Is Vietnam today an example of what Iraq could become in 30 years?

2006-11-18 10:09:57

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6806|San Diego, CA, USA

The United States pulled out of Vietnam, yet today our president is there talking to a peaceful country. We don't need to discuss the bloodbath that will occur when we leave Iraq, but rather what will Iraq look like in 30 years.

Is Vietnam today an example of what Iraq could become in 30 years?

2006-11-18 10:16:28

#2

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6787|Global Command

Yes, very likely.
We had hoped it would more resemble a Germany or Japan; once vanquished enemies enjoying independance and freedom after heathy rebuilding and administrative efforts on the part of America.
Lets hope Iraq doesn't more resemble Cambodia.

2006-11-18 10:40:15

#3

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6806|San Diego, CA, USA

Or Canada :-P

2006-11-18 15:01:08

#4

Collateralis: Beep bep.; +85|6628|Stealth on Grand Bazaar

Vietnam - Iraq. Iraq's gonna be ALOT worse. Another dictatorship under a new name.

2006-11-18 15:03:38

#5

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6907

Yes, America show no sign of actually winning the war on terrorism and the geurillia warfare of the millitia resembles our friends from Vietnam.

2006-11-18 15:10:25

#6

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

It's quite possible that Iraq may resemble Vietnam eventually, but I think the differences between the two countries are so vast that a more likely scenario would involve something more similar to Iran. I have a feeling there will be something akin to the Iranian Revolution that will take place in Iraq soon after we leave. I seriously doubt that a Sunni dictator like Saddam will rise there again -- the leader will undoubtedly be Shiite and likely very Islamist.

Adding 30 years into the equation probably means that the society will slowly become more secular and capitalistic, but I think it will be less productive than Vietnam is today (relatively speaking).

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-18 15:12:23)

2006-11-18 15:22:17

#7

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6726

Nam is fine now but remember the US "cut and ran" in Vietnam.

2006-11-18 17:14:14

#8

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

I doubt it. Vietnam had the stable government in the north move down and take power from an already existing government, keeping stability and peace (which is to say, a minimum of random bloodshed, not necessarily a minimum of bloodshed). Iraq doesn't have this.

Although I did not support the US going into Iraq, I do believe that they, along with Australia, should stay there and attempt to restore peace and calm.

2006-11-18 17:19:48

#9

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6652|The Gem Saloon

Bubbalo wrote:
I doubt it. Vietnam had the stable government in the north move down and take power from an already existing government, keeping stability and peace (which is to say, a minimum of random bloodshed, not necessarily a minimum of bloodshed). Iraq doesn't have this.

Although I did not support the US going into Iraq, I do believe that they, along with Australia, should stay there and attempt to restore peace and calm.

the day our last troops pulled out of saigon, over 300,000 people were slaughtered. so i dont think it was a "minimum of random bloodshed" like you described.

2006-11-18 17:21:31

#10

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

Fact: wars are violent.

But how long did it last in Vietnam? Not long, stability was quickly restored.

2006-11-18 17:24:17

#11

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6652|The Gem Saloon

it was swift you are correct there. but it was extremely violent, a nice minimal violence takeover would be the soviet union taking afghanistan.

edit; but that also started a long and bloody conflict.

Last edited by Parker (2006-11-18 17:25:31)

2006-11-18 17:26:14

#12

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

No, because there violence continued for many, many years. Short, sharp events typically cause less death than long, drawn out events.

2006-11-18 17:29:17

#13

11sog_raider: a gaurdian of life; +112|6717|behind my rifle

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
Nam is fine now but remember the US "cut and ran" in Vietnam.

sad...but true

2006-11-18 20:44:30

#14

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6645

Long drawn out wars cause many more deaths then short quick wars. You are not gonna have a quick war against a determined enemy, it takes awhile, and you gotta blow the hell out of them, but you win.

2006-11-18 21:01:35

#15

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6819

Commie Killer wrote:
Long drawn out wars cause many more deaths then short quick wars. You are not gonna have a quick war against a determined enemy, it takes awhile, and you gotta blow the hell out of them, but you win.

Like you won in Vietnam? Or the British won against the Boers? I can keep citing examples of technology advanced, well trained, well supplied troops being defeated by large, determined citizen armies.

2006-11-18 22:46:31

#16

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6980|Eastern PA

Vietnam still has little in the way of actual freedoms. The only reason that nation is currently praised is because of its trade policies.

BF2S Forums Is Vietnam today an example of what Iraq could become in 30 years?

Bubbalo wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Board footer