Then and now

[billvon 3,094]

Rumsfeld, Feb 2003 - "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Cheney, Mar 2003 - "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

Myers, Mar 2003 - "If asked to go into conflict in Iraq, what you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."

Then the war started.


Bush, Mar 2003 - "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

Myers Mar 2003 - "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

Rumsfeld, Jun 2005 - "The insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

-----------------------------------------------

[Ron 10]

Quote

Rumsfeld, Feb 2003 - "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Cheney, Mar 2003 - "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

Myers, Mar 2003 - "If asked to go into conflict in Iraq, what you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."

Talking about a war with Iraq...The war against Saddam and his troops did not last long.

Quote

Bush, Mar 2003 - "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

Myers Mar 2003 - "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

Rumsfeld, Jun 2005 - "The insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

Insurgents, but not against Saddam.

The "War" against Saddams empire was quick.

Dealing with Insurgents is not.

Two seperate issues that are related. You choose to treat them as the exact same thing.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Skyrad 0]

Then: 'US, Allies will not negotiate with Terrorists!'

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123439,00.html[/URL]

Now: 'US negotiates with Iraqi rebels'.

[URL]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1669601,00.html[/URL]


Is this a sign that the US now realises that it can not win a millitary solution in Iraq?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gawain 0]

I don't get it. You're comparing Saddam's regime with the insurgents?

Am I the only one that remembers seeing our leaders state that this was going to take years?

Why are liberals so surprised by this? We are still in Germany, England, Japan...to name a few, over 60 years later.

We have taken our presence out of Saudi Arabia, does anyone really think we would do that without having a foothold somewhere else, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait?

We are going to be in Iraq for a long time. It's still a hostile, "combat" zone, though major campaigns are over. Eventually, Iraq will become a duty station of sorts for our forces. That's my guess.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,094]

>Am I the only one that remembers seeing our leaders state that this
>was going to take years?

Got a quote from the administration (from BEFORE the war) stating armed conflict would last years?

It's pretty clear to me what happened. The war needed to be sold, and it was sold as a way to stop Saddam Hussein from using his WMD's to cause another 9/11, and that it would be a quick and easy war, nothing like Vietnam. After the war was sold, then they changed their tune. I suppose it's not unexpected - it's a trick used by used car salesman throughout the world because it works.

[quade 4]

Hey Bill --

Do you recall the number of people on this Forum that swore this would not be GWB's "Vietnam" and where upset whenever the word "quagmire" was used?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Got a quote from the administration (from BEFORE the war) stating armed conflict would last years?

Here's one reference:
September 15, 2001, Press Conference with Powell and Ashcroft.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915-4.html

Quote

THE PRESIDENT: They will try to hide, they will try to avoid the United States and our allies - but we're not going to let them. They run to the hills; they find holes to get in. And we will do whatever it takes to smoke them out and get them running, and we'll get them.

Listen, this is a great nation; we're a kind people. None of us could have envisioned the barbaric acts of these terrorists. But they have stirred up the might of the American people, and we're going to get them, no matter what it takes.

In my radio address today I explained to the American people that this effort may require patience. But we're going to -

Q How long -

THE PRESIDENT: As long as it takes. And it's not just one person. We're talking about those who fed them, those who house them, those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action.

October 17, 2001
Travis AFB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011017-20.html

Quote

And make no mistake about it; this great nation will do what it takes to win. We are determined. We are patient. We are steadfast. We are resolved. We will not tire and we will not fail. (Applause.)

I've been browsing through the speeches and press conferences and can find no time table for any of these conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,094]

>As long as it takes.

I know you are smart enough to know that those quotes were in reference to the people who pulled off 9/11, and had nothing to do with Iraq.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>As long as it takes.

I know you are smart enough to know that those quotes were in reference to the people who pulled off 9/11, and had nothing to do with Iraq.

I'm also smart enough to know that our campaign in Iraq is a part of the fight. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a part of Operation Enduring Freedom. They are not seperate campaigns militarily. We have redirected and redrawn terrorist fire away from the US and into the middle-east, where it's always been.

We are fighting generations of hatred, it's going to take generations to fight it, and wear it down.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,094]

>Operation Iraqi Freedom is a part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

"There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy."
George Orwell
1984

>We are fighting generations of hatred, it's going to take
>generations to fight it, and wear it down.

So you think eternal war is the solution to violence and hatred? Surely if we kill enough people, violence will end. War is, after all, peace.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Hey Bill --

Do you recall the number of people on this Forum that swore this would not be GWB's "Vietnam" and where upset whenever the word "quagmire" was used?

Its not. I thought you were old enough to recall Vietnam. How many American soldiers were dying there weekly. Compare that to how many are dying in Iraq Yearly and that clearly lays that Democrat scare tactic to rest.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 3,094]

>How many American soldiers were dying there weekly.

In the first three years of Vietnam, 392 US troops died. We're not even to the three year point and 1700 troops have died in Iraq.

>that clearly lays that Democrat scare tactic to rest.

Right!

[Steel 0]

Quote

>How many American soldiers were dying there weekly.

In the first three years of Vietnam, 392 US troops died. We're not even to the three year point and 1700 troops have died in Iraq.

>that clearly lays that Democrat scare tactic to rest.

Right!

Bill your dissapointing me. I always knew you try to spin to defend the left but that is just outwrightly inaccurate. http://www.usvetdsp.com/casual.htm
I get get the freaken clicky to work but you all can copy and paste it.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Ron 10]

http://www.usvetdsp.com/casual.htm

Clicky

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,094]

>just outwrightly inaccurate.

War in Vietnam (per the Pentagon) began December 1961. We started dropping Agent Orange in 1962. From 1962 to 1964, there were 392 fatalities. At the end of 1964 there were 17,000 troops in Vietnam.

Attached is a graph if you prefer such formats.

In Vietnam, our troops were fighting what were basically guerillas. There was no clear exit strategy. The rallying cry of the war was the Tonkin Incident, which was the reason we started sending really massive numbers of troops. It was later shown to be false. The administration kept saying that we were winning, that it won't be long now. It was billed as a fight for good and evil, a fight for democracy against terrorism communism, which was the greatest threat the US had ever faced.

But you are right in one aspect - Vietnam was fought in a jungle, Iraq is being fought in a desert. So they're completely different, if you're talking about scenery.

[Ron 10]

Whats it you say about looking at the source?

You slammed one source about MWD since it was from scarykerry.com

But you use a graph to prove your point from Lies.com

Also he even uses in his own words from your own source:
"Yes, I realize that there were far fewer troops in Vietnam at this stage of the war than we currently have in Iraq. I grant that the two wars have followed very differerent scenarios so far."

It was 1965 before troop levels in Vietnam were close to the level of the number of troops in Iraq. It was also 1965 when the first American troops attacked IN the North.

One is the number of deaths of "advisors" vs the number of deaths of 130,000 troops IN a combat area.

You can't really compare the two.

If you compare the same number of troops with the same situation (or as close as you can get) you have Vietnam in 1965 with 150 dead/mth going to 600 dead per mth in 66. Thats one year of major combat with 150 troops fighting in a foreign land.

For Iraq we have not gone over 150/mth at all.

You have to compare apples to apples.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Hooknswoop 19]

Can you post the numbers of troops per year for Vietnam and Iraq vs. KIA's per year for Vietnam and Iraq?

Derek

[billvon 3,094]

>It was 1965 before troop levels in Vietnam were close to the level of
>the number of troops in Iraq.

Yep. Currently there are far more deaths in Iraq than there were in Vietnam in the beginning of the war, and it may not stay that way as troop levels change and the situation changes. But we are not off to a good start. As the insurgency worsens, one can hope that US troop casualties and deaths will go down, but I fear that the opposite may happen.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

War in Vietnam (per the Pentagon) began December 1961. We started dropping Agent Orange in 1962. From 1962 to 1964, there were 392 fatalities. At the end of 1964 there were 17,000 troops in Vietnam.

By that sort of reasoning, the war in Iraq began in 1991, Bill.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yep. Currently there are far more deaths in Iraq than there were in Vietnam in the beginning of the war

Like Kelp said if you want to use 1961 for Vietnam, then use 1991 for Iraq.

If you take the same level of commitment, and troop mission, Iraq's deaths are less than Vietnam.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Yep. Currently there are far more deaths in Iraq than there were in Vietnam in the beginning of the war

Like Kelp said if you want to use 1961 for Vietnam, then use 1991 for Iraq.

If you take the same level of commitment, and troop mission, Iraq's deaths are less than Vietnam.

Hi Ron, Bill et al
You all are sounding like a bunch of bean counters.

The war is what it is, therefore it's to late to look back (again) about who did what when

Our men and women (friends, brothers, sisters, fathers mothers,sons and daughters ) in iraq & afghanistan are real people and their dying and being wounded and that's a fact. Spin it all you want but these are real people not just numbers and a "we told you so".

Why not try and do something constructive with all the brain power in this forum and look forward
How can we help our troops who are there, and support them and their families once they return? We're already hearing about short falls in the V.A.'s budget

R.I.P.

[quade 4]

Quote

The war is what it is, therefore it's to late to look back (again) about who did what when.

Great! Let's never prosecute anyone ever again because, whatever mistake was committed "is what it is, therefore it's to late to look back (again) about who did what when."

I do however agree with your last statement about helping the troops get back and return to a somewhat normal life as best they can once they do get back.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,094]

>Our men and women (friends, brothers, sisters, fathers
> mothers,sons and daughters ) in iraq & afghanistan are real people
> and their dying and being wounded and that's a fact. Spin it all you
> want but these are real people not just numbers and a "we told you
> so".

I agree. The best we can hope for now is to never make a mistake like this again. We're there and it's too late to just back out now, but maybe we can spare the children of these troops the sort of pain they face.

>How can we help our troops who are there, and support them and
> their families once they return? We're already hearing about short
> falls in the V.A.'s budget

1. Increase funding to VA hospitals
2. Increase pay to the military overall. This will both help the military folks and increase the incentive to get new people into the military; we are seeing big problems recruiting new people.

[christelsabine 1]

1. Increase funding to VA hospitals
2. Increase pay to the military overall. This will both help the military folks and increase the incentive to get new people into the military; we are seeing big problems recruiting new people.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

War in Vietnam (per the Pentagon) began December 1961. We started dropping Agent Orange in 1962. From 1962 to 1964, there were 392 fatalities. At the end of 1964 there were 17,000 troops in Vietnam.

By that sort of reasoning, the war in Iraq began in 1991, Bill.

Piffle.

GHWB was far smarter than his son ever will be and knew not to venture into an unwinnable conflict.

1991 was NOT about marching into Iraq, but saving Kuwait.

GWB screwed up by not studiing his own father's history.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver