Analysis: Iraq is no Vietnam

[Yodrak 7]

kaydee,

Each war is unique, and any comparison to other wars invari­ably suffers from oversimplification. With respect to troop deployments and casualties, comparing the Iraq War with the Vietnam conflict will demonstrate more differences than similarities.

True, the two wars are in many ways different and these two different aspects - troop deployments and casualties - are what the authors compare. And in doing so they emphasize the first sentence of the paragraph that I quote from the article - they oversimplify.

There are some aspects of the two wars that are similar, one important aspect being that we are not accomplishing our objective and we are getting bogged down in the continuing attempt.

I do hope that there will be another difference, that in Iraq we can yet find the right strategy and accomplish the objective rather than pull out under pressure and leave the country to it's own presently inadequate devices. It's taken the country of Viet Nam a long time to come back from its' civil war, but at least Viet Nam was left alone by it's neighbors to find it's way. With countries like Iran on one side and Syria on the other, and international non-states like Al Quida to contend with, Iraq may not be able to do so.

An ironic that in the case of Viet Nam they started their own civil war (after defeating the French) in which we chose to interfere, whereas in Iraq it seems that our interference may be starting a civil war that otherwise might never have come to pass (until, perhaps, Sadam lost power in some other way).

Yodrak

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.

.....

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

Edited November 17, 2006 by Yodrak

[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.

I find myself having to repeatr myself. Are you paying attention?

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.

liberal journalist's by percentage

[Peikko 1,575]

Lean left = liberal?

Where is the starting point? Surely a more accurate picture is who pays for the media and the political bias rather than someone's perception of their place on some hypothetical line.

[mawilson 2,133]

I find myself having to repeatr myself. Are you paying attention?

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.

Honestly, if you think the US media is "left leaning", you should watch the BBC sometime

or some European news channel.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe these 'liberals under the bed' guys need a US version of The Sun to keep them happy...

Edited November 17, 2006 by Purple_Hibiscus

[kaydee457 13]

I find myself having to repeatr myself. Are you paying attention?

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.

Honestly, if you think the US media is "left leaning", you should watch the BBC sometime

or some European news channel.

I have watched the BBC while of all places in the middle east. Fortunately though, they don't affect U.S. policy by what they report.

My comments are confined to the liberal media we have here at home.

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

Lean left = liberal?

Where is the starting point? Surely a more accurate picture is who pays for the media and the political bias rather than someone's perception of their place on some hypothetical line.

Exactly!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But it certainly makes sense to me to take the fight to them.

That would indeed make sense. Only that's not what we did in Iraq. We actually dragged "them" to Iraq, made Iraq our battlefield and helped them multiply there.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Journalists lean left but most of the media in this country is owned by big corporations -- they are interested in one thing: making money. Whether that involves adopting a "conservative" or a "liberal" point of view depends on whether there are bucks to be made.

[heishe 2]

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.

Utne Reader, man!! Utne Reader wants us to cut and run!

Oh, and I agree. Iraq is not Vietnam.

Edited November 17, 2006 by heishe

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh, and I agree. Iraq is not Vietnam.

Well, at least you got your geography right.

[pedroh 21]

But it certainly makes sense to me to take the fight to them.

That would indeed make sense. Only that's not what we did in Iraq. We actually dragged "them" to Iraq, made Iraq our battlefield and helped them multiply there.

OWNED

[PurrSuede 0]

I've said too much already.

Now THAT statement is the most intelligent thing you've ever said to date!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

Edited November 17, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

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

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

Edited November 18, 2006 by charlesandnessa