steveorino 7 #26 October 23, 2006 QuoteA military victory (us vs them) is no longer a goal. The new goal is to train the iraqi army to take over what we started so that we can claim mission accomplished and go home. Sounds like "vietnamization" startegy to me. Am I the only one old enough to remember that failed startegy? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNvietnamization.htm steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,408 #27 October 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteA military victory (us vs them) is no longer a goal. The new goal is to train the iraqi army to take over what we started so that we can claim mission accomplished and go home. Sounds like "vietnamization" startegy to me. Am I the only one old enough to remember that failed startegy? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNvietnamization.htm I would cite differences between Vietnam and Iraq: - In Vietnam we waded into the middle of an ongoing civil war, and in our anti-communist paranoia we chose one side based on the principle that the other side was "supporting communism", ignoring the fact that war had been going on for decades, and was really about a colony trying to shake off foreign rule. - In Iraq we were wildly successful in overthrowing a crackpot regime, (albeit on false pretenses), but then the idiots in the administration wouldn't allow the military to implement proper planning for the rebuilding. The result is an all-out civil war. Two different roads to the same end result. We have audio recordings of LBJ acknowledging to McNamara that he knows the Vietnam war is unwinnable, but he won't pull out because: "I will not go down in history as the first American president to lose a war". So he declined to run for re-election and left it up to his successor, (Nixon), to clean up the mess. At least LBJ understood the situation, although he didn't have the integrity to do the right thing. I don't think Dubya even grasps the situation."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #28 October 23, 2006 There are a LOT of differences betwen Viet Nam and Irag. That wasn't my point. How well did "vietnamization" work to end the war? I expect same results with teaching the Iragis steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #29 October 23, 2006 QuoteCanada never sent any tropps to Iraq II. The only Canadian troops ever to fight in Iraq II were those already stationed in the US military. Hence, Canada never withdrew any troops from Iraq II. http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200602/20060201_CAN_Iraq_War_Support.htm"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #30 October 23, 2006 It's irrelevant if they accept it or not..... History will decide. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #31 October 23, 2006 yup, all personel normally stationed with those US units. Afghanistan is the exception. But then Afghanistan actually makes sense. Unfortunately the US focused most of their energy on their president's ego driven war... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #32 October 23, 2006 QuoteBut then Afghanistan actually makes sense. Unfortunately the US focused most of their energy on their president's ego driven war... Only a small few would disagree. Afghanistan was the only course to stay and where the terrorist were. Bush and thugs had to stray from the course on a warpath to nowhere. They made the world a far more dangerous place."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #33 October 24, 2006 all war is deception- Sun Tzu, the Art of War FEAR CREATES WAR-LOVE CREATES PEACE www.whatreallyhappened.com Any christian who claps his hand for war is a hypocrite- 7 years that changed the world, wing anderson 1939we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #34 October 24, 2006 Quote All the defeatist talk...good God! Even if there was a 180 degree change in policy, or more troops were sent in with success, or whatever, the opposition will never be happy. It's that simple. I, for one, would like to see more troops in Iraq. Just as the generals advised from the start, which the ass-in-charge ignored. Abandoning the cause would be a bad thing to do on so many levels. If we're going to fix this, it's going to require more than what we've committed. So we should do it right. And it should have been done right YEARS ago. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #35 October 24, 2006 QuoteYES. It's all over. Bush has fucked it up and it's time to surrender NO. A surrender would have devastating Global Consequences All I know is I hate Bush. not a biased poll i see? MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 October 24, 2006 Quotenot a biased poll i see? You expected something different from the "you are either with us or against us" crowd.??????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #37 October 24, 2006 I see that timetables are now acceptable, whereas it was just about considered treason to suggest such a thing last month.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #38 October 25, 2006 Yeah, but these are different timetables. See these tables don't tell time, they....uhm....give a time...yeah that's it....give a time....that is materially different and nothing like what those pesky democrats suggested a while ago.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 October 25, 2006 Its now the cut and run republicans but just for the rest of the election season. Next month I am sure they can spin up another nice little war to enrich themselves further on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 October 25, 2006 QuoteAs the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.... The libs have been screaming all along for an exit strategy and timetable... they get one and want to scream about that. Just shows (again) that it's not really about the war, but about scoring political points... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 October 25, 2006 Quote I see that timetables are now acceptable, whereas it was just about considered treason to suggest such a thing last month. Let's see...last Spring the Dems....ie. Kerry, Murtha etc. were calling for the US Troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Still think that's a good idea? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #42 October 25, 2006 My post was just an effort at humour, granted, I am not very good at it.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #43 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuote I see that timetables are now acceptable, whereas it was just about considered treason to suggest such a thing last month. Let's see...last Spring the Dems....ie. Kerry, Murtha etc. were calling for the US Troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Still think that's a good idea? - I believe the US presence in Iraq is the primary catalyst for the violence. Obviously you cannot believe that, for it would require admitting that Bush was wrong in 2003, and you are incapable of doing that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 October 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote I see that timetables are now acceptable, whereas it was just about considered treason to suggest such a thing last month. Let's see...last Spring the Dems....ie. Kerry, Murtha etc. were calling for the US Troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Still think that's a good idea? - I believe the US presence in Iraq is the primary catalyst for the violence. Obviously you cannot believe that, for it would require admitting that Bush was wrong in 2003, and you are incapable of doing that. Apparently you only remember what suits you. I have been very critical of the way Bush has fought the war. Especially critical of going in without enough troops and critical of not sending in more to get it over with and bring our soldiers home sooner. I see you avoided answering my question. That's OK. To do so would be to admit the Dems were wrong and I know you are incapable of doing that. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #45 October 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I see that timetables are now acceptable, whereas it was just about considered treason to suggest such a thing last month. Let's see...last Spring the Dems....ie. Kerry, Murtha etc. were calling for the US Troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Still think that's a good idea? - I believe the US presence in Iraq is the primary catalyst for the violence. Obviously you cannot believe that, for it would require admitting that Bush was wrong in 2003, and you are incapable of doing that. Apparently you only remember what suits you. I have been very critical of the way Bush has fought the war. Especially critical of going in without enough troops and critical of not sending in more to get it over with and bring our soldiers home sooner. I see you avoided answering my question. That's OK. To do so would be to admit the Dems were wrong and I know you are incapable of doing that. - I believe in removing the catalyst for violence (US) at the first opportunity. We should never have been there in the first place. There will not be anything resembling peace in Iraq as long as we are there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 October 26, 2006 QuoteI believe in removing the catalyst for violence (US) at the first opportunity. There will not be anything resembling peace in Iraq as long as we are there. I don't disagree with you. I just don't believe we should set a rigid timetable for withdrawl. I do believe it is time to start setting short term goals for the Iraq Govt. to step up and start taking more responsibility for their own security. I think such a timetable should be both realistic and flexible. OTOH we have been there for 3 1/2 years and I'm disappointed with how slowly the training of Iraqi security has progressed. I'm glad to see we are putting more pressure on them. - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
