Iraq = Vietnam part 2?

[Savij]

So do you guys think that this war is going to be a second vietnam for the US? We assumed that Vietnam would be a quick little skirmish and the country seems to be operating under the same assumption now. Just like before, the U.S. is very divided about the war.

I'm starting to think that this will end up being a politically run military campaign and a lot of American soldiers are going to suffer b/c the war will be run by politicians instead of military planners. I wonder if there is a point where we should stop protesting and offer our support to the troops. I feel sorry for the soldiers who signed up, hearts filled with patriotism, after 9/11 and will return to a country where a lot of people are going to hate them because they followed the orders that they were given by the country that they signed up to defend.

I want to know that ATOT thinks on this issue...please don't post about whether or not we should go to war there are 50 million plus other places to discuss that.

-SS

 

[CPA]

No.

 

[Atrail]

No

 

[Fencer128]

The only possible analogy to Vietnam I can see won't be for a war in Iraq - it would be for armed conflict (I really hope it doesn't come to that!!!) in N. Korea.

Andy

 

[Viper GTS]

I don't expect it to be much of a war.

Remember the last one?

I'm sure the people of Iraq do as well.

Viper GTS

 

[Jmman]

We will be in Baghdad within 2 weeks. Game, set, match. Saddam's days are definitely numbered.....

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Savij
So do you guys think that this war is going to be a second vietnam for the US?

Wasn't Kuwait the second Vietnam?

That will make this our 3rd I think

 

[HOWITIS]

big diff, vietnam was a fight for independance. we were fighting to hold their people down. this will be in a desert, and saddam is hated.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: CPA
No.

 

[Aceshigh]

No way. We are going to hit them so hard. It will be over very very quickly.

Yes it will be an unpopular war. But it is the right thing to do. For pressing the unpopular but correct thing to do, I have great respect for George Bush.

 

[Fausto]

I feel sorry for the soldiers who signed up, hearts filled with patriotism, after 9/11 and will return to a country where a lot of people are going to hate them because they followed the orders that they were given by the country that they signed up to defend.

I think you're confused. I've heard nothing but support for our troops from everyone except the most extreme anti-war camps.

 

[neomits]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: CPA
No.

 

[BeauJangles]

No. Vietnam will not be repeated in Iraq for one simple reason: total commitment. The US already has 200,000 soldiers there and Bush is taking this war seriously, not just as "police action." Also, it is a desert, so there won't be as much close combat AND the US has clearly stated it will not fight street battles. I wouldn't want to go and fight in Iraq, and I don't mean to make it sound trivial, but this war will be over relatively quickly (at least the vast majority of fighting). Most of Saddam's men are not 100% loyal and will probably surrender. The others will fight.

 

[Pocatello]

Don't forget Afghanistan. People said that was going to be another Vietnam.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: CPA
No.

NO

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
Don't forget Afghanistan. People said that was going to be another Vietnam.

Ok so we're up to 4. My apologies.

 

[Queasy]

No this will not be another 'Nam. And if anybody 'hates' the soldiers who VOLUNTARILY sign-up to defend out country...well, they need to be smacked upside the head a couple of dozen times.

 

[conjur]

No way!

Look at how the Iraqi 'army' laid down their arms and surrendered during the Gulf War. The French are about the only ones who could have surrendered more quickly!

 

[isaacmacdonald]

not another 'Nam, but if saddam doesn't get killed quickly Baghdad has the potential to be a very sticky area of urban conflict where the casualties are much larger than in the sparsely populated outskirts.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Atrail
No

 

[weeber]

No

 

[jemcam]

The problem in Vietnam was a lack of clear objectives from our nation's politicians. Take the Gulf War in 1991. Our objectives were pretty much as follows:

1. Remove Iraqi military from Kuwait so the Kuwaiti's can have their country back.
2. Disable the Iraqi military as much as possible, make them unable carry out further aggresion for any time in the near future.
3. Have a minimum of friendly casualties.

I'd say we accomplished those goals very well.

The goals for this war is to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate the threat of WMD in Iraq. The only analogy there is between this war and Vietnam is the amount of protesting going on.

The ground war this time will take considerably longer because urban warfare is much more dangerous and will have a significantly higher casualty rate. The city will have to be taken block by block, building by building, floor by floor. That can't be done quickly and safely.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

:Q:Q:Q
Really??