NationStates Jolt Archive

Which is the worse US foreign policy decision; involvement in Vietnam or involvement in Iraq(this time, not the 1st time) It seems close, but I think Iraq wins this one. Could be the worst foreign policy decision in history.

Should've made it public, and I voted Iraq.

Iraq. At least Vietnam had the plausible threat of a Soviet-influenced Communist government. But invading Iraq gained us nothing and ruined just about everything.

Which is the worse US foreign policy decision; involvement in Vietnam or involvement in Iraq(this time, not the 1st time) It seems close, but I think Iraq wins this one. Could be the worst foreign policy decision in history.


Well in terms of foreign policy and international relations Iraq is probably worse. But in military terms, Vietnam beat Iraq by FAR! by real far. Besides the the obvious fact that the Vietnam war makes Iraq look like a girl scout meeting in terms of deaths, there are many countless others that I could go on about, but I'd probably never finnish writing them...

Well in terms of foreign policy and international relations Iraq is probably worse. But in military terms, Vietnam beat Iraq by FAR! by real far. Besides the the obvious fact that the Vietnam war makes Iraq look like a girl scout meeting in terms of deaths, there are many countless others that I could go on about, but I'd probably never finnish writing them...

the only reason Iraq doesnt have as many US deaths as Veitnam is body armor. Don't forget that 22,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq. Total US causalities(deaths and injuries) in Iraq rival that of Nam within the same time frame.

I voted equal. Here's why: Our goal in Vietnam was arguably more just (containment of Communism) but the Vietnamese people did not want us there, only the government of South Vietnam wanted us there. In Iraq a majority of the people wanted us to help and we were greeted as liberators by a majority of the people, however public opinion quickly (way too quickly) changed when our troops (for seemingly no reason) changed from liberators to occupiers. Of course the biggest problems in Iraq are corruption, within weeks everyone we put in office would have a multi-million dollar bank about in a Swiss bank and sectarian violence, Sunni and Shiite are killing each other and we do not have enough troops in Iraq to stamp it out.

So, both wars were blunders for different reasons but if we lose in Iraq it will be for the same reason we lost in Vietnam, public support at home will had dropped so low that eventually a government will be elected because they swear to pull out their troops and abandon our allies. Like Vietnam the military will be blamed for this defeat even though the military has won battle after battle but the American people won't take responsibility for the war that we lost.

the only reason Iraq doesnt have as many US deaths as Veitnam is body armor. Don't forget that 22,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq. Total US causalities(deaths and injuries) in Iraq rival that of Nam within the same time frame.

I'll agree with that, however, the Vietcong and the NVA were far better at guerrilla warfare and war in general than the insurgents could ever hope to be.

Both were absolutely critical to the well-being of the United States and the outside world; they were both definitely the correct choice and reasonably well executed. However, the capacity of the US to fight both wars was threatened by anti-American liberals in this country, leading to a draw in the wars (although a win in Iraq is likely, it has not yet materialized).

Like Vietnam the military will be blamed for this defeat even though the military has won battle after battle but the American people won't take responsibility for the war that we lost.



They should'nt be, the American Military is extremely powerful, however, No foreign conventional army could ever beat a guerrila force on its own turf, that has a large support among the populace. When it reaches that point No conventoinal or non conventoinal force, can beat them. The people who started a failed war an false pretences while misleading and lieing to the public should be held accountable.

Definitely Vietnam, Iraq doesn't compare at all.

Neither in my opinion. Iraq just needs time to get stuff together. Nobody is going to miss Saddam and the boys. Nobody at all least of all the people of Iraq. Good riddance!

In Vietnam we were not justified: we broke our own treaty.

In Iraq we were at least justified: we truly thought there were WMD's.

As for which was/is handled in a worse manner, I don't know.

Iraq, far and away. This war is going to follow us home. The implications for wider conflict in the Middle east are awesom to contemplate when you consider the fact that 60% of the world's energy supplies flow out of the straights of Hormuz which are bordered on one side by Iran who will probably end up in control of Iraq. Iraq has international implications that were never matched by the loss in Vietnam. The whole world is going to pay the price for this disaster. One diplomat from the UAE was quoted as saying to an American journalist, "Iran and the Shiites are coming to get us and there's nothing the Americans can do about it." As the unrest in Iraq starts to spill out of it's borders and begins to threaten an already shakey security environment in Saudi Arabia people the world over are going to realize what high oil prices and limited suplies really mean. The world energy situation that a wider Middle east war can produce may very well result in a mad scramble the world over to secure energy supplies by all of the world power which will probably produce a lot of friction and probably violence. This blunder is historic in a melinial sense. It has the potential to be the opening shot in a world war for energy.

According to CNN and the AP the Iraq army will take over in June.

Neither in my opinion. Iraq just needs time to get stuff together. Nobody is going to miss Saddam and the boys. Nobody at all least of all the people of Iraq. Good riddance!

I miss Saddam. Saddam was far better for the region than the new Shiite fundamentalist regime that will take over after we leave will be.

According to CNN and the AP the Iraq army will take over in June.

So Al Sadr's Iran-friendly death squads will take over the whole country in June. Good to know.

Methinks people are only voting Iraq because its fresh in our minds :rolleyes:

I'm just saying.

Iraq has been the bigger foreign policy blunder.

Yeah there was no justifiable point to the Iraq war.

Well i think our biggest blunder was not having enough turkey and stuffing at the first thanksgiving. If we wuld have, then the Indians would have been happy and our friends, and then since they are brown like arabs, we could invite the arabs over for thanksgiving, and if we have a lot of turkey and stuffing, then we could be their friends too. Damn pilgrims!!:upyours: :sniper: :gundge:

I think there was, to get that jerk out of office and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Iran better watch it too. It never ceases to amaze me. You throw stones at the elephant and are surprized when it stomps on you.

All this talk about Iran controlling Iraq seems to be ignoring the (all to real) possibility that Iran will be too distracted by foreign troops within their own borders to worry about taking over Iraq.

I picked Iraq, partly because Vietnam is over and we can take a look at its outcome. With Iraq, I don't even want to try to guesstimate...

At least Vietnam had a great soundtrack!

Funny Cartoon

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/terrorist/terrorist.html?/terrorist/comic4.jpg

Look, Vietnam sucked. A lot of people (more than in Iraq) died needlessly. The "threat" of spreading communism was exaggerated at best, and even if it wasn't it wouldn't really have mattered if the US hadn't committed itself to a global "War on Communism".

But Iraq...it destroyed a region of vital importance to the world, it destroyed the US' only proper foreign policy tool (they tend to not be paid attention to unless they can threaten people with guns), and it ruined NATO's chances in Afghanistan. Imagine if we didn't have 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan but 200,000!

Hey, the US would even have the spare weight (and credibility) to force changes in Pakistan.

Though we don't know the ultimate effects of the Iraq disaster yet, it seems that the lasting damage in this case will be much greater than in Vietnam.

All this talk about Iran controlling Iraq seems to be ignoring the (all to real) possibility that Iran will be too distracted by foreign troops within their own borders to worry about taking over Iraq.

What foreign troops? You don't think Iran needs to send troops to control Iraq, do you? as soon as we're out of their, infact already, Iraq is looking to Iran to provide leadership. They don't need to invade Iraq. As son as Muqtada Al Sadr becomes ruler of Iraq he'll be haging out in Tehran every other weekend enjoying morning prayers with the Mullahs.

Methinks people are only voting Iraq because its fresh in our minds :rolleyes:

I'm just saying.

I believe it is worse than Vietnam because of what country it is, all the countries in that area, all their history, Holy wars, and what all is going on in the rest of the world relating to it... politically, economically and religiously. Psycotic Dan hit on some reasons I agree with. I'm looking at what is to come, the repurcussions .. not what is today. If we left yesterday and nothing further was going to happen I would've definatly voted Vietnam in this poll.

What foreign troops? You don't think Iran needs to send troops to control Iraq, do you? as soon as we're out of their, infact already, Iraq is looking to Iran to provide leadership. They don't need to invade Iraq. As son as Muqtada Al Sadr becomes ruler of Iraq he'll be haging out in Tehran every other weekend enjoying morning prayers with the Mullahs.
Didn't the current PM just visit Tehran and beg for help?

What foreign troops? You don't think Iran needs to send troops to control Iraq, do you? as soon as we're out of their, infact already, Iraq is looking to Iran to provide leadership. They don't need to invade Iraq. As son as Muqtada Al Sadr becomes ruler of Iraq he'll be haging out in Tehran every other weekend enjoying morning prayers with the Mullahs.

No, I said Iran may not be in a poslition to influence Iraq because Iran will have to worry about foreign troops in Iran, not just Iraq.

No, I said Iran may not be in a poslition to influence Iraq because Iran will have to worry about foreign troops in Iran, not just Iraq.
What troops? Thanks to Iraq the US has neither the manpower nor the money nor the political will to attack Iran.

i would say both cause they were both stupid and its hard to say which murdering a bunch of people is worse than murdering another bunch of people.

What troops? Thanks to Iraq the US has neither the manpower nor the money nor the political will to attack Iran.

A.) We are not as "over stretched" as some would like to believe, we could re-deploy troops from all over the world, it's one of the perks of having over one and a half million people in uniform, myself included.

B.) The EU and US are in agreement with the possibility of Iran obtaining nukes, the Europeans, not just the UK and Poland, would be willing to send troops to Iran and we would either be forced out of Iraq before invading Iran or the (foreign born) insurgents in Iraq will have been squashed.

C.) Iran could collapse, right now there is a massive youth bubble in Iran that is about to pop, there are five times as many people entering the workforce as there are jobs available for them. Mohammed himself couldn't (peacefully) stay in office when you have that many discontent people in your nation.

Neither was a blunder, they were both criminal acts.

The most interesting thing about comments like the following

Both were absolutely critical to the well-being of the United States and the outside world; they were both definitely the correct choice and reasonably well executed. However, the capacity of the US to fight both wars was threatened by anti-American liberals in this country, leading to a draw in the wars (although a win in Iraq is likely, it has not yet materialized).

is how similar they are to Nazi propaganda in the run up to and during the second world war.

From Wikipedia
The völkisch movements were a collection of far-right political groups formed in the wake of Germany’s defeat in World War I. The German far-right believed that the sole cause of defeat was the collapse of the home front, they blamed the socialists, the liberals, the intellectuals and the Jews for failing to support the war effort. This became known as the Dolchstosslegende ("stab in the back myth"), and was an important factor in the rise of the Nazi Party.

A.) We are not as "over stretched" as some would like to believe, we could re-deploy troops from all over the world, it's one of the perks of having over one and a half million people in uniform, myself included.
And what are you going to equip them with? Pointy sticks?

The troops that sit at some airbase in Ramstein are in no way ready to go and fight a massive war against Iran.

The Reserve units already have issues because every time they go on a tour to Iraq they lose their equipment to enemy action, other units who replace them or just wear and tear...so they come back to the States without their trucks and humvees and so on. And it takes months and months and months before they get some of their stuff back.

B.) The EU and US are in agreement with the possibility of Iran obtaining nukes, the Europeans, not just the UK and Poland, would be willing to send troops to Iran and we would either be forced out of Iraq before invading Iran or the (foreign born) insurgents in Iraq will have been squashed.
The Europeans have even less combat troops available for that sort of thing than the Americans.
And their own populations aren't keen on wars anyways, so those governments would prefer to play supporting roles.

If you were forced out of Iraq, you'd have nowhere to gather your troops and the whole invasion plan stops right there.

And I don't think anyone still believes the "foreign born insurgent" theory, particularly if there's any sort of squashing is involved.

C.) Iran could collapse, right now there is a massive youth bubble in Iran that is about to pop, there are five times as many people entering the workforce as there are jobs available for them. Mohammed himself couldn't (peacefully) stay in office when you have that many discontent people in your nation.
The only thing stronger in Iran than the discontent with the government's handling of domestic issues is the population's patriotism. If the US (of all people) were going to attack Iran, every man, woman and child (and their pets) are going to support the war effort to repel any would-be invaders.

Which is the worse US foreign policy decision; involvement in Vietnam or involvement in Iraq(this time, not the 1st time) It seems close, but I think Iraq wins this one. Could be the worst foreign policy decision in history.

Vietnam was not a blunder. The primary goal was accomplished. Vietnam was ruined, and no society could rise to challenge the capitalist status quo. It was better for the establishment to have a 9 year quagmire ending with the establishment of a Soviet puppet than to do nothing and allow Ho Chi Minh to build a democratic socialist society.

i don't really think we can tell yet seeing as the us involvement in iraq isnt over yet. but as far as consequences so far go, vietnam still wins, or loses, depending on what way your looking at it.

Gotta go with Iraq... in Viet Nam, we were lead into the conflict by the treacherous French.

I voted Iraq. We should've known better after Vietnam.

A.) We are not as "over stretched" as some would like to believe, we could re-deploy troops from all over the world, it's one of the perks of having over one and a half million people in uniform, myself included.


General Myers, in May 2005, while chairman of the JCS, admitted the military was overstretched "to a point where it is at higher risk of less swiftly and easily defeating potential foes".


Even Rummy admitted the military "is clearly stressed". He also admitted that "the National Guard, the Army National Guard in particular [was] woefully underequipped before the war started" and the situation "gets a little bit worse every day."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/06/troops/

And most recently, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker, Commandant of the Marine Corps James Conway, and several others (including the GAO) have pointed out that not enough funds are being made available for repair, maintenance and replacement of equipment.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-28-military-gear_x.htm

Vietnam was not a blunder. The primary goal was accomplished. Vietnam was ruined, and no society could rise to challenge the capitalist status quo. It was better for the establishment to have a 9 year quagmire ending with the establishment of a Soviet puppet than to do nothing and allow Ho Chi Minh to build a democratic socialist society.

Communism spread so how did we accomplish what we wanted?

Iraq. Why? Because after making the exact same mistake in Vietnam, we should know better.

Look, Vietnam sucked. A lot of people (more than in Iraq) died needlessly. The "threat" of spreading communism was exaggerated at best, and even if it wasn't it wouldn't really have mattered if the US hadn't committed itself to a global "War on Communism".

But Iraq...it destroyed a region of vital importance to the world, it destroyed the US' only proper foreign policy tool (they tend to not be paid attention to unless they can threaten people with guns), and it ruined NATO's chances in Afghanistan. Imagine if we didn't have 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan but 200,000!

Hey, the US would even have the spare weight (and credibility) to force changes in Pakistan.

Though we don't know the ultimate effects of the Iraq disaster yet, it seems that the lasting damage in this case will be much greater than in Vietnam.

Well thanks! Now I don't even have to post anymore! :mad:




:p

Of those two, I think that it remains to be seen which turns out to be a bigger blunder. Niether were/are managed well, but one was signifacntly more justified in my opinion.

Biggest US blunder ever?

The Genocide of Native Americans.

I say that the only blunder is that the American people do not have the heart to carry onto the end, and it does not help that the media are owned a bunch of Communists who want to ensure that America's chances are ruined.

The biggest blunder in my opinion was pulling out of Somalia back in '93

I say that the only blunder is that the American people do not have the heart to carry onto the end, and it does not help that the media are owned a bunch of Communists who want to ensure that America's chances are ruined.

The biggest blunder in my opinion was pulling out of Somalia back in '93

Media owned by a bunch of communists?

...


....

......

......
...


*laughs hysterically*

Let us see - the only non-Communist media outlet in the States is Fox, everyone else spouts out the same Communist agenda. If the Americans got a diet of Fox and similar, I doubt that we would be talking about withdrawal from Iraq, but more about other matters.

The media consists of TV channels, radio stations, newspapers, etc., the vast majority of which are corporations. You are incredibly ignorant if you think corporations are communist.

Or, you're just a crappy troll. Jesussaves was much better.

First off, I am not a troll. Secondly, they may be corporations, but by in large, they spout out a left-wing agenda - hence my Communist comment

Let us see - the only non-Communist media outlet in the States is Fox, everyone else spouts out the same Communist agenda

OR

Everyone else reports on the party that until very recently held power for six years, because no news outlet makes money reporting on the minority party and what it didn't do today?

And everyone else reports on the majority party's actions...and often in a negative light, because the media learned long ago that bad news sells much better than good news.

Not that the Republicans have had much to offer in the way of good news over the last six years.

Your partisan blinders must be quite effective, if you do not see the capitalist basis behind the media today. One need only look at the Clinton administration, and the medias potrayal and coverage of him, to see that the media is hardly "liberal"...much less "communist"...it is opportunistic.

First off, I am not a troll. Secondly, they may be corporations, but by in large, they spout out a left-wing agenda - hence my Communist comment

If you're not a troll, stop acting like one. Really, read your comments, they read like a parody.

Even if they had a leftist bent, which they don't, I find most TV news (and certainly quite a bit of radio news) to be somewhat conservative (newspapers not quite as much, but even the SF Chronicle endorsed the goobernator), left wing does not equal communist, and only an idiot, ignoramus or a troll would say so. I am left wing, but I am most certainly not a communist.

Communism spread so how did we accomplish what we wanted?

It was a stern warning to other SE asian countries that may have thought about communism. From that perspective it worked.

OR

Everyone else reports on the party that until very recently held power for six years, because no news outlet makes money reporting on the minority party and what it didn't do today?

And everyone else reports on the majority party's actions...and often in a negative light, because the media learned long ago that bad news sells much better than good news.

Not that the Republicans have had much to offer in the way of good news over the last six years.

Your partisan blinders must be quite effective, if you do not see the capitalist basis behind the media today. One need only look at the Clinton administration, and the medias potrayal and coverage of him, to see that the media is hardly "liberal"...much less "communist"...it is opportunistic.

Quite right. What's on the news is what they think people will pay attention to, and get them to watch/listen to/read their news outlet. Covering the minority party when there's all this juicy stuff about the party that actually runs the place (until January at least) is simply a stupid way to run a business.

Vietnam had a much higher rate of people getting killed, and the cause was equally unjust.

I say that the only blunder is that the American people do not have the heart to carry onto the end
If anything the American people have to wake up and realise that their foreign policy is based on greed and hate, rather than love (idealistic as that may sound, remember America is a largely Christian country).

and it does not help that the media are owned a bunch of Communists who want to ensure that America's chances are ruined.
Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Knowledge is power.

I say that the only blunder is that the American people do not have the heart to carry onto the end, and it does not help that the media are owned a bunch of Communists who want to ensure that America's chances are ruined.

The biggest blunder in my opinion was pulling out of Somalia back in '93

What planet are you on? Communists owning large private corporations? You are nuts.

Let us see - the only non-Communist media outlet in the States is Fox, everyone else spouts out the same Communist agenda. If the Americans got a diet of Fox and similar, I doubt that we would be talking about withdrawal from Iraq, but more about other matters.

The media didn't decide to send in only 150,000 troops after having been warned by seasoned generals that at least 250,000 troops would be needed for security after the invasion. The media didn't decide to break up the regular Iraqi army and police after being warned that American troops would then have to be used as cops after the invasion stretching them even further and distracting them from chasing down Al Qeada and the insurgency. The media did not provide the leadership environment that led to Abu Gahraib and the murders of innocent civilians, including a 14 year old girl who was raped and her family killed and set on fire. The media did not decide to stop the Marines from finishing the job in Falujah in 2003 and forcing them to turn over the mission to a bunch of new, barely trained recruits for the new Iraqi amry who basically just handed their weapons and allegiance over to the infant insurgency that was forming there and eventually became the insurgency we see today (that battle is commonly referred to as the birth of the insurgency). The media did not decide to build the interim government in Iraq with a bunch of Iraqi exiles who hadn't been in the country for decades and whom teh people didn't know and didn't tust - one of whom was a criminal and whom we later had arrested and who also lied to the administration, congress and our intelligence community. The media did not decide to not make border security in Iraq a priority thus allowing foreign fighters to stream into Iraq to fight our troops and allowing weapons to stream in from Iran and Syria. The media did not decide to leave weapons and explosives caches ungaurded just to go back and find that they were stolen and which would ultimately be used against our troops. All of these mistakes are not mistakes in hindsight. They were all things Don Rumsfeld and teh administration were warned about prior to the invasion, but the people who warned them about these things were fired.

Also, it was the duty of this administration to conduct this war and it's media campaign within the existing media environment. The media did not turn into what it is today the day after the invasion. The same people and personalities that are running the media today were running it prior to the war. The administration should have taken this into account prior to the invasion and planned for that as well.

The media didn't decide to send in only 150,000 troops after having been warned by seasoned generals that at least 250,000 troops would be needed for security after the invasion. The media didn't decide to break up the regular Iraqi army and police after being warned that American troops would then have to be used as cops after the invasion stretching them even further and distracting them from chasing down Al Qeada and the insurgency. The media did not provide the leadership environment that led to Abu Gahraib and the murders of innocent civilians, including a 14 year old girl who was raped and her family killed and set on fire. The media did not decide to stop the Marines from finishing the job in Falujah in 2003 and forcing them to turn over the mission to a bunch of new, barely trained recruits for the new Iraqi amry who basically just handed their weapons and allegiance over to the infant insurgency that was forming there and eventually became the insurgency we see today (that battle is commonly referred to as the birth of the insurgency). The media did not decide to build the interim government in Iraq with a bunch of Iraqi exiles who hadn't been in the country for decades and whom teh people didn't know and didn't tust - one of whom was a criminal and whom we later had arrested and who also lied to the administration, congress and our intelligence community. The media did not decide to not make border security in Iraq a priority thus allowing foreign fighters to stream into Iraq to fight our troops and allowing weapons to stream in from Iran and Syria. The media did not decide to leave weapons and explosives caches ungaurded just to go back and find that they were stolen and which would ultimately be used against our troops. All of these mistakes are not mistakes in hindsight. They were all things Don Rumsfeld and teh administration were warned about prior to the invasion, but the people who warned them about these things were fired.

Also, it was the duty of this administration to conduct this war and it's media campaign within the existing media environment. The media did not turn into what it is today the day after the invasion. The same people and personalities that are running the media today were running it prior to the war. The administration should have taken this into account prior to the invasion and planned for that as well.
I hate when I take the time to do that and the poster never replies. :mad:

I hate when I take the time to do that and the poster never replies. :mad:

Its intimidatingly large. And I dont normally say that to other guys

Its intimidatingly large. And I dont normally say that to other guys

Yeah, I hear that all the time. Sheesh. :(

worst blunder was joining/funding un

Your time has not been wasted - I will reply to the post.

The same media that did not influence all those things has forgotten to report the following

- The Kirkuk area has in the last month gained medical supplies and has been distributing it to the people. This area usually gets its supplies from Baghdad or Mosul. I didn't see CNN report that one

- Safety on the roads in general has improved since the bad old days when there used to be roadside attacks - this is thanks to vehicular checkpoints that has been placed by American Marines. I didn't see ABC report that one

- The Euphartes River is being de-mined by the Iraqi Army. These improvised explosive devices are being transported down the Euphartes by the insurgents to be hopefully picked up further along the line. I am yet to see NBC report that

That is just some of the small steps that is leading to progress in Iraq. Of course for the biased media, Iraq begins and ends in Baghdad. In spite of the insurgency, about half the country is largely uneffected, and most of the other half is only effected sporadically. Things are getting better, the media is too blind to see that.

It was better for the establishment to have a 9 year quagmire ending with the establishment of a Soviet puppet than to do nothing and allow Ho Chi Minh to build a democratic socialist society.

By no stretch of the imagination was Ho Chi Minh "democratic." He was a Stalinist tyrant and butcher with the blood of at least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on his hands.

I say that the only blunder is that the American people do not have the heart to carry onto the end, and it does not help that the media are owned a bunch of Communists who want to ensure that America's chances are ruined.

The biggest blunder in my opinion was pulling out of Somalia back in '93

The only real blunder I see is that the US has failed to put together a decent education system capable of removing bad manners and instilling actual knowledge, as opposed to this particular example of ignorant pigheadedness.

If that had been rectified, I imagine that the US would have a significantly different history by now.

58,000 dead vs. 2,500 dead

its a pretty simple choice

Well, I don't think that it was a smart move for the US to invade Iraq, but Vietnam was even worse. I still think that the scenes of My Lay , or the US soldiers evacuating the embassy via helicopters, are some of the worst imagery the US has left around the globe.

Burger-munching invasion monkeys

So, both wars were blunders for different reasons but if we lose in Iraq it will be for the same reason we lost in Vietnam, public support at home will had dropped so low that eventually a government will be elected because they swear to pull out their troops and abandon our allies. Like Vietnam the military will be blamed for this defeat even though the military has won battle after battle but the American people won't take responsibility for the war that we lost.

The problem with this is that it battles do not win wars. You can win every battle in a war, and still have a strategic loss. At some point, you must cut your losses. The reason is simple: In war, your main goal is to stop the enemy from fighting. In both cases, it is blatantly obvious that no matter how much you win in battle, the enemy continues to fight. In Vietnam, the NVA losses were massive, somewhere around the 2 million mark. However, this did nothing to stop them from fighting. If battles meant war victory, then the American Civil War would have gone to the Confederates, whom up until Antietem had won every single major battle. However, when facing an enemy with plentiful men, especially with idealogy as their purpose, there is practically no way to succeed in war on their terms.

Both were absolutely critical to the well-being of the United States and the outside world; they were both definitely the correct choice and reasonably well executed. However, the capacity of the US to fight both wars was threatened by anti-American liberals in this country, leading to a draw in the wars (although a win in Iraq is likely, it has not yet materialized).

A DRAW!!!!


FPMSL

Schrandtopia;12039435']58,000 dead vs. 2,500 dead

its a pretty simple choice


If the only basis for blunder is how many US soldiers are killed.

If it were only about how many non US people US actions caused
to be killed then its millions to hundreds of thousands.

Thing is people who did not suffer because of vietnam easily ignored
the crimes committed there, this time around the US is really turning people
and nations against them.

You gotta admire these pro-war guys, so devoted to a stance that they'd chain themselves to the mast of a sinking ship. It's the triumph of willful ignorance and wishful thinking over facts, logic, experience, and observation. Their unwavering fervor brings a tear to my eye.

By no stretch of the imagination was Ho Chi Minh "democratic." He was a Stalinist tyrant and butcher with the blood of at least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on his hands.

Ho felt betrayed when his WW2 Ally (the US) betrayed him to support the (Colonialist) French, which forced him into the hands of the Communists. :(

You might find this interesting: http://www.vietnamembassy.us/learn_about_vietnam/politics/dec_of_independence/

Let us see - the only non-Communist media outlet in the States is Fox, everyone else spouts out the same Communist agenda. If the Americans got a diet of Fox and similar, I doubt that we would be talking about withdrawal from Iraq, but more about other matters.

Yeah, because that whole, "one option" thing, isn't communist at all, if you just like you're brain think for a bit, you'd realise what you just said was worse than communism, its facism.

You gotta admire these pro-war guys, so devoted to a stance that they'd chain themselves to the mast of a sinking ship. It's the triumph of willful ignorance and wishful thinking over facts, logic, experience, and observation. Their unwavering fervor brings a tear to my eye.

hehe, yeah, kinda like the, well, the SS....fanatical, unreasonable, and failed resistance to the very bitter end...

By no stretch of the imagination was Ho Chi Minh "democratic." He was a Stalinist tyrant and butcher with the blood of at least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on his hands.

Yeah, but, after you watch a B52 ARCLIGHT strike blowing away millions of cambodian civilians, you realise the US isnt much better....

Which is the worse US foreign policy decision; involvement in Vietnam or involvement in Iraq(this time, not the 1st time) It seems close, but I think Iraq wins this one. Could be the worst foreign policy decision in history.

Three words. Land. War. Asia.

Not the worst foreign policy after all, eh?

Vietnam was much worse, but Iraq's been no picnic either.

-And by the way, turkey and stuffing are great.