EPTOn August 11 2007 08:31 yangstuh wrote:
Both were part of the pre-emptive strategy, Vietnam War being the prevention of Communism. Both were executed wrongly, however you can't say that our reason for going into either conflict was baseless and stupid to begin with.. we have yet to see the unraveling of history. Vietnam was a valid cause, my parents fled from Vietnam to the US because the US failed and let the communist scum take over. Many people died when the commies took over, especially the literate educated and prosperous people. It is also why Vietnam remains a 3rd world country. Communism was a very real threat during the Cold War, I strongly believed it needed to be fought.
We failed in Vietnam because of the same reason the British failed in the Colonies. We have repeated that mistake in Iraq but to a somewhat lessor degree and we are improving and fixing that as we speak.
Now even saying that we went into Iraq wrongfully, the fact is that we can't allow ourselves to fail there. We were fortunate that the Soviet Union collapsed on itself in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, but Islamic Extremism and the dictators that use it as their war machine in the middle east will not if we pull out of Iraq. Iraq will become a proxy terrorist state for Iran. The ramifications of our pullout will be so severe that we will find ourselves back in Iraq for a 3rd time and the job will be 10 times harder... it will make the current conflict look like a Sunday picnic. Failure is not an option.
Both were part of the pre-emptive strategy, Vietnam War being the prevention of Communism. Both were executed wrongly, however you can't say that our reason for going into either conflict was baseless and stupid to begin with.. we have yet to see the unraveling of history. Vietnam was a valid cause, my parents fled from Vietnam to the US because the US failed and let the communist scum take over. Many people died when the commies took over, especially the literate educated and prosperous people. It is also why Vietnam remains a 3rd world country. Communism was a very real threat during the Cold War, I strongly believed it needed to be fought.
We failed in Vietnam because of the same reason the British failed in the Colonies. We have repeated that mistake in Iraq but to a somewhat lessor degree and we are improving and fixing that as we speak.
Now even saying that we went into Iraq wrongfully, the fact is that we can't allow ourselves to fail there. We were fortunate that the Soviet Union collapsed on itself in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, but Islamic Extremism and the dictators that use it as their war machine in the middle east will not if we pull out of Iraq. Iraq will become a proxy terrorist state for Iran. The ramifications of our pullout will be so severe that we will find ourselves back in Iraq for a 3rd time and the job will be 10 times harder... it will make the current conflict look like a Sunday picnic. Failure is not an option.
Well, I wouldn't say that the Soviet Union collapsed in the "aftermath of the Vietnam war", but since you bring it up, do you know how bin Laden actually came to be an important figure on the world stage? Yep, it was a direct result of United States Cold War policy. This doesn't excuse him at all, but it makes it clearer to see that it's impossible to understand the full repercussions of our actions either way. As you mention, we have to wait to see the unraveling of history. And since it's been proven countless times that we can't possibly predict this, why not err on the side of peace and not invade other countries?? Is that such an unreasonable policy.
Vietnam has made great strides economically and diplomatically since we pulled out, as you can see from that amazing video of that Powerpoint talk that was floating around 1-2 days ago. I don't see how it would be a first-world country if we had stayed there; there's not really any evidence to support that.
In any case, there's a difference between arguing that Vietnam was a good idea because we were saving people from being murdered by the Communists and arguing that we needed to invade to stop the Soviets from gaining power. Not to put too fine a point on it, but honestly, no one cares about the Vietnamese (or Iraqis) just based on humanitarian reasons. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just stating a fact. There's no political will for intervention based on these grounds (someone look at Sudan to prove this point). So don't confuse the reasons we went into Vietnam.
Oh, and millions died during Mao's revolution, and no one really seemed to care to put a stop to it (not that it would have been possible). But now, although a brutal price has been paid, China is moving towards (with a long way to go) a free, capitalist, industrialized society. No invasion needed! As one of my friends mentions (not sure if it's true, but the point is still valid), no two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war. It's all about dialog, trade, and economics. If people in Iraq had electricity, jobs, and were safe in the streets, most kids being recruited as suicide bombers would tell their recruiters to shove their bombs up their asses and then go to Burger King.
And since everyone is mentioning Iran, I don't have to mention to you how much United States policy has influenced things in that nation (whether intentionally or unwittingly). Instead of trying to kill everyone who hates America, why not try to reduce the amount of reasons they hate us? The United States military isn't going to go anywhere soon, and it sure isn't going to be challenged in any traditional sense of warfare, so instead of continually trying to pour money into new, futile defense technologies (missile shield, anyone?) why not turn our efforts to another area that will bear more fruit: diplomacy and international relations? Instead of waging "pre-emptive war" or building the Maginot Line, how about we make it more difficult for a radical nationalist like Hitler to come to power in the first place? Instead of the Treaty of Versailles, why not the Marshall Plan?
One final point that I guess I wanted to mention is to comment on the party line for conservatives that "failure is not an option in Iraq". Somehow everyone thinks that the only way to ultimately fail in Iraq is to leave. I would argue that this is a non-valid argument. And just deciding that we're not going to pull out is also not an option. And when the same group of people who predicted in 2003 that "the Iraqis will greet us as liberators" are now trying to predict what will happen to Iraq if we withdraw, forgive me for not believing their predictions wholeheartedly.
Long and rambling, sorry.
