Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Your words just help to kill more American soldiers for nothing but illusions.
|
Come to your senses, Sky. I give my analysis on Subsim.com of the war and its results and my words kill soldiers??? Don't you think you're slightly overestimating the effect of my posting?
|
It's the opinion that counts. It mirrors some other's decision-making opinion who do have a say in the shaping of events. Sticking to this opinion creates policies that kill American soldiers for no other reasons than illusions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Slybird
Due to the high stakes that got lost, I agree with those saying that this already is far worse than Vietnam...
|
Just to remind you; the Vietman war - at least the US involvment - lasted from the early '60 till the early seventies ('71 or '73, whatever date you choose). The war took the lives of about 58.000 US servicemen.
You consider a war that after almost three years cost about 3.000 lives of US servicemen "far worse"??
How come?
Did you do your mats wrong or were lives in the '60s of the 20th century cheaper?
The harsh truth is that while this war costs US lives almost every day, the losses are affordable for a country like the US.
And I seriously doubt if an immediate withdrawl is affordable for the US from a military or political point of view.
|
I said "due to the high stakes that got lost". I am not comparing losses in soldiers' lives, but the strategical fallout. The defeat in Vietnam damaged US prestige only, and did no more real damage to the US. But the debacle in Iraq has caused them serious strategic damage that by far outshines the strategic damage done by Vietnam.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
And - inaccurate as you used to be in the past - I didn't label this conflict a 'win'. If you're in doubt, read my post again.
|
" (...) it seems that Americans expect
a war to be won - which happened (...) "