arthurracoon

This is a project my group is doing for school and I wanted to know what you guys thought. We are mostly arguing the fact that Iraq IS the next Vietnam.

__________________
Signed,

arthurpostpadder

WizardOfAz

Sounds like a rather liberal teacher who would even make such an assignment for young, impreshonable minds.

arthurracoon

Actually, we could have taken the no side as well, but my group wanted to take the yes.

There were many topics and we are the only ones doing this topic.

However, he is a liberal teacher but he doesnt try to impress it upon others.

__________________
Signed,

arthurpostpadder

40yearfan

Emphatically no!!!!

BTW, this isn't pointed at you Arthur. I lived through the Vietnam war and remember it vividly. The whole war was fought in the jungles and underbrush. Dropping a 500 pound bomb there was like a fort in a whirl wind. The Viet Cong did not gather in large groups, they'd snipe and run. It was hard to kill any large numbers of them as they'd melt away into the forest.

In Iraq, most of the battles are being fought in the cities. There are places to hide, but those places are out in the open and with the type of weaponary we have now (bunker penetrating bombs) we can get at them no matter where they try to hide. Outside of the cities, it is mostly open desert with nowhere to hide unless they have tunnels. If they go to ground, we have equipment that can sniff them out and dispose of them.

It's a completely different type of warfare fought in a different country. The logistics are against the insurgents being able to hold out for very long. If the politicians would just turn the army loose and let them do their job, they could probably clean the whole mess up in less than 6 months.

__________________

Krangthebrain

Yes and no...

Yes because we weren't attacked. If recorded history is correct, then Vietnam never attacked us, we were the aggressors.

In the case of Iraq, we are the aggressors.

No because I doubt we will be there as long, and frankly that's too bad if we actually were interested in creating a democracy. And just like in Vietnam, we will leave before any longterm progress can be made.

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

AzCards21

I voted no because I would hope the government has learned from history.

Senators and Congressmen can not run a war, They are patently unqualified.

War is also a time that democracy must take a back seat. There is no way everyone gets to vote on what to do. This is the time you select your best military stratigist's and go with their advice full force.

I'm sorry but voting or taking the public's opinion on your next move is just stupid. It will fail every time.

nidan

I hope you are right, I really do. I also hope that policy was used to decide to invade Iraq.

I really, really hope you are correct. I would also feel far better in Colin Powell was Sec of Def, because I would be far more confident that we are using your concept.

__________________


In Wiz I trust

DogTv

AzCards21

I hope so too. Because if I'm wrong this will go to hell in a hurry. So far they have my confidence.

I wish General Schwartzcough (sp) were in charge. That SOB new how to run a war.

And it made everyone a little more comfortable seeing him on TV explaining what had happened and why.

I know even with Gen H. Big W didn't get re-elected. But, I never doubted who was in charge during Gulf 1. We could use a little of that now.

Not that I think the commander in charge now is any less qualified but, we don't get to see him like we did Schwarz.

Chaplin

Geez, I consider myself more Democrat than Republican, but I can't believe how naive those 5 people who have voted "yes" are! What a crock!

__________________
Hedo says: BALL

ajcardfan

No. Not even close.

The differences between the two are huge.

The enemy in Iraq is far less numerous than in Vietnam.

The enemy in Iraq does not have the open support of major powers like China and Russia.

The enemy in Iraq has no unified base to operate from like North Vietnam.

The enemy in Iraq does not have the freedom to move in large numbers around our troops via neighboring territories like the VC did with Laos and Cambodia. And, the countryside within Iraq is far more to our advantage than the dense foliage of Vietnam. Any movement in Iraq has to be very small scale, and our surveillance technology is light years better than what we had 30 years ago.

The enemy in Iraq is limited to small scale attacks. Whenever they try to confront us in numbers, they take it in the shorts bad. Like Al Sadr's militias attempts the last couple of days. There is not going to be a Tet offensive in Iraq. And we are defnitely pulling our punches right now with these guys for political reasons.

The enemy in Iraq has nowhere near the unity that the Vietmanese communists had. It's a hodgepodge of "I-want-to-go-to-heaven-and-bang-72-virgins-by-killing-an-American" foreigners, thugs from Saddam's fedayeen, Al-qaeda wannabes, and Al Sadr's shiites. The only thing in common is they don't like us, but in their disparate groups it's laughable to think they are a real military threat. Thus, they are reduced to ambushes and loading up a car with explosives for some fool only in their own little hidey hole area. There is no coherent strategy, no Ho Chi Mihn, no unified leadership. If we left, they'd fight each other before all our guys were home, and you'd then throw in the Kurds and other Shiite leaders who are our allies into a giant free-for-all.

We've suffered loss of life, yes. But, nowhere near the scale of Vietnam, and I don't see how it can possibly reach that level in Iraq with the overwhelming force and tactical advantages we have.

I think those differences far outweigh the similarities. Don't these liberal teachers make you crack a history book now and then?

__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.

T.H. Huxley

AZCB34

Define "The Next Vietnam".

Depending on how you are defining it, both the yes and no answers would qualify. I think I know what your definition is but I am interested in how you are defining it.

BTW, nice post AJ

__________________
Dream like you'll live forever, live like you will die today. -James Dean

KingofCards

I put a little.

It is already a little like Vietnam.

By a little though I am saying maybe 1%.

I just hope the thing doesn't expand to other countries.

__________________
"Let the rabbits wear glasses."

Tangodnzr

I voted yes simply because, overall, I think there will be no more success establishing democracy though force than there was in Viet Nam.
But even more importantly...its not just democracy...but a fundamental difference in how people view life via their religion.

What I think we are really seeing in Iraq now, is the epitome of two fundamentally and diametrically opposed religious views clashing.

One the one hand youj have conservative fundameltalist Christianity vs conservative fundamentalist "oriental" or non-christian beliefs.
And one of those most basic and primary is the view of the value of individual human life.

I would say George Bush and his administration could probably best be described as "desciples" of Robert "Bob" Jones (of Robert Jones University).
I say a case could easily be made that this type of "Christian" is just as extreme in their beliefs as the "extremist" Isamic "radicals" in the Middle East.

There is a fundemental difference in the way these religions view life. Christianity has typically been the avenue of the importance of the individual in the cosmology of life. (an idea first founded by the Greeks), while most "oriental" religions do not place the same value on individual human life...
only their role in the grand "order".

I don't think this whole Iraq "war' is really about WMD, etc. That's just a "cover story". I think it has more to do with thinking that "we" (meaning) essentially Christian ideologically influenced democracy can force our "will" on others who do not see the world "through the same eyes."
You cannot ultimately accomplish that by force, or military power...only for a short time...as long as you can maintain the "power' advantage.
History has proven that time and time and time again.

This whole situation was extremely short sighted and ill-thought out from its inception. We have accomplished nothing but fan the flames of hatred that already existed for our "imperialism", so to speak.

I predict Donald Rumsfeld WILL be forced to resign and that will be the final death knell for any chances George Bush may have had for re-election.
But that won't solve the mess "we" have gotten "ourselves" into here.

We may be able to preserve a little "peace?" by keeping military forces there, even though the Iraqis are given back "control' of their own government. But it will be an "enforced" "peace".

I also predict, like Viet Nam, we will eventually pull our troops out, and the final net result will most likely be that little has changed except Saddam Hussein has been replaced by another name.

This "war" was doomed from its beginning. Like I said, Ill tought out. Poorly executed, with little or no understanding of basic and fundamental differences in culture.

It is my opinion that democracy works best only for educated people. Until then, sometimes other forms of rule may actually do more good for the majority of people in that society. The question then becomes, how...if democracy isn't present, can you get illiterate people educated enough to make democracy work effectively.
I don't know the answer to that, but I think it would evolve through peaceful methods...not military "force".

Fighting and destroying terrorism is one thing. Invading a country and imposing your cosmological views on them is quite another thing....and that's what I maintain has happened in Iraq...and in that sense IS another Viet Nam.

swd1974

Tango, I think you made a lot of good points there. But I have to disagree one one major point and you having been there might understand.

I voted no simply because we were fight a real organized and smartly lead army in vietnam. Because of this even the bravery and the good training our soldiers had were not enough to win and the body count was very high for a "police action" aka war.

I dont think we will ever hit that level of body count in Iraq. Now it seems if we take too much fire we pull back and bomb the heck out of them. And in the desert its a lot easier than the jungle.

__________________
"Only after the last tree has been cut down... Only after the last river has been poisoned… Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." - Cree Indian prophecy

www.Mingledhearts.com

Tangodnzr

I think maybe you miss some of my point here.

So what if we did "bomb the heck out of them" ?

What would that really accomplish in the "long run"?

I think all it would do, is insure that hatred between the two diverse cultures would even further escalate, and the chance for true peaceful co-existance to two different ideologys would be even less.