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

vietnam or iraq???

which one is the most politically ridiculous????

2007-07-14 17:54:12 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

15 answers

They are the same war -fought to make the same bankers and arms dealers rich -

The first was to be perpetual so is this one supposed to be perpetual - Sustained not won or lost -

Which is worse ? Well Vietnam was seen every day in every home on the news They learned from that

This one is reported by military officals to the journalists

Go look at any paper and take a look at how many times "he said" , "according to military sources", "government says" etc

So there is no real way of knowing

As one was reported and the other is being described - by people who take orders - Those who take orders from those who want a war to journalists who are paid by arms dealers who own their station -

They are the same war for the same purposes - except the people who are gaining off the war (money) are a little smarter and own a whole lot more this time out

2007-07-14 18:13:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There was a worse one - the War of 1812.

We fought on the wrong side (we should be fighting with the British against the French instead of fighting the British), we went into the war horribly prepared, we almost lost the conflict, and it almost ripped the nation in half.

Vietnam and Iraq cannot be compared to the War of 1812 when it comes to incompetency and disaster.

Out of Iraq and Vietnam, I would say Vietnam because its a little more understandable to see why people would be willing to give a blank check after 9/11.

2007-07-14 18:14:24 · answer #2 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 0 0

The South Vietnamese asked for our help.

Who asked us to go kicking in the door to Iraq?

At the time we invaded iraq, 72% of the American people thought that Saddam attacked us on 9/11. Where do you think they got that idea?

From the campaign of disinformation, lies and fear that Bush and his buddies subjected us to on a daily basis.

At least Vietnam had noble beginnings. Iraq is based on blood money and war profiteering.

2007-07-15 07:12:53 · answer #3 · answered by Stan 6 · 0 0

Vietnam was worse because we should have never have gone in there in the first place, at least Iraq started as a semi-considerate effort to stop a political mad-man (Bush bash optional). In Vietnam we were basically trying to stop the spread of communism. You can't fight idealism and expect a straightcut outcome

2007-07-14 18:06:15 · answer #4 · answered by Greg 7 · 0 0

Vietnam had much more casualties, so I'd say it was worse.(60,000 US deaths vs. 3,600 US deaths so far, approx 4,000,000 civilian deaths vs. approx 600,000 civilian deaths)

They both were/are politically ridiculous, but the situation in Iraq right now is somewhat more difficult to fix than Vietnam, since there are numerous random factions killing each other rather than just two armies.

2007-07-14 18:03:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It depends on what issues you are looking at.....vietnam was a horrible war...way more casualities and absolutely no support for our service men and women...remember Jane Fonda?......as far as politics...well, I still believe Vietnam was worse mostly because in my opinion, it was a pointless war that did not benefit our own country...the Iraq war has made us a safer country.....and has also helped us see which politicans stand by their word and what they believe and those that don't...no matter which one it is (those who voted for us to go in and now take back everything they said prewar) Hard question to answer really.

2007-07-15 02:35:30 · answer #6 · answered by hawkeyesgrl 2 · 0 1

Well to answer this question properly we would not have access to all of the facts of the Vietnam war. This would be better addressed after all of the facts of this war to debate such or make any kind of educated decision.

2007-07-14 18:57:45 · answer #7 · answered by mommy_prince151 1 · 0 0

Both essentially follow policies of containment. Both are ridiculous. Vietnam was worse, however, simply due to the draft.

2007-07-14 17:57:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Vietnam without a doubt. Google casualty rates and you'll see why. Also, we (Vietnam vets) were poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly led, and completely unsupported by our fellow countrymen. Upon return, we did not receive any type of respect whatsoever for our service to America.

2007-07-15 12:36:48 · answer #9 · answered by Too Old For Idol 4 · 0 0

Both disasters and a waste of lives, but no different for those who died, or will die in them.
Both ww1 and ww2 had to be fought but these two didn't and that is what is so horrendous about them.
Please don't say Iraq is not a war as though that makes it O.K. It is still a disgrace.

2007-07-14 18:41:21 · answer #10 · answered by Ted T 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers