Iraq or Vietnam...Which one is justified and Why?

Question

A lot of people say that the Iraq war is a good war and justified but what about Vietnam..

What is the difference. The US is now happy to do business with Communists..Also with Saudi Arabs....Where the 9/11 bombers came from.

Why didn't the US invade Saudi?

But 25,000 US casualties in Iraq.

Is it worth it?

Answer 1

Neither war was justified. In Vietnam we were clearly propping up a client regime that had no credibility and wasn't supported by a majority fo the people in South Vietnam. The domino theory simply didn't pan out in the end as a unified Vietnam promptly started up an ancient border beef they had with Communist China and a border war flared up.

Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, they were not a threat to the their neighbors or the United States and they weren't supporting terrorists.

Both wars were bad ideas that cost alot of people their lives while many others were scarred for life.

Answer 2

Viet Nam was not a valid war. When the French exited Viet Nam should have been left alone. At the time the US (paranoid as is usual) was fear mongering about a 'domino effect' of communism taking over the world. They used this fear to create incredible hardship in so many countries in Central and South America. Some things never change. Along with the USSR the US has caused overwhelming hardship for millions of people around the world and untold death and maiming.

Iraq is a war of aggression by the US and friends with the exception of France and Canada. It is a war crime. It is also a war determined by falsehoods perpetrated by the Bush administration. Bush continually alluded that Iraq was part of the 9/11 horror knowing full well that this was untrue. He also claimed WMD (weapons of mass destruction) which was patently untrue. He fictionalized a couple of photos that everyone should know could never hide weapons of war. It takes warehouses of weapons to support a war. What crap.

Bush couldn't invade the Saudis because they are the US's best buddie in the Middle East. As it seems was bin Laden.

Worth it for.........?

Answer 3

Both were justified and neither is illegal; the cost of 25,0000 is kind of strange unless you are counting wounded but price is always paid. Vietnam was justified by the SEATO Treaty and the treaty signed by both the North and South Vietnamese at the end of the French involvement there, The North agreed to not arm, support or assist any military activity in the South. They turned right around and did all of those things by arming , training, supporting and sending there troops into South Vietnam. We had an obligation under the SEATO Treaty to defend South Vietnam and we did. War in Iaq is justified because Saddam Huaaein did not allow the required verification by UN inspectors that he had destroyed all weapons of mass destruction. He said he did and then would not allow verification-that was aa violation of the UN mandae thata ended the first Gulf conflict. Whether he still had them or not is really immaterial-the simple rejection to abide by the treaty and UN resolutions would justify the attack because the treaty ending the first Gulf conflict was no longer in effect. The invasion of Afghanistan was to get rid of the Taliban who had allowed the 9/11 attackers to train and equip there; Iraq was not stated as being part of that reason-the reason there was the refusal to allow verification. Saddam could have stopped it anytime he wished; all he had to do was keep the treaty he signed.
The domino theory actually did happen-Cambodia took years to finally get rid of the communist Khymer Rouge and Loas fell to the communist Panthet Loa also-Thailand held and that was lucky.

Answer 4

i cant think of one war the us started that was justified! and don't you fined it strange that seven of the so called bombers turned up alive in Saudi arabia? and with all the cameras in air ports why don't we see 17 bombers walking thru the air ports and boarding plains on tv? the us creates its own enemies so they can take what they want by fores.

Answer 5

The thing about Vietnam is that France went in and got slaughtered. Since France is our ally, we had to go into Vietnam after that happened.

Now, Iraq invaded Kuwait, who is also our ally. So we had to go help out Kuwait. After that, we basically handed Saddam Hussein a ceasefire agreement on a silver platter. He couldn't follow it, so we're there again.

Answer 6

The answer to your question is this. The US has collaborated with Saudi Arabs and other less-than-ideal groups because of the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The US once supported Osama Bin-Laden because he was willing to lead a resistance group against the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. The Soviets wre our arch-enemies so we were willing to support anyone who would take on this threat. Now Osama and the radical Muslims that follow him want to kill us. Go figure.

Answer 7

Both were justified. Ya it's worth it to me..hopefully i'll end up in Iraq so I can back up my position on these statments. Thank you all you G.I's out there.

Answer 8

Would you not help a friend if they asked you, I would.
I don't care what people say about Iraq or Vietnam, both people of these countries asked for our help.
It wasn't just about terrorist, in Iraq.
And it wasn't just a civil war in Vietnam.

Answer 9

reason we went to war with vietnam was to stop the spread of comunismum, look it up, second it dosn't matter the reason why we go to war, you should still support the troops and no matter what the circumenstances are.

Answer 10

you've pretty much answered your own question-neither was better than the other; two sides of the same coin; complete wastes.