Iraq war & Vietnam war comparisons

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll be at Ft. Indiantown Gap from 28 March to 18 April getting ready to protect your pompous ass!!!!!

Sorry, but you aren't protecting jack shit over in Iraq, you're making it more dangerous for us, in fact.

Maybe you should refrain from speaking.

Maybe you should explain why the war in iraq makes the US homeland safer.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe you should explain why the war in iraq makes the US homeland safer.

Maybe you can explain how it doesn't, seeing as we have not had any incidents in the homeland since the war started.

Outside of one day in the past couple decades, it's pretty rather safe in the US. So no event can be attributed for making it better or worse.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Maybe you can explain how it doesn't, seeing as we have not had any incidents in the homeland since the war started.

You're intelligent enough to know that that is faulty logic.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can explain how it doesn't, seeing as we have not had any incidents in the homeland since the war started.

You're intelligent enough to know that that is faulty logic.

And you're intelligent enough to read the second paragraph. So why didn't you?

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you should explain why the war in iraq makes the US homeland safer.

Maybe you can explain how it doesn't, seeing as we have not had any incidents in the homeland since the war started.

Outside of one day in the past couple decades, it's pretty rather safe in the US. So no event can be attributed for making it better or worse.

I was replying to the poster who said that what he was doing in Iraq was "protecting" us.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I was replying to the poster who said that what he was doing in Iraq was "protecting" us.

Sure.

Now answer the question- explain how the war in iraq has not made the us homeland safer. Or admit that your question was also unanswerable.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

I was replying to the poster who said that what he was doing in Iraq was "protecting" us.

Sure.

Now answer the question- explain how the war in iraq has not made the us homeland safer. Or admit that your question was also unanswerable.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative. That's why it's the onus of affirmative argument to provide evidence.

[billvon 3,119]

>Maybe you can explain how it doesn't . . .

From a National Intelligence Estimate last summer:

Al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. Al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

I was replying to the poster who said that what he was doing in Iraq was "protecting" us.

Sure.

Now answer the question- explain how the war in iraq has not made the us homeland safer. Or admit that your question was also unanswerable.

Because it has created thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) more people who hate us because of it. Terrorism has increased in the world, albeit not on the US mainland.

Now, you tell me how it has made us safer.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Because it has created thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) more people who hate us because of it. Terrorism has increased in the world, albeit not on the US mainland.

Now, you tell me how it has made us safer.

The topic was US security, so it looks like you're conceding the point, or backpedaling clumsily.

As I've clearly stated, but peope chose to ignore, you can't prove shit one way or the other on the subject. Attacking your enemies tends to encourage recruiting. Not attacking your enemies also tends to encourage recruiting and embolden them. If the world is no longer interested in the US playing cops, then the US no longer needs to worry so much about the affects the Spanish suffer because of our attempts to increase US security.

Al queda made two attacks on the Trade Towers. Aside from them, I can't think of any substantial terrorist incidents on the mainland that didn't from come from domestic parties. So what can you prove with two incidents over 20 years? Not a thing.

[KidWicked 0]

I figure'd you would reply to my post and not billvon's or likearock's. Care to answer them too?

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Because it has created thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) more people who hate us because of it. Terrorism has increased in the world, albeit not on the US mainland.

Now, you tell me how it has made us safer.

The topic was US security, so it looks like you're conceding the point, or backpedaling clumsily.

So what can you prove with two incidents over 20 years? Not a thing.

Since the invasion of Iraq there has been a massive increase in terrorism around the world (see the document billvon just mentioned). Indeed, much of that terrorism is occurring in Iraq due to the invasion. The war in Iraq has also increased the number of people who hate the US.

You are pointing at the small number of attacks on the US mainland and suggesting that on the basis of those two data points in isolation, no conclusion can be drawn about the probability of attack in the future: whether an attack is less likely or more likely.

That is a weak argument because - for the aforementioned reasons - no reasonable person would look at iraq and conclude that our actions over there are making our security better and not worse.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And you're intelligent enough to read the second paragraph. So why didn't you?

I did. It was wrong, too. However, replying would have required hijacking this thread. At your insistence, I replied in a new thread.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,119]

>you can't prove shit one way or the other on the subject.

Quite true. However, generally one operates on what's most likely rather than what one can prove. No one can prove that smoking will give you lung cancer, but the smart money is on not smoking if you want to avoid lung cancer. No one can "prove shit" on the subject of whether a reserve makes you safer or not, and indeed some BASE jumers claim to not need one to be as safe as skydivers. But again, smart skydivers use them.

Likewise, no one can prove that we are more or less safe. We could have another ten terrorist attacks against the US in the next ten years, and some pro-war guy would claim that we would have had eleven if not for the Iraq war. And no one could prove that he wasn't right.

However, there are indicators you can use to tell if we are likely safer or less safe. Al Qaeda is becoming stronger; that indicates we're less safe. Air travelers attitudes have changed; that makes us more safe. Port inspections have not changed much so that's a wash. The war has created worldwide resentment and hatred towards the US; less safe. We have killed some of Al Qaeda's leaders; more safe. Al Qaeda now has a sanctuary in Pakistan; less safe. The Taliban is staging a comeback; less safe. The US-backed Afghanistan government is losing control of Afghanistan; less safe. Billions from the opium trade is flowing into the Taliban's coffers; less safe.

Overall it looks like things are heading in the wrong direction.

[likearock 2]

Quote

>you can't prove shit one way or the other on the subject.

Quite true. However, generally one operates on what's most likely rather than what one can prove. No one can prove that smoking will give you lung cancer, but the smart money is on not smoking if you want to avoid lung cancer. No one can "prove shit" on the subject of whether a reserve makes you safer or not, and indeed some BASE jumers claim to not need one to be as safe as skydivers. But again, smart skydivers use them.

Likewise, no one can prove that we are more or less safe. We could have another ten terrorist attacks against the US in the next ten years, and some pro-war guy would claim that we would have had eleven if not for the Iraq war. And no one could prove that he wasn't right.

However, there are indicators you can use to tell if we are likely safer or less safe. Al Qaeda is becoming stronger; that indicates we're less safe. Air travelers attitudes have changed; that makes us more safe. Port inspections have not changed much so that's a wash. The war has created worldwide resentment and hatred towards the US; less safe. We have killed some of Al Qaeda's leaders; more safe. Al Qaeda now has a sanctuary in Pakistan; less safe. The Taliban is staging a comeback; less safe. The US-backed Afghanistan government is losing control of Afghanistan; less safe. Billions from the opium trade is flowing into the Taliban's coffers; less safe.

Overall it looks like things are heading in the wrong direction.

I agree with you. However, it's not possible to say with complete certainty that things wouldn't be just as bad or worse had we never gone to Iraq. Personally, I'm okay with that uncertainty and willing to concede it's a wash either way. However, I'd still like the troops out of Iraq for the simple reason that then they'll stop dying there.

[billvon 3,119]

>However, it's not possible to say with complete certainty that
>things wouldn't be just as bad or worse had we never gone to Iraq.

Right. That's what I just posted.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>you can't prove shit one way or the other on the subject.

Quite true. However, generally one operates on what's most likely rather than what one can prove. No one can prove that smoking will give you lung cancer, but the smart money is on not smoking if you want to avoid lung cancer. No one can "prove shit" on the subject of whether a reserve makes you safer or not, and indeed some BASE jumers claim to not need one to be as safe as skydivers. But again, smart skydivers use them.

Likewise, no one can prove that we are more or less safe. We could have another ten terrorist attacks against the US in the next ten years, and some pro-war guy would claim that we would have had eleven if not for the Iraq war. And no one could prove that he wasn't right.

However, there are indicators you can use to tell if we are likely safer or less safe. Al Qaeda is becoming stronger; that indicates we're less safe. Air travelers attitudes have changed; that makes us more safe. Port inspections have not changed much so that's a wash. The war has created worldwide resentment and hatred towards the US; less safe. We have killed some of Al Qaeda's leaders; more safe. Al Qaeda now has a sanctuary in Pakistan; less safe. The Taliban is staging a comeback; less safe. The US-backed Afghanistan government is losing control of Afghanistan; less safe. Billions from the opium trade is flowing into the Taliban's coffers; less safe.

Overall it looks like things are heading in the wrong direction.

I agree with you. However, it's not possible to say with complete certainty that things wouldn't be just as bad or worse had we never gone to Iraq. Personally, I'm okay with that uncertainty and willing to concede it's a wash either way. However, I'd still like the troops out of Iraq for the simple reason that then they'll stop dying there.

I submit that had we kept our eye on the ball in Afghanistan instead of going on a crusade for the aggrandizement of our "I wannabe a War President", we would have done far more damage to AQ than we have by our unwanted presence in Iraq. We now officially ADMIT that Iraq was not supporting AQ before the invasion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

A military officer I was talking to compared them this way

"Vietnam was a War that was portrayed to the public as a police action. Iraq is a police action that is being portrayed as a war."

if there is one thing in regard to military strategy to learned from Iraq then it is that the involvement in Iraq is NOT a police action.

That was the perception of the "Rumsfeld doctrine" to occupy a country of 20+Mio with light forces at less than a third of troop strength that is conventionally asked for to establish law and order in country this size. Promptly US military lost control right from the beginning with the widespread looting, sharp rise in common crime, and start of religiously/ethnically motivate crimes.

The lawlessness right from the start was quoted by former Al Qaeda people as the one thing that helped them most to establish themselves. So essentially AQ in Iraq owes their existence to the "Rumsfeld doctrine".

Apart from AQ the disintegration of public order and safety also led later to the tribe wars, ethnic cleansing, violence against women, and murders of common crime.

The idea that you can occupy a country such as Iraq as a matter of a police action has cost huge amounts of lives and will have repercussion for decades to come. Aside from the humanitarian cost it entailed the obviously substandard occupational force is also a violation of basic international law which puts the responsibility of providing for the safety and public order for ordinary people on the occupier - to do what is required within "industry standards".

What you are talking about is simply a lack of adequate density on the ground in each region/city , which still doesn't change the fact that the mission in Iraq is more inline with basic law enforcement and tasks common to 'Policing' than it is "Warfighting"

The fundamental flaw with expecting 11B's to be able to control any area in Iraq is they simply dont have the training, cultural awareness or language skills to do so properly. Soldiers shouldn't need those skills however they are fundamental to a Police Force.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

teach you about NBC ( Nuclear Biological and Chemical) weapons.

while they are doing that perhaps they could refer to the (less taught) portions that explain exactly what the shelf life is of various agents, what conditions are required to maintain that shelf life, and what was Iraq's ability to create/maintain those conditions in the years following Desert Storm???

NBC is no doubt some ugly shit in any form, no question and the means the US trains it soldiers to deal with exposure are little more than holding actions so they can accomplish their mission prior to expiring (a fact often neglected in soldier training)

However that said using it as a scare tactic when the the real intelligence estimate indicates that anything they may have had is far past its useful shelf life is simply outright fraud, the shadow of fear raised when the public needs to be frightened into convenient acceptance.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I figure'd you would reply to my post and not billvon's or likearock's. Care to answer them too?

Because they (deliberately) misread by post to argue the assertion that war lead to safety in the US. Much easier than to respond to the actual point, that there are insufficient date points to make any nonpartisan conclusion.

Many people feel that we encourage the end result of 9/11 when we accepted all of the attacks in the 90s without response. Most of them are Clinton hating Republicans. I'm neither, having liked him generally and voted for him twice. But there's no question he was a domestic President, starting with "it's the economy, stupid," in stark contrast to his predecessor. Lots of Bay Area people believe that if we act like Jesus and turn the other cheek, they will become peaceful too. (how well did that work for Jesus?)

Others point out that use of force plus a perception of a never ending occupation encourage people to take up arms, even against great odds, since life is crappy anyway, might as well fight for something better.

At this point, it's hard to validate the clashing claims on the strength of al Queda- got some showing increased recruiting, others claiming they can't organize a bake sale anymore. But this still has little to do with Vietnam, where it was clear what the people wanted. Al Queda is not the USSR of this decade.

We do know that despite countless threats from bin laden himself, they haven't touched the mainland. And it's not like our borders are that much more secure than they were in 2001.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We do know that despite countless threats from bin laden himself, they haven't touched the mainland. And it's not like our borders are that much more secure than they were in 2001.

In the seven and a half years immediately preceding the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, how many times did al Qaeda touch the mainland?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We do know that despite countless threats from bin laden himself, they haven't touched the mainland. And it's not like our borders are that much more secure than they were in 2001.

In the seven and a half years immediately preceding the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, how many times did al Qaeda touch the mainland?

You can lead the horse to water, but can't force him to drink.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Lots of Bay Area people believe that if we act like Jesus and turn the other cheek, they will become peaceful too. (how well did that work for Jesus?)

Speaking as someone who wouldn't quite call themselves a Christian, I'd have said that Jesus did quite well in the moral authority stakes; a field in which the US has looked better in the past than it has done recently.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You can lead the horse to water, but can't force him to drink.

You're just full of clever ways to avoid questions today.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,119]

> Lots of Bay Area people believe that if we act like Jesus and turn the
>other cheek, they will become peaceful too. (how well did that work for
>Jesus?)

The alternative philosophy is Saddam Hussein's i.e. "fight fire with fire and they will desist." I find that in the long run, it is wiser (and safer) to follow the example of Jesus than that of Hussein.