Author Topic: Quality of the Opponent (Read 1267 times)

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2003, 05:59:56 PM »

the troops didnt decide to invade, our government didnt decide to invade. one man did, i do not support him or the assertion anyone but he caused this war. and its repercussions.

Toad · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2003, 06:30:05 PM »

Yes, in our system of government one man decided to act against Hussein.

However, he COULD NOT act until the Representatives of All the People AUTHORIZED him to act against Iraq.

And they did. By a substantial majority in both houses.

US, Congress, "Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," New York Times, 11 October 2002

Quote

...Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,...

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The system worked exactly the way the system is supposed to work.

Our governement DID INDEED decide to invade.

Let's keep that truth out front in the discussions, eh?

Maverick · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2003, 10:45:27 PM »

Toad,

There you go adding facts to pop his perfectly timed rant. How dare you bring reality to the discussion!!!:mad:

Pongo · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:02:15 AM »

And if the congress had said no.

Toad · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:16:18 AM »

Then it wouldn't have happened.

It's real simple.

Airhead · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:31:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

The system worked exactly the way the system is supposed to work.

Our governement DID INDEED decide to invade.

Let's keep that truth out front in the discussions, eh?

Well, maybe the Congress agreed to attack Iraq, but the beautiful people in Hollywood, along with The Dixie Chicks and the French, thought it was a bad idea, and they're the people whose opinion counts most.

Oh, Crabofix and Nuke, I know you are, but what am I?

cars · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:41:11 AM »

Hiya MrLars,

Speaking as one who did a lot of convoy escort work, I was amazed at the long ranges involved in most of the "thunder runs" shown on the tube. Most of the ambushes I recall were a lot closer. I think the difference in terrain is a big factor. The desert doesn't provide the cover that would allow the Iraqis to get off effective fire without drawing HEAVY fire from multiple sources. In Nam Charlie would usually set up in a location where it was tough for more than a couple vehicles to return fire. With the old M48a3's ya gotta stop to hit anything with the main gun. To be able to shoot accurately on the move is an incredible advantage over the old days. My .02 is that the terrain allowed the US to bring overwhelming force to the point of contact by using accurate close air support and flanking moves that weren't possible to do in Nam. Nam just wasn't good tank country in general. Most of the time you were confined to the roads by heavy jungle or rice paddies. The Iraqis were scared and didn't seem to want to do more than fire a couple shots then run like hell. Charlie didn't seem that scared, Charlie would usually fight till grunts like MrLars would drive em off.

I don't think you can really compare Nam to Iraq. Different terrain, different equipment, VERY different enemy

cars

MrLars · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2003, 11:44:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by cars
Hiya MrLars,

My .02 is that the terrain allowed the US to bring overwhelming force to the point of contact by using accurate close air support and flanking moves that weren't possible to do in Nam. Nam just wasn't good tank country in general. Most of the time you were confined to the roads by heavy jungle or rice paddies. The Iraqis were scared and didn't seem to want to do more than fire a couple shots then run like hell. Charlie didn't seem that scared, Charlie would usually fight till grunts like MrLars would drive em off. I don't think you can really compare Nam to Iraq. Different terrain, different equipment, VERY different enemy

cars

HiYa cars..

Those thoughts came up from a few of the Nam Vets, the fact that Charlie could get within spitting distance unseen is something that the Iraqi's couldn't do easily but even if they could I don't think they had anything close to the fighting spirit we encountered.

Sometimes during our sessions we'll playback taped news reports and discuss the parallels we see, but most times when the high-tech weapons are shown what you hear from most is "damn, wish we had those/that"....hell, even things like MRE's seem to be a wonder to some of these gents...the mention of Ham and Lima beans always gets a funny reaction

MrLars · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2003, 11:56:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GrimCO

Come on guys! Have a heart... Please?

Personally, if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, it wouldn't have changed my mind that Saddam had to go one little bit. I would have supported our troops and our government the same way I do now. I would, however, have been even more saddened at the greater loss of American lives. I wouldn't like that part one little bit, but I would still vehemently support our troops.

Thanks Grim...I expected some to use this thread to spout off on some sort of agenda, signal to noise and all that.

Some of the guys in the group are still dealing with the crappy reception they recieved when they got back to the world. They ALL are very glad that that attitude hasn't happened to todays soldiers but at the same time they still feel slighted...that's what we are trying to deal with.

Thanks for the input!

Dowding · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2003, 11:58:38 AM »

I never could understand how so recently troops could be so badly treated at home.

Rude · « **Reply #25 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:00:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crabofix
Just stick to the Ugly truth and you be given one to.

Oh please....stop that right now....nothin worse than a grown mans self-rightous whinin.

Sheesh!

Rude · « **Reply #26 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:08:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the troops didnt decide to invade, our government didnt decide to invade. one man did, i do not support him or the assertion anyone but he caused this war. and its repercussions.

As it should be....Bush is our President...he should be held accountable. What he did is what a leader is supposed to do, not cowtow to every special interest on both sides of the isle, but lead.

If you don't like it, then vote him out....just stop the incessant crying about Bush this and Bush that....it makes you come off as a sore loser.

Btw....who's your man in 04?

Monk · « **Reply #27 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:11:22 PM »

Being a Gulf War vet, the support we recieved from the people back home made it a heck of alot easier. That, we learned from Vietnam.

You can't compare Vietnam to the Gulf at all. Totally different.

Iraqis as a fighting force, the US and UK troops are "Light Years" ahead in training and technology. It appears like the Iraqis were not a effective fighting force.

MrLars, tell your Vietnam Vet guys that because of them, alot less soldiers are dying today. I mean that in good way.

Oh ya, Tell them THANKS too.

SLO · « **Reply #28 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:21:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GrimCO
MrLars was requesting opinions to help his therapy group understand the varying opinions of the public on this subject. Once again it has turned into a pissing contest even with his legitimate request to keep it civil.

Come on guys! Have a heart... Please?

MrLars,

I think if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, the public opinion WOULD have been different in some cases. There are those who after Vietnam would rather tuck tail and run than encounter something of that magnitude again. Even though this conflict related to Vietnam in no way with it's goals and objectives, there are still those who are haunted by the memories of what happened in Southeast Asia.

Personally, if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, it wouldn't have changed my mind that Saddam had to go one little bit. I would have supported our troops and our government the same way I do now. I would, however, have been even more saddened at the greater loss of American lives. I wouldn't like that part one little bit, but I would still vehemently support our troops.

even though I'm not American.....and had no special relations to Vietnam.....

well said grim...sounds about right

Rude · « **Reply #29 on:** April 28, 2003, 12:24:26 PM »

We've learned how to wage war at the expense of past lives and resources...it's been a natural learning process.

Vietnam is no longer a mystery to the American public...our troops were poorly managed, the American public was lied to on a daily basis and politicians ran the war instead of qualified military leaders.

The only thing that still makes me angry about Vietnam is the loss of American life....we wasted life in an effort not to win the war, but rather to insure the survival of the American politic. Makes me sick to my stomach.

For those who would discredit in some way our current military effort in Iraq as being less than what it should have been, just because the Iraqi military was second rate, should not kid yourselves like that. We have learned to adapt our tactics accordingly....and thank God for that...handled incorrectly, we could have lost 100 times the lives we did inspite of a third rate Iraqi military.

Our Armed services along with the Defense department did a good job.