Iraq IS Vietnam - And We Shall Cry Hot Tears . . .

[curious]

"WE ARE SEEING THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL"

No, it's not a quote from Cheney, nor from his puppety friend sitting in the Oval Office.

Nor from some bozo over at the American Enterprise Institute.

It's a 1968 statement, now infamous, by GEneral Wm Westmoreland, just before the Viet Cong launched their Tet offensive, which would, in retrospect, be the beginning of the end of the American adventure in Vietnam.

A few years after the General's optimiistic words, the last US forces were helicoptering out of Saigon in panicked disarray, from the rooftop of the American Embassy.

Just recently, Gen Petaues, who puts on a show of independence but in reality is the lapdog of Cheney/Bush, spoke of significant "progress" in Iraq.

His flack, Admiral Smith, said of the Sadrist Mahdi Army: "We've degraded their capability."

And then, the Green Zone started taking incoming, from that "degraded" Mahdi Army.

Gen and Adm, because for a while you do not see those who despise you because you invaded their country, does not mean they are "degraded."

And: in 1971, Nixon wanted to show America and the world that "Vietnamization" was working. (We are now doing the same, training the Iraqi army to "fight terrorists.")

So he ordered our puppet govt in Saigon to send these very well equipped soldiers into Laos, to root out the storng "communist" presence there.

They fled in a panic, hanging on to the copter wheels. The poorly armed but highly motivated guerillas easily beat the unwilling heroes of the American Empire,

Just like the American-trained Iraqi army units fled in panic in Basra, when confronted by the Shia militias, dedidcated followers of al Sadr.

The lie coming out of Washington is that the puppet Iraq "government" acted on it own in invading Basra. Right, With American trainers attached to each unit, and US air power in support of the ground troops . . .

Basra is a big oil port. The US may have wanted it to grab control of that vital and expensive commodity, as well as the theives who run the puppet govt.

"History Always Repeats Itself: the First Time as Tragedy, the Second as Farce."

Not likely, tho, tht many Americans will have a smile on their face after this tragic farce is finished playing itself out. Except of course the neocon traitors, and the wealthy friends of Cheney, laughing on the way to the bank.

This is the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read. You sir are one of the most blatant liars I have ever run across.

The Tet offensive was a complete disaster for the Viet Cong. They ceased being a fighting force at the conclusion of Operation Phoenix which was launched by the CIA and the Army special forces and marine corps long range recon units soon after Tet. The VC were in tatters because of Tet. Tet only became a "victory" because of the same left wing propagandists in the media who are feeding the American people the same shit about the war in Iraq being "unwinnable".

South Vietnam fell because the DemoCong cut off all their aid in 1975 and forbid the USAF from supporting them when the communists launched their yearly offensive. This offensive was stopped in both 1973 and 1974 due in large part to the air power. The war was basically over in 1973. Thank the DemoCong for selling out the South Vietnamese to their communist enemies.

The South Vietnamese forces sent into Laos were not defeated by "poorly armed guerillas", they were defeated by NVA regulars, undeniably some of the best light infantry in the world. The entire operation was poorly conceived, poorly led, and poorly executed. They sent the South Vietnamese troops in in helicopters and landed them in "islands" in the jungle cut off from each other and cut off from their base of supply. Any first year cadet at OCS can tell you that that plan was total lunacy.

The American trained Iraqi army units did not flee in panic in Basra. The Mahdi army had their head handed to them in a basket, which is why Sadr called for a cease fire. You sir are a blatant liar.

The Basra operation was the idea of the President of Iraq. The US forces supported the Iraqis as they were supposed to. Just before the operation began, the Kurds and the Sunnis approached Maliki about a joint force operation in Basra, the Sunni awakening forces, the Pesh Merga and the Iraqi army. Maliki didn't want Kurd/Sunni on Shia fighting so he decided to do the job alone.

Basra has been controlled by British forces for years. The Iraqi government went in because criminal gangs moved in when the British moved out.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The traitors in the leftwing press and the DemoCong portrayed the Vietnam War as a "guerilla" war. It wasn't. It was an invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. Yes, the Viet Cong played their role. After Tet and Operation Phoenix they ceased to be a functioning fighting force.

You sir are a liar.

[curious]

Amazing it is to me, that with over a two/thirds of adult Americans beleiving we have to vacate Iraq, that McCain is now even in the polls with both surviving Democrats.

I more and more believe that the gods who favored us with the Bill of Rights and great personal freedom on the one hand, with their other hand slippped us some very nasty Stupid Pills, which make us dumb and happy at the most inopportune times.

McCain is going to win the election, because the majority of the American people are not willing to sell the Iraqi people out to their enemies as the DemoCong are so hysterically demanding.

A major war in which one army loses 4000 troops in 5 years. How is this a disaster? The American people are not stupid, even though the leftists like to think so.

[curious]

Cpig, you are wrong, and if you see the advance in technology/enemies killed/total troops involved you'll see the death toll numbers cant be used to decide this.

I've done 2 tours there, and hook you are 100% correct. The iraqi army is worthless. Those guys as basically on welfare, as we recruit poor/uneducated citizens that most times refuse to participate in the heavy firefights. We were holed up for 7 hours waiting on the "iraqi army" to give us reinforcements. Needless to say, we tucked our tails between our legs and evacuated as the reinforcements requested refused to go.

All of the guys there have a morale level as low as it can be. Everyday you hear about one of your buds gettin killed/injured/fukked with and does nothing but make us do inhumane things to innocents as most times, we couldn't identify our enemy.

This war is bullshit, and I am thankful I'm not going back.

I talk to military people in Iraq every day and I know no one who suffers from low morale.

[curious]

My point has nothing to do with winning or the Iraq army. My point is you cant compare 58,000 dead to 4,000 dead. If we had lost 58,000 troops in Iraq, youd see people rioting in the streets like back in the late 60s early 70s, it just hasnt effected the same amount of folks here at home like the Viet Nam war did, again JMO.

later

Actually the riots were due to the draft. The cowards did not want to serve in the army. The "anti-war" movement was really an "anti-draft" movement. If the war had been fought by an all volunteer force there would have been not a peep out of these cowards. The so called "anti war" demonstrators proved that they didn't give a flying **** about the war when they sat silent as the communists murdered over 1 million people in Indochina after the DemoCong sold out our allies in S. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Where were the anti-war protests then?

The "anti-war" crowd is a bunch of cowardly hypocrites. Their true agenda is that they hate America. Since they only selectively protest war (only when America is fighting it under a Republican president) they have zero credibility.

[curious]

Many thanks for your contribution - most valuable from one who was on the scene.

Bush and his flacks always want to portray the serving soldiers there as 100% and four-square behind the push to bring "democracy" to Iraq. And we can't let them down by "cutting and running."

Yet the few polls that were taken over the last four five years, of both enlisted men in Iraq and officers there and elsewhere, is that we should be outta there.

So, soldiers and civilians concur. But the elites in the executive branch and the ensconced armpits of neoconism have a different idea. And, somehow, they hold all the cards.

This is another one of your lies. I know dozens of active duty military people in Iraq and none of them agree with this nonsense.

The people I know do not want to abandon the Iraqi people to their enemies. They don't care about the politics of it.

[thezbar]

Curious. I just one person but I could care less about Iraqi. Its a stone age country with stone age people. We have no business being there in the first place! Just sayin'

[curious]

Actually, there was the so-called Tonkin Gulf attack, which impelled the US to dramatically up the ante in Vietnam, and send tens of thousands of US soldiers to meet their end there.

Now, predictably, we know that the Tonkin Gulf incident was a sham, a faked incident,used by LBJ and his warmongering Ivy Leaguers to go fullscale into Vietnam.

No, 911 was not a hoax (tho there are posters here who will disagree). But pinning the blame on Iraq was likely the most venal hoax in US history, engineered by the hard-driving neocons, in service to a country that is not the USA.

There was a single event which started the Vietnam War. It was the sell out of the Viet Minh by that great hero of the DemoCong party Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ho Chi Minh begged the United States to support the Viet Minh in their war against the Japanese in exchange for Indochina receiving independence after the war. Since the French had been kicked out of Indochina and they no longer had a fleet sufficient to bring an army back, the Viet Minh viewed this as a reasonable proposal.

FDR agreed to let the Viet Minh fight the Japanese, which they did, then he double crossed Ho Chi Minh by promising the French that they could reestablish their empire in Indochina.

The French returned and the Viet Minh started the Vietnam War. In 1954 the United States negotiated a peace treaty with the Viet Minh which divided Vietnam into the North and South TEMPORARILY with nationwide elections to be held. Ho Chi Minh was expected to win 90% of this vote. The United States then said "just kidding" and installed the South Vietnamese fascist regime.

Truman made it possible for the French imperialists to return to Vietnam. Eisenhower double crossed Ho Chi Minh by violating the Geneva Accords that the United States had helped negotiate. Eisenhower set up the fascists regime in South Vietnam.

[curious]

Curious. I just one person but I could care less about Iraqi. Its a stone age country with stone age people. We have no business being there in the first place! Just sayin'

So, it is okay with you that the United States made a situation in Iraq where the civilians need our protection and you would just have the United States run away and leave these innocent people to be slaughtered by our and their enemies?

[tacomax]

A major war in which one army loses 4000 troops in 5 years. How is this a disaster? The American people are not stupid, even though the leftists like to think so.

How many Iraqi lives have been lost? Don't you consider that a disaster?

[Shark79]

So, it is okay with you that the United States made a situation in Iraq where the civilians need our protection and you would just have the United States run away and leave these innocent people to be slaughtered by our and their enemies?

OMG !! I dont come into these threads for the same reason


NEED OUR PROTECTION???


What about all the black people that died in Hurricane Katrina ... u guys didnt have a plan well structured for YOUR OWN PEOPLE!! and u think these iraqis would give a sh!t about the US?

JMO.

[curious]

OMG !! I dont come into these threads for the same reason


NEED OUR PROTECTION???


What about all the black people that died in Hurricane Katrina ... u guys didnt have a plan well structured for YOUR OWN PEOPLE!! and u think these iraqis would give a sh!t about the US?

JMO.

So we just abandon them to be slaughtered. Great idea.

So, the errors of Katrina are to be compounded by allowing the people of Iraq to be slaughtered. What a brilliant idea.

[thezbar]

So, it is okay with you that the United States made a situation in Iraq where the civilians need our protection and you would just have the United States run away and leave these innocent people to be slaughtered by our and their enemies?

My basic political point of view stems from the non-intervention policy that was part of the Monroe Doctrine back in the day. I just think its better to take care of things at home first.
I was in a training school the night this whole Iraq involvement was announced to the people in a presidential address. I was very vocal that night that this was a mistake and I haven't changed my mind.
There is not a simple answer to this situation now. But yes to answer the question I would turn things over the the United Nation armed forces and bring the U.S. troops home.
The sad fact of the matter is in that part of the world those type of things are going to happen regardless. Humanity as a whole needs to rise above those things. As of date the lesson has yet to be learned.

[DrunkenLullaby]

So, the errors of Katrina are to be compounded by allowing the people of Iraq to be slaughtered. What a brilliant idea.

Who would be doing the slaughtering? If the answer to that question is also "the people of Iraq" then I say F the US/Mexico border fence and devote our energies to the Iraq entire perimeter fence and get the F out.

To see where this US non-intervention policy has been applied previously to people "slaughtering" each other, throw a dart at the continent of Africa and you'll probably hit a place.

[Shark79]

So we just abandon them to be slaughtered. Great idea.

So, the errors of Katrina are to be compounded by allowing the people of Iraq to be slaughtered. What a brilliant idea.

Show me when and why would these ppl be slaughtered.

U make the US look like its the worlds life saver, and it aint.

[Robyn]

Before the United States has any right meddling in the affairs of other countries, she should take better care of her own.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[frostno98]

Iraq is a f@cking mess and that's the bottom line. Anybody here or anywhere can debate on and on, and we still won't see this war mess with the same point of view. It's like telling a hardcore right or left wing idealist to agree with each other, which will never happen.

These are the reason US troops aren't dying at the per day ratio of Vietnam . Training of troops and OCS is much better. Better tracking of enemy movement thanks to advance satellites and the Predator drone. Better weaponry and Armor support, which wasn't used much in the dense jungles of Vietnam. I'm pretty sure there's more.

[Robyn]

These are the reason US troops aren't dying at the per day ratio of Vietnam . Training of troops and OCS is much better. Better tracking of enemy movement thanks to advance satellites and the Predator drone. Better weaponry and Armor support, which wasn't used much in the dense jungles of Vietnam. I'm pretty sure there's more.

I completely agree with all of this.

Iraq isn't yesterdays war. If they were currently there without modern technology, there is no doubt that the death toll would be double or triple what it is now. I am not good with statistics, so I am probably way off with the numbers.

[curious]

My basic political point of view stems from the non-intervention policy that was part of the Monroe Doctrine back in the day. I just think its better to take care of things at home first.
I was in a training school the night this whole Iraq involvement was announced to the people in a presidential address. I was very vocal that night that this was a mistake and I haven't changed my mind.
There is not a simple answer to this situation now. But yes to answer the question I would turn things over the the United Nation armed forces and bring the U.S. troops home.
The sad fact of the matter is in that part of the world those type of things are going to happen regardless. Humanity as a whole needs to rise above those things. As of date the lesson has yet to be learned.

I was vehemenetly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, both times. Not because I didn't think Sadaam should go, but because I knew that the amateurs Bush and Rumsfield were deluding themselves by thinking that the Iraqi people would join in love for the Americans and create a land flowing with milk and honey. Everything the amateurs did was based on that assumption. Idiots.

So, I agree the start of the war was an idiotic idea, executed in an idiotic way by idiots.

But, now there are 28 million people who depend on our presence. And you just want to run away and tell them that you hope everything works out for them.

Typical.

[jackpot269]

McCain is going to win the election, because the majority of the American people are not willing to sell the Iraqi people out to their enemies as the DemoCong are so hysterically demanding.

A major war in which one army loses 4000 troops in 5 years. How is this a disaster? The American people are not stupid, even though the leftists like to think so.

Curious not posting here to argue with you but arent a large # of Republicans in congress also calling for the troops to come home?

[Art Vandeleigh]

My 2 cents in these types of discussions would be that there is this frustration of the "knowledge gap" between the average American and those elected to represent them, and by that I'm talking about the information that is classified for security reasons.

Those that have been entrusted with leading have access to the spy satellite pictures, the information from informants, etc. while the American public has what the press is allowed to disseminated. It's frustrating, the public doesn't have the whole picture (and for security reasons, shouldn't have the whole picture), and you have to trust those who have been elected to make the right decision based on the considerably more information they have at their disposal....it's not an easy thing to do, to entrust people you don't know personally to make these life and death decisions. But if you don't trust them, then the whole system kind of breaks down, IMO.

I guess I'm just saying it's frustrating for the public, but that's the way it is when a lot of information has to remain secret.

[curious]

Curious not posting here to argue with you but arent a large # of Republicans in congress also calling for the troops to come home?

I'm not a Republican and I don't really care what politicians do for their own expediency.

[curious]

Show me when and why would these ppl be slaughtered.

U make the US look like its the worlds life saver, and it aint.

I love the way people on here insist on misrepresenting what I say. Never said the US is the world's life saver. But in THIS case the presence of US troops is holding back three groups who would gladly slaughter the Iraqi civilians.

1. al-Qaeda, which will certainly move back into Iraq in a big way if US troops just leave.
2. Iran and Syria and their proxy forces in Iraq. Right now these are being held in check. Remove the US forces and that will no longer be the case.
3. Radical Shia groups who want only to control the resources of Iraq and don't care about its people. These groups have shown a willingness to kill their own people. Right now they don't have freedom of movement or action, remove the US forces and that will no longer be the case.

A lot of things are wrong in Iraq. Running away will only make the situation worse.

[curious]

Who would be doing the slaughtering? If the answer to that question is also "the people of Iraq" then I say F the US/Mexico border fence and devote our energies to the Iraq entire perimeter fence and get the F out.

To see where this US non-intervention policy has been applied previously to people "slaughtering" each other, throw a dart at the continent of Africa and you'll probably hit a place.

So, you go by the principle that one evil is okay because previously another evil was allowed to be perpetrated? Great set of principles you have there.

I would be the first one to volunteer to go to Africa to save civilians from the genocidal maniacs you are talking about.

[thezbar]

I think covert activities is the proper tactic to use along with the U.N. forces! Just saying.

[curious]

I think covert activities is the proper tactic to use along with the U.N. forces! Just saying.

You have a point. The best way to beat guerrilla forces is with special forces allied with local forces.

However, "regular" forces are needed to provide security for civilians. That was a large part of General Petraeus' plan. Move the infantry out of their big bases into the cities to protect the civilians. Embed US forces with locals. This is a well known counter insurgency strategy.

The problem now is that the force to space ratio is too low. The forces in Iraq need to be reinforced with special forces, CIA operatives, security units, cultural liaisons, and other units.

There is a fundamental flaw in the way the Iraqi government was set up. There are no local level political parties. The "election" we all remember from the purple fingers was a very strange kind of election. A voter voted for all the candidates of one party for all the offices up for election with one check mark on the ballot. Most of the names on the ballot were unfamiliar. There were no local or regional elections. All the local level positions were voted for in this "one big" election. Most of these elected people have turned out to be supporting their faction, not representing the people of their area. This election set up a top down central government. That is not a democracy.

New elections need to be held starting at the local level and then working upward to the central government. Administrative areas following tribal boundaries need to be set up. We would call an administrative area like that a county. Provincial elections need to be held. Local political parties need to be built so that the voters are voting for people they know and trust. Iraq has a strong tribal culture. There are people from each tribe that the voters can trust. The provinces need to be grouped into something above the provincial level and below the national level. I'm not sure what to call that, a region I guess. Iraq breaks naturally into 5 regions. Kurdistan, the western and southern deserts - some people would call this Sunnistan, the Marshes including the coastline and the islands, the land between the rivers, and the area between the Tigris and Iran from Kurdistan in the north to an area above Basra in the south.

Oil revenue should be distributed to each family, each city, each "county", each province, each region, each tribe, and the central government. Then each of these should be held accountable for insurgent activity and the % of oil revenue they receive reduced or eliminated if their area has high levels of insurgent activity. I guarantee you if you hit people in the wallet that way EVERYONE would be an informant against the insurgents, the criminal gangs, and the militias.

The tribal culture of Iraq was ignored when the government was set up. I found this difficult to believe. Personally, I think the Iraqi government has to be scrapped and they have to start over.

I think a country like Iraq should have a tricarmel legislature, one based on tribal affiliation, one based on political party and one based on religious affiliation. And seats should be awarded to any party that can get votes the way many European countries work, instead of the winner takes all approach. This way no one group could get an overwhelming majority and things would have to be done by negotiation and compromise.

Tribal affiliation in Iraq is more important than religious sect.

The situation is not hopeless. It is just that some hard decisions must be made by people who feel it is in their best interest not to address these problems. The President of the US should be taking the lead in telling the Iraqi government that they have no choice but to address these issues. Unfortunately we have an amateur for a President who chooses to be self deluded rather than face the facts.

[BuddyBear]

The Iraq war is a huge failure....Bush/Cheney should be impeached immediately.

[curious]

The Iraq war is a huge failure....Bush/Cheney should be impeached immediately.

Is incompetence an impeachable offense?

[BuddyBear]

Is incompetence an impeachable offense?

No...but knowingly lying is.

[thezbar]

The Iraq war is a huge failure....Bush/Cheney should be impeached immediately.

Its an entertaining thought but not cost effective. Timing isn't right either. They're both out in January regardless.

[curious]

No...but knowingly lying is.

That was something I never understood. Bush the Lesser had such a mandate on 9/12 to "go get them" he didn't need an excuse to remove Sadaam. He could have just said "9-11" in response to "why are you going into Iraq" and left it at that. All the 'splainin' just confused everyone and left Bush the Lesser open to criticism later. Both stupid and unnecessary.

[BuddyBear]

Its an entertaining thought but not cost effective. Timing isn't right either. They're both out in January regardless.

Democrats failed to use their leverage in Congress. Like I've been saying, the Congress is very weak these days.

[DrunkenLullaby]

He could have just said "9-11" in response to "why are you going into Iraq" and left it at that.

Of course that, like the "WMD" excuse, would also have been a lie.

[curious]

Of course that, like the "WMD" excuse, would also have been a lie.

I should have been more clear. "Islam declared war on us on 9-11, Iraq is Islamic, no 'splainin' necessary". Has nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11. Bush could have basically said "because they are Islamic" in answer to "why Iraq"?

[ritehook]

This is the biggest bunch of shit I have ever read. You sir are one of the most blatant liars I have ever run across.

The Tet offensive was a complete disaster for the Viet Cong. They ceased being a fighting force at the conclusion of Operation Phoenix which was launched by the CIA and the Army special forces and marine corps long range recon units soon after Tet. The VC were in tatters because of Tet. Tet only became a "victory" because of the same left wing propagandists in the media who are feeding the American people the same shit about the war in Iraq being "unwinnable".

South Vietnam fell because the DemoCong cut off all their aid in 1975 and forbid the USAF from supporting them when the communists launched their yearly offensive. This offensive was stopped in both 1973 and 1974 due in large part to the air power. The war was basically over in 1973. Thank the DemoCong for selling out the South Vietnamese to their communist enemies.

The South Vietnamese forces sent into Laos were not defeated by "poorly armed guerillas", they were defeated by NVA regulars, undeniably some of the best light infantry in the world. The entire operation was poorly conceived, poorly led, and poorly executed. They sent the South Vietnamese troops in in helicopters and landed them in "islands" in the jungle cut off from each other and cut off from their base of supply. Any first year cadet at OCS can tell you that that plan was total lunacy.

The American trained Iraqi army units did not flee in panic in Basra. The Mahdi army had their head handed to them in a basket, which is why Sadr called for a cease fire. You sir are a blatant liar.

The Basra operation was the idea of the President of Iraq. The US forces supported the Iraqis as they were supposed to. Just before the operation began, the Kurds and the Sunnis approached Maliki about a joint force operation in Basra, the Sunni awakening forces, the Pesh Merga and the Iraqi army. Maliki didn't want Kurd/Sunni on Shia fighting so he decided to do the job alone.

Basra has been controlled by British forces for years. The Iraqi government went in because criminal gangs moved in when the British moved out.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The traitors in the leftwing press and the DemoCong portrayed the Vietnam War as a "guerilla" war. It wasn't. It was an invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. Yes, the Viet Cong played their role. After Tet and Operation Phoenix they ceased to be a functioning fighting force.

You sir are a liar.

Ah well, I see we're into the street language/challenge phase.

Ok, as you'll be hunting me down at the Bash (am I near the top of your list of 50?) I will suggest this:

(And hopefully the Bash will be at a casino that has a boxing ring.) 6 three minute rounds, until ko, tko, or decision, the latter to be make by the SBR ladies. Ref will be Dozer, or an all-wise mod.

Other posters here state you have but one arm. OK, I am left-handed so I will tie that one behind my back.

But . . . be very, very csreful of --------

my rite hook

[ShamsWoof10]

I should have been more clear. "Islam declared war on us on 9-11, Iraq is Islamic, no 'splainin' necessary". Has nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11. Bush could have basically said "because they are Islamic" in answer to "why Iraq"?

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH..????

That would be like saying "Christainity declared war on hexterosexuality" after these boy fondling priests come out...