Comparison Between Iraq, and Vietnam

as posted by intrepid
To the Bold. Really? What have they done since 9/11? Nothing against America.

I know that you have got to be kidding me?
They are targeting Americans today.
Been to Iraq?
You think all those US, Coalition and Iraqi deaths are attributed to solely insurgents? Riiiiiight. I have beach front property in Arizona to sell if interested.
They have no need to hit America when all they have to do is hit those apart of the Coalition that are closer: Spain, the UK, US and Coalition troops in Iraq, etc., etc.






seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

I know that you have got to be kidding me?
They are targeting Americans today.
Been to Iraq?
You think all those US, Coalition and Iraqi deaths are attributed to solely insurgents? Riiiiiight. I have beach front property in Arizona to sell if interested.
They have no need to hit America when all they have to do is hit those apart of the Coalition that are closer: Spain, the UK, US and Coalition troops in Iraq, etc., etc.
seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Wow so far this has been an intresting debate! Good work guys! Anyway I didn't mean for it to be a general comparison between of Iraq and Vietnam. Just something I noticed, that I though was intresting. Either way, keep on going, very intresting discussion!

Originally posted by deltaboy
each war is different and unique, u cannot compare Vietnam to Iraq. people say Afghanistan was Vietnam. so which is it? the only reason people want to compare ani war to Vietnam since post Vietnam is to scare America not to fight, mostly by anti war people, which i understand. however as i say each war is different from the other because of different region, new technology, methods, etc. WW1 is different from WW2, because of German Blitzkrieg which made trench warfare obsolete. Korean war is different as well, different region, new technology. Vietnam same thing. the use of helicopters like the Huey, in Korea the use of helos was limited, the introduction of the first guided bombs. introduction of the M-16s, etc. the first Gulf War, the test of land air battle. the testing of the Abrams tanks, the Stealth bombers, etc. different wars.

Of course, but history repeats itself, just in different ways. Like in the vietnam war we uncovered a lot of those weapon caches in the jungle. In Iraq we uncover them in houses. And of course in a different region, and new tech. But another thing is that both were/are a guerrilla war of course in vietnam we used jungle warfare tactics . And in Iraq we use urban warfare tactics. See what I mean?

You could look at the statistics and chronologies of the two wars for weeks and come up with thousands of similarities and an equal number of differences between this war and Vietnam. The similarities are more in the feeling of division in America, like intrepid said, and the political climate. Not speaking from personal experience though. But the experience of living in America since Iraq is like nothing I've seen or felt before, in terms of the pervasiveness of the split opinion. It's natural for this generation to compare Iraq with the last large controversial war America fought. Perhaps this time around the fear of terror is greater than the fear of communism was then, and our response militarily smaller (so far), make of that what you will.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by intrepid
To the Bold. Really? What have they done since 9/11? Nothing against America.

I know that you have got to be kidding me?
They are targeting Americans today.
Been to Iraq?
You think all those US, Coalition and Iraqi deaths are attributed to solely insurgents? Riiiiiight. I have beach front property in Arizona to sell if interested.
They have no need to hit America when all they have to do is hit those apart of the Coalition that are closer: Spain, the UK, US and Coalition troops in Iraq, etc., etc.






seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]

What is this action? War on Terror. Well did you think that the opposition wouldn't fight back? Just stand there to be targets? What I meant was that the American homeland hasn't been hit in 4 years. Those soldiers that are being targeted are being so, why? Because they are there.

BTW, why did you purchase the Arizona property in the first place?

Koji-K, nice post. I wouldn't say there is more fear now, different fear. That's hard to explain. Back then there was a constant fear of nuclear destruction. Kind of related to VN but seperate.

Originally posted by intrepid
Second, VN started out small, an incursion(does that seem familliar?), it graduated from a police action to a war.

You couldn't be more wrong about Vietnam, it was a handoff. Politics determine the speed, as does local cohesion with troop insertion. I applaud your input on comparison, but it's obvious your views on Vietnam are personal opinions.

Originally posted by Dallas
Seems to me one of the only comparisons, and I suggest this gently, would be Iraq may just be a no win situation.

Iraq is already won.

I grew up during Vietnam. I graudated from high school in June of '71. Saigon fell April 30, 1975. I was young and idealististic as most teenagers and young adults are. My perspective was much different then.

I am older now and look at the world in a more cynical manner. To me, the only similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are deaths of our citizens and our societies displeasure over it.

It's all a matter of perspective.

It's exactly the same - you're (again) working on the premise people want you there, want your way of life, your values. They don't.

Yet again US Grunts are hung out to dry by their government fighting the wrong war, the wrong way.

In time terms we're still in the '66-'67 phase of the Iraq war - still time for the US army to fail in the field like before - the signs are there, combat refusals, rumblings at home, ill-discipline in the warzone.

It's all heading 'female secondary sexual organs'-up, I'm just glad we're well-positioned for quick getaway - Byeee

PS this swear filter is very silly

[edit on 12/8/05 by CTID56092]

[edit on 12/8/05 by CTID56092]

Originally posted by CTID56092
Yet again US Grunts are hung out to dry by their government fighting the wrong war, the wrong way. In time terms we're still in the '66-'67 phase of the Iraq war - still time for the US army to fail in the field like before - the signs are there, combat refusals, rumblings at home, ill-discipline in the warzone.

Are you an American? It pains me to think of all the lives lost and you use the cowardly sentence, "fail in the field like before". Lets get this straight pal, our troops did not fail in the field. The only failure here is your lack of understanding.

Instead of choosing your half-baked notion, gleaned from negative news broadcasts, maybe you could view the possibility that men and women will lay their lives down, WITHOUT thought of cowardness, or "imagined ideals," for this country.

Yeah I know it's the governments fault, and Bush. You think you could do better ?
You think you're looking at one decision here? The war was based off the notion of spreading a permiter, and capturing commodities. We are in a war against Islamic Jihad. A decision was made and although spreading a perimeter decision is flawed, it was still a decision to take terrorism away from US soil. So thank a vet next time you see one

(MOD EDIT- to remove insults,)






[edit on 13-8-2005 by asala]

No I'm not read the profile.

In Vietnam the drugs, the Black Panthers, fragging, unrest at home rendered the US army incapable of major offensive operations, then you left - quickly.

Hmmm:
widespread comabt refusals
c. 800 fragging incidents
'no-go' areas within US Army camps
Smoking weed in the field
10% dependence on H / Opium

Looks like failure to me

Just tow of many, many sites on this subject

home.mweb.co.za...

It should be noted that fraggings and other insubordination in the Army spiked at a time when, according to Col. Heinl, writing in '71,

"The morale, discipline and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in the century and possibly in the history of the United States. By every conceivable indicator, our Army that remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having . . .refused combat, murdering their own officers and NCOs, drug-ridden and dispirited when not mutinous."

newdemocracyworld.org...

This Colonel served in 'Nam - you?

Sorry to pop you bubble - read some books, it may help you see facts not 'spin'

MODS - please sort this guy out!

Personal insults are verboten - no?

I won't reply on here or via U2U to this provoaction but I'm very, very tempted!

Don't cry like a baby to the mods. Yeah I insulted you, and you insuilted my country and all the troops who served in nam. You have a problem of recognizing simple insults, but yet you expect to understand a war you read about? You talk about morale. What do you know about morale?





[edit on 13-8-2005 by asala]

Sex and travel my friend, sex & travel.

You obviously dont know much- . You clearly can't see beyond your own prejudices, whatever the evidence. There's no dispute about the failure of your Army in Vietnam - I even provided a US Army source who, I'd imagine, out-ranks you! Maybe he's a leftie-commie too?

Your ignorance is astounding - 'Are you American?' Yeah of course I am that's why my avatar has uk troops on it and my address is London

Apologies - I shouldn't have risen to the bait, next time I'll wait for the mods to sort this sort of thing out


[edit on 13-8-2005 by asala]

[edit on 13/8/05 by CTID56092]

Originally posted by CTID56092
In Vietnam the drugs, the Black Panthers, fragging, unrest at home rendered the US army incapable of major offensive operations, then you left - quickly.

I disagree. During the Vietnam War, the political situation at home was very very different. It’s not like that at all now! Yeah there is opposition to the war but nothing like it was during Vietnam.
Also the number of soldiers lost in Iraq is very very small compared to Vietnam.
It is a mistake to see the deaths of US soldiers as an indicator of failure or a cause for the military to loose morale. We fought WW2 and the Korean war and many other wars since then where more soldiers have died, it is not the death that is most worrying at home, it is the effect of the war on our economy and our way of life. You seem to think that just because we loose soldiers that it weakens our resolve to fight that is Bin Laden's thinking. The number of deaths in Iraq are miniscule compared to the deaths we have faced in other wars, yet we have fought on.
Also the in discipline you mention, can you show any facts released by the US military on this, or is vague net opinion and arcane links the source of your knowledge?
It is a fact that some US personnel have refused to fight and now face a court-marshal but the fact is that since the liberals and the anti-war propagandists have used this in their propaganda to fuel their smear campaign against Bush and the republican party.
Most importantly our present presence in Iraq is a UN backed effort, which calls for the restoration of democracy in Iraq which we are doing. The UN did not back the invasion of Iraq but now the present process is.

Thought the US military action in Iraq is facing criticism at home it is in our best interests to do so. We need to bring democracy in the Middle East. We need to prove that democracy works and just because some savages can’t understand the concept of liberty doesn’t mean that the majority also fails to do so. The majority in Iraq is with the Coalition, that is why inspite of terrorist threats they went out to vote in such large numbers in the previous election, that is why so many hundreds of thousands of people come forward to join the Iraqi military and police forces even thought they face such severe danger.
The region is in a phase of transition, from centuries of autocratic rule to a system of democracy. This will be rough, no questioning that but the most important thing is that the Middle East have an example of democracy, of a system based on the freedom, of tolerance, of co-existence. This is important and so is our military in securing Iraq's government against the forces that seek to drag it back into fundamentalism.
Your comparison that Iraq and Vietnam are headed the same way is misguided; people are now much more informed about the war and are less susceptible to rumors and biased news. The fact still remains of terrorism, just because they don’t blow up any building in downtown Manhattan anymore doesn’t mean that the threat has passed, we have just taken the war to their doorstep and now into the holes in which they hide. It won’t be long when they realize that their resistance only makes us stronger.
Vietnam on the other hand was a boiling point of a lot of issues, it was the 70's and the US was hippie land. It was Black liberation, sexual liberation to political scandals. The social situation then was a mixture of many different pains and many different problems all balled into one, where the only credible outlet for public rage was the WAR, thus the chaos. But now their is no such thing, the only problem now is security- in all respects. The need of job security, the need for financial security and the need for national security is top priority. The major sponsors of decent are mostly the left wing nuts who seem to detest the idea that the general public actually doesn’t want to encourage social and moral decadence by succumbing to the left agenda.

Originally posted by CTID56092
Sex and travel my friend, sex & travel.

That's an area I don't lack in.

Originally posted by CTID56092
You obviously dont know much- . You clearly can't see beyond your own prejudices, whatever the evidence. There's no dispute about the failure of your Army in Vietnam - I even provided a US Army source who, I'd imagine, out-ranks you! Maybe he's a leftie-commie too?.

Yes I'm prejudice to individuals such as yourself - your poignant nose stuck in the air, along with vain imaginations of things you don't understand. Your source is weak as is your argument.

Originally posted by CTID56092
Your ignorance is astounding - 'Are you American?' Yeah of course I am that's why my avatar has uk troops on it and my address is London.

I didn't bother to look at your avatar, only to answer your folly. As you're not an American then you understand much less on the subject then don't you. Cheers

Vietnam - Democrat
Iraq - Republican

Vietnam - South Vietnamese were unwilling to fight
Iraq - Over 100k security forces have been trained by way of coalition force

Vietnam - Fabricated incident
Iraq - 1441 proved Article 41 inadequate by way of article 42 in the UNSC Charter Chapter VII

Vietnam - Never took out their leader
Iraq - Saddam is in jail

Vietnam - American death toll - 56k
Iraq - Death toll - 2k

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Similarities in Vietnam and Iraq:

"not sanctioned by Congress"

Sorry, this war was duly santioned by congress. The other comparison doesn't hold water either. The Idegenuis troops we are supporting now, actualy FIGHT.

Originally posted by IAF101

Also the in discipline you mention, can you show any facts released by the US military on this, or is vague net opinion and arcane links the source of your knowledge?

I refer you to my earlier post - the disintigration of the US army is well-documented. I provided two sources and an extensive quote from a US Army Colonel - seem like reliable sources to me.

Do you really wish to pursue this? Ok out of 2,000,000 who served in vietnam from 64 to 73, 800 fragging incidents (.0004%) is supposed to be alarming? Did you know that there were 204 Medal of Honor winners? I'm sure you overlooked that seeing that you have a strange notion that troops were failures in Vietnam.

Have you considered that the material you're reading is from flower picking draft dodgers? An estimated 70,000 draft evaders and "dodgers" were living in Canada by 1972.

10% dependency on heroin? LOL. Here is some data to chew on bub,


Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.

The facts are:

91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served (Westmoreland papers)

74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome (Westmoreland papers)

There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) (Westmoreland papers)

Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. (Nixon Library) Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.

Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. (Westmoreland papers)

97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam (Westmoreland papers)

85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. (McCaffrey Papers)

Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. (McCaffrey Papers)

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. (Westmoreland papers) Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. (McCaffrey Papers)

Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.
Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group." [Houk]

Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.
86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF) and (Westmoreland papers)
Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia - a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war." [All That We Can Be] NOTE: "All That We Can Be" by Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler

Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.
Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.
Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. (McCaffrey Papers)

Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):

Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]

Myth: The average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19

The oldest man killed was 62 years old. [CACF]

11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]

www.landscaper.net...
the Fighting 15th

Originally posted by vincere7
Do you really wish to pursue this? Ok out of 2,000,000 who served in vietnam from 64 to 73, 800 fragging incidents (.0004%) is supposed to be alarming? Did you know that there were 204 Medal of Honor winners? I'm sure you overlooked that seeing that you have a strange notion that troops were failures in Vietnam.

Have you considered that the material you're reading is from flower picking draft dodgers? An estimated 70,000 draft evaders and "dodgers" were living in Canada by 1972.

10% dependency on heroin? LOL. Here is some data to chew on bub,


Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.

The facts are:

91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served (Westmoreland papers)

74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome (Westmoreland papers)

There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) (Westmoreland papers)

Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. (Nixon Library) Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.

Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. (Westmoreland papers)

97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam (Westmoreland papers)

85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. (McCaffrey Papers)

Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. (McCaffrey Papers)

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. (Westmoreland papers) Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. (McCaffrey Papers)

Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.
Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group." [Houk]

Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.
86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF) and (Westmoreland papers)
Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia - a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war." [All That We Can Be] NOTE: "All That We Can Be" by Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler

Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.
Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.
Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. (McCaffrey Papers)

Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):

Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]

Myth: The average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19

The oldest man killed was 62 years old. [CACF]

11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]

www.landscaper.net...
the Fighting 15th

Yep I do.

800 recorded incidents of killing officers NCO's is very alarming. That coupled with a lowering of the standards for officers (Calley, shake&bake etc) led to poor leadership and poor troop performance. Your figures are bogus, 2M using an average platton size is 66,666 platoons 800 fraggings is 1.2% of platoons in-country fragged their officers (assuming even distribution). Given a teeth to tail ratio of 1:10 it's even more alarming -approaching 12% if all fraggings occurred in teeth units ( extreme I know but the true figure would be 6-10% of units)

Westy's view is interesting but hardly unbiased!

Re attrocities, age etc thank you but not points I raised. All I said was your army failed in the field and disintegrated due to drug and discipline problems making it incapable of major combat ops.

Can you refute the Colonel's report? You've yet to comment sensibly on the quote & link I provided

I never mentioned vets, age, race or post-war drug use. Extraneous information.

I've been reading on 'Nam for 20+ years so I do know what I'm talking about.