Analysis: Iraq is no Vietnam

[kaydee457 13]

Perspective is a wonderful thing. Those of us that lived through the Viet Nam conflict know that Iraq and Vietnam have only one thing in common: they're both wars. That's where the "sameness" ends.

We've lost 3k soldiers in Iraq in 4 years, a remarkably small number compared to the Viet conflict whereby we lost 55k over the same span.

The outrage over the "soaring" losses in Iraq are simply an exaggeration with little or no perspective. Soldiers die in war. That's a sad fact. The enemy plays the U.S. public like a badly tuned musical instrument, each time they pull or pluck a string we scream and whine GET OUT!

Place the worst of news on our TV's every night, replete with dead children and dead U.S. soldiers and the Americans will soon react in outrage- less any sensible perspective- and demand to get out by any means.

The enemy obviously knows this. We are, as a nation, sadly predictable.

Their campaign and strategy to win this war is thus far successful as they've learned from our Vietnam experience but apparently we did not.

So, here we go again; we are committing the same stupid mistakes allowing ourselves to be duped and manipulated by lots of leftist propaganda from both the enemy and our own media.

Here's a good analytical article comparing Iraq to Vietnam. It's a good read to gain some perspective regarding mission and casualties.

Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Not for U.S. Troop Levels

[I'm Gone 60]

Nothing is ever going to be an exact match to something that happened previously, but it seems to me to be a match in that we are in middle of something that is not winable in the near future or can't be continued indefinetly. People can call it cut and run, but I say it's using common sense and cutting your losses.

Edited November 17, 2006 by mdyoung

[Carol&Marc 0]

Yes sir I agree, It seems that the terror will need to come here,once again. Before people realize the full intent of these radicals. I guess that most of us need to be hit upside the head with the proverbial 2x4 once again. MD, I agree with the fact that "Winning" is probably not a good term to use. But it certainly makes sense to me to take the fight to them.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[DeadPoolX 9]

I read a report somewhere -- I forget where, but I bet I could dig it up if I really tried -- that we've lost the same amount of people in Iraq as we lost in the first three days of fighting in Iwo Jima in WWII against the Japanese. That really puts things into perspective.

I mean, where was the outcry back then? Why wasn't the American public clamoring for a "pull out" and to "return the troops home?" I'll tell you why. Because they didn't know about it. Back then, the news media respected the boundries of the military and the war and knew when to back off. There also wasn't any television, so the folks at home couldn't actually see the horrific casuality rate broadcasted live to them; all they had were after-the-fact radio reports, and propaganda news reels at the local move theater.

I honestly believe what lost us Vietnam was the fact that the American public, for the first time in history, could actually witness what war was like. They, naturally enough, didn't like or approve of it and the news media (no longer respecting boundries) did it all it could to shove those images down everyone's throat. We won the battles in Vietnam (the Tet Offensive, for instance, was a decisive victory for the United States, but you wouldn't know that if you listened to the media), but we lost the war because we failed to win over the "heart and minds" of the American people and the South Vietnamese.

The same thing is happening with the War in Iraq -- we're winning militarily, but American "hearts and minds" once again aren't in the fight, and to be honest, I'm not sure if the Iraqis even want (or are willing to work for) a real government and army. That's a sad thing, but it might just be true.

[Carol&Marc 0]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

[garya505 2]

Yes sir I agree, It seems that the terror will need to come here,once again. Before people realize the full intent of these radicals. I guess that most of us need to be hit upside the head with the proverbial 2x4 once again. MD, I agree with the fact that "Winning" is probably not a good term to use. But it certainly makes sense to me to take the fight to them.

... or they will bring the fight to us, as they have demonstrated they are willing to do.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Yes sir I agree, It seems that the terror will need to come here,once again. Before people realize the full intent of these radicals. I guess that most of us need to be hit upside the head with the proverbial 2x4 once again. MD, I agree with the fact that "Winning" is probably not a good term to use. But it certainly makes sense to me to take the fight to them.

... or they will bring the fight to us, as they have demonstrated they are willing to do.

Your SPOT on!

[mawilson 2,133]

Where can I find this "liberal media" everyone keeps talking about?

Everything I see on TV seems more conservative than liberal. There's nothing

even remotely resembling the BBC or other liberal channels.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where can I find this "liberal media" everyone keeps talking about?

Everything I see on TV seems more conservative than liberal. There's nothing

even remotely resembling the BBC or other liberal channels.

Mark, don't you know the new definition of 'liberal'? Anything or anyone opposed to Bush and his policies.

[kaydee457 13]

Where can I find this "liberal media" everyone keeps talking about?

Everything I see on TV seems more conservative than liberal. There's nothing

even remotely resembling the BBC or other liberal channels.

New York Times is only one of many that comes to mind......

Yes sir I agree, It seems that the terror will need to come here,once again. Before people realize the full intent of these radicals. I guess that most of us need to be hit upside the head with the proverbial 2x4 once again. MD, I agree with the fact that "Winning" is probably not a good term to use. But it certainly makes sense to me to take the fight to them.

... or they will bring the fight to us, as they have demonstrated they are willing to do.

Your SPOT on!

I'm sad to say that it's just a matter of time.......

[Peikko 1,575]

liberal = doesn't agree with their idea of what the media should be saying.

Yet more examples of fuzzy logic and a bizarre obsession with troups. Is this what happens when gays are not allowed to marry?

There is a lot of fantasizing going on, whatever way you slice it.

[Carol&Marc 0]

liberal = doesn't agree with their idea of what the media should be saying.

Yet more examples of fuzzy logic and a bizarre obsession with troups. Is this what happens when gays are not allowed to marry?

There is a lot of fantasizing going on, whatever way you slice it.

See, you just defined a "LIBERAL" all by yourself and I bet you did'nt even know it.

[kaydee457 13]

Most journalists lean left. This is as how they describe themselves when asked.

It has been long known that liberals favor certain occupations. Journalism and teaching are the most prevalent occupations for those that lean far left.

source

Edited November 17, 2006 by kaydee457

[one...two...tree 2,762]

liberal = doesn't agree with their idea of what the media should be saying.

Yet more examples of fuzzy logic and a bizarre obsession with troups. Is this what happens when gays are not allowed to marry?

There is a lot of fantasizing going on, whatever way you slice it.

The result of growing up with strict fathers and then idolizing them as adults.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;hl=political

[Jenn! 918]

Where can I find this "liberal media" everyone keeps talking about?

Everything I see on TV seems more conservative than liberal. There's nothing

even remotely resembling the BBC or other liberal channels.