Vietnam 2 called Iraq

I think you'd better take a good look at the Patriot Act and compare it to the Bill of Rights. A warrant is no longer needed to haul your butt down to the police station--violation of the Fourth Amendment. What right to a speedy trial? Ask the prisoners in Gitmo--have they had a speedy trial?

The people at GITMO are not Americans. So, I fail to see your point.

Still, boatphone, what about the Patriot Act's violation of the Fourth Amendment (the one against unreasonable searches and seizures)? What about the so-called "free speech zones"? I watched the inauguration...those protesting Bush's illegitimate presidency had to stand only in certain places...they could not go wherever they wished in the crowd.

What about our First Amendment right to petition the government for redress for grievances? I don't think anyone pays much attention to that anymore.

Going out on a tangent, the Second Amendment is repeatedly violated by banning certain kinds of weapons and being forced to register weapons. The Second Amendment is your gun permit! And Bush wants to have that ban on "assault" weapons again!

Originally posted by Amethyst
What right to a speedy trial? Ask the prisoners in Gitmo--have they had a speedy trial?

Those prisoners in GITMO are NOT American citizens. They are not protected by the US Constitution.

As a constitutionalist-in-training, you flunk the test!

Originally posted by Amethyst
At any rate, do a Google search, download the Patriot Act, compare it to the Constitution, then get back to me.

The Patriot Act is to empower our federal, state and local authorities to stop people from planning or committing terrorist attacks against American lives ON THE US soil.

Are you involved alone or with any group planning or conspiring to commit actions of terror and murder against American citizens? Yes or no, please.

Originally posted by Amethyst
What about the so-called "free speech zones"? I watched the inauguration...those protesting Bush's illegitimate presidency had to stand only in certain places...they could not go wherever they wished in the crowd.

That was done by the US Secret Service, knowing full well that such anti-Bush protesters would gather in one place on the Inauguration Day. The US Secret Service is responsible to protect the President and dignitaries anytime, anywhere, without regard to anybody's political affiliations.

Originally posted by Amethyst
What about our First Amendment right to petition the government for redress for grievances? I don't think anyone pays much attention to that anymore.

Your redress for grievance is to the US Congress (hence the "Government"), not the White House. That's what Representatives or Senators are for. (It's similar to the new ATS democratic system: you elect people to represent some forum boards and members in general and you don't take your complaints straight to SimonGray or SkepticOverlord nowadays).

Originally posted by Amethyst
Going out on a tangent, the Second Amendment is repeatedly violated by banning certain kinds of weapons and being forced to register weapons. The Second Amendment is your gun permit! And Bush wants to have that ban on "assault" weapons again!

Please show proof of that assertion. As far as I know, Bush hasn't renew the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, despite pleas from gun control advocates, police chiefs and Congressional Democrats.

[edit on 6/25/2005 by the_oleneo]

Ameth,

I love the consitution, but no where in the consitution does it say that you can assemble ANYWHERE you what. Also, you know that those protesters would have tried to disrupt the event, they do not have that right. Remember the majority of Americans voted for the President and the protester do not have the right to spoil his big day.


But, again I love the consitution.

Gosh, a two-liner thread opener that could be put in any one or all of the existing threads here that this would have fit into?

Example, here is a response to another thread entitled, "We shelter behind the myth that progress is being made":

"Its been a short amount of time. In this time, a lot fewer deaths have occured than did in other conflicts. American dead is "far beyond" 1,700? That was nothing on D-Day.

Oh, but you're right. Let's just pull out. No use wasting money rebuilding the country, like we did in Japan and Germany, just leave them. Yeah, I know, the government isn't on its feet properly and we'd be leaving it to be savaged by those who are already coming over the borders to tear it to pieces, but hey, why bother?
Because, if we don't bother, the country will fall again, the people will suffer with no hope, and the enemy will see that we are gutless cowards who can't finish a difficult task.

This microwave generation has no patience for the long haul, I see."

Go read the history of the 10 year war, and notice the striking differences between the two conflicts. Also, notice the differences in casualties. Also, notice that the Iraqi people are with us, and not indifferent, as the Vietnamese were on a whole.

I'm waiting for the next thread, which will be entitled, "I hate the war. Your thoughts? By the way, America is a bully. Please respond to my thread so I can get ATS Sky Miles!"

when it comes to the iraq war
i still dont know the truth behind the matter

i seriously doubt anyone does

in my opinion; i think there is at least 100 separate factions in iraq attacking anyone of the 100 factions in any number of ways
America is just 1 one those many, many factions...

Iraq is like sections of Africa but more important in a way...
They are "killing fields" in a sense, but iraq has more implications and the $$$ is bigger

America is in Iraq to get rid of around 60 to 70 of these separate little groups (thats their task Now...since the liberation occured a few years ago)

most of the deaths in iraq are due to one of these other factions attacking another faction (that isnt USA)
in a way the USA and its soldiers only see less than 10% of the action

who are those many factions? some are coalition allies of USA like UK or poland
some are "terrorist" or "fundamentalist" groups of Different Religions
we all know there are muslims but i assure you there is a few christians or jews out there fighting the war too in their own ways
when a car bomb goes off at a mosque and no one claims it; who do YOU think did it? *im just mentioning a possibility here as speculation im not claiming it as fact *
i would even bet the chinese and the russians have sent in people to set off a bomb or two in support of some unknown agenda

theres plenty of mecenary groups on various sides too

Im personally not going to Iraq, but those Coalition troops there have got a mess on their hands; and its only 10% their fault
*being that 90% of the action is between any random faction*

plenty more people die in this "random other action" than at what is directed towards the coalation

its a very complex war

*thats my personal take on the iraq war of today*
Also i do not know america should be there or not as i obviously do not know what the CIA and pentagon higher ups know....

That knowledge is essential for understanding wether the iraq war is nessasary or not
and this Knowledge is Classified for National Security purposes

so my opinion cannot be made until i can see such information
but ive listed my speculations

Irak is a civil war....

now there are 1740 casualities on the american Side SO FAR the invasion is not over, Nam is over so we have a number...but people forget that everyday that number sadly goes up...its like the american Space program, Apollo 11 everyone glued to the TV, Apolo 12 wow they did it again, apollo 16 uhh.. are they still launching moon rockets?...

Now most people see 5 more dead in combat in Irak and they pass the page or change th e channel,,its so sad...
No war can be compared to others but in the end they cripple people, disrupt families, leave horphans or makes families names end....

They're very simliar with a few key differences:

In Iraq you're making money while your young men die

In the Vietnam war the US national will broke with fatal casulaties at 50,000 ish, in the Iraq situation it's starting to crack and we're not at 2,000 yet. I think this is encouraging, the power of the net / information prevents governments abusing their people.

Ultimately they're both ill-advised foreign ventures, poorly-planned with ill-defined objectives and inappropriate tactics. Your troops are placed in dangerous situations, told to disregard human life and that abuse is justified. They're the ones who will suffer along with the locals and (as in 'Nam) the sacrifice will be for nothing.

To be saying 'we should seal the borders' now after 2+ years just shows how poor the planning initially was.

Originally posted by the_oleneo


The Patriot Act is to empower our federal, state and local authorities to stop people from planning or committing terrorist attacks against American lives ON THE US soil.

Are you involved alone or with any group planning or conspiring to commit actions of terror and murder against American citizens? Yes or no, please.

Considering that OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is who orchestrated 9/11 in the first place...think about that one! Problem-reaction-solution.

I highly doubt that "Muslim extremists" ran the planes into everything. According to Joe Vialls, an Aussie (I think he's Aussie) who lived in the Middle East for a time, Muslims don't like wearing the color red and claim Mohammed was against wearing red. Yet the Flight 93 "hijackers" allegedly wore RED bandannas!

Even if it were Muslim terrorists, if they hate our freedom so much, then wouldn't curtailing our freedoms be letting the terrorists win?

Furthermore, very little in the Patriot Act has to do with actual terrorism! It's more about creating a fascist police state!

Originally posted by Amethyst

Considering that OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is who orchestrated 9/11 in the first place...think about that one! Problem-reaction-solution.

That is not true, and there is no evidence of that.

I highly doubt that "Muslim extremists" ran the planes into everything.

They admit doing so. And they do hate the U.S. very much and enjoy killing Americans so it makes perfect sense.

According to Joe Vialls, an Aussie (I think he's Aussie) who lived in the Middle East for a time, Muslims don't like wearing the color red and claim Mohammed was against wearing red. Yet the Flight 93 "hijackers" allegedly wore RED bandannas!

Why should anyone believe his "aussie", should we not ask a middle-eastern person instead? Also, it is the color orange that they dislike wearing. Look it up.

Even if it were Muslim terrorists, if they hate our freedom so much, then wouldn't curtailing our freedoms be letting the terrorists win?

Our freedoms have not been curtailied. Can you give an example of any freedom you have lost???

Furthermore, very little in the Patriot Act has to do with actual terrorism! It's more about creating a fascist police state!

No, that is incorrect.

I highly doubt that "Muslim extremists" ran the planes into everything. According to Joe Vialls, an Aussie (I think he's Aussie) who lived in the Middle East for a time, Muslims don't like wearing the color red and claim Mohammed was against wearing red. Yet the Flight 93 "hijackers" allegedly wore RED bandannas!

My gosh! Now the whole conspiracy behind 9/11 has been solved! Mohammed didn't like the color red. The hijackers wore red bandannas! Mystery solved!

I don't think Mohammed liked going into schools and murdering women and children either. Does that mean that terrorists haven't committed those acts either?

That is by far the funniest 9/11 related conspiracy I ever heard to date. It's better than one of the planes that crashed into the WTC being a terradactil!

First of all what is the reason of Iraqi war and the importance this administration?

So far for the look of civilian’s death it can not be to protect the people of Iraq.

So far we know that is too much money invested by private companies and subsidiaries in Iraq and they want profits.

So far our own administration has appropriated billions of dollars to finance this war, for what? To protect what? The people? The country? Or the private companies and subsidiaries involve?

The pentagon voted on June 15 for 45 more billions on aid for Iraq, so far Iraq appropriation of funs is now $322.40 billion dollars.

Reasons for what in Iraq? Let see what our leaders are saying about that.

Last Saturday Mr. Bush brought the issue of defending the war in Iraq with “We went to war because of we were attacked”

But we all know that the September attacks had not link to Iraq.

Then last Sunday the secretary of state Ms. Rice said that “criticism of the handling of the war isn't justified because "The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq."

A what? If my mind serves me right the conflict in Iraq was to be a short term incursion and victory.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months."

And this quote here is the one that ice the cake,

Former Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

You know some here needs to get a reality check of what is the reason for our president to say that pulling out of Iraq is not an option.

Is not an option for who? Our troops, lives, Iraqi civilian lives or the money already been invested in this war.

No vietnam was not like Iraq, never in a thousand years, because we didn't had private interest back by our governement involve in vietnam.

Just think about it.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Both Vietnam and Iraq are military debacles full of political, strategic, and tactical incompetence. They were both useless wars started under false pretexts in which corporations profited and American personell and civilians perished for absolutely no good reason.

In both wars we controlled the majority of the country but were not able to wipe out resistance. Resistance came from outside influences where the US could not attack. In both wars, the American leaders promised that the situation was getting better, and better, and better.

We lost Vietnam. We're going to lose Iraq. Why? Because it was predicted a looooong time ago that the US cannot occupy Iraq - by none other than Bush's daddy and Stormin' Norman and anyone else with more than three brains cells and the ability to pronounce the word 'nuclear.'

History will see Iraq 2 as unwinnable and stupid from the start, just like Vietnam. The only people ever to occupy Arabs in the long term have been the Mongols, and to do so they simply killed a huge majority of the population. Somehow, I don't see the US being willing to employ this strategy. As far as Democacy - it CANNOT be imposed from the outside, it has to be something that a country develops from within. Forcing democracy onto a country to which the concept is foreign has never ONCE worked.

Originally posted by Rasputin13


My gosh! Now the whole conspiracy behind 9/11 has been solved! Mohammed didn't like the color red. The hijackers wore red bandannas! Mystery solved!

Well, when you consider that we keep hearing about "those Muslim fundamentalists"....think about it, if their prophet Mohammed forbade the wearing of red, what makes one think that Islamic martyrs would wear red?

See source here, and here's an excerpt:

With regards to wearing red, Muslim males are forbidden to wear this colour, whereas Muslim females have always been allowed to wear red. Non-Muslims, however, are not expected to adhere to these restrictions.

I think I'm seeing a Vietnam type of mindset growing in American people now. We all know this war was a false one , Iraq having nothing to do with 9-11 and terrorists plus the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. So you and i have been lied to by the people were suppose to trust, the only people gaining from this are the arms manufacturers and the companies who are going to rebuild Iraq if the war ever ends.
This war is one big con job and people are realizing this now so i think in a few months the American population will see this and take revenge on the perpetrators.

To "think" is to "ponder" and in this case, simply is not based on reality or an educated guess. Merely nothing but what you wish or desire it to be.

If one thinks Iraq is another Vietnam, please provide some educated comparisons that can be debated, other than asserting "I think".



seekerof

I think that anyone who has a brain can post on here with their thoughts on what is happening in Iraq , and compare it to what happened in Vietnam , if i have to produce evidence that they are linked its impossible for me to do.Why cant we debate the similarities that are happening that America is getting fed up with this war. I don't see your reason for your post , if you would like to explain it , feel free.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Vietnam war?

No, this is worse than the Vietnam war. At least the North Vietnamese pretty much fought our boys out in the field. They did'nt ram airliners into sky-scrappers full of civilians and I hope we start trading with Vietnam again.

Maximu§

I wasn't aware any Iraqi slammed into the WTC, Pentagon or even some field in Pennsylvania.

Boatphone,

“Just because something still exists does not mean war cannot solve it”

Is that your motto?

“Yes, it is worth it, to protect American and the world. America is willing to fight and die for freedom, thats why we bailed you out in WWII!”

Oh dear oh dear.

First of all, Iraq was not threat to the US or the world. It was a barely surviving, almost 3rd World country.

As for the US fighting and dying for freedom in WW2, the US did not get involved until your economy was under threat so lets not talk of the altruism of the US in WW2.

Those who fought have my undying respect. Those who seek to make political hay from those actions are beneath contempt.

“Remember the majority of Americans voted for the President”

No they did not.

Cheers

BHR