America and the Next Vietnam

[a_unique_person]

Is Iraq leading america into it's next Vietnam? If the US is going to be leading attacks against any country it percieves could be a threat in the future, could it be falling into the same trap it fell into before.

The trap of fighting an enemy it cannot identify, which can hide anywhere.

Iraq by itself does not constitute such an enemy. However, if the enemy suddenly starts to include about 20 or 30 nations who see themselves being lined up in it's sights, then the whole situation suddenly changes. The US has multiple sources of attack, that can be hiding in any one of thousands of places around the world. Although none of these sources can attack and defeat the US by themselves, they can engage in a war of attrition that exhausts US sentiment for supporting such a global conflict.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is Iraq leading america into it's next Vietnam?

I'd say its wishful thinking on your part.

[corplinx]

Well. There is no Ho Chi Minh trail. There is no enemy winning hearts and minds. There is no help from outside the country. Our technology has come leagues ahead. Our force is volunteer and not drafted. We have much more capable leaders and a CIC who doesn't micromanage military.

In short, vietnam was vietnam. In today's world with the same circumstances as back then but with our new intelligence and SOF abilities, we would take out the ho chi minh trail and let special forces deal with the viet kong and not send in tanks to plow villages.

In short, if vietnam were to happen today we would probably get it right this time but not lose so many lives, take so many lives, draw north vietnam in, deploy infantry, and there would be no mass genocide after we leave.

If only............

[Richard G]

Why don't you grab the next boat for Iraq and join the cause? Saddam could use a few more loyal men. Piece of sh*t.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Well. There is no Ho Chi Minh trail.



no, now there will be thousands of ho chi minh trails.



There is no enemy winning hearts and minds.



i wouldn't be so sure of that. not from your point of view, perhaps, but others around the world see the world in different ways.



There is no help from outside the country. Our technology has come leagues ahead. Our force is volunteer and not drafted. We have much more capable leaders and a CIC who doesn't micromanage military.



perphas i did not make myself clear. the threat is not iraq, it is the many countries the US tends to take on after iraq. they may not sit back and wait to be picked off one by one. china, for example, may start to feel a little uncomfortable.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is Iraq leading america into it's next Vietnam? If the US is going to be leading attacks against any country it percieves could be a threat in the future, could it be falling into the same trap it fell into before.

The trap of fighting an enemy it cannot identify, which can hide anywhere.

Iraq by itself does not constitute such an enemy. However, if the enemy suddenly starts to include about 20 or 30 nations who see themselves being lined up in it's sights, then the whole situation suddenly changes. The US has multiple sources of attack, that can be hiding in any one of thousands of places around the world. Although none of these sources can attack and defeat the US by themselves, they can engage in a war of attrition that exhausts US sentiment for supporting such a global conflict.

No. This won;t be another vietnam for two reasons

1 the politcians are leaving it to the military, as they should

2 the French didn't start this one, nor are they involved in it

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


perphas i did not make myself clear. the threat is not iraq, it is the many countries the US tends to take on after iraq. they may not sit back and wait to be picked off one by one. china, for example, may start to feel a little uncomfortable.

Well, take vietnam out of your original post altogether and you do have an interesting point. I think you are right to an extent that someone like China may feel uncomfortable. Of course, they have felt uncomfortable for a long time. I am not sure Iraq means as much to them as it does to us. They do not have american domestic politics blurring things. As far as fearing Bush, he still have less military interventions on record than Clinton (who the more rabid conservatives successfully painted as a dove despite reality). Not to mention, the Bush family have a relationship with the Chinese that goes back a long way. I do not think the Chinese would fear Bush enough to preemptively strike.

Who would form an alliance to strike at America rather than be attacked? Iran, North Korea, and..... ????? I seriously doubt Russia, China, and France would form an axis against America. Russia doesn't have the money. China doesn't have the transportation or infrastructure. And France would of course surrender.

[DrChinese]

Iraq isn't the first. Afghanistan was.

America seems to have taken a pill to make it forget everything we learned - or should have learned - in Vietnam.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Richard G
Why don't you grab the next boat for Iraq and join the cause? Saddam could use a few more loyal men. Piece of ****.

Wow, another master debater. Or is that... master baiter? You make the call.

Surely we can bypass the name calling.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, take vietnam out of your original post altogether and you do have an interesting point. I think you are right to an extent that someone like China may feel uncomfortable. Of course, they have felt uncomfortable for a long time. I am not sure Iraq means as much to them as it does to us. They do not have american domestic politics blurring things. As far as fearing Bush, he still have less military interventions on record than Clinton (who the more rabid conservatives successfully painted as a dove despite reality). Not to mention, the Bush family have a relationship with the Chinese that goes back a long way. I do not think the Chinese would fear Bush enough to preemptively strike.

Who would form an alliance to strike at America rather than be attacked? Iran, North Korea, and..... ????? I seriously doubt Russia, China, and France would form an axis against America. Russia doesn't have the money. China doesn't have the transportation or infrastructure. And France would of course surrender.

haven't you heard, syria has now been added to the axis of evil, saudi arabia is not far behind, especially if Iraq now forms the role of reliable middle east oil source. and i am not talking about a conventional war. no one can win one of them against the states. a low level guerilla war that focuses on easy targets would be much more likely.

Dubya and friends already appear to have an indefinite list of countries to make war with. why would they all wait in line for it to attack them one by one.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Troll


No. This won;t be another vietnam for two reasons

1 the politcians are leaving it to the military, as they should



You need to read a history of Vietnam. President Johnson faithfully followed the advice of Gen. Westmoreland et al until we had 500,000 ground troops in South Vietnam. Nixon bombed the holy hell out of the North. So I don't think there was any lack of trying to win. Of course, we didn't have Tommy Franks then either.

You are passing around a tired revisionist story. I hope it is out of ignorance.

[Troll]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You need to read a history of Vietnam. President Johnson faithfully followed the advice of Gen. Westmoreland et al until we had 500,000 ground troops in South Vietnam. Nixon bombed the holy hell out of the North. So I don't think there was any lack of trying to win. Of course, we didn't have Tommy Franks then either.

You are passing around a tired revisionist story. I hope it is out of ignorance.

yeah, he went with westmoreland on the numbers thing. But he paid attention to protests and politicins as to how far we should go and how hard we should hit.

Pick up some books yourself. and I was actually a child interested in war and learning during vietnam. and I had 5 uncles a dad and two cousins start and end time in the conflict . /so if you're loking for ignorance, go to the bathroom, turn on the light and look at that mug in the mirror.

There was no reason other than policy, and policy is made by politicians, that the US did not achieve their goals in Vietnam

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You need to read a history of Vietnam. President Johnson faithfully followed the advice of Gen. Westmoreland et al until we had 500,000 ground troops in South Vietnam. Nixon bombed the holy hell out of the North. So I don't think there was any lack of trying to win. Of course, we didn't have Tommy Franks then either.

You are passing around a tired revisionist story. I hope it is out of ignorance.

The coalition has almost taken the entire country of Iraq in 6 days lol. How on earth can you possibly think this is a Vietnam situation?

In less than two days US divisions will have Baghdad completely surrounded. This is not a Vietnam-type war. The generals are running the show.

That is a problem with people looking in when they peer into modern military operations. They think Vietnam is in every war. The US military since President Reagan was in office has trained for swift, violent attacks which eliminate stagnant Vietnamesque wars. What you are talking about is old thinking.

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


America seems to have taken a pill to make it forget everything we learned - or should have learned - in Vietnam.

Such as?

If we had the intelligence network we have now that we did back then, we could have taken out the ho chi minh trail.

If we had continued to use SOF to win hearts/mind and help south vietnam instead of escalating involvement by sending in the infantry we would not have brought North Vietnam into the conflict.

If it were not for these two events, we would have won vietnam and prevented an awful genocide.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The coalition has almost taken the entire country of Iraq in 6 days lol. How on earth can you possibly think this is a Vietnam situation?

In less than two days US divisions will have Baghdad completely surrounded. This is not a Vietnam-type war. The generals are running the show.

That is a problem with people looking in when they peer into modern military operations. They think Vietnam is in every war. The US military since President Reagan was in office has trained for swift, violent attacks which eliminate stagnant Vietnamesque wars. What you are talking about is old thinking.

JK

rtft, jk. i am not talking about iraq itself being the vietnam, but what comes after.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


haven't you heard, syria has now been added to the axis of evil, saudi arabia is not far behind

No, I have not heard that. Was it Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, or Bush who said it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Such as?

If we had the intelligence network we have now that we did back then, we could have taken out the ho chi minh trail.

If we had continued to use SOF to win hearts/mind and help south vietnam instead of escalating involvement by sending in the infantry we would not have brought North Vietnam into the conflict.

If it were not for these two events, we would have won vietnam and prevented an awful genocide.

the ho chi minh trail was well know, and was bombed non stop.

south vietnam was beyond help from the start, it represented the rump of the French administration, who were raised to government status because they were 'anti-communist'. they were, in the sense that they were pro-greed.

where did the viet cong come from, not the north. as for awful genocides, it was the escalation of the war that destabilised Cambodia and led to the rise of pol pot. It was the vietnamese who removed him.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


No, I have not heard that. Was it Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, or Bush who said it?

http://afr.com/iraq/2003/03/22/FFX9J0DJJDD.html



On a visit to Israel last month, the US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, filled in some of the more specific steps the US is contemplating to achieve this vision of democracy blossoming throughout the Middle East. He told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon he had "no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward", according to a report in Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper.

We heard last year from the President himself of the "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea. So Bolton was really just freshening it up, adding Syria to the list of evil regimes awaiting US attention.

[corplinx]

I am not buying it yet. I do think your original post (aside from the vietnam reference) however makes for a good thought experiment.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


the ho chi minh trail was well know, and was bombed non stop.


It was too little too late. We needed to have shut it down completely much much earlier.

I do agree that south vietnam's government was basically fubar. Anything is better than Stalinism though.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Troll


yeah, he went with westmoreland on the numbers thing. But he paid attention to protests and politicins as to how far we should go and how hard we should hit.

There was no reason other than policy, and policy is made by politicians, that the US did not achieve their goals in Vietnam

Not true. Nixon became prez in Jan. 1969. The protests didn't really start until early 1970. I remember, because I was actively involved in the anti-war movement at the time.

The policy at the time of Johnson was "do whatever the generals said." Once Nixon took over, he upped the ante with bombing of civilian targets in the North.

Please keep in mind that the US has a history of bombing civilian targets to achieve it military aims. Or perhaps you dispute that too? Think that was the work of military minds, or politicians?

[DrChinese]

I wouldn't want to quibble about the order. I say North Korea next, but who knows, it could be Iran.

Do you think it will be before or after the 2004 election?

Do you think Iraq will lead to WWIII? Or will this come later?

[svero]

I realize this isn't exactly what AUP was saying but just to go off on a tangent for a second...

There are several similarities between the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq, as I suppose there must be... perhaps it's nothing more than saying there are similarities to be drawn from any war. Still... some of the speeches made by Bush and by Nixon and Johnson could literally be mixed and matched and you wouldn't know which was being talked about... take this for example...

"Our objective is the independence of ??? and its freedom from ????. We want nothing for ourselves -- only that the people of ??? be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.

We will do everything necessary to reach that objective and we will do only what is absolutely necessary."

Iraq or Vietnam? or this...

"In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "??, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as president of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street."

Those are Johnson and Nixon but it's interesting how similar the kinds of things said are.

It should be noted that the balance of power and the amount of force committed to this war are completely unlike Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam war millions had served but it didn't start out that way.

Well aside from those interesting similarities, which may not mean much at all, there is one particular similarity that is worrying. In Vietnam one of the military problems with the Viet Cong was that they used gorilla tactics and then blended in with the population. Eventually the US used napalm and other heavy bombing attacks on civilians because the VC were indistinguishable from the civilian population. So I have a question for those military types out there. If Iraqis fade back into Bagdad and other various towns and have the will to fight, and continue to use gorilla tactics - Given the political constraints - how will the army deal with it? How do you secure a city the size of bagdad if the fighters and the civilians are hard to tell apart? Does it not become necessary at some point to hit civilian infrustructure, and targets? Break the will of the people? Can a war against Iraq be won without targeting civilians if the Iraqi army insists on pulling the fight into Bagdad and other cities? I'm not implying that it can't and I'm hopeful that this will end soon and not end up being some drawn out nightmare, but what's the answer to these questions? It seems to me that the army can't hold bagdad while continuously sustaining gorilla attacks from the population. So what do they do? Is this why the shock and awe psychological tactic was taken? What if Iraqis hold steady not for Saddam but for Iraqi Nationalism? If the army isn't out in the open how do you attack them?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Not true. Nixon became prez in Jan. 1969. The protests didn't really start until early 1970. I remember, because I was actively involved in the anti-war movement at the time.

The policy at the time of Johnson was "do whatever the generals said." Once Nixon took over, he upped the ante with bombing of civilian targets in the North.

Please keep in mind that the US has a history of bombing civilian targets to achieve it military aims. Or perhaps you dispute that too? Think that was the work of military minds, or politicians?

Dr. I would say the protests started before 1970. It was the nomination of Humphrey on what looked like a continuation of the war platform that started the Chicago riots at the Democratic convention in 1968. Remember too the "clean for Gene" movement for McCarthey an anti-war candidate.

[Skeptic]

AUP, I do not understand why you are taking seriously an "analysis" of the "real reasons" for US "failure" in a HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE WAR THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT OCCUR AGAINST AN UNSPECIFIED ENEMY AT SOME UNKNOWN TIME.

This isn't an analysis of the anything real--it is an "analysis" of the "real reasons" for a fictional event that exists only in the journalist's mind, and rather vaguely at that. He might as well give us a "detailed analysis" of the "real reasons" Sauron's minions lost the battle for for Middle Earth.

It's understandable why people write such "analyses"--why risk being wrong by talking about the actual world in the present, when you can bask in the glory of irrefutability by talking about fictional evens in the far future? But surely, this is fiction, not real journalism or political science.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


Such as?

If we had the intelligence network we have now that we did back then, we could have taken out the ho chi minh trail.

If we had continued to use SOF to win hearts/mind and help south vietnam instead of escalating involvement by sending in the infantry we would not have brought North Vietnam into the conflict.

If it were not for these two events, we would have won vietnam and prevented an awful genocide.

How about... we stay out of wars when the security of the United States is not in question.

How about... we stay out of wars when there is no objective criteria for winning?

A lot of people cannot accept that the US tried its mighty best at the time - and still did not win. So they blame politicians, protesters, even the French. Sorry. Might does not make right, and even the mighty slip and stumble.

Not sure I understand your comment about drawing the North into the war.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Dr. I would say the protests started before 1970. It was the nomination of Humphrey on what looked like a continuation of the war platform that started the Chicago riots at the Democratic convention in 1968. Remember too the "clean for Gene" movement for McCarthey an anti-war candidate.

There were protests before 1970, no question about that. But they didn't really pick up steam until Nixon had been in office for a while.

Hard to believe now, but Nixon campaigned on the platform of getting us out of Vietnam. When it became obvious that he was escalating the war, protests increased significantly. For example, the first "moratorium" protest was Oct. 15, 1969. This was the first nationally coordinated protest against the Vietnam War.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Not sure I understand your comment about drawing the North into the war.

Probably a reflection of what you really know about vietnam.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Probably a reflection of what you really know about vietnam.

given that the 'north' and 'south' were constructs that had been created by the US and others only a few years before, the concept of drawing the 'north' into the war doesn't really make much sense.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by svero
I realize this isn't exactly what AUP was saying but just to go off on a tangent for a second...

There are several similarities between the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq, as I suppose there must be... perhaps it's nothing more than saying there are similarities to be drawn from any war. Still... some of the speeches made by Bush and by Nixon and Johnson could literally be mixed and matched and you wouldn't know which was being talked about... take this for example...

"Our objective is the independence of ??? and its freedom from ????. We want nothing for ourselves -- only that the people of ??? be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.

We will do everything necessary to reach that objective and we will do only what is absolutely necessary."

Iraq or Vietnam? or this...

"In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "??, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as president of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street."

Those are Johnson and Nixon but it's interesting how similar the kinds of things said are.

It should be noted that the balance of power and the amount of force committed to this war are completely unlike Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam war millions had served but it didn't start out that way.

Well aside from those interesting similarities, which may not mean much at all, there is one particular similarity that is worrying. In Vietnam one of the military problems with the Viet Cong was that they used gorilla tactics and then blended in with the population. Eventually the US used napalm and other heavy bombing attacks on civilians because the VC were indistinguishable from the civilian population. So I have a question for those military types out there. If Iraqis fade back into Bagdad and other various towns and have the will to fight, and continue to use gorilla tactics - Given the political constraints - how will the army deal with it? How do you secure a city the size of bagdad if the fighters and the civilians are hard to tell apart? Does it not become necessary at some point to hit civilian infrustructure, and targets? Break the will of the people? Can a war against Iraq be won without targeting civilians if the Iraqi army insists on pulling the fight into Bagdad and other cities? I'm not implying that it can't and I'm hopeful that this will end soon and not end up being some drawn out nightmare, but what's the answer to these questions? It seems to me that the army can't hold bagdad while continuously sustaining gorilla attacks from the population. So what do they do? Is this why the shock and awe psychological tactic was taken? What if Iraqis hold steady not for Saddam but for Iraqi Nationalism? If the army isn't out in the open how do you attack them?



Thats a good point and one I think is definately worth exploring. If we believe that the Iraqis are terrorists and that they have some-how trained Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups in the art of gorilla warfare then why would we discount that some Iraqis would use just such a techinique?

The only way I can see for America to stop such warfare, if it begins, is to convince the vast and overwelming majority of the Iraqi people that we are there to help them and not to take their country. I don't think the Bush cabinent is currently capable of doing this, so hopefully they will hire someone who can. I also don't think that any long-term convincing can take place unless it is true. So Bush et. al. have to truly act such that the Iraqi people will believe that we are only their to help them and not to take their land.

At this point I don't think Bush et. al. have made a valid argument for the "help the Iraqi people" belief. Hopefully that will change and soon.

[svero]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

At this point I don't think Bush et. al. have made a valid argument for the "help the Iraqi people" belief. Hopefully that will change and soon.

Well one way out might be if they had a coalition force protecting the country that was more UN based with arab soldiers and so on... but they've pretty much blown that. That may help mitigate problems. Hard to say.

Convincing Iraqis of their benevolence after bombing Bagdad will be a pretty tough sell. It seems like Iraq has no choice but to blend with the population and fight a gorilla style war. It's pretty clear to anyone that they're vastly outgunned, so what are they supposed to do? Move their army out into the desert and wait to die? What choice do they have but to try and blend into the population and fight in the cities? I admit I'm totally ignorant when it comes to warfare, so maybe someone can explain why this line of thinking is dead wrong, but from a layman's point of view, that seems to be the best tactic the Iraqi soldiers can use to defend themselves, and I can't see how the US will fight it effectively without striking out at civilian targets. Of course I'm also assuming here that the Iraqis have some will to fight and that they won't be rejoicing in the street and just waiting for Saddam to go.(Personally I doubt that will happen, but who knows... I've never lived in Iraq - not sure how they think)

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

I don't know what we could do if that situation comes to pass. Perhaps we could pull most of our troops out and demand an international task force to help Iraq. We do have some-odd 30 countries that have claimed they will help in some way. Maybe we can scrounge enough of them up to help with Iraq. Or perhaps we could simply allow Australia to take the lead in rebuilding Iraq, but I think Bush is too power hungry for that.

[Baggle]

I'm not sure how angry the Iraqis are about the bombing of Baghdad. I'm sure they don't enjoy it, but it doesn't look like there has been much collateral damage so far. The power, as far as I know, is even still on. People are pretty much leading their every day lives and wearing earplugs at night while government and military buildings are bombed to dust. It's not like we're carpet bombing Baghdad here. Even Iraqi gov't run media has only reported 200 injuries, not even deaths(updates on this?), in the bombing. With Iraq's *ahem* suspect past regarding truth in their own media, I'd say the number of injured civilians probably falls below that. They may not like us, but I don't know how much the actual act of the bombing of Baghdad itself has influenced their dislike any more than anything else we're doing such as, oh, invading their country.
-Baggle

[svero]

That wouldn't help. The Australians and British wouldn't get better treatment. I just read an article about foreigners living abroad and how they are now being accosted by angry mobs demanding to know where they're from. Particulary whether they are australian british or us citizens. Apparently it's still safe to answer Canada. I'm going to carry my passport with me from now on though, just to be on the safe sidem, as I travel through muslim countries occasionally. As for you US citizens reading this, after an angry mob accosts you on your next vacation, be sure to thank Rumsfeld for me. I feel a lot safer now. On the other hand you may just want to visit Disneyland in Orlando for the next 10 years or so until things cool off a little.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by svero
That wouldn't help. The Australians and British wouldn't get better treatment. I just read an article about foreigners living abroad and how they are now being accosted by angry mobs demanding to know where they're from. Particulary whether they are australian british or us citizens. Apparently it's still safe to answer Canada. I'm going to carry my passport with me from now on though, just to be on the safe sidem, as I travel through muslim countries occasionally. As for you US citizens reading this, after an angry mob accosts you on your next vacation, be sure to thank Rumsfeld for me. I feel a lot safer now. On the other hand you may just want to visit Disneyland in Orlando for the next 10 years or so until things cool off a little.

which is very much in line with what I was getting at with the topic of this thread.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Or perhaps we could simply allow Australia to take the lead in rebuilding Iraq
Lol.... I can see it now. Every second monday off, Government subsidised Beer.... On the Downside, we would force them to play us at Cricket.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol.... I can see it now. Every second monday off, Government subsidised Beer.... On the Downside, we would force them to play us at Cricket.

Government subsidised beer? Three day weekends??!!! I'm moving to Australia!

[Reginald]

On the Downside, we would force them to play us at Cricket.

No more cricket playing nations please, the list of teams that can beat us is long enough as it is!!!

:D

[Baker]

I’m bumping this thread to show some of the earlier predictions of the war’s possible outcome.

[crackmonkey]

Funny - they're saying the same thing about Syria now.
I'm waiting to hear my first 'Syrian quagmire'.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Funny - they're saying the same thing about Syria now.
I'm waiting to hear my first 'Syrian quagmire'.

Syria still exists? Oh wait, I have to fix my calendar. :D

lol

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Funny - they're saying the same thing about Syria now.
I'm waiting to hear my first 'Syrian quagmire'.

And did you even read the topic for the thread. It appears you haven't.

[crackmonkey]

Absolutely. The title compared the invasion of Iraq to Vietnam, and you then described a worldwide guerrilla war against the US. Your usual histrionics. My reply was a sarcastic reference to your (and others') typical 'The-sky-is-falling'ism.
Any other questions?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Absolutely. The title compared the invasion of Iraq to Vietnam, and you then described a worldwide guerrilla war against the US. Your usual histrionics. My reply was a sarcastic reference to your (and others') typical 'The-sky-is-falling'ism.
Any other questions?

It made no reference at all to Iraq. It was postulating that the US may be taking on many countries at once, leading to a global Vietnam.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Corplinx

There is no enemy winning hearts and minds

No? Isn't there?

A year ago, the U.S. was recognized as a generally positive force in the U.N.--and at the state-to-state level, we enjoyed good diplomatic relations with many nations around the world. There was much sympathy for the U.S. and the so-called "war on terrorism" after 9/ll.

And now? I cannot remember a time since Vietnam when American policy has been so reviled throughout so many parts of the world, spanning the spectrum from left to right. This week has even brought criticism from one of the few allies we have left, since even the British can't seem to stomach Bush's latest comments about Syria.

Someone else may well be winning hearts and minds soon...because it definitely isn't us.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is Iraq leading america into it's next Vietnam? If the US is going to be leading attacks against any country it percieves could be a threat in the future, could it be falling into the same trap it fell into before.

The trap of fighting an enemy it cannot identify, which can hide anywhere.

Iraq by itself does not constitute such an enemy. However, if the enemy suddenly starts to include about 20 or 30 nations who see themselves being lined up in it's sights, then the whole situation suddenly changes. The US has multiple sources of attack, that can be hiding in any one of thousands of places around the world. Although none of these sources can attack and defeat the US by themselves, they can engage in a war of attrition that exhausts US sentiment for supporting such a global conflict.

I needed a good laugh today.
BUMP.
:D :D :D

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is Iraq leading america into it's next Vietnam? If the US is going to be leading attacks against any country it percieves could be a threat in the future, could it be falling into the same trap it fell into before.

The trap of fighting an enemy it cannot identify, which can hide anywhere.

Iraq by itself does not constitute such an enemy. However, if the enemy suddenly starts to include about 20 or 30 nations who see themselves being lined up in it's sights, then the whole situation suddenly changes. The US has multiple sources of attack, that can be hiding in any one of thousands of places around the world. Although none of these sources can attack and defeat the US by themselves, they can engage in a war of attrition that exhausts US sentiment for supporting such a global conflict.



Originally posted by Supercharts


I needed a good laugh today.
BUMP.
:D :D :D


So do I:D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It made no reference at all to Iraq. It was postulating that the US may be taking on many countries at once, leading to a global Vietnam.

Notice how he backpeddles! :D :D :D

Thanks for the reminder guys....I needed a laugh today too!
:D :D :D