Mr Bushs visit to Vietnam has to elicit questions and analogies.
In both, did we have a clear strategy and an achievable objective ?
I note Mr Bush's popularity is now at 31%...and this has to be tied to the war as well. LBJ, Nixon, both grappled with the issue of leading the country during an unpopular war as well.
2006-11-17 00:06:13 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Proud_2B: In both cases America betrayed its self.
Actually the Vietnam war had more to do with the US intervening in Vietnamese national politics. Under Eisenhower the US fostered and supported a puppet government and attempted to set up a US friendly regieme that was not popularly wanted - THAT is familiar. We entered and occupied a country with no understanding of its history, people and culture - THAT is similar too. The build up into the war was based on falsehoods and deceptions -THAT is familiar and we had no coherant objective or achievable goals - THAT is a connection too. And eventually we lost...
2006-11-17 00:59:36 · update #1
Proud2b: Understood the people ? I don't think Cheney's, Perles, and Wolfowitz belief in humiliating Arabs to get their respect was based in reality. SUPPORT for the war ? over 60% of Americans feel this war is a mistake. And WHY did we invade and occupy this weakly defended country ? WMDs ? Saddam was evil ? Forcing democracy on the Iraqis ? Why did we NOT understand foreign fighters would be drawn in. It happened to the Russians in Afghaistan. You are calling this war a BIT messy ? Did you hear the American Generals on Capitol Hill say to both houses that we have 4 to 6 months to " get it right"? before we lose complete control ?
Both of these wars were unnecessary and un winable quagmires based on lies. Did you believe the Johnson Adminsitration's claims that we were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin ?
No I think the grand experiment is almost over and the American people won't have the political will to keep it going forever. Yes there are parallels and we failed to learn .
2006-11-17 12:46:12 · update #2
It is a war, so there are common elements. But the situation is very different.
Vietnam was a proxy war between first, USA and USSR. USA won that one. Then it was between USA and China. Wisely enough, USA backed away. It ended in a draw. The Vietnamese people are better off without having a war going on.
Iraq is a triple war, first USA and Saddam's regime. USA won. Then USA vs the Al-quada Insurgents. USA was about to win, but a civil war between the Sunnies an the Shites broke out. USA forces find them selves in the middle, without a strategy to win, lose, or draw. I don't know what happens next.
2006-11-17 08:50:10 · answer #1 · answered by Paul K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Excellent response 79Vette....
I personnally don't see any real comparisons.
Since you are the one trying to draw a line between the two you should tell us how the two Wars are alike.
Quagmire seems to be a popular word these days trying to link the two Wars but If you are going to use the quagmire scenario I would bet that any War that has ever been waged has gone through a period of such difficulty.
You want the two Wars linked, how about you link them for us.
PS... Well plank, I disagree. We fully understood the history of Saddam's Regime. We also understand the people of Iraq. What wasn't forseen was the foreign fighters that would come to Iraq and make a stand. As for the War in Iraq being based on falsehoods and disception, that is your opinion and it isn't shared by the majority of the people. The displeasure with what is happening in Iraq today has nothing to do with why we originally went into Iraq. It is due to it turning a bit messy. Wars have a tendency to do that though. Especially when we have to play this political blame game with people like you. Noone anywhere intentionally lied to make a case for invading Iraq. Regardless, if you want to believe that Iraq and Vietnam are similar that is your right but it doesn't make it fact. It is far from the facts. I don't expect you to understand or even admit to it though.
2006-11-17 00:34:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
geez.
You know how many of you people have actually been anywhere near a war? How many of you have shot a gun in self defense?
You belittle the very thing that makes our country free.
If it was possible and china invaded Alaska next year...5 years and many battles later. The same rhetoric would be slandered. Why is the war taking so long? Why are American men/women dieing? Can't we make peace with China. Just give China Alaska....BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....
I can pull common elements that could link WW2 to Korea to Vietnam all were unpopular at one time or another. You can say every politician in the Land Lies to get us involved in WAR. I do not care one iota how we got involved. Just that we are involved. And to not support the WAR is not being American.
War is never popular. Always starts off with Patriotic Pride and the then falls out of favor fast. When everyone thinks it should be over. I can not fathom how people criticize war. I support the troops, but not the war is oxymoronic.
2006-11-17 00:42:02 · answer #3 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The last thing I would want is a President that governs via popularity. Clinton did that and althougth he had a "cartaker Presidency" his lack of action against rising terrorism against US interests had a lot to do with 9/11 and where we are today.
The problem LBJ had was once again he felt fighting a "limited" war was all it took. But when your dealing with people who do not value human life as we do, the only solution is all out war to be done with it. Also, very important at that time was the fact the former Soviet Union was funding and arming NOrth Vietnam. They worked hard to defeat US interests their. And of course they won again, by using the US population dissatisfaction with the war. The Iranian terrorists read that book, and are ding the same thing here, and they partially won by the recent Democratidc elections.
Vitenam however, was NOT a threat the the US mainland. Terrorism IS. Just last Monday, the Iranian President, said Isreal will be taken off the map, soon. What do we do, do we uull a Nevel Chamberlain and say peace is at hand back in 1936 with Hitler? Or do we take his threats seariously. Since the world will let Iran get a nulcear bomb and Europe once again has its head in teh sand, we are faced witha danager like no other. Do you think the Iranians, Syrians etc would lose a nights sleeip if a dirty nuclear realease goes off in NY or Chicago, no becuase they would have supplied the matrials to those who did it.
To me the general lack of support by the masses of almost any president is a general lack of the masses to read, examine world history, review the past and take analyze world events seriiously Remember, "people are stupid, individuals are smart".
I don't know about you, but I don't want my 10 year old son to be working in NYC 10 or 15 years from now and a nuclear device is set off so that we can say "why was nothing done when Iran and company were making these threats.
No any President who makes his/her decisions by popularity is a loser and history as proven that.
2006-11-17 00:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by 79vette 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Just because the British didn't join in your war against the Vietnamese people 'doglover' don't say your allies don't back you up. Our current government led by the liar Blair supported you in Iraq in what was clearly an unjust war for oil. Read some factual history about Vietnam and you will find the Australians were fighting there alongside you.Try reading other things besides the comics..
2016-05-21 22:27:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any common elements are strictly political .
There is too much talk about " Exit Strategy " with politicians .
Politicians send the military to do a job and then tie their hands with excessive R.O.E.'s , limitations and " equipment built in my district " .
There are only 2 ways out of a conflict , victory or defeat .
Occupation is always difficult , there are always DIE HARDS .
Iraq is complicated by all the foreign fighters ( terrorists ) coming in and raising hell and religious sect militias .
90% of the current fighting is between groups of Iraqis and others
over who's going to run the country and pocket all the oil money
2006-11-17 00:42:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clearly at this point Vietnam is much worse. More American lives were lost in Vietnam and no dictator was toppled as in the case of Iraq. Also, the American people did not support the troops in Vietnam, and in this war they do - even if they do not support the war as a whole.
2006-11-17 00:19:39 · answer #7 · answered by Average Joe 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
YES!
Vietnam~Fonda Iraq~Kerry
Turner Murtha
Hollywood Hollywood
2006-11-17 00:23:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well erudite (who is now calling himself Nikon Camera lover). Still with the "We will lose" ramblings, eh??? My advise to you is not just to change your name, but to shut the hell up.
The comonality between the 2 wars is the exploitation by the uber-left (the the hippies, now the liberals). In both instances undermining the war effort.
2006-11-17 01:28:42 · answer #9 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Very Clearly.
Both were/are disasters. Both were/are wrong. Both were/are fought for extremely dubious and questionable reasons. Both were/are wasting young men's lives needlessly. Good men. Men with a sense of honour and duty. Men that have muppets and morons giving them orders.
If you really can't see any parallel between the two wars and defend either or both of them then I despair. I really do.
2006-11-17 00:27:07 · answer #10 · answered by Teacher 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋