Things you won't hear in the U.S.

Um ... he merely escalated a war that was already being prosecuted. Eisenhower started the mess. Note the part about 1954-1975. Kennedy wasn't elected until 1960. You really need to brush up on your history.

Ike sent a small number of advisers. Kennedy escalated that by quite some margin. LBJ was the one who really stepped on the gas pedal with the Gulf of Tonkin thing and the bombings. He was largely advised by appointees of Kennedy. At least you recognize that it was a mess. Why don't you recognize that it's a bigger mess this time?

You really need to brush up on your history.
 
Who said that?

By inference, Sir, you did.

Why would it matter unless he was trying to force it on you?

So if we are trying to FORCE liberty on the Iraqi people it becomes glaringly obvious that, in your estimation, they simply do not want it.

If they do not want it, then they prefer the dictator they had previously.

If they prefer that dictator then they cannot function without him or one just like him.

I guess you see this entire venture in the same light as a mother (the U.S.) trying to feed split pea baby food (freedom) to her infant child (Iraqis).
 
Ike sent a small number of advisers. Kennedy escalated that by quite some margin. LBJ was the one who really stepped on the gas pedal with the Gulf of Tonkin thing and the bombings. He was largely advised by appointees of Kennedy. At least you recognize that it was a mess. Why don't you recognize that it's a bigger mess this time?

I didn't think it was necessary to muddy the discussion with LBJ when JFK was the subject of the point of contention.

No, this is NOT a bigger mess than Vietnam. Liberals wish it were but it is not. Trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam is ludicrous.
 
By inference, Sir, you did.

Not even close.


So if we are trying to FORCE liberty on the Iraqi people it becomes glaringly obvious that, in your estimation, they simply do not want it.

It is glaringly obvious that they do not want our meddling in their country. Calling your way of doing things "liberty" does not make you automatically in the right. Flawed logic.

If they do not want it, then they prefer the dictator they had previously.

Oh you mean there's no other choices besides dictators and foreign occupations? Flawed logic.

If they prefer that dictator then they cannot function without him or one just like him.

Recent polls show that most of them feel they were better off before the invasion. However, that does not prove they can't function without a dictator as I've pointed out already there are other choices than dictators and foreign occupation.

I guess you see this entire venture in the same light as a mother (the U.S.) trying to feed split pea baby food (freedom) to her infant child (Iraqis).

Again, not even close.
 
:lol: Beat me to it.

Actually, the differences far outweigh the similarities but the similarities do exist and ignoring lessons learned is a sure recipe for disaster. Limited war, far away, culture not well understood by either the people at home or those actually prosecuting the war, unpopular at home and aboroad, impending election... A lot of similarities, silly to ignore them for the sake of rhetoric. :shrug: Vietnam still has lessons to teach us, to bad most of us can't or won't learn them.

Jimpeel, the reason this is a bigger mess than Vietnam is obviously the region in which it is taking place. It frankly amazes me that you fail to understand this.
 

The "Ooooops" is yours.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison
George Stephanopoulos Interviews President Bush on Iraq, the Midterms and His LegacyFrom WNT By ED O'KEEFE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2006

President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

(The TET Offensive was a BATTLE not a war. chcr's contention was that the two WARS are comparable and that the Iraq WAR is worse than the Vietnam WAR. -- j)

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." (So a comparitive opinion of a single event among many events of the whole is a concession that the entire war is the same as Vietnam? --j)

"George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." (How does the highlighted text compare to Vietnam? Where was the fomentation of sectarian violence by the Communists? --j)


These guys got it right. Why can't you Liberals?

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=29&ContentID=10668

And US President George Bush said he saw a possible parallel in the violence and the 1968 Tet offensive that prompted Americans to drop support for the Vietnam War.

The White House said Mr Bush had not been making the analogy that Iraq had reached a similar turning point. Instead, he was saying that insurgents were possibly increasing violence to try to influence the US elections on November 7.

If you want to compare battles, then let's compare the TET Offensive to the Najaf Offensive wherein we kicked the livin' shit out of Al Sadr's Mahdi Militia. How about the Falujah Offensive?

That is the failing of Liberals. They see only battles and if they lose one they concede defeat and declare the loss of the war.
 
:lol: Beat me to it.

Maybe you are lucky he did. The contention was wrong.

Actually, the differences far outweigh the similarities but the similarities do exist and ignoring lessons learned is a sure recipe for disaster. Limited war, far away, culture not well understood by either the people at home or those actually prosecuting the war, unpopular at home and aboroad, impending election... A lot of similarities, silly to ignore them for the sake of rhetoric. :shrug: Vietnam still has lessons to teach us, to bad most of us can't or won't learn them.

A refreshing post. The Revolutionary War was also unpopular during its prosecution. I believe the percentage was something around 8% who were for the war at that time. The result, however, is that you actually know how to pronounce your R's except if you live in New England you still say "ah".

Jimpeel, the reason this is a bigger mess than Vietnam is obviously the region in which it is taking place. It frankly amazes me that you fail to understand this.

Flat and sandy vs unlimited expanses of jungle cover?
 
A refreshing post. The Revolutionary War was also unpopular during its prosecution. I believe the percentage was something around 8% who were for the war at that time. The result, however, is that you actually know how to pronounce your R's except if you live in New England you still say "ah".

All wars are unpopular. The difference is that some of them are useful, some even necessary. Neither applies in this case. If I even thought it would bring back cheap gas, I'd still be against it but I'd understand. What's really going to happen is that we'll limp along (just as we did in Vietnam) and a few people will make a lot of money, then we'll leave, leaving the country in as bad as if not a worse state and having accomplished exactly none of the stated objectives (well, I guess we did get rid of Saddam but his replacement is unlikely to be an improvement). I don't like it and I'm not afraid to say so.

Edit: I didn't like it any better in the sixties and early seventies.

Flat and sandy vs unlimited expanses of jungle cover?
Yeah, that's what I meant. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, that's what I meant. :rolleyes:

When you make a contention you should make that contention. Nebulous statements like "Jimpeel, the reason this is a bigger mess than Vietnam is obviously the region in which it is taking place. It frankly amazes me that you fail to understand this." unless you want a wise-ass answer.

Don't expect me to be so prescient as to know what your contention is. Simply post it and leave it open for discussion. You don't see me expecting others to claoirvoyantly know my contentions. I post them for all to see and then we, working around and through the jokes and jibes, try to make some sense out of what I'm saying and what they conversely believe. That is how it is done.
 
All wars are unpopular. The difference is that some of them are useful, some even necessary. Neither applies in this case. If I even thought it would bring back cheap gas, I'd still be against it but I'd understand. What's really going to happen is that we'll limp along (just as we did in Vietnam) and a few people will make a lot of money, then we'll leave, leaving the country in as bad as if not a worse state and having accomplished exactly none of the stated objectives (well, I guess we did get rid of Saddam but his replacement is unlikely to be an improvement). I don't like it and I'm not afraid to say so.

You simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with cheap gas. The oil prices, and hence the price of gas, are controlled by the market, not conquerors.

The point of our being there is to keep them there. I'm sure you are among those who believe that they will never come here to attack us. Wrong. If they get the chance to damage or even kill the "Great Satan" they will take that opportunity in a heartbeat.

You likely also believe that if we leave, entirely, every last stick and vestige of American military, business and culture that they will be happy. Wrong. They want us dead. Not because we have wronged them but because we are the wrong religion. We watch the wrong television programs. We treat our women in a manner to which they do not prescribe. We wear the wrong clothes.

Look at what happened to the ancient Buddha statues in the Bamyan Valley, Afghanistan. They blew them up because their holy book says there shall be no religious images of dieties or any images which are worshiped or incite idolotry. They destroyed nearly every Bhudda statue in the entire country from giants to thumbnails.

One relief organization offered the Taliban $14 million in food aid if they would but spare the two ancient statues. They chose the starvation of their people over a couple of chunks of stone.

250px-GBA8.jpg


300px-Destruction_of_Buddhas_March_21_2001.jpg
 
You simply don't get it. This has nothing to do with cheap gas. The oil prices, and hence the price of gas, are controlled by the market, not conquerors.

:rofl:


ho - lee- shit!

yeah, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

try telling that to OPEC and thems dicktaters in venezuela and i-ran.
 
:rofl:

ho - lee- shit!

yeah, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

try telling that to OPEC and thems dicktaters in venezuela and i-ran.

And could you, pray tell, name the conqueror of those nations and OPEC which set the prices? You still need to work on that reading for comprehension thing. I wrote:

The oil prices, and hence the price of gas, are controlled by the market, not conquerors.

Part of that market is OPEC.

Venezualan dictator Chavez was voted into power.

Iranian dictator Ahmadinajad was voted into power.

Neither conquered the country.
 
Here is how they believe women should be treated. What a bunch of wonderful guys. That entire council should be strapped over a barrel and butt raped by mad dogs for about three days.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311848,00.html

19-Year Old Saudi Rape Victim Ordered to Undergo 200 Lashes
Thursday, November 15, 2007

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.

The new verdict was handed down by Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council following a retrial, the Arab News reported.

The court last year sentenced the six heavily-armed men who carried out the attack against the Shiite woman to between one and five years for committing the crime.

But the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," a court source told the Arab News.

The new verdict issued on Wednesday also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.
 
Venezualan dictator Chavez was voted into power.

Iranian dictator Ahmadinajad was voted into power.

technically, yes. substantively, probably not.

what your remark did was drop back to the unseen hard of the market and minimize the impact of projections of political power. which is obviously not the case.

reading comprehension? ha ha you funny there professor.
 
The point of our being there is to keep them there. I'm sure you are among those who believe that they will never come here to attack us. Wrong. If they get the chance to damage or even kill the "Great Satan" they will take that opportunity in a heartbeat.

Damn! Iraqis think we're the great Satan and are dying to attack us and our military is keeping them keeping them from leaving their country?

Where do you get this stuff? Got a link?
 
Back
Top