Split topic- From the AA board

[Seatacus]

Yea Seatacus American combat troops were involved from 1959, but not in large numbers until 1965. I suspect prior to 1965 it was mostly covert operations and the like.

OK... but from what I heard is that all troops before 1965 were there in an advisory position even though we did have casualties. 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution and 1965 marines were sent to Da Nang.

 

[bagstacker]

Yea Seatacus American combat troops were involved from 1959, but not in large numbers until 1965. I suspect prior to 1965 it was mostly covert operations and the like.

Here's a good link:Eisenhower and Dien Bien Phu

 

[Seatacus]

I say we tell the world that we came to Iraq to get rid of Hussein (which we did), we attempted to bring an open society to Iraq but the Iraqi people chose to accept it. We made an honest effort but are leaving now. So, if the rest of the Arab nations want to try and help, you are more than welcome to lend a hand to these folks. Our last troops we be out of Iraq on Xxx ##, 200#.

At that point, we adopt a stance such as Israel that if you attack our interests, we will hunt you down and attack yours. No more land grabs. No more occupations. They obviously don’t work.
So, what's your plan? You do have one right?

OK so your plan is to pull out, right?

My plan? Stay the course. Finish the job.


Well, gotta go, the Food Chanel is showing how to make quiche..........

 

[delldude]

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

Don't you hate being stupid?

(Where is the FU Icon?) UT

as UAL tech infers and up until about 1964...we did have troops there not in a combat capacity but as advisors...when the MERDE hit THE Ventilateur we became obligated.

 

[local 12 proud]

OK so your plan is to pull out, right?

My plan? Stay the course. Finish the job.
Well, gotta go, the Food Chanel is showing how to make quiche..........

Short and precise, to the point Seatacus.

Sentrido must be beside himself...

 

[TWAnr]

Excerpts:

Aug. 24, 2006 1:18 | Updated Aug. 24, 2006 4:23
Iran is 'chief beneficiary of the war on terror'
By GEORGE CONGER

The Anglo-American war on terror has had the unintended consequence of making Iran the dominant power in the Middle East, a London think tank concluded on Wednesday, creating a state of affairs which will prompt hard diplomatic choices for Israel in the coming year.

The report stated "The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments, [the Taliban and Saddam Hussein], but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

Chatham House argued that while the US had the "upper hand in hard power projection", Iran had successfully mastered the art of "soft power," using its "culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills" to gain the political upper hand in the region.

As a result, "The US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region," the report noted.

Iran's hegemony over its neighbors had emboldened its attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and "helps explain why Iran feels able to resist western pressure."

Iran continues to prevaricate, feeling confident of victory as conditions turn ever more in its favor," the report stated.

The Jerusalem Post

 

[Garfield1966]

as UAL tech infers and up until about 1964...we did have troops there not in a combat capacity but as advisors...when the MERDE hit THE Ventilateur we became obligated.

All I know is the link I provided said there were combat troops on the ground. Not advisors, not advisory troops, not tourists. Combat troops. I am guessing they were not their to take in the sights. But hey, if you were there and know there were no combat troops on the gound, I'll take your word for it.

OK so your plan is to pull out, right?

My plan? Stay the course. Finish the job.
Well, gotta go, the Food Chanel is showing how to make quiche..........

Um .. question. What is the course and what is the job? No one has ever come up and stuck with one answer for that.

 

[UAL_TECH]

All I know is the link I provided said there were combat troops on the ground. Not advisors, not advisory troops, not tourists. Combat troops. I am guessing they were not their to take in the sights. But hey, if you were there and know there were no combat troops on the gound, I'll take your word for it.
Um .. question. What is the course and what is the job? No one has ever come up and stuck with one answer for that.

So our 'advisors' did not wear combat boots and were not actively engaged in combat?
Splitting hairs nonetheless but IMHO when we sent in advisors, we had boots on the ground.

Here is one of the reliable links that JMHO reflects timeline for the Vietnam Conflict:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/

Regardless, this historical analysis does not represent what we have here today in regards to Iraq.
Certainly, there are parallelisms that are being amplified by comparing the Vietnam conflict and our situation in Iraq.

JMHO, we could have won the war in Vietnam and we can still win the war in Iraq. It just takes some focus and tenacity.

 

[delldude]

May 1961 - President Kennedy sends 400 American Green Beret 'Special Advisors' to South Vietnam to train South Vietnamese soldiers in methods of 'counter-insurgency' in the fight against Viet Cong guerrillas.

From UAL Tech's link.

 

[bagstacker]

So our 'advisors' did not wear combat boots and were not actively engaged in combat?
Splitting hairs nonetheless but IMHO when we sent in advisors, we had boots on the ground.

Here is one of the reliable links that JMHO reflects timeline for the Vietnam Conflict:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/

Regardless, this historical analysis does not represent what we have here today in regards to Iraq.
Certainly, there are parallelisms that are being amplified by comparing the Vietnam conflict and our situation in Iraq.

JMHO, we could have won the war in Vietnam and we can still win the war in Iraq. It just takes some focus and tenacity.

The questions posed by the Colin Powell Doctrine a.k.a. "How to Win Wars":

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
Oh, and are you willing to use overwhelming force?

If you can't answer yes to most or all of these questions, and you go to war any way, all the focus and tenacity in the world, admirable as those qualities are, can't fix the fact that you have made it impossible to win in the first place by ignoring reality. Optimism is a virtue, but believing you can make your own reality if you just wish hard enough isn't a plan, it's called "magical thinking." Now, let's see, how many of these rules were ignored by W. in the rush to war in Iraq? (or LBJ in Vietnam, for that matter). IMHO, looks like just about all of them.

A few quotes from the Chinese General Sun-Tzu, c.500–320. B.C.E., author of the ancient treatise The Art of War, show that none of these ideas are new, it just seems like they have to be re-learned every damn 10-20 years!

-The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

-He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

-The supreme excellence is to subdue the armies of your enemies without even having to fight them.

-There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

-Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

-No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution.

So, we can see that wishful thinking is simply a recipe for defeat and disaster, not a "course" or plan for victory, no matter where in the world it is applied.

 

[bagstacker]

OK so your plan is to pull out, right?

My plan? Stay the course. Finish the job.
Well, gotta go, the Food Chanel is showing how to make quiche..........

Short and simple sound bites, just the way ya like 'em...
Kenseth sweeps at Bristol... Bush administration still worst presidency ever... Staying a failed course is still failure, so it's duly noted that you are in favor of continued failure...

BTW, how was the quiche?

 

[local 12 proud]

A few quotes from the Chinese General Sun-Tzu, c.500–320. B.C.E., author of the ancient treatise The Art of War, show that none of these ideas are new, it just seems like they have to be re-learned every damn 10-20 years!


-The supreme excellence is to subdue the armies of your enemies without even having to fight them.

One Liberal at a time!

A quote from an American:

"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula"
- General George Patton Jr

 

[sentrido]

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Guess who said that one?

 

[delldude]

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Guess who said that one?

Your favorite........

 

[bagstacker]

One Liberal at a time!

I guess great minds think alike, eh, local 12?

Updated: 5:17 a.m. CT Sept 5, 2006
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported in another step back to 1980s-style radicalism.

Full story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14676069/