does he know iraq is no way comparable to vietnam, america didn't drop more bombs on iraq as they did on vietnam as in the whole of the second world war,vietnam didn't hve oil, two and half million civillians died in vietnam the figure in iraq is 650,000 so far.iraq is not carpet bombed with phospherous and naplam bombs,the main distinguisihng fact is america got away with unreported war crimes in vietnam but in iraq it is recorded for future generations to read about.
2006-10-19 05:26:35 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because the are loosing the war in Iraq just like they lost the war in Vietnam.
2006-10-19 05:38:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's a valid comparison. First and foremost, it's because we're involved in a foreign land with no foreseeable withdrawal. The sovereign people don't want us there. US and Allied casualties are increasing. Popular support for the war- at home and abroad- is dropping. Just like it did with the Vietnam War (yes, Nam had popular support when the war began, but it plummented as our boys kept dying and we had no end in sight).
PS, those figures for Iraq will only climb the longer we are there. Civillian casualties in Vietnam were once that low. We've only been in Iraq for a few years. We were in Vietnam almost two decades.
2006-10-19 05:46:03 · answer #2 · answered by asoneill99 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I watched the interview that you are no doubt referring to.
Someone wrote an article comparing the Tet Offensive in Vietnam (during which violence escalated in an attempt to sway American public opinion against the war) to the current rash if Iraqi violence immediately preceding the upcoming American elections.
It's a valid comparison, and I suggest you look it up to more fully understand the context.
I'm not pointing fingers and I don't mean anyone in particular, but I wish more people would do their homework before they speak about an issue like this. The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam in this interview was NOT a blanket comparison of the two conflicts. It was limited to the context I've described.
2006-10-19 05:30:24 · answer #3 · answered by Lanani 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He means that its a war that is really hard to win, in the Vietnam war they used guerrilla tactics. And in Iraq they are using tactics of suicide bombing, booby traps, and now sniping.
Also he means its one that more than likely will never be fully won.
2006-10-20 08:15:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, I believe he was referring to the effect public opinion had on the Viet Nam war in relation to policy. Viet Nam was a war America was not commited to winning. Public opinion further weakened the effort. It seems to me he is drawing comparisons to that war based on what is happening both domestically and over the world. To be sure, this is an unpopular war..if there really is such a thing as a popular war.
2006-10-19 05:31:54 · answer #5 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whoa hoss, reign in your horses. What Bush was referring to was to was the Viet Cong religious period Tet co-ordinated offensive, where American troops sustained heavy losses, and the similar apparent religious period Ramadan offensive with heavy American losses.
2006-10-19 05:35:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq hasnt been going on as long as Vietnam did, give them time.
2006-10-19 05:28:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He means the USA are fighting a losing battle that they should have kept their nose out of in the first place
2006-10-19 05:29:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
He's talking about the violence and b.s. between the people. What? Do you think war is all about puppies and sunshine?
2006-10-19 05:28:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well simply that they were 2 wars that we should have just kept out of and didnt have anything 2 do wit us
2006-10-19 05:34:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋