Do you think the WAR in Irak will end up the same way like the one in Vietnam ?

Answer 1

The first answer is correct! the lack of oil is not relevant to the question. The war has already become another Vietnam, in the sense that we are not winning and will not win, with the tactics we are using.
The enemy is using the same tactics as in Vietnam, a "guerrilla" style fighting strategy...hit and run, disrupt, attack in small numbers, with a force that is constantly on the move and is well supplied and well armed.
Again identifying "who" the enemy is and where they are is always the challenge which we again are failing at. Technology is not helping since we have more gadgets than brains deployed on the field.
As of last night, the Presidents address, he again wants to extend the tour of duty for already exhausted troops, recall men who have been let go home for a break, shorting them time off and lowering again the moral among our troops.
Six generals retired..and condemned the war, 5 quit, what does that say about what is going on. One thing strikes me is this, how does your enemy deposit 50 or so dead bodies around the city, like easter eggs...to be found by our troops without being seen doing this...they know exactly where we are..that's how! They know exactly when and where are troops will be patroling and how long it takes them to do a sweep...as long as your enemy knows where you are, and you don't have a clue where they are, they win...it is that simple. I would be looking for them in the sewers...or underground in tunnels, just like Vietnam...but it seems the Generals we are left with...don't seem to remember that is one of the winning tactics used in Vietnam.

Answer 2

No, and we didn't go in this war for oil, we have NOT taken any Oil and have no intentions. There is really ONLY one reason we went in to this war, because someone somewhere had to pay for the destruction caused on 9-11, there was no way this country was going to just let that happen and do nothing. I stood by revenge then and I stand by it now, that was all it was based upon, we were slapped and we slapped back to make a point, blow up our buildings and people and government, and we WILL destroy something and maybe next time it will be you! point well made and we have already won, many countries are scared to death to go up against us and scared to harbor terrorist for fear we will come in and wreck their country too!

Answer 3

I don't know of any war in Irak.

The war in Iraq will end like Vietnam if the democrates have their way because they want to make Bush look bad and look forward to have more terrorist so they can say see Bush was a failure.

It doesn't matter how many Americans die in the process.

Answer 4

Sure, it'll tear the Democrat party apart now just like it did during Vietnam...

Answer 5

No,NO
Iraq have OIL, Vietnam do not.
Ask yourself why the American went IN there and not North Korea?
Until NOW: Where is the WOMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Answer 6

It already has. look what we're doing now! we are no longer a killing machine. we are a Policing agency.

Answer 7

this war will be destroy the peais in all of the world

Answer 8

No, but liberals sure are trying their best to make it so.

Answer 9

Yes.

Here are some of the largely ignored parallels:

l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam.

2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win.

3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha.

4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq.

5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.)

6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq.

7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain.

8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true.

9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets.

10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves.

11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two.

12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion.