U.S. apology --- ??
- Thread starter Jimboyready
- Start date
I am not sure why you think the comment is stupid, but it is likely you meant the US is deciding who is in charge and you disagree.
The US has decided that there will be an interim government in Iraq, and although they were elected I am sure the US had a major influence on the results.
The United States of America has decided that there will be a vote of some of the citizens of Iraq and that will determine who is in charge.
You may not like it and you may disagree, but the best answer I can give you is; too bad that is the way it is going to be. Bush has said the majority of US troops will be out of Iraq before the end of his term. I believe him.
The US has decided that there will be an interim government in Iraq, and although they were elected I am sure the US had a major influence on the results.
The United States of America has decided that there will be a vote of some of the citizens of Iraq and that will determine who is in charge.
You may not like it and you may disagree, but the best answer I can give you is; too bad that is the way it is going to be. Bush has said the majority of US troops will be out of Iraq before the end of his term. I believe him.
everyone may as well get used to the idea that while 9/11 was a terrible tragedy the U.S is going to use it as an excuse to do and take what they please from whoever they please.
who knows,with the amount of oil that Canada has they might "liberate" us as well.
who knows,with the amount of oil that Canada has they might "liberate" us as well.
I agree if you think Iraq will be a repeat of Vietnam then we are in big trouble. The difference is the U.S. government held back the military machine in Vietnam and did not let them do their job.
The US chose to send in troops to be slaughtered over 8 years (?). US forces had the equipment and the training to win that war in short order. I was very young at the time and did not pay a lot of attention to what was happening, but based on what I learned after we lost the war, I think the US just fucked up royally and cost us tens of thousand of lives that did not need to be lost.
I do not see Bush making the same mistakes that JFK and LBJ made. He seems determined to go after the enemy where ever they are.
If Syria thinks it will get a pass like Cambodia did in the Vietnam War they are sadly mistaken. I would not be surprised if the US invades part of Syria before the end of this year. I think they are waiting to free up US troops as the Iraq forces take on more responsibility. When that happens, the US military machine will swing around and come full force against Syria. The fight should last 2 weeks. The clean up will be another 2 years.
The US chose to send in troops to be slaughtered over 8 years (?). US forces had the equipment and the training to win that war in short order. I was very young at the time and did not pay a lot of attention to what was happening, but based on what I learned after we lost the war, I think the US just fucked up royally and cost us tens of thousand of lives that did not need to be lost.
I do not see Bush making the same mistakes that JFK and LBJ made. He seems determined to go after the enemy where ever they are.
If Syria thinks it will get a pass like Cambodia did in the Vietnam War they are sadly mistaken. I would not be surprised if the US invades part of Syria before the end of this year. I think they are waiting to free up US troops as the Iraq forces take on more responsibility. When that happens, the US military machine will swing around and come full force against Syria. The fight should last 2 weeks. The clean up will be another 2 years.
luckydog71 said:
I honestly think you are sadly mistaken. first, when you say the US held backl the military... what exactly do you mean? They had all the resources disponible to them. About the only weapon they did not have was WMD...
Do you seriously think the US is ready to use nukes on Iraq? That will definitivelly open up a new can of worms, and frankly the US may not be ready to deal with it.
I think you lack some historical perspective. USA used everything they could, have you heard about carpet bombing in Vietnam? Have you heard about agent orange and other chemical warfare that was used in Vietnam? The only reason that they didn't use nuclear weapons was because it has a limited affect when the country is not industrialized and does not have big population center, plus such action would definitely would have lead to counter strikes by Russian and Chinese.luckydog71 said:
While the war was never declared on Cambodia, they US troops both invaded part of Cambodia and bombed that country too. Read about Vietnam and you will see a lot of similarities.
JFK, I admit my knowledge on the Vietnam War is limited, but it I believe US forces were restricted to South Vietnam. I do not believe Hanoi was ever bombed. I do not believe the US ever made a major offensive into North Vietnam.
Even Cambodia was more of a clandestine operation, not an all out invasion.
The jury is still out on Iraq and your comparison may turn out to be very valid, but I pray it is not.
Bush is not JFK nor is he LBJ. They made very bad decisions in Vietnam and cost the US ten of thousand of soldiers. I have visited the Vietnam memorial in D.C. and I was stunned at the wall of names. I do not know one person who is on the wall, but I wanted to sit down and cry. Smart, young faceless men wiped from the face of the earth and from the memory of America. Shame on us for the way we have treated our returning Vietnam vets.
Even Cambodia was more of a clandestine operation, not an all out invasion.
The jury is still out on Iraq and your comparison may turn out to be very valid, but I pray it is not.
Bush is not JFK nor is he LBJ. They made very bad decisions in Vietnam and cost the US ten of thousand of soldiers. I have visited the Vietnam memorial in D.C. and I was stunned at the wall of names. I do not know one person who is on the wall, but I wanted to sit down and cry. Smart, young faceless men wiped from the face of the earth and from the memory of America. Shame on us for the way we have treated our returning Vietnam vets.
Luckydog71, don't worry about it, The history channel is to the rescue.luckydog71 said:
Here you can read about bombing of Hanoi and other north Vietnam cities.
Hanoi Bombing
jfk one should not open ones mouth to speak unless one knows what one is talking about. If you are getting your history lessons from the history channel you are in sad need indeed. Ld is right we went into the vietnam conflict with the express purpose of coming out of it like we did in korea. which puts a huge restriction on your military to start off with. as far as the bombing of hanoi and haiphong and other areas of the north, the one thing ww2 taught the military is that you cant win a war just by bombing, you need a ground force to put pressure on the other govt. to take land and resources. and yes to kill the other army. But vietnam has nothing to do with iraq to seperate things entirely.
If one should not speak about things that you don't know then you should not post at all.dittman said:
I am sorry that like you, I don't consider fox news as the only reliable source but I don't think anybody can dispute that US army ground force was in Vietnam, unless you want to say that Vietnam memorial in DC is fake and the names on the wall is not real.
Since you are such expert, why don't you tell us what is purpose of being in Iraq and what is difference instead of just posting a nonsense like this.
JFK, I read the link you provided, thanks.
From that very short article it appears that the US sent in bombers at 30,000 feet and dropped millions of pounds of bombs and carpet bombed the forest areas. Eljudo, I agree we did use Agent Orange as a defoliant.
That does not sound the same as what is happening in Iraq. Iraq started with an intense bombing taking out every known military installation. They immediately followed that up with a well planned and executed ground invasion. The US forces tried to protect the infrastructure not destroy it. That is what happens when you keep the politics out of the tactical decisions that the US military makes.
I agree military mistakes were made. One certainly is letting the army return home. They should have been captured and detained until the end of the invasion. This means many of the Iraq army would still be in POW camps. Another is not entering that city (I am embarrassed I have forgot already) where the terrorist where in control. They stayed on the perimeter far too long.
I do not see the similarities between the two wars. I do believe during the Vietnam War, military decisions were made by civil servants in the White House.
From that very short article it appears that the US sent in bombers at 30,000 feet and dropped millions of pounds of bombs and carpet bombed the forest areas. Eljudo, I agree we did use Agent Orange as a defoliant.
That does not sound the same as what is happening in Iraq. Iraq started with an intense bombing taking out every known military installation. They immediately followed that up with a well planned and executed ground invasion. The US forces tried to protect the infrastructure not destroy it. That is what happens when you keep the politics out of the tactical decisions that the US military makes.
I agree military mistakes were made. One certainly is letting the army return home. They should have been captured and detained until the end of the invasion. This means many of the Iraq army would still be in POW camps. Another is not entering that city (I am embarrassed I have forgot already) where the terrorist where in control. They stayed on the perimeter far too long.
I do not see the similarities between the two wars. I do believe during the Vietnam War, military decisions were made by civil servants in the White House.
...and a 100,000 North Vietnamese civilians, and all of the South Vietnamese population lost and destroyed in the confict, the carpet bombing of Laos, and actions that lead (indirectly, but a major factor) to the utter destruction of Cambodia and the loss of millions of people there, and the landmines and ordinance that continue to kill and maim farmers and children to this day.luckydog71 said:
A problem with wars is that each person only counts their own dead. The names on the Vietnam memorial are only a tiny fraction of the lives lost and families broken in that totally useless conflict.
...those that ignore history to destined to...blah blah blah...
HankQuinlan A problem with wars is that each person only counts their own dead. The names on the Vietnam memorial are only a tiny fraction of the lives lost and families broken in that totally useless conflict. [/QUOTE said:
This whole discussion is very stupid. It's clear to me like black and white! The US is the biggest military power and the biggest enocomy and what is good for the US is good for the rest of the world including Canada and Iraq. Americans won the WW2 to save the world from the Nazis and now we are saving the world from something just as bad maybe worse. And also, comparing Vietnam to Iraq is stupid too. In Iraq are some very bad Muslims and their's is a culture of death (look at how they treat their ladies and they always have to wear black - see literarily "death"). Isn't it ironic that when Christians go to church they always wear white??? That is a culture of life they are celebrating. The facts are so clear you just have to stop arguing it and just look at it with your eyes open and then it will all be plain clear to you.
You have got to be kidding me, right? Ignoring the rest of your asinine post...'their's is a culture of death'?? What about the Crusades?georgebushmoron said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
