Iraqi Insurgency Vs. French Resistance?
924042
the French fighter caused heavy casualties on the German side, but did not impend progress due to the blitzkreig tactics\n\nin Iraq: the ones that kill fellow Iraqis of only 1 religon {shiite killing sunni} are in a civil war\n\nthe ones who target civillians and target whoever wherever {most forgeiners} are TERRORISTS\n\nthe ones who target U.S. forces ONLY are Freedom Fighers.
1106076
They are helping to rebuild the country and keep the insurgents down.  They're not intentionally killing anyone and having the constant threat of IED's definitely is not "just hanging around".  It's still very dangerous and volatile over there.  What the news doesn't tell you, that our soldiers know, is that the Iraqi people do appreciate all we're doing and sacrificing for them.  Very slowly, they are starting to help themselves, but we'll be assisting for quite some time.
178823
The Americans were trying to overthrow a government that refused to allow the people equal representation in parliament. \nThe French were trying to overthrow a government that refused to allow the people equal representation in parliament.\nSound familiar?
782358
Neither one.They will send more troops but less funding and will piss even more people off by utterly disrespecting the new Iraqi government forcing stronger ties between it and Al Sadr.
1136400
Well, that's what Dan Rather would want you to think is going on.  'Insurgent' kind of implies they are rebelling against their own government, so that is the wrong word.    Most of the terrorists fighting our forces and murdering Iraqi civillians are illegal immigrants from Iran.  They are young people poisoned by the preaching of Islamic Jihad in other countries, brainwashed into thinking they are doing some holy thing, and then smuggled into Iraq from Iran.  Iran is the big bad guy here.  Their extremist government is behind all the fighting.  The left-wing media outlets just want you to think George Bush is a bad guy because 1. They are primarily owned by foreigners with vested interestes in seeing the US effort in Iraq fail, and 2. They are left-wing nut-jobs themselves who want to see the Democrats take back all branches of the government so they can get the US to surrender its sovreignity to the UN and a worldwide communist government can begin.
361872
We stay the course.  The Iraqi security forces are growing and gaining experience.  The Iraqi economy is growing and the enemy is despised by the Iraqi people.\n\nThe only way we can lose now is if the anti-war movement stabs our soldiers in the back - again.
264514
Try a book called BREAKOUT AND PURSUIT by Martin Blumenson.  It is part of the series THE US ARMY IN WORLD WAR II.  Blumenson also has one called DUEL FOR FRANCE.
783246
Where the hell was i when we went back to Vietnam?!?!?!\n Trying to compare the Vietnam war to OIF is outrageously stupid. We went to into Vietnam because the french treated the Vietnamese like crap. As soon as we showed up the french jumped ship and left us high and dry then protested us being there. We got out of Vietnam war in 73. 75 is when Saigon fell. big difference, anyways  i digress. OIF happenede ecause saddam had al-queada training camps there. had his son uday purchase chemical weapons from the french and dutch. which he later used on the kurds. to assume that the vietnam war and OIF are the same is just retarded. Sam the communists stoped there take over of asia in vietnam. Research a thing called the domino effect.
1000150
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!!!!!
742349
There doesn't seem to be much of an armed militia. Do you mean "insurrectionists"? \n\nI suspect many of the Iraqi males have guns or weapons of some kind. That's part of the problem. Everyone can get his hands on weapons or explosives.\n\nThere is a better way to "win the war" than with guns.
246111
We are training Iraqi armed forces as well as police as an ongoing project.  The country has many internal problems between the different factions there.  The insurgents trying to incite a Civil War does not make the situation any better.  Almost daily we hear about attacks against the Iraqi Police, it is amazing that there are even people who want those jobs.  Things will eventually stabilize and the Iraqi's will be able to take over.
1100731
The French tried Bribery and it got them invaded anyways.\n\nLearn from History people, by the way we have lsot less lives in this War than any other War.\n\nWe spent tons of money on World War II\n\nobing is better than Bribery anyways cause if ya Bribe you'll get more demands for more Money, The Roman Empirenearly went Bankrupt cause they kept raising the Taxes to bribe the Visigoths and other tribes that launched Roman Invasions.
752501
110% agreement about your conclusion concerning France. Spain has already, for all intents and purposes, been defeated. \n\nLet me try and put this in context for the brain dead liberals:\n\nWhen the people in a country have been given the opportunity to form a government that answers to the people instead of the other way around, a government with leaders elected by the people with guaranteed rights and freedoms - and a small minority of Islamic radicals fights to prevent this, using terror tactics and the killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children - how can you possibly call these demented dirt bags, "freedom fighters?" \nJust what the hell is your definition of "freedom?"
687100
I'm sure there will be several posts to suggest that the recent violence in Iraq this month, and certainly during April, are evidence of a brewing civil war in Iraq, but the reality based upon fact, is simply not there.\n\nSati al-Husri, considered the 'father of modern Iraq,' purported before his death that there would be struggles within the frame of the Iraqi State because of the religious factions existing within her borders.  This is a fundamental issue, and the West has come to recognize it all too well.  \n\nHowever, despite Iraq's cultural/religious inequity, Sati taught his children and grandchildren, that Sunni Muslims of which sect he belonged, could equally coexist with the Shi'a and Kurds. There was no conflict in his family's inner circle.  He proved that enlightened intellectual thought could countermand extremist ideology without compromising religious piety.\n\nBut although al-Husri's ideas are easy to agree with, especially from a Western point of view, they are not so easy to implement, especially in the current climate of terrorism.\n\nThe underpinning to all of the conflict in Iraq is not a brewing civil war among its Muslim factions, but rather an insurgency that cannot see the value of peace in the Middle East.  They tend to look through their extremist eyes with a 'jihadi' philosophy.  The insurgents will attempt to insight the Iraqi people into warring with each other.  This is not for the gain of the Iraqi people; it merely creates the atmosphere of unsettled violence for them. And the insurgents could care less about an Iraqi unified state either. Instead, they want their terrorist agenda to move forward...at all costs.\n\nTo that end, they will foment unrest, spatter the media with words of 'Civil War,' and create a masterful stroke of using the West against itself.  Fortunately, the Iraqi people are resolved to follow Sati al-Husri's example:  Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of commerce are the seeds to grow an independent state.  Violence and terrorism have no place in such a united country.  Democracy is the manifold weapon against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, and the insurgents simply can't stand it.\n\nAs to the $4.00 gallon of gas, I doubt this will come to fruition, much as the media seems to hope it will.  We cannot discount those politicians who have a stake in the November elections either.  They seem to throw out this vague threat as though it were a weapon.\n\nThere is no doubt that we may come close to the mark in some sections of the country, especially over the summer months. But Americans in general will not accept this increase, and the government knows it.  So do the oil companies and our allies producing oil.  It is not in their best interests to price themselves out of the market.  There will likely be caps before the $4.00 per gallon rate is reached.  After all, once again, this is an election year.  Politicos have a reason to make sure the voters are looking at their names with favor. The first place the voter’s feel the pressure of Washington is at the pump.  You may be assured that the first place Washington will compromise is also at the pump.
340004
are you serious?? i think if the french ARMY encountered one battalion of the Royal Marines they would defacate in their ugly uniforms and surrender... or they would try to call the US and THEN surrender...
574053
The original premise for invading Iraq was the alleged presence of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and possible ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Both allegations have been proven false since the invasion.  Whether Saddam's overthrow has made the region more stable will not be answered for years, possibly decades.\n\nThere are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.  In both conflicts, our troops were not fighting an enemy which clearly identifies itself.  Another similarity shared by Iraq and Vietnam is the lack of well-defined goals for victory.\n\nWhile it has been speculated oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq, that remains largely unproven.  Statistically speaking, Canada and Mexico provide the largest chunk of imported crude oil to the United States, followed by Saudi Arabia.  It appears the decision to invade Iraq was based more on socio-political reasons (i.e. establishing a Western-friendly regime) than it was for acquiring natural resources.
818527
France....because:\n\na)  their uppity women have turned on too many of our men only to end up being a high priced tease of a date at evening's end.\n\nb)  if the invading US empire forces Frenchmen to shower at least twice a month, it will be seen as a humanitarian effort in a way that 'rebuilding Iraq' never will be\n\nc)  the war is likely to last about as long as a World Cup match and have a lower rate of casualities.