I remember Vietnam..and I think this Iraq war, Bush the Second is making it his own Vietnam!

I remember Vietnam..and I think this Iraq war, Bush the Second is making it his own Vietnam!


Where's the sex? Where's the Drugs? The Beautiful Colors?  Most of all where's Woodstock?  I'd much rather have our boy's and gal's back home, but if this has to be another vietnam, I want some good music!

Becoming? It was Vietnam the Second from the very start.




Cat

I don't remember Vietnam, since I wasn't born, but from what I've learned I completely agree with Cat. When we invaded Afghanistan, although that was considerably more justified than Iraq, I was concerned that it could become vietnam-esque.

I was born well after Vietnam, but from what I've seen this war would not be at the level Vietnam was. Vietnam was definitely worse, but Iraq is still the largest conflict since Vietnam by far. Though Iraq is like this generation's Vietnam in some ways.

Where's the sex? Where's the Drugs? The Beautiful Colors?  Most of all where's Woodstock?  I'd much rather have our boy's and gal's back home, but if this has to be another vietnam, I want some good music!

:D
This doesn't have to be another Vietnam, but it definitely will be another Vietham if we put up with our government's lies and let 'em keep us there for a whole 'nother decade!  Lyndon Johnson totally effed us up on Vietnam and now we're coming to find out what many of us suspected all aloing, The Gulf of Tonkin was based on lies.  Johnson didn't do the right right thing and pull us outta there, but at least he did the wrong right thing and didn't run again.  Now we have to choose if we're going to fall for the "let the eagle soar" rhetoric of the hawks, or the "our goose is cooked" rhetoric of the doves.  The previous sentence was to demonstrate that this war is for the birds, and further more, all that's left of the hawk is the screech.
Harmy is right for once, Vietnam with Ashlee Simpson instead of Janis Joplin would truly be atrocious!
:P

I don't remember Vietnam, since I wasn't born, but from what I've learned I completely agree with Cat. When we invaded Afghanistan, although that was considerably more justified than Iraq, I was concerned that it could become vietnam-esque.


you were against Afghanistan?

I remember Vietnam..and I think this Iraq war, Bush the Second is making it his own Vietnam!


Ok, I can understand where you're coming from in comparing Iraq to Vietnam... however, I think you are a bit off base by saying that "Bush the Second is making it his own Vietnam!"   You may disagree with America going to Iraq... and I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way, but I think you are wrong to say that Bush is making it a Vietnam.

Have you forgotten about the foreign insurgents who are placing bombs in their vehicles and killing Iraqis and killing Americans??   Do they not hold any responsibility if this develops into a Vietnam-like situation??  They are the reason we are still there... and the only reason the insurgency is effective, is because the Americans (unlike the insurgents) actually risk their own lives to protect innocent civilians... they don't fire just because a vehicle is suspicious... our troops usually find out someone is a suicide bomber after the bomb goes off... and people are hurt.

If you're going to place blame, place it where it is due... the insurgents are just as responsible (in my opinion, FAR more responsible...) for this dragging out as Bush is...

Just because the insurgents don't give a rats behind what we think, and they wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill you, me, children, reporters, peace activists, and even themselves doesn't mean they get a free pass to do as they please while Bush takes all the blame.

:D
This doesn't have to be another Vietnam, but it definitely will be another Vietham if we put up with our government's lies and let 'em keep us there for a whole 'nother decade!  Lyndon Johnson totally effed us up on Vietnam and now we're coming to find out what many of us suspected all aloing, The Gulf of Tonkin was based on lies.  Johnson didn't do the right right thing and pull us outta there, but at least he did the wrong right thing and didn't run again.  Now we have to choose if we're going to fall for the "let the eagle soar" rhetoric of the hawks, or the "our goose is cooked" rhetoric of the doves.  The previous sentence was to demonstrate that this war is for the birds, and further more, all that's left of the hawk is the screech.
Harmy is right for once, Vietnam with Ashley Simpson instead of Janis Joplin would truly be atrocious!
:P


I'm not anymore right on this than I am wrong on anything else. It just so happens we're on the same page in thought.  However I wasn't thinking Ashley Simpson, I was thinking more along the lines of U2.

In a sort-of way. When we were in Vietnam the U.S. military wasn't allowed to go into Laos and Cambodia, at least in the beginning. The North Vietnamese capitalized on this through the Ho-Chi-Min trail. In much the same way the insurgents are doing the same in that they know we won't go into Syria or other surrounding areas. I guess one could make a comparison between the insurgents and the Vietcong. But, I don't believe South Vietnam had interference from Warlords like in the Middle East. One way it is different is that North Vietnam was being supplied by the USSR so nuclear weapons had to be considered.
I often wonder how many people here even realize that Iraq didn't even exist until after WW1 and was originally set up as a Monarchy by England. If the Ottoman Empire hadn't sided with Germany it may never have existed at all.
We had reason to go in. Maybe not the reasons quoted, but reason just the same.
Anyway, like it or not, we will most likely always have a presence in Iraq just like Saudi Arabia,
Europe and Korea.

our troops usually find out someone is a suicide bomber after the bomb goes off... and people are hurt.


Kind of defeated your own argument there didn't you.

Ya know, if they're not find out who these insurgents are before they explode, then hey, why not just come home. The Iraqi security force could do the same thing.

And please people, stop calling this a war, it's not a war. It's an eradication.

you were against Afghanistan?



I was kind of conflicted on that one, being against war in general

Kind of defeated your own argument there didn't you.



No, I don't see it that way at all... well, unless you're saying the Americans should just blow 'em all up, innocent or not, to avoid being hurt themselves...

Ok, let's compare the two:

Why were we in Vietnam? We were there because the country wanted to become a communist nation and we (the Government)  precieved communism as a threat and that it would cause the "domino effect" and all nations of southeast Asia would go communist. 
Why are we in Iraq? Because we (the Government) precieved Saddam as a threat.

Was Vietnam really a threat to the U.S.? No.
Was Iraq really a threat to the U.S.? No.

Did we have a right to be in Vietnam? No. What that country did was its own business.
Do we have a right to be in Iraq? No. What that country did was its own business.

Who was the "enemy" in Vietnam? Some would say it was North Vietnam-but it was basically people fighting foriegn intruders in their country.
Who is the "enemy" in Iraq? Some call them insurgents or suicide bombers but it basically people fighting foriegn intruders in their country.


The same? I would say so. The only difference is the location.




Cat

No, I don't see it that way at all... well, unless you're saying the Americans should just blow 'em all up, innocent or not, to avoid being hurt themselves...


I was really just kidding more than anything.

'our troops usually find out someone is a suicide bomber after the bomb goes off... and people are hurt.'

This kind of suggests that U.S troops only know who is a Suicide Bomber after they've blown themselves up, thus, having no real effect on the situation whatsoever. I know this not to be the case, i was kidding.


As i've said before though, in response to your second comment. I don't bullshi* about it, i'd happily see the whole of Iraq obliterated from the face of the earth if it meant bringing the troops back home. That's not to say i condone large scale killing, just that i think they should be back home.



Why were we in Vietnam? To stop the possible threat of communism.
Why are we in Iraq? Not to promote democracy in the region as we're currently not recognising Hamas. Not to ensure that weapons of mass destruction were found, because, there never were any. And, sorry to all you conspiracy nuts, but probably not to increase the flow of Oil from Iraq because any sane person knew that the flow would stop. I don't think anybody knows why we are in Iraq.

Was Vietnam really a threat to the U.S.? Not in any militaristic sense.
Was Iraq really a threat to the U.S.? Not in any militaristic sense.

Did we have a right to be in Vietnam? Not particularly.
Do we have a right to be in Iraq? Not particularly.

Who was the "enemy" in Vietnam? Communism
Who is the "enemy" in Iraq? There wasn't one, so we created our own.

What happened to soilders after they came home from Vietnam : Bruce Springsteen sums it up in "Born in the USA"

What will happen to soilders when they come home after Iraq?: Think Springsteen has another hit in him?

For the good of everyone involved, I *hope* this isn't another Vietnam. There's enough sorrow and turmoil in this world without having a war over a war.

The lessons of Vietnam should be easy for this administration:

1.) Don't start or get involved with an overseas conflict unless you have a plan to successfully complete it. In Vietnam, the "goal" was never clearly defined at the outset (aside from avoiding the vague "domino" theory), mostly because the US involvement didn't include sending our troops over there in the early days. Aid to prop up the South Vietnamese government was the extent of involvement under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations.

2.) Plan to stay for the long haul; in other words, tell the men and women of the military they'll come home when the job's done...provided you've met the guidelines of rule #1, of course.     

3.) I hate to sound like the ghost of Barry Goldwater, but if this is in fact a war, then fight it like one! Don't keep your generals on a leash and tell them how to do their jobs. Too often in Vietnam, the White House tried to control action from afar, hampering many efforts to hold off the Viet Cong. Why did the suits in DC keep holding off on heavy bombing of Hanoi? I'm all for avoiding civilian casualties, believe me, but sometimes it's hard to avoid. War is war, and there's no changing that.

Sorry if I come off all hawkish on y'all, but that's how I feel about these matters...

3.) I hate to sound like the ghost of Barry Goldwater, but if this is in fact a war, then fight it like one! Don't keep your generals on a leash and tell them how to do their jobs. Too often in Vietnam, the White House tried to control action from afar, hampering many efforts to hold off the Viet Cong. Why did the suits in DC keep holding off on heavy bombing of Hanoi? I'm all for avoiding civilian casualties, believe me, but sometimes it's hard to avoid. War is war, and there's no changing that.


Totally true.

There are two kinds of war that can be fought.

There is the Guerilla style of warfare used in a lot of under-developed nations and then there is Total Warfare, a perfect example of that is Blitzkrieg (Lightning War). If your going to fight a war, you either have to take your enemy's by suprise, destroying them when there are no civilians around, or you have to be ruthless and destroy not only your enemy, but anything your enemy can use.

This so called war on Terror is utterly inane. I'm all for executing anybody that is caught in the act of terrorism. I'm all for stopping it before it happens, but that's where the problem is. The whole idea of Terrorism is that it's subversive and secretive. You can't fight something you can't see. Terrorism is not an army, it's an ideology. For instance...

Your a U.S Marine in Iraq. You see two young men in the street. Both are wearing typical Iraqi garments, they both have heavy beards and look somewhat of a threat. Heavily muscled fit young men.

BOOM! The 11 year old girl behind you just set off a bomb strapped to her chest.

It's totally impossible to determine who is and who isn't a terrorist threat until they have carried out an attack. The British government has been fighting a war on terror in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years now. But even now there are still soldiers being killed frequently.

No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how large a military influence you exert on a location.. There will always be people who disagree with you, there will always be people who want you to go away and there will always be people willing to sacrafice themselves.

I can sympathise. Let's use another hypothetical situation.

Say you live down in Texas. Your sitting there on your deck enjoying a nice sunny evening with your wife and kids when all of a sudden.. "Oh look, here come's the Mexican Army." Your town is occupied and your no longer allowed to go about your business as usual. Would you not be just a little bit pissed off?

I realise that Iraq has been liberated from what somebody i can only call an Opressive Dictator. I agree, the man needed removing. He was a threat, not to us, but to the people he was supposed to govern.

The only way to achieve a 'victory' in Iraq is to switch to a Total War scenario. If you want to kill the terrorist element of that society, it is feasible. But the world suffers.

In Afghanistan, during the Soviet campaign every time a Russian Helicopter was shot at, or.. a Russian solider fired upon, the Soviets would destroy a village. They would go in and kill everybody in sight, men, women and children. Eventually it got to the stage where there weren't all that many people in certain areas willing to take pot shots at the Russians. That would work in Iraq but i'd be repulsed if the American people sat by and allowed that to happen.

We're in the Ultimate Catch 22, there is no actual solution in this case, the only viable options are to try and maintain some dignity in the whole situation and to give them credit the Administration does seem to be trying to do that.

Totally true.

There are two kinds of war that can be fought.

There is the Guerilla style of warfare used in a lot of under-developed nations and then there is Total Warfare, a perfect example of that is Blitzkrieg (Lightning War). If your going to fight a war, you either have to take your enemy's by suprise, destroying them when there are no civilians around, or you have to be ruthless and destroy not only your enemy, but anything your enemy can use.

This so called war on Terror is utterly inane. I'm all for executing anybody that is caught in the act of terrorism. I'm all for stopping it before it happens, but that's where the problem is. The whole idea of Terrorism is that it's subversive and secretive. You can't fight something you can't see. Terrorism is not an army, it's an ideology. For instance...

Your a U.S Marine in Iraq. You see two young men in the street. Both are wearing typical Iraqi garments, they both have heavy beards and look somewhat of a threat. Heavily muscled fit young men.

BOOM! The 11 year old girl behind you just set off a bomb strapped to her chest.

It's totally impossible to determine who is and who isn't a terrorist threat until they have carried out an attack. The British government has been fighting a war on terror in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years now. But even now there are still soldiers being killed frequently.

No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how large a military influence you exert on a location.. There will always be people who disagree with you, there will always be people who want you to go away and there will always be people willing to sacrafice themselves.

I can sympathise. Let's use another hypothetical situation.

Say you live down in Texas. Your sitting there on your deck enjoying a nice sunny evening with your wife and kids when all of a sudden.. "Oh look, here come's the Mexican Army." Your town is occupied and your no longer allowed to go about your business as usual. Would you not be just a little bit pissed off?

I realise that Iraq has been liberated from what somebody i can only call an Opressive Dictator. I agree, the man needed removing. He was a threat, not to us, but to the people he was supposed to govern.

The only way to achieve a 'victory' in Iraq is to switch to a Total War scenario. If you want to kill the terrorist element of that society, it is feasible. But the world suffers.

In Afghanistan, during the Soviet campaign every time a Russian Helicopter was shot at, or.. a Russian solider fired upon, the Soviets would destroy a village. They would go in and kill everybody in sight, men, women and children. Eventually it got to the stage where there weren't all that many people in certain areas willing to take pot shots at the Russians. That would work in Iraq but i'd be repulsed if the American people sat by and allowed that to happen.

We're in the Ultimate Catch 22, there is no actual solution in this case, the only viable options are to try and maintain some dignity in the whole situation and to give them credit the Administration does seem to be trying to do that.


Very well said. ;)

Very well said. ;)


Thank you. I try very hard to be objective and sit on the fence. Oftentimes our judgements can be clouded by our Political leaning and on situations that affect every single one of us I feel that's the wrong tact to take.

As I have mentioned before, it upsets me a great deal to see British and American men and women dieing and being injured. (In my family alone there have been 2 major injurys - My cousin out in Kansas now only has one eye and another Cousin had to carry his best friend bleeding after the guy had his legs blown off) So as you can imagine, i'm keen to get them all home safe.

At the same time though, as the worlds only remaining superpower it is important we don't look weak in this conflict. That's where the Catch 22 element comes in to it. Pulling out really isn't an option, but staying is just getting worse and worse by the day.

Where's the sex? Where's the Drugs? The Beautiful Colors?  Most of all where's Woodstock?  I'd much rather have our boy's and gal's back home, but if this has to be another vietnam, I want some good music!
There is one crucial difference between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, why the anti-war movement isn't nearly as prominent today as it was during Vietnam, and why today there isn't a major youth movement like the one in the late 1960's that spawned the counterculture that all the groovy sex, drugs, and rock and roll of that era came from:  You, being male and 20 years of age (I checked your profile) in 2006 don't have the same overwhelming fear that the average 20-year-old male would have had in, say, 1968: Today you don't need to be worried about opening your mailbox and finding a draft notice with your name on it.
    Most young people today, while they certainly have to hold some opinion on the war in Iraq, aren't all that personally affected by it and thus most likely don't feel too strongly about it either way. However, if President Bush announced tomorrow that he was reinstating the draft, the youth of America would almost certainly be up in arms as soon they understood what that meant for them. And when young people suddenly become more organized and politically active, they tend to reflect that through music and by rebelling in different ways (such as the aformentioned sex, drugs, Beautiful Colors, and Woodstock). Who knows? If Bush ever decides to start up the draft again, maybe we'll get a new Nirvana out of the deal. ::)
   

There is one crucial difference between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, why the anti-war movement isn't nearly as prominent today as it was during Vietnam, and why today there isn't a major youth movement like the one in the late 1960's that spawned the counterculture that all the groovy sex, drugs, and rock and roll of that era came from:  You, being male and 20 years of age (I checked your profile) in 2006 don't have the same overwhelming fear that the average 20-year-old male would have had in, say, 1968: Today you don't need to be worried about opening your mailbox and finding a draft notice with your name on it.
    Most young people today, while they certainly have to hold some opinion on the war in Iraq, aren't all that personally affected by it and thus most likely don't feel too strongly about it either way. However, if President Bush announced tomorrow that he was reinstating the draft, the youth of America would almost certainly be up in arms as soon they understood what that meant for them. And when young people suddenly become more organized and politically active, they tend to reflect that through music and by rebelling in different ways (such as the aformentioned sex, drugs, Beautiful Colors, and Woodstock). Who knows? If Bush ever decides to start up the draft again, maybe we'll get a new Nirvana out of the deal. ::)
   


And ya all wanna say Nixon never did anything right. 

By the way, I'm 20 years old! I'm 20 years old! I got brown! Blue eyes! I'm 5'8  165 pounds!  I bench press 245 pounds 3 times!  Anything you wanna know about me?

There is one crucial difference between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, why the anti-war movement isn't nearly as prominent today as it was during Vietnam, and why today there isn't a major youth movement like the one in the late 1960's that spawned the counterculture that all the groovy sex, drugs, and rock and roll of that era came from:  You, being male and 20 years of age (I checked your profile) in 2006 don't have the same overwhelming fear that the average 20-year-old male would have had in, say, 1968: Today you don't need to be worried about opening your mailbox and finding a draft notice with your name on it.
    Most young people today, while they certainly have to hold some opinion on the war in Iraq, aren't all that personally affected by it and thus most likely don't feel too strongly about it either way. However, if President Bush announced tomorrow that he was reinstating the draft, the youth of America would almost certainly be up in arms as soon they understood what that meant for them. And when young people suddenly become more organized and politically active, they tend to reflect that through music and by rebelling in different ways (such as the aformentioned sex, drugs, Beautiful Colors, and Woodstock). Who knows? If Bush ever decides to start up the draft again, maybe we'll get a new Nirvana out of the deal. ::)
   


Iraq is like Vietnam, minus a draft and with pseudo-1990s music instead of hippie music and protests.

And ya all wanna say Nixon never did anything right. 

By the way, I'm 20 years old! I'm 20 years old! I got brown! Blue eyes! I'm 5'8  165 pounds!  I bench press 245 pounds 3 times!  Anything you wanna know about me?


You can take my place in any future drafts then  ;D

Iraq is like Vietnam, minus a draft and with pseudo-1990s music instead of hippie music and protests.


Feh. The counterculture is overrated. How about activism with more substance and less rhetoric? Blah blah blah...

Feh. The counterculture is overrated. How about activism with more substance and less rhetoric? Blah blah blah...


Even though I'm somewhat of a Hippie in that I like paranormal stuff and nature, I agree with you.  Most '60s music sucked, and the hippies of the '60s and '70s simply became Yuppies during the '80s and '90s.  I also don't like how sacred the '60s are to them, but maybe I'm just jealous.  Nah, the '80s were the best.  8)

You can take my place in any future drafts then  ;D



Touche




Cat

You can take my place in any future drafts then  ;D


That goes against what I said. Nixon put an end to the draft. But if the draft comes back and I have to go, I have to go.  No trips to Sasakatoon for me.

That goes against what I said. Nixon put an end to the draft. But if the draft comes back and I have to go, I have to go.  No trips to Sasakatoon for me.

I've heard Saskatoon's kind of a neat city.  A bit nippy and dark this time of year.  If the Bushies want to send our armed forces on any more mercenary ventures, they WILL have to reinstate a draft.  No doubt about it.  However, no Republican wants to reinstate a draft because whoever supports the measure will get voted out next election.  Of course, that presumes there will be a "next election."

i like to say vietnam was a war that they insisted on calling a police action, and iraq is a police action that they insist on calling a war. while the VC and the iraqi insurgents are both using guerrilla tactics, i don't think the iraqis have mounted a resistance on anything like the same scale. for one thing they don't have any big-government backing, like the VC had from the soviets...

IMO this war is just as meaningless, pointless, and unwinnable as Vietnam was...but Mr. Bush will keep our soldiers there, regardless...more of our soldiers wounded and even worse KILLED...what for? To keep the money coming to Halliburton!!!!

I've heard Saskatoon's kind of a neat city.  A bit nippy and dark this time of year.  If the Bushies want to send our armed forces on any more mercenary ventures, they WILL have to reinstate a draft.  No doubt about it.  However, no Republican wants to reinstate a draft because whoever supports the measure will get voted out next election.  Of course, that presumes there will be a "next election."



If they send troops to Iran, you betcha they'll have a draft. 

Actually, I don't know the facts, but it seems like it would have been better if we went into Iran rather than Iraq, based on what I know.  Their leader has nukes and is totally crazy, he wants to destroy Israel, which bodes bad for the United States.  Him and Al-Qaeda are the real enemies.

I'm not sticking up for Saddam here.  I'm nobody to judge another, but what Saddam did was nasty, and he was a true tyrant.  But, he's not our enemy, and most of all Bush lied about why we went there.  There were no WMDs, maybe if he were a bit more honest and had a better plan I wouldn't feel quite as bad about the war, but he didn't.

By the way, I'm 20 years old! I'm 20 years old! I got brown! Blue eyes! I'm 5'8  165 pounds!  I bench press 245 pounds 3 times!  Anything you wanna know about me?
I only wanted to check into that because it was relevant to the point I was trying to make. But, since you mention it, there IS something I'd like to know: For someone who can "bench press 245 pounds 3 times," you seem to be quite defensive. Why is that?  ::)

I've heard Saskatoon's kind of a neat city.  A bit nippy and dark this time of year.  If the Bushies want to send our armed forces on any more mercenary ventures, they WILL have to reinstate a draft.  No doubt about it.  However, no Republican wants to reinstate a draft because whoever supports the measure will get voted out next election.  Of course, that presumes there will be a "next election."



Saskatoon is a great city. It's where Bret Hart won his first WWF championship.  I don't support the war in Iraq, but I support the men and women fighting the war in Iraq. 

I only wanted to check into that because it was relevant to the point I was trying to make. But, since you mention it, there IS something I'd like to know: For someone who can "bench press 245 pounds 3 times," you seem to be quite defensive. Why is that?  ::)


I put that down because you seem so sure of yourself that I can't know anything because of my age. Well to the similarity I'm not that big of a person and I know a lot of people at lot stronger than me, but for a little guy I'm pretty strong.  The comparisons are quite lovly.  Logically and sensibly it's fun to put two and two together.  Age = Smarter  Bigger = Stronger.  Unfortunately/fortunately  dependign how you percieve, we dont' live in a logical world.  Only according to theory, not circumstance.

I put that down because you seem so sure of yourself that I can't know anything because of my age. Well to the similarity I'm not that big of a person and I know a lot of people at lot stronger than me, but for a little guy I'm pretty strong.  The comparisons are quite lovly.  Logically and sensibly it's fun to put two and two together.  Age = Smarter  Bigger = Stronger.  Unfortunately/fortunately  dependign how you percieve, we dont' live in a logical world.  Only according to theory, not circumstance.
My intent in my original reply was not to put you down, nor to be disrespectful towards you in any way. As far as the Age=Smarter and Bigger=Stronger equation, well, are you now assuming that I don't know anything? I've talked to plenty of teenagers who are very intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise beyond their years (including some on this very site), and I'm sure you've met your fair share of people in their 40's and 50's (and older) that are dumber than a pile of rocks. Not to mention that I'm 35 years old, and although I've learned a lot in those years, I still know that I have much more to learn. I also happen to be 6'3," and I've met much shorter guys who could wipe the floor with me. (For the record, I never tease shorter people about their height nor do I act condescending towards them, yet a lot of them make jokes about me being tall, not that it bothers me or anything.) There's an old saying, "It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."

My intent in my original reply was not to put you down, nor to be disrespectful towards you in any way. As far as the Age=Smarter and Bigger=Stronger equation, well, are you now assuming that I don't know anything? I've talked to plenty of teenagers who are very intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise beyond their years (including some on this very site), and I'm sure you've met your fair share of people in their 40's and 50's (and older) that are dumber than a pile of rocks. Not to mention that I'm 35 years old, and although I've learned a lot in those years, I still know that I have much more to learn. I also happen to be 6'3," and I've met much shorter guys who could wipe the floor with me. (For the record, I never tease shorter people about their height nor do I act condescending towards them, yet a lot of them make jokes about me being tall, not that it bothers me or anything.) There's an old saying, "It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."


Ooh good quote, I need to write that down.  You know a lot, and you present yourself well.  Never stop learning, some of the best advice one could give.

Ooh good quote, I need to write that down.  You know a lot, and you present yourself well.  Never stop learning, some of the best advice one could give.
Thanks, I thought you might like that quote.

I wonder if soldiers coming home from Iraq are given a hero's welcome....those who fought in 'Nam did not get one. Terrible.

I think the war in Iraq is just as pointless as Vietnam was, especially since Saddam is no longer any threat to Iraq or the USA.

  dependign how you percieve, we dont' live in a logical world.  .

Uhhh....no comment!
:D

Uhhh....no comment!
:D
is that like not being part of the "reality-based" constituency?

http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/2050

There is one large difference between the two conflicts:

In Vietnam, the citizens were largely apathetic to who would win.  Because of the corruption in South Vietnam, they did not care about who would win or loose, they simply wanted the war over with.

And in this war, it was obviously the situation of one country invading another.  And to top it off, until a a few years before, they were only one country.

In Iraq, this is not the case.  Most of the citizens want the extreemists to stop.  The Shia majority is tired of the Suni minority, who have repressed them for decades.  And the same goes for the Kurds and other minorities.

And this is not an invasion by a nation, but instead of an extreme religious mindset.