Lawmakers compare Iraq to Vietnam

[desdemona]

I was impressed with the comments by senator byrd, even though each conflict is different, his comments hit a sore spot in united states history, if this is all a project to save face, it's not worthy of our country or lawmakers. Read this link to hear some comments from senators in congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/07/...q.ap/index.html

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

The conparison between Vietnam and Iraq is an interesting one. Of course there are many differences.

The purpose of sending US troops to Vietnam was to prevent the accession to power of a popular left oriented government. The purpose of sending troops to Iraq is (purportedly) to overthrow a brutal dictator.

The US invasion of Vietnam was met at once with near total opposition from the indigenous population. Not so in Iraq where a large section of people are glad to see the back of a vicious, brutal dictator, and have occasionaly extended a lukewarm welcome to US troops.

Also Vietnam was a much more populous country, with far more difficult terrain better suited to terrorist attack.

Nevertheless the possibility of escalation into something resembling Vietnam is very real, especially if the US reacts to the current attacks with measures the civilian population perceive as heavy handed and brutal - a mistake the british government constantly made in Northern Ireland.

The US also has to contend with the problem of a large number of countries in the area who are openly hostile to the USA, and would be prepared to interfere in one way or another.

[DudeAsInCool]

The purpose of sending US troops to Vietnam was to prevent the accession to power of a popular left oriented government.

The big fear was that if S. Vietnam fell, there would be a domino effect, and all the other countries in the region would turn communist.

Hard to understand Iraq with all the different factions. Would love to see someone breask it down for me...