Bush Ties Iraq to Vietnam:

[budgie]

...and gets it all wrong:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070823/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqpolitics_070823083958

Words of wisdon from the chimp: "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,' 'reeducation camps,' and 'killing fields,'" he said."

Now most would say that US involvement in the first place was the problem, not the withdrawal...

[LillaMy]

Now most would say that US involvement in the first place was the problem, not the withdrawal...

Well maybe, but remember that vietcong and the north vietnamese was on the brink of surrender after tet 68. The decision to keep up the fight was based upon belif that civil/political united states would give in.

Gen. Giap planned and directed the military operations against the French that culminated in their defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. During the 1960's Giap controlled guerrilla operations against South Vietnam and the United States and planned the Tet Offensive of 1968.
In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.
By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.
At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

[Lt.Havoc]

Well, yeah, but the problem is, that in Iraq, you dont have a North with a Regulary army and you dont have Russia and China providing arms for some VC Main force.

In Iraq, there are many diffrent groups fighting and Al-Qaida is a terrorist force that wont give up or surrender. As long as they can draw resources from Islamic radicals and fundamentalist, who are recriuted by Koran Schools all over the middle east, as long they will fight. The situation is totally diffrent in Iraq compared to Nam.

The enemy in Nam was kinda reasonable and you could have peace-talks with them, but you cant have peace talks with Terrorists like AQ.

So, Iraq is not like Vietnam, at least not wehn you compare it in detzail, but the situation is the same, but this time, the consequences of a withdrawl are bigger and much worse then during Vietnam.

[budgie]

General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender....Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA.

This is the typical Neocon view of Vietnam: "The Press lost it for us". Wrong: the Vietnamese viewed the US as an invader. There was far more support for the communists that for successive American puppet generalissimos. Get this through your heads - these guys wanted America out and they were NEVER going to give in. If, as you say, Tet came when the NVA were on the verge of defeat that proves the point. They didn't surrender, they lashed out. They weren't giving up. And they kept going until the 'fewer than 10,000 US deaths' ballooned to nearly 60,000.

Now, Bush is trying the same thing in Iraq: "don't believe the bad news, success is just around the corner..." For years we've heard how the 'dead-enders, terrorists, insurgents' and my favorite new one 'Sadddamists' are on their last legs, on the verge of defeat. But put all those silly labels aside for now: the problem is not so much the ever ill-defined insurgents, phantom Baathists or even the all-too-real AQ terrorists. It's Iraqis, and they don't want us there either. That's the lesson from Vietnam. We're in their country and we're no longer welcome.

But what happens when Petraeus comes back and he's off-message? What happens if he goes before the House and says it's not working and that we can't prevail? He'll be discarded, swift-boated, booted and replaced with someone who favours the Bush stay-the-course method of perpetual occupation amidst a civil war.

There are far fewer than 10,000 coalition deaths in Iraq today. It's almost 2008. Seven years and thousands more dead GIs from now do you really want to see ladders swinging from the last Blackhawks over the Green zone?

[shocker1]

This is the typical Neocon view of Vietnam: "The Press lost it for us". Wrong: the Vietnamese viewed the US as an invader. There was far more support for the communists that for successive American puppet generalissimos.Typical leftist generalization rant with cool adjectives like Neocon and generalissimos.:cantbeli: Why read any further? What the poster you quoted said pretty much summed up what the North was thinking.


BTW: Bush is wrong in his assessment also.

[Telmar]

The enemy in Nam was kinda reasonable and you could have peace-talks with them, but you cant have peace talks with Terrorists like AQ.


Even if it were possible to reach an agreement with AQ, they would not be able to stop the fire they have started in Iraq: civil war and possible genocide.



So, Iraq is not like Vietnam, at least not wehn you compare it in detzail, but the situation is the same, but this time, the consequences of a withdrawl are bigger and much worse then during Vietnam.


I think so to.

[LillaMy]

This is the typical Neocon view of Vietnam:..

For real, but the text you are refering to is taken from Vo Nguyen Giaps book about the vietnam war, I didn't know that he was a right wing republican neocon..

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You can only stretch these analogies so far.

One thing that might be worth considering though.

America did not win in Vietnam but Vietnam was only one 'front' so to speak in the Cold War. It took some time but ultimately communist Vietnam's backer the USSR collapsed because it's economy simply could not keep up and Vietnam is now a country rapidly adopting the capitalist economic model.

Iraq is only one front in the campaign against islamism (some like me would say it was an unnecessary one which should never have been opened up but that's for other threads). Perhaps in the long run pulling out of Iraq as well will also be seen as not detrimental to the overall effort against islamism.

[Rictor]

The enemy in Nam was kinda reasonable and you could have peace-talks with them, but you cant have peace talks with Terrorists like AQ.

And al Qaeda are, what, maybe 5% of the insurgency? The rest of it, even the most radical elements, can and have talked with the US at various times.

Case in point: the recent deal with Sunni militants in Anbar. These are the guys who for years have been responsible for the majority of US combat deaths, and yet an agreement was reached. Even the Mahdi Army has shown itself capable of standing down when needed.

[LMAV]

I thought he was good with The Korean War references. He should have just stuck with that, but he made some good points anyway.

For example, the fact our enemies now took note that the media played a big part in getting us from Vietnam. You can deny it all you want, but everyone sees it. They have said on many occasions that they plan on manipulating our media to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Iraq is only one front in the campaign against islamism (some like me would say it was an unnecessary one which should never have been opened up but that's for other threads). Perhaps in the long run pulling out of Iraq as well will also be seen as not detrimental to the overall effort against islamism.Common man, look how they used Somalia. Now imagine what they can do with Iraq! The North Vietnamese were only concerned with their little part of the world. These guys want to the whole thing and plan on using every victory to its fullest.


And al Qaeda are, what, maybe 5% of the insurgency? The rest of it, even the most radical elements, can and have talked with the US at various times.I don't beleive those numbers, but even at 5% they have inflicted much destruction and chaos in Iraq. They were an even smaller number in Somalia and look what they were able to do there.

Downplaying their relevance will get us in to some ****, mark my words......

[dangerclose]

...and gets it all wrong:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070823/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqpolitics_070823083958

Words of wisdon from the chimp: "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,' 'reeducation camps,' and 'killing fields,'" he said."

Now most would say that US involvement in the first place was the problem, not the withdrawal...


Yes, because if the communists had just been allowed to take over unopposed there wouldn't have been reeducation camps or mass murder. Stalin and Mao murdering millions of their own was also due to American intervention in those countries ... oh wait.

What the U.S. needed at the time was more Kent States.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The North Vietnamese were only concerned with their little part of the world. These guys want to the whole thing and plan on using every victory to its fullest.

You never heard of the 'Domino Theory' then?

[LMAV]

You never heard of the 'Domino Theory' then?

Yes I have, but the main and only battlefield at the time was Vietnam/Cambodia. Now we are dealing with an ideology that is spread everywhere and a lot less visible.

I see what you're saying about the Domino Theory, but this just seems a lot more likely to happen. If Communists were fighting all over the world when we left Vietnam, I bet the outcome would have been a lot different.

[Rictor]

They were an even smaller number in Somalia and look what they were able to do there.

What exactly have they been able to do? Far as I know, the ICU in Somalia are more warlords and robber-barons than jihadist ideologues. It's a classic African tribal/civil war which has somehow been rebranded as a central front in the "War on Terror". Have there been any terrorist attacks coming out of Somalia during the ICU's time in government that I'm not aware of?

[Telmar]

...

I don't beleive those numbers, but even at 5% they have inflicted much destruction and chaos in Iraq. They were an even smaller number in Somalia and look what they were able to do there.

Downplaying their relevance will get us in to some ****, mark my words......

You can be relevant and influential without that much manpower.

IMHO, Al Qeida has mostly focused on creating conditions for outlashes between the different communities in Iraq than really doing the dirty work itself.

Al Qeida is probably more thinking on how to perpetrate another terrorist attack in the West rather than on overseeing the desctruction of market in Mossoul.

[XASA]

Once again, Bush was appealing to his base, as is evident here at MP.Net, who really do believe in the revisionist "Dolchstoss" version of history; i.e., the Vietnam War could have been won if we weren't "stabbed in the back" by anti-war demonstrators and the media. Bush's base sucks up anything he says regardless of whether or not it's true. One gets the feeling that "Dolchstoss" will be an excuse for the coming election in 08 with the hope that voters will forget about how the Iraqi War has been mismanaged from day one by the Bush administration.

By comparing Iraq to Vietnam, they are completely ignoring the fact that the Vietnamese people have fought for their independence from foreigners for centuries and, by the late 1960s, had conceived a plan that would lead to the Americans withdrawing and, eventually, to the defeat of the South Vietnamese regime. At no time did the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong even consider defeat and were willing to fight indefinitely until they won.

The only way we could have won in Vietnam would have been to have completely destroyed it, and even then the RVN and VC would have still fought us from tunnels and the jungle. It's not surprising that by the end of the Sixties, G.I.s were calling the VC "Sir Charles" and not "Victor Charlie" out of respect for the fighting capability and determination. They were incredibly tough and motivated fighters and to ignore that is disrepectful to the American soldiers, sailors and Marines who fought them. More than 50,000 Americans dead and for what? So Coca Cola can open a bottling plant in Ho Chi Minh City?

Also, there would not have been any re-education camps, killing fields or boat people if we had not intervened in a civil war in Vietnam and invaded Cambodia, which until then was neutral (albeit with RVN base camps along the border with South Vietnam). We were fed the line that if we didn't stop the communists in Vietnam, the "Domino Theory" would become fact and we would lose Southeast Asia as well. Guess what? Didn't happen. The mantra that Iraqi terrorists will come to the States if we don't succeed is the "Domino Theory" of 21st Century politics.

Vietnam, although a clusterfcuk in it's own right, doesn't even come close to Iraq when it comes to the intense hatred between the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites that has been festering for centuries and has now erupted into a civil war that is being agitated by a few thousand (at best) Al Queda terrorists, who don't care who they kill so long as they can continue to keep the country divided.

We could have had a political settlement with the Vietnamese as soon as Nixon, who promised a quick end to the war during the election, came into office in 1968; instead, thousands more Americans and Vietnamese died. Evoking their sacrifice to continue a major diplomatic and military blunder in Iraq is despicable.

[MichaelF]

It's not surprising that by the end of the Sixties, G.I.s were calling the VC "Sir Charles" and not "Victor Charlie" out of respect for the fighting capability and determination.


Err....."by the end of the Sixties", the Viet Cong (NLF) had ceased to exist (Tet was basically an Operational-level Banzai Charge) and the NVA was running the show and providing most of the men and material.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Err....."by the end of the Sixties", the Viet Cong (NLF) had ceased to exist (Tet was basically an Operational-level Banzai Charge) and the NVA was running the show and providing most of the men and material.

I think distinctions between the two were rather artificial they were all part of the same military organisation really.

[MichaelF]

I think distinctions between the two were rather artificial they were all part of the same military organisation really.


After Tet? Sure.

Prior to Tet? Not at all. Which is what caused the North to pressure the VC into the Tet Offensive (the VC were often a bit too independant for the North, so expeding them to give the US and RVN a wakeup call made sense).

[dangerclose]

Once again, Bush was appealing to his base, as is evident here at MP.Net, who really do believe in the revisionist "Dolchstoss" version of history; i.e., the Vietnam War could have been won if we weren't "stabbed in the back" by anti-war demonstrators and the media.

At no time did the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong even consider defeat and were willing to fight indefinitely until they won

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

General Giap, North Vietnam (memoirs)


<the sound of crickets chirping>



Also, there would not have been any re-education camps, killing fields or boat people if we had not intervened in a civil war in Vietnam and invaded Cambodia

Yes, because communists were never known for re-education camps or mass killings before the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia.

[Susumu]

The enemy in Nam was kinda reasonable and you could have peace-talks with them, but you cant have peace talks with Terrorists like AQ.

I'm sure you can if you want to in theory. (which doesn't mean you'll like their conditions for paece).

[budgie]

Typical leftist generalization rant with cool adjectives like Neocon and generalissimos.:cantbeli: Why read any further? What the poster you quoted said pretty much summed up what the North was thinking.


BTW: Bush is wrong in his assessment also.

Neocon and generalissimo are both nouns

[Firetxmi]

Wasn't Bush the very same person who said "Iraq is not the Vietnam war"?

[DB-ERAUPilot]

Wasn't Bush the very same person who said "Iraq is not the Vietnam war"?


LOL...yep, but..he has very selective memory :cantbeli:along with anyone who actually still buys his BS

[XASA]

Err....."by the end of the Sixties", the Viet Cong (NLF) had ceased to exist (Tet was basically an Operational-level Banzai Charge) and the NVA was running the show and providing most of the men and material.

Where do you guys get your facts from? Are they teaching history in schools anymore or do you rely on conservatives for your revisionist version?

The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese did suffer a military defeat during Tet, but the U.S. military and public were blind sided by the scope of the offensive because we were being told by Westmoreland before Tet that he could see "the light at the end of the tunnel"-- turns out Charlie was holding it.

The Viet Cong's military arm was decimated but its political cadre were still very much intact and, in fact, formed the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) in 1969. The North Vietnamese, however, did effectively take over the running of the war, especially when it went from being mostly a guerilla conflict to being a conventional war.

To the families of the thousands of Americans who were killed between 1968 and 1975 whether or not they were the victims of the Viet Cong or RVN really doesn't matter.

All the more reason the comparison of Vietnam to Iraq is bullshyte.

[M1A2U2]

We could have had a political settlement with the Vietnamese as soon as Nixon, who promised a quick end to the war during the election, came into office in 1968; instead, thousands more Americans and Vietnamese died.

wow. Ever heard of the Paris Peace Accords? The US and North Vietnam agreed to a cease fire and the US withdrew its troops leaving only Aircraft. And what do ya know, the North completely violates the treaty and invades South Vietnam. Yep we could have had a political settlement...had the North Vietnamese not been bloodthirsty for war. But somehow its still our fault?

[budgie]

Wasn't Bush the very same person who said "Iraq is not the Vietnam war"?


They used to call that flip-flopping

[dangerclose]

Wasn't Bush the very same person who said "Iraq is not the Vietnam war"?


"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush said Wednesday in an effort to turn on its head the analogy by critics who liken the Iraq war to the Vietnam quagmire.

Bush, speaking to US veterans of 20th century conflicts in Asia, also likened nation-building and military operations in Iraq to democracy-fostering efforts in Japan and the decision to defend South Korea, respectively.

[M1A2U2]

Wrong: the Vietnamese viewed the US as an invader. There was far more support for the communists than for successive American puppet generalissimos.

I'm afraid you're wrong sir. Maybe you could ask the millions of boat people or the millions of people who fled North Vietnam to South Vietnam about support for the communists. Or the millions of South Vietnamese forced into reeducation camps.

[XASA]

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

General Giap, North Vietnam (memoirs)


<the sound of crickets chirping>




Yes, because communists were never known for re-education camps or mass killings before the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia.

Although you didn't provide a link, I'll take your word that the Giap quote is correct and not out of context (which I doubt). However, you might have noticed that I said the only way we could have won would have been to totally destroy the country, which wasn't a political option even for Nixon.

BTW: Where do you see me defending communists? I spent more time opposing them during the Cold War and Vietnam War then you have here posting on MP.net. They were certainly bad boys. My point was that if we hadn't intervened, thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese would still be alive.

What this thread is about is comparing Vietnam to Iraq. Why don't you stop listening to crickets and address the issue.

[XASA]

wow. Ever heard of the Paris Peace Accords? The US and North Vietnam agreed to a cease fire and the US withdrew its troops leaving only Aircraft. And what do ya know, the North completely violates the treaty and invades South Vietnam. Yep we could have had a political settlement...had the North Vietnamese not been bloodthirsty for war. But somehow its still our fault?

Yes, I'm very aware of the Paris Peace Accords. Are you aware of the Geneva Accord of 1954 that called for reunification elections in 1956 but were not held because the U.S. and the South Vietnamese power structure knew the RVN would have won?

You call the North Vietnamese "bloodthirsty for war" because they wanted to unify their country and be independent. If the elections had been held in 1956, I'm sure there would have been much less blood spilled. That's like saying the North and the South in our own Civil War were "bloodthirsty for war" because both sides fought for what they believe in. Man, some of you conservatives have a very warped vision of reality.

[XASA]

I'm afraid you're wrong sir. Maybe you could ask the millions of boat people or the millions of people who fled North Vietnam to South Vietnam about support for the communists. Or the millions of South Vietnamese forced into reeducation camps.


I'm not condoning the actions of the North Vietnamese, but shyte happens when you are caught on the wrong side at the end of a war. Just ask the many American Loyalists in our own American Revolution who were abused and forced out of the country by their own neighbors.

Those who went to re-education camps were, for the most part, supporters of the corrupt South Vietnamese government or military that had been at war with their own people for years. Some of the boat people fell into that same category or wanted to leave the country for economic reasons. Doesn't make it right by no means but history is fill with stories of vanquished people and nations being treated poorly by the victors. C'est la Guerre!

Since this is a thread about comparing Iraq to Vietnam, do you think the Iraqis will treat each other any worse than they are now? I don't think the North Vietnamese beheaded people because they were of a different religion.

No doubt, when the Iraqi mess is all over, thousands if not millions of Iraqis will leave the country. Can you blame them? Point is that would not be the case if we did not invade their country and then mismanaged the "occupation".

[dangerclose]

I'm not condoning the actions of the North Vietnamese


Those who went to re-education camps were, for the most part, supporters of the corrupt South Vietnamese government or military that had been at war with their own people for years.




That's some pretty good non-condoning there.


And I like how mass-murdering communists and islamic savages are routinely compared to American revolutionaries.

[krasnayaarmiya]

I like the droll context of the rich war-shirking chickenhawk whooping it up in front of geriatric vets.

What a dooshbague.

His statements show that he, like many on the right, believe the lies swirling around in their echo chamber.

The US allowed Japanese soldiers to maintain arms after WW2, until the French could consolidate their holdings again.
The US supported the French in re-colonizing Indochina.
The US armed and clothed the French to such a level, that their troops looked essentially like GI's by Dien Bien Phu.
The US stopped the national elections in 1954 because the US didn't like the shoe-in, Ho Chi Minh. The US created South Vietnam arbitrarily, and North Vietnam was trying to unify the country as they saw it.
The US provoked armed confronation with North Vietnam without an accurate appraisal of likely consequences.
The US put innocent rice farmers in concentration camps, then destroyed their lands with fire, bombs, and chemical agents.
The US used Agent Orange, Agent Blue, Agent White, Agent Purple, Agent Green, and Agent Pink.
The US public knows very little about the effects of these.
The US does not admit that the kids with legs GROWING OUT OF THEIR SHOULDERS amongst other Agent Orange mutations, are the culpability of the US. Right to life, my ass.
The US got strategically dominated. Tactically, NVA and Vietcong tended to be far more proficient as well, despite their disadvantages.
The US got beaten; we didn't just "lose".
The US picked a fight with Vietnam.
The US picked a fight with Iraq.
The US makes the usual lofty claim that all of these were to support "freedom", which means what? That the Vietcong were trying to put a halt to my right to wear red boxer shorts??

What did Iraq and Vietnam ever do to us to deserve such antipathy?

The US manufactures its own reasons to suit its wants.
The US reaps what it sows.
The US here means the Government of the United States of America.
The Government of the United States of America is not the people of the United States of America.
The US is luckily more than the sum of its governmental iniquities.
Some Americans do suck.
The US does have large numbers of voters who deliberately picked knife-slash-mouthed monkey boy to be the marionette of Cheney, Baker, Rumsfeld, and others who remain less notorious yet remain powerful.

Sincerely,

an American

[krasnayaarmiya]

I'm afraid you're wrong sir. Maybe you could ask the millions of boat people or the millions of people who fled North Vietnam to South Vietnam about support for the communists. Or the millions of South Vietnamese forced into reeducation camps.

The vast majority of boat people were ethnic Chinese of privileged background. They were robbed and dispossed by Thai pirates on the seas, and by spending their gold to scrape by in a price-gouged environment of emergency. I have been told this by many Vietnamese who I went to school with. I'm afraid you are very wrong, sir. By the way, the Vietnamese who stayed hold very little animosity towards Americans, and forgive us for almost everything. It's not because we were right, because they don't think we were, but because they are more magnanimous.

[XASA]

That's some pretty good non-condoning there.


And I like how mass-murdering communists and islamic savages are routinely compared to American revolutionaries.

LOL! School is out dude. It never ceases to amaze me how you right wing nuts can just throw out a red herring when you can't come up with a decent argument. This thread is about Bush comparing Iraq to Vietnam but you and a few others seem intent on creating a diversion. Go for it. I'll stick to facts.

[krasnayaarmiya]

That's some pretty good non-condoning there.


And I like how mass-murdering communists and islamic savages are routinely compared to American revolutionaries.

There we go again with the double-standards. Whose ordnance killed more Asians?

[MichaelF]

The North Vietnamese, however, did effectively take over the running of the war, especially when it went from being mostly a guerilla conflict to being a conventional war.


Which is exactly what I said. In fact, it was the entirety of my comment.

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

The cadre leadership were powerless without the Field Force units (who were exterminated in the US/ARVN Tet counteroffensive). The NVA "helpfully" replaced those units with Regulars from the North, and the dog was wagging the tail once more.

[dangerclose]

There we go again with the double-standards. Whose ordnance killed more Asians?


lol Asians. Including the communist north vietnamese then american ordnance did of course.

That question is about as ridiculous as asking whose ordnance killed more caucasians in europe during WWII.

[dangerclose]

The vast majority of boat people were ethnic Chinese of privileged background. They were robbed and dispossed by Thai pirates on the seas, and by spending their gold to scrape by in a price-gouged environment of emergency. I have been told this by many Vietnamese who I went to school with.


Oh in that case.

[MichaelF]

I don't think the North Vietnamese beheaded people because they were of a different religion.

No, they just stuck a big chunk of the ethnic Chinese (Hoa) population (and most of the Montagnards) into "reeducation and work" camps, then stripped them completely of all civil rights, because they were "politically unreliable" (read: not Kinh). Reforms in 1977 prohibited ethnic Chinese from entering civil service, working for public enterprises, engaging in retail trades or farming, or moving from one place to another

Lovely people.

[MichaelF]

Whose ordnance killed more Asians?


This a trick question?

[krasnayaarmiya]

The ARVN recruits could pay not to play. Alot of the boat people actually had relatives that they paid gold to not have conscripted. Another poor, demoralized peasant invariably took that guy's place.

[dangerclose]

The ARVN recruits could pay not to play. Alot of the boat people actually had relatives that they paid gold to not have conscripted. Another poor, demoralized peasant invariably took that guy's place.


So it's good the North Vietnamese won.

[MichaelF]

So it's good the North Vietnamese won.

The guy's member-name translates to "Red Army". That should be your hint.

[XASA]

Err....."by the end of the Sixties", the Viet Cong (NLF) had ceased to exist (Tet was basically an Operational-level Banzai Charge) and the NVA was running the show and providing most of the men and material.


Michael, it looks like you wrote that the VC "had ceased to exist" to me. Pehaps if the Internet had a mind reading function, I could discern what you meant to write. And I didn't see any mention of the transition from guerilla warfare to conventional warfare, which is why the RVN forces took over since the VC didn't have the resources to wage a conventional war because their military arm had been decimated. The point of my original post was VC were still active and being called "Sir Charles" by American soldiers after Tet.

I have no problem with you nit-picking, but why aren't you addressing the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam? If you want to discuss the evolution of the war from small groups of local fighters to divisional size manuevers by a mobile army, why don't you start another thread on that topic?

[dangerclose]

Take a look at his member-name: It translates to "Red Army"...


Of course.

[MichaelF]

Michael, it looks like you wrote that the VC "had ceased to exist" to me. Pehaps if the Internet had a mind reading function, I could discern what you meant to write. And I didn't see any mention of the transition from guerilla warfare to conventional warfare, which is why the RVN forces took over since the VC didn't have the resources to wage a conventional war because their military arm had been decimated. The point of my original post was VC were still active and being called "Sir Charles" by American soldiers after Tet.

I have no problem with you nit-picking, but why aren't you addressing the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam? If you want to discuss the evolution of the war from small groups of local fighters to divisional size manuevers by a mobile army, why don't you start another thread on that topic?

But I wasn't saying any of what you mention in the second paragraph.

Someone mentioned the VC in the late Sixties. I pointed out that the "VC in the late Sixties" was really the NVA with a few VC cadre hanging on (the remaining VC leadership were sidelined by 1970).

The end.

[timetraveller]

Remember not everything spoken by Bush is written beforehand by himself .. It's those in the background that are a fault for writing the speech making him look like a prized .... again for people on here to break down what he said part by part and go off course is just pointless as you ain't gonna get anywhere .

Another Point remember the crowd that he is speaking to ..

Former Soldiers of previous Campagins ..

[MichaelF]

Michael, it looks like you wrote that the VC "had ceased to exist" to me.

That's because I did.

The VC, pre-Tet, was an independant military force, advised and supplied from the North. The leadership of the cadres were Southerners, who had their own plans for the RVN.

Post-Tet, it was a front for the NVA, wholly owned and operated from Hanoi. It's primary function was to sign the instrument of surrender in 1975. NLF Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang has described how cadres from the north took over the work of his ministry within days of the take-over.


Two completely different organizations.

[dangerclose]

Go for it. I'll stick to facts.


Like this one?


At no time did the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong even consider defeat and were willing to fight indefinitely until they won

rofl sorry ... I couldn't resist.

[XASA]

That's because I did.

The VC, pre-Tet, was an independant military force, advised and supplied from the North.

Post-Tet, it was a front for the NVA, wholly owned and operated from Hanoi.

Two completely different organizations.

Man, why are you so intent to go off-topic about comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Can't you provide an argument to support Bush's speech instead of digressing all over the place?

Differentiating between the NVA and VC is like saying the American National Guard is different than the regular army. Point is they were both fighting for the same goal, reunification.

[timetraveller]

What direction is this goin ?

or have some forgot what the original post was ..

[XASA]

Like this one?



rofl sorry ... I couldn't resist.

The North Vietnamese won the war, we didn't, that's a fact. Now why don't you start a thread about how we could have won the war because Giap said so in his memoirs, which you still haven't provided us a link to.

Once again, how is Iraq like Vietnam?

[lightcav]

The US invaded vietnam and lost. No way we could have won. We tried very hard spending billions of $ and sending many young men to their deaths never mind killing tens of thousands of Vietnamese. The US was essentially responsible for the Vietnam War. What was the outcome? 32 Years later we have normalized trade relations with Vietnam and its like nothing ever happened except that the US got the biggest ass-kicking in its history.

Now we are clearly in the middle of a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight, spending billions of $ and incurring about 100KIA a month. We started Iraq on essentially a proganda tirade. What have we achieved? Can we ever win?

If Vietnam has taught us anything its that your a F***ing fool if you think you can win a guerilla war. And chances are we aren't going to win this one either. We're just wasting money and killing people for nothing. THATS RIGHT I SAID NOTHING! Unless you consider all the sh**loads of money the military contractors are making providing equipment, ordinance, and services to the dept. of defence.

[dangerclose]

The US invaded vietnam and lost. No way we could have won. We tried very hard spending billions of $ and sending many young men to their deaths never mind killing tens of thousands of Vietnamese. The US was essentially responsible for the Vietnam War. What was the outcome? 32 Years later we have normalized trade relations with Vietnam and its like nothing ever happened except that the US got the biggest ass-kicking in its history.


the stupidity is rampant and contagious.

[MichaelF]

Man, why are you so intent to go off-topic about comparing Iraq to Vietnam?

Because your initial premise was so badly-phrased as to be incorrect.


Until you correct it, no useful debate can take place.

[lightcav]

the stupidity is rampant and contagious.

Have I said anything thats not true?

[dangerclose]

Once again, how is Iraq like Vietnam?


Ask Osama Bin Laden:

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."



entire speech - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html

[MichaelF]

If Vietnam has taught us anything its that your a F***ing fool if you think you can win a guerilla war.

Really? So the British in Malaysia and the US in the Indian Wars lost?

Or the British in the Boer War?

Or the Russians in Chechnya?

Or the Soviets in the Baltics (the "Forest Brothers", etc)?

[lightcav]

the stupidity is rampant and contagious.

I love how somepeople argue by calling their opponent "stupid". Great tactic how long did it take you to think of that?

[lightcav]

Really? So the British in Malaysia and the US in the Indian Wars lost?

Or the British in the Boer War?

Or the Russians in Chechnya?

Or the Soviets in the Baltic (the "Forest Brothers", etc)?

What about the British in the American Revolution?

The only way the Russians won in Checnya was because the region was completely decimated, no one was left. If thats winning win you got a real f**ed way of thinking.

[dangerclose]

I love how somepeople argue by calling their opponent "stupid". Great tactic how long did it take you to think of that?

lol opponent. I wasn't calling you stupid. Just your argument.

[lightcav]

lol opponent. I wasn't calling you stupid. Just your argument.
How long did it take you to think of that, genius?

[lightcav]

lol opponent. I wasn't calling you stupid. Just your argument.
at least i have an argument.

[XASA]

Because your initial premise was so badly-phrased as to be incorrect.


Until you correct it, no useful debate can take place.

OMG! Now, instead of addressing the issue, you are questioning my English. Come on Michael, you can do better than that. If not, then perhaps you should stick with saying "The End" like you did and call it a day. Childish to say the least.

[dangerclose]

at least i have an argument.


lol ok you win.

[lightcav]

at least i have an argument.
any way, I'm leaving this discussion because I can't argue with people that only see things from one side. That would be the super convservative, your stupid if you don't agree with me, nationalistic, gun-half cocked people that there are too many of here.

[XASA]

Ask Osama Bin Laden:

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."



entire speech - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html

Bush quotes Bin Laden and Zawahiri to garner support for his contention that the Iraqi and Vietnam Wars are similar just like he evokes 9/11 for invading Iraq. Desperate men say desperate things.

Bin Laden is an asshole who hates America, so wouldn't you think he has a perverted view of history? Zawahiri murdered innocent women and children before he was, thankfully, sent to hell by a bomb. But since Mr. Bush evoke their names, look at what they said. The American people-- the vast majority that cut across party lines-- did in fact rise up against the Vietnam War, we did abandoned our allies in South Vietnam (and Cambodia and Laos). I don't like the fact that our enemies are using our past mistakes as a rallying cry, but I can understand why they did it from the viewpoint of PSYOPS.

Just because these two bastards used Vietnam in a sentence doesn't mean that there is any similarity between the two conflicts.

Five years ago, the right wing nuts said we needed to go to war because of WMD. Then, when there was no WMD found, we had to invade to deposed the evil dictator, Saddam. After he was caught and executed, the excuse was to bring democracy to the region, we all know how that is turning out. Now, after saying there was no Vietnam-Iraqi War similarity for years, Bush comes out yesterday and makes it the reason for staying the course. No matter what he says, the Republican Echo Chamber picks up the talking points and swear by them as if they were the Holy Grail of victory. When he finally admits that it was to protect our access to Middle East oil, then, perhaps, he might be believed. Until then, I feel sorry for you hard-core members of the Republican Base. It must be getting pretty lonely supporting one of the most incompetent administations in our history.

[dangerclose]

the right wing nuts said we needed to go to war because of WMD.


Like this right wing nut?

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

-President Bill Clinton Dec. 1998


Chant after me: Clinton lied and people died.

[XASA]

Like this ring wing nut?

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

-President Bill Clinton Dec. 1998


Chant after me: Clinton lied and people died.


When all else fails, quote Clinton:)

[krasnayaarmiya]

lol Asians.

Are you really laughing out loud?

[krasnayaarmiya]

Like this ring wing nut?

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

-President Bill Clinton Dec. 1998


Chant after me: Clinton lied and people died.

In regards to the Middle East, the Clintons are extremely right-wing, I would argue.

[MichaelF]

The only way the Russians won in Checnya was because the region was completely decimated, no one was left. If thats winning win you got a real f**ed way of thinking.

A win's a win. If it's important enough to fight, it's important enough to go to the knife. Otherwise, stay home.

The Russians were presented with a set of options that amounted to: "Raze the area or give up". They didn't feel like giving up, and proceeded to do very nasty things that broke the back of the Chechen rebellion.

Lastly: The American Revolution was a guerilla war in the same way that a moped is an SUV. Washington simply employed a Fabian strategy (usage of interior lines to pressure the British in several sectors) to preserve his (very conventional) Army until such time as they were ready to face the British. The same strategy was used by the Romans (under Quintus Fabius and Scipio Africanus) to defeat the (Operationally superior) Carthaginians, led by Hannibal.

Perhaps authoritative statements on the conduct of wars should be left to those of us who have actually fought in one.

[MichaelF]

OMG! Now, instead of addressing the issue, you are questioning my English.

I was not questioning your diction, spelling or syntax.

I was pointing out that you used the wrong terms, thereby causing your argument to be untrue from the beginning.

You're language skills were not at issue.

Nice try at a red herring though.

[kawaiku]

I'm gonna take a stab at this one. I've read the whole thread so I hope I'm not reiterating anything that you guys have already said.

I think that Bush's analogy of Japan is a little much when comparing it to Iraq. Japan, by 1945, and been fighting for over 6 years with much of it's military in China and other large parts in various countries in mainland Asia. By the time the war ended, Japan was having serious food shortages including many other neccesities that were soaked up by their military, while in Iraq, the main war itself didn't last more than a year before it was over, and now we are stuck in messy situation that is making our occupation and rebuilding efforts very difficult.

For his other analogies, I think his one about Korea was decent about it rebuiling it's economy I was just confused by who Bush pictured in the positions of the "contenders" during that conflict(any help here would be nice).

As for the Vietnam analogy, that has always seemed to be quite the touchy subject since the insurgency in Iraq got underway. Tho, Iraq and Vietnam are both very similar, I think they are completely different and hinging anything on one or the other is not the brightest thing to do when you consider what's at stake, where they are/were located and who the major players are. I've never really read up on the Vietnam war but I didn't see a problem with North Vietnam trying to unify their country, it just happened at the wrong time and that they were also communists and we saw this as a threat to the unbalancing of "power" throughout the world, and we tried stop it and we all know what happened there. Now in Iraq, it's obviously a different story. And I think comparing the two(Iraq and Vietnam), is like comparing WWI and WWII, similar wars, but very different time frames, people, technology, and above all, motives, and that's why I think, that comparing Vietnam and Iraq is not the brightest thing to do.
(hope that whole thing came out right)

[dangerclose]

In regards to the Middle East, the Clintons are extremely right-wing, I would argue.

to a communist, sure.

[dangerclose]

Are you really laughing out loud?

Just at you tovarisch.

[krasnayaarmiya]

I am not actually Communist, as in Marxist, Maoist, nor Leninist. I'm a mortgage broker. But I do respect the original Red Army a great deal.

Ad hominem attacks aside, though...

The conservative movement in the US did make a concerted effort to rewrite the history of Vietnam by hammering a constant refrain that it was protesters, hippies, the media, and "politicians" who lost us the war. As if the war was worth winning! These things all contributed a great deal. But we lost on the field, too. Read About Face, by Col. David Hackworth, the most heavily decorated veteran of Vietnam. Without being communist, he accredited a great deal to the nationalist forces of Vietnam in regards to dedication, intelligence, and proficiency. The whole "we-lost-because-the-lefties-corroded-our-morale" is just killing two birds with one stone; it makes the Pentagon less accountable for their horrendous mistakes, and it marginalizes the Left, a political effect desirable for the pary of the rich.

[XASA]

I was not questioning your diction, spelling or syntax.

I was pointing out that you used the wrong terms, thereby causing your argument to be untrue from the beginning.

You're language skills were not at issue.

Nice try at a red herring though.

Why don't you share with us your expertise on the Vietnam War and how it compares to the Iraqi War?

Because you don't agree with one sentence about the VC being called "Sir Charles" in 1969, my whole argument to you is untrue? Are you so egotistical that you really think you are smarter than everyone else? Especially if they disagree with you. Got to love the Internet! I'm sure you already know you can't get away with that kind of attitude in the real world.

[krasnayaarmiya]

to a communist, sure.

Robin Hood was right.

[krasnayaarmiya]

Just at you tovarisch.

That makes me horny when you call me that. Hey, while you're down there...

[MichaelF]

Why don't you share with us your expertise on the Vietnam War and how it compares to the Iraqi War?

I have no more special knowledge of the Vietnam War than any other Army Officer (basic military history courses).

The Iraqi and Afghan campaigns? Oh yes. I know quite a bit more than you do about those, having two OIF and one OEF deployment under my belt.

Have you been to either Country? Have you any active military experience?

[krasnayaarmiya]

I have no more special knowledge of the Vietnam War than any other Army Officer (basic military history courses).

The Iraqi and Afghan campaigns? Oh yes. I know quite a bit more than you do about those, having two OIF and one OEF rotations under my belt.

Have you been to either Country? Have you any active military experience?

Then 2nd Lt. Shotcaller, please tell us how you win a difficult war with no political mandate to begin with? That was our problem in Vietnam, and it is our problem in Iraq. Afghanistan is another animal...
Ever been to Vietnam? If you went with open eyes and hung out away from the Western herd, you would never be the same.

How does tactical knowledge equate to either strategic or political knowledge? Just because someone knows how to convoy securely, select advantageous sites for observation posts, or coordinate indirect fire does not make him anymore in-the-know about the big picture power plays. Tell us about the effect on unemployment levels of forcing complete removal of tariffs from Iraq, the only country on earth to do this at the coercion of free-market fanatics, after a 12-year embargo and post-invasion compulsory privatization of all state assets? What do these unemployment levels do to the level of resentment and desperation of the average Iraqi? Would you accept $500 to plant a bomb if your babies were screaming, hungry?

[dangerclose]

Ever been to Vietnam? If you went with open eyes and hung out away from the Western herd, you would never be the same.


Yeah, sounds like you're pretty much past the point of no return.

[XASA]

I have no more special knowledge of the Vietnam War than any other Army Officer (basic military history courses).

The Iraqi and Afghan campaigns? Oh yes. I know quite a bit more than you do about those, having two OIF and one OEF deployment under my belt.

Have you been to either Country? Have you any active military experience?

Then, as an officer, you should know better than to go off half-cocked.

Why haven't you taken the time to compare you personal experiences with what you were taught instead of getting into a pissing match?

I served in the U.S. Army from 1965 to 1971. After spending three years in Berlin, I was stationed at NSA for a year before receiving orders for Vietnam. We did, indeed, call the VC "Sir Charles" and still had respect for their fighting ability.

BTW: Excuse me if I don't snap to attention and salute. I wasn't an officer but a lowly Specialist 6th Class. I'm sure most officers are more level headed than you are but after spending the afternoon in a "discussion" with you, I'm glad I'm not in today's Army.

[MichaelF]

Then 2nd Lt. Shotcaller, please tell us how you win a difficult war with no political mandate to begin with?

I don't comment on current policy.

That said, I will state that we define our mission parameters. Those parameters should allow the maximum possible likelihood of victory.

Building an multi-religious, multi-ethnic, Arab democracy was a fools errand, but demanded by the (incorrect) Powell Doctrine ("you break it, you bought it").

[MichaelF]

I served in the U.S. Army from 1965 to 1971. After spending three years in Berlin, I was stationed at NSA for a year before receiving orders for Vietnam. We did, indeed, call the VC "Sir Charles" and still had respect for their fighting ability.

.

Then you should know better than to make 1:1 analogies based on vague language.

Regardless of what you called the VC in 1969, the VC themselves were no longer a factor (replaced by NVA troops calling themselves VC for propoganda purposes). Ergo, that entire portion of your original statement was irrelevant.

The "incredibly tough" troops you mentioned were actually the regular Army of another country, not citizens of the RVN.

So, post-Tet, we were actually defending South Vietnam from outright invasion by foreign power, not fighting a popular uprising.

Lastly, your inability to hold up your end of a rational debate:


Where do you guys get your facts from? Are they teaching history in schools anymore or do you rely on conservatives for your revisionist version?

...is your problem. Not mine. You made an false inferrence. You got corrected. Suck it up and drive on.

A good chunk of your original statement (re: the nature of the combatants) was pretty spot on, regarding the gross differences between OIF and Vietnam.

[krasnayaarmiya]

I don't comment on current policy.


Sir, you maintain an arborial appendage in the colon, perpendicular to the g.i. tract, sir! :-(

[krasnayaarmiya]

Yeah, sounds like you're pretty much past the point of no return.

Simmer down, square-bear.

[XASA]

Then you should know better than to make 1:1 analogies based on vague language.

Regardless of what you called the VC in 1969, the VC themselves were no longer a factor (replaced by NVA troops calling themselves VC for propoganda purposes). Ergo, that entire portion of your original statement was irrelevant.

The "incredibly tough" troops you mentioned were actually the regular Army of another country, not citizens of the RVN.

It was Bush who made the original analogy. My contribution to this thread was to argue against that analogy. You made a feeble attempt to hijack it. In fact, you still haven't made a contribution to the argument based on your knowledge and experience because you don't want to comment on current events. What a cop out.

If you would take time out from your busy schedule and do some research, you would know North Vietnam and South Vietnam are historically one country. The division in 1954 was an artificial one that was to stay in effect only until 1956, when elections were to be held to vote for a unified government. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh would have won, so we, the Americans and our corrupt-to-the-core South Vietnamese "allies," cancelled the elections, which led to the outbreak of round two of the Indochina War (some historians consider the French and American involvement one event).

And if you think the South Vietnamese who were in regional VC units weren't tough, you are very much mistaken. Of course, you know better then anyone else because you're an officer, or claim to be one.

BTW: At the end of WWII, Ho Chi Minh wanted to establish relations with the U.S. but we decided to back the French. As you know, the rest is history.

[Steel21]

MichealF, there was a time when I was a staunch supporter of the CIC.....

I'm also an officer, Cav branch. Enlisted in 99, have been an officer since 2001.

The way I see it, Vietnam was entirely unnecessary. We could have made allies of Ho Chi Minh and maintain a influence in the area. Same could be said of China prior to Oct 1949.

We as soldier attribute value (perhaps subconsciously) to our mission and are thus emotionally attached to the cause, willingly or otherwise. It is almost a psychological requirement to believe in the cause in order to endure the sacrifices physical or those around us, personally or in our role as leaders.

I cant help but agree with krasnayaarmiya.

Wars are fought for resources, pure and simple. It may be hydrocarbon or access to reproduction, the bare bones motivation is the same.

Which is to say, if this conflict can beget hydrocarbon at a price significantly cheaper for American consumption, and American consumption alone, despite the intrinsic cost of military action and security...... then its worth it.

Unfortunately, oil is an openly traded commodity, and thus there is no real way to receive that benefit exclusively for ourselves.

This CIC has not read his military history. And neither has those he appointed.

It would've been better to appoint the leader of the LA Bloods to run the IRG instead of Bremer.

This war is lost. Despite its BS cause, there was a small window of hope that it could've turned out alright. That window was slammed shut when Garner was replaced by Bremer.

However, in one way Vietnam will be exactly like Iraq, and that is in the manner we will leave the place........hopefully, we will have more choppers this time.

And BTW, I want no Iraqi refugees in the states........

[MichaelF]

And if you think the South Vietnamese who were in regional VC units weren't tough, you are very much mistaken. Of course, you know better then anyone else because you're an officer, or claim to be one.
.


1.) I made no comment on the proficiency of the VC main and field force units. Obviously, they were pretty good.

2.) You asked what my knowledge (VN and Iraq) was based on, I told you where it came from. You chose to make a big thing about me being Commissioned.

[krasnayaarmiya]

The "incredibly tough" troops you mentioned were actually the regular Army of another country, not citizens of the RVN.

So, post-Tet, we were actually defending South Vietnam from outright invasion by foreign power, not fighting a popular uprising.



Patently false. Had the majority of Vietnamese had their way in 1956, when their elections were slated, they would have been unified anyway. That South Vietnam you describe may have been touted as being its own country by the OCS textbooks, but that is a given, a doctrinal orthodoxy of the Pentagon. The only people who supported an autonomous South Vietnam were the Chinese Catholic francophile merchant/bureaucratic classes and the landed gentry, a slim minority of elites.

By misunderstanding the lessons of Vietnam, we make quite a few of the same mistakes again and again, and Iraq was not the only example...

[MichaelF]

This war is lost. Despite its BS cause, there was a small window of hope that it could've turned out alright. That window was slammed shut when Garner was replaced by Bremer.

However, in one way Vietnam will be exactly like Iraq, and that is in the manner we will leave the place........hopefully, we will have more choppers this time.

And BTW, I want no Iraqi refugees in the states........

I don't disagree that we are going to fail to achieve our goals. They weren't realistic to begin with. That should be a lesson to us.

Goal setting is one thing they teach all of us who lead troops. They don't teach it to politicians.

We had interests in Iraq (chiefly, the removal of Saddam). Once they were served we should have left. Immediately.

[krasnayaarmiya]

BTW: At the end of WWII, Ho Chi Minh wanted to establish relations with the U.S. but we decided to back the French. As you know, the rest is history.

He even paraphrased our Declaration of Independence and showed it to the POTUS. Sad, really.

[XASA]

1.) I made no comment on the proficiency of the VC main and field force units. Obviously, they were pretty good.

2.) You asked what my knowledge (VN and Iraq) was based on, I told you where it came from. You chose to make a big thing about me being Commissioned.

I could care less if you were commissioned. It was you who brought up their military experience as if that would sway the argument. I hope you and the troops you serve with only the best. Believe me, I know what it is to be caught in the middle of an unpopular war. I would only suggest you do some reading to refresh your basic military courses. A history of Vietnam would be a good start. I wonder what Iraqi history courses were taught before we went into that country.

[MichaelF]

The only people who supported an autonomous South Vietnam were the Chinese Catholic francophile merchant/bureaucratic classes and the landed gentry, a slim minority of elites.
...

For good reason, as it turned out. Those folks tended not to do so well in the North. In 1956, 50,000 Catholics were executed and another half million were starved to death, by Ho's order.

By the time the South welched out on the Geneva Accords, the North had lost any moral claim to Unification.

The tragedy of the Vietnamese people is that they were caught between two monstrous systems. The murderous Communists (Ho, et al) in the North, and the Corrupt Murderers in the South (Diem and his successors).

The efforts of the NLF and North Vietnam, to unite Vietnam under one set of murderers, doesn't make them any more legitimate than Diem.

[krasnayaarmiya]

Both the Left and the Right are wrong about one of the drivers of war in Iraq. The Left think it was to lower energy costs, and the Right believed the party line du jour.

The neo-conservatives have always wanted to break up OPEC. They want leverage against the Saudis, the US's uneasy ally. By control of one of the largest oil reserves, they thought they could dicate the desired abundance or scarcity. Houston had a different idea. The Houston oil cartel benefits immensely from the prices that OPEC brings, so they ragdolled the neo-cons into realizing that Houston don't play that market ideology game. The Big Oil companies had their own track, a more entrenched one, in the foreign policy circles. They wanted to do away with Saddam because he was driving DOWN the price of oil by overpumping, OPEC being the least of his worries a decade into the embargo. Sometimes he would halt production, also adding a huge reverse fluctuation, but was his unpredictability when it came to determining the price of energy that made him No.1 on the hit parade. Houston and Riyadh like to call them shots. The price of energy may slow the US market or make interest rates go up and can make Americans more equity than has been seen since the Great Depression, but who says our government's foreign policy is crafted for the greater good?

[krasnayaarmiya]

For good reason, as it turned out. Those folks tended not to do so well in the North. In 1956, 50,000 Catholics were executed and another half million were starved to death, by Ho's order.

By the time the South welched out on the Geneva Accords, the North had lost any moral claim to Unification.

The tragedy of the Vietnamese people is that they were caught between two monstrous systems. The murderous Communists (Ho, et al) in the North, and the Corrupt Murderers in the South (Diem and his successors).

The efforts of the NLF and North Vietnam, to unite Vietnam under one set of murderers, doesn't make them any more legitimate than Diem.

So here comes the US, hey diddle diddle right down the middle, huh, just minding its own merry beeswax? The noble agent of good intention, with no alterior motives, aside from attempting full-spectrum dominance of Planet Earth?

[budgie]

The efforts of the NLF and North Vietnam, to unite Vietnam under one set of murderers, doesn't make them any more legitimate than Diem.

So as usual the US knows best what's for another country? Sorry mate it was the Vietnamese that wanted you out then and the Iraqis now. Not some disparate group of ne'er do wells - but the majority of a country's populace.

[budgie]

Al Qeida [sic] is probably more thinking on how to perpetrate another terrorist attack in the West rather than on overseeing the desctruction of market in Mossoul.


Naah, they're interested in the market in Mosul.

[budgie]

Like this right wing nut?

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

-President Bill Clinton Dec. 1998


Chant after me: Clinton lied and people died.


So let me get this straight - Bill Clinton ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Are we 100% clear on that?


It's always the same with Bush supporters - it's never your man's fault is it? It was the previous admin, the 'Saddamists' (BTW least catchy political term ever cuz we already had Baathists), Congressional Democrats, faulty intel...Moore, Sheehan, Gore, whoever.

Broken record dude.

At least the next administration will have the luxury of blaming their problems on Bush, and they will probably be right for a change.

[MichaelF]

So here comes the US, hey diddle diddle right down the middle, huh, just minding its own merry beeswax?


Not at all. We had an interest in blunting Communist (the North was getting as much or more support from the Communist bloc as the South was from us) advance in SEA.

If you expect me to take the part that the US has always been an innocent party, you've figured me wrong. We follow our interests. The efficiency with which we do that is what is subject to debate.

In this case (Iraq) the Powell Doctrine is a the heart of our problems. IMO.

[Henry's Fork]

Both the Left and the Right are wrong about one of the drivers of war in Iraq. The Left think it was to lower energy costs, and the Right believed the party line du jour.


Then what about us centrist Libertarians who know that the first gulf war was never finished properly and thats why there had to be a second one?

Where do we fit in with your equation?


Also, your ideas (read fantasy) about 1954 being one big happy united country under Ho is pure jive. The many, my former employer included, Viets who fled the communists have a different story than yours. Something about the commies trying to kill them and their family for not supporting the great leader Ho.

Hey, maybe that fantasy would have been true if Ho did succeed in killing off all the opposition. One big happy Viet Nam. Oh wait, he did.:|

[XASA]

Not at all. We had an interest in blunting Communist (the North was getting as much or more support from the Communist bloc as the South was from us) advance in SEA.

If you expect me to take the part that the US has always been an innocent party, you've figured me wrong. We follow our interests. The efficiency with which we do that is what is subject to debate.

In this case (Iraq) the Powell Doctrine is a the heart of our problems. IMO.

Any person with a minimal knowledge of current military terminology knows that the Powell Doctrine is not "if you break it, you own it". Powell did say that in reference to invading Iraq but it wasn't a policy statement.

The Powell Doctrine is to use massive force to overwhelm your enemy. If anything, the Bush Administration ignored that doctrine and, despite Shineski's warnings, went into the battle "light". Why? Because the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators (remember that). There weren't enough troops to stop the looting of arms depots. To make matters worse, Bremer made a fcuked up situation into a fcuked up beyond all recognition situation; yet, you blame it on your misconception of the Powell Doctrine? Talk about a credibility gap...

[MichaelF]

Powell did say that in reference to invading Iraq but it wasn't a policy statement.
..

In this case, you are correct. I was conflating the two (while referring to just the one statement). It's been a long day, mea culpa.

It still stands that we would have been far better served with a set of much more conservative goals and a quick departure. His "break it, bought it" statement has, demonstrably, been enacted as policy (we are still trying to rehabilitate the Country).

More specifically, according the actual Powell Doctrine, we should have had a clear attainable objective and a plausible exit strategy. We had, and have, neither.

[budgie]

Then what about us centrist Libertarians who know that the first gulf war was never finished properly and thats why there had to be a second one?

Where do we fit in with your equation?


|

Some people who claim to be 'centrist' Libertarians stand far to the right of the Republican fringe when it comes to using force to solve America's problems. Some of the biggest supporters of the war from the start called themselves libertarians and justification ranged from blind belief in the phoney intel to scepticism tempered with "they all had it coming after 9/11 anyway" sentiment.

This may be because many gun nuts in the wilds of Idaho identify with many libertarian principles (small government, 2nd amendment, etc) possibly without actually understanding the rest of the party's doctrine and literature. Whatever the reasons, many seem to be firmly behind Bush on the war, the last war, Vietnam and seem to be joining the baying chorus for future attacks on Iran:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/LibertariansAndWar.htm

But lately there's been a growing chorus of Libertarians against Bush on this and the moderate ones are speaking out:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~callib/docs/iraq-protest.shtml

http://www.libertarians4peace.net/

So you should educate us, because I'm not clear on where the party's sentiments as a whole lie: where do Libertarians fit in to the equation?

[remo williams]

Imho, I don't really think Bush is now trying to tie Iraq to Vietnam. I see this as more of a basis for future reasoning of a possible pullout. After all we did leave Vietnam and the end results many were seeking to avoid took place irregardless.

We have normalized relations with them now many yrs later, but the difference is, the Vietnamese weren't pissed enough to mount suicide attacks throughout the world afterward. There wasn't the ,(arguably foregone), probability of them becoming a religiously fanatic based, terrorist rooted, hostile nation seeking to initiate future conflict. Both direct, and proxy with the ability/resolve to acquire/use WMD's of some sort.

With the recent exit of Karl Rove and the upcoming Iraq report, I would not be surprised if this wasn't a way to get "out in front" of things...

[Mailman]

So lemme see if I got this right.

Every man and his dog can run around like chicken littles proclaiming IRaq is just like Vietnet and no one here bats an eye lid.

YET heaven forbid GW makes a comparison between what happened in Vietnam after America left and what could happen in Iraq if America left.

Mailman

[ElHombre]

Every man and his dog can run around like chicken littles proclaiming IRaq is just like Vietnet and no one here bats an eye lid.

Say again? Seems that every time there's an Iraq=Vietnam comaprison there's a 'They're nothing alike!' response.


YET heaven forbid GW makes a comparison between what happened in Vietnam after America left and what could happen in Iraq if America left.

Perhaps because even the historian Bush quoted has noted that Bush is again twisting facts to prop up his Iraq policy.

[timetraveller]

Someone closed this subject please .. there gettin off trak

[Ddavid]

We have normalized relations with them now many yrs later, but the difference is, the Vietnamese weren't pissed enough to mount suicide attacks throughout the world afterward. There wasn't the ,(arguably foregone), probability of them becoming a religiously fanatic based, terrorist rooted, hostile nation seeking to initiate future conflict. Both direct, and proxy with the ability/resolve to acquire/use WMD's of some sort.

Please tell us why and how Iraq may turn in a state sponsoring terrorism against the United State in a foreseeable future ?
First, shias and sunnies iraqies will be too busy rebuilding the country, maybe with a longer civil war in between. What would be the rational for starting a third theoric row with the US, who would be just that... theoric.

Secund, Al qaida insurrgents are a small minority in the battlefield, but they breed everywhere. So why still linking them to Iraq ?

[Mailman]

Say again? Seems that every time there's an Iraq=Vietnam comaprison there's a 'They're nothing alike!' response.



Perhaps because even the historian Bush quoted has noted that Bush is again twisting facts to prop up his Iraq policy.

Oh I see...its nothing more than what pavlov was going on about when he was testing his dogs...your every post merely confirms him to be correct :D

Mailman

[remo williams]

Please tell us why and how Iraq may turn in a state sponsoring terrorism against the United State in a foreseeable future ?
First, shias and sunnies iraqies will be too busy rebuilding the country, maybe with a longer civil war in between. What would be the rational for starting a third theoric row with the US, who would be just that... theoric.

Secund, Al qaida insurrgents are a small minority in the battlefield, but they breed everywhere. So why still linking them to Iraq ?



Iraq turning into a tacit state sponsor or terrorism is just one of the fears. It's viable because of the fact that you have AQ in Iraq, which is the next most unstable country in the region which could either be a breeding pool for future terrorists, or the spring fresh urinal cake in the ME urinal. As well as Iran who's RG is involved in Iraq. Also which sponsors Hamas, which is Shia, IIRC. Were, by some twist of fate, any one of these to somehow become a proxy to the new Gov't , it could be a bad thing in the long run wouldn't you agree?

The fear during Vietnam was that if Vietnam fell communism would spread. We see how that worked out, but this is a radically different and more fluid situation. But my original basis for my statement had less to do with the fortune telling of Iraq's future, than it did with indicating a possible course of upcoming political events.

[Firetxmi]

Bush wades into water over his head...again
We should not abandon Iraq, but Bush's argument is demonstrably false
COMMENTARY
By Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
MSNBC
Updated: 8:49 a.m. ET Aug 27, 2007

Last week, with about three weeks to go before General David Petraeus renders his report on progress in Iraq, President Bush delivered a speech in which he tried valiantly to engender support for American strategy there. The audience, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, was enthusiastically supportive.

Bush’s observation about the self-sacrifice and patriotism of those who have served in uniform was well done, and we must always remember that today we can enjoy our lives only because generations of young people have sacrificed theirs. We can’t extol the virtues of these brave Americans often enough, and I never tire of thinking how lucky we are to have produced such giants.

The other principle focus of the president was that precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for both the United States and Iraq. He’s right about that too, though one can’t avoid the observation that had we begun conducting a proper counterinsurgency four years ago, Iraq would be much closer to genuine success than it is now and we would be withdrawing at leisure. Nevertheless, Bush is correct to castigate those who argue for bringing everyone home immediately, because it would be bad for Iraq and dangerous for our troops. Those who say that we should immediately pile over 160,000 Americans into various conveyances to speed them back home either: (1) dodged military service, or (2) did serve but were not paying much attention at the time. There is no more difficult military mission than a withdrawal, and those that have been attempted in haste have usually ended disastrously.

But when Bush invoked the specters of past wars to support his assertions, he waded into water well over his head.

Bush begins to fabricate history
Among other things, he suggested that the proximate cause of the genocide in Cambodia was our withdrawal from Vietnam. Absolute nonsense. The Khmer Rouge’s murderous regime established itself long before the American combat presence in Vietnam ended.

Mr. Bush also opined that the post-war orgy of retribution in Vietnam was the proximate result of our withdrawal as well. This, too, is a fabrication.

I first went to Vietnam in 1967, as our forces were building there. At the height of our involvement, we had well over half a million Americans engaged, and we ultimately lost more than 58,000.

b]

[b]Perhaps the most startling aspect of President Bush’s speech is that his assertion about Vietnam is diametrically opposed to his own public position not long ago, when he argued that the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were nothing alike. Most experienced military people agreed with him then and thus can’t possibly agree with him now. Of course everyone, including the president, is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to change it, too, but he’s not entitled to fabricate evidence to support it.

Who is ignorant of the lessons of history?
So, Bush’s speech is infuriating: his argument that we should not abandon Iraq precipitously is fundamentally a good one, but he undermines a militarily sound course of action with specious nonsense that is demonstrably false, easily refuted by any sentient being with a passing knowledge or understanding of recent history.

It has always been something of a public amusement to make sport of President Bush’s apparent ignorance. And it would be regrettable if neither Bush, nor his speechwriter, nor even his chief of staff has any substantive grasp of the events the president cited in his speech. It would be far worse however, if Bush does indeed understand the lessons of history but believes that his audience is easily convinced to ignore them.

Jack Jacobs is an MSNBC military analyst. He is a retired U.S. Army colonel. He earned the Medal of Honor for exceptional heroism on the battlefields of Vietnam and also has three Bronze Stars and two Silver Stars.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427300/

[BugHunt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99-sC7kDA_k&mode=related&search=


Too funny for words rofl:)



Checkout 3.30 and 4.30 for some classic Bush torturing of history.


Insults the intelligence of all except a diehard republican.... as a retired general said recently the great american publics experiment is over - it DOES matter electing a leader who lacks intelligence.


That episode also has the co-author of there new counter insurgency manual Lt Col John Nagl - hes actually got a good sense of humour ;)