If not now, when?
2006-06-07 05:19:25 · 11 answers · asked by Rumsfeld My Common Sense 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They are two completely different scenarios. Vietnam was an action to stop the North from invading the South. America won every major battle in Vietnam, but arguably lost the war. Why? Because we would drive the North only so far and limited our actions against them. They eventually signed a treaty, only to break it later after we pulled out. Iraq is different in that we are fighting hostile Iraqi citizens in their own country, and not an opposing country tying to invade. Vietnam actually had an end strategy, to supress the North into a treaty, which we accomplished momentarily anyway. In Iraq, the heads of state have no idea what their exit stratigy is.
2006-06-07 05:36:38 · answer #1 · answered by johngrobmyer 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would Iraq become Vietnam? There are too many differences:
Vietnam is jungle terrain, Iraq is desert terrain.
Vietnam is in southeast Asia, Iraq is in southwest Asia.
Vietnam is a Communist nation, Iraq was a dictatorship that may evolve into an Islamic theocracy.
The Vietnamese had been fighting for more than thirty years by the time we got involved. The Iraqis have not.
The Vietnamese did not have an underlying religious factionalism and a long history of hatred between different sects of the same religion, resulting in internecine fighting/butchery/atrocities, Iraq does.
In Vietnam, we were invited in to help the ostensibly Democratic south defend itself against an insurgent invasion by the Communist north. Not so for Iraq.
In Vietnam, we had to work hard to earn the trust of people we didn't understand. In Iraq, the general populace was grateful that we released them from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. And, though you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media reporting, the people of Iraq are still generally glad that we did.
However, there ARE similarities:
The weather is very hot.
In both cases, communication with the general populace is difficult -- language barriers.
In both nations, we were/are fighting an insurgency by people who can strike and then melt back into the general populace.
In both cases, the mainstream media has overwhelming been against the conflict, and have ensured that they skewed their reporting to show only the worst events, rarely any of the good things that American troops have done.
In both cases, the mainstream media have actively worked as a subversive element to try to destroy the will of the people to continue the conflict (one of the principles of war) by propagandizing the wondrous acts of the insurgents (like burning the bodies of a couple of civilian contractors, and then hanging the mutilated corpses from a bridge, or kidnapping/beheading innocent "peace" activists), while magnifying the most trivial incident involving Americans into incredible atrocities.
In both cases, we failed to adequately prepare ourselves to understand a complex situation -- as Sun Tzu would be quick to note, we do not "know our enemy".
In both cases, the politicians who initially supported the conflict listened to partisan opinion polls, and changed their minds about their support.
2006-06-07 12:46:44 · answer #2 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We would have won in Vietnam if not for our own people back home that did not support the troops and aided the enemy. We won every battle there but people like Jane Fonda seemingly wanted communism to win as she clearly proved. Iraq is totally different and we surely can't quit like we did in Vietnam. We saved Iraq from a tortuous dictator and we tried to save Vietnam from communism. After we left Nam communists killed millions of innocent people.
2006-06-07 12:50:28 · answer #3 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as a guy who served in iraq, i can honestly say that i feel it is about half and half. in vietnam is was more to protect the south viet con from the north. in this war, there was an act upon our country. as for the lenght and the out come, i feel it will be another vietnam.. i think that iraq will never be really over with, and it may take yrs and many more of our soldiers before they just pull us out and kinda forget about it, like we do vietnam. we do not forget the war, but we have forget about that country for yrs now.
2006-06-07 13:37:16 · answer #4 · answered by T Murda 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're not in Vietnam, for one. The other is that we aren't using napalm, the Iraqis aren't attacking by tunnel, and we still have the same president in office.
That was a joke, by the way.
The people behind the curtain really don't care. This is another Vietnam in the only exception that we haven't lost yet. We lost countless lives in Nam, and wasted millions. The sick thing is, they blamed the soldiers, not the idiots (Johnson AND Nixon) who had us in the suicidal mayhem of Vietnam. If we do not leave soon, we are in deep trouble.
2006-06-07 13:35:36 · answer #5 · answered by The Phenomenal One 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.. and probably never.
When the U.S. left Vietnam the North came down and took over the South in a few short days.
If we leave Iraq now there will be a civil war.
One side will not win in a few days.
Also, North Vietnam was glad to see us go.
In Iraq no one will be happy if we fail. The cost will be to high.
2006-06-07 12:50:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!! And it never will be another Vietnam because we're going to get rid of certain politicans in 2006 and 2008.
2006-06-07 14:06:50 · answer #7 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they do not resemble each other, among of things & big ones are NO DRAFT & 58,000 deaths in Viet Nam not voluntary service and 2,600 deaths in Iraq. Just same turn coats in each.
2006-06-07 13:39:27 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes because unless you are intending to make them u.s. citazens you can't win. it means like to win the turf becomes yours permanently.
2006-06-07 13:59:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can say whatever you like, it is, however, BS
2006-06-07 13:47:30 · answer #10 · answered by jordanjd4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋