In 1969 I heard "We will endure, We will win, We will never be beat. ( About Vietnam ) Now we hear Mr Bush saying the same thing about Iraq. I say we will not win in Iraq. ( War is based on lies anyways)
132031
What you see in the Iraq news, is not what you get. The news business demands startling headlines, to attract eyeballs. It's business, as the eyeballs are rented to advertisers to pay for it all. But the reality of the news is less startling, and consists of trends. These are the current trends in Iraq.\n\nAfter three years, the Sunni Arabs, who long dominated Iraq, most recently under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, are giving up. It took so long because of a quirk in Arab culture, one that encourages the support of lost causes. The term "cut your losses and move on" is not as popular in the Arab world as it is in the West. But even the slow learners in the Sunni Arab community had to finally confront some unfavorable trends. Chief among these was;\n\nThe Kurds and Shia Arabs have formed a national police force and army that is far more powerful than anything the Sunni Arab community can muster. Over the last year, Sunni Arabs realized that the police and army were in control of more and more Sunni Arab towns. This was a trend that could not be ignored. Added to that was the number of Kurds and Shia Arabs who had lost kin to Sunni Arab terror over the last three decades. Many of these people want revenge, and they all have guns. Many, especially those that belong to the police, or militias, are taking their revenge. The Sunni Arabs want protection, for they cannot muster enough guns to defend themselves. Now the Sunni Arabs want the Americans to stay, at least until there's some assurance that the Kurd and Shia Arab vengeance attacks have died down.\n\nThe alliance with al Qaeda was a disaster. These Islamic terrorists were obsessed with causing a civil war in Iraq, and they insisted on doing this by killing lots of Shia Arabs. The Sunni Arabs didn't want to kill lots of Shia Arabs, they wanted to rule them all once more. But that raised another contentious issue. While some Sunni Arabs were in favor of an Islam Republic, which al Qaeda insisted on, most Sunni Arabs wanted a more secular Sunni Arab dominated government. This dispute was never resolved, as the split between al Qaeda and the Sunni Arab community widened. At the moment, al Qaeda is not welcome in most Sunni Arab areas. That's "come near this place and we'll kill you" not welcome. This after al Qaeda tried to terrorize the Sunni Arab tribal leaders into compliance. Killing Sunni Arab tribal chiefs didn't work.\n\nYou can't kill enough Americans to scare them into leaving. Saddam, and most Iraqis, were convinced that, because of Vietnam (where 55,000 American died) and Somalia (where 18 died in 1993), the United States would withdraw if you killed enough of them. While that is sometimes true, it's good to remember that over a million Vietnamese died during the 1960s, and that 1993 battle in Mogadishu left over 500 Somalis dead as well. Moreover, this, "the Americans have no stomach for a fight" is nothing new. It's why Japan attacked in 1941, believing that if they beat up the Americans bad enough, the faint hearted Yankees would just go away. Hitler also believed the Americans would not fight. After three years, the Iraqi Sunni Arabs have discovered that the Americans can certainly fight, and the Yankees have also found ways to do it that involve extraordinarily low American casualties. This story has not really gotten the attention it deserves, but the Sunni Arabs have noticed. They have noticed that if you attack the Americans, chances are you will die, and the Americans will just keep on keeping on. It used to be that the Sunni Arabs could take heart from the occasional attack where they killed a few Americans. But no longer. Everyone knows the trend, and doesn't want to be another victim of it. Last month 32 Americans were killed in combat. The last time it was that low was in February 2004. Back then, the Sunni Arab tribes and al Qaeda had joined forces. Both of them had plenty of weapon
109641
The war in Iraq is going better than most people realize. We do not get the stories of the good things that are happening - just never ending liberal hype on the casualties and bombings. It just came out that Saddam said he got rid of the WMD's but kept it so secret even his own generals thought they still had them, so how the hell was President Bush and the rest of the world supposed to know otherwise? Did you hear about it in the media like when any liberal like Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, or Dean opened their mouths to proclaim the President a liar? Of course not! It does not fit their agenda! The bottom line is this when it comes to my opinion on the war - we cannot allow these people in the press and capitol hill turn this into another Vietnam, which is exactly what they are trying to do (how many liberals have you heard say "quagmire"?). The saddest thing is that there are too many people that are buying into their anti-America, anti-troop propaganda (it's also my opinion that you cannot support the troops without supporting the war - it's the mission they are fighting for and it sends a bad and demoralizing message when people say we support you but what you're doing is illegal and sucks, right?).
465711
Still comparing things that are irrelevant to each other?\n\nBy the way, when did we take Iraq?  Seems to me the fighting is still going, despite "Mission Accomplished."
332645
Blah. I wonder this myself constantly.\n\nI personally believe no good will come out of this. I was discussing this with my American History professor, and she and I agree: this war is just another Vietnam. It started as a civil war Americans had no right involving themselves with, and now it has become extremely long and an absolute waste of our time.\n\nI absolutely hate people who say "It's for their own good; I know THEY don't think so, but it is." Who are we to decide what's best for others? Just because it works well for us (SUPPOSEDLY) it is the SUPREME form of government?! We are not those people's parents, their mother, their father, to determine what is best for them. We are a Super Power, yes, but we are not in control of other human's lives. There is nothing about Americans that makes us superior to Iranians, to Russians, to Australians, to anyone. \n\nIf our economy is rising, it is because we're producing machines for war. That's the concept plus Keynesian "priming the pump" that got us out of the Great Depression. And then, of course, the economy went into a slump afterward, so there you go. \n\nPeople believe this is a moral war. All it's doing is making forgein peoples hate us more for the common American attitude of superiority and "city on a hill"ishness from the Puritanical days. It's creating tension that doesn't need to be there that will hurt us and many people in the near future. We aren't "defending democracy." We aren't trying to "free" the Iranians. It's all a load of self-interest and a fake sense of superiority. \n\nI doubt Americans have any intention of paying for this war or any of their other debts. Most large powers don't. We learned before WWII not to demand repayment such as war reparations, because those played a large part of getting us into that particular war. \n\nAlso, I heard on NPR that Bush was thinking of changing the name from the "War on Terror" to the "Long War." \n\n"Blind patriotism." My thoughts exactly. Anyone who will follow something so blindly as to refuse to see the reality that the people Bush is making into our "enemy" are humans just like us is an idiot and should be ashamed of themselves. \n\nYes, at one point in time there WERE "weapons of mass destruction." Bush Senior gave them to them because they were afraid of being invaded by their neighbors. The U.S. had and has oil interests there and needed to preserve them, and so President Bush Senior gave them those weapons. U.S.-crafted. That is factual.\n\nBut whether or not they existed when our present President went in to look for them is VERY dubious. I and many intellectuals I know, some of them conservative while I am liberal, agree with me that it was a matter of oil interests. America hasn't been an independent oil-supply for a very long time now, and we are a highly mobile society. Hence there is a problem. \n\nFrance used to respect the U.S., during JFK’s presidency in the Cuban Missile Crisis, because it was its belief that we would never invade a country without solid proof. Do you see what has happened to America? In just forty short years, considering we are already such a young country, our foreign policy has turned from a very loved president’s, JFK’s, to George W. Bush’s aggressive, half-cocked launching of human beings blinded by patriotism for oil interests.
17835
they only have to win the "hearts and minds" of the Sunnis now, the Shittes and Kurds are peaceful, so far all of the bombings occour in the Sunni area (they account for 20% of Iraq's population) the US is also planning to withdraw 50,000 soldiers by the end of next year since the new government is in place and some Iraqi security forces have been trained.\n\nThere is no clearly defined victory in this case, we could (techinically) declare victory and leave but if we did that Iraq would be left in a state of turmoil which would hit the popularity level of the US more than if we stayed. The only way out is to get the people over there to work togeather, then we can leave them alone(until they start killing again).\n\nIraq cannot be compared to Vietnam since Vietnam had a clearly defined enemy that was clearly being defeated when media images of death and destruction reached the US. When we left all that was left defending Vietnam was a 1 million strong South Vietnamnese military(although corrupt could have won the war with US support within a month of the first US withdrawals) We in essensce abandoned South Vietnam when North Vietnam forces were weak and gave the communists enough time to recuperate and finally take down the corrupt South Vietnamnese military.\n\nPeople have no confidence in the US military, although the Generals did not have everything they wanted going into this war we can still bring "victory" this war isnt something we can pull out from easily because no matter what we do there are adverse effects. Although it wasnt very smart to fight in the first place, we are forced to go through with it.
553144
At this point, just leaving Iraq right now with the situation it's in is a recipe for disaster. If you think it's bad now, just imagine what it'll be like without us. On the other hand, it's more of a catch-22 than anything. If we keep staying in Iraq, insurgents will keep killing soldiers. If we leave, however, everything we've done will be for nothing. The closest thing we can do that would be considered winning in my opinion is to have a functioning government, an army that can hold it's own, and basically get Iraq back on it's feet. After that, then we should leave. If there is *no* way we can win the war without anything like divine intervention, then we might as well leave.
115290
we cant win for losing. Had we not acted against Saddam wed have been criticized for not taking a stand. We acted and now we are criticized for having been too aggressive.
183610
Sad but true, all wars since world war 2 have been conflicts. from korea to iraq. every generation has seen war. or as the gov calls it conflict. tell a soldger that korea, vietnam, panama, iraq 1, iraq 2 is not a war. i wouldnt but the gov would. they would tell them it was a conflict. messed up i think.
410224
Well...we were telling the truth.\n\nI know, Its hard for you to accept it and your whole ideology is crumbling down before you but the fact is...By invading Iraq we STOPPED saddam from making Nukes.\n\nthere it is in black and white in the old gray lady herself. \n\nNow why dont you come on over to the winning side. Youve been spoon fed lies.
585949
I agree/disagree.  We can win in the long run.  The hope is that 20 years from now Iraq will be economically stable and it's people jamming to the Eagle's. peace
563473
Gee i seem to understand that America had a few problems ourselves after the revolution.  I mean like a previous answerer stated Germany and Japan were not fixed overnight.  The biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam the Democrats would not let the military fight to win, but were more interested in making money on our dead 58,000 American soldiers than doing what needed to be done to help democracy succeed, but now the Republicans, much to the anger of the liberals, have turned the conflict over to the military so that they can do what they need to in order to win.  In wartime someone always makes money, but something you need to keep in mind is that most of the major conflicts America has been involved in the Democrats have squarely planted us in them.  You are so concerned with getting us out of Iraq, and so worried about the soldiers dying there, because Bush got us there, but you have said nothing about the American, and allied troops that still get into firefights in Bosnia!!!  Clinton put us there 11 years ago, and we still rotate troops there, but no says anything about Clinton's screwup!!  If you are going to ask these kind of questions, then at least have the balls, and intestinal fortitude to ask about ALL the places AMERICAN troops are dying in!!!!!
214934
I voted for him the first time, only because I was 19 and in the military and he promised a pay raise. The second election time I found my ass on the line in Bahgdad fighting for a war started for underlying interest. So I voted for Kerry, but you know what, Paul Wolfowitz said the military overseas vote wouldn't count due to security issues. Yet we blast our war strategies all over the media, can you see the irony in that?? I can sure as hell can.
390432
I can understand where you see the parallels. In America, we have become accustomed to quick, easy, almost bloodless victories. We love to turn on the evening news and watch another bridge get blown to pieces. I understand that you aren't talking about the amount of US casualties one or two above mentioned. I would have to say right now no, it's not another Vietnam.... Ask me again in a year.
60856
Milatarily, America can win any winable war...\npoliticly, and psycologicly, we are loosing, because we are ethnocentric, and think that every human bieng on earth is like us. Simply not the case.\n\nIraq is not a war we started, it was one we created, our enemy is mobile, and instead of just fighting terrorists in Afganastn, they will follow our military, many fighting in Iraq are forign to that country.\n\nAs for stay the coarse, it means to finish wat we started, wich i agree with, because to just duck n' run would only make things worse, I was against the war from day one, but if we leave now, it will destabilize (even more than it has) , and undergo at least one, if not a series of revolutions, resulting in hardliner theocracy worse than Iran, and any other current country you can think of combined.\n\nIt is not the easy choice to stay, Republicans would have you belive that it will only take a few years to transform Iraq, then it's one to the next war. This is simply not the case, as history has shown us, with examples like the philipines, it takes many years to radicly transform a nation. I belive that to bring about true democracy in Iraq, we will be there at least 30-60 YEARS!\n\nBottom line...\nWhat happened to a small part of the Iraqi population was terrible under sadam, but the majority of Iraqis were more content with life then than they are now.\nNot everyone dreams of playng baseball, listening to Garth Brooks and driving a ford (not that there is anything wrong with that!).\n\ngoring (see below) wrote - "note we are his subjects" WHAT THE F#*%, do you realy think the president is a KING!?
401700
I only listened to a little of his speech.  I thought that, overall, he is very conciliatory.  What was very concerning for me is the thought that the Democrats will in the next three to four years find a way to pull out of Iraq and leave it to chaos and eventual rule by Jihadists.  Unlike Vietnam, Jihadists are able and willing to attack us at home in the US.  Their goal is to convert or kill every man, woman and child. I don't want that fighting here.  I think it's time for me to take up shooting sports.
103985
I don't think you have got your facts quite straight on Vietnam. However, we are in a basic no win situation in Iraq until the people agree to solve their own issues. AlQeda will continue to surface wherever the US has interests to blame us for all the worlds problems. Iraq has 2 basic issues now, internal civil unrest and AlQeda based terrorist activities. We will have little effect over controlling either of them without support by the government of Iraq.\nThe parrallels between Iraq and Vietnam are that we have no firm exit strategy. When we do leave, it will not be a graceful exit. Removing Sadam was necessary and the succeeding government will have its problems internally and with Iran.\nUnderestimating the needs and desires of the Iraqi people and not understanding the Muslim culture will continue to be problematic for our government.\nI spent 2 years in Vietnam, in combat and am having the same emotions now that I had then, when our efforts went for naught.
476115
Sounds like a typical libterd statement. The Army and the republicans can't win with you no mater what. Stay the course, right thing to do, now and always!