Is Iraq turning into Vietnam all over again?

[InlineFive]

?

-Por

 

[maddogchen]

No

 

[alchemize]

Yes, it is!

Please begin calling our soliders babykillers and spitting on them.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Is this topic just here to start some arguments?

 

[nutxo]

If it is I cant wait to see whos medals Kerry throws this time

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yes, it is!

Please begin calling our soliders babykillers and spitting on them.

Yes and dig up Nixon !!!!

 

[conjur]

If you consider this a war being run by politicians instead of letting the military make the recommendations (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

If you consider this a war with improper troop numbers and no exit strategy (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, another demonstration of American arrogance and stupidity, powerfully supported by the most backward and unevolved of Americans and opposed my the best, also as usual.

 

[gsaldivar]

No.

But some liberals are trying their best to make it seem that way.

 

[Spamela]

no.

but having been a teen-ager in the 1960's i'm
sensing deja-vu a little too often.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Spamela
no.

but having been a teen-ager in the 1960's i'm
sensing deja-vu a little too often.

There's no super power supporting the insurgents like there was during Nam and we aren't facing an army of a Soviergn Nation like we did against North Vietnam. The similarites are that we entered the war based on false information and the Politicians are running the war instead of the military (if the Military was running it we would have had enough troops to effectively execute to occupation)

 

[Shad0hawK]

no but many people are trying real hard to make it so...oh! but not for political gain of course!!


it is all about the welfare of the people and preserving the status quo.

you see, it would have been better to leave a socialist dictator in place that kills 2 million of his own people sponors terrorism and starves, kills and makes mass graves from those who dissent in place because france, germany, russia, and high placed officials in the UN made lots of money off saddam. so of course taking saddam out is bad!

now the countries and elitests who benefitted from the death and suffering from the oil for food program and the economic sanctions are out lots of money they had invested in business relationship with the saddam regime.

and now even worse if the US is successful in placing a democratic government in iraq, the US will benefit from it more than europe would...this must not happen! oh the horror!

 

[chess9]

If people are asking this question, we are half way there....

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
no but many people are trying real hard to make it so...oh! but not for political gain of course!!


it is all about the welfare of the people and preserving the status quo.

you see, it would have been better to leave a socialist dictator in place that kills 2 million of his own people sponors terrorism and starves, kills and makes mass graves from those who dissent in place because france, germany, russia, and high placed officials in the UN made lots of money off saddam. so of course taking saddam out is bad!

now the countries and elitests who benefitted from the death and suffering from the oil for food program and the economic sanctions are out lots of money they had invested in business relationship with the saddam regime.

and now even worse if the US is successful in placing a democratic government in iraq, the US will benefit from it more than europe would...this must not happen! oh the horror!

Are you suggesting we invaded to extablish a government that would guarantee us its oil? I thought we went to remove an imminant threat. Remember, WMD was determined to be the reason that would sell the war to the people.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
no but many people are trying real hard to make it so...oh! but not for political gain of course!!


it is all about the welfare of the people and preserving the status quo.

you see, it would have been better to leave a socialist dictator in place that kills 2 million of his own people sponors terrorism and starves, kills and makes mass graves from those who dissent in place because france, germany, russia, and high placed officials in the UN made lots of money off saddam. so of course taking saddam out is bad!

now the countries and elitests who benefitted from the death and suffering from the oil for food program and the economic sanctions are out lots of money they had invested in business relationship with the saddam regime.

and now even worse if the US is successful in placing a democratic government in iraq, the US will benefit from it more than europe would...this must not happen! oh the horror!

Are you suggesting we invaded to extablish a government that would guarantee us its oil? I thought we went to remove an imminant threat. Remember, WMD was determined to be the reason that would sell the war to the people.

oh damn, and i thought it was to "liberate" the iraqis. doing a good job in fallujah right now. 600 and counting have been liberated this past week.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
If you consider this a war with improper troop numbers and no exit strategy (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

when have we ever been in a war that has an 'exit strategy'? thats another one of those leftist catch phrases that doesnt do any good, but makes for a good pseudo argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
If you consider this a war with improper troop numbers and no exit strategy (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

when have we ever been in a war that has an 'exit strategy'? thats another one of those leftist catch phrases that doesnt do any good, but makes for a good pseudo argument.

I thought Powell was big on exit strategies.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: conjur
If you consider this a war being run by politicians instead of letting the military make the recommendations (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

If you consider this a war with improper troop numbers and no exit strategy (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

I consider this war as being run by corrupt politicians who are in major oil corporations' pocketbook.

-Por

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: conjur

If you consider this a war with improper troop numbers and no exit strategy (as was Vietnam), then, yes.

What? I thought losing the war was our exit strategy in Vietnam.

Spanish-American war- still in Cuba, philipines
WW2- still in Germany, Japan and Italy.
Korean war-still in Korea
Gulf War I- still in Kuwait.
Kosovo- still there

 

[AEB]

Because of people like kerry who made the war political, we lost. Now look at north korea, if we would have stopped teh spread of communisim at veitnam and korea (both wars) then we would be safer, this is like veitnam except we won.

 

[rickn]

yes, except hairstyles and body bags have changed since then

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
no but many people are trying real hard to make it so...oh! but not for political gain of course!!


it is all about the welfare of the people and preserving the status quo.

you see, it would have been better to leave a socialist dictator in place that kills 2 million of his own people sponors terrorism and starves, kills and makes mass graves from those who dissent in place because france, germany, russia, and high placed officials in the UN made lots of money off saddam. so of course taking saddam out is bad!

now the countries and elitests who benefitted from the death and suffering from the oil for food program and the economic sanctions are out lots of money they had invested in business relationship with the saddam regime.

and now even worse if the US is successful in placing a democratic government in iraq, the US will benefit from it more than europe would...this must not happen! oh the horror!

Translation- He says yes.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you suggesting we invaded to extablish a government that would guarantee us its oil? I thought we went to remove an imminant threat. Remember, WMD was determined to be the reason that would sell the war to the people.

i am not "suggesting" anything. i am saying what i mean straight out...i know for the average liberal this can be confusing

and WMD was but ONE "reason" we took out saddam. it was not the major issue it is now until it was made one by politics. plus there is much still not accounted for which saddam went to great lengths to avoid givning an answer for.

so do you believe leaving saddam, the oil for food program, and economic sanctions in place was the thing to do as it had been done for the previous 11 years?

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Spamela
no.

but having been a teen-ager in the 1960's i'm
sensing deja-vu a little too often.

There's no super power supporting the insurgents like there was during Nam and we aren't facing an army of a Soviergn Nation like we did against North Vietnam. The similarites are that we entered the war based on false information and the Politicians are running the war instead of the military (if the Military was running it we would have had enough troops to effectively execute to occupation)

 

[Drift3r]

It's more like a 80's Afghanistan or a Chechnya.