Viet Nam and Iraq???

Viet Nam and Iraq??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

krikket -> Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 5:46:24 PM)
Ok, i need some help here from those have a better grasp of politics and know more about war than i do. In tonight's news, I heard part of Bush's speech at a VFW (i think) meeting, saying that if we withdrew from Iraq it would be like Viet Nam all over again, i.e., the collapse of a US supported government and thousands kills by the North Viet Nam government for siding with the US. I almost fell outta my seat. (This wasn't the firs time I've heard the same arguments for staying that I heard back in the 60s and 70s of why we had to remain in Nam. I admit I have a pro-troop mindset (I'm a military brat, my ex is a former Marine [see i do remember how to say it..lol], i was a flower child in the late 60s and i'm against the war in Iraq.) Another reason i'm probably so incredulous is that one of the best, most rewarding and heart wrenching jobs I ever had was the 3 years I worked at the USO in Memphis. I tasted the fear of young men and women going off to an unpopular (and probably un-windable) war, and I attended more memorials that I would have given anything in the world not to be there, but wouldn't have missed saying a final goodbye to either. I saw the effects on the men and women who returned home, those embarrassed to say where they'd been the previous 12-18 months, those who were spit on, those who suffered from PTSD and/or badly injured. i've held on tightly to a young man as he sobbed because his daddy was now a POW, held the hand of a young widow and loved and bounced kids on my knee who's father would forever be a picture and a flag in frames. I know I can't look at this situation rationally or clearly, so maybe someone can explain to me how Nam is related to Iraq and how we "know" that Al Quada thinks that our leaving Nam shows them what "wimps" the US is when we didn't win. My only hope now is that our future memorial honoring the Iraq vets won't have nearly as many names as the Nam wall does. I know many names that are up on that wall, more names that should be on there, and damn-it I don't want anyone to have to compare the number of names on the Iraq memorial (and there darn well better be one) to the Viet Nam memorial. Thanks for the help. jimini

kittinSol -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 5:57:16 PM)
That was very moving: I'm afraid I have no solution. You're doing the best you can. Keep up the good work :-)

Level -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 5:59:41 PM)
Good evening, jimini. Well...... there is very likely some truth to the government collapsing, and there are already killings going on in revenge for siding with us over there. I don't know if they would see us as "wimps" for leaving, but many of them will see it as victory for themselves.

thompsonx -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 6:17:54 PM)
krikket: It is called a scam. The pukes who start wars claim that it is righteous and that it can be won quickly and easily because the USA is the "baddest bunch of mofos on the planet. The fact is that it is not righteous and we are wrong for being there so now the scam is if we leave we will be looked upon like a bunch of pussies who cant finish what we start. How about if you come home and find your house has been burglarized and you go next door and kick the shit out of your neighbor because you have been told that he was the one who did it. Then you find out that he did not do it. So you keep on kicking the shit out of him cuz if you quit everyone will think you are a pussy for not finishing what you started. When the right thing to do is apologize and try to make amends for your mistake. This war like all wars, are fought so we can fuck their women and take their dope. It never has been any different and will never be any different. thompson

farglebargle -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 6:23:34 PM)
"They" have a shitload more problems than the US occupation, centered around Baghdad. There are 18 provinces ( governates, whatever... ) in Iraq, and each one has essentially devolved into their own Sovereign State, with their own military/police/militias, loyal to whoever is the Governor ( or "Warlord" if you prefer" ) And now, in each province, 4000 year old grudges are being worked out, and the provinces cleansed of any "undesirables". ( e.g.: Sunnis being tossed from their homes in a Shiia state. Shiias being tossed from their homes by Kurds ) So, we're back to the essential question, "Define 'win'". Win CANNOT be defined as Unified Western Democratic Iraq, supportive of US interests. The Palestinians had free elections. They elected Hamas. And they don't seem interested in any sort of unity at all. So, how do we stop the pointless deaths of 2.25 American Troops each day? Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen know. If you love this land of the free Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring them back from overseas Bring 'em home, bring 'em home It will make the politicians sad, I know Bring 'em home, bring 'em home They wanna tangle with their foe Bring 'em home, bring 'em home They wanna test their grand theories Bring 'em home, bring 'em home With the blood of you and me Bring 'em home, bring 'em home We'll give no more brave young lives Bring 'em home, bring 'em home For the gleam in some fool's eyes Bring 'em home, bring 'em home The men will cheer and the boys will shout Bring 'em home, bring 'em home And we will all turn out Bring 'em home, bring 'em home The church bells will ring with joy Bring 'em home, bring 'em home To welcome our darlin' girls and boys Bring 'em home, bring 'em home We'll lift their voice and sound Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Yeah, when Johnny comes marching home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring 'em home, bring 'em home If you love this land of the free Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring them back from overseas Bring 'em home, bring 'em home If you love this land of the free Bring 'em home, bring 'em home Bring them back from overseas Bring 'em home, bring 'em home

SimplyMichael -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 10:25:08 PM)
Bush was stupid enough to invade but bright enough to hand off the mess to the Democrats to deal with. Bush will be seen as presiding over a turning point in history and instead of steping up and leading the world into the future, he returned to the 1800s and destroyed America's future. Deeply in debt, widely hated, beholden to foreign powers without a real economy at home. It was a great experiment while it lasted.

CuriousLord -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/22/2007 11:08:24 PM)
I'll like to warn you, first of all, that you're not alone in the inability to see this without bias. A lot of people hate Bush so much that they will insult him indiscriminately. The wars, too, are also things that many have difficulty evaluating in earnest. I was not alive for the war in Vietnam, so I do not know what it was like back then. Just a bunch of history lessons which I found trying of my patience. I am also no scholar on the conflict in Iraq. Therefore, my approach is a general one. The first similarity is that the Vietnam and Iraqi wars are both highly unpopular back at home. This is one that I feel most would be forced to concede. Next, we have the relative state positions. In both cases, it was the United States, in the status of a "super power", versus a relatively small, technologically inferior country with a lot of in-fighting. They both occurred in a relatively similar time period as far as history's concerned. Ick, my apologies, though my exhaustion will make this rather obnoxiously short. In any case, many similarities can be drawn. I believe, if I recall NPR's talk show properly, the Bush administration is making the argument that the two are sufficiently similar to warrant the strong concern that pulling troops out of Iraq will have an effect not overly dissimilar from what we saw in removing troops in Vietnam. I would be hard-pressed to disagree or agree at this moment, as I am do not remember what the consequences of withdrawing from Vietnam were. In examining the claim, it may be apt of one to carefully research the contributing factors to the consequences of troop removal from Vietnam, then this one would consider the presence or absence of such similar conditions (similarity being with regards to the previously mentioned contributing factors) in present-day Iraq. Again, I am far too uneducated on the subject to claim certainty to any considerable degree, though I have a feeling that those who have fallen prey to emotional investiment in disenfranchising the current administration may well be placing arguments without the proper regards for earnest consideration.

farglebargle -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 12:01:22 AM)
quote: not overly dissimilar from what we saw in removing troops in Vietnam. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=2303 quote: In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace. For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before. --They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps. --We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves. --With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation--and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North. For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world. Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done. In 1963, President Kennedy, with his characteristic eloquence and clarity, said: "we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence. "We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there." President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office. For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude. --A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. --Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest. --This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace--in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace; it would bring more war. For these reasons, I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and battlefront.

popeye1250 -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 12:07:34 AM)
We got out of Vietnam and two years later it was peacefull. I don't know why the people in Washington are worried about "getting out." It's tremendously expensive to "stay" both in lives and money. "Rebuilding" Iraq after 30 years of neglect by Saddam was never part of the deal. Remember Bush said "Iraqi Oil" would pay for all that stuff? As a Taxpayer I don't want to pay for all that crap. I don't mind paying to build roads, bridges hospitals etc in this country. I was 18 in Dec of 1968 and I remember dozens and some days hundreds of casualties on the t.v. We'd go into Boston or Cambridge and there were big protests and the Cops swinging billy clubs at the protestors. And there were protests all over the country. Bush says that God tells him to create democracy in Iraq? Now THAT'S scary. That's why I hate all religions. Religions have caused more wars in the history of civilisation than any other thing. They should be Outlawed! Every fucking one of them. I think the American Indians are the only ones who got it right in that area.

came4U -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 12:33:46 AM)
To simplify the similarities -both wars erupted from US involvement into countries that did not ask for defending to begin with. -both countries had facist leaders (nam with facist leader General Vo Nguyen Giap under guise of communist leadership), Iraq had Saddam. -Both situations have had limited intelligence and fundamental guidance information of any know fact or truth of the details of anything from soldier stregnth and formation locations. -Both areas share common awareness that arriving like gangbusters into a nation that knows little (but negative) about the invading country is a bad idea. -Both wars had initial cause listed as 'advisory role', (aptly titled 'conflict) which ended up as full commitments (a nice way of saying WAR). -Both wars are financial burdens yet, considering the technology of now, the percentage (and potential) of collateral damage is of a high/if not higher estimate than previous world wars. ie: Stategic area guided missles that should have the capability to use little energy, high ability of standing building disposal and limited casualty have been either a) wasted, lost, damaged and/or b)caused backfire damage to our own troops. -Both wars have distinct traits involving suicide warriors. Of Asian wars it was for country/villiage/whole, Middle East uses religion as base reasoning for such missions (Allah before country). edited to add: quote: I know I can't look at this situation rationally or clearly, so maybe someone can explain to me how Nam is related to Iraq and how we "know" that Al Quada thinks that our leaving Nam shows them what "wimps" the US is when we didn't win. Drawing from all of the above factors and others, what country (or media of other nations) would not think that a country that is ill-prepared to invade another country they know little about can ever 'win' without either destroying entire populations and their lands or having the audacity to entice placement AND play delegate decisionmaker of the new governement, it's policies and leadership of such country. Both wars are a no-win. For these and many other reasons. "The Americans had to back down and come to the negotiating table, because the war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. " General Nguyen. ""You have to be faithful to the promise you made. The enemy wants to invade your sacred land. Now it is your turn to show your true faith and loyalty." Saddam Hussein

cyberdude611 -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 12:49:37 AM)
First off you have to understand that Bush simply doesn't have a good handle on the english language. So you can't literally take him word for word or you get lost quick. So keep that in mind. Vietnam and Iraq are two very different situations. They are in two different times, different parts of the world, and the players are different. The Viet Cong's main objective was to get the US out of South Vietnam. And that was it. They didn't give a damn what we did afterwords, they just wanted the US out. The argument people in favor of the war in the US used was that the US could not withdrawl because it would lead to a domino effect in the region. In other words more and more governments will fall to communism and the entire southeast asian bloc becomes communist. Keep in mind this was a strong fear as it was occuring at the high of the cold war. Soviet expansion of communism and influence was a major concern for the western bloc (ie: NATO countries). And the foreign policy of the US at the time was to try to contain that expansion. Now when the US pulled out of south Vietnam, the country did fall to communism. The Viet Cong easily swept into power. But the domino effect outside Vietnam was not as severe as many feared it would be. Iraq is different. There are a number of different groups fighting for different things and not all of them are specifically targetting US forces, at least not on the onset. There are a number being lead by Islamic religious leaders against other sects trying to battle for power and influece in a post-saddam Iraq. We are getting into the middle of those battles trying to keep the peace and that is how we end up involved in that. That right there is the only place Iraq and Vietnam are similar. That civil war aspect. And if that is all Iraq was about, we could pull out and none of those sects will care what we do after we are out. Where Iraq is different is that is also another insurgent group that IS targetting the US directly and is mostly being lead by Al-Queda. And Al-Queda is a declared and true enemy that has attacked the United States on several occasions. Al-Queda also does not belong in Iraq. They were never in Iraq. They, like the US, is a foreign entity using Iraq as a battlefield. So if we leave, our battles with them will not end. Now there are many more elements and factors to this (ie: Iran)...but that is the basis of what is going on. And if we do leave, it is safe to say that there is going to be bloodshed. A lot more people will die than are dying right now. Estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000. But if we leave...you are going to have 3 sects that hate each other all fighting for the same land. You will also have Iran wanting a piece of the pie. And Turkey will no doubt get involved and may actually invade and start slaughtering the Kurds who they hate. This is a very volatile region. It has been since the days of Babylonians 3,000-some odd years ago. And between these sects and different nations over there, there is a lot of bad blood and mistrust. And it is likely that even if we do succeed in creating a stable government in Iraq...that country will continue to have problems for quite some time to come. That is the only way out that we can consider a win. In all due regards, Iraq is not our country. We don't have to "win" it. A lot of the problems they are having over there cannot be solved by the US. They can only be solved internally by the Iraqi people. It is their country. And they need to come to the realization that either they can progress forward and create a modern and free democracy. Or they can go backwards and fight 20-years of bloody civil war because religious leaders can't work out their differences. It's their choice to make. If they all want to fight each other there will eventually be a time when we will throw up our arms and let them fight and let Allah sort it all out. The best we could ever do is create a government that can sustain itself and protect itself from collapse. And let the people it is made of do as they choose. This could be the Iraqi's only chance to have a democracy. If they fall back to totalitarianism....I seriously doubt any nation in this world will ever help them again.

came4U -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 1:17:16 AM)
Who said we are in charge of who has a democracy or not? ohh I get it.. We are in charge of deciding that because we know it all and democracy is a perfect system. Gottcha. [8\|]

cyberdude611 -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 1:23:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Who said we are in charge of who has a democracy or not? ohh I get it.. We are in charge of deciding that because we know it all and democracy is a perfect system. Gottcha. [8\|] And if you want to live in a dictatorship, be my guest... There are plenty of countries out there to choose from if that's your style.

meatcleaver -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 1:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 First off you have to understand that Bush simply doesn't have a good handle on the english language. So you can't literally take him word for word or you get lost quick. So keep that in mind. This fact is an indictment of all those that voted for the man. I know so so many second language English speakers that have a better command of the English language than Georgie boy.

came4U -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 1:38:55 AM)
I'm a subby, of course I wanna live under a dictatorship !! derrr

Termyn8or -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 6:11:59 AM)
The similarities are easy to see. Viet Nam did not attack us, Iraq did not attack us. Our CIA assassinated Diem. Our military formed a kangaroo court to assassinate Saddam. Saddam did not neglect the country, where did all those hospitals and schools come from that we bombed ? But we had alot better reason to go into Iraq than Viet Nam, Saddam converted to Euros in the waning years. If allowed to continue this would devastate the US dollar. Saddam also, having fallen out of favor with "us", had amassed billions in US dollars, which was no doubt about to flood the market. So he was a threat. I figure Viet Nam was just practice for this shit. Get a grip on your position in life, you and I are nothing but pieces of meat, pawns, serfs. It is better to be a slave than a serf, a serf has to see to his own needs. And veteran's medical care proves it. IMO we shouldn't even have interfered in WW2. It is against the Constitution and the intent of the founding Fathers of this country. This takes nothing away from our soldiers' bravery and resolve, it is just misdirected. They should turn around and shoot the supposed leaders who started this shit. We would all be better off. Our mission was not accomplished in Viet Nam, because it was impossible. They will sell their phosphorous to anyone with the money, see we didn't like that. Phosphorous is tremendously important to the military and industry. For now, it looks like we have succeeded in Iraq, they are back on the right path to doom, banking on the US dollar which is going to go bust within our lifetime. If we leave, some leader might emerge with a brain and get back to Euros, which is the only sane policy. Sane for them, not for us. But you see they must be convinced to do what is right for our rich peoples' interest. You have seen the convincing, the persuasion, the terror for a few years now. It is a shame that so many have so little direction in life that they join the military. It is a shame that they are fooled into thinking they are doing something so noble, so great, being liberators, when nothing could be farther from the truth. We subjucate them, and keep military bases there ad infinitum. Why ? I know why, and it is so ugly that I won't even bother to say. We are the Beast, or at least one of the horsemen. We will cause armageddon, you and I, by our complicity in these affairs. If Ron Paul is not elected in 2008, watch and see. It will never get better, these problems will never go away. The fact of the matter is that no US troops should never leave US soil, except to defend our airspace. And until someone in power sees it that way, we will have perpetual war for perpetual peace. Years ago I wanted to read Orwell's 1984, now I find it totally unnecessary. We are living it. War is peace, and ignorance is bliss. That our leaders decide to ignore the lessons of history proves one thing, they have not learned it. How many of their kids came home with arms and legs blown off ? Answer : NONE. I think next time they want to start a war half way across the world, they should go first. But they don't, and their kids don't. So we got what we got. Take it or leave it, because there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. Not solving problems is their business, and business is good. T

Alumbrado -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 6:17:57 AM)
quote: (nam with facist leader General Vo Nguyen Giap under guise of communist leadership), Iraq had Saddam. Giap was Minister of Defense, Saddam's counterpart in Vietnam would more likely have been Uncle Ho.

pahunkboy -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 6:19:51 AM)
Some good points here. Lemme tell you- that an American can support our troops- but HATE our policy and war! Im coming off of a 2 day black out. The news is the same. The difference is during vietnamn, some of the most profound music was born. I submit to you that we can blame clear channel for this. My town of 12000 has been holding weekly talent contests in the park- it is taking off more then you would guess!

thompsonx -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 6:21:53 AM)
came4u: It was Ho Chi Minh who was the leader of North Viet Nam not General Giap. Ho Chi Minh was a socialist not a fascist. Giap was just a very talented warrior. thompson

pahunkboy -> RE: Viet Nam and Iraq??? (8/23/2007 6:25:12 AM)
maybe the namn generation had more guts then todays youth! win loose or draw they certainly turned our cities upsidedown!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875