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

Vietnam ended in defeat. Iraq is headed that way?

2007-11-12 02:31:20 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

18 answers

As in Vietnam it is difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys and thus there are "rules of engagement" that act as "disclaimers" for the politicians who have their nose where it doesn't belong. This requires our military to fight with one hand behind their back. It has been like this since Korea. We are once again involved in a war which is difficult to win because we are an honorable country concerned about collateral damage and the death of innocent civilians. Do you think the Russians in Afghanistan, the Iraquis in desert Storm, the Chinese in Korea, the Japanese in WW2 or the NVA in Vietnam conducted themselves with these concerns in their version of warfare? The problem is that we again went to war without a way to win it. War is not a video game. When you go to war the idea is to win. I f we are not prepared and allowed to win, we should stay home

2007-11-12 03:05:27 · answer #1 · answered by Dirty Dave 6 · 1 1

The Vietnam conflict was, and still is, quite different from the war in Iraq. In Vietnam the objective was to maintain a democratic South Vietnam against a Communist North Vietnam. There was no defeat. An accord was signed that created two separate states along roughly the same parallel that divides North and South Korea. The evntual unification of Vietnam was due primarily to the popularity of Ho Chi Min. There was nothing to defend anymore after the rather weak governmanet in the south capitualated to the north.
In Iraq, there is no real government in place. There were freeand democratic elections, but the situation there is mired in conflict with no real body to take power. That story is still going on and the book is not closed on it yet.

2007-11-12 02:43:21 · answer #2 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 2 4

Well after TET, North Vietnamese General Giap says the north realized that they couldnt defeat the US in battle but that they didnt have to. He said the anti war movement in the US was growing and would eventually force the US to withdraw its own troops. He said the north was on the verge of collapse but was given new hope because of this. They worked to feed the anti war machine all the propaganda it needed and thus were successful in forcing a US withdrawal from within.
The anti war factions are again emboldening the enemy. The terrorist know that all they have to do is keep attacking and even though they are losing militarily, the US will be forced to withdraw by its own people again. In 1998 Osama gave an interview in which he said the lack of response to the numerous attacks of the 1990s and the hasty withdrawal from Somalia showed him that the American people still lacked the will and resolve to fight and this he said is how he knew he could not only attack at will but could actually defeat the Americans.

If you REFUSE to LEARN the lessons from the mistakes that the enemy openly states you have made, you will NEVER succeed.

Keep denying it, but it wont change the fact that these two men have stated why they knew they could defeat the US- and they would know

2007-11-12 02:43:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

Let me guess, Erdy, when the Vietnam War ended, you weren't yet even a twinkle in your mommy's eye, am I right?

In other words, you don't know jack about it except what you've been fed by the far left wing, which seems to have a lock on the Vietnam story in this country.

2007-11-12 02:42:03 · answer #4 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 9 1

it is not vietnam cause

there is no draft to protest ( it is a voluntary force)
you already have civil rights
the emergance of the internet and the military blogs from troops on the ground can say things the media will not tell ya

2007-11-12 02:59:07 · answer #5 · answered by Airbound Gabe 3 · 4 0

Iraq is failing because we have done the occupation wrong. We should have taking their oil and using the money gained to rebuild their country, using soliders to do the work (not contractors) and used the rest to recoup our losses instead of bearing the strain. We SHOULD have, but we didn't and, historically speaking, that was our biggest mistake.

2007-11-12 04:15:20 · answer #6 · answered by baddius 3 · 0 1

False premises:

You appear to know next to nothing about either Vietnam or Iraq.

Do some studying and you'll be able to ask better questions.

2007-11-12 03:10:26 · answer #7 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 2 1

Simple- too many Americans think that when we send soldiers to war they shouldn't die and that they should play by rules that nobody else does and get it all done in no time without what they really need to do the job.

If the military could be turned loose full force to do what's needed then our troubles over there would be over very quickly.

2007-11-12 02:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7 1

Eurdite, (still means you're an idiot, in any language). Iraq is not going down like Viet Nam. Just you going down into the crap pot you keep stirring.

2007-11-12 03:03:04 · answer #9 · answered by RUESTER 5 · 3 1

Because politicians are running it instead of generals. And we lost Vietnam because we pulled out too soon instead of finishing the job. Imagine if we had pulled out of WWII before we were finished, we would all be speaking German, assumming your grandparents and parents were Aryan enough to have survived.

2007-11-12 02:41:57 · answer #10 · answered by pretiusmaximus 2 · 5 2

fedest.com, questions and answers