• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

We defeated the insurgents in Iraq. They damn didn't defeat our forces.

How do you say that when our forces left and they are still there menacing?
 
There were more British planes than American planes involved and the good guys won. There should be no regrets about defeating a murderous regime.

The fact is that civilians will always be killed in a war and if you have any idea how that can be avoided you should patent it now.



You completely ignore the intent of the post.

So, wtf does the fact British planes were also involved have to do with the unnecessary firebombing of Dresden?

FFS, you reduce civilian casualties, not justify them.
 
I presume you meant 1968--during the Tet Offensive. Yeah, we did, and they still won.
As in Iraq, Vietnam became political and the military was not defeated. The Democrats got their way both times.
 
ISIS Boats Air Strikes are not Effective
??

Is it any wonder? How many boats can pull off an effective air strike? OOOPs . . . never mind . . . yeah, I read that title too fast. You know what they say, "Speed Kills".
 
The ones there, now, came from Syria.

Wrong. President Assad gave no quarters to terrorist organisations. AQI (ISIL) expanded to Syria, taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the US and other Arabic States weakening Assad. the Islamic State in Iraq then added the second "S" to form ISIS but has subsequently changed even that to the Islamic State.


ISIL originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the 2003–2011 Iraq War, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) shortly afterwards.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
 
Last edited:
Wrong. President Assad gave no quarters to terrorist organisations. AQI (ISIL) expanded to Syria, taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the US and other Arabic States weakening Assad. the Islamic State in Iraq then added the second "S" to form ISIS but has subsequently changed even that to the Islamic State.


ISIL originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the 2003–2011 Iraq War, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) shortly afterwards.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is, AQI could no longer operate in Iraq, as long as US troops were in country.
 
How do you measure the terms of success in veitnam? By the body count of the enemy?

Easy question . . . you base it on the movies it generated.

1. The Green Berets with John Wayne early on.
2. The reflective look at Vietnam with unrealistic backdrops as represented by the Deer Hunter with Robert Deniro.
3. The damaged goods version Marlon Brando and Martin Sheen brought us in Apocalypse Now.
4. The revisionist personal history offered by Oliver Stone in a very good movie called Platoon.

Based on the Academy and our current trade status with Vietnam, I'd say, in the long run, it was pretty successful. It was a Cold War Era proxy war that if not fought there, would have been fought some where else.
 
The bottom line is, AQI could no longer operate in Iraq, as long as US troops were in country.

Wrong again. They were operational throughout the US occupation right through today, sometimes more intensely then others. However, they were NEVER operational in Iraq UNTIL George Bush removed Saddam Hussein.
 
As in Iraq, Vietnam became political and the military was not defeated. The Democrats got their way both times.

I would suggest you check the history on the Vietnam war, there isn't a military historian alive who doesn't say the US got it's ass kicked.

They failed in their objective, to keep the North contained, and were the ones who sued for peace.
 
I would suggest you check the history on the Vietnam war, there isn't a military historian alive who doesn't say the US got it's ass kicked.

They failed in their objective, to keep the North contained, and were the ones who sued for peace.
That's nonsense, and I'd love to see any genuine military historians who say the American military got their asses kicked! In which battle?

That's when the term "Exit Strategy" was first deployed and the perfidious politicians have been using it ever since.
 
How do you measure the terms of success in veitnam? By the body count of the enemy?
Vietnam was unsuccesful, but not because of the military. As with Iraq is was the fault of the politicians.

Nonetheless it was one of the few 'hot' battles during the Cold War which America, despite its leftists, eventually won.
 
That's nonsense, and I'd love to see any genuine military historians who say the American military got their asses kicked! In which battle?

That's when the term "Exit Strategy" was first deployed and the perfidious politicians have been using it ever since.


You can do your own reading.

Did the United States prevent the fall of South Vietnam into the hands of the Northern communist regime?

yes or no.
 
You completely ignore the intent of the post.

So, wtf does the fact British planes were also involved have to do with the unnecessary firebombing of Dresden?

FFS, you reduce civilian casualties, not justify them.

Because you only said American planes, when the British planes were in the majority.

Justify civilian casualties?? Where did I do that? Here is what I did say. "The fact is that civilians will always be killed in a war and if you have any idea how that can be avoided you should patent it now".

You know how to use the quote system so please use the quotes as well.
 
By not being forced to surrender Hanoi or other parts of north veitnam.

The US didn't surrender Saigon.

Again, at what point did the NVA, by force of arms defeat the US army?
 
Wrong again. They were operational throughout the US occupation right through today, sometimes more intensely then others. However, they were NEVER operational in Iraq UNTIL George Bush removed Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, ok. I guess that's why ISIS had to invade Iraq.
 
You can do your own reading.

Did the United States prevent the fall of South Vietnam into the hands of the Northern communist regime?

yes or no.

It was you who made the claim and therefore you who should support that claim, Why would i do research knowing you don't know what you're talking about?

You don't even appear to understand the difference between military and political victories.
 
They didn't defeat us.

Certainly not militarily, but the Tet Offensive was still a strategic victory for the North. Although we killed a lot of VC, they killed enough of us that the war became front and center during the 1968 presidential election, with Johnson forced to withdraw from seeking a second term while Nixon promised to end the war by bringing home "peace with honor." Subsequently, we did in Vietnam what we tried to do in Iraq (with the same pitiful result): a gradual draw-down of U.S. force strength coupled with the simultaneous training and support of indigenous forces. Remember "Vietnamization"? After Tet the war became not so much about "How do we win?" but "How do we get out?"

So if the original goal in sending troops to Vietnam was to keep South Vietnam from becoming a communist domino I'd say we lost.

Nixon's peace with honor - The Vietnam War and Its Impact
 
Back
Top Bottom