Im really sick and tired of people calling this a war and saying the U.S lost. North Vietnam lost over 1,100,000 men to the U.S 60,000. U.S soldiers were on the defensive the whole time because of stupid politicians in D.C. It wasn't even the United States war to fight. You can not fight a war with Washington breathing down your neck and a bunch of college kids protesting.

war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (w�r)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

In iraq, US lost 2,500 soldiers and Iraquis lost 100,000. But US is losing the war. That's the same as vietnam.

The War in Iraq is over. We are not fighting soldiers, but terrorist from other countries trying to start a civil war. The war is over, and the media would convince you that we are losing the war. Casulties are not accepted by the American people, which I think is rediculous. Fighting people who aren't afraid to die is very difficult. It took the U.S less than a week both times to destroy Iraq's military. Iraq is rebuilding, there is going to be violence. The war is over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy Lund:
war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (w�r)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

---

Yeah well you see, there was no declaration of war. It was a peace keeping mission, so technically it is the Vietnam Conflict. Thats to be politcally correct. If it was a war, the U.S would have been able to go into N. Vietnam and finish the job.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dazed and Confused (edited 03-15-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
The War in Iraq is over. We are not fighting soldiers, but terrorist from other countries trying to start a civil war. The war is over, and the media would convince you that we are losing the war. Casulties are not accepted by the American people, which I think is rediculous. Fighting people who aren't afraid to die is very difficult. It took the U.S less than a week both times to destroy Iraq's military. Iraq is rebuilding, there is going to be violence. The war is over.

---

Look at the last word of my last post.

On one side: the americans, on the other: the "angry men who has been invaded and lost civilian family to a futile and reasonless war" party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy Lund:

On one side: the americans, on the other: the "angry men who has been invaded and lost civilian family to a futile and reasonless war" party.

---

couldn't have put it better myself

What about all the people that were dieing when Sadaam was in charge. What about them. We did the neighboring countries and the people of Iraq a favor. We might of had some questionable motives, but getting ride of the bastard was a good thing. The people in Iraq are bombing each other and the U.S is trying to rebuild the country. They are trying to start a civil war between the two major parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
Yeah well you see, there was no declaration of war. It was a peace keeping mission, so technically it is the Vietnam Conflict. Thats to be politcally correct. If it was a war, the U.S would have been able to go into N. Vietnam and finish the job.

---

So, by your stance, going into Washington and bombing/killing 1 100 000 is a peace keeping mission?

Cause, they have done worse to the world populi than Vietcong ever did. They just had another political view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
What about all the people that were dieing when Sadaam was in charge. What about them. We did the neighboring countries and the people of Iraq a favor. We might of had some questionable motives, but getting ride of the bastard was a good thing. The people in Iraq are bombing each other and the U.S is trying to rebuild the country. They are trying to start a civil war between the two major parties.

---

And, this is USAs problem how?

A lot fewer people would have died.

Regions/countries should be left to themself unless a critical danger to world peace.

[This message has been edited by Tommy Lund (edited 03-15-2006).]

If you knew anything, you would know that the War was fought in South Vietnam. We were helping the people of south vietname and were trying to stop the spread of communism. Fucking Moron, how bought you get a education and learn something. The U.S military had very limited abilities during the war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
If you knew anything, you would know that the War was fought in South Vietnam. We were helping the people of south vietname and were trying to stop the spread of communism. Fucking Moron, how bought you get a education and learn something. The U.S military had very limited abilities during the war.

---

No, you were helping the french because you disliked political freedom.

Idiot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariev:
In iraq, US lost 2,500 soldiers and Iraquis lost 100,000. But US is losing the war. That's the same as vietnam.

---

No, the US took Baghdad within like a week and a half. We win.

Mr Dazed and Confused do you watch FOX news all day or do you have it jacked in to your cerebellum?

There is only one thing certain.....Forrest Gump was the only useful soldier in the war, him and John Rambo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
No, the US took Baghdad within like a week and a half. We win.

---

Two and a a half years later you STILL don't have control of Baghdad

He's got buttthra & Fox & the whole neo-con crew jacked into his butt.

His favorite words? "Jawhol, mein Commander."

Y'know? Sometimes you gotta blow a woman in half to save her. Just the way it is.

I know buttthrax has nothing...nothing to hide. So, his School Records, Work Records, Bank/CC Records, Sexual History, Medical Records etc. will soon be posted here. Along with all e-mails he's ever written or received.

A Google compendium of all searches he's requested? Also here. A full Index of his Hard Drive for the last 3 years will soon be available for download as a .pdf.

I know that, as a man with nothing to hide, he won't mind at all.

Please...don't abuse his passwords when you have them.

Mr. Dazed and Confused, you are particially right, and particially an idiot

quote:

---

Originally posted by DuckWarri0r:
Mr Dazed and Confused do you watch FOX news all day or do you have it jacked in to your cerebellum?

---

I do watch Fox news, but no more than CNN. The Vietnam War is technically called the Vietnam Conflict and that we would've won the war if Washington would have backed up the troops. The thing about Iraq is very obvious, the troops in Iraq now are not trained to occupy and police a city. There good at blowing shit up and killing people, but they are sitting ducks in Iraq. We can't just pull out, because we fucked up the place even more so we might as well help build it up again. The United States has been a "World Police" for years. In Vietnam, Korea, Granada(sp?), and many other countries around the world. That is not always a good thing, but hey. If I was a Iraqi or N. Vietnam soldier would I feel like I won either war..probably not. Im willing to be U.S troops feel the same way, but their casulities are very less than either countries were. The cities of Iraq, mainly Bagdad are very hard to stabalize. Terrorist cells from all over the area came to Iraq to completely disrupte the rebuilding process. They tried to scare people away from voting, becoming police officers, and other important things that Iraq needs to do. No one can really win a war like this on either side, but the U.S certainly isn't losing. The people are Iraq are glad Sadaam isn't in charge anymore, I sometimes question the way the U.S got him. Im not some crazy conservative, but I support the troops. My older brother, my sister, and her husband are Marines. My Brother and brother in law are all in Iraq, my sister is in South Carolina. The thing I would like to see is for the U.S to withdraw any reserve unit and send in more M.P's and Special Forces. These are the only troops that I can think of to handle a situation like this.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dazed and Confused (edited 03-16-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
What about all the people that were dieing when Sadaam was in charge. What about them. We did the neighboring countries and the people of Iraq a favor. We might of had some questionable motives, but getting ride of the bastard was a good thing. The people in Iraq are bombing each other and the U.S is trying to rebuild the country. They are trying to start a civil war between the two major parties.

---

Iraq can never be a united, democratic country unless it is broken up. It is made of different groups that could only be "united in the country" by an evil man as brutal as Saddam. Once again, the U.S. fucked up and shall lose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
The War in Iraq is over. terrorist. The war is over Iraq is rebuilding. The war is over.

---

Hyuck.

War was never declared. Thats why it wasnt a war. The US won every major battle.

North Vietnam lost. When their tanks rolled into Saigon they really meant to surrender but there was a misunderstanding and the South surrendered by accident.

Look. If we're talking winning about how many casualties one side had as opposed to the other side, then yes; America won the war. Politically, the war was over for America.

[This message has been edited by VolatileShiftInPersona (edited 03-16-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegetable Man:
North Vietnam lost. When their tanks rolled into Saigon they really meant to surrender but there was a misunderstanding and the South surrendered by accident.

---

Just like in WW2, when the Russians were trying to get into Berlin to surrender. I guess Germany didn't get the hint and pissed the Russians off. Your comment is humorous, pretty creative.

I didn't see the U.S surrender, it was the south that surrender. The U.S just had enough bullshit and backed out. It was an unfair war for the U.S generals and troops, they had to defend a god damn hell hole and were rarely on the offensive.

Saying that the US only lost 60000 in vietnam compared to the 1.1 million north vietnameese is misinformation, because you're not getting all the facts. The main fact that is missing is that the south vietnameese also lost around 220,000 men.

Your point is still valid, just overexagerated.

Anyway, the US failed to do what they came there for, therefore they lost. Only stupid 12 year olds will say that they won because they lost less men.

I don't give a damn about S. Vietnamese. Im saying the U.S didn't lose, but I guess you could say they never one. The confict was pointless, but you can not lose a war to a country you never declared war on. Technically they never went to war with N. Vietnam. You really can't say they lost because we could never invade and were always defending(That wasn't the militaries choice). I guess what i mean is that the U.S military never lost the war, if anyone did it was the people in D.C.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Dazed and Confused:
If you knew anything, you would know that the War was fought in South Vietnam. We were helping the people of south vietname and were trying to stop the spread of communism. Fucking Moron, how bought you get a education and learn something. The U.S military had very limited abilities during the war.

---

1. you just called it a war. IT WAS A WAR!
2. it was fought in North Vietnam, you stupid piece of shit. don't you ever watch the historyn channel?

quote:

---

Originally posted by vazilizaitsev89:
War was never declared. Thats why it wasnt a war. The US won every major battle.

---

Name some "major" battles the US were in. Look at who the US goes to war with: Phillipines, Mexico, Spain, didn't do shit in WW1 or WW2. The only "major" battle the USA has been in was held in their own fucking country in the Civil War. You ever notice how the US never talks about opposing Russia, China, Japan, Australia or even Canada for that matter is because their so built up on their ego that they are afraid that if they lose they will lose their so-called "power". And all this time they been making enemies instead of allies, but sooner rather than later America will be fucked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by z3r0 c001:
Name some "major" battles the US were in. Look at who the US goes to war with: Phillipines, Mexico, Spain, didn't do shit in WW1 or WW2. The only "major" battle the USA has been in was held in their own fucking country in the Civil War. You ever notice how the US never talks about opposing Russia, China, Japan, Australia or even Canada for that matter is because their so built up on their ego that they are afraid that if they lose they will lose their so-called "power". And all this time they been making enemies instead of allies, but sooner rather than later America will be fucked.

---

Vietnam:
1. La Drang Valley
2. Khe Sahn
3. Saigon
4. Hue

WW1
1. St. Mihel
2. Belleau Wood
3. the entire Meuse-Argonne offensive

WW2
1.Normandy
2. Anzio
3.Iwo Jima
4.okinawa
5.Battle of the Bulge
6.Battle of the Coral Sea
7.Guadalcanal
8.Operation Torch
9.Sicily
10.Bougainville
11.Tarawa
12. Gilberts
13.Marshall Islands
14.Saipan
15.Gaum
16.Leyte Gulf
Need I go on about WW2?

Japan has become a pacifist country after it got its ass kicked in WW2.
You know why the US doesnt talk about fighting those countries? BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR ALLIES!!!

The media defeated America for the Vietcong.

The last major attack in Vietnam was the Tet Offensive, which was a massive push by the Vietcong in an attempt to break through American lines. The attempt failed utterly, and so much energy was devoted to the attack that the military might of North Vietnam was completely broken. Why? For some reason, they had decided to forgo their semi-succesful guerilla tactics in favor of an organized charge.

The Americans had large casualties, over 10%. But the Vietnamese had over 40% casualities, and were completely disorganized.

All the same, the media played it as a defeat, despite the fact that the Vietnamese achieved none of their strategic goals. The Tet Offensive inflamed anti-war sentiment, and Nixon decided that pulling us out of Vietnam would give him a little political boost or something.

We could have won Vietnam.

Read the wikipedia article on the Tet Offensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive

Fuck, go read the Wikipedia article on the Vietnam war.

Iraq

As for the Iraqi war, we did have justification. It was thought then, and I still believe, that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. There are two reasons why I believe this.
1.) Saddaam Hussein posessed chemical weapons. He used them several times, including the gassing of as many as 7,000 people in the Halabja gas attacks.
2.) Saddaam Hussein repeatedly kicked U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 before they could inspect certain facilities, only to let them in a few weeks later- enough time for anything to be moved.

While Saddaam was ordered to destroy all of his weapons after the first gulf war, is it really suprising that he wouldn't? With neighbors like Iran, Saddaam probably needed weapons like that no maintain some sort of M.A.D. peace.

At any rate, that's somewhat irrelevant now. As it stands we entered Iraq believing there to be weapons. Whether or not we are right, we are still there. At least we are winning. Despite attempts at some factions to incite violence, the vast majority of the population, including the previously-oppressed Shi'Ites and Kurds have voted, the Baath party has been removed, the infastructure is online, cell phone use has increased several hundred percent (a good indicator of economic health), and the sale of petroleum is finally back in the form of the $ again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariev:
In iraq, US lost 2,500 soldiers and Iraquis lost 100,000. But US is losing the war. That's the same as vietnam.

---

let me explain something to you. Collectivly, we may have killed nearly 1 million iraqis since 1991. vs about 2500 US total.

Now, I dont know what truely constitutes the winning of a war, I believe its win one side belly's up and starts making deals or handing over their shit as the Spoil of war.

But just because you walk away from a fight doesnt mean the other person wins. If I knocked some little bitch out at a bar and walked away and he gets up to fight some more but his punches arent worth my time and I did the most damage, I consider that a win.

suddam is out of power. We win!

quote:

---

Originally posted by lacker:
But just because you walk away from a fight doesnt mean the other person wins. If I knocked some little bitch out at a bar and walked away and he gets up to fight some more but his punches arent worth my time and I did the most damage, I consider that a win.

suddam is out of power. We win!

---

You can't compare walking away from a fight to retreating from a war. The US failed it's objective in Vietnam. Failing means you lost.

Just because the US failed it's objective in Vietnam doesn't mean that the US has a bad military. I think that's why we have so many people thinking that the US didn't loose the vietnam war, because they are just to damned patriotic for their military.

Let me put up an example: You have to run 1000 meters, and you're competing against someone who has to run 100 meters. You reach 100 meters before him, but he completes his run before you complete yours. It doesn't mean that he is better then you, but he still won over you. He might've had an advantage over you, but the vietnameese also had an advantage in vietnam (they had more men, comparable to running a shorter race).



[This message has been edited by Splam (edited 03-16-2006).]

You say the US serves as a police to the world, but what you did in Vietnam was to try not letting the country unify, because you feared a comunist party would rule the country. Since your obejectives was NOT to let them unify, I guess you lost the conflict. In Iraq your objective was to put Saddam out of the government, and since you did it, I guess you partialy won, but you have other objectives, such as to give "democracy" to the people and stop any terrorist forces, and until you do not achieve those ones, you will not have won yet.

Tarnak - Your post was one of the very few opinions I have ever read or heard that pointed out the absolute truth. Thank you.

Junyi - Yes, we initially did seek out to "police the world" to prevent the communists from succeeding in their cry for global revolution. Initially our military objectives were to rid Saddam Hussein of power. Well, we did. We won the War, if you want to even call it that. Hell one could even call the occupation of Iraq a whole new war because its a whole different set of military and political objectives. Unfortunately the U.S. Government can't set the record straight to the public what the objectives are.

They tell us they want a government created for Iraqis by Iraqis, yet insist it be Democracy.

(That sentence is a huge cycle, that keeps contradicting itself).

As for defeating the terrorists, whoever came up with that idea is an idiot because even if we performed the impossible by eliminating terrorism, any idiot can make a bomb as some articles on this website demonstrate.

I could make an ironic post about George W. Bush being the idiot that wants to stop all terrorists, but I'll just leave it alone, I don't want to buy fights over this.

i think we should get our troops out of vietnam immediatly. we should also end the draft. nixon is an idiot.

patriotism is overrated... in 50 years wars will no longer be fought by nations but by corporations for control over the worlds rescources.

america is selling their ports to forign corporations already its just a matter of time... welcome to the age of super capitalism

/stoned rant