Is this Vietnam Yet?

[corplinx]

It seems that every US military effort is criticized at least once with "this could become another vietnam". Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

When you hear scaremongering that say we could get into another vietnam, do you believe it?

[HarryKeogh]

"another vietnam" has become cliche. im waiting for "iraq-gate" to happen.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by corplinx
It seems that every US military effort is criticized at least once with "this could become another vietnam". Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

When you hear scaremongering that say we could get into another vietnam, do you believe it?

Iraq another Vietnam? Nah, we'd have to plant A LOT more trees...

We've already prevented another Vietnam; what remains to be seen is if this is gonna be Afghanistan 2.0. (Bigger, badder, buggier)

[EvilYeti]

As much as deserts suck jungles are alot worse. Lots of places to hide under all that canopy.

Iraq should be less trouble than Afghanistan to rebuild, as they have something to sell to the world besides heroin to fund it. Iraq also lacks the tribal culture of Afghanistan and its warlords.

My biggest concern is what is going to happen with Kurds in northern Iraq. Will the rest of Iraq accept them now that Saddam is gone?

Originally posted by Kiri


Iraq another Vietnam? Nah, we'd have to plant A LOT more trees...

We've already prevented another Vietnam; what remains to be seen is if this is gonna be Afghanistan 2.0. (Bigger, badder, buggier)

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
"another vietnam" has become cliche.

Along with it's cousin "quagmire."

[renata]

The war is not yet over- there will be tought times ahead, and I hope the troops can get through it with minimal casualties.

In the meanwhile, I am curious to see the reactions of people who forecasted horrible casualties, deaths, chemical weapons, and WWIII. There were some horrible forecasts on this forum.

Have to give a disclaimer- I respect vast majority of people who are anti-War. They are principled people with well thought out beliefs, and humane goals. However, there is a small minority among them (on this forum and in real life) who appear to gloat at every setback for the US, who seem to be anti-war just for the sake of criticizing Bush and the US, and who, I think, would not mind seeing great US casualties- because it would give America a black eye and prove them right.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by renata
However, there is a small minority among them (on this forum and in real life) who appear to gloat at every setback for the US, who seem to be anti-war just for the sake of criticizing Bush and the US, and who, I think, would not mind seeing great US casualties- because it would give America a black eye and prove them right.

It's no wonder many on the left, like Christopher Hitchens, have changed their politics since 9/11. Who wants to hang with these wankers?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway


It's no wonder many on the left, like Christopher Hitchens, have changed their politics since 9/11. Who wants to hang with these wankers?

Cricky Doc, you have just taken 'a small minority' and made it representative of all the left.

I, for example, have thought the US would always win this pretty easy. The technology, training, money and support on one side, against an army that would mostly have no sense of loyalty at all, fighting with low tech weapons, poorly organised, led and supplied, in a country that was not supportive of the existing regime.

Vietnam was much lower tech, covered in jungle, with the US backing a government with no popular support. Contrast this with Iraq, where it was fighting a government with no popular support, ditto Afghanistan. Makes a huge difference.

I did bring up Vietnam, but in a different sense. The US is already shaping up for a serious of conflicts, on a global scale. Now that may conjure up the next Vietnam. We shall have to wait and see. NKorea will topple like a house of cards, at the first push. For the rest, I don't think they are as totalitarian. That is, they people would be more loyal to the government, not just doing what they are told out of fear.

As for giving the US a black eye, I saw some clips from the Fox News Channel, and people chortling about wanting to see the MOAB being dropped. Is it any wonder the US gets a bad rap?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I did bring up Vietnam, but in a different sense. The US is already shaping up for a serious of conflicts, on a global scale.

I remember your Vietnam post, and I didn't want anyone thinking this post is related to that one. That post was a neat thought experiment in itself.

I do however think the US is not shaping up for more conflicts at this time. The defense budget is not being overloaded to find new recruits and to rapidly replenish the arsenals for several global campaigns.

[crocodile deathroll]

In this year old thread all I can add is that this is not another Vietnam. It is much .much worse, because at least in Vietnam all the country - like it or hate it - was all united under Communism and that stabilized the country when Saigon fell long after the US troops pulled out. There was also nothing like the religious fanaticism (the worst were just a few Buddhists burning themselves to death) in Vietnam compared to Iraq. Iraq unlike Vietnam will quickly descend into civil war if the US pulls out and it is now looking more like they are going to wage their civil war anyway whether to US is present or not.

Like Vietnam the US Military for all is sophisticated firepower will be forced to mix it with the enemy in old fashion street to street combat and remember the emery has night vision equipment too, so the body count for the Americans will only have to escalate because they will lose that advantage.

Unlike Vietnam there is oil and lots of it, and since they have given in to al-Qaeda and withdrawn much of the military presence from Saudi they will find themselves in a far more worse position with Exxon and Chevron Texaco, because I doubt if they can retreat back into Saudi Arabia again without it looking like an invasion to the Arab world.

CDR

[Cleon]

Originally posted by DrBenway


It's no wonder many on the left, like Christopher Hitchens, have changed their politics since 9/11. Who wants to hang with these wankers?

Hardly--Hitchens has been moving to the right for years. 9/11 just reinforced where Hitchens was already moving.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by renata
The war is not yet over- there will be tought times ahead, and I hope the troops can get through it with minimal casualties.

.
...........One year on after this post and you know you are right. It ain't over that is for sure.

[Nyarlathotep]

Every war is unique, with it's own political situation and it's own problems. To say "this is going to be another Vietnam" is silly. Unless you mean it in the absolute braodest sense of "this will be a bloody war that will be difficult to extricate ourselves from", and even then I would take issue with the analogy, since (Though I am not downplaying our troop losses) Iraq is nowhere near as bloodya s Vietnam and Vietnam took us 10 years to get out of (and we only did so because we lost) so only time can tell if Iraq will be as difficult.

Iraq is not another Vietnam, Iraq is Iraq.

[Dorian Gray]

How about this 'so crazy it just might work' strategy - the US pulls out completely, along with its allies. Iraq falls into civil war just like Yugoslavia did. THEN, we start an initiative for UN involvement just like in Serbia, Bosnia, etc. Then we have pulled out, yet built a consensus and put the UN in there.

[shuize]

Don't worry. If it goes that far Iran will sort every thing out before the UN ever gets involved.

[epepke]

Originally posted by renata
In the meanwhile, I am curious to see the reactions of people who forecasted horrible casualties, deaths, chemical weapons, and WWIII. There were some horrible forecasts on this forum.

Dunno about these.

But I did see a transcript of a question session with Noam Chomsky in which he was asked about this very thing.

Now, if I had been asked such a question, I would have said, "Even though I thought those predictions were reasonable at the time, for the sake of the Afghani people, I am delighted that they turned out to have been overstated." If he had said this, I might have developed some respect for the man. Instead, he got snippy and legalistic, insisting that it was a lie that he said that, and that he only said that there was a possibility that it might happen.

Weasel words are great. If what you say turns out to be right, you are hailed as a Great Prophet™, and all the qualifiers are forgotten. If not, you can always hide behind them. On the other hand, it lacks honor.

From this kind of behavior, I have to conclude that he and his ilk do not really care about the people at all but are simply using the images for ultimately cynical and rhetorical purposes.

[gnome]

I listen to Noam Chomsky once in a while... but I avoid walking in lockstep with him on opinions... often enough after hearing it I go in search of a more moderate response. Unfortunately often enough I dont find it.

Half the reason I wind up listening to the far left, is because they bring up topics and history that nobody else will touch with a 10-foot pole.

But in all honesty I would prefer a more rational, better researched, less emotional treatment of the same subject matter--but I have a terrible time finding it... any ideas?

[epepke]

Originally posted by gnome
I listen to Noam Chomsky once in a while... but I avoid walking in lockstep with him on opinions... often enough after hearing it I go in search of a more moderate response. Unfortunately often enough I dont find it.

No problem with that. I enjoy listening to him, too. He's a good and often cheer-worthy speaker.

But in all honesty I would prefer a more rational, better researched, less emotional treatment of the same subject matter--but I have a terrible time finding it... any ideas?

All I can say is that if you can find it, let me know.

I have a completely separate personal grudge against Chomsky. I think that Chomskian structural linguistics had dominated the field for far too long. I can only assume that he has a cult of personality in that field and a grasp of academic politics that enforce the perception of He Da Man long after it has been appropriate. Academic linguists fear Chomsky, and for good reason. I think it's on the wane now, but during the 1980's, when I was heavily into structural linguistics, there was an assumed rule: Go against Chomsky, kiss your hopes for tenure good-bye. Not that I was ever in a tenure-track position (I'm too ideosyncratic for that), but I observed this amongst colleagues.

I can only guess that he has similar influence in his current passion.

Before the oxycontin thing, I found it so hard to tell the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky that I called them Noam Limbaugh and Rush Chomsky. Both are clever entertainers who know how to work a crowd and put together a speech. But when you look behind what's said, there's usually some essential misstatement or unwarranted emphasis.

[The idea]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
[...] in Vietnam all the country - like it or hate it - was all united under Communism and that stabilized the country when Saigon fell long after the US troops pulled out. There was also nothing like the religious fanaticism [...] in Vietnam compared to Iraq. [...]
What kind of a thing was the Communism that "stabilized the country"? Was it like TQM and ISO 9000?

Was it nothing like a religious fanaticism?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by epepke


Dunno about these.

But I did see a transcript of a question session with Noam Chomsky in which he was asked about this very thing.

Now, if I had been asked such a question, I would have said, "Even though I thought those predictions were reasonable at the time, for the sake of the Afghani people, I am delighted that they turned out to have been overstated." If he had said this, I might have developed some respect for the man. Instead, he got snippy and legalistic, insisting that it was a lie that he said that, and that he only said that there was a possibility that it might happen.

Weasel words are great. If what you say turns out to be right, you are hailed as a Great Prophet™, and all the qualifiers are forgotten. If not, you can always hide behind them. On the other hand, it lacks honor.

From this kind of behavior, I have to conclude that he and his ilk do not really care about the people at all but are simply using the images for ultimately cynical and rhetorical purposes.

Whose being unfair here? Afghanistan is actually in a state of civil war right now. Most of the country is dominated by warlords and tribal infighting. Pretty ********** up situation. I think Chomsky was fairly spot on.

As far as the world war III thing goes, I never heard Chomsky put this forward as a likely possibility, but more or less as a worst case scenario. Besides, it remains to be seen where this war is going to lead. We are only a year into the occupation, and the situation there, far from improving, is getting more violent and unstable.

Seems to me you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing Chomsky of doing.