Viet Nam and Iraqi War Parellels

[Psychoblues]

Give it a good read and a good thought.


"YOU HAVE been reading “The Sorrow of War” by Bao Ninh, the classic account of what in Vietnam is called the American war. The title of Bao Ninh’s novel captures the feeling of grief and loss that always comes in the wake of violent conflict. Allowing room for fear, grief, and loss must define the dominant experience in Iraq today, where the suffering caused by this American war mounts inexorably.

But sorrow has also emerged as a note of life in the Unites States lately. Many comparisons are drawn between this nation’s misadventures in Iraq and Vietnam, but what you are most aware of is the return of a clenched feeling in your chest, a knot of distressed sadness that is tied to your country’s reiteration of the tragic error. After the chaotic end of the Vietnam War in 1975, you were like many Americans in thinking with relief that the nation would never know — or cause — such sorrow again.

The sorrow is back. Everywhere you go, friends greet one another with a choked acknowledgment of a nearly unspeakable frustration at what unfolds in Iraq. This seems true whether people oppose the war absolutely, or only on pragmatic terms; whether they want US troops out at once, or over time. Even about those distinctions, little remains to be said. Bush’s contemptuous carelessness, his inner circle’s corrupt enabling, the Pentagon’s dependable launching of folly after folly, the Democrats’ ineffectual kibitzing, even your heartfelt concern for the troops — these subjects have exhausted themselves. The “surge” of the January escalation was preceded by the surge of public anguish that resulted in Republican losses in November. That election was a stirring rejection of the administration’s purposes in Iraq, a rejection promptly seconded by the Iraq Study Group. But so what? Bush’s purposes hold steady, and their poison tide now laps at Iran."


More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/26/87


This helps me understand a little better about the way I've been feeling lately about the current War and Occupation in Iraq.

[Hobbit]

Here are the parallels.

1) In both wars, Congress demanded to be allowed to run the war.
2) In both wars, the Democrats tried to curry favor by calling for an immediate pullout.
3) In both wars, the Democrats lacked to spine to actually enact an immediate pullout, thus getting more people killed than would be with either total victory or an immediate pullout.
4) In both wars, the media reported only the bad news and even managed to present victories as defeats, turning the more easily led sectors of the populace against the effort.

I'm sure I'll think of more.

[Psychoblues]

Revisionist history according to the spellbound.


Here are the parallels.

1) In both wars, Congress demanded to be allowed to run the war.
2) In both wars, the Democrats tried to curry favor by calling for an immediate pullout.
3) In both wars, the Democrats lacked to spine to actually enact an immediate pullout, thus getting more people killed than would be with either total victory or an immediate pullout.
4) In both wars, the media reported only the bad news and even managed to present victories as defeats, turning the more easily led sectors of the populace against the effort.

I'm sure I'll think of more.

If you think of more like you thought of the above it would be better to keep it to yourself.

[jackass]

Ya know...I agree that there are parallels to both wars..at least from what I know about the Vietnam War from history. I think the biggest parrallel is the inability for both "sides" of the government to work together FOR the people. Each side wants so badly to rule the government, they lose focus on what needs to be done.
The other main parallel is the governments inability, no im sorry, wrong word, its indecision to win a war. This war could have been and should have been over in less than a year. Unfortunately when you have two different governements in one nation, things dont work out the way they should.

[Gaffer]

Here are the parallels.

1) In both wars, Congress demanded to be allowed to run the war.
2) In both wars, the Democrats tried to curry favor by calling for an immediate pullout.
3) In both wars, the Democrats lacked to spine to actually enact an immediate pullout, thus getting more people killed than would be with either total victory or an immediate pullout.
4) In both wars, the media reported only the bad news and even managed to present victories as defeats, turning the more easily led sectors of the populace against the effort.

I'm sure I'll think of more.

An addition would be the congress stopping all aid to South Vietnam to allow them to defend themselves. Which the congress now will attempt to do in iraq.

It's like Vietnam in the sense that the dems are out to lose the war again, at any cost to the country.

[Gaffer]

Revisionist history according to the spellbound.



If you think of more like you thought of the above it would be better to keep it to yourself.

Nothing revisionist about it. It's fact and well documented.

I suggest you keep your thoughts to your self.

[LiberalNation]

Plenty of parallels. Things that are different. Both unpopular wars the people feel the government lied to them on. Luckily this one has far fewer American causalities and no draft.

[Gunny]

Plenty of parallels. Things that are different. Both unpopular wars the people feel the government lied to them on. Luckily this one has far fewer American causalities and no draft.

Correction. The loony left keeps trying to peretrate the lie that we were lied to.

[Psychoblues]

Only a tried and true looney could think to write what you just wrote, gunny.



Correction. The loony left keeps trying to peretrate the lie that we were lied to.

Nixon was elected in 1968 on his promise to end the Viet Nam War. He was again elected in 1972 because he had made progress on that issue and he again promised to fully end American involvement in Viet Nam. You loonies don't know a damn thing about any of that, do you?

The wars in Viet Nam and Iraq were and are respectively premised on lies, lies and nothing but lies.

[Gaffer]

Only a tried and true looney could think to write what you just wrote, gunny.




Nixon was elected in 1968 on his promise to end the Viet Nam War. He was again elected in 1972 because he had made progress on that issue and he again promised to fully end American involvement in Viet Nam. You loonies don't know a damn thing about any of that, do you?

The wars in Viet Nam and Iraq were and are respectively premised on lies, lies and nothing but lies.

Well the Vietnam war was a democrat war up until Nixon took over. The dems promply blamed him for all of it and reffered to it as Nixons war. He was re elected because had made headway at bringing the troops out. And he was running against george McGovern.

And your right the dems lied about Vietnam and they are lying about iraq now. Lies, lies, lies. Too many of us here are too familiar with the period for your song and dance to work here.

[Psychoblues]

Well,,,,damn, actually it was Dwight Eisenhowers (I greatly admire Dwight Eisenhower) war. The politics ( corporate interference, greatly warned against by Eisenhower) of that era demanded further intervention in Viet Nam and that escalated intervention by a pretty much Pro-War population turned quite sour, as it should have, and the poor old Texas Cowboy, LBJ that inherited the war from JFK that inherited the war from DDE, just couldn't find a way out with respect. That lesson was unlearned very quickly by the young drugstore cowboy lil' one and we are now paying the price for his inexperience and failure to observe history, world politics and other generally accepted accounting and democratic principles. I am not rambling. Seriously, gaffer, you need to do some more reading.




Well the Vietnam war was a democrat war up until Nixon took over. The dems promply blamed him for all of it and reffered to it as Nixons war. He was re elected because had made headway at bringing the troops out. And he was running against george McGovern.

And your right the dems lied about Vietnam and they are lying about iraq now. Lies, lies, lies. Too many of us here are too familiar with the period for your song and dance to work here.

Please, I really am interested, guffer, how do you interpret any "song and dance" that I have ever demonstrated here?

[Gaffer]

Well,,,,damn, actually it was Dwight Eisenhowers (I greatly admire Dwight Eisenhower) war. The politics ( corporate interference, greatly warned against by Eisenhower) of that era demanded further intervention in Viet Nam and that escalated intervention by a pretty much Pro-War population turned quite sour, as it should have, and the poor old Texas Cowboy, LBJ that inherited the war from JFK that inherited the war from DDE, just couldn't find a way out with respect. That lesson was unlearned very quickly by the young drugstore cowboy lil' one and we are now paying the price for his inexperience and failure to observe history, world politics and other generally accepted accounting and democratic principles. I am not rambling. Seriously, gaffer, you need to do some more reading.





Please, I really am interested, guffer, how do you interpret any "song and dance" that I have ever demonstrated here?

Eisenhower sent advisors to Vietnam. Kennedy increased the number, but was looking at pulling them out. Johnson inherited it and escallated it. The whole war can be laid at his feet. Nixon inherited it from johnson and began to draw down the troop numbers. Turning more and more responsiblity over to the Vietnamese. When I was there they were more than willing to sit back and let us do the fighting. The lesson was leaarned very well by the media, that they could control public opinion about foriegn affairs. By turning victory into defeat. They are doing the same thing now at the behest of the dems.

You give the same song and dance all the dem talking heads do. I can turn on any news channel and hear what your saying from some democratic stategist. It's nothing new and its the same old line. It's all about hating Bush and doing anything they can to undermine him. It's critical to their run in 08.

Like Vietnam this war is going on longer than it should have, not because of Bush, but because the media keeps feeding the islamist with the idea that we are a divided country and if they just keep up the fight we will withdraw and they will be free to set up their regime, within a country that has lots of oil and an infrastructure. It's the lesson learned from Vietnam and it's being used again. In fact you and those like you are being used and made to believe exactly what you do.

You want to bring the troops home. Get all the dem leaders to say they have changed their minds and want the war to go on as long as necessary. Get their media goons to report on the battles and dead al queda thugs. Praise the iraqi military and police. and show a united front. The war will be over in 6 months. Then they can go back to bitching and bashing. As long as America appears divided the fighting will go on.

[Psychoblues]

So you, with all your amazing wisdom, think this WAR is winnable?



Eisenhower sent advisors to Vietnam. Kennedy increased the number, but was looking at pulling them out. Johnson inherited it and escallated it. The whole war can be laid at his feet. Nixon inherited it from johnson and began to draw down the troop numbers. Turning more and more responsiblity over to the Vietnamese. When I was there they were more than willing to sit back and let us do the fighting. The lesson was leaarned very well by the media, that they could control public opinion about foriegn affairs. By turning victory into defeat. They are doing the same thing now at the behest of the dems.

You give the same song and dance all the dem talking heads do. I can turn on any news channel and hear what your saying from some democratic stategist. It's nothing new and its the same old line. It's all about hating Bush and doing anything they can to undermine him. It's critical to their run in 08.

Like Vietnam this war is going on longer than it should have, not because of Bush, but because the media keeps feeding the islamist with the idea that we are a divided country and if they just keep up the fight we will withdraw and they will be free to set up their regime, within a country that has lots of oil and an infrastructure. It's the lesson learned from Vietnam and it's being used again. In fact you and those like you are being used and made to believe exactly what you do.

You want to bring the troops home. Get all the dem leaders to say they have changed their minds and want the war to go on as long as necessary. Get their media goons to report on the battles and dead al queda thugs. Praise the iraqi military and police. and show a united front. The war will be over in 6 months. Then they can go back to bitching and bashing. As long as America appears divided the fighting will go on.

You don't know shit, you haven't read anything about history, your tactics don't deserve the considerations of an E-1, your ideology has been proven WRONG time and time again for centuries and otherwise your party should be proud of you. This American is not.

[Gaffer]

So you, with all your amazing wisdom, think this WAR is winnable?




You don't know shit, you haven't read anything about history, your tactics don't deserve the considerations of an E-1, your ideology has been proven WRONG time and time again for centuries and otherwise your party should be proud of you. This American is not.

Please explain why its wrong.

[Kathianne]

So you, with all your amazing wisdom, think this WAR is winnable?




You don't know shit, you haven't read anything about history, your tactics don't deserve the considerations of an E-1, your ideology has been proven WRONG time and time again for centuries and otherwise your party should be proud of you. This American is not.

Please PB, give us the history you wish we knew, that you do.

[grunt]

Ya know...I agree that there are parallels to both wars..at least from what I know about the Vietnam War from history. I think the biggest parrallel is the inability for both "sides" of the government to work together FOR the people. Each side wants so badly to rule the government, they lose focus on what needs to be done.
The other main parallel is the governments inability, no im sorry, wrong word, its indecision to win a war. This war could have been and should have been over in less than a year. Unfortunately when you have two different governements in one nation, things dont work out the way they should.



The Iraqi war was over in a few months. What's going on in Iraq now is the war on terrorism. The terrorists filter into Iraq, and we kill them. Do some of them get to US troops? Sure. What people don't seem to get though, is that if people in this country wanted to plant IED's, or commit homicide-bombings, they could. It's not something you can totally stop in a free society such as ours and hopefully one day, Iraq's.

[Psychoblues]

I need you in my command, grunt. You are now tried and proven.



The Iraqi war was over in a few months. What's going on in Iraq now is the war on terrorism. The terrorists filter into Iraq, and we kill them. Do some of them get to US troops? Sure. What people don't seem to get though, is that if people in this country wanted to plant IED's, or commit homicide-bombings, they could. It's not something you can totally stop in a free society such as ours and hopefully one day, Iraq's.

Just a little less foxnoise and Rush Limpdick and you will work perfectly in the retail market.

[grunt]

I need you in my command, grunt. You are now tried and proven.




Just a little less foxnoise and Rush Limpdick and you will work perfectly in the retail market.



lol. Anything to actually say?

[Psychoblues]

Yeah, grunt. you are exactly the kind of fool that the military and the corporotists longingly desire. In other words, you are easy.



lol. Anything to actually say?

Take it up your ass and don't expect me to take it up mine.

[manu1959]

both are products of failed french colonialism ......

[Psychoblues]

My, my my!!!!!!!!



both are products of failed french colonialism ......


Colonialism, defend that you nation building bastard!!!!!!!!!

[theHawk]

Please explain why its wrong.

He can't, thats why he has to resort to personal insults.


Keep it up pyscho, just when I think you couldn't possibly be any more of a dimwit political hack, you go and break the mold.

[Psychoblues]

'Zat yo thinkin' or mine?


He can't, thats why he has to resort to personal insults.


Keep it up pyscho, just when I think you couldn't possibly be any more of a dimwit political hack, you go and break the mold.

I ain't confused, hawk, but I 'spect you got mo' education comin'.

doofus.

[grunt]

'Zat yo thinkin' or mine?



I ain't confused, hawk, but I 'spect you got mo' education comin'.

doofus.

You really need to lay off the booze. And learn how to use the quote feature you fucking retard. :slap:

[avatar4321]

Revisionist history according to the spellbound.



If you think of more like you thought of the above it would be better to keep it to yourself.

Have a problem with the truth?

[avatar4321]

Only a tried and true looney could think to write what you just wrote, gunny.




Nixon was elected in 1968 on his promise to end the Viet Nam War. He was again elected in 1972 because he had made progress on that issue and he again promised to fully end American involvement in Viet Nam. You loonies don't know a damn thing about any of that, do you?

The wars in Viet Nam and Iraq were and are respectively premised on lies, lies and nothing but lies.

Quite the opposite. Communism and terrorism are valid threats to the US. but then you wouldnt really care about that because you support communist idealogy.

[avatar4321]

So you, with all your amazing wisdom, think this WAR is winnable?




You don't know shit, you haven't read anything about history, your tactics don't deserve the considerations of an E-1, your ideology has been proven WRONG time and time again for centuries and otherwise your party should be proud of you. This American is not.

Any war is winnable if you fight to win. If we gave up simply because we didnt believe we could win, we would still be a British colony.

[theHawk]

'Zat yo thinkin' or mine?



I ain't confused, hawk, but I 'spect you got mo' education comin'.

doofus.


Why do you bother to neg rep me? You have no rep to effect anything on this board. Do us all a favor and go join the rest of the trolls at the underground.

[Psychoblues]

We are still a British Colony, only once removed, a4321.


Any war is winnable if you fight to win. If we gave up simply because we didnt believe we could win, we would still be a British colony.

Look, dumbass, you bring your butt to my house and expect a fight I will guarantee you that you will get one with the caveat that it will be fought on my terms at that point and not yours.

What's your plan?

[CockySOB]

Have a problem with the truth?

Truth isn't his problem - reality is.

[manu1959]

My, my my!!!!!!!!

Colonialism, defend that you nation building bastard!!!!!!!!!

you really should get your meds cranked up

[Yurt]

Revisionist history according to the spellbound.



If you think of more like you thought of the above it would be better to keep it to yourself.

you make these kind of posts alot lately. just spit and run. you make some ignorant statement, or claim that what the poster said is lost on you, try again, and then act like this is "debating." Pffffft. Why don't you instead explain what you are talking about. Your bald statements are only that, empty statements.

If you care about your statements and posts, then explain. Then I will take you seriously, not this spittle and run crap. You have done better in the past. Are you getting lazy?

[manu1959]

We are still a British Colony, only once removed, a4321.

Look, dumbass, you bring your butt to my house and expect a fight I will guarantee you that you will get one with the caveat that it will be fought on my terms at that point and not yours.

What's your plan?

also .... parts were russian colonies, french colonies, spanish colonies, mexican colonies, dutch colonies, portugese colonies and british colonies....

what is you plan?

[Psychoblues]

America, the United States Of America.



also .... parts were russian colonies, french colonies, spanish colonies, mexican colonies, dutch colonies, portugese colonies and british colonies....

what is you plan?

Colonies are for the pussies.

[manu1959]

America, the United States Of America.
Colonies are for the pussies.

america is a colection of colonies

[Psychoblues]

Correction. America is a conglomeration of STATES, each with it's own identity and each with laws and ideologies unigue to themselves with due respect to the Constitution of The United States Of America.



america is a colection of colonies

Are you really that dumb?

[manu1959]

Correction. America is a conglomeration of STATES, each with it's own identity and each with laws and ideologies unigue to themselves with due respect to the Constitution of The United States Of America.
Are you really that dumb?

do you really expect that insulting people will sway them to your side?

america is a collection of colonies....are you unaware that america was once colonized by no less than half a dozen european contres russia and mexico....

are you trying to be right at the expense of being correct?

[Psychoblues]

I do not pretend for a moment that I am in any way trying to sway anyone to "my side" as you say, manu'59. I state what I state and I ask what I ask. Have you answered my question or the ideology that I share? Simply, NO. Is that your failure or mine?




do you really expect that insulting people will sway them to your side?

america is a collection of colonies....are you unaware that america was once colonized by no less than half a dozen european contres russia and mexico....

are you trying to be right at the expense of being correct?

Give your neocon buddies a kiss for me but don't dare mention my name. Suckass.

[Psychoblues]

I get it on with whomever wants to get it on, yurt.


you make these kind of posts alot lately. just spit and run. you make some ignorant statement, or claim that what the poster said is lost on you, try again, and then act like this is "debating." Pffffft. Why don't you instead explain what you are talking about. Your bald statements are only that, empty statements.

If you care about your statements and posts, then explain. Then I will take you seriously, not this spittle and run crap. You have done better in the past. Are you getting lazy?

What kind of a shit and run patriot are you?