Should Kerry Have Compared Iraq to Vietnam?

[Sayeret]

Write yes or no and a reason for your opinion in your responses.

I don't support what Kerry said because it encourages the insurgents to continue their attacks by showing them that whatever they do is working. When someone compares a war to Vietnam they are almost doing it to show that the war is a failure or mess like Vietnam so what better way to encourage someone to keep fighting by showing them that they are hurting their enemy.

A lot of people yell at Bush for saying "Bring it on" but even worse than this is what Kerry said because it shows them that even someone as important as a US Senator believes that they are hurting the US and that if they continue then it will become a victory for them like Vietnam was for the Vietcong/North Vietnam.

[Fargin]

I think so.

I see the same tactics used.

I see public support crumbling.

I see an Iraqification of the conflict.

I see Iraq hurting US' reputation.

I see many similarities.

I see the bad moon arising.

I see trouble on the way.

I see earthquakes and lightning.

I see bad times today.

[abncougar]

i hate to say this but kerry is right. the main reason is b/c the media is destroying the publics view and destroying troop support (except for fox news of course). i hate the media.!!!!

[Siddar]

No just think what would happen to him if he became president and tried to deal with Iraq.

His remarks are along lines of LBJ saying were not going to send are boys to Vietnam in 64.

[khukuri]

i hate the media.!!!!


Because theyre reporting whats happening over there?

[Deuterium]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040708/asay.gif



http://www.deuteriumox.com/milphotos/bud.jpg

[Tane Angle]

If we never try to learn lessons from past wars and apply them to today's, we will just keep on repeating the same mistakes. The two wars are not the same, but there are things to be learned from Vietnam, as well as Lebanon, WWII, and many other wars.

Oh yeah, and http://www.deuteriumox.com/milphotos/bud.jpg p-)

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Sayeret]

But Tane is Kerry saying it to make sure we don't repeat mistakes of the past or is he saying it for political gain?

[aartamen]

I wish he compared his ass to grass and Bush to a lawnmower. I can compare the Ghengis Khan western expansion to Hitlers march to the East, and find a lot of similarities.

[Secret Squirrel]

But Tane is Kerry saying it to make sure we don't repeat mistakes of the past or is he saying it for political gain?

How many times are you going to try and incite the responses that you want by bringing this up again? Why dont you just go back and re-read the previous threads you started about this topic, because you're just getting the same responses from people regarding your "issue".

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15990&highlight=vietnam

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16318&highlight=vietnam

[Tane Angle]

Tane wrote:

I think comparisons are sometimes good. They allow us to learn from our mistakes. We can say "oh, X didn't work in Vietnam or Lebanon or wherever, so maybe we should try Y instead."

Both are wars that are of at least somewhat questionable need. Both wars began with highly-professional active duty militaries (let us hope that our military in five years does not too closesly resemble the military of the 1970s). Both might have been better fought using more chiefly SOF. Both involve porous borders.

Both involve roadside bombs and hit-and-run tactics. Baghdad's IEDs aren't that different from the bicylcle bombs of Saigon.

Of course, most Vietnamese (North or South) are ethnically homogeneous. In the highlands, that is not so, but in Vietnam we expected ethnic Vietnamese to fight ethnic Vietnamese and it didn't always work. Sometimes it did, but not always as much as some might have liked. The highlanders, though, like the Highlanders of Scotland (there's my little nod to Argyll ), proved to be skilled fighters.

The ethnic issues in Iraq are somewhat different in Iraq. And, of course, there is the additional factor of AQO and other groups.

Personally, I think there are many similarities between Iraq and Lebanon as well.

I respect the office of the Presidency. I respect the idea of it. I do not respect the man much. Getting people killed needlessly has that effect. I respect the troops. Otherwise I'd be shooting myself in the foot. It is specifically because I respect the troops that I do not respect President Bush so much.

Sayeret, yes, of course he's doing it for political reasons. Doesn't change the fact that he might be right-there are in fact a lot of similarities and lessons to be learned. Had President Bush asked anyone who spent more than five minutes in the Middle East, the President would have known to expect most of the problems we have encountered and would have taken the years we needed to prepare our military for a war and subsequent occupation in Iraq.

Things we should have done before going in:
-Interceptor Body Armor with shoulder pads, kevlar shorts, the works, for everyone.
-MICH helmets with face shields for everyone.
-Secure communications for everyone, not store bought Motorolas.
-The most basic Arabic and successful cultural training for people's jobs. The guys who would be manning a checkpoint would have had to learn how to say "stop," "may we search your vehicle?" etc. From what I've seen, the language and cultural training that most of these kids, much less the Reserve and National Guard folks, went through before deployment is just plain horrible.
-More and better vehicles. The Marines should have been allowed to have their Abrams in country the whole time. Should have had RPG-cages for whoever wanted them, and had them on the vehicles before the war started. The Humvee is a glorified car, nothing else. It shouldn't be used as an APC. Nonetheless, we should have had full armor upgrades on the Humvees before the war started.
-More explosive-sniffing dogs.
-Should have shelled out the extra 50 bucks for infrared covers for all helicopters in Iraq.
-Shouldn't have disbanded the regular Iraqi Army.
-Needed more US troops.
-Our peacekeeping body, from day one, should have been basically a mix of the Peace Corps, the 1st Armored Division, and 5th SFG. That is, a blend of all those capabilities. Reconstruction has to continue under fire. Expecting to start reconstruction once the shooting stops will take forever, because the shooting won't stop, especially not until reconstruction is complete.

The list goes on. The tactics we've seen are not new. Everyone from the Vietcong to the Party of God to the WWII resistance groups to American revolutionaries in the 1770s and 80s has used tactics that should have been an indication of what to expect. We should have been prepared to deal with a "1980s Part of God-like threat" in Iraq from before the war started. We weren't.

I don't like that we're there now, but if we are going to start stupid wars, let's at least be smart about it, ok?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Sayeret]

Tane I'm not arguing with your about whetheror not the US should have invaded Iraq rather should Kerry have compared Iraq to Vietnam. His reasons were to show people that Bush hadn't prepared enough for the war but that doesn't mean that it doesn't send another message to Iraqi insurgents. Even though I know Kerry doesn't want this to happen but it would benefit him greatly if the US did badly in Iraq because then Bush would look bad.

[Luxembourger]

it would benefit him greatly if the US did badly in Iraq because then Bush would look bad.

IF Kerry wins , it will be on the domestic issues jobs, enivronment, school. Whether he will handle the iraq issue in a better why than Bush, we don t know . But he will do more for the average-poor class of the american people .
Remember that most firefighters in the US are going to vote for John Kerry and many steel workers too.

I don t think so Kerry will be a bad president because he was against the vietnam war , against the Gulf war in 91 and for OIF in 2003.
And I think it is wrong to compare him to a communist or to a guy who hates the US military ,the same it is wrong to compare Bush to a crimininal or to a drunken man.

Why always focus about what they did in the past ? People do change in the time so do their opinions.


Comparing Vietnam to IRAq , well every war has a couple of similarities, but still every war is different from each other.
A war is always "good" or was essential when at the end it was won . If the vietnam war was really won at the end , even with 56000 Us casualties we won t talk so much about it.

the Korean war costed more US casualties than vietnam but we don t talk much about it since the war was not a defeat ( although it wasn t a victory either)

I just think that many soldiers could be still alive if they had the appropriate equipment as Tane angel mentioned with the list he posted.
Sure this wouldn t have change the whole outcome of the war but at least some american young boys were still alive.

[abncougar]

i hate the media.!!!!


Because theyre reporting whats happening over there?


because they dont tell the good news

[mi35d]

No, people with basic thought processes can see that the media outlets revel in the negative. Assinine talking heads who have never served their country in any fashion spout colorful phrases to get that sound bite for Dan Rather.

Remember last year when there was a slow down in the fighting? "IT'S A Quagmire!!! It's another Vietnam!!!"

These same media outlets were nowhere to be found when US soldiers were getting blasted by mines, etc. in Bosnia, Croatia, etc. Had Bush ordered a cruise missile attack on an aspirin factory the media attacks would never let up. For Clinton, it was an "oops" and that was about it.

Meanwhile, Kerry is a ****. His "Waffleman" persona should piss everyone off both inside and outside the US. (The whole SUV comment thing should be enough to remind people he'll say whatever, whenever he needs to for public opinion.)