Will Iraq be another Vietnam for USA?

The war is continuing in the form of insurgency in Iraq.USA in effect has so far been a spectator to the disastor in terms of death of Iraqies and US Marines.So the question is will Iraq be another Vietnam to USA.

27 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    In a way, yes. But it will end a lot worse than Vietnam. And when the history books are written, Vietnam will be regarded as a minor conflict, compared with the wars the USA started in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Personally I am sure that Bush's "war against terror" (even linguistically an impossibility, left alone in reality) is in fact World War III. We just have not yet the guts to call it that.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    If you know anything more than what the media has depicted in both Iraq and Vietnam, then you would know the answer and wouldn't have to ask this question. If you don't then let me tell you...

    There are very few similarities between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Even the insurgency in Iraq as you've mention is not the same as in Vietnam. On the other hand, there are great differences between the two conflicts. One day history will look back at these conflicts and see that Iraq was clearly not Vietnam.

    Source(s): Studied Vietnam and the Vietnam War for many years
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, definately. Thsi war is different then vietnam, and not in a good way. For those that say look at history, let's, and compare. Vietnam was a war about stopping the spread of communism, the threat was real, they were on the move. On the other hand, the war in Iraq was all a bluff, we went in because they were a threat with their chemical and biological weapons, which we never found, and now there are reports that the President knew that. If you remember the first Gulf War, that was a legitimite war, Saddam invaded Kuwait, Kuwait asked for our help, the whole world was outraged. So we went in and got him out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, if he was that much of a threat then why wasn't he taken out then. We knew then he had chemical weapons when he was using it against the Kurds, you had the perfect opportunity to get him out, and you didn't. All of a sudden, he's a threat again. Thats like having pushed Hitler back to Germany during WWII and say, "ok" guys thats it, lets just leave him in power in Germany, he gets the point. No, he doesn't, you leave someone that has shown he had some weapons, used them in the past, in power? And your suprised that he might be a threat in the future. But I think in this last scenario with Iraq, Saddam was like a little school bully, talking the talk, walking the walk, when in reality he had nothing. But he convinced the rest of the world he was a major power and threat, and we fell for it. Nothing will compare to this war as far as history goes, too many blunders and lies. And a leader that doesn't knwo when to call it quits and bring our guys home. Even Johnson realized at one point that the war in Vietnam wasn't worth it and brought our guys home. But Bush doesn't seem to get it, he seems to want to keep it going as long as he can.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    We are fighting a war very much like Vietnam. There are similarities and differences. However, we are losing too many boys in a war we should not be in. WE are the aggressors and the insurgents will continue to bomb and run. That's what they did in Nam. We can be anti-war. We are not anti our troops. Should any Mothers son die for oil? No. We Liberals have always felt that way. This war is not like WW2, we are not in Iraq for principles or to fight terrorism as the people who flew the plane were mostly Saudi and were following a Saudi who was in Afghanistan. Iraq is another Vietnam as it is a place we should not be.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No, because the Iraqis have a democratically elected government that is supported by the people, who are filling out a very large army that grows in capability daily.

    The only similarity is the panty-waist anti-war wimps who wish to relive the happy days when they abandoned the South Vietnamese into communist slavery, imprisonment and mass murder by their communist oppressors. Oh, how they live for the day of large US military death tolls and communist killing fields.

    But that's not going to happen. Most Americans know the real truth, not the ABCCBSNBC (American Al-Jazeeras) 'truth' about Iraq.

    Only twits would compare this to Vietnam.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No. We need to continue getting the Iraqi people and government ready to do the job themselves. If we need more troops to do the job faster and safer, then we should do it. Nobody wants our soldiers home more than I do, but if we leave Iraq without completing the job, then all those that have died so far, did so in vain. It's time to get tough and kill those bastards that want civil war and chaos. The seed of freedom has been planted in Iraq, now we have to protect it for a while so it may grow.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    If the USA of a needs to win in Iraq or Afghanistan attempt asking those international locations their allies what to do extremely than merely getting ethical help to take all the glory the SAS British NZ or Australians are extra effectual than the different protection rigidity rigidity in reality the final time Bin encumbered became into interior the Allies attractions became into the British SAS who have been minutes from surrounding him have been ORDERED by THE ALMIGHTY us of a to break off the attack via fact the USMC became into taking on ????????????????????? Why via fact the U. S. protection rigidity like conflict it keeps the Generals in a job a and that they shop their super investment and that they did no longer choose Bin encumbered caught Britain is going who will persist with next i'm hoping the alliance of the keen collapses till now the USA of a does extra injury i actually desire the hot President certainly realises what the U. S. protection rigidity is doing and not merely seeks suggestion from his own human beings yet listens to what the different Worlds protection rigidity leaders ought to assert ought to assert as an occasion Australia IS prevailing hearts and Minds and we've a extra good region devoid of the USA of a take a seem choose for your self the human beings Have not at all gained any conflict the place they have been in fee devoid of extending it Paton and Churchill informed FDR the troops would be homestead Dec 1943 however the fool Eisenhower became into in fee instead of Earl Mountbatten who became into senior extra matured and the only one qualified for the job

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Nope .. and anyone who thinks so knows very little about history. The current situation in Iraq is actually very much like the Allied occupation of Germany after the Nazi regime was taken down ... same stuff .. insurgency, car bombs, terrorism etc.

    Study history .....

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    NO!! It's nowhere like Vietnam. We now have a President who letting the Generals fight the war, not the other way around.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    This war is EXACTLY like Vietnam. Vietnam was a war for military hardware manufacturers to make money from. 58,000 Americans lost their lives because of corporate greed.

    Source(s): America: History of a Nation, On the Trail of the Assassins, 'Nam, Time (magazine),
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.