Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
PTJ_MrQ

Iraq And Vietnam

Recommended Posts

Salaam

 

'Personally, I don't see much useful analogy between Iraq and Vietnam.

Vietnam was in a remote corner of the world that no one cared about very much, so the US could pound away at it, devastating four countries, with little international protest, and that little mostly about the bombing of the regions in the northern part of north Vietnam, where bombing might have costly repercussions. And even that protest, in the US too, was long delayed.

 

Iraq, in contrast, is at the heart of the world's major energy reserves, which is why the US invaded in the first place. So anything that happens is likely to have major effects.

 

Some of these likely consequences are much too little discussed. That includes the reasons why the US simply cannot permit authentic sovereignty and democracy in Iraq. One reason, which gets a little attention, is that an independent and democratic Iraq may well move towards accommodation with Iran. And it might stir up movements towards independence in Shi'te parts of Saudi Arabia nearby -- which happen to include most of the world's major oil reserves. That could possibly even lead to a Shi'ite bloc controlling most of the world's energy. The US would never tolerate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Even more serious, and scarcely discussed to my knowledge, is that a free and independent Iraq would presumably assume its natural role as the leading state in the Arab world: huge resources, educated population, virtually approaching first world standards before the wars and sanctions. As such, it would naturally want to counter the regional superpower, by now almost an offshore military base and high-tech adjunct of the US. That means it would rearm, probably also develop WMD to counter israel's huge WMD capacities and military force, now being enhanced significantly by the Bush administration.

 

As long as the US and israel refuse to recognize elementary rights of Palestinians, and persist in vicious repression, the Arab and Muslim worlds will be enflamed, and a free Iraq would become their natural leader. The US will do almost anything to prevent that.

 

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_blog.zmag(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ttt/archives/000692.html#more');"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_blog.zmag(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ttt/archives/000692.html#more');[/url]

Edited by PTJ_MrQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protests against the U S involvement in Vietnam started in 1963 . Protest of the bombing of Hanoi started as soon as the American Public became aware . The entry of U S troops into Laos and Cambodia , sparked demonstrations and riots , immediately after they occurred .

And protests brought that war to an end . North Vietnamese troops rolled into Saigon , only after the US will to continue in that conflict was removed , and troops were evacuated .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing stopping authentic sovereignty and democracy in Iraq are the insurgents and those that tried to keep the people from voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Livius, if they dont want Democoracy why are you forcing them??

 

Same with Islam LAw, Why Shoudl we not Force Shariah Law on Yours, we will think you are liberated, which indeed you will be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Protests against the U S involvement in Vietnam started in 1963 . Protest of the bombing of Hanoi started as soon as the American Public became aware . The entry of U S troops into Laos and Cambodia , sparked demonstrations and riots , immediately after they occurred .

And protests brought that war to an end . North Vietnamese troops rolled into Saigon , only after the US will to continue in that conflict was removed , and troops were evacuated .

 

 

the evil empire was kicked out of vietnam not because of the media

but because white anglo-saxon protestants parents didn't like their kids

coming back carrying their body parts in plastic bags for mommy and daddy

to put on the mantle and the evil empire's economy was sinking...

 

see Vietnam by Gabriel Kolko

 

the media lost us vietnam myth was invented by right wing draft dodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Livius, if they dont want Democoracy why are you forcing them??

 

The majority of citizens voted, and even more would have if not for threats of violence. It is a violent, extremist minority that doesn't want democracy. Those commiting the violence are the minority in Iraq and by no means demonstrate the will of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right Legal, but it would take about another 60 or 70 years of Iraq to equal the deaths of US soldiers in Vietnam at the rate the insurgents are killing soldiers there. Still really no comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the evil empire was kicked out of vietnam not because of the media

  but because white anglo-saxon protestants parents didn't like their kids

  coming back carrying their body parts in plastic bags for mommy and daddy

  to put on the mantle and the evil empire's economy was sinking...

 

  see Vietnam by Gabriel Kolko

 

    the media lost us vietnam myth was invented by right wing draft dodgers

 

 

This is the most racist statement I have ever seen on this board.

 

You really think only "white" soldiers were dying? You have no grasp of history or the reality of nam.

 

It was war against the USSR. The USSR was trying to take over nam, simple.

 

To make is a "white" war or "white" loss is racist, wrong, and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the most racist statement I have ever seen on this board.

 

You really think only "white" soldiers were dying?  You have no grasp of history or the reality of nam. 

 

It was war against the USSR.  The USSR was trying to take over nam, simple. 

 

To make is a "white" war or "white" loss is racist, wrong, and ignorant.

 

:D Yurt

 

I don't think you read the post correctly.

 

The reason that the war ended was because white parents had more clout when their boys came back dead, whereas black parents didn't and still don't have the political clout.

 

The war was against the USSR? Where did you get that one from?

 

China had a hand there but don't try to rewrite history.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

yeah , Vietnam was just a disgrace, i think its safe to say, whether you are Pro-USA or not, USA got the just dessert from there. especially with the poor discipline

 

that way was very tragic war, Where Vietnam is still scarred from the weapons.

 

A comparison of Iraq and Vietnam would have to be the Destruction caused by Bombings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lessons of the Vietnam War - an interview with Noam Chomsky

 

[Reproduced from Indochina Newsletter, Issue 18 (November - December, 1982), pages 1-5.]

 

"American imperialism has suffered a stunning defeat in Indochina. But the same forces are engaged In another war against a much less resilient enemy. the American people. Here, the prospects for success are much greater. The battleground is ideological. not military. At stake are the lessons to be drawn from the American war In Indochina; the outcome will determine the course and character of new imperial ventures."

 

Noam Chomsky, 1975

 

The following interview was conducted with Professor Chomsky in October 1982)

 

- an interview with Noam Chomsky

 

Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?

 

Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.

 

The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.

 

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr...mskyin1282.html[/url]

 

This was printed some time ago, but This interview gives another viewpoint on why the Vietnam war happend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal mate there were hardly any diciplin probs in Vietnam. That is Hollywood. I know men who served in the Mobile Guerilla Force, 101st Airbourne Div., 173rd Airbourne Brig. and every one told me that they never knew any man who was on drugs. Yes, there were drugs there obviously, but it wasnt as bad as Hollywood makes it out to be. Platoon, all those movies like that, bogus. If any man ever even thought about going on patrol high like they have in the movies they would get the living crap beat out of them by there squadmates. "I aint gonna die because the dude on point is high on dope and walks into an ambush." The most diciplinary problems in Nam were guys would periodically say something to the soldiers in front of them and expose the units position.

 

We would have won the nam definatly,no question, the only disgrace was we left the brave "bodes" (Cambodians), mountainyards, and the South Vietnameese to die like pigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war in Vietnam ended because the American People had enough of it ......as for the sophomoric and racist statement by Legal Eagle ?

What else could be expected ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and I guess Abubakar did not realize that when Haiphong harbor was mined by the U S , it was Soviet Shipping that was stuck there and Soviet ships that were being damaged .

Yes China did have a hand in it as any "good communist ' would , but it was in fact a proxy war between the U S and the Soviets , just as was Afghanistan .

 

 

Do study the Cold War gentlemen .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

The American people started turning against the Vietnam war after the Tet offensive. The Iraq war was unpopular before it even began and opinion's are only getting worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

The American people started turning against the Vietnam war after the Tet offensive.  The Iraq war was unpopular before it even began and opinion's are only getting worse.

 

Nam was also unpopular before it began and steadily got worse. If you need proof watch John Wayne's "The Green Berets" which first came out in 1966 or 1967 and there are reporters questioning Berets who are displaying captured Communist weapons. In the movie a reporter who was against the war went to Nam with John and saw how things were really going and decided to change his mind on the war. That was put in there for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crystal mate there were hardly any diciplin probs in Vietnam. That is Hollywood. I know men who served in the Mobile Guerilla  Force, 101st Airbourne Div., 173rd Airbourne Brig. and every one told me that they never knew any man who was on drugs. Yes, there were drugs there obviously, but it wasnt as bad as Hollywood makes it out to be. Platoon, all those movies like that, bogus. If any man ever even thought about going on patrol high like they have in the movies they would get the living crap beat out of them by there squadmates. "I aint gonna die because the dude on point is high on dope and walks into an ambush." The most diciplinary problems in Nam were guys would periodically say something to the soldiers in front of them and expose the units position.

 

We would have won the nam definatly,no question, the only disgrace was we left the brave "bodes" (Cambodians), mountainyards, and the South Vietnameese to die like pigs.

 

:D yoaz

 

WOW!

 

Almost no drugs in Vietnam. There's a new one.

 

The US Troops lacked discipline, took drugs, 'fragged' Officers who they considered could lead them into dangerous situations, they were totally unsuited to jungle warfare, the enemy could smell them let alone hear them, just to start the list...

 

The Australian troops would NOT carry out joint patrols because of the lack of confidence in the all but the best US Troops.

 

YES you ran away and left your 'friends' to die. That is the high moral ground.

 

Take off the rose tinted spectacles, take a good look at the moral bankruptcy of the wars you wage, and weep.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D yoaz

 

 

Take off the rose tinted spectacles, take a good look at the moral bankruptcy of the wars you wage, and weep.

 

Peace

 

Salaam

 

Perhaps we should leave the last word to General Giap the Vietnamese general

 

  The French and then the Americans underestimated our strength. They had better weapons and enormous military and economic potential. They never doubted that victory would be theirs. And yet, just when the French believed themselves to be on the verge of victory, everything collapsed around them. The same happened to the Americans in the Spring of '65. Just when Washington was about to proclaim victory in the South, the Americans saw their expectations crumble. Why? Because it wasn't just an army they were up against but an entire people -- an entire people.

 

So the lesson is that however great the military and economic potential of your adversary, it will never be great enough to defeat a people united in the struggle for their fundamental rights. That's what we've learned from all this.

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.pbs(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/guerrillawars/giaptranscript.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.pbs(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wgbh/peoplescentury/epi...transcript.html[/url]

Edited by LegalEagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D yoaz

 

WOW!

 

Almost no drugs in Vietnam. There's a new one.

 

The US Troops lacked discipline, took drugs, 'fragged' Officers who they considered could lead them into dangerous situations, they were totally unsuited to jungle warfare, the enemy could smell them let alone hear them, just to start the list...

 

The Australian troops would NOT carry out joint patrols because of the lack of confidence in the all but the best US Troops.

 

YES you ran away and left your 'friends' to die. That is the high moral ground.

 

Take off the rose tinted spectacles, take a good look at the moral bankruptcy of the wars you wage, and weep.

 

Peace

 

Very disgraceful what we did too those men. Some Bodes escaped but the Moutainyards and South Vietnameese werent so lucky. But remember this, Ive never heard any story about any South Vietnamese fighting to the death to stop the North in 75'.

 

As for the drugs ask the men who fought there. Drugs were in the rear with the gear, with the reporters...coincidence?. Hippies tend to not want to fight, they perfered moving to Canada. As I said there were drugs but it is seriously overexaggerated. Read soldiers memiors, you will most likely find nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

what are you taling about yoaz?

 

even i know more then u about THE WAR WHICH THE COUNTRY YOU SUPPORT who fought.

 

Any american official will say there was poor discipline, with all the the drugs ON THE FORNTLINE.

 

you know what makes more proof, EVEN HOLLYWOOD, the Pro-US fantatic industry makes movied showing the horrow of war, especially when US soldiers raped Vietnamese civillians and took their body organs, and took drugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

what are you taling about yoaz?

 

even i know more then u about THE WAR WHICH THE COUNTRY YOU SUPPORT who fought.

 

Any american official will say there was poor discipline, with all the the drugs ON THE FORNTLINE.

 

you know what makes more proof, EVEN HOLLYWOOD, the Pro-US fantatic industry makes movied showing the horrow of war, especially when US soldiers raped Vietnamese civillians and took their body organs, and took drugs

 

Ask any soldier as well as commander. There was not really a diciplinary problem. They didnt gather around a fire and smoke dope and sing kom by ya. I have spoke with tens of soldiers who were THERE as well as read near 100 books on the subject. If anything, they had even more dicipline. Their training involved much more hazing, cursing, hitting, ect. ect. If you were on drugs and your squadmates found out you were endangering their lives, you could kiss your butt goodbye, transfered out of the infantry to prison or if that was not possible you would find yourself dead.

 

Lol dude pure hollywood bull. Those films are not-repeat-not historically accurate. An example of the inaccuracy: They have soldiers biting the pins off hand grenades. If you tried this in real life, you would be missing some teeth. They were made by public demand to see such acts. Picture this: You're a film maker in the 70's and 80's and you are put in charge of a movie about the Vietnam War. What does your audience want to see; soldiers carring out missions and fighting or scurrying around acting like rambo shooting everything in site.

 

Ive heard of a few instances where US men killed women and children. Those men might of been on drugs, I do not know as I hav'nt studied it extensively. As I said before the great majority never used drugs. If you do not believe me, I challenge you to pick up the phone, and call up a Vietnam vet who served on the front. Most of the people who I have talked to were on the frontlines in the dirt, and the majority of the people that ive spoke with have earned at least a Purple Heart. I say again if you do not believe me ask someone who served yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you know what makes more proof, EVEN HOLLYWOOD, the Pro-US fantatic industry makes movied showing the horrow of war, especially when US soldiers raped Vietnamese civillians and took their body organs, and took drugs

 

I have a news-flash for you - Much of Hollywood is anti-US in many ways. Just look at Jane Fonda and her involvement in the Vietnam as an example (extreme maybe, but she had a lot of support).

 

Of course, the worst horror story I've heard first hand came from a friend who went to Kuwait during the first Gulf War. It involved some Iraqi soldiers and some Kuwaiti women and it was sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a news-flash for you - Much of Hollywood is anti-US in many ways.  Just look at Jane Fonda and her involvement in the Vietnam as an example (extreme maybe, but she had a lot of support).

 

Of course, the worst horror story I've heard first hand came from a friend who went to Kuwait during the first Gulf War.  It involved some Iraqi soldiers and some Kuwaiti women and it was sickening.

 

:D

 

Livius

 

Try some of Hollywood is anti-US in many ways.

 

Jane Fonda and how many??

 

I don't doubt the truth of your sickening story. I am hardly a supporter of Saddams 'elite' anymore than of the US.

 

 

Sickening stories:

 

US Marines in Somalia - victims Somali women and children

 

Sierria Leonne Rebels (victims include some of my in-laws) - women and children

 

Lords Resistance Army in Uganda - women and children

 

Northern Alliance in Afganistan - girl children

 

Serb forces in Bosnia - Muslim men, women and children

 

That is not the end of my list but enough is enough.

 

That is why in Islam, war is only allowed in self -deffence and must not include the killing of women, children and non-combatants. And must cease as soon as the enemy gives in.

 

The US by its methods alone does not conduct a war in the correct way, let alone whether the reason for war is justified.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a news-flash for you - Much of Hollywood is anti-US in many ways.  Just look at Jane Fonda and her involvement in the Vietnam as an example (extreme maybe, but she had a lot of support).

 

Of course, the worst horror story I've heard first hand came from a friend who went to Kuwait during the first Gulf War.  It involved some Iraqi soldiers and some Kuwaiti women and it was sickening.

 

Did it involve incubator units ?...

 

Please name anti-US hollywood stars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×