Comments on: Vietnamese Scoff At Bush's Iraq Analogy

Interviews Reveal Disbelief In President's Likening U.S. Pullout From Vietnam To Withdrawal From Iraq

[nyckate]

KyRockBkGold -- ROTHLMAO - hon - there isn''t a soldier amongst the Bush Cabal -- and no Rumsfeld doesn''t count - he only patrolled the halls of Washington and Jeffie Boy Gannon Gay Male for Hire doesn''t count either - his was a costume he wore for his customers.


The ones most threatened by our COnstitution, our bill of right and our way of government are in the Bush White House - the rest of us revere this nation - and would and will fight for it. Bushies on the other hand are obviously decendants of the Tories who tried to stop the American War for Independence, Spied for the Brits and ever since have taken ever opportunity to undermine the nation and it''s people.

Would Bush or Cheney fight? Not on your life.

[nyckate]

whatithink - given the comments of Bush, his administration and the rest of the Bushit morons - no, I do not think they''d fight - apparently they think that an invading nation would know what''s best for them, and that the invading nation''s army and government must be supported.

Then they''d get their best duds out and line for the Welcome Invaders Parades!!

[incog-nito]

Crybabies always blame others. Except for Sheehan, there''s hardly any anti-war movement to speak of, no massive demonstrations. Only the steady defections of GOP politicians and military officers who are beginning to see the light. Yet somehow the mythical "antiwar bunch" is to blame. Blaming others is a convenient excuse for people who never learn from their mistakes.

[incog-nito]

KyRockBkGold: Looks like you have already decided the "antiwar bunch" is to blame for this one too. There, there, it''s not your fault, does it feel better now?

[kyrockbkgold]

whatithink --

"If someone invaded the U.S. because they didn''''t like George Bush (and we know of many places that feel this way), who among you Americans would fight against the occupation and who would let the invaders take over without a battle?"

----------

Well, for sure, it wouldn''t be the anti-war bunch.

[kyrockbkgold]

whatithink --

Earth to KyRockBkGold!

Can''''t win guerilla warfare.

Can''''t tell enemy from friend.

The British tried in Iraq. They failed.

You gave the "terrorist" a victory by stepping foot into Iraq. The war was lost when it was started.

----------

Read up on the Boer War and learn how the British defeated the Dutch in South Africa.

[pastdue1]

"Washington constantly harassed the British and decimated their ranks thus destroying their morale.
Posted by KyRockBkGold

It is, indeed, what the Iraqis are using against the US forces. We are in their country, viewed as an occupying force. How else will they fight us since we disbanded the army? We may be killing a few terrorists, but, we are killing far more Iraqi citizens. Most of the remaining Iraqi citizenry recognizes the terrorists for what they are~ opportunists that found fertile territory after the void left by the US invasion.

[whatithink-2009]

KyRockBkGold,

The wars today are fought to make a small group of people rich or to maintain the wealth of a small group of people. Why should I volunteer to defend the wealth of a tiny few who don''t even bother to serve themselves?

When those who decide to start a war send their own children into battle, I will then know that the war is worth it and enlist. Back in WWII the rich sent their kids and raised their own taxes to pay for the war. Haven''t seen that since then.

Until then, I fight against the corruption of it all.

[whatithink-2009]

If someone invaded the U.S. because they didn''t like George Bush (and we know of many places that feel this way), who among you Americans would fight against the occupation and who would let the invaders take over without a battle?

Why is it so hard to put ourselves into the shoes of others?

[kyrockbkgold]

whatithink --

What have I done?

Vote against Bush twice.

----------

That''s a point I made earlier in this debate. The anti-war crowd doesn''t fight our wars - never have and never will. You haven''t put yourself in harm''s way for this country and your children are not serving in Iraq so why all the concern about what''s going on over there. Sit back and leave the driving to someone else.

[whatithink-2009]

"Does it matter where we fight terrorists so long as we''''re fighting them elsewhere?

Posted by KyRockBkGold"

- When we take fighting terrorism to places that have done nothing to us and were more or less in peace before we came, we have become the terrorist and there is nothing to forgive for this.

[kyrockbkgold]

toldyouso21 --

Does it matter where we fight terrorists so long as we''re fighting them elsewhere?

If they want the killing to stop, all they have to do is end it. I don''t think anyone in the U.S. is against peace. Put the monkey on their back instead of on ours.

[toldyouso21]

Wars are one when one side decides the price is too high. No modern war has resulted in the death of more than a few percent of any combatant''''s population. The one possible exception is the Russians'''' population loss in WW2, and they won, kicking the Nazis'''' *****.
Posted by gkc99 at 11:21 AM : Aug 24, 2007


WArs are won when the local population capitulates and begins to help the invaders. If only a few help, you get a collaborating and puppet government on one side and resistance fighters and a public who aids and abets them on the other side.

If the majority of a people in a nation will not subjugate to the will of outsiders and would rather die and do so--a war cannot be won. Because a land is dead without humans to work it and continue that society.

Iraqis were at 82% who wished we left in 2003, same number or a little higher in 2004-2007. Sure we can find pockets of people who pose for the camera and give flowers or who collaborated in toppling a statue as a photo op, but by and large, Iraqis will watch an insurgent plant an IED and the flower bringer will silently smile to himself when the invader is blown up.

Make no mistake--nothing changes an invader into a friend, ally, saviour etc. THAT is American propaganda, swallowed mostly by Americans and those we pay (like Al Maliki''s government) We are still the outsiders and we still unleashed the mayhem--and Iraqis know that and have not stopped resisting our presence.

[whatithink-2009]

KyRockBkGold,

What does that have to do with Iraq? Go now. The terrorists are waiting.

What have I done?

Vote against Bush twice. So, I have every right to complain.

[kyrockbkgold]

whatithink --

Two tours in South Viet Nam, one tour was in combat as a door gunner. I JOINED during the Viet Nam War, I wasn''t drafted.

"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." -- JFK

What have you done?

[whatithink-2009]

toldyouso21,

Vietnam and China are using us until they don''t need us.

Right now, our need for cheap goods are making them rich.

Don''t kill the cash cow.

[toldyouso21]

Terrorists move about throughout the nations of Europe, the Middle East, and even the U.S. but you believe none of them were ever in Iraq? Now, who is naive?
Posted by KyRockBkGold at 10:55 AM : Aug 24, 2007


So when do we launch invasions into Germany, Italy, France , Spain, England, Ireland, etc--since they too, are infested with terrorists?

Of course there were terrorists in Iraq--but not the ones that did 9/11 or attacked us, so we had no provocation, on the other hand, we seem to have a lot of patience and affection for those from countries that did attack us. (Egypt, Jordan, and mostly--Saudi Arabia).

Take a good look at my response and see the hypocrisy and narrow aptitude of your own rationale.

[kyrockbkgold]

ov442 --

There are about 135,000 American troops fighting terrorists in Iraq. When the "surge" was sent there to supplement this meager amount of military force, the media had a field day.

This is the same reason the Viet Nam War wasn''t won quickly. This tactic of limited warfare is bound to fail because our armed forces are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

Some of the recent successes we have had in fighting the terrorists is because former foes have come over to our side and they''re not fighting the way we do.

[whatithink-2009]

KyRockBkGold,

Earth to KyRockBkGold!

Can''t win guerilla warfare.

Can''t tell enemy from friend.

The British tried in Iraq. They failed.

You gave the "terrorist" a victory by stepping foot into Iraq. The war was lost when it was started.

How many more need to die?

If this is so important to you, get off the computer and ENLIST!

[toldyouso21]

Today it is a friend to the US, despite the terrible atrocities committed by US forces there.

Posted by cdfoxtrot at 10:40 PM : Aug 23, 2007


WRONG. Due to the terrible atrocities committed by US forces, Vietnam (like Japan) will never be a friend. They may be our allies or trading partners, but if you really think those who lost loved ones to that war like Americans for the parts they played in it--THINK AGAIN. How long would it take for you to become ''pals'' to the murderers of your family?