Its a quagmire

[DrDetroit]

Which means that you will now draw your own self seving comparison to Viet Nam.

Link?

After 30 years of unimaginable privation, I find it somewhat understandable that the VC and NVA forces might take out some of those frustrations on the people who stood with the South Vietanmese government.

Figures, you'd condine the brutal extermination of millions.

I would presume that you found it underdstandabke that Stalin killed millions because they didn't agree with him?

Was it a tragedy? Yes.

Why do people ask themselves self-evident questions?

Was it the fault of those who wanted the US out of that no win situation?

HELL NO.

What was unwinnable about it?

The US was winning...and on its way to winning.

You people were too chickenshit to stand up to Communism. Period.

And you remained too chickenshit until Reagan finally pushed the USSR over the edge. Not that you'll credit him for it, :roll: .

Your love affair with detente and stability demonstrates just how spinless you assholes really are.

[SunCoastSooner]

This is not Vietnam you idiot.

And as we saw in the aftermath of the US withdrawal from South Vietnam, that government had good reason to want us there.

What was it? A few million slaughtered after we withdrew? Of course, you people take no responsibility for that disgusting loss of life...

It isn't Vietnam but I do see a number of similar occurances going on. Namely our troops kicking ass and the whinning, snivling Liberals not lifting a finger but bitching about it none the less.

[DrDetroit]

You are absolutely correct. One striking similarity is the Left, again, undermining the war effort.

[Tom In VA]

Okay guys, the drunk in Mass, Ted Kennedy has trolled us all.

In my attempt to understand what a quagmire is, and whether or not Iraq is a quagmire I went to the old stand by http://www.m-w.com.


Main Entry: quag·mire
Pronunciation: 'kwag-"mIr, 'kwäg-
Function: noun
1 : soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot


I'm not sure of the geography of Iraq but I know there are rivers and where there are rivers, there's sure to be some soft miry land. Sand dunes ? I suppose they'd be classified as miry land. So, geologically speaking, there might be parts in Iraq that constitute it being described as a "quagmire".


Main Entry: quag·mire
Pronunciation: 'kwag-"mIr, 'kwäg-
Function: noun

2 : a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position : PREDICAMENT


Well, it probably is difficult, people are trying to kill other people.
Well, it probably is precarious, people are trying to kill other people.
Well, it probably is somewhat entrapping since that is a tactic used by both sides, in order that they may efficiently kill other people.

Sounds like the following conclusion can be drawn.

1. Not all quagmires are Wars.
2. All Wars are quagmires.


So to put an end to this thread and this question, all Ted Kennedy, BSmack, and all the other "quagmirers" out there are saying is .....

The U.S. is in a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position : It's a PREDICAMENT.

All wars are.

[Mister Bushice]

Last Night's Big Question Asked:
Is the sacafice worth it"

If the consumers have to sacrifice a fraction of their cash at the pump, hell no. Ain't no way the public should be asked to sacrifice their SUVs.

If the general public can continue in their ways and allow only the soldiers and families of soldiers to have to sacrifice, then that is acceptable.

Thank God we had a different breed of people in the 1940s in this country or Japan and Germany would have kicked our teeth in!!!

This country in inundated with pussies like Bmonica who don't have a clue what sacrifice means. I don't pretend to know what my grandparents went through in that time period and pray I never will because this country wouldn't survive it again.

My Grandfather must be rolling over in his grave in disgust at what this country has become.

I think mvscal probably outlined the difference between that war and this by saying "This war barely rates as a squirt of piss in the ocean by comparison."

And that is one reason why it is as unpopular as it is. Many people don't look upon the war as making the difference between being safe and being under attack in the way WWII was, simply because it isn't.

ALso, the fact that The Bush Administration has handled the PR for it so very poorly hasn't helped.

Case in point: Last week, Cheney says the Insurgency is in its "Last Throes", and then gets contradicted by one of the commanders in Iraq. This weekend, Cheney gets called on his statement on a talk show, and he back pedals into the dictionary definition of "Throes", as if he didn't actually mean LAST throes. Then Rumsfeld gets on TV in an interview a day later and does the EXACT same thing! If the dude had just manned up and said "I misspoke" instead of PC'ing and backfilling the shit out of it like everyone in that administration does maybe people wouldn't feel the way they do about them, and the war.

[DrDetroit]

Bushice, why do you insist on ignoring the context of Mvscal's comments?

This current rates a squirt of piss re: casualties and deaths relative to Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. The context of his comments are important.

In terms of importance, well...this is a global war. We are fighting terrorism not only here in the US, but in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, whether politically, financially, or militarily.

Many people don't look upon the war as making the difference between being safe and being under attack in the way WWII was, simply because it isn't.

You don't speak for people and the polls are decidedly against you on that note.

ALso, the fact that The Bush Administration has handled the PR for it so very poorly hasn't helped.

Kinda tough when you have the mainstream media dismissing the basis of the war.

And Cheney's characterizing the insurgency is not part of the PR for this war...

[Mister Bushice]

Bushice, why do you insist on ignoring the context of Mvscal's comments?

Because the phrase worked just as well for my own purposes. :D:

This current rates a squirt of piss re: casualties and deaths relative to Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. The context of his comments are important.

It also rates a squirt of piss in terms of the relative importance of winning it vs WWII. It is, however ranked right up there with Vietnam. I'm not a Korean war buff, so I'll let you argue that war.

In terms of importance, well...this is a global war.

No, it's a counterinsurgency.

We are fighting terrorism not only here in the US, but in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, whether politically, financially, or militarily.

Militarily we are not currently fighting the war on terror anywhere else but Afghanistan and here at Home. Politically? moot point. Financially, we are directing funds to the counterinsurgency and calling it "financing the war on terror."

Many people don't look upon the war as making the difference between being safe and being under attack in the way WWII was, simply because it isn't.

You don't speak for people and the polls are decidedly against you on that note.

Then why did Bush feel compelled to speak last night? Here's why:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

I don't need to speak for people. They speak for themselves.

ALso, the fact that The Bush Administration has handled the PR for it so very poorly hasn't helped.

Kinda tough when you have the mainstream media dismissing the basis of the war.

And it becomes no easier when you are arrogant, unwilling to admit mistakes, and force feed everyone your version of reality and tell them it tastes good and is good for them.

And Cheney's characterizing the insurgency is not part of the PR for this war...

Unfortunately for him, all he did in his attempt to rose color the issue was make himself look bad.

[DrDetroit]

I see, Bushice, you're of the Kerry mold...

You simply have no idea what is happening nor what the stakes are.

You're quick to declare failure and pull out without even considering the consequences of such.

Iraq is the front on the war on terror. That Iraq was linked to terror and linked to al-Queda is not debateable. It is settled fact.

The problem is that idiots like you conclude that because Saddam has not told us that he was involved in 9/11 that it follows Iraq was not involved with terrorism.

You are wrong on nearly all counts.

[Cicero]

Can you imagine if the Internet and Satellite TV existed during WWII? Storming the beaches of Normandy would have sent the media and the Left into a meltdown. The US might not have stayed in the war b/c they would crying all over the Tv and Internet.

[BSmack]

Can you imagine if the Internet and Satellite TV existed during WWII? Storming the beaches of Normandy would have sent the media and the Left into a meltdown. The US might not have stayed in the war b/c they would crying all over the Tv and Internet.

On the other hand, there is no way the Holocaust would have gone down the way it did.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Can you imagine if the Internet and Satellite TV existed during WWII? Storming the beaches of Normandy would have sent the media and the Left into a meltdown. The US might not have stayed in the war b/c they would crying all over the Tv and Internet.

On the other hand, there is no way the Holocaust would have gone down the way it did.

Yeah. World Jewry would have peeled itself away from their cash registers for a moment to help their downtrodden European brethren.

:roll: x 6 000 000

No holocaust = no Israel

[Mister Bushice]

I see, Bushice, you're of the Kerry mold...

You simply have no idea what is happening nor what the stakes are.

you say that with a straight face? THe biggest self righteous blowhard here?

You're quick to declare failure and pull out without even considering the consequences of such.

Face it. We are not winning that war, we are marking time until we can leave there.

Iraq is the front on the war on terror.

Tell that to the londoners and the spanairds

That Iraq was linked to terror and linked to al-Queda is not debateable. It is settled fact.

At the time off the invasion Iran was a bigger threat, and there was very little if any direct contact between AL Q and Saddam. OBL even put saddam down in several released speeches.

The problem is that idiots like you conclude that because Saddam has not told us that he was involved in 9/11 that it follows Iraq was not involved with terrorism.

You are wrong on nearly all counts.

An the problem with blind sheeple like you is that you buy all the Bull shit Bush sells.

Plus you fail to see that what we are doing in Iraq has nothing to do with safety elsewhere in the world.