Has Iraq become another Vietnam?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 2 2006, 06:20 AM) [snapback]264616[/snapback]</div>

Well, where to begin. No make it short instead.

Vietnam - Jungles, Iraq, no jungles; different enough for me!
really if ANY news organization actually showed a small percentage of the positive things the military is doing in Iraq this question would not even come up. All states show that the situation is improving, except in the small areas that the news organizations focus in, because well "if it bleeds, it leads!"
Is it great No. Is Iraq on the edge of a civil war, probably always, but it ALWAYS has been. Only Sadams massacres of his opponents quelled any uprisings. It is just going to take time for the entire region to learn to live together.

War of 1812 - Loss? For the SECOND time in nearly 30 years an upstart break-away democracy kicked the poop out of the worlds most dominant military force. Its a loss because the republic didn't expand its boundaries? Well obviously then the United State won Vietnam since the Vietnamese had the same amount of land they started with. Of course without all the doctors, nurses, teachers,politicians and clergy that the Vietcong massacred.

As far as "winning" the war in Iraq. The answer is the U.S. has one the war. Its the putting the hell hole back together again thats the problem. Remember, German and Japanese groups harassed allied troops for a decade after WWII before dissipating. Heck, even with Bill Clinton's statement that we would be out of Bosnia in TWO years we are STILL there. (1995 to 2006 = 11 years, is this greater than 2, not sure using the new math)

There is no military force on the planet that could withstand the United States military should it truly be released to do what it does best. PERIOD. We hold ourselves up to a higher standard than any other nation on the planet, and we are judged by that standard, an usually found wanting. Why? because its NOT a standard its an IDEAL.

At some point someone has to say "that's not right". The difference (currently) between a liberal and a conservative (mostly) is that a conservative is willing (right or wrong) to say "that's not right", a liberal only asks "who are you to say that's not right?".

What is "right"?
is it right to: (for any reason)
chop the heads off a hostage
rape a wife of your enemy
kill a teacher because they stray from your dogma
INTENTIONALLY blow up patrons of a pizza stand
INTENTIONALLY blow up a school bus full of children
shoot a women in the head for not covering her entire body

Where is the punishment for those that commit these act? Nowhere!
There has to be a point where someone says enough!

Are despicable acts committed by every country in the world? Believe it.
Can you find fault in any force that claims to have a "moral" advantage? Yes

But look at ALL the actions and judge.

Comment on recent events - see Haditha string - and before a cry goes out over what MAY have happened, don't be the fool (like most will do) to decry the entire force. Just think of how many innocent people are killed nightly in Detroit. There are bad people everywhere doing bad things, and most of them don't have a couple thousand people trying to kill them constantly!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 2 2006, 09:20 AM) [snapback]264616[/snapback]</div>

No. Cause Iraq is filled with arabic people whilst Vietnam is filled with asians.

That leads me to the question, is Iraq/Iran(persia in general) part of Asia or Europe?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 2 2006, 09:20 AM) [snapback]264616[/snapback]</div>

Easy, they'll go to the next distraction. Iran.

 

Simple answer: yes.

Comments: I was very afraid that the first Gulf war would turn into a Vietnam. Fortunately, it didn't. My prejudices are definitely showing when I say I think GW is trying to beat "Daddy". (My war is bigger than your war and we took out Sadam!)

More Comments: Even more prejudice showing, but I swear GW is a clone of RMN! But Tricky Dick just had plans for coralling the hippies; GW is less selective (or more megalomaniacal) - he wants phone calls/emails/etc for ALL of us! Tricky Dick just covered up a burglary and GW breaks laws by leaking CIA operatives' names. And both are/were sure that as President they are above the law.

 

I thought it was another Vietnam from the first day. I don't see any difference. Killing people for no apparent reason. They will have the type government that they want. Of course Dubeya got his revenge for Saddam Hussein trying to kill his father. That will teach you to mess with my dad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 3 2006, 07:34 AM) [snapback]265098[/snapback]</div>

I think oil is the reason. And I thought that imperialism had died out in the mid-twentieth century.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Jun 3 2006, 08:35 AM) [snapback]265106[/snapback]</div>

Alright, I see that this post sparked your interest. Excellent! IMO, there is no justification for killing another human. Now if you just want to kill someone, then go ahead a kill them, but don’t try to justify it with some bogus Bovine Scattology.

As far as imperialism, your old enough to know that it’s just a little dormant now, but it too will make a comeback in due time. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 2 2006, 09:20 AM) [snapback]264616[/snapback]</div>

Ok, I'll bite on the whacked history....

First, you forgot to throw Somalia in there. That is held up as the game plan to win vs. the Allies/UN.

The War of 1812 was a pre-emptive war declared by the newly formed US aganist the BRITISH. As a by-product of that war, Canada got its start as a country thanks to the British dumping so many resources there during the War.

Disagree on your conclusions. There is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam except both situations can be traced back to the treaties that ended WWI. The tribes stuck inside the lines of what we call Iraq should have never been forced together by the French and British. Though the battles were won, Iraq and Vietnam are examples of what happens with poor planning and not going into a war 100%.

War is hell. People always get killed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 3 2006, 09:58 AM) [snapback]265122[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I'm old enough. I just keep hoping that someday they'll find a cure for certain aspects of human nature like greed.

And I don't think killing is justified (although I'm up in the air about assisted suicide); I'm citing a reason (aka excuse), not a justification.

And I'm cynical enought that my answer to "How will we get out of Iraq?" is helicoptors at the embassy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 3 2006, 12:16 PM) [snapback]265161[/snapback]</div>

If you can't get political, whats to talk about?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Jun 3 2006, 11:29 AM) [snapback]265149[/snapback]</div>

I think we are in agreement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 3 2006, 07:34 AM) [snapback]265098[/snapback]</div>

What he said.

And I got to 'visit' Iraq for eleven months at the 'request' of the US Army.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 2 2006, 07:20 AM) [snapback]264616[/snapback]</div>

It will be another 5 or 6 years before Iraq is stabilized if it remains a democracy. 1 year if a strongman takes over. Which would you prefer?

Vietnam had an actual government on the other side; the insurgents in Iraq do not. The duly elected government in Iraq wants us to stay. There is no way to have "Peace Talks" with insurgents. We could invite them to the table, and then shoot them, but that would only work once. Not a bad idea, though.

One thing that might be comparable to Vietnam is the loss of human life if we do leave prematurely. After we left SE Asia, there was a bloodbath, with millions killed in Cambodia and Vietnam. The sea was filled with refugees, who were preyed upon by pirates, the women and children raped and thrown into the sea for the sharks to finish off. Even George McGovern advocated going back in to stop the Khmer Rouge from killing 1.7 million people, but it was too late. I realized I had been on the wrong side from a purely numerical standpoint. We should have stayed. We erred in cutting off funds for the military. The "Peace Movement" was really the agent in the deaths of millions.

Perhaps that's what you want to see among the people of Iraq.

The modern peace movement, like the one in the 1970s, is in reality a partisan kabal of people who care not a wit about human life (even though they proclaim they do). From the perspective of the expected outcome if we simply "cut and run", it is obvious the "peace movement" wants to duplicate the racist outcome of SE Asia in the 1970s with the "towel heads" this time instead of the "slopes".

The "exit strategy" is for Iraq to have elections, install a democratic government, build up their security forces, stabilize themselves and then, with our assistance, continue with a functioning, western style democracy. We are 3/4 of the way there.

If it works, it will be a wonderful thing, for all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. The proper role of government is to act as the power that secures those rights, and not as the power that violates those rights. Those words, penned by the same man that said the "tree of liberty has to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots", apply to all men, and not just round-eyed, western white guys like those in the peace movement. Even "towel head" Arabs deserve freedom.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 3 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]265181[/snapback]</div>

Wheeeeu. Calm down! calm down! take your medicine and don’t worry. Everything will work out, don’t over react. Did you sell that gun like I asked you to? :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 3 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]265190[/snapback]</div>

I am calm, and I don't own any guns. I'm not on medication, and don't need to be. I can see my post had an effect though, because you resorted to attacking ME instead of the content.

Most of the people comparing Vietnam to Iraq don't have a clue what they are talking about. Its so far off base that its not a matter of differing opinions, which I am always respectful of, but simply ignorance. And I don't have much patience for the posturing, bumper sticker mentality when lives ... millions of lives ... are once again at stake.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 3 2006, 06:19 PM) [snapback]265265[/snapback]</div>

Just because you think it’s not the same doesn’t make it so. I notice that you haven’t bothered to post a picture of yourself, use your real name, give your age, or any other information for that matter. It’s pretty easy to set back and be anonymous and spit out opinions. But that is all they are ........ just as my beliefs are my opinion.

I spent 2 ½ years in Vietnam and I don’t see where any of that gave us or helped us keep any of our rights. I feel the same way about what we are doing in the world today. But I keep a sense of humor about it because IMO it leads to a happier and heather life. You are not going to get off this planet alive, so what’s all the seriousness about? Stop and smell the roses.

No worries.

Be one with the Cosmos.

Grasshopper

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Jun 3 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]265310[/snapback]</div>

My real name and age, along with a history of my political, social and religious opinions are available to anyone who cares to click on the "My Blog" link in my signature. My username is my name. So, "Grasshopper", what are you hiding?

Not all opinions are the same. Some are from ignorance, just as your opinion that I was "anonymous" was from ignorance ... and laziness.

And you're right ... your service in Vietnam didn't advance our rights, but it should have taught us a lesson. We should not have thrown away your sacrifice. You deserved better. (And, thank you, by the way).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 3 2006, 09:31 PM) [snapback]265350[/snapback]</div>

We went in to the first Persian Gulf War to help a country that asked for our help when they had been invaded by Iraq. At that time, I was afraid it might turn in to another Vietnam, and I was wrong. Despite many Americans wanting the US to go into Iraq and remove Sadam Hussein, we didn't, because we didn't have any right to do that. I certainly thought Hussein was terrible, but I'm a US citizen, and we shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs by invasion of a foreign country.

But THIS Iraq war was an invasion that was justified by reasons that were not correct, and in my opinion, the 'real' reasons had more to do with oil than providing democracy to the Iraqis.

But we did invade. Does that mean I think we should pull out now? Nope - we now have an obligation to help fix the damage and chaos that exist there now.

 

Number of people killed in the U.S. on 9/11/01: 2,819 *

Number of U.S. military deaths since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq: 2,751 **

Number of U.S. wounded: 17,869

If the number of U.S. casualties continues at the same average rate as it has so far this year, in about 60 days the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan will be greater than the number of people killed during the 9/11 attacks.

All of these numbers are trivial, however, compared to the number of Iraqi civilian casualties since the start of the war in 2003. Estimates are as high as 100,000 civilians dead ***.


--------------------
* New York Magazine (http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm)
** Army Times (http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html)
*** Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Jun 4 2006, 08:15 AM) [snapback]265571[/snapback]</div>

I would disagree about the "right" to move further into Iraq during the first Gulf War. We didn't out of deference to Arab sensibilities and the recognition that it could end up worse than it was before (i.e., it could end up like Iran). And, we do have the right to "interefere" with the "internal affairs" of a country when they declare war on us and our friends. We should be slow to go to war, but when we do it should require nothing but total and absolute unconditional surrender of the enemy. Anything less and you have the mess that existed for 12 years.

Since the first Gulf War, while we were enforcing the terms of the peace agreement, Iraq committed many, many "acts of war" against the United States, firing weekly on our aircraft in an attempt to kill our pilots. That was reason enough for us to take out Saddam. But we didn't; for years we put up with it and kept amassing more and more reasons to go to war.

While "oil" makes the region more important than it should be, we certainly have not gained more oil for us from the war. The reluctance of France and Germany to agree to the invasion was due to the fact that Iraq was to them what Saudi Arabia is to us: one of their major suppliers. In the beginning, the oil was going to be used to reimburse us for our costs, but because of the distribution schemes in place, that would be in the form of payments of dollars rather than oil tankers (as they would continue to sell to the same customers they did before).

We agree more than we disagree, though. I also opposed invading Iraq, and took no joy of seeing our troops mass at the border once again. I worried that we would lose the 25,000 men some analysts were saying it would take to capture Baghdad. It has actually turned out much better than I expected, so I'm plesantly surprised at the outcome so far. I remain skeptical of "nation building", as I think its only successful when you completely demolish a country (think Japan and Germany after WWII). But there is a government there, and they have had three free elections with a higher percentage of people participating than we have in our elections. So who knows? It might work out if we stay the course for the next 3 to 5 years.

I know it won't if we unilaterally withdraw. There will be a bloodbath, with millions lost. And that is the only comparison to Vietnam that stands the test of scrutiny.