America winning in War in Iraq

America didn't lose one military engagement in Vietnam. We had to pull out because we lost the battle at home, politically we lost at home.

As for how I know about the schools, ect. Not only do I have a friend's brother was was an MP for the US Army but my teacher was in Iraq and so was a friend's uncle. And I've heard stories from them and I've read letters from soldiers overseas in Iraq.

lol, I thought America got their ass kicked at the Vietcong because they were ill prepared and disorganized?

I actually saw something on the news the other day where someone quoted some high ranking American army guy who virtually said Vietnam was a failure... I'd look for a link but I have to go out.

We had a huge loss of life but we didn't lose one military battle in Vietnam. That is a proven fact.

If we would have stayed in Vietnam we would have eventually won the war. At what cost? I don't know but we would have won. We lost the war at home. We lost the war with politics and that is the same thing the media and the liberals are trying to pull now with Iraq.

The Tet Offensive wasn't exactly a victory for the US forces in Vietnam. It may not have been an out-and-out defeat, but it was the so-called "turning point" that made it impossible to succeed in the "winning the hearts and minds of the people" side of the Indochinese conflict. With all the guerilla warfare, most of the "victories" in Vietnam were basically stalemate situations.

If the troops and the war would have gotten the support at home we would have won the war, eventually.

Maybe, though it's hard to support a war that's trying to liberate a country that's already trying to liberate itself through political revolution, as Vietnam was. Communism may not be any better than Capitalism, but it was hardly the thread it was made out to be. The "domino effect" theory didn't take into consideration that communism benefits:

a) countries in need of political revolution
b) countries with a village based population/agriculturally based economy

The fear that communism would "take over" countries like the US and Australia might have made sense at the time, but not in retrospect. Both the US and Australia have established governments/political systems that work (for the most part) and most people either like or accept. Furthermore, both nations' economies are industrially based with imports/exports and have large cities/suburban populations.

America may have been doing what Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon's administrations thought was the right thing to do, but ultimately a lot of bloodshed on both sides could have been avoided if Vietnam was granted its independence back in 1945 after WWII came to and end and allowed to form their own government as they saw fit.

Nobody "wins" in a war. You think seriously Iraq will like being US's colony? There's no way around it. Iraq will be US's bitch for years. Just like japan, Korea, Panama, Phillipines, or the world really. A lot of people would rather suffer under horrible dictatorships than be under another country. I would rather live under horrible conditions than be under Japanese rule for one, so I would understand how a lot of Iraqis would rather be under Sadaam than be under the US. I think US is just thinking way too positively. That everyone would accept them under open arms and fail to understand that maybe a lot of those countries don't like being forced.

Nobody "wins" in a war. You think seriously Iraq will like being US's colony? There's no way around it. Iraq will be US's bitch for years. Just like japan, Korea, Panama, Phillipines, or the world really. A lot of people would rather suffer under horrible dictatorships than be under another country. I would rather live under horrible conditions than be under Japanese rule for one, so I would understand how a lot of Iraqis would rather be under Sadaam than be under the US. I think US is just thinking way too positively. That everyone would accept them under open arms and fail to understand that maybe a lot of those countries don't like being forced.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

You'd rather have an evil dictator rape, torture and kill his own people? You'd rather have a dictator that cuts off supplies to your town because you called him out? You'd rather have a dictator that is known to have chemical weapons and other kinds of WMDs and isn't afraid to use them on his own people or his neighbors?

I'd rather have a chance of living in atleast a semi-free nation then be oppressed by one of the most evil dictators in the world.

There are enough terrorists that kill themselves to suggest that yes, there are people who would be willing to live under that dictator. Mao killed more people than World War 1 and 2 combined. A lot of people wanted to live under him for one.

Yes it might be ignorant, but the fact is there are Iraqis that think that way obviously.

And the fact that most of the Iraqis DON'T think that way proves that it was an ignorant comment.

How would you know though?
They haven't really received the US in open arms.
And what about Mao? I mean he was a terrible dictator, with a kill count that nobody can even touch but he had tons of support and is still idolized in China.

This isn't even a debate about Mao.

How would I know? My friend's brother was in Iraq serving with the US Army and my teacher was in Iraq, as well. I've read letters from soldiers in Iraq and I've heard stories from my friend's brother and my teacher.

Well the point I was trying to make with Mao is that some people are brainwashed enough to think that living under a dictatorship might be living under some countries. (In this case, better to live under Mao rather than be under Japan.)

Well my friend's friend got killed by a terrorist bomb, and the constant unrest seems to tell me that things aren't going too well. Maybe those people act well because they are near the US army. I mean, you need to look good if you live near them because they'll provide food and treat people better. It's hard to know if they have built up hatred. Well maybe I'll see what one of my best friends say when he returns from Iraq. He should be quite neutral since he didn't want to go there in the first place.

It's not the Iraqi people that are bombing the US Soldiers, it's the extremists that don't want America there and don't want a democracy in Iraq. Most of them aren't even Iraqis, they come up from other countries.

My friend's bro was a military police in Baghdad. He had to patrol the streets and raid buildings for over a year. He saw A LOT of Iraqi's, and most of them would come up to him and shake his hand, try to kiss him, wave American flags, ect.

Didn't you see when the Iraqi's took the Saddam statue down? I don't think they were doing that just for show. They want America there and they thank them for being there.

Wow. You are really brainwashed without any possibility of looking at this subject objectivly.

I think it's time people face the facts somewhat in political discussion. Either way, there's about a less than 1% chance that you are actually going to make someone with a different view agree with you. Using the "You are just brainwashed" method is just a convienient way to say "I still don't agree with you". It's just not going to work. Express your opinions, but then move on.

Word. Atleast I got a reliable source inside Iraq.

I think it's time people face the facts somewhat in political discussion. Either way, there's about a less than 1% chance that you are actually going to make someone with a different view agree with you. Using the "You are just brainwashed" method is just a convienient way to say "I still don't agree with you". It's just not going to work. Express your opinions, but then move on.

Not true. Even though he obviously carries a dogmatic sense of patriotism, you should still be able to call him/her out on it.

The point is, he isn't going to change, no matter what you say. And you aren't going to change, no matter what he says. So arguing any further after expressing your views is pretty much futile.

The point is, he isn't going to change, no matter what you say. And you aren't going to change, no matter what he says. So arguing any further after expressing your views is pretty much futile.

But it's fun!

It gets annoying, when I get called out for being brainwashed and what not but when I call you out you get defensive and freak out at me saying it was a cheap shot. I said you get fed liberal propaganda and you acted as if I just committed a sin. I can't win in a debate with you, you can't win in a debate with me. It was fun, let's end it. We'll just go over the same points and opinions we have over the past 2-3 days and even though it's fun it does get old.

Agreed?