Do you support the war in Iraq?

Do you support the war in Iraq?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 166 65.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 84 32.9%

  • Undecided/Don't Know/Don't care.

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • Total voters
    255
FAILURE to pick our battles/war

As I see it in addition to the "noble cause" for our being in Iraq and Vietnam our Army is MUCH smaller than during Vietnam and Iraq is a little more advanced than Vietnam was. Being more advanced would be a plus if we were bombing Iraq into submission but we aren't. Having such a small Army insures that we can't win. We can leave now and lose or leave later and still lose. The only difference will be the number of deaths. Does anyone really believe that the warfare will cease before or AFTER we leave? If the insurgents were real smart, they would cool it for 6 months then start-up once we leave. Maybe THEY feel in control and don't feel the need to change their successful tactics. The majority of the Middle East (and American voters) do not want the US there, insurgent attacks are INCREASING not decreasing (what, no insurgent body count?). The writing is on the wall, how large do the letters have to be drawn before you take notice? Bush is like LBJ...he doesn't want to be known as the President who lost our SECOND war. I guess it's something you had to live through to appreciate the close similarities AND predictable outcome. It's tragic, for once the American people should take charge and end the war. LBJ/Bush and McNamara/ Rummy should be held accountable now not later in some book.
 
I guess it's something you had to live through to appreciate the close similarities AND predictable outcome.
Click to expand...
To some people, Vietnam was THE defining war of their lifetime. To them, all wars are viewed through the lens of the Vietnam experience and all wars are inevitably doomed to the same dismal outcome. Those people's views on the war in Iraq were formed over 30 years ago and will not be changed by this, or any other, discussion.
 
Vietnam should have been a defining experience for not how to fight a war....

Men like Powell, Swartzkopf and others spent a career ensuring that would never happen again to the US military. Now 30 years of work has been shot down the drain because of the arrogance of a few.
 
Current Poll

To some people, Vietnam was THE defining war of their lifetime.
Click to expand...
Maybe but also it could be that SOME people have studied wars for over 40 years (Napoleons experience in Spain, the American Revolution, and the American Guerrilla campaign in the Philippines)! Maybe another tactic should be attempted to "explain" the less than "Rosie" predictions. Oh, BTW Iraq failed in in their Constitution attempt AGAIN (due last October). Go figure! The Administration's lowering their expectations for Iraq (again). BTW I supported Desert Storm and predicted a 6 week war. Vietnam was MY defining war? What war is yours?

President Bush has his challenges. He has much a much lower approval rating than Presidents Reagan and Clinton did at the same point in their second terms. On top of that, he faces record gas prices, war protesters near his ranch and struggles with his Social Security plan.

How would you rate Bush's handling of domestic affairs?
Poor 59%
Good 15%
Excellent 14%
Fair 12%
Total Votes: 27,948

How would you rate Bush's handling of the war in Iraq?
Poor 63%
Good 16%
Excellent 13%
Fair 9%
Total Votes: 28,048

How would you rate Bush's overall job performance?
Poor 60%
Good 15%
Excellent 14%
Fair 11%
Total Votes: 25,905

In which direction do you predict Bush's approval rating will move?
Down 62%
Up 24%
It'll stay about where it is now 14%
Total Votes: 25,741
 
Vietnam should have been a defining experience for not how to fight a war....

Men like Powell, Swartzkopf and others spent a career ensuring that would never happen again to the US military. Now 30 years of work has been shot down the drain because of the arrogance of a few.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was a lesson learned for Bush and the JCOS. They went into Afghanistan and Iraq in a very un-Vientnam like way. They won those wars quickly and decisively, as opposed to the ignorant half war we waged in Vietnam.

I am not a pacifist, I am against stupid pointless wars that serve no purpose for the USA. If Bush had gone in to take over the oil fields and nationalize them for our use I would be 100% behind him. To liberate people and give them a govt they don't understand and will not be able to maintain is pointless.

But, the Iraq war is over and has been for months and months. We are not in a war now. Bush can call it a war on terror all he wants to, but you can not fight a war against terror, it is an operation of some kind but it certainly is not a war. Vietnam was a war by definition, and what we are doing now is not a war by definition. No comparison between Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq,

There is also no comparison between the war in Vietnam and the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. We lost Vietnam but learned how not to wage war and won Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Butch,

Why do you keep referring to us "winning" the war in Iraq? Because Bush said so two years ago? :rolleyes:

We haven't won anything if there's still fighting and can't pull out without the country falling to the people we're fighting.


For someone really hung up on definitions, you don't seem to understand them. Vietnam was never "by defintion" a war.
 
If Bush had gone in to take over the oil fields and nationalize them for our use I would be 100% behind him. To liberate people and give them a govt they don't understand and will not be able to maintain is pointless.
Click to expand...
AMEN brother AMEN! It's not a war...it's another "police" action! But like Vietnam, our targets are restricted so no one gets offended. "...doomed to repeat it":barf:
 
There is also no comparison between the war in Vietnam and the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...
Of course there are comparisons between Vietnam and Afghanistan or Iraq - many comparisons have been provided in this discussion. Whether someone subscribes to a particular comparison, regardless of how valid or bizarre, is a matter of personal opinion.

Maybe but also it could be that SOME people have studied wars for over 40 years.
Click to expand...
If your perception of war was defined in Vietnam, your study of the history of warfare is also colored by the Vietnam experience. This is not a criticism of your viewpoint, but an observation of how it is derived. My brother served three tours in Vietnam and he shares many of your views, probably as a result of your common formative experiences.
 
Vietnam was, by definition a war. Maybe it would help if I said conventional war. Vietnam was a conventional war against a somewhat unconventional enemy, at least by WWII standards. They were unconventional in that they used guerilla tactics to a large extent, as well as conventional tactics when it suited their purpose. By historical standards they were not that unconventional. In the revolutionary war, we fought in much the same way, a mixture of guerilla and some conventional tactics.

We did fight a conventional war in Iraq, that war ended when the Iraqi government under Sadaam fell and was no longer able to field it's army. That ended the conventional war.

After we won the conventional war in Iraq, we were drug into something else, something that isn't a conventional war. We are not fighting a conventional war now in Iraq. We are being attacked by VIEs, and we are counter-attacking when we can find them, which is more of a classic guerilla campaign, but definitely not a conventional war.

If we had won in Vietnam and stayed the stayed on as we have in Iraq, we may have ended up with a similar (not the same as, but something like) situation as we now have in Iraq. So, have we been arguing about conventional war vs guerilla war?
 
It was an educational experience

Vietnam taught me a lot about the American people and motivated me to "understand" how past wars were won and lost. In my experience and studies, all the ingredients are there for another Vietnam and indicates to me that unless an unseen "incident" occurs to change the mix (nukes, dirty bombs, another 9-11, $4 a gallon gasoline) Vietnam/Iraq will share the same outcome. WE AMERICANS have to commit to win the war by ourselves! If we pretend that a bunch of ill trained, indifferent people will work to our political advantage we will lose. Nice idea but all too often the "natives" don't really have enough at stake to fight for. Their pain isn't worth their gain.
 
Of course there are comparisons between Vietnam and Afghanistan or Iraq - many comparisons have been provided in this discussion. Whether someone subscribes to a particular comparison, regardless of how valid or bizarre, is a matter of personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Well I agree that there are points of comparison between all wars. Minor points of comparison exist between Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq. But on the major points, there aren't any.

We lost the Vietnam war. It was a jungle war. We did not invade North Vietnam which we needed to do. We were afraid that China would get involved. We were in Vietnam in active battle for about 10 years. We lost about 500,000 soldiers. I can't begin to estimate how many tons of bombs we dropped, or how many billions of rounds of ammunition we fired. Vietnam was fought with a drafted army.

We won Afghanistan and Iraq. They were desert/mountain wars (huge huge difference). We did invade every part of each country that we needed to invade. We were not afraid of another large super power getting involved. Afghanistan and Iraq were conquered in weeks. So far we have lost less than 10% of the troops that we lost in Vietnam. The amount of munitions expended is miniscule by compparison. These wars were fought with a volunteer army.

Those are just some of the major points of differentiation.
 
Telewinz: We couldn't control South Vietnam because we weren't going to the source of the problem. Had we taken the war to them, then they would have all been in North Vietnam to defend it. It is like trying to kill fire ants that crawl into your house without going outside and taking on the mounds.

It was as though we had decided to fight WWII without invading Normandy. It was stupid stupid stupid and we kept it up for a decade.
 
Butch, you call Vietnam a guerilla war, but a real war.

Then you say that Iraq is not a war, because it is being fought against guerillas???



All this to make a point that we shouldn't be there BECAUSE we aren't in a war? Color me confused.


It's a war. They come in all different flavors. But if our troops are in a war zone, being paid for hazardous duty and war zone tax free, and shooting and getting shot at, IT'S A WAR.

We won a war against Saddam's army, but we did not win a war against the minority Sunni control of Iraq. That battle is still raging - supported by stocks of Bathist ammunition and imported Sunni allies.
 
It's a war. They come in all different flavors. But if our troops are in a war zone, being paid for hazardous duty and war zone tax free, and shooting and getting shot at, IT'S A WAR.
Click to expand...

OK, I will agree it's a war. Semantics. :rolleyes:

We should not have gone in, and we should leave now. That is the real point isn't it?
 
Back to the original post...
I support the war if for no other reason than it is an economic endeavor. We are trading American lives for money/oil, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This may seem cold, but too bad. Realistically, we have only lost about 2000 guys...nothing compared to the almost 300 million people residing in our country.
 
Just for the heck of it, who here has been over to the middle east? Gulf war 1?, Gulf war 2 (this one), Operation Calm?

I, for one, have. I saw what this person did to the people of Kuwait, I've seen what he's was capable of. I've seen what he did to his own people.

You know what is really screwed up, all the people, especially liberals, that scream that we shouldn't have gone in, but these same people are lambasting the US for doing nothing in the Sudan (and I thought their mighty UN was there to save the day, double :barf: ), that we should go in and remove the dictator because he's killing the people.

Make up your minds folks, geez :barf: .

Wayne
 
We knew what he was doing to his own people when he was semi-buddies with the US thanks to the common enemy Iran. It didn't seem to bother us too much back then.

Saddam was a bad man, agreed. Under the circumstances, however, it's a paper-thin casus belli, and the only reason the war supporters even bring it up is because all the other reasons for going to war have been bumped down on the credibility list.

There are many dozens of bad leaders in the world who exploit, torture, or suppress their people. None of them are worth a single American life, much less 1,800 dead and 12,000 wounded.
 
We should not have gone in, and we should leave now. That is the real point isn't it?
Click to expand...
We should not have gone in: Well, maybe. But it is too late for the spilled milk. We DID go in.

We should leave now: To minimize the damage to our troops, or to compound one mistake by making a larger one?


We made Iraq what it is, and it ain't good. We incurred a responsibility (something everyone on this board is normally so big on) when we did that.

After blasting a country on flimsy excuses, you guys want to walk away and leave the mess to someone else. Our troops are getting shot. We're in debt. Mom's are mad at George.

Tough.


We leave when we clean up OUR mess.

If we can't handle that, we have no place lecturing our children or other countries about their responsibilities. Walk away, and we leave the moral high ground behind. We withdraw from the middle east, leave the N. Korea talks, drop any form of support we give anyone, dissolve all treaties and hunker down. That's the only suitable behavior for a bunch of children that can't handle their mistakes or live up to their debts.


But let's not crap on Iraq, run away, and then congratulate ourselves on our wholesome goodness as American's. :mad:
 
didn't read all 9 pages first....

That's my disclaimer to this post just in case people have already said this.

We did find WMD. We did not find NUCLEAR weapons. Chemical weapons ARE wmd. Biological weapons ARE wmd. BY DEFINITION. Ignore if you will, be realize that you are being purposefully ingnorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top