Not Vietnam Watch

Published December 14, 2006 in Iraq.

We’re using enemy body counts in order to justify the war. But it’s not Vietnam yet!!

44 Responses to “Not Vietnam Watch”

Feed for this Entry

1 dr pedro
Dec 14th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Again Ollie, we DO read these things….

“For obvious reasons, going back to the Vietnam era, people are loathed to do body counts, but it probably is worth at least giving a general impression of the relative battlefield success of what’s going on, which is a great many members of Al Qaida in Anbar, and also, people who are committing acts of violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, are dying or being captured as a result of these military activities”
2 Eric the Political Hack
Dec 14th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

Pedro, what’s your point?

Oliver basically summed up what Snow said in a shorter, sardonic tone.

But you’re right, it’s not like Vietnam. Tony Snow said so.
3 Oliver
Dec 14th, 2006 at 5:39 pm

It’s not Vietnam, we’re just using the exact same PR techniques as Vietnam. But it’s not Vietnam at all.
4 Eric the Political Hack
Dec 14th, 2006 at 5:46 pm

Good point, Oliver. I mean I-r-a-q and V-i-e-t-n-a-m are completely different words. How could they possibly be the same?
5 fd10801
Dec 14th, 2006 at 6:25 pm

There’s a lot of other important similarities between Iraq and Vietnam: The intelligentsia and the media couldn’t care less about the people our men are fighting for; our legislators are falling all over themselves trying to be the first to holler,”It’s over!”, instead of “Let’s win!”; and it’s “hip” to oppose the War, so Hollywood and music entertainment types, including nearly all comedians, bend over backwards to mock the war, its goals, and even the President.

And, oh yeah, young Americans, many of them with short haircuts, are beating the snot out of an ideologically deranged enemy, while receiving little or no support on the homefront.

Yes, Iraq is very much like Vietnam. Maybe we’ll luck out and lose there, too. Wouldn’t that be swell ?!
6 Nimrod Gently
Dec 14th, 2006 at 6:31 pm

Actually (like Vietnam) young Americans with short haircuts are nowhere near the ideologically-opposed enemy, and they’re losing anyway.

Well done manging to establish yourself as the most genuinely deranged and raving troll on this website, despite the competion, and your late entry.
7 frameone
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

“…while receiving little or no support on the homefront.”

Yup, it’s all the media’s fault for duping Americans into not supporting the mission or the troops. Is it possible for anyone on the right to take responsibility for anything?
8 dr pedro
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:25 pm

Naa.its nothing like the ‘nam. The lefties figured out it wasn’t a good idea to PUBLICLY spit on our soldiers…better PR people this time around.

But if we are lucky, the lefties can talk the country into the old helicopter from the rooftops scene. And then, maybe we can see Iraq fall into abject poverty for a couple of decades while the rest of its neighbors prosper.
Finally, if the lefties REALLY get their way, we can have a reinactment of “The Killing Fields” and we’ll see 2-3 million Iraqi’s killed! Cause heh, every cloud has a silver lining, and I think some lefties in Hollywood made a lot of money with a movie by the name of “The Killing Fields”

Yay American Lefties!
9 Nimrod Gently
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:32 pm

“The Killing Fields” was made by lefties?

Pedro, your fanaticism is driving you insane. Stop it.
10 strangely enough
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:37 pm

“And then, maybe we can see Iraq fall into abject poverty for a couple of decades”

Ummm, because Iraq is doing so well right now…

“we can have a reinactment of “The Killing Fields” and we’ll see 2-3 million Iraqi’s killed!”

As opposed to the hundreds of thousands that have already been killed, and the dozens, if not hundreds that join them daily. Is it tough keeping actual facts out of that world you live in?
11 strangely enough
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that there was already an ongoing civil war in Vietnam. Other than that, same lies, same bogus justifications, same vilification of anyone opposed…

If the media gave a damn about the people doing the fighting and dying in our military, they wouldn’t have sold us Bush’s bullshit before the war, and they wouldn’t have cheerled for so long during it. You can’t claim the “support the troops” mantle if your support only means leaving them in that meatgrinder so that you don’t feel stupid for supporting a horrible, counterproductive, illegal war.
12 fd10801
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:58 pm

nowhere near the ideologically-opposed enemy?

Yes, Nimrod, you have a non - American’s familiarity with American history and current events, i.e., none.
13 midderpidge
Dec 14th, 2006 at 7:59 pm

Strange, the only ones who aren’t supporting the troops seem to be the president and his hangers-on. Those hangers-on confuse supporting the troops, with supporting the president. Since the president is screwing the troops, it ain’t the same.

Bush isn’t winning. He hasn’t tried to win. He just wants to be the Wayne Fonts of military actions.
14 frameone
Dec 14th, 2006 at 8:10 pm

Sigh.

The Bush administration concocted the argument for the war, it planned the invasion, it “planned” the reconstruction, it was overseen every detail of the mission since its inception. Bush will tell he turned directly to the commanders on the ground for advice and that he gave them everything they asked for.

In short, our policy in Iraq was concevied and executed entirely by the Bush administration.

But it’s Nancy Pelosi and the left wing media’s fault that things are so bad.

If the American media had simply covered the war a different way Iraq would now be a safe and shining democratic beacon in the middle east?

Are consverative brains just broken?
15 fd10801
Dec 14th, 2006 at 8:21 pm

Interesting construction there, frame. The war is going bad,is it?

And where did you get that idea? From CENTCOM PR men? From Tony Snow? Donald Rumsfeld?

I think the strap from your petard is stuck on the castle gate.
16 Eric the Political Hack
Dec 14th, 2006 at 8:26 pm

Well, even Bush did say things are bad in Iraq.
17 z adura
Dec 14th, 2006 at 8:44 pm

There is one HUGE difference between Iraq and Vietnam. In Vietnam, we were at least nominally killing the VC. While the body count was an overly inflated number that represented not only VC but women, children and non-combatants, it was at least North Vietnamese, which were nominally communists.

In Iraq, we are not fighting al Qaeda. The elements we are fighting are sometimes Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, sometimes foreign fighters, sometimes al Queda. And the usual women, children and non-combatants. The body count will say nothing about whether we are any closer to our intended goals with the war on terror.
18 michael
Dec 14th, 2006 at 11:00 pm

Since Dugger’s not here yet, let me be the first to say we’re TOTALLY winning the war in Los Angeles County.
19 frameone
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:33 am

“And where did you get that idea?”

I gather you’re of the belief that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq, then?

Is everything going swimingly over there, or do you just prefer having smoke blown up your ass?
20 frameone
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:34 am

“From CENTCOM PR men? From Tony Snow? Donald Rumsfeld?”

Oh, wait. You do prefer having smoke blown up your ass.
21 Nimrod Gently
Dec 15th, 2006 at 7:18 am

I thought the enemy was Osama Bin Laden and his organisation, not just any random brown person who happens to be non-conducive to the Military-Industrial Complex at this moment in time.
22 Dugger
Dec 15th, 2006 at 7:41 am

“I thought the enemy was Osama Bin Laden and his organisation, not just any random brown person who happens to be non-conducive to the Military-Industrial Complex at this moment in time.”

Oh dear. How ideologue-ish. Even put Military etc in caps. I missed Amerika.
23 Nimrod Gently
Dec 15th, 2006 at 7:44 am

Oh, you are not telling me that the official position of the right is that the Military Industrial Complex doesn’t exist…

How does anyone take you guys seriously?
24 fd10801
Dec 15th, 2006 at 7:49 am

I gather you’re of the belief that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq, then?

Is everything going swimingly over there, or do you just prefer having smoke blown up your ass?

For some of us, there is a great distance between “Things are going swimmingly,” and “Run away! Run away!”

My point was not that the war was going well or not well. My point was that, if you are of the opinion that the war is not going well, you should have (I hope) derived that opinion from reputable sources. Thus, it is safe to conclude that the truth (however cloudy it might be) is getting out.

Reports that things are going badly are all over the news. Reports that things are going well are not. And yet, in many ways things are going well.

This includes the fact that we are fighting terrorists of all stripes and descriptions from all over the Middle East (”fighting them there, instead of here” — sound familiar?) and killing lots of them.

Who gets more publicity? Rep Jack “we’ll fight terrorism in Okinawa” Murtha, or Air Force Chief Master Sgt. John Gebhardt (ever hear of him?)US Army PFC Ross McGinnis ?
25 z adura
Dec 15th, 2006 at 9:21 am

fdxxxxx, do you understand at all what is going on in Iraq? Iraq is not a fight between us and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda represents about 1% of the problem. The rest of the problem is with historical antagonistic factions who have no issue with the U.S. whatsoever save that they want us out of the country.

When you say stupid shit like “terrorists of all stripes and descriptions,” it is an announcement to the world that you don’t understand the issues.
26 Dugger
Dec 15th, 2006 at 9:54 am

Nimmer

Indeed I’m telling you there is military, and there is industry. There are common interests and there are divergent interests. In the USAF, I butted heads with contractors (industry) constantly. Nobody ever ever told me where the secret governing cabal of the MIC actually met. Fact is, the contractors are always at war (business) against each other. Fact is, the military is always trying to squeeze extra effort at no cost out of them.
27 Nimrod Gently
Dec 15th, 2006 at 10:02 am

Oh, so it’s just that you don’t understand what the term means, you just think it’s vaguely left-wing so you mock it.
28 Avedon
Dec 15th, 2006 at 11:39 am

Well, Nimrod, you have to admit that Eisenhower was a raving lefty hippie weirdo, the Noam Chomsky of his time.

(I guess now we know why Kerry was for it before he was against it. Yeah, great, send a whole bunch of money to Iraq and don’t pay any attention to where it’s coming from or where it goes! And destroy the civil service so no one is keeping track, either! Wheee!)
29 fd10801
Dec 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

zadura: I will say this one time, and one time only. I didn’t say we were fighting al Qaeda, although they are included in the mixed bag of people we are fighting, including Ba’athists, sunnis and shi’ites, and X amount Jihadis from Syria and Iran. They fight as terrorists; they fight like terrorists. They are “terrorists”, not insurgents, not minutemen, or rebels. They seek to advance their goals by irregular means, including maiming and killing innocent civilians deliberately.

I don’t understand why liberals (please don’t waste your time denying it by call yourself a progressive or something equally evasive) are so quick to resort to profanity and insults before they have even grasped the full content of a person’s remarks.

It gives lie to the purported liberals’ talk of tolerance and openmindedness. And it happens here so often that it can’t be an anomaly.
30 Nimrod Gently
Dec 15th, 2006 at 12:56 pm

Frank, you’re making the mistake there of thinking that we believe, as you do, that “Liberal” is a dirty word akin to “fascist” or “extremist”.
31 nihilistic_disintegration
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pm

Duggster: Fact is, the military is always trying to squeeze extra effort at no cost out of them.

Is that why Haliburton gets no-bid cost-plus contracts?
32 fd10801
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:12 pm

N G : Let’s just say that more Liberals deny being liberals than they do admit it.

On the topic of Iraq, here are some very interesting ideas:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121806A
33 Dugger
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:17 pm

No, nimmer. The concept of an MIC originated with Ike in the late fifties -a dour Repub. I mocked your seeming paranoia concerning the same.

So nihilistic, would you do away with all sole source contracts. Hint to save embarrassment: think before you answer.

I’ll make it harder: if there are two qualified contractors, would you insist on competiton regardless of all other consdierations and award to low bidder?

(fish in a barrel)
34 Nimrod Gently
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:43 pm

I’m not paranoid about the MIC, I know perfectly well what it does. You, presumably, don’t really care as long as there’s enough in it for you.
35 z adura
Dec 15th, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Dugger, what a cool dodge you just made…

Rather than asking which contractor can better deliver an Osprey on budget, why not have some oversight about whether we need the friggin thing in the first place. The MIC is both about the pigs at the trough and about whether we should have a government diet composed mainly of pork.
36 strangely enough
Dec 15th, 2006 at 2:21 pm

On the topic of Iraq, here are some very interesting ideas

More revisionist history, and a recipe for partition. Definitely liked this part:

Would such a savage tilt against Iraq’s Sunni Arabs bring Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia into the war? This is unlikely

Actually, this is delusional. Rich Saudis are already bankrolling the Sunni resistance to a certain degree. That support would likey become institutional should the recommendations in that article become policy.

The only worthwhile thing in the article?

Like the late General Pinochet, Mr. Bush might be advised to never leave the country again for fear of arrest.

Classic…
37 Dugger
Dec 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pm

z

Wasn’t a dodge. No one has ever shown Halliburton was a bad or inappropriate choice.

And it isn’t quite as easy as just deciding who can deliver an Osprey on budget. Generally, the answer is nobody can. Contractor A can give you a 90% Osprey (the Osprey you want is usually unobtainable - you ask for the best possible on paper and take the best available in reality)at 120% budget. Contractor B can give you 95% of an Osprey at 130%. Neither will be able to do it on schedule. Thats reality.

Furthermore contractors like Halliburton are often the only ones with the full capability and resources (proven- anybody could ’say’ they ccould do the joba nd buy in) available to do the types of complex, multi-purpose jobs in Iraq. And importantly, it might take four years for another contractor to fully gear up and hire and acquire needed people and stuff to do what Halliburtobncan do today. Sole source takes about 1/4 time to award as competiton. Put it all together and you see why the services do what they do at times. Its never as easy as the critics would have you believe.
38 nihilistic_disintegration
Dec 15th, 2006 at 3:37 pm

So, Duggster, are you backing away from your claim that “the military is always trying to squeeze extra effort at no cost out of them”?

How do “cost plus” contracts ever squeeze anything other than the taxpyers? What incentive does Halliburton have to keep costs down if they know that no matter how high they go, they still get the same profit?

I’m not a fan of the “low bid wins” method of awarding contracts. But I’m also not the one who said “the military is always trying to squeeze extra effort at no cost out of them.”
39 Dugger
Dec 15th, 2006 at 5:27 pm

“How do “cost plus” contracts ever squeeze anything”

Easy. Not saying we ever ‘like’ sole source, cost plus, BOA etc but sometimes they are the only way to get a contractor to do something. Why? Because the requested action/effort may be extremely risky dollar-wise or technology wise to the contractor. He flat won’t bid on it unless he is protected in some way - which cost plus does. In DOD if you don’t use an instrument at times, the job flat can’t be done becasue contractors won’t bid on it. The type on instrument makes a huge difference sometimes.
40 z adura
Dec 15th, 2006 at 5:31 pm

Dugger, you missed the point, so let me try again. We are spending too much money on many levels:

1) too much overall - more than half of discretionary spending
2) too much on heavy arms that serve no purpose in today’s war - F-22
3) too much on poorly executed contracts - Osprey
4) too much on poorly drafted contracts - Haliburton

The MIC is wrapped up in all of these things. Dugger, you are trying to make an argument about the last two items without accounting for the bigger picture.

fdxxxxx, or whatever your name is. If we are not attacking al Qaeda - thank you for acknowledging it by the way - what the hell are we doing over there and for whom? If we are trying to make new enemies of either radical Shiites or Baathists or whatever - people who were largely indifferent to us before - by counting their bodies and using those as markers for our success, how long do you think their children, parents, neighbors, tribe will hold a grudge?
41 fd10801
Dec 17th, 2006 at 4:08 am

[ fd10801 isn't too complicated -- it's my initials joined with my zip code. It's about as hard to remember as z_adura - and easier to type }

I didn't say we weren't fighting al Qaeda ("I didn't say we were fighting al Qaeda, although they are included in the mixed bag of people we are fighting")

It is absolutely wrong to say that even an uneducated Iraqi was "indifferent to us before" with an anti - American Ba'athist as head of state.

He was so desperate to establish Islamofascist "creds" he (Hussein) slapped a Islamic looking crescent on Iraq's previously sectarian looking flag.

You are only right about one small point -- for all I know, you are unaware of it. The desert peoples of the Middle East are noted for having prodigious "historical memories". All the people who were killed by Hussein, as well as by the coalition, will be remembered for a long, long time.

But, if you remember, Tito kept all this potential historical internecine violence under control. Sure, he was a dictator, but it was accomplished without too much bloodshed or repression.

Before writing the Iraqis off as unable to control their urge to kill each other, we might be wise to teach them why that would be unprofitable as well as having a high price in lives.

There are several plans to hold the Iraqis together. Right now, they are getting little or no publicity.

Here’s one

No doubt, when the Democrats are officially ensconced in 2007, or if they, miraculously, win the White House in 2008, those Plans will mysteriously appear, and be named “Exit Strategies” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
42 Nimrod Gently
Dec 17th, 2006 at 11:45 am

Given how much your boys got raped six weeks ago, it’ll hardly be a miracle if the Dems win in ought eight, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself.

And you could just call yourself “Frank” like last time, or even “Frank di Salle” like you sometimes do for some reason.
43 Zmajrhm
Jun 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am

http://pornxdance.info x
44 Zmajrhm
Jun 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am

http://pornxdance.info x