Obama wants $33 Billion more for the War - Page 4

On January 15 2010 04:37 Undisputed- wrote:


Have you been reading this forum its a joke lol

On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote:
That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.

On January 15 2010 05:03 ghostWriter wrote:
What's wrong with the Huffington Post? It's a simple article about facts.

On January 15 2010 05:12 Undisputed- wrote:


LOL are you kidding me. Please tell me you are joking. The Huffington Post is so far from the center (read: Extreme Left).

If you agree with their opinion that's fine but don't try to pass it off as fact.

On January 15 2010 05:06 ProdT wrote:
You guys need to wake up, we are not leaving Iraq. Ever. There are permanent military bases installed there, this is no temporary thing, as long as theres oil/other ways of profit there. So of course more and more money will be needed to fund the "war".

On January 15 2010 05:17 ghostWriter wrote:


(read: the article I cited was an article that just had facts. just numbers that the obama administration put out)

It's not an opinionated piece. If you disagree with their opinion that's fine but don't try to pass off facts as opinion.

On January 15 2010 05:05 Warrior Madness wrote:


The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak. The media, for the first time in history, exposed in unflinching detail, the horrors of war to the sheltered masses and this had a tremendous effect on the public psyche. That war itself was incredibly cost effective, the ratio of American troops lost in relation to the Viet Cong was something like 200:1. The Vietnamese people are still bitter about the war, not because of the war itself but because the US and its allies abandoned the cause. Right after they withdrew, over 1,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered in genocide. And to this day they're still in a quagmire of poverty, and communism.

It's actually quite like the blackhawk down incident. The US had the entire navy at the steps of Somelia but as soon as a few dead soldiers are shown on tv, their dead bodies being paraded and desecrated, the following day they withdraw all of the forces. That's pretty much like saying, "We're the most powerful nation in the world, but all it takes for you to beat us is to kill a few of our soldiers." And the results were similar. The country continued to tear itself apart in civil war, the government to this day is unstable, and no country within 100 miles will even touch it, or put in any aid.

On January 15 2010 05:29 Undisputed- wrote:


Agreed, that article in particular is on every other news site. I wasn't talking about this one specifically. Last Romantic questioned why you would cite the Huffington Post. I gave a reason why you shouldn't because it will often be dismissed as you would dismiss something if I pulled it from Heritage.

On January 15 2010 00:48 cz wrote:
I'm not convinced by the corporatist argument for the cause of the Iraq war. I agree with what you ruled out but think it might have been part personal vendetta from the crew who let Saddam back into power after the First Gulf War.

On January 15 2010 05:05 Warrior Madness wrote:


The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak.

On January 15 2010 06:02 uiCk wrote:

money > personal vendettas

On January 15 2010 05:43 Piretes wrote:



Wow, you really don't know your history do you? Vietnam was an unwinnable war, Americans were only losing ground every month. Vietnamese public resistance was enormous, the war cost absurd amounts, and the damage done to the vietnamese people and land horrific (Agent Orange). It has zero resemblace to Black hawk down, which is also a stupid thing to argue: Why the hell should the US have invaded then? Be dragged down into an unwinnable war, in a quagmire of factionalism in a backwards country? American intervention wouldn't have done any good at all.

On January 15 2010 06:30 Warrior Madness wrote:


You must get all your knowledge of history from the daily show. Vietnam was a war of propaganda. And that's the only war that the North Vietnamese won. The US and its allies won EVERY MAJOR battle. Let me repeat that, Khe Sanh, the Tet Offensive, the Eastertide offensive, the first battle of Saigon.... In each of these major battles, the North made some pretty grievous military miscalculations and suffered heavy, heavy losses as a result. When the Americans heavily fortified Khe Sanh, the North pelted them with everything they had but they could not gain any ground. Around 200 marines were killed but 10,000-15,000 North Vietnamese were killed. Um.... I'd say, the advantage goes to the Americans.

The US won militarily but lost strategically because of its huge loss in public and political support. The tet offensive was another tactical victory for the US. They lost around 3500 in all, but killed around 35,000 NVA. But this was not how the american public saw it. The media reporting was extremely damaging and shocked the public. As with any democracy you will see, the weakness lies with public/political support not actual military power. When the American people said "no" to the war, the war was already on the slow slide downward.