not long
2006-10-30 16:03:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
I'm afraid that our policies to fix our own power consumption problems has forced the US to be the big bully in the world. If we had a sane fuel policy, the need to invade the Middle East would be minimal. The Democrats may certainly institute a draft every bit as easily as the Republicans if things get worse, but they did not institute this foreign fuel policy. This president has done almost nothing to make us independent of oil...as a matter of fact, he seems to encourage the oil companies and larger firms to not seek alternative energy by not giving tax credits to do so on a scale that would make a difference.
A cruise missile costs 1 to 1/2 million dollars and a large state-of-the-art wind mill costs 4-5 million dollars...when i watched the missiles slam into Iraq a few years ago, I could imagine the number of wind mills that could have been built instead...just think of what could have been done with the money spent on this war.
The whole idea of being in Iraq is counter-productive economically and on a personal level to young men like my own 16 year old who may have to go there. If we aren't out of there in 2 years (when he is 18), I fear there will be a draft, because if it gets worse, a larger army will be required...and it's getting worse. Vietnam had 60,000 dead...if we are still there in 6 years we may have 10,000 dead...not as bad as Vietnam unless it's your son.
I expect the Democrats to pressure the president to withdraw, or to remove troops themselves when the next president is a Democrat...and it looks like the political winds are very unfavorable to staying in Iraq and for Republicans in general. The US needs to have a responsible foreign policy and make itself self sustainable.
2006-10-31 00:33:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ford Prefect 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
The only Senator who has talked about a draft is Charley Rangel. His comments on a draft were purely racist.
Vietnam was the product of ineffective Democrat leadership in Washington that wanted to personally control the troops and limit objectives.
So far all Bush has said is that the Generals fight the war their way and the only objective is to win the war.
I understand your limited thinking and small minded view of comparing Iraq to Vietnam. The problem lies with the first Gulf War.
The first Gulf War was a highly fluid combat operation with a limited objective - push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. The object was not to invest and pacify the country. We accomplished that mission with astounding success with limited casualties.
Since the first Gulf War, we hadn't been involved in any major combat operations. Somalia, the Baltic, and a few other places were minor compared to the massed troops and highly visible Armored Divisions.
America has been lulled to sleep as to what real war entails. We are currently facing an entrenched guerilla enemy force in a densely urban area. Our military is limited in it's ability to fight this style of warfare. Urban fighting involves lightly armored vehicles and a lot of infantry. This type of battle is prone to higher casualties.
Vietnam was similar in the sense that it involved light infantry and APC's, there was limited usage of Armor in the thick jungles. However, our tactics and strategies are different. In Vietnam, we setup encampments along supply lines to disrupt a highly fluid enemy. This tactic was ineffective. We used high altitude carpet bombing and had similar ineffective results.
In Iraq, we started with a fast-paced armor rush with aircraft support. That has now been followed up by an investment of terrain by infantry. Our troops are doing a superb job. Our nation should be GRATEFUL and SUPPORTIVE that they are willing to fight and die so that another nation may have the CHANCE to taste some of the freedoms that most Americans regularly take for granted.
The majority of our military leadership were junior officers in Vietnam. They experienced the hardships and frustrations of being told what to do by people in suits thousands of miles away. Our military leaders will not stand for nor will they encourage anything that looks remotely like what took place in Southeast Asia.
The draft is dead, unless a$$holes like you want it to come back. In which case, pickup a rifle and prepare to defend your country - instead of pissing on it and the people that have died and are dying on YOUR behalf.
2006-10-31 00:28:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by GreenRoverMan 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Republicans are not making Iraq into another Vietnam. Vietnam was started by LIBERALS, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, who escalated the war for profit. Lady Bird Johnson owned 1/3 of stocks in Brown and Root, made million's producing brand new rifles and uniforms for the soldiers, which they did not need.
Our country is now helping Iraq to fight for freedom and repression from terrorist tirants, and abusers of people who have the same right as we to be free! Why dont you put yourself in the place of a woman who lives alone with 3 children because her husband was murdered and tortured by Saddam Hussein, and then ask you question again.
2006-10-31 00:10:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by xenypoo 4
·
3⤊
3⤋
Iraq is already a Vietnam for Bush and this country. We new in the sixties that we should not be there and it could not succeed. We know today the same about Iraq. Afghanistan was obvious, Iraq is not.
Republicans will not have the dd raft as they believe someone Else's son should do the fighting, not theirs. A Friend once suggested that only the children of the party that gets us into a war should have to go. Probably not realistic, but worth thinking about. A Roman History professor once said that the Roman Empire began to fall as soon as it hired its military instead of everyone having to serve. Food for thought.
2006-10-31 00:08:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by michaelsan 6
·
5⤊
4⤋
You will have a full year maybe more to mount a right wing assault on our bill of rights and our constitution. Then sometime in early January they will start doing something to get elected in November. It will be more important to them as it is a presidential election and they want to make sure that they hold the white house.
As Casey Stingle once said it will be daja vu all over again. God if I hear tax and spend democrat one more time I am going to kick the first repuglican I see in the balls.
2006-10-31 00:17:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Only way for America to lose in Iraq is if the democrats win in November. If the democrats win, the US loses.
Republicans will not bring back a draft, only people talking about a draft are out of touch democrats who are weak on defense issues anyway.
The real question is, Why should the Republicans not keep control? In the last 6 years there have been the fewest attacks on the United States. We have freed 50 million, Saddam is about to be executed, Osama went from the world's most feared to the world's most insignificant. Hamas is in disarray. Hezbollah is losing support. 6 muslim nations have held democratic elections for the first time in history. Iran is losing influence. North Korea is meaningless. If it weren't for Clinton's screw up giving the North Koreans the technology to build the bomb, the North Korean people would have probably over thrown their corrupt regime. This Iraq war is far the cheapest and least costly in lives than any other war of this magnitude and length.
2006-10-31 00:13:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by great_american2006 2
·
4⤊
7⤋
The ONLY way it has turned into another Vietnam is the fact that LEFTIST Liberals who hate all forms of war are having an impact on the media and some of the congress.
We WON Vietnam. Problem is that we was forced to pull out BEFORE it was time. WE retreated because of cowards in powerful places could not handle the anti war idiots.
2006-10-31 00:08:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by lancelot682005 5
·
4⤊
5⤋
they will never reinstate the draft.
The only ones who can turn it into another vietnam are the liberals who undermine the war. That is why we lost in vietnam, at least according to the General of the North vietnam Army.
you would think that people would listen to the general who defeated you as to why he said he won. he said, he was ready to surrender years before the war ended, except for the fact that the protests in the US were gaining ground, and giving them the moral support they needed. He said he realized he didn't necessarily have to beat the soldiers, but if he won the hearts of the american people through the protests, he could break the U.S.
So, how long is it going to take for people like you to turn Iraq into another vietnam?
2006-10-31 00:06:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
6⤋
58,148 Men died during the Vietnam war. Last time I checked the numbers in Iraq weren't even close to that.
2006-10-31 00:09:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Marcus720 2
·
4⤊
3⤋
Iraq will never be another Viet Nam despite the fact that the liberal press and the democrats want you to think so. There is one very important difference---what our enemy is fighting for.
By misspelling Viet Nam you are disrespecting those solders.
Only democrats want the draft.
2006-10-31 00:13:06
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋