NationStates Jolt Archive


Iraq: The 21st Century's Vietnam?

Zorpbuggery
27-01-2006, 13:37
Exactly what it says on the tin. What do you think?

My personal belief is hell yes.
Pepe Dominguez
27-01-2006, 13:39
Nah.
Lacadaemon
27-01-2006, 13:40
So you're saying that if the US pulls out north iraq will invade south iraq? Damn, that means according to the domino theory, eventually the whole world will end up being dominated by the insurgents.
Newtsburg
27-01-2006, 13:42
I don't see it...
Zorpbuggery
27-01-2006, 13:42
Hmmm. We seem to be missing the point. I mean, either we don't pull out and the army is bled dry, or we abandon the Iraqis and another quarter million die. We're essentialy stuck there.
Psychotic Mongooses
27-01-2006, 13:43
In what way? Militarily, culturally, morally, length, casualties, success? What?
Newtsburg
27-01-2006, 13:44
Hmmm. We seem to be missing the point. I mean, either we don't pull out and the army is bled dry, or we abandon the Iraqis and another quarter million die. We're essentialy stuck there.

That's the problem with hyperbole.
BackwoodsSquatches
27-01-2006, 13:45
Yes, in many ways.

1. Once again, the military is not being allowed to fight, in such a way, as to achieve complete victory.
2. Support for the war is very low, becuase of a clear and rightful reason to for such an engagement.
3. The American people are once again, given a skewed version of the true events that happen, in our name.
4. The leadership of this country has its own agenda and reasons for such a war, and not the one they espouse on a regular basis.
Laenis
27-01-2006, 13:50
Nah - Vietnam was far worse. Done for a far flimsier reason (How dare they want communism over feudalism, and not want a corrupt moralistic catholic ruler when 90% are buddhist? WE know whats best for their country, damn filthy gooks!) and with far more atrocities committed by the Americans.

Plus, far far more of the population supported the resistance. Vietnam has an old historical culture involving pushing out invaders - America would never have being able to squash an insurgency that determind, despite what some manic flag wavering nationalists say that cannot accept their country failed.

Iraq was maybe done for pretty stupid reasons, but at least it did get rid of Saddam, and most of the population supported that. The atrocities are rarer in Iraq, and the insurgency is more extremist and has less support from the public.

Iraq was a little unjustified and not executed as well as it could have being, whilst Vietnam was a fucking disgrace.
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 13:52
its the 21st century's vietnam for the americans
its our malaysia

in fact it will be worse

to quote Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell on the Iraq war "I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes - oh my God- Vietnam."

Iraq has a history of resistance to foreign powers (they managed to force the british out last time we invaded) also the majority of the resistance is the general population not hard line extremists.

The resistance falls into several main groups
The Baathists (there is a comma in there somewhere but can't remember where) who are the most professional group with lots of money and large numbers of ex military.
The Mhardists (might have spelt that wrong) who are more religious and more likerly to use suicide attacks.
The general resistance which is made up of normal people who are defending their areas or are attacking the occupying forces due to the fact that they have had things happen to them (i.e. family/friends have been killed/detained/tortured or just because they really hate soldiers from another country swanning about their country)

Human rights abuse:
White phosphorus, mines, napalm, air denial weapons all of these have been used.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo bay and there are more (unfortunently I can't remember their names off the top of my head) where huge human rights abuses have happened.
Falluja a city which was utterly destroyed where the civillian population was intentionally attacked and then deprived of medical treatment.
Well documented human rights abuses by allied kurdish and iraqi forces.
The more or less attempted ethnic cleansing of the Turkoman in northen iraq.

Divide and rule:
The promotion of certain groups over others in an attempt to stir up hatred between groups.
Attempts to drive iraq into civil war (i'm talking about such things as the british special forces men who were arrested by iraqi police while dressed as members of the mahdi army in the possesion of bomb components, the british army later attempted to release them by force but were stopped by the local population, later that night the army tried again, driving a tank through the wall of the police station killing a number of policemen and freeing the special forces men).

Free speech:
you are not allowed to have a newspaper/radio station/tv station without permision from the occupying forces, this means you are not allowed to argue with occupation forces.
Peaceful demonstrations are fired on (remember those red caps who got killed well they fired on a peaceful demonstration killing a number of protestors, the demonstrators and their friends then went home and got their guns and came back thats what happened).
Total spin by western media (very few tell anything like the truth even now)
active policy of killing journelists who may not do as they are told (we are talking a lot of journelists here)
an academic was arrested for talking against the ruling kurdish group, this group is allied to the americans.

There is a joke I like and it goes like this.
George Bush has done the one thing no one else has, he's managed to unite iraq (against him).

also i'll leave you with this thought (god that sounds preachy) while saddam was a complete bastard, he was their bastard....
Randomlittleisland
27-01-2006, 13:53
1. Once again, the military is not being allowed to fight, in such a way, as to achieve complete victory.

What do you think they should do?
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 13:55
So you're saying that if the US pulls out north iraq will invade south iraq? Damn, that means according to the domino theory, eventually the whole world will end up being dominated by the insurgents.

Allahu akbar:p
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 13:57
Exactly what it says on the tin. What do you think?

My personal belief is hell yes.
Iraq could have been won, had the US sendt in 150,000 more troops, there simply are not enough boots on the ground to occupy a country that size..

Now the US is screwed, beeing there is just a waste of time, and more marines get home in wooden boxes, ONE COULD HAVE WON, had the first attack been supported by 330,000 american troops+ allies...
Kievan-Prussia
27-01-2006, 14:04
to quote Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell on the Iraq war "I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes - oh my God- Vietnam."

How the hell did that man become a Colonel?
BackwoodsSquatches
27-01-2006, 14:09
What do you think they should do?


Tough gig that.

Now that America is so entrenched in this confrontation, no matter how else I feel about it, the last thing I want to see, is this whole fiasco drug out another five years.
If that means that americas full military capabilities must be brought to bear to achieve unparalled victory, then so be it.

America has the capability, even without the need for a draft, to quickly squash any organized insurgency.
Allow the soldiers to do thier job, and leave the politicians at home where they belong, and this whole ugly scene could be over in six months, to a year.

Im against this war, and any other war engineered mainly for profit, but if our forces must get involved, making this whole thing as breif as possible, is the only option I can accept.
Filling the ranks of Iraqi security would be a top priority, so that we can take more of our troops home.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:09
Iraq could have been won, had the US sendt in 150,000 more troops, there simply are not enough boots on the ground to occupy a country that size..

Now the US is screwed, beeing there is just a waste of time, and more marines get home in wooden boxes, ONE COULD HAVE WON, had the first attack been supported by 330,000 american troops+ allies...


You say being there is just a waste of time. So you think the Iraq's will not be able to establish a government and the insergents will take over????
Laenis
27-01-2006, 14:11
How the hell did that man become a Colonel?

You can be a colonel and still be pessimistic...

What would be the point in having an army full of colonels who were convinced the war was always going really well no matter the reality, and that the government and rest of staff were acting perfectly? You can't just have a bunch of yes men in a war - people on the ground have to be critical so they can feed back ways to improve things to people higher up.

It's like that ancient general (Forgot his name or side, think he was Persian) who killed any officer which reported bad news during a battle - when he fought the Romans, no one would dare tell him what was happening when he started loosing so he couldn't do anything and was soundly defeated.

Although I personally think this guy is overexagerrating. Like I say, Vietnam was far worse.
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 14:13
You say being there is just a waste of time. So you think the Iraq's will not be able to establish a government and the insergents will take over????

Yes.....
And they will make some government after the US has left, but with these troop number there is no victory for the US..

Never fight a battle you can't win....

Had there been 300,000 troops in iraq, the US would have won, and had some puppet rule the countrey for years, until something happened to the puppet anyways................
Kievan-Prussia
27-01-2006, 14:14
You can be a colonel and still be pessimistic...

What would be the point in having an army full of colonels who were convinced the war was always going really well no matter the reality, and that the government and rest of staff were acting perfectly? You can't just have a bunch of yes men in a war - people on the ground have to be critical so they can feed back ways to improve things to people higher up.

There's a difference between "This war isn't going so well" and "OMG THIS IS THE WORST WAR DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!"
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 14:14
You can be a colonel and still be pessimistic...



Although I personally think this guy is overexagerrating. Like I say, Vietnam was far worse.

IN nubers of killed yes, but when it comes to its importence in history, iraq might just be the thing that sets it of, and something totaley big happenes there
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:17
You can be a colonel and still be pessimistic...

What would be the point in having an army full of colonels who were convinced the war was always going really well no matter the reality, and that the government and rest of staff were acting perfectly? You can't just have a bunch of yes men in a war - people on the ground have to be critical so they can feed back ways to improve things to people higher up.

It's like that ancient general (Forgot his name or side, think he was Persian) who killed any officer which reported bad news during a battle - when he fought the Romans, no one would dare tell him what was happening when he started loosing so he couldn't do anything and was soundly defeated.

Although I personally think this guy is overexagerrating. Like I say, Vietnam was far worse.


You might be talking about Xerexs a Persian King who fought the Greeks. The Spartans held him, for a while, at Thermopoly with 300 some odd men.

I agree with you Vietnam was far worse.
Laenis
27-01-2006, 14:21
There's a difference between "This war isn't going so well" and "OMG THIS IS THE WORST WAR DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!"

Eh, like I say, he's exagerrating - but maybe that's what he's seen? I mean, he probably knows a lot more than either of us about these things since he's actually being in the thick of it, and is a qualified officer.

It just makes me a little confused when people praise an officer if he is completely optimistic and self confident, and has a "We simply cannot loose!" attitude, yet call anyone who goes to the other extreme and is convinced things are going really badly a really bad officer and a traitor. They are both as bad as each other, surely?
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:21
Yes.....
And they will make some government after the US has left, but with these troop number there is no victory for the US..

Never fight a battle you can't win....

Had there been 300,000 troops in iraq, the US would have won, and had some puppet rule the countrey for years, until something happened to the puppet anyways................


Isn't a legetimate government better than a US puppet? What makes you think the Iraq's can't manage a legetimate government?
Psychotic Mongooses
27-01-2006, 14:21
There's a difference between "This war isn't going so well" and "OMG THIS IS THE WORST WAR DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!"
Its called 'foresight'.
BackwoodsSquatches
27-01-2006, 14:22
Isn't a legetimate government better than a US puppet? What makes you think the Iraq's can't manage a legetimate government?


What makes you think it wont be a US puppet?

Remember what Iraq has plenty of ?
Laenis
27-01-2006, 14:25
You might be talking about Xerexs a Persian King who fought the Greeks. The Spartans held him, for a while, at Thermopoly with 300 some odd men.


Hmm...I'm not sure. I remeber it from an episode of Time Commanders, a British show where a team gets to replay a historical battle using the Rome Total War engine. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thermopoly and they were fighting Romans - all I remeber was that the Romans, or whoever they were, were massively outnumbered, it was in the east. and in the real battle they won because the enemy Cataphracts panicked and charged into their own men. I think.
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 14:26
Isn't a legetimate government better than a US puppet? What makes you think the Iraq's can't manage a legetimate government?
I didnt mean it like that, but why would the us let someone not theirs to form the government, the point is only, and i take no side in this war, that if the is wants to win they need more troops
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:28
What makes you think it wont be a US puppet?

Remember what Iraq has plenty of ?


Yeah, well if we actually get oil from Iraq, I'll worry about that. Far as I know Iraq's oil goes to France, I doubt we've gone to the trouble to get cheap oil for France.

The US gets its oil from Saudi Arabia and S. America.
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 14:28
he's not saying its the worst disaster ever

hes just saying its in his opinon worse.

remember this has only just started

it will get worse

my greatgrandfather was there the last time britain invaded iraq.

hundreds of casulties each month from guerilla attacks.

eventually they gave up and went over to rule by air attack

so basicly they just bombed people into the ground

thats the nearest we've ever got to control

i've looked at whats happened (and i'm well informed having information from independant journelists, non combatant civilians as well as combatants from both sides) and there is no way having more troops will make this better

it would make it worse.

Basicly my point is this, you may not lose but you can't win
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 14:31
Yeah, well if we actually get oil from Iraq, I'll worry about that. Far as I know Iraq's oil goes to France, I doubt we've gone to the trouble to get cheap oil for France.

The US gets its oil from Saudi Arabia and S. America.


yes and where do you get most of your oil

Thats right from the country run by Chavez........

the country you threatened to invade......

run by the man you made clear you want to assasinate.......
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:32
I didnt mean it like that, but why would the us let someone not theirs to form the government, the point is only, and i take no side in this war, that if the is wants to win they need more troops


If you change the word Win to Occupy I'd agree. But I don't think we're there to Occupy the country, I think we accually want a government of the people of Iraq and that meets our objective. I think we have enough troops for that Goal.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:40
Hmm...I'm not sure. I remeber it from an episode of Time Commanders, a British show where a team gets to replay a historical battle using the Rome Total War engine. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thermopoly and they were fighting Romans - all I remeber was that the Romans, or whoever they were, were massively outnumbered, it was in the east. and in the real battle they won because the enemy Cataphracts panicked and charged into their own men. I think.


Ha, I can see me later surfing the cable channels and the wife objecting. My explaination is I've got to find "Time Commanders" to see what this Brit on the internet was talking about :-)
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:44
yes and where do you get most of your oil

Thats right from the country run by Chavez........

the country you threatened to invade......

run by the man you made clear you want to assasinate.......


But won't we just deal with that problem. Iraq still has nothing to do with US oil. If or when it does, you might have a point.
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 14:46
yeah its a really cool show

I just wish they'd do one with the english civil war or the medaevil ones (can't spell in english dammit) or even the napolionic wars

that would be very cool

though of course they went for the ancient ones as very few people got grudes about them any more so more with the selling of the program overseas

if that sounds odd please remember i've been talking with my best friend and she does talk a bit like a teenage yoda on speed.
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 14:52
Ha, I can see me later surfing the cable channels and the wife objecting. My explaination is I've got to find "Time Commanders" to see what this Brit on the internet was talking about :-)
I LOVE to plat rome total war, i have to real one, and BI, BI isn't that cool, it has lost its feel, and the roman suck ass in it, if your not eastern rome that is, but that is more byzant, there is a new rome comming soon, i can't wait


would be cool, if they could make some cind of modern rome total war, think of it tanks, choppers, airbattles dough would be fought same way, nearley the same way at least as sea battles are now
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 14:54
If you change the word Win to Occupy I'd agree. But I don't think we're there to Occupy the country, I think we accually want a government of the people of Iraq and that meets our objective. I think we have enough troops for that Goal.

You don't your loosing every day, the battle of falluja was only won by using gas! There is no way that 150.000 troops can win the war, they are just getting killed for no reason, either you fight a war so that you can win it or you don't fight at all, america has screwed it self big time
Laenis
27-01-2006, 14:54
Ha, I can see me later surfing the cable channels and the wife objecting. My explaination is I've got to find "Time Commanders" to see what this Brit on the internet was talking about :-)

I really like it, but it does get annoying how dumb some of the teams are. One time they were playing this battle as the Celts versus the Romans. There was a small Roman army up ahead of them, beyond a large hill, and way behind them was another army coming to reinforce the first. The best plan would be to quickly march over the hill and destroy the first army, then regroup on top of the hill to meet the one coming from behind. However, the idiots only cared about holding the high ground. They marched up to the hill, stopped there, didn't even form up their troops but left them scattered, and let the two armies attack from both sides. Was a massacre.

yeah its a really cool show

I just wish they'd do one with the english civil war or the medaevil ones (can't spell in english dammit) or even the napolionic wars

that would be very cool


It's mostly because the Rome Total War engine only has ancient troop models. However, they did attempt to do the Battle of Stamford bridge, but the remade troops were quite basic and they used substitutes - e.g German Beserker units were used to portray the Vikings.
Pepe Dominguez
27-01-2006, 14:57
Ha, I can see me later surfing the cable channels and the wife objecting. My explaination is I've got to find "Time Commanders" to see what this Brit on the internet was talking about :-)

You don't get the History Channel in Michigan? :p We do get that show in this hemisphere.. I've seen it. :)
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 14:59
I LOVE to plat rome total war, i have to real one, and BI, BI isn't that cool, it has lost its feel, and the roman suck ass in it, if your not eastern rome that is, but that is more byzant, there is a new rome comming soon, i can't wait


would be cool, if they could make some cind of modern rome total war, think of it tanks, choppers, airbattles dough would be fought same way, nearley the same way at least as sea battles are now


Yep, it's a good game. Barbarian Invasion is different, you have to sack some cities before you decide to crank up production.

Looks around for a topic... hmm it was around here somewhere, musta lost it.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:03
You don't get the History Channel in Michigan? :p We do get that show in this hemisphere.. I've seen it. :)

Clearly I just don't watch enough TV. Thanks! for the excuse to tune in on the History Channel.
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 15:03
I know but they originally used one of the earlier engines (I think when they started they might have been useing the shogun total war! engine or the meadival total war engine)

I'm talking about the original british version (I haven't been able to see a tv in a year (i'm in uni) and I think there is an american series as well) so it is a few years ago
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 15:05
I don't think a modern one would work

anything where you have that long range artilary or aircraft would be hard.

i'm thinking latest you could do would be the russian japanese war and the boer wars
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:07
You don't your loosing every day, the battle of falluja was only won by using gas! There is no way that 150.000 troops can win the war, they are just getting killed for no reason, either you fight a war so that you can win it or you don't fight at all, america has screwed it self big time


We will have to wait and see. I disagree with you that more numbers would help, or that the soldiers there are waisting there time/lives. The answer will be in the new Iraqi government and we won't know that answer for a while.
Laenis
27-01-2006, 15:08
I know but they originally used one of the earlier engines (I think when they started they might have been useing the shogun total war! engine or the meadival total war engine)

I'm talking about the original british version (I haven't been able to see a tv in a year (i'm in uni) and I think there is an american series as well) so it is a few years ago

I don't think they used the STW or MTW engine...I think the original series had a prototype engine of RTW. It was shown before the actual game was released so it was pretty good and made me really want to buy the game when it came out.

There is an American series, called "Decisive battles" or something, but it's just where they use the RTW engine to demonstrate how a historical battle played out, there wasn't any teams trying to fight the battle or anything.
Eutrusca
27-01-2006, 15:09
Exactly what it says on the tin. What do you think?

My personal belief is hell yes.
Then you know nothing about Vietnam.

I'll add this, just in case: any so-called "protestors" who resort to the same damned "tactics" to which they resorted during Vietnam will answer to me and other Vietnam veterans. We will not stand idly by and allow these fine young men and women fighting in Iraq to be disrespected. You want a war? You'll have one. End of line.
Candelar
27-01-2006, 15:14
Isn't a legetimate government better than a US puppet? What makes you think the Iraq's can't manage a legetimate government?
Because the US won't let them unless that legitimate government supports US policy.

Imagine the Iraqis had elected a government which said "Americans - thank you for liberating us. Now please go home immediately, and, by the way, we intend to cancel all the contracts made with US companies while you were here and put them up for genuinely open international tender." Do you really think that government would survive for long? Washington would immediately find ways to challenge its legitimacy, undermine it, and stay put.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:16
Then you know nothing about Vietnam.

I'll add this, just in case: any so-called "protestors" who resort to the same damned "tactics" to which they resorted during Vietnam will answer to me and other Vietnam veterans. We will not stand idly by and allow these fine young men and women fighting in Iraq to be disrespected. You want a war? You'll have one. End of line.


Eutrusca, if you're ever in Michigan you have to let me know. I'd like to buy you a beer.
Eutrusca
27-01-2006, 15:18
Eutrusca, if you're ever in Michigan you have to let me know. I'd like to buy you a beer.
All beer is gratefully accepted! :D

Thank you, GD, but I would love to know what prompted that. :)
JuNii
27-01-2006, 15:19
Because the US won't let them unless that legitimate government supports US policy.

Imagine the Iraqis had elected a government which said "Americans - thank you for liberating us. Now please go home immediately, and, by the way, we intend to cancel all the contracts made with US companies while you were here and put them up for genuinely open international tender." Do you really think that government would survive for long? Washington would immediately find ways to challenge its legitimacy, undermine it, and stay put.yes. we would leave. it's happened before. a Government says "Thanks, but we don't want you and your bases anymore." and the US moves out.

now if they ask us by bombing and kidnapping our citizens... then that's different.
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 15:19
We will have to wait and see. I disagree with you that more numbers would help, or that the soldiers there are waisting there time/lives. The answer will be in the new Iraqi government and we won't know that answer for a while.
Whn occupying number are all that helps, this swat teaming against insurgent stronhoalds is not working, america will loose in 5 years if it does not dobble number off american boots on the ground
Gassputia2
27-01-2006, 15:20
yes. we would leave. it's happened before. a Government says "Thanks, but we don't want you and your bases anymore." and the US moves out.

different.
And where was that might I ask?
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 15:22
oh my mistake about the engines though it was just it was such a long time ago I assumed.

i'm not disrespecting the soldiers of Britain, America or of any of the other nations involved in the conflict.

I in fact care about them much more then our governments do as i'd prefer them not to die in a pointless war that they can't win.

I think this especially as I went to a school in a poor area where large numbers of the students were expected to go into the army, what we have in britain (and i'm sure in america) is conscription by poverty, I'd rather not have people like me go and die for something which doesn't benefit them in any way or anyone they know.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:22
Because the US won't let them unless that legitimate government supports US policy.

Imagine the Iraqis had elected a government which said "Americans - thank you for liberating us. Now please go home immediately, and, by the way, we intend to cancel all the contracts made with US companies while you were here and put them up for genuinely open international tender." Do you really think that government would survive for long? Washington would immediately find ways to challenge its legitimacy, undermine it, and stay put.


Maybe, but I think in this case supporting US policy is easy. The New Government simply has to stand against the insergents/terrorist and we're happy. This isn't about making money, we're not going to make back the money it cost to have our troops there. No amount of money is worth the blood spilt. US interests are satisfied with a stable, non hostile government. We believe a government of the people will be non hostile.
Laenis
27-01-2006, 15:28
Then you know nothing about Vietnam.

I'll add this, just in case: any so-called "protestors" who resort to the same damned "tactics" to which they resorted during Vietnam will answer to me and other Vietnam veterans. We will not stand idly by and allow these fine young men and women fighting in Iraq to be disrespected. You want a war? You'll have one. End of line.

Just out of curiousity, what about those who actually do treat the native population badly in these kind of wars? Surely you wouldn't want to call someone who goes around calling the population "gooks" or "sand niggers" a "fine young man"?

Not everyone in the military is great. Far from it. I think those who DO behave like complete bastards should be humiliated and disrespected. If I was a soilder, I would definitely want those who gave my profession a bad name treated like they deserved.

Obviously the problem is that people can't tell between those who are just doing their job or who are maybe doing it for nobler reasons, and the real bastards who joined the military to kill foreigners. On the other hand, you shouldn't put the military on a pedestal and never criticise a thing it does or that just worsens the problem and let soilders think they can get away with anything, and they'll still get respect because anyone who doesn't respect a soilder is a traitor.

I personally would like to see a kind of system where troops can anonomously report any soilder who has being disrespecting civilians and behaving in barbaric ways towards the enemy, this be investigated quietly, then those who it is undeniable were like that could be booed and spat on whilst those who behaved with honor given the respect they deserve. After all, everyone who pays taxes is supporting the military, and so soilders should be held accountable to the population.

bviously there's problems with this - popular bastards wouldn't get snitched on but unpopular good people would, but I think it's a better idea than just sitting back and saying that as long as they were never formally convicted (A lot of the time people can do stuff to not warrant a charge, but still do pretty bad stuff, such as making racist comments and talking down to civilians. Or a blind eye is turned by senior officers.) a soilder is perfect and godly.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:29
All beer is gratefully accepted! :D

Thank you, GD, but I would love to know what prompted that. :)

You implied you were a Vietnam Vet, or maybe just a Veteran I'm not sure. I'll also appreacited the comment you made, I don't think people understand what Vietnam was like and don't really apreciate the conflict that happened.

Anyway, really, if you plan on being in Michigan let me know. I'd be curious were you served.
Fritzhollanderland
27-01-2006, 15:31
Your view is remarkably simplistic. Perhaps you should actually study the history of the both nations leading up to the respective wars, the methods by which both "wars" are/were fought and the US goals in each.

Even a cursory study would reveal they are remarkably dis-similar.

In fact, the conflict in the Balkans are much more closely related to the Vietnam situation than Iraq.
Evoleerf
27-01-2006, 15:35
I think the question being asked is will this war be as bad for america as vietnam.

rather then is this war exactly like vietnam (which it won't be as its not vietnam and this isn't the 60's)
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:36
Just out of curiousity, what about those who actually do treat the native population badly in these kind of wars? Surely you wouldn't want to call someone who goes around calling the population "gooks" or "sand niggers" a "fine young man"?

Not everyone in the military is great. Far from it. I think those who DO behave like complete bastards should be humiliated and disrespected. If I was a soilder, I would definitely want those who gave my profession a bad name treated like they deserved.

Obviously the problem is that people can't tell between those who are just doing their job or who are maybe doing it for nobler reasons, and the real bastards who joined the military to kill foreigners. On the other hand, you shouldn't put the military on a pedestal and never criticise a thing it does or that just worsens the problem and let soilders think they can get away with anything, and they'll still get respect because anyone who doesn't respect a soilder is a traitor.

I personally would like to see a kind of system where troops can anonomously report any soilder who has being disrespecting civilians and behaving in barbaric ways towards the enemy, this be investigated quietly, then those who it is undeniable were like that could be booed and spat on whilst those who behaved with honor given the respect they deserve. After all, everyone who pays taxes is supporting the military, and so soilders should be held accountable to the population.

bviously there's problems with this - popular bastards wouldn't get snitched on but unpopular good people would, but I think it's a better idea than just sitting back and saying that as long as they were never formally convicted (A lot of the time people can do stuff to not warrant a charge, but still do pretty bad stuff, such as making racist comments and talking down to civilians. Or a blind eye is turned by senior officers.) a soilder is perfect and godly.


I think you underestimate US military training. If you get the chance take time and talk to some soldiers about what it's like. Sure, bad people do bad things, but the military takes moral and interaction with locals much more seriously than you seem to think.
Eutrusca
27-01-2006, 15:39
You implied you were a Vietnam Vet, or maybe just a Veteran I'm not sure. I'll also appreacited the comment you made, I don't think people understand what Vietnam was like and don't really apreciate the conflict that happened.

Anyway, really, if you plan on being in Michigan let me know. I'd be curious were you served.
You need to enable signatures. I was in Vietnam for two years and in the military ( for credited years toward retirement ) for 19 years and one month, until I was almost killed in a military parachute jump gone bad.
Candelar
27-01-2006, 15:41
Maybe, but I think in this case supporting US policy is easy. The New Government simply has to stand against the insergents/terrorist and we're happy. This isn't about making money, we're not going to make back the money it cost to have our troops there.
I expect you will given enough time. But it's not simply about Americans as a whole making money, but particular groups of Americans doing so. US taxpayers as a whole may make a loss, but the companies which go into Iraq (i.e. GWB's friends) will make a net gain.
No amount of money is worth the blood spilt. US interests are satisfied with a stable, non hostile government.
Saddam's government was stable, even under sanctions (which, if anything, strengthened Saddam within Iraq), and while it might have made hostile noises (which is every government's right) it did not pose a threat to the USA. There's no evidence that he had WMDs, I don't think anyone even claimed that he had the means to deliver them to the USA, and he was not a friend of Islamic terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda.
We believe a government of the people will be non hostile.
Like the newly-elected government of the Palestinian people? :)
JuNii
27-01-2006, 15:45
And where was that might I ask?
Four that I can remember right out are...
Phillipines (asked the US to leave)
Uzbekistan (asked the US to leave)
Haiti (Job Done)
Frankfurt (in the process of closing bases there, if not closed already.)

I'm sure those in the military can give more...

while at the same time, I do aknowledge the fact that we are opening more bases, but they are with the agreement of the hosting country.
Laenis
27-01-2006, 15:48
I think you underestimate US military training. If you get the chance take time and talk to some soldiers about what it's like. Sure, bad people do bad things, but the military takes moral and interaction with locals much more seriously than you seem to think.

It's not just the US military, it's all militaries. Stuff has being done by the British soilders in Iraq after all and personally I want more accountability so I can know for sure if a soilder was a bastard and deserves my disrespect or a noble man and deserves my respect.

The fact is, no matter how good the training, militaries will always attract some of the worst elements of a society. I'm NOT saying people who join the military are all bad people - far from it, my grandfather served in the military. Most people who join up will do so for good reasons. However, there are some people around who see the military as a great excuse to go over to a country and act like the sort of person they want to be.

Those are the sort of people who committed the massacre at Mai Lai. Those are the sort of people who broke the geneva conventions regarding Iraqi prisoners. Every army throughout history has had them. For example, when an army used to storm a besieged castle or fortress, often many of the troops would go into an orgy of rape, pillage and murder on the settlers inhabitants. On the other hand. there were always soilders who stood against them and defended the innocents.

Maybe if people knew that if they acted like bastards they might get a bad reputation when they got home, but if not they'd get treated with respect, they'd supress their urges a little more.
Eutrusca
27-01-2006, 15:49
Just out of curiousity, what about those who actually do treat the native population badly in these kind of wars? Surely you wouldn't want to call someone who goes around calling the population "gooks" or "sand niggers" a "fine young man"?

Not everyone in the military is great. Far from it. I think those who DO behave like complete bastards should be humiliated and disrespected. If I was a soilder, I would definitely want those who gave my profession a bad name treated like they deserved.

Obviously the problem is that people can't tell between those who are just doing their job or who are maybe doing it for nobler reasons, and the real bastards who joined the military to kill foreigners. On the other hand, you shouldn't put the military on a pedestal and never criticise a thing it does or that just worsens the problem and let soilders think they can get away with anything, and they'll still get respect because anyone who doesn't respect a soilder is a traitor.

I personally would like to see a kind of system where troops can anonomously report any soilder who has being disrespecting civilians and behaving in barbaric ways towards the enemy, this be investigated quietly, then those who it is undeniable were like that could be booed and spat on whilst those who behaved with honor given the respect they deserve. After all, everyone who pays taxes is supporting the military, and so soilders should be held accountable to the population.

bviously there's problems with this - popular bastards wouldn't get snitched on but unpopular good people would, but I think it's a better idea than just sitting back and saying that as long as they were never formally convicted (A lot of the time people can do stuff to not warrant a charge, but still do pretty bad stuff, such as making racist comments and talking down to civilians. Or a blind eye is turned by senior officers.) a soilder is perfect and godly.
You seem to think that it's more important for a soldier to be politicially correct than to be highly trained and motivated. Soldiers are expected to put their lives on the line in order to win.

The US military is disproportionately far less prejudiced than the civilian population. The cost for being a bigot in the military is exceedingly high, and is not tolerated.

Any soldier can report any other soldier for suspected violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ).

The percentage of bigoted people who join the military is extremely low, and those few who do are very quickly dissuaded from being so, usually while undergoing training. Try telling a 6'4" 260 lb African-American Drill Instructor that you don't like "n***ers." I guarantee you will be squared away so fast that your head will spin rapidly enough to become separated from your shoulders!

More to the point, if you're depending upon people of other races, colors or religions to watch your back, you learn very quickly that the battlefield knows no such categories.
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 15:49
You need to enable signatures. I was in Vietnam for two years and in the military ( for credited years toward retirement ) for 19 years and one month, until I was almost killed in a military parachute jump gone bad.

How do I enable signatures?

And Thank You! for Serving our Country.
Eutrusca
27-01-2006, 16:00
How do I enable signatures?

And Thank You! for Serving our Country.
I think you need to click on the small button at the top left of the page entitled "profile." The "enable signatures" option is on one of those pages. Someone correct or elaborate on this for me, please!

Thank you for the "thank you." It seemed like a good idea at the time. :)
Gifted Dragon
27-01-2006, 16:09
I think you need to click on the small button at the top left of the page entitled "profile." The "enable signatures" option is on one of those pages. Someone correct or elaborate on this for me, please!

Thank you for the "thank you." It seemed like a good idea at the time. :)


Ok, I'm slow but trainable, I see your signature.
Laenis
27-01-2006, 16:21
You seem to think that it's more important for a soldier to be politicially correct than to be highly trained and motivated. Soldiers are expected to put their lives on the line in order to win.

The US military is disproportionately far less prejudiced than the civilian population. The cost for being a bigot in the military is exceedingly high, and is not tolerated.

Any soldier can report any other soldier for suspected violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ).

The percentage of bigoted people who join the military is extremely low, and those few who do are very quickly dissuaded from being so, usually while undergoing training. Try telling a 6'4" 260 lb African-American Drill Instructor that you don't like "n***ers." I guarantee you will be squared away so fast that your head will spin rapidly enough to become separated from your shoulders!

More to the point, if you're depending upon people of other races, colors or religions to watch your back, you learn very quickly that the battlefield knows no such categories.


See, now I think you are just plain ignoring the facts. If the US army was oh so perfect and not a single soilder was a bigot, then how do you explain the numerous personal accounts of soilders from Vietnam saying that they didn't respect the Vietnamese one single bit, often mistreated them and sometimes even did worse?

I'm not saying it happened in every or even most squads, but the fact remains that unless these people are plain lying just to get people to hate them, it did happen.

Like I say, it is a regrettable truth that some people who cannot let their agression and prejudice sometimes are attracted to the military. In the past, when people overall were less respectful for human life, this was more of a problem - for example the sieges that I mention. Nowadays it is not as bad and it has become a case of a "few bad eggs" - but saying "Nope! Everyone's perfect! Bow down to your betters in the army!" is just going to make the problem worse. A few bad eggs can corrupt better soilders - especially if they manage to get in a position of power. Most likely at Mai Lai not all the soilders were evil people, they were just corrupted by one or a few comrades.

By the way, i'm not talking about bigots specifically - they might not have a problem with black people at all, but become convinced that the enemy is just not as human as themselves, and shouldn't be treated like one. You have to be able to see a person as not really a person to treat them as such, to block out feelings of empathy.
Whallop
27-01-2006, 16:30
You seem to think that it's more important for a soldier to be politicially correct than to be highly trained and motivated. Soldiers are expected to put their lives on the line in order to win.

The US military is disproportionately far less prejudiced than the civilian population. The cost for being a bigot in the military is exceedingly high, and is not tolerated.

Any soldier can report any other soldier for suspected violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ).

The percentage of bigoted people who join the military is extremely low, and those few who do are very quickly dissuaded from being so, usually while undergoing training. Try telling a 6'4" 260 lb African-American Drill Instructor that you don't like "n***ers." I guarantee you will be squared away so fast that your head will spin rapidly enough to become separated from your shoulders!

More to the point, if you're depending upon people of other races, colors or religions to watch your back, you learn very quickly that the battlefield knows no such categories.

What you stated has nothing to do with bigotry against the opponent but all with bigotry in the services themselves.
Part of the training in the army & marines is aimed at dehumanizing the enemy and desensitizing recruits that they are shooting humans. A side effect of this is that the enemy tends to get a derogatory nickname at the very least and at worst you get people willing to cooperate in the next ahu-graib since they see nothing wrong with that against the enemy.
This training is what makes the US army and marines so damn good at fighting a war. It is also makes them the the wrong choice for police actions (with the possible exception of the MP).
Brantor
27-01-2006, 16:37
Criticism of the military shouldnt be taken as personal attacks. I agree that you cant put the military on the pedestal, especially when it is the public tool of a democracy.

I'm not saying soldiers are all bigots or whatever but I have seen so much footage of US soldiers operating in a way that is only going to piss people off. Ie pointing thier guns everywhere, barging into houses, not removing helmets or sunglasses when talking to locals like the British do, scream and swearing at people when they can't understand directions in english. I have also seen quite a few clips of American soldiers firing without an identified target, one clip from a documentary on SBS (an Australian channel) had US soldiers just leeting rip in a market place after a single insugent fired a couple of shots at them. All the soldiers managed to do was kill some civillians becuase they didnt actualyl see where the insurgent was but didnt think that no target wasn't a good enough reason not to "F****** SHOOT"

I believe the US military is almost incapable of running a large scale security operation, its strength is offensive operations and both the attitude of its sodliers and its training reflects this. Read the following articles

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030409-british-tactics01.htm

I have also talked to some Australian military personal who have trained with US soldiers and while they were extremely impressed with the equipment the US soldiers had they seemed less keen about their military professionalism.

That said I feel sorry for the soldiers. Risking their lives for jack shit and being lead to death by a government that has lied to them. I am also against people attacking military personal simply becuase of thier profession.

Mitigating circumstances aside this war is very similar to vietnam, an unpopular war fought on false pretences draining a countries money and lifeblood for no gain. I believe a nations defence forces should only be used in defence, pre empitive strikes are not defence, or for peace keeping missions.
The Abomination
27-01-2006, 18:02
As far as I'm concerned, some soldiers are walking turds who like to loot and pillage. But how am I gonna know them on the street? Whereas every soldier who has been in a combat zone has put his life on the line for me. So I will automatically tend towards respect and heartfelt thanks until proven different.

An interesting factor that tends to persuade me towards Vietnam and Iraq being similar is that nature of the 'home front' - i.e. in both cases, there is no sign of any attempt to mobilise the economy or the populace in support of the war. Considering that this capacity to inflame the passions of the people and make them part of the war effort is a major contributing factor to the military superiority of democracies it is strange that neither in Iraq or Vietnam was/is there anything more than a cursory attempt to rally the masses. A serious mistake, in my opinion, that demonstrates that the US government isn't fighting to win a war, but attempting to create a new member of its hegemon.

Not that I'm ideologically opposed to the concept, mind you, but it hasn't really worked in the past and I doubt it will now.