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.

 

Comparison Between Iraq, and Vietnam

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

as posted by intrepid
I see many similarities. Have they got the "body count" yet? No, but read my posts, it's early in this war. It will change. Just like VN, why is it so invisible to people?

Ignore it if you wish, it won't change what is to come.

More body bags on TV, mine, not yours.



So let me guess, intrepid, you are also in the camp of those advocating that the US and Coalition falter and fail?

Interesting. I learn something new everyday.
Be careful what you wish for or desire, the ramifications/implications of such a defeat or failure is not just to the US and Coalition, but has implications for the entire Western civilization.
Worthy read perhaps?
Losing the Iraq War: Can the left really want us to?




seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by intrepid
I see many similarities. Have they got the "body count" yet? No, but read my posts, it's early in this war. It will change. Just like VN, why is it so invisible to people?

Ignore it if you wish, it won't change what is to come.

More body bags on TV, mine, not yours.



So let me guess, intrepid, you are also in the camp of those advocating that the US and Coalition falter and fail.

Interesting. I learn something new everyday.





seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]


Like VN, it's already failed.

I think the US AND the Coallition should look to matters "home-front", plenty of those, without making holes, and further terrorists, in other countries.

The fact that this is "on-topic" is scary.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Already failed?

News flash to me.
Enlighten me.




seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Already failed?

News flash to me.
Enlighten me.




seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]


I can merely prognosticate, do I see less action against the West?

No! Only see more, matter of time. America is not only dealing with a nation, they are dealing with a people. Started with Afghanistan, moved to Iraq. Next stop Iran? Syria? Lebanon?

Can people of these areas stand down and allow the US to do that? I don't see that as a viable solution.

I weep for the end of the USSR. At least then there was a foil for America's power.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Ahh, ic, always that all this is because of American hegemony, huh?

No mention that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were committing acts of terrorism prior to Iraq? Always the notion that Iraq increased such activities. Increased them where, exactly? The US? The UK? Israel? Spain? France? Germany? Canada? The Philippines? Iraq?

Anyhow, be warned, a failure in Iraq will have repercussions throughout the Western world. Islamic terrorism will see it as a victory and as more of a reason to commit further such acts of terrorism abroad. What I do realize is that there is a human cost to a win or lose, as there is with security and freedom. To continue to ignore the problem only causes the problem to fester and grow in severity; 9/11 was the ultimate culmination of decades of sitting idle as Islamic fundamentalism equipped terrorists continued to commit their acts of international terrorism, unabated.




seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Anyhow, be warned, a failure in Iraq will have repercussions throughout the Western world. Islamic terrorism will see it as a victory and as more of a reason to commit further such acts of terrorism abroad. What I do realize is that there is a human cost to a win or lose, as there is with security and freedom. To continue to ignore the problem only causes the problem to fester and grow in severity; 9/11 was the ultimate culmination of decades of sitting idle as Islamic fundamentalism equipped terrorists continued to commit their acts of international terrorism, unabated.




seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]


Sorry Seekerof, I see it differently. The way I read your post, it seemed like a pissing contest, like the Cold War. The colateral damage be damned.

Is it better to be right, or do the right thing?

From what I bolded in your post= to what people does this apply to? Only Americans? Do the day to day people of Qatar deserve the same thing?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Moral and ethics aside in this political correct world, the notion that acts of terrorism can go unabated is ludicrous, and that is exactly what you are saying you wish should continue.

Whether there is action, whether there is conflict, whether there is war, collateral damage is debatable, but something that will happen regardless.



From what I bolded in your post= to what people does this apply to? Only Americans? Do the day to day people of Qatar deserve the same thing?

I would think that security and freedom effects us all, huh, intrepid? The difference here is that some are willing to fight to protect and have them, while others opt to sit and watch others do it for them, then whine and bemoan those who are doing such as warmongers, etc.





seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
There has been a lot of mistaken notions come about because of
Vietnam. Everyone, including Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein
have believed that you can easily defeat the US if you just
do a guerilla war. The fact they seem to miss though is that
for a guerilla to succeed you need a sanctuary and this sanctuary
has to be able to furnish credible supply in the form of people
and munitions.

A basic need in any guerilla war is sanctuary. A successful
guerilla war cannot be undertaken without it. Some examples
of sanctuary may be in order here. In Vietnam the sanctuary was
North Vietnam. The North maintained a steady supply of
supplies and troops into the south who were to act as guerillas
and conduct a prolonged attrition. Sanctuary was also supplied in
the south by real rebels who supported the northern troops
and a vast underground system of tunnels was created. To
win in Vietnam it was necessary to remove the sanctuary
provided by the North. This was the failure of the Americans
there. With US leadership in Vietnam being provided from
the White House, the military effort was never allowed to
remove the supplying and sanctuary provided by North Vietnam.
Targeting was restricted in North Vietnam to the point that
they were never really hurt and there were numerous bombing
halts even on the petty targets they were allowed to hit.

A similar situation arose in Afghanistan for the Russians.
The sanctuary there was the really rough mountain terrain
and Pakistan. Guerilla efforts were hidden and supplied
by Pakistan. The supplies actually came from the US and
Saudi Arabia. They shared the bill 50-50. The plan for the
operation was the brain child of Michael Vickers, a rather
junior member of the CIA who had a genius IQ and much background
as an Army Special Operations type before joining the CIA.
Michael laid out the whole plan, as to weapons, how many of
them, the training needed etc. and his boss Gust Avrakotos
carried out the plan through the help of some key congressmen
providing funding, Saudi Arabia with more funding and
Pakistan acting as the middle man that funneled all the support
and training to the Afghan guerillas. The Russians knew Pakistan
was furnishing the sanctuary, just as the US knew North Vietnam
was furnishing it in Vietnam. The Russians waivered though
and would not take action against Pakistan, similarly to
the US not taking a decisive action in North Vietnam. The
fact that Jimmy Carter threatened to use nuclear weapons
if Russia went outside of Afghanistan probably was a good
part of the reason Russia never neutralized Pakistan.
The US participation was completely covert. It was kept
secret to the point that only a few of the Afghanistan
leaders had any idea that they were being equipped with
weapons and equipment carefully determined by Michael
Vickers back at the CIA. The Russians won every battle,
completely dominating the fighting similar to how the
US completely and overwhelmingly won any battles in Vietnam.
To the Afghanis credit though, they would never give up and
finally the Russians decided it just wasn't worth it and
left. As the Russians marched out and left, the Afghanis
started immediately fighting each other, with the Taliban
finally controlling, at least in the south. One consequence
of this secrecy of the war was that the Muslims that fought
the war against Russia believed that they did it by themselves,
not even knowing that their plan and funding had come from
Michael Vickers, the CIA, and Saudi Arabia. They believed
that they had actually defeated the Russians, with the help
of God, of course, who was on their side and militant Islam
got a large shot in the arm. This group that believed they
had with God's help defeated the Russians became inspired
to again regain the Muslim glory of the reborn establishment
of the Caliphate. To do this they would keep up a fiction of
being independent of the Afghanistan government who would
give them sanctuary and possibly also from Pakistan.
From this base of operations they would carry out their
mission.

Anyone seeing the bigger picture can see what is wrong
with this scenario. First of all, this little ragtag
bunch of rabble doesn't really have the ability to whip
a Russia or a United States providing that the Russians
or Americans are allowed to wage a serious fight. A
serious fight would include removing the sanctuary. In the
present fighting, the US will remove the sanctuary which
is necessary to the guerillas. Pakistan is being removed
as a sanctuary from al Qaeda because Musharraf, who has a
long history of being pro US aligned with the US instead of
al Qaeda. Pakistan was comfortable giving sanctuary to
Afghanistan guerillas while the US was in their corner
but they really don't want to commit hari-kari by siding
with all Qaeda against the US. A friendly US is just too
important to them with an unfriendly India next door.

Al Qaeda frustrated with lack of success against the US
is concentrating more on punishing the Islamic who have
sided with the US. This is demonstrated in much activity
in Iraq where attacks are actually killing a lot more
Iraqis than they are killing Americans. The latest attacks
made in Iraq have been almost entirely against Iraqis.

Sanctuary in Iraq is much more difficult than even Afghanistan.
Iraq has miles and miles of open desert over which to move
personnel and munitions. Also the majority of Iraq does not
support the insurgents, which further aggravates their sanctuary
problem. Also, make note of the fact that Russia is not furnishing
supply to the insurgents in Iraq as they did to North Vietnam.
Also make note of the fact that the US is not furnishing supply
and aid to the insurgents as they did in Afghanistan against
the Russians. No one with deep pockets is furnishing supply
and support to the Iraqi insurgents. These poor fools are
pretty much on their own, with a few outsiders like Al Qaeda
giving support. Also the neighboring states can't supply
much help to Iraqi insurgents because the neighboring states
have no big brother to back them up. In Vietnam, North Vietnam
had Russia and China to help them if the US went into North
Vietnam especially with ground troops. In Afghanistan, The US
was available to ward off an attack into Pakistan if Russia
tried to cut off that sanctuary.

Make no mistake, Iraq will positively be different than Vietnam.
I expect to see Iraq quieted down with mainly Iraqi troops doing
the fighting by this time next year, with US troops starting
orderly withdrawal.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Moral and ethics aside in this political correct world, the notion that acts of terrorism can go unabated is ludicrous, and that is exactly what you are saying you wish should continue.


Continue? From where? Have there been attacks on your nation since... horns blow9/11?

It's how we deal with what the gov't sends to us that defines us. Do we believe the lies, right and left?

I haven't seen any action against America since 9/11. So you're going to advance because of something that could happen?

That seems like flawed logic to me. Reread the thread. Sorry Seekerof but I see only fear and/rhetoric here. No solution(only further animosity) or further discention.

Not a solution imo. :shk:



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
.
If you don't have the indigenous people either tired of war or on your side the task of trying to maintain order is multiplied several times.

This is the lesson of Vietnam and Afghanistan. But obviously some people are unbelievably slow to learn.

The same cowboy attitude that 'We can just stomp into Iraq, take out our former ally, and the Iraqis will kneel and kiss our jack-boots' is the same attitude that has alienated the many potential allies we could have had in Iraq, not to mention the entire Middle East.

The most staunch supporters of the war usually have this same attitude.
They think that if we just spend more time there doing the same things it will produce any different results from what has already produced.
I guess by magic?
Sounds like a gambling addiction.

Time to cut the pinheads off.

Youve had your troops,
youve spent a 1/5th of a trillion dollars
youve spent 1800+ American lives and 10s of thousands of maimed and wounded,
youve killed 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqis.

You had your fun
Youve made your mess from an otherwise stable nation.
There is no more patience for anymore of your horrific antics.

You aren't capable of making it better,
It can't get much worse,
Time to leave this stinking messpile behind.

'Peace with Honor?'

Just cut your losses and leave.
Your 'honor' is too pricey for me.
.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
And your solution is what? The US and Coalition exit Iraq, while acts of Islamic terrorism persist and continue unabated internationally? A return to status quo?

Lovely solution, huh?
Solves everything, correct?





seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I was going to stay out of this one but someone I respect asked my opinion so here it is.


I was against going into Iraq but since we are there now arguing that point is moot. The question is CAN we leave now. Like the sign in the store, we have broke this I don't see how we can get out of "buying" it. I don't think invading Iraq was necessary nor even a wise move on the WOT (which I support)

Is it like Nam?

In some ways......yes.

Again we have an Army that can do the job but are we willing to pay the price to win?

Are we willing to field an army large enough to do the job?

Are we willing to carry the war into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc; wherever men or supplies are coming from?

Are we ready to loose 10s of thousands of men?

Are we ready for 5-6 dollar a gallon gas while this is going on?

If so we can win.


We could cut a deal on the oil with China and Russia and while growling in public they would cheerfully let us do the dirty work and smile while we were bleed dry.

If we leave now I think it will just make things a LOT worse and we will have to turn around and do it all over again. If we stay we will just loose a bunch of good men for nothing unless we are prepared to do the above.


IMO Bush screwed the pooch on this one.

What pisses me off is the Government has gotten us into a war they seem neither ready to win or lose. They don't seem willing to back out nor do they seem willing to do what it takes to win.

Sounds like Nam to me

this is all I have to say on this one



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And your solution is what? The US and Coalition exit Iraq, while acts of Islamic terrorism persist and continue unabated internationally? A return to status quo?







seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]


Good questions, wrong questions. Is the current action(war where-ever) producing results that the people want? I don't think so. I could be wrong though.

To the Bold. Really? What have they done since 9/11? Nothing against America. Don't give me the international stuff. It's not like America has given a damn about any other nation ever, only when it serves it's own purpose.

Let me be a little pro active here, why hasn't Canada, Jamaca, Mexico, Iceland, Argentina, Peru, I could go on, been attacked?

We aren't screwing with people!

"Lovely solution, huh?
Solves everything, correct?"

Well, your solution is working SO well.


You might want to rethink "Might over right".



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Some people talk a good game, the question here is can you back it?
How about you explain, in detail, how Iraq is exactly like Vietnam for us in need of a history lesson there, phoenixhasrisin....
[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]


I usually back up everything that I say.....The question here is......will you address all the points that I raise if I do go through the trouble?

I mean..... this would not be the first time that I proved you wrong ....and you ignored me. So if I put forth the effort then will you adress my points? or will you just stay silent as I prove you wrong, as usual?

Tell me then "seeker"....perhaps I should stay silent like you have until you adress all the points I have raised to you...hmmmm?

[edit on 11-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 11-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
We aren't screwing with people!


Thats why I am a Libertarian....we are STRICTLY against interfering in other countries problems. Before yall clap that means we don't interfere PERIOD. We as a country neither help nor hinder anyone, we only trade.

But unfortunately the rest of the country isn't.

It too late NOT to screw with people. I don't see a way out of this without fighting.

You are a bit harsh saying America is only concerned about its own self-interest. Its true but EVERY country is only concerned about its own self interest.

Even Canada

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
You are a bit harsh saying America is only interested in its on self-interest. Its true but EVERY country is only interested in its on self interest.

Even Canada


Very true, but America is very agressive in it's pursuits.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Very true, but America is very agressive in it's pursuits.


True.

Libertarians think our best interests can be served just as well by staying out of other countries affairs and just trading with the winner. If we had followed this we would have stayed out of most if not all of the wars we have been in.


[edit on 11-8-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Tell me then "seeker"....perhaps I should stay silent like you have until you adress all the points I have raised to you...hmmmm?

Your sarcasm is self-evident, but lets get something clear here:
Friends call me "seeker," phoenixhasrisen.
Out of respect for you as a member, I have maintained the sanctity of your name by continuing to refer to you as phoenixhasrisin, not phoenix, or any other abridged version. It would be greatly appreciated if you would refer to me by my online name: seekerof.

As to addressing your points that you claim to have raised, you have made two posts and your initial post prior to the one I am addressing now, had no legitimate points raised to be addressed other than what I did in my initial response to it, where it was I who posed the question to you.






seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Tell me then "seeker"....perhaps I should stay silent like you have until you adress all the points I have raised to you...hmmmm?

Your sarcasm is self-evident, but lets get something clear here:
Friends call me "seeker," phoenixhasrisen.
Out of respect for you as a member, I have maintained the sanctity of your name by continuing to refer to you as phoenixhasrisin, not phoenix, or any other abridged version. It would be greatly appreciated if you would refer to me by my online name: seekerof.

As to addressing your points that you claim to have raised, you have made two posts and your initial post prior to the one I am addressing now, had no legitimate points raised to be addressed other than what I did in my initial response to it, where it was I who posed the question to you.
seekerof
[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]


If something as trivial as a screen name means that much to you then I will surely comply. That however does not take away from the fact that we have had plenty of disagrements, and a few that you have chosen to abstain form.

If you wish me to prove a point then I will, however that is not the reason I am here. I am here to debate with others who are at least as articulate as I am, if you feel that you are up to this then by all means. Other than that wee both know the topics you have thrown your two cents in, yet chosen not to continue. Do you wih this to be another one of these? If so then I am sorry. If you wish however to continue your last point of nonsense then by all means....

If not then I will refrain as I would rather deal with the issues that you have dropped as opposed to the ones that you prefer to raise.

Toodles Seekerof............



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Hey "seeker of" remember the last post you tried to argue me on?......Remember how you just let the argumetn go....Is that what you plan on doing this time?.......

Please finish the arguments we have already had, before trying to start new ones.......Is that really too much to ask?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join