Right now Vietnam is in a bad shape in terms of human rights: no freedom or religion government-controlled press, lies and corruption, etc...The economy just recently started to improve, but it is in a worse state than before the Communists took over. Parents sell their little girls to prostitute houses in Cambodia, women marry Taiwanese men, and people are doing desperate things to make money.

I think the US was doing the right thing when it got involved in Vietnam: to prevent the above from happening to all of Southeast Asia. But when it pulled out, the people were worse off than before because of Communism. And this is partly from anti-war pressures. Who could foresee the consequences?

Vietnam and Iraq aren't too similar, but Saddam's regime was also totalitarian. The people are also poor. Pulling out of Iraq right now would be like turning it over to the insurgents and losing the war...don't you think?

1. US was not involved in Vietnam because of the benefit of Vietnamese but to fight Communism in China and Soviet Union. They destroyed the cities and the infrastructure of the country.

2. The same US helped and encouraged "The Mujahedeen" in Afghanistan to remove the Soviet Union. US who did Ben Laden and is suffering for it now. Also they encouraged the opium there to finance the Mujahdeen. In result of that the US is suffering from the drug problem.

3. Now US went to Iraq for one reason that is "Weapon of mass destruction" then when it realized that was false the reason changed to "because Saddam involving in 11 September" then when it couldn't established that , It said that because "named terrorist " may be visited Iraq one day. US forget that the terrorist as a person can pass or live or join educational institution everywhere. Most who were involved in 11 Sept event were studying and living in US. Moreover Ben Laden considers Saddam infidel because his party has socialist ideology.

4. At last , the reason has changed to "making Iraq Democratic country" or as you said because Saddam's regime was totalitarian. Before I continue, I stress that I don't defend Saddam or his regime and I am Christian . But the truth is Saddam's regime was better than many in the region . Compare him with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Emirate or ...In Saddam ministry was many Kurds or Shiite. He had Kurd deputy. His information minster for example was shiite (who we all see him in his daily press conference until fall of Baghdad). He was one day foreign minster (important minster) Sadam's deputy was Christian(very little minority). Many Women were ministers. Can You tell me how many women in Saudi Government (Null). How many women minsters in Kuwait (one recently after long debate). Do Saudis allow for any church to be build in their kingdom even for foreigners worker or diplomats?. Does Saudi allow others Islamic fraction ? How is miserable to name a countries by the name of family or the grandfather in Saudi or Jordan?

5. I am very sorry every time one American Solider has fallen especially because he was fallen in vain. Americans have not to die for the Democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq has to taken by Iraqis

6. The Shiite and Kurds are quite towards the Americans for their benefit and goal. But in future, that will not the case if they do not fulfill their goals. Do the Americans die to establish a regime as that in Iran.?

7. Of course "Vietnam and Iraq aren't too similar" geographically or historically or... No event will be similar to another. But who warns that Iraq is another Vietnam he/she means that America can not stay or can not pulling out of Iraq right now or next year or 10 years later until taking the hard decision will be taken to save the soul of Americans whatever is the number.

8. The war on terrorism has to be in America and the justice policy to prevent the cause of brain washing among moslems youths or the children. Children who see their parents were murdered and their home demolished will be the easy target to the terrorist organizations to make them suicide bombers or other action.

thanks kasm, that was just about what I was going to say

by the way, a majority of the Iraqi people would like to see the Coalition of the Blind leaving; fulfill the people's bidding would really hand the country over to the insurgents - because they're fighting for exactly this: a free Iraq, not an Iraq governed by ruthless murderers...

Maybe the world should stop buying Saudi oil until Saudi Arabian stops financing Iraqi insurgents. Of course that would mean that America would have to ban the internal combustion engine because of even higher gas prices. Also they probably couldn't stop Saudi oil from reaching America though a third party so what they could do is put quota's on the amount of oil entering the united states and gradually decrease the amount that is allowed in until either, A Saudi Arabia stops financing Iraqi insurgents or B. They are no longer dependent on foreign oil.

all i have to say is stop using religion as a scapegoat.

Kasm,
How does point 2 relate to the topic we are discussing?
I didn't say the US was in Vietnam for the benefit of the Vietnamese. I wrote "to prevent the above from happening to all of Southeast Asia" meaning to stem the tide of Communism in SE Asia. By "they destroyed the cities..." did you mean the US or Russia and China? I think you meant the US, right? Well, war destroys buildings, people, etc...and in the process governments have to be rebuilt, the economy has to readjust. What's important is what happens after the war.
Bush went to war on Iraq because of WMD, everyone who listens to the news knows that. Now the reason is to topple Saddam's totalitarian regime. What I'm saying, though, is that the war did topple Saddam and therefore allowed a different type of government that hopefully will give people more rights.
So you seem to think that Saddam's regime wasn't so bad because his government was diverse? That doesn't seem to make up for all the atrocities I've heard against him.
I did not write anything about the war on Iraq being for terrorism. So please don't use that as my reason.

I added 2 extra claimed reasons to invade Iraq:

Sorry Kim in forum when one reply, it is not mean respond to oter's points only. I tried to give the big picture including responses to your. But to establish that the Americans repeat their mistakes, I have to mentioned how the Americans [President Bush] changed the reasons to invade Iraq 4 times and show their falsity. You mentioned two.

US who made Ben Laden

In point 2 in last post, I showed that US who made Ben Laden and encouraged Opium trade to finance Mujaheddin in sake removal of Soviet Union from Afghanistan. They are suffering from these action exactly as it does in Iraq now. They went there claiming false reasons and after every reason become invalid they change it to another. In the end people in US will suffer.

Why the double standards?.

The last false reason was to democratizing Iraq. Then I said Saddam was not the worst one in the totalitarian regimes. You will find more than 100 countries are totalitarian regimes. Does US will invade them to liberate them?. The Soviet Union was totalitarian regime and US didn't invade them to librate them. China is totalitarian regime. Will US invade them to liberate them?. In Pakistan there is totalitarian regime who removed the elected government but their president has the blessing of President Bush. In the past US allowed and blessed the Chilean dictator who removed elected government. So the question is why the double standers?.

Who has the priority to be Liberated

I gave examples for worse than Saddam , Saudi Arabia where not allowed any practice for another religion or even another Islamic fraction[Sunni or Shiite] but their Wahhabi.. By the way I add now that Women in this Kingdom are not allowed to drive a car beside the other restriction. Then who has the priority to Liberate.

Does Kuwait (who US went to the war two times for them) is more domacratic than Sadam regime?

Iraq is destroyed country for decayed and will be divided.

- US resolved the old army and policemen. Most of new trained are murdering everyday if you read and analyze the news.

- The old regime party "Bath" is not allowed . How democracy is that?. So many people will reject any new system.

- The occupation encourage the secratisation of the country and distribution of posts between Kurds, Shiitis and Sunnisaccording to their group.

- There are myth and all repeating it from one to another that Shiiti is majority. If it is right then many were entered from Iran in the current status.

- Kurds are Sunni so the Arab Sunnis and Sunnis from kurds consitute the majority. That why the two presidents under the occupation was either Sunni or Kurd when Sunni don't participated in the last election.

- Sunnis will reject the Constitution so we return to square zero. Election then another draft for the Constitution.

- May be the three groups will fight each other.

- The country will divided to three parts and one will be as the Iranian regime.

- Shiites who are not resisting the occupation because of their goal to establish their government as in Iran. But US will not allow them, they will act against US troops too.

- Turkey will not be happy for Kurdish country because of their Kurds..

So no stability in Iraq for decades..

So never can US troops be withdrawn until they decide the hard one that withdrawal before the stability.

That why some people among the Americans call it another Vietnam

thats radical thinking right there, so wheres osama bin hiding.

but to say more on this topic IRAQ has become another vietnam, just without the draft, well not yet.

I agree with KASM on all points.
Iraq will be divided and I also believe the US will settle more troops (or they command EU forces to do so) so they can invade Iran and/or Saudi Arabia after telling more lies to us. Or even reenact a new 9/11 scene and blame more muslims.
I believe the US government should concern more about it's internal politics before meddling in other peoples business.

and stop using religion as an excuse for violence