The enemy within

To me it seems the Vietnam war was so messed-up mainly because
it wasn't handled right. (the troops weren't given what they needed to do the job right)
I don't think that will happen in Iraq.
 
If that's what you consider a skirmish, then I'd love to know what you consider a campaign, or even a war for that matter.
Click to expand...



look at the history there. If I am not mistaken it wasnt an offical war. a campaign would be to conquer lands. a war would be approved by the congress no matter how big or small.




Inky your right about your post on Nam. All wars have had more than one reason for being fought
 
66,000 square mile country with no strategic value whatsoever. No danger to national security either.
Click to expand...

Ageed. The US had virtually nothing to gain from the conflict over their. On the other hand, as cold as it sounds, the war over their did have a few benefits for the US military. Because of that war, many tactics of the military (both in combat and in civilian populations) were changed. It was a testing ground for both US strategy and weaponry. I know it might not sound really nice to treat the thousands who died over there as "test subjects", but the experience that we gained over there most definetly saved the lives of soldiers involved in combat since then.

Nice to know that so many people blindly accept the rationale the government put forward at the time.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the decisions made at the time were largely correct, but I do see where they were coming from.

We knew better when it was goiing on.
Click to expand...

This might be true. On the other hand, it's easier to look at the conflict more objectively when a person has no emotional attachments to the war.
 
catocom said:
To me it seems the Vietnam war was so messed-up mainly because
it wasn't handled right. (the troops weren't given what they needed to do the job right)
I don't think that will happen in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Sorry, cat, but I don't think you're getting the same thing out of the news that I am. Unless we put our boot firmly on their throats and keep it there, what has been happening will continue to happen more and more. :shrug: I for one am against the whole boot on the throat thing which is one of the reasons I was against the war from the beginning.

The war in Vietnam was so messed up because it was wrong in the first place, IMO. There are reasons to go to war, neither Vietnam or Iraq (or Korea for that matter) met those requirements.
 
but Chcr didnt Congress approve Iraq? and there are many reasons so there had to be some justification. Make no mistake I am against the war now and my parents were against all three wars in their time. But what other requirements are needed?
 
freako104 said:
but Chcr didnt Congress approve Iraq? and there are many reasons so there had to be some justification. Make no mistake I am against the war now and my parents were against all three wars in their time. But what other requirements are needed?
Click to expand...

Well Eric, You need to have a legitimate reason to go to war. IMO the only reasons good enough for going to war are:
1. Direct attack on America.
2. Imminent threat to national security.
3. Attack on American soil. This would possibly include an embassy if we had credible evidence that the foreign government in question was behind it (or was knowingly harboring the people behind it). Certainly includes attacks on US military bases, or American protectorates (ie Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.).
4. At the behest of or to defend a treaty ally.
5. At the behest of or to defend the UN or it's members. (Justification for Desert Storm, BTW).

Now, it's been pretty well documented that WMDs were non-existent, and there was no terrorist link (at least not until after we attacked Iraq) so I fail to see the justification. The administration played on the emotions of 9/11 to get congress' backing for something which, in the cold light of day, people are starting to realize was a serious mistake. We'll get out of Iraq eventually. Not by June 30th, but eventually. It will be messy, expensive, and the United States will end up looking like idiots. This was the lesson of Vietnam, and the lesson we might have learned from the Soviets in Afghanistan. Of course, some people think those lessons translate into "Bomb them into submission then bomb them some more," but I don't.

Does that make it clear where I stand?

Note that also IMO, number three gives us justification to put a lot more pressure on Saudi Arabia, but you notice that whole business was neatly swept under the rug.
 
It has been clear where you stand Chic. Afghanistan was because of 1 wasnt it? now Iraq on the other hand does not fit into any of the 5 you mentioned. the only justification I can find is that he was killing his own citizens. I do wonder about some of the other dictators though
 
freako104 said:
It has been clear where you stand Chic. Afghanistan was because of 1 wasnt it? now Iraq on the other hand does not fit into any of the 5 you mentioned. the only justification I can find is that he was killing his own citizens. I do wonder about some of the other dictators though
Click to expand...

We supported him for years while he was doing it. If he would have never invaded Kuwait, he'd be doing it still. You can safely bet that there are a few you don't hear about.
 
possibly more than a few. One does come to mind that Squiggy told me about. The Shah of Iran. One I always think of is PolPot though he is not in power(least I dont think he is)
 
MrBishop said:
Treason? I think not. T/Kennedy is allowed to speak against the war in Iraq if he so choses to do so. While I tend to dissagree with his comparison of Vietnam with Iraq...I don't think that he should be censored for it.

His speach appeared on major news networks...someone in Iraq watches TV, it seems ... and liked what Kennedy said enough to paraphrase him. It's hardly the same as passing over GVT papers.



America isn't at war...'member? When was the last time this law/act was actually acted upon?

I'm curious...how does this play against freedom of the press or freedom of speach?
Click to expand...

"Opposing the cause by speech or act" isn't referring to voicing a negative opinion. It's talking about saying something to someone (or doing something) that adversely affects, or was intended to adversely affect, the actual operation of the cause - i.e., leaking your country's attack plans or base locations or other important information to the enemy.. especially when that information leads to the death of personnel.. that's a pretty standard definition of Treason..
I seem to recall that New Zealand (& I'd bet Australia too) still maintain the death penalty as a possible punishment for someone found guilty of High Treason.
 
freako104 said:
he does have a point there in that he did kill off a number of them Chcr.
Click to expand...

Sure he did. He killed thousands upon thousands. I mistakenly thought we were discussing the US justification for the war. Different subject.
 
Discuss justification all you want. Just don't confuse fact with rhetoric.

same with the terrorist connection. Why was the fuselage sitting on the ground in Iraq again? (I don't recall the place offhand)
 
Gonz said:
Discuss justification all you want. Just don't confuse fact with rhetoric.

same with the terrorist connection. Why was the fuselage sitting on the ground in Iraq again? (I don't recall the place offhand)
Click to expand...

1. I don't
2. Evidence, Gonz, evidence.
 
Saddam Hussein has increased the money he pays relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. But Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a priceless thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory — not greed.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49462,00.html

In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

During the uprising against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Iraqi leader has paid handsome cash rewards to the families of bombers, lending his sanction to the most sustained suicide campaign in history.

As the Palestinian intifada dragged on, he increased his payment to the families of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000 (£6,350 to £15,900). He also paid out to those who were maimed or lost their homes in the intifada, and by the time war broke out in Iraq, his largesse had run into the tens of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,927004,00.html

Those took 5 minutes to find. chcr, if you don;t see open financial support for terrorists as a threat to national security, I'd submit that you're willingly blind. As such, we were justified in going in.

I'm pissed that we were lied to about WMD's as well (assuming we were), but we were justified in removing this guy.
 
I had been getting they thought there was one but it wasnt definite. Nobody said we werent justified in removing him from power. but not by means of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top