To anyone who lived through Vietnam, who paid attention in history class, and/or who has more than 2 brain cells (which seems to eliminate Bush supporters and neocons), the parallels have been obvious from the beginning.
* Started on dubious provocation by a Cowbow President who wanted to have a war (all those toys to play with - ships and planes and soldiers and marines and lots of cool weapons).
* Supported by an administration of men who had never seen combat personally (just through the movies and tv - woo hoo!).
* Run by a civilian "executive/manager" in the Pentagon who thought he knew better than the professionals in the DoD how to run a war (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are incompetent, arrogant scum!)
* Complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the local culture and political situation - and purposefully ignored and shut out the people who DID know.
* Complete lack of candor by the Administration on what they are doing and why. Denying reality - banning any views of the coffins coming back from Iraq.
* In the field of battle, this is clearly a guerilla war, as was Vietnam, and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid or blind or both. Or maybe just a pathetic Bushie denying reality.
* Using the same search and destroy, then withdraw tactics (so the bad guys can retake the neighborhoods again) that we used in Vietnam. Didn't work then. Not working now. Duh!!!
The new wrinkle with Iraq is the clever use of dis-information, misinformation, and propaganda by the right, or, at least, by the Bush administration. Nixon tried, but he wasn't nearly as good as this crowd. Of course, he didn't have e-mail and the religious right behind him. So cynical to use Jesus to support a war - Jesus! What would Jesus REALLY do in this situation? I wonder... bet it wouldn't be killing more people!
2007-05-11 04:01:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by plumrj 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Both were started by a false premise. The Gulf of Tonkin inncident proved to be false infomation. The U.S. had been shelling N. Vietnam for days before the alledged attack. And the second attack on our ships was proven later to be false. And we are learning more about the bogus information and propaganda spread from the White House to our so called liberal media, that started the mess in Afganistan and Iraq. To me one of the most outspoken critics of the Vietnam War was MLK. Matter of fact he lost a lot of friends and supportors because of that. Today we have two great dissentors. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky continue to be two powerful voices against the Bush war mongering policies. But I do agree with your. Where are the youth of American? When will a new generation stand up and say enough?
2016-05-20 04:44:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
One may be able to draw some similarities, but the wars are totally different.
Vietnam War was the product of the cold war and the war must be looked at in that context before you can truly understand why it began and why it ended as it did.
Nothing is ever as simple as win, lose or withdraw when dealing with global politics.
2007-05-11 04:42:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Infernal Disaster 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Your original question before you wrote us a thesis asks if Iraq is the new Vietnam. Not even close. The total casualties in Iraq equal some casualty totals in a single week in Vietnam. Vietnam was even't acknowledged as a war until about six years in, and we fought by a stringent code which disabled our military's ability to gain advantage. In Iraq the actual war was won, the phase we are in now is rebuilding, the insurgents were an x factor.
2007-05-11 04:05:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Scott B 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
I hate to say this...but it might turn out to be worse than Vietnam.
2007-05-11 04:17:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sh00nya 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Same circus, different tent.
2007-05-11 04:00:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Outside the box 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes just fewer casualties.
2007-05-11 03:58:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋