Pages: 1 2

 

2008-04-16 02:07:03
JahManRed
wank
+646|7108|IRELAND

lowing wrote:

1..No we have not, politics in this war, like in Vietnam, has hindered our military from doing what it is capable of doing decisively.
I take it by decisively you mean more bombing and more carnage? Bombing the shit out of the place didn't work in Cambodia and wouldn't have worked in Iraqi. You would have killed more civilians and created more revenge filled 'terrorists'. Can you be any more decisive that Vientnam?

lowing wrote:

2. No, Americans want instant gratification, when the war started in '91, it was halted with a decisive advantage in a matter of weeks. Its approval rate was over 90% if  I remember correctly. If this war was over in a matter of weeks, Americans would have over a 90% approval rate for defeating terrorism, but, because it might be inconvenient, to us to win it, all of a sudden we do not want to be bothered to engage in it.
You, me and the world got instant gratification when the Taliban were ousted. Iraqi had nothing to do with terrorism. Its been well proven Iraqi had no links with Al Queeda. You lot should have stopped in Afghanistan and finished the job properly. But Bush was foaming at the mouth to get his hands on Iraqi. Now Afghanistan is largely lawless with the Taliban fighting and often wining against an understrength multi national force.
Afghanistan produces 90% of the worlds heroin, right under the noises of the Collition. While the USA is more commited to Iraqi and her oil the people who harboured the planners of 9/11 are controlling large areas of Afganistan. Indesisive.

lowing wrote:

3. Nope, politicians must lie, you will never get elected by telling people what they might not want to hear.
Agreed. Our job is to cut through the bullshit. Although that doesn't cut with your average tabloid reading Joe.

lowing wrote:

4. Our military can fight this war, and win it. They know what needs to be done. Politics, and PC, combined with a news crew up your ass makes conducting the ugly business of war, very hard for those that know what needs to be done to win it.
You suggest much more force. Pumped up jocks hollering while they spray more family homes with lead, more tactical bombing, what? Could you give us an idea what level of force you would suggest?

lowing wrote:

We are not learning form our mistakes, I agree completely. My explanation for this is in the above comments.
More force is only going to create more 'terrorists' and blow any chance of winning hearts and minds. Shit didn't you learn anything from Vietnam.
2008-04-16 02:12:09
doug1988
spank that azz.
+146|6339|Nibiru in a far away galaxy
The U.S. need conflicts to test there next generation of weapons.

Last edited by doug1988 (2008-04-16 02:12:28)

2008-04-16 02:15:32
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7036

doug1988 wrote:

The U.S. need conflicts to test there next generation of weapons.
/groan
2008-04-16 02:23:06
doug1988
spank that azz.
+146|6339|Nibiru in a far away galaxy

CameronPoe wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

The U.S. need conflicts to test there next generation of weapons.
/groan
Are you OK cameron ? tummy ache ?  lol j/k , but it is true  I read an article a few years back and a 4 star general was overheard saying the best way for us to test these new great weapons is to test them on our future enemies , no better time then the present. it was a 2002 article. and for a brief moment the comment was on the news , it was never heard about it since.

Last edited by doug1988 (2008-04-16 02:28:21)

2008-04-16 02:24:30
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6610|North Tonawanda, NY

CameronPoe wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

The U.S. need conflicts to test there next generation of weapons.
/groan
2008-04-16 02:45:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6891|'Murka

It's not the people that need to learn the lesson. The people don't decide when and how to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. It is the politicians who clearly have not learned the lesson. There have been a few (on both sides of the aisle) who experienced Vietnam firsthand and have been critical of this administration's handling of Iraq (not so much Afghanistan, though).

The Powell Doctrine was not followed, and it is based on hard lessons learned by the man in Vietnam. It will be interesting to see what Petraeus writes up after he leaves Iraq. He has been able to make progress without heavy-handed military tactics.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-16 03:00:33
PureFodder
Member
+225|6766
The populace obviously thought very differently about the two wars. The Vietnam war carried on for 5 years before there was any notable opposition at all, the Iraq war was massively protested against before it had even begun.

As far as politicians go, will they ever learn lessons?
2008-04-16 03:53:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7131|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1..No we have not, politics in this war, like in Vietnam, has hindered our military from doing what it is capable of doing decisively.
Perhaps lowing hasn't learned his lesson. Wars of choice cannot usually be won by bullets alone. Politics inside both Vietnam and Iraq were and are stacked up against any goals (of which I have yet to see any definition in the case of Iraq) the US seek to accomplish. For a man who complains about the need for personal responsibility you have mollycoddled the toothless politicians of Iraq for quite a while now - 5 years - when in fact the country should be having a full on unrestricted civil war in light of the fact that politically Iraq is not a unified entity.

So no - lowing and the US have not learned their lessons.

lowing wrote:

2. No, Americans want instant gratification, when the war started in '91, it was halted with a decisive advantage in a matter of weeks. Its approval rate was over 90% if  I remember correctly. If this war was over in a matter of weeks, Americans would have over a 90% approval rate for defeating terrorism, but, because it might be inconvenient, to us to win it, all of a sudden we do not want to be bothered to engage in it.


Whaddaya know - Dick was right!

lowing wrote:

3. Nope, politicians must lie, you will never get elected by telling people what they might not want to hear.
Politicians lie alright.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/

lowing wrote:

4. Our military can fight this war, and win it. They know what needs to be done. Politics, and PC, combined with a news crew up your ass makes conducting the ugly business of war, very hard for those that know what needs to be done to win it.
You are delusional. What needs to be done lowing? Go on explain. I'm all ears. This will be funny. You still think this is a conventional war. You think this is like WWII where you can decimate the opposition into submission. Newflash: you can't do that in a nation where you can't even see your enemy, a nation you are supposed to be reconstructing and where a significant proportion of that nation wants you to walk on home. No amount of bullets fired at somebody is gonna make them ask you to stay.

The US has to leave Iraq sometime and when they do Iraq will have a civil war and will fall back into line with hating the US for everything they've done to it and for all the support they've given Israel. That's the bottom line.
1. Why are you agreeing with me, and at the same time arguing..........Are you sure you ain't a woman?

2. explain a can't link your video

3. link again

4. Cam, do you honestly think the US military umleashed, could not clean house in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you not think that the military could not have Sadr begging for a truce? After all when this war started in '91 that is what Saddam did. In fact it was politics that stopped the US from steamrolling Baghdad . Here is more food for thought.  A war is not fought to get your enemy to beg you to stay, only to stop
2008-04-16 04:00:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7131|USA

JahManRed wrote:

lowing wrote:

1..No we have not, politics in this war, like in Vietnam, has hindered our military from doing what it is capable of doing decisively.
I take it by decisively you mean more bombing and more carnage? Bombing the shit out of the place didn't work in Cambodia and wouldn't have worked in Iraqi. You would have killed more civilians and created more revenge filled 'terrorists'. Can you be any more decisive that Vientnam?

lowing wrote:

2. No, Americans want instant gratification, when the war started in '91, it was halted with a decisive advantage in a matter of weeks. Its approval rate was over 90% if  I remember correctly. If this war was over in a matter of weeks, Americans would have over a 90% approval rate for defeating terrorism, but, because it might be inconvenient, to us to win it, all of a sudden we do not want to be bothered to engage in it.
You, me and the world got instant gratification when the Taliban were ousted. Iraqi had nothing to do with terrorism. Its been well proven Iraqi had no links with Al Queeda. You lot should have stopped in Afghanistan and finished the job properly. But Bush was foaming at the mouth to get his hands on Iraqi. Now Afghanistan is largely lawless with the Taliban fighting and often wining against an understrength multi national force.
Afghanistan produces 90% of the worlds heroin, right under the noises of the Collition. While the USA is more commited to Iraqi and her oil the people who harboured the planners of 9/11 are controlling large areas of Afganistan. Indesisive.

lowing wrote:

3. Nope, politicians must lie, you will never get elected by telling people what they might not want to hear.
Agreed. Our job is to cut through the bullshit. Although that doesn't cut with your average tabloid reading Joe.

lowing wrote:

4. Our military can fight this war, and win it. They know what needs to be done. Politics, and PC, combined with a news crew up your ass makes conducting the ugly business of war, very hard for those that know what needs to be done to win it.
You suggest much more force. Pumped up jocks hollering while they spray more family homes with lead, more tactical bombing, what? Could you give us an idea what level of force you would suggest?

lowing wrote:

We are not learning form our mistakes, I agree completely. My explanation for this is in the above comments.
More force is only going to create more 'terrorists' and blow any chance of winning hearts and minds. Shit didn't you learn anything from Vietnam.
1. You think our military was unleashed in Vietnam?? Hardly.

2. Iraq was not about terror, it was forcing copliance of UN resolutions......Now it is about terror. Again I said we are indecisive. Why the argument. Are you Cam's girfriend?

3. True

4. Nope I can't.
2008-04-16 04:22:09
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7036

lowing wrote:

1. Why are you agreeing with me, and at the same time arguing..........Are you sure you ain't a woman?
I'm not agreeing with you. You're saying politics in the US is leading to failure and I'm saying politics and realities on the ground in Iraq and the broader middle east is dooming you to failure. They're quite different things. Are you sure you aren't dyslexic?

lowing wrote:

Cam, do you honestly think the US military umleashed, could not clean house in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you not think that the military could not have Sadr begging for a truce? After all when this war started in '91 that is what Saddam did. In fact it was politics that stopped the US from steamrolling Baghdad . Here is more food for thought.  A war is not fought to get your enemy to beg you to stay, only to stop
The fact of the matter is you can't unleash the US military. What would be the point? You're acting as if this is some testosterone driven macho-man competition. This is not a war of survival, it's a war of choice with the ulimate goal not to destroy either Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you really have that much difficulty understanding the contradictions of the situation the US military have been placed in. Is it really that hard? You can bleat on about 'our hands are tied', blah, blah, blah, but the simple unalienable fact of the matter is that they are tied and they have to stay tied and you have to live with it and GET THE FUCK OVER IT. Short of massacring ever last Afghan and Iraqi man, woman and child the popular insurgencies in both countries will exist and continue to thrive in amongst the civilian populace. What we have in both countries are eternal wars of attrition. The politics and popular opinion in each of the two countries is what is pivotal not the US army kill ratio. The sooner you get comfortable with that fact the sooner the rationality of your posts will improve.  I mean - what exactly do you regard as the clearly defined goal (having achieved which the US can go home) of the Iraq mission?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-16 04:22:54)

2008-04-16 05:02:56
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7187|67.222.138.85

doug1988 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

The U.S. need conflicts to test there next generation of weapons.
/groan
Are you OK cameron ? tummy ache ?  lol j/k , but it is true  I read an article a few years back and a 4 star general was overheard saying the best way for us to test these new great weapons is to test them on our future enemies , no better time then the present. it was a 2002 article. and for a brief moment the comment was on the news , it was never heard about it since.
Because our air and armor clearly have a lot of skilled enemy combatants to go up against in the Iraqi army.
2008-04-16 05:07:12
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6999|Πάϊ

lowing wrote:

1. You think our military was unleashed in Vietnam?? Hardly.
It was those damn politicians that kept Rambo from wrecking up the place...
This isn't a war against Iraq, or Vietnam, or whatever man. You want to defeat the Iraqis? It's very simple. In a few days the US army could have killed them all. You would've won the battle, and you would've lost the war.

You see Flaming Maniac? The answer is no. They haven't learned anything. People still think that brute force wins wars.
And mind you, they're not stupid. They just don't want to learn. It is not in their best interest to do so.
ƒ³
2008-04-16 05:12:47
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7321|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

It's not the people that need to learn the lesson. The people don't decide when and how to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. It is the politicians who clearly have not learned the lesson. There have been a few (on both sides of the aisle) who experienced Vietnam firsthand and have been critical of this administration's handling of Iraq (not so much Afghanistan, though).

The Powell Doctrine was not followed, and it is based on hard lessons learned by the man in Vietnam. It will be interesting to see what Petraeus writes up after he leaves Iraq. He has been able to make progress without heavy-handed military tactics.
hence why I believe that on issues such as going to war, a referendum would provide a feasible alternative to letting congress decide on its own.

Because let's face it, a lot of career politicians are out of touch with the average citizen. As a result, often enough any member of congress might vote against the will of the people in his constituency.

If it were really up to the "people", the US would be out of Iraq now, I believe. Unfortunately, modern democracy only happens every 4-5 years...

As far as the OP is concerned, I think that America usually means well, but has a history of being overly aggressive with regard to securing their perceived national interests. Some of the decisions that American administrations have made regarding foreign policy in the middle east have also proven to be quite short-sighted.

Looking at the situation the current administration has gotten itself into in Iraq, I'd say the overall answer to the initial question would be no.

But, you know, America is still a young nation, in historic dimensions. A couple of centuries, and they'll have learned that lesson.
2008-04-16 05:23:50
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6703|Escea

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. You think our military was unleashed in Vietnam?? Hardly.
It was those damn politicians that kept Rambo from wrecking up the place...
This isn't a war against Iraq, or Vietnam, or whatever man. You want to defeat the Iraqis? It's very simple. In a few days the US army could have killed them all. You would've won the battle, and you would've lost the war.

You see Flaming Maniac? The answer is no. They haven't learned anything. People still think that brute force wins wars.
And mind you, they're not stupid. They just don't want to learn. It is not in their best interest to do so.
Brute force does win wars, prime example is the Russians in WW2.
2008-04-16 05:27:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7036

M.O.A.B wrote:

Brute force does win wars, prime example is the Russians in WW2.
How do you suggest using brute force in a nation that is supposed to be being reconstructed as a pluralist democracy in a war that has no resemblance whatsoever to WWII then? Coax the baddies out into the desert with sweeties?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-16 05:28:21)

2008-04-16 05:36:26
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7187|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Brute force does win wars, prime example is the Russians in WW2.
How do you suggest using brute force in a nation that is supposed to be being reconstructed as a pluralist democracy in a war that has no resemblance whatsoever to WWII then? Coax the baddies out into the desert with sweeties?
If we truly used brute force it would have involved nuclear attacks/fire bombing/carpet bombing. If we did that I would imagine the whole country would be scared so shitless of us that they would do what we told them too, it even broke Japan.

Not that I advocate that path, but it's what we could do if there weren't any ethics involved.
2008-04-16 05:42:31
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6770|Éire

doug1988 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

The U.S. need conflicts to test there next generation of weapons.
/groan
Are you OK cameron ? tummy ache ?  lol j/k , but it is true  I read an article a few years back and a 4 star general was overheard saying the best way for us to test these new great weapons is to test them on our future enemies , no better time then the present. it was a 2002 article. and for a brief moment the comment was on the news , it was never heard about it since.
The Nazis needed someone to test their gas on too. As an American you should be disgusted by the idea of such a thing but then again a lot of Germans never complained either.
2008-04-16 05:43:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7036

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we truly used brute force it would have involved nuclear attacks/fire bombing/carpet bombing. If we did that I would imagine the whole country would be scared so shitless of us that they would do what we told them too, it even broke Japan.

Not that I advocate that path, but it's what we could do if there weren't any ethics involved.
You can't cheaply extract oil from a desolate nuclear wasteland.... and let's face it, that's what this is about.
2008-04-16 05:44:58
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6770|Éire

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Brute force does win wars, prime example is the Russians in WW2.
How do you suggest using brute force in a nation that is supposed to be being reconstructed as a pluralist democracy in a war that has no resemblance whatsoever to WWII then? Coax the baddies out into the desert with sweeties?
If we truly used brute force it would have involved nuclear attacks/fire bombing/carpet bombing. If we did that I would imagine the whole country would be scared so shitless of us that they would do what we told them too, it even broke Japan.

Not that I advocate that path, but it's what we could do if there weren't any ethics involved.
You'd have to ask yourself what the hell was the point in starting the thing in the first place in that case...plus I don't think your Israeli buddies would like nukes going off in their backyard, Febreeze doesn't really take care of that kind of stuff.
2008-04-16 05:46:11
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7187|67.222.138.85
not oil

No one would like nukes going off anywhere, but we could.
2008-04-16 05:53:55
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6703|Escea

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

not oil

No one would like nukes going off anywhere, but we could.
There's an alternative to nukes though, super powerful bombs (M.O.A.B's) carpet bombing could easily decimate an area without the effects of fallout.
2008-04-16 05:53:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,827|6586|eXtreme to the maX
Do you not think that the military could not have Sadr begging for a truce? After all when this war started in '91 that is what Saddam did. In fact it was politics that stopped the US from steamrolling Baghdad . Here is more food for thought.  A war is not fought to get your enemy to beg you to stay, only to stop
Sadr is the enemy? I thought it was bin Laden, no wait its the Taleban, oops its really Saddam, hold on no its the Iranian Shia.

Lowing, your arguments are on a par with 'to save the village we had to destroy it'. Ring any bells?
Fuck Israel
2008-04-16 06:09:07
doug1988
spank that azz.
+146|6339|Nibiru in a far away galaxy

Braddock wrote:

doug1988 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


/groan
Are you OK cameron ? tummy ache ?  lol j/k , but it is true  I read an article a few years back and a 4 star general was overheard saying the best way for us to test these new great weapons is to test them on our future enemies , no better time then the present. it was a 2002 article. and for a brief moment the comment was on the news , it was never heard about it since.
The Nazis needed someone to test their gas on too. As an American you should be disgusted by the idea of such a thing but then again a lot of Germans never complained either.
who said were not ? , actually a lot of us think we should stop interfering in world matters.
2008-04-16 06:13:09
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6770|Éire

doug1988 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

doug1988 wrote:


Are you OK cameron ? tummy ache ?  lol j/k , but it is true  I read an article a few years back and a 4 star general was overheard saying the best way for us to test these new great weapons is to test them on our future enemies , no better time then the present. it was a 2002 article. and for a brief moment the comment was on the news , it was never heard about it since.
The Nazis needed someone to test their gas on too. As an American you should be disgusted by the idea of such a thing but then again a lot of Germans never complained either.
who said were not ? , actually a lot of us think we should stop interfering in world matters.
I know there are a lot of people who are unhappy about it, a lot of Germans were unhappy too but not enough of them got up out of their armchairs.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard