Vietnam comparison

[ErikViking]

Now what is he up to?

The president starts to compare the efforts in Iraq with Vietnam? Wasn't that a bit touchy only a short while ago?

Maybe I misunderstood the speech but it seems... strange.

Personally I think it is a really good thing US is doing in Iraq, but leaving can't be compared to Vietnam. Iraq is fallaing apart - Civil war was never a question in Vietnam.

So what is this? Anyone know what he ment?

EDIT: I should add some linking I guess, sorry!

April 13, 2004
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy. Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest.

August 22, 2007
Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating.

 

[ReillyT]

Now what is he up to?

The president starts to compare the efforts in Iraq with Vietnam? Wasn't that a bit touchy only a short while ago?

Maybe I misunderstood the speech but it seems... strange.

Personally I think it is a really good thing US is doing in Iraq, but leaving can't be compared to Vietnam. Iraq is fallaing apart - Civil war was never a question in Vietnam.

So what is this? Anyone know what he ment?

I didn't see the speech, but from what I have read, the Vietnam plug came in two parts. Paraphrasing obviously.

1. The terrorists of today draw strength from and have been emboldened from the US failure to finish the job in Vietnam.

2. The attrocities that occured in SE Asia, such as the Kmher Rouge, would not have occurrred if we hadn't left Vietnam.

I am sure that you can guess the parallels that he would like you to draw today. Just don't question the actually legitimacy of the assertions or draw the parallel that it was a mistake to engage in either war. He doesn't like that one.

I cannot imagine who persuaded him that drawing comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq is a good idea. It seems like an extremely problematic move politically - to me, at least.

EDIT: Never mind, you answered it yourself with a link. Nice quotes by the way.

 

[Diuretic]

He's made a mug of himself. That's a really desperate move on his part. I think it's aimed at "I'm out of here in January 2009, until then we're staying the course." He's got nothing so he's playing for time.

 

[Avatar4321]

you guys keep saying Iraq is Vietnam. But rather than learn the lessons from Vietnam, you want to repeat the mistakes. We pulled out and millions died. You want us to do the same now.

 

[ReillyT]

you guys keep saying Iraq is Vietnam. But rather than learn the lessons from Vietnam, you want to repeat the mistakes. We pulled out and millions died. You want us to do the same now.

My god, what is actually amazing is that you believe this shit. Are you capable of any critical thought and analysis?

Yes, many of us do compare Iraq to Vietnam. We view the mistake as engaging in the first instance. We don't view the mistake as withdrawing after the deaths of over 50k american soldiers and upwards of 4 million Vietnamese.

I guess I was wrong. There is a crowd out there that will buy this shit.

 

[Gunny]

Now what is he up to?

The president starts to compare the efforts in Iraq with Vietnam? Wasn't that a bit touchy only a short while ago?

Maybe I misunderstood the speech but it seems... strange.

Personally I think it is a really good thing US is doing in Iraq, but leaving can't be compared to Vietnam. Iraq is fallaing apart - Civil war was never a question in Vietnam.

So what is this? Anyone know what he ment?

EDIT: I should add some linking I guess, sorry!

Fact is, civil war is EXACTLY what the problem was in Vietnam. One side represented a single, unified Vietnam free of colonial rule while the represented perpetuating it's own version of the French colonial caste system.

 

[Diuretic]

Fact is, civil war is EXACTLY what the problem was in Vietnam. One side represented a single, unified Vietnam free of colonial rule while the represented perpetuating it's own version of the French colonial caste system.

I don't want to labour the point but until the invasion and occupation of Iraq there was no civil war. If Bush thinks he can duck the blame for that by dredging up Vietnam and making a mindless comparison with it the he's sorely mistaken.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, which is well made, just going tangentially off it.

 

[ErikViking]

Fact is, civil war is EXACTLY what the problem was in Vietnam. One side represented a single, unified Vietnam free of colonial rule while the represented perpetuating it's own version of the French colonial caste system.

Yes. I stand corrected. The war was between countrymen. The thing with Vietnam was that the ambitions were totally clear from all parts.
In Iraq no one knows for sure who want what.

In my eyes the President should leave the comparison out. (All wars have similarities ofcourse). But the US effort in Iraq is so much more now than fighting a war. I think it would mean much to people, muslims or not, if US followed through in a good manner - leaving a functional nation behind them.

I know people say it is impossible. It can't be done and so on. That hasn't exactly stopped America before.

 

[ErikViking]

I don't want to labour the point but until the invasion and occupation of Iraq there was no civil war. If Bush thinks he can duck the blame for that by dredging up Vietnam and making a mindless comparison with it the he's sorely mistaken.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, which is well made, just going tangentially off it.

I think the future will judge the world on those events. But right now the whole concept of who, why and how it got started leads nowhere.

Don't you think that IF America resolves the situation in a good way it would be one of the most effective moves yet in bringing peace to the region? Or is it too naive?

 

[Diuretic]

I think the future will judge the world on those events. But right now the whole concept of who, why and how it got started leads nowhere.

But it shouldn't be ignored. This is America's greatest foreign policy disaster ever. The Bush Administration should be rightly castigated for it. Bush and Cheney should be regarded by history as complete dolts.

Don't you think that IF America resolves the situation in a good way it would be one of the most effective moves yet in bringing peace to the region? Or is it too naive?

Not naive, if America can resolve this then they will rightly be able to claim a great achievement, despite their having caused it. I don't think it will happen though. But that doesn't mean I don't want it to happen. Like it or not the US will have to factor in Iran (although personally I despise the regime there). As long as they follow the Cheney "bomb Iran" doctrine they haven't got a snowball's chance in Hell of sorting this mess out.

 

[ErikViking]

But it shouldn't be ignored. This is America's greatest foreign policy disaster ever. The Bush Administration should be rightly castigated for it. Bush and Cheney should be regarded by history as complete dolts.



Not naive, if America can resolve this then they will rightly be able to claim a great achievement, despite their having caused it. I don't think it will happen though. But that doesn't mean I don't want it to happen. Like it or not the US will have to factor in Iran (although personally I despise the regime there). As long as they follow the Cheney "bomb Iran" doctrine they haven't got a snowball's chance in Hell of sorting this mess out.

I see what you mean. Though I still think that solving the problem should be in everyones primary interest. Having any administration occupied with anything else in this issue is just a waste of valuable time.

But regarding this topic:
Has there been a change in defining the enemy lately? I mean the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq was clearly bad because it sent the wrong message to the enemy. Now it is important that the enemy knows.

Look:
"I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy"

and

"We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating."

What has changed? Is there now a more coherent and organized force opposing the Iraq effort? Much like it was with Vietnam?

 

[Ruby]

I dont see how the US can resolve it in a good way while also being as biased as we are where Israel (Israel/Palestine conflict) is concerned...this is somthing that destroys our credibility in the region as people who can be trusted to resolve anything in the region in a good way.

BTW, one of the comparisons I think of between Vietnam and Iraq is that both wars were started based on a lie. The Tonkin incident was a lie and so were the WMD rationale we used to invade Iraq.

 

[ErikViking]

I dont see how the US can resolve it in a good way while also being as biased as we are where Israel (Israel/Palestine conflict) is concerned...this is somthing that destroys our credibility in the region as people who can be trusted to resolve anything in the region in a good way.

Don't you think a godd solution in Iraq might spin further to Israel/Palestine? Through all those years of fighting no side has in a uniform way shut the door completley. Most of them know that they must coexist.

BTW, one of the comparisons I think of between Vietnam and Iraq is that both wars were started based on a lie. The Tonkin incident was a lie and so were the WMD rationale we used to invade Iraq.

From now on I won't bother talking about how and why the war. Not until it is over.

 

[dilloduck]

This is America's greatest foreign policy disaster ever.

What other policy would you have preferred to use in dealing with Muslim terrorists? Having a chit-chat ?

 

[dilloduck]

I dont see how the US can resolve it in a good way while also being as biased as we are where Israel (Israel/Palestine conflict) is concerned...this is somthing that destroys our credibility in the region as people who can be trusted to resolve anything in the region in a good way.

BTW, one of the comparisons I think of between Vietnam and Iraq is that both wars were started based on a lie. The Tonkin incident was a lie and so were the WMD rationale we used to invade Iraq.

How about--" We should invade the Middle East because there are a bunch of bad Muslims there " . You like that better ?

 

[Diuretic]

What other policy would you have preferred to use in dealing with Muslim terrorists? Having a chit-chat ?

I take it you're referring to AQ, run by a Saudi of Yemeni extraction who was hanging out in Pakistan and Afghanistan and who was despised by the Iraqi regime?

Or do you still believe that Saddam had something to do with the Salafist/Wahabbist terrorists?

 

[dilloduck]

I take it you're referring to AQ, run by a Saudi of Yemeni extraction who was hanging out in Pakistan and Afghanistan and who was despised by the Iraqi regime?

Or do you still believe that Saddam had something to do with the Salafist/Wahabbist terrorists?

My God---can you ever get over thinking so damn SMALL ? Did you really think this was all gonig to be over after Afghanistan ? Was Al queada planning on just sitting in Afghanistan until they were all killed? They are everywhere and they aren't stupid. We could have made a much easier case for attacking Iran. Would you have preferred that ?

 

[Ruby]

Don't you think a godd solution in Iraq might spin further to Israel/Palestine? Through all those years of fighting no side has in a uniform way shut the door completley. Most of them know that they must coexist.


From now on I won't bother talking about how and why the war. Not until it is over.

I dont think resolution in Iraq will bleed over into Israel/Palestine situation. I also dont think that everyone is convinced they will have to co-exist either. Already the settlements are making the two-state solution impossible. There isnt really enough left to create a palestinian state. The water issues havent made any headway at all, Israel controls all the water and the chances of them giving that up are looking to be at about ZERO.

There is the wall, the world bank plans on the palestinians becoming an "export" based economy as part of MEFTA etc make it clear that the powerful planners arent serious about a 2 state solution at all.

I think our credibilty is nil in the region and to get a successful resolution we would need cooperation from the region and to work in good faith. I dont think we are working in good faith and I dont think we have enough crediblity to get cooperation in the region. Of course then add in the mix all the corrupt govts in that region who all have their own agendas as well!

I understand you may not want to talk about HOW and WHY we got here, but we cant resolve any problem if we dont deal with root causes. In fact, we would have to abandon the REAL reasons we invaded to even THINK about going forward in a positive manner and gain a REAL resolution.....without doing so, we arent acting in good faith and the resistance will only grow bigger.

 

[Ruby]

My God---can you ever get over thinking so damn SMALL ? Did you really think this was all gonig to be over after Afghanistan ? Was Al queada planning on just sitting in Afghanistan until they were all killed? They are everywhere and they aren't stupid. We could have made a much easier case for attacking Iran. Would you have preferred that ?

New idea for you possibly, but how bout not invading ANYONE because that isnt going to SOLVE anything at all.

 

[dilloduck]

I dont think resolution in Iraq will bleed over into Israel/Palestine situation. I also dont think that everyone is convinced they will have to co-exist either. Already the settlements are making the two-state solution impossible. There isnt really enough left to create a palestinian state. The water issues havent made any headway at all, Israel controls all the water and the chances of them giving that up are looking to be at about ZERO.

There is the wall, the world bank plans on the palestinians becoming an "export" based economy as part of MEFTA etc make it clear that the powerful planners arent serious about a 2 state solution at all.

I think our credibilty is nil in the region and to get a successful resolution we would need cooperation from the region and to work in good faith. I dont think we are working in good faith and I dont think we have enough crediblity to get cooperation in the region. Of course then add in the mix all the corrupt govts in that region who all have their own agendas as well!

I understand you may not want to talk about HOW and WHY we got here, but we cant resolve any problem if we dont deal with root causes. In fact, we would have to abandon the REAL reasons we invaded to even THINK about going forward in a positive manner and gain a REAL resolution.....without doing so, we arent acting in good faith and the resistance will only grow bigger.

The muslims will only accept one solution and they IS no negotiating. What is it about that that you refuse to understand? They themselves cannot have made it any clearer.