Im gonna go ahead and call it.

[Hotrod]

The war in Iraq is now UN-winable.

I only caught part of a news story late last night and something in my head finally jumped into the "we cant win" Its not so much that we could not win/hold the country together but the Iraqis dont seem willing to do their part. I've said the whole time the key is the Iraqi people wanting it and being willing to give it 100% effort. That simply is not going to happen.

The story was about an attack in Faluja (sp) Anyway some militants/terrrorists in American GI unis got thru several check points (they even had American Id's) and shot up a bunch of people/took some hostages/stole a computer with highly claissified material on it then simply drove away.

**** happens like this in war but what got me thinking this war is now un-winable is the fact this was an inside job. We had turned over complete control of this area to the Iraqi government/soldiers. The end result is someone within the government or military sold out. That being the case its obvious to me the Iraqi people have no desire to do whats necessary to achive democracy and freedom.

Short of staying in country with huge #'s of troops for ever Iraq will eventually fall to the terrorists/radical Islamists. The question then begs is it time to either

1. Bug out and let the fall occur now or wait losing lives till later
2. Use our postion in the ME currently to strike Iran quickly and with extream force (tactical nukes on suspected Nuke plants)

I cant believe Im actually leaning toward bug out now save our resources miltarily. The problem is obviously more would need to happen in other areas to secure the homeland. Border security/port security would have to increase not tomarrow but yesterday. I think another key would be preparded to act on our own without going thru the UN inorder to act in full force against any county/terrorist group around the world that is a threat in the future. No more Clinton lobbing a few missles into a country like Afganistan after a terrorist attack. More of an all out air raid in that situation without ever putting boots on the ground in the ME.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The war in Iraq is now UN-winable.
It never was really.

[defenseman]

The war in Iraq is now UN-winable.

I only caught part of a news story late last night and something in my head finally jumped into the "we cant win" Its not so much that we could not win/hold the country together but the Iraqis dont seem willing to do their part. I've said the whole time the key is the Iraqi people wanting it and being willing to give it 100% effort. That simply is not going to happen.

The story was about an attack in Faluja (sp) Anyway some militants/terrrorists in American GI unis got thru several check points (they even had American Id's) and shot up a bunch of people/took some hostages/stole a computer with highly claissified material on it then simply drove away.

**** happens like this in war but what got me thinking this war is now un-winable is the fact this was an inside job. We had turned over complete control of this area to the Iraqi government/soldiers. The end result is someone within the government or military sold out. That being the case its obvious to me the Iraqi people have no desire to do whats necessary to achive democracy and freedom.

Short of staying in country with huge #'s of troops for ever Iraq will eventually fall to the terrorists/radical Islamists. The question then begs is it time to either

1. Bug out and let the fall occur now or wait losing lives till later
2. Use our postion in the ME currently to strike Iran quickly and with extream force (tactical nukes on suspected Nuke plants)

I cant believe Im actually leaning toward bug out now save our resources miltarily. The problem is obviously more would need to happen in other areas to secure the homeland. Border security/port security would have to increase not tomarrow but yesterday. I think another key would be preparded to act on our own without going thru the UN inorder to act in full force against any county/terrorist group around the world that is a threat in the future. No more Clinton lobbing a few missles into a country like Afganistan after a terrorist attack. More of an all out air raid in that situation without ever putting boots on the ground in the ME.

To each his own. I'll say it again, if we take the gloves off, it would be over in a very short period of time...dman

[Hotrod]

To each his own. I'll say it again, if we take the gloves off, it would be over in a very short period of time...dman

Oh I have zero doubt we could level the entire country but Im not so sure that would equal victory in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter.

[defenseman]

Oh I have zero doubt we could level the entire country but Im not so sure that would equal victory in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter.

You may be right. However, the facts are the facts..dman

[Hotrod]

You may be right. However, the facts are the facts..dman

Agreed

The single worst thing that American polititians do over and over again is jump into a war ankle deep. If your going to go to war you go to win. We have not done that in a major campain since WW2.

We should never EVER be in any war/county where our goal is to befriend the people of said country. You cant win a war with an gun in one hand and flowers in the other.

[defenseman]

Agreed

The single worst thing that American polititians do over and over again is jump into a war ankle deep. If your going to go to war you go to win. We have not done that in a major campain since WW2.

We should never EVER be in any war/county where our goal is to befriend the people of said country. You cant win a war with an gun in one hand and flowers in the other.

Good call. And many are trying to remove the albatross from around their own necks given the iraq war has hurt them politically. Pointing the finger at others, instead of themselves and their vote in 2002. Not standing by their convictions again. Really sad to see that some of our elected officials don't have a backbone anymore. Can't see how they can stand at a podium and try to sell anything anymore, without a backbone...pretty sad..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

To each his own. I'll say it again, if we take the gloves off, it would be over in a very short period of time...dmanWhat would? You mean kill them all to make sure we get them all?

[defenseman]

What would? You mean kill them all to make sure we get them all?

I don't think that is necessary presently. However, when I mention take the gloves off, one possible method is, the press/media is O-U-T , out. Second, the politicians do not use the war for politics NOR do they try to tell "field commanders" how to manage the war. Field commanders are allowed to prosecute the enemy by whatever method they desire without ANY oversight short of superiors or the President. Third, shoot first , ask questions later. 4th, declare martial law and enforce it, anyone out after time whatever, OR anyone with a weapon who is not military either iraqi or american is a dead man. 5th , lock down the iranian/syrian borders, anyone crosses is considered an enemy combatant and they will pay the penalty. In short, get serious about ending this war. This is just a piece of one method. There are others available to a field commander who is innovative and adept at thinking out of the box. However, prosecution with extreme prejudice and pain on the enemy is a must, in the past, we've been too worried about the repurcussions of prosecuting in a very nasty manner, that in itself can enable you to fail. You can't be worried about backlash from anywhere, fill body bags with enemy bodies and extract as much information from combatants as you can as you go. Don't stop till they are dead..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't think that is necessary presently. However, when I mention take the gloves off, one possible method is, the press/media is O-U-T , out. Second, the politicians do not use the war for politics NOR do they try to tell "field commanders" how to manage the war. Field commanders are allowed to prosecute the enemy by whatever method they desire without ANY oversight short of superiors or the President. Third, shoot first , ask questions later. 4th, declare martial law and enforce it, anyone out after time whatever, OR anyone with a weapon who is not military either iraqi or american is a dead man. 5th , lock down the iranian/syrian borders, anyone crosses is considered an enemy combatant and they will pay the penalty. In short, get serious about ending this war. This is just a piece of one method. There are others available to a field commander who is innovative and adept at thinking out of the box. However, prosecution with extreme prejudice and pain on the enemy is a must, in the past, we've been too worried about the repurcussions of prosecuting in a very nasty manner, that in itself can enable you to fail. You can't be worried about backlash from anywhere, fill body bags with enemy bodies and extract as much information from combatants as you can as you go. Don't stop till they are dead..dmanThat's what I thought. You still really have no idea what's happening over there.

[defenseman]

That's what I thought. You still really have no idea what's happening over there.

If, you are getting your "pulse" from the media, for the most part, they don't tell the whole tale. I get mine straight from the horse...dman

[Hotrod]

There is now a possiblity that the attack was actually done by Iranian soldiers. Not just planned but executed by special forces members of the actually Iranian military. If that turns out to be the case or it is proven to be the case I should say that things just got worse for EVERYONE. Suposedly its in retaliation for the capture of 5 Iranian so called diplomats found in Iraq. They are still being held and rightfully so but it shows how much of a tenderbox the area is. The smallest mis-step by anyone and this becomes an out of control regional conflict with no winners.

We can hardly allow Iran to get away with such and act of war but on the other hand I would hate to get dragged into a second front when the first one is in question to say the very least.

I really think we either have to cut and run (:nono: cant belive I'm saying that) or prepare for this thing to heat up 1000%

[defenseman]

There is now a possiblity that the attack was actually done by Iranian soldiers. Not just planned but executed by special forces members of the actually Iranian military. If that turns out to be the case or it is proven to be the case I should say that things just got worse for EVERYONE. Suposedly its in retaliation for the capture of 5 Iranian so called diplomats found in Iraq. They are still being held and rightfully so but it shows how much of a tenderbox the area is. The smallest mis-step by anyone and this becomes an out of control regional conflict with no winners.

We can hardly allow Iran to get away with such and act of war but on the other hand I would hate to get dragged into a second front when the first one is in question to say the very least.

I really think we either have to cut and run (:nono: cant belive I'm saying that) or prepare for this thing to heat up 1000%

Which attack to do you refer to on this? I know that they are snatching up diplomats, so-called "agents" protected by diplomatic immunity is what I'm hearing. In any case, if you could, go into a bit more detail on what you are specifically referring to. Thanks ...dman

[Hotrod]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.main/index.html

Iraq's prime minister says Iran is targeting U.S. forces in his country and he wants it to stop.

"We will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces, but does this not exist? It exists, and I assure you it exists," Nuri al-Maliki said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with CNN.

Al-Maliki said he doesn't want Iraq to be the site for a proxy war between Iran and the United States.

"We have told the Iranians and the Americans, 'We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq,' " he told CNN. "We don't want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria."

Iranian-U.S. tensions have been ratcheted up recently, with two U.S. officials theorizing about the possibility that Iran was involved in a January 20 attack that killed five U.S. soldiers.

Two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said Tuesday the Pentagon is investigating whether the attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said, adding that the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

The five soldiers were abducted and killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing American-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound )

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is only a preliminary view, and there is no conclusion. They agreed this possibility is under consideration because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.

Al-Maliki said the Americans were basing their hunches about Iranian activities in Iraq on intelligence they've amassed.

Some Iraqis speculate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the attack in retaliation for the January 11 capture by U.S. forces of five of its members in Irbil, according to a Time.com article published Tuesday. (Read the article)

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a reputation for taking harsh and unrelenting revenge on its enemies, the Time.com article says. The five Iranians remain in U.S. custody.

Suggestions of Iranian involvement in the Karbala attack are part of a larger confrontation between Iran and the United States.

Washington accuses Tehran of fomenting terror attacks worldwide and pursuing a nuclear program that could lead to the development of weaponry. Iran has denied those assertions.

The Bush administration has authorized U.S. forces to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks in Iraq, a U.S. national security official said last week. The policy, approved by President Bush in the last couple of months, is aimed at Iranian agents planning attacks with Iraqi militiamen, the official said.

Bush has said that he has no problem with the policy, if it protects U.S. soldiers. (Full story)

"If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said Monday on National Public Radio.
A top U.S. general in Iraq said Tuesday that Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with weapons, including Katyusha rockets and rocket-propelled grenades, USA Today reported.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told the newspaper that the military could trace some weapons back to Iran by their serial numbers.

The Associated Press reported last week that a second U.S. aircraft carrier is on its way to the Persian Gulf, according to U.S. officials. The officials told the AP that the USS John C. Stennis, due to arrive in Mideast waters within weeks, is intended as a warning to Iran.

CNN's Aneesh Raman, who has reported from Tehran over the past year, said Tuesday that Iranians are taking the threats seriously.

"The Iranian people are increasingly concerned that in the coming months, military action of some kind will either come into Iran, or Iran will be dragged into a broader struggle," Raman said. "Every time I went [to Iran], there was increased fear, a sense that war clouds were looming."

[Hotrod]

Just to point out for those that are not aware of it.

Its against the geneva convention to wear the uniform of your enemy. Not that we want to even bother with the debate of military trials but people continue to try and argue the terrorists have protective rights under the Geneva conventions but they simply dont.

[Hotrod]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sneak_attack

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - In perhaps the boldest and most sophisticated attack in four years of warfare, gunmen speaking English, wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons abducted four U.S. soldiers last week at the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala and then shot them to death.

ADVERTISEMENT


The U.S. military confirmed a report earlier Friday by The Associated Press that three of the soldiers were dead and one was mortally wounded with a gunshot to the head when they were found in a neighboring province, about 25 miles from the compound where they were captured. A fifth soldier was killed in the initial attack on the compound."



"In a statement issued late Friday, the military said two of the soldiers were handcuffed together in the back seat of an SUV near the southern Iraqi town of Mahawil. A third dead soldier was on the ground nearby. The fourth soldier died on the way to the hospital.

The brazen assault, 50 miles south of Baghdad, was conducted by nine to 12 gunmen posing as an American security team, the military confirmed. The attackers traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles (the type used by U.S. government convoys), had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues, and spoke English, according to two senior U.S. military officials as well as Iraqi officials."

""The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, spokesman for Multi-National Division-Baghdad.

"The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound," he said. "We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault."

"Three days after the killings, the U.S. military in Baghdad announced the arrest of four suspects in the attack and said they were detained on a tip from a Karbala resident. No further information was released about the suspects.

Friday's military statement referred to the attackers as "insurgents," which usually suggests Sunnis. Although Karbala province is predominantly Shiite, Babil province is heavily populated by Sunnis in the north, near Baghdad. Babil's central and southern regions are largely Shiite.

A senior Iraqi military official said the sophistication of the attack led him to believe it was the work of Iranian intelligence agents in conjunction with Iraq's Shiite Mahdi Army militia, which Iran funds, arms and trains."

[Spider]

To each his own. I'll say it again, if we take the gloves off, it would be over in a very short period of time...dman

you just dont get it , taking a country and holding a country are 2 different things we rolled through Baghdad in about a week , didnt even blink an eye , but now holding the real estate we took , and nation building , well thats something entirely different , Collen Powell warned Bush , see where that got him ....... Bust and his groupies sold the nation building as part of the war , only ones that made out was Haliburton and a few Politicians .........
there are no gloves to take off , what you want to make Heros of our Sholdiers by slaughtering innocent lives ?
thats the problem with this , like Nam , you just cant go around killing , Karma can be a bítch

[Hotrod]

Just for the record I still think Barbara Strisand (sp) is a bitch and POS


;D Just so my lefty friends on here dont think I've gone soft Ha!

[freak6]

Why doesn't Jim Webb just come out and say it?

"I could be doing a much better job as Commander in Chief than the President, he is doing a terrible job"

[defenseman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sneak_attack

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - In perhaps the boldest and most sophisticated attack in four years of warfare, gunmen speaking English, wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons abducted four U.S. soldiers last week at the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala and then shot them to death.

ADVERTISEMENT


The U.S. military confirmed a report earlier Friday by The Associated Press that three of the soldiers were dead and one was mortally wounded with a gunshot to the head when they were found in a neighboring province, about 25 miles from the compound where they were captured. A fifth soldier was killed in the initial attack on the compound."



"In a statement issued late Friday, the military said two of the soldiers were handcuffed together in the back seat of an SUV near the southern Iraqi town of Mahawil. A third dead soldier was on the ground nearby. The fourth soldier died on the way to the hospital.

The brazen assault, 50 miles south of Baghdad, was conducted by nine to 12 gunmen posing as an American security team, the military confirmed. The attackers traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles (the type used by U.S. government convoys), had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues, and spoke English, according to two senior U.S. military officials as well as Iraqi officials."

""The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, spokesman for Multi-National Division-Baghdad.

"The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound," he said. "We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault."

"Three days after the killings, the U.S. military in Baghdad announced the arrest of four suspects in the attack and said they were detained on a tip from a Karbala resident. No further information was released about the suspects.

Friday's military statement referred to the attackers as "insurgents," which usually suggests Sunnis. Although Karbala province is predominantly Shiite, Babil province is heavily populated by Sunnis in the north, near Baghdad. Babil's central and southern regions are largely Shiite.

A senior Iraqi military official said the sophistication of the attack led him to believe it was the work of Iranian intelligence agents in conjunction with Iraq's Shiite Mahdi Army militia, which Iran funds, arms and trains."

Interesting. IF this particular attack leads back to the iranians, confirmed I might add, I'd be interested in the iranian response. Little hitler may just have bitten off more than he can chew with this war by proxy this time..dman

*Air and naval response only is my prediction on this...if it should turn out to be true..

[55CrushEm]

The single worst thing that American polititians do over and over again is jump into a war ankle deep. If your going to go to war you go to win. We have not done that in a major campain since WW2.

We should never EVER be in any war/county where our goal is to befriend the people of said country. You cant win a war with an gun in one hand and flowers in the other.

Quoted for TRUTH.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If, you are getting your "pulse" from the media, for the most part, they don't tell the whole tale. I get mine straight from the horse...dmanYou and Bush talk about Iraq? No wonder you are so misinformed.

[defenseman]

You and Bush talk about Iraq? No wonder you are so misinformed.

LOL...thanks beerslug...needed some cheering up...it has been a tough day today..dman

[Dudeskey]

you just dont get it , taking a country and holding a country are 2 different things we rolled through Baghdad in about a week , didnt even blink an eye , but now holding the real estate we took , and nation building , well thats something entirely different , Collen Powell warned Bush , see where that got him ....... Bust and his groupies sold the nation building as part of the war , only ones that made out was Haliburton and a few Politicians .........
there are no gloves to take off , what you want to make Heros of our Sholdiers by slaughtering innocent lives ?
thats the problem with this , like Nam , you just cant go around killing , Karma can be a bítch

Wow... couldn't have said that better myself, driver

[Rohirrim]

Agreed

The single worst thing that American polititians do over and over again is jump into a war ankle deep. If your going to go to war you go to win. We have not done that in a major campain since WW2.

We should never EVER be in any war/county where our goal is to befriend the people of said country. You cant win a war with an gun in one hand and flowers in the other.

We did it in Gulf War I. We followed the Powell Doctrine. It worked. Bush ignored the Powell Doctrine in Iraq. And now he's in a pile of shiite.

[Crushaholic]

the Iraqis dont seem willing to do their part. I've said the whole time the key is the Iraqi people wanting it and being willing to give it 100% effort. That simply is not going to happen.

That's the key right there. They really wanted Saddam out of there (and cheered when it happened), but they are unwilling to help rebuild their own country. Ungrateful bastards...

[defenseman]

you just dont get it , taking a country and holding a country are 2 different things we rolled through Baghdad in about a week , didnt even blink an eye , but now holding the real estate we took , and nation building , well thats something entirely different , Collen Powell warned Bush , see where that got him ....... Bust and his groupies sold the nation building as part of the war , only ones that made out was Haliburton and a few Politicians .........
there are no gloves to take off , what you want to make Heros of our Sholdiers by slaughtering innocent lives ?
thats the problem with this , like Nam , you just cant go around killing , Karma can be a bítch

share that with the islamo facists terrorists types and see where it gets you? How about an AK-47 up the arse is where it will end up. Karma can be a bitch, agreed, I prefer that we finish the job now, ensuring "their" karma is a bitch, not ours. And, the terrorists have no quams about taking innocent lives, in a freaking second, to forward their agenda. Again, share that with them. I'm thinking for the most part we've done our level best to try to limit innocent casualties, and to our own detriment to a degree I might add. In short, you are saying things to me, the terrorists should be hearing, perhaps we are the bad guys and not them? I'm thinking not. We've made our mistakes, agreed, but we are not the bad guys in this scenario, the terrorists, iran and the rest of the hitler youth are....dman

[Hotrod]

We did it in Gulf War I. We followed the Powell Doctrine. It worked. Bush ignored the Powell Doctrine in Iraq. And now he's in a pile of shiite.

I agree but would argue the two situations were entirely different.

You are correct thou we went in and threw everything at them.

[Hotrod]

share that with the islamo facists terrorists types and see where it gets you? How about an AK-47 up the arse is where it will end up. Karma can be a b****, agreed, I prefer that we finish the job now, ensuring "their" karma is a b****, not ours. And, the terrorists have no quams about taking innocent lives, in a freaking second, to forward their agenda. Again, share that with them. I'm thinking for the most part we've done our level best to try to limit innocent casualties, and to our own detriment to a degree I might add. In short, you are saying things to me, the terrorists should be hearing, perhaps we are the bad guys and not them? I'm thinking not. We've made our mistakes, agreed, but we are not the bad guys in this scenario, the terrorists, iran and the rest of the hitler youth are....dman

Your 100% correct but I think we made some HUGE mistakes. One of the biggest is not really understanding our enemys.

[defenseman]

I agree but would argue the two situations were entirely different.

You are correct thou we went in and threw everything at them.

Not everything, as a matter of fact, far from it...dman

[Hotrod]

Not everything, as a matter of fact, far from it...dman

Obviously not or people would still not be able to even live on that piece of dirt but we did use overwhelming force and quickly reached our objective.

The down side of that action at that time right or wrong opened the door for where we are today.

We certainly had to act then but were still paying for that action today.

[defenseman]

Obviously not or people would still not be able to even live on that piece of dirt but we did use overwhelming force and quickly reached our objective.

The down side of that action at that time right or wrong opened the door for where we are today.

We certainly had to act then but were still paying for that action today.

Agreed....dman

[Spider]

share that with the islamo facists terrorists types and see where it gets you? How about an AK-47 up the arse is where it will end up. Karma can be a b****, agreed, I prefer that we finish the job now, ensuring "their" karma is a b****, not ours. And, the terrorists have no quams about taking innocent lives, in a freaking second, to forward their agenda. Again, share that with them. I'm thinking for the most part we've done our level best to try to limit innocent casualties, and to our own detriment to a degree I might add. In short, you are saying things to me, the terrorists should be hearing, perhaps we are the bad guys and not them? I'm thinking not. We've made our mistakes, agreed, but we are not the bad guys in this scenario, the terrorists, iran and the rest of the hitler youth are....dman

first it was Saddam was Hitler with Terrorist connections , remember that ?
now all of the sudden it is Iran , how many times does someone have to piss on your leg before you get the hint ?
Iraq didnt have shít to do with any terrorist attack on us ........... in Fact look no further then your friends the Saudis ...........So as you can tell I didnt even read your post , Just dont want to hear any more of the mindless blather about terrorist in Iraq

[defenseman]

first it was Saddam was Hitler with Terrorist connections , remember that ?
now all of the sudden it is Iran , how many times does someone have to piss on your leg before you get the hint ?
Iraq didnt have shít to do with any terrorist attack on us ........... in Fact look no further then your friends the Saudis ...........So as you can tell I didnt even read your post , Just dont want to hear any more of the mindless blather about terrorist in Iraq

Stay in the present please. Mistakes of the past have their place, however, now that we are engaged, best finish the job and go home. Cut and run will not cut it, simple as that..dman

*Keep in mind I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. You have your own perceptions on why we are in this war, I have mine. And I'm sure we've all hashed over this on countless threads, sick and tired of it. Stick to the present, and the best way to extricate ourselves in the proper manner.

[Spider]

Stay in the present please. Mistakes of the past have their place, however, now that we are engaged, best finish the job and go home. Cut and run will not cut it, simple as that..dman



Oh Brother .......... So Mistakes were made , we should just leave it at that and keep doing the same Bullshít over and over .............. no we shouldnt cut and run , but we should tell Haliburton that there is some new sheriffs in Congress , better cool it .......... 5 long years , and we are no further then what we was ...
*Keep in mind I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. You have your own perceptions on why we are in this war, I have mine. And I'm sure we've all hashed over this on countless threads, sick and tired of it. Stick to the present, and the best way to extricate ourselves in the proper manner.
Iraq is Iraq , we are there , we have to deal with what we created , no question , I just dont want another situation in Iran when we dont need it .....

[defenseman]

Oh Brother .......... So Mistakes were made , we should just leave it at that and keep doing the same Bullshít over and over .............. no we shouldnt cut and run , but we should tell Haliburton that there is some new sheriffs in Congress , better cool it .......... 5 long years , and we are no further then what we was ...

Iraq is Iraq , we are there , we have to deal with what we created , no question , I just dont want another situation in Iran when we dont need it .....

I agree 100% with ya. Hope to hell sanctions, diplomacy, a dozen roses on valentines day,,,,whatever works. We don't need iran to infuse themselves or be sucked in by the powers that be. Agreed. ...dman

[Spider]

I agree 100% with ya. Hope to hell sanctions, diplomacy, a dozen roses on valentines day,,,,whatever works. We don't need iran to infuse themselves or be sucked in by the powers that be. Agreed. ...dman

;D can do without the flowers .........

[Spider]

Perhaps if we just fall back secure the boarders , then deal with the winners of this fighting ............

[orangeatheist]

Perhaps if we just fall back secure the boarders , then deal with the winners of this fighting ............

That's it, right there. Build a huge frickin' wall around the ME, post gaurds along the top ala Escape From NY, have our Star Wars technology deployed to knock down any missles that escape from that Thunderdome and them come back in 5 years to see who wants to play nice.

[defenseman]

Perhaps if we just fall back secure the boarders , then deal with the winners of this fighting ............

I hope you know this is Plan B, trust me it is..dman

[yavoon]

we already won the war in iraq. now we're just demonstrating how aircraft carriers can't make a ppl civilized, prosperous and democratic.

[REB]

We're demonstrating two things:

1. You cant' win unless your willing to go all out to do it.

2. Nation building shouldn't even be in our vocabulary.

[Meck77]

We got suckered. Israel should have defended itself back in 1991 and our boys would have never had to spill their blood over there.

[Rohirrim]

No one can deny that we did, in fact, win. Militarily, we achieved all of our objectives. We went into Iraq, neutralized their military, wiped out their command and control, and overthrew the dictatorship while inflicting heavy casualties on our enemies and receiving relatively slight casualties ourselves. It was a brilliant operation. I would say that Phase One went magnificently. Too bad there was no Phase Two, Three, or Four. Iraq is not a failure of our military service people. It's a failure of our leaders, from Bush on down, but especially Bush. Read "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks. It details the incompetence, chapter and verse, in black and white for all to see. The Bush cabal is already trying to shift the blame from themselves. It's the kind of thing people with no character tend to do. History will not be fooled. Not another American should die for this fiasco.

[yavoon]

No one can deny that we did, in fact, win. Militarily, we achieved all of our objectives. We went into Iraq, neutralized their military, wiped out their command and control, and overthrew the dictatorship while inflicting heavy casualties on our enemies and receiving relatively slight casualties ourselves. It was a brilliant operation. I would say that Phase One went magnificently. Too bad there was no Phase Two, Three, or Four. Iraq is not a failure of our military service people. It's a failure of our leaders, from Bush on down, but especially Bush. Read "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks. It details the incompetence, chapter and verse, in black and white for all to see. The Bush cabal is already trying to shift the blame from themselves. It's the kind of thing people with no character tend to do. History will not be fooled. Not another American should die for this fiasco.

it all started w/ japan and germany. two non democracies that we tore down completely in WWII then rebuilt into the #2 and #3 economies in the world(who are also democratic). so we get this idea that we can do this stuff. not only can we win wars but we can pop out great societies on the back end. hell south korea worked out too! so at one point we were batting 1.000. of course in retrospect we failed to realize that japan and germany were very capable societies before we defeated and bombed them into dirt.

iraq is not japan and germany. iraq is a more or less inept arab society, and when we stripped away the brutal tinpot dictator. instead of getting germany sans hitler, we get unhindered brutality, islamic rule and violence.

[N.O.Bronco]

Again before people cry foul and continue to say it is the iraqis who dont want this. Let me remind you that it was our own general patreaus who was in charge of training those troops that Bush claims need to step up and fight.

Petraeus was promoted to lieutenant general and charged with the task of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq. During his stay at MNSTC-I, Petraeus oversaw the expansion of Iraqi military and police from nearly zero-strength to considerable size, but when the general handed the command over to Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey in September 2005, Iraqi units remained plagued by desertion, sectarian loyalties, poor leadership, and equipment shortages

Now not to take away from petreaus any man willing to go into battle is an honorable man in my mind. But it is good to remember that the iraqi soldiers stink becasue we put no effort into helping them and training them. As i put it before training amounted to nothing more then a weeks stay, waking up early running around and shooting guns in the afternoon. And after a week you were given a uniform and told to go with an american unit(99% of which have no translators) or to police an area with other unqualified soldiers. It is also important to remember that a lot of hostility thorughout the ministries and such is due to our cluster****ing there entire system up and saying you guys deal with it when we handed over soverignty.

I guess what i am saying is that the perception that it is the iraqis that dont want it is not really true. Read any poll and it will tell you by and large iraqis want stability, look at the army it has 300,000 strong in a country of under 20 million and shrinking. The problem is the feeling of constant chaos is overwhelming ,the fear of your children being slaughtered has to be mercilessly scary to anyone, so iraqis by large ratios are heading to the boarders. I feel that we got into this mess and we have an obligation to at least try and help. I think bushs plan is stupid and ive stated my reasons why in many other threads but i feel that redployment, training the troops and police properlly, spending money to restore our foulups in the ministries and then take a diplomatic approach to the neighbors afterwards is the way to go.

Its all great and all if we secure the area as bushs plan entails and then leave but what ends up happening when these iraqi soldiers arent trained to hold down the fort? And Saudi Arabia starts backing the sunnis and Iran backs the shias and Syria continues to pave a golden road for Al qaeda to enter the country. All that security, all that loss of life from the surge is worthless when we focused on one thing and ignored the others that in the future will prove to be direly important. However that seems to be the Bush doctrine in this war, focus on one thing and ignore all the others and then blame someone else for the problems they could have avoided in the first place.

[cutthemdown]

Keep your defeatist attitudes to yourself. You don't know anything about if a war is winnable or not. Every war can be one period because we are winners. Until Americans stop thinking some 2 bit terrorist can beat us we won't win. We must refuse to lose. That is the lesson from Vietnam. The lesson we learned wasn't that we should have gave up sooner or not tried at all. The cause is important to America we must win at all costs.

[cutthemdown]

it all started w/ japan and germany. two non democracies that we tore down completely in WWII then rebuilt into the #2 and #3 economies in the world(who are also democratic). so we get this idea that we can do this stuff. not only can we win wars but we can pop out great societies on the back end. hell south korea worked out too! so at one point we were batting 1.000. of course in retrospect we failed to realize that japan and germany were very capable societies before we defeated and bombed them into dirt.

iraq is not japan and germany. iraq is a more or less inept arab society, and when we stripped away the brutal tinpot dictator. instead of getting germany sans hitler, we get unhindered brutality, islamic rule and violence.

but when is giving up ever the thing to do? In life does giving up on something because it was tougher then you thought ever a good way to live?

[yavoon]

but when is giving up ever the thing to do? In life does giving up on something because it was tougher then you thought ever a good way to live?

know when to hold em, know when to fold em? this isnt like a normal war, we've completely madeup the "victory conditions." we could just as well have said "convert them all to buddhism and get everyone wearing floral pants."

[REB]

Again........... We didn't do it right. Could have but we have become to P fuggin C. It doesn't matter wheter you left or right...if you declare war do it! Do it! War is you die. Not...well we'll stop now and see what everybody thinks............

[N.O.Bronco]

Keep your defeatist attitudes to yourself. You don't know anything about if a war is winnable or not. Every war can be one period because we are winners. Until Americans stop thinking some 2 bit terrorist can beat us we won't win. We must refuse to lose. That is the lesson from Vietnam. The lesson we learned wasn't that we should have gave up sooner or not tried at all. The cause is important to America we must win at all costs.

Yea and this post realy shows you know so much more then anyone else in here. give me a break. Those are the lessons of Vietnam maybe you need to read In Retrospect by Mcnamara and do a little history search how about this one

11 Lessons from Vietnam
The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's 1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:

We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.


We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…


We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.


We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient.
Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.


You tell me that almost all those lessons dont apply to the Iraq war, and you tell me that those lessons werent ignored and have led to a lot of and damn near all our problems. then I would tell you you dont know what you are talking about.(emphasis on the period) And if you were talking to me with that post you need to read my post more carefully cause i never said to just pack it up tomorrow and come home.


PS these were written in 1996

[yavoon]

Yea and this post realy shows you know so much more then anyone else in here. give me a break. Those are the lessons of Vietnam maybe you need to read In Retrospect by Mcnamara and do a little history search how about this one



You tell me that almost all those lessons dont apply to the Iraq war, and you tell me that those lessons werent ignored and have led to a lot of and damn near all our problems. then I would tell you you dont know what you are talking about.(emphasis on the period) And if you were talking to me with that post you need to read my post more carefully cause i never said to just pack it up tomorrow and come home.

11 Lessons from Vietnam
The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's 1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:

We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.


We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…


We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.


We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient.
Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
PS these were written in 1996

thats all bullcrap. underestimated the power of nationalism? we had just fought germany and japan, we knew nationalism plenty well.

hearts and minds? WE'RE KILLING THEM, THEY WILL NOT LIKE THAT. this hearts and minds crap is dumb.

ignorance of politics/history/whatever. more bullcrap.

the problem w/ vietnam is it was fought w/o a military objective. there is not a single person we tried to kill, city we tried to take, or place we tried to bomb to ever bring us closer to victory. u can't win a military war w/o a military objective. the problem was we THOUGHT we SHOULD do **** like "win hearts and minds" is why we lost. not that we didnt do it well enough.

its like the hippies told us how to fight then blamed us for losing.

[yavoon]

u know its funny I use to be told vietnam stories about how a patrol would go into a village and ask where the enemy was and no1 would say anything. and we'd shrug our shoulders and go on.

the vietnamese would go into the same village, goup to a family shoot one of the kids THEN ask where the americans are.

so we're up(like in iraq) against an EXTREMELY BRUTAL opponent, and our hippy asses think the answer is that we're not nice enough! its like getting ur ass kicked by a guy w/ a bat and wondering why u didnt bring a feather to the fight.

[N.O.Bronco]

thats all bullcrap. underestimated the power of nationalism? we had just fought germany and japan, we knew nationalism plenty well.

hearts and minds? WE'RE KILLING THEM, THEY WILL NOT LIKE THAT. this hearts and minds crap is dumb.

ignorance of politics/history/whatever. more bullcrap.

the problem w/ vietnam is it was fought w/o a military objective. there is not a single person we tried to kill, city we tried to take, or place we tried to bomb to ever bring us closer to victory. u can't win a military war w/o a military objective. the problem was we THOUGHT we SHOULD do **** like "win hearts and minds" is why we lost. not that we didnt do it well enough.




its like the hippies told us how to fight then blamed us for losing.


I will quote myself as you have no idea what you are talking about

You tell me that almost all those lessons dont apply to the Iraq war, and you tell me that those lessons werent ignored and have led to a lot of and damn near all our problems. then I would tell you you dont know what you are talking about.(emphasis on the period)

not nice enough where the hell do you even get that conclusion from. empathy is not sympathy look up the difference. I really hate debating you and im not doing it, last two times i did i spent hours with you only to have you look like a fool. so give it a rest, pick up a book, take a vietnam class and shut up until you know what you are talking about.

[N.O.Bronco]

u know its funny I use to be told vietnam stories about how a patrol would go into a village and ask where the enemy was and no1 would say anything. and we'd shrug our shoulders and go on.

the vietnamese would go into the same village, goup to a family shoot one of the kids THEN ask where the americans are.

so we're up(like in iraq) against an EXTREMELY BRUTAL opponent, and our hippy asses think the answer is that we're not nice enough! its like getting ur ass kicked by a guy w/ a bat and wondering why u didnt bring a feather to the fight.


what does that have to do with anything pertaining to this discussion?

[yavoon]

what does that have to do with anything pertaining to this discussion?

it shows the stupidity of all ur ideas about vietnam.

[N.O.Bronco]

it shows the stupidity of all ur ideas about vietnam.

my ideas those were by the guy who lived and breathed vietnam everyday of his life since it happened, try again.

[yavoon]

I will quote myself as you have no idea what you are talking about



not nice enough where the hell do you even get that conclusion from. empathy is not sympathy look up the difference. I really hate debating you and im not doing it, last two times i did i spent hours with you only to have you look like a fool. so give it a rest, pick up a book, take a vietnam class and shut up until you know what you are talking about.

all those lessons only apply if u frame the argument in the same ignorant way that ppl try to frame vietnam now. I remember in the first gulf war, which is where the military REALLY exercised what it thought were its mistakes from vietnam(and not what ur ignorant hippy ass thought they were). where they didn't stop to negotiate, they didn't stop bombing, they didn't just defend.

thats what the military thought were its mistakes, not "not understanding politics" or "not winning hearts and minds." thats all for dumbasses to makeup afterwards.

[N.O.Bronco]

all those lessons only apply if u frame the argument in the same ignorant way that ppl try to frame vietnam now. I remember in the first gulf war, which is where the military REALLY exercised what it thought were its mistakes from vietnam(and not what ur ignorant hippy ass thought they were). where they didn't stop to negotiate, they didn't stop bombing, they didn't just defend.

thats what the military thought were its mistakes, not "not understanding politics" or "not winning hearts and minds." thats all for dumbasses to makeup afterwards.

Im gonna do this once and only once got it. your ignorance is proven in the fact that you have no idea why he said what he said and the context from which each of those is drawn from. Again i will do this once and only once for you


We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

you respond with this

thats all bullcrap. underestimated the power of nationalism? we had just fought germany and japan, we knew nationalism plenty well.

hearts and minds? WE'RE KILLING THEM, THEY WILL NOT LIKE THAT. this hearts and minds crap is dumb.

now if you knew the foggiest thing about vietnam history you would know that Vietnam has a strong history of nationalism. From the brutal occupation of the French and the occupation from japan during WWII, Vietnam longed for a national identity, to not be occupied and to be its own independent country. To the people there many saw in Ho Chi Minh the ability to just that. They didnt view things in the way we did or in the way we thought they did. The average vietnameese person had no idea of the atrocities of communism in Russia they only knew the propaganda Ho Chi threw at them. They viewed the world different then us we viewed the world through the eyes of the Cold War their people didnt. Ho Chi and northern Vietnam used Communism as an ideal(a pisspoor one) but non the less they saw it as an ideal different then what they felt was the oppressive French democracy and the oppresion of the dictatorship of Japan. They viewed us as the next French occupation and fought us for it. the idea behind that lesson is that had we understood that drive for nationalism and not just assumed they were trying to be a component and supporter of stalin then we would have been able to curb our intentions, take a different approach and make different choices in that situation.

This has all been documented in almost any in depth Vietnam history book or any real vietnam war novel. so before you go spouting off at the mouth it would be good to actually know what the hell you are attacking instead of coming off and looking like a fool.

now in the case for Iraq the fact that army we disbanded that fought for the country not Saddam and that many iraqis before us never saw themselves as shia and sunni but as Iraqis(yes the division would still exsist no doubt) we could have made better decisions, such as not disbanding the army which led to the insurgency along with Debaathification. this is how this relates, underestimating the power of nationalism would of aided us in victory to manipulate that drive to reach our objective much better, faster and more effecient in both wars vietnam and iraq

[yavoon]

Im gonna do this once and only once got it. your ignorance is proven in the fact that you have no idea why he said what he said and the context from which each of those is drawn from. Again i will do this once and only once for you



you respond with this



now if you knew the foggiest thing about vietnam history you would know that Vietnam has a strong history of nationalism. From the brutal occupation of the French and the occupation from japan during WWII, Vietnam longed for a national identity, to not be occupied and to be its own independent country. To the people there many saw in Ho Chi Minh the ability to just that. They didnt view things in the way we did or in the way we thought they did. The average vietnameese person had no idea of the atrocities of communism in Russia they only knew the propaganda Ho Chi threw at them. They viewed the world different then us we viewed the world through the eyes of the Cold War their people didnt. Ho Chi and northern Vietnam used Communism as an ideal(a pisspoor one) but non the less they saw it as an ideal different then what they felt was the oppressive French democracy and the oppresion of the dictatorship of Japan. They viewed us as the next French occupation and fought us for it. the idea behind that lesson is that had we understood that drive for nationalism and not just assumed they were trying to be a component and supporter of stalin then we would have been able to curb our intentions, take a different approach and make different choices in that situation.

This has all been documented in almost any in depth Vietnam history book or any real vietnam war novel. so before you go spouting off at the mouth it would be good to actually know what the hell you are attacking instead of coming off and looking like a fool.

and? what military suggestion do u gain from that? none. the japanese had a long history of nationalism, as did germany. korea is extraordinarily xenophobic/racist.

I never said vietnam wasn't nationalist, so giving me some ignorant ass reply "proving" that vietnam was nationalist refutes absolutely nothing. I see the extent of ur ability to argue extends to copy/paste.

[N.O.Bronco]

and? what military suggestion do u gain from that? none. the japanese had a long history of nationalism, as did germany. korea is extraordinarily xenophobic/racist.

I never said vietnam wasn't nationalist, so giving me some ignorant ass reply "proving" that vietnam was nationalist refutes absolutely nothing. I see the extent of ur ability to argue extends to copy/paste.

first off i edited my post to add why this applies to iraq and vietnam.


second you responded in the first response by saying that lesson is dumb and basically said it has no merit to the current situation or in Vietnam. What i just said proves that it does, that nationalism in both wars was a tool we didnt understand and thus didnt utilize, one that coulda of along with other things helped to acheive victory. So yes it does apply

[yavoon]

first off i edited my post to add why this applies to iraq and vietnam.


second you responded in the first response by saying that lesson is dumb and basically said it has no merit to the current situation or in Vietnam. What i just said proves that it does, that nationalism in both wars was a tool we didnt understand and thus didnt utilize, one that coulda of along with other things helped to acheive victory. So yes it does apply

we understood them fine, just like we understand them in iraq. just like we understand them in our own country, in germany, in japan. its only ignorant asses like u who suggest that we somehow were unaware that the vietnamese were nationalist. real military commanders understand that bombing ppl will not make u liked, we have our propaganda campaigns then just like now, just like we had in WWII. but then the ignorant hippies come along and scream "hah they dont like us, u underestimated their nationalism." which is completely absurd.

maybe that should be the new hippy way of war "hey man, lets not invade germany, I heard they are nationalist."

[N.O.Bronco]

we understood them fine, just like we understand them in iraq. just like we understand them in our own country, in germany, in japan. its only ignorant asses like u who suggest that we somehow were unaware that the vietnamese were nationalist. real military commanders understand that bombing ppl will not make u liked, we have our propaganda campaigns then just like now, just like we had in WWII. but then the ignorant hippies come along and scream "hah they dont like us, u underestimated their nationalism." which is completely absurd.

maybe that should be the new hippy way of war "hey man, lets not invade germany, I heard they are nationalist."

Again then provide me a link saying we undersood all these lessons specifically the extent of their nationalism and how it affected or view. Honestlly thats just prepostorous if we had known they had no intention of being the last domino until all of asia fell to communists as we suspected and werent in it for Stalin but for themselves, we wouldnt have invaded and put our troops on the ground the way we did. period.

Your ignorance blows my mind and your inability to grasp simple concepts such as ignorance of other nations is laughable. its a faultthat has led to conflict for thousands of years.

We understood that in Iraq? i ask you prove it? If we had known that the iraqi army would have fought for us and for IRAQ(nationalism) and that the majority of baathists showed no loyalty to saddam then why did we disband both and tell them they cant come back to there old job? Really like every other time your just diging yourself deeper with ignorance and like last time you resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks, thinking your actually making a point or winning this dscussion.

[yavoon]

Again the provide me a link saying we undersood all these lessons specifically the extent of their nationalism and how it affected or view. Honestlly thats just prepostorous if we had known they had no intention of being the last domino until all of asia fell to communists as we suspected and werent in it for Stalin but for themselves, we wouldnt have invaded and put our troops on the ground the way we did.

Your ignorance blows my mind and your inability to grasp simple concepts such as ignorance of other nations is laughable.

We understood that in Iraq? i ask you prove it? If we had known that the iraqi army would have fought for us and for IRAQ(nationalism) and that the majority of baathists showed no loyalty to saddam then why did we disband both and tell them they cant come back to there old job? Really like every other time your just diging yourself deeper with ignorance and like last time you resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks, thinking your actually making a point or winning this dscussion.

hahaha ur the first person to make a stupid useless post and u have the utter idiocy to whine about ad hominem to me? what the hell? especially consider half ur posts are spent saying **** like:
" Really like every other time your just diging yourself deeper with ignorance and like last time you resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks,"

do u even understand how hypocritical ur being in just that lil quote? I mean seriously, sit back and think about it. ur blaming me for ad hominem while flaming me! its ****ing hilarious.

[yavoon]

Honestlly thats just prepostorous if we had known they had no intention of being the last domino until all of asia fell to communists as we suspected and werent in it for Stalin but for themselves, we wouldnt have invaded and put our troops on the ground the way we did. period.

this is really the heart of the matter. all this talk about "not understanding their nationalism" is weak and sad fronts for dont go and fight. there is no suggestion for doing anything better. there is nothing like what the military did in gulf war 1 where they REALLY corrected what they thought were our mistakes from vietnam. and not what stupid hippies thought.

now its just everytime they dislike us, or things are difficult stupid asses like u can scream and cry over red herrings, like somehow our military is unaware of the idea of nationalism in war. or that somehow wer had no idea that the vietnamese were nationalist. its all just so absurd it makes me laugh.

but like I said, these reasons were never invented to make our military better, they were invented to make us feel bad about fighting, and stop doing it.

just like ur complete and total ignorance on islam, u show equal ignorance on military fronts.

[N.O.Bronco]

this is really the heart of the matter. all this talk about "not understanding their nationalism" is weak and sad fronts for dont go and fight. there is no suggestion for doing anything better. there is nothing like what the military did in gulf war 1 where they REALLY corrected what they thought were our mistakes from vietnam. and not what stupid hippies thought.

now its just everytime they dislike us, or things are difficult stupid asses like u can scream and cry over red herrings, like somehow our military is unaware of the idea of nationalism in war. or that somehow wer had no idea that the vietnamese were nationalist. its all just so absurd it makes me laugh.

but like I said, these reasons were never invented to make our military better, they were invented to make us feel bad about fighting, and stop doing it.

just like ur complete and total ignorance on islam, u show equal ignorance on military fronts.


again prove to me that they knew that stuff? do you even know who Robert McNamara is if they really knew all that stuff and it didnt play a part wouldnt he be the first to say it, dont you think?

Again you skate the points i bring up and instead attack the appaerent weakness of the message not whether that message was true or not(hence ad hominem tactic). now go along and do as always and sit at this forum day and night until someone makes a comment about Islam and you can jump on it. Until next time :welcome: i will wait for a link or you officially need to shut up accept defeat and move on.

[yavoon]

again prove to me that they knew that stuff? do you even know who Robert McNamara is if they really knew all that stuff and it didnt play a part wouldnt he be the first to say it, dont you think?

Again you skate the points i bring up and instead attack the appaerent weakness of the message not whether that message was true or not(hence ad hominem tactic). now go along and do as always and sit at this forum day and night until someone makes a comment about Islam and you can jump on it. Until next time :welcome: i will wait for a link or you officially need to shut up accept defeat and move on.

well atleast u dropped ur completely hypocritical whining act. thats atleast a step in an intelligent direction for u.

so let me get this straight, u jimmy up some passage that basically says "the vietnamese are nationalist." and now I have to prove that the US military is aware of the idea of nationalism?

if u want to see how the US attempts to deals w/ things like foreign nationalism then u can look up our propaganda efforts in vietnam and see how we did it. if, on the other hand u just want to say "haha we shouldn't ahve fought cause we totally didnt know they were nationalists!" then I'm afraid u'll just be left to wallow in ur pathetic ignorance.

[N.O.Bronco]

well atleast u dropped ur completely hypocritical whining act. thats atleast a step in an intelligent direction for u.

so let me get this straight, u jimmy up some passage that basically says "the vietnamese are nationalist." and now I have to prove that the US military is aware of the idea of nationalism?

if u want to see how the US attempts to deals w/ things like foreign nationalism then u can look up our propaganda efforts in vietnam and see how we did it. if, on the other hand u just want to say "haha we shouldn't ahve fought cause we totally didnt know they were nationalists!" then I'm afraid u'll just be left to wallow in ur pathetic ignorance.

Again do you even realize who you are trying to discredit with this its not my ideas its those of Robert Mcnamara. Ideas you claimed are not really reasons for failure in Vietnam. So i ask you to provide me with something to back that up. Explain to me why what i said the connections i made arent valid, you skate the issue and dont address anything head on. You are complettle yconfused with what he meant about what i and he met about nationalism as a tool so i am pretty sure you havent the foggiest idea about the history of vietnam.

And since I know you have to have the last word go ahead, its all yours, but until you provide any shred of evidence supporting the conclusions you have posted here you officially prove nothing more then that you are an ignorant fool who doesnt realize when he is over his head or when something is out of his league. The way you respond makes me laugh because you have no idea what you are talking about and still keep going forward. If you had done any real research on Vietnam you would have heard of that book and Robert Mcnamara your ignorance on that proves you havent the foggiest idea about vietnam. And your inability to see what i said about iraq and the connections and inability to respond to it shows your ignorance to that conflict also.


Stay in your muslim threads you do a good job, Iraq and war is my territory, considering it was one of my degrees i think i have a pretty good grasp on it, so either anwser my original questions and provide a link or make your final hippy comment and leave the thread.

[yavoon]

Again do you even realize who you are trying to discredit with this its not my ideas its those of Robert Mcnamara. Ideas you claimed are not really reasons for failure in Vietnam. So i ask you to provide me with something to back that up. Explain to me why what i said the connections i made arent valid, you skate the issue and dont address anything head on. You are complettle yconfused with what he meant about what i and he met about nationalism as a tool so i am pretty sure you havent the foggiest idea about the history of vietnam.

And since I know you have to have the last word go ahead, its all yours, but until you provide any shred of evidence supporting the conclusions you have posted here you officially prove nothing more then that you are an ignorant fool who doesnt realize when he is over his head or when something is out of his league. The way you respond makes me laugh because you have no idea what you are talking about and still keep going forward. If you had done any real research on Vietnam you would have heard of that book and Robert Mcnamara your ignorance on that proves you havent the foggiest idea about vietnam. And your inability to see what i said about iraq and the connections and inability to respond to it shows your ignorance to that conflict also.


Stay in your muslim threads you do a good job, Iraq and war is my territory, considering it was one of my degrees i think i have a pretty good grasp on it, so either anwser my original questions and provide a link or make your final hippy comment and leave the thread.

wth? u said u'd wait till I provided a link.

now ur a hypocrit and a liar.

[N.O.Bronco]

wth? u said u'd wait till I provided a link.

now ur a hypocrit and a liar.

way to skate the issue. Ill wait go ahead. Again you are arguing with a guy who just took another Vietnam war class last semester, has read all the books by mcnamara everything by Kissinger now what amounts to three vietnam history textbooks, and two vietnam war textbooks. Plus countless other documents and online articles. so please provide a link or give it a rest.


PS- and did what amounted to a dissertation for a PHD professor, Dr. Outland at LSU who specializes in modern war from WWI to the First Gulf War. Oh and i did it on the road to failings in Vietnam

[yavoon]

Again do you even realize who you are trying to discredit with this its not my ideas its those of Robert Mcnamara. Ideas you claimed are not really reasons for failure in Vietnam. So i ask you to provide me with something to back that up. Explain to me why what i said the connections i made arent valid, you skate the issue and dont address anything head on. You are complettle yconfused with what he meant about what i and he met about nationalism as a tool so i am pretty sure you havent the foggiest idea about the history of vietnam.

And since I know you have to have the last word go ahead, its all yours, but until you provide any shred of evidence supporting the conclusions you have posted here you officially prove nothing more then that you are an ignorant fool who doesnt realize when he is over his head or when something is out of his league. The way you respond makes me laugh because you have no idea what you are talking about and still keep going forward. If you had done any real research on Vietnam you would have heard of that book and Robert Mcnamara your ignorance on that proves you havent the foggiest idea about vietnam. And your inability to see what i said about iraq and the connections and inability to respond to it shows your ignorance to that conflict also.


Stay in your muslim threads you do a good job, Iraq and war is my territory, considering it was one of my degrees i think i have a pretty good grasp on it, so either anwser my original questions and provide a link or make your final hippy comment and leave the thread.

my conclusions are based upon the real military actions taken in gulf war I and II in correction of lessons learned in vietnam. and not hippy "we didnt know they were nationalists, so we shouldn't have fought at all." ideas.

[yavoon]

way to skate the issue. Ill wait go ahead. Again you are arguing with a guy who just took another Vietnam war class last semester, has read all the books by mcnamara everything by Kissinger now what amounts to three vietnam history textbooks, and two vietnam war textbooks. Plus countless other documents and online articles. so please provide a link or give it a rest.

so this time u'll wait? we'll see. I like the new attacks of authority though. those kind of pathetic arguments are right up ur alley.

[N.O.Bronco]

my conclusions are based upon the real military actions taken in gulf war I and II in correction of lessons learned in vietnam. and not hippy "we didnt know they were nationalists, so we shouldn't have fought at all." ideas.

again not the point i made and not the point Mcnanmara made either. I also edited my last post. so now you are arguing with a facade. Trying to argue points i never made and points the original author never made. ths is just a rehas of our last argument

[yavoon]

my conclusions are based upon the real military actions taken in gulf war I and II in correction of lessons learned in vietnam. and not hippy "we didnt know they were nationalists, so we shouldn't have fought at all." ideas.

again not the point i made and not the point Mcnanmara made either. I also edited my last post. so now you are arguing with a facade. Trying to argue points i never made and points the original author never made. ths is just a rehas of our last argument

"Honestlly thats just prepostorous if we had known they had no intention of being the last domino until all of asia fell to communists as we suspected and werent in it for Stalin but for themselves, we wouldnt have invaded and put our troops on the ground the way we did. period."

forget what u write so quickly? and now I'm responsible for future editing of ur posts? god thats pretty harsh. I"ll have to put on my swami hat for this.

[Spider]

Hilarious! Yavoon Shít the bed again debating .........

[baja]

I don't think that is necessary presently. However, when I mention take the gloves off, one possible method is, the press/media is O-U-T , out. Second, the politicians do not use the war for politics NOR do they try to tell "field commanders" how to manage the war. Field commanders are allowed to prosecute the enemy by whatever method they desire without ANY oversight short of superiors or the President. Third, shoot first , ask questions later. 4th, declare martial law and enforce it, anyone out after time whatever, OR anyone with a weapon who is not military either iraqi or american is a dead man. 5th , lock down the iranian/syrian borders, anyone crosses is considered an enemy combatant and they will pay the penalty. In short, get serious about ending this war. This is just a piece of one method. There are others available to a field commander who is innovative and adept at thinking out of the box. However, prosecution with extreme prejudice and pain on the enemy is a must, in the past, we've been too worried about the repurcussions of prosecuting in a very nasty manner, that in itself can enable you to fail. You can't be worried about backlash from anywhere, fill body bags with enemy bodies and extract as much information from combatants as you can as you go. Don't stop till they are dead..dman

Jesus you sound like a series of action movies.

[yavoon]

heres something more up a real strategic alley, and not an ad hoc hatchet job on why we didn't understand a concept like nationalism.

"American strategy was ill-defined from 1961, when John F. Kennedy embarked upon the major commitment which he said was "to defend the right of South Vietnam to exist." That simply did not have the force that "victory at all costs" would have had.

It was not until the Nixon administration that the United States articulated a clearly defined if limited strategy. It had three goals: withdrawal of U.S. forces, the return of our prisoners of war and "Vietnamization"--turning the fighting back over to the South Vietnamese."

that was one of the problems we fixed in the gulf war, have a real strategy, with military objectives. nothing to do w/ "not understanding nationalism." and everything to do w/ strategic and tactical military choices.

[N.O.Bronco]

[QUOTE=N.O.Bronco;1466125]

"Honestlly thats just prepostorous if we had known they had no intention of being the last domino until all of asia fell to communists as we suspected and werent in it for Stalin but for themselves, we wouldnt have invaded and put our troops on the ground the way we did. period."

forget what u write so quickly? and now I'm responsible for future editing of ur posts? god thats pretty harsh. I"ll have to put on my swami hat for this.

meaning we would have taken a different approach to the situation, NOT that we would not have done anything at all, possiblly gone to a different country yes but ignored war entirelly no. Remember in the beginning it was simply a training mission for the south vietnameese, our wrongful assumptions on there nationalism, intentions and along with many other things pertained in those lessons and beyond led us to the tactics we used there and in other parts of the war. These lessons span the course of McNamaras experience so unless you have the foggiest background on vietnam it is easy to see why you are misunderstanding the meanings and lessons he is talking about. And how they directlly correlate to the failings in Iraq.

Again my questions in previous posts need anwsering and links.

[yavoon]

[QUOTE=yavoon;1466130]

meaning we would have taken a different approach to the situation, NOT that we would not have done anything at all, possiblly gone to a different country yes but ignored war entirelly no. Remember in the beginning it was simply a training mission for the south vietnameese, our wrongful assumptions on there nationalism, intentions and along with many other things pertained in those lessons and beyond led us to the tactics we used there and in other parts of the war. These lessons span the course of McNamaras experience so unless you have the foggiest background on vietnam it is easy to see why you are misunderstanding the meanings and lessons he is talking about. And how they directlly correlate to the failings in Iraq.

Again my questions in previous posts need anwsering and links.

and in that different country if they had gone guerilla, we could have had this exact same discussion about how we "ignored their nationalism" or some other such crap.

"Lyndon Johnson was a profoundly insecure man who feared dissent and craved reassurance. In 1964 and 1965, Johnson's principal goals were to win the presidency in his own right and to pass his Great Society legislation through Congress. The Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was particularly adept at sensing the president's needs and giving him the advice he wanted. Lyndon Johnson knew that he faced a difficult choice between war and disengagement in Vietnam. However, because such a decision would alienate key constituencies on which his domestic goals depended, he sought a middle course aimed at placating those on both sides of the issue. McNamara developed the strategy of "graduated pressure" that, along with the profound dishonesty of LBJ and his closest advisers, prevented a debate on Vietnam until it was too late. America was already at war long before the American public recognized that fact. Not only was LBJ's conduct undemocratic, it also removed an important corrective to what was an unwise policy."

"During the period in which Vietnam became an American war, Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara created the illusion that attacks on North Vietnam were alternatives to war rather than war itself. Bombing, particularly from the perspective of the receiving end, is not "communication." Bombs result in death and destruction. After engaging in acts of war against another nation, there exists a degree of uncertainty in terms of the enemy's reactions. War inspires an unpredictable psychology and evokes strong emotions that defy systems analysis quantification.

Once the United States crossed the threshold of war against North Vietnam, the future course of events depended not only on decisions made in Washington, but also on enemy responses and initiatives. Sadly, Pentagon war games predicted the enemy reaction, a massive offensive on the ground, but McNamara ignored that advice. Indeed, many people within the administration made compelling arguments against the assumption that bombing would affect Hanoi's will sufficiently to convince North Vietnam to desist from its support of the insurgency in the South. Until the massive deployment of ground troops in 1965 forced him to confront the consequences of his earlier decisions, McNamara continued to view the war as another business management problem."

again problems in strategy and decision making, not in "misunderstanding nationalism."

[yavoon]

the problem w/ all the weenie crap is it will apply in any situation that becomes difficult. in the end its just ad hoc hatchet jobs that ignore real strategic changes that could be made instead using a nice salve like "we didnt know they were nationalists!"

[N.O.Bronco]

[QUOTE=N.O.Bronco;1466141]

and in that different country if they had gone guerilla, we could have had this exact same discussion about how we "ignored their nationalism" or some other such crap.

"Lyndon Johnson was a profoundly insecure man who feared dissent and craved reassurance. In 1964 and 1965, Johnson's principal goals were to win the presidency in his own right and to pass his Great Society legislation through Congress. The Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was particularly adept at sensing the president's needs and giving him the advice he wanted. Lyndon Johnson knew that he faced a difficult choice between war and disengagement in Vietnam. However, because such a decision would alienate key constituencies on which his domestic goals depended, he sought a middle course aimed at placating those on both sides of the issue. McNamara developed the strategy of "graduated pressure" that, along with the profound dishonesty of LBJ and his closest advisers, prevented a debate on Vietnam until it was too late. America was already at war long before the American public recognized that fact. Not only was LBJ's conduct undemocratic, it also removed an important corrective to what was an unwise policy."

"During the period in which Vietnam became an American war, Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara created the illusion that attacks on North Vietnam were alternatives to war rather than war itself. Bombing, particularly from the perspective of the receiving end, is not "communication." Bombs result in death and destruction. After engaging in acts of war against another nation, there exists a degree of uncertainty in terms of the enemy's reactions. War inspires an unpredictable psychology and evokes strong emotions that defy systems analysis quantification.

Once the United States crossed the threshold of war against North Vietnam, the future course of events depended not only on decisions made in Washington, but also on enemy responses and initiatives. Sadly, Pentagon war games predicted the enemy reaction, a massive offensive on the ground, but McNamara ignored that advice. Indeed, many people within the administration made compelling arguments against the assumption that bombing would affect Hanoi's will sufficiently to convince North Vietnam to desist from its support of the insurgency in the South. Until the massive deployment of ground troops in 1965 forced him to confront the consequences of his earlier decisions, McNamara continued to view the war as another business management problem."

again problems in strategy and decision making, not in "misunderstanding nationalism."


again what DID I SAY NATIONALISM IS A PIECE TO A BIGGER PUZZLE. IT WAS BUT ONE OF MANY MISJUDGEMENTS ABOUT THE VIETNAM WAR THAT LED TO ITS FAILURE. not the only one, again the debate about nationalism was not whther it was the sole reason. you made the claim it was not even a reason i said prove to me that. You have failed to do so. This article is true yes but it is merelly describing the mindset at the time not the actual reasons or points i brought up. In fact if you go back an read those lessons part of your link is supportive of Mcnamaras lessons so again whats the point of this. You havent anwsered my question but instead found some evidence to support the other lessons so good job your learning. I commend your effort. You make a claim that understanding there nationalism played no part and wouldnt have helped in the slightest and that it was a hippy idealogy so back it up

[Spider]

LOL , what a dumb ass ......... acting as if he knew LBJ .......... Problem was we went over there after the french failed as a Policing Action , we were a security force between S. Nam and N nam ......... Problem was we couldnt identify the enemy , and China was supplying arms to N Nam out the ass , we couldnt keep pace . most of the S. Vietnam people couldnt Idenify Charlie either ........

[N.O.Bronco]

LOL , what a dumb ass ......... acting as if he knew LBJ .......... Problem was we went over there after the french failed as a Policing Action , we were a security force between S. Nam and N nam ......... Problem was we couldnt identify the enemy , and China was supplying arms to N Nam out the ass , we couldnt keep pace . most of the S. Vietnam people couldnt Idenify Charlie either ........

i hope thats not toward me?

edit: nevermind it seems it wasnt against me

[yavoon]

[QUOTE=yavoon;1466150]


again what DID I SAY NATIONALISM IS A PIECE TO A BIGGER PUZZLE. IT WAS BUT ONE OF MANY MISJUDGEMENTS ABOUT THE VIETNAM WAR THAT LED TO ITS FAILURE. not the only one, again the debate about nationalism was not whther it was the sole reason. you made the claim it was not even a reason i said prove to me that. You have failed to do so. This article is true yes but it is merelly describing the mindset at the time not the actual reasons or points i brought up. In fact if you go back an read those lessons part of your link is supportive of Mcnamaras lessons so again whats the point of this. You havent anwsered my question but instead found some evidence to support the other lessons so good job your learning. I commend your effort. You make a claim that understanding there nationalism played no part and wouldnt have helped in the slightest and that it was a hippy idealogy so back it up

to even discuss how understanding their natinoalism could have helped us we'd have to go into our propaganda efforts, and other things more directly linked to dealing w/ foreign nationalism. which of course never have u even mentioned, because thats never been the point of bringing up nationalism. even though u try to hide it, the point has always been to try to convince ppl that we shouldn't have fought.

again, bringing up nationalism is a red herring for real strategic military mistakes. it is not "part of the picture" it is just a hanging chad left there to give us an easy reason why we lost. "oh yah we lost cause we didnt know they were nationalists."

I bring up real reasons for our failures in vietnam that lie in real military decisions and can be corrected for in future wars(like gulf war I). which is distinctly different from "omg we didnt know they were nationalists!" crap that u like to tout.

[Spider]

i hope thats not toward me?

edit: nevermind it seems it wasnt against me

LOL no it wasnt .........you can tell Yavoon is getting all of his Bullshít from History books , and propaganda sites

[N.O.Bronco]

[QUOTE=N.O.Bronco;1466158]

to even discuss how understanding their natinoalism could have helped us we'd have to go into our propaganda efforts, and other things more directly linked to dealing w/ foreign nationalism. which of course never have u even mentioned, because thats never been the point of bringing up nationalism. even though u try to hide it, the point has always been to try to convince ppl that we shouldn't have fought.

again, bringing up nationalism is a red herring for real strategic military mistakes. it is not "part of the picture" it is just a hanging chad left there to give us an easy reason why we lost. "oh yah we lost cause we didnt know they were nationalists."

I bring up real reasons for our failures in vietnam that lie in real military decisions and can be corrected for in future wars(like gulf war I). which is distinctly different from "omg we didnt know they were nationalists!" crap that u like to tout.


Im not doing this you made two claims,

1.) that the lessons do not provide to our failing in Iraq. I showed how they did you are yet to anwser the question or prove me wrong

2.) I gave an example to prove to you you didnt understand the substance his lessons meant. You said, responding to my claim that if we had known the extent of their nationalism(patriotosm) and there real yearnings and reasons for having communism we would have adjusted our tactics, our approach and/or are reasoning for invading. you said nationalism had no part in anything i ask you to prove it

that link does neither


That is our discussion and debate you started either anwser them or go away.

stop trying to frame me into positions my posts have never said. You read things people post then assume things about the poster and respond to that assumption disregarding whether that assumption is credible or not.

[N.O.Bronco]

LOL no it wasnt .........you can tell Yavoon is getting all of his Bullshít from History books , and propaganda sites

yea your right its time to just let him wallow in his ignorance after all ignorance is bliss right yavoon.:rofl:

[Spider]

yea your right its time to just let him wallow in his ignorance after all ignorance is bliss right yavoon.:rofl:

Yavoon has learned not to screw with me......last fight we had was over Randy Moss vs Rod Smith ..Yavoon pretty much learned his lesson ...........

[yavoon]

[QUOTE=yavoon;1466167]


Im not doing this you made two claims,

1.) that the lessons do not provide to our failing in Iraq. I showed how they did you are yet to anwser the question or prove me wrong

2.) I gave an example to prove to you you didnt understand the substance his lessons meant. You said, responding to my claim that if we had known the extent of their nationalism(patriotosm) and there real yearnings and reasons for having communism we would have adjusted our tactics, our approach and/or are reasoning for invading. you said nationalism had no part in anything i ask you to prove it

that link does neither


That is our discussion and debate you started either anwser them or go away.

stop trying to frame me into positions my posts have never said. You read things people post then assume things about the poster and respond to that assumption disregarding whether that assumption is credible or not.

"And since I know you have to have the last word go ahead, its all yours"

how many posts since u made that statement?

I'll add this to the hypocritical lil whining tirade u went on. and that time u blatantly lied about "waiting."

u can't even hold to the most basic things u say.

[N.O.Bronco]

[QUOTE=N.O.Bronco;1466177]

"And since I know you have to have the last word go ahead, its all yours"

how many posts since u made that statement?

I'll add this to the hypocritical lil whining tirade u went on. and that time u blatantly lied about "waiting."

u can't even hold to the most basic things u say.



and that anwsered my questions and your conclusions How?

[N.O.Bronco]

Yavoon has learned not to screw with me......last fight we had was over Randy Moss vs Rod Smith ..Yavoon pretty much learned his lesson ...........

i actually thought he had learned his lesson with me after the last two times but apparentlly not. Oh well im retiring for the night

[yavoon]

[QUOTE=yavoon;1466167]


Im not doing this you made two claims,

1.) that the lessons do not provide to our failing in Iraq. I showed how they did you are yet to anwser the question or prove me wrong

2.) I gave an example to prove to you you didnt understand the substance his lessons meant. You said, responding to my claim that if we had known the extent of their nationalism(patriotosm) and there real yearnings and reasons for having communism we would have adjusted our tactics, our approach and/or are reasoning for invading. you said nationalism had no part in anything i ask you to prove it

that link does neither


That is our discussion and debate you started either anwser them or go away.

stop trying to frame me into positions my posts have never said. You read things people post then assume things about the poster and respond to that assumption disregarding whether that assumption is credible or not.


how would we have adjusted our tactics? like I said, ur just trying desperately to hold onto something that is slipping. do we not understand iraqi 'nationalism' either? are we doomed, everytime a guerilla insurgency is started that is capable of rendering the country unlivable that we will have failed to "understand their nationalism?"

don't u see how vapid that is. comparing iraq to vietnam on the level of nationalism only makes it more vapid. best to talk about real strategic and military decisions, and not stupid hatchet job excuses like u use.

[yavoon]

[QUOTE=yavoon;1466198]



and that anwsered my questions and your conclusions How?

I just like to point out that ur a lying hypocrit. I think things like that are worth keeping track of. afterall I didn't make u write any of that stuff, u decided to do it.

[Spider]

i actually thought he had learned his lesson with me after the last two times but apparentlly not. Oh well im retiring for the night

Yavoon is a slow learner , you pretty much Kicked his ass ........

[N.O.Bronco]

Yavoon is a slow learner , you pretty much Kicked his ass ........

yea i know, its just fun to watch him dig deeper and deeper and then watch as he tries to skwerm out of it with name calling and scapegoat arguments.

[Spider]

yea i know, its just fun to watch him dig deeper and deeper and then watch as he tries to skwerm out of it with name calling and scapegoat arguments.

yeah it is .........;D
if yavoon was half as smart as he thought he was , he would still be an Idiot

[N.O.Bronco]

yeah it is .........;D
if yavoon was half as smart as he thought he was , he would still be an Idiot

LOL its funny but its pretty much true it seems.

[yavoon]

LOL its funny but its pretty much true it seems.

bandwagoning w/ spider? there aren't many places better to hide as an idiot then that.

[Spider]

bandwagoning w/ spider? there aren't many places better to hide as an idiot then that.

That hurt ........... i am not talking to you again until you apologize Mr ............
I mean it ............















really I mean it this time ..........







Not playing around here .........

[N.O.Bronco]

bandwagoning w/ spider? there aren't many places better to hide as an idiot then that.

that didnt anwser my questions.

[Spider]

see this face ? I am not amused
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1673&dateline=1164747271

[yavoon]

that didnt anwser my questions.

"Oh well im retiring for the night"

I hope u aren't this big of a liar in real life. u should learn some morals.

[Hotrod]

No one can deny that we did, in fact, win. Militarily, we achieved all of our objectives. We went into Iraq, neutralized their military, wiped out their command and control, and overthrew the dictatorship while inflicting heavy casualties on our enemies and receiving relatively slight casualties ourselves. It was a brilliant operation. I would say that Phase One went magnificently. Too bad there was no Phase Two, Three, or Four. Iraq is not a failure of our military service people. It's a failure of our leaders, from Bush on down, but especially Bush. Read "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks. It details the incompetence, chapter and verse, in black and white for all to see. The Bush cabal is already trying to shift the blame from themselves. It's the kind of thing people with no character tend to do. History will not be fooled. Not another American should die for this fiasco.

100% truth

[Hotrod]

it all started w/ japan and germany. two non democracies that we tore down completely in WWII then rebuilt into the #2 and #3 economies in the world(who are also democratic). so we get this idea that we can do this stuff. not only can we win wars but we can pop out great societies on the back end. hell south korea worked out too! so at one point we were batting 1.000. of course in retrospect we failed to realize that japan and germany were very capable societies before we defeated and bombed them into dirt.

iraq is not japan and germany. iraq is a more or less inept arab society, and when we stripped away the brutal tinpot dictator. instead of getting germany sans hitler, we get unhindered brutality, islamic rule and violence.


This backs up my point of why we wont win this war. We simply did not know our enemy before.

[Spider]

This backs up my point of why we wont win this war. We simply did not know our enemy before.

well , the fact we went in expecting to fight 1 enemy , we wound up fighting 2 enemy's and also being caught in the cross fire , Were Yavoon misses the point ( go figure) is this isnt nationalism , this is religion , these people are not fighting for Iraq , they are fighting for their sect of a religion ......... so yeah we didnt know the enemy , but it is much more detailed then that Dodge boy ;D

[Hotrod]

well , the fact we went in expecting to fight 1 enemy , we wound up fighting 2 enemy's and also being caught in the cross fire , Were Yavoon misses the point ( go figure) is this isnt nationalism , this is religion , these people are not fighting for Iraq , they are fighting for their sect of a religion ......... so yeah we didnt know the enemy , but it is much more detailed then that Dodge boy ;D

Agree

What amazes me is how many people fail to realize the power of religion. These folks are force feed this **** from birth. Not only did we not know or even bother to try and understand the people in general but who the **** missed the little detal that Iraq was full of not only religious nutters but 3 completely different forms of religious nutters. I find it flat out sick that we went charging into Iraq with ZERO plans of what the hell we were gonna do once we got there. :nono:

[Hotrod]

Hey did you just call me Drudge boy???

[Spider]

Agree

What amazes me is how many people fail to realize the power of religion. These folks are force feed this **** from birth. Not only did we not know or even bother to try and understand the people in general but who the **** missed the little detal that Iraq was full of not only religious nutters but 3 completely different forms of religious nutters. I find it flat out sick that we went charging into Iraq with ZERO plans of what the hell we were gonna do once we got there. :nono:
well I was against the iraqi war , but I didnt see this comming , I dont think anyone But Saddam did , the more we see these people behave , the more Saddam made sense ........

[Spider]

Hey did you just call me Drudge boy???

LOL Drudge drives a dodge ? .that will come in handy next election ;D