Welcome to Hookah Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

SuburbanSmoker

Iraq Vs. Vietnam

Anyone else notice some similar traits? i.e "self sustaining government"

I will say this though, im glad that the vets get more respect now then they did when coming back from vietnam. And to any who tread the forums i would just like to say thankyou for serving and welcome home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't see very many similarities, but I'm interested in what you have to say about the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont follow you bro. the only similarity that this has with Vietnam is that the media is completely insulting our presence and our accomplishments over there. due to a liberal media and this being a republican war, i can see why these two would clash. however i think it is insulting to our brave men and women to hear the newspapers and news channels continuing to report that we are failing our mission over there, while in reality we are making stronger strides than ever before.

It's because it's an election year and any good news in Iraq is bad news for democrats.

sorry guys i'm very into politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well my intial thought was on how we set up governments in both, and just looking to the outcome of vietnam and ho chi mihn taking power, i was starting to think about the government we have set up in iraq. In essence im asking if anyone thinks that iraq will fall to the terrorists once we left.

what do you see as the main differences? guerillawarfare vs terrorism? political vs religous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in Vietnam we were trying to suppress communism. in Iraq we are trying to promote and enable the people to participate in the global economy by offering them a humane country to live and work in.

We setup a government in Germany after WWII and it is now one of the top 10 industrial nations in the world.

edit: vietnam was a failure because the media destroyed the outlook of teh war like they are trying to do now. it is hard to fight a war when the people back home don't support it. Edited by Endlesssummer63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i guess i look at vietnam differently. ho chi mihn tried to enlist the united states help before it turned to communism. It was ouir ties with the french that encouraged his plea's for freedom to be ignored. because of this i see vietnam more as a failure on our part then iraq considering we had the chance to turn the country into a democracy.

But do you not see similarities to the red scare and the terrorist threat level? The government uses fear as a means to get the support for initiatives? maybe im off base, just something i see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big difference between the two, for me, is the fact that we're winning in Iraq. With Vietnam it was capitalism vs. communism. Now its Jesus vs. Allah (not really, but you get the idea that is religiously based). I respect your point of view and what you have to say, but I do not agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont think the gov is using the threat levels as a way to control the masses. I think they truly are a way of warning us, or alerting to be aware of our surroundings. As an American I can tell you that most of us go through the motions of living, from waking up, making breakfast, driving to work, and even some of us through the work day. When fear is instilled, we take control of our actions. Have you even been driving to work on the highway and almost get into an accident? the moments after that you have a heightened sense and you become more alert.

anyway Iraq is currently a success. Women can walk through the streets uncovered and they can attend school. We are trying to establish a new economy along side a new government which can take years. That is why i dont understand clinton and obama. we cant just up and leave, this is a timely process, and we will need to occupy this country for decades to some (like Bosnia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Endlesssummer63 @ Jun 3 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
in Vietnam we were trying to suppress communism. in Iraq we are trying to promote and enable the people to participate in the global economy by offering them a humane country to live and work in.

That's not the reason we went into Iraq, is it? (WMD's...? Where are they? Sadaam must have used his magic pixie dust to conceal them.... from satellites...)

Bush is the man, but I believe he was ill-advised. This whole spread democracy/making Iraq a better country/happy thoughts/ousting Sadaam was a fabrication to justify our invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Exile @ Jun 3 2008, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sadaam must have used his magic pixie dust to conceal them.... from satellites...)



This is off-topic but its totally true. One of my art teachers was very into new religion and all that stuff. This is a conversation we had about 5 years ago. I swear to you this is all true.
Art Teacher - "You know the only reason we invaded Iraq is because Saddam was leaking information about one of the 3 time portals on earth, right?"
Me - "What?!"
Art Teacher - "Yeah, its true. Saddam had one of the 3 time portals that are on earth and he was letting information leak out about them, telling the whole world. The Lizzards (The Illuminati) didn't like this and commanded George Bush to go in and remove Saddam as punishment."
Me - "WHAT??!?!"
Art Teacher - "Its hard to accept, I know. My Mystic, Dave, told me all this when I was on my sabatical last year."
Me - "Dude... Mystics aren't named 'Dave'..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Big Boss @ Jun 3 2008, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is off-topic but its totally true. One of my art teachers was very into new religion and all that stuff. This is a conversation we had about 5 years ago. I swear to you this is all true.
Art Teacher - "You know the only reason we invaded Iraq is because Saddam was leaking information about one of the 3 time portals on earth, right?"
Me - "What?!"
Art Teacher - "Yeah, its true. Saddam had one of the 3 time portals that are on earth and he was letting information leak out about them, telling the whole world. The Lizzards (The Illuminati) didn't like this and commanded George Bush to go in and remove Saddam as punishment."
Me - "WHAT??!?!"
Art Teacher - "Its hard to accept, I know. My Mystic, Dave, told me all this when I was on my sabatical last year."
Me - "Dude... Mystics aren't named 'Dave'..."

lol! He's a reptilian humanoid conspiracy theorist then. I discovered these nut jobs last year on youtube, took me a while to realize they were being serious. I clicked this vid titled: "Proof that George W. Bush is a reptilian humanoid", turned out to be a few zoom shots from his speeches and interviews where he licks his lips. Retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Exile @ Jun 3 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Endlesssummer63 @ Jun 3 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
in Vietnam we were trying to suppress communism. in Iraq we are trying to promote and enable the people to participate in the global economy by offering them a humane country to live and work in.

That's not the reason we went into Iraq, is it? (WMD's...? Where are they? Sadaam must have used his magic pixie dust to conceal them.... from satellites...)

Bush is the man, but I believe he was ill-advised. This whole spread democracy/making Iraq a better country/happy thoughts/ousting Sadaam was a fabrication to justify our invasion.


bro we gave Iraq weapons...we just went in to get them back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh* Well, as I see it, there are both differences and similarities between the two wars. Let's face it, we are a much different country than we were back then. I will not get into the reasons for starting either war, because there are many, and a lot of them are below the surface of the thing, as always. This time around, at least there is support for our troops, which is the least we can do, as they are just doing their jobs.

Vietnam was the first "TV War" and I remember it well. The government did not have as much control over the media coverage back then that it does now. Anyone that was around back then and saw the news every night knows what I'm talking about. I think that had a big influence over how the war was perceived by the American people. I find that to be a really interesting part of how the war played out. The footage of this war is very, very tame compared to what was broadcast during the Vietnam conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (iron molly black @ Jun 4 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Vietnam was the first "TV War" and I remember it well. The government did not have as much control over the media coverage back then that it does now.


Molly can you expand on that?[1] The only reason I ask is that I would have expected it to be quite the opposite....

I remember my first real TV War being Gulf War#1 circ 1990. It was amazing. What with CNN and the like... CNN Reports BEFORE it happens I swear to god. So I'm interested as to how/why they had more control now than back then?

JD

[1] This is no way trying to slam IMB, I am genuinlly interested in her thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Johnny_D @ Jun 4 2008, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (iron molly black @ Jun 4 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Vietnam was the first "TV War" and I remember it well. The government did not have as much control over the media coverage back then that it does now.


Molly can you expand on that?[1] The only reason I ask is that I would have expected it to be quite the opposite....

I remember my first real TV War being Gulf War#1 circ 1990. It was amazing. What with CNN and the like... CNN Reports BEFORE it happens I swear to god. So I'm interested as to how/why they had more control now than back then?

JD

[1] This is no way trying to slam IMB, I am genuinlly interested in her thoughts.


No slam taken. VERY LONG post follows. From The Media and Vietnam by Erin Laughlin. Backs up my point without me researching/writing it out myself. wink.gif

QUOTE
Why Television?
By the mid-1960's, television was considered to be the most important source of news for the American public, and, possibly, the most powerful influence on public opinion itself. Throughout the Korean War, the television audience remained small. In 1950, only 9 percent of homes owned a television. By 1966, this figure rose to 93 percent (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.18). As televisions became more popular in the home, more Americans began to get their news from television than from any other source. A series of surveys conducted by the Roper Organization for the Television Information Office from 1964 until 1972 demonstrates the growing power of television. With multiple answers allowed, respondents were asked from which medium they "got most of their news". In 1964, 58 percent said television; 56 percent, newspapers; 26 percent, radio; and 8 percent, magazines. By 1972, 64 percent said television while the number of respondents who primarily relied on newspapers dropped to 50 percent (Hallin, 1986, p.106). Thus, as the Vietnam War dragged on, more and more Americans turned to television as their primary source for news.

While a large audience is crucial in influencing public opinion, credibility is a much more significant factor. The Roper surveys mentioned above also asked respondents which medium they would trust if the media gave conflicting accounts of a story. In 1972, 48 percent said television while only 21 percent said newspapers (Hallin, 1986, p.106). Television is "consistently evaluated as more attention-grabbing, interesting, personally relevant, emotionally involving, and surprising"(Neuman, Just, Crigler, 1992, p.56) because of two elements: visuals and personality. The visual element of television allows viewers to feel as if they are part of the action. When news programs aired images of battles and death, Americans at home felt as if they too were in the jungles of Vietnam. Additionally, intense visuals helped explain the complex nature of war to Americans who could not understand the military's technical language. Anchors and reporters quickly became trusted, household names because the public turned to them every night for the day's information; Walter Cronkite was even referred to as the "most trusted man in America" throughout the war (Hallin, 1986, p.106). This trust allowed the opinions and biases of television news personalities to have some influence on the way in which many Americans viewed the war. Thus, Americans increasingly depended on television for images and accurate accounts of the Vietnam War; what they were watching, however, were edited, thirty-minute versions of an extremely complex war.


Early Coverage
The television news industry is a business with a profit motive before it is a public service; consequently, producers and reporters attempt to make the news more entertaining by airing stories that involve conflict, human impact, or morality. Television news did not find material that was dramatic enough until the number of American troops was raised to 175, 000 in July 1965 (Hallin, 1986, p.115). Combat, interviews with American soldiers, and helicopter scenes all provided the television news industry with the drama that it required. The networks set up permanent bureaus in Saigon and sent hundred of correspondents there throughout the war. From 1965 through the Tet Offensive in 1968, 86 percent of the CBS and NBC nightly news programs covered the war, focusing mostly on ground and air combat (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.4). This coverage was generally very supportive of U.S involvement in the war and of the soldier himself until 1967. The media labeled the conflict as a "good guys shooting Reds" story so that it could fit into the ongoing saga of the Cold War (Wyatt, 1995, p.81). As part of the human impact frame, network correspondents relied on American soldiers for their most important sources. During this early part of the war, the soldier was portrayed as a hero. One example is a striking story reported by TV correspondent Dean Brelis. As he was having his leg amputated, Marine colonel Michael Yunck said:

"I said hell, they can't be right around in there. So I didn't call bombs and napalm on these people. But that's where they were. I'm sure that's where they were. God damn it. I hate to put napalm on these women and children. I just didn't do it. I said, they can't be there." (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.13-14)

Thus, the anti-communism frame significantly contributed to the positive coverage that vilified the war, not the soldier (Bonior, Champlin, and Kolly, 1984, p.13).
The Turning Point
By the fall of 1967, 90 percent of the evening news was devoted to the war and roughly 50 million people watched television news each night (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.4-5). Up until this time, the war had strong support from the media, the public, and Congress. The military continuously reported that the U.S was making encouraging progress. Gradually, however, support for the war began to decrease. Because no military censorship was established, journalists could follow the military into combat and report their observations without formal censorship. Thus, as journalists saw more grisly combat, they presented the public with more graphic images. Also, for the first time, interviewed soldiers expressed their frustration with the progress of the war.

Support began to decrease in the fall of 1967, but the major turning point in television's coverage of the war occurred during the Tet Offensive in late January 1968. Though North Vietnamese soldiers swept through more than one hundred Southern Vietnamese cities, Tet was actually a U.S victory because the North suffered enormous casualties. Television, however, portrayed the attack as a brutal defeat for the U.S; the media, not the military, confirmed the growing perception that the U.S was unable to win the war. The percent of television stories in which journalists editorialized news jumped from 5.9 percent before Tet to 20 percent in the two months after (Hallin, 1986, p.170). The most significant statement came from the "most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite. In a CBS special, Cronkite concluded, 'To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.to say that we are mired in a bloody stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion" (Hallin, 1986, p.170). After the Tet Offensive and Cronkite's statement, coverage of American involvement in the war became predominantly negative. Before Tet, journalists described 62 percent of their stories as victories for the United States, 28 percent as defeats, and 2 percent as inconclusive. After Tet, 44 percent of the battles were deemed victories, 32 percent defeats, and 24 percent inconclusive (Hallin, 1986, p.161-162). Combat scenes were also more graphic. Films of civilian casualties increased from a pre-Tet average of 0.85 times per week to an average of 3.9 times per week. Films of military casualties also jumped from 2.4 to 6.8 times per week (Hallin, 1986, p.171). The most negative change in coverage was the portrayal of the U.S troops. Before the Tet Offensive, there were four television stories devoted entirely to the positive morale of the troops and zero negative stories. After Tet, two and a half stories mentioned positive morale while the number of negative morale stories increased to fourteen and a half (Hallin, 1986, p.180). Most of these negative references included increasing drug use, racial conflict, and disobedience among the U.S soldiers.

Television coverage of the massacre at My Lai was perhaps the most damaging image for the U.S soldier's reputation. Though initial reports stated that the operation killed 100 enemy soldiers in March 1968, it was revealed a year later that First Lt. William Calley and his taskforce had killed up to 350 South Vietnamese civilians (Hammond, 1998, p.192). The massacre and Lt. Calley's trial became one of the war's leading stories. Moreover, it introduced the subject of American war crimes into television's remaining coverage of the war.
Withdrawal from Vietnam
The intensely negative coverage of the war influenced both politicians and the public. Americans depended on television to see and understand the war, but the death and destruction they saw appeared as irrational killing when prospects for the war became increasingly negative. Therefore, the majority of Americans withdrew their support for the war after the Tet Offensive. War coverage declined from 90 percent of all newscasts to 61 percent from Richard Nixon's election through February 1969 (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.7). Though the media had been covering the anti-war movement before 1968, it now overshadowed the war itself. Draft-card burning and demonstrations provided television with fresher conflict, human impact, and moral issues. With the massive loss of public support for the war, politicians initiated withdrawal policies. Television no longer focused on combat, but on the political process. From 1965 to 1969, the percentage of combat stories had been 48 percent; from 1970 until the end of U.S involvement, only 13 percent of news stores involved soldiers in combat (Bonior, Champlin, Kolly, 1984, p.8). Thus, Bonior, Champlin, and Kolly (1984, p.16) best sum up the damage done to the Vietnam veteran's image: In the rush to declare the Vietnam War over through stories on Vietnamization and the Paris Peace Talks, in the rush to judgment without second thought on Tet, in the rush to avoid controversy at any cost, the U.S public was left with one climactic image of their soldiers in Vietnam-losing the Tet Offensive while massacring civilians at My Lai.
Edited by iron molly black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Exile @ Jun 3 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Endlesssummer63 @ Jun 3 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
in Vietnam we were trying to suppress communism. in Iraq we are trying to promote and enable the people to participate in the global economy by offering them a humane country to live and work in.

That's not the reason we went into Iraq, is it? (WMD's...? Where are they? Saddam must have used his magic pixie dust to conceal them.... from satellites...)

Bush is the man, but I believe he was ill-advised. This whole spread democracy/making Iraq a better country/happy thoughts/ousting Saddam was a fabrication to justify our invasion.



One of the least intelligent statements from the loonies is that Iraq did not have any chemical warfare program in place.

13Aug05, Mosul, Iraq, over 500 gallons of binary components were discovered. Sure, technically not a WMD, but that is like saying having a full magazine in one pocket, and a gun in the other is not having a loaded gun. UNSCOM verified Iraq had an inventory of 3000+ tons of HD (a sulphur based blistering agent) Saddam admitted to UNSCOM that they had produced about 4 tons of Vx, 280 tons of Tabum, and 812 tons of Sarin. None has ever been reported as destroyed, and in the case of Tabum, and VX, Iraq didn't have any means of actually disposing of it in a way that would not have left a detectable residual. Seen any photos of any nerve agent destruction kilns in iraq? Nope! because there were none.

No, Iraq never had any chemical weapons (WMD)...
Aug 1983, Hajj Umran, HD gas, about 100 Iranian Kurds killed
Nov 1983, Panjwin, HD Gas, 300 Iranian Kurds killed
Spring 1984 Bashrah, Tabun, 100 Iranians killed
1984? Manjoon Island, HD gas, 2500 Iranians killed
Mar 1985 Hawaiza Marsh, Tabun/Sarin, 3000 Iranians Killed
1986 (Early), al-Fahw, Tabun/sarin/HD, 8000-10000 Iranians Killed
1986? (might have been 87) Umm r-Rasas, HD (Some reports VX, likely from death tolls) 7000+ Iranians
1987 al-Bashrah, Tabun gas, 5000+ Iranians killed
1987 (might have been 88), Mehran, VX & HD, 3000+ Iranians Killed
1988, 1989, 1990 Vx, HD, and Sarin, estimates 10000+ Iranian Kurds in area around Halabja

Documented deaths, supported by admissions from Saddam's gov't, and UNSCOM... I guess since Iraq didn't have any WMD they must have all died from laughter at your theory that iraq didn't have the chemical munitions they admitted to having.

Looks like they died of laughter, doesn't it... or maybe "magic pixie dust"
http://www.republicanyouth.net/saddambodyc...-Victims-09.jpg
http://www.ulsterflash.iofm.net/iraqdead.jpeg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3989...halabja203b.jpg

Why, if they had not had any chemical weapons program, that they admitted to, would they have given it's head officer a name like "chemical" Ali?

UNSCOM photos show 155mm Ricin shells (1989) 122mm rockets filled, marked to be filled with b.Subtilis, botulinum and Aflatoxin, modified 2,200 litre drop tanks with binary agent/carrier fill. (1991)

edited as I remembered a few more, I am sure I missed allot, Apologies for inept spelling of Arabic names. Edited by TheScotsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any connection either...

Oh, this isn't going anywhere... Quick edit my three huge paragraphs: Quagmire, false pretenses. tongue.gif Edited by Khronokai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont see any similarities either. The Cold War was over when we started this one.

I've also heard from many sources that Saddam Hussein's reasoning behind not denying he had WMD was because if he acknowledged he destroyed them, it would have made his country vulnerable to Iranian attack. That explanation makes sense. Would you want your powerful enemy next door to know you have no weapons that would be useful against him? I see Iraq as a quagmire the same way as I see Vietnam as being a quagmire. This one just has fewer military deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Bulldog_916 @ Jun 4 2008, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I dont see any similarities either. The Cold War was over when we started this one.

I've also heard from many sources that Saddam Hussein's reasoning behind not denying he had WMD was because if he acknowledged he destroyed them, it would have made his country vulnerable to Iranian attack. That explanation makes sense. Would you want your powerful enemy next door to know you have no weapons that would be useful against him? I see Iraq as a quagmire the same way as I see Vietnam as being a quagmire. This one just has fewer military deaths.


I can agree with you on the quagmire. Both are that. Both cases it is difficult to determine friends from enemies for our troops. Both difficult to extricate ourselves from. Support will/did wane from both as time goes on.

Vietnam, though, did ostensibly have a more clear goal, to rid South Vietnam of the communist North Vietnamese. Whether that was right or wrong, and what other things were guiding that, and whether it was wise of the U.S. to attempt it, is another matter. A lot of sources think we actually COULD have won, if we had stuck with it. But without the support of the populace, it wasn't happening. The North Koreans were overjoyed about the anti-war movement, it was just what they wished for in their wildest dreams. I wonder if that war were played out today, how it would turn out, assuming that we would even get into it in the first place (most likely we wouldn't).

I guess what I'm saying to sum up is the lesson from Vietnam is that if you are going to fight a war, go in and FIGHT the darn thing, and then get out before support goes down the tubes. The lesson the US government learned was to not give the press unlimited and uncensored access to the military. The lesson the public should have learned is to be skeptical of what you hear from both the press AND the military/government.

The war in Iraq started with a bang, and now it's sort of a fizzle. Public support is waning. We'll see what happens...



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Military units are ill equipped or trained to operate as a civilian police force, even more at a disadvantage in "nation building" whatever meaning such a vague term encompasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Saechao_07 @ Jun 8 2008, 02:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Vietnam has Pho and Iraq has sand ? ahaha



Everyone wears different hats?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now