Is this what's going to happen in iraq???

Question

If congress can let 58,000 men and women die in vietnam, and then just stop the funding for the war and say OH WELL, no more money, have to go home now.... but not to worry we will send Henry Kissinger around telling everybody WE WILL HAVE PEACE WITH HONOR IN VIETNAM, he got the noble peace prize for his great work???? question is, will our great congress do the same thing with iraq? or blame the people of the U.S. saying they didn't want vietnam and they don't want iraq any more either......have to worry about my re-election you know.......is there some logic to this??? or is it better to lose 5 or 6 thousand soldiers then 58 thousand....will the world think better of us for losing two war's....what do you think....what's going to happen and what will the aftermath be??

Nobody said we are losing the war READ the question again....unless your sen reid or pelossi

Nobody said we are losing the war READ the question again....unless your sen reid or pelossi

Answer 1

Small observation having returned from Iraq. We are not losing.

Have a pleasant day.

Answer 2

I am currently here in Iraq and if we were to just "pull out" then there would be a mass genocide. The biggest problem is that these people have been fight for a couple of feet of land here or there since they created the whole idea of settling in one area thousand of years ago. The other problem is that most of the people that we consider to be hostile forces are not from Iraq. And this is not another Vietnam at this point in the Global War on Terrorism everyone over here enlisted on there own free will not drafted. Also with us over here and in Afghanistan we are making ourselves the target for the people that hate the Western culture so that they do not have to go else where to do what they think is right. Such as killing people of the world that do not share their opinion.

Answer 3

I see it as this way. The politicans did not figure the risks and realities right both times. Who still remembers the marines coming ashore in 'Nam in 65? From WWII era landing craft? Hitting the beach to be met with young women in AoDais with flower's? We had just intervened in San Domician Republic. 'Nam was going to be the same. As for Iraq, if you figure in the numbers and technolgy difference, we would already have lost 20,000 or so dead. As long as 1960's medical technolgy was a factor. We trust our Dr.'s and forget medicine is a totally envolving science as well as a complicated technolgy. The people welcoming us into Baghad were basically happy that we did their job for them and overthrew Saddam. They were not welcoming us to stay and remake their country to our values. We never needed to go back to Iraq. We could have lived with what we had from '91 and kept out of it except to support groups covertly to overthrow him. We have paid thousands of lives to basically hang a monestor and his henchmen, kill his sons. That is not a good exchange figured on those terms alone. Figure in all the variables, like equipment lost or service life shortened, money, and world prestiage, it cost more. The aftermath is going to be exactly what it would have been if we had left on a fixed time table, six months after the "liberation". A massive civil war in Iraq. The result will be exactly like Vietnam. One side will conquer the other. The oil reserves are the kicker. The world won't set back and watch those taken over by their idea of hostile powers. So it is not as simple as just leaving and who takes over. Every war has a hidden cost. The Psychogical and hidden physical effects that show up years later. So basically we are only at the tip of the iceberg for this one. More people have lived through massive injuries than ever before. But they won't be what they were before. And they will live a long time.....in a society that wants to forget.....

Answer 4

It could go either way, and it will really be Congress who either stands up finally or gives in to Bushs 200 Billion request that is primarily for retrofiting Military Aircraft for Bunker Busting capabilities we dont need.

Bush is trying to make is seem like BunkerBusting capability is somethign we need -- BUT ITS NOT.

Its his prelude to IRAN STRIKE.

Contrary to what people and congress say and think, Bush could in fact for at most a couple of months, strike IRAN in a presidential wars loophole mnost fear he will try to use.

Thats why we cannot give him 200 BILLION!!!!

BUSH is fighting so hard so hopefully his legacy will show he dethrone Hassein and Rid Iran's Nuclear ambitions.
Thats his only way of NOT being considered the worst president in U.S. History.

But it will be in Congress' hands
and they should not give him any more money but to bring back the troops before hes gone.

How dare bush try to pass this mess ontosomeone else.

Answer 5

North Vietnam had a strong guerrilla force in the south, in addition they had a standing army and were supported by the super power - USSR. Iraq insurgents have no such support - only a moderate guerrilla war and no standing army.

The main issue in Iraq is our presence - without us there, fanatics would not attempt or survive entering the country. When we leave they leave, Iraqis will no longer stand for their presence and peace will be achieved.

Admit it or not - our presence is a driving force in the violence

Answer 6

Why the hell does everyone think we are losing the war for God's sake? Don't people realize we have killed far more terrorists than lost our own troops?!?!? Thank God you people were not around on D-Day during WWII.

Answer 7

I dont see it as black-and-white as you. All I know is that politicians from both sides are absolutely all about the troops when elections are coming up. I wonder if we will still hear about the troops when the election over.

Answer 8

There are sites that welcome your kind of thinking, but this is a Q & A site.

Try Moveon.org