A person stated this today:..."Iraq is an infant democracy. Just like babies scream and have temper tantrums because they don't know how to express themselves yet to get attention, this infant democracy is bound to behave badly and lash out blindly because it doesn't quite understand how a civil society works yet. They're learning. Give them time."
I say to them:..."In March of 1969 I heard the same thing said about Vietnam." so tell me again about giving them time.
2006-06-10 04:51:30 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Gee i seem to understand that America had a few problems ourselves after the revolution. I mean like a previous answerer stated Germany and Japan were not fixed overnight. The biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam the Democrats would not let the military fight to win, but were more interested in making money on our dead 58,000 American soldiers than doing what needed to be done to help democracy succeed, but now the Republicans, much to the anger of the liberals, have turned the conflict over to the military so that they can do what they need to in order to win. In wartime someone always makes money, but something you need to keep in mind is that most of the major conflicts America has been involved in the Democrats have squarely planted us in them. You are so concerned with getting us out of Iraq, and so worried about the soldiers dying there, because Bush got us there, but you have said nothing about the American, and allied troops that still get into firefights in Bosnia!!! Clinton put us there 11 years ago, and we still rotate troops there, but no says anything about Clinton's screwup!! If you are going to ask these kind of questions, then at least have the balls, and intestinal fortitude to ask about ALL the places AMERICAN troops are dying in!!!!!
2006-06-10 09:19:10 · answer #1 · answered by mmbrune1@sbcglobal.net 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Who said the same thing about Vietnam?
There is no parralel.
There was no "infant democracy" in either south or north vietnam, there was no toppling of a dictator or regime, there was no establishment of a new civil society.
It was simply a war between two countries which had been split up at birth, and one which the superpowers of Russia, USA, and China used to fight the cold war by proxy.
There is no point in trying to draw parralels between Iraq and Vietnam, particularly when there are none.
2006-06-11 03:10:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference between this and Viet Nam is this is true. There has actually been a true change of government and an establishment of a new one. It has been 4 years. That is an amazing timeframe for all that has been accomplished--just check out the rebuilding of Japan and Germany for references on just how hard it can be. And remember, they didn't even have opposing militant forces. So the fact that the US-led coalition has established a new, functioning government in the face of these odds in under 10 years in quite an accomplishment, though we still have some way to go.
2006-06-10 11:57:13 · answer #3 · answered by RandyGE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well after reading some of your questions, is it any wonder that they are having a difficult time. Your loyalties sound and come across divided. Pitty you...... My feelings is you don't get it along with many others. Good thing you're not in charge. My question to you is how would you go about it. You seem to be drooling at the bit to see failure and also the I told you so mentality. I'm glad that there are much more honorable men in the military then the few yellow bellied ones we seem to hear so much about on the media. Funny how there are so few but the media has no problems using them for their own agenda's. You do shame to the military and your leaders.
2006-06-10 16:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact of the matter is that it is true. Vietnam did not get the time they needed because the "antiwar" protesters won.
Lets give the people of Iraq a chance. They have voted for democracy - why should they not have it?
2006-06-10 13:50:10 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The argument was the same for Vietnam and for Iraq. You may not want to believe it or hear it but read about the Vietcong and how close they came to defeat. They will tell you in their own history books it was the American "anti war" movement that saved them....and thats really the only chance Iraqs insurgents have too.
2006-06-10 13:22:32 · answer #6 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so what should we do and give us an answer that has American security in mind and will allow for true freedom to take hold in the middle east. we i mean are govt. messed up Vietnam by not allowing us to complete the task. Vietnam would be a free society today if it were not for people like Jane Fonda that committed treason against their own country. to finish any thing especially war you have to stay the course. and in Vietnam we didn't
2006-06-10 12:47:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
RandyGE, what an excellent response to this question.
A.F. K9 Mili..., give them time!
2006-06-10 12:00:53 · answer #8 · answered by MesquiteGal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YOUR A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-06-10 19:47:23 · answer #9 · answered by shocktrooper342003 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋