To those who would withdraw from Iraq.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You probably wish you didn't have to hear about the Nazis or the holocaust anymore either.

Proof that some people's historical perspective begins at birth.

Not true. I own the entire Indiana Jones trilogy.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Though this thread has headed off into "how could we have done differently in Vietnam" that was not the analogy I was trying to draw. Vietnam and Iraq are the poorest possible analogy and really have nothing to do with one another strategically. The only analogous thing here is that the Wahabists have the same intentions as the Khmer Rogue. This is the point to ponder.

Waters seems to have over looked the same point woot did. This is not an argument for staying forever. It is rather an argument for the proper conditions of withdrawal. I guess no one wants to talk about that. It is the same old naivete that nothing could be worse than the present conditions.

The idea is beginning to crystalize in my mind that the "pull out now crowd" has neither thought about how to do that nor do they care. They just want their position that we never should have gone in the first instance vindicated. It is possible pull out too soon having stayed too long as the British did in India.

I got your point, and I agree with you. Smarter men than me have outline how poor a comparison it is. Vietnam defined the political outlook of a generation, and they seem to be incapable of breaking free from that paradigm. Fighting the battles of their youth, as it were.

I also agree with your comment about vindication. It is a hard thing to put your personal desire for vindication ahead of the country. Liberals take great umbrage at that statement, but the truth this they (or their leadership) have--unwittingly or not--put themselves in a position to politically benefit from a defeat in Iraq. I can think of little more foolish or cynical.

[MikeWaters]

UtahDan, whether Al Qaeda operates in Iraq has never been something that the USA determines. All of our recent success has been because the Iraqis have turned on Al Qaeda.

Of course, you won't believe this, because it upsets your theory that the USA must remain in Iraq so as to prevent Al Qaeda from taking over.

Again, what the hell does the Khmer Rouge have to do with Iraq?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

UtahDan, whether Al Qaeda operates in Iraq has never been something that the USA determines. All of our recent success has been because the Iraqis have turned on Al Qaeda.

Of course, you won't believe this, because it upsets your theory that the USA must remain in Iraq so as to prevent Al Qaeda from taking over.

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or this issue requires a level of abstract thinking you can't muster. If you have not understood that this is not what I'm saying by now, I don't think I can help you.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Again, what the hell does the Khmer Rouge have to do with Iraq?

Does someone who understood the premise of the discussion want to chime in here? Thanks for contributing Mike.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or this issue requires a level of abstract thinking you can't muster. If you have not understood that this is not what I'm saying by now, I don't think I can help you.



Does someone who understood the premise of the discussion want to chime in here? Thanks for contributing Mike.

While you've taken your ball home, I'm still on the court.

[SeattleUte]

Vietnam can't be easily dismissed as an analogy. The fact is Vietnam and Iraq represent a recurring phenomenon where the preeminent world power tries to subjugate and occupy a huge territory of millions of potentially hostile albeit relatively primitive inhabitants, and then primarly due to being overmatched in sheer numbers and knowlege of local conditions and populace and fanatacism, is gradually undermined and ultimately defeated by effective guerilla insurgency. This happened to France in Russia, Germany in Russia, the U.S. in Vietnam, and Great Britain in various places. There have been literally hundreds of guerilla wars fought since the earliest of which we are aware, the Second Punic war, and the insurgents are virtually always the ultimate victors.

The dreadful specter of Vietnam is why Rumsfeld almost comically tried to deny that gureilla insurgency was what was going on. Morevover, our experience in Vietnam was so devastating that they stopped teaching at West Point tactics for defeating guerilla warfare. They created the self-delusion that America was bound and determined never to allow itself to be pinned down by a committed guerilla insurgency again. I know Tex hates the Vietnam analogy, but we're condemned to relive this tragic chapter in our history precisely becuase Bush and his military strategists and generals forgot it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Vietnam can't be easily dismissed as an analogy. The fact is Vietnam and Iraq represent a recurring phenomenon where the preeminent world power tries to subjugate and occupy a huge territory of millions of potentially hostile inhabitants and then is gradually undermined and ultimately defeated by effective guerilla insurgency. This happened to France in Russia, Germany in Russia, the U.S. in Vietnam, and Great Britain in various places. There have been literally hundreds of guerilla wars fought since the earliest of which we are aware, the Second Punic war, and the insurgents are virtually always successfor.

The dreadful specter of Vietnam is why Rumsfeld almost comically tried to deny that is what was going on. Morevover, our experience in Vietnam was so devastating that they stopped teaching at West Point tactics for defeating guerilla warfare. They created the self-delusion that America was bound and determined never to allow itself to be pinned down by a committed guerilla insurgency again. I know Tex hates the Vietnam analogy, but we're condemned to relive this tragic chapter in our history precisely becuase Bush and his military strategists and generals forgot it.

and even today, we have people on this board saying that an armed American populace would be able to do nothing against an occupying power, or an American military coup, or an American totalitarian govt. As if American citizens are incapable of guerrilla action that has been so successful so many times in history.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and even today, we have people on this board saying that an armed American populace would be able to do nothing against an occupying power, or an American military coup, or an American totalitarian govt. As if American citizens are incapable of guerrilla action that has been so successful so many times in history.

Is that an argument for gun control? We've become such wusses from our wealth and civilization that guns are no longer any use to us? There is a historical precedent for that, actually. Tens of thousands of barbarian soldiers ultimately subjugated millions maybe tens of millions of Romans. Is that an argument for or against gun control?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Vietnam can't be easily dismissed as an analogy. The fact is Vietnam and Iraq represent a recurring phenomenon ...

I'm persuaded that people who believe this don't understand the Vietnam War.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm persuaded that people who believe this don't understand the Vietnam War.

Praytell, since apparently you do UNDERSTAND the Vietnam War.