Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-09-04 07:32 PM
Original message |
|
Vietnam, as I understand it, was Americans going to a country to prevent another country from occupying it (Russia, the "evil" empire as a dipshit who thought ketchup was a vegetable, supported the Iran contra affair, and was responsible for laying the groundwork that turned America into a corporate sleazehole that it is today).
Maybe it's Vietnam backwards, except no other country has come in to fight US troops. Yet.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-09-04 07:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I never knew the reason.
This is worse than VietNam. The VietNamese don't seem to hold grudges for 500 years.
|
HereSince1628
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-09-04 07:46 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Gee, I thought VN was because France couldn't hold on to it |
|
See? Them damned French. We went there to keep a southeast asian country under Western control.... <Just kidding>
We went to Vietnam to save the offshore oil around the Pratley Islands <just kidding there too!>
We went to Vietnam cause the west because they thought it was like a game of dominoes. Colin Powell knows its a lot more like NFL football. <I'm not sure they're more sophisticated than that>
|
mlawson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-09-04 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
|
that in VN, the US never captured the 'enemy's' capital, or any of their major leaders, and the killing went on day after day for years.
In Iraq, 'we' HAVE captured (on paper) the capital, and most 'enemy' leaders, and still the killing goes on day after day.
Subtle, but still a difference.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 11:50 PM
Response to Original message |