[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**Where did you get the idea that only Sunnis live in the “Sunni Triangle”? Or even the idea that only the particular branch of Islam that an Iraqi adheres to is a significant factor in his opinions? They’re the local majority in that area, but not by that much - another example of how the name is simple spin. The “Sunni Triangle” includes Baghdad, which alone has a quarter of the country’s population, and they’re certainly not all Sunnis.
Ok, by your reasoning the majority of the population of Iraq resides in the Sunni Triangle which includes Baghdad. The majority of the Sunni Triangle reside in Baghdad. Therefore the majority of attacks on coalition forces are in Baghdad. Yes?
And Yes the particular branch of Islam you adhered to was very significant in Saddam Iraq.
Bush’s taken all my dough,
And left me in my stately home,
Lazing in a Sunni triangle.
And I can’t sail my yacht,
He’s taken everything I’ve got,
All I’ve got’s this Sunni triangle.
“pop-con porn” Ann Coulter with Monica Crowley in hot girl-on-girl action?
Comparisons to Vietnam: frequent. I’d expect high rhetoric with chance of further metaphors. Things brighten in the long term forecast. Lots of baby boomers just don’t want to let go. “But, when we smoked pot it really meant something.”
I’m feeling evil (pinkie to lip) about thinking “Sunni Triangle” sounds dirty.
And the government in North Vietnam ruled through brutality and as a military proxy of the Soviet Union and China. Soviet pilots flew in Vietnam, and Soviet spies questioned prisoners. What a peach, eh? Vietnamese put all this stuff together. I guess having a vested interest makes you sharp.The wonderful paradise of a Vietnam free from the evil imperialist Amerikans. Just one of many articles showing that social justice has triumphed over the capitalist imperial aggressors! :
Friend Beagle! Don’t suppose you’d like to resurrect your defense of supporting Saddam as a secular socialist alternative to the Mullah’s in Iran?. My problem with pop-con porn as exemplified by Milum is a distortion of facts in order to take gratuitous pot-shots at Europe and in particular, France. Freedom fries and all that.
Jimmy Carter apparently thought he was. I think his soft spot for leftist oppression is well-documented. Yet, he was the “HR President,” and I think he was sincere. Baathists were socialists. What am I missing?
As far as I can tell Carter made no comment about Saddam cementing his power through assassination. He had no Iraq policy that I’m aware of. We didn’t like Iran (I think I explained that pretty well from the average guy standpoint). Saddam sounded like a useful “secular socialist alternative” to the Mullahs in Iran, to the extent anyone knew anything about him at all.
The whole thread was about information, and the twisting thereof. I could do a reading if requested and well compensated. What most people knew about Saddam Hussein when he took power was nothing. There was no internet news. :eek: Home computers were just starting to get a foothold.
Some things never change though. The darn Iranians chant that “Death to America.” The big anniversary just passed. That, as I noted, got a LOT of media attention back then. You do see why a “secular socialist alternative” is a fair statement of the facts – as they were known at the time by most people? I screwed up the date I think. The hostages were taken in 1979. Saddam comes into power. Big war.
Somehow history starts when Reagan enters the picture. Personally, I think that the media bias against reporting atrocities under so-called “leftists” would be an interesting topic itself. I guess I don’t see much substantive difference between Hitler and Stalin myself. Hindsight being 20/40. Sometimes better with correction.
I have no particular like for Bush, he is a decidedly sub-par political figure.
We may or may not win in Iraq.
If we win in Iraq would that make it less like Vietnam than if we lose in Iraq?
What is the purpose of comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Well, we lost in Vietnam, so therefore the point must be that we are going to lose in Iraq. Why can’t Iraq be like Korea? Or WWII? Or Grenada? Or Nicaraqua? Or Somalia? Or the Mexican-American war? Or the War of 1812? Or the Spanish-American war? Or the Hundred Years war? Of the Falklands war? Or the Russo-Japanese war? Or the Boer war? Or the War of Jenkin’s Ear?
If we wanted to we could make a list of the similarities and differences between the Iraq war and all the other wars. It doesn’t seem to me that a comparison with the Vietnam war would be significantly more apt than a comparison with any other randomly selected war.
The main use for comparing Iraq to Vietnam is polemical: we lost in Vietnam, so if Iraq is similar to Vietnam we will lose in Iraq. But the conclusion doesn’t follow.
Viet Nam was a vast, damp, festering swamp, bubbling with vermin and arcane skin diseases. Iraq is a quagmire. Very important distinctions, to be sure. Rather like the clear distinction between a “desperate, urgent, immediate” threat and an “imminent” one.
Xtisme… I agree the Iraqi NOW aren’t in the “throwing thousands of lives” into the fight. Any perceived US extra brutality might change that. Not likely of course. Though the danger in Iraq is more a sort of outright shootout amongst themselves… in this they might be willing to take casualties. (Civil War).
I haven’t seen figures for Resistance casualties. We only hear about the attacks… 1 dead US… 3-5 wounded. Stop. Have there really been that many ? I had the impression that the US troops were more willing just to fire back than to pursue and that resistance casualties were minor. Hit and run tactics.
Xtisme your analysis about the "endurance" of the resistance isn't wrong. They can only go so far with what they got now and current numbers. But do you really think more won't join them ? Contraband will ressupply them easily. Seems the borders are too porous and the US wants to reduce troop numbers... not increase. Like its been said before... TIME is not on the US side. Your assumptions put a US "victory" of sorts over the resistance in a mid to long term. Do you think the US can afford the TIME and the CASUALTIES ? In both aspects politically the US can't.
Then there is the where is the US going with all this ? What is the clear and definite objective ? You said you were against the invasion.. but certainly to have some victory you need to acheive something afterwards. In a year or two will Iraq be substantially better ? Security ? Economics ? This situation isn't sustainable anyway you look at it. Things aren't getting good enough in other areas that might indicate a better security situation... that means the soldiers stay there... the soldiers staying there means more conflict and resentment and therefore more power to the resistance.
Should the US kill off the resistance... how many troops will be necessary to enforce "peace" ? To guarantee borders and national security of the new Iraqi colony ? All things point to a long term US military presence and with that all the problems that this creates.
You said the US can take those casualties... but only if something clear is to be gained from having 1 a day killed. Otherwise I doubt even the common folk will appreciate 1 a day casualties.
I think the article RedFury linked points some of the analogies to the vietnam war I beleive are relevant.
Dissonance said :* If you’re going to post pop-con porn, at least get your numbers straight, they aren’t very hard to find. US losses in Vietnam were 58,202 dead. US losses in Iraq as of 11/7/2003 stand at 394 dead.*
Uh, Dissonance, pal. War dead numbers are never exact. Too many variables. Besides, I rounded off and underestimated the numbers so as to keep the nit-picking of the board’s ample crew of pedants from straying from the salient points - the mass murders.
It didn’t work - you nit-picked the numbers and no one else wanted to comment on the discriminate slaughter of over one million of their own citizens that unite Iraq and Rwanda together as two of the modern faces of evil.
At this time it seems that discussing genocide is not the vogue on the Straight Dope Message Board.
So Rwanda is a modern face of evil? Not an “axis of evil” kinda evil, mind you? Just a “face of evil?” Coz, you know, these sorts of mindless war-crys are very important to distinguish on the world stage you know.
So Rwanda is a “face of evil” huh? Like some sort of gorilla infested jungle-covered Stalinist force of “world conquest evil”? Come on Milum… if you’re going to walk down that particular disingenuous greasy slope of logic, why not include Cambodia and Pol Pot’s regime as well?
Why leave out the Ivory Coast or the Congo? All of them fit your definition - and yet, as of 10 minutes ago I haven’t seen massive forces assembling to invade any of THOSE countries, have I? So I’ll gladly step up to the plate and give my assessment of President Bush…
He is a man so innately inept on the World Stage that it confirms singularly the greatest flaw in US modern politics - that is, the foolish persuit of the perfect ‘candidate’ results in nothing so sad as the lowest common denominator. He’s a man who exemplifies in one fell swoop, how inherently skewed the modern US political landscape is towards 15 second sound bites and photogenic television appearances. He’s a man who represents the modern bland shopping mall compared to Tiffany’s in Manhattan. All gloss, lots of bright lights - and zero history or charm or sense of tradition.
IF President Bush is the best that the United States has to offer this world of ours, then the United States is fucked beyond repair in my opinion. I point blank refuse to believe that in the entire huge myriad of US politics that there isn’t a more intelligent, more worldly, more insightful and articulate person than George W. Bush. If there isn’t, then you American’s should feel shame for cursing the rest of the world with a such bumbling, fumbling fool with so much power and influence.
And by the way President Bush - the word is pronounced nu-clee-ar, okay? Capiche?
Defend him as much as you want Milum. Mark my words however, if he doesn’t get re-elected the rest of the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief - not because the United States itself is a bad nation - far from it - but merely because President Bush is like the blind car driver on the world stage who is attempting to learn to drive by using the Braille technique. The rest of us are the one’s who are getting fucked around.
You could, of course check official sources for US casualties in Vietnam and Iraq. They re quite exact.
I’d have thought that this one was obvious. Your claim that
is ludicuous. The US was content along with the rest of the world and the French and ignore Saddam’s bad habits during the 80s. The US even provided intelligence information on Iranian troop deployments to Iraq, despite having the knowledge that the Iraqis used chemicals against the Iranians on a regular basis. Regarding Rwanda, you might recall that the US sat on its hands while the genocide happened, just like the UN and France.
As to any of this has to do with an actual examination of the validity of making comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam… I’m still trying to figure that one out.
Damn Boo Boo, ouch! Such vitriol! Such venom! Such anger! Remind me stay on your good side.
But if you stop and think about it, it becomes understandable.
You; having lived all these years in a PC world of bureaucratic control with no hope of excape from the smothering benoveloence of your socialist government. Your long suppressed desire to throw up must have become unbearable.
And then along comes Bush. Straight talking Bush. A man without pretense, a man with honor and with an honest concern for the plight of all the people of this world and the courage to advance upon tyrants.
No wonder you threw you. All the vile serpents and toxic lizards of socialism inside you were expelled when you wrote that therapeutic tirade against President Bush. That’s the first step…a cleansing.
Good luck Boo, you have the makings of a good Republican.
And ** Dissonance**: Ludicrous, you say? This whole discussion was ludicrous from the onset. Vietnam is to Iraq as a Krispy Kream Donut is to a Sherman Tank. The transparent motive of Rashak Mani, the Brazilian, in invoking this discussion was to encourage others to inveigh against Bush.
Where was the United States while 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in Rwanda in 1994, you ask?
Well, “Slick Willie” Clinton was President back then and he was otherwise occupied. So there.
Milum, you would do well to restrict yourself to addressing arguments and to not attack posters personally because you know by now what the entire board thinks of you and your stupid non-arguments. Or should we go back to that thread in the pit?
As to how things are going in Iraq, the security situation is deteriorating rapidly to the point where the Red Cross and other foreign governments and organizations are pulling out. In the meanwhile the USA is at odds with the puppet government it implemented in Iraq and is considering replacing it. It looks like a mess to me.
These are the people supposed to be on the side of the USA. Then you have those who are against.
Sailor said: Milum, you would do well to restrict yourself to addressing arguments and to not attack posters personally because you know by now what the entire board thinks of you and your stupid non-arguments. Or should we go back to that thread in the pit?
Hi **Sailor **, on the other hand you do well speaking for the rest of the entire board, in fact you speak so well that I think I’ll report you to the board authorities for attacking me personally by saying that the entire board thinks badly of me, and then, worst of all, you threatened me with the pit.
I know for a fact that I am liked by a few.
(Well maybe not a few but at least one or two.)
And hey** Rashak Mani**, don’t worry it’s Ok to call my opinions “redneck”. May I call your opinions leftneck? kiss!
