English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Earlier I answered a question about which war was worse, Viet Nam or Iraq. I answered Both.I said we lost in Nam because of the people in washington not letting us who did the fighting do our jobds, Iraq is the same. Today the dems. & repubs. heard form the Generals in charge of this war & did not hear a word the generals said.McCain is for sending more troops (the generals said NO.) Levin wants us to pull out 20,000 troops now ( Generals say NO) Why put these men in charge of the war when cilvilans tell them how to run it. Why not let the people trained in war run it?

2006-11-16 13:32:07 · 6 answers · asked by BUTCH 5 in Politics & Government Military

UNIT G ;Tell me about Viet Nam.My airship (CHOPPER) was shoot down 3 times. I was wounded in the right ankle. I have the bullet in me still.WAR is hell. But we are trained to win it if left alone to do our thing.

2006-11-16 13:48:34 · update #1

MEG S; I could NOT agree more. Whay do we have a JOINT chief of staff if they can not do the job given them their way? why ask the military do do something then not let them do it ?

2006-11-16 23:46:57 · update #2

6 answers

my friend both vietnam and iraq were a living hell

2006-11-16 13:34:22 · answer #1 · answered by Luis 4 · 0 0

Think.

Vietnam and Iraq have some frightening similarities.

In both, the politicians and the people didn't think we were even really at war.

In Vietnam, it was true to the extent that no one was likely to want to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge.

Is it true of Iraq?

We may find out the hard way.

2006-11-16 21:38:29 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 0

Do you remember Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki saying at the very beginning of the war that the armed forces needed much more troops to do the job but Rumsfield did not listen to him? We need to pay close attention to the experts in the field - the generals.

2006-11-16 21:36:01 · answer #3 · answered by keith 2 · 0 0

Those are very good questions, and they support my own personal opinion : I feel that all who obtain/will obtain a major position in the US government [who will make decisions that will affect our armed forces] should have served a significant amount of time in the armed forces [not like Bush and the national guard. ex: Eisenhower, who was an army general] and have actually seen what the "battlefield" is actually like before making decisions hastily. Those who have experience, I feel, are the only ones who can make accurate decisions for the better good of the soldiers and civilians.

2006-11-16 21:38:10 · answer #4 · answered by meg s 2 · 0 0

I think the government should give all the support they need,let them run things and give them whatever they need to get the job done,and shoot reporters on sight.

2006-11-16 21:38:25 · answer #5 · answered by chesva58 2 · 0 0

Because the politicans always know more than the generals who have been to war. At least that is what the politicans will tell you. They know everything.

2006-11-16 21:35:54 · answer #6 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers