or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › A New Viet Nam?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A New Viet Nam?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
When I was at the Heart concert last night, Nancy Wilson introduced one of their new songs as being for "those of who feel the impact of this new Viet Nam."

Now, I understand where she's coming from. Heart came out in the early 70s, so their teen years were spent during Viet Nam, and being musicians - well most musicians didn't exactly support the war. She's also married to director Cameron Crowe (Almost Famous, Vanilla Sky), so she's in with the Hollywood scene, which we also know does not support Bush in any way, shape or form.

But is this really a new Viet Nam? I was seriously offended, not because she opposes the war, but because by saying that I think it belittles the horrors that happened in Viet Nam. Apparently many other people were, everyone except the front row sat down during that song. Of course, we all got right back up and enjoyed the rest of the show, so it wasn't anything like the Dixie Chicks syndrome.

Since I know there are a lot of people on both sides of this issue, I was wondering what you all thought of this comparison?
post #2 of 10
Nothing can compare to Viet Nam, nor can it be compared to any other war in history. I wasnt there when the Viet Nam war started or ended so I cannot say that it is the same or not - only those who were there can. I hope I make sense LOL, I cant make sense of myself
post #3 of 10
My husband is a Viet Nam War Vet who was awarded the Bronze Star for valor. He also was a rock drummer who toured with Heart many years ago. His band was the warm up act. He got to know Ann and Nancy during the tour. I showed him this post and he thinks that Nancy's comparison might be quite general.......just that this war is unpopular.....and so was Viet Nam. And THAT is true.
post #4 of 10
I don't think that she was comparing the horrors of what happenned in both wars. I think someone would need to read some history if they were to do that.

But there are some similarities, both unpopular wars and so far it seems like the restoration of order is a long way away for the people of Iraq.
post #5 of 10
There is no comparrison to Viet Nam. And I think the unpopularity of the war was over stated and magnified. The only Countries that opposed the war were the ones that were taking Saddam's money. Who the heck knows??!! But I know that my Iraqi husband and our family... and also the hundreds of Iraqi's we know across the world were pro-war and it is their darn Country! But who cares what they think? Certainly not the media. They like to capitalize on the anti-war crowds.
post #6 of 10
Absolutely not (...and I mean there's no comparison to Vietnam, not disagreeing with the post above!).

In Iraq we are an invading and conquering force. We are currently occupying the country of Iraq and are therefore currently responsible for the governance of the country. (Including the looting of Iraq's National Treasures).

In Vietnam, we were invited by a CIA-installed government (the Diem brothers) not to occupy South Vietnam, but to assist in keeping it free from Communism. It then became the battleground between the US, the Chinese and the Soviets. (The theory was that we wanted to prevent the "Domino effect of Communism" - this was the rationale for our participating in the "police action" in Vietnam. We also wanted to prevent the Soviets from gaining access to a warm-water port).

Our presence in Vietnam was established in 1955 by Eisenhower at the request of de Gaulle. Kennedy kept us there and expanded our presence some. It came out in 1978 (three years after the withdrawal of our troops) that Johnson basically told the CIA to "make something happen" that would enable a serious military action. An "attack" on one of our gunships in the Gulf of Tonkin was fabricated. It was the belief in that action, however, that enabled President Johnson to send in massive amounts of troops. In 1964 US combat troops landed in Viet Nam. (Kennedy was assassinated in 1963). By Tet of 1968, 200+ US troops a week were being killed, for a total in excess of 54,000 US dead over the course of the war, which began winding down in 1973 when the Paris Peace accords were signed.

This is obviously nothing like what has happened in Iraq. Now... re: Iraq there are now a lot of questions about the information that there were weapons of mass destruction there. So it may turn out that the CIA fabrication of information to get us involved in this war is a parallel to what happened in Vietnam.

What is happening in Iraq has nothing to do with communism. In the end, it has to do with religion. These are two entirely different beasts.

Now what is happening in Afghanistan... that has many more parallels to what happened in Vietnam. We simply haven't escalated the level of troop activity. Give it a few years.

And I disagree with Tybalt about the guerilla war. Our troops are already facing "guerilla" warfare in Iraq. You don't need a jungle for a guerilla war. This is "guerilla," not "gorilla," LOL! ...not that there's anything funny about this, because there isn't. It's tragic, and that was really tasteless of me.

BUT... more troops have been killed since the war was declared "over" by President Bush than were killed during the declared war. No law nor order has been established - millions of people are still without electricity and drinking water. So how this is going to end anytime soon is beyond my comprehension. The troops that are there have been there an awful long time... troop rotation is likely to take place. We have 120,000 - 150,000 ground troops in place in Iraq right now (depending upon how you define ground troops), and I wouldn't expect much of a reduction in those numbers anytime soon. But at the peak, we had 500,000 on the ground in Vietnam.
post #7 of 10
i think that from an anti-war status that both wars are similar in the way that people feel we shouldn't have gotten involved in either one or maybe that we had no reason or right to be there.
post #8 of 10
Anna, very clear and succinct! I agree with your points. I also think that some are concerned about the apparently protracted nature of the hostilities despite President Bush having declared an end to the war.

I also think some are concerned that our involvement in this Iraq war was based on false "information" as was our involvement in Viet Nam.
post #9 of 10
One big difference that I think would affect public opinion is that people were drafted to fight in Vietnam. Our soldiers in Iraq chose to join the military.
post #10 of 10
The other big difference is that I don't think the citizens of the US will EVER make the mistake of taking their anti-war feelings out on the soldiers who are serving ever again. (At least I would hope not....)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › A New Viet Nam?