It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

How Iraq is NOT like Vietnam

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
There is one thing that truly irritates me when debating the current war in Iraq, and I won't even use the terms liberal or conservatives in this post, except that time, but no more, because it is starting to grow old. But the thing that irritates me is when those who are for this war try and use the "you're just like the people who were against the soldiers in Vietnam" card, on those of us against this war. The difference now is, we support our troops 100%, they are awesome. They prove that they are some of the best soldiers in the world because they are willing to leave their families and homes behind, and go to a terrible desert (I know it's terrible because I live in one), and sacrifice their lives to, they really believe, make us safer here. Regardless of my feelings about the war itself, I honestly appreciate their willingness to defend our country. The same goes for soldiers that were in Vietnam, the citizens who booed them, spit at them, through urine at them, etc. were scum, and were not worth the bodily fluids they threw. The only things I would thow at a returning soldier today, would be a thank you card, and a baseball bat to shatter the knee caps of the corrupt old men who caused the deaths of so many of their fellow soldiers and put their lives at risk, not to defend freedom as they believe, as they signed up to do, but to further a corporate agenda. Vietnam and Iraq are alot alike, both wars were IMO wrong. And both wars will probably resemble each other greatly in history. But the soldiers will not be blamed this time around, and they shouldn't have been the first time. Our soldiers are one of our greatest assets, they are just being grossly misused by very greedy, corrupt people. May this all end soon.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]




posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
As for the soldiers part I agree, they are awesome, they believe for the most part in what they are doing. If people spit on them when they come home, there will be lots of folks in jail, including me.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
As a wife of the retired soldier I tell you that are a very nice post, you are right even with all the controversy of Iraq it will never be a Vietnam and our soldiers have our support, they are doing what they are told to do, their job.

Seeing them in a foreign country far away form their families and home is very sad.

I hate wars I know how it feels when your love one is away and you don't know how he is doing or if is going to come back.

I wish them well and I hope all the madness in the middle east be over soon.


[edit on 013131p://222 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
To my knowledge no one spit on or threw urine on or otherwise abused US troops returning from Vietnam. This is an urban legend started as part of the right-wing historical revisionism that is continuing with the Swift Boat Liars for Bush smear campaign. I was a Vietnam veteran. I wasn't welcomed back because the war was politically unpopular. The war was politically unpopular because we had no right to be in Vietnam.

The US was born in a struggle for national self-determination against the British colonial empire. In 1945, at the end of WWII, Vietnam declared its independence from the much crueler and more exploitive colonial empire of France. French colonialism included a monopoly over the economy, harsh labor conditions, forced illiteracy of the peasants, an omnipresent secret service, and arrogant corruption. For 70-odd years the Vietnamese resisted French domination with protests and violence targeted at French colonial positions. The French answered with indiscriminate atrocities. It was not Karl Marx who taught the Vietnamese to become ruthless in order to win, it was the French. France lost the war in 1954 because they tried to use overwhelming military tactics against strategically targeted resistance, and ended up creating more enemies than they killed.

The US created a corrupt, repressive, unpopular puppet state in South Vietnam and proceeded to prop it up with military and economic assistance. But the Vietnamese rightly saw this as merely a continuation of imperialism by other means. By the early 1960s they had almost succeeded in reunifying their country. President Kennedy, and then President Johnson, faced charges from conservatives that they would “lose” Vietnam to “International Communism”. On May 27, 1964, Johnson complained to national security advisor McGeorge Bundy in a taped phone conversation that Vietnam was "the biggest damn mess I ever saw….I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out….What the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What the hell is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country?" Ultimately, he escalated our involvement in Vietnam not for the sake of the Vietnamese but to ensure that he could get his Great Society legislation, including Medicare and the Civil Rights Act of 1965, passes with minimal right-wing resistance.

But since the US had no valid reason to intervene he had to create one. His solution was to lie to Congress regarding a North Vietnamese attack on a US destroyer engaged in a provocative intrusion in North Vietnamese territory in support of South Vietnamese sabotage. Johnson later admitted to George Ball: "Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish." When Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution based on a manifestly nonexistent security threat, Johnson had the authority to begin the escalation of US involvement that was the Second Indochina War. It led to:
- over 58,000 US troops dead
- approximately 224,000 South Vietnamese troops dead
- approximately 600,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong dead (Because of the lack of weapons recovered from many bodies, it has been suggested that up to 222,000 of these may have actually been innocent bystanders
- 1,500,000-3,000,000 South Vietnamese civilians dead
- 65,000 North Vietnamese civilians dead.

The Bush Administration is repeating the same pattern in Iraq. We're not there for the sake of Iraqi democracy. We're there to maintain access to oil on the cheapest terms possible, at Iraq's expense if necessary.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I just knew that someone would turn this thread around and cast the blame on President Bush...


I should start taking bets on this kind of thing... I'd be rich...



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Iraq is not Vietnam because the public sentiment is different. People grew up and thay support soldiers even in this not-so-popular war.

On the other hand, Iraq is Vietnam because there is not good reason to be there.

And yeah, I think Bush is to blame.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
At this point in time Iraq is just like Vietnam was in 1965/1966 the people of the United States fully supported Vietnam during that time and as the war drags on with no end in site you will watch Iraq wear on the American people just like Vietnam. Now I am sure you all disagree with me but my father , Col USAF Ret, Head of in country flight in Vietnam, 5th USAF HQ, would disagree with you also.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
all over again, another stupid Texan in the whitehouse destroying the credibility of our country all the while destroying the families of our citizens.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by deweysghost
The US created a corrupt, repressive, unpopular puppet state in South Vietnam and proceeded to prop it up with military and economic assistance. But the Vietnamese rightly saw this as merely a continuation of imperialism by other means. By the early 1960s they had almost succeeded in reunifying their country. President Kennedy, and then President Johnson, faced charges from conservatives that they would “lose” Vietnam to “International Communism”. On May 27, 1964, Johnson complained to national security advisor McGeorge Bundy in a taped phone conversation that Vietnam was "the biggest damn mess I ever saw….I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out….What the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What the hell is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country?" Ultimately, he escalated our involvement in Vietnam not for the sake of the Vietnamese but to ensure that he could get his Great Society legislation, including Medicare and the Civil Rights Act of 1965, passes with minimal right-wing resistance.

But since the US had no valid reason to intervene he had to create one. His solution was to lie to Congress regarding a North Vietnamese attack on a US destroyer engaged in a provocative intrusion in North Vietnamese territory in support of South Vietnamese sabotage. Johnson later admitted to George Ball: "Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish." When Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution based on a manifestly nonexistent security threat, Johnson had the authority to begin the escalation of US involvement that was the Second Indochina War.

Well said! I just wanted to add to this the fact that long before the conflict started in Vietnam, Ho Chi Mihn appealed to the Untied States for help and was completely ignored. He made the same appeal the soviet union and it wasn't until the soviets stepped in that the US decided to get involved.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deweysghost
To my knowledge no one spit on or threw urine on or otherwise abused US troops returning from Vietnam. This is an urban legend started as part of the right-wing historical revisionism that is continuing with the Swift Boat Liars for Bush smear campaign. I was a Vietnam veteran. I wasn't welcomed back because the war was politically unpopular. The war was politically unpopular because we had no right to be in Vietnam.


It may very well be urban legend or exaggeration, a veteran of Vietnam I worked with told me about the bags of urine, spitting, etc. I was not even born yet. But at the least we know the soldiers were treated badly, and they shouldn't have been. You should have been welcomed back, regardless of politics, it wasn't you or your fellow soldiers' fault. It was the fault of those running the country. Soldiers in all wars, I believe commit attrocities, I'm sure you know better than I that war can really mess up your head. Your forced to detach the enemy from humanity just to survive, some take it too far, but that's the way I find it to be with just about everything in life. They should not have been put in that position to begin with. I think wars should never be fought on political agendas but only in clear defense of humanity and freedom.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join