01 Oct 04
In the thread on the Debates tonight, Gatecrasher and I got into a little sidebar regarding the present Iraq mess and the Vietnam war.
Gatecrasher's position was:
Sure, that [Vietnam] was a much greater military disaster, but it did far less damage to the US's prestige, credibilty and standing than Iraq.
Mine was:
I guess this is a little off-topic, but explain why you believe that. Before Vietnam the US was the undisputed leader of the Free World; respected around the world. I don't think US prestige or credibility EVER recovered from Vietnam; the more so because the US stayed and killed hundreds of thousands after it was perfectly clear to the entire world that the war was lost. And the lies of the US government became well known throughout the world: the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, the Pentagon Papers reveletions of deceit, the secret (to the American people that is) bombing of Cambodia, etc. What makes you think that the invasion of Iraq ever could do more harm to the US' "prestige, credibility and standing" than the Vietnam war?
What do other people think and why: Which did more harm to the US' prestige, credibility and standing: the Iraq war or the Vietnam War? It's even open to you real right-wingers who think both of 'em were hunky-dory! So indulge!
01 Oct 04
Interesting Post!
Personally l think that the Iraq war has done more to harm the US internationally, as there is a lot more International Media scutiny nowdays. Also, when US involvement started in Vietnam the cold war was still in full flow, and the US administration of the time did not have to justify itself to the same extent it has been forced to this time round.
If the US had hung around in Vietnam as an occupier (quite a different result to Iraq) it may well have been different.
Cheers,
Martin
01 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderFeb 1961 The U.S. military buildup in Vietnam begins with combat advisors.President John F. Kennedy declares that they will respond if fired upon.
In the thread on the Debates tonight, Gatecrasher and I got into a little sidebar regarding the present Iraq mess and the Vietnam war.
Gatecrasher's position was:
Sure, that [Vietnam] was a much greater military disaster, but it did far less damage to the US's prestige, credibilty and standing than Iraq.
Mine was:
I guess this is a ...[text shortened]... r? It's even open to you real right-wingers who think both of 'em were hunky-dory! So indulge!
Eighteen months in Vietnam takes you to mid 1962, still within the Kennedy administration and over a decade before Saigon's fall. and when support for the war would be almost unquestioned in the West. The Iraq war is Vietnam on speed - I think we are already in 1967 when it started to become obvious the US was winning every battle and losing the war.
Wait another year or so before making comparisions.
01 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by STANGSTANG, while I do support your freedom of expression, spamming the forum with the exact same post just isn't on. You've posted this enough times already; if you desperately want to debate it, do so in your original thread.
How much concern do American's have when allowing for the possibility that the balance of power is going to shift over the next 50 years whilst America continues to be perceived as an aggressor with suspect motives ?
This is a question a ...[text shortened]... candidate is better for the longer term viability of the world ?
01 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderI think one of the problems the US is going to face in the future is that the Vietcong method of fighting the US will appear not as a one-off, but as a solid method for victory.
In the thread on the Debates tonight, Gatecrasher and I got into a little sidebar regarding the present Iraq mess and the Vietnam war.
Gatecrasher's position was:
Sure, that [Vietnam] was a much greater military disaster, but it did far less damage to the US's prestige, credibilty and standing than Iraq.
Mine was:
I guess this is a ...[text shortened]... r? It's even open to you real right-wingers who think both of 'em were hunky-dory! So indulge!
Americans tend to have a gung-ho approach to war and life in general. This comes with great optimism and great strength, but it also is riddled by bad judgement and simplicity. Nowhere is life as simple as we try to make it out to be.
What happened in Vietnam was that the US forces got bogged down. The war just kept on going. No gung-ho, quick fix solution. No, it ended up lasting more than a decade and by that time it's obvious that anyone gung-ho is going to run out of steam. So moral collapses and the back-bone breaks.
The US forces entered Iraq with these very same expectations. The Iraquee's (or militants or whatever you wish to call them) are dragging the war on. And you will see the moral collapse and you will hear the back-bone snap. If not within months, certainly within years.
When this happens, every fighter, soldier, illegal combatant and nation will know how to defeat the US. Just bog them down.
So to answer your question: The Iraq war is far worse for the US in the long run than the Vietnam war. Simply because it reinforces the notion that the US can be defeated, and the method is plain and clear for all to see.
02 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderMy point of view is that Hanoi John Kerry and mr. Peace, aka Jimmy Carter won.
In the thread on the Debates tonight, Gatecrasher and I got into a little sidebar regarding the present Iraq mess and the Vietnam war.
Gatecrasher's position was:
Sure, that [Vietnam] was a much greater military disaster, but it did far less damage to the US's prestige, credibilty and standing than Iraq.
Mine was:
I guess this is a ...[text shortened]... r? It's even open to you real right-wingers who think both of 'em were hunky-dory! So indulge!
Viet Nam was a war against communism.
By losing, they won.
We got Pol Pot and Edi Amin.
And several miner variations on the theme.
So... We saved American and Aussie lives.
And lost what? Moral authority?
Unless you enjoyed the killing fields.
Let's learn from that. Surrender to idealogical killers never is an honorable exit.
Killing them is.
We now face the same test in iraq. Kerry is for the past. Bush sees that we can now win. Without the obstruction of democrats. Like McNamara.
Will we win?
Who knows.
If 'we win'... thousands of civillians will die. And their freedom will be determined by the willingness of the Iraqi people to fight for their own freedom. Nobody can provide it. No freedom has EVER JUST HAPPENED. EVER. IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. People must be willing to fight and die for it.
Will they?
Probably not. They have a 12 thousand year history of just "getting by". That is the price of living in the "cradle of civilization" at the tigris and euphrades.
02 Oct 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWy'Viet Nam was a war against communism.'
My point of view is that Hanoi John Kerry and mr. Peace, aka Jimmy Carter won.
Viet Nam was a war against communism.
By losing, they won.
We got Pol Pot and Edi Amin.
And several miner variations on the theme.
So... We saved American and Aussie lives.
And lost what? Moral authority?
Unless you enjoyed the killing fields.
Let's l ...[text shortened]... at is the price of living in the "cradle of civilization" at the tigris and euphrades.
That's how it was sold to the world. If you watch Fog of War, 11 lessons from the life of Robert S McNamara, then secretary for defense, he admits that the whole Vietnam war was a misunderstanding. The vietnamese were fighting for freedom from France, and then from America, who they presumed were there to replace France. The American's thought that the Vietnamese were fighting for communism, but if they had any idea of the political history in the area, they would have seen that Vietnam has been sporadically at war with China for the past 900 years, and was in no way fighting for the Chinese ideology.
'We got Pol Pot...'
I'm not sure where you learned your history, but it was the Vietnamese who deposed Pol Pot and liberated the Khmer people. America's input into the situation was to bring about the coming to power of the Khmer Rouge by intensively bombing the Ho Chi Min trail killing 200,000 Khmers and creating cicumstances where people would follow any new regime which they thought could protect them.
At the time that the Vietnamese liberated Cambodia, the American's were still trying to justify the war to the world, and pointed the finger at Vietnam for 'invading' Cambodia, using the Vietnamese 'invasion' as justification that America had been fighting for freedom when fighting the Vietnamese.
'So... We saved American and Aussie lives.'
I don't know how you can classify sending 58,202 americans and 469 Australians to their deaths in an unjust war as saving their lives.
'Unless you enjoyed the killing fields.'
Again, you're referring to Cambodia.
'If 'we win'... thousands of civillians will die. And their freedom will be determined by the willingness of the Iraqi people to fight for their own freedom. Nobody can provide it. No freedom has EVER JUST HAPPENED. EVER. IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. People must be willing to fight and die for it.'
I'm not entirely sure what argument you're advocating here. Sounds to me like a call to arms for the Iraqi people to fight for their freedom against the invading forces, because if the invaders win, then 'thousands of civillians will die'.
D
02 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakMcNamara is a commie.
'Viet Nam was a war against communism.'
That's how it was sold to the world. If you watch Fog of War, 11 lessons from the life of Robert S McNamara, then secretary for defense, he admits that the whole Vietnam war was a misunde ...[text shortened]... vaders win, then 'thousands of civillians will die'.
D
So?
By losing... we garnered the killing fields. True?
I repeat... Viet Nam was a war "against communism". Pol Pot was a communist just waiting for the go ahead. True?
24 Dec 04
In Vietnam we spent billions and billions of dollars; we lost 57,000 troops; we sent home drug addicted and disturbed young men. In some ways we are still paying for that war.
However, we have just opened diplomatic relations with Vietnam. I believe United Airlines has just started non-stop flights to Vietnam. Businesses are starting to look there for new opportunities. Perhaps the "war" is not lost.
This should be a lesson in Iraq. Here is a country that has every opportunity to have a future, but Islamic fundamentalists prefer their society to be theologically pure, but unemployed and poor...... and pissed off.
25 Dec 04
Originally posted by kirksey957And the starting point was the withdrawal of US forces and the collapse of the US backed regime. The right predicted a communist Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and the rest of SE Asia.
In Vietnam we spent billions and billions of dollars; we lost 57,000 troops; we sent home drug addicted and disturbed young men. In some ways we are still paying for that war.
However, we have just opened diplomatic relations with Vietnam. I believe United Airlines has just started non-stop flights to Vietnam. Businesses are starting to look there ...[text shortened]... sts prefer their society to be theologically pure, but unemployed and poor...... and pissed off.
The sky never fell down after all.
25 Dec 04
Originally posted by shavixmirFirst of all I think it is important to separate everyday, regular American citizens who live their lives doing normal everyday activities,much like people all aroundthe world, from their power hungry manipulative industrialists who use bureaucratic and media means to perpetuate their worldwide plundering and devastation. Bush is a puppet to them, merely a front person -groomed and preened from youth. The powerful industrialists use all means to entice Americans to war. Manipulation and indoctrination arevery clever tools that they are masters at using. So maybe a couple of hundred Americans are really responsible for the directional mayhem that Americans are accused of en mass.
I think one of the problems the US is going to face in the future is that the Vietcong method of fighting the US will appear not as a one-off, but as a solid method for victory.
Americans tend to have a gung-ho approach to war and life in general. This comes with great optimism and great strength, but it also is riddled by bad judgement and simplicity. ...[text shortened]... rces the notion that the US can be defeated, and the method is plain and clear for all to see.
The media(tion) of war is the dominating factor now. We hear stuff-all about the 500,000 civilians that American forces 'silenced' (euhamism for murdered) in the Philippines (early1900s)...to Vietnam where the media was so well controlled by a desire to be patriotic that it largely gave the American public false hopes of victory...to Iraq where instant reports are available from people on laptops...Vietnam is when world opinion first broke away from imperialist US type domination (as in a baby taking its first steps) to Iraq where we have a grown adult "running" opposition to US tyranny.
If you look at the US history of aggression, whenever it has forced itself on an indigenous population, no matter the miniscule opposition it has got a good licking - Cuba (Bay of Pigs)...Somalia...Vietnam...Iraq...simply the troops believe the patriotic indoctrination they are told is the reason to fight/suppress but once they 'mix' with indigenous "enemies" they start to think differently and basically come to realise they have been hoodwinked - hence the will to fight leaves them... and my prediction for the next US "intervention", well you work it out - the most unstable country in the world with the most oil & mineral resources (yep its gonna be a biggy!)