Iraq = Vietnam???

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

E_SolSi

Member of the 20 nut club
Moderator
VIP
ok i was driving home the other day and listening to NPR as i sometimes tend to do
i dont think anyone has ever accused NPR of leaning to the "right"
for that reason i was rather shocked at what i heard

unfortunately i cant find a printed transcript of the story right now... but its damn good and well worth the listen

its an audio clip and i think you will need to go to the page to hear it
NPR : Iraq Is Iraq; Vietnam Was Vietnam

Iraq Is Iraq; Vietnam Was Vietnam

by Dinesh D'Souza
All Things Considered, January 26, 2007 - Commentator Dinesh D'Souza is tired of hearing all the comparisons between the Iraq war and the Vietnam War. He's not convinced they are at all alike.
Edit- direct link to windows media stream:
NPR's All Things Considered - Friday, January 26, 2007


****EDIT****
ok i still cant find a transcript for this article but i just made one
so if you cant listen to the story in the link then read this

Iraq is not Vietnam, and here’s why:
First we had no vital interests in Vietnam. The United States got involved in Vietnam starting in the 1950s, due to an elaborate but misguided theory of dominoes, so if Vietnam went communist the whole of Asia would become communist. Well it didn’t happen. But my larger point is that when Vietnam did fall to the communists, Americas’ foreign policy interests and economic interests were largely unaffected. Iraq by contrast is strategically vital. Consider its neighbors, Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. If Iraq falls into the hands of the Islamic radicals, they would control two major countries, Iran and Iraq. Next we would expect them to target Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The outcome in Iraq affects both our security and our economic welfare. For the foreseeable future, we are dependant on Middle Eastern oil. We can not afford to lose Iraq.
Second, in Vietnam we were allied with the bad guys. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tyrannical, and our only reason for supporting it was it was that it was a better alternative than the communist regime in the north. In politics it is often a necessity, you ally with the bad guys in order to avoid the worse guys. But the bad guys remain bad guys, they alienate their people, and the popular resentment that they provoke often carries over to us. By contrast in Iraq, we are allied with an elected government. Braving bullets the Iraqi people went to the polls, and elected the current regime. Some people said at the time that this was the government that America installed, but this isn’t true. The Bush administration wanted the secular guy, Alawi. But the Iraqis chose the religious guy. So we have a government that represents the will of the Iraqi majority. That’s a good thing because it means we have local allies in Iraq who have popular support.
Finally in Vietnam there was no way to win the war, and preserve our dignity. The United States in Vietnam faced several hundred thousand resolute communists on the other side. These were guerilla fighters, fighting on familiar territory against American boys who didn’t know why the heck they were going over there. Sure America could have won by bombing Vietnam into the Stone Age, but victory at that price was not worth having. Vietnam was a no win situation. Iraq is not. America can win in Iraq. Military tacticians from Sun Tzu, to Carl von Clausewitz, have pointed out that strength in war can be measured as recourses times will. All the strength in the world is useless if you don’t have the will to fight. We saw the same loss of will over the Vietnam War. But Vietnam was a lost cause. In Iraq we are in danger of losing a war that we can win.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam= a war against a country (north Vietnam) while fighting an insurgent military and looking over our back to make sure China & the USSR doesn't get involved which tied our hands

Iraq currently= a war against an insurangcy sponsored by other countries and terrorist organisations (Iran and friends). Iran in this conflict is not nearly as much of a nemesis as China and Russia were in Vietnam and we don't even have to fight "North Iraq". In short the people who fought in Vietnam would kill for the opportunity to fight something as winnable as Iraq...
 
The war part in Iraq was won pretty quickly. We're now stabilizing to make friends. We never did, nor did we plan, to stabilize North Vietnam.
 
Vietnam war wasn't a war where Americans were against Vietnam, rather it was N. Vietnam vs. S. Vietnam(NV invaded SV), with USA helping the South Vietnamese.
 
ok i still cant find a transcript for this article but i just made one
so if you cant listen to the story in the link then read this

Iraq is not Vietnam, and here’s why:
First we had no vital interests in Vietnam. The United States got involved in Vietnam starting in the 1950s, due to an elaborate but misguided theory of dominoes, so if Vietnam went communist the whole of Asia would become communist. Well it didn’t happen. But my larger point is that when Vietnam did fall to the communists, Americas’ foreign policy interests and economic interests were largely unaffected. Iraq by contrast is strategically vital. Consider its neighbors, Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. If Iraq falls into the hands of the Islamic radicals, they would control two major countries, Iran and Iraq. Next we would expect them to target Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The outcome in Iraq affects both our security and our economic welfare. For the foreseeable future, we are dependant on Middle Eastern oil. We can not afford to lose Iraq.
Second, in Vietnam we were allied with the bad guys. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tyrannical, and our only reason for supporting it was it was that it was a better alternative than the communist regime in the north. In politics it is often a necessity, you ally with the bad guys in order to avoid the worse guys. But the bad guys remain bad guys, they alienate their people, and the popular resentment that they provoke often carries over to us. By contrast in Iraq, we are allied with an elected government. Braving bullets the Iraqi people went to the polls, and elected the current regime. Some people said at the time that this was the government that America installed, but this isn’t true. The Bush administration wanted the secular guy, Alawi. But the Iraqis chose the religious guy. So we have a government that represents the will of the Iraqi majority. That’s a good thing because it means we have local allies in Iraq who have popular support.
Finally in Vietnam there was no way to win the war, and preserve our dignity. The United States in Vietnam faced several hundred thousand resolute communists on the other side. These were guerilla fighters, fighting on familiar territory against American boys who didn’t know why the heck they were going over there. Sure America could have won by bombing Vietnam into the Stone Age, but victory at that price was not worth having. Vietnam was a no win situation. Iraq is not. America can win in Iraq. Military tacticians from Sun Tzu, to Carl von Clausewitz, have pointed out that strength in war can be measured as recourses times will. All the strength in the world is useless if you don’t have the will to fight. We saw the same loss of will over the Vietnam War. But Vietnam was a lost cause. In Iraq we are in danger of losing a war that we can win.
 
:yes: but feel free to link to it
 
Easy: txt it like a 14 year old girl!

raq is not Vietnam, and here’s why:
First we had no vital interests in Vietnam. The United States got involved in Vietnam starting in the 1950s, due to an elaborate but misguided theory of dominoes, so if Vietnam went communist the whole of Asia would become communist.

becomes...
iraq isnt nam.
first weve got no beef wit nam. US got into nam in teh 50s cuz of sum chit wit dominos lol if nam goes commie then everywhere goes commie rofl



See? I compressed it way down. Of course, it was hard putting my brain in stasis while dreaming of new Uggz shoes, a VW convertible (As once described to me, "It's like, the Cadillac of cars!") and turning down my ambient music to hear something from Gwen Stefani to type out that shit.
 
Easy: txt it like a 14 year old girl!

raq is not Vietnam, and here’s why:
First we had no vital interests in Vietnam. The United States got involved in Vietnam starting in the 1950s, due to an elaborate but misguided theory of dominoes, so if Vietnam went communist the whole of Asia would become communist.

becomes...
iraq isnt nam.
first weve got no beef wit nam. US got into nam in teh 50s cuz of sum chit wit dominos lol if nam goes commie then everywhere goes commie rofl



See? I compressed it way down. Of course, it was hard putting my brain in stasis while dreaming of new Uggz shoes, a VW convertible (As once described to me, "It's like, the Cadillac of cars!") and turning down my ambient music to hear something from Gwen Stefani to type out that shit.

Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full

if I post that then it's something I said

if I quote NPR then it's opinion from a non right wing source, something I am not lol
 
Hey Sol is that to big to be my sginature?

avatar46205259ty.gif
 
see now this shit kinda pisses me off
others post up links to stories from "right" or "left" slanted websites... or ideas / oppinions that are slanted "right" or "left" and the damn thread gets 11ty billion views and goes on for 12 pages...

i post up a link to a well thought out, well spoken commentary of a "right" leaning theory from a "left" leaning source, on what many people on this board as well as in the media, have been claiming (Iraq = Vietnam)... that explains in very clear language how they are not at all the same... and i even took the time to type up a fucking transcript of the audio for those who couldnt or wouldnt click the link and listen to the story... and not one single fucking person on here that has been claiming that Iraq is unwinable or that Iraq = Vietnam, or any of the other "left" sided arguments about this shit going on in Iraq, has come in here to comment one way or the other

/ :ranting2:

sometimes i wonder why the fuck i bother
 
Last edited:
Dude, I posted up over 200 links that go back to mainstream media reports of WMD, Saddam's threats of attack, UN corruption and Democratic party partisan crap

Not one link was clicked.

Get used to it.
 
i didn't get a chance to listen to it yet... i actually had to work today :(
 
see now this shit kinda pisses me off
others post up links to stories from "right" or "left" slanted websites... or ideas / oppinions that are slanted "right" or "left" and the damn thread gets 11ty billion views and goes on for 12 pages...

i post up a link to a well thought out, well spoken commentary of a "right" leaning theory from a "left" leaning source, on what many people on this board as well as in the media, have been claiming (Iraq = Vietnam)... that explains in very clear language how they are not at all the same... and i even took the time to type up a fucking transcript of the audio for those who couldnt or wouldnt click the link and listen to the story... and not one single fucking person on here that has been claiming that Iraq is unwinable or that Iraq = Vietnam, or any of the other "left" sided arguments about this shit going on in Iraq, has come in here to comment one way or the other

/ :ranting2:

sometimes i wonder why the fuck i bother

Repost "loose change" that will run on page 1 for a month

99% of the people onhere know dick about politics and are interested in BS that makes a good action movie story line as opposed to fact and rational thought
 
Well its been over 24 hours, and I still dont see anyone trying to refute what was stated in the sound clip and transcript that I posted...
So I guess the lack of anyone contesting the points made would mean that the link I posted up is indeed correct:
  • The war in Iraq is not the same as the war in Vietnam.
  • Iraq is vital to the US economy and security.
  • The government in Iraq was not "installed by the US".
  • America CAN win in Iraq.
I would like to thank the "libs" and "lefties" for affirming what we on the "right" have known, and have been trying to get the rest of you to understand for years now.
 
Now you know my frustration.

only I would change that 'can win" to "did win". We won military conflict in a matter of weeks. The rest was cleaning up the stragglers.

And Carpetbagging this area has been in place for years now. You can be a truck driver, you can move your company there, you can send them employees and the government practically pays for it.

with this plan in place, Iraq and Afghanistan will be like Japan on the world market within 14 years. The only thing stopping them now is this Islamic "Islam doesn't exist with modernism" bullshit and their OWN addiction to oil.
 
when faced with such glaring truth and fact these threads usually fall dead for obvious reasons...

I'm sorry that MTV doesn't like President Bush
 
the sad fact on capitol hill is the left opposes the war in Iraq because failure there would doom a GOP bid for the white house in 2008. Election has become the sole agenda on capitol hill (as opposed to solving the countires problems), the only person who doesn't need to fight that Demon is the President and THAT is why I trust him.
 
MTV = Rock the Vote, founded by Al Gore (In response to Tipper's censorship legislature, "Warning: Explicit Lyrics".

Rock the Vote is a democratic effort to bring in people who can't vote yet. Get them while they're young.
 
Back
Top