Just to confirm the credibility loss.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Donald is in the country so out biggest newspaper runs a poll:

Is Donald Rumsfeld a war criminal?
Yes: 58,86%
No: 41.13%
Total votes 8789

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 5:11 PM

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, over half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer.
Nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting.
Perhaps most ominously, 52 percent said the war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html?referrer=email)

[Utah]

Geez, what would these people have said about D-Day and Iwo Jima?

Is this an indication of an effective insurgency dual strategy of 1) slowly bleeding a restrained U.S. military in Iraq and 2) allowing a U.S. based ground force of Liberals to fight for you on U.S. soil?

[lastchance]

Just because your opponents want you to fold doesn't mean you shouldn't still fold.

[Utah]

You miss the point. We are employing an overall national strategy that tells the terrorists that all they need to do it to kill a few americans here and there over a long enough timeframe and the U.S. will leave. The liberals, rightly or wrongly, play perfectly into the terrorist's hands.

I also believe our military plays into the terrorists hands. Lack of ferocity means that many more people on all sides will needlessly die.

[lastchance]

I wouldn't know. I'm not an expert on Iraqi geopolitical forces (and I think you have to be to know whether or not pulling out is correct). I will admit that a lack of tenacity is a large disadvantage in war.

At the same time, a good peace is better than most war, and you do want to avoid actual war.

Remember, just because the terrorists lose doesn't mean we win.

America could've completely avoided most, if not any tension in the Cold War yet still won handily, without the risk of nuclear war.

What's the play in Iraq? In Vietnam, America tried to be tenacious and aggressive, tried to hunt people down, and that failed miserably. No one knows what effective CTing (Counter-Terrorism) is yet, and no one knows enough about Iraq.

And again, what happens if the liberals are right? What happens when the President makes big mistakes and can't let go?

[Utah]

I am making no comment on whether it is correct to fight or pull out. However, either fight the war with ferocious determination and resolve or get you ass out. Fighting it with half measures and with giving the terrorists hope will get a lot of people killed.

To Vietman, I know just enough to be dangerous. However, I dont believe the U.S. ever fully tried to destroy the north. If I recall, we had "no bomb" zones in North Vietman. It is almost better to say, "we have zero desire to negotiate a peace. Our goal is to completely destroy you and we dont care how many of our soldiers die." With such a strategy you take away any hope of the enemy and hopefully end the war sooner because the enemy knows they cant win militarily.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I am making no comment on whether it is correct to fight or pull out. However, either fight the war with ferocious determination and resolve or get you ass out. Fighting it with half measures and with giving the terrorists hope will get a lot of people killed.

To Vietman, I know just enough to be dangerous. However, I dont believe the U.S. ever fully tried to destroy the north. If I recall, we had "no bomb" zones in North Vietman. It is almost better to say, "we have zero desire to negotiate a peace. Our goal is to completely destroy you and we dont care how many of our soldiers die." With such a strategy you take away any hope of the enemy and hopefully end the war sooner because the enemy knows they cant win militarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our military campaign was seriously flawed in Vietnam.

[ACPlayer]

Our military campaign was seriously flawed in Vietnam.

Fortunately our present military campaign is being conducted with exemplary professionalism!

[lastchance]

It's not just about fierce aggression though. We could have thrown a million soldiers at the VC, and I bet they still would have won. We bombed that place to death, we bombed neutral countries. What more tenacity do you want there?

It wasn't about tenacity, it was about correct Counter-terrorism (guerrilla warfare) tactics, and understanding the situation you're in.

America lost because they had no clue how to fight that war against that enemy. No amount of men would have changed that, and it might have lost America the Cold War.

Know situations, understand what you're doing.

That's my thought process.

Doing things half-heartedly allows you to back down. It allows you to respond to different threats in different areas.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[About] Vietman, I know just enough to be dangerous. However, I dont believe the U.S. ever fully tried to destroy the north. If I recall, we had "no bomb" zones in North Vietman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha.

What more could be done to Vietnam - short of dropping a dozen A-bombs ?

The United States bombed the hell out of the place. More bombs than in the whole f*cking World War II ! And it devastated the country and the people in other ways, as well.

The only thing that stopped America ultimately destroying the country was its stated objective that it was trying to "protect Vietnam" from communist aggression. If the whole country had been destroyed in order to save it (truly destroyed), then America would've had zero credibility in the world.

That's the only "flaw" in what vulturesrow calls "a seriously flawed military strategy in Vietnam". The only flaw was that it did not totally annihilate a popular insurrection along with the country and the people!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Our military campaign was seriously flawed in Vietnam.

Fortunately our present military campaign is being conducted with exemplary professionalism!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is, I am glad you recognize that fact.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our military campaign was seriously flawed in Vietnam.

Fortunately our present military campaign is being conducted with exemplary professionalism!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is, I am glad you recognize that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an active member of the United States' military forces, would you criticize in public the United States military strategy in Iraq?

Even under a pseudonym on an anonymous website?

[ACPlayer]

While I, usually, takes VR's assertions with a large dose of salt. He offers them with a large dose of kool aid.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

As an active member of the United States' military forces, would you criticize in public the United States military strategy in Iraq?

Even under a pseudonym on an anonymous website?

[/ QUOTE ]


I may not critcize, my approach would be that of silent dissent, that is to say I wouldnt defend the strategy. Beyond that, its over to those who disagree with me to weigh my credibility given my circumstances. I would hope that I have earned some credibility here given what I believe to be a honest and reasoned discussion of issues (unless your handle happens to be Arfinn Madsen or Dead /images/graemlins/wink.gif ). Over to you I guess.

[Cyrus]

Over and out the door.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
(unless your handle happens to be Arfinn Madsen or Dead /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with my handle? /images/graemlins/smile.gif