The real analogy to Vietnam is that both wars quickly outrun their original rationales, and became crusades against the dirty hippies at home.
Both became proxy civil wars.
Both can be found in the dictionary next to the prase 'sunk costs'.
Following us home?
Posted by Jayhawk at August 22, 2007 09:24 AM
oops
Following us home
Ah, Steve, aren't these folks veterans? Haven't they had they're ticket punched for America. Calling them "Stepford" crowds surely insults veterans who have sacrificed for our country. I thought these people should be given more for their sacrifice and now you're saying their opinion matters least. Or it's unimportant to you.
Posted by peter at August 22, 2007 09:32 AM. I thought these people should be given more for their sacrifice and now you're saying their opinion matters least. Or it's unimportant to you.
I think Steve's saying that their opinion is not uniquely privileged, which is hardly the same thing.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at August 22, 2007 09:40 AMI saw part of his speech today and honestly had to keep looking at the corner of the screen where it said "Live" because I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The part I heard was about how veterans deserve the best health care and we're going to give them the very best we can and (he started getting really fired up here) "that's what you'll get with George W. Bush as president!" Huh? Is he campaigning or something? It was beyond surreal--just plain weird. I mean, if that's what they deserve and that's what they'll get with him as president, wouldn't he have done it already? And he was really almost yelling and being sort of passionate and fiery like someone campaigning--not half asleep like he usually sounds. Very odd.
Posted by CG at August 22, 2007 09:59 AM...their opinion is not uniquely privileged...
Not sure if that is exactly what Steve was saying but it's one of the most plain spoken truths I've read in comments here in a long time.
Posted by snark at August 22, 2007 10:08 AM...when exactly did the Viet Cong land in San Francisco?
I know...it was when all those bad drivers started to hit the highways in CA in the late seventies.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 22, 2007 10:25 AMBush has finally told the truth. Hallelujah. Iraq and Vietnam are similar....both were started with lies fed to the US public by the US government. Both featured Generals all to willing to glorify successes that ended up to be War Crimes. Both tried to create Armed Forces out of people who fundamentally hated us (ARVN). Both featured enemy fighters that looked exactly like our "allies" and in fact our "allies" were also our enemies. We destroyed both countries. Most of the US Public turned against the wars once the truths were too plain to ignore. Both found the presidents most associated with the Wars (Johnson and Bush) subject to deep hatred as the GI deaths mounted, and the reputation of both was indelibly ruined by the wars they commanded. The US lost both wars and thousands of GI's because the two presidents refused to face reality. Hey, I could go on for a long time. Oh, and one more similarity...I've lost good friends in both wars.
Posted by T2 at August 22, 2007 12:09 PMdear pants-pissing peter, the American Legion and VFW do NOT represent all veterans
if you had served your country you would have known that
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 22, 2007 12:10 PMit is a fu*king outrage that our Crawford Caligua has the nerve to talk about how he "supports" our troops and veterans
yeah, so why were they lying in their own filth at Walter Reed? why is Bush opposing a larger pay increase?
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 22, 2007 12:12 PMCrawford Caligula?
Caligula was assassinated in 41 AD thru a conspiracy by officers of his own guard.
You know something we don't? Is Petraeus pissed?
Posted by TIKI AL at August 22, 2007 02:16 PMIraq is like Vietnam. The "terrorists" have replaced the "communists" as our country's new bogeyman, and we're using Iraq as a battlefield to fight that war just like we used Vietnam.
And who's going to be our modern Joe McArthy?
Posted by Cosrai at August 22, 2007 02:36 PMIf Iraq is like Vietnam, then that must mean that Giuliani wins next year. Democrats got defeated because of their antiwar platform twice. McGovern campaigned actively on pullout and was blown away. If that makes y'all feel better, I'll take the presidency for another two terms.
Did I ever say they did. I said aren't these two organizations made up of veterans. Aren't you diminishing the contribution these people gave for our safety by casting them as a "Stepford Crowd". Don't these people's voices deserve to be heard above others here. There is no organization that represents all veterans.
Posted by peter at August 22, 2007 03:11 PMCrawford Caligula. Good one! But yeah, Iraq is just like Korea, 'cept not in the way Bush thinks. From TPM again:
I think if people want to make the Korean War analogy, they should do it right. Bush sees the Korean War as a symbol of our commitment to fight aggression and lay the groundwork for development and, eventually, democracy, in South Korea. But we had achieved the liberation of South Korea by October 1950, mere months after the war began. We then made the disastrous decision to push into North Korea in an effort to topple the communist government there. That triggered Chinese intervention, and the war developed into a stalemate that dragged on for three more years. The eventual ceasefire returned things essentially to the status quo ante, an outcome we could have achieved at much lower cost had we not chosen to expand the war.
So, yes, the Korean War analogy is quite apt. Just not in the way Bush means it. The decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 looks a lot like the ultimately futile decision to invade North Korea in October 1950.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 22, 2007 03:21 PM"Baghdad, 22 August (AKI) - The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.
"AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said."
More good news for Americans. September is going to go so bad for Democrats. The defeatist will have this noose placed around their necks.
BTW, whatever happened to that promise to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush over Iraq? I haven't seen any BTU's being applied.
Barack Obama suggested yesterday that Baghdad could use another 30,000 troops. Yeah, that's the ticket, lets send more over there and make things even better, a super surge.
Jerry McNerney (D-CA) says that the inflexible and confrontational approach taken by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has made it impossible to work with Republicans in Congress and the White House. Rather than asking the generals what they need, Congress has tried to dictate limits -- and lost. "I don't know what they're thinking," McNerney said to the Post about the leadership.
Posted by peter at August 22, 2007 03:43 PMQuestion from Peter:
"Don't these people's voices (the VFW) deserve to be heard above others here?"
No, they don't.
Next question.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 22, 2007 04:26 PMMore good news for Americans. September is going to go so bad for Democrats. The defeatist will have this noose placed around their necks.
Dude, that is the most ignorant side-rant I've heard in awhile - even from you...
*BACK to the topic*
yes, these conflicts totally parallel each other. Both were never meant to be 'won'. Sustained war and permanent bases are the only goal - and things are going great. Every day the profiteers continue to make a buck at the cost of human life. Administration Incorporated and their cronies are making a killing - never mind all those being killed.
Wed 22 Aug 2007
17.10 Los Angeles
This treatment of Korea and Vietnam is exactly what John Kerry received -- it is, under the too-cute term, 'swiftboating.' But this time it is not of a person, but of history itself. It is extraordinarily dangerous, because there are simply too few people around who actually experienced that history, actually know and understand it. The rest simply take in the meme, much as a repeated stream of sugar-coated cereal adverts on the Saturday morning cartoon shows. One cannot laugh this off as 'just silly,' expecting that willy-nilly 'the truth will out.'
Posted by Mel Strom at August 22, 2007 05:18 PMGeorge is off his rocker. IMPEACH him (and Cheney) before he can declare himself President-for-life. I also find that George has no right to speak about Nam as he never went to war and was drugged off his bum the entire time. Wow. He read one book and now he's the expert. Barf.
Posted by sara swati at August 22, 2007 05:30 PMour new triumph is that Sunni tribal groups and former Baathi's are fighting Al Qaeda, and in fact the USA is arming them, it is as if the support and arming of Osama Bin Laden and the jihadists in Afghanistan never even happened because the wisdom of this policy is somehow a bit lacking.... what happens when these forces actually knock out Al Qaeda? Who do they then start taking out?... there are two choices: aa) Shiite groups currently in power (also the majority in the country), or... bb) the American forces in Iraq. Take your pick as brought to you by David Petraeus.
from nonsense about Vietnam, to nonsensical comments about Potemkin progress... I continue to despair ... while I realize that the majorities in our own Congress will not be able to do a thing in September...
Posted by leftymn at August 22, 2007 05:47 PMCan't expect the man to know anything about Vietnam because he was out of the loop during those years.
Posted by Marie at August 22, 2007 10:58 PMI see pants-pissing peter is back: Aren't you diminishing the contribution these people gave for our safety by casting them as a "Stepford Crowd".
That's ripe coming from pants-pissing right-wing cowards who "support" our troops and veterans by denying them adequate medical care, and who deny our troops the equipment, training and rest they so desperately need.
pants-pissing peter STILL not posting from Iraq? STFU
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 23, 2007 06:26 AMAre you?
Posted by peter at August 23, 2007 07:54 AMOr did your moniker get in the way. That great Clinton outcome, 'don't ask, don't tell". SecDef spent all his time there while our general's were calling for heavy armor. He didn't listen to his generals and now your majority doesn't want to listen to ours. They send him over there to perform the surge 81-0, than they say we've lost before he gets all the boots on the ground.
They said listen to the generals in January, now THEY won't.
Posted by peter at August 23, 2007 07:59 AMSimilarities between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War:
* The US entered the war on false pretenses
* The US is simultaneously claiming the country's government is sovereign and trying to call the shots
* The conflict is primarily political, but the US is trying to win it militarily
* The opponents of the US are in their own country, and fighting to control their own country
* Language and cultural differences make it difficult to distinguish friend from foe
* The US government is lying about how well things are going
* The US is overstating the involvement of external forces
* The military is trying to fight an insurgency using army-vs.-army methods
* The US is going to lose
Differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War:
* Vietnam is mostly jungle; Iraq is mostly desert
sorry pants-pissing peter, but "don't ask don't tell" still exists because ReThugs would block it's repeal. gee, not like we need those Gay Arabic translators in Iraq
and why should be listen to the general who lost track of nearly 200,000 weapons in Iraq?
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 23, 2007 09:59 AMmaybe pants-pissing peter should learn to listen to the troops after they hear about this:
"...Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the Defense Department expected defense contractors to produce 3,900 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles this year. But only 1,500 would make it to the war zone -- down from the Pentagon's previous shipment target of 2,500 to 3,000...."
oh, but Bush and pants-pissing peter sooooooooooooo support the troops
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 23, 2007 10:04 AMSimilarities between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War:
Over a million Iraqi's killed. Over a million Vietnamese killed.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 23, 2007 01:50 PMOver 58,000 GI's killed, over 3700 GI's killed, big difference!
SecDef policy, Congress didn't make it.
Posted by peter at August 23, 2007 02:06 PMOver 58,000 GI's killed, over 3700 GI's killed, big difference!
SecDef policy, Congress didn't make it.
So you don't agree with bu$h about the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq?
Posted by Seven of Six at August 23, 2007 03:14 PM"Over a million Iraqi's killed. Over a million Vietnamese killed." You forgot about the 2 million in Cambodia from "the killing fields" and your Iraqi deaths are little inflated, but lets not argue the numbers, they've lost a bunch, too many.
The similarities I see is a Democratic Party full of pacifist trying to get American's to accept defeat when victory is still there. Civilians made a lot of errors in Vietnam. We've made a lot of errors in Iraq. General Petraeus is our General Sherman. He will deliver a victory just as Sherman did. The change in direction in Iraq is as great as Sherman's march to Savannah.
In January, both Pelosi and Reid said listen to the generals. They must have meant retired cause they don't seem to be listening to our command staff over there. The person they sent there to change the direction in Iraq. That's really sad.
Look Seven, I think we both agree, we don't like to see our soldiers die anywhere. We don't like to see the collateral damage to civilians in war. And there's probably a lot of better places to spend the money we're spending in Iraq.
We're there now, we need to see this though. We need the world to see us see this through. We really do. I know Saddam and UBL were not together in the September 11th attacks. It wasn't a joint venture. They were allied against us, not by a piece of paper, but allied just the same. There was joy in Saddam's house when NYC and DC was attacked. The UN wasn't going to do anything after all those moves they made, year after year. Someone had to do something. We did and we're there now.
To answer your question, I didn't hear what he said on Iraq. I really didn't. I know he said something about Iraq and Vietnam and that's about it. I don't listen to everything he says. Is that a shock?
I like the guy, I'd sit down with him with an iced tea anytime. I'd sit down with Bill Clinton too. I wouldn't sit down with Saddam or UBL or Hugo nor Castro or that guy in N.Korea. Castro might be interesting for the history of the 50's early 60's, but thats about it. There isn't a Democrat I wouldn't have a tea or a beer with. I don't think the feelings likewise. That's the problem. It really is.
Posted by peter at August 23, 2007 03:50 PMYou forgot about the 2 million in Cambodia from "the killing fields"...
Yeah, Cambodia was a neighbor of Vietnam, just like Iran is of Iraq. And Nixon bombed the shit out them, some estimates put the dead at 800,000 from the bombing raids. Will bu$h do to Iran, like Nixon did to Cambodia and cause more needless death?
...your Iraqi deaths are little inflated...
Right, and you won't believe the Lancet study.
The similarities I see is a Democratic Party full of pacifist trying to get American's to accept defeat when victory is still there.
Once again peter you're trying to win militarily, when it's a political problem in Iraq. Which if you haven't realized we created.
I'm not pretending here. There is going to be a blood bath in Iraq, with or without us. I'd rather us not be there for it.
The Iraqi's have to figure this one out on there own. If we keep holding their hand and supplying the teat they will be the child that never grows up.
Might as well call them the 51st state. Or what Gen. Batiste called them, a welfare state.
Look Seven, I think we both agree, we don't like to see our soldiers die anywhere.
When you serve in the U.S. Military you're offering your life for your country. So no, you really don't know how I feel about it do you. I suffer from PTSD. I have nightmares about this shit. So when soldier's die, a little of me dies as well.
I know Saddam and UBL were not together in the September 11th attacks. It wasn't a joint venture. They were allied against us, not by a piece of paper, but allied just the same.
You're sounding a bit like O'Lielly now.
We could have stayed in Afghanistan, hunted OBL down and (re)-built the infrastructure! We did not have to go on a futile goose chase, that has killed innocent Iraqi's and our soldiers.
We need to come home now!
You wanna know what bu$h said that really pissed me off? "We need to take care of our homeless Vets, that's what George bu$h as pResident will do for you!" It sounded like a gawd damned campaign speech. If that piss poor excuse for a human being was sincere, there would be NO HOMELESS VETS!
NOT ONE VETERAN DESERVES TO BE WITHOUT A ROOF OVER HIS HEAD OR HUNGRY OR MONEYLESS!!!
I wouldn't sit down with Saddam or UBL or Hugo nor Castro or that guy in N.Korea.
Hugo is just bombastic. A puffed up Noriega. So he called bu$h the fucking "devil"; he's not far off.
There isn't a Democrat I wouldn't have a tea or a beer with. I don't think the feelings likewise.
Hey, my closest sister is a republi-con, works for the DoD at CENTCOM in Tampa. We argue and disagree all the time. Still doesn't mean we wouldn't walk out on one another if we got pissed off enough.
I'd have a beer with you peter. Just watch out for my temper, I've been known to swing (and connect) when drunk.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 23, 2007 07:44 PM
Here's bu$h'$ speech to the VFW, in full.
This is the what really pissed me off:
But here's what we do agree on: We agree our veterans deserve the full support of the United States government. (Applause.) That's why in this budget I submitted there's $87 billion for the veterans; it's the highest level of support ever for the veterans in American history. (Applause.) We agree that health care for our veterans is a top priority, and that's why we've increased health care spending for our veterans by 83 percent since I was sworn in as your President. (Applause.) We agree that a troop coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan deserves the best health care not only as an active duty citizen, but as a military guy, but also as a veteran -- and you're going to get the best health care we can possibly provide. (Applause.) We agree our homeless vets ought to have shelter, and that's what we're providing.
In other words, we agree the veterans deserve the full support of our government and that's what you're going to get as George W. Bush as your President. (Applause.)
Posted by Seven of Six at August 23, 2007 09:50 PM