The Rhetoric Remains the Same Vietnam and Iraq

[fishman3811]

The new national pastime of comparing the Iraq war today with America's Vietnam disaster a generation ago continues. Secrecy, half-truths and outright lies were the guiding principles followed by two presidential administrations during the Vietnam War and, of course, appear to be the hallmarks of President George Bush's administration. A closer look at the parallels is interesting to the point of being frightening.

Today the 'surge' is proclaimed by Mr. Bush to be the tool to accomplish what 'escalation' was supposed to have done then. This 'augmentation' is to be accompanied by the Iraqi army taking more responsibility for fighting its own people, as 'Vietnamization' was the stated process of the Vietnamese army doing the same then.

On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, at least partly in response to the countless thousands of people who marked the day with peace rallies, Mr. Bush spoke to the American people. Among other things, he said the following: "It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run. But I believe the consequences for America's security would be devastating."

Thirty-eight years ago America had lost any enthusiasm it might once have had for the Vietnam War. Cities across the nation saw huge war protests as that war tore the United States apart. President Richard Nixon, in a speech delivered on November 3, 1969 said the following regarding the wish of so many for an immediate withdrawal:

"the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people." He further said, in the same speech, " that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace."

There has been much discussion about certain milestones that Iraq must meet before the U.S. can begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. What these are have not been clearly defined by the Bush Administration, nor have the consequences for the U.S. or Iraq been identified if Iraq does not meet them. This, however, does not keep Mr. Bush from discussing them. On December 1, 2006, he said that he wanted to begin troop withdrawals "as soon as possible." One of the factors necessary to do say, he said, is "the importance of speeding up the training of Iraqi security forces."

In 1969, the chorus of 'Peace Now!' could not be avoided. In his November 3 speech, Mr. Nixon commented on withdrawal: "The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces."

It is not easy to forget Vice President Dick Cheney's statement in June of 2005 that the 'insurgency' in Iraq was then in its "last throes." For the first five months of 2005, approximately 66 U.S. soldiers were dying in Iraq each month and about 395 Iraqis

were dying monthly. For the five months following Mr. Cheney's happy prediction, approximately 72 U.S. soldiers died each month while the average monthly death rate for Iraqis was 989. Perhaps some Americans, still striving to believe an administration that built an entire war on a foundation of lies, found some comfort in Mr. Cheney's words which, like much of what the Bush administration has claimed over the years, had no basis in fact. Nearly two years later Mr. Bush determined that the war needs a significant 'augmentation' of troops to quell this still-thriving 'insurgency.'

Just prior to the presidential election of 1972, when the fabric of U.S. society was ripped to shreds due to the Vietnam War, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger proclaimed to the world that "peace is at hand." This statement may have contributed to Mr. Nixon's landslide victory of the Democratic candidate, Senator George McGovern, but was, unfortunately, completely untrue. Peace did not come until the last American troops finally left that country in 1975.

In January of 2007, Mr. Bush announced that he had reviewed the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Panel and had chosen to ignore them. His solution to the increasing violence in Iraq was to add 21,000 more troops to that nation, already devastated by U.S. occupation. Within weeks it was revealed that the actual number was closer to 30,000.

In 1965, Operation Rolling Thunder began in Vietnam. This major bombing of North Vietnam was purported to be in retaliation for acts committed by the Viet Cong. When President Lyndon Johnson announced this operation, he withheld the information that he was planning a major escalation of the war. Americans and the rest of the world soon learned the truth.

In 1969, Mr. Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, ostensibly to protect American troops. Today Mr. Bush states that he 'knows' Iran is supplying the Iraq insurgency, and he plans to do 'something' about it. Once again, a sovereign nation suffers from guilt by proximity, and is at risk of an American president's brutal and violent wrath.

In discussing the dire consequences of defeat in Vietnam, Mr. Nixon said this in 1969: "For the United States, this first defeat in our nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world."

Fast forward again to 2006, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates comments at his swearing in: "Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come." And on February 11, 2007, at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy attended by over 300 participants, Mr. Gates broadened his reach: "But the reality is, as of today, failure in Iraq will impact every country represented in this room."

There are some who claim that Iraq does not mirror Vietnam, and in some respects that is true. Vietnam was in civil war when the U.S. first intervened; Iraq was a sovereign nation at peace until the U.S. invaded and caused civil war. But as has been shown, the arguments for continuing an unnecessary and losing war have not changed over nearly 40 years.

What can the world expect because of this? More soldiers' and civilians' lives wasted, more hatred toward the United States, an increase in world terrorism, increased global destabilization. Here again Iraq does not mirror Vietnam. In America's earlier failed attempt at colonial conquest the war did not have the potential for nearly the degree of disaster as does continuation of the Iraq war.

The only people who can prevent the continuation of this calamity are members of the U.S. Congress. From all evidence thus far shown by their actions, they appear disinclined to put forward the statesmanship necessary to accomplish peace. This is tragic for Iraq, American and the world.

[medicinal]

The new national pastime of comparing the Iraq war today with America's Vietnam disaster a generation ago continues. Secrecy, half-truths and outright lies were the guiding principles followed by two presidential administrations during the Vietnam War and, of course, appear to be the hallmarks of President George Bush's administration. A closer look at the parallels is interesting to the point of being frightening.

Today the 'surge' is proclaimed by Mr. Bush to be the tool to accomplish what 'escalation' was supposed to have done then. This 'augmentation' is to be accompanied by the Iraqi army taking more responsibility for fighting its own people, as 'Vietnamization' was the stated process of the Vietnamese army doing the same then.

On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, at least partly in response to the countless thousands of people who marked the day with peace rallies, Mr. Bush spoke to the American people. Among other things, he said the following: "It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run. But I believe the consequences for America's security would be devastating."

Thirty-eight years ago America had lost any enthusiasm it might once have had for the Vietnam War. Cities across the nation saw huge war protests as that war tore the United States apart. President Richard Nixon, in a speech delivered on November 3, 1969 said the following regarding the wish of so many for an immediate withdrawal:

"the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people." He further said, in the same speech, " that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace."

There has been much discussion about certain milestones that Iraq must meet before the U.S. can begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. What these are have not been clearly defined by the Bush Administration, nor have the consequences for the U.S. or Iraq been identified if Iraq does not meet them. This, however, does not keep Mr. Bush from discussing them. On December 1, 2006, he said that he wanted to begin troop withdrawals "as soon as possible." One of the factors necessary to do say, he said, is "the importance of speeding up the training of Iraqi security forces."

In 1969, the chorus of 'Peace Now!' could not be avoided. In his November 3 speech, Mr. Nixon commented on withdrawal: "The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces."

It is not easy to forget Vice President Dick Cheney's statement in June of 2005 that the 'insurgency' in Iraq was then in its "last throes." For the first five months of 2005, approximately 66 U.S. soldiers were dying in Iraq each month and about 395 Iraqis

were dying monthly. For the five months following Mr. Cheney's happy prediction, approximately 72 U.S. soldiers died each month while the average monthly death rate for Iraqis was 989. Perhaps some Americans, still striving to believe an administration that built an entire war on a foundation of lies, found some comfort in Mr. Cheney's words which, like much of what the Bush administration has claimed over the years, had no basis in fact. Nearly two years later Mr. Bush determined that the war needs a significant 'augmentation' of troops to quell this still-thriving 'insurgency.'

Just prior to the presidential election of 1972, when the fabric of U.S. society was ripped to shreds due to the Vietnam War, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger proclaimed to the world that "peace is at hand." This statement may have contributed to Mr. Nixon's landslide victory of the Democratic candidate, Senator George McGovern, but was, unfortunately, completely untrue. Peace did not come until the last American troops finally left that country in 1975.

In January of 2007, Mr. Bush announced that he had reviewed the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Panel and had chosen to ignore them. His solution to the increasing violence in Iraq was to add 21,000 more troops to that nation, already devastated by U.S. occupation. Within weeks it was revealed that the actual number was closer to 30,000.

In 1965, Operation Rolling Thunder began in Vietnam. This major bombing of North Vietnam was purported to be in retaliation for acts committed by the Viet Cong. When President Lyndon Johnson announced this operation, he withheld the information that he was planning a major escalation of the war. Americans and the rest of the world soon learned the truth.

In 1969, Mr. Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, ostensibly to protect American troops. Today Mr. Bush states that he 'knows' Iran is supplying the Iraq insurgency, and he plans to do 'something' about it. Once again, a sovereign nation suffers from guilt by proximity, and is at risk of an American president's brutal and violent wrath.

In discussing the dire consequences of defeat in Vietnam, Mr. Nixon said this in 1969: "For the United States, this first defeat in our nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world."

Fast forward again to 2006, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates comments at his swearing in: "Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come." And on February 11, 2007, at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy attended by over 300 participants, Mr. Gates broadened his reach: "But the reality is, as of today, failure in Iraq will impact every country represented in this room."

There are some who claim that Iraq does not mirror Vietnam, and in some respects that is true. Vietnam was in civil war when the U.S. first intervened; Iraq was a sovereign nation at peace until the U.S. invaded and caused civil war. But as has been shown, the arguments for continuing an unnecessary and losing war have not changed over nearly 40 years.

What can the world expect because of this? More soldiers' and civilians' lives wasted, more hatred toward the United States, an increase in world terrorism, increased global destabilization. Here again Iraq does not mirror Vietnam. In America's earlier failed attempt at colonial conquest the war did not have the potential for nearly the degree of disaster as does continuation of the Iraq war.

The only people who can prevent the continuation of this calamity are members of the U.S. Congress. From all evidence thus far shown by their actions, they appear disinclined to put forward the statesmanship necessary to accomplish peace. This is tragic for Iraq, American and the world.

Yeah, aint it a shame, no fortitude in congress. Just stop the funding, the first troop to die without ammo will be directly on Bushs' head. If you run out of money, DUH, you must stop the war.

[fishman3811]

How true but you know the neocons will just blame the democrates as if they had nothing to do with this mess

[Psycho4Bud]

YouTube - Flip Flop of Democrats on Iraq War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ)

Now don't be huggin' that tree to hard.........some liberal may want to prosecute ya's for bark abuse.

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

YouTube - Flip Flop of Democrats on Iraq War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ)

Now don't be huggin' that tree to hard.........some liberal may want to prosecute ya's for bark abuse.

Have a good one!:s4:
The difference is: the Democrats, most of them, admit their mistake and recognize that Iraq was a paper Tiger. Having recognized that the reasons for the war were skewed, they now would bring our troops home and stop the killing. The Repubes keep harping on old news, Sadam was bad, Blah, Blah, Blah. That idiot Cheney keeps telling lies like he believes them: Sadam had WMDs, Sadam was connected to Al Queda, Blah, Blah, Blah. There have been mistakes made on all sides. It is now time to stop the madness.

[Psycho4Bud]

The difference is: the Democrats, most of them, admit their mistake and recognize that Iraq was a paper Tiger.

LOL....don't you mean that they saw a change in opinion polls?

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

LOL....don't you mean that they saw a change in opinion polls?

Have a good one!:s4:

Isn't that what a democracy is about? when public opinion shifts, arent the profilers of democracy supposed to listen and make changes. That is the problem with the Bushies. They don't listen. They listen to only one source, Money!

[Psycho4Bud]

Isn't that what a democracy is about? when public opinion shifts, arent the profilers of democracy supposed to listen and make changes.

Not in my book. Me and you don't see eye to eye on some issues but I have great respect for ya because you hold true to your beliefs.....how can you have any degree of respect for an individual who's beliefs change like the wind? Will they REALLY do what they preach or will the view point change up once again AFTER elections?

That's one big reason why I support Bush on this.......his popularity polls may drop but he holds true to what he's put on the table. A big ol' flip flop would be the easy way out for him and a boost for the party but.......what about a degree of respect? I know ya won't agree with my Bush comments but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from.

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

Not in my book. Me and you don't see eye to eye on some issues but I have great respect for ya because you hold true to your beliefs.....how can you have any degree of respect for an individual who's beliefs change like the wind? Will they REALLY do what they preach or will the view point change up once again AFTER elections?

That's one big reason why I support Bush on this.......his popularity polls may drop but he holds true to what he's put on the table. A big ol' flip flop would be the easy way out for him and a boost for the party but.......what about a degree of respect? I know ya won't agree with my Bush comments but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from.

Have a good one!:s4:

You have to weigh the meaning of flip-flop. Does it demean the person changing their mind if they see they have been wrong. I don't think so. I have more respect for someone that can see the error of his ways and make needed changes. What I see in Bush is stubborn obstinance, or a blind adhering to the spoiled philosophy that has led him down this deadend path to defeat. If he would just admit he was wrong and that the oil companies should have made their own deals with Iraq without the US military forcing the agenda, maybe he could salvage his legacy. otherwise, in the long arm of history, he will be lauded as the worst president in US history, sorry Sonny.

[Psycho4Bud]

You have to weigh the meaning of flip-flop. Does it demean the person changing their mind if they see they have been wrong.

I agree with ya 100% on that one but to equate this to the moral fiber of those in office? Sorry, I don't trust half of what they say and even less when they have a so called "change of heart".

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

I agree with ya 100% on that one but to equate this to the moral fiber of those in office? Sorry, I don't trust half of what they say and even less when they have a so called "change of heart".

Have a good one!:s4:
Yeah boy, they have to prove it to me also, talk is cheap. As much as I hate to admit it, I'll be real surprised if the Dems stick to their withdrawel legislation. I'm pretty sure Bush will squeeze the money out of them as they have no Balls. I wish there was a Dem. who had the balls of the Bush clan, wait there is, John Murtha, and another Mike Gravel, and also Dennis Kucinich, for a little weasel he sure has large Balls! Even if you view Mike Gravel as a bit of a loose cannon (who knows), you must give him kudos for speaking his mind. when he said he was afraid of everyone else on the stage at the shootout, I almost fell off the couch. He lambasted into a littany of specious remarks about his fellow congressmen that I thought rather refreshing, and agreed with most. The point being: if you vote for any of the leading Dems., it's just more of the same old bullshit, same with the repubes, same old Bull!

[fishman3811]

How can u admire a man who sticks to his guns on a sinking ship??Thats insane,the war is lost you cant beat these guys.The violence is getting worse not better get out of Iraq

[Fengzi]

LOL....don't you mean that they saw a change in opinion polls?

Have a good one!:s4:

It all comes down to stupidity Psycho. The Dems were stupid enough to believe that they should back the president when he said he had concrete proof that Iraq had WMD's and was posing a grave danger to the US. They simply were to dumb to see that Dubya was full of shit. Simple mistake though. I mean, it's natural to believe that the President, the man who is suposed to be leading the country, would actually have a good reason to send thousands of young men and women off to die in a war. At least a better reason than to stroke his own ego.

Oh well, at least they've learned from their mistake. Seems a lot of the Rep party is learning too. It's just too bad Bush just keeps making the same dumb mistakes over and over and over and over and.....

[fishman3811]

FENGZI your right the dems who voted for war were misled so was the rest of the country.So now to say these dems are flip flopping is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.These Dems should stand up and say fuck you you lied to us and to the American people we have every right to be against this war now and to say that were flip flopping just shows how brainwashed these people who are for the war are.

[Psycho4Bud]

It all comes down to stupidity Psycho. The Dems were stupid enough to believe that they should back the president when he said he had concrete proof that Iraq had WMD's and was posing a grave danger to the US.

Both sides including the executive branch (Bill Clinton) were stating the same exact things back in "98". So how did Bush convince these people of this at that time???

Have a good one!:s4:

[fishman3811]

Well why were the U.N inspectors saying there was no WMDs just before the invasion began.Alot of CIA anaylists were saying the case for war was bullshit but they were silenced by bush/cheney.The Bush administration always states that everyone thought he had WMDs but thats not the case alot of people knew he didnt have WMDs and pose no immiediate threat,those people were silenced or ridiculed by the media and Bush/Cheney.The people that questioned Bush/Cheney were called unpatriotic or anti american why do u think most european countries didnt join the war because they knew the reasons for war was bull,holy shit the Germans one of the most war like nations of this last century didnt want to go near this war.

[Psycho4Bud]

Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.
UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.

"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters â?? the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."
The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.
WorldTribune.com: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD on eve of war (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html)
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

SCREW EUROPE........it wasn't about right or wrong with them; it was about self interests of France, and Germany. Italy and Spain + others were with us....well at least the others showed some balls.

Have a good one!:s4:

[rebgirl420]

Yeah Im not a big French Government fan myself...

[fishman3811]

Their you go P4B Saddam was dismantling his WMDs.Or what was left of them Hans Blix has said all along Saddam didnt have WMDs and he was right.Didnt the Bushies say he had an ongoing nuclear program,when they found out his nuclear program was destroyed after the first gulf war the Bushies started saying that he had scientists still capable of working on a nuclear program so its the same thing lol.These guys tell lies after lies and and the bush sheeps just keep eating it up.

[Fengzi]

Both sides including the executive branch (Bill Clinton) were stating the same exact things back in "98". So how did Bush convince these people of this at that time???

Have a good one!:s4:

Clinton was stating that he had concrete proff that Iraq had WMD's and therefore we should invade? I don't remember that. Sounds like your kind of guy Psycho. Why are you so against him then

[Psycho4Bud]

Clinton was stating that he had concrete proff that Iraq had WMD's and therefore we should invade?

YouTube - Flip Flop of Democrats on Iraq War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ)

I don't remember that. Sounds like your kind of guy Psycho. Why are you so against him then

I think that Bill was a riot but I didn't like his handling of certain matters. Do you have to love all the actions of a person in order to like a few?

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

Their you go P4B Saddam was dismantling his WMDs.Or what was left of them Hans Blix has said all along Saddam didnt have WMDs and he was right.Didnt the Bushies say he had an ongoing nuclear program,when they found out his nuclear program was destroyed after the first gulf war the Bushies started saying that he had scientists still capable of working on a nuclear program so its the same thing lol.These guys tell lies after lies and and the bush sheeps just keep eating it up.

Did you even read the links that I posted? lol....it was actually from a U.N. site, not some journalists opinion.

Have a good one!:s4:

[andruejaysin]

How true but you know the neocons will just blame the democrates as if they had nothing to do with this mess
They will of course try, but this will be remembered as GW's failure. He must either except that or a few thousand more americans will die. Anyone care to venture a guess which he chooses?

[medicinal]

Their you go P4B Saddam was dismantling his WMDs.Or what was left of them Hans Blix has said all along Saddam didnt have WMDs and he was right.Didnt the Bushies say he had an ongoing nuclear program,when they found out his nuclear program was destroyed after the first gulf war the Bushies started saying that he had scientists still capable of working on a nuclear program so its the same thing lol.These guys tell lies after lies and and the bush sheeps just keep eating it up.

I can't remember where I heard it, might have been on this forum, but it sure rang a bell, the term "sheeple", seems to fit a large amount of people. If you ever watch Jay Lenos' Jaywalking, you'll know how absolutely ignorant the average person is when it comes to things of substance. Anything outside their little self centered life is unknowable, hence the term "sheeple". Look at me I voted, don't know why or what for, but I voted.

[eg420ne]

I can't remember where I heard it, might have been on this forum, but it sure rang a bell, the term "sheeple", seems to fit a large amount of people. If you ever watch Jay Lenos' Jaywalking, you'll know how absolutely ignorant the average person is when it comes to things of substance. Anything outside their little self centered life is unknowable, hence the term "sheeple". Look at me I voted, don't know why or what for, but I voted.

Oh man it reminds me----------> Another Day in the Empire (http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=841)