How come we knew these so-called experts were wrong in the 1970's, but now we believe them? The Iraqis will be too busy fighting each other to come after us after we leave. We need to spend the money on keeping us safe at home, not causing bitter hatred towards us in the Middle East.
2006-09-01 15:05:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It has always amazed me how one generation never seems to learn a dam thing from it's predecessor. I'm sure that when it comes to world affairs our children will inevitably make the same mistakes. Human nature I suppose.
2006-09-08 09:27:51 · answer #1 · answered by The Mick "7" 7 · 18⤊ 0⤋
I would agree that we should spend the money at home to keep us safe, but 'cut & run' from Iraq will have much different consequences than after Vietnam.
Vietnam had a defined enemy leadership, while the Iraq insurgents does not.
Communist Vietnam wanted to unite their country, and never thought of bringing their fight to our soil. The Iraq insurgents wants to splinter Iraq, and will take their fight to our soil if given the opportunity.
The U.S. was able to let South Vietnam fall because China allied with us, which tilted the cold war in our favor and rendered the communist domino effect in Southeast Asia after the fall of Saigon to be inconsequential.
If Iraq falls, it is very likely that a civil war will errupt that will escalate to a massive war throughout the Middle East. Some of those countries have nuclear bombs, and those bombs will be used.
Long story short, the Iraq war is nothing like the Vietnam War.
2006-09-05 15:57:27 · answer #2 · answered by MojaveDan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask the people in the Cambodian killing fields or the Vietnam re-education camps if the Reds won.
If the Iraqis real wanted the US out it would be quite easy. Have peace for a year everyone (in the US) would claim victory & go home. If then they wished to have their civil war they could the US populous wouldn't allow the next president to return the troops.
2006-09-09 11:27:12 · answer #3 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The perception is that we lost Vietnam. Tactically yes, Vietnam may have been one of the worst blunders in American military history (but this in no way detracts from the honor or courage of those that were there. The politicians screwed this one up, not a lack of will or dedication on the military's part). Strategically, the US completed the primary goal of the war: to stop the spread of Soviet Communism in Southeast Asia. Vietnam is the last country to adopt that form of government, so, that makes it a success, as deporessing as that is.
Win the war, but lose the battle.
2006-09-02 00:20:31 · answer #4 · answered by The_moondog 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well they are the same guys. Bush's cabinet is all a bunch of ex-Nixon guys. Why in the world would we ever have put these people in positions of power again? Unbelievable.
You can buy shirts made in Vietnam in every Wal-Mart in the country. Our veterans make visits to Vietnam and shake hands with their former enemies.
That war was a colossal blunder by the American government and it may well be overshadowed by our blunder in Iraq. The Iraqis never asked us to liberate them from Saddam.
The stark reality of this conflict is that we haven't yet reached the death threshold beyond which Americans finally say no more....
In Vietnam it took over 50,000 dead...how many have to die in Iraq, before even the most fervent supporters of this war find it's baloney no longer digestable???
2006-09-01 15:16:55 · answer #5 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nice try but all wrong. If we cut and run from Iraq the kind and gentle Iranians would move in and take over. Then it would really be tough for us and Israel, the only true democracy in the middle east. Iran is an open terrorist nation and they must be prevented from getting stronger at ANY cost. They call the USA the great Satan and Israel the little Satan. In fact, Iran is the Satan of all Satans.
2006-09-09 12:40:44 · answer #6 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually the theory was that if South Viet Nam fell to communist control, the rest of South East Asia would as well (Domino Theory).
South Viet Nam fell as did Cambodia and Laos. There was tremendous loss of life because of the purges of the new governments. It would appear that the "so-called experts" you refer to were correct. Your statement was incorrect.
Cutting and running from Iraq would ensure two things:
1. There would be great loss of life as the various terrorist organizations fought for supremacy.
2. No nation would trust us implicitly as a military ally.
I am not sure where you are getting your history. I can tell that you did not live it.
2006-09-05 17:02:30 · answer #7 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Russia never attacked us, terrorists did. If we leave Iraq Iran who has been eying Iraq will take it, grow stronger. As Iran grows stronger, the terrorists will. I mean its common sense. Even Vietnam made sense, years before it we had a nuclear missiles aimed at use from Cuba b/c of Russia. Who was to say they wouldn't do it with Vietnam. Thank god we ended up being wrong about that, but it wasn't so far fetched to assume it would happen.
2006-09-01 18:24:54 · answer #8 · answered by John V 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe the fact is both North & South Korea are Communist.
Therefore, the Reds won.
Iraqis are not the ones we are fighting, the terrorist come into Iraq from several countries to engage us in battle. If we left Iraq, they would over run it & make it communist in a short time. Then the terrorist from other countries would be in USA.
You can live in your dream world but history tells me I will die in your dream world & I am not willing to do that.
2006-09-01 17:21:47 · answer #9 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
That is a good point. However, we are not facing a military regime anymore. We are facing religious fanatics. If we retreat, then we will once again (Somalia) set a precedent that the enemy does not need to defeat us in battle. All they need to do is make it costly enough and ugly enough in the media - and we will leave on our own. In other words, we would be rewarding their brutal tactics - ensuring that more innocent blood will be shed in the near future in other countries.
2006-09-01 15:31:27 · answer #10 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
'They' were winning. Until a man like Reagan came in and literally wiped them off the map, all at the violent opposition to democrats.
And the middle east's 'bitter hatred' towards us really means nothing.
2006-09-01 15:09:12 · answer #11 · answered by Pancakes 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋