griff38 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 I have to give George Bush Sr. credit for putting an end to the stigma of Vietnam. And I must give credit to George Bush Jr. for bringing it back. How many US soldiers will have to die to get rid of a 3rd rate emasculated looser like Sadam? Tommy Franks say we will be there 4 to 10 years. If they are willing to admit that, then we will probably be there 10 to 30 years. They say this is costing the US 4 billion a week, that means it is at least 6 billion a week. We could not win a guerilla war in Vietnam and we WON'T win one in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 This is sad indeed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CagedCrado Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 In vietnam 100s of people died for small victories, this is definetly not the case. In vietnam we didnt fight to win, and we are fighting this war to win, believe me. Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Just dont get disheartened and support your troops, that is the best way to prevent vietnam again. Support Our Troops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 23, 2003 Author Share Posted March 23, 2003 Originally posted by CagedCrado Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Your concern for our Troops is touching. A few casualties may mean nothing to you, but some of us really hurt when things like that happen. I hope you never have to really experience that type of tragedy, if you have and still regard human life so casually you really are one of the bad guys. The fake, patriotic ,wrap yourself in the flag attitude that you and people like bush & rumsfield express, contributes to the pain real patriots feel over these events. Support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Yes this is very sad indeed. But the even worse thing is that the news media is (get this I heard it live) TELLING THE IRAQ ARMY WHERE THE US TROOPS ARE. Geez... there was a live feed going from a reporter embedded in the 7th Infantry 3rd Division Cavalry or something live that. All of a sudden, artillery fire opened up and came (in the words of the reporter) "It was amazing the accuracy that these shots were fired." This was played OVER AND OVER on the RADIO. IRAQI TROOPS LISTEN TO THE RADIO. Thanks to the stations, they knew just how close they were to hitting the troops... the media will be the death of more soldiers. Originally posted by CagedCrado Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Just dont get disheartened and support your troops, that is the best way to prevent vietnam again. Don't ever say that again. That is one of the most dangerous things a person can say. Those "few casualties" that dont mean anything mean THE WORLD to some families back in the states... to them, it IS like vietnam now that the wife lost a husband and the children lost a father. How about you show support and MOURN for these deaths instead of dismissing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioshee Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by CagedCrado In vietnam 100s of people died for small victories, this is definetly not the case. In vietnam we didnt fight to win, and we are fighting this war to win, believe me. Just because there are a few casualties doesnt mean its vietnam. Just dont get disheartened and support your troops, that is the best way to prevent vietnam again. Support Our Troops! I agree with what you are saying. Take it easy on CagedCrado people. Nowhere in his post did he say he wasn't saddened about the loss of lives. He just stated that this is not Vietnam all over again. It's childish to say this war is like Vietnam. That is an ignorant statement that loses all validity because it is based in emotion. Life is only temporary. Remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by ioshee Life is only temporary. Remember that. Dude, that is the grossist thing I've seen said about the war. HOW ABOUT I walk up to you and shoot you dead...would you like having your life taken before you're old and grey? NO!! So don't say **** like that. It may be temporary, but when it gets cut short, its a damn shame. Or how about I kill your gf/bf*sorry, dunno if your m/f*or your mother or father. How'd you feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 *waves hands around "Let there be flame..." *puts on flame-retardent suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 No need for death threats... nobody wants to die. I think some people are just trying to get a rise out of others. And this poor guy took the bait. Move along... I don't see any debate going here. Vietnam lasted over a decade and cost thousands of American soldier's lives, ending with a shameful withdrawl (and subsequent defeat of our South Vietnam allies thereafter). The last Persian Gulf War was over in a jiffy, few Americans died (though plenty of Iraqis) but we accomplished our goal(s)... force Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait, and protect Saudi Arabia. Now the goal is to take out Saddam, and so far its going well (though some of that may just be media propaganda/misinformation). The war in Afgahnistan could have gone horribly bad, as the Russians warned us about (they had a hell of a time when they were in there last), but it didn't turn out that bad for the US troops. The fighting continues a year later, but its hardly the disaster some feared. Now I'm all for peace and diplomacy, but I think that at least some of the mistakes of the past (when it comes to military strategy) have been learned from... And just in case you think I'm some callous hawkman or something, I have relatives that are being sent over, and I'm hoping the war is over before they have a chance to get in harm's way (call me selfish.. it's always easier to watch the other guy go.... when its your own kin its different). Let's hope it is over quickly and peace will be restored. Now let fly with any intelligent thoughts, please... ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 I think that there are a lot of important differences between this war and Vietnam that might affect "stigma." First, the environment was drastically different. Finding the enemy in the desert with todays technology would seem infinately easier than in the Jungle with VN era tech. Second, there seems to be clearer objectives. Third, progress is steady (so far) and successes appear to be kept. Gained ground doesn't seem likely to return to the enemy. There, undoubtedly, are other differences. I also see some differences in the anti-war movement. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Vietnam anti-war effort grew nearly as quickly. If I recall my history, it took years for the public to become disenchanted with the goals and mission in vietnam. I also get the feeling that anti-war sentiment is larger than the media shows, but I also think that there are a couple of different types of anti-war "protester." One is against war, period. The other is against this particular war, for particular reasons. Either way, I suspect that neither of these two types would typically disrespect the servicemembers / miltary personnel involved in the war. Not like the anti-war protesters of Vietnam. I really doubt that any returning servicemen will encounter protesters who spit on them an call them murderers. Most of the people I know that are against the war have a deep and fond respect for the soldiers and marines over there. I fully support them and hope they do their jobs well and come home safe. And though I understand the resentment that many non-Americans will have when they see American servicemen hoist Old Glory after removing the Iraqi flag, I hope to see it happen again. It gives me a warm feeling. But I also am pissed that it had to come to this. I resent my President, to whom I would give my life to protect out of duty to my country. I resent him for not allowing Congress to declare war as is provisioned in the Constitution. I resent him for precedent he is setting for the future of my country. I resent him for valuing oil and the profit it will bring the few over the needs of the many that make up the citizenry fo the U.S. of A. I resent him for leaving the office for a weekend at the ranch, even when there's a crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Way to overreact, people. Personally, I agree with CagedCrado (for once). While, in the past he has been very extreme, in this case he makes perfect sense. A few casualties does not mean Vietnam, and the best thing we can do right now is support our troops and hope for the best. He wasnt trivializing the deaths of those soldiers. He was simply saying that their deaths dont mean Vietnam. Death does not necessarily equate to another 'Nam. It does, however, go hand in hand with war. Honestly, I'm stunned that many of you attacked him like that. It makes me wonder whether or not he edited something outafter the fact.... either that, or you're all holding against him things he said in other threads, which is very bad form (although I'm guilty of it from time to time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 24, 2003 Author Share Posted March 24, 2003 I did not say this is going to be another Vietnam. What i mean is now matter how well this goes, there will be a stigma from this following us for years. There was frustration, shame, regret, resent, and many other painful emotions boiling under the surface for countless thousands of US citizens for years after Vietnam ended. The US as a whole had something like a cathartic release after Desert Storm. It went as well as anyone could have hoped for, casualties & deaths were shockingly low, US soldiers conducted themselves with discipline and honor and set an example of the US military we could be proud to say was ours. Our friends , allies and even our enemies were impressed with how we conducted ourselves. I think bushes admin has ruined this completely. Now matter how light civilian and coalition casualties are, even if things go better than predicted we will be remembered as the unjust agressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioshee Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Well said griff38. Although I don’t agree with everything you have to say, I think I understand you a little better after that last post. I apologize for any offensive comments I made. MdnightPsion, if you feel the desire to kill me for making a factual statement, you have already defeated your own cause. I love you all (no sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 "We expect them to be treated humanely," President Bush told reporters. *coughguantanamocough* Although I may have overlooked it in skimming the article, I didn't see anything about the POW being executed. Danish TV mentioned those same pics, but didn't say anything about any executions. A few casualties may mean nothing to you, but some of us really hurt when things like that happen. From a usually level-headed person, this comment surprises me. In Denmark alone, far, far more people die from smoking and car exhaust. In fact I've found that the amount of attention given to each disaster by the media is usually inversely proportional to the number of similiar disasters in the world. This means that, with a fairly rough correlation, the amount of media attention that a problem gets is inversely proportional with its size. A few hundred casualties really do mean nothing compared to the vast numbers of people starving to death in third world countries, because of overprotective industry-supporting programmes initiated by western governments. Yes this is very sad indeed. But the even worse thing is that the news media is (get this I heard it live) TELLING THE IRAQ ARMY WHERE THE US TROOPS ARE. Geez... there was a live feed going from a reporter embedded in the 7th Infantry 3rd Division Cavalry or something live that. All of a sudden, artillery fire opened up and came (in the words of the reporter) "It was amazing the accuracy that these shots were fired." Save your frustration Reborn. If the reporter was even allowed to enter that detatchment, then it means that the Iraqi already knew fairly well where they were... Unless your generals are complete and utter idiots, in which case your troops have bigger problems than a single, peeping reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Although I may have overlooked it in skimming the article, I didn't see anything about the POW being executed. Danish TV mentioned those same pics, but didn't say anything about any executions. I recall mention that two of the dead shown on Al Jazera had sustained fatal gunshot wounds to the head, which were described as "execution style." That in itself doesn't state that the soldiers were executed, but people tend to hear this and form their own conclusions, regardless of other possibilities. For instance, the soldiers may have been surprised by the Iraqis who were pretending to give up and the first indication of their dishonorable act was the gunshots to the heads... the others may have escaped without injury by not fighting back any further..... That's but one possibility. They may, indeed, have been executed as an example to the others or to gain complete compliance (I think this is more likely). We will never know until the others are released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Save your frustration Reborn. If the reporter was even allowed to enter that detatchment, then it means that the Iraqi already knew fairly well where they were... Unless your generals are complete and utter idiots, in which case your troops have bigger problems than a single, peeping reporter. No the reporter was embedded. He was there from the start, ever since Kuwait. The thing that makes me angry though is that they release stuff that would have been better off not released, on international radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 One of the most interesting aspects of this war, as seen from a couch in Soviet Scandinavistan, is the way different media cover it. From what I hear, the fighting for Basra was reported a swift and crushing coalition victory by the US media, whereas the arabian media focused on the fact that coalition troops have yet to take the city proper. Curiously enough, both are right. The strategic objectives surrounding Basra have been taken, and the city is, for all intents and purposes, out of the war. Crushing US victory, because these were the objectives of the US force. On the other hand, the US don't control the city itself. Crushing Iraqi victory, because that was their imperative. It is said that the first casualty in war is the truth. Based on these one-sided media reports, I guess that it's true. Reborn: I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear enough before: I meant that your generals aren't likely to place a reporter in a detatchment that's going on a stealth mission (that would be kinda self defeating). And I don't expect the reporters to stick right up in the bloody frontline (or be allowed to, for that matter, imagine the bad press and rumormongering that would result from a KIA'd reporter). Furthermore I don't think that any reporter would be stupid enough to transmit the exact location, while within range of the enemy big guns (OK, maybe the reporter is stupid enough to do this, but he sure as feth won't be allowed to transmit it out without a time-lag). In short: I don't think that it was a direct show (which is further indicated by the fact that they repeated it several times, this is highly unusual for direct reportings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar or be allowed to, for that matter, imagine the bad press and rumormongering that would result from a KIA'd reporter). Sadly, this might have happened already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 I know it's a very callous thing to say, but I smile at the thought of one of those reporters getting killed out there. I find it to be one of the most retarded things to want to be out with a line platoon doing nothing but reporting. I don't even think these 'tards are carrying rifles. Do we really need to have the news reported to us directly from the field? Is it better then getting it from a military liason? When these reporters and their cameramen actually get in the sh*t, what do you expect them to show us? I'll tell you what you'll see, you'll see a bunch of jumbled images because the camerman is running for cover, and you'll hear the reporter hollering "oh sh*t, oh sh*t". The only people who care that these reporters are in the field, and the camermen that are with them, are other reporters and camermen. It's like an industry achievement. But the rest of the world could give a flying f*ck. They are out there for the glory that it will give them, and this glory will only come from the news industry. So, in their pursuit for better job status, they do something that not only is extremely dangerous, but so infinitely stupid for the reasons that they are doing it. If they think getting killed is a justifiable risk for their job, a reporting job, then I think it's good for at least a few of them to get killed. But you know what, reporters getting killed in the field will only elevate the status of the ones that survived, and they will gain more glory because the actual danger of what they did is evident as it happened to others. It's sick, and retarded. Oh, and if I hear someone say "embedded" again, I will puke. Stupid media and their damn tendencies to cling to catch phrases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Sadly, this might have happened already... If the media finds someway to blame this on the Marines and not on the stupidity of the reporters... GRRRR. And Shadow, from what I understand, the time lag is only a few seconds AND he was transmitting live at the time the artillary was fired. It just gets me annoyed that the media is there, it causes a distraction from the troops. (Oh and it wasn't the reporter that repeated it, it was the CNN specialist in New York who was telling people who were just uning in.... she was the one that was saying it over and over) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 It was the US Military specifically the pentagon that decided to embed the reporters into the troops according to former supreme commander Gen Schwarzkopf. According to him this is the best way to recieve news from the front. It certainly has a delay and I mean come on Marines are not for 1 heartbeat going to allow themselves to be placed in danger for a news reporter. But instead, they are very buddy buddy with the reporters. Reporters despite there libral rep, usually kiss major enlisted butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by griff38 I have to give George Bush Sr. credit for putting an end to the stigma of Vietnam. And I must give credit to George Bush Jr. for bringing it back. How many US soldiers will have to die to get rid of a 3rd rate emasculated looser like Sadam? A US soldier has attempted to kill his commander while in the field, what the..... cnn link. And now captured US soldiers (most likely from the 507 Army maintenance group) have been executed on camera for the whole world to see. Totally unsat.cnn link. Another Vietnam! Your way off my friend. We have been tearing them apart like toliet paper on a summer friday. Yes they won a few skirmishes but not major battles. We have lost atleast 30 men out of what 300,000 leaves us with 299,970, yea were dying out there:rolleyes: . They have no chance against us. I know it's a very callous thing to say, but I smile at the thought of one of those reporters getting killed out there. I find it to be one of the most retarded things to want to be out with a line platoon doing nothing but reporting. I don't even think these 'tards are carrying rifles. Do we really need to have the news reported to us directly from the field? Is it better then getting it from a military liason? When these reporters and their cameramen actually get in the sh*t, what do you expect them to show us? I'll tell you what you'll see, you'll see a bunch of jumbled images because the camerman is running for cover, and you'll hear the reporter hollering "oh sh*t, oh sh*t". The only people who care that these reporters are in the field, and the camermen that are with them, are other reporters and camermen. It's like an industry achievement. But the rest of the world could give a flying f*ck. They are out there for the glory that it will give them, and this glory will only come from the news industry. So, in their pursuit for better job status, they do something that not only is extremely dangerous, but so infinitely stupid for the reasons that they are doing it. If they think getting killed is a justifiable risk for their job, a reporting job, then I think it's good for at least a few of them to get killed. But you know what, reporters getting killed in the field will only elevate the status of the ones that survived, and they will gain more glory because the actual danger of what they did is evident as it happened to others. It's sick, and retarded. Oh, and if I hear someone say "embedded" again, I will puke. Stupid media and their damn tendencies to cling to catch phrases. You take delight in this is what scares me. They report the news on war. If they weren't out there would we be here talking about this? I did not say this is going to be another Vietnam. well.... I have to give George Bush Sr. credit for putting an end to the stigma of Vietnam. And I must give credit to George Bush Jr. for bringing it back. Kinda screws you there. If your going to say something don't mean something else make sure it means what you want it to mean. Don't ever say that again. That is one of the most dangerous things a person can say. Those "few casualties" that dont mean anything mean THE WORLD to some families back in the states... to them, it IS like vietnam now that the wife lost a husband and the children lost a father. How about you show support and MOURN for these deaths instead of dismissing them. Well put reborn. Though small it's large emitonally wise. Ever heard of this beattitude? Blessed are those who mourn. For they will be comforted. I'm cheering for Bush and for the U.S army greatest luck that can be possible can be recieved. -TheHobGoblin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by TheHobGoblin well.... Kinda screws you there. If your going to say something don't mean something else make sure it means what you want it to mean. : -TheHobGoblin I did say what i meant, this is not another Vietnam it will have a STIGMA like the 1 from then. Do you know what a stigma is? You are creating 1 for yourself here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 That remains to be seen. If we lose/withdrawl in shame/failure then yes, it will probably have a stigma attached to it. With Vietnam, most people feel that we did wrong there, and everybody else with an opinion think we were right, but went about it wrong, etc, so almost everybody admits we made a mistake getting into the decades long war and not accomplishing much of anything except lots of deaths on both sides. I predict that if we win and peace and some measure of closure is achieved in the region (stable democratic government setup in Iraq), most people (in the West) will not look on it as a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 Not sure I get your point Kurgan, if we are winners then what we have done is justified and if we loose then we were wrong? That is the same thing as saying, The ends justify the means. That was the logic Nazi Germany used, if we win then we get away with it? uh......... you guys are not going to rationalize that too are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.