With 3000 of our military now dead,why is the American public allowing the "police action" in IRAQ to go on?
Can't ANYONE remember Vietnam?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I can remember that there were several opportunities to win but public opinion shifted and we caused the deaths of millions by running out before the job was done, and that conflict was mismanaged horribly.
I also remember that much of the antiwar sentiment was based on an erroneous idea of the strategic situation on the ground, and that a real knowledge of the situation was hard to come by, but it was obvious that Walter Cronkite had it bass-ackwards, and even as a teen I could see that he was not a reasonable source of info.
I also remember how antiwar sentiment and fools who thought they could negotiate in good faith cut the throats of both our troops and the ARVN and were proud of their unseemly self-righteousness.Source(s): I'm an old veteran.
- 1 decade ago
And what Doc fails to realize is that the paradigm of war has changed since Vietnam, let alone WW2. Wars simply aren't fought the same way anymore. The military doesn't attack en masse and overwhelm the enemy with bodies because it's pretty ineffective against an a military like the Chinese.
Whining that we aren't loosing the same amount of soldiers as back in the bad 'ole days is pretty lame considering the conflict was started on a completely false pretext.
- 1 decade ago
because the americans more specifically those who own stalks in weapons companies(G.W. bush Jr.) make money from the "police action" but at cost of making the trillion dollar dept even bigger all because the american gov't is barrowing money from the chinese gov't so they can keep their soldiers in iraq this tatic also takes the pressure off the gov't for one thing and keeping it on somthing they can control like a war A.K.A police action I expect that the chinese gov't purposes for supplying the americans has somthing a little more sinister at mind honestly I don't trust either the chinese go'vt or american gov't but the people in both countries were very nice when I visited them
- ErikaLv 44 years ago
Pat solutions do not serve your severe questions. i'm pleased with our militia as a results of fact my better half and young little ones serve and characteristic served in it. the US gained its very effective liberty interior the widespread war, and we positioned paid to Teutonic agression in WW1 and WW2. I agree, we've as lots ethical ideal to be in Afghanistan immediately as we did to be in Vietnam 40 years in the past, yet it somewhat is basically a hangover from the chilly war and the undeniable fact that we kissed Bin encumbered's *** and then lost administration, and that punishing Saddam for what Bin encumbered did is a lot like kicking your cat as a results of fact your spouse won't sleep with you. Wishing you like, laughter and song.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- sixgunLv 41 decade ago
It's because the sector of the American Public that holds most of the guns and money want it to go on.
- speakeasyLv 61 decade ago
Geneva conventions require that we maintain a force there until Iraq can handle its own police and defense needs. We are complying with the Geneva Conventions.
- Nancy DLv 71 decade ago
I think "DOC" has said it all and I thank him!!! I WAS going to say, also, that 3,000 is hardly nothing compared to many other wars. War is ugly, heartbreaking. I've lived through many wars and I will stand by our military 110%. They should be honored and we should be proud of every single thing THEY ARE TRYING TO DO for everyone. Not everyone is ever going to completely satisfied with any situation. So stop complaining and try your hardest to support everything our country stands for and what our military is trying to do. For what they are going through over there, they need ALL of our support and encouragement.
- DocLv 71 decade ago
I remember Vietnam. I served with a lot of guys who were in Vietnam. If we listen to the whining liberals and the media, it truly will be a repeat of history. 3,000 in 3 years? Think about this. In WW I, the average monthly death rate was 98,000 men. In WW II, Patton drove the U.S. 3d Army across France in '44. His average rate of loss was 1,300 men a month. But between 08Nov and 07Dec1944, he lost on average 812 a day. So my point here is that the liberals are completely incredible with their expectations of a zero loss war. 1,000 men a year for three years? That works out to 2.7 men a day.
Now, moving away from the morbidity reports associated to this war, let's look at what happens if we pull out before the Iraqi government is strong enough to support and defend itself -- as we were forced to do in Vietnam.
It is a given that the insurgents (terrorists) behind all of the bombings and murders are being sponsored by Iran and Syria. They're doing their best to further destabilize an already shakey situation. That Nelson of Florida and Kerry of Mass. have gone to Syria without State Department approval to try and negotiate does not help the situation. Should we pull out early, those two countries stand ready to over-run the border and take over the oil producing capabilities of Iraq. Think about this, two countries who both sponsor terrorism, being incharge of most of the world's oil. Can you kiss your economy good-bye? How much do we rely on oil? To manufacture steel? Plastics? Rubber? Energy? I promise you, the world as you currently know it, will cease to exist.
My recommendation to you is to either pick up a gun or smoke another joint and shut your mouth and leave the dirty work to the real men of the world. Stand up or step aside. Some of those 3,000 were personal friends of mine.
****The next day****
What "Hotwad" doesn't seem to realize are two basic points. First, the war was NOT started on a false pretext. The war is a continuation of the first Gulf War (AKA Desert Shield/Storm), which was brought to an end with a U.N. Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement that was repeatedly broke by Saddam Hussein and that the U.N. was too corrupt with the French, Germans and Russians accepting bribes in the "Food For Oil Program" to itself uphold. It should NOT have been up to the U.S. to then have to form a new coalition to do the U.N.s job, but no one else had spine enough. The threat of WMD was VERY real, considering Saddam's unabashed use of them in the past on his own people. That Jimmy Carter gutted the CIA and left this country virtually blind and relying heavily upon foreign aid for it's intel is a crime unto itself, but no one seemed to care in the years that followed to do anything about that. And my second point is that you can bomb them back into the stone ages all you like, but you cannot secure the position (and win the war) until you commit and put boots on the ground. And here's where you may have just cause to dislike Rumsfeld and Bush. When it was originally presented to the Joint Chiefs, they came back with a number of projected troops needed to do the job. Rumsfeld cut that number in half and Bush approved. If we'd had enough boots originally, we could have secured the borders AND the national treasures. I doubt that you would be willing (or able) to recall that the excessive bombings and murders began as the new government of Iraq was beginning to form and the coalition forces were winding down. Had those borders been secured properly -- including to Saudi Arabia, the likelihood of the current situation arising is much slimmer if almost non-existant. Until we secure those borders and strangle/exsanguinate the flow of incoming insurgents (terrorists) we will be hard pressed to stop the hemorrhage of bloodshed caused by an un uniformed group who can come and go at will because they can esily hide behind civilians, women and children. Having not learned much of anything from the "Vietnam Experience," the mindset of our (military) leaders is not geared towards fighting such a force. Sometimes, an extreme presence, leaving such a large footprint that it seems we have men (and women) standing about with their thumbs up their butts is truly the only viable solution. Much to the dismay and disgruntlement of a generation who does not understand the definition of "Sedition" or "Treasonous Speech." Honestly, as much as you may disapprove and disavow, you must someday recognize that the leader of al Qaida in Iraq and the "President" of Iran both made quite a point when they commended the American people for having voted in the Democrats in the November elections -- as reported on CNN's Headline News the morning after those elections. They REALLY do pay attention to what we say and do here, and your words, only give cause to aid and comfort those terrorists who wish only to do us grave harm.Source(s): I did 20+ years with the Corps. What have YOU done for your country? And upon retirement, I went back and got a BA in History
- 1 decade ago
Just because 3,000 of are boys died( GOD Bless there souls) in an unpopular war, doesn't mean that we should cut in run, like little PUSSY'S. And your a pussy for not joinin' up and puting foot to *** For youre COUNTRY!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
What are we as the public suppose to do? Neither side (democrats or republicans) are gonna do anything to pull the troops out.