Vietnam vs Iraq

[Bugfatty300]

Reporter's aren't even required to go through official channels. I mean, damn, journalists were embedded into Iraqi army units! And some even into Insurgent Units! It would have been unthinkable that US journalists been embedded into NVA or Viet-Minh units.

Actually there where plenty of people and reporters who "embedded" themselves with NVA and Viet Cong Units.

Jane Fonda and Pham Xuan An comes to mind.

A free lance reporter/photographer is just that. If he wanted to video or photograph Viet Cong he could. The problem was the Viet Cong hated reporters and photographers and had no qualms about killing them on sight. The Iraq inusrgency loves them.

Vietnam's media resources were still primitive, not much more eveolved from WWII.
The media available were photography, film and writing.

Nightly news reports and live TV was lightyears ahead of what we had in WWII. The only big difference today is the internet. Still most people watch the TV for news as they did 30 years ago.

Agent Orange; maybe the use of it short-term might not classify as such, but consider if the use of Agent Orange was used, in a way to punish the Vietnamese for being so resilient.

But Agent Orange was used exclusively to defoliate areas of jungle around bases so as to deprive the enemy of cover. It wasn't used to punish anyone. Everybody with a brain knew that agent orange, along with any other defoliant chemical, wasn't something you wanted to take a bath in or use as mouth wash but its long term gruesome ill effects wasn't known for quite a few years after the war.

Sure you could use Agent Orange to give people cancer and birth defects but what purpose would that do in a war?

I'm sorry, but the use of chemicals to wage warfare inasmuch as using toxic properties for the use of warfare would be what I'd call chemical warfare.

Debatable but agent orange was never used offensively or intended to harm people. But what did you mean by biological weapons being used?

 

[nonconformist]

What are the figures for Vietnamese civilians killed, and for Iraqi civilians? No doubt we killed many more in Vietnam. How about those killed in Iraq by insurgents, or the sectarian factions, do they go on the American account because they happened under our watch? Also all of those who'll die after we leave and the scramble for the wells kicks off? Might be too soon to tell, sadly for all involved this particular quagmire is nowhere near to playing itself out yet. I'll agree with you about Vietnamese casualties, but I still have to say Iraq suffered the greatest harm because it doesnt exist anymore.

The majority of those killed were civilians......more than a million.
Only half a million were hostile, though with a ratio of "Five to One"

 

[nonconformist]

Actually there where plenty of people and reporters who "embedded" themselves with NVA and Viet Cong Units.

Jane Fonda and Pham Xuan An comes to mind.

Jane Fonda wasn't a journnalist, she was a Lord HawHaw.
Independent journalists weren't wandering around with North vietnamese troops the way they do today.

Nightly news reports and live TV was lightyears ahead of what we had in WWII. The only big difference today is the internet. Still most people watch the TV for news as they did 30 years ago.

I think you're really underestimating the power of the internet. A whole world has been empowered by it.

Not sure what you mean. Agent Orange was used exclusively to defoliate areas of jungle around bases so as to deprive the enemy of cover. It wasn't used to punish anyone. Everybody with a brain knew that agent orange, along with any other defoliant chemical, wasn't something you wanted to take a bath in or use as mouth wash but its long term gruesome ill effects wasn't known for quite a few years after the war.

The way the US really destroyed Vietnam, it wouldn't surprise me if McNamara and co. really did want to punish the Vietnamese. The man studied under Curtis LeMay. However, he did have to balls to admit how wrong he was, and how much of a criminal he was.

Debatable but agent orange was never used offensively or intended to harm people. But what did you mean by biological weapons being used?

Like I said, Agent Orange. I'm not particularly interested in discussing the definition, as is mostly semantics, and i'm probably wrong.

 

[MobBoss]

Agent Orange; maybe the use of it short-term might not classify as such, but consider if the use of Agent Orange was used, in a way to punish the Vietnamese for being so resilient.

I don't see why you say Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon; maybe because its intended targets weren't human?
I'm sorry, but the use of chemicals to wage warfare inasmuch as using toxic properties for the use of warfare would be what I'd call chemical warfare.

Oh. My. Goodness. Agent Orange was a defoliant. Not, REPEAT NOT a chemical weapon. Its side effects on people were not realized until many years later and even then not on everyone who came in contact with it. A "chemical weapon" that may or may not kill you years down the road wouldnt be a very effective chemical weapon now would it? /sheesh

 

[Bigfoot]

From the standpoint of US strategic interests, I voted Iraq. Notwithstanding the tragic and unecessary loss of life, Vietnam is now relatively stable. It is steadily becoming more important to regional and global trade, which has potential benefits for the US. By contrast, our misadventure in Iraq has decreased US power and influence in the middle east, while Iran has benefitted. Worse, it looks like the region may go nuclear (or at least Iran will).

 

[Bugfatty300]

Jane Fonda wasn't a journnalist, she was a Lord HawHaw.

Jane Fonda was "covering" and trying to expose the possibility that US might bomb dykes in North Vietnam. She didn't have a journalist or reporter credits if thats what you mean.

The after thought money shots of her with laughing it up with people who were murdering and torturing prisoners of war and then calling the POWs liars was what got her hated so much.

Independent journalists weren't wandering around with North vietnamese troops the way they do today.[/

Mostly because the NVA and Viet Cong despised western reporters.

The way the US really destroyed Vietnam, it wouldn't surprise me if McNamara and co. really did want to punish the Vietnamese. The man studied under Curtis LeMay. However, he did have to balls to admit how wrong he was, and how much of a criminal he was.

The heavy bombing of North Vietnam was intended to force them to sign a cease fire and procure the release of American prisoners. The purpose wasn't simply to kill people.

I think you're really underestimating the power of the internet. A whole world has been empowered by it.

Sure. But television is still the main source for news. That will obviously change in the next few years though

 

[Neomega]

agent orange is not a chemical weapon.

Just because a weapon uses chemicals, does not make it a chemical weapon.

Most bombs use chemical reagents, but they are not chemical weapons.

 

[nonconformist]

Because the NVA and Viet Cong despised western reporters.

I think the reason that's changed is because of what I've been trying to convey-that the internet is a powerful medium, and rather than government sanctioned journalists, now you get all sorts, from neutral, to pro-insurgent, and that's why they're more receptive.

BTW, I'm actually good friends with an ex-sailor who was stationed off Vietnam during the war, to aid US forces.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I think the reason that's changed is because of what I've been trying to convey-that the internet is a powerful medium, and rather than government sanctioned journalists, now you get all sorts, from neutral, to pro-insurgent, and that's why they're more receptive.

BTW, I'm actually good friends with an ex-sailor who was stationed off Vietnam during the war, to aid US forces.

The point I'm trying to make is that there were no government sanctioned journalists in Vietnam except for actual US military reporter/soldiers. There was no "embedding" or assignments or censership except for what the journalist's corporate employers dictated. They all had points of view. Some pro-war and some anti-war.

There is actually a very good artical somewhere that talks about how freedom of press went from completely unrestricted in the Vietnam War to its current state in Iraq. Can't find it though.

There was a time in Iraq when no journalists were allowed in unless they were embedded with US forces. Though obviously the US has relaxed regulations alot since then.