04 Aug 05
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder
I submit the analogy is apt. The right wingers argued then, as now, that the West faced an enemy that wanted to take over the entire world and that if we didn't stop them in X (Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba: you name it) they wou ...[text shortened]... eds of thousands of people getting killed. Care to give it a shot?
The Domino theory taken out of the moth balls ...... but now to "prove" that we, of course not only the US but also the UK and the other allies, should retreat from Iraq.
No1: " ... They also argued, as you have, that the West could not ever admit defeat anywhere as that would encourage our enemies."
I was talking about the extremist Jihadis and their demands of pulling out of Iraq and all other Islam countries (You now hopefully see one of the dangers of your comparisons, I hope).
The Allies will pull out of Iraq, but only if they are ready to do so and not because Mr. Bin Laden or one of his friends has threatened them with new atrocities.
By the way, I was a fervent opponent of the Vietnam War. You keep trying to push me into a corner where I do not belong, the corner of the "outspoken conservative" Roman Catholic. I am a Roman Catholic, yes, but I am not an outspoken conservative one. Not in the American sense and not in the European sense. If you would accept this it would prevent a lot of misunderstandings, caused by the assumptions you make and the notions you keep projecting on me. Pity.
Request: Please, get rid of your "carved image" concerning me.
No1: " ..... the fall of certain countries to indigenous Communist movements had no effect at all on the security of the West."
... certain countries ? You should have lived in Europe at the time of the Cold War. Popular uprises in Hungary, Poland, DDR, etc. That would give you quite a different perspective, I'm sure.
You fail to see how egotistical and isolationist your extremely nationalistic (!) stance on foreign policy is.
Now that the communist empire has crumbled we see a TOTALLY different security situation. The security relations in the world have changed fundamentally since the fall and the desintegration of the USSR.
The War in Vietnam was lost but the Cold War was won. I hope you don't regret the latter.
No1: "... The fall of the entire Middle East to Islamic Fundamentalists, ........... , would still not endanger the West in any way. "
I truly have no words that can describe how wrong you are ..... even in the case you would replace the term "the West" by "the United States", as you seem to be argueing from merely a narrow and "thin" nationalistic American perspective ["majority of Americans should benefit from a certain foreign policy"]. I could also call your perspective rather one-dimensional, but that would destroy any perspective at all, don't you agree ?
Please, show me a serious politician who agrees with you on this above statement of yours except Mr. Bin Laden & friends.
.... and by the way, it isn't my "little holy war". Such qualifications of the situation in Iraq, the Middle East or the War on Terror in general make me wonder why I should take you seriously in any way at all regarding these issues.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by DelmerYes I suppose I did. But I do believe we still have only those two routes. Perhaps not to the extreme that I ran a little long on. 🙂
I don't mean to be unduly picky, WIB, but perhaps you inadvertantly editorialized just a tad when stating the Jackson position. I'm sure it was not intentional on your part.
We're fighting an enemy in Iraq that will never surrender. They won't sit down at a big fancy mahogany table and discuss settlement terms while everyone wears their nicest uniform and smiles for the camera. They will fight us until the last man (and woman) falls.
This war in Iraq does share similarities to Vietnam. And that frightens me. It also shares certain traits of the American Revolution. The US "patriots" simply would NOT give up. They were beaten at every turn, out numbered, under trained, poorly supplied, fighting on their home soil, seeing their homes and families destroyed. They were also called traitors, and they had to use whatever tactics were available to them in order to have even the slightest hope of success. And still they kept fighting.
They were fighting for a cause that they were willing to give everything for, including their lives. A man that's willing to do that is one tough SOB to whup.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by wibI can't agree with any of that.
Yes I suppose I did. But I do believe we still have only those two routes. Perhaps not to the extreme that I ran a little long on. 🙂
We're fighting an enemy in Iraq that will never surrender. They won't sit down at a big fancy mahogany table and discuss settlement terms while everyone wears their nicest uniform and smiles for the camera. They will fig ...[text shortened]... ing for, including their lives. A man that's willing to do that is one tough SOB to whup.
It's a defeatist attitude, and as such almost always spells defeat.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by wibwib: "This war in Iraq does share similarities to Vietnam. And that frightens me."
Yes I suppose I did. But I do believe we still have only those two routes. Perhaps not to the extreme that I ran a little long on. 🙂
We're fighting an enemy in Iraq that will never surrender. They won't sit down at a big fancy mahogany table and discuss settlement terms while everyone wears their nicest uniform and smiles for the camera. They will fig ...[text shortened]... ing for, including their lives. A man that's willing to do that is one tough SOB to whup.
That is EXACTLY what people like Mr.Bin Laden & friends are trying to achieve ..... to FRIGHTEN people. This comparison with the Vietnam war, still a trauma for many Americans, is used by the terrorists, and alas not just by them, in the propaganda war that is a part of the War on Terror. This War on Terror must not only be won on the military battlefields, but also on the battlefields of the propaganda war, the media; television, radio, newspapers, etc.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by wibOh, I think we have to kill the terrorists for sure, and I think the best way is to train and deploy hunter-killer teams to work below the horizon and kill them when and where they find them. I guess I don't see any important similiarity with Vietnam, Korea, the American Revolution or any geo-political type war. To me it seems more like a war against well-funded international, ideological criminals. I think it's a mistake to provide them with regular military for targets. I don't see it as the kind of job for which a country trains and arms a military. I see it as a job for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of highly trained, well paid, professional, stone cold assassins. Infiltrate and kill them. No casualty lists. No roster. No prisoners of war. No prisoners of any kind. Just a slow steady drop in the number of terrorists and a rise in bodies found here and there throughout the world. No visible enemy in uniform the terrorists can use for recruiting purposes. Not even any visible enemy in political office. No War on Terror. Take the entire operation off the books and slowly, steadily, quietly kill them.
Yes I suppose I did. But I do believe we still have only those two routes. Perhaps not to the extreme that I ran a little long on. 🙂
We're fighting an enemy in Iraq that will never surrender. They won't sit down at a big fancy mahogany table and discuss settlement terms while everyone wears their nicest uniform and smiles for the camera. They will fig ...[text shortened]... ing for, including their lives. A man that's willing to do that is one tough SOB to whup.
05 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI know what it's worth, greed. Thats why the policy is worth thousands of innocent deaths. American government greed for money, power and world domination.
I submit the analogy is apt. The right wingers argued then, as now, that the West faced an enemy that wanted to take over the entire world and that if we didn't stop them in X (Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba: you name it) they wou ...[text shortened]... eds of thousands of people getting killed. Care to give it a shot?
Ivanhoe, Cmon, you CANNOT possibly argue against the fact that if America does install a "Democratic Regime" and "free the Iraqi people", they will get very rich and control a major part of the middle east? USE COMMON SENSE! YOU HAD NO BUSINESS IN IRAQ. They were not threatening the west in any way. Give me one example of a threat they posed. And please, no links to Al-qeada, that excuse is tired...
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by DelmerNow that plan, as evil and distasteful as most people will find it, would probably work.
Oh, I think we have to kill the terrorists for sure, and I think the best way is to train and deploy hunter-killer teams to work below the horizon and kill them when and where they find them. I guess I don't see any important similiarity with Vietnam, Korea, the American Revolution or any geo-political type war. To me it seems more like a war against well-fu ...[text shortened]... War on Terror. Take the entire operation off the books and slowly, steadily, quietly kill them.
What would have been even better is to have never declared war in the first place, and then implemented your plan.
This is starting to sound like a Tom Clancy novel...
05 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are the one arguing a "Domino Theory". The US will pull out of Iraq when it becomes politically necessary to do so. That day is coming, sooner rather than later. All the tough talk in the world won't change that; I prefer it would happen tomorrow because then tens of thousands of lives might be saved.
The Domino theory taken out of the moth balls ...... but now to "prove" that we, of course not only the US but also the UK and the other allies, should retreat from Iraq.
No1: " ... They also argued, as you have, that the West could ...[text shortened]... ake you seriously in any way at all regarding these issues.
Do you know what the word "indigenous" means? Was Hungary, Poland, DDR taken over by "indigenous" Communist movements? As usual, you don't address my point; I stated that the takeover of certain countries by indigenous Communist movements had no effect on Western security even though right wingers claimed it would. Either try to refute the point or concede it, but stop dancing around it. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and its control of Eastern Europe due to popular uprisings have many positive effects but one big negative one: it encouraged all this foolish talk about the US being the "world's only superpower" AND that has been used as an excuse by the neo-Cons to attempt to dominate the world, in many cases by direct military means. A balance of power is sometimes a useful thing.
You again refused to address my point regarding the farfetched hypothetical scenario of the entire Middle East falling to Islamic Fundamnetalists: I stated it would not endanger the security of the West in any way. Again, either attempt to refute the point or concede it; you did neither. I could care less what any politician says.
You never answered my question regarding what benefit the vast majority of Americans get from aiding repressive regimes in the Middle East. Unless you answer that question, there can be no real discussion as you have not brought anything at all to the table but a bunch of cliches, spin and propaganda. Until you actually make some reasoned points, I can't take anything you say seriously.
05 Aug 05
1 edit
I'm not sure how people can miss the similarities between Vietnam and this war. It's pretty obvious.
Guerilla warfare
Citizens used by both sides as agents and informants
The US fighting in a foreign land
The body counts: In Vietnam we lost about 50,00 soldiers. The Vietnamese lost approximately 1 million. And still we couldn't win.
Huge cultural differences between the combatants.
No clear cut plan for victory from the US leaders.
No sign of defeat or even a slowdown in the intensity levels of the enemy.
Both are wars of "choice", not necessity.
A HUGE underestimation on the part of US leaders in regards to almost every aspect of both wars. The enemy's fighting ability, the time frame, the resources required, the cost, all were underestimated by the powers that be.
"Americans will be welcomed with open arms." Anyone remember that line? It should sound familiar...
"Terrorists" or "Communists"? Take your pick. Interchangeable labels IMO.
The enemy has no Navy, no Air Force, no artillery or tanks. Even less than the Vietnamese had. They have no special forces or commandos and they lag about 40 years behind in technology. They have 3 weapons in Iraq: AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs. And still the battle rages on...
Replace the cities in Iraq with the jungles of Vietnam and what do you have?
05 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "You are the one arguing a "Domino Theory".
You are the one arguing a "Domino Theory". The US will pull out of Iraq when it becomes politically necessary to do so. That day is coming, sooner rather than later. All the tough talk in the world won't change that; I prefer ...[text shortened]... ke some reasoned points, I can't take anything you say seriously.
You see what happens if you use non-adequate comparisons. You start projecting all kinds of silly ideas on me.
No1: " I prefer it (the withdrawl from Iraq. IvanH) would happen tomorrow because then tens of thousands of lives might be saved."
Are you so naïve to assume that if the US, the UK and the other allies leave Iraq the violence will stop ? .... as if by magic ? Could you explain that for me ? ..... or are you simply thinking of US and other allies's casualties ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the Cold War issue is off-topic and only confusing the issue. Hence I will not address it anymore (maybe a new thread, maybe I'll join you there).
No1: "You never answered my question regarding what benefit the vast majority of Americans get from aiding repressive regimes in the Middle East. Unless you answer that question, there can be no real discussion ..... "
I adressed that point. Taking this as the criterium for establishing whether a foreign policy is necessary or adequate is too materialistic and too laughable for words ..... besides that, it is impossible to measure or describe the effects of a certain foreign policy in the way you propose.
No1: "You again refused to address my point regarding the farfetched hypothetical scenario of the entire Middle East falling to Islamic Fundamnetalists: I stated it would not endanger the security of the West in any way."
I will not adress such assumptions. They are too ludicrous for words. Discussing it is a waste of time. Maybe someone else is prepared to take up this mission impossible of making you see. It will not be me.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by ivanhoePlease read the title at the top; this is the DEBATES FORUM! Since you absolutely refuse to address anyone else's points, you are in the wrong forum.
No1: "You are the one arguing a "Domino Theory".
You see what happens if you use non-adequate comparisons. You start projecting all kinds of silly ideas on me.
No1: " I prefer it (the withdrawl from Iraq. IvanH) would happen tomorrow because then tens of thousands of lives might be saved."
Are you so naïve to assume that if the US, the UK and t ...[text shortened]... else is prepared to take up this mission impossible of making you see. It will not be me.