The media Murtha Myth.... [Archive]

Devastatin Dave

11-18-2005, 15:21

Here at the agency i work at, they pipe in Fox news one week then CNN the second week. This week, unfortunately, is CNN week. Well, when Murtha had his little rant about withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately, CNN nearly creamed themselves with their coverage of this congressman, former Marine, demanding the withdraw (surrender to be more percise) of the United States and her allies in Iraq. They've been reporting like this is the first time this guy has said this. Talk about agenda. Well guess what, this so-called "hawkish" democrat has said this before...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_192988.html
Looks like CNN and the rest of the leftists in the media once again show their bias once again. Here's the current story...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html
The democrats have a lot of explaining to do. Why did most of them vote for the war and have done everything they can to lose it? Sad seeing American representatives (democrats in particular) using our troops for their political purposes. I can almost see them masterbating along with many other liberals around the world everytime bad news comes out of Iraq. Thank God these people were not around during WW2. Germany and Japan would have loved these guys...

Adrian II

11-18-2005, 15:47

Thank God these people were not around during WW2. Germany and Japan would have loved these guys...LOL, he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. It is bad form to cast doubt on a man's personal courage merely because he disagrees with you, and in this case it is obviously ridiculous.

Besides, it seems quite reasonable what the guy said in 2004; in fact it is vidicated as we speak:

"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.I bet Murtha didn't sign up for this bungled war when he voted 'Yes'. ~:rolleyes:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 16:24

LOL, he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. It is bad form to cast doubt on a man's personal courage merely because he disagrees with you, and in this case it is obviously ridiculous.

He didnt cast doubt on the man's personal courage . He just disagrees with him.

Adrian II

11-18-2005, 16:28

He didnt cast doubt on the man's personal courage . He just disagrees with him.Ah, so he is not describing him as a turncoat and a guy with no backbone?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 16:32

Ah, so he is not describing him as a turncoat and a guy with no backbone?

Where did he say any of those things? I guess you just infered it from his post. And hes right there no way WW2 could be fought today. I can see the headlines. 4500 Marines die invading Iwo Jima in less than a month . This war is a mistake.

dgfred

11-18-2005, 16:50

I can maybe see the undermanned part, but the poorly trained and
underequipped part is just crap. ~:pissed:

Ser Clegane

11-18-2005, 16:56

but the poorly trained and
underequipped part is just crap. ~:pissed:

Why? IIRC a lot of the soldiers on the ground bemoaned that they were underequipped (in terms of vehicle and personal armor)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 16:58

Why? IIRC a lot of the soldiers on the ground bemoaned that they were underequipped (in terms of vehicle and personal armor)

He he . This is always the compaint of most soldiers since the dawn of time.

Ser Clegane

11-18-2005, 17:01

This is always the compaint of most soldiers since the dawn of time.

Well, I guess you can say the same about the argument that they do not have the required manpower.

Do you think the complaints about equipment and manpower are justified or are the troops just "whining"?

KafirChobee

11-18-2005, 17:20

"Sad seeing represestatives using our troops for political Purpose," is what Dave or Deva said. Guess its OK though for Bush43, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and the rest of the "correct crowd" to stand in front of groups of our soldiers (who are tongue tied by convention to respond) and spout their well worn politicly motivated rhetoric at the world.

Murtha was on NewsHour last night. From what I could see, he is simply fed up with the way Bush's team is handling the war. Many of us are. He simply has the stature and position to make his voice heard. Murtha was very specific about the reasons for his ceasing to blindly follow the present policy on Iraq - THERE IS NONE! Murtha was very specific on what is needed to create a policy and called for further congressional (bi-partisan) oversite on the Bush admin.'s policies.

Also, Murtha pointed out his perceptions on how the war has weakened our (the U.S.) positions politically, and militarily in the world. He spoke of his fear that the military is being weakened (budget cuts - first in 20+ years - since Reagan. [which I personally am for - but in some of the R&D programs that are outdated before they begin, and the construction of senseless and useless systems - "starwars"].
That the mitiary is stretched to thin, is fact.
That our present Iraq policies are a hodgepodge of wishful thinking, is fact.
That by invading and staying in Iraq we have promoted terrorism, is fact.
That by not having an exit strategy we further support terrorisms growth, is fact.

Murtha, asks for a comprehensive plan to extract our troops from Iraq. Bush doesn't have one. For Bush it is: "Stay the course." "We are turning a corner" (about 4 times so that we are right back at the start). "Dissent only feeds the enemy" (seems we heard this one before - 40 years ago). "They are re-writing history to prove their politically motivated arguements." (as in, ignore the man behind the curtain or believe as we say, not what we do).

I think, Murtha is fed up with the lies that got us there, the rhetoric that claims victory as long as we stay the path, the continuance of a "war" policy that is losing men at the rate of 5 a day now (with no end in sight and that blames those that protest against it for being the cause of it), and sees his beloved military being weakened both in its leadership and its support mechanisms. He wants us out, so do 60+% of us. He wants a plan, not rhetoric. So do we all - 98% of us.

Murtha just joined the McCain side is all - asking for someone to be responsible for this quagmire and step up to the plate and take responsability. I can see where those still supporting the Bush Plan would have a problem with this - Bush hasn't taken responsability for any of the failings in his administration, he uses scapegoats and patriotic rhetoric instead.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 17:23

Do you think the complaints about equipment and manpower are justified or are the troops just "whining"?

When they stop whining Ill begin to worry.

Ser Clegane

11-18-2005, 17:26

When they stop whining Ill begin to worry.

You're kind of dodging the question aren't you? ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-18-2005, 17:30

You're kind of dodging the question aren't you?

No Im not. You can always use better equipment and more men. My point is that if they werent compaining Id be worried about their mental health.

Ser Clegane

11-18-2005, 17:35

No Im not. You can always use better equipment and more men. My point is that if they werent compaining Id be worried about their mental health.

OK - let me ask it differently then. Do you think the troops received adequate equipment for their current mission in Iraq?

dgfred

11-18-2005, 17:37

Why? IIRC a lot of the soldiers on the ground bemoaned that they were underequipped (in terms of vehicle and personal armor)

They were underequipped for IED warfare, their equipment is the best/or
equal to the best in the world. And training for suicide bombers is next to
impossible.

Devastatin Dave

11-18-2005, 18:06

My point was that this guy has been saying the same thing for over a year now and all the sudden the media jumps all over it. Why does the main stream media feel the need to handle the democrats propaganda for them?

Red Harvest

11-18-2005, 18:27

I can maybe see the undermanned part, but the poorly trained and
underequipped part is just crap. ~:pissed:

Not really, but you need to look at context. Abu Ghraib was certainly a case of undertraining (as well as poor leadership, poorly defined chain of comman, and conflicting policy being set from the highest levels.)

And as has been said, soldiers were underequipped for the type of war then being conducted--IED's.

Undermanned is certainly true. We've been unable to hold areas that needed to be held.

Hurin_Rules

11-18-2005, 18:52

The entire premise of this thread is faulty, based, as it appears to be, on a misunderstanding of why Murtha's comments are significant.

The link to Murtha's earlier statements is revealing. In May of 2004, Murtha said that unless there was a change in strategy, the war was unwinnable. Either the US had to pull out, or increase troop strength to make it winnable. His recommendation then was to dramatically INCREASE TROOP STRENGTH. The reason he is getting so much press now is that he is now ADVISING A WITHDRAWAL.

Murtha was not saying the exact same thing over a year ago. In fact, he was saying the exact opposite.

Many people have said the war was going badly, and tactics needed to be changed. But for a hawk--even a democratic one--to advise complete withdrawal, well, that is indeed both new and news.

I would urge you all to take a deeper look inside the spin machine. I suspect you'll find its contents are pretty much cut and dried.

Red Harvest

11-18-2005, 19:23

Yes, what is really funny is that the Administration wouldn't pony up and use its "political capital" to get enough troops in country to fully control things. Now, they are whining because the nation is saying, "If you don't want to win this thing, let's get the hell out."

Murtha said:

"We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.The Administration blew him off, so he has turned to plan B.

Now ask yourself, who was more supportive of our troops, Murtha who wanted to send in more to secure the country, or Bush who wants to stick to the same non-working plan? Which one do you think AQ is happier with making decisions?

Geoffrey S

11-18-2005, 20:11

ichi

11-18-2005, 23:34

I'm thankful that we did have men like Murta during WWII, people who knew what it takes to fight and win a war. We lacked that in Vietnam and now in Iraq. The war is being directed by political idealogues with little real experience and no viable plan to win.

This guy has credibility. What he is saying makes sense; he's been to Iraq and seen that under the current troop levels and plans, we cannot succeed. He is saying that there is no connection between our actions and our ultimate goals.

He has seen that we do not have sufficient troops to guard Iraqs borders, that we are perceived as the enemy by most Iraqis, that W failed to build a coalition like his father did, that we are not making progress controlling the insurgents, and that we are losing troops with no end in sight.

He has no history of partisan politics, he's seen as a veteran's advocate and a middle-of-the-road representative, and he's not saying this to impugn the admin, he's saying it because he believes it is the best thing to do.

So let's attack him, let's shout him down, let's call him a coward (highly decorated Marine, BTW).

He appears to me be to be an objective observer of the situation, not driven by politics, and he much more credibility than any of the folks who feel it is more important to support Bush/Cheney than think clearly.

At some point even those who support the war will realize that it is being mismanaged, and that a change of strategy is necessary to stop the waste of American lives.

ichi:bow:

Lemur

11-19-2005, 04:34

He didnt cast doubt on the man's personal courage . He just disagrees with him.
Might want to tell that to some of the republicans in congress. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5425133,00.html) They don't seem to have any issue with calling a combat Marine vet a coward, if only by unnamed proxy. (Time to get the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth working on this guy.)

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,'' Schmidt said.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 04:47

I'm thankful that we did have men like Murta during WWII, people who knew what it takes to fight and win a war. We lacked that in Vietnam and now in Iraq.

Isnt he a Nam vet not a WW2 one?

Might want to tell that to some of the republicans in congress. They don't seem to have any issue with calling a combat Marine vet a coward, if only by unnamed proxy. (Time to get the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth working on this guy.)

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

``He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,'' Schmidt said.

It was a Marine colonel who called him a coward she was just the messenger. I agree she should have kept her mouth shut. However I think the Col has also earned the right to speak his mind. Have you any other instances of an actual member of congress calling him a coward?

Lemur

11-19-2005, 04:52

It was a Marine colonel who called him a coward she was just the messenger.
Two questions: Was the Colonel named, or was he an anonymous source? And if she's "just the messenger," then I suppose she can report anything she like, correct? So long as she is not the person who supposedly said something in the first place, it's all good, correct?

As for your demand for more quotes, I expect that the Republican slime machine will be more subtle in the near-term. They usually launch attacks with deniable front groups, a page that was clearly missing when this Congresswoman was given the rulebook.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 05:06

Two questions: Was the Colonel named, or was he an anonymous source? And if she's "just the messenger," then I suppose she can report anything she like, correct? So long as she is not the person who supposedly said something in the first place, it's all good, correct?

As I said she shouldnt have opened her mouth. No its not all good. Does another Marine though have the right to question his fortitude?

As for your demand for more quotes, I expect that the Republican slime machine will be more subtle in the near-term. They usually launch attacks with deniable front groups, a page that was clearly missing when this Congresswoman was given the rulebook.

They better or they will face my rath ~D Of course calling Bush a liar isnt slimey in the least is it?

Lemur

11-19-2005, 05:14

Does another Marine though have the right to question his fortitude?
Only is a Texas-funded PAC group. Or on the field of honor, with pistols at dawn.

Of course calling Bush a liar isnt slimey in the least is it?
Well, let's be frank, hey? Calling a politican a liar is like calling water wet. I suppose if someone accused Bush Deux of lying more than is normal, that might be objectionable. Then again, it's quite possible he does lie more than the average politician. His track record on those things that have been verifiable hasn't been stellar ...

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 05:21

Well, let's be frank, hey? Calling a politican a liar is like calling water wet

Ok then can we call Murtha a liar and be safe?

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 05:21

Lemurmania,

Maybe Bush isn't lying as much as we suppose. Perhaps it is simply that he is even more clueless than we first believed. Afterall, he said, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Perhaps we "misunderestimated" him again.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 05:28

Lemur

11-19-2005, 05:51

Now that wasnt slimey in the least was it?
Here's the un-slimey version:

Red Harvest reported in the Org that a prominent attourney stated that Bush Deux is mentally challenged, and that at one point Bush Deux complimented a crony heading FEMA during a mismanaged disaster response.

Once it's second-hand, it's legit.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-19-2005, 06:00

No invasion is always better than a half-hearted invasion, a thing completely neglected by the Bush government. Whether or not the war was justified is beside the point, once the decision was taken to wage war it should have been conducted with full force and the maximum number of troops possible, before and after; that this wasn't the case initially and hasn't been improved throughout the war despite has been the greatest mistake among many in the running of the war. Wars shouldn't be fought on a budget.

Egads, I have to agree.~:eek: And you're a Euro-type~:confused: ~:mecry:

Actually, I think we had plenty of force for the invasion and regime-ousting phase. Saddams' team came apart like a dime watch. But I do agree that we were way short of "vigiles" and garrison -- especially for the right after the combat fades portion (and somewhat still, though it improves as each Iraqi battalion comes on line).

We are organized and trained and equipped as the best battle force on the planet. We're no where near as effective as occupiers -- still good, but there simply aren't the force multipliers for garrison that there are for combat. You need boots.

If Murtha is trying to get this to happen -- ramp up force levels until the objective is as close to a "cake walk" as possible -- then I agree with him. But a straight cut and run wouldn't work. We need another 2-3 years to help the Iraqi govt. get its feet under it in order to avoid civil war and dissolution. All three major components need to see some stability and to see that the federalized constitution of Iraq provides them enough "separateness." The hardest of these components is the Sunni group, of course -- since some of the Shiite crowd are focused on vengeance. This will smooth, but not overnight.

ichi

11-19-2005, 08:35

Isnt he a Nam vet not a WW2 one?

Yes, he served in 'Nam. My point was that we did have men like him (as in similar to) to ensure that our plans were realistic and we had the capacity to win. The folks who ran Vietnam were unrealistic in their expectations, oblivious to some harsh realities, and unwilling (due to politics) to do what was necessary. The same in Iraq, with the added problem of a failure to build a viable coalition and real support at home.

This guy has a lot of guts to speak up and do what he is doing, wish he was my Congressman

ichi

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 08:56

The folks who ran Vietnam were unrealistic in their expectations, oblivious to some harsh realities, and unwilling (due to politics) to do what was necessary. The same in Iraq, with the added problem of a failure to build a viable coalition and real support at home.

Not the ones who did the fighting. The fact is we had the war won. Only our own press and lack of fortitude cost us that war. It has shown the example of how to defeat america and is the template all who now oppose us use.

This guy has a lot of guts to speak up and do what he is doing, wish he was my Congressman

You can have him. If we had congressman like him in WW2 the germans would have won.

ichi

11-19-2005, 09:23

Not the ones who did the fighting. The fact is we had the war won. Only our own press and lack of fortitude cost us that war. It has shown the example of how to defeat america and is the template all who now oppose us use.

The same holds true today, the guys on the gorund are pros and are winnig the battles. But here we differ, it wasnt the press or lack of fortitude, it was a failure of learship that lost the war in Vietnam, just like today.

You want to blame the messenger, you can't see that its the leaderships fault. That's OK, at work if someone complains about a lack of budget or support or too many policies that fail to support our mission, that person becomes the problem, not the institutional failures that caused the person to speak out. So I'm used to seeing it.

ichi:bow:

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 09:26

You can have him. If we had congressman like him in WW2 the germans would have won.
If we had a President like Bush during WWII the Germans and Japanese would have won. ~:handball:

I'd take my chances with Murtha over Bush.

Xiahou

11-19-2005, 10:05

Ironside

11-19-2005, 11:30

Geoffrey S

11-19-2005, 12:05

Not the ones who did the fighting. The fact is we had the war won. Only our own press and lack of fortitude cost us that war. It has shown the example of how to defeat america and is the template all who now oppose us use.
The war wasn't won, and couldn't be won the way it was being fought; it merely couldn't be lost, much like Iraq now. Although the war in Iraq cannot be lost by the US, the US doesn't have the capacity right now to force a stable situation. For that, more troops would be needed to keep tighter control of borders.

Well, Murtha got the chance to go on record as voting in favor of immediate pull out and didnt. He voted against it- the vote failed 403-3. I wish they'd make up their minds. We're losing the war, its a quagmire, a mistake, a lie, and troops are dying senslessly- but we dont want to vote for their immediate withdrawal. Am I think only one who thinks there's a cognitive dissonance there?
Isn't the key word there 'immediate'? To suggest that immediately pulling out would help anyone is obviously absurd, and isn't advocated by Murtha; his view seems to be the eminently sensible one that if a war isn't fought with maximum conviction or effort it shouldn't be fought at all.

Doesn't the article that you linked to undermine what you stated in your post? It seemed to emphasize that the vote was irrelevant and a sham purely organized for an opportunity to slander Democrats, and that Murtha is not an advocate of an immediate withdrawal. He's quoted as saying that Iraq should be left "at the earliest practicable date.", which is different from wanting to leave Iraq immediately.

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 16:37

Doesn't the article that you linked to undermine what you stated in your post? It seemed to emphasize that the vote was irrelevant and a sham purely organized for an opportunity to slander Democrats, and that Murtha is not an advocate of an immediate withdrawal. He's quoted as saying that Iraq should be left "at the earliest practicable date.", which is different from wanting to leave Iraq immediately.
The GOP understands sham, they can work with sham, sham is their middle name. What a surprise...

The GOP is just using the war for political gain. ~;p ~;p ~;p As they have been since 9/11.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-19-2005, 16:37

The war wasn't won, and couldn't be won the way it was being fought; it merely couldn't be lost,

Bull. The Vietcong had been destroyed and no longer a force to be worried about. I guess the Vietnamese were lying when they said the press won the war for them. They also thanked Kerry by the way.

Geoffrey S

11-19-2005, 19:40

Bull. The Vietcong had been destroyed and no longer a force to be worried about. I guess the Vietnamese were lying when they said the press won the war for them. They also thanked Kerry by the way.
And you think that would end the war? The Iraqi military was crushed, yet the war there isn't over yet; and that's peanuts compared to Vietnam. Sure, the US wouldn't lose, but there's no way the war could have been conclusively won, short of killing every last Vietnamese person. The Vietnam conflict isn't associated with the word 'quagmire' for nothing.

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 19:55

And you think that would end the war? The Iraqi military was crushed, yet the war there isn't over yet; and that's peanuts compared to Vietnam. Sure, the US wouldn't lose, but there's no way the war could have been conclusively won, short of killing every last Vietnamese person. The Vietnam conflict isn't associated with the word 'quagmire' for nothing.
Yep, with Gawain's approach to it we would *still* be fighting in Vietnam.

Redleg

11-19-2005, 20:05

Yep, with Gawain's approach to it we would *still* be fighting in Vietnam.

Not at all - If the United States would of honored its committment to South Vietnam when North Vietnam invaded in 1975 - their would possibily still be a South Vietnam.

Politicans - Ford - felt that to honor the committment would cost to much politically and did not act.

ichi

11-19-2005, 20:09

Well, Murtha got the chance to go on record as voting in favor of immediate pull out and didnt. He voted against it- the vote failed 403-3. I wish they'd make up their minds. We're losing the war, its a quagmire, a mistake, a lie, and troops are dying senslessly- but we dont want to vote for their immediate withdrawal. [/[QUOTE]

Because he favors a more rational approach, one that he has introduced for consideration. The vote yesterday was nothing but political theater. Given an opportunity to vote on a reasonable proposal, the Dems would assert themselves. Failing to bite at a cheap ploy means they have the nation's best interests at heart.

[QUOTE]Am I think only one who thinks there's a cognitive dissonance there?
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq;_ylt=AqiI34O8Wo0n7Ksc.cmrJMRvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

No, there's quite a few who prefer to support failed policies and demonize the opposition. There are many more who see cognitive dissonance in those who refuse to take corrective action when the primary approach fails.

ichi

Red Harvest

11-19-2005, 20:20

Not at all - If the United States would of honored its committment to South Vietnam when North Vietnam invaded in 1975 - their would possibily still be a South Vietnam.
Yes, and we would still be fighting in it.

KafirChobee

11-19-2005, 21:08

Not at all - If the United States would of honored its committment to South Vietnam when North Vietnam invaded in 1975 - their would possibily still be a South Vietnam.

Politicans - Ford - felt that to honor the committment would cost to much politically and did not act.

You jest? Absolutely no one wanted to honor a 'secret" commitment made by Nixon an kissenger to get the ArVNs to sign the peace accords in Paris. It was never a commitment supported by congress. Congress would have rejected it out of hand - Nixon knew this, so did Ford (our first unelected president, Bush being the second).

We left Vietnam after 10,000+ days, because the ARVN forces we had trained were suppose to be able to Fare for themselves. They very well may have, except for the corruption and inemptness of their leaders. I suggest any that dispute this go back and review the final battles - the redistributing of troops, their mind set that they needed US to win, and the pure incompetence of their general staff doomed them. They had the equipment, the manpower and airsupport to win. What they didn't have was the leadership and fortitude to do so. Wasn't a damn thing that remained for us to do for them - we'ld done it.

And now, we are repeating the same mistakes we made then. Even using the same platitudes to describe our "plan". We have trained exactly one usable Iraqi battalion (as advised by one of our top Generals to congress just a few weeks ago at a hearing). The Iraqis are desserting faster than we can train them - I seriously doubt they will soon be a viable force or of use to anyone in the near future.

Murtha sees the whole picture, much more than we as private citizens are allowed to know, and he says it is time to create a viable plan for our withdrawal. So be it. It isn't a cut&run (like Reagan in Lebanon), it is asking for a comprehensive plan to secure the area or get the H.... out of the way and let the Iraqis solve it themselves. We created the opportunity for them to have democracy - now it looks like we will settle for another strongman (Challabi) to control the region. That seems to be the "plan".

Watchman

11-19-2005, 21:24

Wars aren't won by winning all the little battles. Heck, you could probably win all of them and still end up losing to some other cause - such as the *cost* of winning all those little battles...

Winning wars wasn't simple even back when people had to do the fighting with sharp bronze implements. And it's gotten awfully more complicated after WW2.

Xiahou

11-19-2005, 22:14

Doesn't the article that you linked to undermine what you stated in your post? It seemed to emphasize that the vote was irrelevant and a sham purely organized for an opportunity to slander Democrats, and that Murtha is not an advocate of an immediate withdrawal. He's quoted as saying that Iraq should be left "at the earliest practicable date.", which is different from wanting to leave Iraq immediately.Well, unless they knew a way to "magic" the troops out of Iraq, immediately means the exact some thing as practicable- as soon as it is possible.

practicable - capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished (from Merriam-Webster's)

Ironside

11-19-2005, 23:38

Xiahou

11-21-2005, 18:54

Redleg

11-21-2005, 19:33

You jest? Absolutely no one wanted to honor a 'secret" commitment made by Nixon an kissenger to get the ArVNs to sign the peace accords in Paris. It was never a commitment supported by congress. Congress would have rejected it out of hand - Nixon knew this, so did Ford (our first unelected president, Bush being the second).

Again it is you who jest - the commitment was not secert, as you even know since you used the ''. Now it might or might not have been supported by congress - but the committment made for the Paris Peace Accords was not a secert. T

We left Vietnam after 10,000+ days, because the ARVN forces we had trained were suppose to be able to Fare for themselves. They very well may have, except for the corruption and inemptness of their leaders. I suggest any that dispute this go back and review the final battles - the redistributing of troops, their mind set that they needed US to win, and the pure incompetence of their general staff doomed them. They had the equipment, the manpower and airsupport to win. What they didn't have was the leadership and fortitude to do so. Wasn't a damn thing that remained for us to do for them - we'ld done it.

I have read extensively on the finally battles of South Vietnam - most point to that a lot of their battle plans counted on the United States Airforce to assist. Several divisions did very well - to bad the divisions and units on their flanks did not.

Now you are correct their general staff was corrupt and incompetent - but that does not give the United States a pass for failing to make good its committment regardless how unpopular it would have been. The criticism is valid on its face - the United States government failed to meet its committment to an ally. (Sounds familiar doesn't.)

And now, we are repeating the same mistakes we made then. Even using the same platitudes to describe our "plan". We have trained exactly one usable Iraqi battalion (as advised by one of our top Generals to congress just a few weeks ago at a hearing). The Iraqis are desserting faster than we can train them - I seriously doubt they will soon be a viable force or of use to anyone in the near future.

Failures in traing are to be expected - desertions from a force that might or might not be popular but is facing daily attacks - is to be expected. You might want to study the difference between General Abrams and General Westmorland and the differece in how the war was conducted. You seem to be stuck in a rut - unable to tell the difference.

Murtha sees the whole picture, much more than we as private citizens are allowed to know, and he says it is time to create a viable plan for our withdrawal.

I doubt very seriousily that Murtha sees much more of the picture then the average politican in Washington. He is focusing on what will get him re-elected and what might be in the best interest of the country. But he is a politican first and foremost - and I wonder if he is up for re-election. You know he is in the House - which means he will be up for re-election in his district.

So be it. It isn't a cut&run (like Reagan in Lebanon), it is asking for a comprehensive plan to secure the area or get the H.... out of the way and let the Iraqis solve it themselves. We created the opportunity for them to have democracy - now it looks like we will settle for another strongman (Challabi) to control the region. That seems to be the "plan".

The problem is we don't know the plan if there is one .

Redleg

11-21-2005, 19:36

It depends on what would happen in the North-Vietnamese invasion in about 1978 and 1981 and how long Nguyen Van Thieu would have been in power and if the guy after him was competent or not.

Surviving this it would end up as something simular to Korea.

You are of course correct - South VIetnam still might not have survived - however failing to honor a committment to an ally because of politics is the way of the world - however it should be noted for what it was. Something that many would like not to ackownledge.

Watchman

11-21-2005, 21:59

If the popular opinion of a democratic state wants to call quits on an overseas war, on what exact grounds can their elected leaders refuse the populace ? Tens to be that they'll simply have to budge sooner or later.

Tribesman

11-22-2005, 00:17

``He's a good man, a Marine, a patriot - and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion,''
Wow whodathunkit~D ~D ~D
Go Cheney~;)

Bull. The Vietcong had been destroyed and no longer a force to be worried about.
So you only had to destroy the NVA then , and of course move into North Vietnam to do that , which brings the Peoples Army across the border which gives you Korea mark 2 , but hell yeah you could have won it Gawain ~:confused:

Redleg

11-22-2005, 00:23

Bull. The Vietcong had been destroyed and no longer a force to be worried about. [/B]
So you only had to destroy the NVA then , and of course move into North Vietnam to do that , which brings the Peoples Army across the border which gives you Korea mark 2 , but hell yeah you could have won it Gawain ~:confused:

China might or might not of crossed into North Vietnam in support. It seems China even during this time period had a few problems with Vietnam. If I remember my history correctly it resulted in a short war between the two.

The Sino-Vietnamese War was a war fought in 1979 between the neighboring countries of the People's Republic of China and Vietnam. After a brief incursion into northern Vietnam, Chinese troops withdrew less than a month later, and both sides claimed victory.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sino-vietnamese-war

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 02:04

So you only had to destroy the NVA then , and of course move into North Vietnam to do that , which brings the Peoples Army across the border which gives you Korea mark 2 , but hell yeah you could have won it Gawain

Why? It was never our intention to take over north Vietnam? :coffeenews:

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 02:26

Why? It was never our intention to take over north Vietnam? :coffeenews:
Because you couldn't end the war in South Vietnam without taking out North Vietnam. That was the root problem. It's another "half measure" issue. You either go all the way, or you get out.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 02:35

Because you couldn't end the war in South Vietnam without taking out North Vietnam.

Ahh. So they were like rabid dogs ay. There was no defeating these tough SOBs without invading them yet you claim we lost and never even lost a major battle nevermind them having to invade us to win.. Are we really such wimps as compared to the almighty Vietnamese? Once more you win a war by destroying an enemies will to fight. Invasion is but one means of doing so.

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 02:39

Ahh. So they were like rabid dogs ay. There was no defeating these tough SOBs without invading them yet you claim we lost and never even lost a major battle nevermind them having to invade us to win.. Are we really such wimps as compared to the almighty Vietnamese? Once more you win a war by destroying an enemies will to fight. Invasion is but one means of doing so.
Well the other means didn't work now did it? That is exactly the problem with the Iraq approach. It is the lunacy of continuing the same failed policy forever.

We could still be in Somalia and Lebanon too...wouldn't that have been brilliant?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 02:50

Well the other means didn't work now did it? That is exactly the problem with the Iraq approach. It is the lunacy of continuing the same failed policy forever.

Because we didnt try them and gave up. We were never allowed to fight to our ability but were hamstrung the entire war. This is the main reason I and other veterans opposed the war not because we thought it was a useless cause.

We could still be in Somalia and Lebanon too...wouldn't that have been brilliant?

Were still in Germany and Japan Brilliant huh?

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 03:56

Because we didnt try them and gave up. We were never allowed to fight to our ability but were hamstrung the entire war. This is the main reason I and other veterans opposed the war not because we thought it was a useless cause.So are you backtracking now to agree that we needed to go into North Vietnam to win? Because South Vietnam was not "winnable" until North Vietnam was subdued.

Invading North Vietnam is a big commitment, and you have to be willing to take on China if needed. It's the sort of risk I might take, but you will have a hard time convincing a majority of others to do it.

Looking back at the outcome with regards to the world today, I think we made the right decision to pull out--it just took us far too long to decide. Ideally, we might have ended with a free South Vietnam, and perhaps even a free North, but the risks were far greater as well. At the time, I would have been for taking out North Vietnam--it is focus on the final objective. Incidentally, focus on the final objective is the key argument against Iraq, it is taking the focus off the real War on Terror, by creating another one.

Were still in Germany and Japan Brilliant huh?Wow, that's really lame. When was the last time we were actually fighting an insurgency there? Unlike Iraq or Vietnam they were both pacified by the end of hostilities in 1945.

If we has stayed in Vietnam we would probably still be fighting the Vietnam war.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 04:03

So are you backtracking now to agree that we needed to go into North Vietnam to win? Because South Vietnam was not "winnable" until North Vietnam was subdued.

No Im not. I never said any suchthing. Their government needed to be subdued.All we needed to do was get them to leave the south alone. We didnt have to destroy the north and again it was never our intention.

Wow, that's really lame. When was the last time we were actually fighting an insurgency there? Unlike Iraq or Vietnam they were both pacified by the end of hostilities in 1945.

Things went a lot slower in Germany than they are in Iraq. They were not pacified and in fact the press was saying exactly what their saying today. That we should pull out as we cant win the peace. I can drag up lotsa headlines and articles if you like. No it wasnt as violent as it is in Iraq .

Crazed Rabbit

11-22-2005, 04:15

Unlike Iraq or Vietnam they were both pacified by the end of hostilities in 1945.

Also unlike Iraq, we spent the previous three or four years beating the crap out of them and draining all their resources. And as Gawain said, it wasn't a walk in the park to pacify them.

Crazed Rabbit

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 05:11

We were rounding people up as part of denazification, but organized attacks on Americans were not happening. I've heard some stuff reported on this before and it had no axe to grind. When hostilities ceased, they ceased. There was not an ongoing war. Nazi's trying to hide is completely different than trying to destroy govt and kill the occupiers.

It was a bogus comparison from the start. If you've got some links that prove otherwise I would like to hear about them.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 06:58

ichi

11-22-2005, 07:05

and how long had Germany had a history of being a Constitutional Republic, one that shared western European democratic idealogies and was primarily one people, and how long has Iraq been a nation? A nation comprised of Kurds, Arabs, and non-Arab Muslims. A nation with no history of democracy or a constitutional republic. We also had a plan to develop the economy of Germany that was workable, and there weren't extremists sneaking in from surrounding countries to support an insurgency. We also had the Soviet Union using brutal methods to suppress half of the country.

And we were mostly all Christians, so you didn't have the religious undertones that exist today.

Very different, and I'd say inappropriate as an analogy.

ichi:bow:

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 07:11

There were reports we were losing the peace and that we were turning the German peole against us by occuppying their country. There were calls to bring everyone home and abandon the place. IT sounded just like iraq today. How long was it before Germany got a constitution and its own government again?
Just like Iraq, minus the conflict/civil war. ~:rolleyes: Fighting in Iraq intensified AFTER the invasion phase was declared complete, and it is maintaining the same level of intensity.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 07:34

Just like Iraq, minus the conflict/civil war

Calling or infering its a civil war is a bit over the top even for you. Even calling it an insurgency is pushing things IMO.

Tribesman

11-22-2005, 09:40

Once more you win a war by destroying an enemies will to fight. Invasion is but one means of doing so.

You are right Vietnam won the war without invading America didn't they .

All we needed to do was get them to leave the south alone.

Well you succeeded there ~D
Calling or infering its a civil war is a bit over the top even for you. Even calling it an insurgency is pushing things IMO.
then what the hell would you call it ?????

IT sounded just like iraq today
Yes Germany was full of suicide bombings , shelling , assassinations , murders and kidnappings , the Germans were absolutely slaughtering each other and the coilition over the post war situation , those damm Swiss were sending terrorists across the border and the Swedes were suffering from fallout as the conflict spread around the region .~:rolleyes:

Ironside

11-22-2005, 13:28

China might or might not of crossed into North Vietnam in support. It seems China even during this time period had a few problems with Vietnam. If I remember my history correctly it resulted in a short war between the two.

IIRC one of the reasons for the involvement in Vietnam was to avoid that southeast Asia would become a Chinese puppet region.

They gravely misunderstood the relationship between China and North-Vietnam, but that doesn't disclude Chinese involvement anyway, as it would give China an exellent opportunity to pacify a potential threat.

Watchman

11-22-2005, 13:39

China waged a short punitive war in northern Vietnam over the issue of the Vietnamese having gone and toppled Pol Pot down in Kambodia (I find it ironic the Chinese and Americans were both decrying that one...). That was an "internal" issue within the East Block (not that it ever was very monolithic). Doesn't mean they could've stood by and watched another Communist country be invaded by the West without taking too big a prestige hit...

Besides, you never know how the Soviets might've reacted. They were arming and training the Vietnamese already, weren't they ?

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 17:42

Calling or infering its a civil war is a bit over the top even for you. Even calling it an insurgency is pushing things IMO.

No, it is accurate. What is over the top and won't work is living in a fantasy land as you and the Administration have been doing. Your plan for Vietnam does not differ from the one that FAILED. Your plan for Iraq does not differ from the one that is FAILING.

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 17:48

No Im not. I never said any suchthing. Their government needed to be subdued.All we needed to do was get them to leave the south alone. We didnt have to destroy the north and again it was never our intention.
And after several decades of fighting already, you believe they were just going to "leave the south alone?" Incredibly naive wishful thinking you are using. That is how we lost the war.

Congratulations, you've just reproven the case for exiting Vietnam.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 19:49

No, it is accurate. What is over the top and won't work is living in a fantasy land as you and the Administration have been doing. Your plan for Vietnam does not differ from the one that FAILED. Your plan for Iraq does not differ from the one that is FAILING.

Its you who are living in fantasy land if you think Iraq is the same as Nam. There no North Iraq with a standing army and airforce. Theres no super power backing the insurgents. They dont have the popular support of the people. The two plans are not the same. We never invaded the North. If we did then you could compare them.

And after several decades of fighting already, you believe they were just going to "leave the south alone?" Incredibly naive wishful thinking you are using. That is how we lost the war.

Congratulations, you've just reproven the case for exiting Vietnam.

No we lost for the very same reason we would loose this one. They will have destroyed our will to fight. But again it wouldnt be them that did it but us. We needed to get tougher in Nam not give up. That was always the problem. WE never were allowed to really take the fight to the enemy.

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 20:42

Its you who are living in fantasy land if you think Iraq is the same as Nam. There no North Iraq with a standing army and airforce. Theres no super power backing the insurgents. They dont have the popular support of the people. The two plans are not the same. We never invaded the North. If we did then you could compare them. I think your strawman has caught on fire. ~:rolleyes: The plans are the same in that both say: wait 'em out. Neither is a plan that has some way of actually winning, they are both "stay the course" propositions. It's like having your fishing line wrapped around a stump underwater somewhere with a fish on the end of it. You can either find a way to scoop out the fish, or cut the line and resume fishing. If you just sit there waiting for something to happen you are worse off than if you did either of the other two.

No we lost for the very same reason we would loose this one. They will have destroyed our will to fight. But again it wouldnt be them that did it but us. We needed to get tougher in Nam not give up. That was always the problem. WE never were allowed to really take the fight to the enemy.
No, the problem in both cases is this: we can "not lose" for a very long time, but we can't win without a better plan. Not losing is not necessarily winning, but not losing can be more costly (in many measures) than losing. Playing to win is much different than playing not to lose. What you suggested for Vietnam is just the same old "play not to lose" strategy.

That's why Somalia and Lebanon are good lessons. In both cases rather than immersing ourselves deeper into a fight that we were not prepared to win, we left. Vietnam is an example of a fight that we were not prepared to win. The strategy you propose was essentially the one we pursued and it wasn't working. Iraq is similar in that regard.

You contradicted yourself nicely above, first crediting them, then taking it away. It isn't our will to fight that is the problem. It is the Administration's will to win. The ones in the Administrations running the show in Vietnam lacked the determination to win, just like the ones running the show in Iraq. It is not the American people that are the problem, it is the American leadership.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 20:48

I think your strawman has caught on fire. The plans are the same in that both say: wait 'em out.

You dont seem to grasp what Im saying. I say take the fight to them dont wait them out. Thats the problem . Or do you think we were and are incapable of doing that?

No, the problem in both cases is this: we can "not lose" for a very long time, but we can't win without a better plan.

Again if the Democrats had half a brain they would be backing my idea. Say Bush isnt doing enough. We must send more troops and get this thing over with and stop pussy footing around. I believe Mc Cain has said exactly this.

You contradicted yourself nicely above, first crediting them, then taking it away. It isn't our will to fight that is the problem. It is the Administration's will to win.

Its there will to fight against you and the libs that will defeat us if anything. Not our militaries inability to get the job done.

Adrian II

11-22-2005, 20:49

Yes Germany was full of suicide bombings , shelling , assassinations , murders and kidnappings , the Germans were absolutely slaughtering each other and the coilition over the post war situation , those damm Swiss were sending terrorists across the border and the Swedes were suffering from fallout as the conflict spread around the region .~:rolleyes:Thank God they left the Dutch oil fields alone, otherwise all of Europe would have been out of gas.
~:eek:

Red Harvest

11-22-2005, 21:14

You dont seem to grasp what Im saying. I say take the fight to them dont wait them out. Thats the problem . Or do you think we were and are incapable of doing that?
With Vietnam you said didn't want to take the fight to them. If you didn't want to go into North Vietnam then you were not willing to take the fight to them. I can't "grasp" what you are saying because it is illogical. You either take the fight to them, or you stay in South Vietnam. If you stay in South Vietnam you have the same situation as before, decades of ongoing war.

Again if the Democrats had half a brain they would be backing my idea. Say Bush isnt doing enough. We must send more troops and get this thing over with and stop pussy footing around. I believe Mc Cain has said exactly this. Many folks said we were not sending in enough forces and that Bush was fibbing about what it would take to get the job done. Some were Democrats, some were Republicans, some were in the Pentagon. They were right.

The problem now is that with the current Commander-in-Chief this war is not winnable. The guy can't finish anything he starts as his military "record" shows. Do you put even more troops in a war zone under his mismanagement, or do you start pulling out? The opportunity to do this right has already come and gone. "Getting religion" now is too late, Gawain.

Its there will to fight against you and the libs that will defeat us if anything. Not our militaries inability to get the job done. You forgot to blame Clinton. The problem is not me, the press, democrats, liberals, the media, independents, moderates, or the military. The problem is an Administration lacking a workable plan. It is not our military's ability to execute that we are concerned about, it is the "leadership's" ability.

Xiahou

11-22-2005, 21:38

Very different, and I'd say inappropriate as an analogy.So are the Vietnam analogies, by the same token.

ichi

11-22-2005, 23:39

Xiahou

11-23-2005, 00:39

There are huge differences between Iraq and Germany, but the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are numerous.

Regardless of how long we stay in Iraq, when we leave there will be civil war between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

ichi:bow:
There are numerous similarities in any war. I can point out numerous differences as well- far more than similarities, no doubt. People have been trying to hitch this war to Vietnam before the occupation even began. I think, perhaps, some want to link the 2 because they want to see the same result.

solypsist

11-23-2005, 00:44

probably had to do with all the domestic protests against the war in the first place, which mirrored Vietnam.

and with the obviously aimless nature of the post-invasion (which you refer to as "before occupation") I can see another reasonable comparison to Iraq2 and Vietnam.

There are numerous similarities in any war. I can point out numerous differences as well- far more than similarities, no doubt. People have been trying to hitch this war to Vietnam before the occupation even began. I think, perhaps, some want to link the 2 because they want to see the same result.

Red Harvest

11-23-2005, 00:48

There are numerous similarities in any war. I can point out numerous differences as well- far more than similarities, no doubt. People have been trying to hitch this war to Vietnam before the occupation even began. I think, perhaps, some want to link the 2 because they want to see the same result.

Ahh yes, you just fell into your own trap. Question their patriotism. The dominant GOP theme.

From the other thread I added some dialog to your hypothetical conversation. I could almost substitute your comment directly.
Democrat: We should pull out of Iraq
Republican: That's the worst thing we could do. That would be surrendering to terrorists.
Democrat: Your plan isn't working, it is time to start withdrawing.
Republican: You just want us to lose so that you can claim a political victory.
Democrat: How dare you question my Patriotism??? I love my country!
Republican: You have always wanted us to lose in Iraq, that is why you voted for the war.
Democrat: That doesn't even make any sense...

The last thing I wanted was the same result. I also didn't think this would be another Vietnam or I would not have supported going in. What we have is not what was represented by the Administration.

And I still hope to prevent what happened in Vietnam, by getting out sooner, rather than later when it is too late.

Xiahou

11-23-2005, 00:56

Ahh yes, you just fell into your own trap. Question their patriotism. The dominant GOP theme.

From the other thread I added some dialog to your hypothetical conversation. I could almost substitute your comment directly.
Democrat: We should pull out of Iraq
Republican: That's the worst thing we could do. That would be surrendering to terrorists.
Democrat: Your plan isn't working, it is time to start withdrawing.
Republican: You just want us to lose so that you can claim a political victory.
Democrat: How dare you question my Patriotism??? I love my country!
Republican: You have always wanted us to lose in Iraq, that is why you voted for the war.
Democrat: That doesn't even make any sense...

The last thing I wanted was the same result. I also didn't think this would be another Vietnam or I would not have supported going in. What we have is not what was represented by the Administration.

And I still hope to prevent what happened in Vietnam, by getting out sooner, rather than later when it is too late.You think that's questioning patriotism? You dont think someone could want their country to withdraw from a war without hating their country? I said no such thing- maybe you're the one falling into traps.... Thanks for dragging out my quote from the other thread- I think you've proved my assertion.

Further, I was very careful to hedge my last statement when writing it. That you chose to apply it to yourself is none of my concern.