Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 59
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran? Page 2 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Iran would be leveled. The middle easts bark is worse then her bite. If the american troops were allowed to preform and act like troops of the Soviet Union in ww2. You would have no knowledge of suicide bombers.

The Russians/Soviets had a motto when they entered the "Lair of the facist beast" aka, Nazi Germany. And that motto was "The only innocent germans are the un-born"

Winning the hearts and minds is a total failure. Do you see China trying to win the hearts and minds in Tibet? Nope, they are getting the job done..period. And thats why they shut down the internet there, and are monitoring what knowledge leaves the region. War is hell, and sometimes the job just has to get done to end further suffering.

Also regarding message 80. Do you know why the jews are even on so called palestinen soil? Its cuz the Allies put them there after WW2. Isreal is a very new country. (The allies are america, france, and Britian.) The whole region was owned and controlled by france before and shorty after the war. So maybe by your theroy we also need a strong kick in the a$$? Right?
 OneBlend
Joined: 3/31/2007
Msg: 61
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/7/2008 10:12:42 AM


I feel that is ..... I feel our nation .... I also feel ... I feel we SHOULD invade them ....

The "I " over the "E", darlin. Intelligence over emotion.

Isn't 9/11 alone reason enough to believe that the Middle East is a threat?

NO, maybe it's one more reason why we need to look into the behaviors of our admin, corrupt as it is.

People need to wake up.

Please, we're waiting for you. The train is leaving.

To ignore the threat of terrorist to our world as a whole is truly living in "la-la" land and I definitely want what it seems most of you are smoking for you are evidently high on something.

Oh there is a threat we have been ignoring and one might say we've even created a good majority of them.
You can have what we're smoking when you put the bottle down.
 tjrogelio
Joined: 11/8/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/7/2008 2:49:40 PM
If we look at 'terrorism as a whole', then we'll be looking at the US, as well.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 74
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/7/2008 3:15:55 PM

I think it's obvious
that war is a necessary evil. Terrorists have to be dealt with
the same brute strength they bestow upon civilizations. The only
answer so far is to cripple them financially and kill them. If you
have a better solution, I would love to hear it.


The only viable long term solution is to address the roots from which terrorists are created. Lack of education, lack of hope, and lack of jobs will continue to create two terrorists for every one you kill or imprison.

You either play "Whack-A-Mole" with it, and a lot of people die on all sides while you do, or you start to examine why these people are created, and start to reduce their numbers.

Drop a bomb on an Arab family, one that kills one terrorist and ten other family members, means you create more of them than you eliminate.

Just look at Iraq, where you have an entire generation of kids without parents, or education. Those kids are the perfect breeding ground for tomorrow's terrorists. We will probably be seeing some of their faces again, in the newspaper, in about a decade.

Attacking Iran will only create far more problems than it solves, overall. Those demographics I quoted are the one real solution to the current issues with Iran, if you are patient enough.

The fervor of the Islamic Revolution doesn't burn bright in the hearts of these kids. Any attack on their country will re-awaken that sleeping monster.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 77
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/7/2008 4:15:16 PM

mmalueg
Also regarding message 80. Do you know why the jews are even on so called palestinen soil? Its cuz the Allies put them there after WW2. Isreal is a very new country. (The allies are america, france, and Britian.) The whole region was owned and controlled by france before and shorty after the war. So maybe by your theroy we also need a strong kick in the a$$? Right?.


Bingo!

I often ask what WE would do, if a "UN Partitioning" returned the entire American Southwest to Mexico ... even with Mexico having more rights to that land than Israel ever had to theirs.

My view: The allies acted out of shame, for allowing the holocaust to happen ... like FDR refusing to allow Jewish escapees from Germany to land here. The shame was legitimate; but far more appropriate to have given them the Ruhr Valley, instead of stealing land where Muslims were the majority population.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 78
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/7/2008 4:28:55 PM

nona37
I have always said that
our nation needs to embrace Muslims who are not terrorists, without doing this, we are batting blindly in this war. The Muslim extremists are playing their own propaganda war, they are basically scaring the hell out of all Non-Muslims, therefore leading to severe racism
aimed at Islam as a whole. This works for the extremists, they can then recruit the non-terrorists into their organizations which only aids with increasing their numbers and more people to kill themselves while taking out innocent civilians. Do you view Bin Laden or any of the other higher ups dying for their cause? Of course not, they are targeting the ignorant parts of their population to do the dying for them.


You go, girl!

It's easier for our own dimwits to blame all Muslims, lie about the Koran, ignore the far more vicious Christian Bible, and claim they are religious extremists (when we know the 9/11 terrorists were WATCHING PORNO while awaiting their attack!)

Now, when it comes to "targeting the ignorant parts of their population to do the dying for them" .... How is Bin Laden any different than Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons?
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 87
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 12:09:34 AM

Is not ONE act of terrorist bad?
Indeed it is.

We are now reduced to saying if
only a FEW acts of terrorism is occurring, it's ok?

Not really....but it's better than creating the multitudes of potential acts that may occur because of the policies adopted...a.k.a......blowback.....and it's pretty clear that blowback is increasing with every act.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

The only threat Canada would be to the US is if they stopped
importing beer!


Some Canadians may like your beer labels....but it's made with Canadian water!

Maybe if we stopped being your largest oil exporter......what then? Invade? LOL
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 89
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 3:11:58 AM

nona37
Where one death is too many from war you are off on your numbers. I do believe you have the numbers mixed up, for far more died in under Saddam Hussein's Regime..


Excuse me, but screw the Iraqi deaths. How many American soldiers have died to remove Saddam's regime, while gaining NOTHING for our own country?


How bout the Gaza strip which was basically taken over by terrorists?
Particularly the Hezzbolah. They have been attacking Israel for
years, which makes me seriously contemplate people sanity when
they state that Israel should not protect themselves..


Typical propaganda. Hezzbolah was primarily a response to Israel's military aggression against Jordan. And speaking of sanity, what moral or legal right does Israel have to its current territory? Mexico has a stronger claim to the entire American Southwest than Israel EVER had to the lands stolen by the West -- so what would we do if a "U.N. partitioning" seized our land and gave it to Mexico?

Are you saying that "might makes right"?
 Adam 4 Coffee
Joined: 5/31/2007
Msg: 91
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 3:36:42 AM
Consequences for Israel bombing Iran would be positive. It would destroy all of their nuclear reactors. And if we are talking about nuking them which I think we are then I think Israel would elliminate the biggest threat to their country and solve the problem of terrorism worldwide since much of the weapons and money for terrorism comes form Iran. They even acted as a safe house for Al Sadr. it Thinkt he world would be a safer place with Iran wiped off the map or a new governemnt put in place. The only bad thing tht coudl happen is historical artifacts, some art, ect being destroyed. A lot of things happened in persia before they became the rogue state as we know it. If the US nukes them it makes us the bad guys. If Israel nukes Iran then it makes Israel just a little extreme but righteous in protecting their own country form a country that vows to wipe them off the map and is doubling the number of centerfuges to hasten the building of nukes.

I say we just nuke them! Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 92
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 3:46:34 AM

The United states is not war criminals. The war criminals are the ones blowing up innocent civilians. The ones who are beheading innocent civilians. The ones shooting civilians in the head and then dragging their dead bodies around with their cars. Is it
the United States performing this? No, it's the insurgents/terrorists, now tell me once again, who are the criminals?


The United States, by definition.

Despite your fallacy of appealing to our emotions, the war criminal is of course the military aggressor. Which is the United States.

You're describing people who are defending their own soil from military invasion ... by us ... and by the West ... tracing back to the Middle Ages. If you t attack ME, don't even try to define what response by me is acceptable to you. I will kill you any way I can. And, like our own Revolutionaries facing a greater military power, don't be surprised if our victims ignore established military practices.

I'm sure our own (American) Revolutionaries were considered terrorists by the British Crown. But we have now become the redcoats, facing a guerrilla insurgency. And we have been failing just as badly at it, starting with Viet Nam.

We shed a lot of blood in VietNam, to learn a valuable lesson. Even a superior military force cannot defeat a determined insurgency defending it's own land.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

Meanwhile --- hello? --- our own soil is now virtually defenseless, as we have so many troops in the Middle East that our homeland defense now lies with the National Guard!
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 94
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 3:56:54 AM

Alienware Adam
Consequences for Israel bombing Iran would be positive.

Likely Hitler invading Poland?

And if we are talking about nuking them which I think we are then I think Israel would eliminate the biggest threat to their country and solve the problem of terrorism worldwide since much of the weapons and money for terrorism comes form Iran

And destroying their nuclear reactors would then leave LESS money and conventional arms to support terrorists world wide?? O-o-o-o-okay.

If Israel nukes Iran then it makes Israel just a little extreme but righteous in protecting their own country form a country that vows to wipe them off the map

Well, Dr. Strangelove, how about the Arab Muslims trying to regain their own land that was stolen from them for Israel?

Bombing Iran will just help Osama Bin Laden turn more Muslims unto terrorists ... in self-defense. Hell, we're the strongest military power on Earth and we can't control the single city of Baghdad.

Delusions can be deadly. Ask the surviving families of the 9/11 victims.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 96
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:14:50 AM

nona37
I do respect your opinion, but why has everyone forgot the bombing of Beirut?


Little children say, "he started it" ... "no she did" And you keep ducking the issue.

By what right does Israel hold land that was stolen from Arab Muslims? Land that Israel NEVER had a right to in the first place, legally or morally?

I will not agree with you on this, the Hezzbollah almost murdered my brother, therefore, the Hezzbollah will get NO sympathy from me.

Another appeal to emotion. True or false: Hezzbollah is a DEFENSIVE movement, after Israel's military invasion of Jordan?
[ quote] Are you saying that "might makes right"?

What I was referring to in reference to your statement is that quite simply Israel has the better trained military, therefore why they are more than likely killing more Palestinians as compared to Palestinians killing Israelites. That simple.

Sorry if I was unclear. I mean does "might make right" because Israel has no right to exist on lands stolen ... by force ... from Arab Muslims?

Also again, would it be proper for a "UN Partitioning" to return the entire American Southwest to Mexico? (Mexico having a more legitimate claim to our land than Israel ever had to what it holds now.) I'm looking for a moral justification to your position. Can you provide one, or not?

Tell us .... please ... why we have lost 7000 American lives DIRECTLY (9/11 and the military invasion of Iraq)? For what purpose?
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 98
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:54:17 AM

Me:
Despite your fallacy of appealing to our emotions, the war criminal is of course the military aggressor. Which is the United States.

nona37 :
In the beginning, yes the US was the aggressor, this is obvious, but this has turned around with the Iraqi's and the US fighting together which leads me to believe that Iraq wanted the invasion of their country, an under-the-table deal more than likely.

So, according to your "logic" we are the aggressor, and Saddam Hussein really wanted us to invade him.

By your same "logic", how long did Hitler have to occupy Poland, after invading and installing a puppet government, before YOU SAY Hitler was no longer a war criminal??

By MY logic, you agree the US was the aggressor, which means we committed a war crime -- by definition.

nona37:
The US more than likely made a deal with the Iraqi's, meaning, the US agreed to get rid of the mad man who was in charge of their country and the Iraqi's agreeing to allow the occupation of their country. This is something I have always suspected.

So, by your "logic" if Mexico could launch a military invasion on the United States, and it would not be a war crime, if YOU SUSPECTED they were acting on behalf of disaffected Chicanos in South LA. You want to reconsider?


Me:
We shed a lot of blood in VietNam, to learn a valuable lesson. Even a superior military force cannot defeat a determined insurgency defending it's own land.

nona37
One can not compare Vietnam to the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Different geographic locations as well as different styles of fighting. The US fought the Vietcong in Jungles and mountainous area's, in the ongoing war, it's urban and desert warfare. Two
very different wars.


How does that respond to my point?


Meanwhile --- hello? --- our own soil is now virtually defenseless, as we have so many troops in the Middle East that our homeland defense now lies with the National Guard!

I do not agree with this for the most part.


Well, you're wrong. There have been all kinds of Congressional Hearings on this, budgetary. The National Guard is requesting tens of billions in training and weaponry BECAUSE they are now our primary line of defense.

Yes, we have many troops
who are deployed to the middle east, but one must understand that
there are many entities which protect our borders, not just our
department of defense

Well, you've just acknowledged that the Department of Defense can't defend our soil. ....

The National Guard will NEVER be in charge of our borders, for their main goal is to receive orders by the government of their state

Wrong again, they can be nationalized. A governor can always refuse -- but name a governor who would refuse nationalizing his or her Guard for a terrorist threat.

They are however as of current taking up the slack during this war,.

They're commander disagrees with you.

but do keep in mind, we have homeland security as well as border patrol. If our borders were defenseless at this point, I would like to think that upon entering back into the US from Canada the wait would not be taking up to 1 hour to even cross the border, therefore, I do disagree with you on this point you have made.

Okay, so YOU think our soil is now being protected by the same folks who inspect our baggage at airports and at border crossings?????

Plus, it takes an hour for LEGAL entry to the United States. Pull out a map. Check our northern border, far more porous than our Southern border, if anyone was determined enough to try. How long do you think it would take 1000 terrorists to enter from Mexico? And how can you assure us that they're not already here?

BTW, if you quote me again in the future, please include my supporting statements -- all of which I had to restore here -- never more than a single sentence. I'd appreciate it.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 99
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:03:57 AM

nona37
Therefore, driving home the point that no matter the reasoning,
approval was given, therefore making what Bush did perfectly legal
according to the laws of the United States.


1) Military aggression is a war crime. Period.

2) Would you then also defend the Holocaust, which was perfectly legal according to the laws of Nazi Germany? (I keep looking for a moral principle here -- but can't seem to see one.)

3) And you would also oppose the Judgments at Nuremburg. (To be morally consistent.)
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 101
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 8:10:16 AM

Oh, you mean the terrorists who are infiltrating into Iraq? They
are not Iraqi's, they are Syrians or Iranians and otherwise, they
are not Iraqi's, therefore, I do not understand the label of
Iraqi freedom fighters. Iraq does not belong to them, they are just
as guilty of invading Iraq as the US but I do not view you pointing
your finger at them, I'm taking it you support terrorism, and that
I find wrong and surprising actually.

If the US is guilty of invading Iraq, what charges should be brought forth?

If the US is just as guilty as the "terrorist freedom fighters" /"freedom fighting terrorists" / "fighting freedom terrorists"....then which label belongs to the US?

Since both are equally guilty, "I'm taking it you support terrorism"?

You know....perhaps if the Whitehouse hadn't handed out billions in no-bid contracts to their American corporate buddies to re-build the infrastructure they bombed the shit out of and instead handed those contracts to Iraqi companies, Iraqis would be busy re-building their country instead of bombing the shit out of those who bombed the shit out of them...which it appears they have to do first...in order to rebuild their country.

The only threat Iran is to the US is their use, or rather, lack thereof, petrodollars

....just like Iraq...
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 104
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:12:21 PM
Just imagine if kennv wast here, what a brighter site, nation, world, we would be.
Arguments about the middle east have been going on for years and years, and no solution in site.No one wants to loose a loved one,but unfortunately there are armies, nationalism, interests etc.If the US or Israel see Iran as a huge threat which threatens their existence,watch out for the bombing, otherwise there will be no bombing, invasion or war
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 105
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:46:59 PM

outdoor2
If the US is guilty of invading Iraq, what charges should be brought forth?

Good point. There's not much precedent here. So, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al should probably be subject to the same sentences we handed out at Nuremberg.

You know....perhaps if the Whitehouse hadn't handed out billions in no-bid contracts to their American corporate buddies to re-build the infrastructure they bombed the shit out of and instead handed those contracts to Iraqi companies, Iraqis would be busy re-building their country instead of bombing the shit out of those who bombed the shit out of them...which it appears they have to do first...in order to rebuild their country.

Nothing to add here. It's so eloquent that I just wanted to see it again.
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 107
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:33:37 PM
Yet to date i have read that it cost the Americans 12 trillion dollars for conducting this war.Whether you agree or diagree there is a matter of 12 trillion dollars.Somehow they have to recoup some of that money
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 109
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:03:13 PM

Me:
Little children say, "he started it" ... "no she did" And you keep ducking the issue.

nona37 ducks it again
I have to disagree with you. It's a known fact that the Hezzbollah committed the bombing of Beirut, therefore, how is that ducking the issue?

You just did it again. a) Ducked the issue. (b) misquoted me.

I stated the issue in italics, which means emphasis -- but you still missed it???

Me:
By what right does Israel hold land that was stolen from Arab Muslims? Land that Israel NEVER had a right to in the first place, legally or morally?

nona37 STILL ducking the issue:
LikeI beg to differ with you on that. In 1947 the UN did proposed a plan for that area. Here's the link for more info on this. This is a different side than what you are stating, which says, the Arab-Palestinian is a complete lie as well as fiction and contains fraud. This link
also tells how Palestine basically got their asses kicked numerous times by the Israeli's..


Read my lips: By what right does Israel hold land that was stolen from Arab Muslims? Land that Israel NEVER had a right to in the first place, legally or morally?

Yes, I will stipulate that Israel -- supported by the United States -- committed military aggression against Arab Muslims, successfully, and kicked their butts. Will you answer the question or not? Again, I'm trying to find some moral principle in your position, which is hard for me to do if you keep running away from it.

Me (STILL trying)
Also again, would it be proper for a "UN Partitioning" to return the entire American Southwest to Mexico? (Mexico having a more legitimate claim to our land than Israel ever had to what it holds now.) I'm looking for a moral justification to your position. Can you provide one, or not?

nona37 STILL dissembling:
I feel utilizing the UN is a bad example. Reason why? The UN could not even stop our country from invading Iraq for what are they going to do to the US? Invade us? Highly unlikely :) Yes, I know that is an arrogant remark, but it needed to be said.

Like I said, I'm seeking the underlying "moral justification" -- which, at this point, you either don't have one, or it's "might makes right". I'm actually trying to get you out of the hole you've dug for yourself. But you keep shoveling.

With that being said, if the UN can not stop the US from invading a country, I find it highly unlikely the UN could even attempt to partition land to Mexico, therefore, bad example.

That was not an example. It was a principle .... your principle ... apparently, but I don't wish to be judgmental of you. I'm still trying to determine what underlying moral principle(s) you are applying (if any). Yes, I know that may SEEM like an arrogant remark, but what else can I conclude when you refuse to divulge any underlying moral principles at all ... repeatedly change the subject, ignore the questions, and indulge in misdirection? Like the following:

Me (trying to simplify it for her)
So, by your "logic" if Mexico could launch a military invasion on the United States, and it would not be a war crime, if YOU SUSPECTED they were acting on behalf of disaffected
Chicanos in South LA. You want to reconsider?

non37 dissembles againL
To utilize Mexico as an example for invading the US is equivalent to utilizing Canada as an example to invade the US, it's not going to happen, therefore, I would much prefer you utilize much more believable examples in reference to this.

Read it again, Darlin', I was questioning your LOGIC ... when you state your belief that Iraq invited the US to topple Saddam Hussein. Which you merely repeated again here.

If you believe that Iraq asked us to topple Hussein, then that is EXACTLY as silly as me saying that dissafected chicanos in LA asked Mexico to overthrow Bush ... but YOU would conclude Mexico thus had a right to invade and do so, whether or not they actually did. Got it yet?

Me, one more time!
Well, you're wrong. There have been all kinds of Congressional Hearings on this, budgetary. The National Guard is requesting tens of billions in training and weaponry BECAUSE they are now our primary line of defense.

(laughing as I type)
I respectfully view your opinion however, once again, I disagree

With what? The rest of your answer includes nothing about the Congressional budget hearings, or that the National Guard needs more money to defend our homeland. Quoting the role of the National Guard, from online, has nothing to do with it.

And if you REALLY believe that Posse Comitatus has anything to do with this, then you must also believe that another 9/11 attack is the responsibility of the New York City Police Department!

Ever hear of Little Rock? Governor Faubus and President Eisenhower? Eisenhower nationalized the entire Arkansas National Guard -- to get nine black kids into the high school ---- a pivotal point in national history that you never heard of ... but YOU SAY I'm wrong to claim the Guard can be nationalized???? Check Wikipedia. Or just google National Guard Little Rock Eisenhower and get several thousand references that you online search seems to have missed.

Me again (sigh):
By MY logic, you agree the US was the aggressor, which means we committed a war crime -- by definition.

nona37, now reverting to word games:
If I utilized your wording, I would say yes, the US was the aggressor, however, you say "aggressor", I say "offensive".

A rose by any other name is still a war crime.

nona37 now reverses herself 100%
It's obvious the US threw their nose up in the air at this international law, since you keep stating it's internationally illegal, and I do agree the invasion did break the laws of the UN,

It may be obvious today, but you denied it yesterday when you claimed our invasion was legal because Bush followed American law.

TODAY, when challenged, you reverse yourself 100%, NOW agree that we committed a war crime, but nobody is powerful enough to punish us. Thus FINALLY providing multiple evidence of my original assumption -- your underlying moral principle is .... Might Makes Right. We did it solely because we can get away with it. And I agree fully.

Does that make you the moral equivalent of a terrorist? If the shoe fits ....
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 110
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:06:33 PM

but I must say, more times to none, war is good for a countries economy


WHAT?? HOW????

Why not just throw several trillion dollars into a bonfire? And murder only half the soldiers we'd lose in an actual war?
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 113
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 7:13:21 PM
Bearded.I dont want to get into this discussion, but i will.Israel did not steal this land from the arabs.It was given to them .Israel has all the biblical rite to this land. What israel has done with this land is nothing short of phenominal.Being the only democracy in the region, Israel is the only hope in this region.If the arab states would follow in the footsteps of the israeli's i can see the region flourishing with arts commerce etc.Instead its wallowing in poverty, strife,stagnation and what have you .I can still see sheep a sheepherder walking in todays Israel
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 115
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 7:29:21 PM

One can not compare Vietnam to the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Different geographic locations as well as different styles of
fighting. The US fought the Vietcong in Jungles and mountainous
area's, in the ongoing war, it's urban and desert warfare. Two
very different wars.


Sorry, Mr. President, but Iraq looks a lot like Vietnam
by Ronald Bruce St. John
At the end of the Persian Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush senior, flanked by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, proudly proclaimed we’d finally licked the "Vietnam syndrome." Is it any wonder then that George W. Bush, surrounded by the same advisors, refuses to recognize that Iraq increasingly resembles that traumatic Asian conflict? In mid-April 2004, President Bush flatly declared: "The analogy [between Iraq and Vietnam] is false."
I served a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1970-71 and returned in the late 1980s for the first of several prolonged visits. Based on my experience, Iraq today looks more and more like the Vietnam I knew firsthand as an army intelligence officer more than three decades ago.

Strategy and Tactics

First, there are the obvious strategic and tactical similarities. American troops are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. The terrain is difficult, and the insurgents know it better than we do. The enemy attacks at a time and place of its own choosing, avoiding troop concentrations where U.S. firepower can be brought to bear. Urban warfare has become the norm with insurgents staying close to U.S. troops, often engaging civilians to support or shield their operations. As a result, the uncertain battleground of Iraq poses enormous challenges for American soldiers, seeking to separate combatants from civilians without alienating most Iraqis. We face in Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, an enemy who refuses to play by our rules and is clearly willing to die for his beliefs.

Before we finished in Vietnam, we had dropped more bombs on Indochina than had been dropped on the remainder of the world in all the wars to that time. The U.S. military continues to believe in the might of firepower. But it also wrestles with the difficult task of establishing the appropriate balance between winning hearts and minds with aid and reconstruction and using force to root out insurgents. In Iraq, we had briefly moved from "shock and awe" to building schools and hosting soccer games. We’re now back to block-to-block searches of cordoned cities.

In the process, the U.S. military has generally refused to account for civilian casualties in Iraq, in part because they are frequently huge. As in Vietnam, 600 dead or dying Iraqis too often appear as 600 "insurgents" in army press accounts. The refusal to acknowledge civilian casualties, while meticulously accounting for our own, has another downside. It suggests to Iraqis that American lives are more important than those of the people we supposedly came to liberate.

Throughout the Vietnam War, especially in the early years, American officials deliberately misrepresented the enemy. Vietnamese nationalists were ignored with all opposition labeled Communist or with the delightfully pejorative phrase "Viet Cong." In Iraq, the Bush administration has once again written nationalists out of the script. Insurgents are variously labeled "dead-enders," "fanatics," "thugs," "militants," "terrorists," or "outsiders," despite growing evidence that a large percentage of the Iraqi people are opposed to the U.S. occupation. Recent intelligence reports suggest that support for the insurgents is widespread and growing. In some areas, Sunni and Shiite groups are joining forces, at least temporarily, in a common cause -- killing Americans.

There is also a failure in Iraq to understand and empathize with local mores and culture or the role of Islam in Arab society. The military has too few Arab language specialists and those experts in government with good knowledge of Iraq’s history and culture were marginalized from the Pentagon’s planning of the war and the peace, just as we failed to comprehend the Buddhist culture of Vietnam. The bombing of a mosque in Fallujah in April 2004 is a recent case in point. Suicide bombers in the Middle East, like Buddhist self-immolations in Vietnam, are incomprehensible to the average American, nestled in a comfortable suburb with a good paying job. Plunging into a maelstrom of political and religious rivalries, we have too often depended in Iraq on the counsel of a few self-serving Iraqi exiles and Arab intellectuals experienced in manipulating Western arrogance and ignorance.

Wars of Choice

Vietnam and Iraq were both wars of choice. And they are also similar in that deceit and misrepresentation was employed by the U.S. government, first to engage U.S. forces and then to keep them there. President Bush took us to war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction have been found and no ties to al Qaeda have been discovered. We were also told our troops would be greeted with open arms and flowers, which didn’t last long, and that Iraqi oil would pay for most of the reconstruction. Now we are told that we’re actually in Iraq to nurture democratic self-government, but political reconstruction is also going badly.

In retrospect, it is clear we had no idea what we were getting into when we marched into Vietnam, and the same appears true in Iraq. In reference to Vietnam, President Johnson pledged in April 1965: "We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement." Four decades later, President Bush pledged: "We’ve got to stay the course and we will stay the course" in Iraq.

The American people -- and the Iraqi people -- deserve better than this. They are entitled to a well-thought-out, credible plan, detailing how the administration expects to achieve its objectives in Iraq. A realistic plan is also a prerequisite to engaging fully the international community in reconstruction efforts, a necessity the Bush administration has only belatedly come to recognize. Reviewing what went right -- and wrong -- in Vietnam might be a good place to start when creating such a plan.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >