Debate and Discussion

For the liberals who voted the Democrats in to "get us out of Iraq"
Vindibudd at 9:33AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
A lot of the hardcore leftists are of the opinion that the Democratic congress was elected with a mandate to get the country out of Iraq. I disagree. If they had been elected with a mandate like that, in other words, if the country REALLY wanted the US out of Iraq, they would have put in a veto proof majority. As it stands, the Democrats can't get any sort of withdrawal bill going without trying to buy off votes with pet projects.

So my message for you who are angry that your Democrats that you voted for have not gotten us out of Iraq when “that's what we put them in for” need to understand that they don't have the votes to do it and will not have the votes to do it. The fact of the matter is that the country does not want to pull out of Iraq in the current state that it is in. The country wants to defeat the terrorists there. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you can stop being angry with life.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 9:43AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
A lot of the hardcore leftists are of the opinion that the Democratic congress was elected with a mandate to get the country out of Iraq. I disagree. If they had been elected with a mandate like that, in other words, if the country REALLY wanted the US out of Iraq, they would have put in a veto proof majority. As it stands, the Democrats can't get any sort of withdrawal bill going without trying to buy off votes with pet projects.

So my message for you who are angry that your Democrats that you voted for have not gotten us out of Iraq when “that's what we put them in for” need to understand that they don't have the votes to do it and will not have the votes to do it. The fact of the matter is that the country does not want to pull out of Iraq in the current state that it is in. The country wants to defeat the terrorists there. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you can stop being angry with life.

That's simply not true. Look at any poll you like, America does not want to be in Iraq anymore.

They DO have the votes to do it. The problem is spin. The only way to get the troops out of Iraq is to cut funding for the war. That forces us to begin withdrawal. But that very thing was spun so that democrats would be painted as not supporting the troops. The Dems, being huge wussies, caved to that and did not veto the spending.

The country is tired of the war. They voted the Dems in to get us out of the war. Now that all those dems are in office, they're playing politics to stay in office. Its just another case of failing to fulfill political promises.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 10:11AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
That's simply not true. Look at any poll you like, America does not want to be in Iraq anymore.

They DO have the votes to do it.

If they had the votes, they would have done it by now. This is simple math.

The problem is spin. The only way to get the troops out of Iraq is to cut funding for the war. That forces us to begin withdrawal. But that very thing was spun so that democrats would be painted as not supporting the troops. The Dems, being huge wussies, caved to that and did not veto the spending.

Well here is the thing, if the American people voted them in to take the country out of Iraq, then they wouldn't be afraid of spin, now would they? Their approval numbers would be through the roof.

The country is tired of the war. They voted the Dems in to get us out of the war.

I would posit that the country is really tired of incessantly bad reports non-stop, not the war against terrorists in Iraq.

Now that all those dems are in office, they're playing politics to stay in office. Its just another case of failing to fulfill political promises.

I agree with the first part, but not so much with the last one. The Democrats ran on a platform of being more ethical than Republicans, see Jim Webb, and the Foley scandal. They did not run antiwar. On top of that, a lot of me-first conservatives were all about “teaching a lesson” to the majority Republicans for screwing around with spending. Those things combined, the lack of base-support and the moderate running of the Democrat candidates led to the change in control. Not this STOP THE WAR thing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Phantom Penguin at 10:30AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Of course America wants out of the war. But will they get it anytime soon? No. Democrats will not get any bill passed that would let troops home, because the President will just veto anything that comes his way.

Hurray for uselessness.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
TnTComic at 10:39AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
I would posit that the country is really tired of incessantly bad reports non-stop, not the war against terrorists in Iraq.


Dude, the polls don't lie. The country is sick of the war.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Phantom Penguin at 10:44AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
The country could be sick of pants, it doesn't mean its going to stop anytime soon. Do you know how long it takes to withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of Humvees, hundreds of tanks, ect?

Try years.

Even if by some unknown godsend the President doesn't veto one these bills we still won't be out any sooner then 2010.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
TnTComic at 10:55AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Phantom Penguin
Do you know how long it takes to withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of Humvees, hundreds of tanks, ect?

Try years.

The only thing that takes a long time is setting up a government in our wake. The removal of our troops can be done quite swiftly. Months, not years.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 10:55AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Vindibudd
I would posit that the country is really tired of incessantly bad reports non-stop, not the war against terrorists in Iraq.


Dude, the polls don't lie. The country is sick of the war.

Polls can be phrased to say anything you want them to say. For example:

“Do you like war?”
“No.”

New poll says that 98% of Americans don't like the war in Iraq.

Trust me on this, I used to work for a political polling company.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 10:57AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Phantom Penguin
The country could be sick of pants, it doesn't mean its going to stop anytime soon. Do you know how long it takes to withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of Humvees, hundreds of tanks, ect?

Try years.

Even if by some unknown godsend the President doesn't veto one these bills we still won't be out any sooner then 2010.

From what I understand, you are military yourself, so what confuses me here is, it didn't take years to build up the invasion force so why would it take years to remove it?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Lord Shplane at 10:59AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 7,978
joined: 6-3-2007
TnTComic
Phantom Penguin
Do you know how long it takes to withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of Humvees, hundreds of tanks, ect?

Try years.

The only thing that takes a long time is setting up a government in our wake. The removal of our troops can be done quite swiftly. Months, not years.

Penguin's in the Military, I think he would know.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:39PM
TnTComic at 11:07AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
Polls can be phrased to say anything you want them to say. For example:

“Do you like war?”
“No.”

New poll says that 98% of Americans don't like the war in Iraq.

Trust me on this, I used to work for a political polling company.


Absolutely, no argument there.

None of the polls are phrased like that, though. They are very specific:

2 separate CBS polls, 2 years apart:


from october '05




from this year:





Lord Shplane
Penguin's in the Military, I think he would know.

I would say that depends on Penguin's roll in the military. Is he in logistics of transport? I mean, not to get on Penguin's case, but just because a guy is in the military doesn't mean he knows all there is to know about every aspect of the military. It stands to reason that if it takes months to put something somewhere that it won't take years to remove it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Phantom Penguin at 11:20AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Vindibudd
Phantom Penguin
The country could be sick of pants, it doesn't mean its going to stop anytime soon. Do you know how long it takes to withdraw hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of Humvees, hundreds of tanks, ect?

Try years.

Even if by some unknown godsend the President doesn't veto one these bills we still won't be out any sooner then 2010.

From what I understand, you are military yourself, so what confuses me here is, it didn't take years to build up the invasion force so why would it take years to remove it?

It has taken years to build the force we have now. At first there was many more soldiers over there (during the open war) but thats because it was a full mobilization of the armed forces. Now its a ‘policing action’ meaning forces gradually get built up. We have more tanks and armored Humvees over there now then we ever did. We are hardlined into the country, with full bases and medical outposts. We have full bases with swiming pools and movie theatres over there.

We are built up to no end over in Iraq. It would take years to pull out.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
TnTComic at 11:21AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
We're taking the pools with us?

Just kiddin', man. Hey, I don't know. You could be right. I'm just a dude in a chair.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Phantom Penguin at 11:24AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
TnTComic
Vindibudd
Polls can be phrased to say anything you want them to say. For example:

“Do you like war?”
“No.”

New poll says that 98% of Americans don't like the war in Iraq.

Trust me on this, I used to work for a political polling company.


Absolutely, no argument there.

None of the polls are phrased like that, though. They are very specific:

2 separate CBS polls, 2 years apart:


from october '05




from this year:





Lord Shplane
Penguin's in the Military, I think he would know.

I would say that depends on Penguin's roll in the military. Is he in logistics of transport? I mean, not to get on Penguin's case, but just because a guy is in the military doesn't mean he knows all there is to know about every aspect of the military. It stands to reason that if it takes months to put something somewhere that it won't take years to remove it.

You don't know how slow the US army really is. I am a M1A1/A2 tank crewmember. This tank wieghts 76 tons. The most of these tanks we can move at once with anything the armed forces has is 3. That thats with a large ship. In the base I was at alone in Iraq (FOB Warhorse) were was 150 tanks. There are over 500 tanks in Iraq right now. I know how much of a bitch it is to transport these things, so much so our tanks were sent 8 months before we even left to go to Iraq.

And thats just tanks. Imagine the army's built up bases, its weapons, the rest of its fighting vehicles, ect.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
TnTComic at 11:32AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Phantom Penguin
You don't know how slow the US army really is. I am a M1A1/A2 tank crewmember. This tank wieghts 76 tons. The most of these tanks we can move at once with anything the armed forces has is 3. That thats with a large ship.

Man, that is really shitty. Designing a tank that you can only haul 3 of, I mean. I thought the C-5 could hold 'em.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Phantom Penguin at 12:17PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
TnTComic
Phantom Penguin
You don't know how slow the US army really is. I am a M1A1/A2 tank crewmember. This tank wieghts 76 tons. The most of these tanks we can move at once with anything the armed forces has is 3. That thats with a large ship.

Man, that is really shitty. Designing a tank that you can only haul 3 of, I mean. I thought the C-5 could hold 'em.

It can. But only one at a time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
TnTComic at 12:19PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Phantom Penguin
It can. But only one at a time.

still, hella quicker than a tug
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:41PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Yeah, hopefully this will end like Vietnam, but hopefully with much less casualties. Basically this whole war can be compared to Vietnam in most every aspects.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
TitanOne at 3:48PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
A lot of the hardcore leftists are of the opinion that the Democratic congress was elected with a mandate to get the country out of Iraq.

Actually the Democrats had no agenda at all, and they only use the war rhetorically when it suits them on a case-by-case basis.

The election was actually a moratorium on the presidency of George W. Bush and the GOP Congress, not the war specifically. Had Bush been more like Ronald Reagan, trampled the Constitution a lot less, and dealt with Immigration sensibly, the Democrats would not have taken back Congress.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
mlai at 3:50PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Someone
The country wants to defeat the terrorists there.
This is such a blatant spin. If we're fighting a war somewhere, OMG we're fighting against “terrorists” and fighting for “freedom and democracy.” Most of us aren't 8 y/o anymore.

We let Osama slip away, and hell we're letting Afghanistan slip away (y'know, the country that actually harboured terrorists), so we can kill an impotent Saddam in Iraq.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
TnTComic at 4:02PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Atom Apple
Yeah, hopefully this will end like Vietnam, but hopefully with much less casualties. Basically this whole war can be compared to Vietnam in most every aspects.

Not really. Its a typical occupation at this point. Vietnam actually had battles. And an organized enemy in uniforms and everything!

mlai
Someone
The country wants to defeat the terrorists there.
This is such a blatant spin. If we're fighting a war somewhere, OMG we're fighting against “terrorists” and fighting for “freedom and democracy.” Most of us aren't 8 y/o anymore.

We let Osama slip away, and hell we're letting Afghanistan slip away (y'know, the country that actually harboured terrorists), so we can kill an impotent Saddam in Iraq.

And as our own intelligence has shown, created more terrorists. Basically, the terrorists started hating us big time when we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm. They hate American military on their soil. So what do we do, “to fight terrorism”? We do more of what they hate. That makes sense!

The expression is, “we don't negotiate with terrorists!” Well, what if what the terrorists want is incredibly reasonable? What if a hijacker wants a dollar? If we could have avoided 9-11 by not having a military base in Saudi Arabia, would that have been a price we could pay?

TitanOne
Actually the Democrats had no agenda at all, and they only use the war rhetorically when it suits them on a case-by-case basis.

The election was actually a moratorium on the presidency of George W. Bush and the GOP Congress, not the war specifically. Had Bush been more like Ronald Reagan, trampled the Constitution a lot less, and dealt with Immigration sensibly, the Democrats would not have taken back Congress.

No dude, just no. Don't start in with revisionist history. Why do you think it was almost immediate that the congress began talking about withdrawing troops and cutting back on the budget for the war? Only when it became clear that the Senate (who were not in on the last election) would not support the cuts did they cool off. Only when it became clear that their efforts would result in a presidential veto.

“No agenda at all”. Right. If they had no agenda at all, why did they win? People don't vote for No Agenda. The dems campaigned on ending the war, the people wanted that, so they voted for it. Yes, it was a moratorium on Bush and the GOP congress… because Bush and the GOP congress kept pushing the war!

“Only use the war rhetorically”? That's incredibly disingenous. Democrats don't actually believe in anything! It may surprise you, but most of the people in this country don't believe in this war anymore. They're sick of the bodies, they're sick of the price tag, and they're not buying the line that its helping in the fight against terrorism. They're not buying it anymore.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Hawk at 5:05PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
TnTComic
from october '05



Man, speaking of craftily-worded polls, look at that.

To me, “as long as it takes” and “as soon as possible” are the exact same amount of time… the shortest amount of time it takes to do the job and get out with it still being effective.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
Phantom Penguin at 8:20PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
TnTComic
Atom Apple
Yeah, hopefully this will end like Vietnam, but hopefully with much less casualties. Basically this whole war can be compared to Vietnam in most every aspects.
mlai
Someone
The country wants to defeat the terrorists there.
This is such a blatant spin. If we're fighting a war somewhere, OMG we're fighting against “terrorists” and fighting for “freedom and democracy.” Most of us aren't 8 y/o anymore.

We let Osama slip away, and hell we're letting Afghanistan slip away (y'know, the country that actually harboured terrorists), so we can kill an impotent Saddam in Iraq.

And as our own intelligence has shown, created more terrorists. Basically, the terrorists started hating us big time when we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm. They hate American military on their soil. So what do we do, “to fight terrorism”? We do more of what they hate. That makes sense!

The expression is, “we don't negotiate with terrorists!” Well, what if what the terrorists want is incredibly reasonable? What if a hijacker wants a dollar? If we could have avoided 9-11 by not having a military base in Saudi Arabia, would that have been a price we could pay?


TitanOne
Actually the Democrats had no agenda at all, and they only use the war rhetorically when it suits them on a case-by-case basis.

The election was actually a moratorium on the presidency of George W. Bush and the GOP Congress, not the war specifically. Had Bush been more like Ronald Reagan, trampled the Constitution a lot less, and dealt with Immigration sensibly, the Democrats would not have taken back Congress.

No dude, just no. Don't start in with revisionist history. Why do you think it was almost immediate that the congress began talking about withdrawing troops and cutting back on the budget for the war? Only when it became clear that the Senate (who were not in on the last election) would not support the cuts did they cool off. Only when it became clear that their efforts would result in a presidential veto.

“No agenda at all”. Right. If they had no agenda at all, why did they win? People don't vote for No Agenda. The dems campaigned on ending the war, the people wanted that, so they voted for it. Yes, it was a moratorium on Bush and the GOP congress… because Bush and the GOP congress kept pushing the war!

“Only use the war rhetorically”? That's incredibly disingenous. Democrats don't actually believe in anything! It may surprise you, but most of the people in this country don't believe in this war anymore. They're sick of the bodies, they're sick of the price tag, and they're not buying the line that its helping in the fight against terrorism. They're not buying it anymore.

Iraq has had no battles eh? Try Operation Phantom Fury (the recapture of Fallujah). It was the largest battle since the battle of Hue in vietnam. Or the battle for Baghdad in ‘03.
And the main fighters do have a uniform its pretty much a all black jumpsuit. We nicknamed them Ninjas.

We didn’t have much of a base in SA before 9/11. If anything the 9/11 attacks provoked us into making us look even worse, which they were meant to do.



Agenda is all it is. Its not going to go anywhere. Didn't that little political theatre ‘overnight debate’ show you anything. They still came out with nothing. How can a people who havn't been touched by war be sick of it? We should be worried about the Iraqis out and out turning 100% to the fighters side. Americans can't handle blood, its been that why for decades. As bad as it sounds, for the amount of dead fighters we have left behind the amount of american dead is a best case thing when it comes to the type of war we are in.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 8:36PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,085
joined: 1-2-2004
I don't think the US will ever pull out of Iraq. I mean, they would if any of the original spun up reasons were actually true, like: to stop terrorists, to bring democracy, to remove weapons of mass destruction, to remove Saddam Hussain from power, etc. But those were just slogans for mass consumption.

With the gigantic amount of money that's been invested to set up the strategic bases and a “friendly” government, not to mention all the lives that have been “spent” and the overall weakening of the US military, I think it's highly unlikely that this will all be thrown away. The unstable situation and ongoing insurgency that's happening right now was unforeseen, they didn't want to have troops still fighting at this stage, but even if there wasn't any insurgency there'd STILL be troops there. You're dreaming if you think there'll be any sort of mass withdrawal. At most, the current situation is just an embarrassment, but unlike Afghanistan (which was always worthless strategically), Iraq is a priority.

Id say that the main objective is to try and get things pacified down enough so those big fortified bases can just sit there happily like they do in so many countries.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Kohdok at 10:13PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
I'm thinking the reason we've planted ourselves in Iraq so deeply, despite how angry they are with us, is to gain a foothold in the middle of the middle east to start up the old empire again.

Basically history is repeating itself. We have our William J. Harding remake participating in a Spanish-American war remake to create a Philippines-foothold remake. It's not something that hasn't been done before.

Just to clarify, I know William J. Harding wasn't in power during the Spanish-American war, but he's a very similar president, and if I remember right after Harding's Vice-President was finished we had a little thing called a depression a few months later.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
TnTComic at 4:24AM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Phantom Penguin
Iraq has had no battles eh? Try Operation Phantom Fury (the recapture of Fallujah). It was the largest battle since the battle of Hue in vietnam. Or the battle for Baghdad in '03.
And the main fighters do have a uniform its pretty much a all black jumpsuit. We nicknamed them Ninjas.

I'm talking about “battles” in the traditional sense. Large scale battles against an opposing army. “Battle” can be used to describe clearing an area that has entrenched fighter, yeah, but that's not what i'm talking about. Antietam was a battle. Waterloo was a battle. Driving guerrillas out of an area is a battle too, but doesn't really compare to the other two.

Major Battles of the Vietnam War

*Battle at the Hamlet of Ap Bac - January 2, 1963
*Siege of Khe Sanh - January 21, 1968
*Tet Offensive - January 30
*First Battle of Saigon - March 7, 1968
*Eastertide Offensive - March 30, 1972
*Fall of Saigon - April 29, 1975

We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops in Vietnam. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is kinda' silly.


We didn't have much of a base in SA before 9/11. If anything the 9/11 attacks provoked us into making us look even worse, which they were meant to do.

It didn't matter how big or small our military presence was in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm. It was just that we had one. They welcomed us in to take care of Saddam, under the assumption that we'd leave afterward. We didn't. The 9-11 attacks were not meant to “make us look even worse”. They were meant to make us leave.

How can a people who havn't been touched by war be sick of it?

Are you serious?

1. You don't have to be touched by war to be against the death and destruction it causes.

2. The economic woes in our country make alot of americans question why we're pouring billions of dollars into this campaign, instead of keeping it in america.

3. Many americans believe (and have been backed up by our intelligence community) that this war is making the war on terror WORSE, not better. The war has done more for recruitment than anything else we could have done.

We should be worried about the Iraqis out and out turning 100% to the fighters side. Americans can't handle blood, its been that why for decades.

Americans can handle blood, but it has to be for a just cause. Desert Storm 1? No problem. This? Big problem. One was to drive a tyrant out of a sovereign nation. The other was… WMDs? Terror? Torture rooms? What was it again? Don't lie to the american people, give just cause for war, and we'll ra-ra-ra till the sun goes down.

I fuckin' love war. If my tv is on, i'm watching the History Channel or the Military Channel. My idea of heaven is flying an A-10. Blow shit up, rock the fuck on. But not for bullshit reasons.

As bad as it sounds, for the amount of dead fighters we have left behind the amount of american dead is a best case thing when it comes to the type of war we are in.

Huh?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:47AM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
TnTComic
We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops in Vietnam. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is kinda' silly.
Exactly, we were in a desperate pointless war we could never win. Iraq is the same. See how Vietnam ended?
TnTComic
We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops
Those who something about history repeating it overused quote. But still true nonetheless.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
mapaghimagsik at 5:52PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Atom Apple
TnTComic
We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops in Vietnam. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is kinda' silly.
Exactly, we were in a desperate pointless war we could never win. Iraq is the same. See how Vietnam ended?
TnTComic
We lost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our troops
Those who something about history repeating it overused quote. But still true nonetheless.


Actually, its not silly to compare to the two. You do have to understand where the comparison falls apart, though.

Both wars were justified to stop some kind of “domino theory” In the case of Korea *and* Vietnam, the dominos were communism. In this case, its Islamic fundamentalism. In both cases, the causes were overblown to create the need to go to war.

Also, in both Vietnam and Iraq, we wind up in the middle of a civil war.

The assessment by generals is that military objectives are being met, and the “hearts and minds” portion is missing horribly. This was also true in the Vietnam War.

But if there were no American Soldiers getting killed, and Iraqis were still getting tortured and raped, living with 1-2 hours of electricity a day…would that suddenly make the situation right?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Kohdok at 7:39PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
Actually, I still say this war resembles the Spanish American war WAY more than it does the war in Vietnam.

1: The premise of the Spanish-American war was to attack the Spanish in Cuba. We then turn around and attack the prevailing powers in the Philippines.

The Premise of the “War on Terror” was to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. We then turn around and attack the prevailing powers in Iraq.

2: Though seemingly enjoying the liberation they received, it wasn't long before insurgencies formed in the Philippines against America.

Though seemingly enjoying the liberation they received, it wasn't long before insurgencies formed in Iraq against America.

3: More troops lost their lives in the occupation of the Philippines than in the actual fighting in the war.

More troops have lost their lives in the occupation of Iraq than in the actual fighting in the war.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
warren at 10:07PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
TitanOne
Actually the Democrats had no agenda at all, and they only use the war rhetorically when it suits them on a case-by-case basis.
Let's not forget the “politics as usual” acts of putting in totally unrelated projects into the war bills, so if the Republicans rightly vote against the pork, the Democrats can point and say “we tried to stop this, but just didn't have the votes.”

Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved