Dean says we cant win in Iraq

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So would you contend that the death of any of the Soviet advisors, or the widening of the conflict to directly include Cambodia or Laos, would have had no consequences with regards to the actions of the Soviets or the Chinese?

 

 

The Soviets and Chinese spent the whole war shipping arms to their "fraternal Socialist Allies". If a few of their advisors had been killed we could contend that their weapons were killing far more of our people and basically tell them to piss off.

 

Besides, invading Cambodia and attacking Laos later in the war had no real consequences other than to inflame the hippies here at home.

 

 

EDIT: My point is you fight a war with everything you've got or not at all.

Edited December 7, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Texsox]

Here's the biggest difference between Vietnam and Iraq II. This time George Bush is involved.

[Balta1701]

The Soviets and Chinese spent the whole war shipping arms to their "fraternal Socialist Allies".  If a few of their advisors had been killed we could contend that their weapons were killing far more of our people and basically tell them to piss off.

That leaves out the answer to the question: what would we do if they didn't just "Piss off"? If they chose to either up their aid or establish an actual military presence inside North Vietnam along the lines of what we had established in the south?

[Rex Kickass]

Besides,  invading Cambodia and attacking Laos later in the war had no real consequences other than to inflame the hippies here at home.

EDIT:  My point is you fight a war with everything you've got or not at all.

 

Why don't you ask the Hmong population if that's the case.

[Texsox]

EDIT:  My point is you fight a war with everything you've got or not at all.

 

OMG, Nuke and I agree. I think that is twice this year. I assume we would be following all international conventions and US laws in fighting. But you keep calling Vietnam a war.

 

I also think we should vigorously debate before, during, and after the war to assure we are not sending people to die to cover up a sexual dalliance or to bolster sagging approval ratings.

[Controlled Chaos]

OMG, Nuke and I agree. I think that is twice this year. I assume we would be following all international conventions and US laws in fighting. But you keep calling Vietnam a war.

 

I also think we should vigorously debate before, during, and after the war to assure we are not sending people to die to cover up a sexual dalliance or to bolster sagging approval ratings.

 

The whole world calls it the Vietnam war, not the Vietnam conflict so whay are you nitpicking?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That leaves out the answer to the question: what would we do if they didn't just "Piss off"?  If they chose to either up their aid or establish an actual military presence inside North Vietnam along the lines of what we had established in the south?

 

They already were pouring massive amounts of money, weapons and raw materials into North Vietnam. If Vietnam meant that much to the Soviets they would have committed forces to the fight up front. I believe they didn't think that country was worth risking total war with the US over. Besides, they were too busy studying our tactics, looking at how our equipment performed against theirs etc..etc..

[KipWellsFan]

Howard Dean's comments would have perfectly described the Vietnam conflict

 

the idea that the war in Vietnam can be won is "just plain wrong."

 

What in the hell would have equaled a US victory in Vietnam? The people of Vietnam were sick and tired of having leaders imposed on them. They weren't about to let a bunch of Westerners try to dictate to them who would govern them. The people of Vietnam had decided who they didn't want running the country and the US had no place telling them who they should pick. If the US failed for any reason it was for supporting the wrong goons to run. After Ho Chi Minh it was, do we want American supported goons, or our communist goons running the country?

 

*Trying to figure out if the idea of 'Communist containment' or 'Fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here is more ridiculous.*

Edited December 7, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Chisoxfn]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html

Typical drivel from this blowhard idiot.  Guys like this would have quit on WW2 because it was too hard,  would have quit the Civil War because there were too many casualties and would never have fought the Revolutionary War because it was too difficult.

You also have Senator Kerry making this accusations about how crappy our troops are and how they are treating the Iraqi's horribly and invading their rights.

 

Comments like that sicken me.

[Chisoxfn]

I expect nothing less.  Those polls are meaningless.

Its like putting up a poll on Soxtalk asking if the White Sox are good.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You also have Senator Kerry making this accusations about how crappy our troops are and how they are treating the Iraqi's horribly and invading their rights. 

 

Comments like that sicken me.

 

 

LOL!

 

 

He supports the troops alright.........when it's politically convienient for him.

 

 

I expect no less from someone who tossed his medals away and got up in front of the Senate and denounced US troops as "murderers, rapists and baby-killers" like he did in 1971.

[Chisoxfn]

Man, I can never figure out why some of you Republicans just assume that everything which happens in the Democratic party has to do directly with the influence of Hillary Clinton.

 

The "Clinton" faction, including a lot of Clinton's old people, were quite strongly opposed to Dean during the primaries, and many of them opposed Dean when he was running for the DNC.  I think it's pretty doubtful based on policy positions that Dr. Dean would have Hillary as his first choice for the DNC nomination in 2008.  I see no reason at all why we should give any credence at all to the theory that this is somehow related to Hillary's grand master plan.

For cripes sakes it was the Clinton people that pulled the plug on the Dean campaign. Its no secret either, the Clinton people were very behind the attack on Dean (especially following his marvelous speach).

[Balta1701]

You also have Senator Kerry making this accusations about how crappy our troops are and how they are treating the Iraqi's horribly and invading their rights. 

 

Comments like that sicken me.

Let me guess...you heard about those "awful quotes" from Limbaugh. Or at least indirectly from someone who heard it from him.

 

Sen. KERRY: Let me–I–first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush’s policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he’s doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn’t been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.’ That’s the president’s policy, which hasn’t been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don’t agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you’ve got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You’ve got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…

 

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

 

Sen. KERRY: …Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

[Chisoxfn]

Until we stop doing it.

Thats right, I forgot, president Bush is the one over there toturing people. Oh wait, no he's not and yet people seem to generalize that the whole freaking army is toturing individuals. Thats like saying every Sox fan is William Lique.

 

Don't let the extremely vast minority allow you to make a false opinion on the majority of soldiers.

[Balta1701]

Thats right, I forgot, president Bush is the one over there toturing people. Oh wait, no he's not and yet people seem to generalize that the whole freaking army is toturing individuals.  Thats like saying every Sox fan is William Lique. 

 

Don't let the extremely vast minority allow you to make a false opinion on the majority of soldiers.

I never said, nor will I ever say that it is a majority. But that said, a small minority can still be a huge and systemic problem.

[KipWellsFan]

I expect no less from someone who tossed his medals away and got up in front of the Senate and denounced US troops as "murderers, rapists and baby-killers" like he did in 1971.

 

I was pretty sure he never threw his medals away.

[Balta1701]

I was pretty sure he never threw his medals away.

Ok, I'm going to respond to this before someone else does...when you earn the awards that Kerry got, you get a couple different things...you get a medal, and you also get some sort of ribbon that I believe can go on your uniform. Kerry threw away the latter at a Vietnam protest. So yes, he did throw something away, and it is entirely a semantic issue as to whether he threw away his medals or his ribbons.

[Chisoxfn]

I also want to say there is only one argument that I think is truly viable from the left side. I would want to know why the Iraqi army (which has now had a relatively long time to traing) is still being babied around.

 

I would like to see us be able to slowly start pulling out troops and putting more of the responsibility on the Iraqi army. Afterall, they have been trained 2 to 3 times as long as the normal troop that joins the army and than is shipped to Iraq after 6 months of training.

 

If the Iraqi army isn't capable of that (and I assume they aren't since we haven't really given them an increased amount of responsibility) than I want to know what people are doing to improve there training methods so the Iraqi soldiers can figure things out.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Ok, I'm going to respond to this before someone else does...when you earn the awards that Kerry got, you get a couple different things...you get a medal, and you also get some sort of ribbon that I believe can go on your uniform.  Kerry threw away the latter at a Vietnam protest.  So yes, he did throw something away, and it is entirely a semantic issue as to whether he threw away his medals or his ribbons.

 

 

You're right about that.

 

 

BUT..........

 

 

Oh yes he did throw the medals away.

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...20351-2402r.htm

[Texsox]

The whole world calls it the Vietnam war, not the Vietnam conflict so whay are you nitpicking? 

 

We never declared war on Vietnam and that directly resulted in the war powers act of 1973. Presidents can no longer commit US Troops overseas without congressional approval. It is a very important distinction in our history.

 

And wouldn't it seem unfair to toss out Nuke's opinion on Iraq because he misquoted a fact on Vietnam?

[Balta1701]

You're right about that. 

BUT..........

Oh yes he did throw the medals away.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...20351-2402r.htm

Yet supposedly he has shown his medals to reporters in the past. Ah heck...let's just admit he has no idea what he threw and neither do we. He definately threw something.

[Rex Kickass]

God this argument gets so annoying. Because it seems like any comment about wondering about victory in a war seems to be a reflection on the job the military does.

 

Maybe the solution isn't military. Maybe its more complicated than what our armed forces does or doesn't do.

[kapkomet]

God this argument gets so annoying. Because it seems like any comment about wondering about victory in a war seems to be a reflection on the job the military does.

 

Maybe the solution isn't military. Maybe its more complicated than what our armed forces does or doesn't do.

My victory isn't military.

[Texsox]

What annoys me the most is I figured, hell it's Iraq!!? We'll go in like were going to milwaukee, kick some ass, leave. Like in a couple years.

 

Instead this will be stretching until the end of this decade. :banghead It seemed too easy and too immediate. No way we needed to invade at that very moment. There was a lot of mistakes based on faulty information, assumptions, and fears.

[White Sox Josh]

he is damn right we can't win that war. It has gotten worse since we went to Iraq. Where are the WMD's? Wait there were none. The last war worth fighting was World War 2.