Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-03-20 14:12:06
specops10-4
Member
+108|6989|In the hills
OK, the Iraqi war might not be a clear cut, America wins, Enemy Loses.  However, how can you even compare this to vietnam, the numbers are way scaled down, only 2,000 something dead and 17,000 something injured. Compared to vietnam war where 58,148 Americans were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served.  I do not fully support the war because of the true reasonings that we went there (oil and power), but it is not as bad as the media and lots of Anti-American people see it.  The truth is if the Iraqi people would atleast not try to be violent and try and work with the Americans WHO ARE TRYING TO HELP THEM maybe they would be in better shape!  Hope some of you guys come to your senses.

(my facts are not from a published book or article, please inform me if the info is incorrect)
Got info from-http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/

Spec
2006-03-20 15:43:48
Gen. Payne
Member
+50|6953|USA
I agree a little with that. The media does make it seem a lot worse and Americans today want wars fought with little or no casualties. People call it the second Vietnam because there doesn't seem to be an end in sight as of yet.
2006-03-20 16:06:09
xX[Elangbam]Xx
Member
+107|6944
and the fact pppl aren't supporting publicly. Maybe not like hippies, but theres different ones out there
2006-03-20 16:16:07
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|6901|United States of America
Everything is called the second Vietnam, it is because of all the old Hippies looking to relive their glory days. Hell a hippie was in the men's room the other day while I was grunting out a duke and said the 2nd Vietnam war was going on in my stall, he then handcuffed himself to the sink in protest and lit himself on fire.

Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-03-20 16:16:42)

2006-03-20 16:34:21
elite
Member
+89|6960|Sheffield, England
the war isnt over, when its ended, then u can compare it
2006-03-20 17:14:07
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6940|San Francisco
It's the Second Vietnam because of the overall national sentiment on our military actions.
2006-03-20 17:50:41
Renegade2k9
Member
+0|6913|Brooklyn, New York, USA
How can you call it a second Vietnam? This is a similar yet different war. In Vietnam there was a North and South, in Iraq it's just rebels. The only similarity is the way the war was fought. Not to mention the conflict isn't over yet so you can't classify it as anything yet. Like someone said just some hippies trying to re-live their youth.

Last edited by Renegade2k9 (2006-03-20 17:51:36)

2006-03-20 20:00:16
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6928|Stillwater, Ok

specops10-4 wrote:

OK, the Iraqi war might not be a clear cut, America wins, Enemy Loses.  However, how can you even compare this to vietnam, the numbers are way scaled down, only 2,000 something dead and 17,000 something injured. Compared to vietnam war where 58,148 Americans were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served.  I do not fully support the war because of the true reasonings that we went there (oil and power), but it is not as bad as the media and lots of Anti-American people see it.  The truth is if the Iraqi people would atleast not try to be violent and try and work with the Americans WHO ARE TRYING TO HELP THEM maybe they would be in better shape!  Hope some of you guys come to your senses.

(my facts are not from a published book or article, please inform me if the info is incorrect)
Got info from-http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/

Spec
OK this war is nothing like the Vietnam war. Yes casualties are down, yes number of wounded are down, yes the media does not know what the fuck they are talking about and yes most americans dont have a clue what they are talking about.  The funny part is that the people who do are bound to secrecy under the UCMJ which says that soldiers are not to get involved in open politics on such issues.  That is why most people who support this war "me being one of them" are not publicly displaying whats really going on.  The Iraqi people arent the main problem.  Its the jackasses from syria, jordan, iran, saudi arabia, and even palestine that are causing almost all the problem.  And it was not for the oil....do a little research and you will find that Iraq has controll over all its pertroleum and pipelines.  They get all the profits not us.  And the majority of Iraqi's are working with us and are happy Saddam is out.  They are starting to get a middle class now and their economy is growing.
2006-03-20 20:02:09
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7016|AUS, Canberra
iraq was never a war.....america needs to stop telling itself that it was.
2006-03-21 10:53:01
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6928|Stillwater, Ok

the_heart_attack wrote:

iraq was never a war.....america needs to stop telling itself that it was.
Correction Iraq was a war.  Congress voted on in and all but one person voted for us to go.  After summer 2001 it became more or less a police force to get the government running.  But it was voted on and was declared as a war.
2006-03-21 11:19:58
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6899
Here's one reason why it could be considered the second Vietnam:

America was in the grip of paranoid Red Fever when it went to war in Vietnam.
America was in the grip of paranoid Terrorist Fever when it went to war in Iraq.
2006-03-21 11:29:45
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7016|AUS, Canberra

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

iraq was never a war.....america needs to stop telling itself that it was.
Correction Iraq was a war.  Congress voted on in and all but one person voted for us to go.  After summer 2001 it became more or less a police force to get the government running.  But it was voted on and was declared as a war.
lol us congress said so?
well it must be a war then....
my comments are not to bash america, but invading a country for reasons i dont think the world will ever really know, isnt a war.
2006-03-21 11:37:44
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6899

the_heart_attack wrote:

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

iraq was never a war.....america needs to stop telling itself that it was.
Correction Iraq was a war.  Congress voted on in and all but one person voted for us to go.  After summer 2001 it became more or less a police force to get the government running.  But it was voted on and was declared as a war.
lol us congress said so?
well it must be a war then....
my comments are not to bash america, but invading a country for reasons i dont think the world will ever really know, isnt a war.
Yes it is, it just isn't a 'Just War' by the official definition.
2006-03-21 13:06:28
Renegade2k9
Member
+0|6913|Brooklyn, New York, USA

the_heart_attack wrote:

iraq was never a war.....america needs to stop telling itself that it was.
Yea, your right. Its a conflict, but since fighting is occurring its classified as a war by the people at least.
2006-03-21 18:47:17
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6928|Stillwater, Ok

the_heart_attack wrote:

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

iraq was never a war.....america needs to stop telling itself that it was.
Correction Iraq was a war.  Congress voted on in and all but one person voted for us to go.  After summer 2001 it became more or less a police force to get the government running.  But it was voted on and was declared as a war.
lol us congress said so?
well it must be a war then....
my comments are not to bash america, but invading a country for reasons i dont think the world will ever really know, isnt a war.
No you misunderstood. The Vietnam War was never an official war because congress never voted on declaring it as so.  At the time the President had the power to send troops into conflicts without congressional approval.  Now since then it has been fixed to where the president can only be involved with sending troops for up to 60 days I believe.  After that congress is needed to continue such operations and a declaration of war voted on by both the house and senate.  So before you speak you might wanna know a little more about out government.

And most of the world doesn't know the half of what goes on in our country just the same as I wouldn't know the half of what goes on in yours.  The media does a crap ass job at covering wars anyway.
2006-03-21 19:18:57
Snipedya14
Dont tread on me
+77|6941|Mountains of West Virginia
Vietnam? Nah.

It is the whole culture of the people of Iraq that make it different. Ok, there are some factual/statistic similarites, but in the end,

Iraq is made up of three very distinct groups. The groups have a bitterness and a rivalry (we will just call it that) that is more complex then many people realize. Therortically, Iraq should be three seprate countries.

Whereas Vietnam (the situation at least) was different. I dont know the specifics, (im only a minor in Middle Eastern Studies, not vietnamese)
2006-03-21 20:03:39
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6928|Stillwater, Ok

Snipedya14 wrote:

Vietnam? Nah.

It is the whole culture of the people of Iraq that make it different. Ok, there are some factual/statistic similarites, but in the end,

Iraq is made up of three very distinct groups. The groups have a bitterness and a rivalry (we will just call it that) that is more complex then many people realize. Therortically, Iraq should be three seprate countries.

Whereas Vietnam (the situation at least) was different. I dont know the specifics, (im only a minor in Middle Eastern Studies, not vietnamese)
Woo hoo someone with a clue on the matter....yeah the 3 different factions make it difficult....You got the Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites who are all trying to gain power and it not easy to get them to work together.  Maybe we should just make it into 3 countries....might be easier.
2006-03-21 20:43:31
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6891
It’s more like an occupation of the country rather then the war. Also you can’t compare Iraq to Vietnam because we never occupied Vietnam, and never had full control of it, in Iraq U.S. is in charge but there are insurgents fighting against them those who oppose the U.S. troops there.
2006-03-21 20:59:17
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6928|Stillwater, Ok

blademaster wrote:

It’s more like an occupation of the country rather then the war. Also you can’t compare Iraq to Vietnam because we never occupied Vietnam, and never had full control of it, in Iraq U.S. is in charge but there are insurgents fighting against them those who oppose the U.S. troops there.
Yup and almost all of those insurgents are from countries other than Iraq...i wanna say its about 85% are foreigners.
2006-03-21 21:05:17
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6891

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

Yup and almost all of those insurgents are from countries other than Iraq...i wanna say its about 85% are foreigners.
Hehehehe yeah
2006-03-21 21:15:11
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6921|Canberra, AUS

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:


Correction Iraq was a war.  Congress voted on in and all but one person voted for us to go.  After summer 2001 it became more or less a police force to get the government running.  But it was voted on and was declared as a war.
lol us congress said so?
well it must be a war then....
my comments are not to bash america, but invading a country for reasons i dont think the world will ever really know, isnt a war.
Yes it is, it just isn't a 'Just War' by the official definition.
Well, lets have a look

1. Just cause: Well, I suppose if you wanted to get rid of Saddam. But that's not what you said! So no.

2. Legitimate authority: Um, NO. The 'legitimate authority' in question is the UN.

3. Proportional response: I don't think so. Did you really need a few hundred thousand troops? And did you need to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people with bombs/missles?

4. Reasonable chance of success: um, YES!

5. If someone attended the CGS Yr 8 Rave day, can you give me no. 5?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-03-21 21:36:35
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6928|Stillwater, Ok

Spark wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:


lol us congress said so?
well it must be a war then....
my comments are not to bash america, but invading a country for reasons i dont think the world will ever really know, isnt a war.
Yes it is, it just isn't a 'Just War' by the official definition.
Well, lets have a look

1. Just cause: Well, I suppose if you wanted to get rid of Saddam. But that's not what you said! So no.

2. Legitimate authority: Um, NO. The 'legitimate authority' in question is the UN.

3. Proportional response: I don't think so. Did you really need a few hundred thousand troops? And did you need to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people with bombs/missles?

4. Reasonable chance of success: um, YES!

5. If someone attended the CGS Yr 8 Rave day, can you give me no. 5?
Gotta a question for you. Why are you saying we killed thousand upon thousands.  The insurgents have killed more innocent people than all of our bombs have combined including both innocent and combatant lives.  And 100% of the bombs we used this past war were all laser/ GPS guided to minimize innocent casualties.  We also did not use 2000lb bombs within city limits unless it was a bunker than needed to be blown. They were all 500 lbers in that sense.  Nor did we use cluster bombs to take out mass troops withing cities for that reason.
2006-03-21 22:23:34
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7020|Noizyland

People compare Iraq to Vietnam not because of the casualty rate, or the enviromnment, (obviously,) but because it is the US getting itself into another military quagmire. They went in, they smashed the Iraqi armed forces completely in about the first month, but the attacks keep coiming and people keep dying and the only way any stability can remain is if the US stay there. So they're stuck there, which is why it is being compared to Vietnam.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-03-21 22:50:51
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6940|San Francisco
It's as simple as that Tyferra, thank you.  And now Bush stated this morning that he won't set any timetables on withdrawing the troops.  The idea is there, but he won't remove the troops until all of the Oil investments are properly protected and until the Iraqi forces/theocratic democracy can take over the constant Insurgent battles that the US troops are being subjected to now.
2006-03-21 23:01:44
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7016|AUS, Canberra

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

Nor did we use cluster bombs to take out mass troops withing cities for that reason.
thats wrong,

iv seen a doco that showed alot of footage of the little bombs from the cluster bombs unexploded and stuck up in trees and on some building roofs in populated subburb areas.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard