Do they have similar paths and just different occupiers .
What was the French role and purpose in Vietnam before WW2 and after and why the years of conflict before we went in .
How does our efforts today relate directly to the French role in Vietnam and our role in Iraq .
Is it about religion and resources to exploit ???????
Lets change the Muslims as the French changed the Vietminh .
Why not force our way of life on others . We have the military might to do it .
2007-11-20 03:31:43 · 7 answers · asked by TroubleMaker 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its all about "knowing better" or not learning from the past. War cannot be fought polite or civilized. Without remorse or apology if the U.S. choice is war it must be fought to win at all cost, that's why.
2007-11-20 03:40:59 · answer #1 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We got involved in Vietnam because of the popular view of the time that we had to "save the world from communism". In the minds of many, any government was better.
One of the similarities to Iraq is that our military tried to fight a conventional war against an unconventional opponent. The Viet Cong fought a guerilla war, striking quickly and then disappearing into forests and caves. Iraqi insurgents do the same thing but in an urban setting. They strike quickly and then fade away into the city where they can't easily be found. Also, we didn't win in Vietnam. Many feel that we are not winning in Iraq, either.
One of the reasons that the U.S. is hated in many parts of the world is that people feel that we DO try to force our way of life on them. Not everyone wants our way of life. That's their right. And no, we don't have the military might to do it. We haven't even been successful in Iraq.
2007-11-20 03:47:36 · answer #2 · answered by The Shadow 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq struggle is particularly like the Vietnam struggle in a single mandatory way -- the mainstream liberal media has in easy terms been exhibiting the negative aspects of the struggle because Day One, yet this time around they are in easy terms too worrying to place a digicam on any political pundit (on no account ideas in the event that they don't comprehend their @$$hollow from a hollow interior the floor) who desires to bash the struggle and bash the Republican President they blame for beginning the entire element. You of course have not executed adequate examine to comprehend how those 2 wars are comparable and how they are distinctive. Do your self a want and don't have faith each and every thing that the networks like ABC, CBS, and CNN are feeding you. they have had an anti-Bush time table ever because Dubya took the oath of place of work and that they have an obvious anti-struggle time table. perform a little digging for your self and discover out the real reasons we did no longer meet our goals in Vietnam. extra importantly, confer with a number of the troops that have actual BEEN to Iraq and you will see merely how many lies the media is telling you...
2016-12-16 14:15:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The length of stay and the reason for being there, just maybe?
Also the fact that we are not going all out to defeat the enemy?
2007-11-20 03:49:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because both are ill-conceived notions of US troop commitment and that both are guerilla conflicts that cannot be "won".
2007-11-20 03:36:08 · answer #5 · answered by outcrop 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Why not force our way of life on others"
How would that make us different from the terrorists?
2007-11-20 04:16:15 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only similarity is the unwinnable scenario of fighting for a population who doesn't want you to win - it is beyond stupid.
2007-11-20 03:37:33 · answer #7 · answered by PD 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋