It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vietnam 2 called Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

So far for the look of civilian’s death it can not be to protect the people of Iraq.



well gee maybe if we try to tell insurgents and terrorists to stop intentionally targeting the civilians maybe the civilians deaths may go down. in anicase this war cannot be compared to Vietnam. no war can be compare to other past wars cause they change constantly. different tactics, stragedies, technology, etc.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
I wasn't aware any Iraqi slammed into the WTC, Pentagon or even some field in Pennsylvania.



Well, this war on terror is not just confined to Iraq......its worldwide. Radical Islam needs to be stamped out like a cockaroach.
Maximu§



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
LA_Max,

Why not also do the same to Radical Christianism?

Just as crazy but far better armed.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 27-6-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
well gee maybe if we try to tell insurgents and terrorists to stop intentionally targeting the civilians maybe the civilians deaths may go down. in anicase this war cannot be compared to Vietnam. no war can be compare to other past wars cause they change constantly. different tactics, stragedies, technology, etc.


In Vietnam was a lot of acts of terrorism by Vietkong. They were targeting US personel and civilians on daily basis. We didn't know that because of heavy censorship in those days.

Good Morning Vietnam anyone?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
LA_Max,

Why not also do the same to Radical Christianism?

Just as crazy but far better armed.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 27-6-2005 by BillHicksRules]


Care to give some example of recent day "Armed Christian Groups" who are terrorizing their own people on the same level as the radical muslims?

As far as the claim that this war is just like Vitenam, anyone who makes the comparisonrpbably can't even find Vitenam on the map. I gaurantee you that they haven't fought in either war, let alone studied the details of either. If you are going on body count, then the comparison is the most ignorrant one I've ever heard. If you are going on the way combat is taking place, again, it's pointless to even rationalize how ridiculous that sounds. Sad to see when people open their mouths without taking a bit of time to study the facts.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
LA_Max,

Why not also do the same to Radical Christianism?

Just as crazy but far better armed.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 27-6-2005 by BillHicksRules]


Yes, who these radical christian groups that are carrying out terror attacks? I there were any I would approve of them being delt with, but it is mostly Islamic terrorists that are causing pain and suffering in this world!



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
What a piss poor thread


Vietnam is nothing like Iraq, save for one thing:

There are those in America who would rather see the enemy win and the US fail then have the US be victorious because of a pathetic self loathing mentality.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Vietnam is nothing like Iraq, save for one thing:

There are those in America who would rather see the enemy win and the US fail then have the US be victorious because of a pathetic self loathing mentality.


Well then in your inmense wisdom can you elighten us on how the present administrations war on Ideology is going to be win someday eventually?

Obviously your post tell how pathetic and self loathing the mentality of the people that see the realities of this Iraqi made conflict and the death or our soldiers is making the "enemy" more intent on causing more harm, perhaps if we were not in Iraq we will not have to worry about wining anything and we will not be confronting any enemies.


Remember that is why we bombed Afghanistan to take revenge for 9/11

We invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Right?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The similarities that i have noticed between Vietnam and Iraq are that guerrilla forces using improvised terror tactics is something America has no answer to. Having state of the art precision missiles doesn't get rid of them neither does having the best equipped armed force in the world. When someone is willing to commit suicide by becoming a car bomber thats what makes the difference between the opposing sides.
I think the tactics employed by the Terrorist will eventually make the Alliance withdraw from Iraq and leave the mess up to the newly formed Iraqi army, if Bush wants another war he wants to tell his Generals that they have to solve the problem of guerrilla's because if he doesn't , all your wars will be like Vietnam.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
We are winning the war on terror. We have already had successful voting in Iraqi national elections (something that liberals said could not be done), and we are slowly but surly winning the war on terror in Iraq. Just because there are still attacks does not mean we are losing, it just means the war is still on going.

I can't wait till the war is over, I'd love to hear what liberals have to say then!




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I have seen Bush and American commentators scoff at the idea that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam. In at least in 3 ways the Iraq Quagmire is even worse then in Vietnam:

•S. Vietnam had a legitimate government that invited the US in to help them fight the communists, In Iraq the US Invaded and is now trying to invent a government.

•S. Vietnam had an army of a million solders and a pretty good air-force. This army had a legitimate command structure. The Iraqi police-civil defense forces are mainly there just to get a paycheck and don't really take orders from this new government, whenever there is fighting they take off or join the rebels, and the security forces are segregated, Sunni security forces for Falluja and Shiite security forces for Najaf. In the event of an American pull-out these security forces will immediately collapse and various anti-american rebels groups will immediately seize control, the Americans can't even pull out of the cities w/o the place going into chaos.

•In Vietnam the fighting was mostly in the jungle, the urban population of S. Vietnam mostly supported the government and it's US ally, but the problem was most of Vietnam's population resided in rural areas, and in the rural areas the communists were stronger. In Iraq the population is mostly urban and the fighting is in the cities-so the Americans have engaged such tactics as house-to-house searches, checkpoints, mass detentions, and sieges. These tactics alienate the population and makes them more resistant to any government that the Americans install.


and here's some more bad news

•In Basra-the most stable part of Iraq, the Police chief there has said that only 20% of his men are reliable, the rest take orders from militias, mostly Muqtada Al-Sadr, same situation in Nazaria.

•Time is not on America's side, the Iraqi population is increasing losing faith in the govt the US installed with many grudgingly admiting that things were better under sanctioned Saddam.

•The rebels are getting increasingly sophesticated, the attack on the Women marines the other day was coordinated, blasting the convoy and then raking it with concentrated fire, yesterday they brought down an Apache-most likly with a high-tech missile, the US military is unable to weaken the insurgency-instead it's getting stronger. This despite desparate attempts by the US to weaken the insurgents-repeated destructive military incursions into urban areas, and the rebels re-take the territory in Al-Anbar as soon as the US withdraws.

•As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 3-5 dead US soldiers a day + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about 2 thousand + another 100-300 ‘contractors’. In addition to that the cost is enormous, at least $5 billion a month an amount that guarantees huge budget shortfalls each year that the US stays there, that will slowly make the US economy less completive and drive down the economy in the long term, forcing the US to consider any possible exit strategy in the next few years, even ‘cut and running’.




Originally posted by Seekerof
To "think" is to "ponder" and in this case, simply is not based on reality or an educated guess. Merely nothing but what you wish or desire it to be.

If one thinks Iraq is another Vietnam, please provide some educated comparisons that can be debated, other than asserting "I think".




seekerof



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
We have already had successful voting in Iraqi national elections (something that liberals said could not be done), and we are slowly but surly winning the war on terror in Iraq.

In what way does having elected crooks and thugs benefit the Iraqi people?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Boatphone
We have already had successful voting in Iraqi national elections (something that liberals said could not be done), and we are slowly but surly winning the war on terror in Iraq.

In what way does having elected crooks and thugs benefit the Iraqi people?


Please explain you odd statement. What thugs?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
We are winning the war on terror. We have already had successful voting in Iraqi national elections (something that liberals said could not be done), and we are slowly but surly winning the war on terror in Iraq. Just because there are still attacks does not mean we are losing, it just means the war is still on going...


... and now sports.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Please explain you odd statement. What thugs?

Well, let's take a look who exactly won the elections shall we? The United Iraqi Alliance won around 50% of the votes. Parties on this list had attractive sounding names such as:


Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI): wants Iraq to be an as shining sparkly state as Iran

Islamic Dawa Party (al-Dawa): Same thing, but with a terrorist history in the seventies.

Iraqi National Congress (INC): led by the notorious Ahmed Chalabi, originally promised "human rights and rule of law within a constitutional, democratic, and pluralistic Iraq" and as such longtime Washington favorite, until Chalabi started cosying up with Iran. In the lead up to the 2005 Iraqi election INC joined the United Iraqi Alliance coalition of mainly Shi'ite groups as Chalabi reinvented himself as a sharp critic of the occupation, aligning himself with the ever sweet Muqtada al-Sadr.

Badr Organisation: originally the armed wing of SCIRI, likes Iran as a model and they walk around with guns. These nice chaps fight the insurgency for the moment and reportedly only occasionally shoots at British troops.

Hezbollah Movement in Iraq: not associated with the Lebanese Hezbollah but doesn't sound all that nice.

Islamic Action Organisation: the first of the Shi'ite opposition groups to turn to using terrorism against the Baathist regime. With such a history, who guarantees they won't turn against the US? The party did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but was pleased to see Saddam removed from power.

Also nice sounding:

Hezbollah al-Iraq
Islamic Master of the Martyrs Movement
Islamic Union for Iraqi Turkomans
Islamic Virtue Party
Shaheed Al-Mihrab Organisation

====================================

That's just the thugs. As for the crooks, I'm sure you're well aware of Ahmed Chalabi's conviction in Jordan for bank fraud. You might also be interested in the following memo about the corruption and nepotism in the CPA. Although the CPA has been replaced with an elected government, corruption and nepotism has probably changed very little. A telling excerpt:


Coalition memo:
In retrospect, both for political and organizational reasons, the decision to allow the Governing Council to pick 25 ministers did the greatest damage. Not only did we endorse nepotism, with men choosing their sons or brothers-in-law; but we also failed to use our prerogative to shape a system that would work. It is true that several Governing Council members have real constituencies, for example, [REDACTED], but what we ignore is that these constituencies are not based on ideology, but rather on the muscle of their respective personal militias and the patronage which we allow them to bestow. We have bestowed approximately $600 million upon the Kurdish leadership, in addition to the salaries we pay, in addition to the USAID projects, in addition to the taxes we have allowed them to collect illegally. I spent the night of March 3 and morning of March 4 watching The Godfather trilogy on DVD with an Iraqi Kurdish contact who had ridiculed me for never having before seen any of the films. The entire evening was spent discussing which Iraqi Kurdish politicians represented which character. It is telling that it's remarkably easy to do — it was even easy to identify [REDACTED] in the film.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
"You have voted Simon666 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Very good post Simon!


All those parties and none have Democratic or Republican or Social or Liberal or Reformist ... in their names.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Boatphone,


Originally posted by Boatphone
I can't wait till the war is over


How will we know it is over?

BHR

p.s. No response to my earlier post? "posted on 27-6-2005 at 14:45 Post Number: 1488674 (post id: 1510567)"



[edit on 28-6-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize all day long; many politicians make a living doing just that. The real challenge is, taking the current situation into account, propose what could be done to make things better--realistically.


p.s. to OP: shouldn't the tread title be "Iraq called Vietnam 2"? stating it the other way around implies that 'Vietnam 2' has already taken place.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
"You have voted Simon666 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Very good post Simon!


All those parties and none have Democratic or Republican or Social or Liberal or Reformist ... in their names.



HAHAHAHHA why would they?!?! is a completely different system, of course the names of their political parties will sound strange to us. And just because they sound strange to you does not mean that they are "thugs".



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
BillHicksRules,


Boatphone,

“Just because something still exists does not mean war cannot solve it”

Is that your motto?


No, it is just my response to a post. It is a true statement. And a simple one.


“Yes, it is worth it, to protect American and the world. America is willing to fight and die for freedom, thats why we bailed you out in WWII!”

Oh dear oh dear.

First of all, Iraq was not threat to the US or the world. It was a barely surviving, almost 3rd World country.


Not true Iraq has a huge amount of wealth, its just that Saddam was keeping it all to himself. Iraq also had the largest army in the middle-east.


As for the US fighting and dying for freedom in WW2, the US did not get involved until your economy was under threat so lets not talk of the altruism of the US in WW2.


Wow. See you can’t let yourself give the U.S. any credit. Even for saving the world from Hitler! Very telling, you are really open to the facts...how ungrateful can you be??



Those who fought have my undying respect. Those who seek to make political hay from those actions are beneath contempt.

That’s fine, I don’t think anyone is trying to do that, it speaks for itself.


“Remember the majority of Americans voted for the President”

No they did not.

Cheers

BHR


The majority of Americans did, indeed, vote for George W. Bush in 2004.

George W. Bush = 60,693,281 votes.


John F. Kerry = 57,355,978 votes.


2004 Election

Regards,

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Boatphone]

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Boatphone]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join