NationStates Jolt Archive

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.
Because Vietnam is the US's most phenomenal f*ckup.

thats not the answer to my question.

thats not the answer to my question.
I know.

I see, now to stop this spam fest.

Those that hate us like to compare it because we lost that one.

Nothing more then that.....

But do europeans have to put up with it?

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.

I haven't heard every war compared to Vietnam - in fact, pretty much just the war in Iraq. And if you don't think that is a fair comparison, watch a movie called Fog of War. You'll be absolutely amazed by the similarities (even in presidential speeches - it's eerie).

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.
Because the US was the World's superpower, and they were totally and utterly humiliated by Ho Chi Minh's freedom fighters. It was the World's first strike back - the Country that had enforced Hegemony for so long had gotten a taste of it's own medicine.

Those that hate us like to compare it because we lost that one.

Nothing more then that.....

We didn't really lose so much as we just left. We were pretty much winning, and then we suddenly decided to leave (protesters). When we left, the South Vietnamese were screwed and got run over by the North. We would have won if we had stayed, there just would've been many more losses.

I haven't heard every war compared to Vietnam - in fact, pretty much just the war in Iraq. And if you don't think that is a fair comparison, watch a movie called Fog of War. You'll be absolutely amazed by the similarities (even in presidential speeches - it's eerie).
Still, there are important differences. Part of the reason that the Viet Cong were so sucessful was because it was a jungle. Iraq is a desert, and most of it is flat or gently rolling hills. It's the stuff conquerors have been drawn to for millenia. Also, the resistence in Iraq is not as well organized as the Viet Cong. It also doesn't have a major foreign power as its patron.

We didn't really lose so much as we just left. We were pretty much winning, and then we suddenly decided to leave (protesters). When we left, the South Vietnamese were screwed and got run over by the North. We would have won if we had stayed, there just would've been many more losses.

Ahahaha, you still cannot accept you lose. Thats why Hollywood makes all those crap films about it.

Because the US was the World's superpower, and they were totally and utterly humiliated by Ho Chi Minh's freedom fighters.

Freedom fighters? They didn't seem to have too much freedom to me.

Still, there are important differences. Part of the reason that the Viet Cong were so sucessful was because it was a jungle. Iraq is a desert, and most of it is flat or gently rolling hills. It's the stuff conquerors have been drawn to for millenia. Also, the resistence in Iraq is not as well organized as the Viet Cong. It also doesn't have a major foreign power as its patron.

But those aren't the comparisons that are made. The comparisons are that it is touted as a "war for the hearts and minds of the people." It is being fought because we didn't like the government and decided to go in and take over. There are cultural differences that add to the hatred and resistance on both sides and we will probably be tied up in it for a very long time. Obviously, we are not losing nearly as many soldiers and the fighting itself is different. It is the philosophy behind the war and the longevity of warfare that we are most likely looking at that are similar.

Ahahaha, you still cannot accept you lose. Thats why Hollywood makes all those crap films about it.
Well, we never did anything that could grant us victory, like try to invade North Vietnam.

Freedom fighters? They didn't seem to have too much freedom to me.

Better than Diem and the tyrants that followed him. And if the US were so convinced the people of Vietnam wanted to be 'free' why didn't they allow free elections in the early 60's (and instead provided aid to the tyrant Diem) to decide whether or not the people wanted Communism.

But those aren't the comparisons that are made. The comparisons are that it is touted as a "war for the hearts and minds of the people." It is being fought because we didn't like the government and decided to go in and take over. There are cultural differences that add to the hatred and resistance on both sides and we will probably be tied up in it for a very long time. Obviously, we are not losing nearly as many soldiers and the fighting itself is different. It is the philosophy behind the war and the longevity of warfare that we are most likely looking at that are similar.
But not necessarily the outcome. The philosophy is the same as Vietnam, I admit. Fortunatly, I think there's a better chance of sucess this time around.

But not necessarily the outcome. The philosophy is the same as Vietnam, I admit. Fortunatly, I think there's a better chance of sucess this time around.

Famous last words....

Although I hope you're right.

Famous last words....

Although I hope you're right.
I need to be right. Otherwise, I'll have to do some soul-searching with our foreign policy. I plan to be a political science major, so I want to go into college with some concrete political ideas :). Of course, as my previous experiences with college show me, I may turn out to be a Marxist by the end of college.

I need to be right. Otherwise, I'll have to do some soul-searching with our foreign policy. I plan to be a political science major, so I want to go into college with some concrete political ideas :). Of course, as my previous experiences with college show me, I may turn out to be a Marxist by the end of college.

Ah, the "colleges are liberal" idea. I always wonder where that idea comes from, as the only people who saw the college I went to as "liberal" were the members of the Georgia Southern Baptist Association - and they think everyone else is liberal. But anyways, that's off-topic so I should probably shut up. Don't be surprised if your ideas change quite a bit at school - but don't blame it on the "liberalism" of the schools, usually its a product of soul-searching and learning things from a different angle. You'll most likely have die-hards on both sides in your classes to argue with. =)

Ah, the "colleges are liberal" idea. I always wonder where that idea comes from, as the only people who saw the college I went to as "liberal" were the members of the Georgia Southern Baptist Association - and they think everyone else is liberal. But anyways, that's off-topic so I should probably shut up. Don't be surprised if your ideas change quite a bit at school - but don't blame it on the "liberalism" of the schools, usually its a product of soul-searching and learning things from a different angle. You'll most likely have die-hards on both sides in your classes to argue with. =)
I never said colleges were liberal. I just said Marxist to show how radically I may change. I've been in college programs before. I'm PE's puppet, btw.

Maybe because you guys *HAVE* to police the world.... *shrug*

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.


The only reason I know about the Vietnam war is because of MGM, Warner Bros. etc. etc. The impact or significance Vietnam is foreign to me. As far as my viewpoint goes; most wars are related or compared to significant wars that have impacted the nation involved. So I often feel that I am expected to somehow understand why Vietnam is so significant to you, but seem to fall short. The last war my country was involved in was WWII so that is usually what we would measure against.

Vietnam is the only war in American history where the abosolute worst case scenario happened. Commies won, they overran South Vietnam. We got major embarrassment, and to top it off, continental South East Asia's scale of power tipped in favor of the Reds. Now the only SEA states on the mainlands that's a republic is Tailand, and Malaysia. In a nutshell everyone followed Vietnam to civil war, lots of dictators, and everythings on fire. Now they hate us. If a theocracy were to be established in Iraq, the second largest reserve of oil in the world would be gone. War on Isreal would receive massive support, and an attempt to take out a terrorist hideaway, would deliever it right in to their hands.

We didn't really lose so much as we just left. We were pretty much winning, and then we suddenly decided to leave (protesters). When we left, the South Vietnamese were screwed and got run over by the North. We would have won if we had stayed, there just would've been many more losses.

Won what? A Pyrrhic victory?

Won what? A Pyrrhic victory?

Basically, North Vietnam wouldn't have taken over South Vietnam - that's really what the soldiers were there to prevent. The original intent was to train the South Vietnamese, but most likely American soldiers would have had to be there for decades "keeping the peace." Eventually, the South Vietnamese would have hated us even more than they already did. Everything would have been shitty. Of course, the fact that we were in it at all was a problem, but our pulling out basically completely doomed South Vietnam.

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.

In the UK, they compare any war that looks like it will end in disaster to the Falklands or the ongoing war in N.I.

Back on topic people. I think the reason most wars now would be compared to Vietnam is because Vietnam was the first major conflict using guerilla warfare so effectively. Unless the attacker of whatever area just wanted to level building with enemies hiding in them, the war will turn into a guerilla war. In WWII, buildings were levelled if the enemy wouldn't surrender. In Vietnam, it would have taken a whole lot of Daisy Cutters to level the forest. In Iraq, the US is conserned about civilian casualties contary to popular belief in some of these threads. If the city still stands, people can fight a guerilla war. It causes the most casualties for the least amount of losses for the defender. That's what happened in Vietnam and that's what's happening in Iraq. Vietnam just had jungles to hide in rather than cities.

Now I am not supporting Vietnam but honestly there were so many damn things working against us

Everything from popular opinion to the ground we were fighting on

I think that because of opinion and or “objective” also limitations placed on us. Hard to fight a war with your hands tied (not talking nukes and such … just other things)

We have to uphold our own standards … we can not necessary use the same tactics even if we could pull them off … world and popular opinion would have REALLY swung against us (more so)

As for the reason it is so compared … it is an example of what CAN happen … it is a low point in which we are all scared of going again. Wars have lost their “luster” they don’t compare wars by the “High” points the compare them by how long / hard / bad they are

Nature of the subject you are comparing

Being 'restrained', eh?

Not allowed to use proper force... eh?

Right... Thats why you used Herbicides to kill of Crops, as well as declaring countless other Chemical Warfare Battles against the Vietnamese people such as the use of Agent Orange, a disgusting event that lives on to this day. And as a result completely destroyed thier environment.

Or how about the mass bombing of Vietnamese Cities? That resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? If thats being 'restrained' then what is being 'unrestrained'?

Being unrestrained would have been destroying anything that was a threat. This includes cities, forests, food supplies, etc. That is the problem with guerilla warfare. If you care about the local population at all, it's next to impossible to beat them. If you don't care about the local population or collateral damage, guerilla warfare wouldn't work.

Being unrestrained would have been destroying anything that was a threat. This includes cities, forests, food supplies, etc. That is the problem with guerilla warfare. If you care about the local population at all, it's next to impossible to beat them. If you don't care about the local population or collateral damage, guerilla warfare wouldn't work.

Erm, all the the above factors that you mentioned constitute being unrestrained were attacked.

Being unrestrained would have been destroying anything that was a threat. This includes cities, forests, food supplies, etc. That is the problem with guerilla warfare. If you care about the local population at all, it's next to impossible to beat them. If you don't care about the local population or collateral damage, guerilla warfare wouldn't work.
I doubt any nation (and the US more so) could declare "victory" after levelling another country in where the nation was locked against an opponent using guerrilla tactics. Everybody would hate you with good reason. It's like winning against a shark when both your legs are missing. It's more like a draw or a defeat. The shark's dead but you don't have any legs.

On topic though, in Finland everybody is convinced that we could pull our Winter War off again against any opponent, so when discussing any potential conflict, the Winter War is brought up. The Winter War was fought against the Soviet Union in 1939 and 1940 during the winter. It lasted a bit more than three months and basically a small mostly agrarian nation fought the USSR alone and ended up not being occupied. In Finland everybody considers it a victory which I think is justified. Then again, I'm Finnish too.

To Nazi Weaponized Virus:

No they weren't. I'm talking: There may be a group of VietCong in that 10 square mile stretch of forest. Lets drop napalm on the whole thing.

In Iraq, it would be: There are Islamic Militants hiding in that Mosque over there. Lets level the whole thing.

Something like the Iraq example was just done but the Mosque wasn't totally destroyed, just shelled. To supress guerilla warfare, most everything would be destroyed.

To Dalekia: You're absolutely right. You can't destroy the whole nation you want to take if guerilla warfare is involved on a scale such as Vietnam or Iraq. It just isn't possible. You can't see who's a civilian and who's your enemy. I suppose you could win. It would just have to drag on for years until there weren't any people to hurl bullets at you.

To Dalekia: You're absolutely right. You can't destroy the whole nation you want to take if guerilla warfare is involved on a scale such as Vietnam or Iraq. It just isn't possible. You can't see who's a civilian and who's your enemy. I suppose you could win. It would just have to drag on for years until there weren't any people to hurl bullets at you.
Thank you, but that wasn't quite my point. I meant that you can't "win" by destroying everything, because everyone would hate you. Even in Iraq there are/might be people (foreign insurgents or whatever) that are hoping the US military goes overboard with force. That's why they are fighting on holy ground.

If the US levels some mosque the insurgent dies. On a narrow view you could claim that US won: the insurgent is dead and the US military is alive. That narrow view just doesn't make any difference. On a larger scale what would happen is this: a number of Iraqis and other muslims would say "Enough is enough" and dig up the AK-47 from the backyard, which is exactly what the insurgent or his leader was after.

Being 'restrained', eh?

Not allowed to use proper force... eh?

Right... Thats why you used Herbicides to kill of Crops, as well as declaring countless other Chemical Warfare Battles against the Vietnamese people such as the use of Agent Orange, a disgusting event that lives on to this day. And as a result completely destroyed thier environment.

Or how about the mass bombing of Vietnamese Cities? That resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? If thats being 'restrained' then what is being 'unrestrained'?
All out infrastructure warfare …
larger role of fuel air bombs (largely unused because of a mushroom shaped cloud … happens when the bomb does not contain the oxidizer) afraid to start a nuclear war because of the cloud a bomb makes

An increase blockade to ALL incoming aid.

To start with … there were a LOT more that could have been done then was done short of nukes.


But I was just pointing some things out … not promoting it … back to topic

Woops. I saw where you were coming from. We were just using different meanings of "win." Mine was a strictly military form of win where if you take the land you want, you win. If I understand correctly, your version of "win" is when you have the land but public opinion isn't shattered and more people won't rise up against you. I suppose with guerilla warfare, my version of "win" would only work if there wasn't anyone left alive to oppose you. Of course that wouldn't work, hence my conclusion of: you can't win against guerilla warfare. Erm...now what was the original topic? Anyone want to continue the original topic? hehe

I'll give it a go.

Comparing things makes them easier to understand. I betin Russia a good comparison close to Vietnam is Afghanistan. When talking about Chechnya the comparison to Vietnam is often made, because a similar thing is happening there.

It'd still be interesting to hear comparisons from countries we haven't heard about yet. Only the US, UK and Finland so far. At least the French must have something.

Well the French left Vietnam probably for the same reason as the US. I don't think the French Resistance during WWII can count because the Nazis had the habit of doing what was necessary to defeat them. They were already hated by the world but just didn't have the resources to ferret out resistance fighters.

Freedom fighters? They didn't seem to have too much freedom to me.

They probably have more freedom than if they were under any of those horrid South Vietnamese Regimes.

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Chechnya because the topic was not about guerrilla warfare, but about comparisons people make in reference to wars.

Doesn't really matter though. Any topic is a topic.

In the UK, they compare any war that looks like it will end in disaster to the Falklands or the ongoing war in N.I.

How does that work? I can see how a disaster comparison could be made with N.I, but the UK won in the Falklands.

They probably have more freedom than if they were under any of those horrid South Vietnamese Regimes.

Considering what they did to South Vietnam when they moved in, I doubt it.

How does that work? I can see how a disaster comparison could be made with N.I, but the UK won in the Falklands.

I've never heard anything compared to the Falklands. I have heard Iraq being compared to Vietnam.

Or how about the mass bombing of Vietnamese Cities? That resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? If thats being 'restrained' then what is being 'unrestrained'?

Ask the Japanese....

Being 'restrained', eh?

Not allowed to use proper force... eh?

Right... Thats why you used Herbicides to kill of Crops, as well as declaring countless other Chemical Warfare Battles against the Vietnamese people such as the use of Agent Orange, a disgusting event that lives on to this day. And as a result completely destroyed thier environment.

Or how about the mass bombing of Vietnamese Cities? That resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? If thats being 'restrained' then what is being 'unrestrained'?

It's amazing that you think you're an expert on this subject. Hey moron, agent orange is a herbicide. Guess what? The VC and NVA hid in the forests. Kind of hard to see them with all of those leaves. Sure their food may have been damaged, but compared to the foliage it was not a big matter. What other countless Chemical Warefare Battles did we engage in?

What about the atrocities that these "peace loving" VC's committed, like destroying friendly villages, waiting for A-Teams to leave villages, then cutting off of all the freshly injected childrens arms. Then putting all of the arms in a pile. Raping and eviscerating the people of villages, skinning people alive, torture, dismemberment of POW's.

Civilians always suffer though at the hands of their government. If the North had stuck with peace talks, Linebackers I & II would not have been needed.

Well in Germany we have sometimes a form of criticism which refers to events during the first republic (1919-33). The most usually thing is the statement: "That is going to lead to 1933" (end of democracy).

And if you are right of the centre and despise political correctness it can happened that you are called a Nazi because of that. That happened quite freqently during the 1990s (last time in 2001 when a politician of the political left called a conservative politican a skinhead because he said: "I´m proud to be a German." - though he had latter to apologize for that).
Furthernmore there are more comparisons to 1914 - the outbreak of world war I. That is especially the case sine 9/11. It was after all an act of terrorism which started the crisis in Europe which led to World War I: the assassination of the austrian crown prince in Sarajevo by a serbian nationalists. That led to the "preventive strike" of Austria against Serbia. And than the mechanism of military alliance started. Serbia with Russia. And Russia with France and England. And Austria-Hungary with Germany and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).
That comparison has become used quite often since 2001. Especially the reference to the nibelunge loyality which Germany declared towards Austria in 1914. That is today seen as a big mistake which caused World War I. And therefore it is argued that Germany should not always follow the US like it followed Austria in 1914.

Every time America goes to war the future war is always compared with Vietnam. So that got me wondering, does every country have to deal with this? Like, in britian, when they go to war is soemone asking " Hey, will this be another hundred years' war?" or in Germany " Hey, is this going to be another world war?". Im just interested to know and would apreciate if you stayed on topic and away from flaming.

Most countires basically don't have wars in foreign countries anymore... US still does, because its a superpower. Therefore in other countries they don't need to compare wars to previous wars.

And yes foreign support troops working alongside Americans don't really count.

accualy this war was only really compared to vietnam because a large percentage of people (not only hippies) opposed the war

was desert storm compared to vietnam no
or kosovo caompains no
cause no one opposed those capaings

the vietmanese were xeno-phobics but Ho Chi Minh (known a nguyen the patriot) tried to be very freiendly to the USA during the 1930s with presedien woodrow wilson to stop the French's horrble harsh rule of CochinChina (south vietnam) But he didnt care all we were concered about is a rising Germany

unlike japan in the 1850s (as seen in the last samuri) viet nam was not considered profitable by american or russian standards so no one care about the french tyrents
i mean america only becane involve to help out the french's lost cause and to prevent communism.

while communest china tried to help out HO (not becouse of frendship but to occupy vietnam, like how it used to be in achient times)

im NOT A vietmanese simpityzer but All Ho wanted was a united vietnam and he endured the chinese, french, japanese, and americans and with deception and excellent politacal and military tatics he succeded

Ho Had about 50 FAke names and lived in france, russia, china and USA (new york) to observe their weaknesses and brillances.

Ho felt like the Frence, then amercans, and finnal chineese had to permanently leave the country while he anticipaeded the defet of japan easeist way he felt was to do that is to turn communest and eventally have hes sucseeded government Befriend China and drive out the foriengerss

the vietmanese governmeant are Xeno-phobics (fear/ hatred of foriengers)

the french only becoame involved in Nam Bacuse they thought they can Navagte the Mekong river

they were very mistaken and after they found this out
as a prize to king louis III in the early 1800s and a testoment to french arrogance they screwed up vietnam to an incredable degree

the pissed off viietmanes who didnt always hate a western idea/ influence 9i mean they write in europien letters not chinese idoegrams) slaughterd the french with crappy outdated weapons (some didnt have guns) they masscured the frence soldures in the bettle of Diemphu and won their independance (all the french cared about in the 50s was to reepir damages after WW2

and didnt submit reinforcements to the outnumbered frenchies

also dont forget that the south and noth vietmanese killed and tortured many cilvilians (eather because they were suspected with syphsizing for whatever side) or for information

they have pictures of south vietmanese shotting villiges indicriminately (women and children too) for nothing usually beacuse they were frusturated and they always suspected eveyone and anyone of helping out the cong

and the cong did the same thing too i mean the Mi lai masssacure only like 1000 poeple died i mean thats nothing compaird to the civilian casualties enflicted by THe NVA and the Vietcong

total south vietnam civilian casuaties 2 million