Iraq: The Next Vietnam

[BootlegJones]

Let's see... faulty intelligence, people senslessly dying, not completing the objective, protesters. Sounds like another war that took place around the 70's. I think you know which one i'm talking about, it's in the subject for god's sake. Well, what do you think, is Iraq really the next Vietnam, or am I just blowing smoke out my ass?

[Ted-Easton]

The smoke option.

Those are generalizing similarities. Every war has protesters, there is usually some faulty intelligence, objectives are rarely met (often a different sort of objective is, though), and any war is people senselessly dying.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/21/03 08:04 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:
Those are generalizing similarities. Every war has protesters, and any war is people senselessly dying.

Well that's just the controversy of war in modern society...

On one hand you said that you hate it because it makes you sound rebellious and like you care about the world,

But on the other it's also cool to say you'd martyr yourself for martyr sake because it's dramatic and will get chicks to dig you.

[Ted-Easton]

On one hand, war is a senseless thing, rebellious or not.

On the other, being a martyr, besides being unthinkingly moronic, will not get you chicks (besides necropheliacs).

[RoboTripper]

I was against the war from the beginning, but I don't think it's like Vietnam. The guerrillas in Iraq are not very organized and they really don't inflict that many casualties on US troops. Now, if you were against the war then any number of deaths is unnaceptable, but at the current rate (about one a day) things would have to continue like they are for about... a hundred and fifty years before the death toll would be comparable.

[BootlegJones]

At 7/21/03 08:04 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: The smoke option.

Those are generalizing similarities. Every war has protesters, there is usually some faulty intelligence, objectives are rarely met (often a different sort of objective is, though), and any war is people senselessly dying.

That's actually not true. WW2, revolutionary war, civil war, etc. Your gonna say nothing was acomplished in those, you're gonna say people "senslessly died" for those acomplishments? I think not. Besides, most wars don't have faulty information.

[Silvern]

At 7/21/03 09:01 PM, BootlegJones wrote:

That's actually not true. WW2, revolutionary war, civil war, etc. Your gonna say nothing was acomplished in those, you're gonna say people "senslessly died" for those acomplishments? I think not. Besides, most wars don't have faulty information.

People senselessly died in all those wars. There were thousands of civilian casualties that could've been avoided and were not needed. The needless deaths seemed very low to me in Iraq. However, there's always some collateral damage. There was a point to invading Iraq and a point to fighting the Vietnam war. There is always bad intelligence in any war. There are always pacificsts. Just because you don't know of them, doesn't mean that they didn't exist. There is nothing significantly similar in either war, not even that it was a war because we never declared war in the case of Vietnam.

[Commander-K25]

United States Combat deaths in 20th Century Wars

WWI: 53,513
WWII: 292,131
Korean War: 33,651
Vietnam War: 47,369
Gulf War I: 148

-------------------------------------------------------

This conflict hardly compares to Vietnam.

Yeah, there was roughly 1 800 000 vietnamese casualties in the Vietnam War as opposed to 17 300 Iraqis in Gulf War no.2.

[DrxFeelgood]

At 7/21/03 07:57 PM, BootlegJones wrote: Let's see... faulty intelligence, people senslessly dying, not completing the objective, protesters. Sounds like another war that took place around the 70's. I think you know which one i'm talking about, it's in the subject for god's sake. Well, what do you think, is Iraq really the next Vietnam, or am I just blowing smoke out my ass?

Neh, Vietnam was a whole different thing. This war took 21 days, and we basically own the place. I 'm always hearing of some ass clown killin gone of my boys, and it pisses me off. The best thing to do in that situation is to kill the fucks who've been doing it. Plain and simple.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/22/03 03:00 AM, 70TA wrote: Neh, Vietnam was a whole different thing. This war took 21 days, and we basically own the place. I 'm always hearing of some ass clown killin gone of my boys, and it pisses me off. The best thing to do in that situation is to kill the fucks who've been doing it. Plain and simple.

Honestly... Isn't it always the way! We go in and kill some civilians, make MASSIVE diplomatic repercussions. And they go and shoot us! Damn Iraquis...

[Explodapop]

Today's Newspaper wrote an article about this. The writer said that it was not a new Vietnam, but he did not tell why, which I am really pissed at right now.
But he said that Iraq was a swamp, and in most swamps, while trying to get out, you sink deeper down.

And since I know very little about the Vietnam war (I gotta do some research), I really can't say I am fit to agree or disagree. Maybe later.

[Ted-Easton]

So if we want to get OUT of Iraq, we need to go deeper in!

...

WWII was senseless killing. Any war is. There wasn't any good reason for having WWII. Germany senselessly invaded other countries, senselessly killed Jewish people, senselessly mistreated POWs....

And most wars have faulty intelligence at some point in them. There were attacks in WWI and WWII that were made on faulty intelligence, where they greatly underestimated the enemy, armies stumbling into each other in the night, all sorts of things can go wrong in a split second.

[Evanauto]

Everyone is looking for a new Vietnam. When we went to Afganastan, it was the next Vietnam. When we went to Iraq it was the next Vietnam.

If your looking for the new Vietnam just look under your nose...or in your pipe...or in your needle...

Its the war on drugs.

[Slizor]

But on the other it's also cool to say you'd martyr yourself for martyr sake because it's dramatic and will get chicks to dig you.

Yes...dig you a grave.

I get the distinct impression that sex is not fun if you're dead.