Fighting Iraq like we fought Vietnam

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

George Santayana once said those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Let me submit for your own edification this little observation. We are embroiled in a war, a war with no clear goals, and no clear end, a war that we will not let our military fight.

Today Sunday the 2 of November, 18 Americans died and 21 more were injured in coordinated guerilla attacks
138 Americans have been killed in the last six months.

What do you think the US and its leaders should be doing?

[JP Dogberry]

To quote MC Frontalot:

"In the interests of Peace is how a Liar wages war, then clamours for more".

"I wish that I could afford the ear of bush the second, I'd ask is it your favourite philosopher who recommended invading and exterminating all who defy us, crying out justice, while seeking out triumphs."

The US should stop encouraging consumemrism and the rampant waste of oil.  Then they wouldn't have to kill people for it.

This is a topic I feel really strongly about. I could rant for hours, but I'll restarin myself, for your benefit. Especially since I'm likely preaching to the converted.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

heh, actually JP, though Jeffe and I are probably in your camp, I think you'll find a lot of the msg board denizens are not.

[Spriggan]

Jeffe I think that's the most ignorent thing you've ever said.  Iraq is nothing like Vieatnam.  If you use think it is then so is the rebuilding of europe after WW2.  Which, while as not as bad as it is now, the same things were being said by people who opposed us rebuilding Eurpoe/Japan.  Soldgers were killed by pro-natzi's as well.  Yes it's frustrateing to have people killed by terriorests but there are clear goals, and an end.  Unfortualy in todays socity if a conflict is not resolved in an hour, like on tv, everyone starts complaineing.  And yet none of them offer any fesable plan to help smooth the problems in Iraq.

And as for Jam's statement, we didn't goto war for oil.  We actualy got oil cheeper from Sadam then we will once things are settled in Iraq.  Despite weither you love him or hate him there's not a single level headed person that says Bush went to war for oil and not a perceived danger.  The question is weither or not that threat was real, which is something all of us want to know.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

And why do you think Iraq is nothing like Vietnam?

What were our goals then and what are they now.

Vietnam
Stop a ruthless dictator
Rebuild a country torn by war
pacify the natives
stop the spread of communism and terrorism

Iraq
Stop a ruthless dictator
rebuild a country torn by war
pacify the natives
stop the spread of terrorism


Both wars constrained American troops and turned them into policemen rather than soldiers.


WWII isnt even up for discussion since there is no "total" war, no recyling at home, no manditory Military service, no millions of dead, and no crusade. And our goals arnt the same as the Marshall plan, or anywhere near as noble.

[Entsuropi]

/me claps

Well done Dr Jeffe! Well done for re-opening the single most divisive argument that the forum has had since i have been here!

Against
Jeffe
Jampaladin
SE

For
Entropy
Spriggan

Wavering
HoM
Fell
everyone

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I think it's much less extreme than Vietnam, but I see much more parallelism to 'Nam than to post-WWII scenarios. And Bush IS very vague about what he claims to be trying to accomplish, and how long we'll be there, etc.

But at least gas prices are down a bit finally.

[Spriggan]

Jeffe your list is too generic, you can fit just about any modern war in those catagories.  Now I'm not an expert on war or Vietnam, and I want to hear what mustard says on this since he's the only person that actualy knows things about war history, but Vietnam was more political and such then any other war.  US troops would claim an area then hand it back to the Vietcong in some ridiculious deal.  Or we'd promise south Vietnam we'd do something with our troops then not.  And we didn't do any major air campains because of fear of political fall out.  Also in Vietnam there was a central group we were fighting against.

I'n Iraq there's none of those conditions.  We've got no central group/leader we're up against.  Of course we don't know if or who saddam is ordering around.  We do know there are Al Quaida and others from syera and Iran that have come in to attack us.  All the combat is basicaly happeing in one small area of the contery.  There's no political reason restraining our troops from doing things.

It's understandable that you and most of us are upset with the troops dieing.  But this happened in solomia, bosnia and every other war and no one has freaked out as much as with this one.  I think it's Intellectualy dishonest to say this was is like Vietnam, especialy when emotions are running so high.  Not to say it couldn't become like that, but then we;d have to have hundreds dieing a day and worse, it's just no where near that right now.

And the thing that upsets me about this is all the cynics out there that whine and complaine about it but never offer or say what they whould do better/different.  Or that think everything that happens is some conspericy.  Life dosen't imitate TV people.  Conflicts don't resolve over night and there's no smokeing man.

[Spriggan]

oh and to what SE said, the one thing Rumsfeld has done that I do agree with is not give a time line one how long we're going to be there.  Clinton said we'd be in solomia for only 6 months and that was over 6 years ago, were still there.  No one knows how long it will take, everytime someone in the past has given a timeline/date when it comes to military things they've almots allwayse been way off.  So their being honest there, but it's not very reasuring.

And saying Iraq is closer to 'nam then WW2 dosen't give must justafication to saying it's like 'nam.  I just used the WW2 to point out most people said then what their saying now.  There's no good plan, we're spending too much, we shouldn't be there, etc...  

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Now I'm not an expert on war or Vietnam, and I want to hear what mustard says on this since he's the only person that actualy knows things about war history]

Thats literally the dumbest thing you've ever said. I know a great deal about war history, considering that it has been a hobby of mine since I was 3. Its hard not to know a lot about War history when your father brings work and his experiences home with every day. When Dad used to work with the Joint Chiefs (just after the War College) he and I would talk about warfare all the time. When I was in college he and I went through the 10,000 slides he took in Vietnam and had a three day session where I quizzed him about his experiences there. We still talk about warfare all the time and are both pretty much agreed on the characterization of the war. His two tours in Vietnam were nothing like you seem to think the war was like. In his second tour when he was shot down in Llaos by the Viet Cong (where he won the Silver Star) the military was committed to fighting a ful scale campaign Lam Son 719. Unfortunately they seriously underestimated the strength of their opponent and the resolve of people fighting for a cause. We did do massive air campaigns untill the end of the American withdrawl from Vietnam and our freeze on airstrikes only occured after all American Units had left the country (with small exceptions like the marine guards at the Saigon Embassy. Most of the time during his first tour Dad spent time in the Jungle hunting NVA and Viet cong with mountaingard irregulars (mountain people kind of like native americans here) that is untill they Vietnamese started the tet offensive and overran his base with T-62 tanks killing everyone they could.
I'd like to know why you think that someone in the military from a military family (a member of my family has been in the military at some time or other since the Civil War) who studies military history knows less than someone who isn't in the military.

And your right, you dont know much about Vietnam, I would hardly call it more political than any other war, considering the Politics of Korea and WWII were much more complicated. (A fact very well supported by the fact that the Korean war has never offically ended thanks to those politics) and that rifts and problems from WWII have never completely healed.

In Iraq we do have a cental group thats is coordinating the attacks, and if you think there isn't then I feel sorry for you. These attacks are planned, and not random. It takes coordination to pull off a massive strike against a garrison force. And considering a signifigant portion of the old regime has managed to elude capture I think we can guess who is behind the attacks.

Also check your facts US troops were withdrawn from Somolia in 1993 after being deployed in 1992 so Clinton had troops in Somolia for six months longer than he initially said. Not Six years. In 2001 after the World Trade center bombing the US again sent troops to somolia under President Bush.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

By the way you cant fit every modern war into those catagories.

The first Gulf war had simple clear objectives, kick Iraq out of Kuwait. The Six day war had the objective of forcing Syria out of Golan, and Egypt out of the Sinai.

And dissent to WWII was miniscule compared to dissent for Vietnam or this war. So again your example isn't valid.

You say your problem is with Cynics who whine and complain but never say what they would do different,... well you've never asked once what any of us would do differently, you branded us cynics and whiners and never bothered to ask our opinions.

What we need to do is get the UN to send peacekeepers to Iraq in Lieu of a Conqueroring force of British and Americans, its what we should have done in the first place. Barring that we need to commit to total war and erase every vestige of the last regime because that is the only way we will ever win this war.

[Entsuropi]

Jeffe, here is how it goes. I get the feeling that bluntness is the key here.

Shut up.

You will cause (another) flame bait thread. And frankly, we covered all this before, and it got boring then. I'm happy you have your opinions, but insisting on using them to devolve the forum into a shouting match is not on. And and Spriggan support the Iraq war - nothing you will say is going to change that. Saint and you oppose it - i doubt anything we could say would change that. All it will become is a bitter argument. So please, let it go. Go back to yattering about RPG's.

And in case you feel you can avoid a bitter argument, well, sorry. You can't. You have already failed in that - both you and Spriggan are getting angry. I address this to you since Sprig said on IM he was not intending on pursueing it further.

P.S. - Looks like your prediction was right saint. He did snap the "not knowledgeable about war" line.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Ok I wont pursue it futher either, heck I really only got mad in the first place because I was called ignorent by Spriggan, a fault of mine I know, but I will stop before this gets worse.

[Entsuropi]

Thank you.

Incidentially, does anyone else feel that making RPG's based on the Iraq conflict is highly disrespectful at this moment in time, since the bullets are still flying?

Also : kinda a dull game i would have thought.
GM : Ok, you get up. What do you do?
Players : What does teh CO tell us to do?
GM : drive that way.
Players : Ok. We do.

Repeat until pizza arrives.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well I always felt War based RPG's are some of the most difficult to do. A real Army has too much structure to tolerate the kind of independence that RPG charaters exhibit.  

Mike"I move around to the flank and signal to bravo squad to take the hut on the west perimiter"
Charlie " I set up a kill zone with my SAW and get ready to fire"
Billy " I charge the hut with my heavy machinegun firing and screamig all the way that should give me a +5 to my fear rating"
The GM " Ok bill roll for surprise to see if you notice the incoming machine gun fire, the rest of you roll to see if you notice the incoming moter fire you can thank billy for giving away you position early.!"
Mike and Charlie-"Son of a ... nice work BILLY!"
But yeah, its tasteless, like the Afganastan RPG that came out a few years ago. The problem is that there is a rush to get this kind of product out, once the war gets sour people will be less likely to buy the game.