One of the main problems is that this reeks far too much of Vietnam.

 

What was our goal in Vietnam? To help South Vietnam liberate themselves of North Vietnam's communism being imposed. At first, the government even lied to us. They said we were sending "advisors" to Vietnam to give them strategic advice. We sent 16,000 "advisors" over there. Then, when the American public figures out what is going on, there's a general uproar.

 

Back to the main point... Vietnam ended up destroying America. 1950 is when the first "advisors" arrived in Vietnam, and 1973 is when the last American troops finally left Vietnam. That's a 23-year fiasco. And what did we accomplish in Vietnam? Did S. Vietnam's government ever establish itself? No. Did the Vietcong ever stop attacking? No.

 

What did happen, however, is that the United States lost over 58,000 men because of idiotic polititians. I pray that Bush will realize this and pull us out before it's too late.

 

 

Pulling out now would only do alot more damage. plus if you are trying to compare this to vietnam need i remind you we've bearly lost anyone in iraq compared to nam. in fact only losing 25,000 soldiers in a 3 year war is unheard of during war. that just goes to show how well our military is.

 

Dont get me wrong though, any loss of life is sad but it could have been much much worse compared to every other war in human history basically.

Have you ever mourned for the lives lost?

 

You say it's sad that we're losing men, but have you ever MOURNED for the soldiers being lost?

 

I have trouble understanding this, or comprehending the way certain people think when it comes to validation for war, terrorism or violence. I often hear people completely detatched from a situation speaking of how "sad, but necessary" the death is. They don't know the names of the dead, they really don't feel any sadness. Indeed, it's complete indifference. I don't know if this is a technique to block out the reality of it, but that certainly was not something that happened during the Vietnam war. The war was in the living rooms of Americans every night. Dead babies, dead mothers, dead soldiers, dead enemies. They all merged into one in black and white. People mourned the losses of lives, and as the count got higher people snapped. That isn't happening now, why should it be different though? There are dead women, children, enemies and soldiers. I'm starting to snap. I don't need it in my living room each night to know. I can go online and find it on my desktop. I mourn the lives of the people lost, and I search to find out the names and circumstances that people die under each day so I can know who died, why and what they did in life. No one seems interested in that. It is so sad that our society has detatched itself from war like this. It's not sad. It's tragic. It's disgusting. Is it all necessary? Was it necessary in Vietnam? No. I don't think so.

 

It might not be 50,000. But who CARES? Each life is precious, and the validity of a war should not be determined by how high the count gets.

you speak very wise words an_cat....amen, amen

And even still...

 

Do you think anyone anticipated Vietnam being a 25-year conflict? No.

 

And if we really have lost 25,000 in the first three years of Iraq... then do you realize that going at the same rate... if Iraq lasted for as long as Vietnam, we would lose 200,000 troops!? Does that register with you!?

 

Why do politicians never learn from their mistakes?

Have you ever mourned for the lives lost?

 

You say it's sad that we're losing men, but have you ever MOURNED for the soldiers being lost?

 

I have trouble understanding this, or comprehending the way certain people think when it comes to validation for war, terrorism or violence. I often hear people completely detatched from a situation speaking of how "sad, but necessary" the death is. They don't know the names of the dead, they really don't feel any sadness. Indeed, it's complete indifference. I don't know if this is a technique to block out the reality of it, but that certainly was not something that happened during the Vietnam war. The war was in the living rooms of Americans every night. Dead babies, dead mothers, dead soldiers, dead enemies. They all merged into one in black and white. People mourned the losses of lives, and as the count got higher people snapped. That isn't happening now, why should it be different though? There are dead women, children, enemies and soldiers. I'm starting to snap. I don't need it in my living room each night to know. I can go online and find it on my desktop. I mourn the lives of the people lost, and I search to find out the names and circumstances that people die under each day so I can know who died, why and what they did in life. No one seems interested in that. It is so sad that our society has detatched itself from war like this. It's not sad. It's tragic. It's disgusting. Is it all necessary? Was it necessary in Vietnam? No. I don't think so.

 

It might not be 50,000. But who CARES? Each life is precious, and the validity of a war should not be determined by how high the count gets.

 

 

Yes. Just because one war, vietnam for exampe was not necessary does not mean every other war is not....

And even still...

 

Do you think anyone anticipated Vietnam being a 25-year conflict? No.

 

And if we really have lost 25,000 in the first three years of Iraq... then do you realize that going at the same rate... if Iraq lasted for as long as Vietnam, we would lose 200,000 troops!? Does that register with you!?

 

Why do politicians never learn from their mistakes?

 

IF Iraq lasted as long as nam we'd lose 10,000 troops...seeng as how we lose around 1,000 a year.....

And even still...

 

Do you think anyone anticipated Vietnam being a 25-year conflict? No.

 

And if we really have lost 25,000 in the first three years of Iraq... then do you realize that going at the same rate... if Iraq lasted for as long as Vietnam, we would lose 200,000 troops!? Does that register with you!?

 

Why do politicians never learn from their mistakes?

 

Thats what iraq was, a politician learning from past mistakes...IE letting a dangerous leader go unchecked......

What exactly was he dangerous for? WMD's? I don't think so...

Yes he was a cruel dictator, but why didn't US (and allies), attack Turkmenistan, I mean they also have a cruel dictator, oh but wait Exxon has signed a several billion dollar contract with that dictator, well he ain't that bad now is he?

It is really outward ridicioulus and illogical/irrational to claim that Saddam was a huge threat, I'm pretty sure religious fanaticism that has been spurred by the war, and the whole chaos, is much much more dangerous for the whole world than Saddam (installed by CIA, FYI) ever was...

Also interesting how the US didn't complain when the same Saddam invaded Iran in the 80's...

What exactly was he dangerous for? WMD's? I don't think so...

Yes he was a cruel dictator, but why didn't US (and allies), attack Turkmenistan, I mean they also have a cruel dictator, oh but wait Exxon has signed a several billion dollar contract with that dictator, well he ain't that bad now is he?

It is really outward ridicioulus and illogical/irrational to claim that Saddam was a huge threat, I'm pretty sure religious fanaticism that has been spurred by the war, and the whole chaos, is much much more dangerous for the whole world than Saddam (installed by CIA, FYI) ever was...

Also interesting how the US didn't complain when the same Saddam invaded Iran in the 80's...

 

You dont think so because its obvious you havent done your research...saddam had all the materials to make wmd's and money and the scientist, all he had to do was give the order and it would be made....Now we've found documents since the invasion that said saddam was waiting for the UN sanctions to let off and when that happened he'd resume production of WMD's....A leader such as that with wmd's would be too much of a risk, specialy with so many terrorist groups who he could sell the wmd's too. So with this knowledge it is not irrational to claim he is a threat, it would be VERY unwise to have considered him anything but one.

 

 

Turkmenistan has never been a threat to us, and to my knowledge does not have any WMD's. that is why.

saddam had all the materials to make wmd's and money and the scientist, all he had to do was give the order and it would be made....

 

Links please, thx...

It'll take me awhile to find them, since i havent looked at them in like 2 years.

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/041008_intent.html

 

 

http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0102.htm

As expected very biased sources, and there are no concrete evidences just plain insinuations/manipulations...

Instead of bilndly believing into what is somebodys opinion you oughta make your own...

IF Iraq lasted as long as nam we'd lose 10' date='000 troops...seeng as how we lose around 1,000 a year.....[/quote']

 

 

we've lost way more than that... and its been officially 3 years, no?

As expected very biased sources, and there are no concrete evidences just plain insinuations/manipulations...

Instead of bilndly believing into what is somebodys opinion you oughta make your own...

 

I have, like i stated a million times. i read views from all the sides, read the evidence and make up my mind based on that. I suggest everyone on the planet does that, you are ignorant if you do not. you have to look at all the sides and make up your mind, like i have done.

 

None the less their is enough evidence to show saddam was planning on making wmd's in a few years, so instead of invading while he had them, we invaded just before he made them again.

we've lost way more than that... and its been officially 3 years' date=' no?[/quote']

 

we;ve lost around 1,000 a year.

 

That ONE source was Opinion but it a fact we've found out saddam was planning on making wmd's soon.....

:laugh4:

 

 

 

Have you ever considered a professional career as a comedian?

Yeah, but facts arent too funny.

Since when are insinuations facts?

Guess that isnta fact, but it is a fact they found lots of documents that showed saddam was going to restart his wmd program.

And when there would be implications that he is starting it again(actually building plants), the attack would be justified. This way it was only a way to secure oil fields, and a nice way for Exxon and BP to make extra profit, and have a nice geostrategic position for future invasions *cough* Iran *cough*...

 

I'm sure that Saddam was very well aware of his weaknesses, and he didn't think about restarting the WMD program...

Also one of the reasons of going to the war were his links with the terrorists, which were of course non existant...

hmm what about the tons of documents cited in my 'theory thread'... havent had any disputes there yet...