Comparisons: Iraq/Vietnam

[arcon]

Do you feel there are any real comparisons between these two
conflicts. If so...what are they? If not....then tell why.

[Popper]

well at least there is one big difference... the US lost the Vietnam war, this one isnt really decided yet (even though the first few rounds were won by the US). I have my fate is the US in this war though..

[Charred_Phoenix]

They were both wars of imperialist agression, in both cases they broke international treaties, and in both cases they slaughtered hundreds of civilians. The main difference, in my opinion, is both sides were evil; at least in the Vietnam war we had the NLF to cheer on.

[damion18d]

Originally posted by Popper
well at least there is one big difference... the US lost the Vietnam war, this one isnt really decided yet (even though the first few rounds were won by the US). I have my fate is the US in this war though..

As a political vehicle, yes the war was lost. As a military action, won. Every major battle, every stand off, body count. This was done despite the strange hold on tactics by greedy stupid politicians. No fire zones, the ceasing of bombing in the North. As a matter of fact, (and I will find the reference for you it's in my library)The North Vietnamease commanding General so much as said they were beat until the bombing of the North was halted and no fire zones were put in place. On top of the fact that we allowed them to have a virtualy unobstruced supply line through two countries(Laos and Cambodia) we only put a handfull of troops in. You can call it whatever you want, but as far as military action goes America smoked them.
A quick snippet: For all the peacenicks out there, think about this. The peace movement actually lengthened the Vietnam war. A country in war that moves with quick decisive actions is much more affective. The Vietnam war became a political quagmire, that trickled down to the soldier in the field. Plus most of the people that were there were conscripted to go, and when they make it out of that hell alive they're treated like dirt.

[damion18d]

Originally posted by Charred_Phoenix
They were both wars of imperialist agression, in both cases they broke international treaties, and in both cases they slaughtered hundreds of civilians. The main difference, in my opinion, is both sides were evil; at least in the Vietnam war we had the NLF to cheer on.

Do you know the definition of imperialism? Aside from wars inside what is now America, when have we ever fought a war of imperialism?
Civilians slaughtered? So you've been there? Where? I have been there, and I didn't see that.
International treaties and 12 years worth of useless UN resolutions.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by damion18d
As a matter of fact, (and I will find the reference for you it's in my library)The North Vietnamease commanding General so much as said they were beat until the bombing of the North was halted and no fire zones were put in place.

General Giap. He was the one that engineered Dien Bien Phu, where the French got their a***s waxed.

He admitted that the Viet Cong were pretty much decimated by the (failed) Tet Offensive, and that Ho Chi Minh was reluctant to commit NVA troops to the south. However, he also said that the overarching strategy for the communists was always a political one; they knew they couldn't match the US militarily, so they tried to make the war so expensive for America that the American public would force Congress and the president to pull out. And it worked. And they won.

Yeah, we won all the battles--but they won the war, which at the end of the day is all that counts.

[damion18d]

Not to the men in the fight it isn't.

[lochinvar]

To the men in the fight, "winning" and "losing" are defined differently: The "winners" are the ones still breathing when it's over.

[damion18d]

Point taken

[Fechter1]

Originally posted by damion18d
Do you know the definition of imperialism? Aside from wars inside what is now America, when have we ever fought a war of imperialism?
Civilians slaughtered? So you've been there? Where? I have been there, and I didn't see that.
International treaties and 12 years worth of useless UN resolutions.

At the risk of ticking everyone off...

International agencies have reported anywhere between 5000 and 20000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to american fire and unexploded ordinance. (plus the health concerns over lingering effects from expended rounds, such as the depleted uranium shells)

UN resolutions appear to have worked, as demonstrated by the lack of WMDs, and the relative ease of the american victory over a severely underequipped Iraqi military.

As for imperialist aggression, examine the reasons for the war:
1 - Getting rid of Saddam's WMDs: none found, even though the US claimed proof of their existence.

2 - Terrorist connections: I have yet to see a shred of credible evidence that Hussein was involved with any terrorist group. Bin Laden is a religious fanatic, whilw Hussein was a very secular leader. Not the best combination. (On that note, if both 1 and 2 had been true, don't you think we'd have seen a WMD attack by Al Quaeda by now?)

3 - Liberation of the Iraqi people. Worthy goal, but I'd have expected a lot more support for the US from the people. 35+ attacks each day doesn't seem like a friendly place. Besides, ther are plenty of oppressed people in the world, but I don't see the US coming to their aid guns blazing.

In the eyes of the world (not all of it, but some, especially in the more cynical/anti-american portions), that leaves one major incentive: oil. I know that's simplifying it a lot, but there it is. And since the US is not letting the Iraqi people chose their own government, but instead have established a de facto vassal state (much like Vichy France), the charge of imperial ambitions sounds rather plausible.


Now that I've painted big fat bullseye on my forehead, have at it.

[wpotere]

OK, I am not going to go deep into this as I have my own opinions. I was there as a civilian supporting 4 ID in Tikrit and here is what I say.

BELEIVE HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE AND HEAR ON THE NEWS!

It seems that they only report the bad stuff but never the good.

Most, 90% of the people are glad that Sadam is gone and have cheered us in the streets. Towns that usually shutdown at night were open and over run with people shopping and celebrating. I was hugged more times than I can count because they were happy that he was gone and money was flowing back into the economy again. New shops are opening and people are working hard to get the country back on its feet. It jsut takes time....

However, there are still some out there that want to kill soldiers. The entire county is a giant ammo dump as Sadam's soldiers burried weapons and ammo to hide it from us. They knew they would not beat us. WDM's may not exist, but it was better to knock Sadam out of power and remove that threat all together. There were several terrorist camps setup over there which were quickly vacated when we rolled in. IED's are hard to see and it is usually only one person that sets these things up. I know, because I was hit by one. We were lucky....

Until the rest of the world helps us, that area willl always be a hot bed. However, with us there, many will be less likely to try anything in the near future on our native soil. I would love a world of peace, but as long as we have people that want to fight, we will never have it. Bush probably should have waited for the support of the UN, but time was running out for Sadam.

IMHO, there is no comparison between Nam and Iraq. Different wars, different times and different reasons.

Hats off to all the soldiers that are and have given their lives for us.

[canthidefromme]

Originally posted by damion18d
Do you know the definition of imperialism? Aside from wars inside what is now America, when have we ever fought a war of imperialism?
Civilians slaughtered? So you've been there? Where? I have been there, and I didn't see that.
International treaties and 12 years worth of useless UN resolutions.

I would call the Cold War pretty bad *** imperialism... funneling money everywhere to stop communists? Supporting anti-Soviet rulers? Going to all out war? Yeah, definately imperialism.

And you can't forget Europe and America carving up China... imperialism.

Plus the wars that gave us the majority of the western US, but apparently they don't count cause we won and you say they don't count.

[damion18d]

Originally posted by canthidefromme
I would call the Cold War pretty bad *** imperialism... funneling money everywhere to stop communists? Supporting anti-Soviet rulers? Going to all out war? Yeah, definately imperialism.

And you can't forget Europe and America carving up China... imperialism.

Plus the wars that gave us the majority of the western US, but apparently they don't count cause we won and you say they don't count.

I never said that they didn't count. Obviously they were wars of imperialism. We were concouquering territory with the expressed purpose of expanding the U.S. But that is what imperialism is isn't it. So with that restated. Can you come up with one time after that we ever tryed to concouquer anyone to gain land.
The cold war was not then nor is it now an example of imperialism. Stopping your enemy from expanding their idea doesn't gain you land. Do we need to break out the websters to make sure we understand what imperialism is?

Fechter, As far as WMD, portable labs have been found. Rockets with the nose cones for spreading chemical or biological have been found. Imagine if I hid a dime in your house and told you to find it. That's in your house. You could look your whole life and never find it. That's if I didn't sneak it out the back door as you walked in the front.
As for terrorist ties. I've been to abandon training camps. They were there. He wrote checks to the families of homocide bombers. You could argue his entire reign as a dictator was a terror campaign.

[canthidefromme]

Originally posted by damion18d
I never said that they didn't count. Obviously they were wars of imperialism. We were concouquering territory with the expressed purpose of expanding the U.S. But that is what imperialism is isn't it. So with that restated. Can you come up with one time after that we ever tryed to concouquer anyone to gain land.
The cold war was not then nor is it now an example of imperialism. Stopping your enemy from expanding their idea doesn't gain you land. Do we need to break out the websters to make sure we understand what imperialism is?

Actually, imperialism isn't only gaining land, its extending your power, which can be acomplished several ways, including militarily, economically, politically, etc.

So don't be condescending, especially if you're wrong.

edit: And don't forget opening up Japan to US trade. Basically we showed up with our big Pacific Fleet, pointed our guns at them and said "hey, wanna trade with us?"

[Fechter1]

Originally posted by damion18d
Fechter, As far as WMD, portable labs have been found. Rockets with the nose cones for spreading chemical or biological have been found. Imagine if I hid a dime in your house and told you to find it. That's in your house. You could look your whole life and never find it. That's if I didn't sneak it out the back door as you walked in the front.
As for terrorist ties. I've been to abandon training camps. They were there. He wrote checks to the families of homocide bombers. You could argue his entire reign as a dictator was a terror campaign.

True, they found trailers that *could* have been used as portable labs, but no evidence at all that they were. Imagine me going through your house, pointing out the mixing bowls in your kitchen, the ammonia based household cleaners, and charging you with making bombs. After all, that stuff *could* be used to make explosives. We're talking proof here, not suspicion. Proof that the US claimed to have, promised to reveal, but never delivered.

Same issue for the training camps. What evidence do you have that they were used to train terrorists?

[damion18d]

And trading with America has been the worst thing to ever happen to Japan?!?!?!?! No, I get it we're imperialist because we trade with imperialists. It makes perfect sense now. We're guilty by association. And actually no the definition of imperialism is not expanding your power it is expanding national territory. Over 12.5 million copies in print, I know someone near you has a webster's
What are you mad about? That America wants to spread our ideas? How it's gone about? What is your stand. Bottom line. This war has nothing to do with imperialism. That is a word thrown out to muddy the waters of an already murky situation. If you're pi$$ed because America is in Iraq, fine I can deal with that. In America you have the right to not like the actions of your Govt. And to voice those feelings, but don't get so wrapped that you lose sight of what it's about.

[damion18d]

Originally posted by Fechter1
True, they found trailers that *could* have been used as portable labs, but no evidence at all that they were. Imagine me going through your house, pointing out the mixing bowls in your kitchen, the ammonia based household cleaners, and charging you with making bombs. After all, that stuff *could* be used to make explosives. We're talking proof here, not suspicion. Proof that the US claimed to have, promised to reveal, but never delivered.

Same issue for the training camps. What evidence do you have that they were used to train terrorists?

Earlier you said there are 35+ attacks a day. You're using that same logic you dismiss about the camps and trailers to say it's a hostile enviroment. If I drive all over your neighborhood shooting out of my car window and throwing grenades at people does that mean that everyone in the neighborhood doesn't like you?
Also in the first Gulf War Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world. That didn't slow down the US or any of the other nations involved in that battle. So how does the speed of this battle point to the UN accomplishing anything other than shaking their fist from their collective front porch.

[canthidefromme]

Originally posted by damion18d
And trading with America has been the worst thing to ever happen to Japan?!?!?!?! No, I get it we're imperialist because we trade with imperialists. It makes perfect sense now. We're guilty by association. And actually no the definition of imperialism is not expanding your power it is expanding national territory. Over 12.5 million copies in print, I know someone near you has a webster's
What are you mad about? That America wants to spread our ideas? How it's gone about? What is your stand. Bottom line. This war has nothing to do with imperialism. That is a word thrown out to muddy the waters of an already murky situation. If you're pi$$ed because America is in Iraq, fine I can deal with that. In America you have the right to not like the actions of your Govt. And to voice those feelings, but don't get so wrapped that you lose sight of what it's about.

If you read my posts, you'll see what I never once mentioned Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Israel, or any other modern war anywhere closely associated with terrorism (now that's your word to muddy the waters about an already murky situation... notice how no one has defined what exactly terrorism is? One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter).
Also, where do you get guilty by association? When we opened Japan to trading they were feudal... far from imperialist. And just because out imperialism turned out "good" for Japan does not mean it wasn't imperialism. ("good" because as a result Japan quickly grew into the Asian superpower, commited genocide in China, attacked Pearl Harbor, and, albeit indirectly, ushered in the nuclear era, cold war, arms race, space race, and pretty much the modern day political scene.

If you look up imperialism on dictionary.com, (Dictionary.com, called "the best general English-language dictionary online" (in "A Dictionary Named Desire," Web Guide magazine, August 1999), features the most comprehensive, up-to-date dictionary available freely online today, with over 600,000 entries. We cover both the familiar and obscure with definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, more than 13,000 computer and Internet terms, place names and ZIP codes from the U.S. Gazetteer, and information on the countries of the world from the CIA World Factbook.) you will see that imperialism is defined as:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

[damion18d]

I would love nothing more than to debate this all day, but I have to go for now. Just don't want anyone to think I bowed out of this. By the way, don't think that because I don't agree with you about this that I don't listen to what you say. I know this is an emotionaly charged subject. I just happen to not agree. I hope you are as open to my thoughts as I am to yours. Even if you think about it then wonder how someone so stupid could not agree with you

[canthidefromme]

Originally posted by damion18d

Also in the first Gulf War Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world. That didn't slow down the US or any of the other nations involved in that battle. So how does the speed of this battle point to the UN accomplishing anything other than shaking their fist from their collective front porch.

I dunno... it sure slowed down Kuwait.

Which battle this "this battle"?