It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by runetang
The fundamental difference is.. when you leave the small impoverished southeast asian communist country alone, it returns to peaceful means of living. When you leave the Islamist's land, they will use it as a base from which to further their cause, their ideaology, their movement, at any cost.
this is why it was acceptable to 'pull out' of Vietnam without total victory objectives accomplished,
The opposite is true with Iraq, as well as Afganistan, and the U.S. politicians know it.
posted by Ruentang
People can't help but compare the two conflicts. I do it myself sometimes. I took it upon myself to make this thread to point out the differences, why they are so fundamental, while also showing the similarities.
Ideology: Both conflicts involve the U.S. military and allies to a certain extent against an unconventional, poor, ill-equipped force that uses guerrilla tactics and other unconventional tactics and weapons to even up the chances of victory as best they can. [Edited by Don W]
So what you will have is Islamists using Iraq as a base to attack U.S. embassies, U.S. citizens in the area, U.S. bases in the region, U.S. assets in the region, U.S. allies in the region, the list goes on. They don't just stop and say "We're freed of the occupiers, now lets get down to peaceful living and reconstructing our beautiful land", they instead say "We're freed of the occupiers, now lets get down to laying plans and gathering materials to destroy their bases and people and their allies all over the world".
This is . . fundamental . . it was acceptable . . Vietnam . . The opposite is true with Iraq . . Afghanistan . . the U.S. politicians know it . . They fear it . . never let happen . . drafting boys . . means use . . tactical nuclear weapon. Whatever takes . . not allow . . biggest fear . . into reality . .
posted by MagicMushroom
Rune, your comparison is flawed . . Muslim fanatics are attacking the US because of Foreign policy. America is corrupt and uses its power to spread its global influence. With that in mind can you blame people for hitting back when they can and with what weapons as are avail be to them? The Muslim people are just like you and I, they wan to live in peace, none of us want our countries invaded and have the ways of others rammed down our throats. [Edited by Don W]
posted by The Vagabond
I appreciate the accuracy of what you [Mr Rune] have said in regards to Vietnam as [far as ] the outcome actually was, but I must disagree as to the difference in the way the conflicts are viewed. In October of '65, Lyndon Johnson increased US troop levels almost 300%, from 120k to 400k. The end of 1965 was all about maneuvering to fight the domino effect . . there was no belief that Vietnam was an isolated battle. It was believed to be a matter of stop them now or stop them later, just as some see Iraq to be in the war on terror. That view was wrong in Vietnam . . We could have sat out [the] war and been FINE, by just engaging our enemies at the critical points where we held the advantage. This is also the case in Iraq. They [insurgents] can't take Turkey . . the Saudi regime is strong enough . . we are good to protect Kuwait . . [Edited by Don W]
Having the radicals localized is a good thing - it causes their leadership and their money to concentrate where we can get to it whenever we please. We don't have to rule them, we just have to be able to hit them when they pose a threat . . Trying to rule them is a fools errand - it's the only level where they have even the slightest chance of going toe to toe with us. . the important aspect of keeping radicals weak is not depriving them of a state. It is depriving them of the ability to build economically, diplomatically, and militarily into a great power. As long as the world is united in an understanding that they are dangerous, we're OK. The best thing we can do is let these regimes coalesce and alienate the rest of the world and their own people, which will bring things to a point where we can subvert unpopular regimes without having to face a popular insurgency.
This is the position we held in 1992, when we could have deposed Saddam and replaced him with disloyal factions of his own army . . The wait in 1992 and then the mishandling of the late attack in 2003 has set us back 40 years in Iraq, and now we've got to wait for the new regime to ruin itself and handle it right next time. Staying will only put that off further, or even diminish our credibility to a point where we'll never be able to do it. [Edited by Don W]
posted by runetang
I get it. Anything Bush does is automatically wrong, anything he says is automatically wrong, it's automatically a conspiracy, there’s always dirt on his shoulder, something always going on secretly right?[Edited by Don W]
That is not enough to discredit what one says as incorrect. For the record DonW, this is a freakin' fact buddy. The dang terrorists say it themselves on their dang videos! But let me guess, those videos aren’t really made by the 'terrorists', its another plot by, let me guess, Bush to make us think this and that right? Heh.. now that is a sad outlook.
I keep an open mind. I stand in the middle, not to the left, not to the right.
Onto the Vietnam comparison . . it was never an isolated conflict! I wasn’t suggesting this. There was Laos, the trail there, there was the funding and support from China & the Soviets, there was more than just that. I know it was a proxy war, I know it was about the domino effect, I'm a former professed American communist . .
In Iraq, the same thing has happened. They realized or knew they couldn’t beat the USA head on. do you really think the Insurgency wasn’t PLANNED before we even invaded?! They had an "if the USA actually comes in, this is what we will do" kind of plan. And the plan was the Sunni Insurgency, which hatched sectarian strife by attacking the Shiites
Iraq is like Vietnam . . the fighting forces are being supported by outside powers . . The Countries that are helping the Insurgency are much like the Soviets and Chinese helping North Vietnam and the southern Vietcong. They are in their theater, while we are outside of ours. We are going to leave Iraq [eventually], the insurgents can just get killed every day between now and then. But when we go, and we have to go eventually, they’ll shoot at us as we are leaving and then they'll overthrow the Shiite US-backed government or die trying. You'll see.
Then it will be known as Vietnam part deux. And Bush will be comparable to Johnson in their blunders.
Originally posted by runetang
Alright so I get it.. anything Bush does is automaticly wrong
I keep an open mind.
I dont automaticly think theres a secret plan or automaticly discredit the president simply because its the president.
I criticize his actions not what I think he *might* secretly be doing
Onto the vietnam comparison. Duh, of course it was never an isolated conflict! I wasnt suggesting this.
And the plan was the Sunni Insurgency, which hatched sectarian strife by attacking the Shiites first[Golden Dome mosque].
But when we have to go, and we do have to go eventually, theyll shoot at us as we are leaving and then they'll overthrow the Shiite US-backed government or die trying. You'll see.
Then it will be known as vietnam part deux. And Bush will be comparable to Johnson in their blunders.
Originally posted by runetang
TheVagabond, I dont think Saddam's plan was for Shiites to kill Sunnis and vice versa. You added him in there.
I said that was Al-Qaeda in Iraq's plan.
They see the Shiite government as U.S. agents
I see your points. It is strange that Bin laden and Zawahiri cant be found, I personally think its because they are actually in the South Baluchistan
I see nothing else for Iraq but 3 autonomous regions.
posted by Flatwoods
I don't think it's accurate to compare the war in Iraq with Vietnam, or even the Cold War for that matter. Many peoples across the globe have embraced Islamic terrorism for a number of reasons. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Flatwoods
The terrorists fighting in the Philippines have their own particular motives
The terrorists fighting in Pakistan . .
The terrorists fighting in Gaza . .
The terrorists fighting in Iraq . .
posted by Flatwoods
In response “ . . many peoples have embraced Islamic terrorism for a number of reasons . . 99% of the bombs detonated at any one time are done by terrorists in the name of ISLAM. [Edited by Don W]
Note: I define terrorism as violence committed solely against un-armed civilians for political purposes.
“ . . you missed the point of my argument. I was say that not all Islamic terrorists are allied: rather they tend to fight for their own separate political purposes. This goes against the popular view of terrorism that is being projected by the political right in America - namely that Islamic terrorists all share the same goal of destroying Western democracy.
[Edited Don W]
In the cases you mentioned, each of them has legitimate complaints that it is not in the “interest “ of the US or other Western powers to acknowledge.
Originally posted by Flatwoods
It was never my intention to imply unity of purpose among Muslim terrorists.
I strongly disagree with that viewpoint, for the reasons I've cited in my prior postings.
That being said, I must argue that modern terrorism, in terms of hijackings and suicide bombings, is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon.
To say that Islam plays no part is to deny widely published fact.
I also believe that it is wrong to equate a nation's military action with terrorism. The issue in this case is one of accountability; a military that fights on behalf of it's people is projecting the implied consent of that people, and must answer to them.
Because of this, coalition forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, sometimes placing it's own soldiers at risk to do so.
And please don't try and tell me this isn't the case - all one needs to do is ask any modern soldier or marine,
Terrorists, on the other hand, answer to no governmental authority whatsoever! When was the last time a Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Queda fighter was put on trial by his own peers for intentionally causing civilian casualties?
And one final point, the one that makes me angriest of all. When was the last time you saw schoolchildren in the West being taught to hate another race or nationality?
That isn't allowed here. Hell, THAT ISN'T EVEN ALLOWED IN ISRAEL!