The Vietnam War

[Brutuskend]

Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Ever since WWII our country has made it a habit of sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong or isn't wanted.

Viet Nam will NOT be the last.

IMO if you follow the $$$ you will see why we get involved in things like this. In Nam it was about rubber, Iraq oil.

I agree, however, look at the death count. The second Iraq starts to even compare to the number of people who died during the Vietnam conflict, then I will be really pissed off.

Wow... with the original Brutuskend comment, I can't believe how much ignorance and empty generalities some people on this board comes up with. There's a difference in context. Nam was about the containment of communism. Much like how we are currently preventing the take over of Taiwan from China. If Iraq was about Oil, how come we didn't jack all the oil after the first Gulf War?

 

[ed21x]

R

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

Brutuskend, you are 100% right about Viet Nam being about money and not fighting Communism. It wasn't rubber, though, it was the Military/Industrial Complex. It was Capitalism at its worst.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Ever since WWII our country has made it a habit of sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong or isn't wanted.

Viet Nam will NOT be the last.

IMO if you follow the $$$ you will see why we get involved in things like this. In Nam it was about rubber, Iraq oil.

I agree, however, look at the death count. The second Iraq starts to even compare to the number of people who died during the Vietnam conflict, then I will be really pissed off.

Wow... with the original Brutuskend comment, I can't believe how much ignorance and empty generalities some people on this board comes up with. There's a difference in context. Nam was about the containment of communism. Much like how we are currently preventing the take over of Taiwan from China. If Iraq was about Oil, how come we didn't jack all the oil after the first Gulf War?

If China wanted to move into Taiwan there is absolutely nothing we, the U.S., could do about it short of nuclear war. If/when China decides it's time we will back off and let them have it.

 

[DT4K]

Whether or not it was valid, the fear of communism was very real. Not just some cover story.
And as said, if Iraq was about money and oil, why is the Bush admin fighting AGAINST the idea of forcing Iraq to repay the rebuilding costs out of oil revenues. I find it interesting that the democrats were the ones saying it was all for oil, and now they are the one's who want us to get a piece of the pie.

I still have not received a reasonable explanation from the "no blood for oil" crowd on how exactly this is going to end up being a profitable venture for us. If you could show me some numbers and explain it to me, I might have a little more respect for what I consider to be an ignorant opinion based on Bush bashing rather than on fact.

 

[Brutuskend]

Even if what you say is true. Who are WE to decide what kind of government another country lives under?

And if that's ALL it was about for US, for THEM it was about reuniting their country, just as Korea was for the Koreans.

Why is communism such a threat to US and way if NOT for the economical aspects involved? So even if it was to stop communism, in the end it STILL boils down to $$ doesn't it?

Brutuskend, you are 100% right about Viet Nam being about money and not fighting Communism. It wasn't rubber, though, it was the Military/Industrial Complex. It was Capitalism at its worst.

That's very true. I think most wars we have been in since WWII boiled down to that. We make new weapons and have to prove they work before we can sell them to the other countries that are in the market.

Sad, but that's the way it goes.

 

[burnedout]

I hear many of the older vets making valid comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Ever since our forces crossed the berm in March, I've often wondered the same.

Others make comparisons as well

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Even if what you say is true. Who are WE to decide what kind of government another country lives under?

And if that's ALL it was about for US, for THEM it was about reuniting their country, just as Korea was for the Koreans.

Why is communism such a threat to US and way if NOT for the economical aspects involved? So even if it was to stop communism, in the end it STILL boils down to $$ doesn't it?

I agreed with you, dude. It was all about money and power. The military wanted to play with all of its new weapons and the military manufacturing corporations wanted to sell more toys. It's all $ in the end.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: Kev
whats up with that 3rd one?

That picture or another from a different angle was the cover of Time or Newsweek following the incident. I don't remember the woman's name but I recall she wasn't a student. Crosby Stills and Nash capitalized on the episode with a song "Ohio". I was very young when that happened.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

Brutuskend, you are 100% right about Viet Nam being about money and not fighting Communism. It wasn't rubber, though, it was the Military/Industrial Complex. It was Capitalism at its worst.

I'm willing to lay part of the reasoning for Vietnam on the MIC but Eisenhower set the wheels in motion with the whole domino theory. Kennedy made it inevitable that the U.S. would play a large part in Vietnam when he sent the first advisors over.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: Kev
whats up with that 3rd one?

Your school failed to inform you of this event?

Yea the Vietnam War was horrible, but the Iraq situation now is horrible in it's own ways.

I am sure 20 years from now, people will say the same thing about the current war.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Even if what you say is true. Who are WE to decide what kind of government another country lives under?

And if that's ALL it was about for US, for THEM it was about reuniting their country, just as Korea was for the Koreans.

Why is communism such a threat to US and way if NOT for the economical aspects involved? So even if it was to stop communism, in the end it STILL boils down to $$ doesn't it?

Brutuskend, you are 100% right about Viet Nam being about money and not fighting Communism. It wasn't rubber, though, it was the Military/Industrial Complex. It was Capitalism at its worst.

That's very true. I think most wars we have been in since WWII boiled down to that. We make new weapons and have to prove they work before we can sell them to the other countries that are in the market.

Sad, but that's the way it goes.

Hey, I wasn't defending the Vietnam war. I didn't say we had the right to tell them what kind of government to have. I was only arguing that the motivation for getting involved originally was the fear of the spread of communism. Not economic gain.
At the time, communism countries like the USSR were some of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
I think we feared our destruction and loss of freedom at the hands of communism far more than simply worrying that our government would end up being communist.

You guys thinking we start wars just to test our technology need to put down all the conspiracy books you've been reading.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: burnedout
I hear many of the older vets making valid comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Ever since our forces crossed the berm in March, I've often wondered the same.

Others make comparisons as well

We are never going to make Iraq into a mecca of Democracy in the Middle East. I don't care how long we stay or how many are killed. In fact, the longer we stay the worse it will get.

When we sent our first troops into Viet Nam we weren't taking massive casualties, just like in Iraq. The longer we stayed, though, the more they turned against us and our body count edged up.

Do the math. We were in VN for about 9 years:
58,000 dead Americans/9 years/365 days per year = about 17 killed per day.

In Iraq the death toll for our troops is gradually and steadily rising.

Yes, I'm a VN Vet and I see many parallels.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: Kev
whats up with that 3rd one?

Your school failed to inform you of this event?

Yea the Vietnam War was horrible, but the Iraq situation now is horrible in it's own ways.

I am sure 20 years from now, people will say the same thing about the current war.

You guys have got to be kidding right?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: burnedout
I hear many of the older vets making valid comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Ever since our forces crossed the berm in March, I've often wondered the same.

Others make comparisons as well

We are never going to make Iraq into a mecca of Democracy in the Middle East. I don't care how long we stay or how many are killed. In fact, the longer we stay the worse it will get.

When we sent our first troops into Viet Nam we weren't taking massive casualties, just like in Iraq. The longer we stayed, though, the more they turned against us and our body count edged up.

Do the math. We were in VN for about 9 years:
58,000 dead Americans/9 years/365 days per year = about 17 killed per day.

In Iraq the death toll for our troops is gradually and steadily rising.

Yes, I'm a VN Vet and I see many parallels.

Did we effectively have full control of 95% of the country and virtually all the enemy facilities within 3 weeks of sending troops?
No.
Did the vietnamese want us there?
No.
How can you even make the comparison.

EDIT: why don't you think Iraq can be a democratic country? The people there have expressed a great desire for freedom and democracy. It is one of the least fundamentally religious countries in the region. It neighbors Iran, which has a very large number of young people actively engaged in the pursuit of democratic reforms. It has a large amount of oil to bring in the needed income for a prosperous democratic government. I think Iraq is one of the most likely places for a successful democratic government.

 

[Brutuskend]

How can you even make the comparison.

IMO the main comparison is THIS. We are in a country that doesn't want us there, trying to change things that the majority of the people may or may not want changed and we are doing it by force of arms.

In the long run I seriously doubt it will turn out well.

 

[dartworth]

I'm sorry, but by no means does the US have control in Iraq.

The US needs to dig in and prepare itself for a long and bloodly conflict.🙁

Yes, Iraq will parallel Vietnam in many ways.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: burnedout
I hear many of the older vets making valid comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. Ever since our forces crossed the berm in March, I've often wondered the same.

Others make comparisons as well

We are never going to make Iraq into a mecca of Democracy in the Middle East. I don't care how long we stay or how many are killed. In fact, the longer we stay the worse it will get.

When we sent our first troops into Viet Nam we weren't taking massive casualties, just like in Iraq. The longer we stayed, though, the more they turned against us and our body count edged up.

Do the math. We were in VN for about 9 years:
58,000 dead Americans/9 years/365 days per year = about 17 killed per day.

In Iraq the death toll for our troops is gradually and steadily rising.

Yes, I'm a VN Vet and I see many parallels.

Yeah, my dad's been saying the same thing. He's especially nervous with my little brother getting commissioned in the spring (Army)

His opinion on Iraq: We've done our job. Let's come home.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

IMO the main comparison is THIS. We are in a country that doesn't want us there, trying to change things that the majority of the people may or may not want changed and we are doing it by force of arms.

In the long run I seriously doubt it will turn out well.

I don't think that is true at all. Everybody who has spent significant time there has reported that the attacks on US soldiers are not an illustration of the majority attitude. According to most sources, the vast majority of people there are supportive of our troops.

Originally posted by: dartworth
I'm sorry, but by no means does the US have control in Iraq.

The US needs to dig in and prepare itself for a long and bloodly conflict.🙁

Yes, Iraq will parallel Vietnam in many ways.

How can you say we do not have control?
It is a country of 30 million people and we have only taken a couple hundred casualties.
Of course it's not perfect, but with that many people, you couldn't possibly expect things to have gone any better.
The attacks are isolated incidents being committed by a very very small minority of the Iraqi population. There is no Saddam government left there. There is no Iraqi army left there. We have control of all the government and military facilities. One or two casualties a day friom terrorist attacks does not mean we don't have control. It means there are still people around who are loyal to Saddam or have come in from Iran or Syria for the opportunity to try to kill Americans.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Yeah, my dad's been saying the same thing. He's especially nervous with my little brother getting commissioned in the spring (Army)

His opinion on Iraq: We've done our job. Let's come home.

Problem is that if we just packed up and left now, it would be total chaos and who knows who would move into the power vacuum that would be left.
I do agree that we must do everything we can to get a stable, popular government in place as soon as possible. And that will be a difficult challenge.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

IMO the main comparison is THIS. We are in a country that doesn't want us there, trying to change things that the majority of the people may or may not want changed and we are doing it by force of arms.

In the long run I seriously doubt it will turn out well.

I don't think that is true at all. Everybody who has spent significant time there has reported that the attacks on US soldiers are not an illustration of the majority attitude. According to most sources, the vast majority of people there are supportive of our troops.

I'm just speaking from personal experience here, but the people who I have talked to from surrounding countries say the opposite. Palestinians, Iranians, etc... Many Iraqis are glad that saddam is gone, but they want their country in their own hands and want us out.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Yeah, my dad's been saying the same thing. He's especially nervous with my little brother getting commissioned in the spring (Army)

His opinion on Iraq: We've done our job. Let's come home.

Problem is that if we just packed up and left now, it would be total chaos and who knows who would move into the power vacuum that would be left.
I do agree that we must do everything we can to get a stable, popular government in place as soon as possible. And that will be a difficult challenge.

Agreed. It's a bad situation, I just think our chances of doing it right/getting out clean are very small from past history with setting up other governments in other countries.

 

[Brutuskend]

It means there are still people around who are loyal to Saddam or have come in from Iran or Syria for the opportunity to try to kill Americans.

Sorta like those who came into Nam from Cambodia and Laos?

It's still a guerilla war fought by guerilla warriors, and they seldom turn out well for the occupiers.

 

[oLLie]

What did the professor say about the second picture? Did he imply or outright state that U.S. forces dropped napalm on her village, because IIRC that is incorrect.

Turin39789 sez:

Agreed. It's a bad situation, I just think our chances of doing it right/getting out clean are very small from past history with setting up other governments in other countries.

I'd say Germany (#3 GDP I believe), Japan (#2 GDP), are successes of U.S. nation-building policy following a military victory. I don't know enough about the situation in Afghanistan to call it a success or a failure. What countries are you talking about when you say we have a "very small" chance of "doing it right" (setting up a government, a.k.a. nation-building)? Maybe one example you were thinking of is Somalia, in which case maybe we don't agree on what the U.S. purpose in Somalia was.

*edit* not sure if the second comment I made above is coming across as patronizing or not. I'm not claiming that we are 100% successful at nation-building, I'm honestly curious about what countries would be considered failures of U.S. nation-building. 🙂