Is Iraq another Vietnam?

[DVTimes]

Is Iraq another Vietnam?

The veteran Democratic Senator, Edward Kennedy, has described Iraq as George Bush's Vietnam - the long war that ended in humiliating retreat for the United States in 1975.
How justified is the comparison?

There are obvious differences.

The Vietnam war was fought over 14 years and on a far bigger scale. At its peak, more than half a million American soldiers were deployed there, compared with about a quarter of that number in Iraq.

Nearly 60,000 died in Vietnam, together with perhaps 40 times as many Vietnamese.

Looking at America's allies, the most obvious difference was the absence of Britain, its primary partner in Iraq. In the 1960s, the British government resisted Washington's pressure to send troops to Vietnam.

South Korea fought alongside the United States, together with smaller contingents from Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.

Ruthless

To help with the Iraqi aftermath, the US has assembled a longer list of allies on the ground, mostly European. But in military terms, only the British contribution is significant.

The US used more ruthless methods in Vietnam - including large-scale bombing, often with incendiary napalm, and the destruction of whole villages suspected of harbouring Vietcong guerrillas.

Such tactics are even harder to justify now. The Americans have far more accurate weapons available.

But they are often irrelevant to the task at hand.

Essentially, the same dilemma faces the Americans in Iraq - how to separate the fighters from bystanders, this time in run-down towns and cities rather than tropical jungle.

A purely military solution was and is impossible. But then, as now, a superpower staked its prestige on victory, so the question became: how to get out?

Vietnam ruined the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. His successor, Richard Nixon, negotiated a peace deal which in fact meant an American withdrawal and the takeover of South Vietnam by the communist North.

Washington's local political instrument, the corrupt South Vietnamese military government, was discredited and collapsed.

In Iraq, the Americans have appointed a Governing Council whose legitimacy is disputed. The difference, they hope, will be the involvement of the United Nations and a handover to a more representative government.

Ideological justification

One striking similarity is Washington's declaration of an ideological, even altruistic motive.

In Vietnam, it was resistance to the spread of communism: the theory was that if it was not stopped there, the rest of south-east Asia would fall like a row of dominos.

The reasons for the invasion of Iraq are more muddled, but the Bush administration has often sought to present it as part of a war against Islamic terrorism - as well as an effort to establish Iraq as a beacon of western-style democracy in the Middle East.

In both cases, the United States said it was defending freedom: but its involvement in Vietnam stimulated a national resistance struggle and a similar phenomenon may be emerging in Iraq.

So far, nothing like the mass protest movement against the Vietnam war has emerged in the US.

But there is another way in which the shadow of Vietnam hangs over President Bush.

His opponent in the November presidential election will be John Kerry, who was decorated for bravery in the Vietnam war - but later campaigned against it.

Mr Bush avoided being drafted to serve in Vietnam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/3608473.stm

[Doctor Dre]

Woah Woah leave it some time . Bush fucked up big time but it's a good thing he don't backup and pack his things . If they let another bad regime dominate this country that whole war will have beeen fought for no reason.

[AZN 4 Lyfe]

The Viet Cong Kicked Your White Fat American Ass Daily!!!!
SAd

[DR_PHIL]

well we aint goin nowhere but...just like every country we are in we slowly and quietly exit and on to the next money wasting adventure

[axelcat]

This whole thing is getting very scary

[Manowar]

Originally posted by Doctor Dre

Turd in camoflague ?

[liquidmoe]

Comparing this to war to veitnam makes about as much sense as comparing this to World War II. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to the original war in Iraq. So the reasons for going to war are different, but at least you have two similar wars.

Just look at the death toll, deployment, the fighting, the people's involved, and the time line and what exactly is similar about these two wars?

[BigPinPin]

Is Iraq another Vietnam?

This whole wars and all the stuff what the usa is doing now, is nothing more, than to give the reasons for the coming soon total controls......

They will watch every step...they will start to tell that this and that stuff is illegal...they will first start to censor porn in the usa...after this is done the rest will follow...

dont believe it ??? we will see ;) raise your voice or the government will fuck you all...

[just a punk]

Originally posted by liquidmoe
Comparing this to war to veitnam makes about as much sense as comparing this to World War II. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to the original war in Iraq. So the reasons for going to war are different, but at least you have two similar wars.

Just look at the death toll, deployment, the fighting, the people's involved, and the time line and what exactly is similar about these two wars?

The similarity of these wars is in the background. Both wars were started by the USA which invaded sovereign countries without any serious reason (both countries are located far away from the USA and weren't dangerous for it). Both wars are no-win ones (it is impossible to win such a war until you kill EVERY single man who fighting for his country.) In both cases the USA was hoped for the easy victory being fully aware the invaded country is much weaker (don't expect the USA will invade Russia, China or even India or North Korea because these countries have powerful armies and nuclear weapon.) In both cases the USA will have only one way to finish the war - completely take out its army back to home and leave the country to the people who live there. You may like these facts or you may not, but it will not change the situation.

[Big Monkie]

Afganistan (when the russians invaded and occupied) is the correct analogy, not vietnam. But both were quagmires from which there was no escape except to just withdraw.

[genomega]

Originally posted by AZN 4 Lyfe
The Viet Cong Kicked Your White Fat American Ass Daily!!!!
SAd

Sure they did...

[just a punk]

Originally posted by Big Monkie
Afganistan (when the russians invaded and occupied) is the correct analogy, not vietnam. But both were quagmires from which there was no escape except to just withdraw.

In some means both comparisons are correct... with just only small notice. Afghanistan had a mutual border with former USSR in it was considered as a direct danger for it (drug-traffic etc). However I don't even try to justify that war because it also was wrong!

[kimzar]

i think its too eary to tell, this could possibly get a lot worse

[KRL]

Its going to be messy, ugly, violent, horrific and every other word in the book.

Let's admit it, you have a trillion dollars buried under the ground, a strategic location smack in the middle of the Arab states, the desire by the US and its allies to democratize the Islamic world which are mostly royal dictatorships, the desire to fuel the economy of the world with another war, etc.

I'm betting at least 10 years of hell before things settle down over there.

[Big Monkie]

Originally posted by cyberxxx
In some means both comparisons are correct... with just only small notice. Afghanistan had a mutual border with former USSR in it was considered as a direct danger for it (drug-traffic etc).

The analogy is that both usa and russia lied that they invaded because the countries leaders were evil, posed an imminent danger, the people needed liberating ect. But in fact, the real reasons for invading/occupying were to install their own puppet govts and exert their dominance over the region. And in both cases the superpower armies appeared to easily win, until the locals started picking them off little by little. For russia, when the body bags coming home really started to add up and the expense started spiraling, they finally wised up and got out. Remains to be seen what will happen with iraq, i suspect the same. Its just going to keep getting worse, bush is going to be thrown out, but kerry cant just pull out, that would be a total disaster too. Look at what happened to afganistan after the russians pulled out. Bush should be impeached for this, just for starters. I think it would be a good thing for the world if he were tried for war crimes as well.

[genomega]

Originally posted by axelcat
This whole thing is getting very scary

The scary thing is that the majority of the people have no idea what's going on. Right now muslims are trying to overthrow 65 countries in the world. If this keeps on they will control most of europe and asia.

[theking]

In answer to the thread's title...no.

[rett11]

Originally posted by Big Monkie

The analogy is that both usa and russia lied that they invaded because the countries leaders were evil, posed an imminent danger, the people needed liberating ect. But in fact, the real reasons for invading/occupying were to install their own puppet govts and exert their dominance over the region. And in both cases the superpower armies appeared to easily win, until the locals started picking them off little by little. For russia, when the body bags coming home really started to add up and the expense started spiraling, they finally wised up and got out. Remains to be seen what will happen with iraq, i suspect the same. Its just going to keep getting worse, bush is going to be thrown out, but kerry cant just pull out, that would be a total disaster too. Look at what happened to afganistan after the russians pulled out. Bush should be impeached for this, just for starters. I think it would be a good thing for the world if he were tried for war crimes as well.

I agree completely...but answer me this: How is Bush's popularity rising right now, instead of going down quickly? Can anyone explain how this is possible? Is the US truly turning into a bunch of religious, bully rednecks? I really want some opinions.

[crockett]

Originally posted by rett11


I agree completely...but answer me this: How is Bush's popularity rising right now, instead of going down quickly? Can anyone explain how this is possible? Is the US truly turning into a bunch of religious, bully rednecks? I really want some opinions.

I hope not or I'm going to get a gun and start wacking jehovah witnesses

[Big Monkie]

Originally posted by rett11


I agree completely...but answer me this: How is Bush's popularity rising right now, instead of going down quickly? Can anyone explain how this is possible?

Poll results often fluctuate within short periods of time. Most people dont follow events very closely and get their news from sound bites and tv, so whatever propaganda has been put out lately has an effect. But if you look at his popularity over the longer haul, its not looking good for him. Remember a year or two back when everyone was talking about how he was invincible? A few democrats finally found a spine (thanks to howard dean) and have stood up and started pointing out all his bs. Iraq, as i have said many times before, is only going to get worse. The economy is only improving for a small percentage of people, mostly the rich. Bush is going downhill, he will lose and its possible that he may even lose in a landslide.

[sumphatpimp]

The veteran Democratic Senator, Edward Kennedy, has described Iraq as George Bush's Vietnam - the long war that ended in humiliating retreat for the United States in 1975.
How justified is the comparison?


thats pretty good coming one whose own brother was president during the Viet Nam war, and could have stopped it from becoming the mess that it did become.

Kennendy is nothing but a fat old alcoholic.

[Big Monkie]

Originally posted by sumphatpimp
thats pretty good coming one whose own brother was president during the Viet Nam war, and could have stopped it from becoming the mess that it did become.

Kennendy is nothing but a fat old alcoholic.

And how do you know JFK wouldnt have done something had he not been killed? He was in office for less than two years. And if i recall, it was mostly conservatives (like the bushes) who were very much in favor of the vietnam war, back then communism was their big boogie man. Except most conservatives, while in favor of the war, dodged the draft and were able to avoid going themselves. Just look at all the chickenhawks in the present administration. They are still gung ho for war, as long as its someone else doing the dying.
Teddy may very well be a fat old alcoholic, but he is a lot smarter than the unelected fraud we have in the whitehouse right now. But then, who isnt?

[FreeOnes]

Iraq is Iraq and Vietnam is Vietnam.
It fucking sucks when you get your husband of friend back dead. War sucks big time

[just a punk]

Originally posted by liquidmoe
Comparing this to war to veitnam makes about as much sense as comparing this to World War II. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to the original war in Iraq. So the reasons for going to war are different, but at least you have two similar wars.

Just look at the death toll, deployment, the fighting, the people's involved, and the time line and what exactly is similar about these two wars?

Read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4711882/?GT1=3256