2007-05-26 00:02:59 · 5 answers · asked by peter2156 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
In my opinion, yes.
Although the opponent of the Iraq-Vietnam idea claim that the number of the U.S. casualties in Iraq fight are lower than the Vietnam war, no one can deny that the it is similar to Vietnam because loss of control over the nation.
Also, politically it is very similar to Vietnam...
2007-05-26 01:46:25 · answer #1 · answered by davegesprek 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they are very different for alot of reasons. However, if the comparison is the time we have spent there without a huge win, then I guess you can claim it is like Vietnam.
I think that this is just a handy catch phrase because it evokes bad feelings or memories. I also think it is used by many people who were not even born during Vietnam and just use failures in Vietnam as a slap down to government and therefore all military actions are " Vietnam".
I think a majority wish there was never any wars but we know that is not possible with humans. We have become so used to instant gratification and instant "win" that nothing short of a one day war with no deaths would be the only acceptable war.
2007-05-26 08:51:37 · answer #2 · answered by Ret. Sgt. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
*seems to be increasingly so.
Somewhere back in the mid to late 1960's it was deemed that we ( *we* being the allied forces that fought in Vietnam together and NOT just the Americans) were winning the Vietnam war ... Kinda like MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
BUT ... how can you win a war .. called THE WAR ON TERROR ... you have a faceless enemy, with No exact location, and by trying to fight this faceless enemy on the soils of other nations .. by killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.. you are creating a recruitment base ( from those who have lost family members) for the terrorists..
oh for a while the WAR ON TERROR was a very clever ploy .. keep a nation in fear .. of THE UNKNOWN FACELESS ENEMY .. a nation in fear is a bloody easy nation to control... anybody who questions the Government's authority *MUST BE* supporting terrorism or is anti-patriotic
Don't get me wrong and don't make yourself look like a fool .. Yes there are terrorists out there that need to be dealt with .. BUT by waging a war ? shyte.. that's like cutting off your nose and poking out your eyes to spite your face.
Terrorism is NOT a military matter .. BUT a policing matter.. take a look at How Great Britain dealt with their attacks .. MUCH more successfully that GWB has.. YES AND I KNOW.. one poor innocent Brazilian man was killed tragically in the hunt for the terrorists .. and THAT is a tragedy... BUT if you use that example to justify the Brits did it wrong and the WAR ON TERROR being fought by the military is BETTER .. how many innocent Iraqis have died .. PLENTY MORE THAN ONE.
YOU do NOT use war to fight a political Ideology because you can't win such a war...eg Vietnam
and the same with Terrorism you can not win a war . fighting that..
2007-05-26 08:18:10 · answer #3 · answered by ll_jenny_ll here AND I'M BAC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. There is no Communist forces trying to overthrow a Democratic country here. Read your history. This fight has evolved more from radical muslims from other countries crossing the border to kill Americans.
And we did not lose in Vietnam. If you read your history, we won every battle in Vietnam.We pulled out because of the whiners at home who weren't old enough to vote protested instead of serving their country.
2007-05-26 09:35:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the sense of an unneeded war that is doing the US more harm than good, they are similar.
2007-05-26 10:11:35 · answer #5 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋