Which foreign policy blunder was worse?

[Thunderbird is the word]

vote!

[dead0man]

It all depends on which way ones biases fall.  It's pretty easy to make damn good arguments for any of the three options.  I don't like either Texan who takes the brunt of the blame from the "other side", so that probably makes it easier.

I voted for Vietnam because it directly killed more people.  The Middle East was a basket case full of death and atrocities long before the West invaded Iraq, and it probably will be long after....whether we try and stick around to "fix our mess" or not.  Southeast Asia ain't exactly peaceful, but it's heaven compared to Southwest Asia.



plus LBJ was a bigger asshole than Dubya.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I voted Iraq because the justification for Vietnam made "more sense" irt geopolitics.

[Sir Mohamed]

Voted both.

Vietnam had more casualties but the justification for Iraq was worse. However, both were an epic failure and caused nothing but problems. Not just the loss human lives, but also in the political division of the country. Not to mention the waste of money; especially in 1960s these Dollars should have been used for social programs. The opportunity was there; especially after the 1964 election.

[Thunderbird is the word]

It all depends on which way ones biases fall.  It's pretty easy to make damn good arguments for any of the three options.  I don't like either Texan who takes the brunt of the blame from the "other side", so that probably makes it easier.

I voted for Vietnam because it directly killed more people.  The Middle East was a basket case full of death and atrocities long before the West invaded Iraq, and it probably will be long after....whether we try and stick around to "fix our mess" or not.  Southeast Asia ain't exactly peaceful, but it's heaven compared to Southwest Asia.



plus LBJ was a bigger asshole than Dubya.

I don't think that LBJ takes the brunt of the blame from the other side. He gets plenty of blame for Vietnam from the left itself while you still have some conservative cold warrior revisionists that will defend the war.

[The Last Northerner]

Obviously Viet Nam.

[Lincoln Republican]

Clearly Vietnam.

It was obviously unwinnable from the start, resulting in over a million Vietnamese killed, 58,000 Americans killed, in a war that resulted in the same outcome as if America had not been in it in the first place, i.e. taken over by the North.

In spite of his other accomplishments while in office, Lyndon B Johnson will always be remembered as the President who took America into this unwinnable foreign adventure in the jungles of South Vietnam, resulting in the slaughter of thousands of young Americans.

The biggest, costliest blunder ever entered into by a U.S. President.

Johnson became a tool of the military industrial complex, and well deserves his place in history as a completely inept President.

HEY HEY LBJ, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY? is his well deserved epitaph.     

[DavidB.]

Vietnam was obviously bad, but I have the idea that the situation in Iraq will end up much, much worse than Vietnam, so I'm inclined to vote Iraq, even if we can probably only judge in, say, 10 years.

[Green Line]

Vietnam.  It wasn't ever winnable from the start.  Iraq, on the other hand, could have gone very differently.  There were so many blunders from the Bush Administration that enabled the insurgency to rise.  Disbanding the Iraqi Army, De-Baathification, occupying the country with far too few troops. It was amateur hour.  That's what happens when you try to occupy a country on the cheap.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Vietnam.  It wasn't ever winnable from the start.  Iraq, on the other hand, could have gone very differently.  There were so many blunders from the Bush Administration that enabled the insurgency to rise.  Disbanding the Iraqi Army, De-Baathification, occupying the country with far too few troops. It was amateur hour.  That's what happens when you try to occupy a country on the cheap.

Vietnam could have been won if the US funded anti-communist rebels in North Vietnam instead of sending combat troops to Vietnam

[ScottieF]

Obviously the two biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history, but I lean towards Iraq. Vietnam was ultimately a perverted extension of existing Cold War policy, whereas Iraq was peddled on a blatant lie and continues to have longstanding ramifications.

[Intell]

Vietnam, as that was supporting French Colonialism and Indirectly Khmer Rouge, whereas Iraq was going to war against a tyrannical dictator, although for all the wrong reasons,.

[President Johnson]

Iraq.

Vietnam was over at a certain point. Iraq War destabilized an entire region for decades. We will still witness the consequences by 2020 and beyond.

Vietnam was more tragic, because the decision to get in was made by three fine presidents (Ike, JFK and LBJ; I especially feel sorry for the latter because he did so many good things at the homefront). Iraq was the decision of a man, who was not up the job at all.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Vietnam.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

They both were equally bad, we never should have attacked both countries. Vietnam was literally just to show off "how easy communism could be defeated".

[YaBoyNY]

Iraq.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Iraq easily

[Leinad]

Vietnam. It killed more people, and many of ours were drafted--sent to die in a stupid war involuntarily. Iraq was horrible, but at least the Americans whose lives were cut short had some say in it, even if it was founded on lies.

Both are horrific stains on the legacy of a country that was initially a great concept.

C'est la vie.

[Swedge]

Vietnam just took much longer to end than it should have. A complete failure too.

[White Trash]

The blunder in Iraq made the geopolitical region much worse afterwards.

[Derpist]

Iraq.

Vietnam made sense as a war. The United States was fighting its enemy, the Soviet-backed North Vietnamese. The only reason why Vietnam is seen as a disaster is because America LOST. If America had won, it'd be viewed the same way Korea is...because it's pretty much the same war as Korea except America lost.

Iraq...never made sense. What would victory in Iraq have even been?

The comparison of the two wars is silly but only possible because baby boomers have such a narcissistic obsession with Vietnam being the worst war ever. If anything, it's far more justifiable than the MAJORITY of stupid wars America has fought (Mexican, Spanish, Philippines, WW1, Iraq)

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Iraq.

Vietnam was a  much bigger domestic disaster than one for foreign policy.

Iraq appears to have had serious consequences for what we deem a critical region.

[dead0man]

Vietnam is seen as a disaster is because America LOST.

We didn't lose so much as quit.  I know I'm in the small minority with this view and it probably stems from internal biases of mine, but the military didn't lose.  They won all the major battles, had a silly K:D ratio, and could go anywhere they wanted to at any time.  The other side lost all the major battles, lost an insane amount of dudes and were extremely limited as to their mobility.  The American public lost their will to fight because it was on TV, every night, in their face.  I'm in no way saying this is a bad thing, this is a good thing.  We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But we didn't lose, we quit while we were way ahead.

[RightBehind]

Dis Vietnam lead to the uprising of a terrorist group like Iraq has with ISIL?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'd say Iraq, since the invasion was based on flawed intelligence.  We at least knew what we were fighting for in Vietnam.