Iraq
 

Things look like it is falling apart over there. Is it another Nam in the making?

Catch22---As a 10% disabled vetern,I can tell you that there is NO
comparison!Among many things,the ruling regime has been changed.There will never be a Hussien(sp?)city as there is a Ho
Chi Min city(Siagon)Saddam is in jail & his sons are dead.The thing that pisses me off,is that we could have won VN if they left
things up to the soldiers instead of the politicians,& worrying about what everyone thought!Withall of the physically & mentally
disabled,people,not counting the dead,it was never even a war,it was a conflict,as was Korea.All the media reports is the bad news!
They don't tell you about the food,water,etc.As Rambo said in one
of the movies-"Do we get to win this time?"Sorry,a nerve has been hit! Irish
P.S.Those are called "expensive"politicians lies!

Irish, I could not agree with you more!!!! What a disaster VN was. My father was a young serviceman near the end of the VN war and I hate what it did to him!!! Trust politicians to screw things up! War almost never solves problems!

As for the current war, yes things are going badly at the present. My personal opinion is that we should never have entered this war in the first place. Isn't is funny that we thought Sadam was 'the cats pajamas' when we were giving him arms to fight Iran and we just swept under the rug what he was doing to his own people then. It's all politics and oil, and people are dying (and becoming disabled) because of it!

When will the US learn that every dictator that we have supported has turned around and bit us in the butt????

Guess it's one of my nerves too, huh?

curveyredhead---I didn't think that we should have been in VN ,
EITHER,but I swore to do what the Govt. told me to do.I was just
17,when I volentered,& in my youth,I thought that the Govt.wouldn't lie.It's a shame,how many lives were screwed up,
but I'm also shocked at how many people have the attitude of,
Hooray for me & fuck everybody else! Irish
P.S.When you enlist at 17,you take the bad with the good!

My husband is a Vietnam veteran too (2 tours as a U.S. Marine), and I have plenty of memories of that time in our history. Certainly there are some very significant differences between the two wars. I think what people are referring to when they say that this war in Iraq is becoming Bush's Vietnam is that now that we're in there is no easy way out. Not only is there no easy way out, it may be years before we do get out.
This is just my own personal opinion.

SS---It all depends on politics!One side,says that everything is
negative.The other says that it's all positive.I just try to stay out
of the debate now & trust that the other members will figure it all
out. Irish
Some say the glass is 1/2 full.Some say that it's 1/2 empty.I just
know that the glass,is too damn big.My real name is Thomas J
Ahern.The PM of Ireland is Bertie Ahern.If the person wins that I
don't want,I can see my letter now-It starts"Hey Bertie,this is your cousin Tom from America!This guy will really screw things up!
Any openings?"

why don't these ppl say it is Bushes WWII look how many year it was before we left Germany and Japan. Oh yea we are still there.

So any comparison betseen VN and Iraq is like apples and oranges.

a VNV

We may still be in some of the countries we fought in WWII, but our presence there is part of the treaties that were signed that officially ended that war.

As you VNV's know, there was no honorable end to the war in Vietnam. Our government wouldn't let the military fight it the way it should have been fought. Vietnam was mismanaged from Washington. And if you can't do what has to be done, you can't win. But at least in Vietnam we were asked by the government of South Vietnam to be there. We didn't go in of our own accord.

But whether or not you feel this war in Iraq is right or wrong, we are going to have one helluva a time getting out. I believe we've dug ourselves into a hole we can't dig out of.

I know what I do not believe.
 

I do not believe the Egyptians rulers, or any government since, told their people anything that was not beneficial to them selves.

I do not believe any just cause can survive fulfillment.

I do not believe the people that declare wars, fight wars.


This is what I do believe.

It is true Nam was not the same. A landing in the North would have changed everything as it did in Korea. The only worry was China joining in as they did in Korea. I don't think they would have myself. China hates the place and has many times in its history attacked it themselves. With Iraq they need to close the borders. It is Arabs from other places that are making the trouble. Problem doesn't go back to ww2 it goes back to ww1 as far as the Middle East goes. Most of the borders there were drawn up in 1919 at the peace talks. After the fall of the Turkish empire.

Irish,

I do not find any fault with your service! In fact I think anyone who was involved in the 'war' in VN (or any other conflict) deserves our respect and admiration. You (and those who served with you) were ask to do something that no one should be asked to do. My father was a helicopter door gunner in the Army. He was forced to kill a young man (barely more than a boy) who was shooting at the troops he was trying to pick up. I will never know how that feels, nor will I ever know why such a young man would take up a gun and tried to shoot others, what I do know is that when we ask others to put themselves into that position we can never give them back what they loose. And that to me is very sad!

PF,
I agree that the numbers do not lie. Politicians lie, entire governments lie, but the numbers all have faces that do not lie. You might be interested in the link on my forum about permenant human values.

There is a similarity between Viet Nam and Iraq ...

In 1954, the French attempted to colonialize Viet Nam (objective: the rubber forests). The Vietamese would have nothing of it and gave them the boot (Dien Bien Phu). We tried the same thing (failing to learn from the French) and achieved the same result. We were defeated by the oldest known tactic in warfare: guerilla opposition.

While we were carpet bombing the Vietnamese countryside, we were summarily increasing the hostility of those surviving civilians to our presence. Enter the guerillas ... hit and run, blend into the population, disappear! To retaliate, we just mow down the entire crowd of people into which they assimilated themselves. That tactic has shown to unite the various factions of the opposition into a unified population with a unifying cause: to defeat the invading infidels.

Similarily, the British attempted to colonialize Iraq, attempted to establish a colonial government encompassing the three primary tribes of Iraq. They attempted to instill a western style democracy on a primarily Muslim populace with little regard to established customs and beliefs. That failed.

In both instances, we seem to have ignored the lessons of history.

Our activities in Southeast Asia were promulgated primarily on the belief put forth by Eisenhower: The fall of any one democratic nation in Asia will have a domino effect that will foster the growth of communism around the world. Well ... that was wrong too.

Then (Viet Nam) and now (Iraq), our activities in those countries were/are shrouded in lies and deceit by our government.

Lyndon Johnson hoodwinked the American press and the public into believing our march to war was was justified. We had been attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats. And again, as then, Bush and Company has fed the American public and press (and the world) a trough of lies to justify a highly questionable and poorly planned invasion and occupation of a soverign country.

The nightly news in 1968 showed images of B52s saturation bombing the Vietnamese countryside and reported on Viet Cong body counts. We rarely saw similiar images of the body bags coming home or the thousands of wounded in hospital at Subic Bay.

The policies in place then were gradually overturned by an upwelling of public opinion. Robert Macnamara, then Secretary of Defense, said as early as 1967 that we had failed to properly account for the differences in ethnicity, customs, and beliefs, that we had failed to empathize with the goals and objectives of the Vietnamese people and the country we were attempting to occupy and should consider withdrawing. That was 1967!! -- we continued on with our slaughter of each other for five more years. (And Macnamara was ostracized for his beliefs)

Our technically superior "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq has been replaced, again, by an inept attempt to colonialize and unify a country consisting mainly of disparate tribes with differing beliefs that have resisted such efforts for thousands of years. They are suspicious of one another, they don't trust one another, and have only one seemingly unifying direction at this point: They trust us less and they want less of us than their tribal rivals.

And we exacerbated the problem by attempting to put one of our puppets in place as the leader of the now almost defunct "Iraqi Governing Council".

"Last year the neocons tried to install Mr. Chalabi in power, even ferrying his private army into Iraq just behind our advancing troops. It turned out that he had no popular support, and by now it's obvious that suspicions that we're trying to put Mr. Chalabi on the throne are fueling Iraqi distrust." NY Times - April 13, 2004.

And again, in Iraq as in Viet Nam, we chose to invoke a unilateral action against a soverign country on false pretenses. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was based on a sham -- there were no torpedo attacks on the USS Maddox ...
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

And it might be noted also that no nation with whom we were allied at that time chose to join us in Viet Nam.

And in 2003, another unilateral action against a soverign country, without allied support, without allied involvement. And there were no WMDs in Iraq, there were no nuclear weapons, and the leader of that country was off writing romance novels.

And again our major allies want no part of the killing of their sons and daughters on behalf of one of America's questionable conquests. We have squandered our good will around the world.

Again, Robert Macnamara: If the US is about to engage in such a sobering enterprise as the invasion of another country and cannot enlist the support of other nations and allies who maintain similar beliefs, ethics, and morals as our own, then perhaps we should rethink what we are about to do.

A lesson learned only by soldiers, not politicians.:( -----^

Australia was very much with the US in Nam. The saying at the time was 'All the way with LBJ.' We have also been fully with the US on Iraq. Alas, Wilson in 1919 didn't get what he hoped and both the British and French wanted to gain more for their Empires. Japan joined in and we know how that turned out.

I have,personally,never seen the damage done by WMDs,but I
have seen & talked with people that were raped or tortured.It's
something that you don't easily forget.It's already done & all that you can do is to Thank God(Allah,whatever)that it wasn't done to
a loved one of yours.This was my main concern.With Saddam &
sons gone,at least that won't be done anymore.I,personally.never
believed politicians anyway.I haven't seen many campaign promises fulfilled! Irish

Like you Irish, I am a DAV, and am proud of my service to this great nation. In my opinion Iraq is nothing like Nam because of one distinct difference - The military is getting all the support they want from the white house to make things happen. To bad this is an election year, Kerry is really making some of our dedicated troops feel bad by associating Iraq with VN. My son is in the AF and tells me that most of the troops are worried that the American public will turn on them like they did to the VN vets, and Mr. Kerry is using that fact for political reasons.

Just some things to think about.

FDR led us into WWII, Germany never attacked us, Japan did. From 41 to 45
450,000 lives lost, avg 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started the war with Korea, Korea never
attacked us. 50 to 53 55,000 lives lost avg of 18,333 per year.

JFK started Vietnam, Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 65 to 75 58,000 lives lost,
5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia w/o UN or French Consent. Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Ladens head 3 times by Sudam and did
nothing.

In 2 years since 9-11, President Bush has liberated 2 countries, crushed
the Taliban, crippled the al-Quida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran,
and North Korea w/o firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an avg. of 300 a year.
Bush did all of this abroad, while not allowing another terrorist attack at
home.

The democrats are saying he is the worst President ever, but . . .

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Dravidian compound, that was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
Sadam's Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the
police after his Olds sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida

I missed it...when did we "take Iraq"?????...our service people are getting killed there everyday!

Sorry Lilith, taking is used in its military context. When the military takes a position, it doesn't mean the fighting stops. They still have to keep the position, which in some instances means that some of the troops will die to keep it.

Not quite, EISENHOWER signed the agreement with S. Vietnam that JFK honored when he sent the first advisers to Vietnam.

Right kind of like Vietnam:rolleyes:

Still not quite, JFK changed the agreement, He ordered the change from advisors to combatants, which authorized the deployment of full military combat units to the conflict.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life ,Bush lied about WMD and is patted on his back? something wrong here!In Iraq we are no longer fighting an army we are fighting a religon there is no winning that

This is the MAIN reason,that I try to avoid political threads now!
Everyone has their opinions on what happened & there is no winner,Just arguements.I think of VN,everyday,when I put my pants on.When I see that scar on my hip,I think,what a waste!
I am a "conflict casualty".To be a "War Heroe",you have to be in a war! Irish
P.S.Just my $.02.
P.P.S.It doesn't make alot of difference,who's to blame!The scar is still there.

((hugs)) some of us make our own classification of who is and is not a "hero" ...if you tried to save my ass and keep me safe then you get that distinction regardless of what it's officially called.


And honestly, isn't my admiration and respect better than any government sanctioned title????????:D:D:p:rolleyes:

It is to me... :D

You are not bringing babies out of a burning house or suffering to save an animal in distress. Heroes make choices. There are no WAR heroes. Only very scared men that are moving.

THAT one you can take to the bank!

And LBJ lied when he said our troops were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin just so he'd have reason to send combatant troops.

I don't think there were any U.S. combatants on the ground in Vietnam prior to JFK's assassination. But I may be wrong. PF, can you help me out here??

PantyFanatic,

I find your claim very interesting. I presume you can substantiate it. Irish and having_fun are drawing upon their experiences. Are you?

I am under the impression that not only are there heroes in war, but also that the act of engaging in a battle can be virtuous behavior.

Care to expand on your assertions?

Lilith,

I thought that irish was referring to the English noun, rather than a government sanctioned title.

Thank You!I have gotten used to people just not giving a shit!
Most of the time,you're shooting at someone,because,if you don't,
he will shoot you!I think that I'm pretty brave(foolish)but anyone,
who has been in combat & down deep,isn't scared,is full of shit!
Irish

jseal,
Then I suggest you look deeper into what he is saying. My understanding is he is speaking of a discrimination that he feels based on the fact that Vietnam is not considered a war although the men who fought in it and bear the scars know better. It has nothing to do with logic and/or parts of speech.


As for PF, I know that he has extremely personal feelings about his experiences, and he speaks from whence he came.

Lilith,

I find it useful to avoid reading too much into what others say. I have found that an unconvoluted interpretation of what people say commonly exposes the greatest meaning. People usually say what they mean. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. My experience, of course, your mileage may differ.

As for PantyFanatic’s extremely personal feelings; I presume that they are as important to him as are the interior experiences of anyone. It was the external statements I found engaging.

Sharni,

Well, all adults are entitled to their opinions.

Please lord help me keep my mouth shut.

You and me both, Scarecrow. I've said all I dare say without getting sent to the dungeon. Just wait till PF checks back.














*gets a cold drink and sits back and waits*

Sorry this has gone touchy. The shooting war there was won. What is going on there now is something else. M1 tanks were designed to blow up t-72 tanks. Which last year they did. You can not police streets with battle tanks against people not in uniform. My father was in ww2 and never recovered from his experiences of island warfare. My mothers first hubby was killed has a pow on a Jap death march. I missed the call up for Nam by a couple of months. It ended just before my 17th birthday.