Opinion Talk

By candide

January 3, 2006 07:15 AM | Link to this

Much as government propagandists will want to make these two wars seem very different, they are frighteningly alike: 1. Lies got us in the war. 2. Cowardice delays getting out. 3. Lives are lost needlessly.

The only difference is that: 1. Without a draft young men and women don’t give a damn about a foolish war. 2.The consequences of Iraq will be far worse than those of Vietnam.

By The Grinch

January 3, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

Only if you are a Democrat.

By Van

January 3, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

No.

VietNam, regular military foe, we supported a weak corrupt government.

Iraq, No organized military foe, Iraq has freely elected (according to the UN) government.

VietNam, war was lost in D.C. Iraq, If we lose it will be in the Press.

VietNam, we had a draft. Iraq, No draft.

VietNam, malcontents opposed the war. Iraq, malcontents oppose the war.

Only point of comparision.

By Dennis Billew

January 3, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Sure they can be compared. However, comparison does not mean “point out similarities even if they do not exist”. An honest comparision must focus on the many, many differences; including how we got there and what we did after we got there.

The way I remember it the U.S. stepped into V.N. because the French, after several years of frustration, were ready to pull out, and the Kennedy Presidency did not want to give that country up to Communist rule. The only U.S. goal regarding V.N. other than “hold your ground” came after Johnson lost the election in 1968, and the Nixon Administration concluded that enough is enough, we are pulling out. Would things have progressed and ended differently if Kennedy’s or Johnson’s Administration had established the goal of winning a war?

Several people who claimed to represent Islam declared war on the U.S. before and after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Our President and our Congress reacted properly to these declarations and the attacks associated with them, they declared war on Islamic Terrorism. Our goal is to stop the people who declared war on us from following through on their threats. Having this goal would not limit our targets to Osama ben Laden.

Another difference is this. The U.S Military during V.N. were mostly draftees. The Military today is 100% volunteers. If you are of draft age now or were during V.N. you can appreciate that difference if nothing else.

Regardless of how the media tries it cannot make Saddam Hussein a friend of the U.S. He was and is an enemy. About eighty per cent of the population of Iraq and I are happy that he is gone. Thank you, President Bush.

By Robert H. Barron

January 3, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

The “Powell Doctrine” conceived by General and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell was designed to solve the problem posed by our military’s Vietnam experience by requiring future engagements of our military to use “overwhelming force”. We are fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of using overwhelming force first in Afghanistan and then Iraq after we have taken a hard look at our sources of information including the CIA chief’s views. Powell wanted to use 500,000 troops instead of 150,000 if we went into Iraq. Using less would lead to similarities with the war in Vietnam from the start. In the Civil War in America, the south had to be burned to the ground to get their forces to quit. In WW11, both Japan and Germany had to be ruthlessly bombed to end it. A limited war by a Democracy usually will be lost because if progress is not shown, the citizens will vote out the party in power. The result in Iraq can be different than the result in Vietnam only if the Iraqis take over the fight from the Americans. I hope our efforts succeed but I agree with Colin Powell that using less than the force needed was ill-advised. Having been ignored, I notice that the general left the cabinet a few years ago.

By Mike

January 3, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Sure the invasion of Iraq can be compared to the political defeat in Vietnam.

Vietnam had a thousand year history of war. Alexander the Great conquered Persia, Iraq is part of that Persia, before Christ was born. Before Alexander, Persian kings like Darius fought major wars to gain or hold power, including the failed invasions of Greece.

America had the most advanced military technology in the world and it made no difference in Vietnam. Ditto in Iraq.

The 2nd Gulf of Tonkin ‘attack’ was only recently exposed as a hoax. There is growing physical evidence that Bush et al had no reason to believe Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear program or continuing to develope WMD… or could deploy WMD within 45 minutes.

There are far more connections with Iraq and Vietman than with the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations.

The biggest difference? One president shoulders all the blame for Iraq. What a legacy.

By Michael

January 3, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

As the saying goes it’s Vietnam without the shade.

By tamara

January 3, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

I say YES and the rest of you will have something to compare when you see that there is no winners.

By Jo Rusin

January 3, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

How refreshing to know there is another kindred soul with the courage to display her banner. Mine reads: Out of Iraq NOW. Vietnam and Iraq were both unnecessary wars for neither country posed a threat to the US, despite extensive hype to the contrary.

By kimberly

January 3, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Of course there are similarities AND differences. People who make these comparisons today do so because they wish to avert the senseless waste of life that was the end result of our war in Vietnam. Yes, things are different with Iraq, but the lies, more lies, and senseless waste of life are the same. Must history repeat itself with this magnitude of grief, or is there a better way?

The statement: “if we lose [in Iraq] it will be in the press” is an affront to the American way of life. If America truly is different and better than the other nations of the world, it is the first amendment that makes it so. The very suggestion that the knowing and speaking of truth is somehow defeating us is downright vulgar. LIES will not protect our soldiers from explosive devices, nor will they help them “win” whatever it is they’re supposedly conquering. The press is only just now starting to wake up and do it’s job, anyway, after years of pandering to our government-sponsored fear and “patriotism.”

By Van

January 3, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

kimberly, sorry, but if we do lose in Iraq, it will be because of the media.

The media has shown an interest in only how many have died, and not what the died for. With the “stories” about torture, now every person in uniform is a sadist.

The recent news about Baby Noor is one of the few things that the press praised the military for, and even then there was a disgruntled letter to the editors.

Last December 1st. we had a forum on a similar topic, whether it was getting better or not in Iraq, reread them.

They have a freely elected government, they are going through the growth pains of a republican type of government, they are taking more and more armed rolls against the cowards killing Irqi police and military.

BTW, have you noticed, the attacks against the US forces have dropped and the attacks against the Iraqi forces have increased, wonder what that means.

We are doing good over there, unlike in VietNam. The Democrats go us into VietNam and Nixon got us out. 9/11 go us into this war on terror, and it will not end at the bogus Paris peace talks this time. How do you negotiate with terrorist. I certainly do not want another attack here, and the peace freaks just do not care if we are attacked again or not.

By Eric Simontis

January 3, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Anyone who thinks that Iraq is like Vietnam has no understanding of the facts. If we had defeated North Vietnam in less than two months, I’d agree. If the people of North Vietnam had participated in three elections with a participation rate greater than that enjoyed by the US, I’d agree. If we had captured Ho Chi Min and put him on trial, I’d agree. The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that the liberal media (and their slightly confused accolytes) are doing their best to weaken the will of the American people. The American military has never been defeated. Unfortunately, terrorists (and the liberals) understand that they can defeat the will of the American politicians.

By Kermit B. Marsh

January 3, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

The only similarity is the looney left and their opposition!

Different wars, different reason! The wars we have lost have been ones in which politics were allowed to dictate the execution! Harry Truman in the Korean war! Lyndon Johnson in Viet Nam!

I believe President Bush has the resolve not to Allow this to happen in YThis necessary war on terrorism. We are the most generous, most benevolent nation in history! We feed the world, we protect the world, we go through out the world bringin freedom… and peace! We are America!

We do not cross oceans, and deserts, and mountainsbecause we are made of cotton candy! We will prevail!

God Bless America!

By Dick Dubiel

January 3, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Iraq is far removed from Vietnam. Vietnam was a war without military objectives, run by politians. The Iraq war has had specific military objectives which now include training the Iraqi security forces so they can take over the security of that nation. Most importantly, the efforts in Iraq and Afganistan are taking the fight to the terrorists in their own lands, not requiring the US to fight them on our soil. Isolationism was a problem that Roosevelt faced in the 40s when the US was relatively isolated from the rest of the world. Isolationism is not possible in the 21st century. Thank goodness we have a president who is strong enough to do what’s right for the country, not take the easy way out and leave the problems for the next administration.

By Lou

January 3, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Even though people love to compare the war in Iraq with the war in Vietnam - believe me, there is no comparison - yet. The period of time in which Vietname occurred was a long, protracted period - it started in the ‘50’s when Eisenhour sent army “consultants” over there - and it just got bigger, and bigger, and bigger - then took a really ugly turn when the French got their butts kicked out of there. I cannot tell you what is was like when they had that God-awful lottery - and, then announce the numbers that were pulled. It just seemed like it would never end. Iraq - we know we can blow them off the face of the earth - Iraq knows it. We’re playing some sort of cat and mouse game in the name of establishing a democracy - in a place that doesn’t understand democracy. My friends - some who even spent time in Vietnam - say we will be in Iraq for a long time. If you want to know what our men and women in Iraq think - google for milblogs and read their chatter - the mudville gazette is a good one. What we as a free nation should be worrying about is whether or not we are burning out our military. Now - that issue really scares me.

By blake doughty

January 3, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

The primary lesson of Vietnam is not really understood by the left or the right. I would argue that America has slowly won the Vietnam war over the 40 years since our withdrawal from Southeast Asia. Once the Americans withdrew, Vietnemese communists could no longer point to foriegn powers as the source of their problems. They had to figure out how to build a stable society and functioning economy. They eventually realized the inevitable - the only way to do this is by accepting western style freedom and capitilism, resulting in a slow steady liberalization of Vietnam. Is Vietnam perfect? No. But had we created today’s Vietnam by a feat of military strength, we almost certainly would have considered it a victory. Perhaps we can achieve the same victory in Iraq by withdrawing, letting the govern themselves, and learn the value of freedom by shaping the future of their own nation

By Malcolm

January 3, 2006 06:31 PM | Link to this

The most important similarity is that in Iraq, as in Vietnam, our only hope of prevailing is to win the hearts and minds of people about whom we know nothing, whose language we don’t speak, and whose husbands and brothers (and, too often, wives and children) we are torturing and killing. Since that won’t work, the only escape from the quagmire is to train native troops to take our place. In Vietnam, of course, that was called Vietnamization, and it failed.

By Calvin Robinson

January 3, 2006 08:52 PM | Link to this

Anyone who thinks the war in Iraq is like Vietnam is not in tune with the day’s events. Having spent three years in Iraq as a civillian working there, I can tell you that the man needed to be removed and some changes brought about for the Iraqi people. I still have some very close friends there and they are very glad our military is there. I also enlisted in the military and spent six of the best years of my life defending the freedom of our country and would do it again if they would have me. I am also retired from the U.S. government and I think it right and fitting for each young, healthy American to defend the freedom of our country.

By Morgan

January 4, 2006 05:20 AM | Link to this

Vietnam and Iraq are different in many ways but the flawed/failed mission and unwinnable QUAGMIRE is the same result. (Pity we don’t benefit from historical perspectives when some fool has a “grand plan.”)

As an active duty veteran 1969 - 1973, I know my sons (in their 20’s) have options. No similarity there …

By Morgan

January 4, 2006 05:23 AM | Link to this

My bumper sticker says:

* F the President **

By Morgan

January 4, 2006 07:24 AM | Link to this

*Dick Dubiel

Thank goodness we have a president who is strong enough to do what’s right for the country, not take the easy way out and leave the problems for the next administration.*

Dick - (fortunately Kerry won’t be blamed for ruining the fiasco) as I understand it only those in uniform, Iraqi civilians and our grandchildren’s finances have made sacrifices in the Iraq invasion so far.

By Fisher

January 4, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

…’Iraq is Vietnam without the shade’…(what about all the water?)…

hilarious…that is the best analogy Ive heard from any whiner!…

But seriously folks, there are hardly ANY comparisons between the two … really NONE. Only ridiculous leftwingers spew that nonsense … We’ve helped LIBERATE 50+ Million folks in the region … can’t you whiners even acknowledge that? Why is that so difficult for you?…

STRIVE to be smarter than a democrack!

By RWH

January 4, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

We come to know that USA gets involved more into others countries … rather than involving ourselves with our own problems: hunger, homelessness, low wages, etc. But we are quick to send our soldiers into battle for what has been often said … for what? The Iraq and Vietnam wars are the same, soldiers being killed for a cause that they know nothing about! Same as it was in Vietnam, we can say this or that, but, countries need to fight their own battles; our resources are plenty, our standards are high, we can fight whatever that threaten us right here on our own soil. 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam, 2,000 soldiers have died in Iraq and they continue to die. We need to be hard-pressed to enter any wars and do so for the mere protection of this country. We need to send soldiers to fight for the truth, we need not send them to fight for lies! It’s time we bring the mothers, daughters, sons and fathers home to the soild from whence they came. Things will work out for Iraq … its people must be determined to do so!

By E. Lewis

January 4, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

In no way do I blame the media for the quagmire in Iraq. Neither Bill O’Reilly nor Al Franken has the ability to increase the number of troops on the ground, account for the billions of taxpayer $$$ that are missing, protect the citizens who are afraid to open their doors, put down an insurgency or provide proper weaponry and armor to the troops who are still having to pay for such items themselves. That is the job of our government. The checks and balances should be working, but since everything is controlled by the Republicans and too many Democrats simply rolled over, that isn’t happening. And the U.S. troops, taxpayers — along with the Iraqis — are paying the price.

The similarities between Iraq and Vietnam are mainly in the lessons that were learned. One might think that the politicians understand that the whole intelligence community matters and not just the parts that support your view. Perhaps they figured out that not everyone wants an American-style democracy. Unfortunately the only real lesson learn from Vietnam was to put out only “positive� information that supports the official government line and to go after any dissenters with a vengeance. Punish the truth if it isn’t your version and reward the yes men even if they are incompetent. That and leave the troops and taxpayers to clean up the mess.

By kimberly

January 4, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

What a nice collection of historical tidbits. Yet, it was a group of SAUDIs who attacked us on September 11th. Why not offer some historical tidbits about the CARLYLE GROUP for perspective on why our troops never invaded Saudi Arabia? Also, please explain why a seven-foot Saudi on dialysis remains at large. Hmmm… We COULD HAVE taken every cave in Afghanistan, but somebody decided to invade an oil-rich country where Bin Laden was NOT hiding instead. Forgive me if I find this disturbingly curious and illogical.

Meanwhile, yes, Iraqis are voting. But Ahmed Chalabi was just appointed OIL MINISTER after his poor performance in the December 15 elections.(see note below) The people don’t like him, so the puppet government sets him in an important position: minister of their biggest cash resource. (Hey! That sounds like U.S. appointment policy!) Of course, they’re likely to establish an Islamic theocracy that views us as infidels and tramples the rights of the women who voted. (Note: The oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, was put on a mandatory, month-long leave. He had previously threatened to resign over the recent decision to increase gasoline prices sharply.) From what I understand, the government of IRAN, our longtime enemy, is THRILLED with all this progress.

Yes, you’re right. Not really all that much like Vietnam. (Rice never went for $60 a barrel.) How nice to know Nixon was a hero, and lying wasn’t wrong when HE did it! I stand corrected.

By E. Lewis

January 4, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Vietnam and Iraq are both wars dreamed up and planned by politicians — not the military who’s left to fight it.

By dee

January 4, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Obviously, the people who protest the war are not students of history. To put it in perspective: “To everything there is a season.” At Armageddon, will you still be protesting?

By Kevin

January 4, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

In Iraq, it’s a dry heat. And the language that none of our troops or diplomats speak is Arabic rather than Vietnamese.
If Democracy in Iraq is such a noble cause for the president … when will we see the “Bush twins” at the recruitment office?

By Van

January 5, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Calvin Robinson - well put, welcome back.

I agree with you about our healthy young citizens serving in the military - or other government services.

On the down side, the left will not suit up to defend America. I guess that’s why the majority of those in uniform are more conservative.

E. Lewis, what war was not started by a politician? What war was ever won by a politician?

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 09:41 PM | Link to this

I’ll suit up to defend America! Who’s attacking us? (I know you won’t say Iraq, since they never have.)

By Some Nameless Taxpayer

January 6, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

More like Korea than Vietnam, we still have troops in Korea .. .and in the next 50 years we will still have troops in Iraq, unlike Vietnam where we up and left. Keeping the peace, protecting big business interests whatever they be, with a policy so murky and ingrained no one questions why the military is still there. Maybe in the next war the politicians’ sons and daughters will be drafted — first — then let’s see that war go on endlessly…

By E. Lewis

January 6, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

The start of past wars may have involved politics, but the actual planning, preparations and execution were handled by the military. That didn’t happen in Vietnam and it isn’t happening in Iraq. The civilian leaders at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense are not taking their cues from the miltitary leader, but from the White House bureaucracy.

As far as politicians winning wars, I always thought that FDR/Truman did a pretty good job. He managed to rally the country’s support, got everyone to make sacrifices and let the military do its job. Companies were not allowed to take advantage of the taxpayers and the soldiers. Nothing was perfect, but the war was run like a war and not like a publicity campaign for the next election.

By Van

January 6, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

E. Lewis, FDR and Truman did not “win” WWII, it was the complete collapse of the Japanese will to fight, brought on by two atomic blasts, and the complete destruction of the German war machine. Total and complete unconditional surrender, in both theaters of operations. WWI, Korea, Vietnam and 1st Iraq war are all examples of a political solution. WWII was a military solution and the best example against diplomatic solutions.

Those that start the wars are either politicials, greedy or bloodthirsty, but the military never starts them. Once started or threatened, then the military is brought in.

Of course, I am lumping diplomats into the catagory of politicians. Whether that is bad for one or the other, I don’t really care.

By Van

January 9, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

An interesting thought for you lefties.

Iraq and Vietnam would be the same if the liberals get their way and we left with the job half done.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Van: Interesting thought for us lefties: Iraq might be another positive outcome like Vietnam, where the American people force the government to withdraw (unwillingly) from an illegal and unnecessary war.

I certainly hope so. Freedom wins only when government loses, after all; whose side SHOULD we be on?

By Sarge

January 14, 2006 01:57 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Please! Tell all of us how the outcome of the Vietnam war was positive? Thousands of Vietnamese were killed before we arrived and hundreds of thousands died after we(I) left. Do you actually see that as a positive? Of course, what am I thinking? The liberators now need our tax money because their socialist society has failed and they killed all of the capitalists who knew how to keep the nation from entering another civil war. This way the only cost to America is money not blood. But wait, the average American works hard for his money. Hell, eleven men in West Virginia recently gave their lives to earn those tax dollars. Maybe the cost of security will always be in blood. If not on the battlefield then on the threshing floor.