President Bush's Amazing Discovery: Iraq = Vietnam!

BlackShanglan

Silver-Tongued Papist
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Posts
16,888
Damn! If only someone had thought to make that comparison before the war!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958824.stm

Bush in Vietnam warning over Iraq

President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.
"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.

Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.

His speech comes amid an apparent rift with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, but Mr Bush said Mr Maliki was a "good man with a difficult job".

Hours earlier, Mr Maliki called recent US criticism of his work "discourteous".

The White House was swift to respond, saying in a statement that Mr Bush still believes that Mr Maliki is the right person to lead Iraq.

Mr Bush began his speech at the annual convention for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) group, in Kansas City, by flagging up US successes in staying the distance in other conflicts - particularly in turning Japan from an enemy into a key ally.

"The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq," Mr Bush said.

"The defence strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbour helped raise up an Asian Tiger that is a model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East."

Legacy of defeat

Mr Bush compared current calls for withdrawal from Iraq with what happened at the end of the Vietnam War in 1975.

"Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people," Mr Bush said. "The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.

Mr Bush spoke of the massacres under Cambodia's Khmer Rouge
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," Mr Bush said, mentioning reprisals against US allies in Vietnam, the displacement of Vietnamese refugees and the massacres in Cambodia under Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.

He warned that in Iraq there was the added danger that a US withdrawal would signal victory for al-Qaeda, emboldening its leaders and drawing in new recruits.

Short-term problem

BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs says Mr Bush's speech will fuel the controversy over whether he is drawing the right or wrong lessons from history.

Opinion polls suggest that many Americans clearly do not see the stakes or the struggle in the same way, our correspondent says.

Mr Bush is pressing home these broad themes even more forcefully than before because he faces a very specific short-term political problem, with less than 18 months left as president.

Whether his successor will see things in the same ideological and historic terms is, at the very least, open to question, our correspondent adds.

In other news in Iraq:


Fourteen US soldiers were killed when a Black Hawk helicopter in which they were travelling crashed in northern Iraq. The military said a mechanical fault was to blame.

At least 24 people were killed and 50 injured when a suicide bomber rammed a fuel tanker into a police station in the northern oil city of Baiji.

The deputy US commander in Iraq told the BBC that the US had recruited 20,000 civilian volunteers to act as local police in sensitive areas of the country.

'Seeking friends elsewhere'

Mr Bush's speech came as Mr Maliki was moved to defend his administration in the face of US criticism.

"No-one has the right to place timetables" on the Iraqi government's performance Mr Maliki said, blaming the US presidential election campaign for many of the negative comments being made.


The Bush administration has called on Mr Maliki's cabinet to perform
Speaking at the end of a visit to Syria, he said Iraq would pay no attention and could "find friends elsewhere".

After Mr Bush's latest address, in which he praised the Iraqi prime minister, a spokesman for Mr Maliki said they welcomed the president's comments:

"His speech yesterday was a bit ambiguous and confusing, but he clarified things in his speech today," the spokesman told the BBC.

"Mr Maliki said in Syria that he agrees with President Bush that the people of Iraq have the final say in changing their government. So our reaction is positive."

On Tuesday, Mr Bush had appeared to distance himself from Mr Maliki's government for the first time.

Mr Bush said the people of Iraq had made a great step towards reconciliation. However he added that there was "a certain level of frustration with the leadership" of Mr Maliki and that his government now had to perform.
 
For someone who went AWOL from the Texas Air Guard during Viet Nam so he wouldn't have to go to war to be making any comparisons is not only sad, but insulting. Obviously, Dubia has his history mixed here. It was the REPUBLICANS that were making up excuses to get out of Vietnam, not the Democrats (Remember Tricky Dick, George?).

Vietnam was an entirely different situation. WE WERE INVITED. Who invited us to invade Iraq? Remember the "Domino Theory"? That was a REPUBLICAN arguing point. Sort of sounds a lot like "If we don't defeat them there, we'll be fighting them over here."

:rolleyes:
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
For someone who went AWOL from the Texas Air Guard during Viet Nam so he wouldn't have to go to war to be making any comparisons is not only sad, but insulting. Obviously, Dubia has his history mixed here. It was the REPUBLICANS that were making up excuses to get out of Vietnam, not the Democrats (Remember Tricky Dick, George?).

Vietnam was an entirely different situation. WE WERE INVITED. Who invited us to invade Iraq? Remember the "Domino Theory"? That was a REPUBLICAN arguing point. Sort of sounds a lot like "If we don't defeat them there, we'll be fighting them over here."

:rolleyes:

I disagree.

I remember Vietnam - very clearly. Whether we were "invited" there or not (and that's debatable):

  1. the people didn't want us there, just like the people in Iraq
  2. it's a war we cannot win
  3. there is a solid underground fighting back, and causing large casualties of Americans
  4. the "quick" war that was promised has failed to materialize
  5. we keep sending more and more troops over there - to die
  6. when we eventually do get out, we will leave a country devastated by what WE have done

sounds pretty damn similar to me
 
I was just reading the afterword of one of David Drake's books.

He's an author I'm quite fond of. A Vietnam vet who served with the 11th ACR, The Blackhorse, for a year in country.

Here's what he had to say about Vietnam.

The people I served with in 1970 (the enlisted men) were almost entirely draftees. At that time nobody I knew in-country:
  • thought the war could be won;
  • thought our government was even trying to win;
  • thought the brutal, corrupt Saigon government was worth saving;
  • thought our presence was doing anybody the least bit of good, particularly ourselves.

I'm sure most of the grunts in Iraq feel the same way.

Sigh. I'll quote Santayana here. :rolleyes:
 
Damn! If only someone had thought to make that comparison before the war!
Gosh, I only wish I'd thought of it-- I could have phoned him and warned him or something.

I'm sure he would have listened... It's all my fault. :confused:
 
Stella_Omega said:
Gosh, I only wish I'd thought of it-- I could have phoned him and warned him or something.

I'm sure he would have listened... It's all my fault. :confused:

Make sure you claimed to be God. Shrub always listens to God. ;)
 
rgraham666 said:
Make sure you claimed to be God. Shrub always listens to God. ;)

only standing in front of the mirror though... :rolleyes:
 
That's very interesting. Do you know what went wrong with our exit from Vietnam?

We weren't allowed to plan it because that was considered defeatist thinking, and so we had no plan for withdrawing from Vietnam. What resulted was a rout.

This is defined as shitting in your fucking hat and wearing it.

That stupid shithole.

Next time let's elect a president who knows which end of a book to open so he doesn't embarrass us by clawing at the spine.
 
Wow. It all makes sense now. We're in Iraq so that we can do it the right way this time!

Gosh! It's all so clear now. George never got over Vietnam, and neither did we; we, the superpower of the world, were suppose to be able to march into a country, bomb the fuck out of it, terrify our enemies into surrendering, and rebuilt it from the ground up into a friendly, loyal, democratic ally of the U.S.A. (Hey, it worked with Germany and Japan! 'Nam should have been a piece of cake). But, damn it, the baby boomers let everyone down!

So, George, God-bless' him, took the earliest opportunity to give us all a second chance! To get right what everyone else in his generation got wrong the first time around.

Yeah. I see. I get it now. This is his...and our second chance!

Well. That makes it all right then; doesn't it? :rolleyes:
 
3113 said:
So, George, God-bless' him, took the earliest opportunity to give us all a second chance! To get right what everyone else in his generation got wrong the first time around.

let's be fair... the first one was his father's generation. He's just following family footsteps...

although his dad never would have been stupid enough to trade a young Sammy Sosa...
 
Belegon said:
although his dad never would have been stupid enough to trade a young Sammy Sosa...
LOL! Too true. If they'd just used that point in the 2000 election, Gore would have won hands down.
 
Viet Nam is an interesting piece of history. General George Casey said at one point. "The American troops were magnificent. We never lost a single battle. But the President (then Nixon) lost the war."

There are few, if any, similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam. First off, the French started the Viet Nam war back in the 1950's - and lost. Iraq was started by Saddam in the 1980s - and lost.

The U.S. became involved in Viet Nam because we wanted their natural resources - Rubber, which we never got. We became involved in Iraq because we wanted their oil - which we never got.

The U.S. sent troops to Viet Nam for 10 years. Bush has had troops in Iraq for 5 years and yesterday was talking about another 10.

JFK promised the people of the U.S. we would send in "advisors" to train ARVIN troops then leave. Bush promised to have the war ended in "six weeks". Kennedy followed with the First Marine Division, then 200,000 army, air force and marines a few months later. Bush sent the National Guard - total troop strength - 150,000. :eek:

From that point on, the similarities end. In Viet Nam, the poeple came to understand that we could not win and pressured congress and the president. However, the news reporting, as well as reports from the military leadership, gave fairly accurate assessments as to the state of the war.

Iraq began with lies and the lies have continued daily up to present. Not only have the people of this country had enough of Bush's lies, but the congress has too.

Potentially, there could be one more similarity if congress has the balls. In Viet Nam the war ended because congress cut off funding. Hopefully, congress will do that again and stop this expensive ($2 Trillion) insanity.
 
BlackShanglan said:
Damn! If only someone had thought to make that comparison before the war!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958824.stm

Bush in Vietnam warning over Iraq

Something's up. With this speech, finally mentioning the V word, they're taking the first step toward preparing us for somethig or just testing the water. The question is what are they up to.

More troop build up?
Draft?
Change of government in Iraq?
Upstage the Democrats on phased withdrawal?

I dunno. But I have a feeling this is significant
 
Edward Teach said:
Something's up. With this speech, finally mentioning the V word, they're taking the first step toward preparing us for somethig or just testing the water. The question is what are they up to.

More troop build up?
Draft?
Change of government in Iraq?
Upstage the Democrats on phased withdrawal?

I dunno. But I have a feeling this is significant
I agree. Bush has said for 5 years there is no similarity what-so-ever. Now they are the same war, except he's going to win this one. My vote goes for a draft and 10 more years of this shit.
 
Limited use of weapons of mass destruction. I've heard many people say that Vietnam would have been won if they'd just 'nuked the slopes'.

I'll bet Shrub will test that hypothesis now.
 
Back
Top