'RAQ AND 'NAM: DIFFERENCES,SIMILARITIES,AND INSIGHTS

Frank Newgent said:
Here is a new report from the Army War College.


Maybe if we just hope hard enough it can somehow turn out alright, it will.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Some of the implications of the report are a bit depressing. maybe it was written by communists?

What if, for example, the United States is forced to choose between stability and democracy in that volatile country? Many experts believe that genuine democracy is lies beyond the power and the patience of the United States to create in Iraq. If so, both Americans abd Iraqis might have to settle for some form of benign quasi-authoritarian rule...
[...]
Dismissing [Iraqi] insurgents as "terrorists" and "deadenders" overlooks the potentially dangerous downsteream political consequences of establishing a large American force presence in an Arab heartland and attempting to transform Iraq into a pro-Western deomcracy.
[...]
Policymakers also should not take for granted the absence of hostile state intervention in Iraq... For example, Iran, which has strong state and theocratic interests in Iraq that have so far been well-served by the US destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime and the subsequent disorder in Iraq that has tied down US ground forces that might otherwise have been available to threaten regime change in Teheran, is well-positioned to sponsor accelerated chaos in Iraq. Iran has no interest in the resurrection of a powerful Iraq...
Click to expand...
:eek: No, make that :eek: :eek:

Edited to fix hasty posting.
 
Frank Newgent said:

Not sure how to respond to you. But am reminded of the saying:

Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

This thread is about the differences, similarities, and, hopefully, insights concerning Iraq-Vietnam parallels. Didn't you know that?

As far as my question to you about the identity of Iraqi insurgents goes, hell, I just thought it was a good rhetorical question. I referenced McNamara because of his Lesson #9. That is, give your enemy a way out when you're on his lawn.
Click to expand...

Yes and I decided to stop replying to you because of Neal Stepenson.

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be or to be indistinguishable from self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." Neal Stephenson from the Crytonomicron


I gave you a real life similarity. You then tried the art of misdirection and asked about insurgents, all the while failing to reply to the main point of my post. then you went into another tangent. With that I have no choice but to skip whatever other rhetoric you feel like spewing in order to support your obvious bias in this thread. You asked for similarities, argue the one I offered, don't try to make some new thing out of it. I swear if this is really the best you, The Fool, AUP, subgenius and others of your ilk have to offer by way of reasonable argument it is no wonder you are so often venemous when you try a new post. I'd be pissed to if I could never logically support myself.
 
Troll said:

[...]I'd be pissed to if I could never logically support myself.
Click to expand...
Must-resist-temptation-of-cheap-one-liner...

So you admit you're p!ssed then?
 
BillyTK said:

Must-resist-temptation-of-cheap-one-liner...

So you admit you're p!ssed then?
Click to expand...

why can't the english read english? ;)

I said I would be if that were the case. In the case of Frank and you, I'm merely saddened. :p
 
Troll said:


why can't the english read english? ;)

I said I would be if that were the case. In the case of Frank and you, I'm merely saddened. :p
Click to expand...
Oh I see, that meaning of p!ssed... okay.
 
Troll said:

I gave you a real life similarity. You then tried the art of misdirection and asked about insurgents, all the while failing to reply to the main point of my post. then you went into another tangent. With that I have no choice but to skip whatever other rhetoric you feel like spewing in order to support your obvious bias in this thread. You asked for similarities, argue the one I offered, don't try to make some new thing out of it. I swear if this is really the best you, The Fool, AUP, subgenius and others of your ilk have to offer by way of reasonable argument it is no wonder you are so often venemous when you try a new post. I'd be pissed to if I could never logically support myself.
Click to expand...
I like your website.

[size=1/4]thanks headscratcher4[/size]
 
hammegk said:
'Raq seems to be solidifying Islamists worldwide.
Click to expand...

So, to get this straight:

The war was not about oil (never was of course)
It was about WMDs!!
Oops, there arent any WMDs!!!
It was about terrorism!!!
Oops, got a bit worse in Iraq recently hasnt it?
Well! it was to free the Iraqis from torture!!!!
Oops, forget about that one will you. Thanks.
Its not the Iraqis fighting us anyway, it a bunch of foreigners!!!!
Oops, we just pissed off the Shia majority who were on our side and who are now trying to kill us!

Actually the war in Iraq was to SOLIDIFY ISLAMISTS WORLDWIDE!!!! Yes Mister, thats why your son died screaming in some sh!tty desert he should never have been in at all, for the noble cause of Global Isalmic Unity!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom