posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:44 AM
Matt, welcome from another newbie to this great website and discussion forum.
I agree with your concern for the "fall of the USA",
However I would like to dissagree with some of your assesments.
First, please try and keep an open mind. I hope your examining this theory in order to HELP the USA avoid a collapse, not to point the anti-USA
finger. (there are both "patriots" and anti USA people here, but many of us are middle of the road overall)
Iraq is not Vietnam! Dont buy into this emotional play.
There is no superpower (China/Commie blok) backing iraq. There is no cold war balance of power in play here. (there is an ideological war however)
The total casualties on both sides of this conflict are no way even close to being similar. Also, our "kill ratio" in iraq is over
10-1...millitarily this is a huge success (#'s and tactically) than Nam was.
The home political environment and constraints on the millitary are not the same (yes some dissagreement/unhappieness, but where are all the hippies
now?) There were political constraints put on the millitary in Nam, that today arent there.
Your statment about the diference between the vietcong and the jihadist also indicate that our enemy is far different than the one in Nam.
WAR WE CANT WIN.
What is your definition of win?
I would like to think that Americans would start with a more "Can do" spirit, and not a we cant win attitude....we would never have beaten the
Nazi's, walked on the moon or won the cold war with that kind of thinking.
I agree that this endeavour the USA has undertaken
Is large and complicated, indeed a true clear cut "win" is hard to define, let alone achieve. But something MUST be done...Innaction is not, and as
weve seen with the 9-11 commission was not the best course for this problem.
What is being done is debatable, but not the need for something to be done. (Iraq is but one stop int he overall regional terror/instasbliity
You mentioned our strategy making things worse....debatable, but i think in the long term will become better...i strongly dissagree that the
jihadist's tactics will become more desperate....youve already got to be desperate to strap on a bomb and blow up civillians along with yourself.
(This tactic is used by a weaker force attacking a superior one mostly for political gain, but you cant fight the enemy if your dead. This tactic is a
waste of resources to wage war with in the long haul.)
Also dont forget that many of the resistors are not iraqi, but have come to keep iraq unstable and or create a civil war. Many iraqis would like to
get stable and go back to living a more normal life.
Fighting a war there is better than fighting one here for sure!!! Tougher certantly, but better for our people, lands, resources ect.
The use of tactics change as the needs of the situation dictate...just because "tactical role reversal" seems to be occuring (from both sides) does
not make the USA hypocritical....its mearly a sign of the times that we are not where we used to be, and they are. No wonder similar tactics are
being used....tactics are tools and have been used thru time by others, we're not the first.
Dont forget that the President took office on the idea that the USA would be LESS involved in this kind of crap..(not a kick a-s-s attitude)..untill
9-11 dictated the Bush change his policy adgenda (and the US public attitudes changed to allow this kind of responce)...((i know conspiracy theorists
are going "he orchestrated 9-11 for his adgenda"...stick to reality.))
I dont think we care what they believe as long as its not "kill the west" We are more into cleaning up situations and potential avenues to
perpetuate this anti west and criminal terrorist adgenda.
Bush's adhearance to the June 30 deadline for starting iraqi self rule shows we're not into a long term "imperialistic" situation...The President
understands we the people, while agitated now, have short attention spans..and wont be wild about a super long term thing (even if it may be
Both Kerry and Bush have stated they will remain in Iraq and work to fight terror as long as nessisary...i wouldnt look for a pullout.
Speaking of pullouts...Spain...
Have you ever tried to appease a bully? What assurances do they have, or could a terrorist give them that they could believe, that there wont be
another attack? Withdrawl (appeasment) will only result in terrorists being able to use resources elswhere until they think Spain will cave in to
another threat....and why a time limit on this threat to spain? Because there will be another thing they (terrorists) will want in the future and
they will know that Spain didnt have the will the first time, why not extort them again?
STIRING UP MORE TROUBLE?
The USA spends the most $$ on the UN.
We helped CREATE it, We fund it THE MOST, and membership is not MANDITORY for any country. Any one may withdraw from the UN at any time.
Its pretty much a country club, the USA doesnt take orders from the UN, They take orders from us.
The UN can do what it wants, but i expect that our leaders in the USA will be looking out for the USA FIRST, never the UN.
As we see with Iraq, while the UN could have enforced its own mandates, it dint. Hence it is impotent. (now we see a hidden adgenda here as well, can
you say OIL FOR FOOD FIASCO?) Why do we have to do something that they wont force us to do? That what saddam thought, thats what i think too, thats
what the President basicaly told the UN...PUT up or SHUT up. If you dont, you lose your credibillity.
While other countries might eventually attempt to oppose us more forcably with sanction attempts (we'd veto in the UN), trade embargos, removal of
diplomats ect...this would only isolate them from the HUGE money machine that is the USA. Where is their motive to really do more than complain, so
what if we use a little muscle as long as they can still profit by dealings with us?
The collapse of the S.S. net does not mean the economy is collapsing, mearly one social (socialist) program...The USA is a huge chunk of the WORLD
economy, and other nations would suffer along with us in an economic collapse.....noone desires this and all work (in their own ways/reasons) against
Rome was not as integral to the world $$$ situation as the USA is...different market forces entirely.
Also, the USA has the resources and tech to continue supporting itself IF need be for a while at least..would it be fun, no, but do-able, yes.
* Fighting opponents that use unconventional/unknown tactics.
Try using that. (The USA knows about the tactics our enemy is using, they cant deal with our new ones...IE stealth, cruise, covert-ops, ect)
** MORALITY of weapon use.
There is no doubght that use of atomic weapons is horrific. Its supposed to be.
killing is killing is killing, dead is dead.
hands, rock, knife, pistol, tank, missile, nuke..these are all weapons. By their nature, they are all horrific if used for their purpose. Is being
beaten to death more or less humane than being killed in seconds? There is no right answer as death of the person is the end result. It dosnt matter
how death comes. The USA has formally appologized to Japan for this act.
During WWII, many countries were enguaged in wide spread fire bombing of cities, usually at night......Why? Both to demoralize the population as well
as to hit PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE that was keeping the enimies war effort going.
Indeed there was probable truely "innocent" people at both nuke attacks, but....
were there weapon production plants? food distrubution? Sea ports? rail points? Fuel depots? ect?
While the people working making planes, guns, ammo, packing and shipping food, medical, and supplies for their troops ect might not have been front
line soldiers, they worked every day making things or doing jobs to support the war efort.
Brutal weapon? no doubght...but in the context of that conflict...effective...resulting in unconditional surrender of our enemy a very short time
later. Is it wrong to have won the war?
I tried to go down your posting in order and ive given you a lot to sort thru here. Glad i was the first to put in my 2 cents. I hope you got
something you were looking for here.
Again welcome, it only gets messy from here on out on this site...LOL The friendly welcome will wear off soon enough. Dont hold back, hit me hard
with your counter points...We love a good debate.