Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 3 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]434805[/snapback]</div>

Because when confronted by facts, the current defense is to distract and digress. If you were to answer that question (so clearly meant to sidetrack), yet another digression would occur. Repeat. Ad nauseum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Apr 30 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]432715[/snapback]</div>

sand what we have now isn't a stalemate of sorts?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chrisg67 @ May 14 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]441726[/snapback]</div>

I would not say so. Vietnam was wrong because it wasn't the Communists who were a threat there. They were nationalists first. They even attempted to have us help them against the French, but we allied ourselves with France instead in controlling their colonial asset. Communism, at least in Vietnam, did not spread like a disease.

The difference is that Islamists are not nationalists. Of course they want a country. They want them all. They have even stated this. Like the Nazis and Imperial Japanese, who were bent on occupying and killing off all those that did not fit their paradigm.

Islamists have a serious issue with liberal Western democracies in general, and non-Islamic theocracies specifically. Even communists see Islamism as a threat.

Although we are progressing slower than we had hoped, progress is still being made, and the Iraqis are turning in the foreign fighters as fast as we can get them.

The foreign fighters in Iraq are also mainly targeting civilians, so the civilians are fairly happy to see them get captured or killed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 29 2007, 08:43 AM) [snapback]451402[/snapback]</div>

I agree. I would also add...

1. Islamofascists embrace death unlike the VC
2. Islamofascists have attacked us on our home soil already - the VC never wanted to..
3. Islamofascists want to follow us home - the VC never wanted to..
4. Islamofascists want to develop WMD's and are developing them - the VC still do/are not
5. Islamofascists enslave women, the VC were equal opportunity employers of women in all walks of life.
6. Islamofascists see innocent civilians as primary targets of opportunity - the VC did not.

Similarities between Vietnam and the War on Terror/Iraq:

1. the press and for the most part the Democrats are anti-US victory - my opinion.

 

1. Do you forget about the Tet offensive? The VC attacked on a national holiday during a mutually declared cease fire... They were just as blood thirsty as these other people.
2. the VC were never able to, nor was their conflict with us. We interceded in a civil war - they had other concerns to think about. With Iraq, we created a civil war...
3. This age old argument... The terrorists we've had here, even before our operation in Iraq, were from OTHER COUNTRIES. The war in Iraq is doing nothing to stop these terrorists, and leaving Iraq won't have anyone "following us home".
4. WMDs were first created 1945 - what makes you think those in Vietnam thought for one second that they would be able to duplicate our efforts 15 years later? They had no hope of creating anything like that - they didn't have the technical infrastructure in place. On a side note, it's not just these Islamofascists who want to create WMDs... it's pretty much a standard desire for all countries, as it gives them a certain amount of power against other countries.
5. thats a load of bull and you know it.
6. the VC were willing to bomb anyone, so long as they were on the other side.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 29 2007, 08:52 AM) [snapback]451404[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 29 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]451433[/snapback]</div>

Actually, it is correct. Women have almost no rights under fundamentalist Islam, and in fact, treated as property.

Did you even see the footage of that teenage girl getting dragged out of that house, her clothes torn off, and getting stoned to death?

It was an honor killing. By her own family.

When I was in living in Bahrain, which is a relatively modern country by Arab standards, there were some sections where women were not allowed in the store, and had to let all men go in front of them to do their shopping.

I dare you to take the woman, be it your wife, girlfriend, or mother, who you love most, and take her on vacation to Saudi Arabia, or better yet, Yemen. Chances are you will have to buy her back, unless the US could pull some strings. Best case scenario is she just gets beaten by a group of religious police with sticks.

 

I didn't mean that women weren't treated badly... What i meant was that they were still treated badly over in Vietnam...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 30 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]452020[/snapback]</div>

Not nearly as so. Apples and oranges. Do women get abused here in the US? Sure they do. In Arab countries, such abuse is seen as a correct way to handle things, and in some areas, is the lawful way of handling the situation. She looked at a boy? Proper response is binding her limbs, dragging her to the town square, and throwing 30-40 lbs rocks at her body until she dies from massive blunt trauma.

In comparison to the current Middle East, women in Vietnam, 40 years ago, were treated much better and enjoyed much more freedom. I can only imgaine the state of women's rights in the Middle East 40 years ago, before any Western ideology was introduced.