Somalia
Lebanon
N Korea <---- :D
Vietnam
Cuba
May I add Iraq too.... Seems like shamless ppl have short memory.... Never mind.
If this was strictly an air campaign then the Occupiers would have to retreat way back out of sight.
They would complete lose control of situation on the ground so your view would be unrealistic.
Also the americans don't give damn about civillians getting killed remember that famous quote from Madeline albright *500,000 being killed is a price worth paying. *
Or Colin powell quote on iraqis killed Its really not a number Im terribly interested in
Civillians getting killed are washed over very easily and mean nothing
to the Amerikkkans remeber the words Collateral Damage!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
If this was strictly an air campaign then the Occupiers would have to retreat way back out of sight.
They would complete lose control of situation on the ground so your view would be unrealistic.
Also the americans don't give damn about civillians getting killed remember that famous quote from Madeline albright *500,000 being killed is a price worth paying. *
Or Colin powell quote on iraqis killed Its really not a number Im terribly interested in
Civillians getting killed are washed over very easily and mean nothing
to the Amerikkkans remeber the words Collateral Damage!
[/QUOTE]
So you pull the troops back in the trouble towns and let the bombers do their jobs, why do you not find this realistic?
Is Iraq another Vietnam?
By Barnaby Mason
BBC diplomatic correspondent
** The Vietnam war lasted 14 years and killed hundreds of thousands
The veteran Democratic Senator, Edward Kennedy, has described Iraq as George Bush’s Vietnam - the long war that ended in humiliating retreat for the United States in 1975. **
How justified is the comparison?
There are obvious differences.
The Vietnam war was fought over 14 years and on a far bigger scale. At its peak, more than half a million American soldiers were deployed there, compared with about a quarter of that number in Iraq.
Nearly 60,000 died in Vietnam, together with perhaps 40 times as many Vietnamese.
Looking at America’s allies, the most obvious difference was the absence of Britain, its primary partner in Iraq. In the 1960s, the British government resisted Washington’s pressure to send troops to Vietnam.
South Korea fought alongside the United States, together with smaller contingents from Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.
Ruthless
To help with the Iraqi aftermath, the US has assembled a longer list of allies on the ground, mostly European. But in military terms, only the British contribution is significant.
The US used more ruthless methods in Vietnam - including large-scale bombing, often with incendiary napalm, and the destruction of whole villages suspected of harbouring Vietcong guerrillas.
** In both cases, the United States said it was defending freedom
Such tactics are even harder to justify now. The Americans have far more accurate weapons available.
But they are often irrelevant to the task at hand. **
Essentially, the same dilemma faces the Americans in Iraq - how to separate the fighters from bystanders, this time in run-down towns and cities rather than tropical jungle.
** A purely military solution was and is impossible. But then, as now, a superpower staked its prestige on victory, so the question became: how to get out? ** * I will tell you how to get out, run with your tail between your legs, you done it several times before you have experience. Don’t worry you media will mask you humiliation. *
** Many South Vietnamese welcomed the North’s victory
Vietnam ruined the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. His successor, Richard Nixon, negotiated a peace deal which in fact meant an American withdrawal and the takeover of South Vietnam by the communist North. **
Washington’s local political instrument, the corrupt South Vietnamese military government, was discredited and collapsed.
** In Iraq, the Americans have appointed a Governing Council whose legitimacy is disputed. ** The difference, they hope, will be the involvement of the United Nations and a handover to a more representative government.
Ideological justification
One striking similarity is Washington’s declaration of an ideological, even altruistic motive.
In Vietnam, it was resistance to the spread of communism: the theory was that if it was not stopped there, the rest of south-east Asia would fall like a row of dominos.
The reasons for the invasion of Iraq are more muddled, but the Bush administration has often sought to present it as part of a war against Islamic terrorism - as well as an effort to establish Iraq as a beacon of western-style democracy in the Middle East.
** In both cases, the United States said it was defending freedom: but its involvement in Vietnam stimulated a national resistance struggle and a similar phenomenon may be emerging in Iraq. ** :k: 
So far, nothing like the mass protest movement against the Vietnam war has emerged in the US.
But there is another way in which the shadow of Vietnam hangs over President Bush.
His opponent in the November presidential election will be John Kerry, who was decorated for bravery in the Vietnam war - but later campaigned against it.
Mr Bush avoided being drafted to serve in Vietnam.
*In both cases, the United States said it was defending freedom: but its involvement in Vietnam stimulated a national resistance struggle and a similar phenomenon may be emerging in Iraq. *
Watching the news these days, is like watching the latest Vietnam movie.
Look, already running for cover…
However, Abizaid made clear Monday that he was not going to be the fall guy if conditions in Iraq further deteriorate.
However, Abizaid made clear Monday that he was not going to be the fall guy if conditions in Iraq further deteriorate.
He must have read up on what happened to the generals during Vietnam?
http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/09/stories/2004040901371500.htm
B-liar, Bush to hold `crisis meet’
By Hasan Suroor
LONDON, APRIL 8. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is to visit Washington next week for a "crisis summit’’ with the U.S. President, George W. Bush, amid growing concern here over what is seen as the "ham-fisted’’ American approach to the Iraqi resistance.
** Mr. Bush spoke to Mr. Blair on Wednesday as the occupation forces faced one of their worst days in Iraq, and even as officials tried to play down the crisis, critics warned of a "long, hot summer’’ and called for an honourable "exit strategy’'. ** there isn’t one…no mater how u spin.
Media reports spoke of the British Government’s unhappiness with American tactics in dealing with the resistance, and comparisons were made with the more quiet' and low-key strategy adopted by British forces in the regions under their control. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, was accused by commentators of politicising’ the situation in Iraq and showing lack of sensitivity towards Iraqis. "Although the White House and Downing Street are presenting a united front there are differences of approach to Iraq, and the British Government is concerned that Mr. Bremer repeatedly ignored the advice of the senior British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who recently retired,‘’ The Guardian said.
The former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet over Mr. Blair’s Iraq policy, suggested that Mr. Bremer be recalled for a "period of compulsory rest and recuperation’’ calling the decision to storm a mosque in Fallujah as `daft’.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
So you pull the troops back in the trouble towns and let the bombers do their jobs, why do you not find this realistic?
[/QUOTE]
Because it is not realistic, if it was true there would be no armies and every nation would spend on flying machines. When a nation rises there isn't any army or airfore big enough. I can provide ya several examples.... Just stick to your spin.....
^ so you can see the spin from a distance too huh 
The latest from the war in Vietnam...oops Iraq.
[thumb=E]yanks2327_3755519.JPG[/thumb]
Perhaps we should listen to Sen John McCain, who was imprisoned in Hanoi, and certainly knows more about Vietnam than those of you who were not born til 10 years after Vietnam.
Not Tet
Iraq is not Vietnam.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of a speech made by Arizona Republican senator John McCain on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, April 7, 2004.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/mccain200404080912.asp
This is like Vietnam, says Marine
IN THE corpse-strewn streets of Fallujah, US Marines yesterday fought a deadly house-by-house battle for control of the rebellious city against hundreds of Iraqi snipers, mortar men and local residents — a battle compared by one Marine commander to the worst fighting of the Vietnam War.
“This is like Hue City in Vietnam,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Brennan Byrne, referring to the city that became a byword for lethal street fighting, the type of combat most feared by US commanders when they invaded Iraq last year.
“No Sunnis, no Shia, yes for Islamic unity,” the marchers chanted. “We are Sunni and Shia brothers and will never sell our country.”
Chota - Perhaps we should listen to the murdering grunts in the desert?
Hue? This is what the US was facing in Hue:
“Opposing the allied forces in the Hue region were 8,000 Communist troops, a total of ten battalions. These were highly trained North Vietnamese regular army units that had come south either across the DMZ or more likely, down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. They were armed with AK47 assault rifles, RPD machineguns, and B-40 rocket propelled grenade launchers. In addition, the PAVN had 107mm, 122mm, and 140mm free-flight rockets, 82mm and 120mm mortars, recoilless rifles, and heavy machineguns. The North Vietnamese units were joined by six Viet Cong main force battalions, including the 12th and Hue City Sapper Battalions.[5] A typical mainforce VC infantry battalion consisted of 300-600 veteran, skilled fighters. The VC soldiers were armed similar to the PAVN with the exception that they did not have some of the heavier weapons.[6] During the course of the battle for Hue, the total Communist force in and around the city would grow to 20 battalions when three additional infantry regiments were dispatched to the Hue area from the Khe Sanh battlefield.”
This will be over in a week when Salim and kamal realize that their BVD's can't hold an RPG anymore because of the holes.
[quote]
On the edge of the city, Marines faced thousands of Sunni and Shia demonstrators who had marched overnight from Baghdad in order to show solidarity with the people of Fallujah, bringing them trucks filled with food, donated blood and other medical supplies.
The Marines rushed in reinforcements to prevent the chanting demonstrators from surging in unhindered, then allowed the aid vehicles into the city one by one, patting down the passengers, whether sheikhs or nurses, for concealed weapons.
The cross-community demonstration of support for Fallujah had been organised by Baghdad clerics — Sunni and Shia — amid reports that the death toll in the town had reached up to 280 people in three days of combat.
“No Sunnis, no Shia, yes for Islamic unity,” the marchers chanted. “We are Sunni and Shia brothers and will never sell our country.”
[/quote]
Such united hatred for the American's...just like in Vietnam.
OG, it seems like these terrorists in Sadr adn the usual Sunni misfits are not quite like the hue opposition at all. They seem to be a bunch of ragtag wannabe soldiers. And judging from the politics among these groups, I think we can safely say that they will be killing each other sooner rather than later. Also, these folks don't have the resolve like the Veitnamese did either...I mean just looking at the past arab military performance. Quite Anemic, could probably give the Italians a run for their money. :)
The rag tag "resistance" in Fallujah probably has some military experience, they certainly have local knowledge and support. Those are their only advantages.
The Marines have weapons superiority, Air support, Air surveilance, better logistics, better training, better unit cohesion, and superior numbers, (they say 2000 Marines, more than likely it is double that, as any commander would be a fool to publish the real numbers). The longer the fight lasts, the more peaceful Fallujah will be after the fight.
For over a year this fight was avoided. No one wanted the casualties, both civilian and military that will come of this fight, but the time has come to clean this place out.
As usual, the press is engaged in emotional histrionics. Baghdad is not in flames, Sadr city is not rising up. Kut is back under control, as is Basra and a number of other cities. Time and patience work to the American side, and if they win these battles decisively, then the next two bit thug will think twice about declaring himself an enemy. At some point somebody was going to challenge the US, now was as good a time as any. Better to fight when it is cool than in the heat of the summer.
Remember the first week of the invasion when everyone thought things were going wrong. A week later there were tanks running through Baghdad? Patience is a virtue.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Troops are used to hunt down the enemy in order to avoid and limit damage to innocents. While the U.S. certainly has the capability to only use air power to defeat it's enemies it would come at a great cost in innocent lives. American troop’s lives are sacrificed in order to limit the loss of innocent lives, or as I said this could strictly be an air campaign.
[/QUOTE]
this argument is so pathetic
it is like an armed robber comes in my house and ties my and my family. then he says that you should be thankful that i tied you up and not shot you as i am robbing your place.
or like when once a guy asked a tyrant if he had ever shown any mercy to any one, and after thinking for a while, he said yes, the most merciful act i did was when a child was drowning and his mother was on the shore crying for him and said oh i will not even have the grave of my son to cry on, and i felt bad for her and i took my spear and poked the spear in the child's breast and bought the body of the child to the grieving mother.
truely, allah makes the deeds of tyrants seem justified to them.
Here is an excellent arguement from Slate:
Vietnam?
Why the analogy doesn’t hold water.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 12, 2004, at 12:53 PM PT
Here is how the imperialist plot in Iraq was proceeding until recently. The Shiite Muslim pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala and the Sunni pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina had been recommenced after a state ban that had lasted for years and been enforced in blood. A new dinar had been minted, without the face of the dictator, and was on its way to becoming convertible. (Indeed, recent heists at the Beirut and Baghdad airports suggested that the Iraqi currency was at last worth stealing.) The deliberately parched and scorched wetlands of the south were being re-flooded. At the end of June, the American headquarters was to be converted into an embassy. At that point, almost $100 billion was to become available for the reconstitution of the Iraqi state and society. By the end of the year, campaigning would be under way for the first open election in Iraqi memory, and the only such election in the region (unless you count Israel).
There are those—not conspicuous for their bravery under a less indulgent regime—who would prefer not to give this process a chance to breathe. For them, it is nobler to take hostages and dismember prisoners and to conceal explosives in the bodies of dead dogs. When confronted with those who were brave under the previous regime, they tend to back away. (I don’t see Muqtada Sadr taking on the Kurdish peshmerga any time soon, and I’d be fascinated to see what happened if he did. He has said that “Kurdistan is the enemy of God.”)