Is Iraq Viet Nam redux?

No.

0 Replies

By BOB HERBERT

Published: September 17, 2004

ARLINGTON, Va.

The rows of simple white headstones in the broad expanses of brilliant green lawns are scrupulously arranged, and they seem to go on and on, endlessly, in every direction.

It was impossible not to be moved. A soft September wind was the only sound. Beyond that was just the silence of history, and the collective memory of the lives lost in its service.

Nearly 300,000 people are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, which is just across the Potomac from Washington. On Tuesday morning I visited the grave of Air Force Second Lt. Richard VandeGeer. The headstone tells us, as simply as possible, that he went to Vietnam, that he was born Jan. 11, 1948, and died May 15, 1975, and that he was awarded the Purple Heart.

His mother, Diana VandeGeer, who is 75 now and lives in Florida, tells us that he loved to play soldier as a child, that he was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and that she longs for him still. He would be 56 now, but to his mother he is forever a tall and handsome 27.

Richard VandeGeer was not the last American serviceman to die in the Vietnam War, but he was close enough. He was part of the last group of Americans killed, and his name was the last of the more than 58,000 to be listed on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. As I stood at his grave, I couldn't help but wonder how long it will take us to get to the last American combat death in Iraq.

Lieutenant VandeGeer died heroically. He was the pilot of a CH-53A transport helicopter that was part of an effort to rescue crew members of the Mayaguez, an American merchant ship that was captured by the Khmer Rouge off the coast of Cambodia on May 12, 1975. The helicopter was shot down and half of the 26 men aboard, including Lieutenant VandeGeer, perished.

(It was later learned that the crew of the Mayaguez had already been released.)

The failed rescue operation, considered the last combat activity of the Vietnam War, came four years after John Kerry's famous question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Although he died bravely, Lieutenant VandeGeer's death was as senseless as those of the 58,000 who died before him in the fool's errand known as Vietnam. His remains were not recovered for 20 years - not until a joint operation by American and Cambodian authorities located the underwater helicopter wreckage in 1995. Positive identification, using the most advanced DNA technology, took another four years. Lieutenant VandeGeer was buried at Arlington in a private ceremony in 2000.

The Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation put me in touch with the lieutenant's family. "I'm still angry that my son is gone," said Mrs. VandeGeer, who is divorced and lives alone in Cocoa Beach. "I'm his mother. I think about him every day."

She said that while she will always be proud of her son, she believes he "died for nothing."

Lieutenant VandeGeer's sister, Michelle, told me she can't think about her brother without recalling that the last time she saw him was on her wedding day, in May 1974. "He looked so handsome and confident," she said. "He wanted to change the world."

Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and suffering, and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war only when it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded. Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony, this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq.

Three more marines were killed yesterday in Iraq. Kidnappings are commonplace. The insurgency is growing and becoming more sophisticated, which means more deadly. Ordinary Iraqis are becoming ever more enraged at the U.S.

When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American president to lose a war."

George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president's own intelligence estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat.

I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this colossal mistak

0 Replies

Intelligence estimate from July is bleaker than Bush's tone
WASHINGTON A new classified National Intelligence Estimate reportedly lays out a dark view of security prospects for Iraq, including the possibility of civil war, and leading Democrats demanded Thursday that the Bush administration declassify the document and make it public immediately..
The report represents an "extremely serious development," said a Senate Democrat, Bob Graham of Florida..
Graham, a former intelligence committee chairman, added that President George W. Bush had been giving Americans "a very rosy scenario as to how well Iraq was going" and that the "report throws a large bucket of cold water" over the depiction of events. The estimate, summarizing the views of the major U.S. intelligence agencies, projects three possible outcomes for Iraq through the end of next year. The best predicted outcome is the achievement of a tenuous stability; the second points to increased extremism and fragmentation, impeding efforts to build a central government and foster democracy; and the last predicts a further deterioration of security, with heightening tensions among Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites that could erupt into civil war, The New York Times reported..
"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said an official who had read the document. The estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was approved by intelligence chiefs in late July, before the latest surge in violence, but was not disseminated within the government until a month later..
Senator John Kerry, who has lately sharpened his criticism of Bush's Iraq policy, on Thursday addressed the same National Guard group that the president spoke to Tuesday in Las Vegas. Kerry referred to the intelligence estimate and said:.
"Two days ago, the president stood right where I'm standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. He did not tell you that with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings..
"He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away.".
Bush, in a campaign appearance in Minnesota, continued to speak confidently about Iraq, even as he again assailed Kerry as weak and inconsistent..
Kerry's approach on Iraq sent "the wrong signals," the president said. "The fellow I'm running against has had about eight positions on Iraq.".
The president appeared, however, to hedge his earlier insistence that elections for an Iraqi national assembly would be held in January, saying only that "national elections are scheduled for January.".
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, earlier defended the administration's handling of the intelligence estimate. He said that it "states the obvious, and it talks about the challenges and the different scenarios that we face. That's what intelligence reports are supposed to do.".
Democrats and the Kerry campaign have been struggling for traction against Bush on Iraq. Perhaps seeing an opening, Democratic senators said Thursday that Americans should be allowed to read the intelligence estimate and decide for themselves how serious matters are in Iraq..
Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called for an immediate declassification of the document..
"President Bush readily permitted the declassification of previous intelligence estimates on Iraq when it served his purpose," Dodd said. "He should immediately order the declassification of the July National Intelligence Estimate so that the American people can have an honest assessment of the dangers American men and women in uniform are likely to confront.".
But a leading Republican, Senator John Warner of Virginia, the Armed Services Committee chairman, stoutly defended Bush..
"I think the American people are getting adequate information to make up their own minds," he said on CNN. "I think our president has leveled with the people, looked them straight in the eye and said from the beginning, this is going to be tough going.".
In recent days, Kerry has termed the Iraq war "catastrophic.".
Even some Republicans have asked whether Iraq's move toward democratic elections, beginning with a vote for a national assembly set for January, will be able to stay on track..
Told by administration spokesmen that funds would have to be shifted from reconstruction to meeting new security needs, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called this "exasperating," and another Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous." The latest intelligence estimate was initiated under George Tenet before he stepped down as director of central intelligence. He was under pressure in part because of the conclusions of the previous estimate, which has been sharply criticized for suggesting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There have been no significant weapon finds..
There were dissenting views in that earlier estimate, though they were played down in a declassified summary of the report, and some intelligence officials have said they feel under special pressure now to make clear the full range of views on Iraq..
Amid the bleak developments from Iraq, the Democratic Party is beginning a new advertising campaign that seeks to emphasize a gap between the administration's more optimistic predictions and the troubles that have since emerged..
A new ad shows the president's May 2003 appearance on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, where he stood before a banner that read "Mission Accomplished" and declared that major combat in Iraq was over..
The ad says that since the president made that declaration, "867 more American soldiers have been killed in Iraq" and the war has cost "$100 billion." "How can you solve problems," the ad asks, "when you won't even admit they're there?" The latest opinion polls appear to show that Kerry has countered the advantage Bush forged during the Republican National Convention. A new poll by the Pew Research Center indicated that the contest had returned to a dead heat..
International Herald Tribune

0 Replies

I agree with McG.

Iraq is not Vietnam redux.

IT IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

0 Replies

I do rather think hopping on the choppers for a ride out to an aircraft carrier will seem, in retrospect, a good deal easier than filling up the Bradleys and the Humvees for a hundred+ mile drive to the Kuwait border . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I do rather think hopping on the choppers for a ride out to an aircraft carrier will seem, in retrospect, a good deal easier than filling up the Bradleys and the Humvees for a hundred+ mile drive to the Kuwait border . . .

Set...I truly hope I am wrong on this one...but I have an ache in the pit on my stomach every time I even cursorily think of disengagement.

Fact is, the occupation is getting more tenuous by the day. More and more Iraqis are being emboldened to lash out.

It will be hell getting out....and it is hell staying there.

But...for people so harebrained as to expect the populace to greet our troops by strewing flowers before them....I suspect this is merely a minor inconvenience on the way to an election.

0 Replies

To quote my avatar . . .

And awaaaaay we go ! ! !

0 Replies

ADMINISTRATION MISLEADS ON PROSPECTS IN IRAQ

In late July, a report prepared for the President by his National Intelligence Counsel spelled out "a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq."[1] According to the New York Times, "the estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms."[2] But that didn't stop Bush and other members of the administration from telling the American people that Iraq was headed in the right direction.

On August 5, President Bush said, "[Iraq is] on the path to lasting democracy and liberty."[3] On August 24, Vice President Cheney told voters in Iowa that "We're moving in the right direction [in Iraq]."[4] And this Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Iraqis were "working at making a success out of that country...And I think they've got a darned good crack at making it." [5]

Sources:
1. "U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future," New York Times, 9/16/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56345.
2. Ibid., http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56345
3. "President Signs Defense Bill ," The White House, 8/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56346.
4. "Remarks by the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney Followed by Question and Answer at a Town Hall Meeting ," The White House, 8/24/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56347.
5. "Secretary Rumsfeld Town Hall Meeting at Ft. Campbell, Ky.," U.S. Department of Defense, 9/14/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56348.

0 Replies

Every day in everyway possible I can see the ghost of Viet Nam staring at me. Can you?

U.S. to Increase Its Force in Iraq by Nearly 12,000
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
The U.S. military presence in Iraq will grow to 150,000
troops by next month, the highest level since the invasion
last year.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The American military presence in Iraq will grow by nearly 12,000 troops by next month, to 150,000, the highest level since the invasion last year, to provide security for the Iraqi elections in January and to quell insurgent attacks around the country, the Pentagon announced Wednesday. The Pentagon is doing this mainly by ordering about 10,400 soldiers and marines in Iraq to extend their tours - in some cases for the second time - for up to two months, even as their replacement units begin to arrive. The Pentagon is also sending 1,500 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division in the next two weeks for a four-month tour. By extending the tours of some 8,000 soldiers from two brigades, the Army is risking problems with morale and retention by breaking its pledge to keep troops on the ground in Iraq for no more than 12 months, some commanders and military experts said. Commanders had signaled for weeks that there was a likelihood that additional troops would be needed to provide security for elections scheduled for Jan. 30, and the Pentagon took a first step in October by ordering 6,500 troops to extend their tours. But the force levels announced Wednesday are larger than many officers had expected and reflect the insurgents' deadly resiliency and the poor performance by many newly trained Iraqi security forces in the face of rebel assaults, military officers said. Senior officers in Iraq and Washington said that after the Falluja offensive, they did not want to lose the momentum in pressing insurgents in other restive parts of Iraq, like Mosul and Babil Province. At the same time, commanders say they need to keep a sizable force in Falluja to stabilize the city as reconstruction efforts get under way there. But those requirements demand more troops, especially combat-hardened forces whose experience is seen as essential in attacking the insurgents and providing support to Iraqi security forces. Putting even a squad of Americans inside police stations will stiffen the resolve of local forces and prevent routs like that in Mosul, where newly minted Iraqi police forces fled last month when attacked by small numbers of rebels, American officers said Wednesday. "It's mainly to provide security for the elections, but it's also to keep up the pressure on the insurgency after the Falluja operation," Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, a military spokesman, told reporters at the Pentagon. Under the military's plan, about 3,500 members of the Second Brigade of the First Cavalry Division, based at Fort Hood, Tex., were ordered to stay an additional 45 days, until early March, for a total of about 14 months. The unit had originally been scheduled to leave in mid-November, but that departure was delayed until Jan. 12, General Rodriguez said. The First Cavalry Division is responsible for security in Baghdad, but it also provided soldiers for the cordon around Falluja. About 4,400 troops from the Second Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, a Hawaii-based unit now operating as part of the First Infantry Division north of Baghdad, had its departure date in early January delayed 60 days, bringing its total deployment to about 14 months, General Rodriguez said. The tours of 160 soldiers from the 66th Transportation Company, based in Germany, were also extended by two months, he said. In addition, the departure date of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, with 2,300 marines from Okinawa, Hawaii and California, will be extended to mid-March, he said. The two 82nd Airborne battalions will be sent to conduct security missions in Baghdad's International Zone, where top American and Iraqi government officials work, General Rodriguez said. This will free up more experienced troops from the First Cavalry Division to carry out missions elsewhere in Iraq, he said. In advance of the elections in Afghanistan in October, the military sent about 600 troops from the 82nd Airborne to provide security there. Military officials said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, had decided to extend the tours of more experienced troops, and to take advantage of their knowledge of the insurgents and region, rather than accelerate the arrival of fresh troops from units like the Third Infantry Division, which will be arriving in January. In particular, a senior military officer in Iraq said, American and Iraqi forces have forced insurgent and terrorist leaders to flee their former safe haven in Falluja, and additional troops would ensure that they remained on the run and could not settle in another Iraqi city.

link

0 Replies

Anyone who does not see the similarities to Vietnam, Au, is willfully refusing to see them.

This misadventure is a disaster.

I stand by the sarcastic remark I wrote earlier:

Quote:

Iraq is not Vietnam redux.

IT IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyone who does not see the similarities to Vietnam, Au, is willfully refusing to see them.

This misadventure is a disaster.

I stand by the sarcastic remark I wrote earlier:

Quote:
Iraq is not Vietnam redux.

IT IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

In 1990, the United States, under the auspices of the UN, went to war against Iraq.
In 1991 Iraq surrendered and signed a treaty making certain pledges.
Iraq violated this treaty for over ten years. Iraq bribed the United Nations and the UN Security Council to turn a blind eye to these violations.
In 2003, the United States went to war against Iraq.
Islamic fascist death cultists from all over the planet have converged upon Iraq since that time to engage in a "holy war" against the United States, other Muslims, Israel, and the rest of the world.

None of the above has any similiarity to Vietnam.

Korea might be a better example.

And, Iraq might just end up like Korea.... unfortunately....

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone who does not see the similarities to Vietnam, Au, is willfully refusing to see them.

This misadventure is a disaster.

I stand by the sarcastic remark I wrote earlier:

Quote:
Iraq is not Vietnam redux.

IT IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

In 1990, the United States, under the auspices of the UN, went to war against Iraq.
In 1991 Iraq surrendered and signed a treaty making certain pledges.
Iraq violated this treaty for over ten years. Iraq bribed the United Nations and the UN Security Council to turn a blind eye to these violations.

Well...I suspect you are talking through your hat about the bribe part...but I know damn welll you are talking through your hat about the "United Nations and the UN Security Council to turn a blind eye to these violations."

The UN and the UN Security Council most assuredly DID NOT turn a blind eye to the "suspected" violations...and was working on the problem right up to the moment George Bush insisted we had to invade because Saddam had weapons poised to attack us.

Damn near everything the George Bush presented as reasons for our involvement in Iraq have been shown to be manufactured and false.

That bears a resemblance to the Vietnam situation...much, much more than to the Korean one.

And in any case, Au and I, both were talking about how the situation is and how it is headed...rather than the way we got there.

Quote:

In 2003, the United States went to war against Iraq.
Islamic fascist death cultists from all over the planet have converged upon Iraq since that time to engage in a "holy war" against the United States, other Muslims, Israel, and the rest of the world.

None of the above has any similiarity to Vietnam.

Korea might be a better example.

And, Iraq might just end up like Korea.... unfortunately....

Six of one...Moishe!

I truly hope I am wrong on this matter. I do not want to see the slaughter I see building. I do not want to see the military of this country suffer another humiliation.

But...I see it building...and I am commenting on it.

0 Replies

We were discussing this at work. There are many similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.

1) Vietnam was said to be a fight against the cult of communism that wanted to destroy American freedom and which Americans felt was a urgent threat to freedom and security.

As Larry said, Irag is a fight against the "fascist death" cult who represent the same threat to freedom and security.

2) The initial justification of the Vietnam war as the Gulf of Tomkin. This was an event that was used to justify the beginning of the war. Later the validity of this reason was called into serious doubt.

The initial of the Iraq war were WMDs and a link to 9/11. Later the validity of these reasons were called into serious doubt.

3) The strategy of the Vietnam war was use US troops to provide security and train the South Vietnamese army until they were ready to defend themselves.

The strategy of the Iraq war is to use US troops to provide security and train the new Iraqi troops until they are ready to defend themselves.

4) In Vietnam, the US government continually said "We are turning the corner" and "we see the light at the end of the tunnel" in spite of mounting US casualties.

In Iraq, the US government is continually saying "Things are going well" and "we are making progress" in spite of mounting US casualties.

5) In Vietnam, the soldiers faced the near impossible task of operating in a civilian population where a significant proportion supported the Viet Cong. It was very difficult to tell who the enemy were.

In Iraq, soldier express the near impossible task of operating in a civilian population where a significant propotion support the insurgency. They are expression frustration that it is difficult to tell who the enemy is.

6) In Vietnam, stories of atrocities commited by the US started to leak out. The stories caused deep rifts in the American public. Supporters of the war countered these stories with stories the atrocities commited by the Communists.

In Iraq, stories of atrocities commited by US solders are leaking out. These stories are being countered with stories of atrocities commited by the insurgents.

7) In Vietnam the US pointed out that the Viet Cong was getting help (arms and fighters) from other Communist countries.

In Iraq, the US is pointing out that the Isurgency is getting help (arms and fighters) from other Muslim countries.

-----
Sure, Iraq and Vietnam are not a perfect match. But the similarities are quite striking.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

We were discussing this at work. There are many similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.

1) Vietnam was said to be a fight against the cult of communism that wanted to destroy American freedom and which Americans felt was a urgent threat to freedom and security.

As Larry said, Irag is a fight against the "fascist death" cult who represent the same threat to freedom and security.

2) The initial justification of the Vietnam war as the Gulf of Tomkin. This was an event that was used to justify the beginning of the war. Later the validity of this reason was called into serious doubt.

The initial of the Iraq war were WMDs and a link to 9/11. Later the validity of these reasons were called into serious doubt.

3) The strategy of the Vietnam war was use US troops to provide security and train the South Vietnamese army until they were ready to defend themselves.

The strategy of the Iraq war is to use US troops to provide security and train the new Iraqi troops until they are ready to defend themselves.

4) In Vietnam, the US government continually said "We are turning the corner" and "we see the light at the end of the tunnel" in spite of mounting US casualties.

In Iraq, the US government is continually saying "Things are going well" and "we are making progress" in spite of mounting US casualties.

5) In Vietnam, the soldiers faced the near impossible task of operating in a civilian population where a significant proportion supported the Viet Cong. It was very difficult to tell who the enemy were.

In Iraq, soldier express the near impossible task of operating in a civilian population where a significant propotion support the insurgency. They are expression frustration that it is difficult to tell who the enemy is.

6) In Vietnam, stories of atrocities commited by the US started to leak out. The stories caused deep rifts in the American public. Supporters of the war countered these stories with stories the atrocities commited by the Communists.

In Iraq, stories of atrocities commited by US solders are leaking out. These stories are being countered with stories of atrocities commited by the insurgents.

7) In Vietnam the US pointed out that the Viet Cong was getting help (arms and fighters) from other Communist countries.

In Iraq, the US is pointing out that the Isurgency is getting help (arms and fighters) from other Muslim countries.

-----
Sure, Iraq and Vietnam are not a perfect match. But the similarities are quite striking.

The points you all make are valid and applicable.
However, you all also seem to believe the "press" accounts paint an accurate picture of what goes on in Iraq.
Just as the American and world public believed both the US press propaganda and the other "press" accounts of Vietnam.

The popular beliefs of the Vietnam war that many people hold today are grossly inaccurate.
Vietnam was indeed a battle against the cult of communism. The United States surrendered in that particular battle and Vietnam was conquered by very unpleasant Vietnamese communists who also killed, imprisoned or created millions of refugees. The country is still trying to recover.
Because the cult of communism won in Vietnam, it went on to other aggressive ventures such as Afghanistan. The US has suffered because of that particular piece of the puzzle also...

I would humbly suggest that the main point of Iraq, today, now, is that the vast majority of Iraqis do indeed support the US and wish to live in a peaceful, democratic Iraq.
I would also suggest that because this does not make interesting news, the press, which believes its responsibility in the world is one of exposing "things," does not report this boring and rather mundane fact.
"Dog Likes Man" does not make headlines. Dead, mutilated bodies and pyschoanalysis of why Egyptians are in Iraq murdering Iraqis make headlines...

Again, however, I would make a comparison to Korea - South Koreans, theorectically, do not want the United States troops in South Korea.
However, the military and economic situation that exists in South Korea has been created and supported by the United States.
South Koreans would be horror stricken if they suddenly had to live the lives of North Koreans. Talk about mass suicide....

Iraq is not Vietman. Iraq is a former fascist dictatorship where all of the liitle Muslim fascist death cultists in the world are converging upon to wreak havoc upon Iraqis.
I strongly suspect that once Iraq has a legitimate government, it will, by neccessity, be somewhat fascist itself. No country can allow bands of murderers armed with rpg's wandering the countryside, murdering and pillaging at will.
What will happen after the Iraqi government crushes the murderers is what matters.
It is quite dismally possible that it will continue to crush all dissent.
Then again, maybe not....

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I would humbly suggest that the main point of Iraq, today, now, is that the vast majority of Iraqis do indeed support the US and wish to live in a peaceful, democratic Iraq.

What...besides the kind of wishful thinking that caused certain people to suppose we would be met with people strewing flowers in the streets before us...causes you to humbly suggest this?

I see damn near no indication of it whatsoever...and if forced to guess on it, I'd guess that a HUGE MAJORITY of Iraqis think we are scum and would gladly be rid of us if they were not afraid of the chaos that would ensue in our absence...a chaos that would not be a problem if we had not attacked.

0 Replies

According to the AP,

Quote:

On Wednesday, the Pentagon announced that the number of U.S. troops
in Iraq will increase by 12,000 and reach a high of about 150,000 by the
elections.

and still we have no exit strategy.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

No country can allow bands of murderers armed with rpg's wandering the countryside, murdering and pillaging at will.

I find this particularly interesting.
Did you see Fahrenheit 911, Moishe?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
I would humbly suggest that the main point of Iraq, today, now, is that the vast majority of Iraqis do indeed support the US and wish to live in a peaceful, democratic Iraq.

What...besides the kind of wishful thinking that caused certain people to suppose we would be met with people strewing flowers in the streets before us...causes you to humbly suggest this?

I see damn near no indication of it whatsoever...and if forced to guess on it, I'd guess that a HUGE MAJORITY of Iraqis think we are scum and would gladly be rid of us if they were not afraid of the chaos that would ensue in our absence...a chaos that would not be a problem if we had not attacked.

I would have you read Iraqi bloggers; Iranian bloggers; and other non main stream media sources in the Middle East.
Read soldier's accounts of how they are treated by Iraqis.
Read other contractors; social workers; assistance groups; etc. on how they are treated by Iraqis.
Read the words of the Iraqis who take the time to write about these things.
If you are interested, I will list all the links I have.
If you could care less, I won't bother.
But, it is extremely useful to take the common pulse of people rather than relying on what makes interesting "news."

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Moishe3rd wrote:
I would humbly suggest that the main point of Iraq, today, now, is that the vast majority of Iraqis do indeed support the US and wish to live in a peaceful, democratic Iraq.

What...besides the kind of wishful thinking that caused certain people to suppose we would be met with people strewing flowers in the streets before us...causes you to humbly suggest this?

I see damn near no indication of it whatsoever...and if forced to guess on it, I'd guess that a HUGE MAJORITY of Iraqis think we are scum and would gladly be rid of us if they were not afraid of the chaos that would ensue in our absence...a chaos that would not be a problem if we had not attacked.

I would have you read Iraqi bloggers; Iranian bloggers; and other non main stream media sources in the Middle East.
Read soldier's accounts of how they are treated by Iraqis.
Read other contractors; social workers; assistance groups; etc. on how they are treated by Iraqis.
Read the words of the Iraqis who take the time to write about these things.
If you are interested, I will list all the links I have.
If you could care less, I won't bother.
But, it is extremely useful to take the common pulse of people rather than relying on what makes interesting "news."

Moise...c'mon.

I'm surprised you didn't also point to the words of George Bush or Colin Powel or the puppets the United States have imposed as "leaders" of the Iraqi government.

Yes...you will find opinion on both sides of the issue.

But consider this: If you talked to the Iraqi man or woman on the street while Saddam was still in power...you would have gotten universal agreement that things were just peachy keen in Iraq...and that Saddam was a saint.

Unfortunately, we'll see how much the Americans are loved when they start to withdraw.

Or are you expecting more flower petals strewn in their path as they march out?

0 Replies

Is Iraq Viet Nam redux?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know