Salty

iTrader: (14)

Here's a good comparison for comparison article on how comparing Iraq to Vietnam makes no sense at all, and it is more like WWII Guadalcanal than anything else.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133518,00.html

Discuss...

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Well, i suppose it's my duty to **** and moan about the fact that it's a fox news source, but it's still an interesting article.

psoper

So we are going to be forced out of Iraq only to come back after we win all the other battles in the "war on terror"?

This whole war on terror concept is fatally flawed in the first place.

For every martyr we make when we take out a civilian, 5 more will angered enough to join the cause, the US policy is simply a matter of throwing gasoline on the fire

You've been there Salty- you know for yourself the fact is-

War IS terror with a bigger budget

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

I think there are valid comparisons for both. The reasoning for getting us into the war is more similar to GC and WWII, as well as the fact that we had a quick success, only to be followed by a long lasting and fierce counter attack. However similarities in comparing Vietnam and out current situation can be seen in HOW the war is being fought. Both Vietnam and our current situation seem to have no real direction and seem to have stalled when unforseen problems arose. I think that is where the term "quagmire" comes in to play, as it seems we have been in "post war" Iraq for over a year now and not much seems to be getting batter. In fact Powell was recently quoted as saying that the insurgency is getting worse.

The other similarity with Vietnam that is lacking with GC and WWII is the fact that it concerns civilians as the primary fighting force. Whereas the primary force fighting us in GC was the Japanese military, the force fighting us in Iraq is a civilain insurgency, similar to the Viet Cong of Nam.

-Chris

RussA

iTrader: (2)

Good artical, short and to the point. lol, and with all the date comparision, the War on Terrorism will end sometime mid next year...

BlingBlingBlue

The Japanese attacked the USA, Iraq did not attack the USA.
Iraq did not "sneak attack" us on September 11, 2001 as the article suggests. From the article: "Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy. "

That statement is 100% propaganda. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. My grandfathers both fought in WW2 against the Japanese. Iraq did not attack us, and for Fox News to suggest that our invasion of Iraq was justified in the same way as the United States defending herself in the second World War is extremely offensive to me and dishonors my family and country.

constellation

iTrader: (1)

The war on terror is going to about as fruitful as a war on jealousy, or boredom. How you fight an idea?

subaruguru

Iraq did have everything to do with being a state sponsor of international terrorism. Specifically involved in that act or not, you're dreaming if you think Saddam wasn't very much interested in promoting terrorist activity against the United States. Remember the assassination plans for George Bush number one?

What gets me is that when Iraq part one happened, lots of people complained that it was stopped short of effectively solving the problem. Saddam continued to play games for the next 10 years or so, interfering with weapons inspectors, illegally selling oil for arms, and moving his troops around along the Kuwaiti buffer zone. Saddam was clearly itching for a chance to project his power (even after 91 he had the biggest and most well equipped army in the arab world), and given time I think it's safe to say he would have. Or, he might have fallen on his own...in which case the chaos you would see in baghdad would make what's happening now look like Sesame street. Either way, Saddam growing in power or falling from power, this situation was going nowhere good.

You should be happy, is what I'm saying, for this, because otherwise you might have gotten the chance to compare stories about doing mail room in World War III with your grandfathers' typing or whatever they did in World War II.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Great point that people tend to forget!

subaruguru

Same way you fight communism: by showing people that they live a much better life if they stick to a different set of ideas.

BlingBlingBlue

BS. You've obviously taken the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Saudi Arabia has sponsored FAR more terrorism than Iraq in the last 10 years, but they're our friends, right?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

What does any of that have to do with Chechnya?!

subaruguru

Good question. It's not related is it? What else isn't related to the Iraq question??? that's right...


Anyway, blingblingringadingdong, you're misunderstanding the situation with Saudi Arabia AND ignoring the point about Iraq. If I'm just taken by the propaganda machine, why didn't you have any responses to the facts I gave you about Iraq?

And, if the Saudi government were indeed dangerous, does that mean that Iraq shouldn't have been treated as dangerous? I don't see why that is the case. "If we think one country is dangerous and we don't attack it, therefore we shouldn't attack any dangerous country". Is that what you're trying to say?

The Saudi "government" is a royal family. It does not work like the Iraqi baathis government did or like western governments. There are individuals, with varying degrees of power and wealth, in the royal family who might support terrorists. But it's hard to say as a general policy the government supports terrorists, because it's a fundamentally different kind of government than we're used to.

BlingBlingBlue

And why, pray tell, would Chewbaca be on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks? This does NOT make sense, must acquit. /Oh NOES - the Johnny Cochrane defense!

Iraq was contained. Period. The reasons we were given to invade have proven to be inaccurate. At *best* we acted on insufficient information. Most likely we were deliberately deceived. It did not sense to spend $200 billion, **** off all of our allies (which we now need, btw), and stretch our military so thin, when we hadn't even stabilized Afghanistan yet. We formed a military front in Iraq, greatly exposing our flanks. The administration told Congress that Iraq was posed a clear and immediate threat to the United States. It did not, and by attacking and occupying, we have greatly exposed ourselves.

BTW, which "facts" did you wish for me to respond?

BlingBlingBlue

There's another thread about Chechnya. You obviously didn't read my posts in that one.