-- Posted by SgtPatches at 9:32 pm on June 3, 2008 Do you believe that the War in Iraq parallels greatly the Vietnam War? -- Posted by inkblot at 9:32 pm on June 3, 2008 Not particularly, maybe a little. -- Posted by Mieux at 9:32 pm on June 3, 2008 In some ways. But not really. -- Posted by neverjeeps at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 no -- Posted by matto at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam. 2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win. 3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha. 4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq. 5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.) 6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq. 7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain. 8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true. 9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets. 10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves. 11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two. 12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion. -- http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0501-32.htm HELL YES. -- Posted by Miden at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 Nope. Anyone who claims they are close to the same needs to read up on history some more. -- Posted by Soren Kierkegaard at 9:34 pm on June 3, 2008 Far too many people are living during this conflict than previous ones, if I were to quote the previous acting Army Surgeon General, of course.  Couldn't believe she said that though during one of the last meetings I had with her before she stepped down. -- Posted by silverrose42 at 9:34 pm on June 3, 2008 In some ways... -- Posted by matto at 9:34 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from Miden at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 Nope. Anyone who claims they are close to the same needs to read up on history some more. Full of shit.  Please explain further.  Oh wait, you can't. -- Posted by ATTI at 9:34 pm on June 3, 2008 Yes. -- Posted by neverjeeps at 9:35 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from matto at 9:34 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from Miden at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 Nope. Anyone who claims they are close to the same needs to read up on history some more. Full of shit. Please explain further. Oh wait, you can't. look at the death toll retard -- Posted by tkedwn119 at 9:36 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from matto at 12:33 am on June 4, 2008 l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam. 2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win. 3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha. 4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq. 5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.) 6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq. 7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain. 8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true. 9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets. 10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves. 11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two. 12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion.   -- http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0501-32.htm HELL YES. The US doesn't have to conform to international law, we have the UN in our hands -- Posted by reev at 9:36 pm on June 3, 2008 "This one aint nothin' like Vietnam. Except for the bullets, except for the bombs". -- Posted by Reconciliation at 9:38 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from matto at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam. 2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win. 3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha. 4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq. 5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.) 6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq. 7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain. 8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true. 9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets. 10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves. 11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two. 12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion.   -- http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0501-32.htm HELL YES. agreed -- Posted by matto at 9:39 pm on June 3, 2008 tkedwn119 - that doesn't change the parallels neverjeeps - so what?  there are so many other factors. -- Posted by airemaye at 9:40 pm on June 3, 2008 It wouldn't say it exactly parallels Vietnam. They're two different wars and two different situations. But there are many similarities, to be sure. I'm too lazy to go into anymore detail right now. Maybe later. -- Posted by Miden at 9:43 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from matto at 11:34 pm on June 3, 2008 Quote: from Miden at 9:33 pm on June 3, 2008 Nope. Anyone who claims they are close to the same needs to read up on history some more. Full of shit.  Please explain further.  Oh wait, you can't. -Completely different political situations   -like others have pointed out. The scope and death toll is nearly incomparable. -The public outrage of Vietnam was much worse. Sure the Iraq war is very unpopular, but we have not seen the likes of public outrage that occurred due to Vietnam.   -The War in Iraq and Vietnam involved different enemies, different theatres of war, different motives, different in just about every way.   -Many would even argue the claim that Iraq is even a true War The points you made, although not all incorrect, are generalized and misconstrued. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 11:03 pm on June 3, 2008 The war in Iraq doesn't parallel Vietnam a whole lot.  You could stretch things and make it seem like there are similarities, but that's all they are - stretches. With Vietnam, the US was focused in defending South Vietnam from the North Vietnamese and refused to invade North Vietnam - only bomb them.  Hence the US wasn't trying to "defeat" the enemy, but rather, wear them out to the point where they stop fighting. Whereas with Iraq, the US has already gone in, totally defeated the opposing Iraqi army, and even executed the Iraqi leader.  Now the US is focused with trying to occupy the country and rebuild it, which was never the case with Vietnam. Of course, let's not forget that the guerilla fighting in Vietnam was much more severe because the dense jungles and cities in Vietnam make that kind of fighting much easier.  You have that kind of fighting in Iraq, but as most of the country is a large open desert or flood plains, you don't have it so much. I'd say the war in Iraq has far more parallels to the US occupation of the Philippines in 1898 to 1913, where the US had just destroyed the Spanish and took their colony of the Philippines.  At the same time, the Philippines were fighting for their independence from the Spanish and believed the US was helping them, only to be stabbed in the back and have a new colonial master - the US.  The US justified itself and its casualties in the Filipino resistance on the grounds that it's developing and westernizing the Philippines, which is very similar to today's US's justifications for Iraq (except without the element of terrorism, which has been emphasized ever since Iraq was proven to have not had any WMDs - thus even these two situations paralleling each other is a stretch). -- Posted by obvious child at 12:57 am on June 4, 2008 In some ways it did. Vietnam and Iraq both shared poor frameworks and goals and both had their goals and rationales somewhat change through out the course of the conflict. Pre-Surge Iraq can be argued to be very similar to Vietnam in that counterinsurgency tactics were not used and the results were much of the same. Furthermore, neither the SVA nor the Iraqi army are capable of standing on their own and require the Americans to do most of the work. The Hmong are kind of like the Kurds, but that's somewhat of a stretch. Also, Vietnam was to prevent Communism from spreading, essentially maintaining Western Influence and stability. If you understand the real reason for Invading Iraq, it's similar in maintaining western influence and resource stability. But the biggest similarity is the failure of the US to adapt to the environment and enact counter insurgency tactics until Petreaus and his brain trust were given authority. -- Posted by Shogun villimax at 8:40 pm on June 4, 2008 We havent cut an run this time!