soldiers in Iraq trading gory pics of dead Iraqis for porn der=0><

[jmervyn]

Your blitzkreig answer to Mac (other than not liking the respondent ) was pretty weak sauce Jman ...

How so? I'm not wild about "apples vs. oranges" arguments, but if we're going to have one, we may as well go for broke.

Iraqi's Air Force was no match for ours and air power was the decisive element in the Gulf war. By the time Stormin Norman's troops massed and swept the field, much of the morale of the Iraqi militia and RG was already shattered.

Why do you types always want us to lose more American soldiers' lives in the quest for some sort of perverse "fairness"? You can point to U.S. airpower, but Hitler's airpower was extremely effective as well. Yes, the Iraqi morale was shattered, but that was at least partially the fault of the force structure - your point wouldn't make any sense regarding the Vietnamese, for example, were both "quagmires" somehow equivalent.

Ya sure ... whatever. Let's just ignore facts and ramble on about how a corrupt South Vietnamese puppet government represented the wishes of the people.

And let's likewise ignore all statements by the North Vietnamese about how the U.S. had all but won the war, and were only to be defeated by communist psyops - or their claim that the U.S.'s anti-war left were responsible for their success.

Indeed, the facts speak for themselves, and your dissembling can't counter them - the VC were an external threat, based out of the North, after all but the early (French) stages of the war. The supply lines that needed to be cut were in Laos, and Their offensive operations were conducted against the south, as in the 'Easter Invasion' of 1972 and the U.S. generally didn't do anything but fight a holding action while trying to prop South Korea up. The fact that we yanked all support away after 1972 has nothing to do with the fall, no doubt about it :rolleyes:

Ever wonder why the US wouldn't allow the Vietnamese national democratic unity vote in 1956?

Answer: --> Uncle Ho was going to win overwhelmingly. He was the people's choice.

I don't doubt that he would have won, by fair means or more likely by foul, and it would have saved thousands of American lives for us to never have been involved. It wouldn't have saved all that many Vietnamese lives, though - concentration camps & all that, plus the boat people might never have made it out.

But we're rehashing past threads again - by not acting against Hitler in WW2 we would have saved thousands of American lives as well. I'm not surprised that you find that sort of sacrifice unpalatable, and therefore refer to me as a warmonger.

“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

[llad12]

How so? I'm not wild about "apples vs. oranges" arguments, but if we're going to have one, we may as well go for broke.

I take issue with your quote that the combined Allied forces in the Battle of France were less capable than the Iraqi's weakened and decimated forces.

And let's likewise ignore all statements by the North Vietnamese about how the U.S. had all but won the war, and were only to be defeated by communist psyops - or their claim that the U.S.'s anti-war left were responsible for their success.

Your stubborn faith that this conflict only relates to the Cold War is beyond belief. Personally, if it wasn't so tragic, it would be almost humorous to note how many of my fellow countrymen still remain so foolishly arrogant and chauvinistic.

[Dondrei]

I be interested in a comparitive analysis of casualties from both sides in that war to back up your assertion that our military "sucks". I have a feeling you'd find that we "lost" only because we pulled out, not because we were getting our assess handed to us, which only strengthens J's argument.

I disagree. That war was a stalemate, similar to Iraq now. Staying would have been a pointless waste of American lives (not to mention Vietnamese). You don't win a war just because you refuse to admit you've been beaten. You have to actually make progress towards your goals. And in a reasonable time frame - how long would the pacification of Vietnam have taken, assuming it was possible? Twenty more years? And how many more casualties? That's not a win, it's internecine pig-headedness.

I'd say the war was much more hampered by political bickering over which lines we could cross and which we couldn't than by the effectiveness of our troops or military planning, which was clearly top-notch.

Clearly top-notch? How's that exactly? I don't recall the U.S. rolling up the Viet Cong, who you have to admit were a far inferior force technologically, financially and in terms of training. That's the very definition of poor effectiveness on America's part. And I think the political angle is overemphasised. If the war wasn't going so spectacularly badly then people wouldn't have wanted it over so much. And slaughtering innocent civilians is not good military planning, particularly if you plan to occupy the country. In that sense the "political" bickering actually has strategic merit.

[Dondrei]

No, my position is stated quite coherently in this response, which is what you apparently have such a hard time dealing with.

No, this is the one I have trouble with: "My point being that for the amount of time, the volume of troops, and the degree of restlessness (if not outright hatred) by the populace, this doesn't hold a candle to similar situations."

I don't have to prove the validity of my position in any way to you; you have to disprove it - and you obviously can't. Your opinion (and mine) is immaterial.

Same old tactic. You make a wild claim, can't back it up and then whine that you don't have to prove anything to me.

Typical losing tactic - bring religion into the discussion for absolutely no reason.

Typical losing tactic - reply to my barbs and not my argument.

Name any other conflict in which troops have advanced quickly, destroyed opposition, and siezed control, to the degree in which the more recent Iraq campaign has. You can't. The only one that even comes close is the previous Iraq war, during which we destroyed what at the time was the world's 4th largest army.

Yeah, but you seem to consider the war's end to be Bush's little tribute to Top Gun. Sure, you beat the crap out of Saddam's weakened and demoralised army with your immense military supremacy. I never expected otherwise. But the real enemy in Iraq is the insurgency and that is a whole different kettle of fish. Mission not accomplished, remember? In true conservative style you're living in a fantasy version of the past.

The reasons we lost in Vietnam are a matter of history, and had very little to do with the martial attitudes of the indigs. The truth is quite plain, and definitely includes a lack of political and moral resolve as well as several other issues. Not the least of these were the Soviet & Chinese propaganda and military efforts against the U.S. You need to read a bit before you talk trash.

********. You lost because the enemy's guerrilla tactics had you totally outclassed, and your solution of razing villages and slaughtering civilians because you couldn't tell if they were the enemy or not only made long term occupation unviable. Much like... in Iraq!

This deserves a special response, which is why I broke it from the rest of the quote. First, tell me again how you support the troops?

a) I can still support the troops and think the military sucks
b) I don't support the troops
c) Why don't you ask my why I hate America as long as we're talking in rally cries?

Second, if the best overall military force the world has ever seen, and one of the only ways in which America maintains its world dominance, "sucks", I'd love to know what you're smoking & where you got it. You, sir, completely lack valid perspective.

Correction: America has the most technologically advanced and expensive military force the world has ever seen. Despite those massive advantages, you've lost wars against peasants in third world countries. That's "sucky" in my book.

Fine, you're starting to attempt to back your ludicrous views up. And I'll be happy to agree that America isn't much good at occupation; we aren't merciless or uncaring enough both as a nation and as a military.

Mercilessness is actually a handicap in an occupation. No-one can occupy a country where every citizen loathes them and wants them gone. If only "winning hearts and minds" was more than just empty rhetoric. The American war machine leans heavily on technology like air supremacy and missile strikes to try to lower casualties on your side. This creates huge damage to infrastructure (particularly in urban warfare) and indiscriminate slaughter (also helped by U.S. soldiers' notorious trigger-happiness and inability to tell friend from foe), which hamper a successful occupation.

Another big problem in this particular occupation was mutually exclusive tactics. The Pentagon expected to "slot in at the top"; they'd take out Saddam and his regime and the country would fall into their hands relatively unscathed. So they took only a small contingent of troops - which appealed to Rumsfeld & Co. who aren't keen on emptying the treasury for anything other than tax cuts for the rich. But then they reverted to the tried and failed doctrine of "shock and awe". Which meant leveling infrastructure and creating havoc. And to top it off, when they assumed control they laid off Saddam's entire security force. The country obviously collapsed. America slotted in at the top of a ****heap. Now they have to try to rebuild an entire country without the ability to maintain order even in Baghdad. Colossal incompetence.

You try to say that Germany and Japan pulled themselves out of the mud - I'd love to hear you attempt to defend that position, but it is hardly worth the time.

Germany and Japan didn't actively resist occupation, they got about the task of rebuilding their countries and regaining their independence like good little boys and girls. No credit for managing an occupation where the other side is so co-operative.


*EDIT*

I can't believe the filter catches ******** (the British b-word that indicates disparagement). I didn't even know Americans knew that word.

[jmervyn]

I take issue with your quote that the combined Allied forces in the Battle of France were less capable than the Iraqi's weakened and decimated forces.

Ok, let's look at that. <On paper>, the Maginot line, plus the AEF, should have brushed aside Hitler's forces. The truth of the matter was that they were hopelessly outclassed. In a similar manner, you certainly don't want to recall all the armchair rent-a-generals who were claiming that there was no possible way for the U.S. to invade Iraq, fighting on its home turf, with a mere 3 divisions & change.

Here's a lesson for you, from a professional "warmonger": there are many factors in war, and different factors (aka principles) can prove more important depending on the situation. Only the foolish consider war as something simplistic, and the combatants as ignorant. Oh, and here's a term - MOOSEMUSS

Your stubborn faith that this conflict only relates to the Cold War is beyond belief. Personally, if it wasn't so tragic, it would be almost humorous to note how many of my fellow countrymen still remain so foolishly arrogant and chauvinistic.

Nice swipe - too bad that you can't change the truth with a sneer. If you're not willing to believe your own allies, the North Vietnamese and the USSR, there's no convincing you.

[jmervyn]

No, this is the one I have trouble with: "My point being that for the amount of time, the volume of troops, and the degree of restlessness (if not outright hatred) by the populace, this doesn't hold a candle to similar situations."

Fine - you haven't in any way proved me wrong, and instead are screaming that I have to back up my claim against nebulous naysaying by you. Doesn't make any sense, so I'll not play; try to actually contest my point (as Ill did) and we'll debate it.

Same old tactic. You make a wild claim, can't back it up and then whine that you don't have to prove anything to me.

Again, do something other than sneer and whine, and let's have at it.

Typical losing tactic - reply to my barbs and not my argument.

Check a mirror.

Yeah, but you seem to consider the war's end to be Bush's little tribute to Top Gun. Sure, you beat the crap out of Saddam's weakened and demoralised army with your immense military supremacy. I never expected otherwise. But the real enemy in Iraq is the insurgency and that is a whole different kettle of fish. Mission not accomplished, remember? In true conservative style you're living in a fantasy version of the past.

To my mind, one of the things that the administration did very poorly was stage management and PR. That issue, in particular, should have not been taken advantage of (it was unrelated to Shrub's visit, but his PR flacks seem to have thought it a great idea at the time and helped the Navy with it). The Pentagon has learned the trick of coping with a 5th-column media, and that is to forcibly co-opt them if the media wants to exploit the situation ("embedded" = in-bed-with). Most international media are cowardly little gob****es (word filter check ) who won't risk a combat zone to get a realistic view on the situation.

As to the insurgency, yes, it is a problem. It is a bigger problem than it needs to be because of a couple of issues. One issue is that we dissolved the Iraqi military, which was incredibly ignorant. Another is that we aren't willing to "get tough" at the various Iraqi borders or with the three nations that are exporting their young terrorist wannabees.

********. You lost because the enemy's guerrilla tactics had you totally outclassed, and your solution of razing villages and slaughtering civilians because you couldn't tell if they were the enemy or not only made long term occupation unviable. Much like... in Iraq!

You must have mislearned history using Ill's textbooks. The Vietnam war had been won by 1972, when we cut almost all support for the South Vietnamese government, while at the same time Russian & Chinese support (both active & passive) was peaking. You need to read up before making silly claims like you have above.
"a) I can still support the troops and think the military sucks" Nonsensical (surprise, surprise)
"b) I don't support the troops" At least you admit it - but do you support your own? The same issues apply.
"c) Why don't you ask my why I hate America as long as we're talking in rally cries?" No need - hazarding a guess, I think you're a European Socialist. I could be way off-base, but I'm probably close with your political views.

Another big problem in this particular occupation was mutually exclusive tactics. The Pentagon expected to "slot in at the top"; they'd take out Saddam and his regime and the country would fall into their hands relatively unscathed. So they took only a small contingent of troops - which appealed to Rumsfeld & Co. who aren't keen on emptying the treasury for anything other than tax cuts for the rich. But then they reverted to the tried and failed doctrine of "shock and awe". Which meant leveling infrastructure and creating havoc. And to top it off, when they assumed control they laid off Saddam's entire security force. The country obviously collapsed. America slotted in at the top of a ****heap. Now they have to try to rebuild an entire country without the ability to maintain order even in Baghdad. Colossal incompetence.

You go to war with the plan & forces you have. I think there was insufficient planning, by all accounts - though I disagree with the invalidity of "shock & awe". I suspect we still were using the original playbook involving decapitation, and didn't plan sufficiently for Saddam's going to ground. The original plan was based on our overly hopeful projections that Saddam would be assassinated, and we likely just tried to spin from that.

Germany and Japan didn't actively resist occupation, they got about the task of rebuilding their countries and regaining their independence like good little boys and girls. No credit for managing an occupation where the other side is so co-operative.

I don't know if you've got your history correct here, either, since occupied Germany was trusted less than Saddam was from the onset. In fact, some Europeans still looked adversely at the reunification - but how can you possibly make your argument regarding <East> Germany? I don't believe this view holds any water, since substantial portions of Iraq are very cooperative, and you forget things associated with the USSR's occupation of Germany that worked against the allies (like the Berlin Airlift).

I can't believe the filter catches ******** (the British b-word that indicates disparagement). I didn't even know Americans knew that word.

A male bullock... We get BBC-America and watch Father Ted, you know. Plus I think the original diabloii.net was hosted from the U.K. or some such.

[SaroDarksbane]

If the war wasn't going so spectacularly badly then people wouldn't have wanted it over so much.

So no one would want us to remove ourselves when a war is going well? What if the goal is something no one cares about? I think we can be winning a war just fine, and the people back home can still want us out. It's not a matter of whether or not our military is doing a good job, it's a matter of whether or not people see the war as necessary. So when you say:

Staying would have been a pointless waste of American lives (not to mention Vietnamese).

I agree. Not because we weren't doing well, but just because we shouldn't have been tangled up there in the first place.

[Stevebo]

You must have mislearned history using Ill's textbooks. The Vietnam war had been won by 1972, when we cut almost all support for the South Vietnamese government, while at the same time Russian & Chinese support (both active & passive) was peaking. You need to read up before making silly claims like you have here.
"a) I can still support the troops and think the military sucks" Nonsensical (surprise, surprise)
"b) I don't support the troops" At least you admit it - but do you support your own? The same issues apply.
"c) Why don't you ask my why I hate America as long as we're talking in rally cries?" No need - hazarding a guess, I think you're a European Socialist. I could be way off-base, but I'm probably close with your political views.

Ummm... The war was not won... America may have been at a high point in 1972 but they still ended up losing. America lost the war.

"Support the Troops" seems to be a constant mantra that seems to be chucked out whenever the troops actions are called into question.

I "Support the Troops" - Several of my friends are in Iraq with the British Army, and several of my friends parents (again with the British Army). I hope they - along with all others out there - all make it home safely. On the other hand I lend no support to individuals who purely through their own choices commit acts that endanger my friends and others in the Army - such as those who torture prisoners, sell photos of dead iraqis for porn and so on.

"Support the Troops" should also include the full punishment of those who endanger troops and the speedy withdrawel of troops from a war that was started on false pretenses (Still no WMD...). How is keeping the troops in (escalating) danger supporting them??

[jmervyn]

Ummm... The war was not won... America may have been at a high point in 1972 but they still ended up losing. America lost the war.

Doubtless, but the point is that it was due to American defeatism and retreat, not due to the commie heroism bullhookey that was being peddled here. We didn't have the stomach to support South Vietnam even with supplies (and particularly with air support), which allowed the North to simply roll over them with massive Chinese & Russian support 2 years later.

"Support the Troops" seems to be a constant mantra that seems to be chucked out whenever the troops actions are called into question.

I "Support the Troops" - Several of my friends are in Iraq with the British Army, and several of my friends parents (again with the British Army). I hope they - along with all others out there - all make it home safely.

Supporting the troops means hoping for their success, not their failure. That's the big discrepancy that American leftists aren't willing to admit. You can't claim to support someone while wishing for their downfall. <THAT> is the reason the righties quite correctly say that many on the left are lying when they claim to support the troops. It doesn't preclude criticism of the war or the war plan, but the criticism should be constructive - and most often it isn't.

"Support the Troops" should also include the full punishment of those who endanger troops and the speedy withdrawel of troops from a war that was started on false pretenses (Still no WMD...). How is keeping the troops in (escalating) danger supporting them??

The false pretenses issue is unrelated and extremely debatable, so let's not discuss it here for the umpteenth time. However, regarding the "speedy withdrawel" - speedy withdrawal with success, everyone can support. So why is it that the only concern by the anti-American left is for the "safety" of the troops in Iraq, where the battle is a political setpiece for Western civilization versus Islamist theocracy? Nobody gives a peep about the forces deployed in Afghanistan, now do they?

The secret truth is, most of those who scream the loudest about timetables and immediate withdrawals are secretly yearning for the defeatism of the 1960's and for America's failure in this war. Perhaps they don't actually think as far as having Islam sweep Europe, dentonate nukes in Israel, and reduce America to a humbled client state - but that is generally the wish of the opposition. Hence the "friend of my enemy is my enemy" view by the American right.

[Stevebo]

Supporting the troops means hoping for their success, not their failure.

So why is it that the only concern by the anti-American left is for the "safety" of the troops in Iraq, where the battle is a political setpiece for Western civilization versus Islamist theocracy? Nobody gives a peep about the forces deployed in Afghanistan, now do they?

Perhaps they don't actually think as far as having Islam sweep Europe, dentonate nukes in Israel, and reduce America to a humbled client state - but that is generally the wish of the opposition. Hence the "friend of my enemy is my enemy" view by the American right.

my bold

Firstly - my suport for the troops is hoping they come home alive.

As to the rest - so this IS a war against Islam then?

And somehow we hope to win the hearts and minds...