Vietnam, Iraq and ..... Iraq

[_JS]

Yea, right up there with that brilliant retort of "massively stupid editorial".  Wow, adverb in front of the adjective for extra emphasis.  I learn from the best

I've already gone over the reasons that this comparison was not credible in another thread. It is historically innacurate and a gross revisionist view of what took place.

It talks of the poor human rights that took place after we left Vietnam, but where is the credible review of how many lives would have been lost for us to actually win in Vietnam?

Can you envision an occupied Vietnam? You think Iraq is a struggle, it is a walk through the tulips compared to Vietnam. We controlled some urban areas of South Vietnam. That's it! The South Vietnamese made the Iraqi police look like the SAS. The South Vietnamese Government wasn't exactly an authority on human rights either.

How many lives would have been lost for us to occupy Vietnam? We'd already killed over a million.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were horrible, but guess who funded them. We did.

So before you come out with this drivel, maybe take some time and think about what its saying Sirs. We were never going to win Vietnam. Once we set foot in that colonial war which we took over for France, we'd already lost. To win meant a commitment that you cannot even perceive and flunky neoconservative editorialists trying to convince people to stay in Iraq (which has merit on its own) are not explaining the realities of that war. We weren't on the cusp of victory when we decided to pull out in '74, '75. We weren't even close.

As for human rights, look at the nations we supported in Asia at the time - South Korea was a dictatorship and brutal at that. Indonesia was a horrible dictatorship that engaged in genocide. Taiwan was a fascist regime (literally, many of the elder statesmen and generals trained with the Nazis). So we weren't exactly a shining beacon of democratic glory.

Hence...this editorial is crap. A little thought put into it, and you'd recognize that as well.

[sirs]

Yea, right up there with that brilliant retort of "massively stupid editorial".  Wow, adverb in front of the adjective for extra emphasis.  I learn from the best

I've already gone over the reasons that this comparison was not credible in another thread. It is historically innacurate and a gross revisionist view of what took place.

And I've tried demonstrating how in context and perspective (2 acutely necessary components to any debate, when presenting a 3rd party's op-ed), the left has been repetatively laying claim to a Vietnam-like Quagmire, myriad of quotes combining Vietnam with Iraq, pretty much since we went in, and that got not a peep of criticism from the likes of you.  Now Bush, in defense, attempts to demonstrate the tragic repercussions that could occur, similar to Vietnam, and you're all over it like flypaper, decrying how ludicrous it is to try and make such a comparison, idiotic, stupid, etc.  So, where have you been the last 5 years??  It's only credible when the left does it??   

[Xavier_Onassis]

>>One also wonders why Juniortbush and Cheney did not offer their own miserable bodies as weapons of war in this glorious cause.<<

I believe they do so every day. Don't they? They have been been to war zones, they are both targets for leftists and terrorists.

Also, weren't people like you lamenting a near miss on Vice President Cheney a few months ago?

Think.
==============================================================
 

Okay, that is enough thinking.

Juniorbush and Cheney have visited Iraq and Afghanistan, it is true, but as politicians on the make, not as fighting men. They were careful to hide in bunkers and to surround themselves with several platoons of guards. Juniorbush in his "mission accomplished" flightsuit was about as convincing as Dukakis showboating about in that tank at the tank factory.

Cheney has been known to defend himself against aggressive farm-raised quail as well as wild skeet, though. Gotta give him that.

It's not like they were cruising the Baghdad Airport Highway in an unarmored Humvee, now is it?

[sirs]

Juniorbush and Cheney have visited Iraq and Afghanistan, it is true, but as politicians on the make, not as fighting men...It's not like they were cruising the Baghdad Airport Highway in an unarmored Humvee, now is it?

Didn't realize Clinton was flying F-4 Phantoms over Kosovo, or that FDR was driving a Sherman Tank in France.  Do tell

[_JS]

And I've tried demonstrating how in context and perspective (2 acutely necessary components to any debate, when presenting a 3rd party's op-ed), the left has been repetatively laying claim to a Vietnam-like Quagmire, myriad of quotes combining Vietnam with Iraq, pretty much since we went in, and that got not a peep of criticism from the likes of you.  Now Bush, in defense, attempts to demonstrate the tragic repercussions that could occur, similar to Vietnam, and you're all over it like flypaper, decrying how ludicrous it is to try and make such a comparison, idiotic, stupid, etc.  So, where have you been the last 5 years??  It's only credible when the left does it??   

Actually, I've said on here that the comparisons to Vietnam are inaccurate, when the left or right does it.

Now, do you have a better defense than "they started it?"

[sirs]

Actually, I've said on here that the comparisons to Vietnam are inaccurate, when the left or right does it.

Yet to the best of my recollection, I don't recall a single instance you put any effort to rain criticism down over the last 5yrs when the left has been doing it.  I only NOW see it as Bush has made the reference.  So, your sincerity at critiquing its occurence regardless of who does it, runs a tad partisan from this angle

[_JS]

Yet to the best of my recollection, I don't recall a single instance you put any effort to rain criticism down over the last 5yrs when the left has been doing it.  I only NOW see it as Bush has made the reference.  So, your sincerity at critiquing its occurence regardless of who does it, runs a tad partisan from this angle

So, the point of this thread is me? I thought the point was the article you posted.

[gipper]

Seems to me, exercising his only trick from his bag of "leadership" attributes, Bush is again trying to change the subject, demogogically. Instead of facing squarely the catastrophe he has created in the Mideast, and working holistically and tirelessly to salvage the best possible outcome, he appeals to America's basest vanities -- it's fear of "failure" or, conversely, obsession with winning -- to give us a chance (only in the still-captive mind, of which there are many) to erase past disgrace with an ephemeral promise of redemption in the here and now if only, just only, our great nation would learn it's lesson, finally, and get down to business as HE sees it. What horseshit.

[_JS]

Well put Domer.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[sirs]

So, the point of this thread is me? I thought the point was the article you posted.

No, the point of the thread was pointing out the context of the comments being made, in the totality of all other comments being made.

[_JS]

So, the point of this thread is me? I thought the point was the article you posted.

No, the point of the thread was pointing out the context of the comments being made, in the totality of all other comments being made.

Do you agree with Bush's assesment of Vietnam, or not?

[sirs]

..the point of the thread was pointing out the context of the comments being made, in the totality of all other comments being made.

Do you agree with Bush's assesment of Vietnam, or not?

ONLY in the context of a premature pull-out could lead to a similar wide-open carnage, as what happened in Vietnam, though I concede that the similarities are nearly non-existant, since Vietnam went on far longer, was being micromanaged from DC, and that U.S casualties were exponentially higher

[_JS]

a premature pull-out...Vietnam went on far longer

Your answer is inconsistent.

So basically you agree that there will be carnage after a hypothetical American retreat, but it really isn't similar to Vietnam at all.

Therefore you don't really agree with the comparison at all.

As for micro-management (whatever that is supposed to mean) the Pentagon ran both wars.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Cathedral of Sao Paulo, built during the 20th century took 40 years to complete.

By your statement, it could not be done at all.

==========================================================
You are not really as stupid as to believe that I was talking about building churches.

Surely you realize that I meant that the American people could not be expected to believe that after 13 years of an expensive, brutal and fruitless war that even one year more would produce any desired result. And they didn't. They were right, too.

In the case of a church, no one is dying, and progress is easily seen. But the war in Vietnam, like the current one in Iraq produced no positive results. After 13 years. victory seemed even less probable than after the first year.

The same is true of the unnecessary, humongeously incompetent waged war in Iraq. 

This was a comment with regard to Juniorbush's inane statement that somehow Vietnam was lost because the US withdrew (under a Republican administration, too) too soon. Such was not the case. Without nuclear weapons, the US could not have possibly won in 1976 or 77. And Juniorbush's remark reveals that he and whoever is writing his speeches, are morons, or think that they are addressing a nation of morons.

[Amianthus]

You are not really as stupid as to believe that I was talking about building churches.

Perhaps you should be more concise in your writing. Leaving open things to assumption can lead to bad assumptions about what you're saying.