Forgot your password?
Or sign in with one of these services
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
monsoon, April 7, 2004 in The Coffee House
11 members have voted
At the rate it's going, it would take about 80 years for there to be that many US casualties, however in principle it seems to be going that way. But in this case there is no one group like the communists, but many. And if the US did leave, unlike in Vietnam, the violence would still continue amongst themselves.
I don't believe Iraq will be anything like Vietnam. Hell, the Iraq war has already been more successful then the Vietnam war ever was. Although I don't dance and prance and sing Bush's praises, given the poll options you have listed I had to go with No, even though I sometimes wonder about some of the pieces of his plan. I think overall it has gone surprisingly well, considering the situation.
This isn't even close to being a Vietnam.
Well, maybe I should see some of these debates. I don't ever watch network (ABC, CBS, NBC) news for their correspance on these topics, so I didn't hear their reasons. But in Both Vietnam and in China we failed to control the enemy leadership or the enemy country. Iraq's problems are based mostly on remaining forces of the disposed government and a religious leader attempting to make a powerplay. Toss in some foreign influence (Syrians supporting Sunni/disposed leaders), Iranians supporting the Shiite's and it causes turmoil. But in Vietnam, you were talking about a mobilized Army with a command and control structure, backed by an government. This strikes me as a pretty big difference. And this is without getting into individual details.
The s-hite Militia seem to be using the same tactics to their success that the Viet Cong used against the US Military 40 years ago. And... dropping a 500 lb bomb on an occupied mosque does smell of the same US tactics that were used in Vietnam, i.e. Agent Orange, Carpet bombing, Naphalm, etc. that brought little success.
Actually, they dropped a bomb on a wall to make it easy for the US troops to raid the Mosque. The Mosque itself wasn't hit and is still standing. They haven't done any carpet bombing. What's going on right now in Iraq is more like Somlia than it is Vietnam.
In fact, this is good thing and I bet anyone in the military will tell you so. For the last year the US troops have been subject to roadside bombings and hit and run attacks. Read the interviews, this is the first stand up fight the US has had since the start of the war. A stand up fight against the enemy, is WAY better for the US than hit and run attacks.
(lol the cursing nanny changes s-hite to crape)
Is that French?
Iraq is not another Vietnam.
SANCHEZ (Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez) SAYS NO VIETNAM
The upsurge in violence has prompted President Bush's critics as he campaigns for re-election in November to suggest U.S. forces face a Vietnam-style quagmire, but Sanchez rejected the comparison.
"I don't see any shadows of Vietnam in Iraq," Sanchez told a news conference, a day after Washington said it might keep combat-hardened troops in Iraq longer than their scheduled tour of duty to help quell the violence.
"We have got Falluja under siege," Sanchez said, but denied U.S. forces were depriving its people of humanitarian supplies.
Up to 300 Iraqis have been killed and at least 400 hurt in the Sunni town in the four days since U.S. Marines began a crackdown on guerrillas, hospital director Rafi Hayad said.
The Marines launched "Operation Iron Resolve" after last week's killing and mutilation of four U.S. private security guards showed the depth of anti-American feeling in Falluja.
South of Baghdad, Polish and Bulgarian troops battled followers of Sadr in the shrine city of Kerbala, where hundreds of thousands of pilgrims have converged for Arbain, a major Shi'ite religious occasion.
Sanchez said Sadr's Mehdi Army militia controlled the centers of Najaf and Kut, along with police stations and public buildings, while U.S.-led forces held bases outside the towns.
Asked if U.S. troops would be sent to fight the Mehdi Army, he said: "We will do whatever is necessary to defeat Moqtada Sadr's forces wherever they are on the battlefield."
I still don't see how this is another Vietnam yet. Vietnam was almost entirely a defensive operation. Vietnam was not an effort to dispose the leadership or government that lead the resistance. Vietnam wasn't an uprising the country the US forces were mostly operating in.
The US forces have toppled the standing government as part of the Iraq war. The US is making an attempt to go after the leadership that controls the uprising. The uprising is based mostly on local militants, and at least in the case of the crapte's, it's a power grab attempt.
I'm not saying that everything is pretty in Iraq. But I don't see how this is like Vietnam other than a surge in violence. In fact, I think this is less like Vietnam, because despite the rise in deaths, the battles are relatively head on in major locations.
The kidnappings, however, is a rare scary trend for the foreign media and workers in the the country. This is certainly far more concerning than Al-Sadr miltia in my mind.
But then again, most of the people who are calling this another Vietnam, are probably the same people who critized the original invasion plan a week into it. Even though, it turns out, that the invasion plan was probably one of the most brilliant operations in the military history. Toppling an entire government in less than 3 weeks? Starting off with a ground invasion followed by air support (knowing that Iraqi's expected air campaign first).
You don't have to like or agree with the war, but this really seems a little premature to call this another Vietnam in my mind.
In fact, Iraq as a whole country, is probably more stable than Afganistan, and we increased our troop presence there recently... why isn't it another Vietnam? We've got no clear exit plan there either.
I would say that it's not quite Vietnam, but would turn out to be unique onto itself in history. However the original enemy was toppled and now it's replaced with fighting many small enemies in the scenario they were hoping to avoid in the forst part of the war, the street to street urban combat.
Spain is pull it's troops out. It still commiting money and expertise to the rebuilding of Iraq.
It will also be interesting to see if the current cease fire in place holds or not.
A couple months ago, my dad (who grew up in the '60s) said, "Anyone who thinks that Iraq is like Vietname needs to be put in a time machine and sent back to 1969 to fight on the front line in Vietnam. They may change their opinion then."
He went on to add, "In 1969, there were 52,000 soldiers who were killed."
Now I'm not trying to trivialize the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq, but 600 and change is jack sh*t compared to 52,000.
I believe there probably have been many more Iraqi's killed in the last year during the US occupation than Saddam's last year in power. Of course, a good number of those killed were likely Saddam's henchmen, and Saddam's henchmen can probably be blamed for a good number of the civilian deaths.
As for the number of American's killed compared to the first year in Vietnam. This may be true (I never bothered to look), but we also didn't completely control an entire other country in the first year of the Vietnam war. While your trying to compare number, look at how you use your stats.
1st year to 1st year deaths (Iraq war is higher). It probably is, but how much of a deployment into Vietnam did we have. How much occupied terriority did we control? What efforts were made to get at the root of the insurgency? Did we obtain control of the insurgence country? Absolutely not. I doubt there is any comparsion, I think things just move faster and the occuption and type of war is COMPLETELY different than Vietnam.
Number of Iraqi's killed under Saddam Hussein's last year: unknown compared to 10,000 (probably a third of that civilans). Definitely more civilans than we care to admit. How many were called civilans that were really insurgents, and their family's and doctors reported them as civilians. How many were killed by the insurgents.
Better yet, while your skewing numbers, how about this figure: Number of Iraq civilians killed by Saddam's chemical weapons vs. total number EVER killed during times of US attacks or occuption (you can go ahead and count both wars). Not even close
So far the only consistent comment I've heard about Iraq compared to Vietnam is no clear exit plan. But again, most conflicts don't have a clear exit plan. As I mentioned, neither does Afghanistan. Say, there is a non-popular insurgency going on there too... hmmm....
And I still don't see how a communist invasion of the south Vietnam and lack of local support for the government is like Iraq. There is no invasion by a foreign power involved here. This means that at best, even if the majority of the country turns on the US, there is no country providing troops, arms, or money. The majority of the insurgence is remaining members of Saddam's group, using existing weapons and and a small group of crapte's militia men making a play for power. Even the the other crapte leaders don't support who is up rising.
No foreign power, no majority uprising. Again, other than lack of exit plan, this is really a stretch to try to bring together any conclusions.
So please, tell me (since I've mentioned this before), how in the world does some roadside bombings, one relatively small time cleric with 5000 members (very small all things considered), and Saddam's henchmen anything like a communist invasion of another country? I don't see the relationship there. Is it the non-conventional attacks? Sure, but beyond the use of non-conventional attacks, I still don't see the link.
Don't worry Marc, your still my boy. Even though we disagree about this. You've just been listening to a lot of Air America lately. Have you tried Sean Hanity LOL! Actually, even though I listen to his show occassionally, he's definitely a little too much of a conservative right winger for me.
BTW The automatic word sensor changes s*h*i*i*t*e (as in the Islamic sect) to crapte, LOL!
Maybe there is some link you see that I don't get, but I don't see it. I don't see how members of a former regime that have been disposed (and very desperate) in small numbers, and a local group (in small numbers) making a play for power, when that small group does not enjoy popular support, is like an entire country backed group of attackers. Maybe you can try explaining how that is related so I get it, because that seems like apples and oranges to me. Not being a smart ass, I don't see the relationship.
Oh yeah, don't change the subject now to government kick back deals or tangiable benefit to the US. There is certain room to debate there, but I thought we were talking about whether this was like Vietnam or not
As a side note, I wonder if the Honduras plans to withdraw from Iraq have anything to do the appointment of John Negroponte as the first Ambassador to Iraq? Most people don't know or remember that he was Ambassador to the Honduras when the Iran/Contral scandal was taking place and is certainly a sore spot with the Hondurians who got left holding the bag.
I was just reading that today. Well, I may feel the war was justified, I may feel it's nothing like Vietnam... but I never said Bush was the brightest.
In fact, I'm rather mad at Bush right now for his comments on Isreal retaining occupied lands and settlements, rather than letting it be solved through the peace process. What a dumb ass....
No one is saying, least of which me, that Saddam was not a bad guy and bad for his people. However, that was not the original reason given for going to war. Instead we were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he poised an imminent threat to the USA which means the USA was justified to go against world opinion and attack that nation.
This might sound somewhat trite, but I still think Saddam had the WMD. He could have easily dismantled them and sent them off in the six months he had to prepare for our invasion.
Regardless of whether or not we find the WMD, he needed to go. I think that there should be less focus on what went wrong with Bush's policy there and more focus on how we are going to deal with the current situation.
As far as being like Vietnam- I don't think it is or that it will be.
-As far as the Shi'ite deal, the correct terminology is Shi'a.
-Shi'i is the adjective form.
-So you have the Shi'a sect of Islam, and a Shi'i terrorist group.
Shi'ite is just a journalistic mishap that stuck.
No registered users viewing this page.