Let's Not Let Iraq Become another Vietnam (790 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqRating: -0.98 on 38 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by "The HurriCrane" (View user info) at 2005-07-27 12:28:14 EDT
Decades after the Vietnam war, it is generally agreed that the war was unnecessary for the most part. I would be slow however, to assign blame on anybody in Washington at that time. They were terrified of communism and were doing all they could to stop it spreading around the world. Over time, this war became a terrible quagmire and the United States suffered terribly. The effects of the war were not only counted in human lives and money lost but in the effects it had on us later, such as a reluctance to initiate military action when it was necessary in situations such as the Iran hostage crisis. The United States military also suffered a reduction in size and funds after the war. Vietnam however, was not unwinnable. The war was lost not because of an innability to win it on the part of our military, but because politicians were reluctant to commit to it. Only very late in the war were our troops finally allowed to cross into Cambodia or bomb Hanoi. Wars cannot be fought like that. The best way to assure victory is to leave the fighting to the generals, not politicians in Washington. Vietnam could have been won and America's humiliation was brought about by politicians.
Now we have Iraq. Whether you like it or agree with it, we are in and we must be committed. Whether you view this war as a necessary or unnecessary burden, we must find victory there. We can argue about other invasions before they come but it is too late for Iraq. The only way to win this war is for America to show the world that they are totally committed to victory. If this war must escalate to find victory, no reluctance should be shown because this is simply tieing our troops hands behind their back. If you say you support our troops but not the cause, support our troops and be steadfast in your dedication to victory.
User Reviews
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-02-05 16:45:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-27 15:02:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
My last comment: which, You Do Not Deserve
Besides being in Cambodia(which we were....ALOT), we also bombed Hanoi (and the rest of
N Vietnam) in 1965/1967/1968 and back to the stone age in 1972.
After the bombing in 1972:
We were within 16hrs!, of receiving a declaration of surrender from 'them' until Henry
Kissinger stepped in, and made the worst decision of the 20th Century.
Many good men died because of that *cock-sucking rat bastard.
*<sorry>
<anobodyvet>
(Since, you've never been, in either place: Read some books ignoramus!)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Some of us spent some time over there, and it's obvious that the author
of this psot has NO CLUE what happened way back then.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-07-28 08:29:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Totally_useless (user info) at 2005-07-27 13:47:48 (#)
Ranking: -2
REALITY CHECK
We should never have gone there in the first place.
To clarify, we should never have gone to Vietnam OR Iraq.
I would damn well rather have someone else as my commander-in-chief right now.
At this point, even a replacement knows that the stupid shit that Bush started must be finished PROPERLY. I can't for the life of me see that happening during Bush's term.
To compare the two conflicts as far as military strategy is a classic case of apples and oranges.
There was MUCH more hand-to-hand combat in Vietnam. Today's technologies afford us the opportunity to deal much more easily with our targets. This conflict in Iraq is religiously motivated; it's not something that's going to come to an end.
Please do not compare Iraq to Vietnam again. You come off sounding like a civilian.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-27 17:17:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/71844#1484002
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2005-07-27 15:38:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So basically your winning strategy is 'kill more people'?
I mean, it's not like you actually SAID anything in this post. You know ... like what it is they're doing wrong now and what it is you'd want them to do. All you said was: 'We should commit to the war if we want to win'. Ok, done, tough guy! Now what the fuck do you propose?
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-07-27 15:31:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
JMG114 wins. You know why?
Because he knows about the fluoridation of water, Mandrake.
That's why.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-27 15:02:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
My last comment: which, You Do Not Deserve
Besides being in Cambodia(which we were....ALOT), we also bombed Hanoi (and the rest of
N Vietnam) in 1965/1967/1968 and back to the stone age in 1972.
After the bombing in 1972:
We were within 16hrs!, of receiving a declaration of surrender from 'them' until Henry
Kissinger stepped in, and made the worst decision of the 20th Century.
Many good men died because of that *cock-sucking rat bastard.
*<sorry>
<anobodyvet>
(Since, you've never been, in either place: Read some books ignoramus!)
Submitted by HeadkickRodeo (user info) at 2005-07-27 14:31:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Its so stupid, this so-called mission to spread "democracy", "freedom", and McCapitalism to these guys who want NOTHING to do with it. If Saddam ran today for pres of Iraq, he'd fucking win in a heart-beat.
They have their own culture and tradition. They don't want our phony multi-cultural "everyone is the same" soulless system, and for damn good reason. And its none of our goddamn business how often they fucking kill each other over there, so don't give me that do-gooder world-police BS. We need our troops on the Mexican border actually defending us...not half-way around the world bombing poor people. Bush is a monkey.
Submitted by Totally_useless (user info) at 2005-07-27 13:47:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
REALITY CHECK
We should never have gone there in the first place.
To clarify, we should never have gone to Vietnam OR Iraq.
I would damn well rather have someone else as my commander-in-chief right now.
At this point, even a replacement knows that the stupid shit that Bush started must be finished PROPERLY. I can't for the life of me see that happening during Bush's term.
To compare the two conflicts as far as military strategy is a classic case of apples and oranges.
There was MUCH more hand-to-hand combat in Vietnam. Today's technologies afford us the opportunity to deal much more easily with our targets. This conflict in Iraq is religiously motivated; it's not something that's going to come to an end.
Please do not compare Iraq to Vietnam again. You come off sounding like a civilian.
Submitted by potatomanjack (user info) at 2005-07-27 13:03:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I hope God makes you poop blood tonight as punishment for this post.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-27 13:01:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
*http/www.ubersite.com/m/71844#1483862
Gotta stop doing that.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-27 13:01:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.cgip.ath.cx/nph-proxy.cgi/000000A/http/www.ubersite.com/m/71844#1483862
I don't understand why people think that war is killing for the sake of killing. 'Let's randomly kill people and that will solve our problems.' I understand the opinion that it's not worth it; however, it is not just going out and killing people. It's using physical force to carry out a government's ideas. Killing is secondary.
Submitted by doctorj24 (user info) at 2005-07-27 13:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
You need to expand immensely, but your perspective has the potential to be a refreshing black against the blinding amount of white on Uber.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:56:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Why are people so passionately -2ing this? It seems valid.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:53:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:46:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
you're so cool spook i wish i could sarcastic like that
Thanks buddy. Just proving that any idiot can put together a paragraph with big words and call themselves some kind of genius. Enjoy your dead end job.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:50:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
whether history judges Iraq necessary or not, it will not view you people has helpful.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:48:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you guys are the terrorists best allies, but im sure they'd still cut off your head if they could
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:48:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
speak
Submitted by Xcuses (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:47:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Boy did this suck!
Sometimes it's ok, to shut up and let others who have a clue speak
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:46:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're so cool spook i wish i could sarcastic like that
Submitted by mockidol (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:45:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
lets not have another hippie influction like vietnam.
damn long haired hippies, need not apply.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:44:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm very surprised you're not working in your military and political specialties.
Being such a very immensely informed individual and capable of such a high capacity of reason and logic, I believe you should be in charge of some major body of the government. I mean, the facts and arguments you put forth in this small paragraph directly describe the struggles and reasons not only for ALL of the problems in Vietnam, but ALL of the problems in Iraq as well.
Please elaborate more on this subject. We of such low brain power and aptitude could not possibly come up with such strategically flawless ideas and conclusions.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I've been ALIVE twice as long as you have Noob!!!!!!!!!!
Fucking name callers.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:41:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
a coherent argument against this would be saying something like
"I feel that the best way to help the men and women fighting for us is to not support the war" and then back it up.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:39:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there are plenty of people id rather have in washington than bush but it would by harmful to our troops to have anybody there who was not committed.
Submitted by DonkeyOnTheEdge (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:39:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:37:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
stfu, n00b
--------
Ive been at uber a lot longer than you.
______________________________________
I also said I know. You sound like a newbie, especially on this topic.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:38:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It already is/
And for the one below me. We were all over that shit-hole.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:37:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
stfu, n00b
--------
Ive been at uber a lot longer than you.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:36:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they also did not let US troops bomb the sources of supplies in North Vietnam b/c they didn't want to hurt the civilian population, they only allowed the bombing of roads and supply lines.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:35:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Im gonna start saying some prophetic things on Ubersite so n thousands of years people will quote me...
hmm now where do I start ?
ohh that right Im a freakin idiot
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:35:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NVA and VC troops were using Cambodia as a road to attack all up and down South Vietnam, Hanoi is the capital, US troops were not allowed in Cambodia and were not allowed to bomb Hanoi because the politicians wouldn't let them. Washington turned vietnam into a quagmire, not our troops.
Submitted by userpete86 (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:33:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You mean... if we supported it in the first place, right?
...and everyone supports the troops, so quit using that as your rallying cheer to get people to support Bush.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The war was lost not because of an innability to win it on the part of our military
---------------------
Idiot.
So we should've nuked 'em?
Submitted by Mike00295 (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:32:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
<fart noises>
Submitted by DonkeyOnTheEdge (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:31:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And yes, I realize you are not a newbie.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:31:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So your solution is thus :
Kill more people.
So in Vietnam you would have said 'use more napalm' ?
Because that is your argument.
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:30:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can no longer sit back and allow Iraqi infiltration, Iraqi indoctrination, Iraqi subversion and the international Iraqi conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:30:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"You don't understand MAAAN! You weren't there!"
Submitted by DonkeyOnTheEdge (user info) at 2005-07-27 12:30:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
stfu, n00b