differences and simmilarities?

Question

i need 10 simmilarities and differences between the Vietnam and Iraq war, please i need actual facts, not thoughts!!!

PLEASE THIS IS VERY URGENT.

Answer 1

A quick Google with

vietnam iraq war comparison

and :

"Points in favor of saying Iraq is like Vietnam from [the US military forces'] perspective:"

"- We face a significant insurgency, with daily snipings and RPG attacks."

"- We don’t speak the language, don’t understand the local culture, and can’t effectively distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys when the latter aren’t actually shooting at us."

"- We may lack sufficient force to achieve our (peacekeeping) mission, with statements by military leaders as to the required force being overruled by their civilian superiors."

"- We have no clear idea of when, or even under what circumstances, we get to go home."

"Points opposed to such a characterization:"

"- The death toll remains well short of Vietnam standards. At its peak the Vietnam War was taking 500 US lives per month, and did so for many years. We’re only losing about a tenth that many people per month at this point, and have only been doing so for a few months."

" - Our Iraq opponents lack a secure base of operations. They have no equivalent of North Vietnam with its regular army, or the support of nuclear-equipped superpower China."

"- Our opponents have no jungles to hide in. (They do, however, have the extensive urban areas that Tariq Aziz famously likened to them, at least for guerilla-concealment purposes.)"

" - All our troops in Iraq are volunteers. While there has been some talk of reviving the draft, and such talk may turn into reality if the needs of waging perpetual war and the reported low rates of reservist re-upping continue, we’re not there yet."

"Now let’s look at things from the perspective of domestic politics. Points in favor of the Iraq/Vietnam connection:"

" - A president who arrived in office with questionable legitimacy (LBJ by way of assassination, Bush by way of an electoral “victory” in which he received fewer votes than his opponent)."

" - A war authorized by Congress in response to questionable, politically tainted intelligence (Gulf of Tonkin/Iraqi WMDs & al Qaeda connection)."

"- A lack of clarity by political leaders as to the war’s purpose, justification, duration, costs, and exit strategy."

"- A disconnection between political pronouncements at home and realities on the ground, with ideology substituting for objective analysis in the generation of either overly dire or overly rosy predictions (we must stop Communism in South Vietnam or the other nations of southeast Asia will “fall like dominos”; the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will lead to a spontaneous wave of pro-US democracy-formation throughout the middle east)."

"- A bait-and-switch approach to escalating involvement; “mission creep”. Note how it is only now that the administration is beginning to publicly address the true length and cost of the Iraqi occupation."

"Arguments against the Iraq-is-like-Vietnam characterization, with respect to the domestic political scene:"

"- The drawing of parallels is ludicrous on its face. It’s an apples and oranges comparison. We’re simply too early in the process to see how Iraq will play out politically over the long haul."

"- Public support for the war remains high (although it has been dropping).

"- Unlike Vietnam, where the threat of nuclear-equipped communist nations opposed to US interests could only be linked indirectly to the cause of waging war, the memory of the 9/11 attacks makes the waging of war on “terrorist nations” an easier sell today. The resulting domestic support will tend to give politicians a freer hand in using whatever means are necessary to avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire, as opposed to the incremental, “proportional” steps pursued by Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam. (Note, though, that this will require continued identification in the public mind of the Iraq war with the 9/11-inspired “war on terror”.)"

"Vietnam and Iraq: A Comparison" : http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/07/06/vietnam-and-iraq-a-comparison/

"As evidenced by the quagmire in Iraq, we ignore or distort the lessons of past wars at our peril. Had we learned the lessons of Vietnam, we would have realized that this sort of exaggerated doomsday rhetoric is intended to generate fear and incite frenzy for war. Then, as now, we were warned of the threat to our national security and way of life. "Communism was insidious," they told us, and "the dominoes quickly falling." "To War," was the cry, "Stop them now in the jungles of Vietnam or fight them later on the streets of San Francisco." To meet the Communist threat, we were admonished to unite and rally around our flag, to love America or leave it, and to avoid dissent and criticism of our leaders and their policies of war. "Either you are with us or you are with the Communists." We were justifiably outraged. God was on our side."

"Had our political leaders paid closer attention to our experiences fighting the Vietnam War, they would have realized that disenfranchised people would endure tremendous sacrifice and struggle heroically and steadfastly against foreign occupiers and aggressors. Tactically, they would have anticipated the difficulty of fighting a counter insurgency war. How the guerilla/insurgent’s "hit, run, and disappear" tactics not only nullifies the superior weapons technology of the invading/occupying force, but also provides vast war-fighting advantage in concealment, confrontation, intelligence, and communication. They would have foreseen the frustration of fighting an enemy indistinguishable from those we claim to be liberating and protecting and would have understood that the resultant anxiety and stress precipitates a state of conditioned hyper-vigilance and overreaction in which civilian casualties and deaths become the norm rather than the exception. They would have realized that this inevitable "kill them all, let god sort them out" mentality, justified as collateral damage or excused under the rubric of the "fog of war," abrogates the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the people, increases sympathy and support for the guerillas/insurgents, and causes serious psychological and emotional difficulties for the returning warriors laboring to come to grips with the moral enormity of their experiences in war. Had our political leaders paid attention to the lessons of Vietnam, they would understand that to persevere, to stay the course or escalate our involvement, to pursue victory or to save face in such a situation is futile, a prescription for even greater disaster, and tantamount to condoning aggression and murder."

"Had we as a nation heeded the prescient warnings of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower and war savvy Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, we would have been aware that despite the charade of humanitarian concern and of dire threats to national security, all too often, wars are fought for economic gain and corporate greed. While those of wealth, power, and influence choose and profit from war, it is invariably the poor, the working class, who must fight. War brings profit and gain to an elite few at the expense of the pain, suffering, and deaths of the many. Consequently, "war is a racket," morally abhorrent and prima facie wrong and anyone who would unleash such sacrilege upon humankind bears an onerous burden of justification."

"Had we learned the lessons of Vietnam, we would not have been deceived about the true nature of love for country. We would have understood that the distortion of "patriotism" to require blind allegiance and unquestioned support for, or participation in, unjust and immoral war – aggression and murder – is inconsistent with human decency and with the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy. Such "patriotism" is an abeyance of human reason, a profound failure, both intellectually and morally. We would have realized that true patriotism requires the moral courage critically and objectively to evaluate, legally and ethically, the causes and justifications for war. That patriots celebrate dissent, and not repress it; speak out against and condemn immoral and illegal war, and not support or condone it; seek new ideas and all possible viewpoints regarding peaceful diplomatic resolutions of international crises and disagreements and not rush to war. As citizens of the world’s only superpower, we must hold our politicians, generals, and corporate executives to the highest moral standards. We can no longer separate ourselves from their actions in the world and must accept responsibility for the coups they plan, the wars they wage, or the sweatshops they run. Moreover, for those of us who fought in war and know its insanity and horror firsthand, we have a greater obligation to raise our collective voices in opposition. To remain silent and complacent when greed, incompetence, and misguided patriotism again turn our children into killers and squander their lives and well being in another unnecessary and immoral war, all that we have fought for, bled for, and died for would have been in vain."

"In times of crisis such as these, however, when we caution restraint, seek justice and fairness, and urge peace rather than war, we are often condemned as irresponsible, unsupportive of our troops, unpatriotic, and for giving aid, comfort, encouragement, and hope to our "enemies." We are admonished that we are at war and must put aside our petty disagreements and avoid dissent and criticism of our leaders and of their policies. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." "The world is divided into two sides - - the side of faith and the side of infidelity." "Whose side are you on?" If we are ever to achieve peace and justice, we must learn the lessons of previous wars. We must choose the side of the victims, no matter their national identity, who inevitably become the innocent casualties of war and corporate greed. We must chose the side of justice and not of vengeance; of the workers and not of those who exploit them; of reason and not of hysteria; of compassion and understanding and not of cruelty and brutality. We must choose the side of peace and not of war."

"In this era of Globalization, we have become expendable commodities, forced to live in a world increasingly of corporate design, with little concern for justice and fairness, but only profit. We have become cannon fodder, forced to shed our blood, sacrifice our lives, and to become killers while corporations benefit from the mayhem. The critical lesson of Vietnam and, perhaps, of all previous wars is clear. We must overcome the narrow perspective of corporatism and nationalism, and embrace a universalism. We must reject the bifurcation of Bush and Bin Laden and realize that our country's borders do not separate us from the rest of humankind. Moreover, if we claim to know god, we must respect her creations and treat all of god’s children as our own. Thomas Paine said it best, I think, "The World is my Country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." The war in Vietnam should have opened our eyes, laying bare the horror, insanity, and futility of war. Had we learned the lessons of Vietnam, we never would have invaded Iraq."

"Had We Learned the Lessons of the Vietnam War . . .", Camillo "Mac" Bica, OpEdNews.com : http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_camillo__070517_had_we_learned_the_l.htm

Answer 2

There are considerable differences between the two conflicts but also striking similarities.
As to the first:
In Vietnam the war started as a popular revolution against the French colonialism; US intervention was justified for the fear of communism.
Irak was a former US allied country and was invaded because the USA said Saddam Hussein had "Mass destruction arms".
In Vietnam the presence of foreign troops united the population, in Irak a religious war started between the main groups.
In V. US troops were mainly conscripts, in I. they are volunteers.
There was one political and military leader in the Vietnamese army, there are more leaders in Irak.
In Irak there is the largest reserve of oil.
Similarities:
Strict control and censorship of the news coming from the area;
-Incapacity to turn military supremacy into political victory;
-huge differences between the situation on the field and the comments of US leaders;
-a dwindling public support.

Answer 3

they are all Abrahamic religions. Muslims have faith that Jesus is the Messiah, yet that Muhammad is a better Prophet than the Messiah. they are, despite if, anticipating a messianic parent to return on the top of the international.

Answer 4

presidents
car dents
highrents
get bents
and couch lints
5%