So, Iraq hasn't been getting much play.. but a lot has been going on.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They basically talk about how our actions in Iraq and the stuff in lebanon is PERFECT for Iran. They talk about how Iraq is going extremely poor and that 100 people are dying every day. Buchanan said the country will probably turn into three countries by the time its done. Two or three staunch republicans reversed their course saying we should pull out immediately... and some other misc things

Such as the new government in Iraq has publically said they don't agree with israel at all with the current conflict.

Iran has an almost unbroken string of link, the only fault was China and Russia agreeing to the US reachout

However, the August 22nd response by Iran should be interesting

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Iran has an almost unbroken string of link, the only fault was China and Russia agreeing to the US reachout

However, the August 22nd response by Iran should be interesting

Pat and others basically said we have created the perfect middle east for Iran. They are all, including Iraq, sympathetic to anything anti-israel/anti-west. Im going to watch it again in 15 minutes and i'll be able to put in better cliffs

[motivez]

I thought it was a really well thought out response, was worth watching. I'm sure there will be a clip up for those who missed it.

Honestly, they're right. We have created a perfect scenerio for them, dealt with two of their neighboor countries that they didn't particularly care for, and have empowered them as a key player in so many things.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Crazy

Seriously now, you're going to sit there and blame people back home for the lives of many overseas?

I didn't realize you were completely unaware of the fact that the middle eastern militant leaders are rejoicing in the bullshit being spewed by the left in this country, even by our representatives like Murtha and Pelosi.

I HOPE you're aware of the fact that the North Vietnamese leaders were prepared to surrender following the Tet Offensive but did not surrended based SOLEY on the liberals parading around on US campuses accusing our soldiers of being murderers.

It's the same damn principle.

And by the way, I have multiple family members who have served and one who is currently serving. Pulling the "I served, you didn't, therefore you're not allowed to talk about my entire political party" line isn't going to fly.

If you want to feign righteous indignation as a means of debating a topic - do it somewhere else or do it to someone else, i've participated in enough political forums to recognize it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

I HOPE you're aware of the fact that the North Vietnamese leaders were prepared to surrender following the Tet Offensive but did not surrended based SOLEY on the liberals parading around on US campuses accusing our soldiers of being murderers.

Link?

[TekDragon]

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,

"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."


Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.


Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.


Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.


Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.


Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]


Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.



Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

.

[TekDragon]

In case all that reading is too much for you, let me take out the most important exerpt:

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Anyone who thinks the current liberal antiwar movement, which has been JUST as harsh if not HARSHER on US soldiers than in Vietnam, isn't providing support to the terrorist and militant leaders is a fool who is as ignorant of human nature as they are of history.

[DosEquis]

What is this "losing" you speak of anyway? The north vietnamese still had leaders and still had an army. We already destroyed the old iraq. Saddam, his sons, the republican guard, the regular army... it has been disbanded or circled back into the current army under the new government. We already won this militarily. We need to win this politically and to do that we need to remove ourselves as much as possible. THEY DO NOT LIKE US. The Iraq population had 60+% at times say "americans need to leave immediately."

When you occupy a country for an extended period it gives a population a general sense of not accomplishing anything. Sure, we could be rebuilding their country at record pace compared to ww2 japan or germany, but the american people do not see this and if they did I doubt they would give a shit. They want to see a stable government and Iraqi soldiers/police take over. So far those two things are far from success. We are stagnet when it comes to political success. Nation building with this type of country does not work. They still have tribes and fight over holy land.

The ONLY way to have a successful fight that does not turn sour with public opinion is to blow them up and leave, like gulf war 1. George's dad, former head of the cia, former vice president, (far far far far more qualified to be president then his kid) knew what he was doing the first time. Now we have removed an enemy of Iran and installed an ally.

We need to remove 90% of our ground element, and provide the Iraqi government with supplies, air support, special forces. We need to remain out of sight and out of mind as much as possible.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

.

And I still don't see the link......

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

In case all that reading is too much for you, let me take out the most important exerpt:



Anyone who thinks the current liberal antiwar movement, which has been JUST as harsh if not HARSHER on US soldiers than in Vietnam, isn't providing support to the terrorist and militant leaders is a fool who is as ignorant of human nature as they are of history.

You are just plain wrong.

edit - I'm sorry that you feel this way.
You would rather blame the people that ask "why is this happening" before you blame the people that do it.

Sad really.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You are just plain wrong.

edit - I'm sorry that you feel this way.
You would rather blame the people that ask "why is this happening" before you blame the people that do it.

Sad really.

You know exactly why it's happening. You simply don't like it, and your vocal public discontent which frames our soldiers as the "bad guys" has made the mission far more dangerous and unstable than it needed to be.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

You know exactly why it's happening. You simply don't like it, and your vocal public discontent which frames our soldiers as the "bad guys" has made the mission far more dangerous and unstable than it needed to be.

Not quite...

And am I going to have to hold you upside down and shake you for the link? Or are you afraid to post a crappy source?

And MY vocal public discontent?
Nobody frames our soldiers as bad guys. We frame the fucking assholes that sent them as bad guys.

Someone better take my megaphone away.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

When you occupy a country for an extended period it gives a population a general sense of not accomplishing anything. Sure, we could be rebuilding their country at record pace compared to ww2 japan or germany, but the american people do not see this and if they did I doubt they would give a shit. They want to see a stable government and Iraqi soldiers/police take over. So far those two things are far from success. We are stagnet when it comes to political success. Nation building with this type of country does not work. They still have tribes and fight over holy land.

You're right, a stable government and Iraqi soliders/police taking over are the two primary goals. And when you put it into historic perspective we are reaching those goals at a pace NEVER before thought possible.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

And when you put it into historic perspective we are reaching those goals at a pace NEVER before thought possible.

Really? So there is light at the end of the tunnel? Because if there is, nobody but you sees it.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Not quite...

And am I going to have to hold you upside down and shake you for the link? Or are you afraid to post a crappy source?

And MY vocal public discontent?

Someone better take my megaphone away.

Sorry, one second lemme check my history.

I simply typed in "North Vietnamese ready to surrender following Tet Offensive" in Yahoo and the first two links provided this interview with the North Vietnamese officer:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13121

The initial source, btw, was provided if you had bothered to read it.

an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995].

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Sorry, one second lemme check my history.

I simply typed in "North Vietnamese ready to surrender following Tet Offensive" in Yahoo and the first two links provided this interview with the North Vietnamese officer:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13121

[thomez]

do you expect all people to support wars in which we have nothing or little to gain? it just won't ever happen

this is how the fledgling US of A beat the baddest military in the world - resolve is not and never will be infinite for offensive wars - bring it on home soil and put us on the defensive and it's a totally different story

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

The initial source, btw, was provided if you had bothered to read it.

Sorry, I throw out my old WSJ's.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by thomez

do you expect all people to support wars in which we have nothing or little to gain? it just won't ever happen

this is how the fledgling US of A beat the baddest military in the world - resolve is not and never will be infinite for offensive wars - bring it on home soil and put us on the defensive and it's a totally different story

If we were alive following the end of WW2 I imagine your point would be equally valid in regard to rebuilding Germany or Japan. Yet look at what a boon those 2 nations, previously beligerant and isolated, have been to the world and to the US.

I firmly believe that a democratic and western friendly Afghanistan and Iraq is a boon to the entire world.