Vietnam Syndrome?

Yes, they should do something, but they can't right now, because, as you well know, the USA is in there, and they're not involving the UN right now.
 
Paladin Solo said:
...look at Spain for example. The terrorists kill spanish citizens...demanding they pull out of Iraq...and they do so, but think that just because they arrested a few of those involved, they have actually won.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, many Spaniards were against going to Iraq. It was a decision forced upon them by their government (much like in the US and UK), so they didn't want to be in there in the first place. This changes the situation somewhat. In this case it would require only a small percentage of "swing" voters to change the outcome.
(this is all opinion so far, so feel free to correct me)

Also, saying "U"N instead of UN does not, regardless on your views on the organisation, make you look clever.
(It does quite the opposite.)
If I started calling the USA the "U"SA, citing protests against your leader as the reason for doing so, I would look like a dumbass. It's the same deal with you. We've got the point, we know you think the UN is no longer United, but the name of the organisation does not change because of this.
Sander said:
Yes, they should do something, but they can't right now, because, as you well know, the USA is in there, and they're not involving the UN right now.
Click to expand...
I think he is talking about before the current war.
 
The Bio-weapons of mass destruction is bull. Didn't Iraq buy these same weapons legally from the US under the Sadaam Reigme?
 
As far as I can tell, many Spaniards were against going to Iraq. It was a decision forced upon them by their government (much like in the US and UK), so they didn't want to be in there in the first place. This changes the situation somewhat. In this case it would require only a small percentage of "swing" voters to change the outcome.
(this is all opinion so far, so feel free to correct me)
Click to expand...

Read further into my post...I said that the majority didn't support it...but that doesn't change the fact that they lost, screwed their allies, and try and make it look like a victory...it would be like our government trying to make Vietnam or Somalia look like a victory.

And I say "U"N because they can't stop bickering and trying to do something good for a change...they could do something about the trouble in Africa, the shit in Korea, they could ask the USA if we need help to make them not only look as if they were stronger than we are, but also more mature about the situation. People on the other hand only have the power of opinion and voice...they don't have militaries of their own, in general. That's why you don't see me saying stuff like the "People's Republic" of China, or "U"SA for reasons obvious, they aren't an international organization, protests happen all the time, and doesn't necassarily mean the country is not united.
 
Paladin Solo said:
Read further into my post...I said that the majority didn't support it...but that doesn't change the fact that they lost, screwed their allies, and try and make it look like a victory...it would be like our government trying to make Vietnam or Somalia look like a victory.
Click to expand...

Who lost? What? The people didn't want to go into Iraq. The Spanish government lied to the people so they threw them out.

Screwing their allies? Australia and everyone else was opposed to this action, but were compelled by defence ties to go in. It was the US who was screwing their allies by drawing them into this stupid mess in the first place and without UN approval.

Propaganda stunts. I don't know much about that but what would you expect? People always want to look good and play down their mistakes. Bush has not admitted he was wrong about many issues.
 
First off...doesn't matter if they supported it or not. We didn't support Vietnam...especially as the war drew out longer...doesn't change the fact that we lost. We supported Somalia, but the President...either by the War Powers Act...or by cowering, pulled us out...even though we supported it...we still lost. If Iraq is a victory to the Spanish people, then Vietnam is one for us. Plain and simple. Spain caved into terror...even if it was for their own good, it was a victory to terrorists who would kill Spanish citizens gladly without moral interference, no matter the reason. Spain allowed terrorists to partially prevail in their cause, and cause more chaos and terror, instead of waiting it through, and saving lives. Wasn't Fallujah under Spanish control? No matter who's fault this war is, leaving a friend in trouble for you own good should not be smiled upon.

And yes...Spain screwed over already screwed over allies who are in this willingly if not by dire consequences. So in turn...Spain did worse to an already discontent alliance, than Bush who brought such an alliance to be in this situation.
 
Looks like many senior military leaders are saying the Iraq war is botched.


Far Graver than Vietnam
By Sidney Blumenthal
The Guardian

Thursday 16 September 2004

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale.

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."

After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.

"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents."

"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."

General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."

Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."

General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."

He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
Click to expand...
 
Ya know it makes me wonder...will the people in the armed forces vote for Bush or against him? Technically he supports the military...though what he does with it is clearly wrong.

I bet it depends on whether you've been in combat or not...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I think it's a hard call.

Kerry's policy on voting on defense spending is spotting- sometimes he supports, sometimes he doesn't. But that's also true of Cheney and Bush.

Kerry also toughed it out and went to Vietnam, Bush ducked out and used political connections to get into the National Guard.

Kerry has been sensitive on veterans issues. A lot of veterans are currently feeling left behind.

A lot of folks joined the military after 9/11 to fight against terrorism and those who attacked us. Bush sent them to Iraq which had no relationship to Afghanistan, and perhaps is the best recruiting tool Osama could have dreamed of.

So if I were military, this voting would be a bit tricky. Can they trust this commander in chief?

Here's a PBS discussion from two veterans from Iraq-

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/veterans_9-16.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top