Iraq not living up to Vietnam

Every one of our enemies knows that you can't take on the United States in an open battlefield fight and win. Which is why should we ever go into Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. etc. the opposing armies will probably melt into the civilian population and focus solely on conducting a protracted guerrilla war on American forces. That is why the Republican Guard seemingly disappeared, that is why we found hundreds of T-72s and BMPs lined up all nice and shiny on Iraqi bases never been used. That is why all these massive ammo dumps are spread all over Iraq.

Originally posted by spacemunkey
I dont think that the population of the countries, whoose armies are involved and are currently in Iraq, will allow them to 'occupy' for longer than is needed. IMHO they will want to get out of the country as quick as is possible after the democratic elections. I would imagine that there will be bases established by the 'Occupying forces' and that they will withdraw to these gradually as the Iraqi government establishes itself and law and order takes hold.

yes, that is "the plan".
but what will really happen, is that, there will be another "israel in iraq", if you know what i mean. there can be no peace between the two religous groups, even if they are all iraqi, if one is supported by u.s. that automaticly puts it in a "hostile" position.
things in this part of the world are not the same as where you and i live. these people do not know the word "democracy".
things will get complicated.

Originally posted by spacemunkey
There are currently ethnic / religious divisions in Iraq, which the democratic elections are trying to redress. The Sunnies are in a minority to the Shia, but hold all the power, this will be redressed in the elections. THIS IS WHAT ALL THE KILLING AND MURDERING IS ABOUT. The Sunny leadership wants to stay in control by destabilising the country.

yes ofcourse the sunnite muslims want to have the power over the country, and with help by u.s. "democratic peace army" will! but will need help by these u.s. forces all the time. it is a very experimental situation, and it would be very nice if it would work. but i dont think democracy can patch up fifty years of suffering and revenge. again, this is not the western world. this middle eastern countries have diffrent cultures and religious aspects. for example the afgani people are born fighters, since they are fighting for their land for a long along time. it is a diffrent tribal religion. not a like western people. and here comes in this clash between the eastern and western world.

Originally posted by spacemunkey
The 'armed Iraqi resistance' is made up of foreign fighters and Sunnies, fighting for control of the power vacuum that Saddams downfall has created, it makes no odds whether the Americans or other nationalities are there, the attacking of foreign troops is just an excuse and a diversion for violence.

IMHO the average Iraqi wants peace, yes they want all the foreign troops out, who wouldnt?

I understand that you posted these under 'the patriotic iraqi point of view' and these are 'not your view's, but I think they're wrong.

you must understand one thing:
the u.s. forces are still in enemy territory and they are still treated by MOST of the muslim-arab population living in middle east, as enemy forces. ofcourse the shiite muslim majority want peace and control over the iraq, but fighters are helping the iraqi resistance all the time. for them, the u.s. forces are treated the same, as they were on the first day of war in iraq. nothing has changed since then for them.

Originally posted by BasementAddix
im not sure if your being sarcastic...but no...they arent re-runs...the "war" is over...thats why the people now are being described as "insurgants"....

Oh!! NOW I get it. They ended the war so they could label everyone who resisted "insurgants". I see now. Much easier than just admitting that we F%$#@! up, isn't it.

I would consider the insurgents murders, not war soldiers. We already destroyed the organized military which is why the war was labeled as "Ended". What you are seeing now are crimals running in and out from being innocent women and children murdering whatever they can because they were brain washed to believe that America and anyone who doesn't think like them are the DEVIL. Our soldiers are not their anymore to wage war, they are their trying to police, stabalize and train. They are their to help progress in rebuilding. We are losing soldiers simply because we are restrained. The media plays a big part of this. Something or anything in the country dies, and its automatically blamed on the US and the soldiers get a bad image. When they get a bad image, they are restrained to act aggressively while the murders simply continue on with no restraints, no laws, or care for human life. Although, many think we should stoop to their level, its not going to happen.

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
Our soldiers are not their anymore to wage war, they are their trying to police, stabalize and train. They are their to help progress in rebuilding.

And to oversee the construction of 14 (count them) permanent bases for the US troops to be stationed at. That's the most interesting part. Did it ever occur to you that most Iraqis don't want this to happen.

We are losing soldiers simply because we are restrained.

I supposed "unrestrained" campaign would mean flattening the cities, no? Besides, restraint has nothing to do with IDE, car bombings etc.

The media plays a big part of this. Something or anything in the country dies, and its automatically blamed on the US and the soldiers get a bad image.

In the initial stage off occupation, a few dosen thousand civilians died. Sure as hell Saddam didn't bomb them or shoot them up.

When they get a bad image, they are restrained to act aggressively

Like how aggresively? There is not much left of Fallujah. Was it restraint?

Although, many think we should stoop to their level, its not going to happen.

I applaud your reluctance to adopt beheadings and car bombs as tactics, but still fail to find much sense in your post.

yes ofcourse the sunnite muslims want to have the power over the country, and with help by u.s. "democratic peace army" will!

I've heard of Sunni and Shiite... but not Sunnite.

www.theinformationminister.com...

Mine didn't work, oh well

[edit on 25-1-2005 by RedPhoenixDelta]

I do not see a flag presented by the insurgents, have you? So there is no army we are fighting but groups who had terrorist training. High percentage of these insurgents are not Iraqis.
I think this person who started this thread was simply trying to say, support our troops. What some say I have found is disturing. You may indirectly not support our troops by the way you say (write) on these threads. It does remind me of the era of the 1960's. Even say to our men and women that they are fighting on the evil side, which yourself is on so to speak. Some of you live in America, why? I seen other countries in this world, they need changes of health conditions for a fact. The true Iraqi people have been down in the sand dust for a very long time, their legs to support them are wobbly and need time to strengthen. America did not have the Declaration of Independent written till 11 years after the fact. Movies run 2-3 hours to tell a story, I believe it takes longer in the real world don't you think?

Thanks to all who support our troops, God bless!

GI WOLVES
DAV : Means Disabled American Veterans member

[edit on 25-1-2005 by GI_WOLVES]

Originally posted by LogansRun


Oh!! NOW I get it. They ended the war so they could label everyone who resisted "insurgants". I see now. Much easier than just admitting that we F%$#@! up, isn't it.

no...we arent fighting tanks or army personal anymore...we are fighting rag tag bunches who are hell bent on the Sunni's keeping power in the country...we have all but 3 providences secure...Saddam is captured...the war is over...just because a small bunch of people who dotn want democracy keep making trouble...doesnt mean we are still fighting the war...

AELITA,

Since we are responsible for removing the terrorist government of Saddam, we are also responsible in helping rebound Iraq, which means if we need 14 military bases, then we need 14 military bases.

Next, "UNRESTRAINED" doesn't mean flattening cities. It means going on the offensive more like Falluja and getting somthing done rather than walking around like sitting ducks waiting for the next car bomber to drive by.

As Far as Civilians being Killed during the initial stage of occupation. I completely agree with you that it is horrible and tragic the loss of innocent lives. But its called a war! Do you know of another country that could have finished the war quicker, with 0 casualties? I guess it wasn't horrible when Saddam mass murdered his own people? It wasn't horrible when thousands of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brothes, and sisters died when the trade centers fell?.....Decades Aelita!!!!! Terrorism from these regimes has been happening for decaeds!!!! If we did nothing...it would just continue on.

For the comment of Falluja. Did we not warn and delay week after week after week while terrorists continued to shoot at us and torture people in their torture chambers in Falluja? WE RESTRAINT TO CAUSE CONFLICT AND TRIED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE TERRORISTS!!!! Why were we restrained? Because the media played a one sided role to giving the soldiers a bad image. We could have just leveled Falluja with out weeks of warning or letting the general population evacuate, but we didn't, cause we are not there to murder innocent people.

Lastly, your comment on my post not making much sense was a little quick to judge. My comment about stooping to their level was to say that many try to compare us as stooping to the level as terrorists, but americans don't do that and are not going to be doing that. I applaud your thoughts and opinions, however i think you are like the media and see only one side of things and that is the death toll. Death is horrible and i don't like it either, but like i said before, somtimes its necessary to bring about change when decades of bickering and talk was useless.

Originally posted by BasementAddix
no...we arent fighting tanks or army personal anymore...we are fighting rag tag bunches who are hell bent on the Sunni's keeping power in the country...we have all but 3 providences secure...Saddam is captured...the war is over...just because a small bunch of people who dotn want democracy keep making trouble...doesnt mean we are still fighting the war...

Firstly, if you were over there fighting these "rag tag bunches" I am sure you would discover a newfound respect for how organised and deadly they are. And I can't help but feel that your description of them from the safety of fortress America belittles the people who actually face the dangers daily.

Secondly, how many US troops died before Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and announced "Mission Accomplished" compared to those who have died since? The invasion was no war, coalition forces breezed on in to Baghdad in complete domination style. The war is now, and is where you will find the elite republican guards never seen during the invasion blending with civilians and in police uniforms.

Originally posted by astroblade
oh i don't know koji, maybe the fact that vietnam was several decades ago and has since had the time to rebuild, develope, and prosper into the country it is today while iraq is really just beginning it's development into the stable and prosperous country i hope, and believe, it will become. maybe have a little patience, give iraq a chance? something a little longer then a year perhaps?

that's my point exactly. maybe we should wait a little longer before calling iraq a "total victory". just because iraq no longer has saddam in power does not automatically mean we've "won" in iraq. we have to prove the alternative is worthwhile. it's easy for us sitting in "the west" to say iraq is better off because they don't have saddam, or vietnam is worse off because they have a communist government, but these are just words which don't reflect the level of comfort and prosperity experienced by the people who live in each place.

because the original poster didn't seem to take into account conditions in each country after the "wars" ended in each place (and i was a little confused that he considered iraqs "war" to be over- i see no evidence of such). he merely stated vietnam was a loss and iraq a total victory, giving the reader no clue as to how you measure victory. for this reason, i still fail to see the point of the original post. there are arguments to be made for and against comparing vietnam to iraq, but maps of the two countries, descriptions of their names, and aribitrary and premature assignations of victory to their respective conflicts don't really factor into either an argument for or against (unless your argument is merely that the two countries look different and have different names). hence my confusion- what was the original poster trying to show?

adressing the thread in general, most vietnam/iraq comparisions take in mind that the iraq "war" is not over, just as the vietnam "war" was not over 2 years following american intervention. no war was ever declared in vietnam, and we must be equally careful to prevent confusing the "end of major combat actions" with some kind of dividing line between war and peace, as war was also never declared on iraq.

-koji K.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 25-1-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 25-1-2005 by koji_K]