Comparing and Contrasting Iraq and Vietnam

[P562045]

So sorry for such a heavy subject on the weekend but I must act very quickly.

This is a picture from the DNC Website at the very top where no one can miss it.

[P562045]

One we were fighting against communism.
One we were fighting against terrorism. Even the democrats are starting to figure this out after fifty-three months.

They were both conflicts.

Both were fought on the continent of Asia.

Neither country started the conflict with us.

57,656 U.S. casualties in the eighteen years between 1956-1973.
3,725 U.S. casualties in four years and five months.

Both were started by Republican presidents.

In both situations the U.S. had something it claimed it was fighting against.
They both are wars that were fought and being fought in Asia. Neither country wanted to start a war with us. Both were started by Republican presidents.

There is an absolutely stunning contrast when comparing the combat deaths though between the two.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

Both were started by Republican presidents.
.

Not quite, and I'm gonna oversimplify since Im doing this with the info in my head so if someone wants to correct me please do. JFK sent advisors to the South Vietnamese. After his assination, LBJ accelerated that to the point where they were sending in the troops. Nixon, not one to agree with JFK given their history, didnt agree with the way they were doing things till he inherited it in which he went gung ho with it. Than it got to be such a mess, and with the huge anti-war movement, that he was forced to withdraw the troops.

But JFK/LBJ more or less "started" Nam and they arent being close to being the old style Rockefeller Republicans or would be confused with Blue Dog Democrats.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

There is an absolutely stunning contrast when comparing the combat deaths though between the two.

One thing thats been developed in that time is the advances in battlefield medical technology. I just read somewhere this past week that 90% of the people injured in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan and recovered end up surviving. Which is a stunning percentage compared to previous wars.

[hork]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

One thing thats been developed in that time is the advances in battlefield medical technology. I just read somewhere this past week that 90% of the people injured in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan and recovered end up surviving. Which is a stunning percentage compared to previous wars.

and a testament to the innovation of science and technology in our nation. and yet one more reason that funding for and avenues pertaining to such matters should never be cut no matter what a vocal minority might claim.

[P562045]

Both have used a tremendous amount of resources that could so obviously been used in much more areas of need.
The ending of both wars is used for propaganda purposes. All you have to do is look at the bottom of my first post in this thread.
Both had large groups of people go out and protest against the war.
And last but not least if you look at my siggy President Kennedy talked about during the first presidential debate on television that "If we fail freedom fails." That is just as true today as it was back then.

[-mmm-]

I think its a bad comparison personally. One of my reasonings: the domino theory.

We got involved in Vietnam cause all the "serious" people in charge of our foreign policy thought if South Vietnam would fall, that would than mean that the communists already trying to take hold in Laos and Cambodia would be that much stronger, than communism would than spread to Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. Of course that never happened as communism stopped as soon as it got to the borders of old French Indochina (and one could argue that Burma's current dictatorship is far worse than any communistic one).

And back in 2002/03, the "serious" people in charge of our foreign policy thought if democracy was forced upon the Iraqi people instead of swelling from the people like it was done in every other case, and than that forced democracy would be able to spread throughout the Middle East in a domino effect that they were so afraid of communism being but that never unfolded. Bush and his underlings all have a horrible feel for history, and even when they try to spin it their way it makes little sense.

Now people like to make the comparisons cause of the "quagmire" status, or the lack of AND complete failure from leadership at the top to be able to have a significant battle plan to deal with the suddenly changing circumstances, and that can be valid in its own right.

I think your comparing the failure of freedom on the losing of wars is a bad analogy. In both cases, the failure of freedom is more from the executive branch trying to usurp as much power as possible. Now THATS a failure of freedom.

[hork]

another fundamental difference between the two is that presently with the exception of a few jackasses (e.g., abu graib, gitmo, etc) all blame is being laid exactly where it should be this time around....the white house.

to my knowledge no one has lined up at airports to ridicule, spit on, or otherwise terrorize the uniformed men and women. in fact the only group i'm aware of who has done anything like this is that whacko "christian" group (sorry the name escapes me) from Kansas.

it seems that over the past 30yrs folks have grown up and realized that one can oppose military engagement and foreign policy while still honoring and supporting those who serve. and that is a huge leap forward from where we were in the early to mid 70's

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by hork

in fact the only group i'm aware of who has done anything like this is that whacko "christian" group (sorry the name escapes me) from Kansas.

I dont blame you for forgetting. But since they had stooges at both a local military funeral and threatened to protest the bridge collapse services (never followed up if they did) I can unfortunately tell you its the Westboro Baptist Church. Good ol' Reverend Phelps and his clan of inbreeds.