Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Carlton

Marines to France

Recommended Posts

:(

 

OMG,

 

I just hope that the Iraqi don't turn on everyone like the Viet Cong did, Mate.

 

There are heaps of Innocent Soldiers from all over the World there, just like Nam.

 

:geezer::geezer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

 

 

The reason that this came up in Rome ..was due to an Italian TV crew getting access to Fallujah ...and then showing ..on Italian TV evidence of men women and children's bodies showing burns on the skin ..which did not appear to damage the clothes

That's remarkable to say the least...and obviously not WP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know people will hate me for this but I can't keep silent:

 

First, Bush's White House told lies to justify entering Iraq.

 

Second -- and more important -- the United States of America is not at war. Under the American constitution, very specific conditions must be met in order for the nation to be considered at war. These conditions have not been met. Rather, they have been ignored, scandalised and condescended to by both the administration and the Congress.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blushing:

 

War was never declared in Nam, either, Iain.

 

Initially Aussies and Yanks went in as Advisors to the South Viet Namese, Mate.

 

Looks like a very similar piece of work, many innocent Servicepeople Dead as a Result. Chemical Weapons? Yep, they have been used.

 

The World is getting smaller and smaller now.

 

I lost quite a few of my Personal Messages from my Message Box, just recently and one them was from you ?

 

:beer: :beer: :geezer::geezer:

Edited by Drovers Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially Aussies and Yanks went in as Advisors to the South Viet Namese, Mate

I was speaking to my audience Dog. Sorry if my lack of capture offended you.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of big differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The first one is that the N. Vietnamees Government was never toppled as was the Iraqi Government. The second one was that the soldiers in Vietnam were forced to fight under very strict rules of engagement. There is a lot more leeway in Iraq as far as the rules of engagement go. In Vietnam the politicians ran the war. They made the decisions on where to bomb and did all the strategic planning. The Iraq war is run by the Generals at the Penatagon and the commanders on the field.

 

I made those points to show that Vietnam is not neccessarily a fair comparison to Iraq. Things could be done better in Iraq and the insurgents do create a problem that is extending our stay there, but to say that 2000 troops killed in nearly three years versus nearly that many troops killed in a week of fighting in Vietnam is comparible is laughable. Iraq is it's own unique problem but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. There never was a light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam and we were there from 1963 to1974 with no real progress at stopping the communist from taking over.

 

I have no problem if you are just against the war. Just say so without having to twist the facts. Faulty intelligence does not mean that Bush lied about WMD's at the start of the war. France, Russia and China all said they had WMD's. So even though they were opposed to the war, they lied for Bush to have his war? That does not make sense. We all can agree there was a screw up and some one needs to be blamed. We need to blame the agencies responsible and fix the problems that led to faulty intelligence. Bush also needs to account for what he has done to actually fix these problems so they will never happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS, misty,

 

First, there was no North Vietnamese government, according to the American military regime that occupied South Viet Nam.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS, misty,

 

First, there was no North Vietnamese government, according to the American military regime that occupied South Viet Nam.

 

I

No that is BS. If there was no N Vietnamese Govrnment then who were we over there fighting? Doh. There was a N. Vietamese Government backed by the Soviets and China. Just because we did not officialy reconise them does not mean they never existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American presence in South Viet Nam was predicated upon the illegitimacy of Ho Chi Minh's authority in the north. You can't argue both sides of the coin.

 

I

Edited by Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American presence in South Viet Nam was predicated upon the illegitimacy of Ho Chi Minh's authority in the north. You can't argue both sides of the coin.

 

I

That isn't arguing both sides of the coin. Exitence does not confer legitimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exitence does not confer legitimacy.

The point being discussed is the legitmate target of war under the American constitution. I suggest the conflict in Iraq does not satisfy the requirements of war set out in the constitution of the United States of America.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me phrase it differently: Do you or do you not accept the Ameican constitution as the final court of appeal on matters moral and political? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me phrase it differently: Do you or do you not accept the Ameican constitution as the final court of appeal on matters moral and political? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

I

No. Absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being discussed is the legitmate target of war under the American constitution. I suggest the conflict in Iraq does not satisfy the requirements of war set out in the constitution of the United States of America.

 

I

I understand what is being discussed and my comment stands.

 

I will comment further on the Constitutional matter in a while. At the moment I am eating breakfast and the little woman is looking a bit irritated that there is more typing than eating going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.........matters moral and political?

Strikes me as a far too broad generalization. My answer would also be no cause a yes would be impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being discussed is the legitmate target of war under the American constitution. I suggest the conflict in Iraq does not satisfy the requirements of war set out in the constitution of the United States of America.

 

I

Yes, it does satisfy the Constitution, further Acts, and later court decisions.

 

Congress voted and gave the President the authority openly, outright, absolutely, clearly, and without question....they can do that, and did it.

 

If one wishes to argue over the term I think it just reduces the discussion to semantics. There are too many dead for me to let it be reduced to that. But feel free to dicuss it that way yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...