http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4821618.stm

- Zerry interesting, Mr.Bond.

You beat me to it! I was going to link...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraq.anniversary/index.html

To my old thread from a few weeks back.





Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the BBC that recent sectarian violence is a sure sign of a nation at war with itself.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he said.

Everyone sing along with me...

I don't need your civil war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, selling soldiers in a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh.
I don't need your civil war.

It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.
OMG! 50-60 a day throughout the country?

about 36,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year.

36000/365 = 98.6 per day

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Stop to cry wolf.

That's not a fair comparison when Iraq has approx 26,074,906(according to the CIA) and the US has 295,734,134(as of 2000 census). Sure 50-60 a day dying isn't alot of people, but when it's 50-60 per day dying because of racial or religious reasons it's magnified. Imagine if the US had 567 - 680 (50-60 factored based upon the ratio of populations) racial or religious killings every day. We'd make a huge deal about that. Factored based upon population that would be 206,955 - 248,200 per year, definately HUGE numbers. If we lost that % of our population each year to religious/racial killings, you can damn well bet most people would consider it a Civil War.

Granted, no these religious killings haven't been going on for a year, etc.

I wouldnt call it a civil war yet either. 50 to 60 a day is alot. There are retaliation attacks every day. But, if there was a mob war in the US and 50 to 60 people were dying per day would we call it a civil war? I there are some pretty clear qualifications for 'civil war' and they have not been met yet. I certainly am not a bush apologist and the situation is bad and getting worse, but its not yet a civil war. Just wait until Israel bombs Iran and you will see the shit hit the fan. Then we can throw our hands in the air and scream like maniacs.

It's good that people are at least talking about who is taking the majority of the casualties.

And 50-60 a day would be roughly equivalent to the worst years of US crime ever (mid 70s, averaging ~20-21 thousand per year), with 10 times the population. Per capita, that would be a crime wave of unprecedented proportions and quite in line with the death tolls common during civil and ethnic wars in South American, the Balkans, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

Counting the war, the Iraqi population may have been reduced by almost .5% due to violence since 2003. That's the equivalent of everyone in a moderately sized US city dying, or approaching half the deaths in the American Civil War (a five year conflict) or the US involvement in WWII (3 or 4 years depending how you want to slice it.)

And that's just deaths, not merely serious injuries, which typically run at 5-10 times the incidence. People talking about the "cost of the war" usually look at US tax dollars or American soldiers, but in the long view I doubt we're going to be the people paying the most.

I wouldnt call it a civil war yet either. 50 to 60 a day is alot. There are retaliation attacks every day. But, if there was a mob war in the US and 50 to 60 people were dying per day would we call it a civil war? I there are some pretty clear qualifications for 'civil war' and they have not been met yet. I certainly am not a bush apologist and the situation is bad and getting worse, but its not yet a civil war. Just wait until Israel bombs Iran and you will see the shit hit the fan. Then we can throw our hands in the air and scream like maniacs.

Look at it this way.

If Pat Robertson was able to rally the "700 Club" into an organized fighting force and his goal was to control the government (I know that is already his goal) and killed 50-60 non members per day, would this be a civil war?

If there were areas in the US that were controlled by his forces and no one but his people could go there, then it would be a civil war.

It is a civil war, by all definitions and the death toll has little to do with defining it.

All those things that normally kill people are still happening.
Cars Crash, Hearts attack, people slip on the soap, the normal cycle of life goes on in Iraq.

But on top of it, 50+ people a day are being shot and killed in the name of trying to ignite a larger war.

Do we have a Civil War? No.. what we have here is "Bleeding Kansas"

Then we can throw our hands in the air and scream like maniacs.

You mean like Palestinians?

Sorry I couldn't resist.
A civil war, if I remember correctly is if there a group inside the country is vieing against the established government to overthrow it, and put themselves in power.
What we are seeing here is a Guerilla war. They are not trying to put themselves in power, they are just trying to inflict casualties. If this was a civil war, we'd see more people dead.

How many will have to die before you decide it's a civil war? What exactly is your civil war corpse quota?

Here's one definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20war): A war between factions or regions of the same country. Here's another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war): A civil war is a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) in which parties within the same country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country) or empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) struggle for national control of state power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29).

Even by your limited definition, Iraq fits the bill as Sunnis attack Shiites (and vice versa) and carry out assassination attempts against government officials.

How many will have to die before you decide it's a civil war? What exactly is your civil war corpse quota?

Here's one definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20war): A war between factions or regions of the same country. Here's another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war): A civil war is a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) in which parties within the same country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country) or empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) struggle for national control of state power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29).

Even by your limited definition, Iraq fits the bill as Sunnis attack Shiites (and vice versa) and carry out assassination attempts against government officials.

I wasn't saying it's about a body count, it's about intent. I think if the people opposed to Iraq becoming some sort of Democratic Nation were serious about getting control of state power, we'd see a lot more bodies.
As it is, although the Media likes to tell you that "All of Iraq is in Chaos" <TM>, it's only 3 of 18 provinces in which they are having the most issues in.
I think all these people want to do is put up just enought of a fight to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the Amnesiac American Public that lingers longer then the memory of last Week's American Idol results.

Dude. Wake up.

Call the opposition whomever you want. Sunni. Shia. Heck, call it Al Quaeda.

If we leave, they ARE in power, now aren't they?

No one is in power now. Not us, not the sunni's, not the shiites, not al qeada...its just a big mess.

Yeah, and that's what the media want you to think.
I saw a lot of soldiers in that article saying, we are doing good things, but the media is making it look like we are the enemy, like they have a set script. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
But if they are skipping over the "not so sexy" story of infrastructure being rebuilt, to give you the car bomb du joure, what else are they not telling you?
Who do you believe? The Soldiers or the Media?

Yeah, and that's what the media want you to think.
I saw a lot of soldiers in that article saying, we are doing good things, but the media is making it look like we are the enemy, like they have a set script. I'm paraphrasing, of course.
But if they are skipping over the "not so sexy" story of infrastructure being rebuilt, to give you the car bomb du joure, what else are they not telling you?
Who do you believe? The Soldiers or the Media?


One of the points of the article was that depending on when a soldier was there they had a very different story.

I'm sure there are good things going on, there was in Vietnam also. The problem is that it amounts to a "pissing in the ocean" type of thing.

as an example in Vietnam the Marines had a program that concentrated on winning the hearts and minds of the people, but that is pretty much only effective right in the area that they are doing it. Also, once the Marines left the area the VC would come in and undo what they had done.

It really doesn't matter what we in the USA think or want to believe, it does matter what the Iraqi's believe and want.

Sometimes when there are mistakes made as they were by the Bush administration from the word "go" with respect to Iraq it can be deemed as a "day late and a dollar short".

Yeah, and that's what the media want you to think.

Dude, can you read? I don't call it a civil war yet, but are you denying that 50 people a day are dying in Baghdad, and it ain't due to jaywalking?

We can do all the good things we want. And we ARE doing good things. But if the place isn't peaceful, then we're not really finishing the job, are we?

You do not win by sitting on your hands and saying I told you so.

You do not win if you do not venture forth.

You do not win by isolating yourselves in your "I've no answer but you're wrong" mentality.

Freedom isn't free, never has been.

Fandros

You do not win by isolating yourselves in your "I've no answer but you're wrong" mentality.

..... which means what? You want to get rid of Rumsfeld?

I'm not denying that people are dying in Iraq, and not due to jaywalking.
I do agree, it matters what the Iraqi people want.
They are the ones that are going to have to decide that, enough is enough and stop the people trying to destroy thier country.
Believe it or not, it not the USA trying to destroy it. It's Iran, Syria and other neighbors in the region over there that don't want to see this succeed.
Both of those countries' governments are going to have a lot of explaining to do, if Iraq succeeds into becoming Democratic Nation.
Their people are going to start wondering, "Why can the Iraqi people have a say in the governing of thier country, but we can't?"
If they could see beyond the split between their ethnicity/theology of being Kurdish, Sunni or Sheite, they would realize that they could be a great country.
In my mind, it would be best for the Sunnis to form an alliance with the Kurds. This way the 2 minority factions, then become a rival to the Majority.
But I'm sure the Kurds remember how the Sunnis treated them when they were in power.

Rumsfeld would be one I wouldn't mind seeing unemployed to be honest. But in this reference I was referring to all those that yell...NOoOOO you're wrong but of course I have no leadership skills of my own and can provide no answers.

Lead, follow or get out of the way et al. Constantly bitching and pointing fingers does noone a bit of good imho....ie the press and it's blood sells mantra.

Fandros

I think we could all use a break with the style of "leadership" we've seen in dealing with Iraq.

Indeed, I'd stretch that out to needing a change of leadership in regards to Iraq to the first Pres Bush. Imho he and Pres Clinton fucked it up as well.

Fandros

Weeeeelll.....

On the other hand, we left a mostly powerless (outside his own country), mostly unarmed dictator in power. In theory, countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, all in theory our allies, surrounded him. Plus we had huge worldwide support for our action.

Sure, I'd like to have seen Hussein taked out of power. But we set a concrete goal, got in, achieved the goal, and got out.

The point is, 50 - 60 a day have been dying for the past 3 years.

Let's face it, what day doesn't come complete with a massacre or bus-bombing?

Bush said in his speech of 3/20 that the city of Tal Afar was a prime example of progress in Iraq.

In the tradition of those who ran the strategy of the Vietnam war, I give you the taking of Tal Afar:

Three Times...

First Time (http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=43383&SelectRegion=Iraq_Crisis&SelectCountry=IRAQ)

Second Time (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/07/iraq.main/)

Third Time (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/09/4d0a347e-104a-4e1c-b3be-a9a1020eb16d.html)

Maybe this will help Sixee understand that the media doesn't lose the wars...poor planning, strategy, lying leaders etc... thats what loses wars.

If the media was where wars were lost or won then by all means we should have lost World War II I would venture out on a limb and say that Germany, Japan and Italy had the media towing the "party line" pretty good for them...I wonder how they lost.

For all the Ayonae Ro Forums civil war experts:


The discoveries bring the number of bodies found in Baghdad to 186 in the last eight days, the official said.

In recent months, killings apparently based on victims' religions have fueled fears of civil war. Violence seemed to escalate after the February 22 bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra.(Watch how a Baghdad family's life has changed in the last three years -- 4:27 (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2006/03/20/robertson.iraq.three.years.later.aptn','2006/03/27');))


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/iraq.main/index.html

Bush said in his speech of 3/20 that the city of Tal Afar was a prime example of progress in Iraq.

In the tradition of those who ran the strategy of the Vietnam war, I give you the taking of Tal Afar:

Three Times...

First Time (http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=43383&SelectRegion=Iraq_Crisis&SelectCountry=IRAQ)

Second Time (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/07/iraq.main/)

Third Time (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/09/4d0a347e-104a-4e1c-b3be-a9a1020eb16d.html)

Maybe this will help Sixee understand that the media doesn't lose the wars...poor planning, strategy, lying leaders etc... thats what loses wars.

If the media was where wars were lost or won then by all means we should have lost World War II I would venture out on a limb and say that Germany, Japan and Italy had the media towing the "party line" pretty good for them...I wonder how they lost.

I agree Piss Poor Planning, as we called it in the Army, is the worst enemy of all.
Lying leaders? Well all leaders lie, else they wouldn't be leaders. ;)
They lost because we invaded and stopped the presses. Without any news the populace quickly surrendered.
But seriously, the Press does have a big influence on the popularity of any given item, be it Wars or Same Sex Marriage.

If the media was where wars were lost or won then by all means we should have lost World War II I would venture out on a limb and say that Germany, Japan and Italy had the media towing the "party line" pretty good for them...I wonder how they lost.

Lets imagine that the current media was in WWII. After iwo jima, we would have been sueing Japan for peace after the people saw how that battle was fought. Imagine if the media was able to show flame throwers, and double tapping the wounded.. 25,851 casualties in 36 days.. 22 thousand enemy soldiers killed .. OMG...

The media may not lose a battle, but it sure can influence it, and more importantly influence the way people like YOU feel about it. It can slant information, show negative information, and show images that paint only one side of the conflict.

Lets imagine that the current media was in WWII. After iwo jima, we would have been sueing Japan for peace after the people saw how that battle was fought. Imagine if the media was able to show flame throwers, and double tapping the wounded.. 25,851 casualties in 36 days.. 22 thousand enemy soldiers killed .. OMG...

The media may not lose a battle, but it sure can influence it, and more importantly influence the way people like YOU feel about it. It can slant information, show negative information, and show images that paint only one side of the conflict.

World War II was a war fought under much different circumstances. There was a real hatred for the Japanese by the Americans, especially by the American troops who fought them.

The battle for Tarawa was the first battle in WWII that there were both photos and movie reels of US casualties and it did have an effect on the recruitment for the Marines. So yes I agree the press can have an effect.

There is however nothing wrong with reporting the facts of a screwed up strategy amongst other completely wasteful things that are/were done. All in all the press was not good towards the war in Vietnam, but the press was correct in its reporting. The things they brought to light did happen. Unfortunately it was the line soldier that paid the price for the corrupt strategy, Westmoreland, McNamara and others just got rich and retired. The soldiers...well...they just lived with it.

This is why, if what is happening in Iraq is even remotely close to Vietnam that the press should report it.

There was a real hatred for the Japanese by the Americans, especially by the American troops who fought them.



Would there have been a real hatred of the Japanese if they showed pictures of the firebombing's that killed civilians? Or if the United States did not lock up all the Japanese Americans and had allowed them to protest and lobby about how the Japanese are really a peaceful people that are just doing what the imperial leader told them to do? Or had the media over there showing the negative side of the war? Or talks about how they were tortured for information?

It boils down to the media was working with the military to provide propaganda and they did not have an agenda to bring down the administration. If the media showed video of insurgent snipers shooting soldiers, or setting off bombs and not caring if there were children playing around it, or a multitude of other things that would disgust the public, and not how we made naked insurgents do a pyramid, then there would be a real hatred for insurgents.

Lets imagine that the current media was in WWII. After iwo jima, we would have been sueing Japan for peace after the people saw how that battle was fought. Imagine if the media was able to show flame throwers, and double tapping the wounded.. 25,851 casualties in 36 days.. 22 thousand enemy soldiers killed .. OMG...

You're forgetting that the Japanese attacked us. We also had an extensive international coalition responding to an Axis of powers that had demonstrated considerable aggressive imperialism -- a genuine threat. The US as a whole made a commitment to do what it took, to sacrifice what it took, to get the job done. It was a righteous cause, and Hollywood and the media were on board. The situations simply aren't analogous.

Would there have been a real hatred of the Japanese if they showed pictures of the firebombing's that killed civilians? Or if the United States did not lock up all the Japanese Americans and had allowed them to protest and lobby about how the Japanese are really a peaceful people that are just doing what the imperial leader told them to do? Or had the media over there showing the negative side of the war? Or talks about how they were tortured for information?

It boils down to the media was working with the military to provide propaganda and they did not have an agenda to bring down the administration. If the media showed video of insurgent snipers shooting soldiers, or setting off bombs and not caring if there were children playing around it, or a multitude of other things that would disgust the public, and not how we made naked insurgents do a pyramid, then there would be a real hatred for insurgents.

We did show photos and news reels of the firebombings of Tokyo and of other japanese cities. We also showed photos and news reels of battles and of US troops killing not only Japanese but Germans and Italians. It was not something that was hidden from the public. It was shown in newspapers and saturday matinee's.

You are comparing two completely different scenarios and completely different motivations for war. That is really the big difference here and the big difference in Vietnam.

Now, if it had come out that the Japanese had not actually bombed pearl harbor and they had not attacked places like China and the Phillipines then I do think you would have seen a backlash of support by the American people.

Vietnam was not a failure because the press showed images of dead vietnamese. It was a failure because of things like Khe Sahn, Hamburger Hill, the air campaign over the North. It was the strategies that were used that caused the failure. It was the voices of the troops that brought attention to what was going on. The endless patrols over the same ground as day by day the units took 1 or 2 casualties only to revisit the same areas time and time again for what? So soldiers could die?

Iraq will not be a failure because the press shows suicide bombers or the destruction of an IED. It wont fail because John Murtha says its time to go. It wont fail because Cindy Sheehan took a photo op with Chavez. It will fail because of the fucked up reasoning and the rhetoric that the Bush administration has so arrogantly thrown in our faces. It will fail because the Bush administration won't listen to the soldiers fighting the war. It will fail because of ignorance.

This is why, if what is happening in Iraq is even remotely close to Vietnam that the press should report it.



I still fail to see how Iraq even remotely resembles Vietnam. Please tell me how it does? The only thing I see that resembles it is how the media is trying to influence the outcome. I do not see us taking a strategic area just to prove a point and giving it back to the enemy. Contrary to what you read or see in the MEDIA, IED's against soldiers has dropped sharply, and deaths resulting in those attacks are dropping. I do not see thousands of people out protesting in the streets, and I bet alot of those that do are "professional" protestors that have nothing better to do. So far there have been 2600 deaths in 4 years since we have invaded Afgahnistan and Iraq. How many died in single encounters in Vietnam?

Yes, Yes, Yes,, I know that one death is one to many, but comparing Vietnam to Iraq is crazy. In the last 3 years 14,000 people have died from drowning in the US..2600 in a combat environment is truely amazing.

What I want to know is if the media did not give these insurgents all the free publicity.. would they get the recruits they have now. Or would they have ANY hope that they were slowing draining the resolve of the American people if the media did not show those few hundred protestors, or having dickstains like Feingold calling for a Censure...

Imagine if the media showed American soldiers with trenchfoot or freezing to death before the battle of the bulge so that the Germans could see it. Or if you have Heraldo Rivera sitting on a ship off the coast of Normandy showing what routes we were going to use for the attack. The media needs to stay the hell out of the war... Plan and simple.

It will fail because of the fucked up reasoning and the rhetoric that the Bush administration has so arrogantly thrown in our faces. It will fail because the Bush administration won't listen to the soldiers fighting the war. It will fail because of ignorance



Wrong. It will fail because liberals like you will demand a pull out.. instead of staying the course and showing terrorists around the world that we will not be bullied. But as long as we show antiwar setiment.. they know they can win over time... so please.. keep whining...

Wrong. It will fail because liberals like you will demand a pull out.. instead of staying the course and showing terrorists around the world that we will not be bullied. But as long as we show antiwar setiment.. they know they can win over time... so please.. keep whining...

LOL, They won't listen. All they care about is thier freedom of speech, and the right to use it, no matter the outcome.
Some people don't realize, that just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should use it all the time.
A person once said, with great power, also comes great responsibility.
What we see in most liberals is the lack of recognition that thier words and actions embolden the insurgents.
Guess whose pictures get shown on Al Jazeera? Not pictures of dead insurgents. They get to see US Senators and Representatives who oppose the war, to bolster the morale of the people trying to kill our soldiers.
The message is "See? Keep on fighting, even the Americans support what you do."

I still fail to see how Iraq even remotely resembles Vietnam. Please tell me how it does? The only thing I see that resembles it is how the media is trying to influence the outcome. I do not see us taking a strategic area just to prove a point and giving it back to the enemy.
I've seen this with several cities, and it's often cited by troops on the ground (especially in Sunni-dominated areas). Enter a city, and the insurgents depart. Leave the city, and the insurgents return.
What I want to know is if the media did not give these insurgents all the free publicity.. would they get the recruits they have now.
Heh, you think insurgents are joining up because they read about it in the NY Times? Caught some chit-chat about it on Charlie Rose? They live in the country!
The media needs to stay the hell out of the war... Plan and simple.
Yes, it's best that we trust the government to tell us all we need to know about our war with Oceania. Much safer to just keep head in sand.
Wrong. It will fail because liberals like you will demand a pull out.. instead of staying the course and showing terrorists around the world that we will not be bullied.
Iraq has been the greatest catalyst for increased terrorism since the Shah was deposed. Fighting actual terrorism would have meant finishing the job in Afghanistan, getting bin Laden, and killing Zarqawi when we had the chance. The only thing we've shown terrorists is that politics trumps hunting them down, and our money and economy are being poured into Iraq instead of into security at home.

The Media GAVE the administration that kind of support following 9/11. Whatever they wanted, they did.
The Bush administration abused this and took it for granted. The end result of a complicit media is the corruption of the process and entrance of the United States in a pre-emptive war engaged under false pretenses. The end result is almost 2500 dead Americans for a reason that nobody is really sure of. Well, actually we know the reason. The reason isnt WMDs, or to bring Democracy or to liberate people. The reason is because a US friendly Iraq completly changes the political structure of the Middle East and makes us less dependant on Regimes like the Saudis ect.

We invaded Iraq because it was a good strategic move in a area of the world that has a resource that we critically need.

Im sorry if that doesnt inspire me to get out and wave a flag around.

Heh, you think insurgents are joining up because they read about it in the NY Times? Caught some chit-chat about it on Charlie Rose? They live in the country!




They live in the country?? Initial forces that made up Al-Qeida were NOT Iraqi. If that is the case, then I guess Sadam did support terrorism and we were justified. So, you are telling me that by no means does the fact that they see bleeding hearts crying in the street demanding the President get impeached has NOTHING to do with thier moral and recruitment?

Yes, it's best that we trust the government to tell us all we need to know about our war with Oceania. Much safer to just keep head in sand.


That is exactly what I am saying. If you do not want to get off the pot and FIGHT in that war, then shut the hell up and drive on. If you are not there.. then you should have ZERO input. The people elect the President to fight that possible conflict, and that should be that. I hate how someone who sits on thier ass and eats chips can critique how I engage the enemy. (This is directed at the general anti-war person not directly at you Thor). If there was a camara that just showed images and had ZERO opinion and showed both sides of the conflict, then I would not care as much. But when you have media that puts their SLANT on it.. then Ya.. that is how I feel.


Iraq has been the greatest catalyst for increased terrorism since the Shah was deposed


Maybe in your little world, but ask the Israeli's or any other country out there that has had to live with terrorism for the last century. I am sure that the PLO really ramped up thier activity after Iraq. When was the last time the United States had a terrorist attack since we invaded Iraq? It was just that the media had better things to report. I know I was receiving briefings on Hamas a LONG time before Iraq. Before Iraq, I remember being briefed not to take the same route everyday when I was in a foreign country (that was not so I could experience more of the country side). Terrorism has always been there, but the media chose not to blame it on a President.

No No No, GW Bush is the evilist man on the planet, Don't you get it? He's to blame for everything, from the Extinction of the Dinosaurs, to the Reagan Assassination Attempt. *
You couldn't just put a camera showing every day stuff, no one would watch it! Where's the Sex? Where's the violence? Where's the things that will get our ratings higher than American Idol?*
And don't you know that the average terrorist has absolutely no class whatsoever? I mean to actually think he would pay attention to, let alone understand the complex political intrigue that is American Politics <TM> is absurd. So what if all he sees is Ted Kennedy calling the leader of the free world a liar? Mr Chappaquiddick <hick> certainly has more credibility than the Chimp <TM>.*
I mean how can you trust a man that looks like a monkey? George Bush, not Ted.*



















*Sarcasm

Shanno, you really disappoint me.

If he had said region instead of country, would you still waste so much time blathering your nonsense? We all know the terrorists/insurgents are Islamic from Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. Your grabbing at that to fight the point shows how rigidly petty you are in your attitudes on this.

Four students were shot dead at Kent State because of attitudes like yours that would deny American citizens the very rights that you profess to be fighting in Iraq to give those people. People have the right to disagree with you, and with the President as well, and they have a guaranteed right to voice that dissent. The news media are guaranteed the freedom to find and present the news of the country and the world, and allow people to read, watch, and form their own opinions (regardless of spin or political slant). If you want to deny these constitutionally guaranteed rights, then get your buddies and try a coup. Otherwise, take your own advice and shut the fuck up with your silly shit.

You may very well merit respect and admiration for stepping up and serving your country in a time of war, and I will give you the same respect as any other military member; but, as an American citizen you truly suck, and your posts show me you are the last I want representing me or my country in a foreign land.

The numerous parallels between the conflict in Viet Nam and the "war" in Iraq are obvious to most who have lived through both eras, as well as those who have studied history. Your way of thinking cost us one loss; hopefully there is more balance now and enough people have learned from the past that a more positive outcome will still be possible this time.

LOL, They won't listen. All they care about is thier freedom of speech, and the right to use it, no matter the outcome.
Some people don't realize, that just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should use it all the time.
A person once said, with great power, also comes great responsibility.
What we see in most liberals is the lack of recognition that thier words and actions embolden the insurgents.
Guess whose pictures get shown on Al Jazeera? Not pictures of dead insurgents. They get to see US Senators and Representatives who oppose the war, to bolster the morale of the people trying to kill our soldiers.
The message is "See? Keep on fighting, even the Americans support what you do."

Your complete ignorance is astounding.


They live in the country?? Initial forces that made up Al-Qeida were NOT Iraqi. If that is the case, then I guess Sadam did support terrorism and we were justified. So, you are telling me that by no means does the fact that they see bleeding hearts crying in the street demanding the President get impeached has NOTHING to do with thier moral and recruitment?

The initial forces that we engaged in Iraq were the Fedayeen not Al Qaeda. I'm a bit surprised that you don't know this.

You speak of bleeding hearts crying in the streets? I can certainly see that you have no recollection of what went on during Vietnam. There are so many paralels between current day Iraq and the Vietnam war that it is sickening. I too was once an ignorant obediant kid in uniform, unfortunately others like myself paid for it in 1983. Just like you will one day come to realize you and others are paying for it now.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you do not want to get off the pot and FIGHT in that war, then shut the hell up and drive on. If you are not there.. then you should have ZERO input. The people elect the President to fight that possible conflict, and that should be that. I hate how someone who sits on thier ass and eats chips can critique how I engage the enemy. (This is directed at the general anti-war person not directly at you Thor). If there was a camara that just showed images and had ZERO opinion and showed both sides of the conflict, then I would not care as much. But when you have media that puts their SLANT on it.. then Ya.. that is how I feel.

Go fuck yourself...I was there when your daddy was trying to decide if you were gonna be a stain on the sheets or a reason for your mother to puke in the morning.

Maybe in your little world, but ask the Israeli's or any other country out there that has had to live with terrorism for the last century. I am sure that the PLO really ramped up thier activity after Iraq. When was the last time the United States had a terrorist attack since we invaded Iraq? It was just that the media had better things to report. I know I was receiving briefings on Hamas a LONG time before Iraq. Before Iraq, I remember being briefed not to take the same route everyday when I was in a foreign country (that was not so I could experience more of the country side). Terrorism has always been there, but the media chose not to blame it on a President.

You stupid ass...the Israelis are attacked on a constant basis.

When was the last time the United States had a terrorist attack since we invaded Iraq?

That statement is as senseless as the pirate/global warming theory.

So, you are telling me that by no means does the fact that they see bleeding hearts crying in the street demanding the President get impeached has NOTHING to do with thier moral and recruitment?

Just a quick note here. Several of you seem to think these guys have televisions and cable TV and satellite dishes.

Dude, half these guys don't have indoor plumbing (hence my idea: don't wage war, install plumbing). Just because our first instinct is to go turn on the news when something happens, that doesn't mean that's what, say, people in 3rd world countries do.

You and I live in a REALLY BIG country. They don't. I live outside CHicagoland. If there were, say, 115k foreign troops in, say, Indiana and Ohio and Kentucky, I think I might know about it. I also think that, if there were 115k foreign troops in Indiana and Ohio and Kentucky, I might be an easier-than-normal target for people who are saying "hey, dude, here's a free gun. Drive over to Indiana with us and help kick ass."

You are correct Mir, they lack the high tech versions of our news.

But they have their Imans , their mulas and other ageless ways of getting the news. And they are hearing it...

Fandros

Actually.
Youd be surprised at how popular TV is there. A look on almost any building and you see a satillite dish. The coffee bars that tend to be social gathering places have them. Ive read an estimate that a good 70% of the population has immediate access to television.

The problem is, their channels tend to emulate Fox News. Fair and Balanced is code for "We give you the news you want to hear".

Your complete ignorance is astounding.

That Means a lot coming from you.


The initial forces that we engaged in Iraq were the Fedayeen not Al Qaeda. I'm a bit surprised that you don't know this.

Actually he said the Forces of Al-Qeida, not talking about the Invasion, but of Al-Qeida in Iraq, those people that saw the heads off of civilians?

You speak of bleeding hearts crying in the streets? I can certainly see that you have no recollection of what went on during Vietnam. There are so many paralels between current day Iraq and the Vietnam war that it is sickening. I too was once an ignorant obediant kid in uniform, unfortunately others like myself paid for it in 1983. Just like you will one day come to realize you and others are paying for it now.

So the thinking is, if you know better than the leaders elected in your country, then don't do it? I wonder how many people that attitude had killed?



Go fuck yourself...I was there when your daddy was trying to decide if you were gonna be a stain on the sheets or a reason for your mother to puke in the morning.

Nice potty mouth there, you kiss your mother with that thing?



You stupid ass...the Israelis are attacked on a constant basis.

Probably the only true thing you said in the whole post

That statement is as senseless as the pirate/global warming theory.

Maybe he was trying his hand at sattire? Incidentally, there haven't been any attacks on U.S. Soil since the War on Terror <TM> began. Maybe its all just a coincidence.

Oh where to start...


First off.. Byl I am going to take a shot in the dark, and I might be wrong but I will say that you were drafted in Vietnam. Am I right? If not, then my mistake. But the more I read your posts the more I see a man who hides alot of pent up anger at the government. So, I do not mind that I disappoint you, and you would not want me representing you. Contrary to what you believe, I am all for the rights of individuals. But what I do disagree with, and have been preaching against from day one on this site (as you have been against King George and Hailburton) is that the media controls what you see. And when I see posts like:

The news media are guaranteed the freedom to find and present the news of the country and the world, and allow people to read, watch, and form their own opinions (regardless of spin or political slant)

this makes be believe that you truely cannot comprehend or you choose to ignore because they are bashing that same government that you despise, how much the media can and does influence the people. They do not present the news.. they present what THEY want to be the news. So, I am sorry I disappoint you... now lets talk about your other comments..


If he had said region instead of country, would you still waste so much time blathering your nonsense? We all know the terrorists/insurgents are Islamic from Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. Your grabbing at that to fight the point shows how rigidly petty you are in your attitudes on this.


Explain to me how I am rigidly petty? You even admit that the insurgents are from mulitple countries, so basically you are proving my point that they are not from just Iraq, and do not "live in the country"? That is not rigidly petty.. it is being practical.


You may very well merit respect and admiration for stepping up and serving your country in a time of war, and I will give you the same respect as any other military member; but, as an American citizen you truly suck, and your posts show me you are the last I want representing me or my country in a foreign land.



I am glad to know what you think is the ideal American citizen. Please enlighten me. Is a ideal American citizen someone who supports abortion or supports right to life? Is a ideal American citizen someone who supports Gay marriage or is against it? Oh wait.. I know, a ideal American citizen is someone who sees the world as you do. Well tell me.. so I change my ways. I did not joint the military for schooling (had the 4 year degree done), I joined because I do believe in your freedom. But when I see people standing outside funerals of soldiers who have died holding signs protesting, I get a little pissed off. I was not over in Iraq getting mortered because I enjoyed it.

The numerous parallels between the conflict in Viet Nam and the "war" in Iraq are obvious to most who have lived through both eras, as well as those who have studied history. Your way of thinking cost us one loss; hopefully there is more balance now and enough people have learned from the past that a more positive outcome will still be possible this time.

How did my way of thinking cost us a loss? I find it ironic that you cannot see that maybe it is your way of thinking that is wrong. For example, let me see if I can throw an anology on it. You are a father and have 5 sons. The eldest is at the age where he wants to rebel and picks a fight. After you slap him down, your wife decides to rant and chew your ass in front of the whole family. After time, every time you smack that kid, the wife gets more angry and louder and you show signs of relenting. Soon the other kids decide to get on the band wagon and rebel,,, because Dad has no backbone anymore and bows down to mom. That is exactly how the terrorist look at us. It is a sad anology, but since you cannot comprehend how antiwar effects the war... then maybe that will help.

Now.. Rover.. I am not sure why I am going to respond to your nonsense.. but....

I too was once an ignorant obediant kid in uniform, unfortunately others like myself paid for it in 1983. Just like you will one day come to realize you and others are paying for it now.


Somehow I disagree. I will not ever come to "realize" how I will ever pay for fighting terrorism. Do you think that if we leave them alone that terrorist will never bother us? What part of "there is no room for any other belief but thiers" do you not understand?


Go fuck yourself...I was there when your daddy was trying to decide if you were gonna be a stain on the sheets or a reason for your mother to puke in the morning.



How original, and how untrue. but I will let you have fun and think you got me there.... any more good ones? How about some "when I was your age" ones?


You stupid ass...the Israelis are attacked on a constant basis.



Did you even read my original point there? It was to prove that.. YES>> Israel has had to deal with terrorism LONG before we went to Iraq. I am glad you proved my point. Thank you.. since I am such a stupid ass...


That statement is as senseless as the pirate/global warming theory.


is it? Well, let me see.. Since the Iraq invasion, there have been how many attacks in the United States? With the exception of anthrax in the mail.. I cannot recall one. Before 9/11 you had... Oklahoma, the carbomb under the WTC, and 9/11 just to name a few.. But hey.. lets count those pirates.. like the ones in your ass.

Incidentally, there haven't been any attacks on U.S. Soil since the War on Terror began

A true but totally irrelevant statement...so I'll make one.

There was an attack on the WTC in '93 there was not another attack on US soil during the remainder of the Clinton administration. GOOD JOB BILL!!!

Thats what made Clinton an excellent president when it comes to defending America, no attacks for the next 8 years. The best part is, he did that without invading Iraq.

Since the Iraq invasion, there have been how many attacks in the United States? With the exception of anthrax in the mail.. I cannot recall one. Before 9/11 you had... Oklahoma, the carbomb under the WTC, and 9/11 just to name a few.. But hey.. lets count those pirates.. like the ones in your ass.


OMG, I feel a Brokeback Thread starting again!!!!!

A true but totally irrelevant statement...so I'll make one.

There was an attack on the WTC in '93 there was not another attack on US soil during the remainder of the Clinton administration. GOOD JOB BILL!!!

Thats what made Clinton an excellent president when it comes to defending America, no attacks for the next 8 years. The best part is, he did that without invading Iraq.

And you think the Majority of the planning for 9/11 occurred during the 8 months that Chimpy <TM> was president?
I hate to break it to you, but Mohammud Atta and Friends got into this country during "Bubba's" Tenure.
Also I seem to remember that the Oklahoma Bombing of the Murrah Federal building also happened on his watch, and that happened after the 1st WTC attack.
So yeah, great job there Bill.

is it? Well, let me see.. Since the Iraq invasion, there have been how many attacks in the United States? With the exception of anthrax in the mail.. I cannot recall one. Before 9/11 you had... Oklahoma, the carbomb under the WTC, and 9/11 just to name a few.. But hey.. lets count those pirates.. like the ones in your ass.
They are busy blowing up american soldiers and friends in Iraq?

Also I seem to remember that the Oklahoma Bombing of the Murrah Federal building also happened on his watch, and that happened after the 1st WTC attack.

You shouldn't lump the OKC bombing with either of the WTC attacks. There's a big differance in an attack by domestic terrorists and an attack by foreign terrorists. Preventing either involves differant tactics from the other. The things we are doing now to try to prevent any further Al Queda attacks on our soil wouldn't prevent another domestic attack from White middle Americans, or former US military people like what happened in OKC.

Very true!

They are busy blowing up american soldiers and friends in Iraq?

I find it interesting that you are bothered by the fact that they are in fact fighting a military and not plotting to take out a major structure or kill thousands of people here. You have had the luxury of never having to fight a battle on your home soil, and I pray we never will again. The number of American casualties had continued to go down, and there are less IED's going off each day. We are learning and getting better at stopping them. What bothers me is the mentality that is starting to grow that is reverting us back to a pre 9/11 country. That is exactly what they want...

Iraq to the terrorists is the eqivelent of the Tet Offensive for the Vietcong. They will deplete most of thier resources just so that the military and leaders will lose public support. That will be a win for them if it does. Iraq is not a war for them.. just part of a much larger battle. Show weakness now.. pay in the future...

Tal,

I disagree. A terrorist is not a muslim extremeist. A terrorism is ANYONE who uses terror to get a point across or press his influence. Tim McVye is definaltely a terrorist. Since 9/11 and what has been happening since, public awareness is high. But I do see it erroding, just like it did after Oklahoma.

I find it interesting that you are bothered by the fact that they are in fact fighting a military and not plotting to take out a major structure or kill thousands of people here.

So, uh... as long as we keep the war going we're safe here at home?


The number of American casualties had continued to go down, and there are less IED's going off each day.

Data and links plz. I think we both know that ain't true.

I disagree. A terrorist is not a muslim extremeist. A terrorism is ANYONE who uses terror to get a point across or press his influence. Tim McVye is definaltely a terrorist. Since 9/11 and what has been happening since, public awareness is high. But I do see it erroding, just like it did after Oklahoma.

I didn't say that McVeigh wasn't a terrorist. I said that the way we have to combat his sort of domestic terrorism is differant than the way we have to combat foreign terrorism. You can't tell me that people look as suspisciously at a white man scoping out a target for his militia as they would at an Arab scoping out the same target. Our government focuses more on international terrorism than domestic as well because it's easier to get the data without having to get warrants or any of that pesky stuff.

I'm not saying we aren't working to stop domestic terrorism as well, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that lumping McVeigh in with the WTC bombings is very shortsighted.

Since the elections in Nov/Dec (which saw a spike in causalties) the numbers have went down. Not every bit of information I receive can be found on Google, but the overall numbers of IED's has dropped significantly. I did not say that the effectivness of the IED is declining, but we are learning and finding ways to bypass them.

Tal.

Ok.. I see your point.. You are right that with profiling, arabs are looked at more closely. But I am willing to bet that if you go out and buy a quantity of products that together make a big bomb.. you will be flagged and looked at. You just might not know it.

I find it interesting that you are bothered by the fact that they are in fact fighting a military and not plotting to take out a major structure or kill thousands of people here.
What is american people loss in Iraq? Around 2.500?
What is american money loss in Iraq? Billions of dollars?
(I don't put "invest" on purpose)
So much easier for muslim extremists to target USA now they are closer, don't you think?

You have had the luxury of never having to fight a battle on your home soil, and I pray we never will again.
I would be 10 years older, I may have. As you are "young" on the forum, you probably missed that I'm french. But my parents fled Lebanon right before civil war torn their country, and right before I was born.

Iraq to the terrorists is the eqivelent of the Tet Offensive for the Vietcong. They will deplete most of thier resources just so that the military and leaders will lose public support. That will be a win for them if it does. Iraq is not a war for them.. just part of a much larger battle. Show weakness now.. pay in the future...
imVeryho, you don't win against terrorism with military. Because terrorists don't play "fair". Keeping it on the battlefield will always lead to a terrorist's victory, because of what you are saying.

The reason I put it there, was because Bill Clinton was touted as not having another attack happen after the 1st WTC attack.
Oklohoma City was an attack. Whether it was by Muslim Extremists or Pissed Off White Guy, it was still an attack.
Yes the tactics are different when dealing with Foreign or Domestic Terrorism

So, uh... as long as we keep the war going we're safe here at home?

You have data contrary to that line of thinking? Data and Links please.



Data and links plz. I think we both know that ain't true.

If anything the Data shows there are cycles of Peaks and Valleys.


http://icasualties.org/oif/

What is american people loss in Iraq? Around 2.500?

At least these are people who understand that they are in a war. How many Died on 9/11 that had no clue what was coming? That single event had more impact then any single event on Iraq. How many terrorists died that day? 14? How many have we killed in Iraq? Yes.. I would rather face them on the battlefield.


So much easier for muslim extremists to target USA now they are closer, don't you think?


So, it may be easier.. but it does not have the impact that it would if it happened in Washington DC. It is all about the shock factor...


imVeryho, you don't win against terrorism with military. Because terrorists don't play "fair". Keeping it on the battlefield will always lead to a terrorist's victory, because of what you are saying.


Then what do you fight terrorism with? We cannot use the tactics of the Israeli's and retailiate, for then we are terrorist ourselves. We cannot spy on them and try to anticipate attacks.. or you are invading the privacy. Cannot legally profile, or "harrass" arab looking individuals. I know a cop who will not give a speeding ticket to a arab because he does not want to have to fill out the paper work that proves he was not profiling. So.. tell me how you would deal and fight terrorism.

You have data contrary to that line of thinking? Data and Links please

So, really. You're perfectly ok with starting a war and keeping it going. As long as we don't have any terrorist attacks at home.

Since the elections in Nov/Dec (which saw a spike in causalties) the numbers have went down. Not every bit of information I receive can be found on Google, but the overall numbers of IED's has dropped significantly

Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. A simple google count gets you U.S. casualties per month. Scroll down a tad to the "military fatalities by month" chart.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Obviously there was a spike during elections, but I don't think 2 months of the same number as before the elections implies any sort of downward trend.

click Statistics on the menu, and you can choose IED fatalities my month.

A search on "ied attacks per month" gets you quite a bit of stuff, including a CNN article from November saying that the number of IED attacks is up, but fatalaties per attack are down due to countermeasures.

Someone here said that what we're doing to prevent a foreign terror attack does nothing to prevent a domestic terror attack.

Sorry, wrong all groups using violence ( both foreign and domestic) are now under heightened scrutiny.

We have been receiving briefings about this since 9/11. Even white power groups, militias and yes even PiTA are being scrutinized with increasing pressure.

Just wanted to throw that out for those thinking , once again, that our folks in places of power are stupider than they are....

Fandros

So, really. You're perfectly ok with starting a war and keeping it going. As long as we don't have any terrorist attacks at home.

You still have not provided any links to contrary to that line of thinking.
I, however, provided data, and links to prove casualties have dropped, but that IED attacks have gone up.

No no, there's no way to fight terrorism without a war!

Which gets me back to the REAL issue. Why in HECK do I have to take off my shoes at airports?

No no, there's no way to fight terrorism without a war!

Which gets me back to the REAL issue. Why in HECK do I have to take off my shoes at airports?

Well that's easy Mir, I turned you into the boys with the mirrored specks!!

Seriously tho, I'm unsure why you'd have to take off your shoes. I thought they lowered the threat envelope in regards to stinky socks.....;P

Fandros

You still have not provided any links to contrary to that line of thinking.

Uh, what? Should I provide a link saying, I dunno, that war is cool? Should I provide a link saying that we went through most or all of the 80s without a terrorist attack and we WEREN'T at war? How about the 50s? Are you saying we didn't have any terrorist attacks from 1950 to 1952 'cause we were at war in Korea?


I, however, provided data, and links to prove casualties have dropped, but that IED attacks have gone up

Well, no, you didn't. You provide the same link I did, which shows that casualties are down ONLY IF YOU COMPARE THEM SPECIFICALLY TO 11/05 AND 12/05. If you compare them to, say, the 12 months before that, or to the whole war, they're not.

Let me help you out, here.
Average casualties per month:
2003: 48.6
2004: 70
2005: 74
2006 ytd: 61

So you look at that, knowing the last 2 months of 2005 are skewed due to elections, and you see a downward trend? If you leave out November and December of last year, your 2005 average per month is what, 68? Dude, 10% is 10%, but I'm not gonna sit here where it safe and say hey, if we're losing 10% fewer soldiers over this HUGE TREND of 2 months, it's SUCCESS!

You understand that Bush is now saying we're gonna be there for years, right? And this isn't gonna be years of hanging out in our compounds outside the city like he said in 2003. It looks like now it's gonna be years of fighting.

Shanno, I swore the oath on my 17th birthday, having had all the paperwork and parental okays taken care of the previous month while still 16. I was in nam three days after my 18th birthday. That should answer your theory of my being a draftee.

Regarding my hate for the government, I do not hate but am thorughly disgusted by those like Nixon and Dubya that would rather be tyrants bullying folks to accept a doctrine than be leaders who consider all options and accept that there are those with more knowledge on some matters than they themselves, such as military commanders.

As for media, I will stick with my original statement that they are guaranteed their rights. Anyone who takes the time to view several sources for their news can see what it is spin and what has validity, and go from there. You have too low an opinion of people apparently since you think they are all being led by the nose by the media. How sad.

It is also sad that there are still so many like you that never were able to learn from our past, to be able to compare it to our present, to hopefully alter the future. Blinders are not your friend, Shanno.

Uh, what? Should I provide a link saying, I dunno, that war is cool? Should I provide a link saying that we went through most or all of the 80s without a terrorist attack and we WEREN'T at war? How about the 50s? Are you saying we didn't have any terrorist attacks from 1950 to 1952 'cause we were at war in Korea?


Well, no, you didn't. You provide the same link I did, which shows that casualties are down ONLY IF YOU COMPARE THEM SPECIFICALLY TO 11/05 AND 12/05. If you compare them to, say, the 12 months before that, or to the whole war, they're not.

Let me help you out, here.
Average casualties per month:
2003: 48.6
2004: 70
2005: 74
2006 ytd: 61

So you look at that, knowing the last 2 months of 2005 are skewed due to elections, and you see a downward trend? If you leave out November and December of last year, your 2005 average per month is what, 68? Dude, 10% is 10%, but I'm not gonna sit here where it safe and say hey, if we're losing 10% fewer soldiers over this HUGE TREND of 2 months, it's SUCCESS!

You understand that Bush is now saying we're gonna be there for years, right? And this isn't gonna be years of hanging out in our compounds outside the city like he said in 2003. It looks like now it's gonna be years of fighting.
You could provide some info on where we were attacked by terrorists during a time of war, during active fighting. I don't think that can be said defenitively.
I mean I found this link: http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html
And some of the dates coincide with the Vietnam Police Conflict.
No Sense in splitting hairs, I suppose.
The way I see it 10% less is better, but there is still a cylic nature to the numbers. Peaks and Valleys, as it were.
But consider if you had to pay 10% less on your credit card bill, or morgage over 2 months Would you consider that a good thing?

Good lord.

So that means you'd be happy?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that 10% less is less, regardless of if the numbers are lives, or money. <insert whatever is irritating to you here >10% over 2 months> Is that better? Less offensive than putting Lives and Money in the same thought?

...civilian casualties have not dropped, however. IF there is a decrease in US armored forces casualties..and that's a big if....it would only indicate a shift in strategy for the insurgents. As in, trying to start a sectarian civil war by concentrating more on killing civilians.

Shanno, I swore the oath on my 17th birthday, having had all the paperwork and parental okays taken care of the previous month while still 16. I was in nam three days after my 18th birthday. That should answer your theory of my being a draftee.




As I said, If I was wrong, then sorry. So, I am sorry. That being said, how can you blame Nixon for being a tyrant when it was not him that started Vietnam? I take it you have no issues with LBJ?


You have too low an opinion of people apparently since you think they are all being led by the nose by the media. How sad.



How are people able to form opinions if they do not have the whole story? It is not a question of a low opinion of the people, it is a low opinion of the media that the people "trust". Ask how many people trusted what Dan Rather told them before memogate. I bet it was a VERRY high percentage. How many still trusted him after.. I bet damn near the same number.


It is also sad that there are still so many like you that never were able to learn from our past, to be able to compare it to our present, to hopefully alter the future. Blinders are not your friend, Shanno.


ok... fair enough, let me ask you a few...

what did you learn from the Beruit bombing? Somalia, 9/11, Kobal towers, USS Cole, Munich Massacre?

A terrorism is ANYONE who uses terror to get a point across or press his influence.

Thank you for making my point. President Nixon was a terrorist, as was proven at Kent State. Dubya is laying the groundwork to become the same type of President by usurping the powers of the other branches and acting as though only the executive branch matters.

And Shanno, as much as you rant about the media twisting and spinning everything, you have been doing exactly the same thing with your posts, putting your spin on other folks' words, regardless of how they themselves would define them. Maybe you have a future with the media.

Support your elected leader without question. Do not dissent. Give the state power over the media. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.

Then what do you fight terrorism with? We cannot use the tactics of the Israeli's and retailiate, for then we are terrorist ourselves. We cannot spy on them and try to anticipate attacks.. or you are invading the privacy. Cannot legally profile, or "harrass" arab looking individuals. I know a cop who will not give a speeding ticket to a arab because he does not want to have to fill out the paper work that proves he was not profiling. So.. tell me how you would deal and fight terrorism.

A famous Chinese military strategist (sorry I forget the name) once wrote that you cannot defeat your enemy without knowing your enemy. Your approach to fighting terrorism is on the reactive side, understandably, since we have been attacked and are now in pay-back mode. However, there is also the proactive side, which involves knowing who the terrorists are, and why they hate the west like they do. Understanding your enemies' motivations makes it a bit easier to understand their strategies, and tactics. You can then plan your campaign against them rather than letting them control the battlefield, as we have now. And, surprisingly, your campaign may include more options then solely military action.

But, this is all just mental masturbation. Discussing and debating an issue with a lock-step, closed mind individual gets nowhere.

George Bush: "Anyone who compares Viet Nam and Iraq is being nonsensical. Just look at the pictures. There ain't no jungle there in Iraq."

Ask how many people trusted what Dan Rather told them before memogate.

Hahhaha. Oh WOW. There's a blast from the past. Of course, you blame Rather for that. Rather was a little wacked, but hey, why not ask now many news reporters expect a political campaign to purposefully set them up in what amounts to a sting?

what did you learn from the Beruit bombing?


Thats whats so patently shocking about this administration. They seemed to have learned nothing.

Heres what I learned. The middle east is a place where there is a faction that has no fear of the overwhelming power of the US. They don't care if we have B-52's, Battleships, Tanks and Helicopters. They are very adept at getting their point across and have a very high success rate at doing so.

I learned that to fight them with conventional troops is a huge error in judgement and strategy.

They will sacrifice one person and cause the death of hundreds of their enemies with this sacrifice.

Troop concentrations are just big stationary targets for them.

I learned that to fight them with conventional troops is a huge error in judgement and strategy and has minimal if any effect on their tactical operations.

I learned that US military involvement will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of their wars. That the presence of the US military is nothing more than a rallying point for their own purposes and gives their dictatorial leaders an excuse to stay in power as they use the presence of our troops as an "I told you so".

"A famous Chinese military strategist"

Did he actually fight wars for China? To the best of my knowledge they haven't been to successful at winning any battles.

Wasn't at work today, so coming back to this a few pages late.

So, you are telling me that by no means does the fact that they see bleeding hearts crying in the street demanding the President get impeached has NOTHING to do with thier moral and recruitment?Very little, yes. Massive recruitment and the buildup of terrorism predated any talk of impeachment and was occurring even before the President squandered post-9/11 unity in favor of scoring political points.That is exactly what I am saying. If you do not want to get off the pot and FIGHT in that war, then shut the hell up and drive on. If you are not there.. then you should have ZERO input.So your vision of democracy is that our President can do anything he wants and those who disagree need to shut up. Personally, I think the chickenhawks who cheer the war on but refuse to fight need to sign up or shut up, but evidently that's not what you fought for. Given that Bush and Cheney (and abettors like Limbaugh) dodged war, your statement comes to nothing.Maybe in your little world, but ask the Israeli's or any other country out there that has had to live with terrorism for the last century. I am sure that the PLO really ramped up thier activity after Iraq.Yes, terrorism predated the invasion of Iraq, and it's been steadily mounted against Israel in particular. Yet every year of the Bush administration, and especially since the war's start, acts of terrorism have increased considerably, so much so that the State Dept stopped publishing its annual report detailing the numbers.

You, like many war supporters, seem embittered by the reaction to the administration's failure in prosecuting their war, when your ire is better spent at the administration itself (rather than the media that mindlessly echoed every pre-war administration talking point in support of aggression).
Seriously tho, I'm unsure why you'd have to take off your shoes. I thought they lowered the threat envelope in regards to stinky socks.....;PA fellow named Richard Reid had a bomb in his shoe. He was caught on an airplane trying to set it off a couple years ago. Since then, the shoes come off. =)

I know Thor, was just having a lil fun....;P

Fandros

"A famous Chinese military strategist"

Did he actually fight wars for China? To the best of my knowledge they haven't been to successful at winning any battles.

Your knowledge needs to be expanded then. I think the name might have been Sun Tzu (The Art Of War) or something close to that. China has a rich history, with much of the same conflicts and territorial battles seen in Europe during the same periods. And, those conflicts bred some of history's better military strategists. You will most likely find that their teachings are still included with lesson plans in today's Officer Candidate School and West Point classes.

Yes, the Chinese know how to war, they were perfecting it when we were still in the caves of Europe painting on the walls.

Yes Sun Tzu. I know his war acadamy from the Civilation games well :)

Heh Tale , was about to say the samething. Sadly it's lacking from Civ 4.


Fandros

yeah but there's a ton of new cool wonders so I guess it makes up for it.

Thank you for making my point. President Nixon was a terrorist, as was proven at Kent State



Ok, you have now officially proven my point that you are a bitter fool that blames a former president for something that you choose to do. You choose to enlist and the last I checked, when you join the military that means you are going to have to maybe go to war. To say that Nixon was a terrorist because of Kent State is insane. The last I checked, and since I am somewhat knowledgeable here, the governor is the one with authority of the National Guard during a State crisis. James Rhodes called the guard, not the Terrorist Nixon. In addition, Nixon was not the one who started Vietnam, it was a Democrat. Nixon started the EPA (real terrorist there), and OHSA, which if you had unsafe work standards, then ya... he was a terrorist. Oh ya.. how about the philadelphia plan? Smoke another joint and blame Nixon for your decisions.


Support your elected leader without question. Do not dissent. Give the state power over the media. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.


Ya.. compare Bush to Hitler.. comeon.. I know you want to.. Nut. To even start to compare the current United States where people have more freedom then ever, to 1930 Germany is insane. WATCH OUT... the black helicopter just flew over your house.....


A famous Chinese military strategist (sorry I forget the name) once wrote that you cannot defeat your enemy without knowing your enemy.


Ok, So enlighten me on our enemy. What part of "if you are not muslim you are infidel" do you not understand? Their religion (which they misuse), says that non-muslims are cattle. Ya.. understand that. You have people who are trying to control their followers thru archiac beliefs. They repress women, and have many strict rules. But yet those same individuals can go to Bahrain (a island that Allah cannot see) and violate all those beliefs. They find it hard to control thier flock when the flock can see greener pastures in the Western world. They get angry when they send the brightest to Schools in the west to learn, and then those brightest stay in the West as doctors, ect... I could go on all day. I am willing to bet that if we went head to head I understand them more then you... just as you could claim to understand the Vietcong more then me.


Rover said..
Thats whats so patently shocking about this administration. They seemed to have learned nothing.


No Rover, what is amazinly shocking is the belief that if we leave them alone they will fade away. They are slowly trying to spread influence throughout the world, and if you read you will see that other countries outside the middle east are getting pushed by islamic extremists. Cartoons of islam, riots in france, basically anywhere in the world you will find conflicts between islam and other religions. One day we need to make a stand, and it better be soon.


Thormir said...

Given that Bush and Cheney (and abettors like Limbaugh) dodged war, your statement comes to nothing.


haa haa.. What I find funny is that people love to use the Bush joined the National Guard, so he avoided the war. In every conflict the National Guard has been there fighting along side the active componet. To say that the Guard was a safe haven just shows your ignorance. In World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France). In World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm). During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. At least he had a chance of going, and stayed out of Canada.

Ok, you have now officially proven my point that you are a bitter fool that blames a former president for something that you choose to do. You choose to enlist and the last I checked, when you join the military that means you are going to have to maybe go to war. To say that Nixon was a terrorist because of Kent State is insane. The last I checked, and since I am somewhat knowledgeable here, the governor is the one with authority of the National Guard during a State crisis. James Rhodes called the guard, not the Terrorist Nixon. In addition, Nixon was not the one who started Vietnam, it was a Democrat. Nixon started the EPA (real terrorist there), and OHSA, which if you had unsafe work standards, then ya... he was a terrorist. Oh ya.. how about the philadelphia plan? Smoke another joint and blame Nixon for your decisions.



Ya.. compare Bush to Hitler.. comeon.. I know you want to.. Nut. To even start to compare the current United States where people have more freedom then ever, to 1930 Germany is insane. WATCH OUT... the black helicopter just flew over your house.....



Ok, So enlighten me on our enemy. What part of "if you are not muslim you are infidel" do you not understand? Their religion (which they misuse), says that non-muslims are cattle. Ya.. understand that. You have people who are trying to control their followers thru archiac beliefs. They repress women, and have many strict rules. But yet those same individuals can go to Bahrain (a island that Allah cannot see) and violate all those beliefs. They find it hard to control thier flock when the flock can see greener pastures in the Western world. They get angry when they send the brightest to Schools in the west to learn, and then those brightest stay in the West as doctors, ect... I could go on all day. I am willing to bet that if we went head to head I understand them more then you... just as you could claim to understand the Vietcong more then me.



No Rover, what is amazinly shocking is the belief that if we leave them alone they will fade away. They are slowly trying to spread influence throughout the world, and if you read you will see that other countries outside the middle east are getting pushed by islamic extremists. Cartoons of islam, riots in france, basically anywhere in the world you will find conflicts between islam and other religions. One day we need to make a stand, and it better be soon.



haa haa.. What I find funny is that people love to use the Bush joined the National Guard, so he avoided the war. In every conflict the National Guard has been there fighting along side the active componet. To say that the Guard was a safe haven just shows your ignorance. In World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France). In World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm). During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. At least he had a chance of going, and stayed out of Canada.




Now, Now, quit cluttering up the emotional indignation with facts and reasoned thinking.
Thor and Rover have the right to feel they way they do. They even have the right to express their viewpoints. Reasoning, however is optional.
You don't need reason, when you "feel" a certain way about a subject, all you need is a point of view.
Here's a little exercise. Read the following sentence:

The dog jumped over the fence.

Now from that do you get:
A. Someone let their dog out and it is now violating my property.
B. Why do we have to have fences, man?
C. Aww what a cute puppy.
Your reaction tells a little bit about yourself

haa haa.. What I find funny is that people love to use the Bush joined the National Guard, so he avoided the war.
And to say that Bush's placement in the Guard wasn't an arranged dodge from actual service just shows your naivete. But coming from someone willing to trust the administration so wholeheartedly, this is no surprise. He did avoid the war, and Cheney did have "other priorities."

And to add to a point previously made, whatever role the media played in the rising of the insurgency (and again, I consider it very little), it certainly cannot compare to Bush's pronouncement of those Three Little Words:

"Bring it on."

During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. At least he had a chance of going, and stayed out of Canada.


Bush flew f-102 aircraft I believe not something that was ever going to be deployed to Vietnam. He also most definately had some issues with reporting for duty.

It was a very commonplace thing during Vietnam for people to join the National Guard as a way to avoid service during that time. Like it or not that is a fact.

No Rover, what is amazinly shocking is the belief that if we leave them alone they will fade away. They are slowly trying to spread influence throughout the world, and if you read you will see that other countries outside the middle east are getting pushed by islamic extremists. Cartoons of islam, riots in france, basically anywhere in the world you will find conflicts between islam and other religions. One day we need to make a stand, and it better be soon.


Do you comprehend any of the posts that are here? I have not seen anyone, not Thormir, Not Bylimet, Not L2 or any others say we should ignore the terrorists or that we should not be doing our best to stop attacks on the US or any of our allies.

We simply don't see a valid reason for having gone into Iraq. Bush has not given a valid reason for being in Iraq. No one has argued or doubted our efforts in Afghanistan other than to note that we allowed Bin Laden to basically walk out of Tora Bora. But I will give the administration the benefit of the doubt and say, the fog of war might be why Bin Laden got out, things happen and it is not a prfect world.

Now we can go back to Iraq. What really gets me, in particular as someone who has served in the military, pounded the ground with the 2nd Marine Division, is that anyone who has disagreed with the policies of this administration has been branded as being unpatriotic. What makes it even worse is, the people who have done the branding have publicly stated that "they had better things to do besides serve in the military".

It also bothers me that these same people, Cheney, Rove etc... have had the indecency to ally there party with groups like the swift boat veterans who after all is said and done were just plainly full of shit about John Kerry and his service in Vietnam. That people like Cheney and Rove actually have the gaul to pass judgement on those who served.

I do blame Kerry for not fighting back harder against them, but then again who in their right mind would have actually believed those idiots when from the beginning it was known that none of them were actually with Kerry in Vietnam.

Heres a clue, I too had better things to do besides serve in the Marine Corp. I was a budding photo journalist who had his work published from the time I was 16, but I felt that at some point in life I had an obligation to serve my country, much as my Father, Grandfathers, Uncles and Older Brothers had done, so at 17 with my parents permission I went off to Parris Island.

Much like Cheney, Rove etc... We all had better things to do. But much unlike them, we felt we had an obligation to serve.

[/font]
And to say that Bush's placement in the Guard wasn't an arranged dodge from actual service just shows your naivete. But coming from someone willing to trust the administration so wholeheartedly, this is no surprise. He did avoid the war, and Cheney did have "other priorities."

And to add to a point previously made, whatever role the media played in the rising of the insurgency (and again, I consider it very little), it certainly cannot compare to Bush's pronouncement of those Three Little Words:

"Bring it on."

But I thought the Middle Easterners weren't influenced by the Media.
If Bush was on the Media, and he said those Three Little Words wouldn't that be an influence?
How else would they have known he said them?
He didn't have Pamphlets dropped into the Middle East with "Bring It On! Hugs and Kisses, Chimpya" written on them.
You are contradicting yourself.

Bush flew f-102 aircraft I believe not something that was ever going to be deployed to Vietnam. He also most definately had some issues with reporting for duty.

It was a very commonplace thing during Vietnam for people to join the National Guard as a way to avoid service during that time. Like it or not that is a fact.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/about/

During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

It really bothers me that a coward like George W. Bush spent the Vietnam War training to fly old and useless planes in Texas while John Kerry was heroically risking his life in combat and got three purple hearts!
- Jennifer Braun

You should really read up on Jets used in 'Nam.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1185997/posts

And the Circumstances under which he enlisted.

Bush flew f-102 aircraft I believe not something that was ever going to be deployed to Vietnam. He also most definately had some issues with reporting for duty.

It was a very commonplace thing during Vietnam for people to join the National Guard as a way to avoid service during that time. Like it or not that is a fact.

Good for him then I guess he wasn't so stupid after all? I have yet to see Bush stand on a box and annouce that he was some sort of Vietnam war hero and everyone else should be. I don't see why people dwell on this fact..he went to the guard and flew some aircraft..once again good for him.

Vietnam was a shit war. Funny thing I have two brother inlaws who both served in Vietnam and neither one even mention it..hell one had the choice..Prison or Vietnam (he was a troubled youth) he spent two tours and in most of it was spent doing things he never really wants to talk about.

I don't want to throw stones at you Rover but since I'm prior USAF and am now a civlian working with the USAF I thought I'd correct one lil thing.

You implied that Bush flying F102's shows his desire to dodge combat.

Even active duty pilots today can only ask for certain aircraft. Usually the decision is based on scores/aptitude/physical abilities and graduation rank in the USAF Academy place pilots in the choice aircraft.

If you graduate and become an officer through other colleges then you're even further down the "list", and to be a Guard pilot even more so as front line aircraft were doled out to active duty first.

F102's were trainers at the time of the Vietnam war, and you'll find almost all combat fighter pilots of that era flew them initially. Until you logged enough hours in the trainers you didn't move up to the big mean F4's and such.

So, please to retract that insinuation or I'll have Squish give you such the wedgie!! ;P

Fandros

Ok, you have now officially proven my point that you are a bitter fool that blames a former president for something that you choose to do. You choose to enlist and the last I checked, when you join the military that means you are going to have to maybe go to war. To say that Nixon was a terrorist because of Kent State is insane. The last I checked, and since I am somewhat knowledgeable here, the governor is the one with authority of the National Guard during a State crisis. James Rhodes called the guard, not the Terrorist Nixon. In addition, Nixon was not the one who started Vietnam, it was a Democrat. Nixon started the EPA (real terrorist there), and OHSA, which if you had unsafe work standards, then ya... he was a terrorist. Oh ya.. how about the philadelphia plan? Smoke another joint and blame Nixon for your decisions.



Ya.. compare Bush to Hitler.. comeon.. I know you want to.. Nut. To even start to compare the current United States where people have more freedom then ever, to 1930 Germany is insane. WATCH OUT... the black helicopter just flew over your house.....



Ok, So enlighten me on our enemy. What part of "if you are not muslim you are infidel" do you not understand? Their religion (which they misuse), says that non-muslims are cattle. Ya.. understand that. You have people who are trying to control their followers thru archiac beliefs. They repress women, and have many strict rules. But yet those same individuals can go to Bahrain (a island that Allah cannot see) and violate all those beliefs. They find it hard to control thier flock when the flock can see greener pastures in the Western world. They get angry when they send the brightest to Schools in the west to learn, and then those brightest stay in the West as doctors, ect... I could go on all day. I am willing to bet that if we went head to head I understand them more then you... just as you could claim to understand the Vietcong more then me.



No Rover, what is amazinly shocking is the belief that if we leave them alone they will fade away. They are slowly trying to spread influence throughout the world, and if you read you will see that other countries outside the middle east are getting pushed by islamic extremists. Cartoons of islam, riots in france, basically anywhere in the world you will find conflicts between islam and other religions. One day we need to make a stand, and it better be soon.



haa haa.. What I find funny is that people love to use the Bush joined the National Guard, so he avoided the war. In every conflict the National Guard has been there fighting along side the active componet. To say that the Guard was a safe haven just shows your ignorance. In World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France). In World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm). During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. At least he had a chance of going, and stayed out of Canada.




Shanno, you simply continue to prove yourself to be locked into a tunnel vision view of the world. You are not very good at reading comprehension either.

I have never blamed Nixon for my enlisting or going to Viet Nam, both of which were voluntary on my part. Nixon did indeed have his hand in the Kent State massacre; his original order to the Fort Carson, Colorado base for troops to be sent to the Kent State campus in response to intelligence gathered suggesting a large protest being planned there had the guys two barracks over from me packing and preparing to leave. The only reason they were spared the trip was due to insufficient numbers available, due to several recent transfers to Nam and several on leave as well. Nixon gave the commanders on site clearance to use "that force which is deemed necessary" including the use of live ammunitiuon against college students.
That seems to qualify per your definition of terrorism, as far as I can tell.
My bitterness about this event has nothing at all to do with my military service.

And, I did not compare Bush to Hitler, which you may find if you read the post I made without the blinders on. I was comparing YOU and your way of thinking and the statements you made in your posts to the mind set that was prevalent in 1930's Germany.

Next, you go on the defensive about your knowledge compared to mine of the Muslims, but I had never challenged you or your knowledge. I posted regarding the leadership and the planning and the need to understand an enemy in order to defeat them.

Please Shanno, slow yourself down and read what is written and not what you want to think people are saying. Your stress level and upset stomachs may go down.

And by the way, you are onto some of what I was saying about understanding your enemy and his motivations. If one of the thorns in the paw of the Islamic leadership is the loss of young people who go to the west for schooling, and do not return home, then why not have the State Department and the schools establish some rules for foreign students that they must return home for a five year minimum to share their knowledge with their countrymen, before they can establish permanent homes in the west. Would this be a way to ease some of the animosity toward the west?

Granted, many of the beliefs of strict Islam, as we are seeing in the Kabul case currently, we will never be able to accept. BUt those areas that show some compromise available that could strengthen relations rather than foment hatred should always be considered.

who started Vietnam, it was a Democrat


Actually Eisenhower sent the first US troops to Vietnam.

You should really read up on Jets used in 'Nam.

Not only have I read about jets used in Vietnam I spent a bit of time at a few of the MCAS around the world.

Here read this below (I've also bolded a very interesting date near the bottom).

By the end of 1958, 26 Air Defense Command squadrons were flying F-102As, and the Delta Dagger had replaced the North American F-86D Sabre as the most numerous interceptor with the ADC. F-102As in service numbered 627, or about half of the total number of interceptors operated by the Air Defense Command. At the height of its service, 32 ADC units flew the F-102A. The last of 873 F-102As produced was delivered in September 1958.
The first overseas deployment took place in June 1958 when the 327th Fighter Interceptor Squadron moved to Thule, Greenland. The first squadron in Europe to receive the F-102 was the 525th FIS based at Bitburg in West Germany. Five other squadrons based in Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands also got Delta Daggers.

During the early 1960s, the F-102A was gradually replaced in the ADC by the McDonnell F-101B Voodoo and the Convair F-106 Delta Dart. By the end of 1969, with the exception of a squadron maintained in Iceland, all ADC F-102As had been transferred to the Air National Guard. The F-102As stationed in the Pacific had been withdrawn in December of 1969. The last ADC unit to operate the F-102A, the 57th FIS based at Keflavik in Iceland finally traded in its F-102As for McDonnell F-4C Phantoms in mid-1973.

As they left USAF service, most F-102As were transferred to the Air National Guard. First to receive the F-102A was the 182nd FIS of the Texas ANG in mid-1960. Twenty-three ANG units ultimately got F-102As, including squadrons in Louisiana, Florida, Texas, North Dakota, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Oregion, Maine Vermont, Tennessee, Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, and California.

Large-scale retirement of the F-102A from the ANG began in late 1969 and continued throughout the 1970s. The last F-102A finally left ANG service in October of 1976, when the 199th FIS of the Hawaii ANG traded in their Delta Daggers for F-4C Phantoms. Most of the retired F-102As ended up in the boneyards at the Davis-Monthan AFB storage facility. Many were subsequently converted into remote-controlled drone aircraft.

Each F-102A squadron normally included two TF-102A two-seaters on strength.

Though essentially useless in the small-war role, F-102s were indeed deployed to South Vietnam. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969.

A few missions were flown over North Vietnam, but the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, Joe Baugher cites an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA or small-arms fire, four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong, and eight were lost in operational accidents.

The F-102A even flew some close-support missions over South Vietnam, even though the aircraft was totally unsuited for this role. These operations started in 1965 at Tan Son Nhut. Operating under the code-name "Project Stovepipe," the F-102s used their heat sinking Falcon missiles to lock onto heat sources over the Ho Chi Minh trail at night, often Viet Cong campfires. They would even fire their radar-guided missiles if their radars managed to lock onto something.

The F-102s soon switched to a day role, firing unguided FFAR rockets using the optical sight; 618 day sorties were flown, the last one at the end of 1965. One F-102A was downed by ground fire during one of these rocket attacks. There were some later missions flown, especially in emergencies when the 102's were the fastest response available in South Vietnam. Some TF-102A two-seaters were also used on occasion in Vietnam as forward air controllers.

Based on material in the USAF Museum website (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f102.htm) not on a pro bush website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Dagger

Says here 1968.
Is this a pro Bush site too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Dagger

Says here 1968.
Is this a pro Bush site too?

Could be...it is a user driven site.

LOL, wow. You sure you have your tin foil hat on?

You understand how Wikipedia works, right Sixee?

Yes, but seriously. To think that people would put erronous info on there just to show support for the President, I mean really...
That's right up there with Tin foil hats, and Black Helicopters.

There's been many times that deliberatly false info was put on wikipedia (not in some instance that I know of about an airplane, but it has happened before).

I am much more willing to believe data from a USAF source than wikipedia though. Don't get me wrong, I love wikipedia, I read it all the time, though the data from time to time is somewhat inaccurate, though most of the time not deliberatly.

edit to add an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controve rsy

This wikipedia entry describes an instance where false information was found to be on wikipedia that had the potential to harm someone's career.

To think that people would put erronous info on there just to show support for the President, I mean really...

I mean really, thats nuts. Also, to think that people (Texas Republicans) would put erroneous info out there just to smear the media and show support for the President....

oh wait. It's politics. To quote a famous pitchers, youneverknow.

Yeah, all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Right up there with Bush personally blowing up the levees in New Orleans so that white neighborhoods would stay dry, while poor black neighborhoods flooded.
Next you'll tell me Bush personally made sure the dinosaurs would go extinct, so that Fossil Fuels would allow him to become rich.

Evidence of wikipedia tampering by Congressional staffers, in both parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/United_States_Congress

Yes, it most certainly does happen.

Yes, but seriously. To think that people would put erronous info on there just to show support for the President, I mean really...
That's right up there with Tin foil hats, and Black Helicopters.

No, I'd say that not expecting a widely used reference website which can be edited by anyone to not be used by someone to help themselves or someone else is horribly naive.

I'm sure it happens on both sides of every issue on that site.

Example. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16)

Not that I care or anything...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301157_pf.html
Of Course It's a Civil War

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 24, 2006; A19



Today's big debate over Iraq seems to be: Is there or is there not a civil war? Yes, say the defeatists, citing former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a man with an ax to grind against the current (elected) government, which excluded him.

No, not really, not yet, not quite, say U.S. officials and commanders, as well as Iraq's president, also hardly the most neutral of observers.

This debate appears to be important because the perception that there has been an outbreak of civil war following the Samarra bombing pushed some waverers to jump ship on their support for the war. Most famous of these is William F. Buckley Jr., who after Samarra declared that it is time for "the acknowledgment of defeat." Defeat? Yes, because of the inability of the Iraqi people to "suspend internal divisions" to allow a new democratic order to emerge.

This whole debate about civil war is surreal. What is the insurgency if not a war supported by one (minority) part of Iraqi society fighting to prevent the birth of the new Iraqi state supported by another (majority) part of Iraqi society?

By definition that is civil war, and there's nothing new about it. As I noted here in November 2004: "People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side" -- the Sunni insurgency -- "is fighting it."

Indeed, until very recently that has been the case: ex-Baathist insurgents (aided by the foreign jihadists) fighting on one side, with the United States fighting back in defense of a new Iraq dominated by Shiites and Kurds.

Now all of a sudden everyone is shocked to find Iraqis going after Iraqis. But is it not our entire counterinsurgency strategy to get Iraqis who believe in the new Iraq to fight Iraqis who want to restore Baathism or impose Taliban-like rule? Does not everyone who wishes us well support the strategy of standing up the Iraqis so we can stand down? And does that not mean getting the Iraqis to fight the civil war themselves?

Hence the gradual transfer of war-making responsibility. Hence the decline of American casualties. Hence the rise of Iraqi casualties.

What we don't want to see is the private militias taking the law into their own hands. The army, by all accounts, has remained cohesive, with relatively good discipline. The problem is the police forces, which have been infiltrated by some of the Mahdi Army and other freelance Shiite vigilantes.

We cannot allow parts of the police apparatus to become instruments of Moqtada al-Sadr or other private interests. And not just because they act viciously and vindictively but also because their insubordination and independence are a threat to the very stability of the new Iraqi state.

But let's put this in perspective. First, this kind of private revenge attack has been going on at a low level since the beginning of the insurgency. Second, it does have the effect of concentrating Sunni minds on the price of their continuing support for the random, large-scale and heretofore unanswered slaughter of Shiites that they either actively or passively support.

And, third, if the private militias are the problem, it is a focused and relatively narrow problem. Creating discipline and central control over the security services is a more manageable issue than all-out Hobbesian conflict.

The principal issue, and measure of our success, is the shaping of disciplined and effective security forces. And that is why the political negotiations that have been dragging on are so critical. It is the political track that must secure leadership for both the defense and interior ministries that is nonsectarian and committed to a unitary force whose members do not answer to private warlords.

Civil wars are not eternal. This war will end not with an Appomattox instrument of surrender. It will end when a critical mass of Sunnis stops supporting the insurgency and throws its lot in with the new Iraq.

How does this happen? The stick is military -- the increased cost in Sunni blood of continuing the fight. But the carrot is political -- a place at the table for those Sunnis, some of whom are represented in parliament, who are prepared to abandon the insurgency for a share of power, a share of oil income, and a sense of security and dignity in the new Iraq.

This is doable. That is not to say it will be done. It is to say that those who have decided that because of "civil war" it cannot be done have been unreasonably panicked by something that has been with us all along.

So, people are absurdly wondering whether we're in civil war because Krauthammer called it a civil war in November. But only one side was fighting, so it wasn't so much war, but -- oh, I don't know -- maybe an insurgency. Only now with both sides fighting, it's more like a real civil war, except that it already was.

The most surreal aspect to this is Krauthammer's reasoning, but at least it's mostly irrelevant.

I agree with him about the militias and the state of the police force, but I'm not sure how he wants us to "not allow" them to become the tools of private interests. We've not forestalled the decay in order that's led us to this point. We don't need prevention, we need reversal.

Also, civil strife (let's call it) has taken on a wholly different character than it had previously, as Shiite reprisals replace restraint. It's not "been with us all along" exactly, which is why the "civil war" debate is taking place now rather than in November of 2004. I'm not sure who's decided it "cannot be done" based on civil war (or strife or unrest), but I notice that Krauthammer doesn't posit a role for the US in its outcome -- this is wholly dependent on the Iraqis. This fits in with the point of view that suggests that the Iraqis won't really stand up until we've stood down and stepped out of the way. If they want it, they'll get it.

Hence the decline of American casualties.
Hmmm (http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060322-030818-1584r)
The bad news, however, is that in the 39 days from Feb. 11 through March 21, 616 U.S. soldiers were injured in Iraq, an average of 15.8 per day. This was more than twice as bad as the Feb. 4-10 period when 47 U.S. soldiers were injured at an average rate of just under seven per day. And it was also more than 36 percent worse than the rate of the five-day period from Jan. 30 through Feb. 3 when 58 U.S. soldiers were injured, according to the DOD figures, at an average rate of 11.6 per day.

Interesting Article.
Sounds like things are going as planned. I espically liked the part about the Sunnis reaching critical mass, and eventually throwing in with the New Iraq.
Either that, or they will get thier hands on a Nuke, and hold the whole region Hostage.