{smack} {smack} {smack} {thud} I think we should discontinue this prize - the last few years of nominations have all been "Destroy all opposition and then declare peace" types. --Vitenka
(PeterTaylor) I was wondering about posting my own translation for comment, but seems unnecessary now.
No, thank you Mr.Coelho. Since you have shown you are willing to stoop to the same tricks of spin and misrepresentation as politicans, I now do not have to take your moralising seriously. --Gwyntar
A good point. You have to be careful when weilding such weapons. Sadly, as politicians have proved, such weapons are effective. --Vitenka
It occured to me that the Film advert that was placed in The Onion (Gulf War II) might turn out too inaccurate. If they are not careful, it could easily turn into Vietnam II.... - Tsunami
StuartFraser swore he wasn't going to get involved in any war debates, but this comment is plain silly;
Central Iraq is terrible country for guerrilla warfare; it's mostly desert and flood plain. Not many places to hide. Southern and Northern Iraq, which are both slightly better, are Shia muslim and Kurdish respectively, and are highly unlikely to support a guerrilla campaign Vo Ngyuen Giap would have lost the Vietnam war in 1968 after the Tet Disaster ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Offensive, but for support from the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China. Who'd support the Ba'ath party in Iraq? The allied forces have yet to suffer even a minor reverse; they're being incredibly cautious and essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their back - not only are they trying to minimise friendly and civilian casualties, but they're also trying to minimise enemy casualties. The Iraqi regime does not, by any account, have a high degree of support amongst the populace The US / British armies are far superior in terms of equipment, personnel and doctrine to their 1960s equivalents; modern American airmobile infantry with satellite intelligence could probably have won the Vietnam war.
Substitute city for jungle, and you get the idea. The choices may come down to flattening the cities, putting up with constant niggling casualties or long siege (with accompanying humanitarian disaster)
I don't think that the Ba'ath party has sufficient public support, resources or firepower to sustain a conflict at the intensity of Vietnam, even if it's just restricted to Baghdad. "Constant niggling casualties" is certainly a possibility, but more along the lines of Northern Ireland. Except we don't have to stay for 25 years...I really am not getting involved in the political discussions.
I will expand on my comment. I meant more in the way that the US (and by association, the UK) is seen by the rest of the world than literally on the ground (but getting bogged down in street to street fighting is similar enough). Vietnam was a public relations disaster for the US that they are still paying the cost of. All that the war in Iraq will do is add to the hatred of all things US amongst other nations and their people (specifically in the middle east). I doubt that the US can come out of this conflict looking better than they did when they went in. - Tsunami
That would surely depend on what they find when all is through. If they can parade lots of chemical/biological weapons around to justify themselves then I imagine they'll come out quite well. If not then they might be a bit shakier - Kazuhiko
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
WarDeclared