Do you think the Iraq war is going to be our generation's Vietnam? Why or why not?

Similar questions: Iraq war generation's Vietnam.

It already is Rules of engagement. Just like in VietNam. Its somebody is shooting at me.

Wait,let me call some fat General in Baghdad to get permission. Or, hey everybody in Syria and Iran why don't you send your people over instead of sealing the borders. We can win the hearts and minds of these civilians.

But,these Adminstrative idiots are still fighting the VietNam war. When there is a war. You shoot everybody that carries a gun.

You drag that fat little guy out of Sadir City and lock him up. You tell the Iranians and Syrians that those who cross the border for killing,well they are just coming back in a body bag. None,of these Generals ,well maybe one,can carry my Marine Corps Jock .

Similar, but different. Similarities: The U.S. Congress never declared war on North Vietnam. Legally, the President used his constitutional discretion - supplemented by supportive resolutions in Congress - to conduct what was said to be a "police action".

No declaration of war was made for Iraq, either. Both conflicts have pitted guerrilla warfare against conventional militaries. Differences: In Vietnam we lost around 57,000 US lives, in Iraq, a small fraction of that.

During the Vietnam "conflict", there was strong anti-military sentiment, with sodiers being spat upon. With Iraq, most people sympathize with the soldiers. In Vietnam, we started by helping the French colonial forces.In Iraq we deposed a dictator.

In summary It's a gross simplification to call it "our generation's Vietnam", but there is some truth to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War .

No - it doesn't have nearly the effect on Joe Public No - because it doesn't affect the general public as much 1) Fewer troops - less than 150,000 in Iraq (even with the surge) compared to over 500,000 at the peak in Vietnam, so the chances of knowing someone directly, or indirectly affected are lower. 2) No draft - so you, or your husband/lover/children/parents are not going to be forced to go to Iraq. And there won't be a draft either, it'd be total political suicide.3) The death rate is much, much lower - even though the casualty rate is similar, the percentage of those casualties that are killed is significantly lower.

There were over 57,000 dead US soldiers from Vietnam, even if Iraq runs for a similar length of time (unlikely IMO) the number of deaths will be (again my opinion) less than 10,000 4) The coverage is not the same. You're not seeing US troops in danger, every night on TV. That contributes to a sense of detachment as well.

Sources: My opinion, and some numbers from Wikipedia .

No, because it lacks a draft If George Bush is stupid enough to start the draft again, then it might be similar... but everyone who is fighting chose to be there, so it's different. Sources: My opinion .

No Generally speaking: 1) There is no draft this time around. Soldiers may not all be happy to be where they are, but they all at one time signed up for this. Any soldier that didn’t should have done a little Google search and learned that the US has been deployed somewhere where there’s shooting going on for most of the last two decades.2) Reports are: we aren’t over there smokin dope and torching huts.

Also, they’ve distinguished themselves as "gentlemen soldiers," with few exceptions. So few are the exceptions that most people current with the news could probably rattle off a majority of the cases. I don’t think that was the case in the former war.3) Units aren’t out in the bush for long periods of time.

Most of the country is peaceful. Where it’s not, the soldiers still get to spend the night sleeping some place relatively safe.4) There’s no China-like nation supplying jets, anti-aircraft weapons, soldiers, large-scale propaganda, direct persecution of villages for not contributing to the war, and on and on... 5) The KGB didn’t goad the US of A into this one in order to distract us from other pursuits. 6) Though we might all know someone who served over in the Gulf, during Viet-nam, we all knew someone that died over there.

~52,000 vs. ~3,000 The former also took place when the "little guy" and the "underground" were, for the first time, getting media time. Now, with our mass media capabilities in the hands of not just major conglomerates, but everyone’s hands, too many voices are shouting from all sides for any major opposition group to take control of a movement. We each hear mostly what we want to hear.

I don’t think it’s another Vietnam. If you do, you do. These aren’t just little differences between the two in my opinion.

They add up, and contribute to the sum total of reasons why this isn’t like Vietnam. To veterans that might think I’m saying you did torch huts, or weren’t gentlemen, I’m not. I’m saying that is the perception..

Need to know names of advisors during early part of vietnam war before 1963.

Come here and rant about the Iraq War- good or bad.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.