Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 10/25/2006 1:33:39 PM EST
Is the current rise in the conflict the insurgencies "last hurrah" to attempt to turn the tide and influence opinion before the next election?

Is this their last "all out" attempt to change public opinion? Are they hoping for another "Madrid" victory?

Will they be successful?
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:41:29 PM EST
They know as well as us that we have elections coming up.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:45:29 PM EST
I've heard "Tet Offensive," too. I sure hope it won't be successful...

I can't fault them for trying, given people's eagerness to surrender.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:47:09 PM EST
Why does everyone insist that we'll cross the last hump and be done? It will be a decade before this thing comes together.

Ya'll need to settle in, this will take a while.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:47:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 1:55:37 PM EST by Keith_J]

Originally Posted By General_Tso:
I've heard "Tet Offensive," too. I sure hope it won't be successful...

I can't fault them for trying, given people's eagerness to surrender.


Tet was a failure of the NVA. In fact, we never lost a single battle in Vietnam.

During Tet, the combined forces of the South numbered about 50,000. We lost 4,324 KIA (1,536 US) and 16,063 wounded (US 7,764). The combined PLAF/PAVN had combined strength of 85,000 and lost over half KIA. Very few escaped without injury.

Likewise in Iraq.

Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:49:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Is the current rise in the conflict the insurgencies "last hurrah" to attempt to turn the tide and influence opinion before the next election?

Is this their last "all out" attempt to change public opinion? Are they hoping for another "Madrid" victory?

Will they be successful?

Yes.
Last attempt? I don't know about that. But I think they are to the desperation stage.
I think a Madrid victory would suit their purposes just fine.
I hope not, but I fear they will be.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:57:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 1:58:19 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Is the current rise in the conflict the insurgencies "last hurrah" to attempt to turn the tide and influence opinion before the next election?

[Dick Cheney]

The proper term is "last throes".

[/Dick Cheney]



Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:13:58 PM EST
I will be thinking of the men and women lost this month when I cast my vote.

I won't let the losses of their lives be in vain by voting to give up.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:17:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By General_Tso:
I've heard "Tet Offensive," too. I sure hope it won't be successful...

I can't fault them for trying, given people's eagerness to surrender.


Well, they need to remember that at the Battle of the Bulge and the Tet offensive, the ones we were fighting lost each time.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:18:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 2:39:35 PM EST by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:21:07 PM EST
I'm afraid that a better analogy would that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:29:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:29:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I'm afraid that a better analogy would that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.


...Except Stalingrad was a defeat that led to the first German Field Marschall surrendering on the field of battle. How many times have US soldiers surrendered to the enemy in Iraq? There are other huge differences but I'll leave it at this: just because we're actually in a fight doesn't mean we're getting our asses kicked.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:32:43 PM EST
Nope. Big push by us and the Iraqi forces against the enemy to "secure Baghdad" => more targets on the street => more casualties.

Also, the longer we're there means that Darwin weeds out the dumb insurgents, and the remainder get better trained and develop better tactics.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:34:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I'm afraid that a better analogy would that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.


I am afraid that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It looks bleak??????????
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 2:44:27 PM EST
If the GOP takes a big hit on this Election. I am hoping that the President would step onto the plate...Unleash the Army, and take Full Responsibility .
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 5:54:11 PM EST
You what happened to the German Reich after the Battle of the Bulge right?
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:00:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By ShiningPath:
If the GOP takes a big hit on this Election. I am hoping that the President would step onto the plate...Unleash the Army, and take Full Responsibility .


We're talking about the same president, right? Bush? And you used "Bush" and "responsibility" in the same sentence?
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:02:41 PM EST
No, this is not their Battle of the Bulge. There are lots of poor people in Iraq that the Iranians can pay to kill Americans and the Iranians have a lot of money to do so. There are lots of martyr wannabes in the Arab world that are willing to be trained by the Syrians (with Iranian money) to do the same thing. It won't end until we settle matters in Iran and Syria and scare the shit out of the Saudis. Which does beg the question of why the fuck we went into Iraq, but that is a topic for a different evening.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:31:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Tet was a failure of the NVA. In fact, we never lost a single battle in Vietnam.

During Tet, the combined forces of the South numbered about 50,000. We lost 4,324 KIA (1,536 US) and 16,063 wounded (US 7,764). The combined PLAF/PAVN had combined strength of 85,000 and lost over half KIA. Very few escaped without injury.

Likewise in Iraq.

Are you being didactic and literal, or do you not get it? (<--- Serious question, not meant to be as sarcastic as it sounds reading it back.)

Tet 1968 proved to those eager to be convinced that they had been lied to all along about how much damage we were doing to the VC/NVA in Vietnam. Even though Tet meant the end of the VC as a fieldable military force, the damage was done. Ho Chi Minh and General Giap knew that they weren't fighting to kill more American troops than the Americans killed of the VC/NVA. All they had to do was influence the press and decision makers in the US that they weren't going to give up, and convince them that they were suffering less damage than they actually were, that they could continue the fight almost indefinitely.

Congress cut off all funding to RVN in 1973. The NVA invaded RVN in 1975 and the US stood by and watched. If you don't think the Special Republican Guards and AQ in Iraq have read their history...


I get it fully. The problem is thinking the mass of the United States is glued to the modern equivalent of Walter Cronkite. But Katie's numbers are falling faster than Buddy Hollie in a Beechcraft. And the credibility gap of the remaining dinosaur media isn't much better.

Most damning, the Congress is far from ready to throw in the towel, even considering the present numbers of surrender monkeys on the left sides of the aisles.

Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:36:50 PM EST
I don't think its anywhere near a last gasp effort on their part, and it appears they have more patience for the long haul than the American public.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 7:03:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 7:52:34 PM EST by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I'm afraid that a better analogy would be that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.


I am afraid that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It looks bleak??????????


Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals.

Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment.
-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die.
-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority.
-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases).
-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one.
-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude.
-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 7:02:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals. So, you believe everyone else just because they are NOT in a position to know what is going on, huh.


Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment. Who says too few men? Your aforementioned "experts"? The only lack of total committment is from the left and folks like you.

-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die. Oh, all the people of Iraq are that way, huh. I guess all those smiling people with the purple thumbs don't count. You really listen to CNN too much.

-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority. Which atrocities would that be? Nazi like? Again, too much CNN.

-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases). One or two who were iffy to begin with. It really is not as bad as you hope.

-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one. Gee, WWII ring a bell? Geez, again with the CNN talking heads. Neither you nor they know nearly as much as you think you do.

-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude. Which historical precendent would that be? Again, WWII?

-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit. Could you be specific? Nah, you leftists like to keep things very general, don't you.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.


I guess with you and the rest of the left, it's either all about the quick fix or cut and run.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 10:37:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals. So, you believe everyone else just because they are NOT in a position to know what is going on, huh.


Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment. Who says too few men? Your aforementioned "experts"? The only lack of total committment is from the left and folks like you.

-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die. Oh, all the people of Iraq are that way, huh. I guess all those smiling people with the purple thumbs don't count. You really listen to CNN too much.

-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority. Which atrocities would that be? Nazi like? Again, too much CNN.

-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases). One or two who were iffy to begin with. It really is not as bad as you hope.

-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one. Gee, WWII ring a bell? Geez, again with the CNN talking heads. Neither you nor they know nearly as much as you think you do.

-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude. Which historical precendent would that be? Again, WWII?

-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit. Could you be specific? Nah, you leftists like to keep things very general, don't you.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.


I guess with you and the rest of the left, it's either all about the quick fix or cut and run.


No need for name calling, shipmate. You don't know me, you don't know shit about my politics. Don't make assumptions.

All we are doing is making analogies. I made my analogy. I agree that it is far from perfect. However, it is no more imperfect than the Battle of Bulge or Tet comparisons.

What really irks me is your conclusion that anyone considering "truths" other than those put forward by those in power is somehow a defeatist, a leftist or a traitor. While that sort of thinking might have been popular in North Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, it has no place in my country. It always amazes me when other veterans, who served in the name of our freedoms, are the first to squash debate and dissent.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:18:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals. So, you believe everyone else just because they are NOT in a position to know what is going on, huh.


Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment. Who says too few men? Your aforementioned "experts"? The only lack of total committment is from the left and folks like you.

-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die. Oh, all the people of Iraq are that way, huh. I guess all those smiling people with the purple thumbs don't count. You really listen to CNN too much.

-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority. Which atrocities would that be? Nazi like? Again, too much CNN.

-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases). One or two who were iffy to begin with. It really is not as bad as you hope.

-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one. Gee, WWII ring a bell? Geez, again with the CNN talking heads. Neither you nor they know nearly as much as you think you do.

-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude. Which historical precendent would that be? Again, WWII?

-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit. Could you be specific? Nah, you leftists like to keep things very general, don't you.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.


I guess with you and the rest of the left, it's either all about the quick fix or cut and run.


No need for name calling, shipmate. You don't know me, you don't know shit about my politics. Don't make assumptions.

All we are doing is making analogies. I made my analogy. I agree that it is far from perfect. However, it is no more imperfect than the Battle of Bulge or Tet comparisons.

What really irks me is your conclusion that anyone considering "truths" other than those put forward by those in power is somehow a defeatist, a leftist or a traitor. While that sort of thinking might have been popular in North Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, it has no place in my country. It always amazes me when other veterans, who served in the name of our freedoms, are the first to squash debate and dissent.


When the "truths" are made up bullshit by those who don't really know nor care what is going on, they usually are leftists and many who believe their half assed "truths" are either defeatists or leftists.

I notice you did not answer any of the questions such as all the "Nazi-like atrocities". Well, tell us about those things. Don't sit there and bitch about me calling bullshit on this, tell about those "atrocities".

It's not squashing dissent, it's asking you to be specific and prove what you post. I want to know all about these "Nazi-like atrocities", the "expert" who claims to know that we have too few men on the ground, those who say the average Iraqi citizen is "hopeless", etc.

You can call it "squashing dissent" all you want, but I just want some specifics on your allegations.

It always amazes me that people post statements like you did and won't verify them or be specific, instead choosing to speak in great generalities that carry no weight at all except with those gullible enough to bite.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:25:22 PM EST
I think it is closer to the Tet offensive. The bad guys are trying to influence teh elections in the states because they would prefer Americans elected a goverment who wrote strongly worded warning as opposed to invading sacred ground.

I think they are using all the money, equipment, & men they have to make the US looks weak.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:28:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I'm afraid that a better analogy would be that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.


I am afraid that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It looks bleak??????????


Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals.

Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment.
-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die.
-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority.
-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases).
-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one.
-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude.
-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.



SHUT THE FUCK UP
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 12:28:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By SS109:
I think it is closer to the Tet offensive. The bad guys are trying to influence teh elections in the states because they would prefer Americans elected a goverment who wrote strongly worded warning as opposed to invading sacred ground.

I think they are using all the money, equipment, & men they have to make the US looks weak.


Probably a better comparisson but mostly the same point I was trying to make. I just didn't want to use the "Tet" example because people in the US feel for it.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 1:10:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I'm afraid that a better analogy would be that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.


I am afraid that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It looks bleak??????????


Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals.

Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment.
-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die.
-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority.
-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases).
-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one.
-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude.
-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.
SHUT THE FUCK UP

ROFLMFAO!!!



Link Posted: 10/26/2006 1:13:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Is the current rise in the conflict the insurgencies "last hurrah" to attempt to turn the tide and influence opinion before the next election?

Is this their last "all out" attempt to change public opinion? Are they hoping for another "Madrid" victory?


"Last hurrah"? Probably not.

Attempt to shift an election? Definitely.


Will they be successful?


It would seem they may very well be.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 1:20:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals.

Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment.
-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die.
-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority.
-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases).
-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one.
-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude.
-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.



We have a whole army group surrounded, starving, and running out of ammo inside a salient? We have suffered roughly 740,000 casualties? We are surrounded by a million and a half man army with tanks and air supperiority?


Dude, you are freakin nuts.


Also Nazi like attrocities? Let me know when we set up gas chambers in Iraq. Our attrocities are more Frat like than Nazi like.

ZOMG! THEY MADE THAT GUY GET NAKED AND POINTED AT HIM!!!!!!! THEY ARE LIKE DR.MENGELE!!!!
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 1:23:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:Probably a better comparisson but mostly the same point I was trying to make. I just didn't want to use the "Tet" example because people in the US feel for it.


Yeah, with Iran being North Vietnam, sending men to the South through Cambodia (Syria) With France, Russia and China being, China, supporting the insurgency with arms and technology.

Calls for Operation Linebacker X, strategic bombing of the North (Iran), the only way to kill the insurgency.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 1:47:02 PM EST
The tactical situation is far from bleak.

The big picture, long term? Bleak, as long as we keep trying enforce a pipe dream of American style democracy.

These crazy fuckers over here are divided by national identity, ethnic origin, religious belief,degree of religious belief, tribal membership, former and current political affiliation, geographical location, economic status, educational level, favorite fucking soccer team and everything and anything else you can imagine; and everybody hates and fears everybody else thats on the other side of any of those lines.

Its a complex sea of shifting alliances and nobody is even close to being done killing their enemies with the exception of the level headed middle class and professional people who are fleeing the country just as fast they can.

Its a giant fucking mess and it ain't getting better soon.

On the bonus side, I got into some great contact last month. I wish every month was Ramadan.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 2:16:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Not a very intelligent response.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 3:12:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By RustedAce:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yes, it looks bleak. Every indication not coming from Bush, Rumsfeld or some other neo-con clown's mouth is that our operations are failing to meet any of our limited goals.

Some of the commonalities:
-Just as in Barbarossa, we crushed our foes in a short period and claimed a massive amount of territory.
-Likewise, we now find ourselves technically superior, but with too few men and a lack of total committment.
-Our forces are surrounded by hopeless, uneducated, and desperate people with an ugly, though undeniable, willingness to die.
-Through a series of horrendous, Nazi-like attrocities, we have now lost much of our moral authority.
-Our allies are weak and making best speed towards home (Italians in both cases).
-We foolishly started a war on two fronts, without the finishing either one.
-We blew off historical precedent with a cavaliar and arrogant attitude.
-We are lulling the homefront with bullshit.

The obvious differences:
-We aren't going to get beaten back to home territory.
-We aren't fighting a government or even a military
-We aren't Nazi thugs
-The enemy doesn't have any industrialized, competent allies.
-We've got our Stalin sitting in jail.



We have a whole army group surrounded, starving, and running out of ammo inside a salient? We have suffered roughly 740,000 casualties? We are surrounded by a million and a half man army with tanks and air supperiority?


Dude, you are freakin nuts.


Also Nazi like attrocities? Let me know when we set up gas chambers in Iraq. Our attrocities are more Frat like than Nazi like.

ZOMG! THEY MADE THAT GUY GET NAKED AND POINTED AT HIM!!!!!!! THEY ARE LIKE DR.MENGELE!!!!


I think you are all missing the point. It is not that I actually believe this is our Stalingrad. I just think that this is a better analogy then Tet or the Bulge. None of them is a perfect match; I'm just making my argument. As RustedAce, LarryG and myself have all pointed out, the differences are obvious. There is nothing here worth getting upset about or worth the childish name calling. If you want to only talk to people who agree with you 100%, turn off your computer and talk into the mirror.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 5:01:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Not a very intelligent response.


Maybe… but it was a completely appropriate response to that stupidity.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 6:17:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By SS109:
I think it is closer to the Tet offensive. The bad guys are trying to influence teh elections in the states because they would prefer Americans elected a goverment who wrote strongly worded warning as opposed to invading sacred ground.

I think they are using all the money, equipment, & men they have to make the US looks weak.


Probably a better comparisson but mostly the same point I was trying to make. I just didn't want to use the "Tet" example because people in the US feel for it.


How about Dien Bien Phu?
Although we have the advantages in equipment, they continue to bleed us cut by cut. And they know politically we can't take the casualties that they can.
And our allies are slowly drifting away.
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 6:22:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Is the current rise in the conflict the insurgencies "last hurrah" to attempt to turn the tide and influence opinion before the next election?

Is this their last "all out" attempt to change public opinion? Are they hoping for another "Madrid" victory?

Will they be successful?

No. Its what life will be like in Iraq until a bigger and tougher group takes over. Being repressed for decades under a strong hand does that.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 11:35:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2006 11:37:08 AM EST by General_Tso]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Tet was a failure of the NVA. In fact, we never lost a single battle in Vietnam.

During Tet, the combined forces of the South numbered about 50,000. We lost 4,324 KIA (1,536 US) and 16,063 wounded (US 7,764). The combined PLAF/PAVN had combined strength of 85,000 and lost over half KIA. Very few escaped without injury.

Likewise in Iraq.

Are you being didactic and literal, or do you not get it? (<--- Serious question, not meant to be as sarcastic as it sounds reading it back.)

Tet 1968 proved to those eager to be convinced that they had been lied to all along about how much damage we were doing to the VC/NVA in Vietnam. Even though Tet meant the end of the VC as a fieldable military force, the damage was done. Ho Chi Minh and General Giap knew that they weren't fighting to kill more American troops than the Americans killed of the VC/NVA. All they had to do was influence the press and decision makers in the US that they weren't going to give up, and convince them that they were suffering less damage than they actually were, that they could continue the fight almost indefinitely.

Congress cut off all funding to RVN in 1973. The NVA invaded RVN in 1975 and the US stood by and watched. If you don't think the Special Republican Guards and AQ in Iraq have read their history...


I get it fully. The problem is thinking the mass of the United States is glued to the modern equivalent of Walter Cronkite. But Katie's numbers are falling faster than Buddy Hollie in a Beechcraft. And the credibility gap of the remaining dinosaur media isn't much better.

Most damning, the Congress is far from ready to throw in the towel, even considering the present numbers of surrender monkeys on the left sides of the aisles.



What I was saying is that I hope their efforts aren't successful. However, the whole concept that "Tet was a failure" or "we never lost a battle in Vietnam" completely ignores the kind of war Vietnam was. General Giap was willing to sacrifice tactical losses for a strategic victory. Read People's War, People's Army. These people were committed to winning, and they understood how to fight a war on all fronts: political, propaganda, guerilla, etc. If they were so unsuccessful, how come they still rule Vietnam? Look: www.vietnam.gov.vn. Vietnam's strategy was successful.

I'm not saying to throw in the towel; I'm just hoping the American people don't loose the will to fight. I have every confidence the American military can win if the people let it. But there's plenty of Americans who are saying the sky is falling...
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 11:43:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By whoanelly:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I'm afraid that a better analogy would that we are the Germans, and this is our Stalingrad. It looks pretty bleak.


...Except Stalingrad was a defeat that led to the first German Field Marschall surrendering on the field of battle. How many times have US soldiers surrendered to the enemy in Iraq? There are other huge differences but I'll leave it at this: just because we're actually in a fight doesn't mean we're getting our asses kicked.




Best comment in this thread.

Guys, remember the media influence ON ALL OF US: 3 dead American soldiers = "heavy casualties in Iraq today"

We damn sure have forgotten how to fight a war, and I mean that literally (politicians tieing the hands of our forces) and figuratively (our citizens now believe and are influenced by that same scumbag leftist media).


CMOS
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 5:33:45 AM EST
We have to remember not only are we fighting the insurgents and the Shiite Militia, we are fighting a 5th Column in this country, Limousine Liberals & the Main Stream Media.

When they found the general public wasn't too upset about the very low casualty rates, they included the casualty rates of all of Iraq, including the bad guys.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 5:36:07 AM EST
I can't help but laugh at ANY comparison between today and WWII.

Shit, we fought THAT ONE to win.


God bless the troops, they could handily get the job done if only the brasshats would let them do it.
Top Top