Can anyone give good reasons why Iraqization will work better than Vietnamization did?

[tommywishbone]

Herr Bu$hler is laughing at all of us. He has actually convinced some people that Iraq was dangerous.

...boggles the mind.

kill kill kill

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Train

Lucky bastards, no alcohol allowed in Iraq for us. (might offend the muslims)

Fear not, sometimes those Muslims can be your friend indeed

heh, either that or these yeast packets show up in the mail for some odd reason. Then somehow these packets get dropped into jugs of fruit juice. Then by sheer coincidence the jug gets lost for a few days, only to turn up sitting in the sun. Oh and just by pure luck the yeast fermented the sugars into alcohol. Ahh what the hell cant let good fruit juice go to waste right? heh.

I don't know anything about that though, really, just uhh, something I *cough* heard somewhere.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It seems like history is repeating itself. The US is basing its national security and credibility on the policy of building up the security forces of a country as a percursor to withdrawal. Are thier any indications that it will work this time when it failed in the 70's?

Absolutely not. There is every indication it will NOT work AGAIN. This NeoCon adventure is a failure.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dexvx

In the Germany/Japan situation, US forces stayed for over 6 decades and is still staying after WWII officially ended. Right now, there are talks about pulling US forces within the next few years.

The forces in Japan and Germany were essentially never there to preserve the peace - they were there because we won the war and wanted to place forces there for strategic reasons. I don't believe a single American died in Japan or Germany performing peacekeeping duties after the war.

In a way youve sorta proved my point. WWII would make a better analogy. The outcomes won't be be identical, but the situations are more alike.

I think it's a specious analogy. I am particularly uncomfortable with it because many supporters of the war use it to imply that Operation Iraqi Freedom was just as justified as American involvement in WWII (though I don't know that you're making that argument here). Actually, Operation Allied Force was much more akin to WWII than OIF, and Republicans (including then-Governor Bush) lambasted Clinton for getting involved in it.

Thank you. That handled Train's ridiculous assertion quite well.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I think it's a specious analogy. I am particularly uncomfortable with it because many supporters of the war use it to imply that Operation Iraqi Freedom was just as justified as American involvement in WWII

Dont forget that most americans did NOT consider a war with Germany justified, The dems lost 44 seats in the midterm election in response to FDR's sending troops to Europe, when all america wanted was Japan, which brings up another similarity, the two front war (Japan/Germany - Iraq/Afghanistan)

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Train


LOL, I just totally realized I was typing South Koreans when I meant South Vietnamese.

That's what I was subtly trying to point out. (Even made gramatical corrections) :beer:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Train
Dont forget that most americans did NOT consider a war with Germany justified, The dems lost 44 seats in the midterm election in response to FDR's sending troops to Europe, when all america wanted was Japan, which brings up another similarity, the two front war (Japan/Germany - Iraq/Afghanistan)

That doesn't mean they're the same thing. Are you, or are you not, arguing that Saddam Hussein posed the same level of danger to the US, its interests, and its allies, as Hitler?

As I pointed out above, our troop presence in Iraq has essentially zero similarity to the situation in postwar Germany or Japan (though it has substantial parallels to our involvement in Vietnam). Are you seriously arguing that I'm wrong?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Train
Dont forget that most americans did NOT consider a war with Germany justified, The dems lost 44 seats in the midterm election in response to FDR's sending troops to Europe, when all america wanted was Japan, which brings up another similarity, the two front war (Japan/Germany - Iraq/Afghanistan)

That doesn't mean they're the same thing. Are you, or are you not, arguing that Saddam Hussein posed the same level of danger to the US, its interests, and its allies, as Hitler?

I was more referring to how most of the US was ok with going to war with Japan, but not OK with going to war with Germany, similar to how the US was ok with invading Afghanistan, but not nearly as OK with invading Iraq. The magnitude of difference can be seen in the retaliation against the controlling party in the immediately following elections. in 2004 the reps gained ~6 seats in congress, but 1942 the dems lost 44.

As I pointed out above, our troop presence in Iraq has essentially zero similarity to the situation in postwar Germany or Japan

I would hardly say zero

(though it has substantial parallels to our involvement in Vietnam).

I'm not denying that

Are you seriously arguing that I'm wrong?

I'n not arguing that you are wrong, but you're not 100% right either. Many parallels can be drawn to both wars. But neither will be a complete fit. We could compare A to B and A to C all day, theres no finite answer.

 

[1prophet]

Does anyone here think when this is all over if we will see anything similar to this in the mideast?

Gray visits Vietnam

Chronology of U.S. - Vietnam Relations

Vietnam's top soldier visits US

Vietnam, U.S. to Improve Intelligence, Military Ties

Even after we did this to the Vietnamese. My_Lai_massacre NSFW :Note: this wasn't done by some misdirected bomb dropped in error from a few thousand feet away



If not why?

 

[CaptnKirk]

If you want a perspective of the direction the Iraq situation is migrating to, consider this:

North Vietnam and South Vietnam were involved in a conflict with the US involved up to their eyeballs
Fighting a war in the South, re-inforced by supplies and fighters from the North.

We moved with helicopters, they moved on the ground and underground. The would stand and fight in infantry combat
many times, and hit you at night with Insurgency and Guerrilla tactic.
In an effort to cut off the pipeline from the North there was a wide swath of territory in the middle called the DMZ,
Demilitaryized Zone.

In Iraq wh have divided the country into secretarian factions, effectively dividing the country into three regions,
the Kurd dominated North, the Shiite Conrtolled South, and the Sunni middle - without resources,
without major agricurtural capability, effectually uselesss - their DMZ.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Train
Not a good analogy, we didnt go in there and smash the South Korean army to bits, and then rebild them.

This is more like WWII, where we annihilated the Germans and Japanese, then rebuilt them from scratch with completely new govt's

Except that in that case, the Germans and Japanese had actually attacked American interests and were a threat to us in general. Also, FDR wasn't a religious psycho.

Your right, he was a socialist psycho. His abuses of power make bush look like a boyscout.

Better a socialist psycho than a religious psycho... at least the former is interested in helping people, where as the latter seem only interested in converting or killing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Kibbo86

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Insanity is doing what doesn't work over and over in the hope it will. The hope, of course, is to prove that one is not insane by proving that insanity is not insanity. The insane not only want to deny, they must. To be insane is to hate yourself and lack the strength to face and know it. To be insane is to create something you can both never be and are.

The victor decides what is sane, but only the insane have the courage for victory. So, who defines 'victory'?

There is only one war and it is the war with the self. The victor is he who has won by dying.

I dunno Moonie; in a war against yourself, I'd see death as more of a draw😉

That's because you don't know what the war is about. The self that needs dying makes room for the birth of a self we know nothing about.