Quote from Racer Y :

Iraq/ Vietnam comparing... Sure all wars are pretty much the same in some regards.
But something funny about these two comparisons.
Vietnam wasn't a "war". it was a "police action" (?).

No, not all wars are pretty much the same, no matter how stupid the name you give to them. Vietnam and Iraq are comparable because they share an important common trait: guerrilla tactics, and the US military is completely unprepared. As Hankstar said, you can kill millions of people and lose a few tens of thousand ones, and still lose a whole war.

Gunn, your first sentence made me smile. Iraq was no threat and no harbour to terrorists, yet the US managed to create a region where the rule of law is totally absent and up to date no one has been able to restore it. This has created safe havens and a population supporting insurgency. Terrorists (the real ones) don't even have to move from there to hit the States' sinking reputation. This war was a very bad call, and it was so from the start. No shifting rationale can change this fact.

Quote from Shotglass :

am i the only one who first heard "were sending clear messages to france" at 2:30 ?

the sad thing is that this guy is in the wrong party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBBV-_Uudk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

Hadn't heard of him, thx for links. Hard to see him get anywhere in a country that RE(!)elected Bush though. I still can't get over that one.

Paul isn't in the wrong party. Just about everyone else in the party is.

Off topic but not that much, given the number and the importance of people who were forced to leave this administration: U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigns. Another one bites the dust. Sign of the times? Que sera sera, whatever will be will be.

Alberto's gone (oh thank you Jesus), Rummy's gone, Rove's gone ... who's next? Is it too early for that metaphor about rats and a sinking ship? Unfortunately, yes. Cheney's still there. Can someone throw that bastard out of a plane please?

Quote from Hankstar :

Alberto's gone (oh thank you Jesus), Rummy's gone, Rove's gone ...

You forgot Powell and Libby, with varying demerits and varying degrees of conscience. And the now forgotten and replaced previous spokesperson for the president (also him with - ahem - family problems like Rove).

Too early, really?

True, Powell may now say he's against the war (or at least Washington's bungling of it), but at the very beginning it was he who stunned the UN with his 1337 Powerpoint display (featuring ZOMFG 3D computer-pictures of TRUCKS) and amazing capacity to still talk whilst buried under a large mound of pure bullshit. Libby, well...his conviction was a rare glimpse of justice and his subsequent let-off by George was a not-at-all rare display of bile-inducing cronyism. Must be great working for the Bush Whitehouse - liberty and impunity for all. Like the court of King Louis (before a bunch of pissed-off French peasants ventilated his neck for him - where the hell are the US peasants when you need 'em? Oh, that's right - in some desert getting IED'd while searching scrapyards for steel plate to weld onto their un-armoured Humvees).

Preachin to the choir Hank.. mostly

Quote from Hankstar :

True, Powell may now say he's against the war (or at least Washington's bungling of it), but at the very beginning it was he who stunned the UN with his 1337 Powerpoint display (featuring ZOMFG 3D computer-pictures of TRUCKS) and amazing capacity to still talk whilst buried under a large mound of pure bullshit. Libby, well...his conviction was a rare glimpse of justice and his subsequent let-off by George was a not-at-all rare display of bile-inducing cronyism. Must be great working for the Bush Whitehouse - liberty and impunity for all. Like the court of King Louis (before a bunch of pissed-off French peasants ventilated his neck for him - where the hell are the US peasants when you need 'em? Oh, that's right - in some desert getting IED'd while searching scrapyards for steel plate to weld onto their un-armoured Humvees).

Actually, the "TRUCKS" wasn't so far fetched. When I worked in the environmental field, A lot of the times our "lab" was in the back of a semi somewhere. In fact, just about anyone can make Parrot Fever or Botulism based toxins in the privacy and comfort of their own home. Of course their life span will most likely shorten a bit, but that's why they call it martyrdom - right?

I like Colin Powell. I think he would've made a pretty decent president. He has both know how and respect when it comes to foreign policy. And he's not a saber rattler. But I really like Ron Paul. he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination though. I think we're gonna be stuck with Hillary...
Oh well with her in charge, maybe 12 million people will think that they had it better where they were from.

President Paul please :up: But you're right, he's got Buckley's.

You may well be stuck with pro-war Hillary and her spineless Dem congress, but it looks like Barack would pip her at the post (with Mr Paul giving a good account of himself) if the worldwide nerd vote (check out the sidebar for results) is anything to go by (and we all know it is )...

Quote from Hankstar :

President Paul please :up: But you're right, he's got Buckley's.

You may well be stuck with pro-war Hillary and her spineless Dem congress, but it looks like Barack would pip her at the post (with Mr Paul giving a good account of himself) if the worldwide nerd vote (check out the sidebar for results) is anything to go by (and we all know it is )...

Although Ron Paul's non-interventionist platform may appeal to some persons (particularly foreigners ) I'm not sure his positions regarding economy, taxes and freedom can have a wide appeal.

He's not a strong contender at the moment, but nothing is sure in this elections: we have an ex-mayor with no international expertise that keeps uttering wrong concepts while facing a revolt from NY firemen that could cost him his reputation battling some other war supporters and an ultra-libertarian who has the face and the ideas of an old hippie still enjoying marijuana. And things are going very, very bad for republicans.

On Dems side, Barack and Hillary have already started ranting. They are very strong contenders, although each of them has troubles that could cast a shadow on their candidacy. The strongest contender would be Al Gore, whose only evident troubles are an idiotic wife and being overweight. But he's not in, at the moment. But Al Gore remains a wet dream for lots of democrats.

An ex-mayor with a sinking reputation, a libertarian who favours little government intervention and is an advocate of extreme freedoms, a black ex-muslim and a white woman in career whose husband had a penchant for strange affairs, both financially and sentimentally... No matter what happens, these elections will be really entertaining.

You know, I think Barak is the Dem equivalent of Guiliani. Well actually a little worse. The problem with BOTH the democrats and republicans are that they still insist on offering us crappy candidates with the same BS agendas. I honestly think the republicans have had their heads in the sand for the last two years. And I don't think Democrats have truly represented PEOPLE since......?

Quote from Racer Y :

And I don't think Democrats have truly represented PEOPLE since....

That's what most Italians think about their politicians, all of them. But for me that's a sort of daydreaming, so I take a different approach: maybe those politicians are perfect representatives.

The last two years? For one thing, republicans haven't been right since Goldwater.

And Hillary as president? She's a nutcase, like most other in DC. That much socialism would make secession an improvement.

I'll go one further - Republicans haven't been right since Lincoln

Haha!..

Sobering news: the estimated Iraqi death toll has topped one million ...

Conservative estimates for the Vietnam death toll range from one million to 3 million Vietnamese (at least 90% civilian casualties). Considering the US was in Vietnam for about a decade, it's possible the Iraqi death toll could equal or exceed that of Vietnam if death rates remain as they are and US forces stay until at least 2012 (it's highly likely that will be the case unless something drastic happens in DC post-2008). Vietnam also saw the deaths of over 50,000 US troops. No attention was paid when US deaths in Iraq attained the grisly milestone of exceeding the 9/11 death toll (and long after the supposed Iraq link was proved as bogus). I'm just wondering if its going to take a five-digit number to get someone's attention.

Also, considering the US never paid reparations to Vietnam (or any other nation devastated by US action since Hiroshima, for that matter), I'm not confident Iraq will receive any real compensation for this latest flexing of the DC bicep. Can you expect justice when the World Court or UN has about as much sway over the US as a yipping chihuahua has over a rampaging gorilla?

In one thing Vietnam cannot be compared to Iraq, and that is the all-volunteer basis of the US Army we have today. No draft means - theoretically - that all the soldiers who went to Iraq knew there was a possibility, and they accepted it, unless you accept Ehren Watada's ideas as valid (and for the record I do, the history of my family is deeply rooted in the Italian Resistance to fascism and this has a large influence on my ideas).

The absence of a draft is a major distinction in this case.

No compensation, not even a moral one, will ever be paid by the US to Iraq. The US expect their enemies play by the book, but they don't. A twisted notion of sovereignty and the historical lack of interest in foreign affairs shields the general public from the form of self-criticism that both Germany's and Italy's social textures had to endure.

And just to be clear, I'm not comparing the extent of the crimes of nazism, fascism or stalinism to the extent of the violations of International laws (which are - not only in my opinion - still crimes) committed by the US. I know they are completely different things and that the US is a fully formed democracy, but the same rules apply. "We didn't know" is hardly a good justification when someone simply didn't care to listen to the words of the IAEA. They had to know better and now everybody knows they knew better, but the documents were there at the time. Uranium from Niger? How the hell could someone believe to such a blatant Italian intelligence forgery that was ruled out as bull by the Italian investigative press immediately (except of course from Panorama, owned by Berlusconi)?

Powell regrets his stunt at the UN as a painful "blot" in his career, but estimates made by people who were really in the know (and acknowledged worldwide to be so) were already widely available at the time.

The reputation of people who knew what they were doing has been smeared, and since then restored to the shame of all the falling heads in the US government. May Powell's blot hunt him in his nightmares for all his life to come.

Damn, poor Powell, sucks to be him huh? He had to know what he was saying was utter bullshit and I can't force myself to feel sympathy for him on any level. He was part of the team on the first Iraq war in '91, the team that crushed Saddam's army beyond repair (as punishment for getting off the leash) but then left him alone to continue torturing and murdering his subjects in hell-holes like Abu Ghraib (sit boy, good dog, now chew your bone and be quiet). The team that said "rise up against Saddam, o mighty Shiites" and then left them high and dry. The same team that kept Iraq under such close surveillance that it would have been impossible for anyone competent in the US intelligence community not to notice that the Niger documents were obvious fakes and that the man who provided them was a criminal and scammer of the highest order. In fact, the intelligence community knew the score, reported it and was ignored by an administration that had other ideas. One diplomat said exactly the same things, only publicly, and was punished by the White House by having his CIA wife's cover blown, endangering her life and who knows how many others. Some blot, Colin. I'm with Albieg - I hope it haunts you forever, along with a million Iraqi ghosts.

It's true that are as many similarities to Vietnam as there are differences. I think the main comparison people draw is a valid one though: that the Iraq invasion and occupation was a war of choice started by an administration with a secret agenda; that it was started illegally; that the civilian population has borne the brunt of the violence and death; that an innocent nation has been devastated for no good reason; that thousands of kids in army uniforms are being destroyed by an enemy that they don't understand and very often can't distinguish from the general population; that the best-funded (not necessarily best-equipped) military on the planet is being held at bay by anonymous guerillas using thousand-year old hit-and-run tactics and improvised weapons. When you take all that into account, I think many people don't care to discuss the differences as the end results are exactly the same.

Some of you just can't help but lot together any and all "americans", "America", and its government together. Enjoy the smugness, it must be bliss.

Funny you should say that, Breizh. The first occurrence of the word "americans" in this page is in your post.

Edit: and in case you didn't understand, my family had an active role in the Italian Resistance. They were part of a minority at the time. I can distinguish positions. I have to. But you can't deny most part of the American people supported the war. It's a fact. Go read the polls and stop hinting at antiamericanism. This isn't the first time you do such a thing because you don't like something.

Just to be clear, I'm not stupid enough to lump Americans in with their governments. When I say "the US" I mean the US government and not its people (and I think most people get that). Considering the US government doesn't actually represent the wishes of its people (and wasn't actually elected by them to begin with anyway), it would be grossly unfair to lump them all together. It's the American people who will be feeling the aftershocks of this Iraq fiasco (economically, diplomatically, psychologically and in other ways) long into the future, not the bastards in suits who'll be able to leave Washington in 2008 (hopefully), look back on their lives and say "well, mistakes were made but, dammit, we thought we were doing the right thing" as they're sitting on a beach somewhere, making 20%.

And just to be clear on my part, I believe that most people in the world - in the democratic world - surrender their will in the hands of people they shouldn't trust.
This happens everywhere. It's not American, it's not Italian, it's not English or European.

Quote from Hankstar :

Just to be clear, I'm not stupid enough to lump Americans in with their governments. When I say "the US" I mean the US government and not its people (and I think most people get that). Considering the US government doesn't actually represent the wishes of its people (and wasn't actually elected by them to begin with anyway), it would be grossly unfair to lump them all together. It's the American people who will be feeling the aftershocks of this Iraq fiasco (economically, diplomatically, psychologically and in other ways) long into the future, not the bastards in suits who'll be able to leave Washington in 2008 (hopefully), look back on their lives and say "well, mistakes were made but, dammit, we thought we were doing the right thing" as they're sitting on a beach somewhere, making 20%.

You really don't get it do you? Well maybe almost.
Do you know the real reason bush got elected? no not the Florida thing. No he got elected because the majority of us was just tired of the Clintons. that simple. You have to remember this was before 9-11. And I figured hell since he was a nice good do-nothing governor for the most part, he'd make a nice do nothing President. And he would have been if that spoiled little psycho bin Laden hadn't decided to go nuts. You know i was really just hoping we wouldn't have to hear about another BJ in the oval office when i voted for bush (lol that sounds wrong). OK so 2004 rolls around. The LAST thing we needed to do at that point in time was change presidents. well at least with Kerry. Actually there really wasn't nobody to choose from in 2004. The sad thing is there never really is anymore.
The 2008 elections means regime change. as far as Iraq is concerned, that means a big shake-up at the highest levels, and during these changes, there's going to be alot of confusion and a loss of direction. And there are probably going to be groups that will try to take advantage of this over there. and whether they are Shiites militias or foreign insurgents or sunni vigilantes or iranian secret agents or even a bunch of soldiers that just lose it somewhere, I think it's going to get really really bad compared to now.
And to be completely honest about the 2008 elections, we're not going to vote for a truly competent leader. There's not going to be one. No we're going to try to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I figure the next president's strategy, no matter what they say they'll do, is to just "maintain" in Iraq (not do much of anything ) and leave that mess for the next guy that gets elected. Instead, they'll probably find something more domestic to screw up instead.

Don't get me wrong, I totally get it. I hold no great hope for drastic change in 2008. I know that the few of you guys who actually vote will vote for the guy who does the best on TV regardless of what he actually stands for (because you'll never find out - what candidates actually stand for doesn't seem to make it onto the tube over there). If a Democrat actually manages to get past the swift-boaters, tweaked voting machines (why don't you guys demand paper & pencils? You can't hack those) and purged voter rolls it won't be much different to the Republicans getting back in. It'll just mean the friends of the Dems are getting a bigger slice of the pie this time around and the Repubs will just have to wait another four years.

So you voted for Bush because you were sick of the Clintons? Fair enough. God, why the hell should you vote according to the issues of the day? Just vote for whoever else is there because you hate the other guy. Democracy in action. Slick Willy leaves office, gifting George W the biggest budget surplus the country's seen in forever, but the good ol' boy draft-dodger screws around with a groupie so nearly gets himself impeached. What's Texas George (from Connecticut) - another draft-dodger - done since 2001? Wasted 900 billion of your dollars and countless lives in the most transparently illegal military action since Vietnam, screwed your economy, blown America's diplomatic standing, stripped your rights, screwed poor people harder than they've ever been screwed before, enriched his friends beyond the dreams of avarice and innumerable other ridiculous scams. What happens to him? Not a goddam thing. Congress - a frickin Democratic congress - gives him more money & support to keep doing it. WTF! Who do you have to blow to get someone impeached for god's sake? As for 2004 - "the last thing we need is to change presidents" - well, surprise! That was exactly what George was counting on and it worked a treat. If he could run for a third term, you could bet your ass he'd keep the fires in Iraq stoked for 2008 and try it again. Don't think the Repubs won't try it without him anyway, he's hardly the brains of the operation and they'll do fine without him if they can hold office. Jeez, Miss Teen South Carolina looks like a Nobel winner next to the Connecticut Cowboy.

Noone to choose from in 2008? Then try someone different. Try Ron Paul if he gets the nomination - he's a Republican but he actually seems to understand what "democracy" and "diplomacy" mean. Please don't tell me you'll vote for Giuliani or that Law & Order guy Thompson