It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's the difference between VietNam & Iraq War?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the VietNam War!!




posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the VietNam War!!


i can give u many differences between them, u should look more info on to both countries yerself, but the difference is that there are Vietnamese, and these are Iraqis, the Iraqis are Muslims most of them by the way, its mostly jungle, and here its desert. all volunteere army while in Vietnam its all draft, i could go on. Vietnam is supported by China and Russia. Syria is supporting Iraq insurgency, it comprises mostly Iraqis and foreign Arabs, while in Vietnam is was all Vietnamese. in Vietnam there were about 500,000 troops, here its over 100,000. In Iraq the insurgents have no conventional army, while in Vietnam there is the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army. its more like North Korea and South Korea. way different wen u have the Kurds and Shiites and Sunnis instead of the same people.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
What's the difference? About 56,000 American casualties.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Joke:funny story: a story, anecdote, or wordplay that is intended to amuse

Given his connection tweaking, no duty showing up for, champagne squadron "service", compared to the quagmire without end, there in lies the joke.

Is it that you're both humorless, tooo devout to El Presidente to live in a Republic or that just flew WAAAAAYYYY over ya heads!?!



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
lol I'll admit it flew waaaaay over my head, I didn't get it until you just explained it there



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
No worries mate!



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
well u did say what is the difference so i thought maybe i can help u out on the comparison.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The differnce between Iraq and Vietnam.
Well Vietnam was/is largerly jungle and much of the population lived in villages and small hamlets.
Most of the population of Iraq lives in urban areas and thus most of the fighting happens there.
Differnt tactics , training and equipment are needed in differnt environments.

In both Iraq and Vietnam the US military failed to comperhend that you cant fight a guerrilla war using conventnal tactics.

Both Iraq and Vietnam are/where classic examples of guerrilla warfare but thats where the comparison ends.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Well, Iraq a sandbox, Vietnam a greenhouse.
Some people actually support the war in Iraq.
Vietnam War the troops did drugs, in Iraq War the people who support it do drugs.
We didn't spend as much on Vietnam, but we got the same results.
Vietnam had a draft, Bush&Co are just planning one.
Vietnam War was one country. Iraq War is Iraq, Afganistan, and soon to be Syria, Iran, and NK.
Vietnam War went on however many years, Iraq War, according to Bush&Co, could go on several more decades.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
All differences are semantics.

They are one in the same: A war based on lies and greed: Your average mindless meatgrinder.

At this point, I think all those people who agree with this action need to go down to a recruiter's office and offer up their pound of flesh, for the homeland. Veteran's, too. If you are too old to serve, then you should go sign your grandkid or child up. Immediately! The recruiters cannot meet their quotas most months.

[edit on 7/2/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
There is one thing for sure. No one who has responded to this ridiculous thread knows anything about the war in Vietnam or the war in Iraq. What is more, the originator of this thread has a wanton disregard for those who have stood up and actually put their lives on the line for something he enjoys and exercised everyday of his life.

Having served in Vietnam, I will tell you the similarities that I see between the two. Both are being fought in a 360 degree battlefield where there are no secure areas and where the enemy is ununiformed, unprincipled, and without regard for innocent human life, who will slaughter women and children by design, murder family members of those whom they have targeted and torture and murder innocents for the purpose of terrorizing the populace and whose greatest and most formidable allies are traitorous Americans who erode the morale of the troops and ridicule the cause among the young and impressionable.




North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement," Col. Tin told the Journal.

Visits to Hanoi by Kerry anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

www.newsmax.com...





[Osama] seems to believe that the American public, which he sees as soft and decadent, is unwilling to accept heavy casualties, and is therefore unwilling to wage a prolonged struggle. In offering evidence to support his beliefs, he has cited the American withdrawals from Lebanon in the early 1980s and Somalia in the early 1990s. He also asserts that Washington prevailed in its conflict with Iraq in 1991 because Saddam Hussein’s troops were unwilling to stand and fight long enough to inflict heavy casualties on the Americans. Bin Laden, by contrast, obviously has no shortage of warriors willing to sacrifice their lives.

www.informationwar.org...




[edit on 2005/7/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
YOu do realize, much the same has been said about our forces in Iraq..

And you know what so many say, so flippantly, war is hell.

If I'm correct, Bout Time is a vet also. So, he knows a lil sum sum.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I would expect that veterans would have more respect for those who still serve and whose lives are in harm's way during this difficult war.

www.npr.org...

www.foxnews.com...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.defenselink.mil...

When there are veterans with this kind of sense of duty, it is the least I can do to support the cause to which they have lost so much and yet continue the march.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Screw the f-en machine, man. I tried to go back in in '97, and b/c of their ridiculous PC beauracracy, I wasn't able to go back in.

Their loss, now, bigTime. I hear they're letting druggies and petty criminals back in now b/c they can't make quota. I bet their beuracracy wouldn't mean jack now if I tried to re-enlist.


Supporting the troops means whats doing right by them, not by licking the butt of Dubya Sycophant & Co.

If they were doing it right, they woudn't be having these problems.

Bout Time supports the troops. Sorry some Can't or won't grasp that.

[edit on 7/4/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
At this point, I think all those people who agree with this action need to go down to a recruiter's office and offer up their pound of flesh, for the homeland. Veteran's, too. If you are too old to serve, then you should go sign your grandkid or child up. Immediately! The recruiters cannot meet their quotas most months.
[edit on 7/2/05 by EastCoastKid]


As I've stated, I tried, but was told "we don't want ya" after the medical exam. For several tens of thousands of dollars I could get an elective operation (read: no insurence coverage) and be elegable, but I don't have that kind of money.

There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war, and people on both sides fall into that trap. I know several liberals who equate supporting the troops with supporting the war, and I know several conservatives who believe not supporting the war means not supporting the troops. It can be a very hazy line, though, because by crying out against the war fervently, it could potentially lower troop morale, causing more casualties. So what is someone who doesn't support the war to do? That I can't answer, I'm of a lucky opinion on it where I support both the war and the troops. I'm not sure what I would do if I was against the war, because I have family over there right now and would obviously be very concerned over their safety. Would I feel I could do better by trying to sway public opinion against the war to get them home sooner, or just support them, not the war, somehow, to help their safty by helping them to think I'm supporting them. A messy decision, to say the least, and one I haven't given much thought to.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I'm not a veteran by any stretch of the imagination. The closest I've ever come to it was JROTC in high school and growing up in a military town. I took one semester of JROTC, and that was enough military experience for me. So maybe I don't have a strong enough background to justify any kind of opinion on this, but I have an opinion anyways.

junglejake somewhat alludes to where I stand on the issue. I don't support the war in any way, shape, or form. I think Bush is pushing it purely for his own gain--whether it be a line in a history book, oil, revenge for daddy, whatever--and there's no way that can be justified. I wasn't around during Vietnam, missed that show by about 30 years, but from everything I've learned about it Vietnam was purely a political action and should never have happened. The US was in no way threatened by any action the Vietnamese could have taken at the time, and there was no need to get involved.

The exact same could be said about Iraq. Even if Saddam had WMD's, there's no way he could have done anything with them without us knowing about it. As far as getting them into the hands of terrorists, well, it's not that difficult for them to get the materials if they really wanted them and of course you learn to build anything online.

The war's bunk IMO, no two ways about it. But that's nothing at all against the people who are over there serving. They're just trying to do their jobs and stay alive--not necessarily in that order. My opinion is the same on Vietnam as well. Everytime I see footage of the protests where the people are treating the soldiers like crap I almost get sick to my stomach. There's no reason to look down on the soldiers who are out there, and I'll admit they're braver than I'd ever be.

It's easy to support the soldiers but not the war. I mean think about it; how often do you ever feel bad for a kid because of something their parents made them do? Not saying the roles are exactly the same, but the situation is similar. Just my two cents.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is one thing for sure. No one who has responded to this ridiculous thread knows anything about the war in Vietnam or the war in Iraq. What is more, the originator of this thread has a wanton disregard for those who have stood up and actually put their lives on the line for something he enjoys and exercised everyday of his life.

Having served in Vietnam, I will tell you the similarities that I see between the two. Both are being fought in a 360 degree battlefield where there are no secure areas and where the enemy is ununiformed, unprincipled, and without regard for innocent human life, who will slaughter women and children by design, murder family members of those whom they have targeted and torture and murder innocents for the purpose of terrorizing the populace and whose greatest and most formidable allies are traitorous Americans who erode the morale of the troops and ridicule the cause among the young and impressionable.


Since we're in Slugfest, and ECK spelled out what you already knew, let me just start by calling you a humorless, pontificating geriatric putz.....in a nice amiable, backyard BBQ sort of way!

You failed to grasp humor, but more importantly, you have not learned from your life's mistakes and continue to make the same ones - there are people who enlisted, served and have come to a completely different point of conclusion than you - in both wars. You should have learned, from them, the first time.
With the Arab non-combatant, civilian death count twenty to 100 times (depending on your realization that the 1991 campaign NEVER STOPPED)that of our own military causalities, having a bloodlust like you've described above against these Middle Eastern peoples is mystifying - to think we have one pockets full of the Moral High Ground just diminishes any rational consideration of your suspected common sense.
That's the tongue-in-cheek-playfulness and high brow response to your missing of a joke.
On a more serious note, don't you ever imply, even in a circuitous left handed sort of way, that I am a "traitorous American" - question me not conforming to your myopic perception of what constitutes patriotism all you want, but lets leave the bar room brawl subjects for the proper context.

MCory - the "Support the Soldiers" canard takes a point that everyone agrees with and turns it into a wedge issue that serves as a cover for TREASON, INTERNATIONAL HIGH CRIMES and CORPORATE IMPERIALISM by the criminals who control the US government. Dis agreement with the obvious gets turned into vets with young family members deployed being called "Traitorous Americans" who give succor to our enemies. Thats the backgrounder to the tangent the thread departed on. It's a worthy two cents, just spend them wisely with all the investment info.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Both wars are unpopular, 1 good thing about this go around is that the people know it's not the troops, it's the administration. A HUGE leap forward imo.

1 difference? It took a # load of AO to make VN look like Iraq.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Both wars are unpopular, 1 good thing about this go around is that the people know it's not the troops, it's the administration. A HUGE leap forward imo.



how about the Korean war, im sure that was unpopular and was practically forgotten which people name it the forgotten war.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Good point Intrepid, in VN people blamed the troops because they were in lovewith the government. This time around people know the troops are just cattle for the slaughterhouse to the Government and the government is to blame.

Hell, the republicans against armor for the troops. So sad, they are all "INVADE IRAQ!!!!" Eyes popping out of head, vein sticking out of forehead "FIREBOMB THEM ALL!!!! SLAUGHTER THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF IRAQ!!!!!! AND MAKE SURE IT ISN"T MY KID GOING OVER!!!!!!" Tears the arm off a baby and drinks the blood.....

Out of the 39 people who voted against, 38 were republicans. The majority of the majority voted to kill our troops.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join