I beg to differ. The level of violence in Iraq is escalating at an enormous rate. Insurgents are once again engaging in standup firefights with US forces. The insurgents may never defeat US forces on a battlefield and still win and probably will. This won't be due to adversely conceived reporting of fact. It will be due to adversely conceived conditions that led to the war and kept it alive by the current administration
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Everyone misses the point on the VietNam Iraq analogy---we always knew where enemy central was in VietNam---which was in N. VietNam--Haiphong basically. One little minor detail and triviality---Red China set the rules---if the US invaded N. VietNam with ground troops---China would intervine to prevent it--but it was OK to bomb N. VietNam from the air by these same Chinese rules.
But where is enemy central in Iraq?---and where is that third party that prevents us from going after enemy central in Iraq?
Totally different wars---same basic clueless leaders---same basic rethoric.---same basic failure to connect with the man on the street.
But where is enemy central in Iraq?---and where is that third party that prevents us from going after enemy central in Iraq?
Totally different wars---same basic clueless leaders---same basic rethoric.---same basic failure to connect with the man on the street.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
If it is sensible then I will most likely follow it.
I highly doubt that Baker's plan will be 'cut and run' thought. Not in the Democrat sense at least.
Here is an article from Friday October 20th 2006 (see I am so good I can look into the future)
EDIT:I have yet to find the direct quote. But apparently Baker said something along the lines of ?withdrawing from Iraq now would be foolish?
His plan will most likely have steps that will be taken that will lead to and eventual withdraw.
Personally I think a total withdraw is a mistake. We should withdraw from the streets and cities, but leave our forces in country in order to fight and terror cells that may pop up, as well as to keep Iran a little bit honest.
I believe there was also a comment that withdrawing now would lead to a civil war the likes of which we have never seen, not sure if that was Baker or someone else though, but it seems spot on
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Looks like the NVA got their asses handed to them in that offensive.[/quote]
The casualty rate was 3:1 to 5:1 when we had been claiming a 10:1 to 20:1 body count,
We also had 4X the troops on the ground. The VC/NVA were crushed militarily though.
This was the turning point in time where we decisevly lost the hearts, minds, and souls of the civilian population.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
We also had 4X the troops on the ground. The VC/NVA were crushed militarily though.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive
How does that make the US/SVA have 4X the troops
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The casualty rate was 3:1 to 5:1 when we had been claiming a 10:1 to 20:1 body count,
We also had 4X the troops on the ground. The VC/NVA were crushed militarily though.
This was the turning point in time where we decisevly lost the hearts, minds, and souls of the civilian population.[/quote]
I assume you mean OUR civilian population. This was also the point where Cronkite interjected his opinion of the war, called for it to end, and in effect forced LBJ to not run again.
Which then led to Nixon, which led to Watergate and Hillary getting to work in Washington, which led to Bill becoming President, which led to Monica. Which means the whole Monica thing is Cronkite's fault!!!!!
Well, duh. Of course the insurgents are ratcheting up the violence. Don't you people realize that they know an election is about to take place here in the United States and are looking to influence it? This isn't rocket science. These people know the deep division in our society (very reminiscent of Vietnam, I might add) and, once again, they are utilizing propaganda to its fullest. One can only pray that the sheep don't bow to it, and they won't, so long as Democrats are not in the majority.
Yeah I wonder if that guy would take his family there for summer vaction. I would be interested in seeing the video's of them done by the locals.
More like body armor and a Medic in the next truck. Plus it is a lot harder to stage an ambush in a desert then a jungle.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
What a bunch of revisionist history milarky we get from the neo-con camps on Iraq and VietNam---lets look at the biggest 2 whoppers that need to be debunked.
1. That it was the liberal media that sapped America's will to win in VietNam. and if only the American media had truly reported what a diaster the ter offensive was for N. VietNam---we would have won.
2. That the upcoming Jim Baker--Lee Hamilton report on Iraq is going to be some new revelation that---like a shining beakon will point the way forward to certain victory in Iraq.
To believe contention one, you have to believe our army commanders were total fools---they knew soon after Tet the extent to which they had won. As did the N. Vietnamese---but when they still kept sending down soldiers down to the South---continuing the insurgency---we started to get a clue that this enemy was not going to give up after we won by our definitions---the same thing happened in our civil war---Robert E. Lee kept giving the Union armies a drubbing every time they contested him---and then they retreated and licked their wounds for six months---Then Lincoln found Grant---who took the same drubbings--but next day---he regrouped and kept doggedy chasing the confederate armies--lesson--its awful hard to beat a determined enemy who will keep absorbing punishment for as long as it takes---which is simply the long history of VietNam---and now when Chronkite and others looked at the same data---and saw that same determination, were they were dishonest in saying we were going to lose?????????---fact is they saw the handwriting on the wall in 1968 after Tet---and honestly reported it---it would take a dumber and more stubborn Nixon four plus years and other failed tactics widening the war to realise the same damn thing. The N. VietNamese rebels connected with the people---the US army did not.
2. And now here we are some 36 years later with the great Republican white hope being James BaKer---the same morally bankrupt up to his eyebrows in Republican chicanery for decades fellow---but at least smart enough to be a voice telling GHB to avoid the same morass sonny boy blundered into a decade later in Iraq war 2. But James Baker is still a classic power player secretary of State---used to power plays with world leaders---with no known resume in quelling insurgencies. Now suddenly paired with Lee Hamilton---a co-author of the largely ignored but still bi-partisan 911 report---and now the neo-con types suddenly expect this Baker report to be the way forward---when Baker has not even talked to the pople who matter in Iraq---and get another clue--the people who matter in Iraq are not in the democratic government Bush points to with such pride. I do not want to poo poo the Baker report in advance, but I have little reason to put inordinate hope on it either. Until the United States can find some way to connect with the man on the street in Iraq---and to compound the degree of difficulty---the man on the street of all three major minorities---all the Baker report will be is another report shedding heat---but no real way forward because following it will reach just another dead end.
1. That it was the liberal media that sapped America's will to win in VietNam. and if only the American media had truly reported what a diaster the ter offensive was for N. VietNam---we would have won.
2. That the upcoming Jim Baker--Lee Hamilton report on Iraq is going to be some new revelation that---like a shining beakon will point the way forward to certain victory in Iraq.
To believe contention one, you have to believe our army commanders were total fools---they knew soon after Tet the extent to which they had won. As did the N. Vietnamese---but when they still kept sending down soldiers down to the South---continuing the insurgency---we started to get a clue that this enemy was not going to give up after we won by our definitions---the same thing happened in our civil war---Robert E. Lee kept giving the Union armies a drubbing every time they contested him---and then they retreated and licked their wounds for six months---Then Lincoln found Grant---who took the same drubbings--but next day---he regrouped and kept doggedy chasing the confederate armies--lesson--its awful hard to beat a determined enemy who will keep absorbing punishment for as long as it takes---which is simply the long history of VietNam---and now when Chronkite and others looked at the same data---and saw that same determination, were they were dishonest in saying we were going to lose?????????---fact is they saw the handwriting on the wall in 1968 after Tet---and honestly reported it---it would take a dumber and more stubborn Nixon four plus years and other failed tactics widening the war to realise the same damn thing. The N. VietNamese rebels connected with the people---the US army did not.
2. And now here we are some 36 years later with the great Republican white hope being James BaKer---the same morally bankrupt up to his eyebrows in Republican chicanery for decades fellow---but at least smart enough to be a voice telling GHB to avoid the same morass sonny boy blundered into a decade later in Iraq war 2. But James Baker is still a classic power player secretary of State---used to power plays with world leaders---with no known resume in quelling insurgencies. Now suddenly paired with Lee Hamilton---a co-author of the largely ignored but still bi-partisan 911 report---and now the neo-con types suddenly expect this Baker report to be the way forward---when Baker has not even talked to the pople who matter in Iraq---and get another clue--the people who matter in Iraq are not in the democratic government Bush points to with such pride. I do not want to poo poo the Baker report in advance, but I have little reason to put inordinate hope on it either. Until the United States can find some way to connect with the man on the street in Iraq---and to compound the degree of difficulty---the man on the street of all three major minorities---all the Baker report will be is another report shedding heat---but no real way forward because following it will reach just another dead end.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Your analysis on the Tet Offensive is somewhat incorrect. The Vietnam War was actually a two front war...one against the Viet Cong insurgency and one against the North Vietnamese, a conventional fighting force.
The Tet Offensive caused such attrition across the North Vietnamese military such that, had America launched a counter offensive, we probably could have taken Hanoi.
However, the spin and the lies coming from the White House and the Pentagon during the entire Vietnam War weighed on the American people to such an extent that Tet essentially was the straw that broke the camels back....after hearing for months that we were essentially "this close" to winning the war, Tet came as a huge surprise...and perhaps signaled to the American people that the war was far from over, when in actuality, Tet was a last ditch act of desperation by the North Vietnamese...and a gamble that ultimately played to their favor even if strategically it was not a traditional military victory.
Did the American media cause us to lose the Vietnam War...no, but it certainly played a role, more so then any prior American war...hell, even the North Vietnamese admit that the political anti-war movement and media played a role in America's ultimate withdrawal.
The North Vietnamese never won a decisive engagement against American forces...it simply was a waiting game for Ho Chi Minh and his forces.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Starbucks1975,
Just one little problem with your theory---we could have taken Hanoi anytime we wanted to--at any point in the VietNam war--and N. VietNam could not have stopped us period. Just one little thing stopped us--as soon as we invaded N. VietNam with ground troops China would step in and stop us---but by China rules we could bomb N. VietNam. War and politics make odd bed fellows.
Could we have won in VietNam if we just had the national resolve? I seriously doubt it with the tactics were were using---as four years of Nixon showed.
Nixon largely reduced opposition to the VietNam war by ending the draft---then widened the war while N. VietNam was still licking its wounds over TET.
And finally pulled the plug with nothing but more war dead to show progress in four more years of the VietNam war. And the VietNamese on either side of the devide were and still are one people artifically divided.
Iraq is VietNam on steroids---three major factions artifically crammed together by the British less than a century ago, and now fragmenting apart. Any resuting fragmentation is likely to effect its neighbors in unpredictable ways. And very likely to disrupt the entire mid-east oil supply for months if
Iraq flies apart. And if Iraq does blow it will not be a matter of stay the course---it will be a matter can we get our troops out alive?
At home---its almost miraculous a stronger Anti-war movement has not developed over Iraq---but it took about four years for the the antiwar critics to go mainstream during the VietNam war.
In this current Iraq war---I doubt we have even a year before Iraq will blow up unless out tactics radically change.
Just one little problem with your theory---we could have taken Hanoi anytime we wanted to--at any point in the VietNam war--and N. VietNam could not have stopped us period. Just one little thing stopped us--as soon as we invaded N. VietNam with ground troops China would step in and stop us---but by China rules we could bomb N. VietNam. War and politics make odd bed fellows.
Could we have won in VietNam if we just had the national resolve? I seriously doubt it with the tactics were were using---as four years of Nixon showed.
Nixon largely reduced opposition to the VietNam war by ending the draft---then widened the war while N. VietNam was still licking its wounds over TET.
And finally pulled the plug with nothing but more war dead to show progress in four more years of the VietNam war. And the VietNamese on either side of the devide were and still are one people artifically divided.
Iraq is VietNam on steroids---three major factions artifically crammed together by the British less than a century ago, and now fragmenting apart. Any resuting fragmentation is likely to effect its neighbors in unpredictable ways. And very likely to disrupt the entire mid-east oil supply for months if
Iraq flies apart. And if Iraq does blow it will not be a matter of stay the course---it will be a matter can we get our troops out alive?
At home---its almost miraculous a stronger Anti-war movement has not developed over Iraq---but it took about four years for the the antiwar critics to go mainstream during the VietNam war.
In this current Iraq war---I doubt we have even a year before Iraq will blow up unless out tactics radically change.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
14000 American Troops lost in Iraq and that will equate to a stable country.... (1/4 of 58000 give or take a few brothers, daughters, dads and etc... )
Um... why do we continue to lose sight of the reason we are in Iraq... the justification if you will... WMD and their Delivery Systems and the 45 days in which Iraq intended to launch these WMD at us.. We have satisfied our reason to be there so what is all this Stable nation stuff?... Who cares if Iraq is stable or totaly out of control... as it will be once the lid is off the pot.. when we leave the power will shift to the most determined.. and we will leave because 14000 dead Americans is far too much to pay for nothing...
prove that the media actually wants civil war..id like to see it..if you really want to be taken seriously then dont use some paranoid conspiracy theory either...the libs take a lot of flak for buying into certain ideas about 9/11 so lets not use some stupid general statement about how the liberals really want iraq to spiral into a vicious war where millions die
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I assume you mean OUR civilian population. This was also the point where Cronkite interjected his opinion of the war, called for it to end, and in effect forced LBJ to not run again.
Which then led to Nixon, which led to Watergate and Hillary getting to work in Washington, which led to Bill becoming President, which led to Monica. Which means the whole Monica thing is Cronkite's fault!!!!!
Don't ASSUME anything - you weren't there and obviously don't understand the politics of the time.
The VIETNAMESE turned away from us, they never were with us, they wanted EVERYONE out of their country.
THey had been in nearly constant warfare since 79AD and had survived the Japanese occupation through WWII,
and had finally got the French Colonial Movement AKA 'French Indo China' beat down and thrown out,
and what do we do? We take over from the French to continue the same Colonial protection of a corrupt
South Vietnam Government (Puppets) and protection of Western invenstments in Tea Plantations and Rubber Plantations
at the cost to the peons of the rest of the country.
Only the elitist wealthy that we propped up wanted us there - to continue their fiscal supremecy and to
die for their corrupt games, they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to even fight and defend themselves
we didn't understand a single god damn thing about their culture, aand still don't.
Just like we don't have a clue today about the Arab culture in the ME - we hardly even have people
now over there that can talk and communicate with them, except at the cusssing and hurling insults level.
Just palin stupid.
An example of our cluelessness is Bush and Rumsfeld and the Re-inforcement of Baghdad
they couldn't grasp the concept of
DON'T PUT THE TROOPS INTO THE POSITION OF BEING FISH IN A BARREL, DON'T GIVE THE INSSURGENCY A SHOOTING GALLERY.
Nobody with half of a collective brain would have placed our soldiers into such an untenuous position
unless they were so damn dumb that they really didn't know. Yes, they really were/are that fvcking dumb.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
North Vietnam was actually a quite formidable enemy, with the advantage of fighting on terrain that American forces were not accustomed to...the North Vietnamese proved quite capable and effective soldiers, and were quite a match for our forces.
I dont think we could have taken Hanoi whenever we wanted...after Tet, with the North Vietnamese essentially impaled on our defensive spear, we had the window of opportunity to take Hanoi...had China chosen to get involved, we would have driven them back as we did in North Korea.
Because the individuals who are the icons of the anti-war Iraq movement are a bunch of knuckleheads with no concise or clear message that resonates with the American public, and there is no draft and hence no personal stake for many Americans.
Some of my relatives where there AND I was born close to vietname. One of the reasons we are in the States is because of the vietname war and its after effects. Not everyone wanted the communists to win. A lot wanted them to lose.
How many people were killed by communist in vietname.. massacred? Do your research. It was a lot of people... One prominent communist in Vietname during the war said something to the effect of "if you cannot convert a vietnamese to commmunism, you have to kill them.." Whole villages in the north were mascared, etc... People don't understand today, but communism was like a religiuos jihad back then. A lot of people tried to leave if they can... remember the "boat people"? Or the mass rush of vietnamese trying to leave with the soldiers @ the "fall of saigon"?
If you look at the state of south asian affairs, because the communist won, a lot of smart people left... "brain drain" because of the war. They are now reaping what they sow. My cousin is a nurse and she went back to SE asian to do charity work in a hospital. She told me there weren't enough doctors there and that some children were dying for the most trivial reasons. Communism sucks!! Not everyone wanted it. The minority who brung it into vietname ruined the lives of many people..
-Eleison
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Wrong about Viet Cong versus NVA (did you get them mixed up?)
The TET offensive was launched using Viet Cong, not NVA. It has been speculated that Ho Chi Minh wanted to gain the upper hand for the NVA so he launched the Viet Cong into a mission that would be sure to wipe many out. After TET the U.S. forces where mainly fighting the NVA and the Viet Cong were relegated to subservient status.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Please explain to me once again---why TET---which occured in 1968---was the straw that broke the Camel's back---when we did not get out of VietNam until 1973?
Or maybe you will realise what the anti-war movement knew in 1966---that military power is always worthless when you lose the people you are trying to save.
And that we are NOW making that very same mistake in Iraq.
Our American military is very good at some things----but a military can't solve political problems---but DUMB politicians can use our military to really screw things up
past all poltical redemtion.----and guarantee our side will lose.---no matter how compelling our cause is.
With that latter statement somewhat a different version of the Powell doctrine----and explains why Colin Powell had to leave the GWB administration---one good apple can spoil a whole barrel of rotten ones.
Or maybe you will realise what the anti-war movement knew in 1966---that military power is always worthless when you lose the people you are trying to save.
And that we are NOW making that very same mistake in Iraq.
Our American military is very good at some things----but a military can't solve political problems---but DUMB politicians can use our military to really screw things up
past all poltical redemtion.----and guarantee our side will lose.---no matter how compelling our cause is.
With that latter statement somewhat a different version of the Powell doctrine----and explains why Colin Powell had to leave the GWB administration---one good apple can spoil a whole barrel of rotten ones.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Please explain to me once again---why TET---which occured in 1968---was the straw that broke the Camel's back---when we did not get out of VietNam until 1973?
Because we couldn't appear to "cut and run".
What a waste. Especially since Viet Nam ended up thumbing their noses at Russia and China when they tried to turn Viet Nam into a vassal state. Even kicked Chinas butt in a war.
Which, btw, is the best we can hope for in Iraq. We leave and they tell Iran to take a flying leap if they think they will control Iraq.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Well this is where things get a little blurry...the Tet Offensive was the first major offensive coordinated between both the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese...NVA battalions were part of the offensive, although the Viet Cong suffered the worst attrition.
The Tet Offensive was the turning point beyond which public opinion in America turned stongly against the Vietnam War, and offered the largest boost to the anti-war movement.
Do a little research...a quick wikipedia on the Tet Offensive will suffice...most historians agree with my assertions.
Most agree that while Tet was a failure for the NVA strategically, they gained a huge propoganda and psychological boost from which America never responded nor recovered.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter