|
||
|
Title: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 24th, 2007, 6:59pm Quote:
And the politicians have succeded in creating another Nam. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Jonny on Jan 24th, 2007, 7:11pm Yeah, it sounds fimiliar that our guys can RETURN fire, but have to ASK PERMISSION to engage the enemy when they come across them. What a fucking sick mother fucking joke....politicians are the ones getting our guys killed!! |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by floridian on Jan 24th, 2007, 7:29pm on 01/24/07 at 19:11:39, Jonny wrote:
The only politicians that have had any real influence on the mission and the methods used in Iraq are named George and Dick. The possiblity that the Senate might pass a symbolic resolution saying they don't like things wouldn't change a thing. The current administration has had a free hand to do whatever they have wanted, and if any Americans get credit for killing our guys, it should be them. Get over your Stockholm syndrome, Jonny! |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by JeffB on Jan 24th, 2007, 7:35pm on 01/24/07 at 18:59:42, Bob P wrote:
So our national interest as of now is to send everyone home? If we did that I hope that I am alive in twenty years to see what that region would look like. How about we consider winning and finishing the job for national interests sake, for a change! |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by floridian on Jan 24th, 2007, 7:49pm The bipartisan Baker Commission (headed by President Reagan's former Sec. of State) made it clear that it was in our best interest to see this as primarily a political problem, and act accordingly. Unfortunately, that advice from some of America's best has fallen on deaf ears. How many times in the last month has President Bush pretended that there is no other plan than his? The current strategy is not working, and there is no reason to believe that a 12% increase in the current strategy will be any better. The increase in troop levels will happen regardless of what the Congress or the American public thinks. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Jonny on Jan 24th, 2007, 7:50pm Why is it that it took seven days to kill this hotel? U.S. Air Force Drops a 2,000 Pound Bomb. Marines took small arms fire and RPG fire from mutiple levels and windows from this hotel. After two HELL FIRE missions from a Apache the ... all » Marines pulled back and called the Air Force to demolish the hotel with a 2,000lb bomb. Unknown amount of insurgents killed, could not find any bodies due to the aftermath. The hotel has been vacant and off limits since 2004. No innocent people were killed during this bombing. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=073e598f12 |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Charlie on Jan 24th, 2007, 7:56pm The psychos that we aren't fighting are the scary ones. They want us dead but until we invaded the wrong country, recruiting wasn't so easy. We fixed that. No, I don't want us to lower our guard, just take better aim. It would be less costly in so many ways. It's important that we not forget what we are dealing with. These crackpots are now using this war as a way of getting kids to believe that mass murder is the way to eternal bliss. Not good. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by floridian on Jan 24th, 2007, 8:01pm on 01/24/07 at 19:50:31, Jonny wrote:
It should be obvious - because when the military set their rules of engagement, they didn't go through the normal chain of command - they were waiting for approval from the Liberal Church Association of Greater Duluth. The Association only meets on Tuesday, so sometimes things get delayed a week or so. So you are saying the military is dysfunctional, but that it is the liberal politicians causing the problem? Kinda hard to read that from the video (or the news). |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Guiseppi on Jan 24th, 2007, 8:34pm The enemy has made their mission perfectly clear. Fight them in their country, or fight them here. But we will be fighting them 5 years from now. The only queswtion is where. I don't know why we struggle with the concept when they speak it very clearly. Our options are : 1: Convert to muslim 2: Die Sorry to those of you who can't stomach the horror of war. Leaving Iraq will only change WHERE the fighting occurs, have you forgotting the twin towers already??? These people will not be appeased, they won't "be nice" to us if we suck up to them. Just my two cents. Guiseppi |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Kevin_M on Jan 24th, 2007, 8:48pm on 01/24/07 at 20:34:08, Guiseppi wrote:
And actually the bin Laden extremists aren't so interested in the first option. They forgot to ask us option #1 before the attack. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Jonny on Jan 24th, 2007, 8:50pm on 01/24/07 at 20:34:08, Guiseppi wrote:
3. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e943dcabb3 |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by chewy on Jan 24th, 2007, 8:54pm Quote:
Probably exactly as it did before we went in there. Just new players. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Jonny on Jan 24th, 2007, 9:13pm I would love to know Flos thoughts on this video. If civilians are killed in this fire fight, who do you blame, Flo? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0274aea23 |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by BarbaraD on Jan 25th, 2007, 5:37am The bad part is our kids who are being killed and mamed because of this. This weekend in San Antonio, a hospital is being dedicated to take care of our wounded. This hospital was built with CIVILIAN "donated" money (tax dollars did NOT build it). We can send them over to Iraq to get torn up, but the government isn't taking care of them when they get home. We're having trials for "high" officials (shades of the Nixon era) -- yep it looks a lot like another Nam.... Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by vig on Jan 25th, 2007, 7:11am on 01/24/07 at 18:59:42, Bob P wrote:
Ironically, it's the politicians YOU backed.... :-/ |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jan 25th, 2007, 9:24am on 01/24/07 at 20:34:08, Guiseppi wrote:
I agree, the USA needs to do something about radical extremists. That is why I am so pissed off that Bush decided to make Iraq a democracy when fighting terrorists should have been the highest priority. In terms of forcing Iraq to be a democracy, the USA has done a lot. In terms of fighting terrorists to either protect our future or avenge our past, the USA has done very little. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by chewy on Jan 25th, 2007, 9:30am Quote:
Thats due to Bush's convoluted philosophy that a free domocratic society will defeat terrorists and insurgients. Problem is niether terrorists nor insurgients recognize the concept. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 25th, 2007, 9:36am What made Nam the mess it turned out to be was: The American public lacked the conviction of their forefathers to fight a war to it's successful end; The spinless politicians were more worried about how many votes they would get in the election than they were committed to backig the Pres. in the war effort. Americans never lost a battle in Nam. Escalation, i.e. B-52 strikes on Hanoi, brought the north back to the bargaining table. It's dejavu all over again and I really find it disgusting! |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by sailpappy on Jan 25th, 2007, 9:40am ;;D ;;D I feel the parallels to Nam are indeed over lapping and obvious, not only from a political stand point, but from the tactics used by the Insurgents and the way the populace isn't standing up for their own benefit. Cut and run in the face of any military action and let the insurgents roam about freely without any repercussions from the Locals. Feels just like the South Vietnamese Army did back in the day! Pappy |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Tim_w on Jan 25th, 2007, 9:46am After 9/11 everyone was in favor blasting the hell out of Iraq, Rep and Dem alike But when things go bad its all [BUSH] just my two cents |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by vig on Jan 25th, 2007, 11:02am on 01/25/07 at 09:46:54, Tim_w wrote:
After 9/11, we were in favor of blasting the hell out of Afghanistan, NOT Iraq; that urge came later. no? |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by floridian on Jan 25th, 2007, 11:11am on 01/24/07 at 21:13:43, Jonny wrote:
I realize that sometimes civilians are going to be killed. This is not really an issue to the American people. But the military themselves have had a strong motivation to minimize collateral damage, because the idea that the US is not concerned with civilian life would make their job harder. So they set up their own rules of engagement that balance two objectives - neutralizing hostile forces, and not alienating the occupied population. I would like to see Jonny explain why we ignored (and continue to ignore) military doctrine about the ratio of soldiers to insurgents, or of soldiers to the general population. If we really want to pacify Iraq, we need 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops there according to everything that is taught in our military academies. We have about 150,000 and are raising that to 170,000 ... as the country we are trying to control slides deeper into civil war. Who was it that ignored these basic principles of fighting? Who fired the generals that said we need more troops? What politicians have been naively optimistic about what it would take? |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 25th, 2007, 12:24pm I totally agree with Flo. We should up the troop level! |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by vietvet2tours on Jan 25th, 2007, 12:27pm on 01/25/07 at 12:24:44, Bob P wrote:
|
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jan 25th, 2007, 1:01pm on 01/25/07 at 09:46:54, Tim_w wrote:
No, everyone was in favor of blasting the hell out of terrorists, whether they are in Pakistan, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan........ANYWHERE!!! Bush decided to invaded Iraq instead, because 148 Kurds were killed back in 1982. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by floridian on Jan 25th, 2007, 1:04pm on 01/25/07 at 12:27:06, vietvet2tours wrote:
|
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by drivin_blind on Jan 25th, 2007, 1:31pm We were training the Vietnamese to take over and fight the NVA themselves so we could leave. They had their hands up and surrendering before the last helicopter left. Now that we are older and wiser, we are training the Iraqi's to fight the "insurgents" themselves so we can eventually leave country. We haven't learned a fricken thing. Guess we are waiting for the body count to rise to, oh I guess, 50,000 sounds like a good round number. NO to answer your question, doesn't sound like another Nam to me at all!!! Dick (not the one in Washington). |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 25th, 2007, 1:43pm No I'm not. My view on war is here http://www.pahlow.net/nam/larrys_page.htm |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by floridian on Jan 25th, 2007, 1:48pm on 01/25/07 at 13:43:13, Bob P wrote:
I stand corrected. We do agree on many important points. I don't see the symbolic resolution as a change - except maybe in the way that things are perceived. The Powell Doctrine was not applied in this conflict. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 25th, 2007, 2:14pm My basic feelings on war are: It sucks! Don't do it until you have to. If you do it, do it all the way. Going into this, Iraq, most were all gung ho. Shock and awe! Now most are - oh my, run away home. Just don't set right with me. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by vietvet2tours on Jan 25th, 2007, 2:30pm on 01/25/07 at 13:43:13, Bob P wrote:
|
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by JeffB on Jan 25th, 2007, 2:30pm We went in, we're there, let's finish it this time. What happened to that old saying "What ever it takes"??? >:( |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Charlie on Jan 25th, 2007, 8:09pm Quote:
Yes it is all Bush. He lied. Lied in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and no doubt will have no trouble lying all the way to 2009. When stupidity is coupled with stubborness, the result is a horror story. He's single-handidly responsible for the Democratic majority. The Republicans hate him more and more every day. Iraq is his baby, not the GOP's. The level of strategic ineptitude is stunning. The inhabitants of this part of the world have no real interest in democracy. It's a vague concept and scary for most of them. Democracy comes from within; not imposed by the Son Of George I. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 26th, 2007, 9:42am I admire a man who stands by his convictions, even at the risk of offending his own party! |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Pinkfloyd on Jan 26th, 2007, 4:05pm on 01/26/07 at 09:42:16, Bob P wrote:
If we're still there 10 years from now, which could happen, maybe you'll have a little more understanding of why people were in the streets here in the late 60's and early 70s, placing flowers into the gun muzzles of the National Guard. Maybe you'll be doing it this time in 2017. If we, the citizenry, were 100% behind the war, do you think we'd be in any different a situation in Iraq than we now find ourselves? I doubt it. We seem to care more about how the Iraqis feel about us than how the American citizens feel about it. 30 years and we, the government, have learned absolutely nothing. 4 years of mini-hamburger hills. Absolute bullshit today as it was then. Difficult to respect a man that has THAT as his conviction. To allow our soldiers to go through that...to allow a government that didn't even exist, to dictate how we proceed...BS Might as well put Dr. Phil in charge. Bobw |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Richr8 on Jan 26th, 2007, 4:10pm Here goes another 10 pager. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Bob P on Jan 26th, 2007, 6:50pm Quote:
2017 I'll be fly fishing the Feather River, smoking cigars and peeing in my waders. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Kevin_M on Jan 26th, 2007, 6:51pm on 01/26/07 at 16:05:14, Pinkfloyd wrote:
Makes me wonder how much terrorism dictates how we proceed in Iraq and our own country. South Yemen was the only Marxist entity in the Arab world, North Yemen was a pro-Western military regime. They both came to an unexpected agreement to merge their countries into an entity that would be called the Rebublic of Yemen. Oil had been discovered in the ill-defined border region between the two impoverished countries, a high incentive to resolve their arguments through politics rather than arms. Bin Laden set out to wreck this alliance in 1989 by financing a guerrilla war, insisting upon imposing his own ill-defined notion of Islamic government in place of the peaceful and practical political solution that the Yemens had agreed upon. The brittle union was in danger of breaking apart into civil war once again due to the murderous forays. ----- Algeria, 1992, a military coup prevented the election that an Islamist party was expected to win. At the time, the Islamists were trying to pressure the unpopular miltary government to negotiate with them but took a different direction, with bin Laden's financial aid to the Islamic party, Groupe Islamique Arme', they began to drench the country in blood targeting schools and teachers. In two months alone in 1994, thirty teachers were killed and 538 schools torched. More than 100,000 would die. ----- 1992 Al-Qaeda's duty was to awaken the Islamic nation to the threat posed by the West. In order to do that, bin Laden told his men al-Qaeda would drag America into a war with Islam on "a large scale front which it cannot control," it was his duty to promote such a clash. ---- 1995 - Egypt Attempted assasination of President Hosni Mubarak. Al-Qaeda's second in charge, Ayman al-Zawahiri, saw if Mubarak was eliminated it would create a power vacuum, and in the upoming parliamentary elections alternative Islamic movements could take charge, but that attempt failed. Mubarak instituted an anti-terrorist law that made it a crime to even express sympathy for terrorist movements. Five new prisons were built to house the thousands of suspects. Al-Zawahiri's strategy in Egypt was to make the government more repressive to it's people so they hate it. In this he succeeded. An equal goal also, making the West look like the enabler of this repression. Are our leaders learning to lead or reacting in ways already known by terrorists to work toward their goals. 973.931 W |
||
|
Title: Re: Nam Again Post by Jonny on Jan 28th, 2007, 2:43am Seems like old times ;;D http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d564cc3de3 |
||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |