Political Crossfire Forums

[Vulcidian]

Here's the article:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15742536/


I honestly can't believe this. In the middle of Hanoi he said, and I quote: "We’ll succeed unless we quit...The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it.”



Is he really serious? The lesson we learned from Vietname is that we will succed unless we quit?

I think what we learned in Vietnam is that when you back a government that the natives see as a puppet government you are going to fail.

The kidnappings in Iraq prove that this government is loosing control by the day. And Bush says what we learned is that we will win unless we leave?

Here's what I think we learned in Vietnam. We should have never gone in the first place!


The Soviets learned the same lesson in Afghanistan. You can't fight that kind of War. The best case scenario is North Korea.

I'm still in shock that he would say that.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

"Even though the Americans were more powerful with all their massive weapons,
the main factor in war is the people," he said.
"The Vietnamese people were very determined. We would not give up. That's why we won."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/bush.hanoi.ap/index.html

Quote: Vietnamese officials eager for their country to take its turn in the global spotlight expressed disappointment that the president arrived without his expected gift -- congressional approval of a new pact normalizing trade relations with Vietnam.

Surprising the White House, Congress failed to pass the bill this week as expected, leaving U.S. officials trying to explain to the Vietnamese that it would be sure to go through next month.

Why did the Republican controlled Congress refuse to pass a new pact normalizing trade relations with Vietnam ?

[sublime]

Vulcidian wrote: Here's the article:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15742536/


I honestly can't believe this. In the middle of Hanoi he said, and I quote: "We’ll succeed unless we quit...The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it.”



Is he really serious? The lesson we learned from Vietname is that we will succed unless we quit?

I think what we learned in Vietnam is that when you back a government that the natives see as a puppet government you are going to fail.

The kidnappings in Iraq prove that this government is loosing control by the day. And Bush says what we learned is that we will win unless we leave?

Here's what I think we learned in Vietnam. We should have never gone in the first place!


The Soviets learned the same lesson in Afghanistan. You can't fight that kind of War. The best case scenario is North Korea.

I'm still in shock that he would say that.

You are completely wrong. We did the exact opposite of what we should have done in that war......and millions of Viet Namese paid for it and are still paying.

This war does not resemble Viet Nam in any way. This is not a war against a country with whom you can negotiate.

Once more Liberals prove the old saw that "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

They have Viet Nam but no brain power to make the necessary distinctions between that and anything else, I'm afraid.

[Vulcidian]

sublime wrote: Vulcidian wrote: Here's the article:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15742536/


I honestly can't believe this. In the middle of Hanoi he said, and I quote: "We’ll succeed unless we quit...The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it.”



Is he really serious? The lesson we learned from Vietname is that we will succed unless we quit?

I think what we learned in Vietnam is that when you back a government that the natives see as a puppet government you are going to fail.

The kidnappings in Iraq prove that this government is loosing control by the day. And Bush says what we learned is that we will win unless we leave?

Here's what I think we learned in Vietnam. We should have never gone in the first place!


The Soviets learned the same lesson in Afghanistan. You can't fight that kind of War. The best case scenario is North Korea.

I'm still in shock that he would say that.

You are completely wrong. We did the exact opposite of what we should have done in that war......and millions of Viet Namese paid for it and are still paying.

This war does not resemble Viet Nam in any way. This is not a war against a country with whom you can negotiate.

Once more Liberals prove the old saw that "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

They have Viet Nam but no brain power to make the necessary distinctions between that and anything else, I'm afraid.


What would you call the Viet Kong? An INSURGENCY. That INSURGENCY is what cost us the war. A huge portion of the South Vietnamese population did not want us there. We couldn't negotiate with the Vietnamese insurgency. Please, my friend, don't allow your bias to influence your judgement, lives are at stake.

Had we stayed in Vietnam we would still be there. We would probably still be in the Cold War.

So I guess you're saying the Republicans cutting and running in Vietnam was a bad idea? I disagree completely. If we'd stayed, millions would still have died, and for what? A government nobody but us wanted in the first place.

[Geronimo]

Vietnam was in a way like this one. In Vietnam, we were just sticking our nose where it never belonged. It is a small country, and It could have even been considered as "big brother is watching you." The war on Iraq is different in the sense that, terror is almost like an emotion. one out of one billion could have it, very much like a disease. The stupidity in the action of fighting it, is that governments today are so used to choosing sides, with uniforms, and other traces of visible enemy colors, or race, or wear, that we have absolutely no experience with fighting random attacks. It is a war we will not, and will never win. terrorism can crop up at anytime, anywhere, for any reason. It's very much like cancer, and to date, we do not have a perfect cure.

[Eclectic]

Vulcidian wrote: Bush In Vietnam Shows He Has Learned Nothing

Indeed.

What strikes me as comical is that Bush supporters have intensely argued that there is no comparison between the Vietnam and Iraq War. And now we have Bush completely acknowledging the simularities, even if he is trying to add 'spin' and exploit them in his favor.

[zMtLlC]

Quote: A huge portion of the South Vietnamese population did not want us there.

Do you have a source for that?

Well anyway, he is right in a way. We won't succeed if we leave, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will succeed if we don't leave.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Geronimo wrote: Vietnam was in a way like this one. In Vietnam, we were just sticking our nose where it never belonged. It is a small country, and It could have even been considered as "big brother is watching you." The war on Iraq is different in the sense that, terror is almost like an emotion. one out of one billion could have it, very much like a disease. The stupidity in the action of fighting it, is that governments today are so used to choosing sides, with uniforms, and other traces of visible enemy colors, or race, or wear, that we have absolutely no experience with fighting random attacks. It is a war we will not, and will never win. terrorism can crop up at anytime, anywhere, for any reason. It's very much like cancer, and to date, we do not have a perfect cure.

Quote: It's very much like cancer, and to date, we do not have a perfect cure.

:gmo: Bad analogy my friend !
Now the Neocon's will see as their only resource to curing this ill as: Radiation and Chemical Therapy :roll:

[Nathan]

Bush often has trouble with logic and reason. He should have known that nation-building is very difficult, and military force alone can't win ideological struggles. His foreign policy has been a complete disaster.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Vietnam and Iraq are not the same war, not the same effects and not for the same reasons. Again, flawed logic.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Vietnam and Iraq are not the same war, not the same effects and not for the same reasons. Again, flawed logic.

Hmm? Then the comparison of fighting a local insurgency lacks merit?
Occupying a Country and fighting the local population for control of their lands lacks merit?

I see it so clearly, not, thanks !

[Alizard]

Vulcidian wrote:
I'm still in shock that he would say that.

Not me.... that doesn't even make the top-ten list of idiotic things he has said.

Remember.... this is a man for whom eating a pretzel is a near death experience, and riding a bike without training wheels requires total concentration. :lol:

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Nathan wrote: Bush often has trouble with logic and reason. He should have known that nation-building is very difficult, and military force alone can't win ideological struggles. His foreign policy has been a complete disaster.

Quote: BUSH: Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our and it's in our when it's in our best interests.

But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti, I wouldn't have supported either.


Ah! Bush was against Nation-building, before he was for it. :think:

Once against nation-building, Bush now involved
Quote: WASHINGTON -- The very words "nation building" were akin to an expletive when George W. Bush ran for the White House four years ago. But now, as he seeks a second term, United States intervention in Haiti is but the latest example of how nation-building has become a defining feature of his administration's foreign policy.
In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and now in Haiti, the Bush administration has found itself enmeshed in the daily workings of failed states and has taken on responsibilities as far-ranging as protecting government leaders, repairing infrastructure, and serving as a sort of police force amid a hostile citizenry. The tasks have resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives, cost billions of dollars, and directly contradicted how candidate Bush said he would govern as president.

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

But administration officials from Bush on down concede that the United States is now actively involved in nation-building. They argue that the post-Sept. 11 world, where poverty and hopelessness spawn terror and terror threatens US and world security, requires the United States to act to promote freedom and democracy.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Vietnam and Iraq are not the same war, not the same effects and not for the same reasons. Again, flawed logic.

Hmm? Then the comparison of fighting a local insurgency lacks merit?
Occupying a Country and fighting the local population for control of their lands lacks merit?

I see it so clearly, not, thanks !

Comparing a China backed communist war with a religious zelot based jihad does lack merit
Comparing an Asian conflict of the 1960's to a Middle East conflict of the 21st century lacks merit
Comparing occupation and policing of a conquored nation (Iraq) versus a conventional war with a front line within a nation that has not been conquored lacks merit

You're welcome.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Vietnam and Iraq are not the same war, not the same effects and not for the same reasons. Again, flawed logic.

Hmm? Then the comparison of fighting a local insurgency lacks merit?
Occupying a Country and fighting the local population for control of their lands lacks merit?

I see it so clearly, not, thanks !

Comparing a China backed communist war with a religious zelot based jihad does lack merit
Comparing an Asian conflict of the 1960's to a Middle East conflict of the 21st century lacks merit
Comparing occupation and policing of a conquored nation (Iraq) versus a conventional war with a front line within a nation that has not been conquored lacks merit

You're welcome.

The vast majority of the insurgency have nothing to do with "a religious zelot based jihad".
They are first and foremost, Nationalistic.
Had we actually remained in the fight against the "religious zelot based jihad" we wouldn't be in Iraq.

[Vulcidian]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Vietnam and Iraq are not the same war, not the same effects and not for the same reasons. Again, flawed logic.

Hmm? Then the comparison of fighting a local insurgency lacks merit?
Occupying a Country and fighting the local population for control of their lands lacks merit?

I see it so clearly, not, thanks !

Comparing a China backed communist war with a religious zelot based jihad does lack merit
Comparing an Asian conflict of the 1960's to a Middle East conflict of the 21st century lacks merit
Comparing occupation and policing of a conquored nation (Iraq) versus a conventional war with a front line within a nation that has not been conquored lacks merit

You're welcome.


So we immerse ourselves in a War in a 3rd World type country with harsh terrain.

We are caught in a war against nationalists and fanatics backed by other rival organizations of ours.

We are currently not making headway. We appear to be stuck in a cycle of violence with casulaties steadily rising. And this is NOTHING like Vietnam?

Here's a link showing how many troops we had in Vietnam: www.commondreams.org/headlines/080900-01.htm

" 1966 400,000 US troops in Vietnam, rising to 500,000 in 1967"

We couldn't win in Vietnam with three times as many troops.

So the first lesson we should learn is that 150000 troops is surely not enough to stabilize the country. But Bush hasn't learned that either.

So no one is saying that Iraq and Vietnam are the same war. But they are very comparable. And it is obvious we haven't learned from Vietnam, and Bush is making worse mistakes than we made back then.


Perhaps the only reason our casulaties aren't so high as they were in Vietnam, is that we don't have as many men to target? Not as many men to try and enforce order?

[Alizard]

Vulcidian wrote:
" 1966 400,000 US troops in Vietnam, rising to 500,000 in 1967"



It was over 500k in 1968.

[Alizard]

Vulcidian wrote:
Perhaps the only reason our casulaties aren't so high as they were in Vietnam, is that we don't have as many men to target? Not as many men to try and enforce order?

NO. In Viet nam we fought a "dual" war. There was an actual (competent) army of North Viet namese we called the NVA "regulars". Wore uniforms and everything.

The Viet Cong were more like the Iraqi insurgency. No uniforms, crappy weapons and training, but invisible in the society.

The casualties then were higher because we were fighting both an insurgency force as well as an Army from the north.

In Iraq, there is no "north-south" border to fight over. The whole country is a war zone and the enemy is the insurgency.

[sLiPpY]

Vulcidian wrote: Here's the article:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15742536/


I honestly can't believe this. In the middle of Hanoi he said, and I quote: "We’ll succeed unless we quit...The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it.”



Is he really serious? The lesson we learned from Vietname is that we will succed unless we quit?

I think what we learned in Vietnam is that when you back a government that the natives see as a puppet government you are going to fail.

The kidnappings in Iraq prove that this government is loosing control by the day. And Bush says what we learned is that we will win unless we leave?

Here's what I think we learned in Vietnam. We should have never gone in the first place!


The Soviets learned the same lesson in Afghanistan. You can't fight that kind of War. The best case scenario is North Korea.

I'm still in shock that he would say that.

:duh1: Is Vietnam a big country?

[Rankor and Pissing]

Vulcidian wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Vietnam and Iraq are not the same war, not the same effects and not for the same reasons. Again, flawed logic.

Hmm? Then the comparison of fighting a local insurgency lacks merit?
Occupying a Country and fighting the local population for control of their lands lacks merit?

I see it so clearly, not, thanks !

Comparing a China backed communist war with a religious zelot based jihad does lack merit
Comparing an Asian conflict of the 1960's to a Middle East conflict of the 21st century lacks merit
Comparing occupation and policing of a conquored nation (Iraq) versus a conventional war with a front line within a nation that has not been conquored lacks merit

You're welcome.


So we immerse ourselves in a War in a 3rd World type country with harsh terrain.

We are caught in a war against nationalists and fanatics backed by other rival organizations of ours.

We are currently not making headway. We appear to be stuck in a cycle of violence with casulaties steadily rising. And this is NOTHING like Vietnam?

Here's a link showing how many troops we had in Vietnam: www.commondreams.org/headlines/080900-01.htm

" 1966 400,000 US troops in Vietnam, rising to 500,000 in 1967"

We couldn't win in Vietnam with three times as many troops.

So the first lesson we should learn is that 150000 troops is surely not enough to stabilize the country. But Bush hasn't learned that either.

So no one is saying that Iraq and Vietnam are the same war. But they are very comparable. And it is obvious we haven't learned from Vietnam, and Bush is making worse mistakes than we made back then.


Perhaps the only reason our casulaties aren't so high as they were in Vietnam, is that we don't have as many men to target? Not as many men to try and enforce order?

As many comparisons that you and ROM make that may make it seem similiar, there are just as many I can list that makes it different. The second thing about Iraq is, the standing army was defeated, in very short order, twice. Vietnam was never an occupation of the entire country and a war strictly against a terrorist network. As much as you may both kid yourselves about it - they are religious zealots. If they were not, they would not repeat allah akbar's ever time they did something. They make video's of themselves, they are called martyrs by their comrades. Vietnam had zero, Nada to do with any religion.

They're not the same in almost any way - other than both are called "wars" and both have had the U.S. military involved. Just as there are no comparisons between Japanese kamikaze's with suicide bombers. Why? Because while both are sacrifices of a life to kill multiple "enemies" - one is emphatically religiously based (ie. 72 virgins and martyrdom) and the other was not - unless you believe the emperor of Japan indeed was a God.

The mistakes of Vietnam were learned boys and girls. There was little terroristic attacks and religious zealotry in 1969 in Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam and China wanted nothing to do with religion period (Communist Governments don't like the religions getting a foothold and undermining power bases). This is a different kind of war - one that can be controlled but not wiped out unless drastic measures were to be taken - which would make us as bad as they are.