I have to give George Bush Sr. credit for putting an end to the stigma of Vietnam.

And I must give credit to George Bush Jr. for bringing it back.
How many US soldiers will have to die to get rid of a 3rd rate emasculated looser like Sadam?


Tommy Franks say we will be there 4 to 10 years. If they are willing to admit that, then we will probably be there 10 to 30 years.

They say this is costing the US 4 billion a week, that means it is at least 6 billion a week.

We could not win a guerilla war in Vietnam and we WON'T win one in Iraq.

This is sad indeed.....:(

In vietnam 100s of people died for small victories, this is definetly not the case. In vietnam we didnt fight to win, and we are fighting this war to win, believe me. Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Just dont get disheartened and support your troops, that is the best way to prevent vietnam again.


Support Our Troops! :usa:

Originally posted by CagedCrado
Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam.


Your concern for our Troops is touching. A few casualties may mean nothing to you, but some of us really hurt when things like that happen. I hope you never have to really experience that type of tragedy, if you have and still regard human life so casually you really are one of the bad guys.


The fake, patriotic ,wrap yourself in the flag attitude that you and people like bush & rumsfield express, contributes to the pain real patriots feel over these events.


Support this.

Yes this is very sad indeed. :( But the even worse thing is that the news media is (get this I heard it live) TELLING THE IRAQ ARMY WHERE THE US TROOPS ARE. Geez... there was a live feed going from a reporter embedded in the 7th Infantry 3rd Division Cavalry or something live that. All of a sudden, artillery fire opened up and came (in the words of the reporter) "It was amazing the accuracy that these shots were fired."

This was played OVER AND OVER on the RADIO. IRAQI TROOPS LISTEN TO THE RADIO. Thanks to the stations, they knew just how close they were to hitting the troops... the media will be the death of more soldiers. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by CagedCrado
Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Just dont get disheartened and support your troops, that is the best way to prevent vietnam again.

Don't ever say that again. That is one of the most dangerous things a person can say. Those "few casualties" that dont mean anything mean THE WORLD to some families back in the states... to them, it IS like vietnam now that the wife lost a husband and the children lost a father.

How about you show support and MOURN for these deaths instead of dismissing them.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
In vietnam 100s of people died for small victories, this is definetly not the case. In vietnam we didnt fight to win, and we are fighting this war to win, believe me. Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Just dont get disheartened and support your troops, that is the best way to prevent vietnam again.


Support Our Troops! :usa:


I agree with what you are saying.

Take it easy on CagedCrado people. Nowhere in his post did he say he wasn't saddened about the loss of lives. He just stated that this is not Vietnam all over again.

It's childish to say this war is like Vietnam. That is an ignorant statement that loses all validity because it is based in emotion.

Life is only temporary. Remember that.

Originally posted by ioshee
Life is only temporary. Remember that.

Dude, that is the grossist thing I've seen said about the war. HOW ABOUT I walk up to you and shoot you dead...would you like having your life taken before you're old and grey? NO!! So don't say **** like that. It may be temporary, but when it gets cut short, its a damn shame. Or how about I kill your gf/bf*sorry, dunno if your m/f*or your mother or father. How'd you feel?

*waves hands around

"Let there be flame..."

*puts on flame-retardent suit

No need for death threats... nobody wants to die. I think some people are just trying to get a rise out of others.

And this poor guy took the bait. Move along... I don't see any debate going here.

Vietnam lasted over a decade and cost thousands of American soldier's lives, ending with a shameful withdrawl (and subsequent defeat of our South Vietnam allies thereafter).

The last Persian Gulf War was over in a jiffy, few Americans died (though plenty of Iraqis) but we accomplished our goal(s)... force Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait, and protect Saudi Arabia.

Now the goal is to take out Saddam, and so far its going well (though some of that may just be media propaganda/misinformation).

The war in Afgahnistan could have gone horribly bad, as the Russians warned us about (they had a hell of a time when they were in there last), but it didn't turn out that bad for the US troops. The fighting continues a year later, but its hardly the disaster some feared.

Now I'm all for peace and diplomacy, but I think that at least some of the mistakes of the past (when it comes to military strategy) have been learned from...

And just in case you think I'm some callous hawkman or something, I have relatives that are being sent over, and I'm hoping the war is over before they have a chance to get in harm's way (call me selfish.. it's always easier to watch the other guy go.... when its your own kin its different).

Let's hope it is over quickly and peace will be restored.

Now let fly with any intelligent thoughts, please... ; )

I think that there are a lot of important differences between this war and Vietnam that might affect "stigma." First, the environment was drastically different. Finding the enemy in the desert with todays technology would seem infinately easier than in the Jungle with VN era tech.

Second, there seems to be clearer objectives.

Third, progress is steady (so far) and successes appear to be kept. Gained ground doesn't seem likely to return to the enemy.

There, undoubtedly, are other differences.

I also see some differences in the anti-war movement. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Vietnam anti-war effort grew nearly as quickly. If I recall my history, it took years for the public to become disenchanted with the goals and mission in vietnam. I also get the feeling that anti-war sentiment is larger than the media shows, but I also think that there are a couple of different types of anti-war "protester." One is against war, period. The other is against this particular war, for particular reasons.

Either way, I suspect that neither of these two types would typically disrespect the servicemembers / miltary personnel involved in the war. Not like the anti-war protesters of Vietnam. I really doubt that any returning servicemen will encounter protesters who spit on them an call them murderers.

Most of the people I know that are against the war have a deep and fond respect for the soldiers and marines over there. I fully support them and hope they do their jobs well and come home safe. And though I understand the resentment that many non-Americans will have when they see American servicemen hoist Old Glory after removing the Iraqi flag, I hope to see it happen again. It gives me a warm feeling.

But I also am pissed that it had to come to this. I resent my President, to whom I would give my life to protect out of duty to my country. I resent him for not allowing Congress to declare war as is provisioned in the Constitution. I resent him for precedent he is setting for the future of my country. I resent him for valuing oil and the profit it will bring the few over the needs of the many that make up the citizenry fo the U.S. of A. I resent him for leaving the office for a weekend at the ranch, even when there's a crisis.

Way to overreact, people. Personally, I agree with CagedCrado (for once). While, in the past he has been very extreme, in this case he makes perfect sense. A few casualties does not mean Vietnam, and the best thing we can do right now is support our troops and hope for the best.

He wasnt trivializing the deaths of those soldiers. He was simply saying that their deaths dont mean Vietnam. Death does not necessarily equate to another 'Nam. It does, however, go hand in hand with war.

Honestly, I'm stunned that many of you attacked him like that. It makes me wonder whether or not he edited something outafter the fact.... either that, or you're all holding against him things he said in other threads, which is very bad form (although I'm guilty of it from time to time).

I did not say this is going to be another Vietnam.
What i mean is now matter how well this goes, there will be a stigma from this following us for years.
There was frustration, shame, regret, resent, and many other painful emotions boiling under the surface for countless thousands of US citizens for years after Vietnam ended.

The US as a whole had something like a cathartic release after Desert Storm. It went as well as anyone could have hoped for, casualties & deaths were shockingly low, US soldiers conducted themselves with discipline and honor and set an example of the US military we could be proud to say was ours. Our friends , allies and even our enemies were impressed with how we conducted ourselves.

I think bushes admin has ruined this completely. Now matter how light civilian and coalition casualties are, even if things go better than predicted we will be remembered as the unjust agressors.

Well said griff38. Although I don’t agree with everything you have to say, I think I understand you a little better after that last post. I apologize for any offensive comments I made.


MdnightPsion, if you feel the desire to kill me for making a factual statement, you have already defeated your own cause.

I love you all (no sarcasm)

"We expect them to be treated humanely," President Bush told reporters.

*coughguantanamocough*

Although I may have overlooked it in skimming the article, I didn't see anything about the POW being executed. Danish TV mentioned those same pics, but didn't say anything about any executions.

A few casualties may mean nothing to you, but some of us really hurt when things like that happen.

From a usually level-headed person, this comment surprises me. In Denmark alone, far, far more people die from smoking and car exhaust. In fact I've found that the amount of attention given to each disaster by the media is usually inversely proportional to the number of similiar disasters in the world. This means that, with a fairly rough correlation, the amount of media attention that a problem gets is inversely proportional with its size. A few hundred casualties really do mean nothing compared to the vast numbers of people starving to death in third world countries, because of overprotective industry-supporting programmes initiated by western governments.

Yes this is very sad indeed. But the even worse thing is that the news media is (get this I heard it live) TELLING THE IRAQ ARMY WHERE THE US TROOPS ARE. Geez... there was a live feed going from a reporter embedded in the 7th Infantry 3rd Division Cavalry or something live that. All of a sudden, artillery fire opened up and came (in the words of the reporter) "It was amazing the accuracy that these shots were fired."

Save your frustration Reborn. If the reporter was even allowed to enter that detatchment, then it means that the Iraqi already knew fairly well where they were... Unless your generals are complete and utter idiots, in which case your troops have bigger problems than a single, peeping reporter.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Although I may have overlooked it in skimming the article, I didn't see anything about the POW being executed. Danish TV mentioned those same pics, but didn't say anything about any executions.

I recall mention that two of the dead shown on Al Jazera had sustained fatal gunshot wounds to the head, which were described as "execution style." That in itself doesn't state that the soldiers were executed, but people tend to hear this and form their own conclusions, regardless of other possibilities. For instance, the soldiers may have been surprised by the Iraqis who were pretending to give up and the first indication of their dishonorable act was the gunshots to the heads... the others may have escaped without injury by not fighting back any further.....

That's but one possibility. They may, indeed, have been executed as an example to the others or to gain complete compliance (I think this is more likely).

We will never know until the others are released.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Save your frustration Reborn. If the reporter was even allowed to enter that detatchment, then it means that the Iraqi already knew fairly well where they were... Unless your generals are complete and utter idiots, in which case your troops have bigger problems than a single, peeping reporter.

No the reporter was embedded. He was there from the start, ever since Kuwait. The thing that makes me angry though is that they release stuff that would have been better off not released, on international radio.

One of the most interesting aspects of this war, as seen from a couch in Soviet Scandinavistan, is the way different media cover it. From what I hear, the fighting for Basra was reported a swift and crushing coalition victory by the US media, whereas the arabian media focused on the fact that coalition troops have yet to take the city proper.

Curiously enough, both are right.

The strategic objectives surrounding Basra have been taken, and the city is, for all intents and purposes, out of the war. Crushing US victory, because these were the objectives of the US force.

On the other hand, the US don't control the city itself. Crushing Iraqi victory, because that was their imperative.

It is said that the first casualty in war is the truth. Based on these one-sided media reports, I guess that it's true.

Reborn: I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear enough before: I meant that your generals aren't likely to place a reporter in a detatchment that's going on a stealth mission (that would be kinda self defeating). And I don't expect the reporters to stick right up in the bloody frontline (or be allowed to, for that matter, imagine the bad press and rumormongering that would result from a KIA'd reporter). Furthermore I don't think that any reporter would be stupid enough to transmit the exact location, while within range of the enemy big guns (OK, maybe the reporter is stupid enough to do this, but he sure as feth won't be allowed to transmit it out without a time-lag).

In short: I don't think that it was a direct show (which is further indicated by the fact that they repeated it several times, this is highly unusual for direct reportings).

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
or be allowed to, for that matter, imagine the bad press and rumormongering that would result from a KIA'd reporter).

Sadly, this might have happened already... (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=12770350&method=full&siteid=50082)

I know it's a very callous thing to say, but I smile at the thought of one of those reporters getting killed out there. I find it to be one of the most retarded things to want to be out with a line platoon doing nothing but reporting. I don't even think these 'tards are carrying rifles. Do we really need to have the news reported to us directly from the field? Is it better then getting it from a military liason? When these reporters and their cameramen actually get in the sh*t, what do you expect them to show us? I'll tell you what you'll see, you'll see a bunch of jumbled images because the camerman is running for cover, and you'll hear the reporter hollering "oh sh*t, oh sh*t".

The only people who care that these reporters are in the field, and the camermen that are with them, are other reporters and camermen. It's like an industry achievement. But the rest of the world could give a flying f*ck. They are out there for the glory that it will give them, and this glory will only come from the news industry. So, in their pursuit for better job status, they do something that not only is extremely dangerous, but so infinitely stupid for the reasons that they are doing it. If they think getting killed is a justifiable risk for their job, a reporting job, then I think it's good for at least a few of them to get killed. But you know what, reporters getting killed in the field will only elevate the status of the ones that survived, and they will gain more glory because the actual danger of what they did is evident as it happened to others.

It's sick, and retarded.



Oh, and if I hear someone say "embedded" again, I will puke. Stupid media and their damn tendencies to cling to catch phrases.

Originally posted by C'jais
Sadly, this might have happened already... (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=12770350&method=full&siteid=50082)

If the media finds someway to blame this on the Marines and not on the stupidity of the reporters... GRRRR. :mad:


And Shadow, from what I understand, the time lag is only a few seconds AND he was transmitting live at the time the artillary was fired. It just gets me annoyed that the media is there, it causes a distraction from the troops.

(Oh and it wasn't the reporter that repeated it, it was the CNN specialist in New York who was telling people who were just uning in.... she was the one that was saying it over and over)

It was the US Military specifically the pentagon that decided to embed the reporters into the troops according to former supreme commander Gen Schwarzkopf.
According to him this is the best way to recieve news from the front. It certainly has a delay and I mean come on Marines are not for 1 heartbeat going to allow themselves to be placed in danger for a news reporter. But instead, they are very buddy buddy with the reporters. Reporters despite there libral rep, usually kiss major enlisted butt.

Originally posted by griff38
I have to give George Bush Sr. credit for putting an end to the stigma of Vietnam.

And I must give credit to George Bush Jr. for bringing it back.
How many US soldiers will have to die to get rid of a 3rd rate emasculated looser like Sadam?


A US soldier has attempted to kill his commander while in the field, what the.....
cnn link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.101.attack/index.html).

And now captured US soldiers (most likely from the 507 Army maintenance group) have been executed on camera for the whole world to see. Totally unsat.cnn link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.info.minister/index.html).

Another Vietnam! Your way off my friend. We have been tearing them apart like toliet paper on a summer friday. Yes they won a few skirmishes but not major battles. We have lost atleast 30 men out of what 300,000 leaves us with 299,970, yea were dying out there:rolleyes: . They have no chance against us.

I know it's a very callous thing to say, but I smile at the thought of one of those reporters getting killed out there. I find it to be one of the most retarded things to want to be out with a line platoon doing nothing but reporting. I don't even think these 'tards are carrying rifles. Do we really need to have the news reported to us directly from the field? Is it better then getting it from a military liason? When these reporters and their cameramen actually get in the sh*t, what do you expect them to show us? I'll tell you what you'll see, you'll see a bunch of jumbled images because the camerman is running for cover, and you'll hear the reporter hollering "oh sh*t, oh sh*t".

The only people who care that these reporters are in the field, and the camermen that are with them, are other reporters and camermen. It's like an industry achievement. But the rest of the world could give a flying f*ck. They are out there for the glory that it will give them, and this glory will only come from the news industry. So, in their pursuit for better job status, they do something that not only is extremely dangerous, but so infinitely stupid for the reasons that they are doing it. If they think getting killed is a justifiable risk for their job, a reporting job, then I think it's good for at least a few of them to get killed. But you know what, reporters getting killed in the field will only elevate the status of the ones that survived, and they will gain more glory because the actual danger of what they did is evident as it happened to others.

It's sick, and retarded.



Oh, and if I hear someone say "embedded" again, I will puke. Stupid media and their damn tendencies to cling to catch phrases.
You take delight in this is what scares me. They report the news on war. If they weren't out there would we be here talking about this?

I did not say this is going to be another Vietnam. well....
I have to give George Bush Sr. credit for putting an end to the stigma of Vietnam.

And I must give credit to George Bush Jr. for bringing it back. Kinda screws you there. If your going to say something don't mean something else make sure it means what you want it to mean.

Don't ever say that again. That is one of the most dangerous things a person can say. Those "few casualties" that dont mean anything mean THE WORLD to some families back in the states... to them, it IS like vietnam now that the wife lost a husband and the children lost a father.

How about you show support and MOURN for these deaths instead of dismissing them. Well put reborn. Though small it's large emitonally wise. Ever heard of this beattitude? Blessed are those who mourn. For they will be comforted.

I'm cheering for Bush and for the U.S army greatest luck that can be possible can be recieved.:cool:


-TheHobGoblin

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
well....
Kinda screws you there. If your going to say something don't mean something else make sure it means what you want it to mean.
:


-TheHobGoblin

I did say what i meant, this is not another Vietnam it will have a STIGMA like the 1 from then.
Do you know what a stigma is? You are creating 1 for yourself here.

That remains to be seen.

If we lose/withdrawl in shame/failure then yes, it will probably have a stigma attached to it.

With Vietnam, most people feel that we did wrong there, and everybody else with an opinion think we were right, but went about it wrong, etc, so almost everybody admits we made a mistake getting into the decades long war and not accomplishing much of anything except lots of deaths on both sides.

I predict that if we win and peace and some measure of closure is achieved in the region (stable democratic government setup in Iraq), most people (in the West) will not look on it as a bad thing.

Not sure I get your point Kurgan, if we are winners then what we have done is justified and if we loose then we were wrong?


That is the same thing as saying, The ends justify the means.

That was the logic Nazi Germany used, if we win then we get away with it?

uh......... you guys are not going to rationalize that too are you?

I think Kurgan is just trying to say that much of the "stigma" associated with the Vietnam war that many understand was to do with the aftermath and the length of time/amount of resources invested in vain.

We spent billions, lost many lives, lost much equipment... and had zero success to show for it.

If we complete the war in Iraq with honor, maintain low loss of life with coalition forces, and minimize our lost/destroyed equipment, we can then avoid that "stigma." It may be possible to regain public, and even world support, if we finish this better than we started. That'll mean providing genuine humanitarian support (starting ASAP) and giving genuine support to the Iraqi people in their reconstruction era. Notice I said "era." Reconstruction will take years if not decades. They will need our support, as well as that of other countries, to be successful.

It will remain to be seen whether or not this can be done. There are a lot of complexities involved: Bagdad may not be an easy objective; Shiites in the south; Kurds in the north; oil for food; Euro -vs- Dollar; disease; public utilities; general infrastructure; war crimes tribunals; etc.

Most of these guys in this forum aren't as old as you and I, Griff. They may not see "stigma" from the same perspective when comparing to Vietnam. I've a feeling you're referring to public sentiment to the military mission.... there may be some similarities there, but we have to remember that there were also many attrocities commited by American forces during that war. Hopefully, the presence of media and better training will prevent that kind of thing this time around.

A "stigma" is a negative perception attached to something, it is not necessarily a morally right or informed feeling.

For example, former slaves might be stigmatized at various times in history, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated unfairly. A stigma may be attached to a certain action that is unwarranted, etc.

The "stigma" from Vietnam came from the fact that we lost the war (failed to accomplish our goals, lost a lot of men) and from what was done there (massacre at Mai Lai, etc).

If we win, even if it was the most immoral war ever, chances are public perceptions of it will be positive (as far as wars are concerned). Look at WW2... about the only people you'll find who think it was totally wrong were ones who were on the losing side, (or they're 100% pacificists).

Ask most people in the west if what we did was wrong, and they'll say "Sacrafices had to be made... Hitler had to be stopped" "The Holocaust justified what we did." "Dropping the A-bomb was the lesser of two evils." "We had to keep the world safe for democracy." etc. Yet many attrocities were committed by the Allies as well (bombings of dresden, tokyo, hirmoshima, nagasaki, etc).

Clear victory or defeat has more to do with the presence or lack of the stigma than the actual killing that went on though.

I'd wager that had the US won Vietnam and freed South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression, and kept the peace, the everday perception of the war in the US would be much more positive, despite the number of deaths.

Where the popularity of wars are concerned, the end often DOES justify the means, in popular perception (on the winning side of course).

That was the logic Nazi Germany used, if we win then we get away with it?

Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winners"? It's true. That doesn't mean it's right, but that's how it works. We were no saints in WW2, but we won, so we're the good guys (in our own estimation). The same will apply here.

Originally posted by Kurgan
A "stigma" is a negative perception attached to something, it is not necessarily a morally right or informed feeling.
I agree.

Originally posted by Kurgan
The "stigma" from Vietnam came from the fact that we lost the war (failed to accomplish our goals, lost a lot of men) and from what was done there (massacre at Mai Lai, etc).

I disagree. the stigma mostly ( in my opinion ) comes from the fact that the invasion of Vietnam was an ilegal interference of a civil war. We ignored our own democratic rules because we were concerened about the spread of Communism. We invaded another nation because we did not like their chosen form of goverment. A crime by US standards and most respected Democracies in the world, Then and now. The fact that we had a complete failure in Vietnam was because our goverments illegal actions were constantly challenged and restricted by our own people and laws. The president of the US at the time admitted this by refusing to serve his office anymore when it ended.

Originally posted by Kurgan
If we win, even if it was the most immoral war ever, chances are public perceptions of it will be positive (as far as wars are concerned).

I agree, but
That does not make it right or fair.

Originally posted by Kurgan
Look at WW2... about the only people you'll find who think it was totally wrong were ones who were on the losing side, (or they're 100% pacificists).

I disagree, Modern Germany accepts and informs anyone who will listen that they were wrong in WWII and they were the loosing side.

Originally posted by Kurgan
Ask most people in the west if what we did was wrong, and they'll say "Sacrafices had to be made... Hitler had to be stopped" "The Holocaust justified what we did." "Dropping the A-bomb was the lesser of two evils." "We had to keep the world safe for democracy." etc. Yet many attrocities were committed by the Allies as well (bombings of dresden, tokyo, hirmoshima, nagasaki, etc).

I agree, WWII was not Vietnam.

Originally posted by Kurgan
I'd wager that had the US won Vietnam and freed South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression, and kept the peace, the everday perception of the war in the US would be much more positive, despite the number of deaths.

Alot of ifs there, especially since Vietnam didn't ever turn out to be the evil spreader of Communism all the doomsayers said it would be.

Originally posted by Kurgan
Where the popularity of wars are concerned, the end often DOES justify the means, in popular perception (on the winning side of course).

To HELL with popular opinion, what's that got to do with fairness and justice? I will quickly sacrifice any popularity I have to do the right thing.


Originally posted by Kurgan
Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winners"? It's true. That doesn't mean it's right, but that's how it works. We were no saints in WW2, but we won, so we're the good guys (in our own estimation). The same will apply here.

We were the good guys in WWII not because we won, we were the good guys because we were fair and just.
To bad we can't honestly say this anymore.

this war is nothing like vietnam, first of all we arnt only fighting an iraqi war we are actually fighting for us and other peoples safety. in vietnam the govt. sent drafties to boot camp for 2 weeks, who can be made a fighting machine by then? now we have well trained, honor deserving troops. they have better weapons, skills, tactics, and are not trudging through jungles with no way of knowing if he was gonna step on a mine. now we can detect these things. and, the fact that we are already bombing statrygic (sp?) places of command, and not killing innocents(to our best ability). as for the soldier who threw grenades, he snapped, and most soldiers are better trained then to snap, you cant place it like vietnam as a acction from one soldier. in war we lose men and men get captured and its all sad and a horrible thing, and the execution of them is just one reason to show why we are there, thats against the geneva convention article 13(i think?).
we have over 3,000 of iraqi soldiers in captivity and have 69 iraqi confirmed ground war deaths. the us has lost 39 and counting, which is sadly not a horrible number. we have soldiers who have been cought, and those who are not executed are trained for the situation, evben though nothin really prepares you for that.

Originally posted by griff38
I disagree, Modern Germany accepts and informs anyone who will listen that they were wrong in WWII and they were the loosing side.

True, the people of Germany feel very ashamed of their past and the country as a whole has lost so much self-confidence that it's stopping them from intervening in other people's affairs now (which might be why they called for a pacifist approach towards Iraq).

Swastikas are nazis are outlawed in Germany. While it doesn't coincide with the freedom of speech, I can understand why they chose to do so. The rest of the world must see that they're being sincere in their decision to not let anything like this repeat itself.

Sorry for going off topic, but I feel many non-Europeans don't know enough about them dealing with a shameful past.

Originally posted by griff38

We were the good guys in WWII not because we won, we were the good guys because we were fair and just.

Really?

Do you know what happened to Dresden?

I don't think this war will turn out like Vietnam in the short run. People are saved, the country gets it freedom and Bush gets his reelection. Everyone satisfied.

But there's a lurking danger. The way the US went about justifying this war is dubious at best, and downright irresponsible at worst. The way they switched arguments but kept beating the same drum could spell disaster for future dealings between USA, the UN and the arab world. My bet, as unbased as it is, is that this war will bring more terrorism, possibly another 9/11, and destabilize the mid east area.

My dystopian thoughts are that with this war, USA could have layed the foundation for their own fall as a superpower.

It all depends on how well they can take care of the post-war situation.

Really?

By large, the US were the morally good guys in WW2. It was war, yes, but it was violence applied at the right place. You can always nitpick some specific heinous acts commited by US soldiers, but even if their motives and means were shallow, the end result was a good one.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Really?

Do you know what happened to Dresden?

Yes, yes i do
Thank you, you are correct. Perhaps I should of said for the most part or qualified in some way that was not so absolute.

also, to add to my priar poste, isnt iraq a smaller country with a much smaller and much more shaky army.

Originally posted by daring dueler
we have over 3,000 of iraqi soldiers in captivity and have 69 iraqi confirmed ground war deaths.

I heard that there are more than 500 confirmed frags (Yes, I'm trying to win The-Most-Inappropriate-Term-Contest..sorry about that :o ).

These 500 Iraqi casualties are only the ones that were gunned down on the battlefield. No-one knows exactly how many have died in the massive bombings...but that number is surely significantly higher than 500.

Some say that the US does not want to give the public the picture of a huge slaughter, so they have chosen to make the war look like "no-one is getting hurt".

Bush asked the congress for another..what...37 billion bucks? That'll keep the war going for another few weeks. Big numbers, huh? :eek:

I disagree. the stigma mostly ( in my opinion ) comes from the fact that the invasion of Vietnam was an ilegal interference of a civil war.

Before Japan attacked us, we felt that Hitler's invasions in Europe were an internal European matter. Are invasions by nature illegal? If so, why did we invade Germany? Why did we allow our allies to conduct invasions? After WW2 it was generally agreed that invasions and conquests are not legally recognized (in "international law") because of all the trouble it causes, but it still happens. The US has invaded and conquered plenty of countries in the past. Not trying to go on a US bashing crusade here, but just to put it in perspective.


We ignored our own democratic rules because we were concerened about the spread of Communism. We invaded another nation because we did not like their chosen form of goverment.

We continued a war that the French were involved in before us. The Soviet Union also interferred in the war, by giving aide to the Communist side. Note that in Korea we fought for similar reasons and we fought under the banner of the United Nations.


A crime by US standards and most respected Democracies in the world, Then and now. The fact that we had a complete failure in Vietnam was because our goverments illegal actions were constantly challenged and restricted by our own people and laws. The president of the US at the time admitted this by refusing to serve his office anymore when it ended.

Nixon resigned because of Watergate, not because of Vietnam. On that, most historians can agree.


I disagree, Modern Germany accepts and informs anyone who will listen that they were wrong in WWII and they were the loosing side.

Perhaps, but there are people in Germany who resent the destruction rained down upon them during the war and are looking for someone to blame (Neo Nazis anyone) and in Japan there are those who still resent the US for what it did to them during the war as well.



I agree, WWII was not Vietnam.

My point was, WW2 is looked upon most on the winning side as being a "Good war." Yet more people died there than in Vietnam, and more attrocities were committed (even by the "good guys" who won). The Allies bombed the hell out of Dresden, Tokyo, etc and dropped the A bombs on civilians in Japan.

Hell, one of the Allies was the Soviet Union, and as we know, Stalin was a far worse mass murderer and brutal dictator than Hitler ever was.


Alot of ifs there, especially since Vietnam didn't ever turn out to be the evil spreader of Communism all the doomsayers said it would be.

It was the whole "domino" theory. See, some people say the US should be the world's policeman, going around interveening in every little skirmish between other countries. We can't sit idly by like we did for the first part of WW1 and 2, etc etc. while people die who need help.

On the other hand there's plenty of people who say, no, we should let people die, only going to war when our direct interests are threatened (which can mean a lot of things.. direct invasion, terrorism, or threatening your oil supply, etc). Then, and only then do we throw away American lives fighting somebody's war for them.

I don't think the thousands or millions who die in these wars are any less dead if we were fighting for the "right" reasons or not. Ideally, we'd never go to war, ever, but we do, and every war "needs" a justification (a cause.. or nobody will risk their lives for it).

Obviously you feel the Iraqi war is wrong, and we shouldn't be in it (and neither should Britain I assume). You also felt that Vietnam was wrong, but I assume you feel that WW2 was right. I don't see a lot of moral differences.. they were all bloody and murderous, and perhaps other alternatives existed at a certain point, we just didn't take them or didn't see them in time. Or we could have conducted ourselves differently.

Many scholars say that the heavy bombings in WW2 didn't really accomplish a whole lot until the very end of the war anyway.

In the end, its very hard to make a case for a Just War, period, since War is inherently unjust.




To HELL with popular opinion, what's that got to do with fairness and justice? I will quickly sacrifice any popularity I have to do the right thing.

-WW2 was a popular war, and we won, so its still popular.

-Vientnam was an unpopular war, because we were losing, and its still unpopular because we lost.

Thus, if we win the Iraqi war, chances are it will be thought of positively. If we lose or withdraw without accomplishing our goals, it'll be more likely to be unpopular.

The morality of it has nothing to do with it. If we lose, its seen as the soldiers we sent died for nothing, and that doesn't sit well with people. If we win, it looks like they died, but they were sacraficed for a greater good, so it can be forgiven in time.

You seem to have confused the "stigma" (which is a matter of public opinion, not a true objective judgement of moral acceptability) with rightness or wrongness.

You seem to be saying if a war is "unpopular" then it must be immoral. And conversly you're assuming a popular war must have been right. Surely looking at WW2 will disprove this notion?



We were the good guys in WWII not because we won, we were the good guys because we were fair and just.

Is fighting side by side with a mass murderer (Stalin) fair and just? Is bombing civilians on purpose fair and just? How about rounding up people into prison camps because of their ethnic background alone?

Doesn't sound very fair and just to me.



To bad we can't honestly say this anymore.

Humbug. In ever war we've ever fought in, we've done some pretty horrible things. Sometimes we've done better than our enemies, other times we've been the same or worse. Sometimes we did stuff that was good, but bad stuff always happens. That's why I think its pretty hard to say a war was ever good. It might be good compared to other wars, but the nature of war itself makes it bad.

War tends to bring out the worst in people.

this is not vietnam, only the hippies (i use this looseley) ok fine ill say alti-war protestors just wont let go of the past (nam) either that or they are jumping on a bandwagon...or doing it for fun.


to all the anti-war people: The war has begun YOUVE LOST YOUR PROTEST so either stfu or find something else to talk about.

Well now I am totally confused, I have no idea of what point you are trying to make Kurgan.

I started this thread to express my sadness over the untallied misery this uneeded war will bring for decades, you disagreed with me and now you finish by saying war bring out the worst in us and we have always done terrible things in war.

Are you just arguing for fun?

Originally posted by XERXES
to all the anti-war people: The war has begun YOUVE LOST YOUR PROTEST so either stfu or find something else to talk about.

In a way, I agree: protesting will not prevent the war or stop it... it's already underway. However, protests must still continue in order to voice disagreement with why the war is being fought.

It is not about Saddam's brutality. It is not about the "War on Terror." It is not about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It is about securing the economic stability of one of the largest oil fields in the world. It is about maintaining the Dollar as the currency of choice for OPEC in the oil market, rather than the Euro.

Removing a brutal, terrible, tyrranical dictator is but a bonus. The United States Government has never intervened in the affairs of other countries unless there is a direct, economic advantage. Or unless directly attacked.

There was no danger of the latter.

But ther war is underway. Godspeed to our soldiers and airmen (and yes, the Marines, too, Jack ;) ). Damn Bush for putting their lives at risk so the rich can get richer.

at the time i posted the 69 deaths it wasnt for sure how many of the 500 were kjilled on msnbc so i said 69 confirmed.

yeah that was a little harsh what i said, but sometimes you gotta be harsh to get your point across. My entire history class is liberal, anti-war and im not.

As for now i call every American to stop protesting and support Bush in his actions to he doesnt have to worry about his own people AND the war.



Also if you dont support the war...and you didnt wana go to war..what would you have done in his shoes?

No griff, I thought you were trying to make some grandious statement about how Vietnam was a "bad war" and the Iraqi war would be as well, without really thinking about WHY that would be true (or even what constituted a "bad" war).

Nevermind, if we're just getting confused.. we're not really arguing anymore. ; )

No hard feelings...

the reason i believe this is not going to "be vietnam all over again" is because...the vietnam war was HEAVILY supported before it started and during the begening however, the media...news...it was the first time Americans got to see war first hand through video on TV and they hated it, THEN the protests started...

xerxes, i agree with you totally, i fell the same way. i am for war , and i get , well,kinda violent at those who dont support the troops or pres. Bush.And while many of my friends are for the war, i find myself arguing with those who arnt .

Originally posted by XERXES
My entire history class is liberal, anti-war and im not.

Well... History is a liberal art ;)

More seriously, being liberal isn't necessarily bad. Most of the progress our country has enjoyed has come from liberal adminstrations. Ideas such as the FDA, Social Security, Medicaid, and many, many others. Liberal, quite simply, means that one is willing to change with the times. Conservative, on the other hand, means that one prefers the status quo.

Originally posted by XERXES
As for now i call every American to stop protesting and support Bush in his actions so he doesnt have to worry about his own people AND the war.

Bush should be protested against. The war deserves protest. But the troops certainly need to be supported. They have honor, loyalty and duty to their country. They are doing their duty and doing it well. There are tough times ahead of them in Bagdad and I actually think at this point there need to be MORE troops on the ground or it will be bad for all sides in the conflict.

Originally posted by XERXES
Also if you dont support the war...and you didnt wana go to war..what would you have done in his shoes?

It wasn't about not wanting to go. It's about being able. I'm retired from the Army. I was there in the first Gulf War and proud to have served my country. If permitted, I'd do so again.

What I would have done in Bush's shoes? I'd have used the world support that our country had immediately following 9/11 and finished the Afganistan issue. I would have then turned to terrorism in places such as Indonesia, the Philipines, and Columbia, each places where Al Quida has members. The world would have been behind this.

If Saddam was really to be an issue, I think I would have issued a warning that if one more coalition plane is attacked while enforcing the No-Fly Zone, retaliation will occur on Command, Control, and Communications. Then I would have launched an attack similar to the one that opened the current war. That way, very little colateral damage would be done, Saddam would be more likely to have been hit, there would have been a valid reason in the world's eyes (the same world that would be happy that we rid many countries of terrorists), and less expense to the world economy.

But that's what I would have done. That's not necessarily the correct action. Just my preference.

i dont see why this war should be protested against. i support bush, and i am open to reasons, but i dont agree with them. and as for finishing aphganastan we have made new advances in that war, this had to be done, how can you deny all the evidence?

Ugh I gotta tell Bill O'reily about this site.
My class got a more liberals then republicans. I support the war. I thank our soilder who defend us out of their own free will. My best friend, thank god, is a republican. He is quite good at debates but I'm the best. Debates are my favorite. The protesters are now just being stupid and foolish. They're creating havoc, chaos, and traffic (plenty) instead of being sensible. Uhh aren't these people against war and viloence? Looks like they go against what they believe quicker then Homer Simpson.

lol, homer
well i too am republican, and i also like to dabate.
and protestors, well sadly they too have the rite to it,lol, but to say they dont even support the troops and consider them war criminals thats just wrong, they shall be shot!, well not shot but still k'mon people you dont like the war? fine , but you not supporting the troops really has n effect on their moral!

I started this thread 03-23-2003 .

Anybody ready to agree yet?




IT'S VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

It amazes me how the accents on what's republican and what's liberal has changed. Liberal in US now means to be communistic I think. Well, I guess Bush's elections finally showed that U.S. doesn't want to step that road.

That's all I have for now