BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: flattop
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM

Since Vietnam TV has changed. Cameras were heavy and cumbersome back then. Difficult to handle, easier for authorities to control. Now cameras are light and inexpensive. You could afford to put one on every tank to let people watch the invasions and the retreats - if you were foolish enough.

Handheld cameras are on the street - everywhere - hard to control. Catches the troops on their bad days when they aren't their best. Perhaps things aren't much grimmer than they were in old wars with less coverage. It was shitty back then, for sure.   

Everyone has bad days but it doesn't give a good impression on the news channels. For future invasions, armies might have to take Miss America training - walk straight, stick the chest out, smile, say something light and positive.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:04 AM

some people who think liberals can do no wrong.



Geeze, Strick, is nothing sacred?? LOL!!! Seriously, anyone who thinks anyone can do no wrong hasn't been half around the block yet!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:02 AM

"That way, of course, the fact of Japanese internment by the US government doesn't trouble you because it wasn't your side's fault, right?

So just when did you ... decide to be a Republican instead, Strick?"

On the contrary, it troubles me greatly and I would oppose any remotely similar action today. I'm against racially based stereotyping in airline secruity, for example. I just don't like some of the wholier than thou crap I see from some people who think liberals can do no wrong.

As to the later question, I was a Democrat until the party began running that string of incredibly bad candidates in the last 60s. I took a hard look at the special interest groups they represented and began to waiver. The deal was sealed by this guy Carter, who obviously makes a better ex-President than he ever did a President.

Just when did you decide to make spirited discussion personal, GUEST? I admit I slip into it occassionally, but always regret it and usually apologize when I can finally suck down my pride.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:00 AM

LArry:

I am greatly interested in your perspective on the oil economy relating to Iraq. David Kaye, on the other hand, said plainly on national television, "It turns out we were all wrong" about WMD as casus belli. I can only assume you are referring to some older data, or you have access to something I haven't seen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:44 AM

Brucie:

I am the energy efficiency expert for a multi billion dollar utility.   I am very aware on the need for oil.   I teach thousands of people (and low income assistance groups) each year how to conserve energy.   Of course you realize that we only get 12% of our oil from the middle east.    Most people don't know that.    We get much more oil from Mexico, Venizuela, and Canada.   (we also get the vast majority of our imported natural gas from Canada)

I am not sure this was a war for oil.   I tend to agree with the Thomas Freedman column in the NY Times about a year ago on the real reason for the war- vs the stated reason vs the moral reason vs the reason we told everyone.   Brilliant article called "the history of everything"   Read it if you can find it.

I would contend that France and Russia were guilty of No War for Oil.   To protect their oil interests, they refused to remove Saddamm.

Amos- The David Kaye report stated that Iraq scientists were making deals to distribute WMD's to terrorists around the world and that Iraq was more dangerous than they previously thought.   Doesn't that scare you?   It certainly scared me.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:14 PM

Except perhaps for the goodwill of the USA...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:44 PM

Yup. People will love the money as long as it still has buying power, but I have never seen ANYTHING else lose its value at the rate paper money has in my lifetime.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:26 PM

Yeah, LH. They love the US' money. Lots of it. But, I do get your point. To quote the real Bard, "money doesn't speak, it swears."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:21 PM

Did you say "people who may not like the USA..."?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 02:50 PM

GUEST Larry K: Losing the Iraq War is more than leaving a mess in the mid-East. It really means leaving huge supplies of oil in the hands of people who may not like the US. The Iraq War was started to get Hussein out, to look for WMDs. But, along with that was the intent to get a good firm grip on a whole shitload of oil. Do people really think otherwise?

Oil companies and OPEC-type countries set oil prices. What's magic about $40 a barrel or $30 a barrel or $1000 a barrel? Face facts: the US is an industrial country very dependent on oil and oil products. It doesn't have lots. Ergo, it has to secure some. This is not news. But, it's easy to lose sight of that. The un-stated third reason to invade. It isn't crease my palm; it's grease my palm.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 02:36 PM

First, the whole freakin' world is awash with blackmarket American made and Russian made weapons, amongst others. The country of origin and age of a weapon tells you nothing about the person carrying it.

Also Strick, it doesn't matter whether the president who ordered the Japanese interned in WWII was liberal, conservative, or pink with green polka dots, unless of course you are a right wing ideologue with your mind closed, shut, and locked.

That way, of course, the fact of Japanese internment by the US government doesn't trouble you because it wasn't your side's fault, right?

So just when did you stop being a concerned, thinking human being, and an American, and decide to be a Republican instead, Strick?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:09 PM

Stalin's not a problem anymore, Strick. He WAS a big problem, but he's gone. Kind of like Saddam. The corporate plutocracy is the main existing problem...and the terrorists that it armed and trained back in the 80's. Insurgents will use any and all weapons that are available to them, and they do...some weapons come from Russian, some from China, some from France, some from the USA, some from Britain...they come from wherever good, profit-seeking gunrunners and arms dealers reside.

I would definitely be willing to use an AK-47 if it was handy, and I felt compelled to fight a battle in defence of my national sovereignty.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:05 PM

I hope so, Strick, but many things are presented as being impossible right up until they we are told they have become inevitable.

I don't think anyone else in this thread has actually mentioned Arabs as such. Aftercall, most Muslims aren't Arabs, many Arabs aren't Muslim. I sincerely hope - rather against expectations - that they aren't going in for racial stereotyping at airline security. Aside from everything else, it'd mean they were taking their eyes of most of the potential terrorists, who come in all religions and all skin colours. People in airline security need to remember Timothy McVeigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

"What comes next - internment camps in the USA on the World War II Japanese model?"

Remember that those internment camps were ordered by our most liberal president. Not in this day and age, not short of a much more serious provocation. It's not lost on some of us that some of the attacks were carried out or planned by non-Arabs, anyway. That's the reason we aren't really practicing racial stereotyping at airline security.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:41 AM

But if the Bin Laden project of setting up a war between the whole Muslim world and the USA and its fans were actually achieved, there are a good few nuclear weapons available on "the other side".

And the way that Bush and co have carried this thing forward could ahve been designed to achive that result. (Never forget that crass episode where Bush specifically referred to the "War against Terroir" as "a Crusade".

Short of the nuclear war idea, it is certain that there is a significent and growing number of young Muslims in many countries, including the USA, who are at risk of being fatally alienated from the countries they have grown up in, by what they are seeing on TV and so forth.

What comes next - internment camps in the USA on the World War II Japanese model?

Potentially this is all much more dangerous than Vietnam ever was.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:38 AM

"You armed and trained the very people you are attacking."

Er, Willie, the insugents are fighting with Soviet made weapons. See here:

Weapons Of The Insurgents

Note that the weapons only became "black market" after the fall of Saddam. And despite the various connections between Saddam and the CIA, most of his training came from the KGB. How do you think he became a devout admirer of Stalin?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Mojo Willie
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

Hi guys,

OK, let me wade in with my two cents worth. I live in the Niagara Peninsula where, during the War of 1812, we were invaded by our American cousins. Yes, literally our cousins, because many who settled in Niagara were Amercians who had remained loyal to the Crown and were then known as "United Empire Loyalists". When American General Winfield Scott made his way across what is now Southern Ontario heading east from Detroit toward Niagara, he proclaimed, "We are here to liberate you!" The problem was, of course, that we had no desire to be liberated. As a result our cousins burnt Niagara on the Lake, Queenston, St. Davids, and St. Catharines to the ground in December of 1813. In reprisal we burnt Baltimore and Washington and left Dolly Madison without a house to call a home. That's the reason the Whitehouse is white, it was charred so badly that it had to be whitewashed. People are funny when it comes to their sovereignty. You armed and trained the very people you are attacking. When someone keeps and trains a vicious, biting dog they aught not to be surprised when it turns and bites them.

So here's my word of advice. Start a few local blues societies in Iraq and then get the hell out! They don't want you there but they may dig the music!

Cheers,
Mojo Willie

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

No Amos, Iraq didn't have that capability. Pakistan did, and was selling nuke technology to our enemies.

But for some reason, we don't need to invade them, despite the fact they are harboring AlQ, bin Laden, the Taliban, and scores of other Muslim extremists that have sworn themselves to suicide missions and attacks against the West in general, and the US in particular.

Nothing to worry about there--I'm sure going after Saddam was the right thing to do, considering how obviously easy and well planned the execution of the invasion and occupation have been.

Not to worry people, just keep voting Republicrat and everything will be JUST FINE.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:26 AM

Larry:

You imply that Iraq could somehow find the means to drop a nuclear weapon on the US and the will and coherent voice to make a declaration of war, and the idiocy to do so.

All these assumptions are wide open to let fresh air blow through. They don't hold water, in other words.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:12 AM

Tallying up how many died when Clinton lied or when Bush lied would be an infernally complicated business. Just be assured that many did, in either case. Clinton and Bush are the latest two political figureheads of an aggressive world empire that kills ordinary people in its search for global market domination.

The Iraq situation is enormously more dangerous than Vietnam was.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 09:43 AM

I wish that Iraq was more like Viet Nam.    Let me repeat- I truly wish that Iraq was more like Viet Nam.    The stakes in Viet Nam were far less.    Whether we won the war or lost the war, there was zero chance of North Viet Nam declaring war on the United States, invading the USA, or dropping a nuclear weapon on the USA.    Unfortunately, that is not true in Iraq.   We cannot afford to lose this war.

Losing this war means the terrorists get stronger and bolder.   It means they have defeated the USA and will generate more terrorists. It means the next time we are attacked, millions could get killed.

Do the American people know that.   I think so.   In a poll taken before the war in Iraq, they asked the American public how many deaths would they accept to win the war and still be worth it.   The result from the American people was 29,000.    I truly regret even a single death, but we are no where near the 29,000 the american people said they would accept to win this war.

As far as "no when died when Clinton lied"- Didn't Clinton lie to us when he told us he tried to get Ossama Bin Laden and missed him by minutes.   So therefore, didn't 3,000 die when Clinton lied?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:29 AM

I would also add, this is government by nice, white, moderate, centrists. Just what the plutocrats told us we had to have to be reasonable people.

And look where that has gotten us. The mess of King George is the fault of no one more than the American people themselves. That is why Democrats are so angry. Not because King George is bad for the country and the world, but because they don't get to be the king, and have all the perks of being one of the king's men.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:26 AM

We only have the appearance of a democracy nowadays. We are now ruled by a plutocracy, because people didn't give a shit enough to hold their politicians accountable, or even to bother to vote.

So we got what we voted for--a plutocracy that doesn't give a shit about us, that refuses to be held accountable, that doesn't honor the vote and has the Supreme Court appoint their preferred candidate instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 02:11 PM

Guest (who started this thread), I am in agreement with pretty much everything you have said about the Iraq war. And you have said it in an articulate, well-organized way too.

The Democratic and Republican parties are the two flea-bitten wings of the same rapacious corporate buzzard that flaps around the World and launches cynical wars in its search for control of strategic resources and markets.

Bush and Kerry are the latest Tweedledum and Tweedledee that the Sy$stem has trotted out for its hapless citizens to choose between.

If the Democrats win the election they will inherit the incredible mess in Iraq and the Middle East, and will probably go on to do further destructive things.

The last thing any of these American foreign iniatives are about is establishing democracy ANYWHERE!!! Including within the borders of the USA...

A democracy, by definition, is an outfit which makes decisions freely, according to the democratic will of its people...and such an administration will NEVER be supported by the USA in any of its conquests or surrogates abroad. On the contrary, they want an administration in Iraq that rolls over and plays dead when they want it to, and meekly follows all instructions from Washington while the country is robbed of its oil and its sovereignty. That's basically what they wanted in South Vietnam too...aside from the oil.

They didn't get it. They're not going to get it in Iraq.

Yes, this is quite different from Vietnam, and to link the two is simplistic, although there are definitely some parallels in a broad sense. Vietnam was driven more by cold-war ideology (and a search for strategic positioning in Southeast Asia.).

The reason the Democrats don't have the guts to call a spade a spade is that they basically represent the same corrupt corporate agenda that the Republicans do, and they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:21 PM

More comments from national news outlets around the world on the first anniversary:

With the insurgencies becoming more frequent and violent, the 'coalition of the willing' is proving to be a 'coalition of the wavering'... A year after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the coalition no longer controls much in Iraq, which is starting to look like Afghanistan at the time of the Soviet occupation.

Liberation - France

The situation in Iraq is getting increasingly explosive. Shia and Sunni rebels are uniting their forces... a clear challenge to the occupying forces, pushing the conflict towards a new, unpredictable situation. The war in Iraq is copying, in other ways, the worst characteristics of other conflicts. As in Chechnya, the first kidnappings of foreigners have emerged.

ABC - Spain

Schroeder did his country a service by not sending Germany to the front line in Iraq in the alleged war against terror.. So that there is no misunderstanding: it is important for Germany to be friends with the Americans. But for this very reason, it could also be important not to be friends with George W Bush.

Commentary in Bild am Sonntag - Germany

Even if Iraq is not the US military's 'second Vietnam', it is still a frightening quagmire... anti-US sentiment in Iraq has reached a critical point, which is likely to give rise to a nationwide anti-occupation situation... America's self-invented 'liberator' image has collapsed just as the statue of Saddam did a year ago.

People's Daily - China

George Bush has forced the leaders of the Arab world to fear not the fate of Saddam Hussein, but a large-scale Shia uprising and a civil war capable of spilling beyond the borders of Iraq... [The situation provides] a chance for Moscow's voice to be heeded by Washington... the opinion of Russia and its partners in the anti-war camp should be taken into account.

Commentators in Nezavisimaya Gazeta - Russia

The United States has no options now that it has been proved that its political plan to propagate democracy has failed. The US plan has therefore reached its end, because US culture is a culture of war which the world does not need. Peace is humanity's only option.

Ukaz - Saudi Arabia

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:13 PM

Interesting, I was just reading one of the Beeg's world news pages, and they are quoting a commentator from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz saying:

"The resemblance between our invasion of Lebanon and America's invasion of Iraq is amazing. We wanted to create a new order in Lebanon; they wanted to create a new order in Iraq. Within a short time, in both cases, the Shia had woken up and the invading armies became targets of attack. We pulled out without achieving a thing and Bush is still there, mired in a sea of blood from which no good will come. If I were him, I'd send Saddam Hussein back to Iraq - he would know how to sort this mess out in no time."

While that sounds pretty inflammatory to me, we as Brits and Americans have to be able to put Iraq in it's proper contexts. Lebanon had it's Shia and Shiites too...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:57 AM

Because I despise Clinton means I love Bush? I don't THINK so kendall, but thanks for putting the New Democrat spin on the thread.

Now, to get back to the topic, the comparison I believe most useful is Lebanon. Although there isn't any evidence at this point that a neighboring country will intervene the way Syria and Israel did in Lebanon, I do believe the US is looking at a similar sort of civil war on many fronts. I believe we have the makings of the new Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad types of organizations already forming in Iraq to fight our occupation, the same way those organizations formed in Lebanon. While we have no PLO forming a state within a state circumstance in Iraq now, the Kurds could certainly decide now is the time to declare themselves an independent country, which theoretically could lead to Turkey becoming involved to "stabilize" the north the same way Syria did with Lebanon.

That is why I find the comparison with Lebanon, rather than Vietnam, more useful. As I said earlier, I know that the Democrats believe invoking Vietnam is a great tactic to use to defeat Bush. But that seems pretty damn short sighted to me. What happens if Kerry is elected and Iraq then becomes John Kerry's Vietnam? So I think it is dangerous and not too bright of Kennedy to be invoking it. The Democrats can't very effectively call out Bush on the lies, because they went along with the lies, and most of them, but Kerry in particular, voted to put us there for absolutely no justifiable reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:49 AM

Nailing you Bush lovers down to the specific point is like a hog wrestle! No Americans died because Clinton lied! 500 Americans have died because Bush lied. Spin that!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:54 PM

Oh yeah, and the same goes for Madeline Albright.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:18 PM

Hundreds of thousands of people died on Clinton's watch that didn't have to die, and Rwanda is an excellent example, McGrath.

In fact, participating in the 10th anniversary stuff enraged me about Clinton and Kofi Annan once again. In fact, I said to a work colleague of mine after watching a US documentary about it called "Ghosts of Rwanda" that if I am ever in the presence of those men and in close enough proximity, I would slap them and spit in their faces. I even think it would be worth being taken down by their security for doing it. Well worth it if the story would ever make it into the mainstream media.

I don't have many revenge fantasies, but publicly humiliating Clinton and Annan is one.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:09 PM

A lot of people died in Ruanda while Clinton was helping make sure noone tried to stop it. (And, no, I'm not saying he should have sent in the Marines, who aren't good at that kind of stuff.)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:05 PM

Guest from NW, I agree pretty much with everything you are saying, except for the final paragraph. I'll be voting for Nader. You said:

"geographically, tactically, culturally, of course it is not like vietnam."

Which is the reason why I'm arguing against using it as an analogy to undermine and defeat Bush. It doesn't take much thought by the pro-Bush and pro-war Democrats to use the fact you stated so well above, and turn it against those of us on the anti-war side. I think it is a poor choice tactically, and I wish Kennedy hadn't made the speech invoking it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 07:43 PM

in a nutshell. iraq is like vietnam in the sense that it is an unwinnable war waged for deceitful purposes to further an agenda that rewards greed, empire-sized egotism, and dogmatic ideas and that we, the people, are not privy to. we can only guess about it which leads to lots of kooky conspiracy theory that then becomes the issue that diverts our attention from the real stuff. it is also being waged in the context of a culture that our government neither understands or respects. so, like vietnam, we have entered into a conflict that, as a people, we can only lose while certain elements make huge profits off the suffering of innocents. sickening.

geographically, tactically, culturally, of course it is not like vietnam.

regarding kerry, we have to elect him. if bush remains things are sure to get worse and we are sure to do even stupider things. with kerry, we don't know so at least there's a chance things could improve. he is, of course, an establishment candidate beholden to many of the same interests bush is, but it seems clear to me that this election has to be a "lesser of the two evils" thing because this time the greater evil is SO great that it could be the death of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM

GUEST: 4:31 pm

You said, "Of course I am attempting to provoke arguments. I am attempting to provoke critical, thoughtful responses to what I write. That is the purpose of engaging in these sorts of discussions. I learn a lot from them."

So, once again, this threads for you, about you and that's that I s'pose?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 07:22 PM

kendall, that is one hell of a spurious and specious argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: kendall
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 06:35 PM

No one died when Clinton lied. Period. Who died because Clinton lied about his "hummer"?
Who died when Bush lied about WMD's? 14,000 Iraqis and 500 Americans, for now, that is, with no end in sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 06:23 PM

...'the Republicans who argue that this isn't another Vietnam often use the "they aren't even on the same continent" sorts of hyperbolic comments in an attempt to score points and win the argument.'

How could that win any argument, since in fact Iraq and Vietnam are on the same continent, a big one called "Asia" ? I suppose it depends who it is you are arguing with.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 04:31 PM

artbrooks, I would argue that we are engaged in a spirited, serious discussions of current affairs. So your accusation that I am "attempting to provoke arguments", as if that were negative, seems a bit odd.

Of course I am attempting to provoke arguments. I am attempting to provoke critical, thoughtful responses to what I write. That is the purpose of engaging in these sorts of discussions. I learn a lot from them.

Are you perhaps not interested in going the distance in this discussion, and arguing pointedly about the issues, because you don't like having your opinions challenged critically?

I don't expect an answer, since you said you shall respond further. As you wish. I just find it silly that you would accuse someone of provoking an argument in the middle of, well, a good political argument. That's the point of having them, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 04:11 PM

GUEST 3:16 PM: Since the comments you made in response to my post are either irrelevant or inaccurate, it is clear that you are the GUEST who lurks around here attempting to provoke arguments. I shall not respond further.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 04:02 PM

Premeditated use of a monstrous blunt instrument to bring about the death of human beings is called murder one, or first-degree murder. It often incurs the death penalty.

Lying to protect one's own or another's reputation is called lying.

Big difference, eh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 04:01 PM

Apologies for another cut and paste disaster. I've got to be more diligent about editing my cut and pasting from my Microsoft Word documents with text copied from the Internet, before copy and pasting it back onto the Internet, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:59 PM

Yes they did. They died in Iraq. They died in Kosovo. They died on the USS Cole. They died in a whole lot of places while Clinton lied about his blowjobs.

It is truly frightening to see that for the majority of Democrats, their presidents can do no wrong.

That is really scary.

It is a scandal in contemporary international law, don't forget,
that while "wanton destruction of towns, cities and villages" is a
war crime of long standing, the bombing of cities from airplanes
goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. Air bombardment
is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up
and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have
all the antistate terrorists who ever lived. Something has
benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United
States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once
thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant, but we are happy to elect
a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not
only restaurants but the buildings that contained them and the
neighborhoods that surrounded them.      

There appears to be something about launching bombs or
missiles from afar onto cities and people that appeals to
American military and political leaders, as well as to American citizens. In part it has to do with a conscious desire to not risk American lives in ground combat. And in part, perhaps not entirely conscious, it has to do with not wishing to look upon the gory remains of the victims, allowing American GIs and TV viewers at home to cling to their warm fuzzy feelings about themselves and their government. The reaction of the US military to the killing and desecration of the 4 American mercenaries in Iraq is a perfect example of this double standard.
   

Washington officials are careful to distinguish between the
explosives the US drops from the sky and "weapons of mass
destruction" (WMD), which only the officially-designated enemies
(ODE) are depraved enough to use. The US government speaks
sternly of WMD, defining them as nuclear, chemical and biological
in nature, and "indiscriminate" (meaning their use can't be
limited to military objectives), as opposed to the likes of
American "precision" cruise missiles. This is indeed a shaky
semantic leg to stand on, given the well-known extremely
extensive damage to non-military targets, including numerous
residences, schools and hospitals, in the bombings of Iraq and
Yugoslavia from American "smart" bombs.
   
Moreover, Washington does not apply the term "weapons of
mass destruction" to other weapons the US has regularly used,
such as landmines and cluster (anti-personnel) bombs, which are
highly indiscriminate.

WMD are sometimes further defined as those whose effects
linger in the environment, causing subsequent harm to people.
This would certainly apply to landmines, cluster bombs, and
depleted uranium weapons, the latter remaining dangerously
radioactive after exploding. It would apply less to
"conventional" bombs, but even with those there are unexploded
bombs lying around, and the danger of damaged buildings later
collapsing. But more importantly, it seems highly self-serving
and specious, not to mention exceptionally difficult, to try to
paint a human face on a Tomahawk Cruise missile whose payload of
a thousand pounds of TNT crashes into the center of a densely-populated city, often with depleted uranium in its warhead.
   
The only difference between the US military and the terrorists (be they Al Qaida, or some other Muslim group) is a terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force.

To refresh your memory kendall, here is a list of the bombings we've carried out around the world since WWII, including during the term of yer man in the White House.

China 1945-46
Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-2000
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

Plus?
China, 1999 -- its heavily bombed embassy in Belgrade is legally
Chinese territory, and it appears rather certain now that the
bombing was no accident. That also happened on Clinton's watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:55 PM

Kendall, we need some t-shirts with that. My hope is to give the 'believers' a whammy wherever they turn. T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers- as our illustrious leader said, Bring 'em on.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: kendall
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:35 PM

No one died when Clinton lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:16 PM

It's like Vietnam some ways, unlike some ways.

But it's just as good.

This is another argument about definitions. What's going on there is the same no matter what you call it. As Mr Shakespeare said.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:16 PM

artbrooks, we followed the French into Vietnam. While we had a few Aussies and Kiwis with us in Vietnam, and a few forces from the current coalition of Anglo countries in Iraq, neither of them is comparable to the broad based coalition of the Gulf War, where we had allies in the region (despicable as the Saudis are).

I don't think you can call the invasion and occupation a military success, considering that there aren't any countries on the planet that could prevent our overthrow of their government by our staging a military invasion of their country, so that seems like a pretty insignificant point to me.

The point I'm making here isn't that we can't make a single reasonable comparison between our involvement in Vietnam and the current situation with Iraq and the Middle East. Of course we can.

The point I'm making is that doing so makes it easy to engage in splatterball presidential politics, but impossible to get a grip on what is actually going on, and how we can turn things around for the sake of the people in the region.

Remember, the US military doesn't count the numbers of civilians killed, injured, and displaced by our military operations. It truly is not our peoople who are suffering in this. It is the Iraqis. We owe it to them not to get sucked into the mindset the whole Iraq/Vietnam drags us down to, which is the highly partisan presidential quagmire.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

Obvious parallels between Vietnam and Iraq:

Both countries ruled by one-party systems that had taken control through non-Democratic means. This was true of both parts of Vietnam.

Outside involvement primarily by the US, with enough other players to give the illusion of a coalition.

Significant, if not majority, opposition by the American people.

Generally a military success but a political and socioeconomic failure.

Government unwilling to provide complete and uncensored facts regarding all facets of operations (and I'm not talking about ongoing military operations, which cannot be entirely open while there are going on.

Failure to have an adequate civil affairs infrastructure.

Failure to have an adequate exit strategy, or even to recognize the need for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:03 PM

"He or she even resisted mentioning continents among the Iraq-Vietnam differences, presumably because both are in the same continent."

Indeed, Peter. I've just reread my first post, and my writing didn't make that clear. I was alluding to the fact that the Republicans who argue that this isn't another Vietnam often use the "they aren't even on the same continent" sorts of hyperbolic comments in an attempt to score points and win the argument.

I believe Lebanon is instructive in regards to that US military swagger you mention, but more importantly, in terms of the factionalism in Lebanon being instructive in ways that the factionalism in Iraq is beginning to play itself out as the region descends into what may end up being civil war. It isn't civil war yet, and I only hope that a Lebanonization of Iraq can be prevented.

I also agree that the Russia/Chechnya war is also relevant to our understanding of what is happening on the ground as a result of the Anglo American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We need some serious thinkers to find a way out of this. And considering that we have Kofi Annan at the helm of the UN (who oversaw the "peacekeeping mission" of the Rwandan genocide), I'm not too terribly confident about Kerry's intention to take this mess to the doorstop of the UN, if elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:50 PM

Quite a few wise words from the first guest. He or she even resisted mentioning continents among the Iraq-Vietnam differences, presumably because both are in the same continent.

Kendall, it's unreasonable to ask your fellow opponents of the war where the whole mess is heading. Most of us (you included, no doubt) opposed it precisely because it always looked like a hole with no bottom. Yet however predictable that was (which was very), I for one could not have foreseen the extent to which the US military would keep on digging, once in that hole.

The abuse of four Americans was an outrage, but so has been the mindless carnage wreaked in revenge. More to the point, it has been utterly counterproductive. It has succeeded in giving militant Sunnis and Shiites common cause against the occupying power, and has even brought condemnation from US placepeople on the Iraq governing council.

There are indeed few parallels here with Vietnam, beyond that brainless swagger so often associated with the US military. What happened in the Lebanon may indeed be instructive, but if I was a US commander I'd probably be looking closest at the catastrophic efforts of Russia to keep the lid on Chechnya.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:15 PM

There have been a shitload of unholy wars down through the years. That doesn't make them all comparable and equivalent, and to believe that it does is going to result in foggy thinking that will work against what we are trying to accomplish.

I find it rather telling that the anti-Bush camp has no real solutions to these problems. I also find it more than a bit ironic that the largely Democratic anti-Bush camp believes anything substantial will change if Kerry is elected instead of Bush in regards to Iraq. Some things will change marginally under Kerry, to be sure, but I don't think it will be the US geopolitical agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Read this DOE brief, and you will understand this isn't about Kerry or Bush in the upcoming election. It is about making real change in the ways we are allowing our democracies to be taken over by corporate interests, by making real changes in the ways we live our personal lives when it comes to our political rulership and our consumption patterns.

US Dept of Energy Caspian Sea Region brief