Bush's War -Frontline

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Others make claims like "Deja vue this or that..." There are some similarities - they were both wars, in foreign countries ... Its a completely different world today.

Which is exactly what Westmoreland said about Nam. Guess what. America was defeated in Nam for the exact same reasons that Sze Tzu defined 2500 years earlier. Amazing is how many cannot grasp a simple concept like strategic objective. How many only see victory in more deaths or less conflict. In Nam, victory was measured in body counts - again in direct contradiction to military principles understood 2500 years ago.

Do you know why Iraq broke down in civil war? Patton defined it accurately in 1945. We had six months to restore the nation, its government, water, electricity, sewers. if not, then Germany would be lost. Do you call Patton a liar or misguided? Or did you not even know or understand this concept? Germany was not lost because our leaders had basic intelligence. Why are flack jackets and helmet still required in the safest place in Iraq - the Green Zone - since we are winning? Iraq was lost into civil war because our leaders were brainwashed by their political agendas - could not grasp any reality that contradicted a political agenda. Our leader were so much fools as to get more concerned with imposing the MD driver's code into Iraqi law rather than restore electricity. At what point do old principles still not apply? Or is your real name Westmoreland?

America was defeated in Nam because a fool - Westmoreland - also used the exact same reasoning that classicman has just posted. You are supposed to have learned from history - not repeat it. Learning does not happen when one denies Deja vue.

Are you so foolish as to believe Iraq is being won? Do you remember 1969 Vietnam? Exact same reasoning proves we were winning the war; that the enemy could no longer fight. The military victory at Tet had all but ended the Vietnam war - according to 1969 Americans. In both cases - Nam and "Mission Accomplished", diminished violence is not a measure for victory. No strategic objective means no victory. That has never changed. Deja vue every war.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Good points Reg Joe - Too many assume that the only theater is the one in Iraq. That the only activity is what is happening there. Others make claims like "Deja vue this or that..." There are some similarities - they were both wars, in foreign countries ... Its a completely different world today. Things have changed so much that all these comparisons on any significant level are relatively worthless. Especially when they are proved false several posts later - with citations and facts. Then the story changes... seen it all too many times before - go find another place to grind your axe. That dog won't hunt anymore.

People like to draw similarities between all wars to support their notions of what is happening or to explain supporting political notions. Most of it is bullocks. Similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq are actually quite poor examples, sort of like Bible code. Look long and hard enough and you will be able to twist things around to make your point. As we all know many of the conflicts in Iraq could be compared to any theater in any war.

[Undertoad]

Red line, if accurately portraying all the munitions striking Americans, looks much like or may be higher than the blue line. I was hoping I would not have to sound byte what is much better explained in a 500 word post - where reasons why are provided. UTs graph only demonstrates superior medical treatment, body armor, etc.

Again Oh again but again you're again wrong again. US wounded figures 4000 deaths to 30,000 wounded in Iraq. 60,000 dead/lost to 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. 7.5:1 wound:death ratio in Iraq; 5:1 wound:death ratio in Vietnam. Better, but not revolutionary, and not the cause of the "troubling" statistics.

30,000 wounded in Iraq. 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. It must be miracle body armor or something.

And do note that this graph was produced 8 months ago, before the "surge"; and that if it were continued, the red line would be two-thirds lower than it is now. Due to miracle body armor? Did the armor magically become even more magical 8 months ago? With more troops in country to be hit?

Produce many 500 word posts, produce many errors. Better to sound bite and simplify your error-filled paragraphs down to error-filled bullet points.

[piercehawkeye45]

UT, you can't just put up US death stats to prove a point.

The cost of Vietnam War: $133 billion, around $531.5 billion with inflation.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...etnam_War_cost
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0829/p...ogn.html#chart


The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[60] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 to 5 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War


Even though many more US soldiers have died in the Vietnam War, this 'war' is costing us a lot more money.


What are the goals of the Iraqi War?
What are we hoping to accomplish for the US and Iraq?
What will happen if we 'lose'?
What will happen if we 'win'?

[TheMercenary]

Money vs. troops, I choose money anyday.

[Undertoad]

PH, you can't just put up dollars spent to prove a point.

You'll have to divvy between money spent on troops and ammo, and money spent on everything else, to answer the original question; which I remind everyone is: are we at war, or is it the occupation following the war?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

UT, you can't just put up US death stats to prove a point.

If the point is that far fewer soldiers have been both killed and injured in Iraq compared to Vietnam, then yes, you sure as hell can. Maybe he's not proving your point for you, but too bad. Your habit of perpetually equivocating on everything and looking at an eternally-bigger picture doesn't mean you can ignore fundamental facts.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Again Oh again but again you're again wrong again.

Irrelevant is how emotional you become. For every eight killed by their wounds in Vietnam, only 1 die from those wounds in "Mission Accomplished". For every wounded person shot in the abdomen in Nam, none are wounded in Iraq. Of course the casualty figures will be significantly lower in each war. That justifies the war? That proves something has been accomplished?

America has lost so much prestige - even so much treasure - even NATO countries will not longer help in a justiied war - Afghanistan.

Damage to America does not stop there. From Marketwatch.com on 28 Mar 2008:

U.S. business interests at risk from domestic spying
It began with a Lakehead University switch from dedicated computer systems to using various Google services and tools that reside in the Internet cloud. While saving the school money and proving the unique viability of hosted software services, concerns over U.S. snooping resulted in a debate over privacy. ...
"Some other organizations are banning Google's innovative tools outright to avoid the prospect of U.S. spooks combing through their data," Simon Avery wrote. "Security experts say many firms are only just starting to realize the risks they assume by embracing Web-based collaborative tools hosted by a U.S. company, a problem even more acute in Canada where federal privacy rules are at odds with U.S. security measures."

US can no longer be trusted? Why when so many Americans have been so much in denial about "Mission Accomplished" from the very beginning - UT.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

PHwe are we at war, or is it the occupation following the war?

Curious that Serbians used your exact same logic to justify what they did in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Being at war justifies both war and violence? Nonsense. But then one of us learned from Nam. Being at war does not justify all actions. Might makes right? Remaining in "Mission Accomplished" with no exit strategy only proves that some people refuse to learn from history.

Fewer deaths in each war make that war acceptable? Fewer deaths are prove of less violence and destruction? UT - you were wrong about weapons of mass destruction because you refused to separate your biases from facts. Now you justify violence because enemies are hiding everywhere? UT - you were so wrong as to even believe George Jr lies about Al Qaeda - "we must stop them in Iraq or they will attack us in America." That too was bull you believed. Even George Sr disagrees with you. When are you going to stop being wrong?

UT calling me wrong has no credibility. You have been wrong about "Mission Accomplished" repeatedly since 2002 because you repeatedly entertain biases (emotions) rather than grasp facts. You could not even define a strategic objective. Of course not. America has none in "Mission Accomplished". Might makes right? If we don't stop them there, then we will be fighting them in the streets of America? How ofter does the Domino Theory need be wrong before you will learn? Exact same mistake that hawks made 40 years ago to even justified My Lai. Now you called torture acceptable? How does that make your reasoning any different than Serbs?

UT demonstrates why George Jr is correct - why Americans will waste treasure in Iraq well after 2010. UT's reasoning means America will be there another 20 years. A workable solution exists - the Iraq Study Group. Instead, UT would rather murder more people as if violence instead solves things. UT, you have been wrong about "Mission Accomplished" repeatedly using a same mindset that justified Nam. In frustration, you would accuse me of being wrong when your own credibility is that poor? Learn why your Saddam WMD claims were obviously wrong and why facts that I posted then are now proven accurate today. UT, when do you learn why you were so wrong about Saddam's WMDs? Instead, you again entertain emotions (biases) rather than grasp facts. You so love war as a solution as to automatically know Saddam had WMDs. You still love and approve of "Mission Accomplished"? When do you learn why? When George Jr admitted Saddam's WMDs did not exist - why did you still remained in denial?

Why does the kettle call the silverware black?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

to answer the original question; which I remind everyone is: are we at war, or is it the occupation following the war?

Eh, fuck, my bad.

We are in a occupation under the cover of a war. We have no declared enemy, we have no direct objective besides stay in Iraq until we feel ready to leave, but the administration still calls it war.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

We are in a occupation under the cover of a war. We have no declared enemy, we have no direct objective besides stay in Iraq until we feel ready to leave, but the administration still calls it war.

Well that goes right back to the problem defined by regular.joe. We cannot even answer the simplest of questions, "Why we got into Iraq, who got us into Iraq, all that stuff". We cannot even decide if we are fighting a war? How does one do what is necessary to win when we cannot even answer simple questions such as "is it a war?" To win a war, one must have 1) a smoking gun, 2) a strategic objective, and 3) an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective. These are more difficult questions. And yet we cannot even decided if we are in a war? We are fighting a secret international terrorism enemy (Spectre, Kaos?) when, in reality, it is nothing but a civil war?

Therein lies the reason why so much treasure will be wasted on "Mission Accomplished". Hell. The president even called it "Mission Accomplished" and yet how many will not admit that? Public enemy number one is bin Laden. And yet so many will not even ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

How do we do anything but massacre American soldiers when we cannot even answer the simplest questions, "Why we got into Iraq, who got us into Iraq, all that stuff ", and "Is it a war?"

BTW, Deja vue Nam. Same mistake was made back then. We could not even define who the enemy was. The combat unit radioed back to base, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

For every eight killed by their wounds in Vietnam, only 1 die from those wounds in [the current conflict].

Assuming that you are correct, that would tell us that Iraq is both less deadly AND less violent than Vietnam.

As I have posted, there were 305,000 wounded in Vietnam, and 30,000 wounded in Iraq. Wounding more deadly in Vietnam; wounding ten times as likely in Vietnam; death fifteen times as likely in Vietnam.

Miracle armor? Or is the situation on the ground much different? Apply Occam's Razor.

Irrelevant is how emotional you become.

Precisely. I am correct by the facts... both the facts I present and the facts you present.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Miracle armor? Or is the situation on the ground much different? Apply Occam's Razor.

I don't know how to apply Occam's Razor to that situation. Troops routinely describe bullets being deflected by their armor. Bullets that were almost always fatal in Nam.

Meanwhile, friends served on the Cambodian border. Lieutenant confiscated their M-16s. They didn't need them. One used his M-16 to go home. No need for guns on the Cambodian border was proof we were winning? So what happened?

The other irony is booby traps. American soldiers in Nam were mostly wounded or killed by bobby traps. In Iraq, roadside bombs. Most caught in a roadside bomb survive with at worst minor injuries. Less death. But the mindset of the [Iraqi] people is just as obvious as in Nam.

American facilities in Nam often came under attack until Saigon was eventually made stable. Ironically, the safest place in Iraq - the Green Zone - again came under sustained shelling again this week. You don't go outside even in the Green Zone without protective clothing. We call this getting better? Deja vue Nam.

We measured victory in Nam by body counts and fatalities. Using those numbers, we were clearly winning the war. Using Iraq fatalities proves same? At what point do we learn the lessons of history? How does that statistic prove ‘light at the end of the tunnel’?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Troops routinely describe bullets being deflected by their armor. Bullets that were almost always fatal in Nam.

Meanwhile, friends served on the Cambodian border. Lieutenant confiscated their M-16s. They didn't need them. One used his M-16 to go home.

The other irony is booby traps. American soldiers in Nam were mostly wounded or killed by bobby traps. In Iraq, roadside bombs. Most caught in a roadside bomb survive with at worst minor injuries. Less death.

American facilities in Nam often came under attack until Saigon was eventually made stable. Ironically, the safest place in Iraq - the Green Zone - again came under sustained shelling again this week. You don't go outside even in the Green Zone without protective clothing.

We measured victory in Nam by body counts and fatalities. Using those numbers, we were clearly winning the war. Using Iraq fatalities proves same?

More total BS...

[Undertoad]

Well then it's Miracle Armor (TM)! It's awesome! Overlooked in the first post because... because I hadn't posted *injury* statistics yet! Now that I have, Miracle Armor (TM) saves the day! There's no injury with Miracle Armor (TM)!

It's Billy Mays for Miracle Armor (TM)!! Miracle Armor (TM) even works against shaped charges when a heavily armored vehicle floor can't stand the blow!! Use it to replace mere hard hats at construction sites!! IEDs don't stand a chance -- your troops live or Triple Your Money Back!!!!

when used as directed. offer void in failed states. here's how to order.