Is Iraq worse than Vietnam?
 

For those of you alive during Vietnam.... Are there comparisons? Each day seems worse and more upsetting. Is anyone else worried about the situation there?

Today is Sunday, and two more troops were killed today. :(
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Also, 10,000 people took part in an Anti-American protest surrounding an American military base
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3122122

and finally, the head guy in Iraq Paul Bremer today said:

<b>"It's clear that, given the size of the task, we're going to be there for a while,"

"I don't know how many years."</b>

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...639687601.html

George Bush said that the war is over.

Nope

For one thing, Iraq seems alot worse due to the RT delivery of what is going on. During Viet Nam, the news and film was days or even weeks old. And it wasn't nearly as in depth coverage.

Bush got us into these things and we have to see it thru now. Just don't reward the idiot by voting for him "just because you don't see a viable candidate in 2004". Any of the others can't do any worse of a job can they? They'd be treading on eggshells if they got into office. lol

We're going to lose more people no doubt. :( But pulling out will make the US look even worse than the Viet Nam era.

There are not any comparisons...yet. As for the loss of life up to this point in time since the declaration of the cessastion of major fighting...two thirds of the American deaths have been "non-hostile" related. In addition there are more Americans being killed daily by Americans then there are killed in Iraq and Afhganistan combined. Also there was never any doubt in my mind that American forces will be in Iraq until hell freezes over or we decide to withdraw our forces...but not at the current troop level.

so u think more troops will be required?

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...cs/6335469.htm
"U.S. struggling to find replacement troops"

Vietnam was way worse. It wasn't news to report dead soldiers, just normal.

Mainly massacre of either troops or villagers were reported. The rest was a non-event.

Similarity was that the US was again trying to dominate and change an autonomous population, this time because of the " communism " threath .

Iraq is a US mistake by a " saloon president" that has "darn good intelligence".

No way will the Iraqis accept to be dominated and/or americanized ( as somebody said in an other thread). The day the US will understand that being against something doesn't mean you are necessarely pro something else, well maybe then the light will shine.

you can see the yearly/monthly figures here:

http://members.aol.com/forcountry/kiamonth.htm

Scary!

If you are asking if I think more troops will be required to take firmer control of Iraq...I suspect this could end up being the case...but if it is the case it should be a massive build up of troops. If we start piece mealing troops into Iraq then the comparison to Vietnam will become pronounced.

In Vietnam there was a well organized Guerilla force in place before we ever entered the fray and in addition there were well organized NVA forces to contend with. Both of these forces had decades of combat experience prior to the US entering the fray.

Even then...US forces beat them at every turn of the game...and if the conflict had not been micro managed by cilvilians...piece mealing troops into Vietnam...controlling targets...strategic and tactical...the conflict would not have been prolonged and an ultimate withdrawal of our forces would not have happened.

Generally, when things go wrong with the military operations, it is because of civilian micro management.

Love the "saloon president"!!
:thumbsup

It's not anything even close to how bad Nam was. Not YET!!

But here's the scenario as I see it:

1)The U.S. pours in many more troops to "keep order".

2)Casualties continue to mount in both the American/British and Iraqi camps. (Couldn't believe Beyer on Fox news today saying "we already have a Nato force there. We've got troops from Spain, Italy, Poland.." Yeah, they cook, clean dishes, and on latrine duty! All 10 of them!)

3)Eventually a government is put together in (insert your own time frame here!) that the U.S. approves of.

4)Slowly we begin to bring the troops home. Probably never taking all of them out.

5)We beging arming the NEW government with WMDs to fight the insurgents.

6)We invade AGAIN!!

we lost 58,000 in vietnam , so comparing it to vietnam is not much of a comparison.

Yep, seems to be the same cycle over and over again.




You can't even compare Iraq to Nam yet. Its like comparing petting to fucking. :1orglaugh

I was looking for the number. And thats not even counting civilian casualties :(

Iraq is a large piece of Real Estate...and has around 27 million people. The last report that I read is...we have something less than 150,000 troops in theater. The ratio of head to tail in the military used to be 10-1. In other words out of the 150,000 troops in theater about 135,000 are basically not combat forces but in one way or another are support forces.

Now the military has made several organizational changes over the past several years so the head to tail ratio may be slightly higher. Even if it has been doubled (which I do not believe that it has) that would mean instead of 15,000 combat forces there would be 30,000 combat forces, trying to control a large piece of Real Estate and 27 million people.

Several retired Generals stated prior to the invasion expressed a fear that we were going in light and I expressed the same fear. As it turned out it was the right size force to accomplish the defeat of Iraqi forces...but any one should have known that to control the country and stabilize it...would take a much larger force. The Administration seems to have failed to take this into consideration (civillian micro management). There has already been a call for more troops being intoduced into the theater...but Rumsfeld (and I assume the President) is resisting this (cvillian micro management).

Bush should be held responsible for every American killed over there, along with the soldiers killed from other countries.

The guy's obsessed with killing and oil....and he's taken it too far with this war.

He is being held responsible. The only problem is that so far, in the U.S., a slight majority of Americans think he IS acting responsibly.

But with increasing casualties, that will definitely change!

I knew before the war started that this would turn uber ugly a few weeks after the higher ups declared we won.

All of my friends who were being super patriotic waving flags and buying into all the TV propaganda would just about want to exchange blows when I spoke my thoughts. I personally did not support the choice to invade but once we did, I could only pray that it all worked out. Did not matter anymore if we should have or should not have, we had to now hope for the best outcome.

Comparing the two wars ok conflicts, can not be done yet. In my opinion Vietnam was a needed micro conflict in a much bigger picture. Vietnam could have been won if not for the way the Government handled it.

This conflict on the other hand is alot different. It is not black and white like Vietnam was. This is a religious war no matter how one spins it.

Anytime you have people that are willing to kill themselves to even just hurt you, it is going to get very fucking ugly. We are being forced to treat everyone as potential hostiles, thus creating hostiles as a result.

Then with the thought process of the American people, they will turn on our efforts and our conflict a whole lot faster than they did in Vietnam, well before the body count even gets close.

Nope... it is not a "Vietnam". It has a long way to go before it reaches that insane level.

BUT there is a reluctance by the Pentagon to admit there is certainly guerilla war going. This has already been acknowledged by the field commanders. To deny this is dangerous.

It is no secret the best way of attack on an invading "conventional army" is let it stay as long as it likes and conduct a sustained series of "hits" guerilla fashion. Like Palestine, Iraq has no "real" weapons and are just using any methods of attack they can. This soon pisses everyone off and screws up the propaganda of the invading nation.

The US has walked itself into a corner in both Iraq and Afghanistan with the assumption it has mighty force and therefore can control countries. It has failed to act quickly and take on the responsibility of an invading force under the terms of the Geneva Convention. Each day that passes is now creating more anti US feeling and many are now appreciative of the life they had under Saddam.

Basically the US cannot and will not control Iraq and impose its "values" on a country of which they know nothing. Iraq and it's culture existed long before the US was born. To succeed in Iraq it is necessary to win minds. That is something alien and beyond comprehension in the current US govt. Bombs can't win minds, the harder work by far, is in the aftermath. It is becoming clearer daily the Iraq people do not want a resident US invasion force.

Prediction! Bremner will be back in the US by December, - after still more deaths on both sides, - and a scenario will be on the way where US "liberation forces" are not in control, (are they at the moment?) to the level they are today. Others will be left to clean the mess up. Bush will hang on to the threads of having "achieved" something (watch CNN for the "Success in Iraq" prime time feature) in Iraq and try to divert attention to another area of the world, such as Africa, in an effort to show his "compassionate" side and attempt to prove he is not totally bad prior to his last stand at electoral success at home. He will fail in all foreign policy to the same degree he has failed the US people. Bets? :)

i think Iraq is worst if we talk about Vietnam!
and war is not over yet...:)

No.

Shit... this is the reason the US has no hope in hell in Iraq...


http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3122122

Japan is a success story for the US. Its culture...at the time was as foreign to ours as Mid East culture is now. They too were "fanatics". A government was forced upon them and they now enjoy the fruits of that government...being the second richest country on the earth.

FYI it was bombs and a massive show of force (16 million Americans in uniform) that converted the Japanese people. Force does work and works well when properly applied.

I seriously doubt that a massive show of force will be used in Iraq and I also doubt that the proper use of force will be applied (civilian micro management).

The very existence of North Korea and the prolonged conflict in, and ultimate withdrawal from, Vietnam, is the result of civilian micro management.

theKing:

Much as tho I appreciate your comments, I have little to discuss with you.

Based on almost all previous threads where you offered comment, these subsequently became pointless.

But hell.. have a good day!

Please use the quote feature and show me where I have asked you...ever...to discusss anything? I have little tolerance for fools and that is the classification that I have applied to you.

But hell..have a good day!

Theking at times I agree with you :Oh crap

With Japan though that is a different scenerio all together. Japan was feudal controlled by an emperor. The culture of the Japanese people also was much different than that of the Muslims. So much so that it can not even be compared.

We as a people can comprehend the idea of kings and such, it makes sense to us. We know this culture from early on as children as we are read fairy tales, or even study why we became our own country.

Also at that time we had a different sort of men running the Government, these men did not go by polls, they just lead the people. They asked us for sacrifices to help the war efforts and they were not worried about the next election.

Yes we kicked ass with superior fire power, but that is not what won that war, what won that war was our leaders, our generals, and our troops. Then we did not just stop when we knew we had won, we showed them they had lost in a way they could understand. We had their leader come abord our ship and sign documents showing he had lost.

Except for the way we treated the Japanese living here (which we should have learned from) it was a text book example of how to deal with such a clash of civilizations. We did not send in troops to treat all Japanese people as hostile forces, we showed compassion and we followed through from the initial attacks to maintaining civil order.

With the Muslims, sheer force will not cut it, and our leaders are not of the same caliber as those that handled the Japanese.

theKing:

The fact the you were "attracted" to respond to my post is more than fair reason to consider you wished it "discussed".

From your response, I can see you have a problem - still continued from our last "pointless" thread.

You have "something" to say, but the manner is that of a nut when *anything* you say is criticised - that is the atitude of a blind idiot with something like a chip-on-the-shoulder problem.

Just read your quote and comprehend it. :1orglaugh

You are free to described the culture of Japan in anyway you choose, but it does not alter the fact that their culture and "religion/religions"...they viewed the Emperor as being a living "GOD"...and their fanatsism was as foriegn to us as the Mid East is.

We decided to wage "total war" with little thought to loss of life, civilian, or other wise, and demanded an unconditional surrender.

Force is a solution when applied properly...but todays leaders...I think...do not have the stomach for it...and probably not the American people per se. If the US does not get serious and take control of the situation (get tough measures...including taking down dissident leaders and be willing to take life) then...I think...ultimately the mission in Iraq will fail. In other words stop pussy footing around.

theKing:

This thread is a comparison over Iraq and Vietam... not some history lesson on Japan that clearly does not apply today.

100% applicable...it is a classic study of how to convert an entire people to a different form of government and culture via the use of force.

Ok we dissagree about the culture of the japanese people at the time. Thats cool.

On the rest you seem to agree, different words but same idea correct?

Do you see any of our leaders actually leading? or just spinning the facts, altering the truth and spending more time thinking about how it could effect the next election.

The war in Japan was won on both fronts, in Japan and in America, the leaders asked us to step up and do something.

Today they way we are supposed to support this conflict is to shop more and not think.

If you thing the US admin is losing it, don't. This was planned all along. This will be a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong occupation.

Edit: and please, not another Webby vs. theking diatriabe

Well no shit, this war on terrorism will be just like the war on drugs. Afterall if you smoke a joint your helping the terrorists, but please drive your ass around all day shopping, just make sure you fill your tank up several times, it will help the war effort. Since we all know its drugs and not oil that fund terrorism.

theKing:

You are again on an "assuming" trail......

And an incredibly arrogant one! :1orglaugh

Ironhorse:

Na!! I can't be bothered providing some "therapy" to theKing unless he pays the last bill! :1orglaugh

One day soon, Americans will drive Iraqi cars ... lol

Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no.

I have serious doubts about civilian leadership any time that our military is engaged. If politicians are going to committ our military they should stay out of the way and let the Generals and toops do what it takes to get the job done...and doing the job will not be pretty but the mission will be accomplished.

I have serious doubts about the will of the American people as well. We are a people that seem to ebb and flow with a media report on any given day.

theKing:

To what extent you do envisage the "military" of a nation be permitted a free hand to do as they see fit?

Governments manage their own military and tax payers pay for this.

I agree that it will be a long occupation...like until hell freezes over. We will, and intended to, maintain a certain permanent force level in Iraq from day one. If the situation goes South...as it did in Vietnam...because the civilian leadership...current and future...will not provide the military with the proper force...and more importantly the proper use of force...then hell will freeze over rather quickly.

The second the country agrees to attack. We did elect the people that make that choice. Once it goes to conflicts and wars then keep civilians out of the choices of how to handle it. Let the Generals and the War Department handle the war as they need to.

freeadultcontent:

You added a War Department to theKing's scenario, - that would be accountable to the govt. Makes a difference and I agree! :winkwink:

Though I do not like civilians in the war department, they should be all military for the most part.

Can anyone guess where most heroin is STILL coming from?

Starts with A and ends with N ....

At this present time no, I no longer follow the BS of the drug trade. If it is Afghanistan or any other stan I do not care. If we cut it out there it will be columbia, if not columbia it will be china, if not china it will be korea, if not korea we will make it ourselves.

I just know you can not say the same thing about oil.

Ironhorse:

Almost 75% of world heroin is from that country currently occupied by the US - Afghanistan.

And the crop is thriving well.. next year will show higher yields!

Getting back to the TOPIC of the thread. Not yet, but it's only a matter of time.

why is everyone a bunch of fucking pussies?

what the fuck is wrong with killing thousands of people? its been done hundreds of times in history. what the fuck is wrong with US troops just killing the protestors? we did them a service we got rid of thier leader, why the fuck not kill the ingreatful bastards that dont appreciate the favor? but no, now politics have to have a bigger weight in life or death matters then protecting the lives of AMERICANS. Instead we ask large portions of our military to go there and be puppets for our politicians (that buy and rig elections) who really dont know the slightest god damned thing about kill or be killed.

our fucking president crawled under a rock and went into HIDING, while our fucking country was under attack.

thats just plain fucking wrong on so many levels its not even funny. hundreds of thousands or americans are willing to die for thier country, yet our great leader is NOT? hundreds of thousands of americans have been willing to give thier lifes both past and present and many of them did in fact give thier lifes, all to help create a country where the politicians RULE and citizens are too fucking bored/stupid/scared/lazy to do a god damned thing about it. i think the majority of this country needs to open their fucking eyes.

this is a country for the people by the people. not for the rich, by the politicians.

FUCK apathy, go buy a GUN, and if your unwilling to kill people that might want to kill you, do the rest of us a favor and turn it towards yourself.

So it was Afghanistan, but ummm were not the "terrorists" mostly from Saudi? Do we buy much drugs from the Saudi's?

Oh wait I get it. Heroin is a drug that we use in small numbers comparable to say pot. We lump pot into the drug numbers so they look huge, we then say look at all this drug money that is flowing to Afghanistan to poppy farmers. These poppy farmers are using that money to buy gas for their generators to process the poppy into herion, thus funneling drug money into the Saudis pockets who in turn fund terrorists. Ok I see now, silly me.