Iraq = Modern Vietnam
- Thread starter steppinthrax
- Start date
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
Vietnam: 58,000 US soldiers dead. Draft enforced.
Iraq: 2,800 US soldiers dead. No draft enforced.
Iraq = Modern Vietnam: Patently false.
Iraq: 2,800 US soldiers dead. No draft enforced.
Iraq = Modern Vietnam: Patently false.
Not from the amount of soldiers killed. My only point in this is that it's like a never ending war that we thought (since of advance tech we have and they don't) that we would win it sooner then it is lasting right now. Simply the lesson we learned in Vietnam is that just becuase we are dealing with people who are not as advance as we are they will fight till the end and find every way to kill us.
Another difference
Viet Cong = dangerous, skilled warriors who fought our dangerous skilled warriors.
Iraqi "insurgents" = good at killing unarmed women and children.
Viet Cong = dangerous, skilled warriors who fought our dangerous skilled warriors.
Iraqi "insurgents" = good at killing unarmed women and children.
The death toll slowed down significantly because the U.S gave 300,000 Iraqi soldiers the same outfits they wear.
So now Iraqi soldiers are being given more roles and they are being attacked, thus taking the main hits.
So now Iraqi soldiers are being given more roles and they are being attacked, thus taking the main hits.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I guess I will feed the troll.
Vietnam: Went in to help the French and the country has no natural resources to exploit.
Iraq: Went in to end an evil regime and the country has oil to exploit.... er export.
Iraq makes more sense to me.
Vietnam: Went in to help the French and the country has no natural resources to exploit.
Iraq: Went in to end an evil regime and the country has oil to exploit.... er export.
Iraq makes more sense to me.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way.
Vietnam was a war to suppoesedly stop the spread of communism but was controlled by politicians who placed caps upon the military of how, where, and when, engagements could be fought.
Iraq was a war to supposedly stop the spread of fear but was controlled by politicians who placed caps upon the military of how, where, and when, engagements could be fought.
In both cases we engaged outselves in an unwinnable war, unless world condemnation, action, and resolution could be sought. In both wars we hamstrung our military by putting political interests ahead of what should actually be done.
Some evidence of this was political pressure to disassemble the military (similar to the de-nazification after WW2), which flooded the Insurgency with fresh bodies trained in tactics. Furthermore, we had the opportunity to kill the main body of the Faydaeen, only to bypass them to head for a mirage-victory (Baghdad).
Both engagements ignored the basic premise of warfare that have been established for more than a thousand years. Why? Both engagements were controlled by Politicos.
Iraq is the modern day Vietnam. War based upon fear, predicated upon lies, controlled by political masters, and resulting in nothing but wasted bodies and money.
Vietnam was a war to suppoesedly stop the spread of communism but was controlled by politicians who placed caps upon the military of how, where, and when, engagements could be fought.
Iraq was a war to supposedly stop the spread of fear but was controlled by politicians who placed caps upon the military of how, where, and when, engagements could be fought.
In both cases we engaged outselves in an unwinnable war, unless world condemnation, action, and resolution could be sought. In both wars we hamstrung our military by putting political interests ahead of what should actually be done.
Some evidence of this was political pressure to disassemble the military (similar to the de-nazification after WW2), which flooded the Insurgency with fresh bodies trained in tactics. Furthermore, we had the opportunity to kill the main body of the Faydaeen, only to bypass them to head for a mirage-victory (Baghdad).
Both engagements ignored the basic premise of warfare that have been established for more than a thousand years. Why? Both engagements were controlled by Politicos.
Iraq is the modern day Vietnam. War based upon fear, predicated upon lies, controlled by political masters, and resulting in nothing but wasted bodies and money.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY THANK YOU. Unfortunatley though I relized pretty quickly that the type of people I was dealing with wouldn't relize this point. Therefore It was no sense in me continuing (arguing with a child, arguing with a wall). Both wars yes had different context. However they way they are being fought is similar. They were both mainly longer then we suspected.....
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,099
- 4,744
- 126
Sounds like you intended what I posted above. You wanted a comparison to the Soviet Union/Afghanistan war in the 1980s. Go look it up. You'll be amazed at the comparisons (including the virtually identical amount of soldiers killed year after year in a non-winnable war with insurgents). Sure the US/Iraq war started a bit differently than the Soviet/Afghan war, but the purpose was the same - to change the government. And the results so far are exactly the same. Heck, even the region of the world is about the same.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
1st Re: "Both engagements ignored the basic premise of warfare that have been established for more than a thousand years. Why? Both engagements were controlled by Politicos."
Pretty much all wars are, and have been, controlled by "politicos". Whether it be Kings, dictators, Presidents or Parlimenory type bodies. I'll skip on comments regarding other quotes from above.
Otherwise the entire premise is fallacious, IMHO.
Unlike in Vietnam, Saddam and his government was toppled/defeated in a matter of weeks. That didn't happen in Vietnam.
In fact, it happened so fast Politicos didn't get a chance to meddle, as in Vietnam.
In Iraq, we are sucking at rebuilding etc. never got that far in Vietnam.
Iraq =! Vietnam
Iraq has sectarian strife (Shia vs. Sunni). I am unaware of such a thing in Vietnam (communist vs. non-commiunist, not theocratic strife)
Iraq has ethnic problems, Arabs vs Kurds. I am unaware of such a cause for internal strife in Vietnam.
Etc, etc, etc
Fern
You can draw some allusion to Vietnam (mainly a seemingly unwinnable war) but the main parts of it are quite different (# of soldier deaths, tactics, politics, etc.).
And I would agree with dullard that this is closer to Afghanistan in the 1980s than it is to Vietnam.
And I would agree with dullard that this is closer to Afghanistan in the 1980s than it is to Vietnam.
Hey, Tom, the insurgents are doing OK at killing U.S. soldiers. Want to check it out, go to Coalition Casualties Click on the # 5 to get the details of U.S. deaths. It only goes until 9/10/06 but there have been 25 U.S. deaths so far in September. If fewer people had your "My dad can lick your dad" attitude, we might not have gone into Iraq in the first place.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Of course you can make the claim that all wars are controlled by politicos and that may even be true (but I don't agree with it), but also most wars are not micromanaged by politicos to the point that restrictions upon the military by politicos puts the military in a perilous position. With Vietnam is was restriction of targets and the warfare the military could persue.
With Iraq it was the strength of the invading army, the goals and objectives (political rather than strategic), the aftermath (disbanding of the Iraqi military), the limitations placed upon the military as a result of political decisions (Afghanistan).
You can argue statistics (kills), but even that hides the true nature of the struggle, especially considering we were in Viet Nam from 56 to 75. 19 years is a dang long time. Furthermore, the medical equipment, armor, personal protection, medical training, closeness to good medical facilities...etc, have reduced the soldier deaths tremendously, but has done little to mitigate the number of "walking wounded", if anything it has decreased deaths but increased wounded per soldier. So death comparison is going to be heavily skewed by extraneous variables.
It matters little if it is sectarian strife or not, we are caught in the middle of a battlefield quagmire that the politicos have gotten us in to and refuse to do what is needed to get out of (whether full-on committment or pull-out).
The plain fact is, Iraq is another Vietnam in that is a war based upon fear, caused by manipulation of the public, fumbled by many politicians, and wasteful in money and manpower. Both wars are sapping our economy and destroying our future. However, this one is far more disasterous considering the future ramifactions of a 50% increase in soveriegn debt.
Iraq = Iraq....You can't say that Iraq is like Vietnam or anything like WW2. Iraq is a war onto itself. There might be a few similarities but nothing that would make it so you could say that Iraq is a parallel or equal to Vietnam or any other war.
PS - I really laughed a lot at the comparisons between Iraq and post-War World 2 Europe. People who made that claim could not be anymore delusional and incorrect with that comparison.
PS - I really laughed a lot at the comparisons between Iraq and post-War World 2 Europe. People who made that claim could not be anymore delusional and incorrect with that comparison.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter