Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/28/2007 9:00:54 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1576610

re: we won every battle in nam and the liberals lost the war, just like they are trying to do in Iraq Now how can you win every battle and lose a war?

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/28/2007 9:08:35 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576610

It's sick to use US soldiers this way. We all know that. Bush's portrayal of Iraq edges closer to critics' by Olivier Knox Sun Jan 28, 4:40 PM ET Before the November US elections, President George W. Bush promised never to put US troops "in the crossfire" of Iraq's warring sectarian groups. Last week, he made clear that his new strategy would do just that. "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in," he told a war-weary US public in his annual State of the Union address, as he defended his decision to send 21,500 more US troops into battle. Bush gave no ground on that front to the opposition Democrats who harnessed the US public's anger at the war to take control of the US Congress for the first time in a dozen years, and signalled he would pursue his new strategy over their objections. But the president's portrayal of the situation in Iraq seemed to break with his pre-election insistence that he would not leave US forces ensnared between Iraq's Shiite militias or Sunni insurgent groups. "Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions," he assured US voters in an October 25 news conference. "The reality is that when the president spoke earlier, he was watching a steady rise towards a civil war all through the latter part of 2006," said Anthony Cordesman, a military affairs and Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. Now, Bush has given up his "relentless effort to spin the events in Iraq into successes" and has "simply recognized the reality in Iraq," Cordesman told AFP by telephone. "The president has effectively admitted that his previous statements were not credible. And if this current set of statements leads to further failures, it will lead to further damage," he said, adding: "You can admit past failures only if you move on to future success." A Republican congressional aide, who requested anonymity, said that Bush's rhetorical shift reflected the outcome of the November elections, which the aide described as a contest between two competing visions of Iraq. Voters "heard two stories: One of 'we're fighting a civil war in Iraq.' The other that 'we're fighting terrorists overseas so we don't have to fight them here at home,'" the official said. "From the results, it was clear more Americans, at least the ones who voted, believed we are in a civil conflict, civil war, whatever you want to call it," said the aide. "That has become the consensus view." Two senior US officials said that Bush's change in message reflected a change in the situation in Iraq and the overhaul of a US strategy that the president says will put US forces in a supporting role in Baghdad. "The Iraqis are in the lead," said White House national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "But they need our military assistance to help bring security to Baghdad." US troops "will support Iraqi troops in all of the districts of Baghdad," said Johndroe. "Sometimes that means going after Sunni insurgents, sometimes that will mean going after Shiite militias." Another senior administration official, who requested anonymity, stressed that the rules of engagement -- "whether we will be supporting the Iraqis kicking down doors or supporting from headquarters" -- will be decided by the new commander of US forces in Iraq, Army Lieutenant General David Petraeus. "There is a conscious desire not to, in supporting the Iraqis, make the job more difficult. In some cases, the presence of American forces might be welcomed, in others less so," said the official. Bush's pre-election statement was technically still accurate, because "in our view, we are not going to insert ourselves in the middle of it," the official said, referring to the deadly cycle of sectarian violence in Baghdad. Asked how that was possible, the official clarified that US forces would not merely be "caught in firefights" but would actively help Iraqi security go after sectarian and criminal elements that target each other and US soldiers.

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/29/2007 12:24:43 AM
From: denizen48	Respond to of 1576610

Did you serve in Nam?

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/29/2007 1:06:54 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576610

we won every battle in nam and the liberals lost the war, just like they are trying to do in Iraq What you talking about, we already won Iraq war 2. Won it 3-4 years ago. The liberals want to stop policing a foreign country.

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/29/2007 1:38:59 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1576610

Vietnam as a total disgrace and collosal tragic waste. Watch "fog Of War" the movie where Vietnam architect Robert McNamara confesses that it was all a big lie, a big hoax, millions of people dying for nothing, and totally unwinnable because in essence it was a civil war we had no business being in the middle of. And Vietnam was no real threat to us whatsoever. In fact the first thing they did once we left was kick out the Soviets and declare war against Red China. So much for the smearvets lack of facts and logic. The smearvets deserve to roast in hell for eternity.

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/29/2007 1:43:16 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1576610

Vietnam was unwinnable for the same reason as Iraq. Our poor troops thrown into the middle of a civil war in a strange country where we can't tell friend from foe and we have no reason being there in the first place. At least not without the UN and world community at our sides helping us. Liberals had nothing to do with winning or losing either war. LBJ, Nixon and Bush were the ones to blame. No one else. And in both excuses for wars our troops were the ones who paid the price while Halliburton types got stinking rich. In retrospect, only a mad man would not agree that we should have vacated Vietnam 5-6 yers before we did. It was unwinnable even in 1968. It was a total disasterous and dishonest mistake.

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/29/2007 1:46:52 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1576610

Iraq and Vietnam are similar in another way. In both cases the rightwing went insane and lost all touch with reality, getting thousands of our troops killed for no reason at all. Both wars were in fact huge criminal acts against everyone concerned and no one benefitted but Halliburton types and our enemies. if you love war so much, go enlist and die for Bush. You deserve exactly that, a bullet through the brain for Bush. You are a traitor to everything but the far rightwing fantasy myth.

To: longnshort who wrote (323422)	1/29/2007 1:58:23 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1576610

Not a single Bushie leader fought in Vietnam. All dodged it. But you say "liberals" lost it? How could they when they were the ones fighting it for the most part? Vietnam made liberals out of tens of millions of people. and for good reason. Because the rightwing lies. The rightwing seems to want to destroy our country and military. Why, I have no idea. You really should watch the film "Fog Of War" and learn something. You're really ignorant. Just pathetic. I'll bet you think Ollie North is a hero, huh? The guy who delivered missiles to Iran for no good reason? With heros like that who needs villains? Those same missiles are probably being used against our troops right now.