Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: How is Iraq like Vietnam?

  1. #1

    Default How is Iraq like Vietnam?

    I keep seeing on this board people saying how Iraq is "more and more like Vietnam", I just dont see it.

    Large sections of the country (kurdish area) doesn't even need ground troops and the only kinds of attacks that people get are terrorist style tactics. There is no vast areas controlled by the enemy, the Sunni MINORITY are the insurgents instead of the vast majority. In fact people dont even die there every day when that was a fact of life in Vietnam, not much more you would expect from a military operation.....

    Almost the entire country is under US control... I just dont see any connection what so ever. Do people know something that I don't?

    edit: I really honestly want to know. I know many things about Iraq but dont ever see/hear much that sounds like Vietnam...
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  2. #2

    Default

    Well in general usa is definetely loosing its grip on Iraq. Everything else is just propaganda. The goverment cannot be formed as of yet because of internal disputes. There are even signs of civil war because sunnis and shiites dont get along. (its a really.. really old conflict that cannot be resolved just like that, i know that much of history). And the rebels are using that to their benefit and icreasing conflict betveen sunnis and shiites. Its ideal for the terrorists.

    And in fact people are dying there every day from bomb strikes (civilians and some americans). i have read that in estimate there are about 30 bomb strikes per day. The whole question is just about the fact that it doesnt matter that you hold your ground in some area if you do not have control in that area. There is huge umemplyment and the iraqi people seems to get tired of the americans, that cant get anything to work.

    And think about this: You cannot rule a country if even one part of the country wont want to be ruled. Iraqis think that americans are invaders and imperialists, atleast the ones that fight back. they are a part of a different culture and definetely see amaricans as outsiders that dont know how to behave in their culural setting (for example forcing people to be examined by dogs, thats an insult in arabic countries.. and some other gestures that are misintherpetet. )

    But i dont think iraq is the new Vietnam. Why? They just dont compare, they are different because the situation is different. In Vietnam war usa generally foght against a country (or an organisation etc)(exept al qaeda cells). In iraq americans are fighting rebels that are not funded by some country (though some rebels can be funded by outsiders) and there are no actual battle foght and if there are, they arent all that large in scale. They make their own weapons. But as far as I can see usa is going to hold its grip on iraq for a long time because not wanting to admit failure or a somewhat miracle happens and things get better on their own (but i somewhat doubt that).

    sorry about the spelling, english is not my native language.

  3. #3

    Default

    Well for me, Iraq is like Vietnam in one major respect. For one thing Vietnam was a political war. The Vietnamese were a people who had traditionally rejected foreign occupiers over centuries - with China and France being among them. Back in the day people thought that if the US had enough troops in Vietnam they could have won, but this is not true. No matter how much troops that the US sent and no matter how much they bombed Hanoi above the 17th parallel they weren't going to give up.

    Now, in Iraq I can see the tail tail signs of a political war. The Sunni led insurgency is about politics. There failed and stupid boycott of the January elections failed and now they have taken up arms in a struggle to become part of the Iraqi government. Now the US and Iraqi government had the chance a few weeks ago to bring the Sunnis into the political process, but that chance not withstanding they decided to move on. Which in my opinion could not be any more wrong. The US had the chance to bring in an alienated group (Sunni's) but moved in a different direction. Now, there is a chance that the draft constitution will be changed, but if it is not, then we will see an indefinite insurgency.

    I guess, the thesis of my argument is that the connection that Iraq and Vietnam hold is a political one. The Vietnamese had a history of rejecting foreign occupiers and Iraq has one in the same. It would seem to me, no matter how much troops the US sends to Iraq, they won't win. The US had 500,000 troops in Vietnam below the 17th parallel and still couldn't control the country side of Vietnam. And it would seem the 150,000 or so troops in Iraq they still can't control the border provinces along the Iran and Syria borders. And as Henry Kissinger says in his book Ending The Vietnam War

    For France, the issue by then had already gone far beyond political reform. Its forces in Indochina were enmeshed in a frustrating guerrilla war, with which they had no experience whatever. In a conventional war with established front lines, superior usually carries the day. By contrast, a guerrilla war usually is not fought from fixed positions, and the guerrilla army hides among the population. A conventional war is about control of territory; a guerrilla war is about the security of the population. As the guerrilla army is not tied to the defense of any particular territory, it is in a position to determine the field of battle to a considerable extent and to regulate the casualties of both sides. Whereas in a conventional war, a success rate in battle of 75 percent would guarantee victory, in a guerrilla war, protecting the population only 75 percent of the time ensures defeat. While the conventional army is bound to lose unless it wins decisively, the guerrilla army wins as long as it can keep from losing.

    And on the whole Democracy thing in an area where Democracy is a relative new term.

    The problem was that reform and nation-building in South Vietnam would take decades to bear fruit. In Europe and in the 1940s and 1950s, America had bolstered established countries with strong political traditions by extending Marshall Plan aid and by means of the NATO military alliance. But Vietnam was a brand-new country and had no institutions to build upon. The central dilemma became that America's political goal of introducing a stable democracy in South Vietnam could not be attained in a time span relevant to the needs of a victory over the guerrillas, which was America's strategic goal. America would have to modify either its military or its political objectives.
    "The ABC of our profession, is to avoid large abstract terms in order to try to discover behind them the only concrete realities, which are human beings."
    - Marc Bloch

    Under the Patronage of Lord Rahl

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric
    I keep seeing on this board people saying how Iraq is "more and more like Vietnam", I just dont see it.

    Well, it really depends on what you base your parallelism on.
    It's cleary not like Vietnam in terms of landscape: desert vs jungles.
    It also isn't like Vietnam in political terms: in Vietnam there were really 2 countries (north + south), with the US supporting the south in its fight vs the North. Iraq is still a single country. If Iraq becomes enveloped in a civil war, it will be more like Vietnam in that sense. But it hasn't happened yet.

    However, it might be becoming more and more like vietnam in the sense that support for the US is eroding (and was never high to begin with). The real problems with vietnam, *as the war dragged on* were:

    1. Lack of support from the local population, even in the US-supported south (vietcong)
    2. Erosion and eventual lack of support at home as the people in the US began to wonder what the real gains of the Vietnam campaing are (especially after the war had dragged on for 5-6 years)

    In that aspect, iraq is not like vietnam YET because #2 doesn't apply so far. But as the war drags on and there is no clear timetable of departure, #2 might actually become a reality. Deterioration of the situation on the ground (i.e. a civil war, or even worse, a war with Iran) will make things worse, as the Shia will join the Shiite in fighting against the americans, thus creating an even stronger point #1

  5. #5

    Default

    Simple answer is that it's not, but that does not mean that comparisons can't be drawn.

  6. #6
    Count of Montesano's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,259

    Default

    Actually I can see one paralell - our government, since it cannot confront the great threat of communism or terrorism head on, decides the best thing to do is invade a country and turn it into a fortress against the spread of afore-mentioned evil. In Vietnam, the whole idea was to keep communism from spreading across Asia. In Iraq, the idea is to keep terrorism from spreading across the Middle East. There is no exit strategy or grand plan for winning either war beyond the idea that if you can keep pouring troops and money into your fortress, the supporters of communism and terrorism will finally crack.

  7. #7
    CaptainCernick's Avatar Trouvère
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    In between Holland, Germany, France aaand... Luxemburg!
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Count of Montesano
    Actually I can see one paralell - our government, since it cannot confront the great threat of communism or terrorism head on, decides the best thing to do is invade a country and turn it into a fortress against the spread of afore-mentioned evil. In Vietnam, the whole idea was to keep communism from spreading across Asia. In Iraq, the idea is to keep terrorism from spreading across the Middle East. There is no exit strategy or grand plan for winning either war beyond the idea that if you can keep pouring troops and money into your fortress, the supporters of communism and terrorism will finally crack.
    I find it strange how people seem to regard terrorists as members of a same faction or ideology. They're not.
    It's also quite disturbing how easily the parallel is drawn these days between muslims (and fundamentalism) and terrorism. Not every muslim is a fundamental, not every fundamental is a terrorist.

    Regarding the topic of this thread:
    Iraq is like Vietnam because:
    1. The US fought and is fighting both wars against a non-convetional enemy. There is no stable frontline in Iraq. Guerillas and insurgents pop up all over the country. It's an enemy that can't be engaged in head-on battle. Easily compared to Vietnam.
    2. There seems to be a lack of result due to this. Every day soldiers and civilians die, but the situation isn't stabilizing, while the bodycount keeps rising.
    3. Due to this, the American (and it's allies') public becomes fed up with the war. In Vietnam, this led to the retreat of US forces.

  8. #8
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,977

    Default

    1. The US fought and is fighting both wars against a non-convetional enemy. There is no stable frontline in Iraq. Guerillas and insurgents pop up all over the country. It's an enemy that can't be engaged in head-on battle. Easily compared to Vietnam.
    that's a stupid comparison. That's like saying since the greeks fought using phalanx's against the persians that's it the same as the pelopenesian war. Just because the tactics resemble each other doesn't mean it is the same case scenario.

    2. There seems to be a lack of result due to this. Every day soldiers and civilians die, but the situation isn't stabilizing, while the bodycount keeps rising.
    well, that's what happens in war... Can you name me a war where civilians and soldiers didn't die?

    3. Due to this, the American (and it's allies') public becomes fed up with the war. In Vietnam, this led to the retreat of US forces.
    are you an american? how can you speak one way or the other? number 1, what you see on tv and what is really the case varies largely. Since politics is what it is, we really can'tg et a clear picture on who does and does not support the war. But you are probably right most americans are uneasy about it. That is the nature of an american though, we rarely are ever gung ho about a war? Did you know we never wanted to get into ww2 and definitely not ww1? Wilson even ran on keeping us out of the war. As with ww2, when we got into it, 2 years down the road we were fed up with it. Even our own revolution, 2/3rds of the public was against it. hell 2 out of 3 people looked at washington and the founding fathers as many liberals look at bush.

    in conclusion, yes you can draw parallels between this war and vietnem, as you can draw parallels with this war and just about any war ever fought in history.

  9. #9

    Default

    JP, the topic is not whether or not they are identical but whether they are like one another, and in this Cernick makes some very good, valid points.

  10. #10
    Oldgamer's Avatar My President ...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Illinois, and I DID obtain my concealed carry permit! I'm packin'!
    Posts
    7,520

    Default

    I present the following article from a good friend, Victor Davis Hanson. I was going to write one of my own, for this thread, but Victor says it all, as far as I am concerned. Also, I want everyone here to realise that, of all the people who may make an argument in this thread, I am the only person who has fought in both Vietnam and Iraq. My friends, Iraq is not Vietnam.

    Vietnam is once again in the air. Last month's antiwar demonstrations in Crawford, Tex., have been heralded as the beginning of an antiwar movement that will take to the streets like the one of 30 years ago. Influential pundits -- in the manner of a gloomy Walter Cronkite after the Tet offensive -- are assuring us that we can't win in Iraq and that we have no option but a summary withdrawal. We may even have a new McGovern-style presidential "peace" candidate in Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.
    America's most contentious war is being freely evoked to explain the "quagmire" we are supposedly now in. Vietnam is an obvious comparison given the frustration of asymmetrical warfare and savage enemies who escape our conventional power. But make no mistake, Iraq is not like Vietnam, and it must not end like Vietnam. Despite our tragic lapses, leaving now would be a monumental mistake -- and one that we would all too soon come to regret.

    If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle East could never again believe American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows -- or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

    The specter of Vietnam will also turn on those who embrace it. Iraq is not a surrogate theater of the Cold War, where national liberationists, fueled by the romance of radical egalitarianism, are fortified by nearby Marxist nuclear patrons. The jihadists have an 8th-century agenda of gender apartheid, religious intolerance and theocracy. For all its pyrotechnics, the call for a glorious return to the Dark Ages has found no broad constituency.

    Nor is our army in Iraq conscript, but volunteer and professional. The Iraqi constitutional debate is already light-years ahead of anything that emerged in Saigon. And there is an exit strategy, not mission creep -- we will consider withdrawal as the evolution to a legitimate government continues and the Iraqi security forces grow.

    But the comparison to Vietnam may be instructive regarding another aspect -- the aftershocks of a premature American departure. Leaving Vietnam to the communists did not make anyone safer. The flight of the mid-1970s energized U.S. enemies in Iran, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Central America, while tearing our own country apart for nearly a quarter-century. Today, most Americans are indeed very troubled over the war in Iraq -- but mostly they are angry about not winning quickly, rather than resigned to losing amid recriminations.

    We forget that once war breaks out, things usually get far worse before they get better. We should remember that 1943, after we had entered World War II, was a far bloodier year than 1938, when the world left Hitler alone. Similarly, 2005 may have brought more open violence in Iraq than was visible during Saddam's less publicized killings of 2002. So it is when extremists are confronted rather than appeased. But unlike the time before the invasion, when we patrolled Iraq's skies while Saddam butchered his own with impunity below, there is now a hopeful future for Iraq.

    It is true that foreign terrorists are flocking into the country, the way they earlier crossed the Pakistani border into Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban, and that this makes the short-term task of securing the country far more difficult. But again, just as there were more Nazis and fascists out in the open in 1941 than before the war, so too there were almost none left by 1946. If we continue to defeat the jihadists in Iraq -- and the untold story of this war is that the U.S. military has performed brilliantly in killing and jailing tens of thousands of them -- their cause will be discredited by the stick of military defeat and the carrot of genuine political freedom.

    All this is not wishful thinking. The United States has an impressive record of military reconstruction and democratization following the defeat of our enemies -- vs. the abject chaos that followed when we failed to help fragile postwar societies.

    After World War II, Germany, Italy and Japan (American troops are still posted in all three) proved to be success stories. In contrast, an unstable post-WWI Weimar Germany soon led to something worse than Kaiser Wilhelm.

    After the Korean War, South Korea survived and evolved. South Vietnam, by contrast, ended up with a Stalinist government, and the world watched the unfolding tragedy of the boat people, reeducation camps and a Southeast Asian holocaust.

    Present-day Kabul has the most enlightened constitution in the Middle East. Post-Soviet Afghanistan -- after we ceased our involvement with the mujaheddin resistance -- was an Islamic nightmare.

    So we fool ourselves if we think that peace is the natural order of things, and that it follows organically from the cessation of hostilities. It does not. Leave Iraq and expect far worse tribal chaos and Islamic terrorism than in Mogadishu or Lebanon; finish the task and there is the real chance for something like present-day Turkey or the current calm of federated Kurdistan.

    Have we forgotten that Iraq before the invasion was not just another frightening Middle East autocracy like Syria or Libya, but a country in shambles -- not, as some will say, because of international sanctions, but thanks to one of the worst regimes on the planet, with a horrific record of genocide at home and regional aggression abroad? As the heart of the ancient caliphate, Iraq symbolized the worst aspects of pan-Arab nationalism and posed the most daunting obstacle for any change in the Middle East. Thus al Qaedists and ex-Baathists alike are desperate to drive us out. They grasp that should a democratic Iraq emerge, then the era of both Islamic theocracies and fascist autocracies elsewhere in the region may also be doomed.

    Our presence in Iraq is one of the most principled efforts in a sometimes checkered history of U.S. foreign policy. Yes, there is infighting among the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis, but this is precisely because Saddam Hussein pitted the sects against each other for 30 years in order to subjugate them, while we are now trying to unite them so that they might govern themselves. The United States has elevated the formerly despised and exploited Shiites and Kurds to equal status with the Sunnis, their former rulers. And from our own history we know that such massive structural reform is always messy, dangerous -- and humane.

    So, too, with other changes. It is hard to imagine that Syria would have withdrawn from Lebanon without American resolve in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would either Pakistan's A.Q. Khan or Libya's Moammar Gaddafi have given up on plans to nuclearize the Middle East. Saddam's demise put pressure on HosniMubarak to entertain the possibility of democratic reform in Egypt. These upheavals are, in the short term, controversial and volatile developments whose ultimate success hinges only on continued American resolve in Iraq.

    There is no other solution to either Islamic terrorism of the sort that hit us on Sept. 11, 2001, nor the sort of state fascism that caused the first Gulf War, than the Bush administration's easily caricatured effort to work for a third democratic choice beyond either dictatorship or theocracy. We know that not because of pre-9/11 neocon pipedreams of "remaking the Middle East," but because for decades we tried almost everything else in vain -- from backing monarchs in the Gulf who pumped oil and dictators in Pakistan and Egypt who promised order, to "containing" murderous autocrats like Saddam and ignoring tyrannous theocrats like the Taliban.

    Yes, the administration must account to the American people for the radically humanitarian sacrifices of American lives we are making on behalf of the freedom of Kurds and Shiites. It must remind us that we are engaging murderers of a sort not seen since the Waffen SS and the suicide killers off Okinawa. And it must tell us that victory is our only option and explain in detail how and why we are winning.

    The New York Times recently deplored the public's ignorance of American heroes in Iraq. In fact, there are thousands of them. But in their eagerness to view Iraq through the fogged lens of Vietnam, the media themselves are largely responsible for the public's shameful lack of interest.

    A few days ago, while the networks were transfixed by Cindy Sheehan (or was it Aruba?), the United States military, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, was driving out jihadists from Mosul -- where the terrorists are being arrested and killed in droves. Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla of the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, who had worked for months to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding on the city's streets, was severely wounded as he led his men to clear out a terrorist hideaway. The jihadist who shot him -- who had recently been released from Abu Ghraib -- was not killed, but arrested and given medical care by U.S. surgeons.

    Not long before he was wounded, Lt. Col. Kurilla had delivered a eulogy for three of his own fallen men. Posted on a military Web site, it showed that he, far better than most of us, knows why America is there:

    "You see -- there are 26 million people in Iraq whose freedom we are fighting for, against terrorists and insurgents that want a return to power and oppression, or worse, a state of fundamentalist tyranny. Some of whom we fight are international terrorists who hate the fact that in our way of life we can choose who will govern us, the method in which we worship, and the myriad other freedoms we have. We are fighting so that these fanatical terrorists do not enter the sacred ground of our country and we have to fight them in our own backyard."

    Amen.

    Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of the forthcoming "A War Like No Other" (Random House).

  11. #11
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default

    Great article
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  12. #12
    Count of Montesano's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,259

    Default

    Very poignant, OldGamer. I agree with the writer of the above article that a withdrawal at this time would be far more disastrous than the withdrawal from Vietnam (which led to untold human suffering in Cambodia and Vietnam).

    That being said, Iraq, like Vietnam, is an attempt to draw an elusive enemy into battle. In the 60s, that enemy was communism. Russian communism posed a grave threat to the West, but the US dared not battle the USSR in Eastern Europe. The US also wanted to get even with China, but did not want a second Korean War-style stalemate. So Vietnam became the strategic point where America would make its stand, even if Ho Chi Minh posed the least threat of any communist leader.

    Nowadays, the US is having trouble drawing out Bin Laden and eradicating Al Qaeda. We can't go after radicals in so-called ally countries of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so America has made its stand in Iraq, even though Hussein's regime posed the least amount of threat compared with a nuclear Iran or a terrorist mastermind still on the loose.

    Iraq actually has a hope of becoming a stable country because it is light years ahead of where Vietnam was after French colonial rule. But I'm not convinced we are committing the resources necessary to make the rebuilding of Iraq a success story.

  13. #13

    Default

    well its called gorilla warfare is how the insurents are fighting poping up and firing then go and hide same as vietnam


  14. #14
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    Do you mean guerilla warfare/

  15. #15

    Default

    excuse my spelling not very good at it


  16. #16
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    No probs, just best to make sure especially with easilyconfusable words.

  17. #17
    Oldgamer's Avatar My President ...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Illinois, and I DID obtain my concealed carry permit! I'm packin'!
    Posts
    7,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCommander
    well its called gorilla warfare is how the insurents are fighting poping up and firing then go and hide same as vietnam
    Once again, having fought in BOTH Vietnam and Iraq, I can say that the VC were infinitely more proficient at killing than the insurgents in Iraq. I spent almost my entire time in Vietnam in a state of perpetual fear of death. Although alert, I was never worried about dying in Iraq (where I trained 18 young Iraqi men in the fine art of tactical movement, cover & concealment, stealth, and long-range marksmanship ... in other words, sniping! ... this happened last summer and early Fall).

    My only fear for Iraq is that some ex-VC will go there and train the insurgents! Even so, they don't have safe havens to go to, after "popping up".

  18. #18

    Default

    and not every fundamentalist is a muslim - or a terrorist... Pat Robertson anyone?

  19. #19
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    806

    Default

    I actually find that article to be very inflammatory, and though I'm usualy a real moderate on this issue, I feel compelled to disagree with Hanson. He's a good author, I'm actually reading Carnage and Culture right now, but I must say the man has an unhealthy infatuation with war and death.

    What I essentially disagree with is not necessarily that we should stay in Iraq right now, but the reasoning for it. We can't lose credibility by leaving Iraq, because we entered for reaons later found to be falsified. I think we would gain back some portion of respect if we left, and admitted that it was wrong to try and pressure the world into supporting us with shaky intelligence and a hidden agenda. We're not there for freedom; that might be a fortunate side-effect, MAYBE, if we end up being completely successful. But that's beating a dead horse at this point, I don't want to argue about blood for oil and such, since the reasons for the war are murky at best.

    What I will say though is that people such as Hanson have the motivations of the "jihadists" as they call them all wrong. For someone who considers himself a scholar, he's being surprisingly ignorant about the motivations of Islamic extremists in general and these particular insurgents in particular. Does he really believe that these people are all demon-spawn, bent on taking away everything we hold dear, and stealing our women while they're at it? Those are the words of a xenophobe. Every action the West has taken in the Middle East since, well, ever, has caused strife and death, and exploitation of the poor. These people have a righteous anger against us, even if it's not right to express it in violent ways.

    And if you do your research on Islam, you'll find the rhetoric about "Jihadists" is way off base. Jihad is actually a rarely used term in the Koran, and its nature is far different from what people assume. It's really no different, except in semantics, from the Jehovah's Witness religion's requirement of going door to door to try and convert the masses. Yes there is mention of violence, but no more severe than what is contained in the Bible, especially Old Testament. And "people of the book" such as Christians and Jews are expressly ordered to be spared, and not forced to convert to Islam unless they wish to. The Koran even explains that these religions all worship the same God, and are simply the result of multiple messages God has sent to Earth in successive ages (more tolerant certainly than Judaism or Christianity in that respect).

    So do these extremists require dictators, and oppression? Not at all. Perhaps since the Middle East is politically behind the curve, this is all they know. But for example, the successor to Muhammad was chosen by followers, rather than coming to power violently. There is no reason for an Islamic government to be despotic, and that is not what these insurgents are fighting. They are fighting our imposition of American values, and they are fighting because they have learned over the centuries that the West can never be trusted (and who can blame them?) I'm not saying I relate to these people, and such terrorism is never justified. But these people are not evil, and don't want to plunge the region into death. If someone like Hanson can't see that, it's no surprise he seems to think we should have stayed in Vietnam too, to stop those dirty commies who ended up doing a whole lot of damage to the World Order.

    And OldGamer, please don't be offended by my post, I have the utmost respect for you; I just felt compelled to express my opinion and understanding of the facts.

    Under the patronage of Last_Crusader.

  20. #20

    Default

    500 years from now when the United Republic Federation of Earth, Mars and Venus is enaged in a war with the Saturian Liberation Brigade some 4 eyed one legged Senator from Venus will compare it to Vietnam because those pesky Saturians wont give up and are hiding in the cloud cover of their planet. To me comparison to vietnam is like comparison to Hitler, pick the lowest point in history of the world or a country and make direct comparison to it in hopes of undermining it. If Saddam is Hitler reborn then it is morally wrong to leave him in power, if Vietnam was a war that shouldnt have been then if you equate Iraq with Vietnam then you must conclude that Iraq is a mistake and withdrawl from it should be immediate. It is alot easier and requires you to expend less mental energy on why something is wrong if you simply just compare it to the worse event you can think of...this way you dont have to argue it you can just repeat it over and over...Saddam=Hitler, Iraq=Vietnam end of story. Of course it ignores the reality that no one event is exactly the same of another event. Saying Iraq is Vietnam because of it is against an enemy that cant just bomb into defeat is like saying Hitler was like Napoleon because both failed in Russia.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •