Is it Vietnam yet? - Page 4

Lonestar · July 10, 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not even close, che.

Call me in a few years if order hasn't been restored, and then I may listen to that charge.

After all, we were in the Phillipines for 30+ years and it wasn't a Vietnam

.

Except for that whole 18 yr+ Phillippine inssurrection thing.

(I know,I know, "Major combat" ended in the phillippines in 1903)

Imran Siddiqui · July 10, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Except for that whole 18 yr+ Phillippine inssurrection thing.

(I know,I know, "Major combat" ended in the phillippines in 1903)

Yeah... it'd be streaching it a little to call combat after 1903 to be an 'insurrection'. It was as much an insurrection as Southerners shooting at US troops in 1866

.

MichaeltheGreat · July 10, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Yeeeaaahhhh!!!!

Like you on the left have been pushing for increased military budgets to increase pay and benefits.

But never mind reality, you can claim the issue as your own when it suits your purposes.

Agathon · July 10, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Like you on the left have been pushing for increased military budgets to increase pay and benefits.

Ha HA Ha, fallen into my trap!!!!

Actually I've long favoured radical increases in military pay as well as that of teachers, firefighters and the police. These people, especially the military, get paid like crap for doing a dangerous job(well maybe not the teachers - except those in urban warzones

). No socialist worth his salt would underpay military personnel.

We on the left oppose vast corporate welfare programs disguised as military projects, not the ordinary Janes and Joes who wear boots.

Quote:

But never mind reality, you can claim the issue as your own when it suits your purposes.

Shows how much you knew.

chequita guevara · July 10, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Like you on the left have been pushing for increased military budgets to increase pay and benefits.

The liberals have. But as for the far left, I think that's a fair assessment. Most don't really think about soldiers, and of those that do you have two groups: ex-soldiers and rabid Maoists. I tend to listen to the leftist Vets.

I'll tell you what, though. It's been those on the right that have been cutting military benefits for the last 60 years.

Agathon · July 10, 2003, 22:26

Anyway, why pick on military personnel?

It's the backseat burners, rapers, and pillagers in the Administration I can't stand.

Tuberski · July 10, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This Administration is trying to cut veteran's benefits, it's trying to cut imminent danger pay from a shockingly low $225 a month to a "**** you" of $150 a month. I has opposed a plan to raise the amount of death benefits for families killed while on active duty from $6,000 to $12,000.

You mean they RAISED it to $225? When I got my pay it was only $150.

They do care about the LIVING personnel, they do their best to keep you alive. But, You're right, they don't do enough after you are out of their grasp.

ACK!

Sprayber · July 10, 2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This Administration is trying to cut veteran's benefits, it's trying to cut imminent danger pay from a shockingly low $225 a month to a "**** you" of $150 a month.

Are you sure that isn't separation pay. The numbers dont jive with what I was shown just a month ago. 225 sounds too high. Unless those figures take into account all the hazardous extras combined. IIRC I won't get the extra 50 for high altitude jumps

It's kind of funny that the commies and America haters are using economic reasons to run. For some reason I think some of you all are missing the point of wanting to serve. I guess I'm not really surprised. Oh well, to each his own..

Kidicious · July 10, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
It's kind of funny that the commies and America haters are using economic reasons to run. For some reason I think some of you all are missing the point of wanting to serve. I guess I'm not really surprised. Oh well, to each his own..

I knew guys like you Sprayber. Maybe it was just the Navy, but they were few and far between. Almost everyone does it for the benefits, or at least to get away from home.

Zylka · July 11, 2003, 01:07

Another day, another thread dedicated to Zylka by a poster who apparently has me on ignore!

GOOD TO BE BACK

Drake Tungsten · July 11, 2003, 02:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Krazy Horse
Thanks but no thanks. No troops for Iraq, ever. It's your mess, now you clean it up.

DinoDoc · July 11, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Another day, another thread dedicated to Zylka by a poster who apparently has me on ignore!

You're a trendsetter Zylka.

Nubclear · July 11, 2003, 02:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
It's kind of funny that the commies and America haters

Sigh....

monkspider · July 11, 2003, 02:31

The general trend that America has started here will result in a quagmire far, far worse than Vietnam. In fact, it is one that the United States will never get out of. We are on a very rapid path toward self-destruction at this point, in fact, there is no way the USA will even exist as a political entity for more than five to eight years, maybe nine or ten tops. That is, unless we learn to live in greater harmony with the rest of the planet and abandon our fanatical materialism.

VJ · July 11, 2003, 02:38

Quote:

Is it Vietnam yet?

No.

Quote:

We are on a very rapid path toward self-destruction at this point, in fact, there is no way the USA will even exist as a political entity for more than five to eight years, maybe nine or ten tops. That is, unless we learn to live in greater harmony with the rest of the planet and abandon our fanatical materialism.

That's bs, and I hope that you also realise it (if 'we' is referring to the US).

Dis · July 11, 2003, 02:49

hey! I was going to make a thread with the same exact title.

oh well, there goes that idea

mindseye · July 11, 2003, 02:50

How does the general US population feel about this? it's hard for me to gauge from over here.

Is the general public waking up yet to the growing reality that the country was deceived into war, or are people still driving around in their flag-topped SUVS shouting "support the troops"? Is there any anger yet over this gross betrayal of trust?

VJ · July 11, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

How does the general US population feel about this?

Sadly, I'm under the impression that Sava and Dissident are describing examples of the 'general US population'.

Az · July 11, 2003, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
The general trend that America has started here will result in a quagmire far, far worse than Vietnam. In fact, it is one that the United States will never get out of. We are on a very rapid path toward self-destruction at this point, in fact, there is no way the USA will even exist as a political entity for more than five to eight years, maybe nine or ten tops. That is, unless we learn to live in greater harmony with the rest of the planet and abandon our fanatical materialism.

I wish....

Pekka · July 11, 2003, 03:08

I didn't read a single post when I now answer to this

No, not Vietnam. Not even close! The thing I wonder about Americans is the inability to take losses. At least they get so much attention, it's just too dangerous. Dangerous to the operation I mean. What, you got little over 40 KIAs after the more active phase of the war? THat's nothing. If someone expects no losses in a situation like this, they must be crazy!

There's lots of guns.. you think all Iraqis love Americans? How hard it is to just pick up the rifle and shoot a soldier from distance? Or ambush convoy? You must be kidding me, it's not that hard.

Also, look at the terrain. They will never be as effective as their Vietnamese brothers.

It is impossible to control the whole area, or even the whole city with so much people in it. Who expected this wouldn't happen??!!

Also this is not even close to Vietnam. I don't know the facts, but I assume that in Vietnam, the borders were not exactly secure. I'm not saying they are in Iraq either, but it's tougher for the resistance to get real weapons, big weapons through the borders. I have no doubt that they do, but it's kiddy business compared to Vietnam. No facts, this is what I rationalise.

Of course there are security problems, and they will never stop either. IMO Americans are taking acceptable losses, and they are not too bad. It's when 40 soldiers get killed every day when I'd consider problems severe and serious.

Dis · July 11, 2003, 03:29

the thing that is bad is the cities.

sure out in the middle of the desert no one can approach you. you are perfectly safe out there.

but the cities might as well be jungle. they have to walk in amongst the civilians. This is even worse because they can't indiscriminately shoot civilians like they did in Vietnam (well sometimes). You have to walk amongst thousands of people and figure out who the bad guy is. Not an easy task.

Things will get worse unless the U.S. fixes the root fo the problem.

Urban Ranger · July 11, 2003, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
But personally, I'm not *****ing. I'm sitting here with an "I told you so" expression on my face.

Urban Ranger · July 11, 2003, 05:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
Seriously man, get some help. I'm not an expert, but this obsesion you have with other people's suffering is kind of creepy

If you are looking for somebody to pin the blame, it has to be GWB. He started this whole idiocy.

chequita guevara · July 11, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
I didn't read a single post when I now answer to this

Then you have nothing to say worth reading.

Pekka · July 11, 2003, 08:42

che, but you still read at least some if it, because you're quoting me. Victory!

chequita guevara · July 11, 2003, 08:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Victory!

Curses!

Pekka · July 11, 2003, 08:45

And you quote me again! YES! Total Victory!

Urban Ranger · July 11, 2003, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
but the cities might as well be jungle. they have to walk in amongst the civilians. This is even worse because they can't indiscriminately shoot civilians like they did in Vietnam (well sometimes). You have to walk amongst thousands of people and figure out who the bad guy is. Not an easy task.

This is very true. I have a lot of pity for your common US foot soldiers who got stuck in the middle of a hostile country by an administration that lied repeatedly to further its own ends.

Edit: nobody saw my typo?

Q Classic · July 11, 2003, 22:36

no it's not vietnam. it's a desert.

molly bloom · July 12, 2003, 01:12

More Northern Ireland, with sand. Or civil war Lebanon, circa the 1980s...

See, you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, the Shi'ites from the Sunnis, the Kurds from the A-rabs, the Baathists from the non-Baathists. If only they could be more like the injuns used to be, with warpaint and feathers and sich...

I feel sorry from any coalition troops stationed in Iraq- a population full of hostiles indistinguishable from friendly forces, religious and political fanatics willing to commit suicide to achieve their military/political objectives- welcome to America's Chechnya in the making.