A Google search for "Iraq Vietnam" will turn up 113,000,000 hits. Both hawks and doves have embraced the Iraq/Vietnam analogy. For the dove,the Vietnam War symbolizes the ultimate failure of American politics. To them, duplication of the Vietnam war is an affront to the lessons learned during that misguided conflict. For the hawk, the Vietnam era represents something quite different. Victory in Vietnam, they say, was undermined by a lack of support back home. Liberal soft-heartedness combined with a lack of support for the troops to undermine the war effort.
Either way, what we are talking about is notions of failure. In contemporary times, the dove sees the war in Iraq as the result of a complete failure of the American political system. The hawk sees calls for withdrawal as a return to Vietnam era style defeatism. "We must stay the course," they say.
Both views have their strongpoints. Public opposition to the Vietnam War led to the withdrawal of American troops in the 1970's, and seems poised to bring the current war to an end sooner rather than later. On the other hand, one could point to the many mistakes that took place at the highest levels of the American political and military system as the catalyst for public opposition. The views of lower ranking military officials - those actually in "the field" - were repeatedly ignored by top officials during the Vietnam era. Today, the Bush administration has pursued an uncritical approach to policymaking on Iraq that can be summed up as "I'm right, your entitled to your opinion, but our policy won't change."
In other words one can attribute America's defeat in Vietnam and its struggles thus far in Iraq to two root causes:
1. Lack of support for troops and the war = defeat.
2. Failure on the part of the nation's political and military leadership = Loss of public support leading to the end of the war.
What do you think? Can we blame the public for America's defeat in Vietnam and for its likely defeat in Iraq? Or does responsibility lie in the hands of the policy makers, with the public only acting to hold them accountable for their failures?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
What cost Mr. Bush public support and what will ultimately cost him the war itself was his pig-headed refusal to view what was happening on the ground realistically and to react to that reality as opposed to the rosy scenario he had in his idealized vision of what was supposed to happen.
Mr. Bush lost public support by refusing to change course early on when it became apparent he had made some missteps. He continues to lose public support by his stubborn refusal to change course now, even in the face of a burgeoning civil war and the advice of dozens of experts. The less he does, the more he fails, and the closer it gets to November 2008 will only serve to increase this loss of public support.
Certainly, not all soldiers are not anti-war. Both anti-war and pro-war groups are hungry to "own" the troops. The truth about the American soldier cannot be summed up easily. Some may simply want to come home, others may loathe the war, and still others may believe in what they are doing. Why not let them speak for themselves?
Quite frankly he had dozens of opportunities to fix his original mistakes and misjudgments. He chose rather to "stay the course" though it was clear to all but him apparently that the course was failing. There is a difference between being strong enough to weather opposition when you know you're right, and being obstinate and pig-headed even when reality proves you wrong over and over again.
Give the American Public a National Referendum on Iraq. Bush is incompetent and Congress is frozen in their own inactions of malpractice. Let the American Public decide! You know, that old, by the people, for the people, of the people thing. Good post.
Carolyn, I think your comments help illustrate the fact that politics are always complicated. Every individual has their own opinion, and labels we use to define our political beliefs rarely fit at the individual level.
At home, the people, the politicians, and the media lost confidence in the war, and as a result the Iraq war has become unpopular. There is now little support for the war and many are calling for a withdraw.
While the military has made many mistakes, Iraq can mostly be described as a failure of the US government and its people. The politicians and the people are not willing to take the time and effort to fight a war any more, and they are not willing to take the time or the effort to fight.
Americans may be slow to react but are not stupid. This war was unwinnable from the first attack. Now it's time to undo the sins of Bush and the neo-cons and try to undo the damage.
It was morally reprehensible to have attacked the Iraqi people...they had nothing to do with 9/11. This war is criminal under international law. It has nothing to do with numbers or strategy. It was just wrong to go in there and from jump street I have said that we could not win. We have no justifiable moral reason for being there...the Iraqi people, on the other hand have all the moral reasons to resist this criminal invasion and occupation. They will fight to the death for their' country...in the end we can't but lose. You can 'surge it' to 200,000...it won't matter. The longer we remain the bigger will be the unavoidable defeat...it's time to save some face...as we did in Nam...and get while the gettin' is still an option.
This is the same thing that Murtha, the Democratics and 17 republicans are trying to do now.
Yes, mistakes were made in both wars, sometimes I think that we underestimate the enemy. I heard in Nam we didnt win because we didnt know how to fight in the jungle. Then I heard that the politians didnt let us win. I think that this fighting terrorists was a new thing, no one before 9/11 had really done to much about ridding them from the face of the earth so they have had several years to regroup and really organize, there has always been terrorists but not to this extreme. For whatever reason we went into Iraq, some good things have come out of it. Saddam is dead, his evil sons are dead, the oil for food scandal was caught, the people are trying to go on with their lives after being denied rights for decades, there is still alot of work to go and it will take lots of time. I dont feel that Bush should take all of the blame for this war. He may of had faulty intelligence but he was also, going from what the former president and Al Gore had said, even Hilliary believed there were terrorists there and wmds, So come on if you are passing judgement, pass some of the blame on them as well. I dont know why, more military was not sent in when requested, I cannot defend Bush on this one and I wont try but at least I can see two sides of it. If Bush is wrong then I will say he is wrong but unfortuately, alot, of people cannot see clearly enough to put the blame on the others including Kerry who voted for this war , The arguement that Hilliary trys to make is if she knew now what she knew then she wouldnt of voted for it, I saw on the computor, her little speech giving the go ahead to enter Iraq, and her husband believed in it as well. So yes, she was well aware of why, they were invading Iraq. So, if you feel this war is wrong blame all involved not just Bush.
Further, I find it very difficult to draw parallels between this war and World War 2. Saddam Hussien was no saint, but there is no evidence he was planning on attacking America nor that he was about launch an all bid for global dominance. Rather, all evidence indicates that he was a tryant with diminished military and political power capable of little besides rhetoric.
Defining Failure: Comparing Iraq to Vietnam
You have in fact, defined "failure" on so many different levels, when you attempt to make the ludicrous comparisons of Vietnam, to Iraq.
It is mostly a failure of logic to proceed on such a course, but as I said, an utter failure on many levels, to make such comparisons.
I agree that the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is not always employed very accurately. However, I see no problem with using history to help frame discussion of current events so long as the focus remains on the present. How else will we ever learn our lessons as a nation?
There are no comparisons, whatsoever, except of course, both involve the military. Beyond that, nothing can be compared, no matter how hard some labor to do so.
You gain nothing by comparing apples to oranges, and therefore learn nothing by doing so. History is a fine tool, if the history is understood and put in the proper context. In this instance, that hasn't been done, and cannot be done.
Iraq is not Vietnam.
We come to Iraq with no credibility and long history of imperialism. We came to Vietnam to bolster the remnants of French colonial imperialism by supporting the old Mandarin class leftovers from French rule. In each circumstance the natives view us as economic and cultural imperialist occupiers and not liberators.
In Vietnam we engaged in cross border escalation to stop infiltration. Bush threatens Syria and Iran. Vietnam troop levels were increased with one more plan, one more sweep one more new tactic to crush the Viet Cong and NVA. Bush has his surge and left to his own perverse devices "generations" of warfare in the Middle East.
Johnson and Nixon sought "victory" to duck the stain of defeat on their watch and legacy even knowing well beforehand the foolish hopelessness of the conflict. Bush still sees his destiny and the guy who captured Iraqi oil and will spend blood and national treasure until he's out of power to attain it. He also will spend American lives to avoid the stigma of defeat.
The truth of the falsity and injustice of the Vietnam war grew on America like a cancer just as Iraq today and it was the groundswell of recognition that brought it to end as Iraq will end too.
To say there are no comparisons is naive and historically false.
Japan was an isolated island nation and endured horrific battle loss as well as devastated national infrastructure thru bombing. Yet the nation was prepared to fight to the last even after Nagasaki. It was the political leadership who called it quits and Hirohito instructed the populace to accept defeat. When McArthur landed the road from the airport to his headquarters was lined with Japanese soldiers with their backs to the motorcade in a gesture of submission. There is no government in Iraq to offer surrender. Japan was not torn with sectarian violence and was a unified country a millennia before WW2. There is no comparison between the conflicts.
Germany was a nation with Democratic traditions and Western cultural values despite the bestiality of the Nazis. They were the target of a unified global military assault from all directions. There was no sectarian/religious element or civil war after the military surrendered. There were clear enemies and tactical and strategic goals. No comparison here either.
It is the nature of these two conflicts that the neo-cons wish to use as cover for their grab for oil. It's a lie meant to deceive patriotic Americans
Only in your mind.
The first is the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon and now Bush administration total cultural arrogance and vain assumption about the nature of the enemy, wanton ignorance of historical backround and the realism of the threat claimed.
It is only your opinioni that Bush had a "total cultural arrogance and vain assumption about the nature of the enemy," as well as a "wanton ignorance of historical backround and the realism of the threat claimed." Try proving something before you expect me to assume it's a fact.
Same story, different players
And the story is as valid now, as it was then. If you could prove it wasn't valid, I'm sure you'd try. Instead, you just say it's "true" and expect me to say "gee I never thought of it that way." Absurd.
We come to Iraq with no credibility and long history of imperialism.
In your opinion. I believe there was ample reason to enforce the ceasefire of 1991 and I completely reject your silly notions of "imperialism." We aren't in Iraq to control Iraq, we are there to liberate the citizens of Iraq, and in point of fact, have already done so.
We came to Vietnam to bolster the remnants of French colonial imperialism by supporting the old Mandarin class leftovers from French rule.
You mistate the facts, again for your own personal reasons of deception. We went to Vietnam for the express purpose of safeguarding the freedom of the south, from the north. This was done in an attempt to stop the "domino effect" from falling over all of Southeast Asia. You can deny these facts if you like, however in the absence of "proof" for your silly conjecture, I'm not sure how you could.
Bush threatens Syria and Iran.
Rightly so, as both Syria and Iran threaten not only Iraq, but the USA as well.
Bush still sees his destiny and the guy who captured Iraqi oil and will spend blood and national treasure until he's out of power to attain it.
Yet another mind reader, able to offer us a glimpse inside Bush's mind. How idiotic.
He also will spend American lives to avoid the stigma of defeat.
As well he should, as Americans do not vote people into office to have them overrun by outsiders (or citizens for that matter) seeking to destroy America.
There is NOTHING you can point to, to prove Americans would rather "lose" this war than win it. Bush is doing what he can to WIN in Iraq because it is in the national interest to WIN, and not lose.
The truth of the falsity and injustice of the Vietnam war grew on America like a cancer just as Iraq today and it was the groundswell of recognition that brought it to end as Iraq will end too.
Yet more revisionist history telling, and crystal ball readings of the future. Silly.
To say there are no comparisons is naive and historically false.
Actually, it is quite the opposite. It is your naive "faith" in mankind and your false interpretation of history that is in question.
Ty you should look beyond propaganda and try to see events factually and objectively.
Another self serving assumption, suggest his opinion is "reality" and Ty's is just about "propaganda." Just plain INSANE.
There is no government in Iraq to offer surrender
Governments aren't required for a conflict to take place, and therefore a government is not required for the conflict to end.
There is no comparison between the conflicts.
Ah, we can compare past wars to Iraq, as long as Sammie boy finds it convenient, but as soon as a comparison to a previous war doesn't fit his limited, myopic opinions, well, then there is "no comparison." Duplicity is rather ugly.
There was no sectarian/religious element or civil war after the military surrendered.
So what ??? There was in fact a prolonged period where insurgents caused problems for the reconstruction of Germany, as well as Japan. You cite history, and exclude history, at your convenience, rather than with any consistency, or credibility.
It is the nature of these two conflicts that the neo-cons wish to use as cover for their grab for oil
Oh really ???? What a joke. Because you say it, we're supposed to just say "gee aren't you wise?" If you could prove that nonsense, you'd get a Nobel prize. As it is, you're just a fool pretending to be a sage.
It is amazing, if you really accept and believe your trail of logic and not pretending to be jJack Limbaugh, that you feel free to venture an opinon pretending to be informed.
Bush has already admitted ignorance of the cultural dynamics of Iraq and their role in the insurgency. Strike one.
You really want to spout the "domino theory??" Do you not realize that China never had sway over Vietnam and within a year after Saigon fell the Vietnamese and Chinese were shelling eachother across the border? Look in your closet recently and see how many shirts are made in that still Communist nation? Good god denying something obvious does not make disappear. But again, you support Bush. Strike two.
We supported Iraq to exploit their oil and use them as cannon fodder against Iran. We support the Saudi regime, Kuwait etc., to exploit oil. None of these place enjoying the enthusiam of Uncle Sam is a popularly elected govenment in any form of "democracy" recognizable by any American definition of the word. Imposing puppet governments at the point of a gun, writing their laws and Constitution then wrangling exclusive oil contracts with the puppets is in the long history of imperialism. Gimmie a break. Strike three.
I can trade insults with morons. But what's the point? You don't seem to have a grasp of history or the honesty to recognize it when it bites you in the butt. Don't take a sage to see that. Fool indeed. Really, say something meaningful based on some semblence of fact.
At the time, all the academics, intelligence officers, foreign service corps who had any first hand knowledge of the region, the people, and the history, said the "domino theory" was an hysterical exageration of military expansionists.
In Iraq, the "big lie" is actually more than one as Bush has had to flip-flop on this issue.
FRirst was the obvious lie that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Then, the lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
again, many knowledgeable and savvy people objected to teh stupid and ill-considered assumptions made by a war-bent administration, but they were called wimps and traitors.
Of course, they were right.
Now, as in Viet Nam, the only way we can "win" is by leaving.
It isn't my job to "refute" anything. My only responsibility comes in stating the facts as I believe them to be. I do this in response to others, when I believe they have misstated the facts as I believe them to be.
I do not attempt to "refute" anything. I merely stand in response to what I perceive to be "wrong." This is my duty as a citizen. I don't care if you believe what I say, or not. I don't care if you research what I say, or not. It doesn't matter. The words I post aren't so much about YOU or your words, as it is about not leaving your inaccuracies unanswered.
Baldfaced arrogance is not an argument.
Neither is name calling, sir. If you believe my facts are in error, by all means, let's discuss them with some specificity. Otherwise, I'll just suggest you are an asshole and indulge you with your name calling game.
Neither is idiotic obfusaction in the face of accepted history.
Again, some specificity please-- the merits of a case, are usually discussed before the conclusions.
If this is supposed to be interchange at least get in the room.
Like all things, "this" is what you make of it, returns what you put into it, nothing more. Nearly every sentence you've posted so far has been little more than unconcealed slander. I applaud your gusto.
It is amazing, if you really accept and believe your trail of logic and not pretending to be jJack Limbaugh, that you feel free to venture an opinon pretending to be informed.
Ah, now you attempt to insult me even further, and suggest I'm little more than entertainment, not to be taken seriously. Yes, your "debating" skills "amaze" me too.
Bush has already admitted ignorance of the cultural dynamics of Iraq and their role in the insurgency.
Really ??? Well, I didn't know that, could you supply us an actual quote, or is your word supposed to be sufficient??? Let's assume that you are correct, and in admittingi mistakes, among them happened to be some mistakes as it pertained to the "culture" etc.... these things you suggest Bush was ignorant of.
How exactly would that equate to this wildly imaginative rhetoric???
...total cultural arrogance and vain assumption about the nature of the enemy, wanton ignorance of historical backround and the realism of the threat claimed.
It is one thing to admit he didn't have a "full and complete" understanding of another culture, another entirely to display a "...total cultural arrogance and vain assumption about the nature of the enemy, wanton ignorance of historical backround and the realism of the threat claimed."
You are using the rhetoric of emotion, rather than logic, when such things are claimed. It would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to prove such fanciful claims, for it would require the abilities of a mind reader.
You really want to spout the "domino theory??"
Not really, as it is irrelevant. I was merely responding to some lunacy spouted by someone else. I offered up the truth, to a false representation of history.
Do you really want to deny the domino theory was not a motivating factor in our activities in Vietnam????
Good god denying something obvious does not make disappear.
I believe I could say the same thing to you. I never claimed China held sway, and why would I ?? It was Peking we feared at the time. They were isolationist and inward, destroying themselves with the Cultural Revolution and it's aftermath.
It was the Big Bad Bear behind the domino theory, not the ChiComms, boob. ( I couldn't resist a wee bit of name calling myself.)
But again, you support Bush
Wrong, I support the global war on terror, including Iraq, including Afghanistan, and anyone else that is against us. I've never voted for a Bush, never. I don't support any of the current Bush's DOMESTIC policies, other than his choice of USSC justices.
His "compassionate conservatism" is little more than warmed over "kindler gentler nation" crapola, which itself, is little more than spit polished, blue blooded, guilt induced do gooderism, which by any other name is LIBERALISM.
Bush sucks okay, but at the very least, he's gettin' the foreign policy stuff right.
We supported Iraq to exploit their oil and use them as cannon fodder against Iran. We support the Saudi regime, Kuwait etc., to exploit oil.
And ???? You say that like it's a BAD thing ! ! ! ! It isn't, and notice--- we don't just move in and take over the country to line our own pockets like our friend HUGO--- hell no, we leave the powers that be, in place, and let them run their own affairs. We don't take over, we exploit. Big difference.
I don't have a problem exploiting others where possible, they do the same to the USA. It's the nature of things. Just like wars, there's all kinds of ugly stuff that goes along with humanity you know.
Life itself is about exploiting the world around us to our own advantage. Get the best education we can get, get the best job we can get, yada yada yada. Almost all of human endeavor is exploitation of something or someone. *yawn* What a revelation.
Imposing puppet governments at the point of a gun, writing their laws and Constitution then wrangling exclusive oil contracts with the puppets is in the long history of imperialism.
Talk about "give me a break." Come on sprout, name ONE--- just ONE OPEC nation we control like a "puppet." You utter this wild, fantastic, highly colorful and amusing diatribe, and expect me to what *gasp* whisper "he's RIGHT ! ! ! ! !" in complete disbelief ???
Show us some proof of "puppet governments" -- show us anything that even comes close to validating your fantasies, okay ????
I can trade insults with morons.
And who's surprised, eh ?? Birds of a feather and all that.
You don't seem to have a grasp of history or the honesty to recognize it when it bites you in the butt.
Well, coming from a person that has just demonstrated YOU are guilty of your own accusation, it's rather ironic I'd say.
Really, say something meaningful based on some semblence of fact
I'll simply say "ditto" and stick out my tongue.
The "big lie" of the Viet Nam War was that the war was necessary to prevent all of southeast asia from falling to the communists and to Russian or Chinese domination.
sssssssssssssshh...... don't tell the moron I just finished with.
the obvious lie that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11
Which has never been uttered, other than by some imaginary Bush in Mister Whimsy's imagination.
the lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction
A mistake is not a lie, sorry. Your wild hyperbole is just silly.
the only way we can "win" is by leaving
Can you tell me where you bought thta crystal ball ???
Inaccurate, and a misreading of what I've said, but hey you're not the first to call me stupid/sad/whatever name you feel fits the moment.
Don't know if Iraq is a member of OPEC but there is one. Saudi, Kuwait etc., would blow away without American guns. The classic definition of imperialism is a great foreign power exploiting national resouces thru military coersion and promoting or eliminating governments to acheive that end. Wanna talk about the Shah? Saddam's chemical weapons? We assumed the Brits role in the Middle East post WW2. No opinion there.
jJack you're not interested in meaningful exchange if that undermines your partisan ideology. Waste of time and intellectual energy taking you to school if you have no intention of learning anything. Why do you post?
Yes, we "came in on the heels of the French." So what ??? Not for the reasons YOU ascribe. Yes, I know history, and yes, it is only your opinion I do not. I ask again, what is it you think I am unaware of as it pertains to the current discussion?
Don't know if Iraq is a member of OPEC but there is one
No, it isn't a membe of OPEC, and no, it isn't a puppet government. Unless you have some proof of your wild conjecure, please don't expect me to accept it as fact. What evidence can you provide to support such a ludicrous claim ???
Saudi, Kuwait etc., would blow away without American guns.
If you say so, but so what ??? Either they are examples of puppets that would blow us away, or you are interjecting a red herring.
The classic definition of imperialism is a great foreign power exploiting national resouces thru military coersion and promoting or eliminating governments to acheive that end.
So what ??? I didn't dispute the definition of the word, I disputed your irrational, unfounded, baseless usage of the word. Or, perhaps you can show us some proof of the "coersion" you suggest. We didn't just "eliminate" the government of Iraq, we allowed a free nation to replace the tyranny that existed.
Wanna talk about the Shah? Saddam's chemical weapons?
Sure, what other red herrings would you like to present as "evidence?"
We assumed the Brits role in the Middle East post WW2. No opinion there.
Of course it is, and not even an informed opinion.
Waste of time and intellectual energy taking you to school if you have no intention of learning anything.
I could say the same of you, I suppose, but then, I don't presume to be your "teacher" as you seem to have done, for me.
I post sir, for the very reasons you post. I reply to those statements of fact I find in error, particularly when I find them so outrageous as to be laughable in nature.
Hence, I have no doubt I'll continue to post your way, whenever I happen upon your mindless drivel.
Your article has certainly raised intense emotional debate! There has been an immense amount of the rewriting of history concerning the Vietnam war and our exit from that war, in the last ten years. I attribute this to the fact that persons are getting heavily involved in republican politics who are too young to have any memory of that war and therefore want to find something bad to hang on the opposite party.
The truth is that the Vietnam war was the wrong war, at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons. I guess the country has to do this from time to time but Iraq is scarcely the time, as Vietnam is too recent!
When we entered Vietnam I was a staunch supporter of the action. By the time Nixon finally pulled out of Vietnam, the overwhelming majority of Americans were satisfied that we had no business there and that our entry into the fray was a grave mistake, exacerbated by mishandling, lies and half truths. This nation was never structured to engage in long term actions against the will of the people who collectively have the ultimate authority. Russia could stay in Afghanistan for 10 years as their people had no say in the matter. Not true in the United States!
Johnson and Nixon shared a common mental or emotional error of thinking "this simply hasn't been properly prosecuted and I can win this thing with what I know!" Once Johnson realized that it was his pride talking instead of his intellect he was for getting it over with. Then Nixon was elected with the same inestimable pride! Again, he came to see the truth.
There was no talk among the populace at the time about any of the so called reasons for the "defeat" that one hears today from blame throwers. It was the collective will of the American people! Now, with GHWB, we have fought a war for the purpose of exorcising the ghosts of Vietnam. And he was smart enough to get out at the right time!
Alas, GWB now want to vicariously re-fight the Vietnam war in another location and by God he's gonna win it if it takes 50 years, and to hell with the American populace! And he's going to win it with no impact or sacrifice on the part of American corporations or the CEOs of such, except to make them more prosperous!
Yes, there are corollaries between Vietnam and Iraq, not the least of which is the tenaciousness of the locals involved. The two main differences are the terrain in which the war is fought and the religious fanaticism involved in the warring groups. Neither of these differences are sufficient to spell victory in Iraq.
jJack,
Appreciate your comments as I frequently see another view through your eyes even though we usually disagree on many things! However, your last set of comments raises one very large question I'd like to hear your answer for.
*****So what ??? I didn't dispute the definition of the word, I disputed your irrational, unfounded, baseless usage of the word. Or, perhaps you can show us some proof of the "coercion" you suggest. We didn't just "eliminate" the government of Iraq, we allowed a free nation to replace the tyranny that existed.*****
We allowed a free nation? When was that a "free nation?" And when our invasion was through there was not government. We installed one. Yes, they voted on it for what that is worth. Don't you consider a couple of hundred thousand troops supported by Air Force and tanks to be "coercion?" Were they outside my window I'd feel coerced! And that is why many Iraq people don't trust their government.
Have you kept up with the writings of the PNAC over the last 12 years? And before you ask "where's the relevance" I'll stipulate they had no role in government until Cheney was elected and Rove and Wolfowitz were placed in positions of high influence. They are pushing for what they believe in and that, today, is imperialism IMHO.
I'm a little slow but I think I just figured out the "free nation" thing. You're referring to the United States as the free nation setting up a government!
As soon as the purple thumbs appeared.
We installed one.
Sure, a transitional one, that was given free reign to implement their OWN constitution, written by Iraqis.
they voted on it for what that is worth
Plenty, unless you don't believe in freely held, democratic elections.
Don't you consider a couple of hundred thousand troops supported by Air Force and tanks to be "coercion?"
No, I don't--- we didn't tell them what kind of government to set up, or who to elect or what policies should be set. Facilitation is not coercion.
Have you kept up with the writings of the PNAC over the last 12 years?
Of course, and I might ask-- how is liberating nations "imperialism?" Personally, I believe in the goals behind The Greater Middle East Initiative. The so called "neocons" represented by the formerly liberal Jewish lobby, famously led by "Wolfie" and others is a bold vision, and given the entire Sad damn scenario, was well worth the attempt, even if it never comes to fruition.
You're referring to the United States as the free nation setting up a government!
No, I wasn't.
Boy, you're a quick one on the uptake, aren't you.
"And ???? You say that like it's a BAD thing ! ! ! ! It isn't, and notice--- we don't just move in and take over the country to line our own pockets like our friend HUGO--- hell no, we leave the powers that be, in place, and let them run their own affairs. We don't take over, we exploit. Big difference.
I don't have a problem exploiting others where possible, they do the same to the USA. It's the nature of things. Just like wars, there's all kinds of ugly stuff that goes along with humanity you know.
Life itself is about exploiting the world around us to our own advantage. Get the best education we can get, get the best job we can get, yada yada yada. Almost all of human endeavor is exploitation of something or someone. *yawn* What a revelation."
Again, I appreciate your input and comments even though we are mostly, but not totally, in disagreement! You're smart and well read but see things through a different set of lenses. We definitely share our belief in this as a free nation and our hopes for the future of this nation. Thanks again!
Isn't that why you lovingly refer to me as the Queen Mum ??
Our military has it limits. We saw this in vietnam, now in Iraq.
That isn't what I saw in Vietnam, or Iraq. Instead, what I saw/see was/is a maleable electorate swayed by biased reporting-- with confidence at home eroding even as the morale of the troops soars (in Iraq, not Vietnam.)
It wasn't/isn't the military that had/has limits in Vietnam or Iraq. It is the willingness of the American people to finish a job once started, and the shortsighted actions of timid presidents that refused/refuse to allow the military to unleash the full force of it's arsenal on the enemy.
There is no military anywhere on earth, not even two or three of them put together, than can compare to the lone super power of the world, the USA.
We spend more on defense than the next 20 nations combined, and then they want to compare their security dependent economies to ours, even as they cannot come close to matching it. Don't kid yourself, we are without peer, we simply do not unleash the full force of our might when we go to war. If we did, a few countries would already be parking lots for the half life.
James, thank you as well.
Also, there is a comparison between the Viet-Nam war and the war in Iraq, and that is the fact that we don't know who the enemy is in Iraq, just as was the case in Viet-Nam. Also, both cultures have no regaurd for human life as both are willing to blow themselves up to defeat the enemy.
And for those who think our Government liberated Iraq....think again. There were no roadside bombings, IED's or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, however thousands including U.S. Soldiers have died as a result of all of these since the invasion. Liberation I presume ????
Compared to what ?? Certainly NOT our peers.
Therefore, our Government had no buisness invading Iraq in the first place
Have you read the legislation authorizing the use of force from Congress ??? There were a great many reasons for liberating Iraq, not just the two you selectively offer. And notice the selections in BOLD below-- this is perhaps why half truths are so dangerous, and could be where and why the lie you believe about 911 and Iraq is so silly. No one in the admin ever said Iraq had anything to do with 911. In fact, just the opposite is true. They have expressly stated there is no evidence to support that view. But people tend to combine elements of partial truths, attempting to form a larger truth from the pieces. It rarely is a productive endeavor. One item in bold, has nothing to do with the other item in bold, other than both items are contained in the same document. They remain however, two distinct points. But back to the authorization to use force in Iraq, and in fact, around the globe--- here are the points included in that authorization:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
we don't know who the enemy is in Iraq, just as was the case in Viet-Nam
We don't ?? Who or what are the North Vietnamese Regulars, who are the VC ??? Who are the former baathists, sunnis, shiites ?? Yeah, it's a mystery who's blowin' stuff up, right.
both cultures have no regaurd for human life as both are willing to blow themselves up to defeat the enemy.
So what ??? I'd say that's one of their more noble and useful traits. Just because you are willing to die for your cause, doesn't mean you have no regard for life. I applaud the commitment of the warrior willing to die for his country.
There were no roadside bombings, IED's or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion
Of course not, that's because Sad damn ruled a facist totalitarian state. Now that freedom reigns, bad people are free to do bad things. Before we liberated Iraq, the only bad people doing bad things were the ruling elite, after--- it is the extreme minority, less than 1% of 25 million Iraqis, that are the bad people doing the bad things. This signifies liberation to all but the most insipid among us.
Liberation I presume ????
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
There is no other way.
So how can you define what's going on now in Iraq as " Liberty " .
Your lame attempt quoting Jefferson is out of context in this situation.
No, it isn't moron, you're just far too stupid to understand what the "context" is.
How about talking about the issues?
I'll play whatever game I'm offered. I'm quite proficient at either form of "dialog."
The fragile "tree of liberty" we have given root in Iraq must be earned, and unfortunately that price requires blood.
Few nations of free people ever arises from simple, serene peace.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1F6017E4-AB71-4E0B-A249-964FBBDFFCF8.htm
We can only hope, eh ?? We'll see... we'll see.....
because not even the Iraqis agree on what would happen IF--- if
Jaafar Saleem, a 38-year-old businessman in the city, said: "I think their exit will produce lawlessness in the city."