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.

fishman3811 Reviewed by fishman3811 on 04-30-2007. The Rhetoric Remains the Same Vietnam and Iraq 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 Rating: 5

[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

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

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: