The Conflict Of Our Time...

[Lounge Daddy]

I am soooo tired of hearing Vietnam brought up constantly – even today – on (what is left of) Air America radio and like-minded leftist media … I don’t fathom their “head-in-the-sand” worldview.
As time moves on in this war, I tend to think the ‘Nam bit is not holding water… but maybe I'm wrong.

What do you think?

[Era Might]

Which conflict? There is nothing comparable right now to WW2. Maybe the lead up to WW2, but there is no "world war" as such.

Iraq is comparable to Vietnam, absolutely.

[quote]Cheney also said he was wrong when he said shortly before the invasion that U.S. forces would be "greeted as liberators." Instead, more than three years later, violent resistance to the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad continues, and more than 2,600 U.S. service members have been killed.

"No doubt, we did not anticipate that the insurgency would last this long," Cheney said.

-[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/"][u]Source[/u][/url]-[/quote]
The government completely dropped the ball when it looked ahead to what would take place after the actual war. And now the military is bogged down in Iraq, because it has to clean up the mess caused by the war. The focus on Iraq has also taken away our full attention from finding Osama Bin Laden, who continues to evade the United States government 5 years after he blew up the World Trade Centers.

With Iraq on the verge of civil war, and the US government morally bound to stay and rebuild that nation after choosing to unleash the forces of war, the outlook is only getting bleaker.

And to worsen it, there's an election coming up, and we have no idea what the next President will decide. Will he leave? Will he stay and increase the troop presence? This is the same dilemma that was faced with Vietnam. First President Johnson escalated our involvement. From Wikipedia:

[quote]The massive escalation of the war from 1964 to 1968 was justified on the basis of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident on August 2-4, 1964, in which the Johnson Administration claimed that U.S. ships were attacked by the North Vietnamese. The accuracy of that claim is still hotly debated.[/quote]
Then President Nixon starting pulling us back:
[quote]Nixon was elected President and began his policy of slow disengagement from the war. The goal was to gradually build up the South Vietnamese Army so that it could fight the war on its own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine". As applied to Vietnam, the doctrine was called "Vietnamization".[/quote]
And then President Ford officially pulled the plug:
[quote]In the U.S., South Vietnam was now perceived as doomed. President Gerald Ford gave a speech on April 23 declaring the end of the Vietnam War and the end of all U.S. aid to the Saigon regime. The helicopter evacuation continued day and night as PAVN tanks breached the outskirts of Saigon. In the early morning hours of April 30, the last U.S. Marines evacuated the embassy as South Vietnamese civilians poured over the embassy perimeter and swarmed onto its grounds.[/quote]
The parallels are evident with the situation in Iraq. As with President Nixon, our stated goal is to build up Iraqui forces so that they can defend themselves, and then gradually move out. But, as the Vice President admitted on "Meet the Press", the government drastically miscalculated the insurgency, and so now we are bogged down in a nation on the brink of civil war. I believe it's only a matter of time before the US government pulls the plug like we did in Vietnam, and leaves. Today, of course, North and South Vietnam are no longer at war, as they were when we left; they are united as the "Socialist Republic of Vietnam". The war in Vietnam was about Communism, and Vietnam remains a Communist nation to this day. We went to Iraq to fight terrorism and dictatorship, but I believe the same chaos that doomed us in Vietnam awaits us in Iraq, and when we leave, Iraq will be either a state at civil war, or terrorist forces will dictate their will on the Iraqui people, just as Saddam did, perhaps leading to the rise of another actual dictator.

The type of war that is being waged is also comparable to Vietnam. It was hard to fight North Vietnamese forces, first, because they were on their own soil, and second, because they could hide and attack us by surprise; this was the particular strength of the Viet Cong. Iraqui insurgents have the same advantage, although they do not have the support of government military forces as the Viet Cong did with the North Vietnamese government. This was not the case with WW2, which was waged as a more conventional clash of two military forces.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Era Might

[Mercy me]

think that you need to look much further back to see a good comparable tiem. I think that you need to look back to the beginning of the Dark Age.

[Anomaly]

Era,
The insurgency did not exist before the Iraq war but the people who are the insrugencey existed. The insurgents are muslim zealots who promoted, aided, and implemented the attack on the Cole, the two attacks on the World Trade center, the attacks on embassies, etc., all BEFORE the Iraq war.

To leave now will allow these theocracy terrorist to gain control in Iraq and control another country that they will have resources and space to regroup and continue to export their radical islamic violence.

It would be incredibly stupid and short sighted like it was to let politics screw up the war in VN. I'd love for you to talk to one of the escapees from VN after the fall and let them tell you what they suffered, what real oppressive government is, what it's really like to live in a society of pervasive evil.

[iKonstantin]

I would suggest that some Napoleanic Wars were as massive or even more so than the second world war (for the time period in comparison). And are you discussing the entire war? Many people tend to leave out the Eastern Front, where most of the war was fought and won (and lost unfortunatly).




brat Konstantin

[ardillacid]

[quote name='iKonstantin' post='1083536' date='Oct 3 2006, 11:19 PM']
I would suggest that some Napoleanic Wars were as massive or even more so than the second world war (for the time period in comparison). And are you discussing the entire war? Many people tend to leave out the Eastern Front, where most of the war was fought and won (and lost unfortunatly).
brat Konstantin
[/quote]
you are a nazi? wow. that's........idk

[KnightofChrist]

A BIG reason Nam was lost was because of political correctness, which prevented The US forces from destroying the enemy, now that same political correctness brought on by Liberal politicians and press aiding and abetting the enemy, are preventing US force from destroying the enemy in Iraq. Liberal politicians and Terror seem to be saying the same things, has a[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=58361"]nyone notice[/url]?

[homeschoolmom]

How about none of the above.

[Jaime]

My two choices are Vietnam or a world war?


As far as comparisons to Vietnam, neither was was implemented without a hint of an exit strategy.

[iKonstantin]

I had to do a double take - did you just accuse me of being a "Nazi" ? I am extremely curious as to how you come to this conclusion. If anything you should be accusing me of being a communist for stating the fact that the Eastern Front was far more essential than the Western ('D-Day').




brat Konstantin

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1083705' date='Oct 4 2006, 10:09 AM']
How about none of the above.
[/quote]
hmmm...
I would say none of the above, as in "this is a war like none other" sure

[ardillacid]

[quote name='iKonstantin' post='1083984' date='Oct 4 2006, 03:27 PM']
I had to do a double take - did you just accuse me of being a "Nazi" ? I am extremely curious as to how you come to this conclusion. If anything you should be accusing me of being a communist for stating the fact that the Eastern Front was far more essential than the Western ('D-Day').
brat Konstantin
[/quote]
Sorry, but your other post confused me. apologies

[quote name='iKonstantin' post='1083536' date='Oct 3 2006, 11:19 PM']
I would suggest that some Napoleanic Wars were as massive or even more so than the second world war (for the time period in comparison). And are you discussing the entire war? Many people tend to leave out the Eastern Front, where most of the war was fought and won [b](and lost unfortunatly).[/b]
brat Konstantin
[/quote]
Wasn't sure if you meant it was unfortunate that Germany lost the war on the Eastern Front. Thanks for the clarification.

[toledo_jesus]

neither is comparable. If you want to look at a comparable conflict, research the Philippines after the Spanish American War. Almost the exact same situation as Iraq.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1084161' date='Oct 4 2006, 04:18 PM']
neither is comparable. If you want to look at a comparable conflict, research the Philippines after the Spanish American War. Almost the exact same situation as Iraq.
[/quote]
I don't see ANY similarities. Iraq was defying UN sanctions imposed after losing their invasion of Kuwait. Cuba was struggling for independence admist political chaos in Spain. The destruction of the World Trade Center by islamic terrorists does not compare to the destruction of the USS Maine by unknown means (a mine or an accident).

[Lounge Daddy]

ugh
this isn't about an "Iraq war" or "Afghan war" …those are different battles or fronts on a much larger world war.