2006-11-12 14:25:00 · 20 answers · asked by mrkittypong 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It already has.
Bush keeps talking about achieving victory, but the sad fact of life is that there is no way to win in this situation. The best we can hope for is containment of the sectarian violence.
I certainly hope this country treats the Iraq vets better than they did the Vietnam vets....
2006-11-12 14:33:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Vietnam war turned the way it did when the VC realized that there was a divide among the people and started waiting us out. After the failure of the Tet offensive, the VC were considering a surrender, but held on while observing the US internal strife over the conflict.
Eventually, Funding was pulled on our side and Funding increased on their side (China). And as we started to pull back and then out, the VC slaughtered the rest of south Vietnam.
It's interesting to realize, hind sight is 20/20, that if we didn't fight among ourselves, the VC would have cashed it in and we could have had the potential to stabilized Vietnam.
Today, we are suffering from similar issues, domestically. Too many people domestically trying to say the same thing. I hope to God we do not repeat that mistake again. As it stands, our enemy does not have the backing of a China, but God forbid that the enemy sees a internal breakdown among the people's support for the troops and action we have taken and then does get a backing from say an Iran or similar.
Let's not turn it into Vietnam. We know better.
2006-11-12 14:42:48 · answer #2 · answered by Tony C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some people here dont realize that leaving Vietnam did not make Vietnam "Vietnam." The problem with Vietnam being "Vietnam" is that it was going the way that it was so we decided it would be best if we pulled out. Vietnam (the war) became the "Vietnam" we speak of now long before we decided it would be best to leave it.
...and yes studies, statistics and history both show that Iraq could indeed be the next "Vietnam"
2006-11-12 14:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Vietnam conflict became the way it did whilst the VC found out that there became right into a divide between the human beings and started waiting us out. After the failure of the Tet offensive, the VC have been thinking a resign, yet hung on collectively as gazing the U. S. inner strife over the conflict. at last, investment became into pulled on our area and investment extra desirable on their area (China). And as we began to tug lower back and then out, the VC slaughtered something of south Vietnam. it is exciting to understand, hind sight is 20/20, that if we did not combat between ourselves, the VC could have cashed it in and we could desire to have had the potential to stabilized Vietnam. right this moment, we are affected by comparable subject concerns, regionally. Too a lot of human beings regionally attempting to declare the comparable concern. i wish to God we don't repeat that mistake lower back. because it stands, our enemy does not have the backing of a China, yet God forbid that the enemy sees a inner breakdown between the human beings's help for the troops and action we've taken and then does get a backing from say an Iran or comparable. permit's not turn it into Vietnam. all of us be attentive to extra valuable.
2016-10-17 05:13:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Comparisons are used by war critics to promote antiwar sentiment in this country and down play the threat posed by Islamic terrorists.
The troop levels in Iraq are pretty steady at about 130,000 troops. There were a half-million troops in Viet Nam at the height of the war - and there is no comparison what so ever in the number of casualties.
Viet Nam was fought on the belief that if we let communism spread, a domino effect would sweep it over the entire area. This belief did not proof correct. The North Viet Namese did not threaten a holy war, nor did they threaten death to all non-believers. There was no reason to believe that this war would ever spill over onto our shores and into our towns and cities.
Iraq is the center of our war on terror. An enemy whose tactics include the killing of thousands of innocent civilians as well as perpetrating acts of war against the United States since 1979. They have attacked us on our own soil and threaten to continue these attacks. Their demands and threats are clear - death to all infidels. Convert to Islam, or die.
This war will not become "the next Viet Nam" because the consequences of losing this war will be far, far greater.
2006-11-12 14:53:04 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only if we leave before finishing the job, as we did regarding Vietnam.
When we left Vietnam, the result was millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians either dead or exiled or imprisoned.
Similar results would happen if we leave Iraq before finishing the job.
.
2006-11-12 14:55:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the sense that we could become entrenched with no end in sight, yes. And also no clear definition of what "winning" the war would entail.
In Vietnam, there was more of a specific, nation-related enemy. In Iraq, people are coming from all over the Mideast to kill our troops.
2006-11-12 14:33:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It already is "another Vietnam," if you mean a military agenda that proves interminably protracted, increasingly unpopular and ultimately abandoned.
The problem of nuclear armed WMD armed, and quasi-radical rogue regimes remains much more relevant than what happens in Iraq - in the larger context of world history.
2006-11-12 14:32:26 · answer #8 · answered by voltaire 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It already has. More American troops have been killed in the first 3 years of Iraq than the first 3 of viet nam.
2006-11-12 15:18:20 · answer #9 · answered by Phil S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, in Vietnam we could pull out and be done with it.
Iraq is a front for RADICAL Islam's "Jihad", we cannot simply leave.
2006-11-12 14:31:41 · answer #10 · answered by Tim 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋