I thought they learned a lesson from Vietnam, but I guess not. When you are battling insurgents, it takes a long time to defeat them. I vaguely remember Democrats during Vietnam saying withdrawing would not hurt us and we could still be successful. The troops came home to ungrateful morons spitting at them and the war turned out to be a failure because we pulled out of Vietnam and the North took over the South. They lost their buddies in a war that would have been worth it had it not been for the poor public opinion and pressure from Democrats to withdraw. If we withdraw from Iraq, Baghdad will be taken over by a thug that will make Saddam look like a saint and Iraq will be more unstable than it is right now. If we stay there, we will make the insurgents frustrated that we are not playing their game and we will stay until neccessary.
2007-07-09 14:31:15 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bagdad already fell long ago. Saddam is dead. Time for us to go home.
2007-07-09 14:42:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
What responsibility do the South Vietnamese Government has to accept for the fall of Saigon? While the Americans are pouring millions of dollars in aid that really lined the pockets of that corrupt government that could not win over the hearts and mind of the people of Vietnam.
Vietnam was lost the day the Americans return her back to the French...Way before the American Troops set foot on that land. All WARS are won and lost before they are fought...because the real victory comes with the will of the people.
Now ask yourself whats the will of the people in the US and in Iraq...Now is this going to succeed as George W. Bush says its going to.
2007-07-09 14:37:36 · answer #2 · answered by East Lansing Brat 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Resolve and determination - that's what wins wars. Not bombs nor bullets, but the people.
When defeat is not an option and victory is the only result that's acceptable, the war will be won.
Unfortunately, there is a large element in this country that has already given up and accepted defeat, and that's a damned shame. Once again, they feel it is acceptable to turn our backs on the people who have risked their very lives to vote in a democratic election and supported the United States' efforts to help win their freedom. Apparently, the fall of Saigon and the resulting slaughter is soon forgotten - if indeed, it was ever acknowledged by this element.
As an added note for those who argue that the North Viet Namese "didn't follow us home," I'd like to say that neither did they attack us previously on our own turf or terrorize and murder Americans all over the globe for more than 25 years - and concerning America - they did not threaten to "topple our government" and "convert her people by force." Two different enemies with no parallels.
2007-07-09 15:10:55 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well if you want to compare Vietnam to Iraq then lets. In Vietnam it was always said that the politicians ran the war. Hence when our guys took a hill, we l;eft and gave it back to the VC. Now the democrats took more seats in the 2006 election, yes or no? How many times before that election did was Fallujah taken, then given right back to the insurgents? Before you attack just Dems and make war comparisons, do some more research.
2007-07-09 14:39:42 · answer #4 · answered by David L 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The reason the we lost Vietnam was that we were fighting something that required aspects of our military that we neither had or ignored to use because we had been used to big wars like WWI and II. Instead of large units of soldiers, there should have been many smaller units. Instread of attacking that soldiers with weapons, get rid of those who give them weapons. That is what we need to do in Iraq. And not, Dems do not want another Saigon. Who does?
2007-07-09 14:59:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was there, and you weren't, so don't lecture me on Vietnam! It was a Republican that started Vietnam (Eisenhower) and a Republican (Nixon) who cut and ran in another war based on lies!
Those insurgents are Iraqi's caught up in a civil war with a government they have no faith in. Most have not seen drinking water in months and don't have electricity!
And maybe Iraq will be taken over by a thug as bad as Saddam, but not as bad as Bush! Who really cares but the oil companies!
At least in Vietnam we were fighting the Communist, and we never lost a major battle, including Tet!
Our brothers now are fighting for the oil companies! If the Big Oil wants Iraqi oil so bad, let them hire their own damn army! They can afford it!
2007-07-09 14:40:49 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You think the Democrats were responsible for the fall of Saigon??? Bush Sr. said himself that if we overtook Baghdad during the first gulf war, it would be overtaken by a thug that would make Saddam look like a saint...sound familiar??? I guess daddy was right. We left Saigon because we were losing. Sorry. We are stretching out the inevetible.
2007-07-09 14:37:08 · answer #7 · answered by just browsin 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The ones who like to bring up Vietnam are of course, experts on this war. Yet they fail to tell us the truth about Vietnam and the French Imperialism... But I digress...
This war is not about imperialism. It is a legal war, and a just war, and any American who understands our inalienable rights as Americans should be able to see this.
2007-07-09 15:31:50 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a million. no longer incredibly. Vietnam keeps shifting closer to capitalism, like China. 2. confident. The Germans have been quite difficult in international conflict II. 3. Many similarities, even if the uncomplicated difference is that we gained in Iraq and then had situation with the occupation. We in no way threw adequate protection rigidity could to "win" in Vietnam.
2016-12-10 07:15:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two things: 1. There's been peace in Vietnam for the past 30 years. That means Saigon did not fall; it was liberated. WE were the insurgents. I'm still proud of our guys that fought, and still angry at the politicians who stupidly sent them to their graves. 2. I'm getting that same feeling again.
2007-07-09 14:41:22 · answer #10 · answered by bullwinkle 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Pro war???
Now, in the 21st century: We the sheeple, in order to form a more perfect corporate Union, establish global capitalism, insure international profit, provide for the complete exploitation of indigenous natural resources, promote the Welfare of the rich, and secure the Blessings of the Free Market to the wealthy and their inherited offspring, do ordain and establish the hegemonist constitution and policy of United States of America.
2007-07-09 14:35:49 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋