FO Seaman
Active member
Interesting question.
Do you really belive that Iraq is second Vietnam for USA?
Interesting question.
senojekips
Active member
What a pity that some people never learn from their historical errors. It is not they who die for their blunders and political greed.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
We have not lost. We've got Iraqi's fighting Iraqis instead of fighting us on our home soil or in the UK. We do however need to get our :cen: together and make the Iraqi government quit fiddle-farting around and do what they need to do to get their house in order starting with funding and support for their police instead of private friggin militias. As for the civil war, far more Iraqis are killing each other rather than Americans so I say let them have at it and when they bleed enough it will be easier to mop up. That said this is going to be guaranteed employment for the DoD's various branches for decades to come.
The Other Guy
Spam King
I believe the reason that Saddam didn't initially say he had no WMD was because he was afraid of an invasion from Iran. He wanted to make their government wonder if it would be a good idea to invade or not...
FO Seaman
Active member
Well the great things about opinions is that everyone's got one........we really don't know the real reason for invading, or why Saddam didn't right away say he didn't have WMD.......not enough evidance to prove or disprove the point.........maybe he just didn't want to sit down to tea with UN inpsectors.
What the point is, is that we are there, we are NOT losing in a military/tactical term, and it's all about power for them, not religion. Each sect wants the biggest voice in Gov't.......and we get stuck in the middle of their little kill joy spree. Enough will die for them to relize that no ones getting anything and that compliance is about the only thing to do.
It's all about the politics of the situation, has been for most wars the US has been involved in. Someone wants the power so he can make the other guy work for him.
The Shitte's want the power because they have been for the last 35 years, the Sunni's don't want another Saddam like regimist in power but are afraid the Shitte's will get Iran (A shitte nation) involved in this, so they sit back and let the shitte's take pot shots at them. Adn the Kurds don't want anything other than to be left alone.
Had a very interesting class on Iraq, it's geography, it's people, current and past conflict, the region, influance, ect.........but what made it all interesting and worth while was it was by a native. A Kurd who was bnorn and lived in Iraq and was an Army translator and came here to the US.
What the point is, is that we are there, we are NOT losing in a military/tactical term, and it's all about power for them, not religion. Each sect wants the biggest voice in Gov't.......and we get stuck in the middle of their little kill joy spree. Enough will die for them to relize that no ones getting anything and that compliance is about the only thing to do.
It's all about the politics of the situation, has been for most wars the US has been involved in. Someone wants the power so he can make the other guy work for him.
The Shitte's want the power because they have been for the last 35 years, the Sunni's don't want another Saddam like regimist in power but are afraid the Shitte's will get Iran (A shitte nation) involved in this, so they sit back and let the shitte's take pot shots at them. Adn the Kurds don't want anything other than to be left alone.
Had a very interesting class on Iraq, it's geography, it's people, current and past conflict, the region, influance, ect.........but what made it all interesting and worth while was it was by a native. A Kurd who was bnorn and lived in Iraq and was an Army translator and came here to the US.
The Other Guy
Spam King
With that, my crystal ball now sees 3 different countries, all constantly at war...
senojekips
Active member
We didn't lose in Vietnam either, but we finally had to sue for peace and admit that we couldn't win.
A negotiated withdrawal (another term for retreat), won't stop the remainder of the worlds nations, smirking as we tuck our tails between our legs and sneak out the back door. The more we try to hide the fact, the bigger will be their smirks.
We can't win, and we can't save the Iraqi people from themselves. There comes a time when it's better we cut our losses and just go home. Should another Saddam get in control, do what we should have done this time, give him a Hellfire enema.
The Other Guy
Spam King
You should be a speech writer. That was quite impressive. :hide:
senojekips
Active member
Most times it's just less painful to say it like it is. I'm not a politician, I'm not frightened of being voted out of office. I can tell the truth without fear or favour.
I just feel sorry for those who will have paid the ultimate sacrifice to fulfil the ill thoughtout dreams of politicians who won't get much closer than watching the nightly news.
I feel that those politicians who lied about WMD and all the other crap should be held responsible for their actions. At best it was negligence, at worst culpable homicide.
Simplistic,... hell yeah,.... but very very true.
I just feel sorry for those who will have paid the ultimate sacrifice to fulfil the ill thoughtout dreams of politicians who won't get much closer than watching the nightly news.
I feel that those politicians who lied about WMD and all the other crap should be held responsible for their actions. At best it was negligence, at worst culpable homicide.
Simplistic,... hell yeah,.... but very very true.
The Cooler King
Godfather
I have been hearing the same thing over and over and over--we can't win in Iraq, we just can't. Well why not? Why can't we win in Iraq? I don't see how victory isn't possible. We aren't the ones on the run. If we were really losing in Iraq, we would be the ones using guerilla tactics, setting up IEDs on the side of the road, kidnapping people, bombing buildings.
We can't just give up because there are some problems, a few setbacks, because we are taking casualties. I wish that we could have invaded Iraq, set up a democracy, developed and trained the Iraqi Army, and turned control over to them all without the loss of a single American or Allied servicemember. I that was possible but it just doesn't work that way. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Sacrifice is necessary to achieve anything worthwhile.
Insurgencies are nothing new to America. We have defeated insurgencies several times in the past. What makes the insurgency in Iraq so special? The Vietcong, the Nazi Werewolves, the South American guerillas during the Banana Wars, and guerillas during the Philippine-American War were all defeated.
But if you and the rest of the free world are going to have the attitude that we can't win then you are right, we can't. We can't win if we don't want to win. And that's the bottom line.
We can't just give up because there are some problems, a few setbacks, because we are taking casualties. I wish that we could have invaded Iraq, set up a democracy, developed and trained the Iraqi Army, and turned control over to them all without the loss of a single American or Allied servicemember. I that was possible but it just doesn't work that way. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Sacrifice is necessary to achieve anything worthwhile.
Insurgencies are nothing new to America. We have defeated insurgencies several times in the past. What makes the insurgency in Iraq so special? The Vietcong, the Nazi Werewolves, the South American guerillas during the Banana Wars, and guerillas during the Philippine-American War were all defeated.
But if you and the rest of the free world are going to have the attitude that we can't win then you are right, we can't. We can't win if we don't want to win. And that's the bottom line.
senojekips
Active member
Which Vietnam are you talking about? In the Vietnam war I was involved in, we weaseled our way out of the back door for the same reason as we're going to in this one.
You seem to have the very mistaken idea that the good guys always win. It just ain't so I'm afraid, well, not outside of Hollywood. Yes, maybe we do hold the high moral ground in the prosecution of the war, but this was also the case in Vietnam and it didn't do us any good there either.
How long does it take for politicians to realise that it is almost impossible to win a conventional war against a guerilla force. It is like taking to a hoard of killer mosquitoes with a baseball bat. If you can hit them you will kill them. But.....
What I/we know now that I/we didn't know in 2003 is that there are plenty of Iraqis - no where near the majority - but still enough of them, together with foreign Muslim mercenaries, who don't want what has been won for them - liberty from Saddam, democracy from totalitarianism, free market economy from state control. They hate other Iraqis/Muslims more than anyone else (except maybe Americans and Israelis) and are fighting and killing them.
Vietnam was not that, but since the above has manifested itself then (1) Coalition concedes peace can never be won and pulls out, or (2) Coalition shows more will-power and staying-power than the insurgents and demoralises them by staying the course rather than emboldening them by self-defeatism, or (3) separate the three waring groups into 3 new countries with boundaries that are agreeable to the three. This basically, but not perfectly, happened with the former Soviet Union. I now support (2) and (3) and add that Iran and Syria should never be allowed in!
Vietnam was not that, but since the above has manifested itself then (1) Coalition concedes peace can never be won and pulls out, or (2) Coalition shows more will-power and staying-power than the insurgents and demoralises them by staying the course rather than emboldening them by self-defeatism, or (3) separate the three waring groups into 3 new countries with boundaries that are agreeable to the three. This basically, but not perfectly, happened with the former Soviet Union. I now support (2) and (3) and add that Iran and Syria should never be allowed in!
DTop
Active member
Very well put, Padre. Iraq is not Vietnam. The situation in Iraq has changed and we must try to look at it as it is now. There are factions there for whom a peaceful resolution leading to a democratic government would not be in their best interest and they would rather never sit down and negotiate with anyone, especially the coalition. Further they have demonstrated that they'll do anything in their power to disrupt any semblance of government that they cannot otherwise control. They are adept at leading the western media by the nose in their efforts to blame their violent acts on the presence of coalition forces.
In view of the fact that Syria and Iran have been and continue to be the major sources of support for these disruptive forces, I must agree that neither of these two should be included in any negotiations. I would further add that they should be held fully culpable for the continued violence and instability that they have caused in the area. In simple terms they should be seen for the criminals they truly are.
In view of the fact that Syria and Iran have been and continue to be the major sources of support for these disruptive forces, I must agree that neither of these two should be included in any negotiations. I would further add that they should be held fully culpable for the continued violence and instability that they have caused in the area. In simple terms they should be seen for the criminals they truly are.
Last edited:
FO Seaman
Active member
IMO Iraq is NOT Vietnam.........may have a strange similarity but it's not Vietnam.
I think what happened was that the North changed tactics and the US failed to follow and failed................which might happen in Iraq.
They went from the battlefeild into our homes.........As DTop said, they've got our media by the nose. As did the Vietmanese.
I think what happened was that the North changed tactics and the US failed to follow and failed................which might happen in Iraq.
They went from the battlefeild into our homes.........As DTop said, they've got our media by the nose. As did the Vietmanese.
senojekips
Active member
Of course Iraq is not Vietnam, but the similarities in the way the war is being fought (modern weaponry not withstanding) are amazingly similar. A conventional force against a guerilla force.
In Vietnam if we could get the enemy to fight set piece battles we could beat him easily, but they realised that and waged a hit and run war. It was never a matter of beating the enemy, it was finding him before he found you. The same is the case in Iraq.
The enemy in SVN was being supported neighbouring countries. Same same.
The same goes for the holding of captured areas, we would defeat the VC in a locality then move on as we could never maintain an army in country big enough to occupy every area that was "pacified". As soon as we left the VC came back, or in many cases, "came out", as they were the members of the civil populace who were there all the time..... Does any of this sound familiar, if it doesn't, all I can say is "you weren't there".
Only last night on the news Colin Powell admitted the we are losing the war.
If you won't learn from history you'd better get to like humble pie.
In Vietnam if we could get the enemy to fight set piece battles we could beat him easily, but they realised that and waged a hit and run war. It was never a matter of beating the enemy, it was finding him before he found you. The same is the case in Iraq.
The enemy in SVN was being supported neighbouring countries. Same same.
The same goes for the holding of captured areas, we would defeat the VC in a locality then move on as we could never maintain an army in country big enough to occupy every area that was "pacified". As soon as we left the VC came back, or in many cases, "came out", as they were the members of the civil populace who were there all the time..... Does any of this sound familiar, if it doesn't, all I can say is "you weren't there".
Only last night on the news Colin Powell admitted the we are losing the war.
If you won't learn from history you'd better get to like humble pie.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Delicious.
And now, some people want to re-instate the draft. I am against that, in a big way.
Has anyone here read this past Sunday's Doonesbury cartoon? If you have, I believe that that sums it up well.
And now, some people want to re-instate the draft. I am against that, in a big way.
Has anyone here read this past Sunday's Doonesbury cartoon? If you have, I believe that that sums it up well.
senojekips
Active member
The draft is a quick fix done completely without thought for those already serving.
Would you like to be on active service with a bloke that just doesn't want to be there? Damned if I would.
Would you like to be on active service with a bloke that just doesn't want to be there? Damned if I would.
The Other Guy
Spam King
No motivation, except the faster you die, the faster you go home.
The Cooler King
Godfather
I found this quote interesting. It was written by General Fred C. Weyand (former MACV commander) after the war.
"Vietnam was a reaffirmation of the peculiar relationship between the American Army and the American people. The American Army really is a people's army in the sense that it belongs to the American people who take a jealous and proprietary interest in its involvement... When the Army is committed the American people are committed, when the American people lose their commitment it is futile to try to keep the Army committed."
"Vietnam was a reaffirmation of the peculiar relationship between the American Army and the American people. The American Army really is a people's army in the sense that it belongs to the American people who take a jealous and proprietary interest in its involvement... When the Army is committed the American people are committed, when the American people lose their commitment it is futile to try to keep the Army committed."