There are certain parallels between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Two I can think of are that they were supposed to be over almost before we knew it;
and the other is the quagmire part. Vietnam was engineered by the democrats, and Iraq by republicans, which goes to show you that breaking conflicts
down to party affiliations can be a bit on the senseless side. There was an argument that the the anti-war movement of the sixties helped to prolong
the war in Vietnam through the polarization of the country. There might be some truth in that, inasmuch as the American public initially reacted
negatively to the opposition, rather than participating in the debate over the war. It took quite a while for people to realize, regardless of their
support for the war, and for the troops, that we simply weren't winning. I think it took both Walter Cronkite and Donna Reed to force everyone to
take a second look. Interestingly, people are still debating Vietnam, as some people are still debating whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11 or
still possesses WMD's, but personally speaking, these issues may never be resolved to everyone's satisfation, and are no longer relevant to the
immediate problem, which is: how do we get out of this mess?
|
I think I'd be a lot more comfortable if President Bush had invaded someplace else. Or finished up in Afghanistan. Still, you have to admire someone
for so profoundly screwing up. I vote for quagmire.
|
Quagmire! 
No question about it. And what makes Iraq worse than Vietnam is the numerous religious sects that keep soldiers in the middle. At least in Vietnam, we
didn't have to deal with anything other than the North vs the South. In Iraq, there are numerous religious sects that HATE EACH OTHER... and the
soldiers are HATED BY THEM ALL and will pay, as in ALL WARS, the ultimate SACRIFICE  .
Just one opinion.
Dave
|
I think that a major thing to consider is that the quagmire is defined as the war being extremely costly in terms of lives, without much gain in
control. Iraq seems to be pretty different from Vietnam in that respect, the death rates/counts are practically an order of magnitude lower, and in
terms of control, its the central triangle that is most out of control, with the cities flucuating. The Iraqi insurgency doesn't seem to have the
same widespread support as in vietnam, at least in so far as they seem to be supplied largely from Sadam's weapon depots, rathern than having long
trails of supply lines and local people giving them food and hiding their weapons.
Though clearly many towns support them in precisely that way.
|
The REPORT CARD is still out on Iraq.... and honestly, will be for YEARS after it ultimately ceases..... but I think you will find, if they have a
list of the TOP TEN reasons we were there..... Weapons Of Mass Destruction will NOT be at the top of the list..... OIL will be.
Just one opinion.
Dave
|
GIGADEE--GIGADEE--GOO
i COULD NOT HELP MYSELF---LOL
|
 Originally posted by Dave Rabbit
Quagmire!
No question about it. And what makes Iraq worse than Vietnam is the numerous religious sects that keep soldiers in the middle. At least in Vietnam, we
didn't have to deal with anything other than the North vs the South. In Iraq, there are numerous religious sects that HATE EACH OTHER... and the
soldiers are HATED BY THEM ALL and will pay, as in ALL WARS, the ultimate SACRIFICE .
Just one opinion.
Dave 
You see, Bush got it completely wrong because Wolfie and Cheney gave him a scientific calculator : 1+1=3 .......This is not just a quagmire, it's
also a concrete block tied to Bush's legs to bury him alive. Troops have now come to realize that they were treated like stock market commodities,
bought and sold to the third party, without compensation.
|
