Iraq: Al Qaeda's Vietnam!

Dixie said:
A prediction is a kind of opinion.

I agree with this, but it doesn't mean every opinion is a prediction, or that opinions and predictions are the same thing. I don't make predictions, I'm not Sister Soljah, I can't see into the future and predict a damn thing... I do have opinions, and I do express them, if you want to assume they are predictions, that is done of your own volition, not because I articulated a prediction.

I also realize my opinions are controversial, and pinheads don't like to hear me express them, mostly because they have a hard time countering them, so they have crafted this neat little English language trick of calling my opinions "predictions" and acting like I have a poor track record in prophecy. That's fine, I can live with it, just as long as we recognize what it's about.
Click to expand...


Looks like another victory for our side to me...
 
If I say that I will get a raise this year that is a prediction because I am offering an opinion about what will happen in the future.

Right... and if you say that you think you may get a raise this year, that is an opinion about what you think may happen in the future, not a prediction. There is a subtle difference here, do you recognize it?

You talking about sister Soljah is more in the realm of prophecy or prognostication.

Sister Soljah makes predictions, you are merely using more subsets to describe the same thing. Predictions and opinions are two different things, and I have not presented predictions, rather opinions. Certainly a case can be made that my opinion is perceived falsely as a prediction, but I think this boils down to author intent, more than false speculation of the reader, if I had stated that I was making a prediction, then tried to claim I had not made a prediction, that would be a different story... I presented my opinion of what I think will happen, based on other tangibles in play, based on other opinions of other events, based on things that have happened in history, based on my own life experience, philosophy, etc... When I used the words "I think..." it ordained everything that followed, as an opinion, not a prediction, that would have been preceded by, "I predict..." or a statement of defined prognostication.


I don't care about your prediction Dixie you may be right but I don't think there is enough evidence to make a statement like that. Personally I don't think it is likely because the Vietnam analogy is more apropos if we were comparing democratic entities in which subordinates can put pressure on the leadership to change tactics. This is why the US pulled out of Vietnam but the Al-Qaeda leadership doesn't have to contend with this problem.

As I just said, this is not a prediction, it's an opinion. I also stated the same thing you have, with regard to alQaeda leadership, they are much more competent than LBJ in Vietnam, it's what has enabled them to overcome the enormous difference in military strength and maintain relevancy. The point I am making is one of humanity and common sense, at some point, alQaeda will realize this is a losing proposition, and it's not worth the losses they are taking there.... just as America did in Vietnam. You can't simply keep feeding bodies into the buzz-saw indefinitely, with no tangible results or victory in sight, even a radical terrorist is smart enough to figure that out eventually. Al Qaeda has lost far more than we have in Iraq, especially when you consider the ratio in terms of overall forces. Realistically speaking, they are enduring a casualty rate, unlike any we Americans have seen since the Civil War, and at some point, they will break. It's human nature, it has happened throughout history, and it will not change now. You can believe the trash talk and rhetoric from the left, but the truth is, Iraq is al Qaeda's Vietnam.
 
Why did Bush claim the intenegence report did not say that Iraq was encouraging Al Queda, then release four pages of a 30 page report that said Iraq WAS encouraging Al Queda?
 
Right... and if you say that you think you may get a raise this year, that is an opinion about what you think may happen in the future, not a prediction. There is a subtle difference here, do you recognize it?

It is not a significant one. If I say I will get a raise this year I am not saying I know that I will get a raise this year.

In the first statement "I think" is implied.

Language is a fluid thing and words have different meanings to others. If you believe one must say I predict in front of a statement to make a prediction fine.



Dixie your analogy actually makes it seem like Al-Queda is in the position of the VC. The VC were slaughtered at a rate so high in comparison to American losses yet it was they who prevailed. Similar things in history have occured elsewhere.

The Soviets lost about 10 million soldiers to the Nazis and the kill ratio was very lopsided. In fact the Germans had the highest kill ratio in that war even higher than the Americans. Yet the Soviets prevailed over the better equipped Germans.

The same thing also happened in the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranians were more poorly equiped and used what are called human wave attacks. The Iranians took heavy casualties and yet managed to drive the Iraqis from their territory and even begin to threaten Iraqs southern cities. It was not until Saddam started using chemical weapons that he was able to stop these attacks.

Thus there are examples of armies losing the war by taking heavy casualties but there are also examples of armies winning despite casualties.
 
Dixie said:
If I say that I will get a raise this year that is a prediction because I am offering an opinion about what will happen in the future.

Right... and if you say that you think you may get a raise this year, that is an opinion about what you think may happen in the future, not a prediction. There is a subtle difference here, do you recognize it?

You talking about sister Soljah is more in the realm of prophecy or prognostication.

Sister Soljah makes predictions, you are merely using more subsets to describe the same thing. Predictions and opinions are two different things, and I have not presented predictions, rather opinions. Certainly a case can be made that my opinion is perceived falsely as a prediction, but I think this boils down to author intent, more than false speculation of the reader, if I had stated that I was making a prediction, then tried to claim I had not made a prediction, that would be a different story... I presented my opinion of what I think will happen, based on other tangibles in play, based on other opinions of other events, based on things that have happened in history, based on my own life experience, philosophy, etc... When I used the words "I think..." it ordained everything that followed, as an opinion, not a prediction, that would have been preceded by, "I predict..." or a statement of defined prognostication.


I don't care about your prediction Dixie you may be right but I don't think there is enough evidence to make a statement like that. Personally I don't think it is likely because the Vietnam analogy is more apropos if we were comparing democratic entities in which subordinates can put pressure on the leadership to change tactics. This is why the US pulled out of Vietnam but the Al-Qaeda leadership doesn't have to contend with this problem.

As I just said, this is not a prediction, it's an opinion. I also stated the same thing you have, with regard to alQaeda leadership, they are much more competent than LBJ in Vietnam, it's what has enabled them to overcome the enormous difference in military strength and maintain relevancy. The point I am making is one of humanity and common sense, at some point, alQaeda will realize this is a losing proposition, and it's not worth the losses they are taking there.... just as America did in Vietnam. You can't simply keep feeding bodies into the buzz-saw indefinitely, with no tangible results or victory in sight, even a radical terrorist is smart enough to figure that out eventually. Al Qaeda has lost far more than we have in Iraq, especially when you consider the ratio in terms of overall forces. Realistically speaking, they are enduring a casualty rate, unlike any we Americans have seen since the Civil War, and at some point, they will break. It's human nature, it has happened throughout history, and it will not change now. You can believe the trash talk and rhetoric from the left, but the truth is, Iraq is al Qaeda's Vietnam.
Click to expand...

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning, it smells like 'Victory' " Robert Duvall's character in Apocalypse Now, Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Right... and if you say that you think you may get a raise this year, that is an opinion about what you think may happen in the future, not a prediction. There is a subtle difference here, do you recognize it?

It is not a significant one. If I say I will get a raise this year I am not saying I know that I will get a raise this year.

In the first statement "I think" is implied.

Language is a fluid thing and words have different meanings to others. If you believe one must say I predict in front of a statement to make a prediction fine.



Dixie your analogy actually makes it seem like Al-Queda is in the position of the VC. The VC were slaughtered at a rate so high in comparison to American losses yet it was they who prevailed. Similar things in history have occured elsewhere.

The Soviets lost about 10 million soldiers to the Nazis and the kill ratio was very lopsided. In fact the Germans had the highest kill ratio in that war even higher than the Americans. Yet the Soviets prevailed over the better equipped Germans.

The same thing also happened in the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranians were more poorly equiped and used what are called human wave attacks. The Iranians took heavy casualties and yet managed to drive the Iraqis from their territory and even begin to threaten Iraqs southern cities. It was not until Saddam started using chemical weapons that he was able to stop these attacks.

Thus there are examples of armies losing the war by taking heavy casualties but there are also examples of armies winning despite casualties.
Click to expand...

I would say it's fairly significant when you express certainty versus expressing hope, wouldn't you? In your example, "I think" was not infered by using the words "I will" at all, and where you came up with that, I haven't a clue... sounds like typical pinhead spin to me.

On Iraq, I agree there have been cases where massive deaths have not detracted the ultimate victor, one could argue a case for the Civil War as well, there were large death tolls on both sides. The key difference is reward. In the examples you cite, there was a clear sense of reward for the continued carnage, there was a belief that progress was being forged. In Iraq, alQaeda doesn't have this, they don't conrol anything, they haven't been able to muster an effective offensive, they have no chance of controlling or winning anything in Iraq, and all it is doing, is costing them "soldiers" which could be better utilized elsewhere. alQaeda has no intentions of withering away to nothing in Iraq, so eventually they will change course, just as America did in Vietnam.

You know, the American "cause" in Veitnam, was noble and just, and many young men and women believed in it enough to give their lives for it, but there came a point in time, where the cost just got to be too great, and the "cause" was no longer worth killing our children for in an endless war. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, this is a condition of humanity, and even though alQaeda is as inhumane as they come, they are not immune to humanity. At some point in time, they will see the writing on the wall in Iraq, and decide it's not worth it.
 
Jarod said:
What was the American cause in Viet Nam?
Click to expand...

That's a question still debated today.

There was a democratic president

a demcratic house

a democratic senate

a democratic media

The cause was to keep South Vietnam a free and independent country which was to keep all the other countries around it from falling to the communists. at least that's what the media told us.
 
It was to stop the spread of Communism through Southeast Asia. It was a noble cause, and one worth fighting for, but the problem was the incompetent leadership in Washington, not realizing the difficulties in fighting a war in the jungle, and not allowing the field command to do what it needed to do to win the war. After a decade of losing soldiers with no discernible gains, the public opinion on the war turned, and we packed it in. Since that time, Liberals have taught our school kids that Vietnam was a "mistake" and portrayed it as a war we never should have gotten involved in. The purpose and justification for the war was legitimate, the "mistake" was allowing Democrats to conduct it, and withdrawing in disgrace, a "mistake" the Democrats seem destined to repeat with Iraq.

I still believe, when you look at the ratio of casualties for alQaeda in comparison to their limited forces, they are experiencing far worse attrition than we ever did in Vietnam, and have gained far less, in the way of strategic victory. At least we DID control the South, and Saigon, and there was some progress at times, alQaeda controls nothing in Iraq, and has no chance of any strategic victory unless we withdraw our forces.
 
Some revisionist history I see. South Vietnam was not a free democracy. It was a pro-western dictatorship not unlike Cuba under Batiste or Iran under the Shah.

Ho Chi Minh was a very popular man in Vietnam and was seen as a war hero. The Communists had the popular suport of the people in both sides of Vietnam. However the west saw this as unacceptable and partitioned the country and ignored the will of the Vietnamese people.

Despite what you may think people actually are willing to elect Communists without a bloody revolution. Kerala Pradesh has consistenty elected Communists to lead their state.
 
Gaffer said:
That's a question still debated today.

There was a democratic president

a demcratic house

a democratic senate

a democratic media

The cause was to keep South Vietnam a free and independent country which was to keep all the other countries around it from falling to the communists. at least that's what the media told us.
Click to expand...



Vietnam was clearly a huge mess of a mistake and it was made by the Democrats of the 1960's, no question.

The lie they told America about keeping it from falling to the communitst was clearly a lie as Vietnam fell and the nations around it did not! It was the LIBERALS who forced Nixon to get us OUT of Vietnam!

Funny how conservatives of today attack the liberal Jane Fonda for being against the Vietnam War and the Democratic president and congress for getting us into it! They hit the liberals no matter what position they took on Vietnam!
 
IHateGovernment said:
Some revisionist history I see. South Vietnam was not a free democracy. It was a pro-western dictatorship not unlike Cuba under Batiste or Iran under the Shah.

Ho Chi Minh was a very popular man in Vietnam and was seen as a war hero. The Communists had the popular suport of the people in both sides of Vietnam. However the west saw this as unacceptable and partitioned the country and ignored the will of the Vietnamese people.

Despite what you may think people actually are willing to elect Communists without a bloody revolution. Kerala Pradesh has consistenty elected Communists to lead their state.
Click to expand...

Uhm, excuse me, I never stated that So. Vietnam was a democracy. Communism did not have popular support in South Vietnam, whoever told you this was mitaken, it wasn't the case. You can blame America all you like, the So. Vietnamese did not want to be Communist, and fought alongside our soldiers to prevent that from happening. You are the one espousing "revisionist history" here, not me.
 
Dixie said:
It was to stop the spread of Communism through Southeast Asia. It was a noble cause, and one worth fighting for, but the problem was the incompetent leadership in Washington, not realizing the difficulties in fighting a war in the jungle, and not allowing the field command to do what it needed to do to win the war. After a decade of losing soldiers with no discernible gains, the public opinion on the war turned, and we packed it in. Since that time, Liberals have taught our school kids that Vietnam was a "mistake" and portrayed it as a war we never should have gotten involved in. The purpose and justification for the war was legitimate, the "mistake" was allowing Democrats to conduct it, and withdrawing in disgrace, a "mistake" the Democrats seem destined to repeat with Iraq.

I still believe, when you look at the ratio of casualties for alQaeda in comparison to their limited forces, they are experiencing far worse attrition than we ever did in Vietnam, and have gained far less, in the way of strategic victory. At least we DID control the South, and Saigon, and there was some progress at times, alQaeda controls nothing in Iraq, and has no chance of any strategic victory unless we withdraw our forces.
Click to expand...


We lost the war and communism still did not spread throughtout southeast Aisa...


Just like when Regan said if we dont support the Contras against the Sandinistas, Communism will spread in Latin America... HA, as soon as the Iran Contra deal became public we quit supporting the Sandinistas and The war ended, Democracy prevails throught Central America!
 
The demoncrats messed up on Vietnam big time in the 60"s. but you guys are sort of ignoring our prior involvement...
 
First off Dixie my response was not directed solely at you but both you and Gaffer.

You are wrong about what happened in South Vietnam what happened was that in the Geneva accords of 1954 it was stipulated that elections were to take place that involved both Vietnams for a unified government. Diem who was the dictator refused to allow the elections in the south because he knew that overall the communists would win a national election. Because of his refusal to allow elections the North and VC attacked.

When the US intervened in support of South Vietnam it was actually working against the democratic process.
 
IHateGovernment said:
First off Dixie my response was not directed solely at you but both you and Gaffer.

You are wrong about what happened in South Vietnam what happened was that in the Geneva accords of 1954 it was stipulated that elections were to take place that involved both Vietnams for a unified government. Diem who was the dictator refused to allow the elections in the south because he knew that overall the communists would win a national election. Because of his refusal to allow elections the North and VC attacked.

When the US intervened in support of South Vietnam it was actually working against the democratic process.
Click to expand...

mine was a synical snipe at the dems and jarad. The Vietnam issue was a much more complicated situation then a simple answer could take care of. Diem was assasinated with US blessings because he was becoming to much of a dictator himself.

The war was escalated due to lies from our own government. All democrats.

The fall of south vietnam was because the congress refused to fund them with aid. They literally ran out of ammo and parts for their equipment when the north invaded.

As a result cambodia became a communist country under pol pot, and the massacres there were astrinomical. It took an invasion from Vietnam to get the country back under control.

It was all a front of the cold war. Just as iraq is a front in the war with the islamist.
 
All accurate there Gaffer.

Personally I don't think we should have ever helped Diem. Maybe if we didn't go and defend a dictatorship from Communists we would have been more able to go into Cambodia and stop the mass killing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top