Iraq vs. Vietnam
Our reasons for becoming involved in Vietnam were questionable at best. The Vietnamese, having defeated their French colonial masters in the north were only seeking reunification and French withdrawal from the south. Ho Chi Minh, familiar with American history and with a very familiar sounding Declaration of Independence in hand, actually came to Washington D.C. asking for our assistance.
He was dismayed at being ignored. While he was a communist, he was a non-aligned communist, and it was only our support of the South’s corrupt and dysfunctional government that forced him to seek aid from the Soviets and to a lesser extent, the Chinese (who were traditional and subsequent enemies). We knew this. We also knew that if we were to allow free elections in Vietnam, Ho would emerge the winner by a large margin. So how is it that we were fighting for their freedom? History proves our other contention, the “Domino Theory”, merit-less.
Another historical parallel concerns me more. By the time Lyndon Johnson declined to seek a second term, the military had declared the war unwinnable (without a massive invasion of the North and a serious risk of a third world war). For nearly seven years, Nixon sought to redefine victory (“peace with honor”) and it was during this period that the vast majority of lives were lost on both sides, and the war spilled over into Laos and Cambodia. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions died while we stumbled to extract ourselves from the quagmire, the ultimate conclusion of the conflict unchanged by the continued expenditure blood, national treasure and international credibility. I fear we are on the same path for essentially the same reasons.
This letter has not been edited.
nice job of putting it on Nixon. sure wouldnt want any liberal dem to be blamed for the mess they started.
hey johnson was a big texas oil man so why not say it was all about the oil?
Nam had hanoi jane and her boyfriend john kerry and Iraq has the whole liberal left democrat party waving the white flag.
hey aren't we still in europe from fdr putting us there in the 40's?
Actaully the battle in Viet Nam on the gound was being won when the Democrats defunded the effort.
The Tet offensive, for instance, was a major defeat for the Viet Cong but the American press portrayed it as an American setback and turned a military loss into a propaganda victory.
The defunding of the war by the Democrats in congress forced a preciptous withdrawal of US forces which triggered massive slaughter in South Viet Nam.
That's the real parallel. The real difference is that the Viet Cong did not intend to pursue their aims by following us home and killing Americans here in the US.
Posted by James Jones on May 6, 2007 06:32 AMThe one thing that make Iraq like Vietnam is the left tried as hard as they could to undermine victory. Democrats (even tho they started the war in vietnam) and the media were completely invested in our defeat in vietnam. Like they are in iraq,
The real similarity in the two war will be the hugh slaughter of human lives if we leave again.
A good war to the democrats was Rwanda.
Onward Patriots! Please tell me more about what Viet Nam was really about. Now that America has lost another war I need to figure out who to blame, and I don't want it to be red-blooded, rock-ribbeed conservatives like you and me. Otherwise we conservatives won't be able to start the next unwinnable debacle.
P.S. As always, support the troops, lower my taxes, etc. etc.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 09:12 AM"A good war to the democrats was Rwanda."
I don't know about that, a lot of Dems still feel the shame of denying the genocide, but that's what happens when saving mountain gorillas is a higher priority than saving Africans.
Posted by No use on May 6, 2007 09:13 AMMr Trainor actually writes a letter based on historical facts. For which he is to be highly commended. Especially for permitting it to show up in this forum!
Posted by Old Grouch on May 6, 2007 09:23 AMOld Grouch supporting the concept of backing up your argument with evidence? I can't believe my eyes.
Posted by No use on May 6, 2007 10:08 AMEver since religious Congress put In God We Trust on money America has been losing at war. Perhaps if Congress changed over to Greed is God, we could win a war.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com on May 6, 2007 02:23 PMSeems liked every discussion swiftly boils down to a Dem vs Rep argument and each side seemingly happy if they can score "points" against the "other side".
Great for politicking, not so great for actually solving anything.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 03:23 PM10:08 AM
If you have an argument that is something more than senseless name calling, label slinging, and such like - as the writer does, and presents - it is always based on evidence and facts. Some of us lived through those years; and we do remember what we saw, heard, and read, as well as what we experienced here at home.
Those who weren't there can do their homework, same as anybody else. The libraries are open, and they have excellent resource rooms.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 6, 2007 04:59 PMIt's so obvious the conservatives again won this one because again they were the only ones presenting facts.Next subject.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 07:54 PMJust because conservatives say something doesn't make it a fact. Bush and his senior staff manufactured and manipulated information provided to Congress and the American people in order to gain support for the "War on Terror." (Which was supposed to be fought in Afghanistan, since that's where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida are from.)
How in the world did we get into the middle of a civil war in Iraq with no way to win or extract ourselves?
I'll tell you how: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney -- that's how.
The Democrats provided a reasonable amount of funding for the war with NON-BINDING TIMETABLE RECOMMENDATIONS. There was no requirement to bring the troops home. The only thing that prevented it from passing was Bush's arrogance.
He expects the Democratic congress to support his every whim, just like the Republican congress did.
It's time for someone to wake up the president and remind him who he works for.
Posted by Intellius on May 6, 2007 09:53 PMResponse to James Jones.
Who said the "terrorists" were going to follow us home? Cheney? Perle?Bush? Do you believe THEM? or are you just fear mongering? The only historical parallel is the Soviets following the Nazi Germans home. That was because the Nazis had invaded their country and committed atrocities. Is that the "real parallel" you want to invoke? Or are you just trying to exploit our fears, like the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate?
May 6 9:53,"Just because conservatives say something doesn't make it a fact."
Yet in the next sentence you state:
"Bush and his senior staff manufactured and manipulated information provided to Congress and the American people in order to gain support for the "War on Terror."
How many more times will the left repeat this lie trying to portray it as fact?
I've definitely learned something on blogs. The left seems to think as long as they claim the right are guilty of the actions of the left, the voters won't ever know the difference.
What a strange and ineffective tactic.
Posted by Typical liberal on May 7, 2007 10:54 AMTypical Liberal,
What are you talking about?
Who exactly manipulated information, and claimed to have "classified intelligence" that enabled him to make a more informed decisions than the public?
Review history -- it was George W. Bush. In his own words, he is "the decider." (Although he never seems to take any responsibility for his decisions.)
Sorry if the truth hurts, but it's still true.
Know what the Iraq war death toll is today?
It's 3377.
Know how many funerals Bush and Cheney have attended?
Zero.
I guess the president must be too busy to pay respect to anyone who died for our country -- what with all those trips to his ranch in Texas.
Get a clue!
Posted by [Former cop] on May 7, 2007 01:17 PMThe left seems to think as long as they claim the right are guilty of the actions of the left, the voters won't ever know the difference.
Nice try, but smart voters already know that's a textbook tactic of the right. I've said it before, the right will steal our talking points every time rather than take the initiative to come up with their own.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 01:19 PM"Nice try, but smart voters already know that's a textbook tactic of the right. "
Or both parties, but let's just ignore the fact that Dems and Repubs are basically one and the same.
Posted by No use on May 7, 2007 01:57 PMFormer Cop - You seem to have completely missed the intent of my post. I was questioning the hypocracy of the post I referenced. Just saying...
"Bush and his senior staff manufactured and manipulated information provided to Congress and the American people in order to gain support for the "War on Terror."
...doesn't make it fact anymore than when you repeated it. The Anon poster was highly guilty of the accusation he made against conservatives.
MTS,Nice try, but smart voters already know that's a textbook tactic of the right.
Yeah right. And the MSM is radically conservative as well, huh?
(/sarcasm)
Bush
I`m going to start a cut-rate travel agency in Iraq, round up all those men you see in the newspaper, rioting and protesting "the other religion" or "the U.S. invaders" and line up some cheap Chinese transportation to get then toward America. We can then bribe the Chinese sea Captians to just sail around and around for years.
Eventually the poor food and lack of medical care will kill them all of and we will be done with them.
Sounds absolutely stupid.? well how do you figure they will get here and go unrecognized ?
Any one who gets here to hurt us probably comes from some other country then Iraq, like Saudi Arabia maybe.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 8, 2007 01:17 PM