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

2007-04-06 13:09:41 · 23 answers · asked by dpope144 2 in Politics & Government Military

23 answers

I agree - there are some big similiarities. We are fighting an insurgency, not a government. We are fighting against a culture, nor an army. We are fighting for someone else's land, not our own. And we are fighting for a people that the majority no longer support us.

2007-04-06 13:15:55 · answer #1 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 0 1

If you think all wars are the same then there is just to much to explain. A war in the jungle is much different than the desert. The North Vietnamese Army had some of the best infantry in the world. They were proud of their country and wore their uniform. They fought and died for their flag. They were well organized and fought as an Army. Those that are fighting against the US in Iraq are religious fanatics that fight like criminal gangs. They have no honor, uniforms or flags. They should be allowed to kill each other and disappear into their worthless deserts.

2007-04-06 13:27:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Iraq is actually worse than Vietnam. It is the grave for the invading forces.

What improvement do we see after the fall of Saddam Hussein?

Civil war! That's the gift the invading forces handover to Iraqis.

On the other hand, if the troops pull out from Iraq, blood bath is waiting for Sunnis and Shaites.

The winner is Iran.

And Iran is challanging the world with their deadly technology.

2007-04-06 13:20:39 · answer #3 · answered by pgmetassan 2 · 1 0

Iraq may well prove to be very much like Vietnam in that there is going to be a lot of dying done by the people who helped us after we pull our troops out. I hope we don't have to look at people hanging of helicopter skids again

2007-04-06 13:43:21 · answer #4 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 1 0

Congress.... It's because we don't have the military going at full force. We haven't declared war on another Country since World War 2 when we declared war on Japan. Without declaring war, we don't have things reminding us of the war constantly, so we get back to our daily lives and only hear of death and destruction through a somewhat biased media. Plus we are not fighting to get a victory like in wars past, we are trying to simply restore order in the region, with Saddam gone, we have no common enemy leader (think Hitler) to fight and be rallied against, so moral lowers just like in Vietnam and just like Vietnam we are fighting an enemy who attacks with remote bombs and children, like cowards they hide and pick off our men. That is why it will end the same in Iraq, eventual defeat, although we could bomb the crap out of the place and cut our losses, but then countless civilians would die. If you think about it there is no easy way out, but if we didn't go in they would have eventually obtained nuclear weapons, and if you don't think they were trying then you don't understand the radicals that were in power who sought to wipe us out simply because their religion demanded it.

2007-04-06 13:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

South Vietnam fell a year after the U.S. left because the Democratic government refused to supply the U.S. trained South Vietnamese army. There is also no super power aiding the enemy and there is no place for the enemy to rest.

2007-04-06 15:55:42 · answer #6 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0 0

vietnam was worse we had something like 16,000 killed in vietnam in a month over 3,000 killed in 4yrs in iraq how did iraq attack us the U.N gave iraq a nofly zone coalition forces flying over patrolling iraqi's shot at our planes iraq had 17 U.N resolutions against them i think there was more than enough warning. saddam is out of the way now for there to try to be peace with israel/palestinians would be hard to be peace with saddam shooting scuds over to israel also if your not muslim terrorists think your an infedel and you should be killed unless you convert to islam

2007-04-06 14:51:24 · answer #7 · answered by nirvana715 1 · 0 0

The jungle is a lot smaller in Iraq. And the president is the one who decided to start the war, not Congress or the Senate who wanted Nam.

2007-04-06 13:18:29 · answer #8 · answered by Mcgranny 3 · 0 1

Vietnam didn't attack us.
Iraq did. We were asked by Kuwait for help against Iraq when Iraq invaded. We defended our ally and our national interests). Iraq attacked us despite repeated warnings. We attacked back and drove them over the border and eventually to their own capital, trying to get them to stop fighting and just leave by every way we could.
They asked for a cease-fire, we granted it, they broke it repeatedly for a decade.
They even tried to assassinate our President.

Seems silly to compare the two, but you can compare a turnip to a horse if you try hard enough.

2007-04-06 13:21:44 · answer #9 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1 2

Losing in Vietnam helped spread communism which can't work (soviet union proved that).

Losing in Iraq means radical Islam will grow and work hard to kill us all.

Pretty simple really. The Communist didn't want to "kill us all" but the Islamic Extremist - DO.

2007-04-06 13:13:40 · answer #10 · answered by netjr 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers