No, really. They’re activating swiftboat squadrons for the first time since Viet Nam, and sending them to Iraq. All we need now is Agent Orange and Joey Heatherton.
It’s all part of the vast right wing conspiracy - you see, the army will assign rich, liberal soldiers to the group, then when one of them runs for president in 30 years they’ll have the shit on him already.
I don’t want to be one of those posters who questions whether or not things are threadworthy, but I don’t see a whole lot of anything to this thread. There certainly isn’t anything pitworthy about it unless this is now the automatic home for threads referencing the Iraq war or using variations on the word “swiftboat.”
Do you really have a problem with the military using boats to patrol rivers? Do you think that there isn’t a reason for us to be patrolling the rivers? Howsabout you add maybe a fourth or fifth sentence to this wee slip of an op.
No, I don’t have a problem with patrolling the rivers. It was the imagery of that other quagmire showing up in this one that makes all the “it’s not anything like Viet Nam” arguments sound somehow pathetic and hollow.
Oh. I see. Yeah, the usage of boats to travel down rivers sure nails that into place. It’s official. Iraq is just like Viet Nam because we’re using boats. It wasn’t before, but now that we’re using boats those arguments just seem so pointless.
Along those lines, the Iraq War is just like World War II because we’re using troops and guns.
Speaking for myself and not the OP, I have a problem with the military using boats to patrol rivers in a war of aggression. Without the initial acts of aggression, there would be no reason for us to patrol the rivers. War crimes are not a sufficient reason. These war crimes were committed not by our troops but by those who manipulated intelligence for the purpose of making war on Iraq.
Either that or the swiftboats are trawling for WMD.
Wait. This time can’t we count ones that fizzled out twelve years ago and wouldn’t take out a wide place in the road? And can’t we count those that are hidden in Syria? There are some things that we just know, ya know?
Cheney and Co. treat these women and men as if they were tin soldiers in a playroom. And he lies the way a child does – with all evidence to the contrary including video tapes of his own words.
At least Johnson resigned.
Yep; except we are losing this one.
That’s just great. Either you just answered a question that I didn’t ask or I failed to realize that this was one of those “War in Iraq bad/Everybody hates Bush” wankfests that we simply have to keep on the front page of the pit.
What I was actually looking for was a specific reason that using boats to patrol the rivers of Iraq was a bad idea. An example of that would be “This idea is bad because we have no evidence that the insurgents are using the rivers at all and it wastes soldiers that could be used to secure the cities where most of the fighting has taken place.” If I wanted “The boats are bad cause the war is bad and Bush is bad,” I could’ve typed “war sux” into the boards search function and found it on my own.
Fear Itself, thank you. I hadn’t realized that we weren’t winning in Iraq. I’m going to give you some advice and I do hope you’ll take it.Why don’t you take the day and compose yourself a nice intelligent post for this thread? Thus far your contributions have been “we’re using boats in iraq, I declare the debate over whether or not Iraq is like Viet Nam over because we’re using boats in Iraq like we did in Viet Nam,” and “we’re losing in Iraq.”
He did? I thought he lost the next election to Nixon, who resigned several years later.
He didn’t lose. He didn’t run.
He neither resigned or lost an election. He simply didn’t run.
As for the OP, I suppose it’s somewhat amusing to think about but altogether meaningless except in a very superficial way.
Well, you can’t always get what you want…
Fair enough. That was 10 years before I was born, but I should’ve still Googled and checked to find out.
It was Humphrey who Nixon beat.
I’m with Harborwolf. It’s a stupid war, but while it’s going on there’s no more reason to be surprised at boats than there is at planes and Jeeps and trucks.
Well, at least we know Forrest Gump won’t be there. He became President.
The OP missed the part of the story which is pit worthy.
No, you shit-for-brains lapdog reporter. They will patrol those waters while partipating in a civil war which we started.
Nevermind that rivers are major lines of communications and if we’re not patroling them, it makes it easier for insurgents to transport arms.
There’s a reason why it’s a very bad idea for a helicopter to fly along a river.
Are insurgents currently transporting arms along rivers?
I’d be very surprised if they weren’t.
I don’t know either.