It seems that one of the main differences has been the death toll and the death toll per week; however, if I remember my American history correctly there were a few different phases in Vietnam with differing levels of engagement by US troops. Wouldn't it be more correct to compare the death toll for the first few years in Vietnam to Iraq now?
Question about comparisons with Iraq to Vietnam...
- Thread starter Orsorum
- Start date
It has nothing nothing to do with death tolls. It has everything to do with being lied to by the government, the lie being supported by congress,and the fact no plausable exit strategy was implemented, leaving the chaos of government in the hands of tyrants.
In one overused word, quagmire (I don't even know if I spelled it right). It is not a good sign to anyone that for months our troops are killed daily by those people this administration claimed would welcome us with open arms, worshiping us for freeing them from Saddam. The US should not be nation building and dictating to an Arab country the government and leaders it will have. Some day, people are going to wake up and see this precedent being set now can be used against us,and rightly so, if our governmewnt and leadeship is determined by another powerful country to not be in the best interest of the world at large. That is EXACTLY what we have done in Iraq.
This is why Bush should be run out of office on a rail, tarred and feathered would be nice. This is HIS war, not mine. My war is with terrorists. They are a couple countries to the east of Iraq, in Afghanistan as I recall. Anyone remember we had a campaign to get rid of Osama and his ilk? I 'm not sure,but I believe at last count, we had about 20000 troops bivwacked there, but about 120,000 in Iraq. You can bet your life I see this as a personal vendetta against Saddam that Bush jr. got us into, and you can bank on this, he hasn't got a freakin clue how to get us out.
Nixon got elected on a promisre to end the Viet Nam war. I voted for him because he said he had a plan to end the war. That was the first rude awakening I had. Burn me once, shame on me, burn me twice, shame on them.
Vote for Kerry, 2004. He will get this finished with honor. And, a hell of a lot more than Bush when it comes to domestic and foreign policy.
Bush, the only ptresident since WWII to leave us with net unemployment. What a wonder this tard is, and all those who follow him. What an embarassment. :disgust:
The longer we are in Iraq the more we will need to take advantage of base camps and firebases. They may be called something different, but they are the same. Settling into the camps we will send out patrols and begin search and destroy missions. Our troops will do their duty but, on occasion, they will flip out and waste the wrong people.
No, this is not Viet Nam. This Iraq. It is, however, a bad situation with no predefined exit strategy.
God bless our troops and the Iraqi people.
No, this is not Viet Nam. This Iraq. It is, however, a bad situation with no predefined exit strategy.
God bless our troops and the Iraqi people.
in the long run the only real "exit strategy" is really one of two options win...or lose. period. war plans, campaign plans, battle plans, platoon/squad level assault plans all have one thing in common, as soon as the fighting starts, plans go out the window and adaptations must be made on the fly...this is the nature of war.
"exit strategy" is political term that beyond politics has no real meaning.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."- Winston Churchill
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
Logistically speaking there are some huge differences between Vietnam and Iraq.
In Vietnam, there were actually two forces - the NVA, and the VC. The NVA were "regular" military troops; the VC were guerillas or insurgents if you prefer. There is no equivalent to the NVA in the current conflict.
Vietnam had the support of world powers in the form of China and the Soviet Union, both of which supplied troops and materiel. This is very much not the case in Iraq. The hardware the insurgents have is limited mostly to assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
In addition to support from the Communists, the Vietnamese had a resupply pipeline in the form of the Ho Chi Minh trail to move troops and supplies through Laos and Cambodia. No such pipeline exists in Iraq; the Sunni triangle isn't convenient to any borders.
Additionally, the insurgency is centered in a relatively small portion of Iraq; elsewhere things are much more peaceful. And while al Sadr has called for an uprising against the Americans, no large scale resistance has occured. The insurgents seem to mainly consist of his followers - and that is a finite number, again, in a limited geographic area. And for every radical like al Sadr there are a dozen or more clerics who are preaching peace.
I honestly think that things are coming to a head in Iraq. Once al Sadr and his followers are dealt with, I believe that the handover will happen, and the Iraqi people will see that we are not going to abandon them to their fate as we did in the first Gulf War.
In Vietnam, there were actually two forces - the NVA, and the VC. The NVA were "regular" military troops; the VC were guerillas or insurgents if you prefer. There is no equivalent to the NVA in the current conflict.
Vietnam had the support of world powers in the form of China and the Soviet Union, both of which supplied troops and materiel. This is very much not the case in Iraq. The hardware the insurgents have is limited mostly to assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
In addition to support from the Communists, the Vietnamese had a resupply pipeline in the form of the Ho Chi Minh trail to move troops and supplies through Laos and Cambodia. No such pipeline exists in Iraq; the Sunni triangle isn't convenient to any borders.
Additionally, the insurgency is centered in a relatively small portion of Iraq; elsewhere things are much more peaceful. And while al Sadr has called for an uprising against the Americans, no large scale resistance has occured. The insurgents seem to mainly consist of his followers - and that is a finite number, again, in a limited geographic area. And for every radical like al Sadr there are a dozen or more clerics who are preaching peace.
I honestly think that things are coming to a head in Iraq. Once al Sadr and his followers are dealt with, I believe that the handover will happen, and the Iraqi people will see that we are not going to abandon them to their fate as we did in the first Gulf War.
dont you know the left does not care about any real differences? they want to tie the two together no matter what.
I've never stated that I wanted to pool the two together, it was just a question I had as someone had mentioned the similarly low death toll in the early years of Vietnam as well.
If that was not your intent, my apologies.
X-Man, very good post; I remember those elements from my class project on Vietnam (I actually spent a good thirty minutes talking on it, I loved learning about it, but my classmates hated me for it), just hadn't thought about it in a while.
Cheers!
Nate
I think the only comparison I can think of is, it's a situation our president got us into unwillingly, with no fvcking way to get out of it.. and he can't be bothered to attend the funerals of the 18yr old kids that come back in body bags. He has to take those paid vacation days after all, they be free
Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. We can win the battles, but there is no war to win. Confused?
We are engaged in a conflict with an enemy that is a thousand years behind the Western World socially and culturally. We can police them, feed them and give them medical care, but the moment we withdraw they will revert to what is comfortable to them.
You and I, for example, were raised to respect all others as equals and to tolerate dissenting values. In the Musim world this is not a given. They segregate and divide their own people. Their radicals proclaim that the world will not be a proper place until every man, woman and child subjects themself to their beliefs. This is unacceptable to most of the Western world.
Can we win? No. Can we slow them down? Yes.
How much stamina do you have?
We are engaged in a conflict with an enemy that is a thousand years behind the Western World socially and culturally. We can police them, feed them and give them medical care, but the moment we withdraw they will revert to what is comfortable to them.
You and I, for example, were raised to respect all others as equals and to tolerate dissenting values. In the Musim world this is not a given. They segregate and divide their own people. Their radicals proclaim that the world will not be a proper place until every man, woman and child subjects themself to their beliefs. This is unacceptable to most of the Western world.
Can we win? No. Can we slow them down? Yes.
How much stamina do you have?
i think you will kill too many people and try and creat a patsy government that is alienated from the grass roots.
i agree mostly
the usa is far from tolerant and respectfull of others though. George Bush "protecting marriage" is a good example of the leadership not treating all people as equals. A lot of people are a lot more tolerant and respectfull of others than before but i still frequently encounter racists and homophobes and even the occasional sexist person and i'm in California which is suppose to be the big liberal state.
i dunno i'm just ranting but it seems to me we're not as great as we'd like to believe
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
"if I remember my American history correctly there were a few different phases in Vietnam with differing levels of engagement by US troops. Wouldn't it be more correct to compare the death toll for the first few years in Vietnam to Iraq now?"
Interesting that you would choose to post this today - there's an article in the local rag.
Ft. Worth Star
From the article it points out that whereas we have neen involved in Iraq for just over 12 months
- into our 13th month of force presence, our losses total nearly 700, over 500 by combat,
and nearly 100 more just these last 2weeks alone.
Our involvement in Viet Nam began in 1959 under Eisenhower- and we had not totaled 500 combat
fatalities in 'Nam until we had been there for 6 years - that was in 1965 under Johnson.
The transition of leadership from Ike to JFK and then to LBJ resulted in an escalation in both
political involvement and presence of force.
From 1965 through the end of 1966, the year I entered 'Nam, there had been an additional 3,400 -
that's nearly 10 each day -but there were long boring days separated by days of terror, where the
KIA/WIA was reminisant of when the Indians had trapped George Custer and his Merry Men.
It took 'Nam 6 years to de-evolve to where the population had turned against our support,
andit took an additional 8 years for the countries leadership to figure out that they had errored.
We could have negotiated out at any time prior to what we got with Kissinger in Paris -
and may have gotten better terms of disengagement, at least would have not lost more Soldiers.
We are now involved in combat in an area that has a history of expelling foriegn agents from their land.
Comparison to 'Nam ? Exactly alike but completely different.
The polititians of '60 - '75 didn't get it, and never hesitated to throw our soldiers at their agendas.
And then spend the next few years meddling in military affairs, instead of letting the military do it's job.
The polititians are doing the same arrogant meddling again, it's the patriotic thing - for elite cowards.
They themselves do no dirty work, they send boys to die for their Conservative Values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-reading some of the comments from HPup & S'Hawk it's brings a point of 'WIN Vs LOSS' to mind:
Years after our troops had withdrawn from Viet Nam, two of the top Generals from both sides met
to discuss their respective Military HIstory in a face to face session.
The American General reminded the NVA General that the U.S. had defeated the V.C. and NVA in each and every encounter -
never lost a single battle, and that the U.S. had established a kill ratio of over 10:1.
The NVA General replied, "True - but irrelevant".
They could have waited us out forever - we were the forigners in their land, we knew not their ways.
In many instances we have repeated the posture that we took in 'Nam in Iraq.
There's more to embracing Democracy that crushing a foe with military strength.
The Soviet Union tried that over and over in the '50's and '60's, oninto the '80's -
and look where that tookthem to today - a bankrupt shell of their former Empire.
Similar path to Germany under Hitler - Military clobbering then colapse of society.
<CLIP>==========================================================================
With fighting in Iraq now at its worst, the number of U.S. troops killed by enemy fire has reached the highest level since the Vietnam War.
The first part of April has been the bloodiest period so far for U.S. troops in Iraq. There have been 98 deaths by hostile fire so far this month, more than in the opening two weeks of the invasion, when 82 Americans were killed in action.
"This has been some pretty intense fighting," said David Segal, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization. "We're looking at what happened during the major battles of Vietnam."
The last time U.S. troops experienced a two-week loss such as this one in Iraq was October 1971, two years before U.S. ground involvement ended in Vietnam.
There are 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Nearly 700 American troops have died since the beginning of the war. As of Sunday, 503 had been reported killed in action. At least 3,630 more have been wounded.
The Vietnam War started with a slower death rate. The United States had been involved in Vietnam for six years before total fatalities surpassed 500 in 1965, the year President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a massive buildup of forces. There were 20,000 troops in Vietnam by the end of 1964. There were more than 200,000 a year later.
By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.
Interesting that you would choose to post this today - there's an article in the local rag.
Ft. Worth Star
From the article it points out that whereas we have neen involved in Iraq for just over 12 months
- into our 13th month of force presence, our losses total nearly 700, over 500 by combat,
and nearly 100 more just these last 2weeks alone.
Our involvement in Viet Nam began in 1959 under Eisenhower- and we had not totaled 500 combat
fatalities in 'Nam until we had been there for 6 years - that was in 1965 under Johnson.
The transition of leadership from Ike to JFK and then to LBJ resulted in an escalation in both
political involvement and presence of force.
From 1965 through the end of 1966, the year I entered 'Nam, there had been an additional 3,400 -
that's nearly 10 each day -but there were long boring days separated by days of terror, where the
KIA/WIA was reminisant of when the Indians had trapped George Custer and his Merry Men.
It took 'Nam 6 years to de-evolve to where the population had turned against our support,
andit took an additional 8 years for the countries leadership to figure out that they had errored.
We could have negotiated out at any time prior to what we got with Kissinger in Paris -
and may have gotten better terms of disengagement, at least would have not lost more Soldiers.
We are now involved in combat in an area that has a history of expelling foriegn agents from their land.
Comparison to 'Nam ? Exactly alike but completely different.
The polititians of '60 - '75 didn't get it, and never hesitated to throw our soldiers at their agendas.
And then spend the next few years meddling in military affairs, instead of letting the military do it's job.
The polititians are doing the same arrogant meddling again, it's the patriotic thing - for elite cowards.
They themselves do no dirty work, they send boys to die for their Conservative Values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-reading some of the comments from HPup & S'Hawk it's brings a point of 'WIN Vs LOSS' to mind:
Years after our troops had withdrawn from Viet Nam, two of the top Generals from both sides met
to discuss their respective Military HIstory in a face to face session.
The American General reminded the NVA General that the U.S. had defeated the V.C. and NVA in each and every encounter -
never lost a single battle, and that the U.S. had established a kill ratio of over 10:1.
The NVA General replied, "True - but irrelevant".
They could have waited us out forever - we were the forigners in their land, we knew not their ways.
In many instances we have repeated the posture that we took in 'Nam in Iraq.
There's more to embracing Democracy that crushing a foe with military strength.
The Soviet Union tried that over and over in the '50's and '60's, oninto the '80's -
and look where that tookthem to today - a bankrupt shell of their former Empire.
Similar path to Germany under Hitler - Military clobbering then colapse of society.
<CLIP>==========================================================================
With fighting in Iraq now at its worst, the number of U.S. troops killed by enemy fire has reached the highest level since the Vietnam War.
The first part of April has been the bloodiest period so far for U.S. troops in Iraq. There have been 98 deaths by hostile fire so far this month, more than in the opening two weeks of the invasion, when 82 Americans were killed in action.
"This has been some pretty intense fighting," said David Segal, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization. "We're looking at what happened during the major battles of Vietnam."
The last time U.S. troops experienced a two-week loss such as this one in Iraq was October 1971, two years before U.S. ground involvement ended in Vietnam.
There are 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Nearly 700 American troops have died since the beginning of the war. As of Sunday, 503 had been reported killed in action. At least 3,630 more have been wounded.
The Vietnam War started with a slower death rate. The United States had been involved in Vietnam for six years before total fatalities surpassed 500 in 1965, the year President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a massive buildup of forces. There were 20,000 troops in Vietnam by the end of 1964. There were more than 200,000 a year later.
By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."- Winston Churchill
How ironic that this should be posted now. I posted that warning before the war. Few listened then, not many more now.
How ironic that this should be posted now. I posted that warning before the war. Few listened then, not many more now.
The parts I find interesting about X-man's observation are,
Call: "Vietnam had the support of world powers in the form of China and the Soviet Union, both of which supplied troops and materiel. This is very much not the case in Iraq. The hardware the insurgents have is limited mostly to assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades."
Response: Iraq has the support of most of the Muslim world and they've got a lot of money. As to the harware, two points. One, that's all the Vietnamese had, and two, it will be a great comfort to those killed by such insignificant armament.
Call" "In addition to support from the Communists, the Vietnamese had a resupply pipeline in the form of the Ho Chi Minh trail to move troops and supplies through Laos and Cambodia. No such pipeline exists in Iraq; the Sunni triangle isn't convenient to any borders."
Response. True, but Iraq is surrounded by countries hostile to our interests, with the exception of Turkey and Kuwait -- and I wouldn't go to far with Kuwait. Tons of onguarded borders.
Call: "Additionally, the insurgency is centered in a relatively small portion of Iraq; elsewhere things are much more peaceful."
Response: I can't believe you said this. You've got the Shiites cooperating with the Sunnis and Americans alienating people at an astonishing rate.
Call: "I honestly think that things are coming to a head in Iraq. Once al Sadr and his followers are dealt with, I believe that the handover will happen, and the Iraqi people will see that we are not going to abandon them to their fate as we did in the first Gulf War.'
Response: Even if they get Sadr, things will not improve. They will definitely degenerate if they enter Najaf to do it.
Call: "Vietnam had the support of world powers in the form of China and the Soviet Union, both of which supplied troops and materiel. This is very much not the case in Iraq. The hardware the insurgents have is limited mostly to assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades."
Response: Iraq has the support of most of the Muslim world and they've got a lot of money. As to the harware, two points. One, that's all the Vietnamese had, and two, it will be a great comfort to those killed by such insignificant armament.
Call" "In addition to support from the Communists, the Vietnamese had a resupply pipeline in the form of the Ho Chi Minh trail to move troops and supplies through Laos and Cambodia. No such pipeline exists in Iraq; the Sunni triangle isn't convenient to any borders."
Response. True, but Iraq is surrounded by countries hostile to our interests, with the exception of Turkey and Kuwait -- and I wouldn't go to far with Kuwait. Tons of onguarded borders.
Call: "Additionally, the insurgency is centered in a relatively small portion of Iraq; elsewhere things are much more peaceful."
Response: I can't believe you said this. You've got the Shiites cooperating with the Sunnis and Americans alienating people at an astonishing rate.
Call: "I honestly think that things are coming to a head in Iraq. Once al Sadr and his followers are dealt with, I believe that the handover will happen, and the Iraqi people will see that we are not going to abandon them to their fate as we did in the first Gulf War.'
Response: Even if they get Sadr, things will not improve. They will definitely degenerate if they enter Najaf to do it.
This thread is probably one of the best I've seen here recently in terms of keeping on topic and making good arguments on both sides.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned-and since American boys are dying-the only difference between Iraq and Vietnam is the name. We are waist deep in the big muddy, regardless.
-Robert
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned-and since American boys are dying-the only difference between Iraq and Vietnam is the name. We are waist deep in the big muddy, regardless.
-Robert
In Iraq people cheered when Saddam was thrown down.
People cheered when Saddam was captured.
People didn't cheer when they thought they finally had freedom of speech, criticized the US forced staying so long and not giving more power back to the Iraqis, and then saw the newspapers and TV stations voicing that closed down, and leaders be locked up.
People didn't mind Saddam's followers being locked up, but did mind religious leaders being locked up for not agreeing with everything.
The US could have made more friends there by showing their good side, rather than immediately attacking anyone not agreeing with Bush.
People cheered when Saddam was captured.
People didn't cheer when they thought they finally had freedom of speech, criticized the US forced staying so long and not giving more power back to the Iraqis, and then saw the newspapers and TV stations voicing that closed down, and leaders be locked up.
People didn't mind Saddam's followers being locked up, but did mind religious leaders being locked up for not agreeing with everything.
The US could have made more friends there by showing their good side, rather than immediately attacking anyone not agreeing with Bush.
Ditto
but one huge difference this time I see is that we would never ever blame our troops for the what the White House has sent them to do unlike Vietnam.
I was a small kid during that time and had a close family friend over there and I wrote him as a hero. When he came back he was not treated as a Hero by this Country. He was still a Hero to me and he even brought home the pictures and things I wrote to him while he was over there.
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