BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?

Subject: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:06 PM

Finally, the cat is out of the bag.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy said that Iraq was "George Bush's Vietnam."

Now we're hearing the reaction from several Republicans, such as Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, who called the comparison "reprehensible." Iraq is not at all like Vietnam, he said. (Sorry, I can't provide a complete exact quote, so you'll have to settle for a paraphrase. I think I heard it on Democracy Now.)

Hmm. The official Republican position on Vietnam must have changed while my back was turned. I half expected them to say, "Damn right! It's exactly like Vietnam! And we're going to win it just like we won in Vietnam!"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:17 PM

Our newspaper ran a cartoon the other day of an exhausted GI standing next to a signpost in Iraq. The signpost arrows pointed in various directions, but they all said Vietnam.

This is just as stupid as Vietnam -- perhaps even stupider, as it means nothing was learned from Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:54 PM

The similarity that the Vietnam War shares with the Iraq War is that the military has had its hands tied by civilians and their agendas. (I am aware that the military is ultimately under civilian control.) However, in neither war were the objectives made clear. Good men and women will pay the price in blood.

The American military, which is certainly amongst the 'best' the world has, could go and do its job if

1) it knew ecactly what the job was
2) the job was do-able

The problem is these bastards with their hidden agendas. The top bastard is the Chief Executive and his friends. You people have a responsibility to yourselves, your troops and your world to vote him out. ASAP.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 06:51 PM

OK, here are Norm Coleman's exact words, transcribed from today's Free Speech Radio News, beginning 16:50 from the beginning of the broadcast. His remarks were very brief and apparently impromptu, in response to a question. "I think it's reprehensible. I think it's irresponsible, on the same day that we lose American lives, [for] some of my colleagues to get on the floor to talk about this being Vietnam. It's not Vietnam."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:00 PM

Well, this time it's already a desert to start with, most of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:08 PM

No, it's not Bush's Vietnam.

It's the American People's Vietnam. Bush won't be fighting there, and his daughters won't be there either (the military doesn't like druggies and/or felons).

Now we're in it, and, dammit, we just can't get up and leave. W has managed to screw it up so royally that US troops -- and probably others -- will be there for years to come. Ought to make him pay for it -- after he's out of office.

Support the troops; they didn't ask to go there.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:28 PM

The Vietnam war was started in order to prevent the spread of Communism (as in the domino effect)in the region.

In Vietnam the US originally supported Ho Chi Minh. They provided military assistance during WWII for them to fight against the Japanese.

The US lost that one only after many lives were given up and years passed by. Now it is the turn of the middle east. In Vietnam it was over the control of communism, in the middle east it is over the control of oil and gas.

The Russians tried to influence the area with their war in Afganistan, in the end they too had to pull out, as they could not win a war against irregular troops. The US supplied the Taliban with arms to prosecute that war. Now they have turned against the US.

The US (and the UK) supplied assistance to Iraq in it's war against Iran because then Iran was the greater apparent threat with it's Islamic revolution. Then Saddam turned.

Why do our leaders never learn from history?

Very few Governments have ever won a war against irregular or guerilla armies.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:35 PM

One difference from Vietnam is that slogans like "Bring the War Homw" were about symbolism and demonstrations. This time there are undoubtedly people who are likely to do exactly that in a literal way.

I'm afraid this is not just a foreign war.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

"And its one, two, three,
What are we fighting for,
Don't ask me, I don't give a crap,
Next stop is Iraq.
And its five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates.
Oh well, ain't got time to wonder why,
Whoopie, we're all going to die."

That sure sounds nastalgic to me.
Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:13 PM

CJM and the F.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:14 PM

Quagmire, yes. Vietnam, no.

The motives are way different.

Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon all *thought* that they were fighting communism and with rubber and tin being Vietnam's primary assest, it's easy to accept, no matter how illconcieved, that position.

The motives in Irag are far murkier. First, Bush's folks think the only way to keep him in power is to keep a "hot" war on the TV for the voter's consumption. Second, let's not forget the oil and thirdly, the neocons have wanted to have control of Iraq going back to 1992 for stategic reasons.

Now, as for the toll that may come to be paid politically, lets keep in mind that LBJ was so beaten by Vietnem that he choze not to run in '68. Bush, however, appears to be more pathological than LBJ in that he believes his own lies so he may not take himself out of the race so iy looks as if ot up to us to help him get back to the ranch.

Boy, I'd hate to be John Kerry and know that you were inheriting a quagmire but I have faith that he would at least figgure out how to get some help from the UN and international community.

But I do hate to see what is unfolding as I fear the worst is yet to come no matter who is the next president.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Deckman
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:25 PM

Bobert ... I couldn't agree with you more. I don't care WHO is going to be the next President, it's an impossible situation. I've been asking myself why in the HELL anyone would want to take on the job of guiding this country for the next four years. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:31 PM

How long does it take to impeach a president?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Deckman
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:33 PM

The next legal election election will happen sooner than the impeachment process will take.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:30 PM

Coleman is not the only one objecting.

"Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) cautioned Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to be more careful in criticizing the war in Iraq (news - web sites) after the Massachusetts Democrat called the conflict "George Bush's Vietnam."

AP Photo

Kennedy "should be a little more restrained and careful in his comments because we are at war," Powell said Tuesday on Fox News Radio's "Tony Snow Show."

And just why are we at war?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:39 PM

The United States is not at war. The United States hasn't been at war since the Japanese signed a surrender document in 1945.

Only Congress can declare war. They haven't done so since December 8, 1941.

Korea was a Police Action. Vietnam was a Conflict. Gulf I was something, but not a war. Gulf II isn't a war either. Nor were Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, and the rest.

So all those who died in those places couldn't be war dead.

Right.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:23 PM

Mebbe not, pal, but we're up to our ass in an invasion! Not to mention an illegal occupation. Sheeshe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 11:27 PM

If Powell says we are at war, somebody should tell congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 11:34 PM

Maybe Congress is afraid of the President's power. And maybe that should frighten the American people. Just a little.

In what was called "The Quebec Crisis", Canada had a suspension of civil liberties. The country was, in fact (if not indeed), a country where the law was suspended, including habeas corpus. Joni was right when she said, "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone." To my American friends: Listen to that gal from Winnipeg.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 09:27 AM

The Congress passed the "War Powers Act" back in the '50s so that the President could act if the US government was wiped out in a nuclear attack ("duck and cover"). It was good planning, but poorly written (and rewritten). Presidents since have used it to commit US forces to combat without a Congressional declaration of war.

Several points: first, the War Powers Act was intended to be used if the US was attacked. Secondly, I think it has a limited number of days in which the Pres can use US troops without Congressional approval. Thirdly, the Congress told GWB to pursue terrorist where ever they might be (or words to that effect) -- basically, a blank check.

So W goes into Iraq and creates more terrorists? This is sensible? Especially since W has said that the fighting there is over?

I've heard that right after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the phones in the White House ran off the hook, telling W not to declare war, not to ask for a declaration of war. Why? Because if war was declared, the owners of the buildings couldn't collect the insurance! If true, this would be...well, the word "shi**y" comes to mind. So do other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Strick
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 09:41 AM

Don't forget that Congress approved funding for Iraq, which covers their responsibilities under the War Powers Act. One often offered explanation for why the law hasn't and won't be changed is that if they were required to declare war the old fashioned way, Congress would have to explicitly commit themselves. As it stands now, they can take credit when things go well or place blame when it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 10:29 AM

Another republican said that the war in vietnam was like it was because of a deep divide in American society and that the dems shouldn't criticize because we are at war and we should be uniting the country. Sounds like someone has had their head in the sand. the country has been divided since ht elast election and the current administration has not bothered to try to bring us together in anything other than the War on Terrorism. They also had the balls to say that it was terrible to criticize the pres. because the war in Iraq had made us more secure. Yeah, I guess were safer from the non-existant weapons of mass distruction now than we were before the invasion. Sheeesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 11:24 AM

Given the good PR work after 9/11 by the Bush administration, Strick, it would have been very difficult for Congress to do anything but what they have done. By turning over the powers to pre-emptively attack Iraq to the executive branch at least they won't be branded as "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican".

By the time that dog quits hunting, the US may be on the doorsteps of implosion from this usurping of power by the executive branch.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:20 PM

I'm sick and tired of all the times I've heard 'now that we're there we just can't get up and leave.' the hell we can't. we should.

by that same logic we would still be in Vietnam today. (Oh I forgot we got 'kicked out' of Vietnam, didn't we. or did we just conveniently finally make it look lie leaving was our only remaining option?)

the first job of a new administration is exit Iraq. not take over for the last administration. this 'war' cannot be won. it is not a war on terror, it is creating terror. we are becomming Israel, and we should not be too surprised when the suicide bombers kick it into gear over here. will we all be innocent civilians? or do we all share in the blame for allowing this asshole and his mistaken neo-con crew from taking over our country? I say the latter, sadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:35 PM

I was listening to a spokesman for the regime running Iraq at present, on BBC radio.

He was talking about the great handover of power to a new Iraqi government to be appointed by his boss, and flannelling when the awkward questions came up about what kind of power it would have, and who would be pulling the strings. He even at one point said that "all" Iraqis were behind the Coalition Administration. Seriously crazy talk.

It was exactly like the kind of thing you'd hear from the same kind of guys back in Vietnam days, talking about the latest "government" they were setting up in Saigon.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:39 PM

Bill:

From what you know about the existing sectors and forces in Iraq, what do you think would occur if the entire coalition were to load up and ship out next week?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:44 PM

Good question Amos, I look forward to reading Bill's answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:45 PM

they would work it out themselves!

we would probably lose our oil interests, boo hoo.

no other American life would be lost there nor would an AMerican kill another Iraqi. perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Strick
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:47 PM

"Given the good PR work after 9/11 by the Bush administration, Strick, it would have been very difficult for Congress to do anything but what they have done."

You mean like the Republicans were forced to approve funding for the little wars Clinton ran in the 90s? That's the point. This way Congress can always claim it wasn't their fault.

So if the Coalition pulls out, are we going to run a pool in how long the Iraqi civil war will last? I've got dibbs on 5 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 01:54 PM

obviously you wanted me to reconsider, huh AMos? YES of course it would be a bloody mess, but in reality Vietnam was a CIVIL WAR we had now business being involved in. it was never about domino theory communism. Iraq would and someday will devolve in a CIVIL WAR, hell the whole country was made up by Great Britain who drew arbitrary or cynical boundaries to pit one faction against the other. let them work it out. it is their land to fight for and it is their life to give. and they will continue to fight for their liand whether we are there or not. It outraged me to hear the Marine commander talk about 'precise, overwhelming force to destroy the rebel insurgents' or some such crap. the same cynical posturing remarks Sharon and every other right wing Israeli government uses about the PLO or Hamas, or whoever they blame for their occupation of Palestinian territory. 'I know, why not let's build a wall in Iraq with the people we like on one side and every one else on the other. Then we'll be safe.'

how many more lives will it take before we inevitably leave Iraq?
why should it take one more, tell me that, and justify it to the family of whoever that one life belonged to.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 02:05 PM

If the above two posts by Bill are his considered answer, then it certainly wasn't worth the wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 02:17 PM

Teribus et. al. how much would you bet? I say:


US will someday leave Iraq without having pacified it.

Civil war is inevitable in Iraq and some faction will ultimately prove the most powerful and take over some section of the country which will then be divided.

Suicide bombers will hit US targets in retaliation for the death and destruction we have sown in the Middle Ease, targets like Walmart, restaurants, train stations, etc.

what is your solution? nuke 'em? (hell we could probably drive on radioactive gas) this is not a 'war' that can be won except by peaceful means.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:22 AM

Two questions:-

Bill - "no other American life would be lost there nor would an American kill another Iraqi, perfect". So presumably the fact that America would be responsible for starting The Mother Of All Civil Wars in which thousands of Iraqis would kill one another isn't of concern to you?

Everyone else - serious question - regarding the question of whether the USA is at war or not, isn't that something that the UN makes judgment on? Seem to remember something being said on a TV programme recently about military actions being recognised/not recognised by the UN as official wars, and that the UN does indeed recognise GW2 as an 'official' war. Might just be me being thick - anyone else know anything about it?

Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 11:12 AM

Johnny:

Any nation has the right to declare itself at war anytime, against any other nation.

Now, if no--one pays any attention, then there's a different problem -- the old "What if they gave a War and nobody came?" proposition.

Unfortunately, GWB saw fit to declare war against a practice. Understandable, but extremely risky from the perspective of a Consititutional Republic, IMO -- if the practice is found in all countries in one or another form, including his own.

So now we have native residents fighting courageously for their own self determination using guerilla tactics, against an invading and occupying force wanting to impose their form of government. And the Heroes of Liberty are on the invading side of the equation.

Ain't that a mess, though??

I wonder how big a mess it would get to be if we did pull out of there -- let them duke it out among themselves and form up their own version of madness-as-government. Couldn't be too much worse than Bush's version.

See, the problem is that the locals are very accustomed to power as right -- they have been trampled for centuries by one or another force and the notion of a balanced and checked government, forwarding the people's interests because that is what it is there to do, is almost unthinkable to them. At least over here it is thinkable, if not acheivable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 11:23 AM

"So presumably the fact that America would be responsible for starting The Mother Of All Civil Wars in which thousands of Iraqis would kill one another isn't of concern to you?"

Strolling Johnny - "We" the Americans, are not responsible for any civil war that ever may start in Iraq. The only people that can start a civil war are the citizens of that country deciding that "we" can't live with "them". It seems to me that that whole area is in a constant stae of suspended civil war. If we pull out the "we" can decide to live in peace with the "them" or they can take up arms and try to exterminate each other.

It would be a terrible tragedy but it doesn't look like our involvement in it can do anything other than delay it. Saddam's Ba'athist party came into power from a previous civil war. It was only a matter of time before the pendulum swung the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:06 PM

That's a bit disingenuous, Chief Chaos. There wasn't a civil war raging in Iraq a year ago. There was a nasty regime in power in Baghdad preventing that happening, and a Kurdish region up North effectively independent.

Helping the country move on from that situation to something less repressive and more stable would have been a pretty difficult problem, and would have needed patience, resolution and imagination, but there is no reason to think it couldn't have been done. A fair number of vicious dictatorships have been dismantled one way and another, and that's a more common pattern than it being achieved through foreign invasion and occupation.

However it's a lot more complicated now. But the bottom line is, if there is a need for outside forces to assist the Iraqis to rebuild their country (and there may well be), the USA is not a suitable country to be in charge of this kind of project, and all the evidence is that the training received by US soldiers does not seem to equip them for this kind of situation.

One thing though - it seems at least possible that having a common enemy, in the shape of the occupation forces, might have the effect of bringing together the people who might otherwise be expected to be against each other in a civil war. This could mean that if/when there is a pull-out by the Americans, for domestic political reasons, there might be at least a chance of a regime that could hold things together, involving both Sunni and Shi'ites, and able to reach a satisfactory deal with the Kurds.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:08 AM

McGrath, that's why I said "suspended state of civil war". Kinda like the situation in the former Yugoslavia during the soviet occupation. There was peace under a brutal regime until the regime was gone. The two sides could have decided to live in continued peace or make war. They unfortunately chose the latter. And that was after a peaceful withdrawal by the soviets.

I'll agree with you whole heartedly that US soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are not trained or equipped to handle situations like this. They are warriors who may be used to prevent war (by taking out the possible means of waging war, or wage war on a known enemy. Getting into the middle of the enemy camp, one that is mixed so freely with the civilian populace, is not the preferred battle ground for any commander.

I for one don't think they should have gone their in the first place and I do believe that the current administration ignored the "nay-sayers" entirely instead of at least addressing their concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Strick
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:43 AM

Gee, Chief Chaos, I'm afraid I agree with you completely. Hope it doesn't hurt your reputation. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 11:48 AM

Iraq won't settle down until the notion of statism replaces the notion of tribalism in the minds of those living there. The western nations made this transition over hundreds of years; the Arab nations, with perhaps the exception of Egypt, did not. It is a different and incompaptible world-view.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:22 PM

Jim Dixon: Teddy Kennedy, that great paragon of virtue (shades of Chappaquidic)said it was so, so I guess it must be. I don't recall Teddy being in Vietnam! John McCain was there, though, and he said comparing Vietnam with Iraq was ...well ridiculous.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 09:00 PM

It's quite ridiculous saying these two animals have any resembance to each other. One is a horse and the other is a zebra. Whoever heard of a horse with stripes?

Just because they are galloping around and kicking up their heels...

Just because things aren't identical doesn't mean they don't have things in common. Working out what those things in common are is quite a useful thing to do. The same is true for working out what the differences are.

But unless you do compare them, you aren't going to be able to work out either of those things. It wouldn't really be too sensible to deprive yourself of that kind of information.

It's not really a matter of "Iraq is like Vietnam", versus "Iraq is not like Vietnam". Self evidently, both those statements are true. The interesting questions are "How is Iraq like Vietnam?" and "how is Iraq different from Vietnam?"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:48 AM

The differences seem much more signficant than the similarities. At the moment we're too close to the events to really see what's happening. Heard a discussion on NPR this afternoon. It seems that Sunnis and Shiites are not joining forces after all; the uprising isn't really that wide-spread either. It seems that the Shiite cleric who's caused much of this trouble is viewed very skeptically by most Iraqis who see him as dictatorial and dangerous, more like Saddam than they're comfortable with. It seems that more moderate Iraqis think that the uprising is more likely to force the US to stay in Iraq longer than force us to leave sooner. It's not a good situtation and it's probably that there are no good solutions, but it's also not the beginning of a general civil war or the quagmire people some people have been expecting.

In fact, this suggests the whole thing could be over shortly without having most of the dire consequences doomsayers are predicting.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:48 AM

May you be right, Strick.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Amergin
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 03:42 AM

I hope it is done soon...but I have my very strong doubts...I just found out that it appears my cousin Billy (who is in the 82nd Airborne) will be getting shipped over there this fall, if not sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:49 PM

How is Iraq unlike Vietnam? There is no draft...yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 04:18 AM

The NVA for one. There is no Iraqi equivalent.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:06 AM

The NVA's sponsor, the USSR, is also missing from this scenario, although it would be interesting to learn where the weapons and ammunition used by the insurgents come from. I assume old Baathist supplies. This could be terribly naive.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM

I understand that, when they told the 400,000 soldiers in the Iraqi army that they were sacked and could bugger off home, they didn't do anything about making sure they didn't take their guns with them.