. If the Iraqi's can't or won't get their **** together in a year they will never do so while we are there.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 04:05

Let me ask you all how do you win a war?

Reverend Joe

11-18-2005, 04:20

Let me ask you all how do you win a war?
This war? We can't.

We had a chance during Fallujah and we missed it. So, what should we have done there?

-Surround the city entirely; make sure noone can escape.
-Give the inhabitants a 72-hour ultimatum in which they can leave; they may only leave the city naked, with their hands high above their heads. They then lie down on the ground, 500 meters from the blockade line, after which they are taken prisoner.
-After 72 hours, the city is razed. Starting with the outskirts and moving in, Air forces perform a firebombing with a mixture of napalm and phosphorus. This creates a wall of fire, trapping everyone still in the city, and forcing them towards a progressivly smaller safe zone, which itself will eventually be firebombed. When the firebombing is complete, noone will be left alive, and the city will be a gigantic, abandoned testamet to the consequences of insurgency.

Or we could have just stayed out of Iraq. ~:cool:

Red Harvest

11-18-2005, 06:22

Let me ask you all how do you win a war?

Gawain, I think you are starting with the wrong question. The right question is: How do you "win" an occupation? It is far more difficult than winning the initial war. Ideally you need to set up a stable elected govt. so that occupation is no longer necessary. But you must secure the nation first, so that the transition can occur.

We never actually secured the nation. All the other plans have been hobbled by the basic security failure. That's not an invasion "war issue. It is an occupation issue. We didn't have enough people on the ground to hold *enough* areas permanently. This created a cyclical effect without permanent presense where needed. That got the insurgency rolling, and kept them rolling. Complaints about infiltration along the Syrian or Iranian borders won't fly. Those sort of issues should have been prepared for/addressed from the beginning. (You need more troops to secure long borders.)

You have to give the populace hope for an improved future and controlling their own course through supporting what you are doing. That hasn't happened, at least not among a considerable portion of the country.

Arcanum

11-18-2005, 11:07

However, we are there -- alea acta est -- and need to make it work

Not to intervene in your discussion or anything... but isn't it alea iacta est? Or alea jacta est?

- Duh.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 16:36

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Let me ask you all how do you win a war?

Since none of you seem to know I will enlighten you. Its by destroying the enemies will to fight. Now tell me whos side the dems and the press are on? Whos will to fight are they destroying. AQ must love them.

Reverend Joe

11-18-2005, 18:01

Since none of you seem to know I will enlighten you. Its by destroying the enemies will to fight.
:stare: That's what I said. You just don't want to admit I got it right because you hate me. ~:mecry:

Red Harvest

11-18-2005, 18:03

Since none of you seem to know I will enlighten you. Its by destroying the enemies will to fight. Now tell me whos side the dems and the press are on? Whos will to fight are they destroying. AQ must love them.
And whose side are you and Bush on? Your views have ENCOURAGED our enemies to fight there. I've given you some examples. You've helped these clowns whip themselves into a religious fanatacism frenzy. You don't seem to get it. AQ loves Bush, he lets them put things in a religious context. Bush is their best recruiting tool.

What's worse, you want to carry on the fight without any real plan of winning. No, it's stay the course, keep taking casualties, building ill will. You've had your time. That's what this is about. Failing to get the job done. That isn't the fault of moderates or Democrats. That is the Administration's problem and that is the problem facing the nation. Your minority might be happy dragging this out forever, but the rest of the country is dissatisfied.

The press isn't on anyone's side. That's what is really revealing about your post. You think of them as a political organ to be controlled by one side or another. No wonder you hate them so. :no:

KafirChobee

11-18-2005, 18:03

Since none of you seem to know I will enlighten you. Its by destroying the enemies will to fight. Now tell me whos side the dems and the press are on? Whos will to fight are they destroying. AQ must love them.

First let us assume that you are right, and RedHarvest is wrong - though his short and exacting dissertation rings true to me.

How is the Bush's military plan of occupation, reducing (let alone destroying) the "enemys" (of which there are now many) will to fight?

Point is, it is not. In fact the present policies encourage our enemys. Arab and Muslim men are joining the fight against us, not for a Jihad (tho some radicals are), but because we are occupying a nation illegally and under false premise. We have changed the reason for our invasion and continued occupation so many times, even most Americans are now confused about why we are there.

We don't have a prayer to "destroy their will to fight". All we accomplish by staying the course is losing more support (international) with our "go it alone" attitude. Our, right or wrong we must remain for the security of our nation (say what?) is ascew at bestm misplaced enthusiasm at worst.

One wins a war with a better plan than the enemy, not with rhetoric against those that oppose your policy (if Bush has one - aside from lets do what we did yesterday, maybe it'll work today).

The claim that dissent is the culprit behind the losing of a war is the last grasp of a disfunctional administration without a clue of how to solve the problem - other than to blame others for their failings. Had everyone just supported the war, we coulda won ..... even if our policies were wrong and our military undermanned, under equipped, and we had no clue about the mind set of the region. Assuming everyone wants to be just like America is the first error in judgement. Assuming everyone wants our style of democracy is the other. Assuming it is our war now, when it should be the Iraqis is what is wrong with the present administrations perseption of reality.

It is now up to the Iraqis to make their own peace. It is time for us to get outta the way.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 18:08

And whose side are you and Bush on? Your views have ENCOURAGED our enemies to fight there. I've given you some examples. You've helped these clowns whip themselves into a religious fanatacism frenzy. You don't seem to get it. AQ loves Bush, he lets them put things in a religious context. Bush is their best recruiting tool.

So we should never have wars then. It takes two to battle. In every war at te beggining both sides antagonize eachother and thats why they start to fight. You could claim we encouraged the Germans and swelled their army by fighting them. This is ludicrous even for you. The Germans loved Stalin . He was their best recruiting tool.

Red Harvest

11-18-2005, 18:41

So we should never have wars then. It takes two to battle. In every war at te beggining both sides antagonize eachother and thats why they start to fight. You could claim we encouraged the Germans and swelled their army by fighting them. This is ludicrous even for you. The Germans loved Stalin . He was their best recruiting tool.
What is ludicrous is going to war under false pretenses with a plan that doesn't work, then when people complain about your FAILURES as a leader saying that they are lending succor to the enemy. Poor leadership at the top is a bigger threat than the press or dissension.

Ironside

11-18-2005, 18:57

Since none of you seem to know I will enlighten you. Its by destroying the enemies will to fight. Now tell me whos side the dems and the press are on? Whos will to fight are they destroying. AQ must love them.

And what if the enemies will to fight increases by killing them? And this war isn't about destroying the enemy it's about creating a stable, democratic, pro-US or atleast not anti-US Iraq, that doesn't have half it's current population six feet under. No military might alone can make that happen (although correct use of it will certainly help).

And the complains on the media and the left is quite interesting. Put yourself in those who has opposed the war from the beginning. First you thought that the war bagan with a lie and that he goverment was bent on the war from the beginning (or you supported it first, but have later discovered that those guys might had a point).
Bad enough, but it gets worse, you're not allowed to complain about the abysmal after war-planning, the wish-thinking and incompetence of the goverment, let the goverment allow torture, questionable treatmentment of prisoners, thanks to putting them outside most laws, not investigating possible war crimes, use of disputed weapons, but no,no,no, no complaining because the morale of our troops will be hurt. If they don't know of it they'll not be hurt by it. And that's not even mentioning that the troops will know about some of it and the enemy will know even more of it.
Third, you're also supposed to help that bloke that did put you in the mess at the first place and that if you help him to succeed he'll get the credit for it, despite his subconcious efforts to ruin it all. Sure I'll help, but only after I kick his ass and put him were he desefves to be.

Basically you're saying that if you start a war and is ignoring the principles of the country you're leader for, you're still supposed to get a green-card when it comes to critics, because otherwise those critics will be on the enemies' side.

ichi

11-18-2005, 23:50

Basically you're saying that if you start a war and is ignoring the principles of the country you're leader for, you're still supposed to get a green-card when it comes to critics, because otherwise those critics will be on the enemies' side.

That's exactly what the radical Bush supporters want everyone to believe. We had the same lie stuffed down our throat in Vietnam. It damn near took a revolution then to end a misguided war, and the war hawks won't go easy this time either.

I don't have to love Bush to love my country, I don't have to support insanity in order to support the troops, I don't have to believe lies to be patriotic, and I don't have to keep my mouth shut in order to deny succour for the enemy.

Some of the greatest American heroes were men who refused to let personal hardship or popular opinion deflect them, people who insisted on standing up for their beliefs.

What's truly revealing is that if the admin had clear answers to these questions, they would provide them. They must attack the patriotism of dissenters and make other outrageous claims simply because they do not have a reasonable response.

ichi:bow:

Watchman

11-19-2005, 00:42

What was that one quote in the BI loading screens ? "Armies abroad are of little value unless there is clever counsel at home" or something like that...
QED.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 02:15

And what if the enemies will to fight increases by killing them

Then you kill some more until either their all dead or they loose their will to fight. You could easily say killing japanese in WW2 increasd their will to fight. In fact didnt we enter WW2 because some of our own were killed. This is the normal human reaction. You people live in a fantasy world. If some one punches you in the nose you hit them back. According to you as soon as your hurt you should pack it in and give up. Of course killing the enemy will piss him off and make him fight harder. This is the point. Its a matter of wills. Im afraid most liberals have no backbone for this sort of thing. War insmt pretty or easy. You cannot show weakness in the face of the enemy. This is the worst thing you can do. This is exactly what the Dems do. All they care about is regaining power at any cost. They make me wanna puke.

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 03:28

You cannot show weakness in the face of the enemy. This is the worst thing you can do.
Yet that is exactly what Bush did. Got our forces into a position without proper support, and did not reinforce them as needed to hold the areas that needed to be held. Folks have finally said, "You don't want to do what it takes to win, let's get the hell out."

They've show plenty of weakness in the face of the enemy by sticking to a broken plan.

They make me wanna puke.I'm ready to puke every time some clown drapes themselves in the flag claiming they are beyond reproach and any that oppose them oppose our troops etc. They make me wanna toss my cookies on a regular basis.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 03:32

Yet that is exactly what Bush did. Got our forces into a position without proper support, and did not reinforce them as needed to hold the areas that needed to be held. Folks have finally said, "You don't want to do what it takes to win, let's get the hell out."

Oh so now their in favor of the war? Thats news to me. In fact accordding to you now they think were not doing enough and should escalate our our force levels . Wow how did I miss that?

I'm ready to puke every time some clown drapes themselves in the flag claiming they are beyond reproach and any that oppose them oppose our troops etc. They make me wanna toss my cookies on a regular basis.

Yeah me too.

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 03:51

Oh so now their in favor of the war? Thats news to me. In fact accordding to you now they think were not doing enough and should escalate our our force levels . Wow how did I miss that?

By paying as little attention to what is really happening as Dubya I suppose. There were quite a few concerns that the effort would require far more than Dubya had budgeted or planned. Moderates pointed it out, but were shushed by Dubya and his supporters.

It is the moderates and independents that are now abandoning the Whitehouse. They were ignored for too long. The bulk of the American people have lost faith in Dubya's ability to manage the war. He's been in reactive mode for at least two years and we don't see signs of it changing. We've come to recognize that we are no longer controlling what will happen. The other problem is if you do ramp up now, could Dubya's Administration team make it work? They don't have my confidence, nor do they have the bulk of Americans' confidence.

As I've pointed out (and I'm now seeing others do the same), it is time for us to start planning to withdraw to force the Iraqi's to take responsibility for themselves. They have to start acting on their own. If they can't figure out how to do it in the next year, then it's a lost cause anyway.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 04:18

By paying as little attention to what is really happening as Dubya I suppose. There were quite a few concerns that the effort would require far more than Dubya had budgeted or planned. Moderates pointed it out, but were shushed by Dubya and his supporters.

Yup thats why I opposed this invasion from the start. I knew we didnt have the balls for it.

It is the moderates and independents that are now abandoning the Whitehouse. They were ignored for too long. The bulk of the American people have lost faith in Dubya's ability to manage the war. He's been in reactive mode for at least two years and we don't see signs of it changing.

What do you expect. Hes been under constant attack by the media and the Dems. Us conservatives have been telling him shite or get off the pot from the get go.

We've come to recognize that we are no longer controlling what will happen.

When you can control what will happen the end is near and the war is won.

The other problem is if you do ramp up now, could Dubya's Administration team make it work? They don't have my confidence, nor do they have the bulk of Americans' confidence.

Again thats the because of unrelenting attacks and his not willing to stand up to them. Hes really a wus at heart.

As I've pointed out (and I'm now seeing others do the same), it is time for us to start planning to withdraw to force the Iraqi's to take responsibility for themselves. They have to start acting on their own. If they can't figure out how to do it in the next year, then it's a lost cause anyway.

Didnt you say you wanted us to do whats needed to win. Is giving up your way of winning? I say take the gloves off , show them were serious and send in more troops. They respect strength not weakness.

Reverend Joe

11-19-2005, 04:35

Now I understand why Thompson killed himself. I am going nuts myself just listening to this banter. You two are getting nowhere.

I'm gonna go drink tequila until I pass out, and tomorrow I will feel better than either of you. (Granted, I don't get hangovers.)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 04:41

Now I understand why Thompson killed himself. I am going nuts myself just listening to this banter. You two are getting nowhere.

Yeah me and Red are great dance partners are we not? ~:joker:

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 05:11

What do you expect. Hes been under constant attack by the media and the Dems. Us conservatives have been telling him shite or get off the pot from the get go.
No you haven't, you've been backing his bogus accounts of what was needed and what was "happening."

The attempt to blame the media/democrat blame is pathetically lame. The Dems haven't had any say in things; the GOP got what they wanted. This has been the GOP show, and man have they screwed it up. The gang that couldn't shoot straight (in all its connotations.) Blaming the media for this is like watching a football coach blame the press for losing a game.

Again thats the because of unrelenting attacks and his not willing to stand up to them. Hes really a wus at heart.
He's thumbed his nose at the media from the start. Treated them as an enemy throughout. Saying he is caving to the press is a laughable suggestion.

Didnt you say you wanted us to do whats needed to win. Is giving up your way of winning? I say take the gloves off , show them were serious and send in more troops. They respect strength not weakness.
I didn't say to give up, I said to set a timetable for leaving and get out. I don't like deadlines, but with Dubya and crew, you have to do it if you want to force things to happen. Otherwise this twit will just draw us in deeper while still failing to establish any stability.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that Dubya has waited too long. He can't up the troop count substantially now, he squandered that opportunity. That gives only two choices: same-old non-working plan, or Plan B--timetable for withdrawal. When you have a working plan, you stick with it, when you have a failing plan you try something else.

The Iraqi's have to take charge of their own affairs. If they can't step up and do it, then they will have to live with the consequences. Only they can determine whether or not this is a win in the end.

The other great part about leaving is that the rest of the world has to consider what to do to protect their tails if we are not there. Too many have taken pleasure in watching our trouble. It will suddenly be in their best interest to start pulling for a successful transition. Honestly, I like the idea of making *them* squirm.

EDIT: Spelling

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 05:27

No you haven't, you've been backing his bogus accounts of what was needed and what was "happening."

No I always though we werent tough enough and that Bush really didnt have the toughness thats needed here.

The attempt to blame the media/democrat blame is pathetically lame. The Dems haven't had any say in things; the GOP got what they wanted. This has been the GOP show, and man have they screwed it up. The gang that couldn't shoot straight (in all its connotations.) Blaming the media for this is like watching a football coat blame the press for losing a game.

Only in whats reported and thats what counts. Wheres all the good news coming out of Iraq. Once more the enemy has no greater allie than people like you and the Dems. Normally when it comes to national defense your a true patriot . That is unless Bush is linked toit. Im afraid you let your hatred for him and our antagonisic relationship get in the way of reason sometimes. The US cutting and running would be one of the greatest disaters in our nations history and make the slaughter that happened after we left Nam look like a picnic.

KafirChobee

11-19-2005, 08:09

Excellent response, Red Harvest, I could not agree with you more.

The part about "the gang that couldn't shoot straight" had me on the floor - rofl, 'bout wet myself laughing (am almost that old).

It has been hard for many 'nam vets to give up on lost causes - since they served in one. Imagine, your fathers are heroes for WWII (and Korea, sorta) and you are the first generation to lose a war for America (Korea was a draw). Tough row to hoe there - unless one realizes they were put in a no win situation to begin with. Some simply can not. Blame it on seeing to many buds lose their alls, for them to justify that they died for nothing - that Mothers wept for sons spent on the ambitions of men that cared not a twit about their boys. Be what it may, it is simply a matter of not giving up on another conflict, no matter how unwinnable it is. It is a matter of .... "they did not die invain". Point is, the men that perished in Vietnam did, that is what the wall of healing is about. It is about sacrifice without victory. It is about sacrifice for one's nation, even when those in power are wrong and unwilling to stop the killing of their friends. It is about patriotism, not wrapping the flag around one and proclaiming "we gotta stays the path", but, going forward even when one is suspect of the cause; simply because it is being asked of them by their nation.

None of these things I have mentioned are understood by Bush43 and his chickenhawk (hemroid suffering) compradres.

Gawain, at some point I hope (honestly compadre) that you can reconcile the events that shaped you in 'nam with the reality of what it was. And, what supporting our fubar in Iraq is. When I finally realized all my buds that died in 'nam was for not .... (late 1969) I wept, first for them, then for me, then for my stupidity in believing it (and again for them - though, it is a good thing dying and believing it has purpose .... even if you are screaming for your mommy to come fix the scratch that kills you).

Bush's advisors need to go away. He needs fresh ideas on how to handle our withdrawal - which I understand he (someone in his administration, probably Chenney) has already asked the pentagon to create a plan for. Thing is, we don't need to lose another 2,000+ boys and girls to prove anything. What we need to do, is begin the real war on terror - not feed it.

We need a plan for withdrawal. NOW! please.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 08:25

When I finally realized all my buds that died in 'nam was for not .... (late 1969) I wept, first for them, then for me, then for my stupidity in believing it (and again for them - though, it is a good thing dying and believing it has purpose .... even if you are screaming for your mommy to come fix the scratch that kills you).

Heres where we part. I blame the spinless here for our loss and I will again if it happens. You know as well as I that soldiers like you and I sure didnt loose that war mate. The only ones who can defeat America are Americans.

ichi

11-19-2005, 08:55

Is it a lack of spine to deny support to a bad plan?

I think not, I think most Americans love a winner, and would support a realistic and achievable plan. They won't tolerate incompetence.

Most Americans were willing to support the current effort, the reason they are shifting now isn't cowardice or stupidity or a lack of patriotism, its cause they see that the leadership isn't desving of their support.

I know I am glad that a brutal dictator has been overthrown, and I'd like nothing more than to see peace and stability and democracy in the Middle East. That is not a logical outcome of the current venture, so I say either fix it or get out. That's what Murtha has been saying. Its what a lot of people said in the late 60's about Vietnam, and when we failed to correcto ur mistakes anti-war sentiment grew until it overwhelmed the guv's capacity to endeavor to continue the war.

ichi:bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 09:01

I think not, I think most Americans love a winner, and would support a realistic and achievable plan. realistic and achievable plan.

We have a realistic and achievable plan.

They won't tolerate incompetence.
.

Then how do Democrats get elected? ~D

Most Americans were willing to support the current effort, the reason they are shifting now isn't cowardice or stupidity or a lack of patriotism, its cause they see that the leadership isn't desving of their support.

Because just like Nam all they hear night after night is how were losing.

I know I am glad that a brutal dictator has been overthrown, and I'd like nothing more than to see peace and stability and democracy in the Middle East. That is not a logical outcome of the current venture, so I say either fix it or get out. That's what Murtha has been saying. Its what a lot of people said in the late 60's about Vietnam, and when we failed to correcto ur mistakes anti-war sentiment grew until it overwhelmed the guv's capacity to endeavor to continue the war.

As all us conservatives have been saying all along the libs would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam and return them to power. We have been proven correct. They care more about taking power than the good of America and its people. Again Im disgusted.

ichi

11-19-2005, 09:16

We have a realistic and achievable plan.

We don't have enough men to secure the borders, we are losing the trust and support of the people (they won't turn the insurgents over to us), we don't control anything more than a handful of bases, we don't control the streets, and we are failing to get the Iraqis ready to take control. Combined with a decrease in oil production, a crazy unemployment rate, and increasing Islamic fundamentalism and tribal war, we clearly don't have anything more than a dream.

Then how do Democrats get elected? ~D

Usually when the people get sick of the lies and abuses of the Republicans. Current events case in point.

Because just like Nam all they hear night after night is how were losing.

Like Vietnam they hear objective reporting, not government propaganda. Westmoreland was keen on body counts and making a big deal out of taking a hill, but it was the press that kept us informed about the fact that after we killed one insurgent, another two took his place, and after we took the hill, we left it for the enemy to reclaim.

As all us conservatives have been saying all along the libs would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam and return them to power. We have been proven correct. They care more about taking power than the good of America and its people. Again Im disgusted.

Or could it be that we have real concerns, that we care less about power and more about the truth, about our country. You're so convinced this is a power grab, when I see it as honest and objective desire to do the right thing.

I would like nothing more than for us to be succesful in Iraq, but nothing supports that hope. I would love to see democracy established and peace flourish and all those poor Iraqis find jobs and stop killing one another. I'd love to see the steam taken out of radical Islam, and for the US to have been successful. But its not happening and it doesn't appear to have a chance of happening, so some of us are being more vocal about our concerns.

In payment we get labelled as anti-American and unpatriotic and more interested in making Bush look bad no matter what it means for our country. So you're wrong about at least one of us, maybe you're wrong about a lot more. So its a direct insult and akin to me telling you that you don't care about American lives being lost, so long as Bush is proven right.

ichi

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 09:42

As all us conservatives have been saying all along the libs would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam and return them to power.
That is just insulting and infantile, in effect calling everyone who disagrees with Bush's failure a bunch of traitors.

We have been proven correct.
No, you've been proven incompetent. Incompetent at running a war, incompetent at running a govt, incompetent at international diplomacy, and incompetent at any sort of fiscal planning. And of course, incapable of taking responsibility for your mistakes. It's all Clinton's fault I'm sure. ~:rolleyes:

They care more about taking power than the good of America and its people. Again Im disgusted. Funny, that's what 60% of the country is saying about those in charge right now.

This isn't about that buffoon in office. It's about cleaning up the mess. He's roadkill already. What matters now is what do we do in spite of him for the next several years.

Ironside

11-19-2005, 11:19

Then you kill some more until either their all dead or they loose their will to fight. You could easily say killing japanese in WW2 increasd their will to fight. In fact didnt we enter WW2 because some of our own were killed. This is the normal human reaction. You people live in a fantasy world. If some one punches you in the nose you hit them back. According to you as soon as your hurt you should pack it in and give up. Of course killing the enemy will piss him off and make him fight harder. This is the point. Its a matter of wills. Im afraid most liberals have no backbone for this sort of thing. War insmt pretty or easy. You cannot show weakness in the face of the enemy. This is the worst thing you can do. This is exactly what the Dems do. All they care about is regaining power at any cost. They make me wanna puke.

The problem is that you don't have the strength to truly beat you're enemy and still achive your goals. Not enough boots on the ground, and/or not enough intel/population support.

You're trapped in a situation you cannot win, unless the enemy is static and continues the same way as now and dying 20 to 1. They don't, as the mosque bombs yesterday showed (if you're lucky this will help you, unlucky and the civil war will break out).

But on the other hand you cannot lose without the loss of support at home (you're correct in this), but as it is now, are you willing to endure this situation until 2020?
When would you have won in Vietnam from the limitations set up there (to prevent a possible WW3)? 1975? 1980? 1990? 2000?

We have a realistic and achievable plan.
Care to inform us of Bush's plan?

And I agree that the US troops are the glue that keep Iraq together, but what brilliant plan does Bush got to make the American glue un-needed?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 16:32

We don't have enough men to secure the borders, we are losing the trust and support of the people (they won't turn the insurgents over to us), we don't control anything more than a handful of bases, we don't control the streets, and we are failing to get the Iraqis ready to take control.

You see even you believe the lies.

Like Vietnam they hear objective reporting

Objective reporting my ass.

Or could it be that we have real concerns, that we care less about power and more about the truth, about our country

Your libertarian cover is finally blown. Its just the opposite. I havent seen a word of truth in your post yet. But I won call you a liar like many call Bush. Your just mistaken and havent got all the information.

I would like nothing more than for us to be succesful in Iraq, but nothing supports that hope. I would love to see democracy established and peace flourish and all those poor Iraqis find jobs and stop killing one another. I'd love to see the steam taken out of radical Islam, and for the US to have been successful. But its not happening and it doesn't appear to have a chance of happening, so some of us are being more vocal about our concerns.

Again with people like you around in WW2 we would have lost. You people just dont have the stomach for a fight unless someones holding a gun to your head it seems. You better wake up soon and face reality.

In payment we get labelled as anti-American and unpatriotic

Ill just label you naive.

That is just insulting and infantile, in effect calling everyone who disagrees with Bush's failure a bunch of traitors.

I didnt call them traitors but I bet if Linclon were president they would be in jail.

No, you've been proven incompetent. Incompetent at running a war, incompetent at running a govt, incompetent at international diplomacy, and incompetent at any sort of fiscal planning. And of course, incapable of taking responsibility for your mistakes. It's all Clinton's fault I'm sure

By who you?

The problem is that you don't have the strength to truly beat you're enemy and still achive your goals. Not enough boots on the ground, and/or not enough intel/population support.

So then you fix it you dont give up.

You're trapped in a situation you cannot win, unless the enemy is static and continues the same way as now and dying 20 to 1. They don't, as the mosque bombs yesterday showed (if you're lucky this will help you, unlucky and the civil war will break out).

Well then we should all just covert to radical Islam today before more lives are lost.

Care to inform us of Bush's plan?

Prety simple. Stabilise Iraq to the point where their government can hold its own.

And I agree that the US troops are the glue that keep Iraq together, but what brilliant plan does Bush got to make the American glue un-needed?

Again make the Iraqis strong enough to protect themselves.

Watchman

11-19-2005, 19:50

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 20:07

Prety simple. Stabilise Iraq to the point where their government can hold its own.

Again make the Iraqis strong enough to protect themselves.
Same plan as Vietnam, isn't it?

The first part to stabilizing it would be securing it. That never happened. Two and a half years later and it still isn't secure, NOR DOES IT SHOW ANY SIGNS OF BECOMING SO. (And you wonder why folks are down on the whole venture? Anyone with more than a dozen brain cells can see this is a problem, and one that can't just be wished away.) Investment isn't happening, unemployment is 60%. A country with that high of unemployment will not be stable. It's a catch 22 now, we can't get employment up because we can't secure the place.

So you want to blame the press? The press haven't been responsible for securing the country.

As Kafir mentioned, we keep hearing how we've "turned a corner" and now it appears that we've come full "square" to our starting point.

ichi

11-19-2005, 20:24

You see even you believe the lies.

Sorry, mate, its you who has bought into a lie. All of the things I stated are true, and you can't come up with anything better than to insult me.

Objective reporting my ass.

In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the press gives us much more objective info that our guv does. How about prohibiting photos of coffins? Remember Tet? We had been hearing that 'Nam was almost over, we had almost won, when they damn near destabilized us overnight.

Your libertarian cover is finally blown. Its just the opposite. I havent seen a word of truth in your post yet. But I won call you a liar like many call Bush. Your just mistaken and havent got all the information.

Thanks for not calling me a liar. Since you want to simply bicker, I'll bite. You're the misguided one who fails to acknowledge the available info. And I'm still a libertarian~:cool:

Again with people like you around in WW2 we would have lost. You people just dont have the stomach for a fight unless someones holding a gun to your head it seems. You better wake up soon and face reality.

I have a long history as a fighter, and won't take these baseless jabs at me lying down. Gawain, you've lost it here, attempting to bully and insult when faced with facts. This indicates to me that you have notihng else to say in this matter, no facts or real arguments, just attack and criticize and sling mud. Weak. I relish a good fight, have more stomach than you can imagine (remember I lead men into life-threatening situations every day, and well known for my ability to do so safely yet aggressively). I am facing reality, you've got your head in a bucket of sand.

Ill just label you naive.

Yes, for thinking we could have a real debate without you making it personal.

ichi:bow:

Geoffrey S

11-19-2005, 20:31

Is it a lack of spine to deny support to a bad plan?
No; but it was lack of spine for the Democrats to so blindly dance to Bush's tune when it came to invading Iraq on bad evidence and without a decent plan. Whatever else may have been done or said before or after the Iraq war, at this one point where many Democrat representatives should have thought for themselves they failed miserably, with few exceptions; whatever else they have to offer now is always going to be tainted by that one act of cowardice. So much for credible opposition.

ichi

11-19-2005, 20:47

No; but it was lack of spine for the Democrats to so blindly dance to Bush's tune when it came to invading Iraq on bad evidence and without a decent plan. Whatever else may have been done or said before or after the Iraq war, at this one point where many Democrat representatives should have thought for themselves they failed miserably, with few exceptions; whatever else they have to offer now is always going to be tainted by that one act of cowardice. So much for credible opposition.

Failure to act honorably in the past should never be seen as a valid reason to fail to act honorably today.

ichi:bow:

Geoffrey S

11-19-2005, 21:07

Failure to act honorably in the past should never be seen as a valid reason to fail to act honorably today.

ichi:bow:
Most certainly not; but failure to act honourably in the past does lead to questions about one's true intentions today, and often tends to show someone's true colours. If for instance more Democrat representatives had stood up for themselves before in an honest and consistent fashion it would have removed many doubts as to what they really want, and accusations about their credibility would be less likely to stick.

ichi

11-19-2005, 21:33

Most certainly not; but failure to act honourably in the past does lead to questions about one's true intentions today, and often tends to show someone's true colours. If for instance more Democrat representatives had stood up for themselves before in an honest and consistent fashion it would have removed many doubts as to what they really want, and accusations about their credibility would be less likely to stick.

Maybe, but we'll never know. My guess is that the radical right would be screaming "see, they never wanted us in there, now they're looking to find any excuse they can to prove they were right"

In American partisan power politics and the propoganda war you can't win, so the only thing to do is to try to keep the high ground. After 9/11 and the Bush war machines very successful war-mongering, it was almost political suicide for most politicians to oppose the war.

I'm less worried about who said what or who supported whom or any recriminations about the past, and more interested in doing the best thnig today to help get out of this mess with some sort of success

One parellel between Vietnam and Iraq that few have mentioned is the similarity between the incompetent regime we supported in Vietnam and the current approach to Iraq. The government of Iraq will be helpless in the face of civil unrest, terrorism, and militias. Remember it was American policy not to disarm the militias in Iraq, and now we have established a number of tribal warlords with no fidelity to the central guv. Recipe for disaster. We do more to restrict gun ownership in the US than we do in Iraq.

ichi:bow:

ichi

Geoffrey S

11-19-2005, 21:38

I'm less worried about who said what or who supported whom or any recriminations about the past, and more interested in doing the best thnig today to help get out of this mess with some sort of success.
On this, I agree completely.:bow:

Ironside

11-19-2005, 23:16

Well then we should all just covert to radical Islam today before more lives are lost.

Ooohh, very wittty. ~:rolleyes:
Do you know why you cannot win? Because you got the doctrine of simply defening yourself until the enemy runs out of men to charge against your machine guns. This is due to lack of men, lack of risk-takeing and not enough winning the hearts of the people. And only a fool will lose themself against that doctrine.

You're doing D-day with 2000 men and is devoted to not losing any of them. The only way it'll work is to convince the German army to lay down their weapons or even join you. Currently the Germans don't seem to be planning on doing that.

Prety simple. Stabilise Iraq to the point where their government can hold its own.

Again make the Iraqis strong enough to protect themselves.

That's, that's brilliant, why didn't I think of that? ~;p

My plan of unite the world is to find out a kiss-ass political system.
As it's so superior, all democratic nations will join up and because it works better the closer nations works together it will encurage very close cooperation. Then you'll vitalize poor nations economy one by one, that to this exellent system, so that they'll join up too. The dictorships is harder, but as this point your brilliant system will be known inside those to, so with a little "push" on the opposition and giving a backdoor for the dictators (you can take care of those later) you'll get control of the dictorship too.

The point of this?
It's better thought through than the above statements as they even contains a how and not only the given statement (unite the world through a political system).

Come on Gawain, you can better than this.

Grey_Fox

11-20-2005, 01:44

Gawain, why the hell do you call Ichi, Ichi for Christ's sake, a spineless coward just because he makes more sense than you? He never insulted you once, yet you think that just because he wasn't in Vietnam, disagrees with you and merely runs into burning buildings makes him a coward?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-20-2005, 04:17

Gawain, why the hell do you call Ichi, Ichi for Christ's sake, a spineless coward just because he makes more sense than you
I never called him a coward. Nor would I ever. His attitude is what Im speaking of. I dont say we would loose because he was a coward I know better than that. We would loose because we as a people have lost our will to stick things out over any long period of time. If the republicans had treated FDR this what I cant imagine what would hppen. Theres only one way we can loose and thats to give up hope.

I have a long history as a fighter, and won't take these baseless jabs at me lying down. Gawain, you've lost it here, attempting to bully and insult when faced with facts.

Again Im not calling you spineless or misquided or attempting to bully and insult you. Im saying you have a defeatest attitude like most of the libs. Things looked far worsse for us in WW2 but we didnt give up. And the republicans didnt try to undercut FDR to regain power by saying were loosing. Also you gave no facts and your statments were not correct as far as I know. From what I hear most of Iraq is fairly secure.

You're doing D-day with 2000 men and is devoted to not losing any of them. The only way it'll work is to convince the German army to lay down their weapons or even join you. Currently the Germans don't seem to be planning on doing that.

What a ludicrous anaology.As I said then you send in more men and you never go in with the idea that your not going to loose any.

Red Harvest

11-20-2005, 05:10

Your libertarian cover is finally blown. Its just the opposite.

Gawain, you wouldn't know a libertarian from a camel's hump. You've been 100% modern GOP Conservative in your views. That ain't libertarian. ~:joker:

KafirChobee

11-20-2005, 06:56

Gawain of Orkeny

11-20-2005, 07:11

Gawain, you wouldn't know a libertarian from a camel's hump. You've been 100% modern GOP Conservative in your views. That ain't libertarian

You couldnt be more wrong. Maybe if the GOP actually did what it stands for I would be. Im for far more liberty and less government. I think were being oppressed no matter which party is in power. I personally have had about enough of seeing our freedoms flushed down the toilet. Once more its only that the GOP at least in its rehtoric is far closer to my views then the democrats. You wouldnt know a libertarian if you stared one in the face. This you have made obvious. I claim to be a conservative first. This is where you fall down. You cant admit your a liberal at heart . At least on social matters.

ichi

11-20-2005, 08:33

Even though things looked bad in WWII, we had a plan that made sense and had a possibility of success. In the current situation we have no real correlation between our actions and our goals. I have the will to stick things out, but not to continue when the situation is untenable. That's when I regroup and fix the problems. Simply staying the course is bound for failure.

And that's where you miss the point. You're so quick to ascribe lack of will when the real issue is that objectively, we are failing and show no indications of correcting the problems.

and perhaps you don't mean to insult those who disagree, but when you reply to a post of mine with crazy talk like 'you people don't have the stomach for a fight' you are insulting and just plain wrong.

When you say

We would loose because we as a people have lost our will to stick things out over any long period of time. I can understand, even agree. But that's not what you said the first go around, and what you said pushed the limits.

ichi:bow:

Ironside

11-20-2005, 10:29

What a ludicrous anaology.As I said then you send in more men and you never go in with the idea that your not going to loose any.

You have noticed that I've supported more men in there from the beginning have you? ~:rolleyes: Admittebly not so vocal about it in the beginning, as I feared that a quick solution would end up in us debating about those 400.000 US soldiers in Iran.

No, but you can go in with the intension to minimize casualities for your own side, and if you're to short with men, then you can chose to use few men to cover much ground, at the cost of safety, or use the safer alternative with larger troops concentrations covering less ground.

Currently the second alternative is used in Iraq (and that's the most common to anyway). And you can't have less casualities than 0 ~;p

KafirChobee

11-20-2005, 18:19

Kafir, your einstien quote is incomplete. It goes:

"Only two things are infinite: The Universe, and Human Stupidity, and I am not so sure about the former."

Thx, Cube - I know, somehow I musta deleted the ending and never noticed ... 'til now. ~:rolleyes: Thx again.

Red Harvest

11-20-2005, 18:46

You couldnt be more wrong. Maybe if the GOP actually did what it stands for I would be. Im for far more liberty and less government. I think were being oppressed no matter which party is in power. I personally have had about enough of seeing our freedoms flushed down the toilet. Once more its only that the GOP at least in its rehtoric is far closer to my views then the democrats. You wouldnt know a libertarian if you stared one in the face. This you have made obvious. I claim to be a conservative first. This is where you fall down. You cant admit your a liberal at heart . At least on social matters.
Your alignment has been 100% conservative not libertarian. It also happens to be right there squarely on the GOP extreme right wing. You conveniently ignore any social aspects of libertarianism and endorse the exact opposite. Yet you claim to be libertarian. So it is really funny when you try to claim someone else is not libertarian as if your view represented "real libertarianism." Perhaps you need a consumer warning sticker: "Warning--contents do not match the label." ~:joker: Afterall, the view you seem to support with respect to dissent and desire for single party rule (GOP, not libertarian) is almost fascist. :knight:

It is ironic that I have a more libertarian view than you on social matters. However, overall I don't buy into the libertarian, liberal or conservative dogma. I believe in facets of each but see each ideology as badly flawed. I would prefer to take bits from them: Progressive fits better, and independent is probably the easiest and widest appropriate description. But if given a choice of the only two labels that seem to be allowed ~:rolleyes: , I'll take liberal over conservative at the moment. ~;p However, I would prefer to have a label that actually identified the contents, rather than using the errant ones you are so proficient with. ~D

Gawain of Orkeny

11-20-2005, 22:50

You have noticed that I've supported more men in there from the beginning have you?

I certainly was and still am. Ive always said if we are going to put our troops in harms way give them more than they need. The first thing they teach you in the Marines is never half step. In other words if your going to do something do it right the first time. You go in and kick ass and take names. You use everything you have.

Your alignment has been 100% conservative not libertarian

Ive always maintained that Im a conservative first.

It also happens to be right there squarely on the GOP extreme right wing

Really. They were against invading Iraq? I align myself more with Buchannon than Bush.

You conveniently ignore any social aspects of libertarianism and endorse the exact opposite.

How convenient you ignore many of my posititons. Im in favor of legalising drugs and prostitution. I want the government out of the marriage bussiness. I want to abolish the federal income tax. These qualify me as a libertarian. I could list many more examples of my libertarian leanings. Now show me an example of anything other than liberal postitions you have on these matters. Actually you could call me more of a strict constitutionalist.

Do me a favor ask around. You will find that most here actually consider me a fairly moderate conservative and a libertatrian. I just back our troops 100%. Ive been where they are now and cant stand to see the samething happen to us again.

Ironside

11-21-2005, 12:00

Do me a favor ask around. You will find that most here actually consider me a fairly moderate conservative and a libertatrian. I just back our troops 100%. Ive been where they are now and cant stand to see the samething happen to us again.

But the question you need to ask yourself is:

Is the current situation mostly the fault of the goverment or the media and the left? And we're talking realistically.
And if you feel that it's the second alternative, develop it. Got the reasons for the first one quite covered myself.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-21-2005, 17:01

Is the current situation mostly the fault of the goverment or the media and the left?

Depends on what you call the current situtation. You cant assign blame to just one . Ill let my favorite Democrat address the situtation.

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there."
--Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

If only more democrats were patriots like he instead of only interested in lies and power. A little common sense can go a long way. Bush didnt make this up on his own no matter how hard some try to make it so.

Xiahou

11-21-2005, 17:13

At least Lieberman seems to get it. If more Democrats espoused some common sense like him, Republicans would have something to worry about in the next elections.

Ironside

11-21-2005, 18:41

Depends on what you call the current situtation. You cant assign blame to just one.

The current situation is the following: After some war-mongering about Iraq from the Bushies (better covered by me earlier), the USA falls for it and the war begins. Bush decides to make this a war "light" and send in to few men, with the cost of the first step to stability: Security. You're not able to do the second phase, rebulding well if you lack security. The security problem continues to be a big issue, even now. No proper counter-meassures.
The what I suspect was a gamble strikes wrong, no active WMD projects in Iraq, so media is having a field day of it. The media continues to have a fieldday on more suspected activities by the goverment. 2 years later, a large percentage of the US public is fed up with the situation in Iraq and wants to end it.

IMO the media hunt is more a symtom of the problems the goverment have created and still creates and don't forget that the media "always" report bad news. Been that for years. The left have been consistant throughout the conflict and the currently weak democrats can only survive by being not Bush.

Basically you're shooting the messangers, because you complain about the bad news.

If only more democrats were patriots like he instead of only interested in lies and power. A little common sense can go a long way.
Yep you're correct about the democrats, but you're forgetting that your current powerholders is ATLEAST as bad. The problem is that thanks to Mr. Bush the Iraqi war is treated as a political game by both sides. Bush will never, ever admit that he's wrong and ask for help, while the opposition will never, ever help Bush, unless he's crawling to the cross (and questionable even then). To solve this you'll need to atleast remove Bush. ~D

And about those "cut-and-run":ers, they are suggesting a solution for this deadlock, while not pretty has some advantages. If US stays in Iraq until 2015 and 150.000 Americans die, who was thinking of the troops? You or they? They're (well some of them) caring of the troops aswell, only not in the way you care about them.

Bush didnt make this up on his own no matter how hard some try to make it so.

He certainly did make this up on his own (well that includes those around him), but by some reason most decided to play along.

ichi

11-21-2005, 18:48

The current situation is the following: After some war-mongering about Iraq from the Bushies (better covered by me earlier), the USA falls for it and the war begins. Bush decides to make this a war "light" and send in to few men, with the cost of the first step to stability: Security. You're not able to do the second phase, rebulding well if you lack security. The security problem continues to be a big issue, even now. No proper counter-meassures.
The what I suspect was a gamble strikes wrong, no active WMD projects in Iraq, so media is having a field day of it. The media continues to have a fieldday on more suspected activities by the goverment. 2 years later, a large percentage of the US public is fed up with the situation in Iraq and wants to end it.

IMO the media hunt is more a symtom of the problems the goverment have created and still creates and don't forget that the media "always" report bad news. Been that for years. The left have been consistant throughout the conflict and the currently weak democrats can only survive by being not Bush.

Basically you're shooting the messangers, because you complain about the bad news.

Yep you're correct about the democrats, but you're forgetting that your current powerholders is ATLEAST as bad. The problem is that thanks to Mr. Bush the Iraqi war is treated as a political game by both sides. Bush will never, ever admit that he's wrong and ask for help, while the opposition will never, ever help Bush, unless he's crawling to the cross (and questionable even then). To solve this you'll need to atleast remove Bush. ~D

And about those "cut-and-run":ers, they are suggesting a solution for this deadlock, while not pretty has some advantages. If US stays in Iraq until 2015 and 150.000 Americans die, who was thinking of the troops? You or they? They're (well some of them) caring of the troops aswell, only not in the way you care about them.

He certainly did make this up on his own (well that includes those around him), but by some reason most decided to play along.

Thanks Ironside, saved me a lot of typing

ichi:bow:

Watchman

11-21-2005, 21:56

That Lieberman fellow seems to suffer for curiously picky amnesia; to my knowledge (and what them books tell) that particular "hater of the United States of America" was one of their more earnest cooperators in the region until the Kuwait thing...

Funny how people like to forget little things like that. ~:rolleyes:

yesdachi

11-21-2005, 23:36

A little common sense can go a long way. Bush didnt make this up on his own no matter how hard some try to make it so.
You are completely right about that Gawain. It is funny what short memories some people have. Or maybe some people just didn’t know because they weren’t paying attention to news in the US some 7 years ago.

The President doesn’t do anything that the people don’t want and clearly from all the medias encouraging coverage (20+ articles in the NY Times alone focusing on Iraq’s WMD’s and terrorists and mass torture and murders etc.) and positive polls that were taken all the way back before the time between the start of the Afgan war and the start of the war with Iraq the people wanted to go after Saddam and Iraq. The president initiated the proposal after reading the temperature of the people and Congress approved it, even lame democrats like H. Clinton and J. Kerry approved it because they were doing what the people wanted.

If enough people, voting US citizens, wanted to stop with Afghanistan then the US would have but “WE” wanted Iraq and Saddam’s head too. And we got it along with a whole big mess we had no idea we would have with terrorists and insurgents and whatever but the best course is to finish what we started and admit we acted without thinking the whole thing thru and be sure to plan better in the future. We started it hastily but we need to finish it correctly. And by finishing it correctly I mean stomping out the remaining insurgents and strengthening a pro peace and democracy government that will spread freedom and security and not hate and terrorism. It is happening but slowly. In hindsight there would have been better ways to go about it but we have committed to going in one direction and it would be detrimental to change course.

The situation in Iraq is of major importance to the future of the US and we need to be there, I don’t trust soldiers from other middle east countries to secure Iraq and I don’t trust the new Iraq military to do it yet either. We need to be there until the situation is completely under control. :knight:

KafirChobee

11-24-2005, 06:06

In TIME, 29Nov05 - "Getting the Lowdown on Iraq"

This is a brief summary and opinion, so if you want to read it gor to Time and read it.

""If the Republican Chairman (Virginia's John Warner, and a couple Dems - Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota) wants to get a second opinion on how the war is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the brassthis time - but to 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner wanted what the military calls "ground truth" - the unvarnished (political spin) story of what's going on in Iraq."

"We wanted the view from the men who had been the tip of the spear, and we got it"

'The Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer, "there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq"; they said the following:

1) That they not only need more boots on the ground, and have repeatedly asked for them. They have been flatly turned down the men they need to complete their missions. [note: is a quick way to end one's military career by asking for more of what Rummy has said was a plenty - Rummy no likie being wrong. For that matter no one in the administration has to date ever admitted to being wrong about anything. They're batting 1,000 in their minds.]

2) Because there are not enough troops the battalion commanders have to "leap frog" their troops around Iraq to attempt to keep the insurgents out of previously 'secured' areas.

End report.
======================================================

The other day two retired Lt. Generals (one USMC, other Army) had at it on the NewsHour over our pulling out. The USMC kept trying to justify the "Tow the Line, Stay the Path agenda of the administration, but he also kept agreeing with the Army (Odom?) that we were now simply caught in a civil war and that we had done more good for Iran than we had ourselves (USA). Army said, screw it we done our worst and it can only get worse - bring the boys home and let the Iraqis work it out (and Iranians, alQuaeda, Taliban, Shiites, Sunni, etc). We created the mess, we can't do any more and our remaining there is a destabilizing factor. The Marine (of course) took the possition of the administration - to leave now would ... this that and a nother thing. None of which are truely predictable.

The things that are predictable by our remaining:
1) we bolster the stature of Iran, and solidify their posture in the area.
2) we allienate more middle-eastern youth and encourage them to join the radical jihadists of the region in their jihad against us. It is like the radicals in America in the 60's of America - it becomes the thing to do.
3) now that we have created a home for alQuaeda they will expand to other regions faster, smarter and possibly with the support of even more people that were once considered moderates. In other words the more we persecute the innocent the less like we are, the more the innocense report to other they were tortured, the more disliked we become.

Bottom line; it's their country, let them build (re-) their nation. I realize we have this great fear of Ayatollas, but maybe it is time for us to re-learn diplomacy and rehone our negotiation skills. After all we are being led by the C.E.O. Administration, they should know how to get the cooperation of others. Unless, of course, they gained their prior business possitions thru being bullying (or their Daddys).

solypsist

11-24-2005, 06:29

Gawain of Orkeny

11-24-2005, 08:06

So:

- 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave
- 60% of the American people want us to leave
- The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable for withdrawl
- Most Democrats want use to leave
- The rest of the world seems to want us to leave

The only people who seem to want us to stay are the Republicans

What a load of hogwash. Did you check the vote on us withdrawing? You know as well as I do that the last thing the Iraqis want either is to have us pullout now. Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you. Heck even I want us to leave and so does Bush.

Red Harvest

11-24-2005, 08:16

The President doesn’t do anything that the people don’t want and clearly from all the medias encouraging coverage (20+ articles in the NY Times alone focusing on Iraq’s WMD’s and terrorists and mass torture and murders etc.)
You probably aren't aware of this, but Judtih Miller was behind some of that reporting in the NYT. She got canned because of the problems with her reports on WMD's prior to and during the war that were discredited (the former fed to her by the Admin) and her Scooter related actions. The NYT called it a retirement, but they wanted her gone.

That's why Scooter used her...he though she was enough of a schmuck to play along.

What is really amusing is that several members of the Administration pointed to her articles back in the run up as further indications of WMD's...despite her being fed the info from their staff. Stinks to high heaven. ~:rolleyes:

Yes, we were fooled as a nation, but the ones orchestrating the deceit were in the Whitehouse. I accept my share of the blame, but the Whitehouse won't accept theirs, which is far more substantial.

Red Harvest

11-24-2005, 08:28

What a load of hogwash. Did you check the vote on us withdrawing? You know as well as I do that the last thing the Iraqis want either is to have us pullout now. Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you. Heck even I want us to leave and so does Bush.
Gawain's World! :thrasher: :elephant: :cheerleader: Gawain's World! :thrasher: :elephant: :cheerleader:

The vote was a stunt. The polls do show that Americans want to get out. It is the Republicans who don't want to. There is a growing division between republicans and the rest: moderates, independents, and democrats.

Franconicus

11-24-2005, 09:25

Gawain's world ~:joker:

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

11-24-2005, 11:42

Christ. Gawain, you sound just like those German right-wingers after WW1 who blamed the defeat on "dagger in the back", moral failure on the home front and God knows what else except bad strategy, leadership, sheer overwhelming odds or about any of the *actual* reasons.

Don't you even notice ?

I don't think he does... It also reminded me of those French militaries that won the war in Algeria but were betrayed by the people and politicians...

You shall have read a debate a long time ago about whether the US had won or lost the Vietnam war. It was... ~:eek:

Louis,

Gawain of Orkeny

11-24-2005, 16:08

The vote was a stunt

Murth and the dems are the ones pulling the stunt. When they were call on it the chickened out.

The polls do show that Americans want to get out.

Of course they do. Who in their right mind doesnt want us out?

It is the Republicans who don't want to.

No they feel the same as most others. Again the dems just voted to stay. Spin it all you like.
http://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gifhttp://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gifhttp://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gif

yesdachi

11-24-2005, 17:25

You probably aren't aware of this, but Judtih Miller was behind some of that reporting in the NYT. She got canned because of the problems with her reports on WMD's prior to and during the war that were discredited (the former fed to her by the Admin) and her Scooter related actions. The NYT called it a retirement, but they wanted her gone.

That's why Scooter used her...he though she was enough of a schmuck to play along.

What is really amusing is that several members of the Administration pointed to her articles back in the run up as further indications of WMD's...despite her being fed the info from their staff. Stinks to high heaven. ~:rolleyes:

Yes, we were fooled as a nation, but the ones orchestrating the deceit were in the Whitehouse. I accept my share of the blame, but the Whitehouse won't accept theirs, which is far more substantial.
Excellent point Red Harvest.:bow: I do know a little about Judith Miller and the controversy that makes several of her stories questionable but there are many other stories from the Times and other major papers and newscasters (some, no-doubt inspired by what the Times was doing) that fueled the public to want war with Iraq.

It does have a stink to it but I am not so sure it was the Whitehouse “orchestrating” it, it just naturally oozes from there~D . Seriously though they don’t seem to be too good at orchestrating much and the fact that war sells and everyone likes ratings (and hates Saddam) makes Iraq coverage a no-brainer. I don’t think the media needed the Whitehouse to encourage them, although I am sure they didn’t mind. But don’t get me wrong, I am not blaming the media, it was a combination of things including a long history of us wanting to kick Saddam’s arse that brought about the war.~:)

Tribesman

11-24-2005, 21:27

Gawain of Orkeny

11-26-2005, 01:30

Have you seen these polls?

Polls Show Mixed Views on Politics

Recent polling data by the Cook Political Report from the National Journal shows that Americans are not enamored with calls by Democrats for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops from Iraq.

Further, a separate Harris Poll shows Americans are less supportive of congressional Democrats than they are of President Bush or congressional Republicans.

68 percent of respondents in the Cook poll said Democratic criticisms of Bush’s policies in Iraq hurt troop morale. Only 14 percent said it helps.

52 percent said Democratic criticism was an attempt to gain political advantage rather than to help US efforts in Iraq. 30 percent thought the criticism would help.

50 percent thought the US should withdraw troops as Iraq meets its goals. 29 percent said they should be withdrawn according to a publicly available timetable for withdrawal. Only 15 percent advocated an immediate withdrawal regardless of impact.
The poll numbers suggest that the Bush administration’s effort to re-engage the debate over pre-war intelligence and the general direction of the war in Iraq is working to the president’s advantage.

The most recent Harris poll shows that, while Americans still give negative ratings to the president and congressional Republicans, they give even worse ratings to congressional Democrats.

In the poll conducted from November 8 to November 13, 34 percent of respondents gave the president a positive job approval rating. 65 percent gave a negative rating.

27 percent gave a positive rating to Republicans in Congress. 69 percent gave a negative rating.

25 percent gave a positive rating to Democrats in Congress. 70 percent gave a negative rating.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the only political figure to enjoy positive polling numbers. 52 percent gave Rice a positive job approval rating, while 41 percent gave a negative rating.

The dems just cant seem to win no matter what they do. The democrats certainly are not helping the war effort and thats what most people think.

Tribesman

11-26-2005, 01:50

Gawains world Gawains world :thrasher: :thrasher:
Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you.
Followed by
Have you seen these polls?

~D ~D ~D
Keep 'em coming Gawain , you really are a timeless classic~:cheers:

Red Harvest

11-26-2005, 02:01

Have you seen these polls?

The dems just cant seem to win no matter what they do. The democrats certainly are not helping the war effort and thats what most people think.
Too bad they think the same about the GOP and the President too...or did you happen to miss that obvious clue in the poll results? Seems to me you've identified the wrong enemy.

Plus one could point out that "50 percent thought the US should withdraw troops as Iraq meets its goals" is very vague. What are the goals? The response does not really exclude the other two possibilities. One could select it and still believe the bulk of our forces should be out in a year. It all depends on what the goal is.

KafirChobee

11-26-2005, 07:09

What a load of hogwash.
that has to be a Gawainian classic~D ~D ~D
- 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave
true as far as it goes but the figure is too low
60% of the American people want us to leave
true as far as it goes but the figure is too low
The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable for withdrawl
true , surprise surprise since it was a major policy of all the major parties in the election and at last weeks conference it was the only thing they could unanimously agree on
Most Democrats want use to leave
true
The rest of the world seems to want us to leave
possibly true , though I bet Uncle Osama is very happy with the current situation , he is probably sitting somewhere laughing his arse off .
The only people who seem to want us to stay are the Republicans untrue , see above .
So from Hogwash it goes to Who in their right mind doesnt want us out?

Hmmmmm , so your point was ????

Murth and the dems are the ones pulling the stunt. When they were call on it the chickened out.
~D ~D ~D
Oh dear oh dear , have you been at Rush's medication ~:rolleyes:

ROFLMAO

Sorry, you nailed it.

Fact is, as I have been saying, those that do not want to look at the reality of the situation today as associated to those of the past are intent on trying to make this into a different deal. In other words, there is no historical situation similar to the one we are living today. This is an all new scenario - but, those argueing that idea can not explain away the exacting comparissons to our 'nam, Frances Algiers, USSR's Afghanistan, Britains suppression of the Americas (1776), etc. It is the old adage, "Those without a knowledge of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past" - as I recall one former President (Reagan) actually bragged about his knowledge of the past and said it was "irrellevant" to the present. Unless of course the past is within a decade that one lives in - or that one wants to prove something to his Daddy (which I fear is all this war was ever about).

Be that what it may. One would believe that after two years we would have something to show for our efforts (2300 dead, 18,000+ maimed). Aside from a constitution that will be toilet paper whether we leave tomorrow or in 10 years. Using the same arguements used 35 years ago, though? That just demonstrates the unoriginality of the minds that be in charge. IMHO ~:rolleyes:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-26-2005, 16:56

Gawains world Gawains world
Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you.
Followed by
Have you seen these polls?

Keep 'em coming Gawain , you really are a timeless classic

The only thing classic heres is Tribesmans Tripe that he keeps handing out, The polls say what he likes their fine otherwise their full of crap. Again I do this for a living. Im just illustrating that polls say what the pollsters are looking for.

Be that what it may. One would believe that after two years we would have something to show for our efforts (2300 dead, 18,000+ maimed). Aside from a constitution that will be toilet paper whether we leave tomorrow or in 10 years

You think thats all thats been accomplished?

KafirChobee

11-28-2005, 12:02

For many the arguements for supporting the Vietnam war; and then blaming the press, Liberals, and anyone that disagreed with it when it was lost - are the same ones they use today to support their misguided arguements for the occupation of Iraq (the war ended - remember the big banner "Mission Accomplished"?).

Some gibberish just never gets old, for some. Blaming the opposition for the failure of those in charge of a situation seems to be the best "plan" for the failures in Iraq that they can come up with.

Having the fortitude to "stay the Path", sounds great. Until one realizes there is no path. Until one realizes that the evidence given for the war was one sided (even fabricated), and that much of the actual intelligent information that countered those supporting arguements for the premise of war were concealed from those making the decision to go forth with it. (possibly even Bush himselg - though I doubt it)

Then we go to the "blame game" senario, or the politicization of the issue by the opposing party - while your own truebluehonestamericanconservatives are simply being fair minded and non-political in supporting their political ideals to support a bankrupt war policy. The opposition is using "politics" - ooooh is there no shame? Don't they realize how they are undermining the moral of our troops (not that 3 or 4 tours in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't doing that). Oh, those dasderdly liberal minded, politicizing, war hating, unpatriotic, traitors of democracy are ruining our perfect little war. If only they'ld be quiet about having to have a plan we could make this thing last 10 or 20 years. By walking in circles, just like we did in Vietnam.

Understand one thing - everything is political. EVERYTHING! There is no such animal as an apolitical politician. Once one understands this, then they can grasp the fact that when one side accuses the other of "playing politics", you can realize that they are infact doing the same thing. Only they believe you aren't smart enough to realize it.

The only plan the Bushys have is to continue as they have. It is that big circle scenario I mentioned a few pages back. It is the same rhetoric from 'nam, the same plan from 'nam, the same excuses for our continuing in 'nam. Only the names have changed. The ideas seem to remain the same.

Gwain, I sincerely appologize for your loss - what ever it was; 30 odd years ago. Your persistance in defending unjust wars and the loss of American lives leads me to believe you lost someone that was near and dear to you, And, that you have a great deal of difficuly in accepting that they died in vain. For this, I am very sad for you. I do, however, understand. Been there, done that. Accepting that one you loved died for nothing other than the ego's of others is a hard fact to contemplate, let alone accept.

Accepting such a thing lessens ones control of a past situation - it promotes self doubt. It almost makes the loss meaningless. Unless, one accepts that the person died for their sins - well, sins of their nation. Maybe, the bs of a nation - and that in the manner they gave their all was the purest of the pure (Oh sure - tell, that to Tommy .. who is probably still laughing in the devil's face).

Gwain, you're a good guy. But, life did not begin and end in 'nam. Political thought did not as well. Take a rest friend, honor the comrades you may have on "the wall" as I do ... fight for their sons not to have a wall beside them.

Just an idea of course. Ask Rush and Rummy first, if you wish, before you respond. Still, mate, you know in your heart ... I'm right. Don't you?

KafirChobee

12-01-2005, 09:32

Bush gave his new "Plan for Victory" speech yesterday, at Annapolis (always before a military oriented crowds - has anyone else noticed? I'm beginning to believe he even fears his own loyalists, or maybe they can't find a crowd large enough to sign his loyalty oath). What a farce, eh?

What a fiascal. Thirty-five pages of the same rhetoric he and his have been spouting for .... ever (since the "Mission Accomplished" fiascal).

Is it me? Or, are we truely being led by men with out a clue of what reality is?
Were Bush to fire, or get the resignation of Rummy - personally it would show that he has a vague understanding that things are not going as they should. Instead, it is "Well, it didn't work last time .... but, if we do it again this time it will." So, same plan - same rhetoric - just a different day and presentation.

Seems some never tire of repeating themselves when they have nothing to say that is truely a plan about how to extradite ourselves from a bad situation. I keep hearing this, "If we leave now, it would mean civil war!." HELLO!!!! It is a civil war, our staying only supports one side of it - it resolves nothing. Once we leave, regardless of it being tomorrow or in 20 years (500 more lives or 58,000) there will be an adjustment resolved by military means by the residence of Iraq. Even if we keep a .... close to area eye and reaction force in the vicinity (on aircraft carriers? that is what the 35 page thing suggests - poor f'n jarheads, seasick mofo's), it means nothing.

Bush has lost track of the goals he purported in late September of 2001 to keep us safe from future attacks (like 9/11 - his watch, they were more concerned about turning the cameras away from Bill and onto George, than listening to any of Bill's advisors on terrorism. Or, for that matter, anyone with knowledge that an attack was emminent. Who'ld a guessed? Well, maybe anyone paying attention to the daily memos from the CIA, FBI or local authorities asking for additional information about Arab type individuals doing flight training to take off, but not land). Dubya is so caught up with himself and his "legacy" he has forgotten reality and placed it in the hands of his Chenney's speach writers. I have no doubt he believes the gibberish he spouts, just can't believe anyone else can. Then again, it is more believable he doesn't either - just trying to cover up that he might have made a small error (never a mistake mind you, just maybe a little teinsy weiny oops).

I like Dubya, honest, as a person. As a leader? He is without a doubt one of the weakest I have ever seen - at any level (he might make a good dock forman were I in one of my past lives to hire him). It depresses me to think we have 3 longggggggggggggggggggggggg insufferable years of him (of course the alternative is Cheney, so for that I am eternally thankful - knowing that only Dick could be worse for US). Less than a year and he has fallen from grace (what little he had). What a disgrace. To recover, all he has to say is "I was misled, had I known all the true facts .... etc. But, now that we have been led into this problem we must do everything in our powers to eradicted ourselves with a means that secures a future for the peoples (all the people, all the factions, everyone) and a balance for the region". LOL

Instead? Now he has a plan! Oh, wait - same plan ... just a different day ... and manner to say it - except still befor a military crowd that must applaud. Who knows, maybe no one will notice. After all, it is a whole 35 pages long, maybe no one will read it - or notice that it is till the "walking in circles plan" of Vietnam.