Is The War In Iraq Another Viet Nam?

Depot · June 2005

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/' target='_blank'>Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There have been 1,915 coalition troop deaths, 1,729 Americans, 89 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 25 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of June 24, 2005.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4123808.stm' target='_blank'>Rumsfeld: US not losing Iraq war </a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>Donald Rumsfeld has said the US is not losing the Iraq war and it would be a mistake to set a timetable for American troops to leave the country.
To set a deadline would "send a lifeline to terrorists", he told House and Senate committees. </b>

But the US top Gulf commander General John Abizaid told the same Senate committee more foreign fighters were coming into Iraq than six months ago.

The hearings come amid waning public support in the US for the war.

'Damascus focus'

A series of bombings in Iraq late on Wednesday and early on Thursday killed at least 30 people in Baghdad, while a recent opinion poll showed that 51% of Americans now think the invasion two years ago was a mistake.

I would say there is a clear node inside Syria which facilitates [the entering of insurgents]"

General Abizaid, Gulf commander

"I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," Gen Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He said suicide bombers from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco were entering Iraq via Syria, joining others from Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

"I would say there is a clear node inside Syria which facilitates it. Whether or not the Syrian government is facilitating it or ignoring it is probably a debatable question, but the key node is Damascus," he said.

Democrat Senator Carl Levin has suggested that the view is at odds with Vice-President Cheney's view that the insurgency was in its last throes.

Need for patience

A small bipartisan group in Congress has proposed a resolution calling on President George W Bush to start bringing home US troops from Iraq by 1 October 2006.

But Mr Rumsfeld said that timing in war was not predictable and there were no guarantees.

"And any who say that we've lost this war, or that we're losing this war are wrong. We are not," he told senators.

Setting a date for withdrawal would "send a lifeline to terrorists", he said.

Insurgents "have suffered significant losses in casualties, been denied havens, and suffered weakened popular support" in recent months, he added.

Leaving before the task is complete would be catastrophic

Gen Richard Myers
Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff
There was still a way to go, he said, but progress was being made.

"Success will not be easy and it will require patience... But consider what has been accomplished in 12 months," he said, mentioning the elections in January, economic improvements, and improvements in Iraq's security force.

Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy said that Mr Rumsfeld's predictions had been wrong in the past and repeated calls for him to resign.

But Mr Rumsfeld was backed by Gen Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the panel that "leaving before the task is complete would be catastrophic".

The US has 135,000 troops in Iraq. The Pentagon says it has trained and equipped some 168,500 Iraqi police and military personnel.

However, the continuing violence had led some US commanders to scale back optimistic predictions that US troop numbers could be reduced any time soon, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus.

And while Iraq's new security forces are growing in number, their effectiveness remains very much in doubt, our correspondent adds. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11092' target='_blank'>Rumsfeld: U.S. Troops Could be in Iraq for Decade</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In his rounds on the Sunday talk shows this morning, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld revisited his "long hard slog" mantra, saying that the U.S. might have troops in Iraq for many years to come.

<b>Rumsfeld: U.S. could be in Iraq for years (UPI)</b>

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Sunday said U.S. troops may be needed in Iraq for years to fight insurgents and to help the Iraqi people win. "We`re not going to win against the insurgency, the Iraqi people will win against the insurgency," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday," one of three network television news programs he appeared on.

He downplayed an ABC News poll that showed 65 percent of respondents think the U.S. is bogged down and lacks a clear plan to get out of Iraq. Rumsfeld said war is a "tough, dirty business" and the media was focusing on negatives. "It`s just the reporting of the nature of war. It`s a tough business. It`s a terrible business," Rumsfeld said on "ABC`s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

<b>Rumsfeld Says Iraq Insurgency May Go on for `Years' (Bloomberg) </b>

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said insurgent violence in Iraq may continue for a decade or longer and it will be up to the Iraqi forces, rather than U.S. troops, to end it. ``That insurgency could go on for any number of years,'' Rumsfeld said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program today. ``Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.''

One hopes that's accomplished sooner rather than later. Having a U.S. advisory force or even a small garrison might be useful to that end. I can't imagine that the continuation of a force approaching the current size will be helpful once a permanent government is in place in Iraq, though. There's no way to be taken seriously as a sovereign power with a large foreign military presence, especially one perceived by many as an army of occupation. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Originally I supported Bush on this war in Iraq, but it certainly resembles another Viet Nam to me. Our troops could be over there another 10 to 12 years? I don't like the sound of that. At all.

Let's not dwell on how we got there to begin with , IF we should even be there, or if the administration has done the right things to date. And let's not debate the pros and cons of war. <b>Should The United States and it's coalition forces pull the plug on this and send the troops home?</b> Discuss.

CMEast · June 2005

Yes, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Haze · June 2005

Difference is in Vietnam, when we pulled out there was not such a large danger of them comming over to us. As it is now, if we pulled out and Iraq went down the tubes again we would definantly see an increase in terrorist threats and acts, dispite increased security anywhere.

I agree with the war almost 100%. Its extremely tragic with the lives we're losing now, but its much better for the future of both countries. Putting Iraq in an improved state lowers the terrorist attacks we will see on US soil as well as any nation, and will add more stability to the Middle East.

If 12 years is how long it takes to secure a safer future, so be it. Pulling the plug would be the biggest mistake we can make with the current situation.

Depot · June 2005

That's true, if we pulled out now we'd certainly see more 911s. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />

Rapier7 · June 2005

Well, the amount of manpower and losses are nowhere near Vietnam. We had over 500k troops in Vietnam and over 40k deaths over the course of the war.

The thing with Vietnam was that we went in there with absolutely no reason to be in there. The South Vietnamese for the most part was ambivalent about annexation, the North Vietnamese held the majority of the population and they were pro-Communist.

The thing is, with Iraq, we have the support of the majority of the people in Iraq.

Stay the course. An industrialized, pro-West Iraq leaves no losers.

NGE · June 2005

Just for the record we still occupy parts of Germany, Japan, and Korea.

Extended occupation has been done by the USA for a long time and most of the consequences have been benificial. Namely, the top three most successful countries in the world are:

1. United States
2. Japan
3. Germany

These two countries were at one time arch enemies to the United States and it is funny that the Japan, while highly successiful today is also the only one to ever suffer a nuclear attack. By successful, I mean a culmination of wealth, industrial power, population size in realation to countries size, civil liberties and freedoms, and a judgement of the tolerence of members in the society towards one another.

Such are the long term "effects" of US military occupation. Without the need for a country to worry about security too much, the government can focus on domestic polices much greater than they normally would. Combined with foriegn aid from the US it is obvious that occupation is hardly a bad thing for the country.

Furthermore the successes of Japan and Germany have helped the US generate revenue as a major source of trade. They also are high sources of competetion which generates growth in the economy. The money spent on rebuilding these countries is far less in comparision to the amount of money these countries have generated off each other.

On top of this the occupation of Germany and Japan after WW2 resulted in many deaths. There was plenty of insurgancy all over the country after occupation. Loyal Nazi's and Japanese to the emperor still had to be routed out years after defeat. However with the majority of the population controlled by the US forces it was only a matter of time before the country returned to normalcy.

In fact, almost every single invasion or occupancy of ANY country in history has resulted in insurgancy which must be controlled through military force. What is happening in Iraq is hardly original, but for some reason the only thing emotional Americans can compare the Iraq situation is to their most recent (and only?) defeat at Veitnam. Sad. Veitnam offered many lessons, but none of them include why occupancy of a country willing to cooperate is bad. Over time, these countries end up providing many economical benifits, as well as no threat towards the original country who invaded it.

The "logic" used by anti-war supporters is not logical at all; it's completely irrational emotion based on very few elements of reality. For the Americans, the anti-war setiment is based almost purely off the Vietnam war as example; one war amonst many that failed on the grounds of an over-aggressive government in it's containment policies. For the Europeans, it's a mixture of anti-american feelings combined with pacifism movement in the western region. However, anti-americanism is most likely the biggest reason for the anti-war feelings as these countries aren't the ones who are sending in the majority of the soliders, and it only stems from "older" countries amongst the west of Europe, which probably has since stemmed from the cold war "sheild" the United States provided in the years since. There no longer is any reason for European government officals to want the United States to succeed as the US isn't povital for them anymore.
As a consequence, they would only serve to hinder the US in any attempts to bring them down as a measure to rise up their own country. In an effort to streamline this simple power increase, they make war unpopular within their own country.
Much in the same way war can be made popular within a country, it just as easy (if not easier) to make war unpopular within a country. It is only natural that most European countries would not care for US interests as it does not coincide with their own.

War with simply a goal of wanton destruction is never a benificial move, however, war used as a means to an end is another story. And since most anti-war supporters believe war is the end and not the means, their illogical clouds the view of others.

Anyhow, there isn't any sufficent proof whatsoever that the Iraqi insurgency is sufficent threat to the stability of Iraq as a growing democratic nation. Considering their first election held carried an astounding 70%+ of their population, and that insurgents were threating the populace to any who voted, it therefore carries that the Iraqi people want to succeed as a nation. 70%+ of a nation is overwhelming to any force that would try and stop it. No one entity can willingly force an entire nation into becoming subdued, lest you destroy the entire country. With such promising numbers it follows that it is only a matter of time before Iraq is a stable country.

To leave is exactly what the terrorists want the US to do, time, believe it or not is on <b>our side</b>. The longer we remain the more powerful the Iraq government becomes, and the less threat terrorists will be within the country. The terrorists are simply bees from a dying hive trying to kill a bear. Will the bear become scared and intiminated that the bees attack him with such ferocity, or will he simply ignore them, take the pain of the stings and claim the hive?

All logical empiracal evidence suggests that to remain within the country is by far the best move. However, can the growing irrational movement through the United States ganer enough votes to leave Iraq pre-maturely? Or can the US goverment sway it's population back into its side? That is the real up and coming question. As a US citizen myself would like to see his country succeed in most plausible ways, and who doesn't believe in the propaganda put forth by anti-war supporters, I would say remain in Iraq and watch the nation prosper.

TommyVercetti · June 2005

For obvious reasons the US must not abandon Iraq at this point. However, going there in the first place was a major error, and not just from a moral standpoint. Afghanistan and Iraq, sure, but what about NK and Iran? They're much bigger threats than either of those countries (though I supposed Afghanistan was necessary to get revenge for the 9/11 attacks).

The_Finch · June 2005

Iraq is another Vietnam only in the sense that it's not a wildly popular war. Militarily speaking, Vietnam was very successful and Iraq casualties are very low for the amount of time that we've been there. The lessons that the American public got from "wars" like Greneda, Bosnia and the Gulf War is that wars can be easily won and air power will provide a "bloodless" victory.

Should we pull out of Iraq? No. I believe the largest problem is finding enough volunteers to staff the military requirements. We've been in Iraq for what? 2 years? The casualty figures are astoundingly low compared to other conflicts. Less than 1,000 friendly deaths per year isn't a crippling figure and I think that more people need to realize that.

Legionnaired · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[Snip]Awesomeness[/snip]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You sir, win. Now if only we could cut through the BS and anecdotal evidence on the evening news and get the media to look at HISTORY.

Burncycle · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Should The United States and it's coalition forces pull the plug on this and send the troops home? Discuss. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I believe that to be the absolute worst move we can do.

It shows that we can **** half the world off by going in, and then **** the other half off by leaving the job unfinished. We told the Iraqi people we would help them, and I believe that is what we should do.

Whether you or I agree with the invasion of Iraq or not, we're there now, and I don't want to leave the Iraqi people hanging (at the risk of collapsing into a civil war), and I would not want those who have already fallen to have died in vain. IMO we should stay until the job is done.

As far as another vietnam? It depends on what you mean; militarily or politically?

Militarily, I don't think so. Casualty wise, it has been very light compared any past major conflict that has lasted this long. The catch is, we're not a smooth, efficient machine; we're struggling with our own internal troubles just as much as we are struggling against the extremists.

Politically? Only time will tell.

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Just for the record we still occupy parts of Germany, Japan, and Korea.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ahem .... just for the record .... You don't "occupy" those areas. Your troops are stationed according to treaties and in regards of former or present threats against Nato ....

Splinter_Steve · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Veitnam offered many lessons, but none of them include why occupancy of a country willing to cooperate is bad. Over time, these countries end up providing many economical benifits, as well as no threat towards the original country who invaded it. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You forgot to mention the fact that Iraq is a majority of Shi'ite's who don't like us any more than Saddam. Shi'ite's are the Iraqi majority. Need I say more than "IRAN"? Hopefully you get the connection. Anyone who eats up the America-loving Iraq idea...<i>wow.</i>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As much as people want to believe that religion is bad and evil, the overwhelming empirical evidence says otherwise.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All logical empiracal evidence suggests that to remain within the country is by far the best move.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sorry but those kinds of lines (like the two examples from you) always drive me nuts because it's never even said what the "evidence" is. It's like saying pizza is better than donuts with undeniable proof, argument over right there. I mean go ahead and link statistics and things if you have them, don't leave me hanging <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />. Otherwise it really isn't a valid argument on its own.

I won't even <i>begin</i> to touch the rest of that post, with <b>consistent</b> spelling errors on words like "insurgency" and "Vietnam". "Benificial"....then "And since most anti-war supporters believe war is the end and not the means, <b>their illogical </b>clouds the view of others."

If I were to argue how shallow your knowledge is about anything in there, those errors just make it waaay too easy... I mean like if it was little, irrelevant errors it'd be one thing, ya know? V<b>ie</b>tnam <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You forgot to mention the fact that Iraq is a majority of Shi'ite's who don't like us any more than Saddam. Shi'ite's are the Iraqi majority. Need I say more than "IRAN"? Hopefully you get the connection. Anyone who eats up the America-loving Iraq idea...wow.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thank you Sir! You are the very first one on these boards who actually got a grip on this charade.

Just think about it:

You expect a people, which you have abandoned before and left to get sloughtered by Saddam (after they ignited a revolt to support Desert Storm from within), to willfully submit and form an alliance against their fellow people in Iran ...
Especially since they hardly forgot that Saddam only able to come to power because the US initially wanted to prevent the Iranian and Iraqi shiites to unite ...

Not going to work.

minsk · June 2005

Two more, just to stir the pot before I go to work:

Forget should. <b>Can</b> the US currently pull out if Iraq without the country dissolving? I don't know about the rest of you, but I would expect the country being ruled by local warlords in a constant state of civil war to be worse for the people than Saddam's original government.

And given the state of recruitment for your armed forces, <b>can</b> the US look to sustain the necessary force in Iraq? The enlistments and re-enlistments relative to the departures do not look horribly good.

Rock and a hard place anyone?

lolfighter · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jun 27 2005, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Just for the record we still occupy parts of Germany, Japan, and Korea[...]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't know about Japan and Korea (and am willing to take your word on that), but I'd like you to back your statements regarding Germany with sources. It is true that the U.S. occupation of Germany lasted for a long time after the end of WW2, but I am quite sure that there are no occupation forces anywhere in Germany today. There may still be a military presence, but that's not the same as an occupation force.

Haze · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Splinter Steve? @ Jun 27 2005, 02:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You forgot to mention the fact that Iraq is a majority of Shi'ite's who don't like us any more than Saddam. Shi'ite's are the Iraqi majority. Need I say more than "IRAN"? Hopefully you get the connection. Anyone who eats up the America-loving Iraq idea...<i>wow.</i>  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I dont see the problem with removing Saddam from power and giving the power to the people themselves in this situation, even if they arent on "the best" terms with us. I'm sure this hatred can change in the time to come as history has shown it can.

NGE · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jun 27 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jun 27 2005, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Just for the record we still occupy parts of Germany, Japan, and Korea[...]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't know about Japan and Korea (and am willing to take your word on that), but I'd like you to back your statements regarding Germany with sources. It is true that the U.S. occupation of Germany lasted for a long time after the end of WW2, but I am quite sure that there are no occupation forces anywhere in Germany today. There may still be a military presence, but that's not the same as an occupation force.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Until the Iraqi war, Germany carried the most US troops out of every country in the world (except for the US).

<a href='http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda04-11.cfm</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Germany, by a wide margin, has the highest troop-year total for every individual decade and for the entire 1950–2003 period.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And we haven't left Germany yet. The US feels it shouldn't leave Germany because, believe it or not, this is the longest time Germany has ever been in peacetime. Since US occupation. On top of that, you had several other unstable countries in the region for a very long time, such as the USSR (now gone), the Balkins, and western europe in general.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry but those kinds of lines (like the two examples from you) always drive me nuts because it's never even said what the "evidence" is.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The evidence is within the posts. Evidence isn't always numbers. It is trends, movements, or past events. This is called <b>historical</b> evidence, and I thought that it was implied to anyone who read the post what kind of evidence it was.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I won't even begin to touch the rest of that post, with consistent spelling errors on words like "insurgency" and "Vietnam". "Benificial"....then "And since most anti-war supporters believe war is the end and not the means, their illogical clouds the view of others."
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Since when does spelling errors and gramatical errors correlate with inaccurate knowledge? I think, if anyone's views are skewed and highly baised, these views belong to you simply by how you intepret things - over the internet no less.

This isn't a spelling forum; it's a disscussion forum. We aren't here to write articles, but to offer insight to others on what we think of a topic. As long as a post sufficently gets the point across, then small time errors are irrelevent.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You forgot to mention the fact that Iraq is a majority of Shi'ite's who don't like us any more than Saddam. Shi'ite's are the Iraqi majority. Need I say more than "IRAN"? Hopefully you get the connection. Anyone who eats up the America-loving Iraq idea...wow.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I did not forget to mention any facts. The majority of Shite's prefer us over Saddam, they prefer us over the terrorists. By the way, the burden of proof is on you. I will say though they might not nessesarly like occupation, but, it's something that will heal with time. As US forces lessen and the power of the Iraqi government grows, then the Iraqi people won't care about the fact that their country is occupied. Much like Germany, Japan and Korea (more on that below).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ahem .... just for the record .... You don't "occupy" those areas. Your troops are stationed according to treaties and in regards of former or present threats against Nato ....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Really, it's just a rephrasing of words. When the stationed military in another country is equal to 25% (1/4) or greater of the original countries military; we can call that an occupation. The forces are obviously there for a reason - to keep things in line.

The whole notion of calling it a treaty or whatever - it's just politics to let the country think they aren't at the lower hand, and are equals in the deal. Realistically speaking however; it's a small concession on the USA's part to call it a treaty for the benifits and amount of potential control they recieve.

You can call it whatever politically correct term you want - meanwhile my analysis goes that occupation is still in effect. It may not be a "traditional" occupation, but if the US wanted to seize control over the said country - who could stop them? The US could lead an invasion from within the countries own boarders if they needed to control it. Fortunetly for these countries, the US is perhaps one of the few countries in history that has become benelovent during it's time of ascension.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Two more, just to stir the pot before I go to work:

Forget should. Can the US currently pull out if Iraq without the country dissolving? I don't know about the rest of you, but I would expect the country being ruled by local warlords in a constant state of civil war to be worse for the people than Saddam's original government.

And given the state of recruitment for your armed forces, can the US look to sustain the necessary force in Iraq? The enlistments and re-enlistments relative to the departures do not look horribly good.

Rock and a hard place anyone?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you are trying to imply that the US will be forced into a draft.... don't.

<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050610/pl_afp/usmilitaryiraq_050610195520' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050610/pl_af...aq_050610195520</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Pentagon noted, however, that the marines, the navy and the air force all met or exceeded their recruitment goals for May.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I love how the media only puts in negative headlines as far as the US government goes.

The army is having trouble getting recruits... meanwhile the other 3/4's of the military are doing just fine.

What a crisis.

Splinter_Steve · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The evidence is within the posts. Evidence isn't always numbers. It is trends, movements, or past events. This is called historical evidence, and I thought that it was implied to anyone who read the post what kind of evidence it was.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Historical evidence will show you how much the Shi'ites want to cooperate with America, and how much they still do. The Iranian Hostage Crisis (which in the context of history not that long ago at all, either) is a very simple example. You stated ALL logical "empiracal" evidence would point towards further US involvement. I would say the burden of proof is on <i>you</i> that anything has changed. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Rumsfeld himself said that they have no idea if they're recruiting more police than the insurgents are terrorists. I think that's grounds for reasonable doubt.

Also, not all American anti-war sentiments are because of Vietnam. The reasoning might be similar in a lot of aspects, but that's not the entire picture by a longshot when you're talking about the Middle East. Making those kinds of statements does not make them axiomatically true.

Consistent misspelling of "Vietnam" is not a small time error. I don't think I need to explain why you should know how to spell it when 1) it's not like some crazy 300 letter Arab name and 2) it's a huge event in recent history that anyone even a little bit knowledgeable about must have seen 5000 times.

Pepe_Muffassa · June 2005

Steve... spelling has never been an indication of anything in the discussion forums. It is more or less an unwritten rule here. I suggest you take that drum and beat it somewhere else.

As for what Rumsfield knows or doesn't know about recruiting... how can he know when the only set of data he possibly has is the Iraqi police side of it? You can't know empirical numbers about an enemy who doesn't keep records like that. To demand that he know those numbers, and then hold his answer as"grounds for reasonable doubt" is not good deductive reasoning.

By the way - you spelled empirical wrong (it's not empiracal).

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Depot · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Splinter Steve? @ Jun 27 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Consistent misspelling of "Vietnam" is not a small time error. I don't think I need to explain why you should know how to spell it when 1) it's not like some crazy 300 letter Arab name and 2) it's a huge event in recent history that anyone even a little bit knowledgeable about must have seen 5000 times.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It happens. Hell, I served in the U.S. Army when the Vietnam war was going strong, I heard about it daily, read about it everywhere I turned, and <b>STILL</b> misspelled it in the title.

And I'm the Spelling-Nazi (just ask Cyndane <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /> )

NGE · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Splinter Steve? @ Jun 27 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Historical evidence will show you how much the Shi'ites want to cooperate with America, and how much they still do. The Iranian Hostage Crisis (which in the context of history not that long ago at all, either) is a very simple example. You stated ALL logical "empiracal" evidence would point towards further US involvement. I would say the burden of proof is on <i>you</i> that anything has changed. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Rumsfeld himself said that they have no idea if they're recruiting more police than the insurgents are terrorists. I think that's grounds for reasonable doubt. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That evidence may be logical (to some extent) but it is not empirical. Therefore it does not suggest anything.

That is another reason I say, "Logical empirical evidence" because it needs to be both.

And you honestly think the Iraqi's will care about the Iranian Hostage Crisis? First off it's the wrong country, second off it would only make Shite's distrustful of the US gov - not into loathing, American hating machines. It wouldn't be logical to assume they would not cooperate over the alternative; being on their own. Right now the US is their biggest ally in the entire world. Perhaps someday they will return their gratification, or most certainly they will "put up" with us.

Splinter_Steve · June 2005

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical</a>

My reasoning would be relying on the observation of Shi'ite's in Iran, in this case. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but anyway you have a very logical reason to have your doubts about what's going on.

I'm pretty sure you read me wrong on the Iran Hostage Crisis thing. When we decided to take a human rights stance and take in their sickly ex-shah, they got really **** off, basically. Regardless of what we do, they resent our involvement.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It wouldn't be logical to assume they would not cooperate over the alternative; being on their own.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is where the Eastern and Western mindsets branch off. Shi'ites (as Eastern as they come) really would rather be on their own than have us impose government or anything on them. Whether for their own good or not, they will resent us for it, and it's my opinion that the president didn't understand this before enterring the region. Huge, huge mistake. I do hope everybody could just get along one day :/

NGE · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Splinter Steve? @ Jun 27 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical</a>

My reasoning would be relying on the observation of Shi'ite's in Iran, in this case. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but anyway you have a very logical reason to have your doubts about what's going on.

I'm pretty sure you read me wrong on the Iran Hostage Crisis thing. When we decided to take a human rights stance and take in their sickly ex-shah, they got really **** off, basically. Regardless of what we do, they resent our involvement.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It wouldn't be logical to assume they would not cooperate over the alternative; being on their own.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is where the Eastern and Western mindsets branch off. Shi'ites (as Eastern as they come) really would rather be on their own than have us impose government or anything on them. Whether for their own good or not, they will resent us for it, and it's my opinion that the president didn't understand this before enterring the region. Huge, huge mistake. I do hope everybody could just get along one day :/  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I was talking about the Rumsfeld comment being grounds to doubt him. That wouldn't be empirical because no one has solid numbers on terrorist forces.

And yes, there is <b>plenty</b> of recent empirical evidence suggesting that invading a middle eastern country isn't a good idea. From the Soviet led invasion of Afghanistan, to the fact that Isreal is mostly hated, it's pretty well known that middle easterners are a bit resilient/opposed to any sort of foriegn presence. Go watch black hawk down or something like that, or the Shaw of Iran incident etc.

Of course, that is a point to consider BEFORE invading, not after. In addition, a US invasion is very different than other invasions of it's kind... the goal is more or less to make the invaded country a smaller form of itself, not to take it over.

Antrel · June 2005

This war isn't Vietnam, it's not even as unpopular as Vietnam. The differences are very big. For one thing, we didn't have a civilian population to worry about (atleast not one we felt we should worry about), and it was a WAR, not an occupation. We were fighting to kill, not to secure and maintain. Maybe if we pulled back from the parallel and occupied South Vietnam and fought to root out the VC there, you could SOMEWHAT compare the two conflicts.

There are only two similarities I can think of now:
1) We're fighting
2) We'll be fighting for awhile

This is an occupation, we have to take extra care to preserve civilian life so that we can deter as many people as we can from discontentment and violent opposition. We are an occupation, we are essentially there to build Iraq, not to destroy it. We are an occupation, we cannot indiscriminately drop cluster bombs, napalm bombs, and Daisy Cutters. We are acting more as a police force than an Army. That is the job we've been given.

And please do not relate anti-Americanism to Shia'ism. Iraqi Shi'ites and Iranian Shi'ites still have HEAVY tensions between eachother. Remember that the Iran-Iraq was was predominantly SHI'ITE VS. SHI'ITE. Just because an Iranian Shi'ite doesn't like Americans doesn't mean it convinces the Iraqi to. Face it, it's the Middle-East. Our meddling (right or wrong) and our oil endevours have strung up a lot of hate from all sects. It has nothing to do with Shia'ism.

Splinter_Steve · June 2005

It's not shia'ism, it's shi'ites who resent American involvement. Just to clarify.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Just because an Iranian Shi'ite doesn't like Americans doesn't mean it convinces the Iraqi to.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Correct, but a huge number of Iranians have crossed the border to Iraq to vote in the election for one. Also, just because they hated Saddam doesn't mean they like us any better. Our (USA's) intentions are irrelevant, like we agree on.

There's similarities like the West vs East theme, but like you said Antrel it just ISN'T Vietnam. The Middle East is still another whole can of worms.

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Really, it's just a rephrasing of words. When the stationed military in another country is equal to 25% (1/4) or greater of the original countries military; we can call that an occupation. The forces are obviously there for a reason - to keep things in line.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whow Whow Whow.... hold the horses friend...

It is NOT a rephrasing of words. At the latest from the day on when Kanzler Adenauer singed the papers legalizing the reamament of the german military forces, US troops in Germany cannot be considered occupation forces.

The rearmament of Germany was decided by Nato strategist and Germany was included in Natos defense strategy as the first and most important line of defense against the Sovjet Block on European soil.

Germany was considered the strategically most important point in Europe very soon after the war when tensions with the Sovjets began. From around 1950 the initial plans to dismantle the entire German industry was cancelled, because Germany was, despite all damadge taken, the nation with the larges population and industrial capacity.

Germany was invaluable in the defense line against the Sovjets and it would have been the place where the Third World War would have taken place if it ever had occured.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And we haven't left Germany yet. The US feels it shouldn't leave Germany because, believe it or not, this is the longest time Germany has ever been in peacetime. Since US occupation. On top of that, you had several other unstable countries in the region for a very long time, such as the USSR (now gone), the Balkins, and western europe in general.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you think that this is due to the occupation you are absolutely wrong. The German population was and is absolutely pazifistic since WW2. The heaviest resistance against the rearmament came from within the german population. The resistance was even heavier than the french protest against a new german army! The german people never wanted to wage war again.
If you are referring to the fact that the US and NATO presence (or more precisely, the <i>nuclear</i> presence) prevented an otherwhise inevitable third WW, you are right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The whole notion of calling it a treaty or whatever - it's just politics to let the country think they aren't at the lower hand, and are equals in the deal. Realistically speaking however; it's a small concession on the USA's part to call it a treaty for the benifits and amount of potential control they recieve.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The US were granted the permission to station nuclear weapons and troops on german soil. For this right, Germany gained the protection of the NATO membership and massive financial support that triggered an economical growth that was almost unequaled. Not to mention that it was the door back to normalization of diplomatic relations. That is a fair deal I guess.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You can call it whatever politically correct term you want - meanwhile my analysis goes that occupation is still in effect. It may not be a "traditional" occupation, but if the US wanted to seize control over the said country - who could stop them? The US could lead an invasion from within the countries own boarders if they needed to control it. Fortunetly for these countries, the US is perhaps one of the few countries in history that has become benelovent during it's time of ascension.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You seem to suffer from a severe lack of reality. Sorry but this is so utterly off track that I can't see where I should start.
Has it ever occured to you, in your little dreamworld of conquest, that large military operations must be supplied with fuel, food and ammunitions? Are you aware that those troops stationed all over the world are depending on the nations they are stationed in for their support?
What do you plan to do? Capture all gasoline stations in the vicinity to keep your planes and tanks operational?

Are you aware that those US facilities are maintained by an enormous amount of civil staff mostly consisting of residents? This is an enormous economical factor, which is why all those "occupied" nations do everything they can to <i>prevent</i> the US from redeploying their troops ....

Did you realize that the preparations before every military strike in the Gulf has had an extended amount of preparations predating it? Do you think Desert storm would have beeen possible without the Saudis providing the deployment zone and fuel for free?

Please, stop dragging me off topic with this nonsense.

NGE · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 28 2005, 07:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Really, it's just a rephrasing of words. When the stationed military in another country is equal to 25% (1/4) or greater of the original countries military; we can call that an occupation. The forces are obviously there for a reason - to keep things in line.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whow Whow Whow.... hold the horses friend...

It is NOT a rephrasing of words. At the latest from the day on when Kanzler Adenauer singed the papers legalizing the reamament of the german military forces, US troops in Germany cannot be considered occupation forces.

The rearmament of Germany was decided by Nato strategist and Germany was included in Natos defense strategy as the first and most important line of defense against the Sovjet Block on European soil.

Germany was considered the strategically most important point in Europe very soon after the war when tensions with the Sovjets began. From around 1950 the initial plans to dismantle the entire German industry was cancelled, because Germany was, despite all damadge taken, the nation with the larges population and industrial capacity.

Germany was invaluable in the defense line against the Sovjets and it would have been the place where the Third World War would have taken place if it ever had occured.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And we haven't left Germany yet. The US feels it shouldn't leave Germany because, believe it or not, this is the longest time Germany has ever been in peacetime. Since US occupation. On top of that, you had several other unstable countries in the region for a very long time, such as the USSR (now gone), the Balkins, and western europe in general.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you think that this is due to the occupation you are absolutely wrong. The German population was and is absolutely pazifistic since WW2. The heaviest resistance against the rearmament came from within the german population. The resistance was even heavier than the french protest against a new german army! The german people never wanted to wage war again.
If you are referring to the fact that the US and NATO presence (or more precisely, the <i>nuclear</i> presence) prevented an otherwhise inevitable third WW, you are right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The whole notion of calling it a treaty or whatever - it's just politics to let the country think they aren't at the lower hand, and are equals in the deal. Realistically speaking however; it's a small concession on the USA's part to call it a treaty for the benifits and amount of potential control they recieve.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The US were granted the permission to station nuclear weapons and troops on german soil. For this right, Germany gained the protection of the NATO membership and massive financial support that triggered an economical growth that was almost unequaled. Not to mention that it was the door back to normalization of diplomatic relations. That is a fair deal I guess.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You can call it whatever politically correct term you want - meanwhile my analysis goes that occupation is still in effect. It may not be a "traditional" occupation, but if the US wanted to seize control over the said country - who could stop them? The US could lead an invasion from within the countries own boarders if they needed to control it. Fortunetly for these countries, the US is perhaps one of the few countries in history that has become benelovent during it's time of ascension.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You seem to suffer from a severe lack of reality. Sorry but this is so utterly off track that I can't see where I should start.
Has it ever occured to you, in your little dreamworld of conquest, that large military operations must be supplied with fuel, food and ammunitions? Are you aware that those troops stationed all over the world are depending on the nations they are stationed in for their support?
What do you plan to do? Capture all gasoline stations in the vicinity to keep your planes and tanks operational?

Are you aware that those US facilities are maintained by an enormous amount of civil staff mostly consisting of residents? This is an enormous economical factor, which is why all those "occupied" nations do everything they can to <i>prevent</i> the US from redeploying their troops ....

Did you realize that the preparations before every military strike in the Gulf has had an extended amount of preparations predating it? Do you think Desert storm would have beeen possible without the Saudis providing the deployment zone and fuel for free?

Please, stop dragging me off topic with this nonsense.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Remember, my whole point of mentioning occupation on other countries was to bring into the discussion that US led occupations are usually benifical for the country being occupied - and I used Germany as an example. I'm just bringing other points into the conversation to support this thesis. But you bring up a lot of off-topic points, lets try to adress them and tie it into the original topic.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Whow Whow Whow.... hold the horses friend...

It is NOT a rephrasing of words. At the latest from the day on when Kanzler Adenauer singed the papers legalizing the reamament of the german military forces, US troops in Germany cannot be considered occupation forces.

The rearmament of Germany was decided by Nato strategist and Germany was included in Natos defense strategy as the first and most important line of defense against the Sovjet Block on European soil.

Germany was considered the strategically most important point in Europe very soon after the war when tensions with the Sovjets began. From around 1950 the initial plans to dismantle the entire German industry was cancelled, because Germany was, despite all damadge taken, the nation with the larges population and industrial capacity.

Germany was invaluable in the defense line against the Sovjets and it would have been the place where the Third World War would have taken place if it ever had occured.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My point was that our military is equal to about 1/4 of the occupied countries (in this case, Germany's). That's a good sizable force within the country and again for all logical reasons we can call this an occupataion - if not a traditional occupataion.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you think that this is due to the occupation you are absolutely wrong. The German population was and is absolutely pazifistic since WW2. The heaviest resistance against the rearmament came from within the german population. The resistance was even heavier than the french protest against a new german army! The german people never wanted to wage war again.
If you are referring to the fact that the US and NATO presence (or more precisely, the <i>nuclear</i> presence) prevented an otherwhise inevitable third WW, you are right.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whether it was a war caused by Germany or a war caused around Germany by another country, the point is moot - our forces were integral to the region's stability. Germany has been a hotspot for conflict for almost two centuries straight; I'm almost positive that without US forces on Germany soil we would have seen another conflict there of some sort.

The US forces not only keep the country stable and intact, they also keep the country from ever waging war again. If a leader were to crop up and try to get the population to fight, and were somehow popular, the US forces there could stop the sad man from actually taking power.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The US were granted the permission to station nuclear weapons and troops on german soil. For this right, Germany gained the protection of the NATO membership and massive financial support that triggered an economical growth that was almost unequaled. Not to mention that it was the door back to normalization of diplomatic relations. That is a fair deal I guess.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Stationing nuclear arms on another country is a big deal. That's a lot of power right there to trust another country with. Nuclear arms can wipe out anything in the area. I for one would vote against any country from stationing nuclear arms in America.

America most certainly got the upper hand out of the deal there. There isn't a question in terms of the power and potential controll recieved....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You seem to suffer from a severe lack of reality. Sorry but this is so utterly off track that I can't see where I should start.
Has it ever occured to you, in your little dreamworld of conquest, that large military operations must be supplied with fuel, food and ammunitions? Are you aware that those troops stationed all over the world are depending on the nations they are stationed in for their support?
What do you plan to do? Capture all gasoline stations in the vicinity to keep your planes and tanks operational?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Had you ever heard of tactic called "blitzkrieg"? The idea of capturing the country - and it's resources - so the issue of supplies never becomes an issue. It wouldn't be hard for the US to do something like that as we have not only a large military presence there but also nuclear arms. That alone would do the trick.

You seem to severly underestimate the capabilities of the US military. Remember, the USA took over Iraq, supposedly the third (or fourth?) strongest military in the world in weeks. That was by a traditional arms invasion with limited air and sea power.

Imagine if the USA really wanted to bombard and take over a country - say like Germany (the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without actually considering it) - not only could it be led from inside the country, but outside as well, plus nuclear arms could lead the assult on Germany forces, hell, it would probably be over within a week. Not a big problem. Supplies would never even be a problem, because things could be sped up with greater destruction. Note this means a greater loss of German civilizians - but if the USA <b>really</b> needed to claim a country like Germany, it would not be difficult at all even if the majority of the population opposed them.

Would have desert storm been possible without the Saudi's backing us up with supplies? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, simply because the amount of power the US used was not even close to it's top. Not even close to its 50% mark. Probably not even close to 25% of it's full power. But they did not need to use excessive force, that would have been a waste of cash and manpower. You horribly underestimate what the US is capable of.

But anyhow, all of these invasion scenero's are used for one point in this conversation - it's indication of what the US <b>could do if they wanted</b>, yet they do not. Just to show how a US occupataion is generally to the benifit of the occupied country, contrary to every single military occupation in the past.

Rapier7 · June 2005

Well, NGE, you're forgetting the little known Filipino war. After we went in there and slaughtered thousands of Filipinos and occupied the country, it didn't exactly take off in terms of economic prosperity. Only after WWII did we grant them their independence and since then, they remain heavily reliant on US trade and they still aren't a prosperous nation.

If you ignore that country and the numerous times we've intervened in South America, then yes, I would say US military occupation/support usually is beneficial to a country. Japan, Germany, and South Korea owe their prosperity to us, but that doesn't mean that they're the only examples of what a US occupation created.

Edit:

The occupation in Iraq takes leaves out of both books. We go in their, oust an unfavorable dictator and create a government more sympathetic to our interests (don't deny it). However, we're really funding its reconstruction and we are rebuilding it for the eventual good of the Iraqis.

The war is hardly like Vietnam. It might leave a sour taste in most American's mouths, but we're definitely not having hippies in front of the White House chanting, "Hey, Hey, GWB, how many Arabs have you killed this week?"

NGE · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Jun 28 2005, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, NGE, you're forgetting the little known Filipino war. After we went in there and slaughtered thousands of Filipinos and occupied the country, it didn't exactly take off in terms of economic prosperity. Only after WWII did we grant them their independence and since then, they remain heavily reliant on US trade and they still aren't a prosperous nation.

If you ignore that country and the numerous times we've intervened in South America, then yes, I would say US military occupation/support usually is beneficial to a country. Japan, Germany, and South Korea owe their prosperity to us, but that doesn't mean that they're the only examples of what a US occupation created.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The examples you cite all lack something -

- Filipino's: This one I don't know much about, to be honest. But I would ask, did we give them any foriegn aid? Why did we invade? Did we actually hinder their day to day activities, or simply used their soil to stage attacks off of?<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

- Intervening in South America does not count as occupation <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> Note I am not talking about covert operations - without fail almost every single covert operation of the US has been harmful to the country it involves.

Rapier7 · June 2005

NGE, we gained the Filipino islands in a treaty concluding the Spanish-American war. We've occupied it after the Spanish came out and then we fought a war to retain control of it. After that, it remained prostrated to the United States after we captured its leader until after WWII, where we granted it political independence as gratitude for helping us defeat the Japanese.

Right now it's a "developing" (read: third world) country that's heavily reliant on US trade.

Edit:

As for South America, I'm not referring to the CIA operations during the 60s and 70s. I'm talking about the early 1900s, during Roosevelt's and Wilson's administrations where we frequently went in with our military and occupied their waters, lands, custom houses, in order to "restore order" to those countries. Read up on the Roosevelt Corollary on the Monroe Doctrine.

A more prominent example was when we toppled Colombian authority in the Panama region, installed a government sympathetic to us, and then stationed our battleships right off the coast near Colombia, threatening to blow them to hell if they interfered with our activities in Panama, where we gained the rights to build the Canal.

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Remember, my whole point of mentioning occupation on other countries was to bring into the discussion that US led occupations are usually benifical for the country being occupied - and I used Germany as an example. I'm just bringing other points into the conversation to support this thesis. But you bring up a lot of off-topic points, lets try to adress them and tie it into the original topic.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The reason for me to went off topic is that you simply spread false facts.
So lets first have a look at some of your claims.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Whether it was a war caused by Germany or a war caused around Germany by another country, the point is moot - our forces were integral to the region's stability. Germany has been a hotspot for conflict for almost two centuries straight; I'm almost positive that without US forces on Germany soil we would have seen another conflict there of some sort.

The US forces not only keep the country stable and intact, they also keep the country from ever waging war again. If a leader were to crop up and try to get the population to fight, and were somehow popular, the US forces there could stop the sad man from actually taking power.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is another false info that obviously comes from lacking insight into european history. Germany has not been a "hotspot" for wars. The conflict between the 3 great powers within Europe is century old, but it did not have its origin in Germany alone.
In case you don't know, WW1 was not started by Germany. The reasons of WW2 can be directly traced to the outcome and the consequences for Germany after the war.
Germany was not the sole warmongerer on the continent. Everybody wanted the first War, everybody wanted to set things straight once and for all. Everybody was enthusiastic.
The reasons for WW2 are <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic' target='_blank'>here</a>
16 million unemployed and constant civil unrest reaching intesity levels of civil wars would be a severe test for any government. It did not take nearly as much to cause massive riots and civil war like situations in the US during the 70s.

So please spare us the schoolbook generalisations about the evil Germans that started 2 World Wars. War never breaks out without a reason.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Had you ever heard of tactic called "blitzkrieg"? The idea of capturing the country - and it's resources - so the issue of supplies never becomes an issue. It wouldn't be hard for the US to do something like that as we have not only a large military presence there but also nuclear arms. That alone would do the trick.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Have you known that the term "Blitzkrieg" was not invented by german stategists, but used by a journalist of the Times commenting on the surprise attack on Poland?
In case this does not answer your question, yes I have heard of it.
However: Such an operation is not possible without extensive supply to begin with. You cannot start a car with just a few drops of fuel and hope to reach a gas station.
Not to mention that the operational doctrin you are reffering to was only succesful because it was new and used against unprepared forces that utulized tactics at the level of WW1. A similar tactical advantage was the key to the success in Desert Storm.
Do you think the tactics will be equally effective against the ones that invented it?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
you seem to severly underestimate the capabilities of the US military. Remember, the USA took over Iraq, supposedly the third (or fourth?) strongest military in the world in weeks. That was by a traditional arms invasion with limited air and sea power.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You severely overestmate the US capacity.
The US forces are centered around supperior firepower provided by aircraft. This requires air superiority.
Air superiority requres massive amounts of airplanes ready and in close proximity to the target. Carrier air groups do not suffice for this.
Both Iraq campaings required air bases in nations around the area. Like Quatar and Saudi Arabia, later on in Kuwait.
Desert Storm predated more than half a year of preparations that required Saddam to sit still what he actually did, suposedly because he did not really expect the US to do it.
Desert Storm was initiated by several weeks of massive bombardment that destroyed communication infrastructure, supply routes and demoralized and disorganized the troops. During this time, more bombs were dropped than during all of WW2. Also, the war was lead against a badly trained enemy that was equiped with outdated sovjet equimpent.
A situation to which the US miliatry is currently geared towards. Bullying around inferior enemies. This is called "intervention policy" I think.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You seem to severly underestimate the capabilities of the US military. Remember, the USA took over Iraq, supposedly the third (or fourth?) strongest military in the world in weeks. That was by a traditional arms invasion with limited air and sea power.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Just read <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> and then imagine what happened to the all so powerful Iraqi army which was largely inferior already during the last war.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Would have desert storm been possible without the Saudi's backing us up with supplies? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, simply because the amount of power the US used was not even close to it's top. Not even close to its 50% mark. Probably not even close to 25% of it's full power. But they did not need to use excessive force, that would have been a waste of cash and manpower. You horribly underestimate what the US is capable of.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, because you still need a place to depoly them and prepare the operation and provide the nessesary supply infrastrucure. D-Day wouldn't have been possible either without the British Isles as base of operations.
You simply can't just skipper some carrier groups and some 300000 Troops over the Ocean and invade a country..

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Imagine if the USA really wanted to bombard and take over a country - say like Germany (the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without actually considering it) - not only could it be led from inside the country, but outside as well, plus nuclear arms could lead the assult on Germany forces, hell, it would probably be over within a week. Not a big problem. Supplies would never even be a problem, because things could be sped up with greater destruction. Note this means a greater loss of German civilizians - but if the USA really needed to claim a country like Germany, it would not be difficult at all even if the majority of the population opposed them.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Now it gets even better...
First of, where do you want to start your planes from??? France? Britain? Well, I wouldn't trust them farther that I can toss them in many regards, but I am fairly certain that they would never allow US planes to lounch operations against Germany nor to cross their airspace in order to do so. Never.
No one in the rest of Europe either. The US could not if they wanted because they lack several key requirements.
Not to mention that the US are currently reaching their capacity with the Iraq campaing goping on, which is supposedly the reason why they are so gentle towards Iran even considering the recent election and the declaration of the new government to aquire nuclear capablites.

Secondly you are not talking about a small banana republic with 40 year old barely maintained sovjet equipment. While Germanys military budget has been largely cut after the fall of the Sovjet block and much of the equiment is inoperable and used for spareparts, the Bundeswehr is still able to deplay 250000 soldiers at once. (that is the current standing strenght in peace time. Formerly it was around 55000)
The reserves are counting roughly 4 million reservists since it is drafted army.
I case of a severe crisis (and I guess pending wer with the US certainly would be considered a crisis, don't you think?) they can be retrained and equipped in less time which it would take to prepare an invasion.

Also, the military equipment is currently being reshaped to match the changing NATO requirements, which means a general modernisation to reach or surpass US technological standards. German military technology development is on top. In case you don#t know, Germany is one of the largest player on the weapons export market.
Also, most, if not all military development of the US forces after WW2 are based on German know how, ranging from strategic missles to ejection seats for fighterplanes...
Even the Abrams is a derivate of a joint venture project with the german military industry and yet it still is inferior to the German MBT.
Also, Germany, as a NATO member, has every technical and infrastructural technology the US have and the Iraqis, for instace, lacked. AWACS, active BVR guidiance systems, missle defences systems, modern SAM systems, satelite surveilance and communications systems, redundand communacation systems, the largest mobile ground force in Europe, extremely modern mobile artillery etc...

In addition to that, compared to Iraq, but also compared to other NATO members, the german military personnel, most notably the field officers, is excellently trained. (albeitght recent cuts in fundings affect the general drafted recruits training and the monthly flight time of the pilots.)

And last but not least, you want to use nuclear weapons in an area where your own troops are operating? Sure. great Idea. Not to mention the International reaction about the use of nuclear weapons ...
You know, even Mr Bush has realized that the US can't go all alone without their allies by now. When will you do?

So, please stop posting things that are simply not true. Neither are the nations you mentioned occupied anymore nor are the US capable of simply invading them.

For the sake of the argument:
The first is not true because an occupation must meet at least one of 2 requirements:
Either A:
the occupied nation is a puppet government...
or B:
The occupation is maintained against the the will of the majority or at least a considerable part of the occupied nations citizens...
Both does not apply on either Germany or Japan or SK (afaik. Not so familiar with Korea)

The invasion part is simply false because the US are not just able to invade said nations by themselves.
They are barely able to sustain the Iraq campaing against poorly equipped guerilias, left alone fighting an enemy that is technological at least nearly on par.
Also, it is futile to just expect it to be theoretically possible, because such a scenario requires allies which will not be present.
That simply does make it impossible. There is no hypothetic possibility because the key requirements are not present in any realistic scenario.

If you want to argue about this any futher, open another thread. Do not derail this one any further. I won't comment on this anymore in here, I made my point.
Also, I apologize to the moderators if I have caused this topic to go rampart.

Back to topic:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But anyhow, all of these invasion scenero's are used for one point in this conversation - it's indication of what the US could do if they wanted, yet they do not. Just to show how a US occupataion is generally to the benifit of the occupied country, contrary to every single military occupation in the past.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
All those three nations did prosper under US protection. But not <i>because</i> of US occupation as you claim.
Japan did simply manage to repeat its rapit development which they have already pulled off once in the 19th century, when they managed to develope from a feudal agricultural society to a modern Industrial power that defeated the entire russian fleed singlehandedly.

Germanys economical success was a simple result of 3 factors:
1: large basis of skilled workers and know how.
2: large indusdustrial capacities, which were incapacitated due to war damadge, but
still present and easily returned to working condition.
3: general poverty and excessive damadge to urban centers, which mean that even
highly skilled workers would work basically for food and a bed.

These factors lead to the following development: As soon as the dismatlement of industrial complexes was abandoned, (even before then in some places) the former workers rebuild industrial machienery and started to produce exceptionally cheap goods at very high quality. Also, massive amounts of living space was built all over the republic leading to such a boom that guest workers from all over Europe went to West-Germany in order to find work.

There are considerable differences between Germany and Iraq.

The most important difference is, that the US actually were considered as liberators by the largest part of the german population.
The largest part of the Iraqi population on the other hand remember the US as the ones that brought them Saddam and then caused them suffering and poverty because of the embargo and 2 Wars.
Also, as you can read <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n48d01.htm' target='_blank'>here</a> the Iraqi Industry, unlike Germanys, is in no shape to be rebuild anytime soon, especially cosidering the catastrophic security situation which was not even remotely as bad as in Germany in the years of foreing occupation.

A quote from the article:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
[...}
The net result of this phenomenon was that, following a very rapid and extensive development of the upstream, midstream and downstream sectors in the seventies, the oil industry has faced destruction, a lack of investments, low priority in state objectives and degradation during the past quarter of a century.

The industry had to live from hand to mouth, at times cannibalizing equipment from one plant to make do in another. It lost hundreds of highly qualified and experienced experts and professionals who had to emigrate to earn a better living or to escape the wrath of Saddam’s dictatorship. Production capacity fell because of a lack of professional oil field management, while the downstream industry suffered from a lack of upgrading and spare parts, as well as repeated attacks. Basically, the industry was left to deteriorate, while its regional competitors were able to increase capacity, expand market share and develop their refining and petrochemical sectors.
[...]
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Under the line, Iraq is economically dead. As long as the security situation is the way it is right now, the industry cannot recover and as long as the economy does not grow, the peoples stadard of living will not improve which is vital for a normalisation of Iraqs civil unrest.

PS: To prevent any spelling discussions, its 1:10 AM CET here and I must go to work today. So if you find any spelling errors, feel free to keep them <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Is The War In Iraq Another Viet Nam?

Comments