Recently I heard a quote about the Iraq war that I think describes exactly why we haven't won, and why we lost it 'nam.

"Our nation is not at war, our Military is at war" -Cpl. Neil Frustaglio

In other American wars, WWI, WWI, The Revolution, The Civil War, there was really a national will to win. The nation was united in the war effort. There was very high national morale, a very high esprit de corps. General MacArthur once said "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." In all the other wars except 'nam and Iraq, we had the will to win.

However, in Vietnam and in Iraq, we certainly do not have that national morale, the will to win. I think that the anti-war protesters and those supposedly supporting the troops by wanting to bring them home actually end up hurting them by not allowing Americans to form that kind of esprit de corps that is so necessary in order to win a war.

The US didn't "lose" in Vietnam you fucking hippy pot smoking cocksucker.

The US didn't "lose" in Vietnam you fucking hippy pot smoking cocksucker.

Ok not technically dumbass, but we certainly didn't win. That has nothing to do with my point, and I'm pretty much the opposite of a pot smoking hippie.

I'm pretty much the opposite of a pot smoking hippie.

And that my friend, is why you're so wrong.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2352/2237711425_25145e0dab.jpg?v=1202045125

The US didn't "lose" in Vietnam you fucking hippy pot smoking cocksucker.

We left, they didn't. They installed their own government. Sounds like a lose to me. Call it what you want, it's just another word for losing.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

We left, they didn't. They installed their own government. Sounds like a lose to me. Call it what you want, it's just another word for losing.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Not quite...

and we won the war in Iraq. The Iraqi National Army is on our side now. Its just a damned insurgency we can't put down

and we won the war in Iraq. The Iraqi National Army is on our side now. Its just a damned insurgency we can't put down

True, but these technicalities aren't the point of my post, we're still fighting people in Iraq, and we didn't win in Vietnam

The US didn't "lose" in Vietnam you fucking hippy pot smoking cocksucker.

Communism won, you lost. Vietnam had thousands of lives to spare, America didn't.

America can't win in the middle east because the world is watching its every move.
<3

Communism won, you lost. Vietnam had thousands of lives to spare, America didn't.

America won't win in Iraq because the world is watching its every move.
<3

"You"?

"You"?

I assumed you were American since you're in denial.
<3

I assumed you were American since you're in denial.
<3

I'm sure you also make the assumption that all Americans are stupid as well.

I thought you Chinks were supposed to be intelligent.

I'm sure you also make the assumption that all Americans are stupid as well.

I thought you Chinks were supposed to be intelligent.

No, I didn't and I don't although if I had to use you as an example I guess you wouldn't make much of a case.
<3

No, I didn't and I don't although if I had to use you as an example I guess you wouldn't make much of a case.
<3

Hah, that's laughable. May I ask where you're from? You only have a small array of countries that are more educated than the US; contrary to popular belief.

Surprisingly, Japan is slightly behind the United States.

As the facts stand, the United States didn't lose the Vietnam War.

It'd be just as foolish to argue that they "won" the war however.

I'm in Australia.

You only have a small array of countries that are more educated than the US; contrary to popular belief.

Are you serious? The US has a terrible education system, even your past 5 presidents have said so. All you'd have to do is look at your unemployment rate to see how well your education system's working for you.

Not surprisingly, if you're making statements like this:

As the facts stand, the United States didn't lose the Vietnam War.

It'd be just as foolish to argue that they "won" the war however.

Tell me, is that what a highschool teacher told you? The US invaded Vietnam in the name of democracy, lost support, funding and morale and was forced by its own people to pack up and leave. I'd call that losing if your enemy wins, which it did considering Vietnam became and still is a communist country.
<3

I'm in Australia.

Unfortunately for you, that's not one of them. The correct answer was Canada. If it's any consolation, Australia is probably somewhere in the top 10.

Better luck in the next life.

Are you serious? The US has a terrible education system, even your past 5 presidents have said so. All you'd have to do is look at your unemployment rate to see how well your education system's working for you.

Unemployment rate? Are you fucking serious? Not only does that have little to no correlation to education AT ALL, it's also a terrible choice if you wish to demean the US. The US rate is 4.8. Yours is 4.6.

Soooo, by your logic it's safe to say that all Australians are morons, correct?


Tell me, is that what a highschool teacher told you? The US invaded Vietnam in the name of democracy, lost support, funding and morale and was forced by its own people to pack up and leave. I'd call that losing if your enemy wins, which it did considering Vietnam became and still is a communist country.

Morale? Morale of whom? Soldiers? You mean the very same soldiers of which 84% of them said they'd fight again, even knowing the outcome? You mean the 91% who said they're glad they served? I'm confused as to what you mean by "morale", when you make a clean distinction between soldiers in civilians when you said "lost support" and later "...by it's own people".

It's just interesting that you bring that up in light of actual statistics.

The US never actually stated that they were entering the war in the "name of Democracy", nor did they invade. South Vietnam asked for help, and that's why the US went over. It was never the intention of the US military or high command to destroy North Vietnam or it's Government, merely protect South Vietnam while it was there. In case you hadn't noticed, that did happen. Tactically the US dominated that war.

When the US pulled out, the South Vietnamese were certain they could defend themselves by that point.

History later proved that to be incorrect.

To add onto the US education point Azalie poorly attempts to make:

American students even in low-performing states like Alabama do better on math and science tests than students in most foreign countries, including Italy and Norway, according to a new study released yesterday.

In this study, Japan takes top honors in math.

Massachusetts, one of the better performing states, ranked higher than in 40 other countries, including Australia, Russia, England and Israel.

The US does however have one of the highest drop out rates in the World, which may have a little something to do with your flawed logic.

Unfortunately for you, that's not one of them. The correct answer was Canada. If it's any consolation, Australia is probably somewhere in the top 10.

Better luck in the next life.

That has nothing to do with me. A national statistic is no representation of an individual. That's like comparing a Scientist from Cambodia to a plumber from Brazil.

Unemployment rate? Are you fucking serious? Not only does that have little to no correlation to education AT ALL, it's also a terrible choice if you wish to demean the US. The US rate is 4.8. Yours is 4.6.

[quote]Soooo, by your logic it's safe to say that all Australians are morons, correct?

No, because if you'd actually done a simple search instead of pulling numbers out of your ass you'd know that most recently the US's unemployment rate is 6.1% while Australia is at 3.9%.

Either case, Australia still has the lower number.

Morale? Morale of whom? Soldiers? You mean the very same soldiers of which 84% of them said they'd fight again, even knowing the outcome? You mean the 91% who said they're glad they served? I'm confused as to what you mean by "morale", when you make a clean distinction between soldiers in civilians when you said "lost support" and later "...by it's own people".

It's just interesting that you bring that up in light of actual statistics.

The US never actually stated that they were entering the war in the "name of Democracy", nor did they invade. South Vietnam asked for help, and that's why the US went over. It was never the intention of the US military or high command to destroy North Vietnam or it's Government, merely protect South Vietnam while it was there. In case you hadn't noticed, that did happen. Tactically the US dominated that war.

When the US pulled out, the South Vietnamese were certain they could defend themselves by that point.

History later proved that to be incorrect.

No, what you've argued is textbook knowledge and blatantly ignorant. South Vietnam was influence by the French when the North decided to fight for communism. Inherently the North was fighting for freedom from a century of control. The US came in to 'advise' South Vietnam in order to maintain its influence in Asia. South Vietname did not 'ask' for help, France did.

It was always the US' intent to destroy the North's government. They were communism, they were the enemy. Why would the US ever help a tiny country like Vietnam? Out of the goodness of their hearts? The only thing that happened was that thousands died, North, South and US.

There is no 'tactically' winning when it comes to war. You win or you lose and the South, America and capitalism lost. Now, I'm very sure that this naivete and lack to research that you're displaying is some elaborate troll attempt so I'm not going to try and argue anymore since it'll probably end up with me writing essays to someone who doesn't really care.
<3

Azure, I find myself in the weird and awkward position of arguing that the U.S. did lose that war. While maybe we didn't technically lose, that has nothing to do with my post. The outcome of Vietnam, while not technically a loss certainly is not comparable to outcomes of wars such as WWII and WWI.

The simple fact is that Capitalism lost, as pointed out by azalie. The U.S. didn't achieve the goals which we entered Vietnam with.

That has nothing to do with me. A national statistic is no representation of an individual. That's like comparing a Scientist from Cambodia to a plumber from Brazil.

How interesting.

No, because if you'd actually done a simple search instead of pulling numbers out of your ass you'd know that most recently the US's unemployment rate is 6.1% while Australia is at 3.9%.

I actually google'd it and came up with those numbers, my mistake.

No, what you've argued is textbook knowledge and blatantly ignorant.

No, what you're arguing is what is actually taught in most high school text books. Your incorrect assumptions that most soldiers suffered from low morale seems like a word for word copy from at least one text I've read at school. Unless of course you're trolling; taking the ignorant, textbook path, and then proclaiming me to be doing the same thing. Either way, you're wrong.

South Vietnam was controlled by the French when the North decided to fight for communism. Inherently the North was fighting for freedom from a century of control. The US came in to 'advise' South Vietnam in order to maintain its influence in Asia. South Vietname did not 'ask' for help, France did.

France asked for help in Vietnam, the United States said they'd help if they declared Indochina independent. Now, it doesn't take an Australian moron to realize what happened is now called the Geneva agreement, lacking US military force in the area.

It was always the US' intent to destroy the North's government. They were communism, they were the enemy. Why would the US ever help a tiny country like Vietnam? Out of the goodness of their hearts? The only thing that happened was that thousands died, both North, South and US.

Perhaps it was the backdoor intentions of the US Government to destroy the North's Government. I can't speculate on that, I wasn't involved in the planning or any of those board room meetings. Perhaps you were, I'm going to assume that's why you're speculating that's the truth. As it stands, the US was there to defend the SV Democratic-ish Government, not invade NV and take out Communism.

There is no 'tactically' winning when it comes to war. You win or you lose and the South, America and capitalism lost. Now, I'm very sure that this naivete and lack to research that you're displaying is some elaborate troll attempt so I'm not going to try and argue anymore since it'll probably end up with me writing essays to someone who doesn't really care.


This is just far too good. It's apparent you're trolling with your ignorant, lackluster responses, and you're trying to convince yourself that I'm actually the troll.

Here's a start, www.wikipedia.org.

Try to educate yourself.

Fuck, I didn't link the English version of wikipedia.

I wonder if Azalie will find the ability to navigate herself to the proper page. :confused:

The cause for both of these "failures" is simple, they're wars that weren't meant to be finished quickly, if at all. The longer, the better.

The US didn't "lose" in Vietnam you fucking hippy pot smoking cocksucker.

ROFLMAO

Only people capable of deluding themselves or think there is something great about killing 3,000,000 Vietnamese for no good reason can think that wasn't a loss.

I was in the draft lottery for that stupid trash.

Why should the Vietnamese have given a damn about the difference between the French and Americans? Because Iraq is about OIL it makes somewhat more sense than Vietnam. But because it is totally idiotic to think that an airliner could make a 400,000+ ton skyscraper collapse straight down without even knowing the distribution of steel and concrete shows the Americans are even more idiotic than they were about Vietnam.

Even the NIST admits the distribution of the weight is required for the analysis.

But in only one place:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

How do all of the people with degrees who have said the planes did it admit that the distribution of steel and concrete would indicate that it couldn't? The very nature of large skyscrapers should make it impossible. This has gone on way too long for people to want to admit the analysis should have been simple SIX YEARS AGO.

I have searched the NCSTAR for more statements containing "weight distribution". "mass distribution", "distribution of weight" and "distribution of mass". I haven't found anything else that makes this clear statement in that idiotic 10,000 page report. The nation that put men on the moon before the end of Vietnam can't tell the entire world the distribution of weight in buildings designed before the moon landing.

What do you call WINNING?

Win Iraq and lose the United States?

How intelligent is that? Military Morons!

DT

You certainly tried to derail the topic, and I'll bite.

Is there any more information on that^?

Isn't this about why there isn't support for Iraq?

I certainly wouldn't support some bullshit based on a lie that defies the laws of physics. And I certainly don't give a damn about Americans that can't figure out the physics.

DT

Isn't this about why there isn't support for Iraq?

I certainly wouldn't support some bullshit based on a lie that defies the laws of physics. And I certainly don't give a damn about Americans that can't figure out the physics.

DT

Actually, you are right...I completely forgot this topic was actually about Iraq haha.

Isn't this about why there isn't support for Iraq?

Actually this thread was supposed to be about the effect of a lack of support for the war, if you want to discuss the reason for the lack of support, there's other threads to do that. Bringing up some dumb ass conspiracy theory has nothing to do with this thread dumbass.

We didn’t win in 'Nam. We never did, never will.
It fucking pisses me off. And the 60's were the beginnings of large antiwar movements. No matter how much soldiers are over there, it won't help if we have no morale and support here in our homes. Everyone proudly says the Pledge of Allegiance, they did then and they still do. but in the '60s did they "pledge allegiance" to this great country? No.

We can't win the war right now, because of the same reasons. All anti-Bush protesters use the War as an example. I bet you, if you ask 10 random people in NYC (where I live), they will say that they don't like Bush because of the War. They cannot bring up any other reasons. That's because they dont have any. Maybe Bush did make a few errors, but us hating him will not undo them. An Obama ad once said that "Barack Obama never supported the war from the start." Who the fuck cares? It's too late, so don't be a pain about the War. We cannot pull out of Iraq right now, because it is going to change hands again. We need to destroy the insurgency, no matter how long it takes.

And people complain about how long this war has raged on? 'Nam lasted technically 16 years, from 1959-1975. So don't bitch that this War is too long.

I do not want to ever hear any antiwar protests, well because THE WAR STARTED. So you fucking hippies, shut the fuck up. If we pull out now, who will they want to kill? Us.

All wars happen for a reason. It is always to make the world a better place, at least from the wager's point of view. Yes, lots of people hate America, because we "think" we're so powerful. Well we are.

Yea, I know I got off topic. But still, have support in this country. After all, you live here. If you're going to rant about how the United States is stupid, go live somewhere else. You can't say you are a proud American, but not support America. Even if you don't support America in the War, support the troops. They are humans like you and me, and they need all the help they can get.

The reason people can protest today in the street is because they fight for that right. Before you sleep, always think about how many people lay down their lives for you, and your family. I know I do.

Yea, i know i got off topic. But still, have support in this country. After all, you live here. If you're going to rant about how the United States is stupid, go live somewhere else. You can't say you are a proud American, but not support America. Even if you don't support America in the War, support the troops. They are humans like you and me, and they need all the help they can get.
The reason people can protest today in the street is because they fight for that right. Before you sleep, always think about how many people lay down their lives for you, and your family. I know I do.

This was sort of my point. All the anti-war protesters are the one's who are preventing America from winning in Iraq, and they prevented America from winning in Vietnam.

If everyone really got behind the troops and allowed us to become united as a nation against the enemy, then I believe America would already have won the war.

Yes battlefield tactics and strategy and all of that stuff is important to fighting a war, but it is my opinion that the most important thing to fighting a war is morale, not just the morale of the troops but that of the people back home.

Bush is an idiot when he says that we shouldn't let the war effect our daily lives or else the terrorists have won. If people at home forget about this war and don't care about it, we are doomed to fail. To refer back to my original post, Our country is not at war with the terrorists, only our military is. But in order to win a war, the whole country needs to be at war.

This was sort of my point. All the anti-war protesters are the one's who are preventing America from winning in Iraq, and they prevented America from winning in Vietnam.

If everyone really got behind the troops and allowed us to become united as a nation against the enemy, then I believe America would already have won the war.

Yes battlefield tactics and strategy and all of that stuff is important to fighting a war, but it is my opinion that the most important thing to fighting a war is morale, not just the morale of the troops but that of the people back home.

Bush is an idiot when he says that we shouldn't let the war effect our daily lives or else the terrorists have won. If people at home forget about this war and don't care about it, we are doomed to fail. To refer back to my original post, Our country is not at war with the terrorists, only our military is. But in order to win a war, the whole country needs to be at war.

In that aspect Iraq and Vietnam are in no way comparable.

Vietnam actually moved the nation to protest, today's generation is far too apathetic to do the same.

In that aspect Iraq and Vietnam are in no way comparable.

Vietnam actually moved the nation to protest, today's generation is far too apathetic to do the same.

True. But they are comparable because in both wars the people didn't really support the troops in ways they did in wars like WWII, The Civil War, The Revolution etc. Obviously in Vietnam they supported the troops much less than people do today, but still there's no support for the troops coming from the home front.

In both wars we didn't have the will to win that I discuss in my first post.

Maybe if the law that they wanted to bring in during Nixon's era, the one that criminalized criticism of the Federal Gov got enacted?

If they could fine/jail/fire people who didn't "Toe The Line"? People would shape up quick. All, "Jawohl, mein President!"

and we won the war in Iraq. The Iraqi National Army is on our side now. Its just a damned insurgency we can't put downYour statement is contradictory. You said "we won the war in Iraq" yet go on to say that "its just a damned insurgency we can't put down". If an insurgency is still continuing, and hence military operations as well, then the war isn't over and therefore not won.

The Iraqi army is a joke. They disintegrate and run or join the insurgents whenever they face combat. The reason for this is that the Iraqi army and government were manufactured and supported by the US and not Iraqis. A puppet government and army. Neither is genuinely an outgrowth of native Iraqi development. They're artificial institutions created by an invading occupying force. The Iraqis have no faith in them and what they're doing.

The Iraqi army is a joke. They disintegrate and run or join the insurgents whenever they face combat. The reason for this is that the Iraqi army and government were manufactured and supported by the US and not Iraqis. A puppet government and army. Neither is genuinely an outgrowth of native Iraqi development. They're artificial institutions created by an invading occupying force. The Iraqis have no faith in them and what they're doing.

Actually the Iraqi army does more than most people think. Of course the liberal news media will run articles about the 5,000 or so members of the Iraqi army who fled a fight, but doesn't mention anything about the other 100,000 who do. My point is that while the Iraqi army is nowhere near as formidable as we'd like it to be, and for that matter as it needs to be, it is getting there. Taking over Anbar was a good sign.

Though there are those who say it is the conclusion of the Sunnis & Shiites kicking each other out of mixed neighborhoods. The pay offs by the US to the Sunni insurgency. The putting of concrete blast walls around areas & allowing access through few control points.

Not really Government Gun-thuggery at all.

"Simultaneously Obama foolishly threw over the side the reports of journalists on the spot like CounterPunch’s Patrick Cockburn who have been describing how the present lowering of violence in Iraq owes little to the surge in US troops, as opposed to changes in local political conditions."

Actually the Iraqi army does more than most people think. Of course the liberal news media will run articles about the 5,000 or so members of the Iraqi army who fled a fight, but doesn't mention anything about the other 100,000 who do. My point is that while the Iraqi army is nowhere near as formidable as we'd like it to be, and for that matter as it needs to be, it is getting there. Taking over Anbar was a good sign.One can't blame "the liberal news media" for pointing out the facts. The US government would have us all to believe and has been peddling the idea ever since the invasion (5 years ago!) that the Iraqi army will one day be independent and strong enough to handle military operations across the country and is growing into that role. It isn't.

The Iraqi army is a creation of the US invasion forces. It cannot and will not ever be able to exist as a separate independent entity unsupported by US forces. Another five years will pass and the state of the Iraqi army will be no better than it is today. American forces will still be in Iraq and be the ones conducting the majority of military operations. And the US government will still be saying "One day the Iraqi army will be able to stand on its own weight. All thats needed is time". But all the time in the world will not accomplish that.

Yea, I know I got off topic. But still, have support in this country. After all, you live here. If you're going to rant about how the United States is stupid, go live somewhere else. You can't say you are a proud American, but not support America. Even if you don't support America in the War, support the troops. They are humans like you and me, and they need all the help they can get.

The reason people can protest today in the street is because they fight for that right. Before you sleep, always think about how many people lay down their lives for you, and your family. I know I do.Yes we need to give them all the help they can get. Namely by ending the war and pulling all troops out of Iraq and out of harms way. And stop the maiming and deaths of our soldiers who are being used to fight for imperialist interests and the amassing of war profits for the rich. They need real help. And not the "help" they're currently receiving; being endlessly deployed tour after tour, eventually after years finally returning home both physically and mentally scarred.

As always "support for the country" is a mask to cover class interests. The possessing classes always resorting to patriotism and nationalism to win support for their war aims. The slogan "support the troops" is their newest propaganda invention. Who after all wouldn't support the troops? But the truth is they're using the troops as a shield for their imperialist foreign policy. If you criticize the war then you're not "supporting the troops" and not supporting the country and are therefore un-American. In their eyes you must accept and uncritically support the war in order to qualify as a true American.

Next time before you fall asleep instead of thinking about the false reasons that are fed to us about the war, about it being for freedom and democracy and fighting against terrorism, and protecting America, look past all of that to the true reasons for this war.

I think that the anti-war protesters and those supposedly supporting the troops by wanting to bring them home actually end up hurting them by not allowing Americans to form that kind of esprit de corps that is so necessary in order to win a war.

I mostly agreed up to here. The people hurting them are the people who support the war, and sent them there in the first place. It isn't the sort of war that can be won. The more the US fights in iraq, the more people will be killed, making more insurgents out of the angry people with murdered families.

Another difference between wars like WWI and II and the wars in vietnam and iraq is the reason for fighting. In the world wars germany was expanding, so it was more fighting over territory for countries, rather than fighting against beliefs like in iraq and vietnam. It's much easier to take over a country if you're fighting an army, even if it's a closer match in terms of firepower, than if you're fighting a belief. For the US to win in Iraq, they would need to establish peace by either killing everyone who wants to fight them (which as I explained earlier would only make more insurgents) or changing everyone's mind. Neither seems likely. Bad war.

"Support the troops". Sure it is noble to "render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's" to give to the government that which it has a legal right to ask?

Yet, it's all too easy to say that & let it slide into "support your government because they have sent troops." Who you must support because the government sent them. Becomes just a sweet BS job.

Why not support returning soldiers who become junkies with free junk? A junkie who needs junk needs a lot of junk. He doesn't need the hassle of fighting to pay for it or get it. Who are you to tell a Hero to clean up? Support a Hero's Habit because it's a Hero that has a habit.

As I say a soldier doesn't choose what he's ordered to do. Yet, how come no Boss gets his kick in the ass or busted arm? When was the last time some dink in a suit got popped in the jaw? They all seem to get terribly punished by being voted out. I know that kind of thing can break a man's heart? But still?

For the US to win in Iraq, they would need to establish peace by either killing everyone who wants to fight them (which as I explained earlier would only make more insurgents) or changing everyone's mind. Neither seems likely. Bad war.

I disagree, Nazism was an idea just like terrorism. Obviously we didn't kill every single Nazi in WWII, there are still neo-nazi's today. But our military was able to hurt them enough to destroy their capability to attack us or run death camps.

Obviously we can not change every terrorists mind, or kill every single terrorist. But I am certain that what our military can do, is to hurt these terrorists enough to destroy their capability to do something like 9/11 or the USS Cole bombings.

The Iraqi army is a creation of the US invasion forces. It cannot and will not ever be able to exist as a separate independent entity unsupported by US forces. Another five years will pass and the state of the Iraqi army will be no better than it is today. American forces will still be in Iraq and be the ones conducting the majority of military operations. And the US government will still be saying "One day the Iraqi army will be able to stand on its own weight. All thats needed is time". But all the time in the world will not accomplish that.

How can you say that the Iraqi Army has made no advances and will not make any advances in the future? Talk to any ground commander, they'll tell you otherwise. Now don't get me wrong we are nowhere near where we need to be, however we are moving closer to that point. Slowly but surely we are moving closer.

As always "support for the country" is a mask to cover class interests. The possessing classes always resorting to patriotism and nationalism to win support for their war aims. The slogan "support the troops" is their newest propaganda invention. Who after all wouldn't support the troops? But the truth is they're using the troops as a shield for their imperialist foreign policy. If you criticize the war then you're not "supporting the troops" and not supporting the country and are therefore un-American. In their eyes you must accept and uncritically support the war in order to qualify as a true American.

Next time before you fall asleep instead of thinking about the false reasons that are fed to us about the war, about it being for freedom and democracy and fighting against terrorism, and protecting America, look past all of that to the true reasons for this war.

This is exactly what I am talking about. In WWII there were no Americans talking about how the government led us to war with false info. I got news for ya': Patriotism and Nationalism are GOOD things. Why does everyone make them out to be bad. Patriotism and Nationalism are the things that allow our country to really get behind our troops and form the national morale that General MacCarthur realized was vital to winning a war.

Why does everyone make out Nationalism and Patriotism to be bad?

Now obviously nationalism taken to extremes is bad (Nazi's) but within a reasonable limit, I believe Nationalism is a very good thing. Like I said earlier maybe if everyone in America really was patriotic, we'd have won in Vietnam and would have already won in Iraq.

Patton: apparently you don't much care about right or wrong but mostly about blood & guts, guns & glory. Any excuse to fight & kill eh? Excellent.

Patton: apparently you don't much care about right or wrong but mostly about blood & guts, guns & glory. Any excuse to fight & kill eh? Excellent.

His location didn't clue you into that earlier?

Patton: apparently you don't much care about right or wrong but mostly about blood & guts, guns & glory. Any excuse to fight & kill eh? Excellent.

Of course right and wrong matters to me, but once in war, it's time to think about how to win the war.

Of course right and wrong matters to me, but once in war, it's time to think about how to win the war.

A Real Man never apologizes, explains or admits he was wrong, eh?

How do you feel about people who aren't like you? Who feel no need to take revenge today or tomorrow or next year? Who might say, "A man who only waits 50 years for revenge is a hot head."?

Do you really believe that being "over there" keeps them from "being over here"?

A Real Man never apologizes, explains or admits he was wrong, eh?

We're in a war right now. Let all the considerations of whether or not to go to war happen before and after the war. But when our troops are over there dying, we need to be focused on winning the damn war. And maybe if the citizens were more focused on supporting the troops than criticizing the government and the war, we'd have won already.

^lol thts wut hitler sed^

Let the boy dream. He's got a right to dream.

We'll have to remember to ask him how he feels if either here in NorAm or some US asset overseas gets blown away in revenge for US Blood-taking. Whether he feels the cost extracted is worth it?

Al-Qaeda's greastest ally is the US. It's the US that gets them their new recruits.

If Patton enjoys war so much that he prefers the US helps recruit enemy fighters so the wars keep on going? He's not the only one who dresses up his lust for cash & blood in fancy dress.

US Education ...number 1... rable rable

OECD/PISA Study:
Reading Literacy

1. Finland
2. Canada
3. New Zealand
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6. Korea
7 United Kingdom
8. Japan
9. Sweden
10. Austria
11. Belgium
12. Iceland
13. Norway
14. France
15. United States
16. Denmark
17. Switzerland
18. Spain
19. Czech Republic
20. Italy
21. Germany
22. Liechtenstein
23. Hungary
24. Poland
25. Greece
26. Portugal
27. Russian Federation
28. Latvia
29. Luxembourg
30. Mexico
31. Brazil

OECD/PISA Study:
Mathematical Literacy

1. Japan
2. Korea
3. New Zealand
4. Finland
5. Australia
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
8. United Kingdom
9. Belgium
10. France
11. Austria
12. Denmark
13. Iceland
14. Liechtenstein
15. Sweden
16. Ireland
17. Norway
18. Czech Republic
19. United States
20. Germany
21. Hungary
22. Russian Federation
23. Spain
24. Poland
25. Latvia
26. Italy
27. Portugal
28. Greece
29. Luxembourg
30. Mexico
31. Brazil

OECD/PISA Study:
Scientific Literacy

1. Korea
2. Japan
3. Finland
4. United Kingdom
5. Canada
6. New Zealand
7. Australia
8. Austria
9. Ireland
10. Sweden
11. Czech Republic
12. France
13. Norway
14. United States
15. Hungary
16. Iceland
17. Belgium
18. Switzerland
19. Spain
20. Germany
21. Poland
22. Denmark
23. Italy
24. Liechtenstein
25. Greece
26. Russian Federation
27. Latvia
28. Portugal
29. Luxembourg
30. Mexico
31. Brazil

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Also
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml

OECD/PISA Study:
Reading Literacy

1. Finland
2. Canada
3. New Zealand
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6. Korea
7 United Kingdom
8. Japan
9. Sweden
10. Austria
11. Belgium
12. Iceland
13. Norway
14. France
15. United States
16. Denmark
17. Switzerland
18. Spain
19. Czech Republic
20. Italy
21. Germany
22. Liechtenstein
23. Hungary
24. Poland
25. Greece
26. Portugal
27. Russian Federation
28. Latvia
29. Luxembourg
30. Mexico
31. Brazil

OECD/PISA Study:
Mathematical Literacy

1. Japan
2. Korea
3. New Zealand
4. Finland
5. Australia
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
8. United Kingdom
9. Belgium
10. France
11. Austria
12. Denmark
13. Iceland
14. Liechtenstein
15. Sweden
16. Ireland
17. Norway
18. Czech Republic
19. United States
20. Germany
21. Hungary
22. Russian Federation
23. Spain
24. Poland
25. Latvia
26. Italy
27. Portugal
28. Greece
29. Luxembourg
30. Mexico
31. Brazil

OECD/PISA Study:
Scientific Literacy

1. Korea
2. Japan
3. Finland
4. United Kingdom
5. Canada
6. New Zealand
7. Australia
8. Austria
9. Ireland
10. Sweden
11. Czech Republic
12. France
13. Norway
14. United States
15. Hungary
16. Iceland
17. Belgium
18. Switzerland
19. Spain
20. Germany
21. Poland
22. Denmark
23. Italy
24. Liechtenstein
25. Greece
26. Russian Federation
27. Latvia
28. Portugal
29. Luxembourg
30. Mexico
31. Brazil

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Can you read, or what?

I never once said the United States was #1 in education. According to the statistics I was using, they took #2 position according to amount of educated individuals as a percentage of population. Even according to your own statistics, they aren't doing as terribly as Chinkboy thought.

Thanks.

The world is not as black and white as you imagine it to be.

America won Vietnam tactically. This means we killed more of them, than they did us. We also achieved most of our local goals in the region. However, we[America], lost strategically. Our main goal was to prevent the spread of communism. Obviously, this overall goal was not achieved, because we lost support on the home-front and left too early.

America won Vietnam tactically. This means we killed more of them, than they did us.

Killing more of their guys than they kill of your guys isn't necessarily winning tactically.

If you want to win? You've got to cut the BS about caring that you killed civilians.

You've not only got to brag about it, you've got laugh about it & promise more. You've got to kick butt & take names. Rape? Just a laugh & a lark.

They're only dirty foreigners, after all. Ruin their shit & make 'em scared.

Then. You. Win.

If you ask me the best lesson learned from Vietnam was that after S. Vietnam fell, there was no goddamn Red Dawn.

The key to winning the war in Iraq isn't with popular citizen support, but with more social programs for Iraqis. A good start imho would be cutting government contracts to shit like blackwater, and use that money to build schools. Turn the table, make the only people killing Iraqis be insurgents, have an insurgency against the insurgency that isn't US backed but evolved on its own, and freedom wins. If you have to pay people 600 dollars a day to run around with guns to protect VIPs, make those VIPs say elementary school students. Make a law that no foreign company can come into Iraq and open up business without atleast 51% Iraqi employment rates. Thats how Iraq will be won, as far as the Iraqi Feyadeen being on Americas side now... Yeah, what a great thing considering they were Saddams tools of terror. :rolleyes:

The key to winning the war in Iraq isn't with popular citizen support, but with more social programs for Iraqis. A good start imho would be cutting government contracts to shit like blackwater, and use that money to build schools.

This is how Vietnam and Iraq are the same.

There is the REASON for the war.

and

There is the EXCUSE for the war.

The excuse is some noble bullshit that the majority of Americans are supposed to believe. The reason is some narrow self interest that benefits a small minority of people. Those people hand us the bullshit excuses. So once the nonsense gets started it becomes a political question of how many Americans will put up with how much bullshit for how long.

Most of the REASON for Iraq is OIL so it is more serious than Vietnam which was very ideological.

DT

Oil is a big part, but not just Iraq's oil. The usual Middle East resources & the Caspian Sea product to boot.

Don't forget the American love of putting Bases everywhere they can. That is no doubt a top reason for both Iraq & Afghanistan. We won't trouble Patton with these things because he would prefer to believe every word that dribbles down from his CinC in DC.

Democracy? My ass! It's about Power. How to take it. How to keep it. When you want Power: you'll say & do whatever you have to. If you need good cover stories to tell the masses? You will tell them. They might even have a bit of truth in them. Mostly, like the US Presidential (or anybody's campaign), you tell people the best sounding things.

Best. Sounding. Things. Q.E.D.

If you ask me the best lesson learned from Vietnam was that after S. Vietnam fell, there was no goddamn Red Dawn.

If you ask me the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam was to keep the media out of wars.

If you ask me the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam was to keep the media out of wars.

That's right. If you want to be dirty & nasty? As with War & CP: do it on the QT.

If you ask me the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam was to keep the media out of wars.

Yes, so soldiers are free to do terrible things, turning more people against your country. What you need is a lot of media coverage, and good things to be covering - ShqipTAR is right, social programs are the way to go.

The media has a place in wars, but they need to be fair, and I don't feel they have been. The one example I brought up before was the story of how the New York Times ran a front page article about 5,000 members of the Iraqi army who fled a fight, but mentioned not one word of the other 115,000 who stayed and fought. Also does the New York Times ever have stories from ground commanders talking about how our operations in Iraq are succeeding and how things aren't like the liberals would have you believe. Of course they don't. Now don't get me wrong I don't believe fox is really fair and balanced but they're not as bad as the New York times or MSNBC.

Now don't get me wrong I don't believe fox is really fair and balanced but they're not as bad as...

/beingtakenseriously

Yes, so soldiers are free to do terrible things, turning more people against your country. What you need is a lot of media coverage, and good things to be covering - ShqipTAR is right, social programs are the way to go.

So if the media wasn't there then the soldiers would be free to be the blood thirsty savages that they are? Want to know where you got that idea from? The media being biased as hell because people "like" to see nasty, evil, disturbing shit. A story about a soldier who risked his life to get civilains out of a high risk area? Naw, no one would watch that, let's tell a story about them murdering puppies instead.

Vietnam and Iraq, highy televised and it's commonly thought that the vast majority of the population there hates us. Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea... not nearly as much media present. Is there a deep seeded hatred with all of those countries?

There are plenty of good things the media could cover, they choose not to. Like everything else the news is a business. Telling stories of horrors and destruction gets much better ratings then stories of being nice. Not to mention the countless times the media fucked up military operations in Vietnam, Desert Storm, and probably Iraqi Freedom (is that what it's still being called?).

If you ask me the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam was to keep the media out of wars.

Lol okay. Shut down Fox and CNN, what the fuck are you going to do then? Bomb Al-Jazeera?

Newsflash bro: Americans aren't the only audience that matters in the media presentation of the war in Iraq. You could say they actually matter the least if you buy into the whole foreign jihadist insurgency.

So if the media wasn't there then the soldiers would be free to be the blood thirsty savages that they are? Want to know where you got that idea from? The media being biased as hell because people "like" to see nasty, evil, disturbing shit. A story about a soldier who risked his life to get civilains out of a high risk area? Naw, no one would watch that, let's tell a story about them murdering puppies instead.

Vietnam and Iraq, highy televised and it's commonly thought that the vast majority of the population there hates us. Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea... not nearly as much media present. Is there a deep seeded hatred with all of those countries?

There are plenty of good things the media could cover, they choose not to. Like everything else the news is a business. Telling stories of horrors and destruction gets much better ratings then stories of being nice. Not to mention the countless times the media fucked up military operations in Vietnam, Desert Storm, and probably Iraqi Freedom (is that what it's still being called?).
Agreed to an extent, but despite that whenever I see any news on Iraq its almost always positive. I really have not seen any news besides Haditha + Abu Ghraib + that dude that shot the Iraqi pointblank in the head in Fallujah, that was really all that negative.

I really haven't heard anything ever about soldiers risking there lives to evacuate civilians out of high risk areas, unless the civilians were western either. Not by the major news, but I hear alot more about soldiers shooting up civilians trying to evacuate high risk areas at checkpoint when they don't slow down.

Theres an obvious lack of social services for your majority under the poverty line Iraqi, and the people who do provide services in slums like Sadr city I'm willing to bet is the insurgency its self. If you want to win Iraq, you need to provide better services - a source of income to these disenfranchised people, stop doing shock and awe bullshit relying on air power and put boots on the ground.

I really haven't heard anything ever about soldiers risking there lives to evacuate civilians out of high risk areas, unless the civilians were western either. Not by the major news, but I hear alot more about soldiers shooting up civilians trying to evacuate high risk areas at checkpoint when they don't slow down.


Isn't that his point exactly? Not all the things that our troops do are bad, in fact most are good. But that's not what you hear about. You hear about when they fire at a civilian who doesn't slow down. If you're trying to say that the reason you only hear about bad things is because only bad things are done by our troops, then you're just wrong.

Isn't that his point exactly? Not all the things that our troops do are bad, in fact most are good. But that's not what you hear about. You hear about when they fire at a civilian who doesn't slow down. If you're trying to say that the reason you only hear about bad things is because only bad things are done by our troops, then you're just wrong.
No, I'm literally saying the only evacuation of civilians from high risk areas I have ever heard of through any channel has never been anyone but someone with a western passport. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure in the case of Fallujah it was just you got 10 days to get out before we bomb you all to hell..... And heh, you would think after Srebrenica, any evacuation of civilians would hit say the Marine Corps Gazzette or some shit, atleast.


I do agree that American soldiers are actually good people, but I won't agree the people that put them where they go are.

We lost Vietnam and haven't won Iraq, because we are afraid to use the Nuke. If you are going to invade a country that does not follow the same rules of order as your own, then you better make them submit fast.

Maybe instead of winning Vietnam or Iraq, we should have never gone in the first place.

we did not win in vietnam because our military was not ALLOWED to win. plain and simple. had our generals been given the green light to advance into north vietnam in massive numbers, bomb anything we felt like, and had simply given them a onslaught on their homeland, where they can not hit and run, but had to stand and fight - the war would have been over in 3 years, 4 at most. with complete devastation on their side. even in our defensive, failing efforts, every single time there was a stand up brawl, we gutted them.

we will not win in iraq and afghanistan because we don't have the STOMACH for it. look at the phillipines; that was a successful quelling of a insurgency... because it was unbelievably brutal on our side. that's why we won. we are not willing to employ extreme brutality in iraq, and the enemy is smarter, stronger, and more patient then the enemy in vietnam. until we are willing to accept 10 civilians killed for every enemy fighter killed, we will not win. america has lost it's guts for war, we don't even have enough guts to force our government to STOP fighting, so instead we get half-wars, that solve nothing and get lots of people killed.

and lol, patton is aptly named.

we did not win in vietnam because our military was not ALLOWED to win. plain and simple. had our generals been given the green light to advance into north vietnam in massive numbers, bomb anything we felt like, and had simply given them a onslaught on their homeland, where they can not hit and run, but had to stand and fight - the war would have been over in 3 years, 4 at most. with complete devastation on their side. even in our defensive, failing efforts, every single time there was a stand up brawl, we gutted them.

Yes, every time there was a stand up brawl, we kicked their ass. But invading with full force does not force them to stand and fight. They still could have used guerrilla tactics. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that using a full out invasion would have defeated the NVA.

we will not win in iraq and afghanistan because we don't have the STOMACH for it. look at the phillipines; that was a successful quelling of a insurgency... because it was unbelievably brutal on our side. that's why we won. we are not willing to employ extreme brutality in iraq, and the enemy is smarter, stronger, and more patient then the enemy in vietnam. until we are willing to accept 10 civilians killed for every enemy fighter killed, we will not win. america has lost it's guts for war, we don't even have enough guts to force our government to STOP fighting, so instead we get half-wars, that solve nothing and get lots of people killed.


I pretty much agree. I think America has gone too soft. But who's to blame for that? I think the media. If we did use harsher tactics, you'd have the liberal media all over the U.S. troops and how horrible they are.

To the people who say that we lost because of tactical reasons, I don't disagree. But I just think the bigger reason why we lost has to do with the attitudes of the people back at home.

Yes, every time there was a stand up brawl, we kicked their ass. But invading with full force does not force them to stand and fight. They still could have used guerrilla tactics. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that using a full out invasion would have defeated the NVA.



I pretty much agree. I think America has gone too soft. But who's to blame for that? I think the media. If we did use harsher tactics, you'd have the liberal media all over the U.S. troops and how horrible they are.

To the people who say that we lost because of tactical reasons, I don't disagree. But I just think the bigger reason why we lost has to do with the attitudes of the people back at home.

Why go harsh? Whats the point of winning a war designed to bring freedom to people when you play it like Adolf?

Go Biblical. Totally Old Testament.

Eg: Kill every man, every boy & every woman who has known a man. Keep every virgin girl you fancy for your own.

For when there are NO PEOPLE: there is thus, no opposition. Eg: You Win!!!

Why go harsh? Whats the point of winning a war designed to bring freedom to people when you play it like Adolf?

Simple to kill the fucking sand nigger terrorists. We want to bring freedom to the people not those fucktards.

what? you buy into the 'give them freedom' bullshit?

the army is there for OUR freedom. their job is to TAKE others freedom. we should conquer them, use their natural resources, dilute their ethnicity, destroy their culture, and be prosperous.

and they aren't fucking terrorists, any more then we are. they're just the enemy... and THEY aren't afraid to die. i have far more respect for them then for ourselves... which is why i feel we should eradicate them. out of respect for their strength.

Great.

The reason we have not won and never will win in Iraq is because those fighting our military there believe that dying in a bloodbath with American soldiers is the greatest glory they can give to Allah. The Iraqi resistance is full of religious nutjobs, and there's nothing that can conquer that short of wiping Islam off the globe.

In which case, I'm sure Christianity or Hinduism would be sure to take their place.

The Nazi's were nutjobs, so were the japs. In WWII they jumped off cliffs to avoid being captured by the Americans because it brought them dishonor. It's pretty comparable to suicide bombing.

Americans knowingly bombed/strafed/firebombed civilians in the past.

Only a non-Patriot would criticize those Baby Roasters. You're not the kind of punk who'd criticize heroes are you, punk?

All you'd have to do is look at your unemployment rate to see how well your education system's working for you.


The unemployment rate has nothing to do with the education system.

Americans knowingly bombed/strafed/firebombed civilians in the past.


as long as they weren't american, i don't see what is wrong with that.

Americans knowingly bombed/strafed/firebombed civilians in the past.

Only a non-Patriot would criticize those Baby Roasters. You're not the kind of punk who'd criticize heroes are you, punk?

I don't really see your point here, come to think of it, none of your posts have really been on topic.

You mean why are the US' wars hugely inefficient?

Because a bunch of powerful people are profiting by sustaining the war effort.

I don't really see your point here, come to think of it, none of your posts have really been on topic.

Well, schoolie? US won in Europe & Japan eh?

It's all part of War to condemn your own praised dirty behavior when the same thing is done by others. I wouldn't expect you to see that deeply though. No doubt you're as much a hypocrite as anyone else, not that you'd ever see that or admit to it. :)

The US didn't "lose" in Vietnam you fucking hippy pot smoking cocksucker.

Right, and the Japanese didn't lose WW2 because they didn't have to surrender unconditionally.

The US left Vietnam without achieving its objectives, the government we were supporting collapsed and the government we opposed runs the entire country. We wasted tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars for nothing.

Let me see... hmmm... yep, I think that means the US lost, you stupid cunt.

And rightly so, it was immoral anyway.