+joc Posted April 13, 2004 #1 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Recently Senator Kennedy and others have been refering to the war in Iraq as "Bush's Vietnam". Of course it is all political, however I would like to compare the two wars and see how close Teddy Kennedy is to the truth: 1. North Vietnam never tried to assasinate a US President. Iraq did. 2. North Vietnam did not ever have any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did. 3. We never occupied N. Vietnam. We occupy Iraq. 4. US casualties in Vietnam averaged about 12 a day over a 12 year period. Total US casualties in Iraq have averaged about 2 a day over 1 year. 5. The war in Vietnam was started by a Democrat President and continued for another 4 years by another Democrat. 6. The war in Vietnam was a political war. The war in Iraq is a strategic part of the war on terror. 7. Vietnam was a jungle. Iraq is a desert. 8. The North Vietnamese people hated us. Most Iraqis hail us as liberators. 9. During the war in Vietnam there was a 'demilitarized zone'. Nothing similar exists in Iraq. 10. The soldiers in the war with Vietnam were drafted. The soldiers in Iraq have all volunteered. 11. In Vietnam there was no strategery to win. We have already won the war in Iraq and are now in the 'cleanup' faze. Feel free to add your own comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimma Posted April 13, 2004 #2 Share Posted April 13, 2004 2. North Vietnam did not ever have any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did. ????? Where/When? 4. US casualties in Vietnam averaged about 12 a day over a 12 year period. Total US casualties in Iraq have averaged about 2 a day over 1 year. Give it time! 6. The war in Vietnam was a political war. The war in Iraq is a strategic part of the war on terror. BS war for resources. 8. The North Vietnamese people hated us. Most Iraqis hail us as liberators. Absolute rubbish! 11. In Vietnam there was no strategery to win. We have already won the war in Iraq and are now in the 'cleanup' faze. Won the war!!??!! It hasn't even started yet. Think not! Joc, you need to do some real research without your 'blind American Patriotism glasses' on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted April 13, 2004 #3 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Joc, you need to do some real research without your 'blind American Patriotism glasses' on. oh right, because you are a fountain of knowledge War for resources? got evidence? Most iraqis hailing the US as liberators rubbish? well looking at the fact that insurgents are very much a minority i can see how Joc came to the conclusion, how did you come to yours? i fail to see what real research you have engaged in? from the looks of it 1/2 of your rebuttels don't even make a factual point, Total US casualties in Iraq have averaged about 2 a day over 1 year. Give it time! so what you are saying is that he's right? Won the war!!??!! It hasn't even started yet. Think not! and you know this how? what research led you to this conclusion? I think both arguements are flawed:) however, i also think that all we have to do is look at Vietnam to know the sort of outcome the pacifists wanted, a poor ass country spewing out refugees:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarman Posted April 13, 2004 #4 Share Posted April 13, 2004 12. USA was on it's own in Vietnam In Iraq the US have the support of the UK, who have lost more troops to US friendly fire than to Iraqi soldiers Thanks guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted April 13, 2004 #5 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Joc. So i take it you think the war in vietnam was wrong then?????? You only never occupied N.vietnam because you couldnt. OK so there was never anything like a DMZ in Iraq ???? Ok so wot about the no fly zone that existed befor ethe war in the large sections of the north and south of Iraq. How pointless is stating that vietnam is a jungle an iraq a desert??? You know the vast majority of the rest of the world have a pretty decent education, that wasnt much of a revelation. So they hail us as liberators do they??? You call a couple of hundred people in the centre of baghdad a year ago an entire population hailing us. You know paris being liberated at the end of WW2 was a country celebrating liberation. Bagdad 2003 was a couple of hundred people who hated saddam so much they were rejoicing at the evil man's downfall, they werent rejoicing us as liberators. The draft no longer exists in your country so another pointless comparison. Joc once again you totally miss the point , when people are comparing the vitnam war with this one it isnt in direct comparison, how can you theyre neary 4 decades apart. However what they are saying is that both countries turned into a quagmire of bloodshed and that is the point people are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted April 13, 2004 Author #6 Share Posted April 13, 2004 However what they are saying is that both countries turned into a quagmire of bloodshed and that is the point people are making. Going into the Iraq war it was estimated by many that US and Coalition casualties would be in the 10s of thousands. In Vietnam we were engaging an army in a jungle as well as the civilian population. In Iraq we completely destroyed the military infrastructure and are now fighting terrorists and insurgents. Hardly a quagmire after one year. What a complete irony I might add that the 'big bafoon' who is making the comparison was brother to the man who engaged us in the Vietnam war. 2. North Vietnam did not ever have any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did. ????? Where/When? Why don't you ask the Kurds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted April 13, 2004 #7 Share Posted April 13, 2004 No ud be better to ask mr rumsfeld he sold them to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted April 13, 2004 #8 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Oh which saddam duly obliged and used. Jimma was reffering to that they dont have them anymore, that they DID have them is not an issue wether they had them in 2003 is the real question. Which im sure we can all agree is a moot point. THEY DIDNT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted April 13, 2004 Author #9 Share Posted April 13, 2004 No ud be better to ask mr rumsfeld he sold them to him. Your sarcasm is laughable and in no way accurate. Sadaam had an active WMD program and he developed his own chems. Someday you are going to have to decide wether you want to live in a safe world or cower in fear with the rest of your liberal cohorts. Join the real world pal. Where we kill and defeat our enemies....not sit down with them over crumpets and tea and have a nice little discussion about why they are so angry at us. This is not Vietnam. We were attacked and if you want to be a Sadaam symphathizer, and say that he was absolutely innocent of all of it then be my guest. You have plenty of company. Don't forget though that his soldiers shot at our planes daily....a middle finger in the face of the UN....and what about all the bomb belts and US military uniforms that were found in Fallujah? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimma Posted April 13, 2004 #10 Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) Bathory you are a to**er, no I don't have evidence of a war for resources but you only have to have a grain of common dog. just like your joke of a leader (and ours) had no evidence of weapons of mass distruction! "so what you are saying is that he's right?" Read it again and grow up, what I meant was ther is a lot more of this crap to come. and yes I think it's another Vietnam (or will be) Yet another country the "Leaders of the world" have ****ed up. If the US is always so right, why does the majority of the world see you as troublemaking warmongers. Everything the US wants it gets by force. Politicians in the US keep chuntering on about "Our Friends - the UK), b******s mate, the only friend the USA has in the UK is Tony 'nose up Bush's ****' Blair. Edited April 13, 2004 by jimma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimma Posted April 13, 2004 #11 Share Posted April 13, 2004 12. USA was on it's own in Vietnam In Iraq the US have the support of the UK, who have lost more troops to US friendly fire than to Iraqi soldiers Thanks guys Sorry Barman but there were 10's of thousands of UK/AUS troops fighting in Vietnam. Most of ours came home though, due to superior leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimma Posted April 13, 2004 #12 Share Posted April 13, 2004 However what they are saying is that both countries turned into a quagmire of bloodshed and that is the point people are making. Going into the Iraq war it was estimated by many that US and Coalition casualties would be in the 10s of thousands. In Vietnam we were engaging an army in a jungle as well as the civilian population. In Iraq we completely destroyed the military infrastructure and are now fighting terrorists and insurgents. Hardly a quagmire after one year. What a complete irony I might add that the 'big bafoon' who is making the comparison was brother to the man who engaged us in the Vietnam war. 2. North Vietnam did not ever have any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did. ????? Where/When? Why don't you ask the Kurds? No i'm asking YOU. Where are the weapons that our 2 illustrious leaders went to Iraq for? Sorry to keep bringing it up but the oils been flowing into Israel for about 9 months now. Now theres a BIG coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted April 13, 2004 #13 Share Posted April 13, 2004 if you want to be a Sadaam symphathizer, and say that he was absolutely innocent of all of it then be my guest. You have plenty of company. DOnt ever call me a saddam sypathiser you idiot. Do you actually bother to read my posts?? If you did youll see i have and on many many occasions described saddam as an evil evil man and that the world is better of without him. You are so arrogant that you cannot see the difference between hating saddam husseign whilst also thinking that it was a mistake to go to iraq. Are you so blind to see that both are compleley seperate issues.??? You can have a right wing illeducated uniformed point of view all you want but dont ever try and presume to say that i supported or ever in anyway tried to placate saddam husseign. YOu need to step into the real world it was OUR weapons that saddam husseign used against the kurds that you mentioned. We are not to blame but your mr rumsfeld, our dear old maggie thatcher and the genious that was President Reagon all have blood on their hand from that massacre. But hey its not our fault eh JOc , we only helped him our fingers werent on the button...............yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimma Posted April 13, 2004 #14 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Well done Wunarm, someone who is better than me at putting things into words has said what I wanted to. Truth is mate, no most Yanks don't see Al Qaeda/9-11 and Iraq as separate issues because they have been TOLD they are the same issue by uncle Bush and they will believe everything they are told! Yeah yeah, the yanks keep bleating on about Saddam being a bad man attacking his own people, well I never saw the US going into Uganda or Rwanda or China (that one'd be interesting)or Nepal or.........................................................................................................................................................The list goes on and on and on an................. Where were the so called protecters of the world then. And if 1 mor septic goes on about the 'US invading Iraq becaquse we were attacked' i'm gonna scream. YOU WERE NOT ATTACKED BY IRAQ OR SADDAM. SADDAM is now gone and more allies than ever are dying, Oh yes it's because the people of Iraq 'Are so grateful to the US for "liberating them"' Don't make me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimma Posted April 13, 2004 #15 Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) My last post on the subject. The only war the US hasnt bottled out of, they ended TESTING weapons of mass distruction. I would feel the world a lot safer without the US. They're the scary ones. ps. I suppose i'm a terrorist for that one!! I'll probably vanish in the middle of the night at the hand of men wearing aviator shades and holding their ears!! Edited April 13, 2004 by jimma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aslan Posted April 13, 2004 #16 Share Posted April 13, 2004 As expected. It's a slanging match. So... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts