It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iraq & Vietnam - Different Countries - Same Outcome?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:09 AM
Another Roof Top Scenerio In Iraq?

April 30, 2006 an anniversary will pass without much said or fanfare made about it, and no wonder, we all wished there was no anniversary at all. It will be the 31st Anniversary of the last American leaving the roof top of the American Embassy in Saigon, Vietnam. 31 years ago.

I left Vietnam 35 years ago and what I see in Iraq right now gives me flashbacks of what we were bogged down in Vietnam with. Politics and BS. If something is not done soon, I fear that the uproar and turmoil that is happening between all the religious sects in Iraq is going to suck us deeper and deeper into another nightmarish ending. And this time, there will be no roof top.

By the way... we are in pre-production for Radio First Termer Iraq, which we hope to broadcast to all the troops on the front lines early this summer 2006.

As a SPECIAL BONUS to all of the ATS MEMBERS and with the blessing of our ATS LEADERS, we will make the entire Radio First Termer Iraq show that will be broadcasted to Iraq available on the ATS PODCAST FEED NETWORK.

I will notify the membership HERE when it will be available. We want to get it in as many FRONT LINE service men and women's hands around the world as possible and I know I can count on the ATS membership to assist us in that regard.

Here is our TEASER for your enjoyment.


[edit on 5/15/2006 by Dave Rabbit]

[edit on 5-15-2006 by Springer]

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:16 AM
I like it, that is what I'm talking about. Short, but you said it, teaser.
You have my support, interest in this is topped out pretty good too.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:35 AM
In a certain sense I agree with you ,but wasn't Nam about communism and the chinese and Iraq was about WMD and oil.
The similarities are that the US is involved in a war they no not how to fight against an enemy that uses tactics that they are ill prepared for.
The politics that go along with both are the same though,doublespeak,hidden agendas,and the need to flex military muscle as well as complete incompetence by the political and military leaders.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:41 AM

There will be a thread posted shortly about the new documentary "Sir! No Sir!". You will learn many things from it.

Stay tuned.


[edit on 5-15-2006 by Springer]

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:26 AM
Here's a really interesting analysis along those lines:
The Last Exit From Iraq

THe author is a Major at CentCom who also taught history. He is comparing the British experience in Iraq when they received it as a UN Mandate in the '20s, to the current US experience there. Fascinating to see the parallels.

Some selections:

In 1925, Sir Samuel Hoare, head of the Air Ministry and another close Baldwin adviser, acknowledged that "since the war we [have] spent a great deal in the Middle East, and the British taxpayer [has] asked whether the expenditure was worthwhile, and whether it could be reduced."[...]

the Conservative government began to recognize that Iraq was scoring poorly in all those areas. This meant that the only way to leave with honor would be to redefine the standards of success and overstate Iraq's achievements[...]officials consistently minimized their commitments and proclaimed Iraq's progress in public, even while privately acknowledging widespread, serious problems.[...]

The worst of these problems was Iraq's lack of security. As the United Kingdom scaled back its garrisons in Iraq, it left the country increasingly exposed to hostile neighbors[...]southern Iraq came under attack by thousands of Wahhabi Ikhwan ("brothers"). The Ikhwan were a puritanical sect that had brutally conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in 1924. Like today's insurgents under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Ikhwan were Salafi fighters who invaded Iraq from the desert to terrorize its Shiites

And closes in part with:

Washington thus now finds itself facing roughly the same question that London faced between 1925 and 1927: Should it leave Iraq, or continue until its project there has truly fulfilled its aims? In the British case, both sides of the debate -- the Quit Mesopotamia critics and the Conservative officials who minimized Iraq's problems -- apparently believed that the United Kingdom could leave Iraq without repercussions, regardless of whether the mandate had actually served its purpose. They came to assume that an independent Iraq would somehow muddle along -- and that if it did not, the consequences would not affect the British.

Though, of course, this is from a Major at CentCom, so the editorializing has to be taken with a grain of salt.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:50 PM
It doesn't seem all that long ago that Iraq was just this small country ruled by a jerk and dominated by a "No-Fly Zone." What's worse? One Saddam or a whole lot of Al Qaeda? All things considered, I would have to admit that I preferred the policy towards Saddam established by the first President Bush, which, as Norman mailer termed it, was the "whack-a-mole" policy. Them days are gone. Now we have a whole bunch of Saddam's on the loose.

The British will leave with Tony Blair. And then it'll really be just us.

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:30 PM
Unfortunately.... the LONGER it takes.... the MORE COSTLY it is going to be in AMERICAN and ALLIED LIVES!

Just one opinion.


posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 06:35 AM
The strategic consequences of the Iraq war are far worse then then that of the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has proven to be akin to Hitler invading the Soviet Union there are to few troops spread out to thinly which makes victory impossible in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hitler also refused to listen to follow military wisdom when the going got tough sound familiar ?

Anyway to answer the question something has to give and the superficial result will be the same a coalition withdrawl which will lead the Iraqi government falling like a pack of cards.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:43 PM
If Iraq is based on the same outcome, then I wonder what another next country is going to be based on the same outcome.


posted on May, 18 2008 @ 02:36 AM
GB 1 new they did not have a viable exit strategy and bailed. GB 2 says missions accomplished. The only difference between now and vietnam is instead of guys in black pajamas fragging you, you now have ex herders with rpg's. Using the koran for target practice is really winning hearts and minds. Seven years now. Shock and awe. The Surge. All BS. Time to cut our losses. Use the billions saved to make electric cars.

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 02:44 AM
The outcome will be what the media and politicians make it out to be. If the politicians would have stayed out of the business of war and let the military handle the situation, Vietnam would have likely been different. There are too many with vested interest in Iraq having the same outcome as Vietnam. I wish all wars could end the way WW2 did, military control and gradual return of local civilian government, NO media manipulation. Things got done then.

top topics


log in