Will the War on Terror be Americas new Vietnam?

reply to post by AmosGraber

According to Fletcher Prouty all the wars since world war two have been fought in third world countries and have no fixed objectives.
They are cover for other agendas

Hey its a funky world:
www.fox8.com...
"6-Year-Old Northeast Ohio Girl on 'No Fly' List
WESTLAKE, Ohio - Alyssa Thomas, 6, is a little girl who is already under the spotlight of the federal government. Her family recently discovered that Alyssa is on the "no fly" list maintained by U.S. Homeland Security.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations in Cleveland will confirm that a list exists, but for national security reasons, no one will discuss who is on the list or why."


[edit on 26-6-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


I totally disagree with that comment, just because of the use of the word “all”. For example the Falklands war was not fought in the 3rd word. I would also argue that Iraq is not a 3rd world state, or rather was not before the first gulf war. The conflict between Russia and Georgia was not fought in the 3rd world. They are just the examples i can think up off the top of my head, I am sure i could find more if i wanted to. Further to this all of these wars or “conflicts” as they sometimes like to call them, all had fixed objectives.

Even if the objectives are a cover for the real agenda, then their still does exist a agenda. Your comment means that you are saying that every troop since WWII has died for nothing, I really struggle to buy into that.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the thread title caught my eye. Hasn't this question been being asked for the past 8 or so years now?

Is there something special about now that resets this question? I would honestly like to know.

Originally posted by AmosGraber
Vietnam was the last real war in the global Cold War, in that context; Vietnam was a large scale battle in the bigger Cold War.

This is the most accurate description of the war in Vietnam that I've read on this board in a very long time.

When someone says that something else might become or is the next or new Vietnam, I'm pretty certain that person not only doesn't understand the war in Vietnam, but also the context in which is was fought.

In fact using "Vietnam" in such a way has no substantive value whatsoever. It is simply inflammatory rhetoric.



[edit on 2010/6/27 by GradyPhilpott]

Yes but worse. Since it is a war on terror and not just one country I can see this being an ongoing non stop thing just like the war on drugs. When you declare war on a concept or ideal it becomes a permant fixture to that society.
The war on vietnam was with one country so it ended. The war on terror includes many countries, including The USA. Terrorits can live anywhere and even be american citzens.(i.e. Timothy McViegh).
This is sad because it just gives government more excuses for power and control; to fight fruitless wars at whim now.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Will the War on Terror be Americas new Vietnam?

"New" ?

It's been going on for almost a decade...just sayin'.

reply to post by Catch_a_Fire

Thats a very good question, what exactly would it take?. The capturing of OBL?, the complete disbandment of the Taliban?, world domination?. I really dont know, do TPTB know?.

There was never any intention of their being an end to this war. They'll keep it going as long as we are manageable in our protest of it. If we start moving our dissent out of their comfort zone, we'll probably see some major development that will supposedly bring an end to it all.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


I agree with your sentiments. However, I disagree with your (and everybody's) differentiation, and naming, of the unending "Wars" on Drugs and on Terror.
There is just ONE perpetual war: the War on Civilians.

I'd say it's worse than Vietnam, because it's not just one country, it's anywhere in the world they please.

It will end eventually, once people are sick of the suffering and seeing their loved ones die for "sacrifice".