Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 3 2005, 05:34 PM
I suppose the situation has similarities in that there is an opposition to a democratic government being installed.
|
Probably moreso the Vietcong, but the N Vietnamese were obviously in the mix.
Quote:
|
However, the pure #s of opposition are night and day. The viet cong had 500,000 soldiers IIRC, while its estimated the insurgents number somewhere around 15,000.
|
Right, but I could look around for 'estimations' of Vietcong/N. Vietnam strength in the 1960's and find similarly low-balled figures. Its not exactly in the US army interest to upgrade the #'s of insurgents as the war goes on, that implies that a portion of it is being lost, I'd infer.
Quote:
|
Two completely different scenarios as far as being able to retian control of their country. Also, being they voted the way they have, I think the entire world has a duty to support them in trying to get that government up and running. The UN should be all over that one...but they wont.
|
Sure, just like the International community should have supported the South Vietnam democratically elected government... right?
Well, I suppose the point I'm arguing is that they are not 'completely different scenarios', thats why I drew the comparisons. I see very similar aspects in the US ability to 'retain control of their country' with local Iraqis, just like it went down in Nam.
Obviously the world should 'support' the Iraqi people... but many may argue that current US occupation isn't _exactly_ the kind of support they need. A little tweaking could turn an occupation into an international economic stability force.
Though, I doubt that will happen. The international community hasn't seemed very eager to throw their lot into the rebuilding effort. The US hasn't exactly been reaching out to the UN, so I don't know why the UN would all of a sudden decide to enter this dangerous area after pulling out due to a crippling suicide attack.