Do you think Iraq is another Vietnam? (1 Viewer)

[americanwoman]

Do you think Iraq is headed to be another Vietnam? Why or why not?

 

[americanwoman]

I think it's headed that way. No end in sight and there seems to be no letdown on the insurgency. Hopefully we can get someone who can come up with a great exit stragety. I don't beleive we should be there but we can't up and leave now. It just seems like such a mess now.

 

[LiberalNation]

Of course there are difference between the Iraq war and Vietnam but I think they will end in similar ways with us finally pulling our troops out after years of wasting their lives with few of our goals accomplished . I believe the US can't fight this war forever; the Iraqis are not standing in the numbers needed to secure their government from the sectarian militias and terrorist and are split along sectarian lines Shia, Kurd, Sunni. When we pull out the democratic government we are supporting will fall/be overthrown and Iraq will fall into a civil war if they are not already there.

Hopefully we wont lose as many of our soldiers lives this time around unlike in Veitnam.

 

[Kandahar]

No. Bush had an exit strategy for Vietnam. :lol:

 

[DeeJayH]

if you read more than the MSM (main stream media) you would realize progress is being made
maybe not fast enough for you, or anybody for that matter
but progress is being made
after a few years it is the mentality of part of this country that wants instant gratification

as far as an exit strategy, we get out, when we win and the country can stand on its own

as far as it being Vietnam, the death toll would have to increase 25-30 fold
so the analogy is bogus

 

[Captain America]

There was a lot more pot in Viet Nam. :mrgreen:

 

[LiberalNation]

as far as an exit strategy, we get out, when we win and the country can stand on its own

How many more people should die for something that may never happen? Many Iraqis do not want the Americans there and have no loyalty to the new Iraqi government we help set up. Do you think more years of the same will change their minds.

How about this, seeing as Iraq is supposed to be sovereign democratic country we let all of the Iraqis vote in a referendum on whether or not they want foreign troops on their soil (American, Britain, and the other small ones). Then go along with what they vote for. Wouldn't that be truly bringing freedom to the Iraqis. Good exit strategy for claiming victory too.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

if you read more than the MSM (main stream media) you would realize progress is being made
maybe not fast enough for you, or anybody for that matter
but progress is being made
after a few years it is the mentality of part of this country that wants instant gratification

as far as an exit strategy, we get out, when we win and the country can stand on its own

as far as it being Vietnam, the death toll would have to increase 25-30 fold
so the analogy is bogus

"Incremental progress" Huh? Progress in Iraq can only be measured when attacks and casualties on all sides start going down. Progress is not possible in chaos. It has nothing to do with speed of success and instant gratification----it truly has only to do with REAL progress----not spin. We are not all stupid or in denial.

When we win, we pull out, only became an answer post April 28, 2003. "Our exit strategy is success," as good ole Rummyhead likes to say. Can that be any more vague and ambiguous? It is a far cry from the success described by him and the rest of the Administration on April 27, 2003. And that kind of flip flopping is exactly like Vietnam. Not fighting to win? Just like the Nam. Not knowing who your friend or enemy is? Just like the Nam. No signs of the violence ending? Just like the Nam. 4000 years of historical precedent of the indigenous population being invaded and then kicking the invaders out eventually? Just like the Nam. Ignoring the Culture and its sociological implications? Just like the Nam. Pro War defenders blaming the government's failed policies and lies on the people who saw the disaster coming? Just Like the Nam. Propping up a failing government and military? Just like the Nam, except we won't really arm the Iraqis----Oh yeah, that's one mistake from the Nam we will not repeat. Unfortunately, we keep saying that is exactly what we are doing. Yep, and even though there is no Super Power fighting us by proxy, the Region itself is now almost entirely against us and helping the bad guys-----not just like the Nam, but close enough for government work. Other than that, there are absolutely no similarities at all.

Now, moving on to casualties----there are less casualties because there are suppose to be less casualties. First off, medical care has grown more efficient by exponential bounds. Second, GPS is responsible for saving more lives than can even be counted. Third, we are efficient at knocking out threats from afar, and fourth, unlike the Nam, there are no Regular forces to fight which would have increased our standing casualties. That is not the insurgency's objective. No, just like the Nam, they only have to wait us out. George Marshal said no republic, or democracy, can handle a war that lasts longer than 7-years. Tick Tock, I hope thy get it right soon.

 

[Deegan]

"Incremental progress" Huh? Progress in Iraq can only be measured when attacks and casualties on all sides start going down. Progress is not possible in chaos. It has nothing to do with speed of success and instant gratification----it truly has only to do with REAL progress----not spin. We are not all stupid or in denial.

When we win, we pull out, only became an answer post April 28, 2003. "Our exit strategy is success," as good ole Rummyhead likes to say. Can that be any more vague and ambiguous? It is a far cry from the success described by him and the rest of the Administration on April 27, 2003. And that kind of flip flopping is exactly like Vietnam. Not fighting to win? Just like the Nam. Not knowing who your friend or enemy is? Just like the Nam. No signs of he violence ending? Just like the Nam. 4000 years of historical precedent of the indigenous population being invaded and then kicking the invaders out eventually? Just like the Nam. Ignoring the Culture and its sociological implications? Just like the Nam. Pro War defenders blaming the government's failed policies and lies on the people who saw the disaster coming? Just Like the Nam. Propping up a failing government and military? Just like the Nam, except we won't really arm the Iraqis----Oh yeah, that's one mistake from the Nam we will not repeat. Unfortunately, we keep saying that is exactly what we are doing. Yep, and even though there is no Super Power fighting us by proxy, the Region itself is now almost entirely against us and helping the bad guys-----not just like the Nam, but close enough for government work. Other than that, there are absolutely no similarities at all.

Now, moving on to casualties----there are less casualties because there are suppose to be less casualties. First off, medical care has grown more efficient by exponential bounds. Second, GPS is responsible for saving more lives than can even be counted. Third, we are efficient at knocking out threats from afar, and fourth, unlike the Nam, there are no Regular forces to fight which would have increased our standing casualties. That is not the insurgency's objective. No, just like the Nam, they only have to wait us out. George marshal said no republic, or democracy, can handle a war that lasts longer than 7-years. Tick Tock, I hope thy get it right soon.

I don't like clock watchers, they are usually lazy, and most often found to be musicians, but that said, you are correct, history will judge this, I wait patiently for that, because I can!

 

[DeeJayH]

"Incremental progress" Huh?
When did i say this?

When we win, we pull out, only became an answer
when any country has gone to war.
you go to war to win. And when you win it is over
how much simpler an answer do people need
in every war there have been members on the losing side that dont like how the future is headed. That is life

Now, moving on to casualties----.

and yet the way the MSM reports on Iraq you would think it was Normandy every single freaking day in Iraq

 

[cherokee]

Do you think Iraq is headed to be another Vietnam? Why or why not?

Your question is to vague.
Its what ways are you looking at?

 

[Thorgasm]

It is not exactly like Vietnam. There are many parallels though. We are fighting an unprovoked war in an effort to "stand up to" a different enemy. We are also under the illusion that an outside country can "win" another country's civil war. You can certainly say that this country hasn't seen the division that we have now since Vietnam. Once again, poor kids are fighting a mercenary war for rich white men in power under the guise of protecting our country. Vietnam is not American soil and neither is Iraq. It turns out in both scenarios that they were not the "imminent threat" that they were made out to be. Also in both cases, you can scare the voters into believing anything using nationalistic patriotism and the fear of a false "boogyman".

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

In what way do you mean "a Vietnam"?

Do you mean leftist surrender monkey agitators will act on behalf of the terrorists to sap the will of the people in the United States?

Sure, they'll try. They've been trying. Every war has it's traitors, after all.

Do you mean will we withdraw after effecting a phony peace because domestic pressure forces our hand, and we then let our promises of continued support be abandoned because a political party seeks petty domestic advantage in doing so?

Sure. It's possible. Most peole aren't smart enough to see the consequences of straining to push a turd out, let alone figure out what happens if we abandon allies after promising them support.

Do you mean an never ending conflict in which American forces are consumed forever to prop up an unstable unpopular puppet regime in Iraq?

No, I don't think so.

Do you mean will US troops never withdraw from Iraqi soil?

Yes, that's not going to happen. We need a base in the mid-East outside of the soon to be unstable and unfriendly Saudi kingdom. Iraq is the best place, since the friends we want to play with the most live in Syria, Iran, and probably Saudi Arabia. Not to mention that nice just south of Russia position if they ever get uppity again.

So if you could clarify, it would be nice.

 

[vexati0n]

In what way do you mean "a Vietnam"?

Do you mean leftist surrender monkey agitators will act on behalf of the terrorists to sap the will of the people in the United States?

Sure, they'll try. They've been trying. Every war has it's traitors, after all.

Do you mean will we withdraw after effecting a phony peace because domestic pressure forces our hand, and we then let our promises of continued support be abandoned because a political party seeks petty domestic advantage in doing so?

Sure. It's possible. Most peole aren't smart enough to see the consequences of straining to push a turd out, let alone figure out what happens if we abandon allies after promising them support..

The democratic will of the People is not "petty." We don't live in a dictatorship where the government has the right to do whatever ridiculous thing it wants, remember? The government in the US has exactly as much permission to govern as We the People give them, no more. When the people force the government to do something, it's called self-government, and I'd appreciate it if you would quit inferring that fascism is preferrable to self-government while also pretending to be pro-American.

And it is not being a "traitor" to oppose the policy of the US government. "...the right of the People peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances... shall not be infringed." Does that sound familiar to you at all? Or did you forget that we are a nation of laws, governed by the Constitution?

As for the topic at hand, Iraq isn't Vietnam. It is probably as big a tactical mistake as Vietnam, if not bigger. American international political capital is pretty well spent at this point, and unlike the first two decades following WW2, we are not seen as invincible and above reproach throughout the rest of the world. We can pretend we are the same country we were 60 years ago, but we're not. And leaders who keep trying to militarily subject to world to our foreign policy like we are, are a liability both to the international status of the United States, and to the political stability of this planet.

 

[MSgt]

No. There are general comparisons between just about everything. It is a comparison by the desperate who cannot face the reality of the day and cannot actually draw the positives and negatives of this endeavor. When in doubt.....use Vietnam.

It's human nature for people to use a tragic event in order to cast doubt or even to draw support for something. Politicians are especially fond of using this little talent for anything.

 

[Deegan]

NO!

Let's take this one step at a time......first, Iraq does not have the backing of a super power, i.e, the support they had in Nam, from countries like China, and even Russia. Next.........well do you even need a next, no you don't, this is ridiculous, and I should not even have dignified it with an answer.:doh

 

[LiberalNation]

Let's take this one step at a time......first, Iraq does not have the backing of a super power, i.e, the support they had in Nam, from countries like China, and even Russia. Next.........well do you even need a next, no you don't, this is ridiculous, and I should not even have dignified it with an answer.:doh

I think most people are comparing them because they think they will both end similarly not because the two wars are exactly alike. It is not a ridicules question, they do have their similarities. Our soldiers are dying in an unpopular, unnecessary war and the war and the president are loosing support daily. Most people also think both were big mistakes.

Bush himself is even comparing his war on terror to the cold war against the communists. Wasn't Vietnam apart of the war against the communist, Isn't Iraq apart of the war against the terrorists.

Iraqi insurgents may not have the support of a superpower but they do have the support of many different ME countries. Iran Iran Iran, they are behind the Shias and their resistance.

 

[Deegan]

I think most people are comparing them because they think they will both end similarly not because the two wars are exactly alike. It is not a ridicules question, they do have their similarities. Our soldiers are dying in an unpopular, unnecessary war and the war and the president are loosing support daily. Most people also think both were big mistakes.

Bush himself is even comparing his war on terror to the cold war against the communists. Wasn't Vietnam apart of the war against the communist, Isn't Iraq apart of the war against the terrorists.

Iraqi insurgents may not have the support of a superpower but they do have the support of many different ME countries. Iran Iran Iran, they are behind the Shias and their resistance.

Nam should have been won, and I am glad some compare it, as we should learn important lessons from this conflict. One lesson was, when we left, millions died, another was, we were very close to victory, and we let the press change the tide, so yes, there are similarities, but not in military terms, but liberal B.S terms, indeed, there are scary similarities, and that makes me angry!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The democratic will of the People is not "petty." We don't live in a dictatorship where the government has the right to do whatever ridiculous thing it wants, remember? The government in the US has exactly as much permission to govern as We the People give them, no more. When the people force the government to do something, it's called self-government, and I'd appreciate it if you would quit inferring that fascism is preferrable to self-government while also pretending to be pro-American.

Sure it's petty. How can any serious country take a debate between Al Gore and George Bush seriously, or one between Bush and Kerry? The issues in the last four national elections has been nothing but petty.

Stealing as much money from the rich as possible.
Global warming.
How far should socialism be allowed to grow in the next four years?
Gay marriage.

The government actually has far less permission to govern than the dolts going the polls have permitted. This country has a constitution that politicians wipe their asses on, after all.

Nothing real. The "People" are far too stupid and ignorant for the discussion of serious issues.

Since it's you making the inferences out of implications that don't exist, I'd appreciate it if you'd get a dictionary and learn to use it.

And it is not being a "traitor" to oppose the policy of the US government. "...the right of the People peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances... shall not be infringed." Does that sound familiar to you at all? Or did you forget that we are a nation of laws, governed by the Constitution?

Depends on what they do for opposition. When the opposition acts to give tactical advantage to the enemy, it's treason. Surrender monkeys helping terrorists by leaching support for the troops in the field are engaged in treason.

And it's precisely those sort of acts that make the current investment in Iraq so similar to that of Vietnam. The blame-America-First leftists working to maximize American casualties and make the mission a failure.

As for the topic at hand, Iraq isn't Vietnam. It is probably as big a tactical mistake as Vietnam, if not bigger. American international political capital is pretty well spent at this point, and unlike the first two decades following WW2, we are not seen as invincible and above reproach throughout the rest of the world. We can pretend we are the same country we were 60 years ago, but we're not. And leaders who keep trying to militarily subject to world to our foreign policy like we are, are a liability both to the international status of the United States, and to the political stability of this planet.

Ooo. Someone has a wierd idea of the US role in foreign politics. IMO the only flaw the US has consistently had in the Iraq occupation is this totally strange idea that forts shouldn't be destroyed. A "fort" is a building housing enemy combatants. Far too many mosques still survive, and the animals they sheltered allowed to escape, only because the US hasn't wanted to reduce those forts when occupied by the enemy.

Other than that, we've not done too badly, considering the continued support the traitors at home have continued to give our enemies in Iraq.

 

[LiberalNation]

Nam should have been won, and I am glad some compare it, as we should learn important lessons from this conflict. One lesson was, when we left, millions died, another was, we were very close to victory, and we let the press change the tide, so yes, there are similarities, but not in military terms, but liberal B.S terms, indeed, there are scary similarities, and that makes me angry!

Nam was lost because people were tired of it and wanting the killing of our people to stop. We are a democracy, the people can demand those things no matter what the executive branch or the military thinks. If Vietnam had gone on much longer you would of had huge country wide riots, you were already getting them. The government has to respond to the people around here, we are not a dictatorship where the president and military can do whatever they want and wage any wars they want. Liberals B.S did not cause the entire country to turn against that war thousands of dead and people being drafted against their will did.

 

[Deegan]

Nam was lost because people were tired of it and wanting the killing of our people to stop. We are a democracy, the people can demand those things no matter what the executive branch or the military thinks. If Vietnam had gone on much longer you would of had huge country wide riots, you were already getting them. The government has to respond to the people around here, we are not a dictatorship where the president and military can do whatever they want and wage any wars they want. Liberals B.S did not cause the entire country to turn against that war thousands of dead and people being drafted against their will did.

And we would have had a better country today, I don't see your point?

We failed, as a country, we didn't win anything, we allowed communism to flourish, and American lazy assed do nothing, snot nosed little brats who stand for nothing, but anti-everything to flourish, we lost so much there, and we are still reeling today from that loss!

 

[LiberalNation]

That might be true but it’s what happens when the majority of the people are in charge. You can't expect everyone to go to extreme sacrifices for your goals, such has defeating communism. Which eventually killed itself off anyway so what's your point.

 

[MSgt]

That might be true but it’s what happens when the majority of the people are in charge. You can't expect everyone to go to extreme sacrifices for your goals, such has defeating communism. Which eventually killed itself off anyway so what's your point.

This is an argument.

The Cold War and many failed Soviet ventures to compete against the west directly influenced the fall of the Kremlin.

 

[Deegan]

That might be true but it’s what happens when the majority of the people are in charge. You can't expect everyone to go to extreme sacrifices for your goals, such has defeating communism. Which eventually killed itself off anyway so what's your point.

I don't believe the majority were in charge, or that the majority were against the fight, it's certainly not prevalent in what followed. I believe a news agency controlled our 5 O'clock dinner time fair, and we in turn walked in lock step with what we were told was the majority! I believe my uncles went to war proud, and that their parents were satisfied they were doing the right thing, somewhere that was lost, and the disease spread like wild fire, but not because it was right, but because it was easy. we love easy here, from our fast food, to our on line day trading, are we better for that? I don't think so, and I hate what we have become, but to explain this would take us far from the original topic, so I...............

 

[vexati0n]

Sure it's petty. How can any serious country take a debate between Al Gore and George Bush seriously, or one between Bush and Kerry? The issues in the last four national elections has been nothing but petty.

Stealing as much money from the rich as possible.
Global warming.
How far should socialism be allowed to grow in the next four years?
Gay marriage.

The government actually has far less permission to govern than the dolts going the polls have permitted. This country has a constitution that politicians wipe their asses on, after all.

Nothing real. The "People" are far too stupid and ignorant for the discussion of serious issues.

Since it's you making the inferences out of implications that don't exist, I'd appreciate it if you'd get a dictionary and learn to use it.

Depends on what they do for opposition. When the opposition acts to give tactical advantage to the enemy, it's treason. Surrender monkeys helping terrorists by leaching support for the troops in the field are engaged in treason.

And it's precisely those sort of acts that make the current investment in Iraq so similar to that of Vietnam. The blame-America-First leftists working to maximize American casualties and make the mission a failure.

Ooo. Someone has a wierd idea of the US role in foreign politics. IMO the only flaw the US has consistently had in the Iraq occupation is this totally strange idea that forts shouldn't be destroyed. A "fort" is a building housing enemy combatants. Far too many mosques still survive, and the animals they sheltered allowed to escape, only because the US hasn't wanted to reduce those forts when occupied by the enemy.

Other than that, we've not done too badly, considering the continued support the traitors at home have continued to give our enemies in Iraq.

Or, condensed:

1. Americans are stupid, and shouldn't be allowed to have a democracy. No sane person would want their elected officials to have to answer to the People.

2. Anything that makes Bush look bad in the polls is treason. Al Qaeda successfully planned and executed 9/11 but they're too dumb to think maybe the NSA is tapping their phone calls.

3. We shouldn't show any humanity while we wipe out the Islamic scourge with clusterbombs and tactical nukes, and screw the Geneva Convention, respecting civilian life is a great big Liberal conspiracy anyway.

And, in response:

1. Move to Iran then, I think they kill people who disagree with the government there. You'd probably like it.

2. Bush is usurping not only the People's power, but the power of the Congress. If Saddam Hussein was the leader of a rogue state and a threat to international peace, Bush must be his doppleganger.

3. Don't worry, US forces kill indiscriminately, even if it's not reported as such by Faux News. Link Link Link