Vietnam

RockinInCanada

farfromglorified wrote:

Many troops have returned and they are not necessarily "seriously messed up". A conflict with 1,500 casualties in 3 years does not compare to Vietnam.

It's like suggesting that the aftermath of Vietnam was the same as World War I or the Civil War. It makes no sense.

First the Iraq war is far from over and that there are many effects beyond fatalites....its not the dead you need to worry about being scarred its the thousands upon thousands of injured that will return to a country where they are basically shat on in terms of help for fighting for their country.....there will be a lot of issues upon their return......

RockinInCanada

farfromglorified wrote:

This point has some merit but the underlying assumption is that the troops are experiencing "warfare". Relative to Vietnam, they are not.

So you are saying this is a lesser war than Vietnam...maybe for scale...but the same realities still exist.....and once again this war is still not over....

farfromglorified

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

So you are saying this is a lesser war than Vietnam...maybe for scale...but the same realities still exist.....and once again this war is still not over....

Sure. Again, I'm not saying there won't be fallout for those fighting. But it won't be on the scale of the fallout from Vietnam.

The "realities" of Vietnam are far different than the "realities" or Iraq. You have a volunteer, well-trained army in Iraq that is much better prepared mentally and physically. In Vietnam you had active aggression throughout whereas Iraq is now largely a defensive battle for most of the troops.

RockinInCanada

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure. Again, I'm not saying there won't be fallout for those fighting. But it won't be on the scale of the fallout from Vietnam.

The "realities" of Vietnam are far different than the "realities" or Iraq. You have a volunteer, well-trained army in Iraq that is much better prepared mentally and physically. In Vietnam you had active aggression throughout whereas Iraq is now largely a defensive battle for most of the troops.

Fair enough.....I was more trying to say that there will be a lot of issues(more than I think you were letting on)...off course, as of now, it cannot be as much as Vietnam (although the severity of those affected will be the same) for simply the reason of the scale of warfare......but I think there will be many....anyhow lets hope it ends quicker than it took for the boys to get home from Vietnam....

WhiteMaleRat

Vietnam was certainly a bad conflict/war for America and it's reputation. But I somehow believe that our involvemenet in Vietnam contributed to the eventual fall of communism and helped deter other countries from falling to communism (in conjunction with the Korean War, post WWII efforts, alienation of Cuba, etc.).

It would be interesting to know what would of happened if we never got involved in Vietnam, and what historians think of this theory.

farfromglorified

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

anyhow lets hope it ends quicker than it took for the boys to get home from Vietnam....

Amen to that.

farfromglorified

WhiteMaleRat wrote:

Vietnam was certainly a bad conflict/war for America and it's reputation. But I somehow believe that our involvemenet in Vietnam contributed to the eventual fall of communism and helped deter other countries from falling to communism (in conjunction with the Korean War, post WWII efforts, alienation of Cuba, etc.).

It would be interesting to know what would of happened if we never got involved in Vietnam, and what historians think of this theory.

Vietnam did little to contribute to the "fall of communism". We lost. Communism reigned in Vietnam and is only now falling apart. The Russian defeat in Afghanistan did more to end communism than 100 Vietnams would have.

Communism is like the tides. You can't push them back. You just wait.

fada

Do returning soldiers get paid like I'll say a pension on return from war?
How are the vets treated now

tybird

fada wrote:

Do returning soldiers get paid like I'll say a pension on return from war?
How are the vets treated now

Career military gets a pension.........one termer not much really. I will say that when "In Country (war zone)," they got paid extra. I know a former Marine who told me that volunteered for repeated duty in 'Nam simply because he got paid better.

miller8966

farfromglorified wrote:

Vietnam did little to contribute to the "fall of communism". We lost. Communism reigned in Vietnam and is only now falling apart. The Russian defeat in Afghanistan did more to end communism than 100 Vietnams would have.

Communism is like the tides. You can't push them back. You just wait.

I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure. The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).

Cosmo

miller8966 wrote:

I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure. The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).

...
No. We lost.
It's like saying, "We didn't lose the ball game... we just failed to score more points than the other team".

tybird

Cosmo wrote:

...
No. We lost.
It's like saying, "We didn't lose the ball game... we just failed to score more points than the other team".

That's correct.......not only did we lose the game, we had a shitty gameplan and it showed.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Vietnam was never about communism, just like Iraq was never about terrorism. Both wars were about the same thing: U.S. business interests in these regions. The U.S. didn't want to be cut off from trade in Southeast Asia (where most of the world's rubber and tin come from). It had nothing to do with the "oppressive nature of communism", it had to do with the way communism doesn't fit well with capitalist business practices. Just like Iraq has nothing to do with the "evils of terrorism", it has to do with oil exports.

farfromglorified

miller8966 wrote:

I dont believe we lost...the objective was not accomplished but i wouldnt call it a complete and utter failure.

What would you call it then?

The Russian defeat is afghanistan was pretty much because of the United States supplying arms to the mujhadeen (ironic yes).

Ironic, yes. Factual, no. The Russians lost in Afghanistan for the same reasons we lost in Vietnam. Both the Mujahideen and the Viet Cong could sustain incredible losses while neither the Russian population nor the American population would tolerate the smaller losses on their respective sides. Neither the Americans in Vietnam nor the Russians in Afghanistan were prepared to fight in the respective terrains they'd ventured into and they underestimated the strengths and tactics of their enemy.

Look, in Vietnam the US lost 60,000 men. That's a lot, but no where near the millions killed on the other side. Afghanistan was the same story. 20,000 Russian dead, one million Afghans dead. America didn't lose the Vietnam war because of the Chinese and the Russians didn't lose the Afghan war because of the Americans (though certainly those parties played a part). Both the Americans and Russians lost because of their own mistakes.

I understand it's very fashionable since 9/11 to revel in the concept that the Afghan conflict was a full-on American proxy war. Unfortunately that discounts the events in Afghanistan and Russia that led up to the conflict.

farfromglorified

Saturnal wrote:

Vietnam was never about communism, just like Iraq was never about terrorism. Both wars were about the same thing: U.S. business interests in these regions. The U.S. didn't want to be cut off from trade in Southeast Asia (where most of the world's rubber and tin come from). It had nothing to do with the "oppressive nature of communism", it had to do with the way communism doesn't fit well with capitalist business practices. Just like Iraq has nothing to do with the "evils of terrorism", it has to do with oil exports.

The Vietnam War and the Iraq War did have similar motives. You've incorrectly identified that motive as greed. Unfortunately that motive is deeper than greed -- it's stupidity. Both the Iraq and Vietnam were wars fought because of an illogical fear of an undefined, vague entity that we refuse to understand.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

farfromglorified wrote:

The Vietnam War and the Iraq War did have similar motives. You've incorrectly identified that motive as greed. Unfortunately that motive is deeper than greed -- it's stupidity. Both the Iraq and Vietnam were wars fought because of an illogical fear of an undefined, vague entity that we refuse to understand.

I agree, there's stupidity involved (since the world's superpower couldn't easily invade and occupy a country devastated by years of war and sanctions), but I really don't think Iraq is being fought out of any kind of fear. This war on terror has nothing to do with the fear of terrorism. It has to do with business interests with oil. The terrorism factor is the pretext that is used to satisfy those business interests.

farfromglorified

Saturnal wrote:

It has to do with business interests with oil. The terrorism factor is the pretext that is used to satisfy those business interests.

And the evidence you have to support this conclusion is what?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

farfromglorified wrote:

And the evidence you have to support this conclusion is what?

What's your evidence that it's being fought out of fear?

farfromglorified

Saturnal wrote:

What's your evidence that it's being fought out of fear?

So in other words you have none.

The primary manifestation of fear is aggression. The United States woke up on 9/11 to the fact that there are elements of distant societies unattached to nation-states that wish to do us harm. The events of that day struck fear into America that these elements could one day work with nation-states to acquire significant weaponry without the concomitant accountability that comes with the possession of such weaponry by vested interests such as traditional nation-states. Rather than logically question the viability of or the reasons behind such behavior, the United States chose simple aggression with the purpose of spreading "free society" throughout the Middle East in the hopes of lessening the influence of such elements and to increase the transparency of Arab regimes.

If this was a "war for oil", I'd be much happier. We'd have abandoned it by now. Unfortunately, the people driving this war actually believe what they're saying.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

farfromglorified wrote:

So in other words you have none.

The primary manifestation of fear is aggression. The United States woke up on 9/11 to the fact that there are elements of distant societies unattached to nation-states that wish to do us harm. The events of that day struck fear into America that these elements could one day work with nation-states to acquire significant weaponry without the concomitant accountability that comes with the possession of such weaponry by vested interests such as traditional nation-states. Rather than logically question the viability of or the reasons behind such behavior, the United States chose simple aggression with the purpose of spreading "free society" throughout the Middle East in the hopes of lessening the influence of such elements and to increase the transparency of Arab regimes.

If this was a "war for oil", I'd be much happier. We'd have abandoned it by now. Unfortunately, the people driving this war actually believe what they're saying.

This is my point. Niether of us have hard evidence on this. We might in 30+ years when documents have been de-classified, but right now we both rely on assumptions. You rely on the assumption that agression is about fear. I rely on the assumption agression can be about other things. There's arguments that back each of these assumptions up, but there's no real evidence.