Iraq = Vietnam Part II?

**Arc** · Mar 26th, 2003, 12:32 AM

We could have smashed Iraq into a pulp already if we wanted to. We could already own the whole country, so what's stopping us?

Politics are stopping us. We are so afraid of killing one civilian that we are afraid to use the force that we need to use to take over Iraq. Meanwhile Iraqis are faking surrender and then bombing our soldiers and they are dressing up like us and killing thier own surrendering soldiers for being traitors among many other geneva convention violations. But i never thought they would actually follow any "Rules of war" anyway. In fact i think what they are doing is very clever and i would probably do the same if i were being invaded.

The problem is, we are losing soldiers and we are afraid to do what we need to do to win becasue of "popular opinion". We are afraid to to do what we need to do becasue we don't want to give Anti_war people something to gloat about. If iraq keeps it up with thier propaganda tactics and and we keep our "No dead civilians" policy up we may end up having to withdraw from Iraq.

Iraq may be able to gather world support with thier propaganda and if America drags the war out for months becasue it is afraid to actually bomb something and do what it needs to do to win then we may actually end up facing enough political pressure to force us to back out of Iraq.

I hope that day doesn't come. I thought America learned from the Vietnam war not to mix politics woth war.

**hellswraith** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:04 AM

I agree with you, but we have only been at war for a week now and we do control at least half the country. The places we don't have are the two big cities pretty much. I know these are going to be the hardest parts, but the southern city we are getting the Iraqi people to stand up and help us. So that city may still take a little bit, but it will be easier with them helping us. Bagdad is going to be some work. No doubt about it. But it took us the last week just to get there. We haven't even started with it yet.

People want this war to be won quick. I agree. We haven't even come close to this being a Vietnam yet though. You actually can't even compare the two. We have lost VERY FEW soldiers still. Now, if we start loosing 100 a day or more, then yes, we need to look at what we are doing and change some things up. No one ever said we were going to win this war with only 5 soldiers dead. Every time the president speaks, he says we will suffers casualties, and to expect it.

If we don't loose over 200 soldiers, I don't call it a war. It would be a conflict in my eyes. That is just me though. I have a lot of pennies in my pocket, and I just gave you two of them...

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:07 AM

We could have smashed Iraq into a pulp already if we wanted to. We could already own the whole country, so what's stopping us?

America has about 52 states already, don't tell me you want more.

**Spooner** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Arc

The problem is, we are losing soldiers and we are afraid to do what we need to do to win becasue of "popular opinion".

That's crap. If popular opinion had anything to do with it, you ar$eholes wouldn't be there in the first place.

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:44 AM

Iraq may be able to gather world support with thier propaganda and if America drags the war out for months becasue it is afraid to actually bomb something and do what it needs to do to win then we may actually end up facing enough political pressure to force us to back out of Iraq.

America doesn't appear to be afraid to bomb Iraq, George W. Bush seems really pleased with how the war is going I don't think he will give up now.

**Spooner** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
America has about 52 states already, don't tell me you want more.

Anyone read Colin Forbes' This United State in which the UK almost fell to a CIA plot to make it the 51st? Scary thought! But for Tweed and Co it would've happened!

**Spooner** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Arc

I thought America learned from the Vietnam war not to mix politics woth war.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Going to war is not a military thing, it is political in the first place. Your Supreme Commander or *** his title is, is a politian, not a military man. His position as head of the US armed forces is ex oficio.

**Arc** · Mar 26th, 2003, 01:59 AM

Yah i know it's still Very early in the war and we've only lost about 200 people(Dead-Injured-PoW), but we have lost alot of those people because we let our guard down. Being nice to PoW's cost us about 50 people(Dead-Injured) when the Pow's turned and fired.

You can't say we have control of half the country. We have countrol of the half that has no people maybe. how do you think we got to baghdad so fast? We bypassed all the citys. We have yet to control any city, all we control is desert wasteland. meanwhile these soldiers are coming out of the citys we bypassed and attacking our supply lines causing us to run dangerously low on supplies.

This war is not being taken seriously by our commanders. We think Iraq is just a push over but you can't underestimate terrorists. This being "nice" policy is not going to win a war.

**gaffa** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:10 AM

You can't ignore popular opinion when going to war - it is generally what instigates the war in the first place.

If nobody cared that people had been killed in the NYC attacks, then the US wouldn't have bothered trying to track down Bin Laden. It was because the PEOPLE were angry that the US decided to junt Bin Laden down.

The Iraq situation was ostensibly based around the threat to national security - the politicians increased the fear level about WMD attacks until the population demanded some action.

But the people can be fickle - it won't take too many body bags before people start wondering about whether the actual benefit gained from this war is worth the cost. That holds for all three countries with troops in Iraq.

It will only be worse if no WMD's are found - in that case, the initial justification for the war goes out the window.

- gaffa

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Spooner
Anyone read Colin Forbes' This United State in which the UK almost fell to a CIA plot to make it the 51st? Scary thought! But for Tweed and Co it would've happened!

**Spooner** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Nightwalker83

It's a novel; don't panic

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Spooner
It's a novel; don't panic

oh ok

**Arc** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by gaffa
You can't ignore popular opinion when going to war - it is generally what instigates the war in the first place.

If nobody cared that people had been killed in the NYC attacks, then the US wouldn't have bothered trying to track down Bin Laden. It was because the PEOPLE were angry that the US decided to junt Bin Laden down.

The Iraq situation was ostensibly based around the threat to national security - the politicians increased the fear level about WMD attacks until the population demanded some action.

But the people can be fickle - it won't take too many body bags before people start wondering about whether the actual benefit gained from this war is worth the cost. That holds for all three countries with troops in Iraq.

It will only be worse if no WMD's are found - in that case, the initial justification for the war goes out the window.

- gaffa

Well we've pretty much rooted out some chemical weapons already so no worries there. 2 chemical plants found that were completely comoflaged. Hospital found today that was full of soldiers and also full of chemical suites and atrapene injenctions(used to counteract chemical agents). Add in the Scud missles and the iraqi geneva convention attrocities and you pretty much have the war justified and we have only just reached the tip of the ice berge.

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:45 AM

the iraqi geneva convention

Isn't that the law that makes it illegal to parade POWs on streets. Does that law say the it's also illegal to take picture of captured soldiers and print them in the news?

**gaffa** · Mar 26th, 2003, 02:54 AM

Well we've pretty much rooted out some chemical weapons already so no worries there. 2 chemical plants found that were completely comoflaged. Hospital found today that was full of soldiers and also full of chemical suites and atrapene injenctions(used to counteract chemical agents). Add in the Scud missles and the iraqi geneva convention attrocities and you pretty much have the war justified and we have only just reached the tip of the ice berge.

Finding chemical plants is not the same as finding chemical weapons (which at last check, they HAD NOT found).

OK, so the Iraqi soldiers have chemical suits and the VX neutralising agent. So do the Coalition troops. At last check the Iraqi's even had the gall to posses guns! I mean, how is the US supposed to win a war when the enemy has AK-47s?

As to Geneva convention "attrocities"... tell that to the people being held at Camp X-Ray. The US is no better... at least the iraqi's actually call them "prisoners of war".

- gaffa

**plenderj** · Mar 26th, 2003, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Arc
We could have smashed Iraq into a pulp already if we wanted to. We could already own the whole country, so what's stopping us?

We are so afraid of killing one civilian that we are afraid to use the force that we need to use to take over Iraq.

And all along I thought the US wanted to save the Iraqi people.
Silly me

**KayJay** · Mar 26th, 2003, 04:34 AM

We could have smashed Iraq into a pulp already if we wanted to. We could already own the whole country, so what's stopping us?

This war is not being taken seriously by our commanders. We think Iraq is just a push over but you can't underestimate terrorists. This being "nice" policy is not going to win a war.

A sentiment thats telling

America has about 52 states already, don't tell me you want more.

And a quote from my posts here , (Do take a look at the date!)

It is a moot point to argue that the US of A is not involved in West Asia for economic or political reasons. Whatever the reason and its validity, the end is predetermined. That Saddam Hussein is capabale of Mass Murder and Genocide and that is the reason why the US of A needs to take a tough stand to secure its and the world's safety, is correct, right and absolutely laudable. Yet, we have seen over and over and over again, that when a Soveriegn Nation of the day indulges, influences and executes policies in another Sovereign Nation nation of that day, be it economic, financial, political and/or social policies, the end is always in bloodshed, war and the Winner takes all. Always. The East India Company just wanted to buy cotton, you know. GWB in the name of the US of A just wants to punish a criminal, U know.

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:28 AM

And a quote from my posts here , (Do take a look at the date!)

01/21/03 so.

**plenderj** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
01/21/03 so.

It was before the big war arguments and what not.
So his sentiments aren't inspired by what's going on at the moment

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
It was before the big war arguments and what not.
So his sentiments aren't inspired by what's going on at the moment

America has about 52 states already, don't tell me you want more.

Was suppose to be a joke hence the

on the end.

**plenderj** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Was suppose to be a joke hence the on the end.

/me scratches his head.
huh

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
/me scratches his head.
huh

I should've put [joke] [/joke] tags.

**KayJay** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:42 AM

NW, it was not a critique of you or your statments.

I just pointed out that we have reached a stage where such statements can even be thought of let alone the fact of its materialization be subject to dispute. Its a pity that what's being done now in Iraq by way of an armed assault at the current scale, righteous or not, valid or not, necessary or not, the end result will always be in transplanting one people in another's land. Its a pity, its unfortunate, its detestable, but that's our bloody history, literally.

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 26th, 2003, 05:47 AM

NW, it was not a critique of you or your statments.

I just pointed out that we have reached a stage where such statements can even be thought of let alone the fact of its materialization be subject to dispute.

Oh ok sorry.

Thread: Iraq = Vietnam Part II?

Thread Tools

Display

Iraq = Vietnam Part II?

Re: Iraq = Vietnam Part II?

Re: Iraq = Vietnam Part II?

Re: Iraq = Vietnam Part II?

The King is Dead! Long Live The King! Hark! Hark!

Posting Permissions