Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "But unlike you, that generation possessed the will to defend itself and NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT."
WW2 was a symmetric full scale war, which are frequently decided on the basis of simple economic power (so long as neither side gets in an effective "sucker punch"). The US side had an economic advantage against the other of about 4 to 1. The war was easily won, requiring only a half decade.
Vietnam was not so easily won. While the US did have very strong economic advantages (which have been important for war for thousands of years), the war was not a symmetric one. That is, the war was not a contest where the winning conditions were equal for both sides.
This is in comparison to WW2, where the victory conditions were symmetrical between the allies and the axis. That is, you win by capturing the other side's homeland.
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, a victory for the US was defined as the creation of a stable country aligned with the US. In contrast, a Communist victory did not require that the country be stable or aligned. In short, the US would win only if the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people was won.
What makes Iraq unwinnable is not because people of my "ilk" are able to accept defeat, or, for that matter, are unwilling to CAPITALIZE THEIR DRIVEL. What makes Iraq unwinnable is a combination of many facets of a complicated and interlocking situation.
Here are some comments of mine that you have not commented on. I'm repeating them because I believe that these are the portions of your argument that are weakest:
(1) If Bush has proved anything in going into Iraq, it's that the local population has "veto power" over the pumping of oil. By the way, this was something that anyone who knows a rat's ass about the oil industry already knew.
(2) The Saudi Royal family is huge. With that many people, and with the way that the Arabs love bin Laden, it would be a miracle if there were not any supporters among those thousands of members.
(3) Iraq has never had fundamentalist rulers, so how the hell do you think that they're gonna figure out that those rulers that they've never had are just as corrupt and inept as their secular leaders? In Iran, the people figured out what you point out about fundamentalist leaders, only by direct experience.
(4) By the way, those corrupt and inept secular leaders in Iraq you're talking about. [Note: you must look at this from the point of view of the Iraqi people, not from the point of view of yourself, LOL.] Would those be leaders like the ones who corruptly suppressed evidence that the Iraqis had no WMDs, lied about it in public, and then went back on their word and attacked Iraq? The ones who the Iraqi people are convinced are only there to support Israel and to steal their oil? Or would it be the inept secular authorities in Iraq that can't pump oil, keep electricity running, stop looting, prevent constant attacks, etc.? Unless you actually name names, your posts can get confusing.
(5) The fact is that we won the battle for the hearts and minds in Iran without invading and occupying their country. But you reject this lesson of history.
(6) We can make Arab leaders and governments support the war on terror (by threatening to kill them), but the fact is that they are as impotent in stopping terrorists from freely operating out of their own territory as we are at stopping terrorists from operating out of Iraq, or the Israelis are at stopping terrorists from operating out of the Occupied Territories.
(7) That means that just to stay even, we have to kill about 20,000 people per year. But we're not even coming close to that.
(8) This whole argument that our allies are going to come give us a hand in an important war (required to save civilization) applies to the Vietnam war, where our allies, despite the evident falling of the first domino, left us to keep the dominoes vertical on our own.
(9) Our military is stretched too thin to substantially augment the troops in Iraq. We are slowly being forced to fish or cut bait. I doubt that the administration will fish, as that would require a military draft, which would motivate millions of college age kids to vote Democratic, LOL. Or maybe they can come up with an advertising scheme similar to the one that got millions to volunteer in 'Nam, LOL.
(10) You will be disappointed. More likely the UN and various other neutral aid providers will pull out as they are increasingly targeted.
So. Are you too afraid to answer the above 10 points? Running from the facts?
-- Carl |
