View Full Version : U.S. Says Troops Occupy All of Fallujah
Lazarus
11-13-2004, 06:16 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. military officials said Saturday that American troops had now "occupied" the entire city of Fallujah and there were no more major concentrations of insurgents still fighting after nearly a week of intense urban combat.
::) ::) ::)
LanceALott
11-15-2004, 09:02 AM
So, we won the battle of Falluja.
Now, will someone tell me what the hell we have won?
Giancarlo
11-15-2004, 10:46 AM
A key symbol and the deaths of 1,600 insurgents.
Lazarus
11-15-2004, 03:02 PM
The only good terrorists are the dead ones. Let's make them all good--and dead. 8)
LanceALott
11-15-2004, 04:36 PM
A key symbol and the deaths of 1,600 insurgents.
We had the death of 2.5 million insurgents in Vietnam, compared to our 58 thousand; and we still lost the damn war.
Your key symbol reminds me of the old guy who went to his doctor for a second time to get something for his constipation. The doctor asked him if he took the suppositories he gave him the first time. He said, "Yes, but for all the good they did me, I might as well have jammebed them up my butt. They tasted like shit."
So take your "key symbol" and jam it up your butt for all the good it is. -- You stupid fuckers who do not even know what your pecker is for think you are going to win this kind of war by sending some kind of message to terrorize the terrorists, or kill the terrorists, when we really do not know which of them is a terrorist, just like the damn Vietnam thing
Giancarlo
11-15-2004, 04:40 PM
Oh shut up. We lost 38 men in this battle. This is nothing like Vietnam, you rotten liberal. Look at the facts, this war is totally different. There isn't an organized enemy. You want the facts? Here you go.. from drudgereport:
""You recognise them easily. They wear masks, they carry weapons, they move in small squads," said 22-year-old soldier Kris Clinkscales, who suffered an arm injury from an exploding shell.
"Civilians are usually wearing traditional gowns, they lift their hands when they see you."
He said he was sure he had not shot at civilians because they were easy to identify. "There were bodies on the street, but only insurgents," he said.
"Clinkscales, who arrived at the hospital on Saturday, described the rebel fighters' approach as "reckless", "especially the young ones, aged 18 to 20. They were quite disorganised.""
----------------
These guys were unorganized, poorly trained and weren't good shots despite having the weaponry they did. This is nothing like Vietnam, you incompetent ass. It took a lot of heavy battle to take back Hue City. People and even commanders tried to compare this battle to Hue City before the battle started, that kind of thinking was disproven. You're an idiot. You can jam your stupidity up your ass and shut the fuck up. You don't know what you are talking about. You are a menace to this forum and you don't have god damn clue.
The insurgents in the outlying cities of Falluja are vowing to fight to the death™...again. ::)
Wonder when they're going to stop tuck-tailing and stay to fight to the death the first time?
Giancarlo
11-15-2004, 09:50 PM
Well what happened is that they all came out firing wildly and were mowed down. That's fighting to the death in the liberal media.
LanceALott
11-16-2004, 09:31 AM
The insurgents in the outlying cities of Falluja are vowing to fight to the death™...again. ::)
Wonder when they're going to stop tuck-tailing and stay to fight to the death the first time?
You dumb shit.
They never intended to fight to their death.
They always intended to fight to your death.
HE WHO FIGHTS AND RUNS AWAY, LIVES TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY.
You dumb shit.
They never intended to fight to their death.
They always intended to fight to your death.
Seems to me they made a slight miscalculation as to who was gonna be doing the dying, then, huh?
Saber rattling cowards.
Can you imagine the United States booby trapping the bodies of our dead? You see, we don't even flinch about the vulgarity of them doing it. It's so common and expected, it doesn't even shock us anymore.
LanceALott
11-16-2004, 10:02 AM
Can you imagine the United States booby trapping the bodies of our dead? You see, we don't even flinch about the vulgarity of them doing it. It's so common and expected, it doesn't even shock us anymore.
They are merely following the one rule of an insurrection/war:
DO WHAT YOU CAN, WHERE YOU ARE, WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH.
Just like us.
They do not play by any rules of nice guy, and we don't either, not in the real world. -- All that "we are the nice guys who play by the rules, stay within the laws, and act with a conscience and compassion" crap is made for TV, and you know it.
Propaganda is merely another weapon we use, where we are, when we can; and it only works against us because we try to tell our citizens lies that can be exposed about who we are and what we are doing. -- And that is incompetent.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 10:11 AM
Badnews:
Are body counts any measure of victory in a counter-insurgency?
How do you win a counter-insurgency?
I'm not being a smartass. I'm really interested in your answers.
Badnews:
Are body counts any measure of victory in a counter-insurgency?
How do you win a counter-insurgency?
I'm not being a smartass. I'm really interested in your answers.
Body counts are everything.
How do you win a counter-insurgency? The fear of God/Allah.
Let's face it. These people are NEVER going to be our fucking friends, are they? Solution? Crushing defeat.
LanceALott
11-16-2004, 10:17 AM
How do you win a counter-insurgency?
Stay the fuck out of their back yard.
Stay the fuck out of their back yard.
It's not their back yard. It's the Iraqis' back yard. These assholes aren't even from Iraq.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 10:23 AM
Body counts are everything.
How do you win a counter-insurgency? The fear of God/Allah.
Let's face it. These people are NEVER going to be our fucking friends, are they? Solution? Crushing defeat.
I don't know whether they will ever be our friends, or whether that even matters. Is anyone really "our friends"? Are "we" (meaning the citizens of the United States) friends?
I'm all for a "crushing defeat". How do you achieve it? The Romans had some success back in the day by stringing up hundreds of thousands of peasants on crosses. Back in the day, though, peasants didn't have access to extraordinary weapons.
I get your point badnews. I don't disagree. I don't see any practical way to implement it and I see no effective precedent for it.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 10:24 AM
It's not their back yard. It's the Iraqis' back yard. These assholes aren't even from Iraq.
Some are and some aren't.
What's an Iraqi, anyway? They're Arabs and they break down into tribes of Sunis, Kurds, and whatever else they might be.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 10:26 AM
Personally I think we need to get them all to stop focusing on us and instead fight each other.
I get your point badnews. I don't disagree. I don't see any practical way to implement it and I see no effective precedent for it.
The American people are not ready for a crushing defeat of the enemy. We haven't been since the horrors of World War II. We have grown soft and we have grown a conscience when it comes to killing the enemy.
I have said it since the days of 9/11 that it will take a MAJOR hit by Islam on our country for us to get back to the flag-waving days of 2001. Make no mistake. Islam is at war against us and no matter how much we sugar coat it saying this isn't a religious war, it is.
There is much to be said, though, of "who is the enemy?"
I say "the enemy" is any country that allows terrorists/followers of certain sects of Islam to operate in their country unchallenged.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 10:35 AM
The American people are not ready for a crushing defeat of the enemy. We haven't been since the horrors of World War II. We have grown soft and we have grown a conscience when it comes to killing the enemy.
I have said it since the days of 9/11 that it will take a MAJOR hit by Islam on our country for us to get back to the flag-waving days of 2001. Make no mistake. Islam is at war against us and no matter how much we sugar coat it saying this isn't a religious war, it is.
There is much to be said, though, of "who is the enemy?"
I say "the enemy" is any country that allows terrorists/followers of certain sects of Islam to operate in their country unchallenged.
I think a crushing defeat is just fine, if it is possible. I see little evidence that it is possible.
In theory also your definition of "the enemy" is marvelous. In practice, quite another story.
We are way too vulnerable in way too many ways. I think we need to be far more ruthless and cunning. In fact I hope that's what is really going on. It doesn't look like it though. Looks like "we" spend way too much time on partisanship against each other.
Larry_Oldtimer
11-16-2004, 11:29 AM
LaL: We had the death of 2.5 million insurgents in Vietnam, compared to our 58 thousand; and we still lost the damn war.
You are the dumb shit . . . the US didn't lose the war in Vietnam . . . traitors like you and Kerry lied to the American people and we left, not lost. ???
Vell, it is like trapping rats on a farm . . . one at a time until they are at least under control. And you are wrong, it isn't the terrorists who have "extraordinary weapons", it is our forces who do. It does take a remarkably strong effort to convince those who are committed to terrorism that they are playing a losing hand . . . folks in that area of the world have demonstrated that they are slow learners . . . but they will get the hang of it, any who survive. The bad joke was the tape from their leader, urging them to "continue the fight, victory is near. It wasn't and won't be. ;)
The bad joke was the tape from their leader, urging them to "continue the fight, victory is near. It wasn't and won't be. ;)
Yeah, that cracked me up. "The Americans are weak!!"
Try explaining that to the guys that survived that 155 Howitzer blast...once their ears stop bleeding. ::)
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/interactive/coalition/ground.weapons/5.m109a6.paladin.jpg
LaL: We had the death of 2.5 million insurgents in Vietnam, compared to our 58 thousand; and we still lost the damn war.
You are the dumb shit . . . the US didn't lose the war in Vietnam . . . traitors like you and Kerry lied to the American people and we left, not lost. ???
You can call it anything you want, but the simple fact is in the end the North Vietnamese were sitting on the top of our embassy in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) tearing down our flag. Your protest sounds a lot like what was being muttered in Germany after WWI with the stab in the back theory. We need to stop arguing about whether we won or lost and start analyzing why the end was the way it was. You can argue that the protestors got us to leave the war, but why didn't we win before that happened? What prevented us from making real progress in the war. We won every major battle but the cause of the North Vietnamese continued to grow finding new people to replace the ones we killed. There is a lot more to the outcome of Vietnam than you are willing to admit to.
There is a lot more to the outcome of Vietnam than you are willing to admit to.
Your lack of knowledge of certain subjects is galactic. I'm sure it's only due to inexperience or laziness. You don't strike me as being retarded, just misguided...yet your mouth continues to flap.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 01:21 PM
Your lack of knowledge of certain subjects is galactic. I'm sure it's only due to inexperience or laziness. You don't strike me as being retarded, just misguided...yet your mouth continues to flap.
Jafo makes an excellent point here badnews. There is a lot more to the loss in Vietnam than you or Larry care to admit to.
I've raised several questions that you haven't answered.
I am open to your concept. Really and truly you have an opportunity to convince me. You aren't closing the sale though. The above post isn't scoring you any points either.
Jafo makes an excellent point here badnews. There is a lot more to the loss in Vietnam than you or Larry care to admit to.
I've raised several questions that you haven't answered.
I am open to your concept. Really and truly you have an opportunity to convince me. You aren't closing the sale though. The above post isn't scoring you any points either.
Again, for the umpteenth time, you missed the point I was trying to make to jAfO and wandered away from the herd with your individual thought processes, which I find interesting, btw, however sophomoric...
jAfO makes no new nor excellent points that anyone completely unfamiliar with a subject couldn't make on the fly.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that there are very few concepts I could explain to you that you would be able to comprehend.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 01:37 PM
Again, for the umpteenth time, you missed the point I was trying to make to jAfO and wandered away from the herd with your individual thought processes, which I find interesting, btw, however sophomoric...
jAfO makes no new nor excellent points that anyone completely unfamiliar with a subject couldn't make on the fly.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that there are very few concepts I could explain to you that you would be able to comprehend.
I never said he made any new points. I merely said he made a good point.
As old as that point may be I've yet to see you counter it effectively. Instead I see you attacking jAFO.
All the arguments that we could have won fail to account for what happened, or didn't happen, before the anti-war movement gained sufficient traction. And we are talking here about many, many years.
Why do you attack jAFO? For no good reason.
I am still open to your concept. I'm waiting patiently. Maybe some day you can figure out how to close the sale.
Maybe not.
I never said he made any new points. I merely said he made a good point.
As old as that point may be I've yet to see you counter it effectively. Instead I see you attacking jAFO.
All the arguments that we could have won fail to account for what happened, or didn't happen, before the anti-war movement gained sufficient traction. And we are talking here about many, many years.
Why do you attack jAFO? For no good reason.
I am still open to your concept. I'm waiting patiently. Maybe some day you can figure out how to close the sale.
Maybe not.
I've known jAfO for eons. I'm not attacking him, per se. I'm just denegrating his idiocy with a verbal eye rolley is all I'm doing.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no other way to tell someone "Hey, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" that I know of.
It's not my job to convince you or sell you anything anymore than it is your job to convince me and sell me a package. I really don't care what you believe rightly or wrongly anymore than you care what I believe.
The "boys" who were there with me know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about. The rest of you assholes, I don't give a flying fuck.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 01:53 PM
I've known jAfO for eons. I'm not attacking him, per se. I'm just denegrating his idiocy with a verbal eye rolley is all I'm doing.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no other way to tell someone "Hey, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" that I know of.
It's not my job to convince you or sell you anything anymore than it is your job to convince me and sell me a package. I really don't care what you believe rightly or wrongly anymore than you care what I believe.
The "boys" who were there with me know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about. The rest of you assholes, I don't give a flying fuck.
Too bad. I thought you really did have something to say.
Too bad. I thought you really did have something to say.
Oh, but I do, and many among us here hear it...and many among us here do not. <shrugs>
Too bad. I thought you really did have something to say.
Oh, and btw, I did have something to say...to jAfO. ;D
But you being the arrogant, pushy, obnoxious Jew-boy that you are forced your way to the head of the line like you owned the joint...and one day, as history has shown us over and over and over again, you just might.
LanceALott
11-16-2004, 02:39 PM
LaL: We had the death of 2.5 million insurgents in Vietnam, compared to our 58 thousand; and we still lost the damn war.
You are the dumb shit . . . the US didn't lose the war in Vietnam . . .
Jeez, Christ on a stick! Are you trying to tell me we won the fucking war?
Lazarus
11-16-2004, 02:42 PM
We won the war in Vietnam before Kerry lost it.
LanceALott
11-16-2004, 02:47 PM
In his 1968 campaign speach, Nixon promised to get the US out of Vietnam.
He knew even then, as I did, that the USA had lost that war; but Nixon stayed around for several more years trying to find "peace with honor;" and when that failed, because My Lai became public knowledge in 1969, Nixon had Kissinger begging the damn Viet Cong in Paris to let us out and save face. -- That was before Kerry joined the peace movement.
Kerry did not lose the war, nor did Nixon. It was a war we could not win. -- Some things are impossible, and Vietnam was one.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 03:01 PM
We won the war in Vietnam before Kerry lost it.
This is nothing but a very stupid comment.
vellaity
11-16-2004, 03:05 PM
In his 1968 campaign speach, Nixon promised to get the US out of Vietnam.
He knew even then, as I did, that the USA had lost that war; but Nixon stayed around for several more years trying to find "peace with honor;" and when that failed, because My Lai became public knowledge in 1969, Nixon had Kissinger begging the damn Viet Cong in Paris to let us out and save face. -- That was before Kerry joined the peace movement.
Kerry did not lose the war, nor did Nixon. It was a war we could not win. -- Some things are impossible, and Vietnam was one.
I don't know whether we could have won, or not. What I do know is that it is impossible to change history. We lost, and many of the lessons are clear. Body counts are no metric when it comes to measuring progress in a counter-insurgency. I think that one is clear as day.
I, unfortunately, think the Powell doctrine is going to be proven out at the end of the day in Iraq. Too bad we have to re-learn those lessons.
These people want to refight the Vietnam War. Perhaps that is their true motivaton in Iraq? It's as good an explanation as any, because the connection to the war on terror is tortured--no pun intended.
Your lack of knowledge of certain subjects is galactic. I'm sure it's only due to inexperience or laziness. You don't strike me as being retarded, just misguided...yet your mouth continues to flap.
I've noticed that you like to insult and then leave, never bothering to actually dispute what is being said. Stick to the fart jokes, its what you are good at. :-*
Lazarus
11-16-2004, 03:27 PM
This is nothing but a very stupid comment.
It is actually quite astute. ;D
I've noticed that you like to insult and then leave, never bothering to actually dispute what is being said. Stick to the fart jokes, its what you are good at. :-*
I'm sorry. There is nothing to dispute. Your information is so bizarre that it would be a waste of time, mine and all the other members on here, to read it.
Besides, I haven't done a fart joke in a very long time. You feel you're due for one or something?
I can oblige.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. That is my answer to you. Whether you choose to believe you are ignorant is up to you. Most uninformed people think they're brilliant. You are at your shining acme at the moment. You should stick to teaching girl's P.E. or whatever higher education field you've persued.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no other way to tell someone "Hey, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" that I know of.
It's not my job to convince you or sell you anything anymore than it is your job to convince me and sell me a package. I really don't care what you believe rightly or wrongly anymore than you care what I believe.
The "boys" who were there with me know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about. The rest of you assholes, I don't give a flying fuck.
I think one of the problems we have here is that you take the loss in Vietnam personally, and that is understandable considering that you were there. The point I'm trying to make is that despite the work you guys did, and you must belive me when I say that I have nothing but respect for what you guys did, we ended up losing that war. There has to be a better explanation than the one given, it was the fault of the protesters doesn't cut it.
My dad fought in Vietnam and my moms brother died there. There has to be a better explanation as to why their and your sacrafice came to nothing.
I think one of the problems we have here is that you take the loss in Vietnam personally, and that is understandable considering that you were there.
Oh, good grief. ::)
The point I'm trying to make is that despite the work you guys did, and you must belive me when I say that I have nothing but respect for what you guys did, we ended up losing that war. There has to be a better explanation than the one given, it was the fault of the protesters doesn't cut it.
I never said it was the fault of the protestors. They didn't help, however. Do you know who I attribute the loss to? The Democrat assholes like you who were in power in the liberal left, the media and President John Fucking Kennedy...may his corpse still be rotting in Hell.
My dad fought in Vietnam and my moms brother died there. There has to be a better explanation as to why their and your sacrafice came to nothing.
I like to think of Vietnam as a victory, not of the war with Vietnam, but of the absolute Power Vacuum that was about to happen to that part of the world.
That's an entirely separate topic from this one...a topic, I'm sure, you are also totally unfamiliar with. For instance, I'll bet you just about anything you don't have a fucking clue what we were doing in Cambodia or Laos, do you?
Was it worth 58,000? Fuck no.
Larry_Oldtimer
11-16-2004, 03:55 PM
You can call it anything you want, but the simple fact is in the end the North Vietnamese were sitting on the top of our embassy in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) tearing down our flag. Your protest sounds a lot like what was being muttered in Germany after WWI with the stab in the back theory. We need to stop arguing about whether we won or lost and start analyzing why the end was the way it was. You can argue that the protestors got us to leave the war, but why didn't we win before that happened? What prevented us from making real progress in the war. We won every major battle but the cause of the North Vietnamese continued to grow finding new people to replace the ones we killed. There is a lot more to the outcome of Vietnam than you are willing to admit to.
There is nothing mystifying about the Vietnam War. LBJ is the one who actually ran it, and did so in about the worst way any "war" could be waged. LBJ was about the biggest screwup as a CIC this nation ever had. Had the Vietnam thingy been run as a real war, we would easily have won, fewer GIs would have been killed, and it wouldn't have lasted anywhere as long as it did. To fight a war, you have to take and occupy territory, and fight to win. But what the Hell, LBJ was following liberal concepts, which never work. ??? Truman was as bad in Korea. He might have had the guts to drop the A-bomb, but he sure didn't know anything about fighting a war, anymore than you do. ???
There is nothing mystifying about the Vietnam War. LBJ is the one who actually ran it, and did so in about the worst way any "war" could be waged. LBJ was about the biggest screwup as a CIC this nation ever had. Had the Vietnam thingy been run as a real war, we would easily have won, fewer GIs would have been killed, and it wouldn't have lasted anywhere as long as it did. To fight a war, you have to take and occupy territory, and fight to win. But what the Hell, LBJ was following liberal concepts, which never work. ??? Truman was as bad in Korea. He might have had the guts to drop the A-bomb, but he sure didn't know anything about fighting a war, anymore than you do. ???
Here is where we get to the meat of the matter. Had we run the war as a conventional military campaign there is no doubt we could have defeated the North Vietnamese Army and occupied all of the country of vietnam. My argument is that I don't think that in itself would have won the war for us. If we had occupied all of Vietnam the issues that started the insurgency in the in the first place would still be there. Vietnam would still be an occupied country just like it was under the French. We may have quelled the insurgency for awhile, but it would have eventually come up again sometime in the future. Would Vietnam be a victory if we still had to have troops stationed there in mass numbers today?
In the end victory or defeat in Vietnam didn't really depend on our military. If the people of People of South Vietnam had believed in there cause as much as the people of North Vietnam did they could have fought and won this war on their own. I think the same case holds true in Iraq. Militarily we can't afford to try and fight the insurgency forever, there has to come a point when it is up to the Iraqis to stop the insurgency in their country. I doubt if the US is doing enough to make that happen.
vellaity
11-17-2004, 01:23 PM
Here is where we get to the meat of the matter. Had we run the war as a conventional military campaign there is no doubt we could have defeated the North Vietnamese Army and occupied all of the country of vietnam. My argument is that I don't think that in itself would have won the war for us. If we had occupied all of Vietnam the issues that started the insurgency in the in the first place would still be there. Vietnam would still be an occupied country just like it was under the French. We may have quelled the insurgency for awhile, but it would have eventually come up again sometime in the future. Would Vietnam be a victory if we still had to have troops stationed there in mass numbers today?
In the end victory or defeat in Vietnam didn't really depend on our military. If the people of People of South Vietnam had believed in there cause as much as the people of North Vietnam did they could have fought and won this war on their own. I think the same case holds true in Iraq. Militarily we can't afford to try and fight the insurgency forever, there has to come a point when it is up to the Iraqis to stop the insurgency in their country. I doubt if the US is doing enough to make that happen.
In retrospect we won the war against communism by letting it collapse under it's own weight.
I think you've nailed this, jAFO. This discussion was very revealing to me. I had heard the notion that people were seeking some sort of redemption for Vietnam, but didn't truly link that before to Iraq.
Too bad, too, because it seems so clear that in the name of proving the mistakes of Vietnam we're just making the same mistake. The real way to undermine the Islamists is to exploit their true weaknesses and facilitate the collapse of their ideology.
But this takes things like patience and finesse. Our culture wants results NOW. Bomb them, we say. Invade them. Doesn't matter if the ones we invade are really them--invade them anyway because then they will know we will invade them.
As it is we're really playing to their true strength.
LanceALott
11-17-2004, 02:39 PM
As it is we're really playing to their true strength.
And that is exactly what Michael Scheurer said in IMPERIAL HUBRIS.
But the Bushwhackers are firing everyone who do not dance to their fantasy.
Giancarlo
11-17-2004, 02:49 PM
Jafo didn't really nail anything. The comparsions of Iraq to Vietnam are quite ridiculous in the least. Different circumstances, different reasons, different terrain, different strategy and most of all different technology. The Iraqis are stopping the insurgency, noted by their contribution of 2,000 troops in Falluja.
Jafo didn't really nail anything. The comparsions of Iraq to Vietnam are quite ridiculous in the least. Different circumstances, different reasons, different terrain, different strategy and most of all different technology. The Iraqis are stopping the insurgency, noted by their contribution of 2,000 troops in Falluja.
Out of the 2,000 troops supplied by the Iraqis 400 of them either refused to fight or were put on special emergency leave. In Vietnam 1/5 of the ARVN army deserted. Even more similarities emerge.
Giancarlo
11-17-2004, 03:11 PM
That's bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about. There are no similiarities. Quit abusing drugs. Most of the 2,000 did fight.
Giancarlo
11-17-2004, 03:12 PM
Again there are NO similiarities.
There are huge differences.
1) Different circumstances
2) Different terrain
3) Different tactics
4) Stupid enemy
The enemy was wiped out in Fallujah with minimal losses to the US and Iraqi military.
LanceALott
11-17-2004, 03:15 PM
Out of the 2,000 troops supplied by the Iraqis 400 of them either refused to fight or were put on special emergency leave. In Vietnam 1/5 of the ARVN army deserted. Even more similarities emerge.
Also in Vietnam many of those we thought were our friends and took inside our compounds pissed in our soup when nobody was looking, and some of them fastened explosives to our landing gear so we would crash when we tried to land.
Many of the Vietnamese who were brought into the Phoenix interrogation centers told us everything we wanted to know, including who their commie buddies were. -- The fuckers lied to us and told us the names of people who were neutral or on our side so the stupid Phoenix agents, like Uncle Walt, would pick up those innocent people and torture them to death.
We ended up embracing the enemy, thinking they were on our side, and we killed the very people we needed to trust. -- THIS IS HOW WE LOST THE WAR.
And the same process is at work in Iraq. -- I mean how do you know which camel jockey to shoot, and which one to give a hug to? Hug the wrong fucker, and he will most likely detonate the explosive he has taped under his shirt, then he and you will be with his 72 virgins, and all you get to do is watch.
Giancarlo
11-17-2004, 03:16 PM
Again, there are no similiarities between Vietnam and Iraq. I already pointed out the differences. So please, LaL, use your brain.
LanceALott
11-17-2004, 03:19 PM
Again, there are no similiarities between Vietnam and Iraq. I already pointed out the differences. So please, LaL, use your brain.
I am a Vietnam Vet, and you are a little queer who does not even know what his dick is for, let alone anything about war.
Giancarlo
11-17-2004, 03:20 PM
I am a Vietnam Vet, and you are a little queer who does not even know what his dick is for, let alone anything about war.
Blah blah blah.. I'm the son of Bill Gates... blah blah blah blah.. you can claim stuff but that doesn't make it true.
Nice to attack my sexuality.
Giancarlo
11-17-2004, 03:20 PM
And if you were a Vietnam vet, you would understand the value of modern tactics and how different strategy is today.
Lazarus
11-17-2004, 03:24 PM
It is a constant drumbeat from the Leftist and the Leftmedia that no matter what conflict is involved, from their POV it will forever be just "another Vietnam."
I am quite tired of hearing it re-argued, brought up, and the people who raise it--as if it makes them seem intelligent--say it time and again.
Panama was "another Vietnam."
Grenada was "a V'.
Somolia was "a V".
Bosnia was "a V".
Kosova was "a V"
Afghanistan was "a V.'
Iraq was "a V".
And, there is no question that whatever conflict we next find ourselves involved with, then, to the Leftist, it will be yet "another Vietnam".
Get a NEW PLAYBOOK. You guys sound like a worthless broken record!!!!
::) ::) ::)
Larry_Oldtimer
11-17-2004, 04:30 PM
jAfO: If we had occupied all of Vietnam the issues that started the insurgency in the in the first place would still be there.
You are really obtuse. There was no "insurgency" in Vietnam. There was a civil war because communists wanted to take over all of Vietnam. Simple as that, and the anti-war idiots here, like Kerry, sure helped them do it.
Whiskey4bfast
11-17-2004, 05:20 PM
A big difference with Vietnam and Iraq is in Iraq no triple canopy jungle with varied mountainous, etc. terrain and of course the monsoons. Vietnam => bad for effective use of airpower (jungle canopy), tanks (Mud, mountains, jungle, etc.) Iraq => perfect (except for dust and helicopters) terrain for airpower, tank tactics, etc.
Panama was "another Vietnam."
Grenada was "a V'.
Somolia was "a V".
Bosnia was "a V".
Kosova was "a V"
Afghanistan was "a V.'
Iraq was "a V".
Panama, Grenada, Somolia, Bosnia, Kosovo... who the hell said they were another Vietnam?
Iraq - yes.
vellaity
11-17-2004, 08:36 PM
And that is exactly what Michael Scheurer said in IMPERIAL HUBRIS.
But the Bushwhackers are firing everyone who do not dance to their fantasy.
Never read that, but it occurs to me that theirs is a culture of victims. So what do we do? We prove them right, that they are victims, to play right into their recruiting videos.
That is their strength. That unites them. That adds fuel to their insurgency.
Giancarlo
11-18-2004, 12:10 AM
Iraq - yes.
Nope. I already stated why it is not.
Giancarlo
11-18-2004, 12:11 AM
Never read that, but it occurs to me that theirs is a culture of victims. So what do we do? We prove them right, that they are victims, to play right into their recruiting videos.
That is their strength. That unites them. That adds fuel to their insurgency.
Your rhetoric helps weaken American resolve and that also fuels the insurgency and terrorism.
LanceALott
11-18-2004, 10:24 AM
Never read that, but it occurs to me that theirs is a culture of victims. So what do we do? We prove them right, that they are victims, to play right into their recruiting videos.
That is their strength. That unites them. That adds fuel to their insurgency.
And what you say is the same thing Scheurer said in IMPERIAL HUBRIS.
He was a top CIA officer whose job it was to know the enemy; and now he and many other highly competent CIA officers are out of the Company. -- So what is left? -- The people who do not care what the real situation is, yes-men, ass kissers to Dubya, toadies who are not smart enough to find out the truth; nor do they care about the truth. They invent the "truth" that they need to appear to justify their agenda.
Under Goss, the CIA seems to have become merely a very large and largely incompetent Nazi-like propaganda machine, and everybody that does not live in their desired Fatherland fantasyland has been made a bum on the outside.
LanceALott
11-18-2004, 10:29 AM
Your rhetoric helps weaken American resolve and that also fuels the insurgency and terrorism.
Neither Vel's or Scheurer's words thows nearly as much fuel on the fire as the incompetent and inappropriate ACTIONS of the Bush team.
Those fucking camel jockies do not even know what Vel said; but I guarantee they are aware that Bush illegally invaded their country without a good reason, JUST LIKE OSAMA PLANNED FOR THE STUPID RETARD FROM TEXAS TO DO.
Giancarlo
11-18-2004, 10:55 AM
You are the incompetent ones. You have problems. Your beliefs would strengthen the network of Al Qaeda. You are secretly supporting Al Qaeda.
You are the incompetent ones. You have problems. Your beliefs would strengthen the network of Al Qaeda. You are secretly supporting Al Qaeda.
And you are openly supporting someone who finds you and your lifelstyle to be an abomination, strange. :-\
Jethro Tull
11-19-2004, 01:29 AM
In retrospect we won the war against communism by letting it collapse under it's own weight.
Idiot.
The Soviet Empire had achieved an important objective in becoming the greatest overall military power in the world in 1979, according to the British military publication, Jane's Review, thanks to Democrat weakness.
It took Ronald Reagan's massive buildup to push them to the limit. And once he had, as they devoted most of their resources to military and heavy industry, neglecting agriculture and light {consumer} industry, he hit them with the knockout punch of Strategic Missile Defense. They could not possibly keep up after that threat of a new all-out race.
If stupid sissy Democrats hadn't been routed by Reagan and cajoled into his policies, the Soviets would have kept and used their advantage, and who knows what the outcome might have been?
Certainly not someone so ignorant of the subject as you, that is sure.
::)
Lazarus
11-19-2004, 12:54 PM
Even if the former Soviet Union had collapsed under its "own weight" is that any reason to adopt the former Soviet Union's centralized command economy or any aspects like it within our own society by empowering the U.S. Government beyond its constitutional limits?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with JT, but Communism is a Leftist ideology, and what the Liberals seem to always be offering is "Communism-Lite"--but if Vell is a Liberal and has acknowledged that the Soviet collapsed as a result of its system, then WHY would he be EVER be arguing in favor of adopting "Communism-Lite"/socialism?
Ah, yes, the contradictions of the Leftists--forced to deny the greatness of Ronald Reagan, yet backed into a corner in order to explain the demise of the Soviet Union, they blame them for communism's failure--yet call for BIGGER government here?--even acknowledging that Soviet socialism was a failure--that it collapsed--they want THAT to happen here? :o :o :o
I think they need to rethink that "party line"--do some "line rectification" and instead praise the greatness of Ronald Reagan in forcing the collapse of the Soviet Union--oh, but that again leads again to the question "Why would they want to impose a similar system here?"
Fuck it. There is no justificaton--logically--for being a Leftist. They have all been on the wrong side of recent history.
;D ;D ;D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.