English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i pretty much think that the two wars have two main differences. a. vietnam veterans came home to a country that hated the war and hated any soldier involved with it. they were called baby killers when some and or most of them were drafted into the war. while in present time, many americans, if not most of them by now are anti war, they still support the troops. even if they hate bush, and his selfish, ignorant personality, and the war he created and started, thy still support the men and women who fight there.
b. both vietnam and iraq were coated with cotton candy, and sweet chocolate lies. there were never any type of weapon in iraq that could be used for mass destruction, and what about bin laddin? did you know that a few generations ago the bush family was friends with bin laddin's? vietnam was the same way. i just need some facts or what not to make my peanuts into peanut butter.

2007-03-15 14:59:37 · 5 answers · asked by ellie 1 in News & Events Current Events

5 answers

Not much. And guess what; both presidents were from Texas.

Oh, there is this to consider; In Vietnam there was an army we could see coming from the North whose goal was to take over the South. It was a WAR--complete with battles in the field and our aircraft being shot down. Most of our men were drafted and didn't choose to be there.

On the other hand, Iraq is an OCCUPATION. The enemies are scattered factions and individuals. There are no clear, identifiable targets to search and destroy (tanks, planes, ships, bases, ammo factories/depots, etc.) Our armed services are now all-volunteer but I do feel bitter about all the young, patriotic people who joined after 9-11 thinking they were going to protect us from terrorists only to end up enhancing the profits of the Halliburton Corporation and the like.

2007-03-15 15:26:56 · answer #1 · answered by S D Modiano 5 · 0 0

I'm sorry to say that you pretty much miss the point. It's not whether we love or hate the troops, it's how the country we occupy views them.
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "an occupying army needs only to control the government, with the threat of total annihilation".
The Roman Empire fell not due to the opinions of Romans about their army's virtues but rather, the intolerance of being ruled by foreigners. The Romans were rather ruthless about occupation, they slaughtered all males between 7 and 70 and bred their legionaries to the occupied. Still, the idea of freedom persisted and eventually led to the fall of their civilization. Unfortunately, we have the technology to destroy the world. I hope our Commander and Chief and all his underlings are not that psychotic.
I hope that the idea of freedom from oppression is a human genetic trait and that some day, we as Americans, will learn to read our own history and appreciate it.

2007-03-18 16:15:45 · answer #2 · answered by rick m 6 · 0 0

I taught 8th grade - those factors could be ordinary for them to understand: The Iraq conflict began as an invasion. Vietnam became a delicate develop. the 1st militia troops in Vietnam have been to "prepare" the South Vietnamese military. individuals help the troops plenty extra clever now than in Vietnam. There are 2 wars occurring now (Iraq and Afghanistan). there is not any draft for the Iraq conflict. there is plenty extra media get right of entry to interior the Iraq conflict. infantrymen volunteer to bypass Iraq via enlisting interior the militia. some infantrymen are affected by what's noted as end loss. end loss is whilst the militia keeps you previous your settlement using fact of undertaking desires. usually maximum infantrymen did basically one strive against excursion in the time of Vietnam, that's no longer the case now. Many Iraq vets have served 2 or extra year long excursions. much extra Iraq vets have seen strive against in Afghanistan. the advantages that infantrymen obtain are plenty extra clever now. the recent GI bill has been accelerated recently. The pay that infantrymen obtain is so plenty extra effective than it became in the time of Vietnam. There are modifications with provider contributors families. extra American infantrymen are married with babies than infantrymen who participated in Vietnam. infantrymen can enlist as much as the age of 40 two. That became no longer the case in the time of Vietnam. females carry out responsibilities in very unsafe components. some females have won awards for valor. There are extra woman casualties interior the Iraq conflict than interior the Vietnam conflict. Fewer infantrymen die in strive against now using extra clever scientific care. inspite of the incontrovertible fact that, extra are coming lower back with injuries. inspite of the incontrovertible fact that, the government is doing plenty extra to help injured vets. communities are additionally assisting out contributors who've been injured interior the conflict.

2016-10-18 12:08:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The only difference is - On our side : Jane Hanoi Fonda & John Kerry aren't getting their pictures taken with the enemy this time .
Theirs : Terrorism !

2007-03-15 15:19:45 · answer #4 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0 0

one sucks, the other stinks.

2007-03-15 17:02:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers