Help please

[Voltorb]

affect/effect = verb/noun. Your usage was flawless.

I agree that the North Vietnamese would have fought to the last man (in a sense of course) before America could claim any sort of victory.

Our enemies in Vietnam were one of the most adept practitioners of guerrila warfare ever, and they knew they were winning. Regardless of whether or not the North Vietnamese knew of all the protests and voices of dissent in America, they understood their advantage well. The cost of operating a war across the ocean against an enemy who seemingly will not quit is far too high. After a while, anyone would want to give up and go home.

What worked for Washington, worked for the North Vietnamese. Some say it could have worked for Lee and the South. Sherman was a bit too much for the South to endure much longer, however. Perhaps this is the only way to defeat guerrila warfare... do what Sherman did and attack everyone and everything until the guerrilas feel guilty for not giving up and putting an end to the horror. Maybe that explains Fallujah.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that Washington and Lee relied solely on a guerrila style of war, but certain elements were there. Most particularly the home field advantage and the most important one of all, not having to completley defeat the enemy, only cause them to give up and go home.

[Voltorb]

Also, during the U.S. Civil War, many northerners spoke out against continued involvement in the South. Lee still surrendered in the end.

[UOPokerPlayer]

How accurate is this statement:

"No, instead of using the WMD that didn't exist and wouldn't have been given to them, they're running round the Middle East with the tens of thousands of tonnes of conventional explosives they managed to loot during the war. Huzzah."

I ask this because when I had a peer review session for my paper and one of the arguments for staying that I didn't address was the 'we need to finish what we started' argument. If it's accurate that the Iraqi insurgents are more dangerous every day we stay because they are getting our explosives, i think that kills that argument for staying. Am i misunderstanding what the quote meant?

[Voltorb]

I think most of the conventional expolsives were stolen from Saddam's stash before the American forces were able to secure them.

However, it can be easily argued that the insurgents' forces grow stronger each day that we stay there. For each insurgent we kill, we create a new one out of his cousin, brother, relative, friend. It only takes one misplaced bomb for the insurgents to have a tragedy to point at and say "See, look what the Americans did!" Then another dozen young men are willing to die to revenge their families, neighbors. Violence breeds violence.

That being said, I have a hard time believing that anyone in the administration actually gives a terd about the well-being of the average Iraqi citizen. If this were true, we would have never gone to Iraq in the first place, seeing as how the dumbest of morons could have foreseen the pickle we are in now. Leave, Iraqis die. Stay, Iraqis die. Was all this really worth putting our minds at ease about WMD? Are we more comfortable now, knowing that at least Saddam can't hook some terrorist up with anthrax, gas, or a suitcase nuke? Well, don't rest too easy. There are still plenty of madmen in the world who would like nothing more than to see the Great Satan crumble, and there are more weapons still. And if you think you can get rid of them all, well, you probably thought going to war in Iraq was a swell idea.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"The fact is you present any indivdual retreat carried out by a Democrat president in the face of a setback as a pathetic climbdown,"
**************************************************
The general Hannibal won every battle he was in except for one against Scipio. Hannibal is STILL consider a great general despite one set back.

Same thing with Reagan. Reagan had many foreign policy victories and he had demostrated his backbone numerous times. So when Reagan withdrew the US Marines it was seen as a set back but NO ONE doubted Reagan's backbone... During Reagan's recent state funeral, there were plenty of tears...

The modern US Democratic party has a reputation of being weak appeasers. I think the main reasons are:
1. The Democrats fought Reagan tooth-and-nail on almost every foreign policsy decison implemented.
In retrospect, Reagan was seen as a strong visionary and the Democrats that opposed him were seen as the opposite.
2. Jimmy Carter's a handling of the hostage crisis.
3. Clinton's failed bribary of North Korea.
4. The frequent Democrat calls to retreat frim Iraq whenever a set back occurs.

So based on my Hannibal example, *IF* the democrats had lots foreign policy victories and examples of them showing backbone, then they could have improved their foreign policy image. Back these examaples are rare... So I would argue their reputation is deserved.


"of a war you clearly know nothing about,"
*********************************************
If you say so then it must be true. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


"You are a pompous ass."
***********************************************
Sometimes.... but you a little of a pompous ass yourself when accuse anyone that does not agree with you as being "thick".
So maybe we are both pompous asses.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
the dumbest of morons could have foreseen the pickle we are in now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the morons in the Bush adminstration did forsee the pickle that we are in now. I think they genuinely believed their own propaganda about how the Iraqi people would be so greatful to us for getting rid of Sadaam that it would be a piece of cake to put a democratic government there. I don't think Bush is evil. Unfortunately, stupidity and incompetence can do just as much damage as evil. I'm not sure that Iran, as it's currently constituted, can be governed by anyone but a thug like Sadaam Hussein. Partitioning it would probably make more sense than trying to put a democratic government in place for the whole thing, but I don't see that happening.

[lastchance]

Yeah, but Felix, Hannibal lost. Carthage was destroyed. And Rome wasn't destroyed by a great general. It was destroyed by a bunch of lowlife barbarians whom Rome had by the throat for most of it's existence.

It doesn't matter how great your victories are if you lose. Play to win, don't play to look like you're winning.

Iraq could be a great victory by our standards, the insurgency could be crushed and democracy installed. But, it could still be a mistake. Be wary of strategical concerns, not just tactical ones.

You can win 90% of your battles but still lose the war.

[Felix_Nietsche]

You completely missed the point.
Our topic was *NOT* about world history.
It was how men are judged.

The point was that one set back or one victory does not invalidate a person's greatness and prestige.
They are judged by the entirity of their life.

Reagan will be judged to be a great president based on the results of his foreign policy. Specically the fall of communism and the freeing of Eastern Europe... Nicky G. was trying to attack Reagan on one set back in his foreign policy which displays a bad case of tunnel vision...

And your mistaken about Rome and the barbarians.
Rome contained the barbarians easily for hundreds of years. The Emperor Augustus started the policy to maintain the territory of the Roman Empire and not to expand it. The barbarians the sacked the Western Roman empire were relatively civilized....

[lastchance]

Yeah, you're right, but my point was that looking like a wimp doesn't mean you are one. And just because you look strong doesn't mean you are strong.

Still, the USSR crumbled while Reagan was in power, and he'll be noticed for it.

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you remember the first Gulf War, you should know why we can't pull out now. Back in '91 we told the Kurds to rise up against Saddam ... We gave Saddam permission to fly his helicopters and he used them to gas thousands of Kurds... [We can't pull out.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help noticing that

- the "official objectives" for which the United States went into Iraq,
- the "real objectives", as given by the administration's officials in various statements and interviews, for going in, and
- the objectives which must be accomplished in order for the United States to exit from Iraq,

are not identical.

If Dubya was running the show in any kind of serious corporation, he'd be out on the sidewalk on his fat behind, before he could cry "daddy!" and without a parachute either. Golden or regular.

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree with you more my friend. However, not only would bush be canned but every politician in the last 50 years would have been dumped as well. I know it is the "in" thing these days to put down Bush. You can't simply blame him though, that is narrow minded.