too often i hear the Iraq War is just like Vietnam. dude, we gotta get out now. too often i want to puke. is Iraq really like Vietnam?
has anyone actually tried to compare the facts? now i don't claim to be a history or political buff, and it's very likely that i'm searching for a bias opinion out of thin air...but i think people need to think about stuff before they start spreading false ideas. Vietnam went like this.
the North hated the South.
the South hated the North.
it was none of our business.
nobody bothered us.
it was purely foreign territory as far as American civilians were concerned.
yet we got involved.....because....unforunately.....
.....we tend to pity the underdog. so we helped the South fight.
we lost a ton of soldiers.
for a war that no one cared about.
Civilian deaths = 4 million
Alright. So. That war pretty much stunk. So after a protest occured in every major American city, the President decided to pull out. Perfect timing really.
Not only did we lose great soldiers, we lost the war to the North.
It was a lose-lose situation.
So....in all of this....apparently people see a mirror image in Iraq.
- Too many deaths
- No success/WMDs
- Wasted money
these similarities (though they sound reasonable) are invalid.
While Vietnam lost 4 million civilians, Iraq's
Civilian deaths total 60,000.
hmm....i'm afraid these figures don't even compare. While over 58,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives in Vietnam.
Iraq has taken just over 4,000 U.S. soldiers. though i realize every casuality is mourned, when you make a comparison it is essential that you get your facts straight.
following political patterns instead, i feel it is more accurate to equate Iraq with the Second World War.
so here it goes:
Iraq is not like Vietnam.....Iraq is like WWII. Iraq fell under the leadership of Hussain.....he killed women and children, murders traitors and rebels of Al Qaeda....he used force to recruit young boys into his military....his dictatorship was seemingly ignored by the rest of the world..... Germany fell under the leadership of Hilter....he discrimminated against Jews, blacks and other unwanted minorities of the Nazi regime....he used propaganda to recruit all the young men of his country to join the cause....his dictatorship was seemingly ignored by the rest of the world......
that is....
....until they set the world on fire. Nazis murdered 2,400 Americans in 1941. Al Quida murdered 3,000 Americans in 2001. U.S. waged war against the Nazis. U.S. waged war against terror.
these wars both started with the purpose of waging war against an idealogy.
but who are these people?
who were the Nazis?
who are the terrorists?
War on Nazis turns into taking out Japan in Hiroshima.
War on terror turns into taking out Hussain in Iraq.
Perhaps too much effort was placed on the destruction of the Iraqi regime.
Perhaps it seems unnecessary and a waste of money. But the point is: there is less Al Qaeda running around the world, just as there were less Nazis running around after Hiroshima. When the U.S. got involved in WWII, they were not just waging war against Japan.
The Axis powers included Japan, Gerrmany and Italy. The U.S. engaged to take out those who had harmed us. When the U.S. declarded war on terrorism this included all terrorist countries that housed Al Qaeda members. When we are attacked, we fight back. If citizens of the U.S. actually knew their history and remembered the committment it took to take out Nazi regime, they wouldn't be so surprised or frustrated with the policies surrounding our current war. If a comparison to Vietnam can be made simply with death toll facts (that barely resemble each other), than I can surely make a comparison to WWII based on political motivation. Feel free to make a case of your own.
The media ain't always right. | 
