Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/21/2005 4:58:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 5:01:03 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]
I hear that crap so often. "Iraq is another Vietnam". I say bullshit.

Let's compare the two and see just how different the situations are.

Vietnam was sparked by the interest to reunite two halves of the same country that had been previously divided due to war.

Iraq was about removing a dictator from power, securing the nation's weapons and ensuring another dictator like Saddam didn't succeed him.

In Iraq, we face Saddam loyalist insurgents and foreign terrorists, the latter being the biggest threat to our soldiers.

In Vietnam, we faced both the VC and the NVA.

The NVA and VC were supported by the Soviet Union and China. The insurgents in Iraq have no support on such a large scale.

In Vietnam, the enemy used porous borders to infiltrate, transport supplies and seek sanctuary when things got rough. This is one similarity that is in Iraq, with Iran and Syria.

The tactics themselves are somewhat similar, in that the enemy wishes to fight a guerilla war, that's drawn out with attrition being their only means to win. They want to outlast our will. These are similar too.

That's really the only two similarities.

In Iraq, we face an all guerilla campaign. In Vietnam, we faced both a guerilla and conventional war. The NVA were better trained and better equipped than anything we face in Iraq now.

The insurgency in Iraq is like the Vietcong insurgency in South Vietnam, without the aid of the Soviet Union or China and with no NVA. The VC were never able to secure any major victories and never would have. Even Tet was a disaster for them, making them more or less ineffective for the remainder of the war, as their ranks were decimated. They couldn't have even defeated the South Vietnamese. As long as we were involved there, not even the VC and NVA combined could defeat us. And it finally took an overwhelming conventional offensive by the NVA (not the VC) to defeat South Vietnam, two years after our total withdrawal. Had Vietnam just been about the VC, we would have won that war in 1968 and would have only needed a few years to stabilize the place totally.

So Iraq is a situation where you have a VC like insurgency with no superpower and no large, well trained conventional army backing them.

In essence, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The situation is totally different, both in origins and the current situation.

There is no way, ZERO chance they can defeat us militarily. The only way we can be defeated is to leave before there's enough Iraqis in place to assure their own security. In essence, only WE can defeat ourselves. That is the truest comparison to Vietnam I can make and I hope I don't see us just abandon the fight while we have won and are winning all the battles.

That's why it's important to see this thing through. The only way Iraq can become "another Vietnam" is if we give in to the hippies and allow them to get their way again.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:02:45 PM EDT
We don't have a choice between war and peace.

We have a choice about what kind of war we have.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:05:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 5:08:20 PM EDT by FredM]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Vietnam was sparked by the interest to reunite two halves of the same country that had been previously divided due to war. French wanting to keep a source of rubber for Michelin

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:07:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
We don't have a choice between war and peace.

We have a choice about what kind of war we have.



Never were truer words spoken.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:09:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Vietnam was sparked by the interest to reunite two halves of the same country that had been previously divided due to war. French wanting a source of rubber for Michelin




Kennedy and Johnson believed if let one country fall to the commies, more would follow. Turns out his policy was right. VN fell but we kept fighting the dirty little wars and eventually won.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:11:09 PM EDT

"Iraq is another Vietnam"........


BULLSHIT!
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:12:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 5:13:13 PM EDT by LonePathfinder]

Originally Posted By Rodent:
We don't have a choice between war and peace.

We have a choice about what kind of war we have.



I vote for strategic bombing. Its what we're good at. We have nearly 100 B-52's 60 some B-1's and 20 B-2's. Lets start using them. We'll even give them a chance and not use nukes. We could have Iran, Syria and any other target country we chose starving in the dark inside a week. Drop all bridges, blow up all power stations, blow up all water treatment facilities and wells, kill infrastructure and food distrbution centers, coms. The whole country would be dead from starvation in no time.

And people act like the US is to mean when we send our planes to bomb them. Even short of nuclear war we can kill millions of people pretty easily.

The left has NO issue left to fight with so they want to go back to weed smoking free loving no showering hippy days and singing make love not war.

I don't think it flys in this day and age of angry white boy kill them all music and ghetto hiop hop kill them all music a lot of us have grown up with. This generation isn't squimish about killing people....look at the violence we grew up with on tv and in video games compared to the baby boomers watching leave it to beaver. Get some!
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:21:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 5:24:13 PM EDT by Rebel_Marine]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I hear that crap so often. "Iraq is another Vietnam". I say bullshit.



I said bullshit at first also. But it has become a self fulfilling prophecy and there are alot of similarities. I cannot believe we are making the same mistakes again.


Let's compare the two and see just how different the situations are.

Vietnam was sparked by the interest to reunite two halves of the same country that had been previously divided due to war.



I think the reality was that the communists sought to reunite their country and we sought to prevent that and the subsequent "domino effect" of SE Asia being completely subverted by the communists.


Iraq was about removing a dictator from power, securing the nation's weapons and ensuring another dictator like Saddam didn't succeed him.


Iraq was/is about establishing a presence in the ME where we can expand, supply, reinforce our forces in this theater of operations.
It is also about teaching the nations of the ME a lesson, ie you could be next.
Finally, it was about removing someone from power who sought to assassinate a POTUS.


In Iraq, we face Saddam loyalist insurgents and foreign terrorists, the latter being the biggest threat to our soldiers.

In Vietnam, we faced both the VC and the NVA.



I fail to see the difference. People shoot at you.


The NVA and VC were supported by the Soviet Union and China. The insurgents in Iraq have no support on such a large scale.


Support for the Viet Minh was weak early on.
Support for the VC was sporadic and poor overall.


In Vietnam, the enemy used porous borders to infiltrate, transport supplies and seek sanctuary when things got rough. This is one similarity that is in Iraq, with Iran and Syria.


A very important similarity.


The tactics themselves are somewhat similar, in that the enemy wishes to fight a guerilla war, that's drawn out with attrition being their only means to win. They want to outlast our will. These are similar too.

That's really the only two similarities.



No there is one other, and perhaps the most important of all. The Viet Nam War was lost right here in the good old USA thanks to the socialist 5th column that continues to exert its powerful influence through the media.


In Iraq, we face an all guerilla campaign. In Vietnam, we faced both a guerilla and conventional war. The NVA were better trained and better equipped than anything we face in Iraq now.


I think you have to consider the relative timeframes....


The insurgency in Iraq is like the Vietcong insurgency in South Vietnam, without the aid of the Soviet Union or China and with no NVA. The VC were never able to secure any major victories and never would have. Even Tet was a disaster for them, making them more or less ineffective for the remainder of the war, as their ranks were decimated. They couldn't have even defeated the South Vietnamese. As long as we were involved there, not even the VC and NVA combined could defeat us. And it finally took an overwhelming conventional offensive by the NVA (not the VC) to defeat South Vietnam, two years after our total withdrawal. Had Vietnam just been about the VC, we would have won that war in 1968 and would have only needed a few years to stabilize the place totally.


They are getting fair support, I suspect, from places we don't want to reveal for diplomatic reasons. Iran and Syria provide support and a conduit for weapons similar to Cambodia and Laos.
We had victory possibly within our grasp several times but not after 1968. We had lost the will to fight, as a nation, and they knew it.



So Iraq is a situation where you have a VC like insurgency with no superpower and no large, well trained conventional army backing them.


I think you are trying to compare 2005 Iraq to 1968 Viet Nam when a more appropriate comparison would be 1950 Viet Nam.


In essence, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. The situation is totally different, both in origins and the current situation.


I'd say that at this point the major dissimilarity is terrain. That is not a small difference. Will it be enough? Only time will tell.


There is no way, ZERO chance they can defeat us militarily.


Since they are playing by the Viet Nam playbook, formulated in the USSR, I would say that they plan to defeat us here, not there.


The only way we can be defeated is to leave before there's enough Iraqis in place to assure their own security. In essence, only WE can defeat ourselves. That is the truest comparison to Vietnam I can make and I hope I don't see us just abandon the fight while we have won and are winning all the battles.


Exactly. They know it as well as you do.
So does the Socialist 5th Column in this country.


That's why it's important to see this thing through. The only way Iraq can become "another Vietnam" is if we give in to the hippies and allow them to get their way again.


IOW, if we let them.
I said back on 9/11 that we didn't have the stomach for it. I still don't think we do but I remain hopeful. If it turns into another Viet Nam, it will be right here in the good old US of A.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:46:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I hear that crap so often. "Iraq is another Vietnam". I say bullshit.

The only way Iraq can become "another Vietnam" is if we give in to the hippies and allow them to get their way again.



The only similarity between Viet Nam and Iraq will be how it is used
by the anti war crowd .

While I don't think those misguided idiots can gain the support
they enjoyed in the 60's . There is a danger that with enough
media hype it will effect the upcoming elections and hand majority
control back over to the socialists Democrats
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:57:11 PM EDT
The Viet Cong never attacked the United States, otherwise it would have been different.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:03:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
The Viet Cong never attacked the United States, otherwise it would have been different.



I don't remember Iraq attacking the United States either.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:09:25 PM EDT
Iran and Syria are our Cambodia and Laos this time around. The foreign fighters are the suicidal ones in most instances (most difficult to combat). "They" can and do come and go with relative impunity across both borders. Hell, at least during the Vietnam War we BOMBED the frontier areas of Laos and Cambodia. We aren't even doing that this time around. Granted, air power doesn't guarantee victory, but at least it's a way of going after the bastards. That is something lacking 35 years later.


It's not too late..........
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:12:37 PM EDT
Two other similarities were insufficient forces and gradual escalation allowing the enemy to attain and then maintain, some degree of parity. Political expediencies worked to both of their benefit in this regard. IOW, we will not just level Fallujah and kill all the bad guys there. The world would rather that we kill a few of theirs and let them kill a few of ours. And we are willing to play.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:14:43 PM EDT
Both had Hanoi Jane dragging her skank ass across the country blaming the US first.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:16:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rebel_Marine:
Two other similarities were insufficient forces and gradual escalation allowing the enemy to attain and then maintain, some degree of parity. Political expediencies worked to both of their benefit in this regard. IOW, we will not just level Fallujah and kill all the bad guys there. The world would rather that we kill a few of theirs and let them kill a few of ours. And we are willing to play.




Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. We are intentionally fighting a 1940's war without using our 2005 technology and abilities to maximum effect. Political correctness be damned!!!
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:36:22 PM EDT
Personally, I'd reintroduce the Arc Light type missions from Nam up and down the boarder. Also, allow SAS, SEAL and Delta to do clandestine missions into them (if they are not doing it already).

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:49:47 PM EDT
I stopped even debating the point since most folks who say it is another Vietnam are just idiots.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:54:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skald:
Personally, I'd reintroduce the Arc Light type missions from Nam up and down the boarder. Also, allow SAS, SEAL and Delta to do clandestine missions into them (if they are not doing it already).




We would never know about it if they did. Maybe in 30 or so years.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 8:17:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RABIDFOX50:

Originally Posted By Skald:
Personally, I'd reintroduce the Arc Light type missions from Nam up and down the boarder. Also, allow SAS, SEAL and Delta to do clandestine missions into them (if they are not doing it already).




We would never know about it if they did. Maybe in 30 or so years.



hence, the remark (if not there now).
Top Top