Thiebear Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 "One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens" People SHOULD READ what it says before commenting.. Thats not quite the same thing as comparing the wars.. Its comparing the results if we fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Correct Thiebear, So we should not have gone in there in the first place!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 The surge is somewhat of a new policy although I'm pretty sure it's not consistent with the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam. Even though I think Bush is a fool repeatedly manipulated by the folks around him, and quite possibly the worst President in the history of the USA, I do think he is a nice guy and means well. For him to even acknowledge Vietnam (something Rumsfeld/Cheney refused to discuss when developing the "transformation" concept) is an improvement and perhaps even a form of self-betterment. I agree with you about Bush. I hope you are right and that this is a sign of self-awareness we haven't before seen from him. And while I hope that's true, I don't think it is. I think he's just putting his foot in his mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Iraq already is a bloodbath. Every war is a bloodbath. If it wasn't, they'd call it "playtime". ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Knowing what he said and in what context helps a lot. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html 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. (Applause.) If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Knowing what he said and in what context helps a lot. Unless it is a democrat . This whole thing is stupid. Of course he was not comparing the war to Vietnam. But this is the political world we live in – sound bites are all that matter. Sad times….. Watching those on the Right cry about context is funny with recent events like the Hillary speech where she was quoting a famous song. It will be funny next time a Democrat slips up and cries out about context. Both sides are jokes now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Double post - sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Correct Thiebear, So we should not have gone in there in the first place!!!!! Your right, we should not save Darfur or WWII or anything else because we could fail then also.. Lets close shop and go into the fetal position at home. Its safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Are there any neocons left out there who will man up and admit that those of us who were rational in 2002 and said that Iraq would become another Vietnam were correct? I hate to say I told you so, (OK, I really love to say I told you so), but I told you so. I'm sorry, but you go over board. Iraq is not yet a Vietnam. There has been no event similar to the Tet Offensive. There have been no reports of platoons being decimated. The leaders we have been supporting have not been replaced by a coup and executed. Iraq has been horrilby managed. We might not be able to fix the situation (and I'm repeatedly on record of saying I doubt that we can because to do so would probably require at least another 100,000 troops, which we don't have), but the comparision of how bad things are going is historically inaccurate. As compared to Vietnam, Iraq has been a walk in the park. Now, we don't have a draft and have a smaller military so the effects we are seeing are magnified, but don't let your glee to declare you are right blind you to the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkateer Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Weather you think going in was a good idea or not is no longer an issue because we are there. No matter what anyone thinks about that, if we were to leave it would be the worst thing we could do given the current situation. People may as well get on board and unite in saying we MUST win. We have no choice at this point. Debating on weather we should have gone or not is pointless. No one wants to be in a war and everyone wants us to get out of there. It is just that some people are willing to give up for some reason. We can win and get the troops home if we just unite in the effort. And about the lies for going into Iraq. You tell me. (just a warning, the middle link has the Sh** word in the title) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSbAc01vjnw&mode=related&search= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkateer Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Unless it is a democrat .This whole thing is stupid. Of course he was not comparing the war to Vietnam. But this is the political world we live in – sound bites are all that matter. Sad times….. Watching those on the Right cry about context is funny with recent events like the Hillary speech where she was quoting a famous song. It will be funny next time a Democrat slips up and cries out about context. Both sides are jokes now. __________________________________________________________________ I agree that both sides are a joke at this point. If we are going to get something done together is has to be this war. After that we can play all the silly little context games. Our leaders in general are pretty emberrassing. (sorry if my spelling sucks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Maybe Bush was asked a question about the comparison and answered it in that context. I cannot imagine he'd be stupid enough to bring it up himself. Silly you to misunderestimate our president... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Did you actually listen to it? Obviously not. He was making the point that if we pulled out it would be a bloodbath similar to what happened in Vietnam with the re-education camps and what not. As opposed to the 100,000 + Iraqi civilian deaths that have already happened as a result of this war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Your right, we should not save Darfur or WWII or anything else because we could fail then also.. Lets close shop and go into the fetal position at home.Its safer. It has nothing to do with that. We absolutely should've been in Afghanistan, no question at all. We were duped into the Iraqi (which I thought was a bad idea the first time I even heard it was a possibility) war for reasons that only the administration really knows. It was a tragic decisions that wasted thousands upon thousands of life for ABSOLUTELY NO ****ING REASON AT ALL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 I think the headline should have been "Bush compares his prediction of the aftermath in Iraq (after a premature pullout) to Vietnam" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkateer Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 As opposed to the 100,000 + Iraqi civilian deaths that have already happened as a result of this war? ____________________________________________________________________ Where did you get that number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 As opposed to the 100,000 + Iraqi civilian deaths that have already happened as a result of this war?____________________________________________________________________ Where did you get that number? Unfortunately, we're not going to know how many people died as a result of this endeavor until it's too late. 100,000 seems conservative. Estimates range from 70,000 to 700,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkateer Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount_date_down_all.php?ts=1187897358 This is the number according to media outlets. So you are at best a little over 23,000 off. Not to mention the fact that this is a count by the same media who likes to doctor photos and make up stories about soldiers flushing korans down the toilet resulting in deaths of innocent people who riot in outrage thinking these stories are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount_date_down_all.php?ts=1187897358This is the number according to media outlets. So you are at best a little over 23,000 off. Not to mention the fact that this is a count by the same media who likes to doctor photos and make up stories about soldiers flushing korans down the toilet resulting in deaths of innocent people who riot in outrage thinking these stories are true. What's the walkateer estimated Iraqi civilian death toll then? My other question is, if you can brush aside the entire media so easily, who do you trust for your info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 k6861 3 Jul 2007 AM Al-Waseti, central Kirkuk motorcade of Colonel Adnan Mohammad, chief of al-Adala police department car bomb 2 2 VOI 03 Jul McCla 03 Jul k6862 3 Jul 2007 8:00 PM Shalal market, Shaab, north Baghdad people in market car bomb 18 18 REU 03 Jul VOI 03 Jul Yep they look like its our fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 It's like Vietnam in that we insist on allowing politicians and public opinion to dictate strategy. It's like Vietnam in that we force our soldiers to fight by antiquated rules of engagement that the enemy has no regard for. ~Bang And what are these antiquated rules of engagement? Considering our current occupation of Iraq is supposed to partially benefit the Iraqis, what do you suggest? Also, a lot of Vietnamese - to the number of thousands and thousands - were killed as "collateral damage." Our rules of engagement wasn't always as strict and "tight" as we'd always like to think. We certainly have higher regard for life then the VC often seemed to demonstrate, but that regard for life often breaks down in conflict and in combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 This conflict is similiar to the Vietnam war, but not necessarily due to the reasons that Bush cited. I'd probably more so point to the following similarities: 1. A questionable pretext for war in both conflicts: Gulf of Tonkin vs. the Iraqi WMDs. 2. Support of dictators in both regions, which also relates to #1 as well. 3. A regional "domino" theory 4. Dissatisfied American public 5. A proposed short conflict that has lengthened beyond its original objective Of course, there are other similarities as well as obvious differences, but these came off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 What the hell does this boob know about VietNam? He hid out in the champagne Houston Guard (thats where the rich and well to do people hid there kids from the draft) This draft dodger has no shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkateer Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 What's the walkateer estimated Iraqi civilian death toll then? My other question is, if you can brush aside the entire media so easily, who do you trust for your info? To tell you the truth, I don't really trust anyone 100%. who can you trust now? Everyone seems to have some kind of motive, be it ratings, political gains, sales, or whatever else may motivate people to say certain things. As far as my estimate, I have no idea. As someone posted a bit earlier, there are estimates ranging from 70,000 to 700,000. I am not going to throw out the number 100,000 + as if I have all the facts when we all know that none of us have all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.