It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout


www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.
On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," ...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I dont think its the same war. There is more war in Iraq after we entered than when we went to vietnam. The only comparisons to the wars is that they were both mistakes.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   
At this point, I don't see us winning the war in Iraq, no matter if we keep the troops there or not. Keeping the troops there will only result in either them staying in extended periods, more troop deaths, and/or a military draft.

Leaving would mean that the insurgence will take hold of Iraq and over throw the current Iraqi government. Not only that, but we would basically be putting Iraq's stability problem on the shoulders of other countries that have also sent their soldiers to help US soldiers.

This is what happens when madmen make claims such as "You are either with us or against us." Bush doesn't have a problem leading other countries into the war he started, but if he pulls the troops out, the "with us or against us" wouldn't work anymore because he wouldn't want the other country's troops to pull out too.

There's no win win situation here.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Looks like CNN changed the article a bit since my first post. Says practically the same thing:

www.cnn.com... dex.html?eref=rss_topstories

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Odessy]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The one that made the vietnam war a comparative war to explain Iraq for the president speech should be fire.


Because Vietnam on itself has brought their country to what it is today, but as long as this president keeps meddling in the middle east its going to cost more lives to civilians that the comparison he try to do with vietnam after US invasion of it and withdraw.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The one that made the vietnam war a comparative war to explain Iraq for the president speech should be fire.


lol dont kid yourself... it was probably Bush himself... and i bet he thinks its really clever too.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The American right not surprisingly is absent from this thread. It wasn't so long ago that the American right got there knickers in a twist every time Iraq was compared to Vietnam. Bush is wrong (what's new ?) about the legacy of the Vietnam War. The legacy of the Vietnam war is a war that was lost by incompetent civilian and military leaders.

Many Americans most of who come from the right of the political spectrum don't understand the nature of counter insurgency warfare. The statements about the US never losing a battle in Vietnam but still losing the war are proof of this. Many Americans expect the wars there countries fight to be over in a week and won with massive amounts of fire power that Hollywood can create over and over again. When wars are won in this manner they soon lose the support of the US public.

Counter insurgency warfare is about who controls the territory and who has access to the local population. Such wars are fought with a daily grind over a period of years before they are won. Vast amounts of resources . manpower and time are often needed to win an counter insurgency war.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
This may not come out as i mean it to,but what the hell,istill have to say it ! I have a great affection for the AMERICAN PEOPLE.I dont care to think of the sort of world we would be living in if it was not for their self sacrifice in two world wars and other major conflicts.I am not suggesting for one minute that you fought alone, but on many occasions you provided the bulk of the manpower.You may not have asked for it but you became the leader of the FREE WORLD! There a lot of SICK nations waiting to see you fail.Dont. Stop giving your enemies the comfort of seeing and hearing you tear yourselves apart.You are,like it or not, in a war.It is not your bog standered type of war.It is as much to do with psychology as it is to do with anything else.Your enemies are targeting the minds of your people and they hope to defeat you in that way.They know they cant defeat you on the battlefield.You will have gathered by now i am not an american,i am BRITISH AND PROUD OF IT.We are fighting the same war and it only does harm to hear the defeatist element trying to undermine your resolve .Please dont let them!I think i have said enough for now i am sorry if this reads like a lecture,it wasnt meant to.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I can understand what he's getting at. Bush really does suck with public speaking.

We left Vietnam a mess. The US left, the South crumbled and the North rolled in. Our allies were screwed, blued and tattooed. The were left holding the bag after we said we'd stay and assist them.

Bush isn't wanting to see the same thing happen in Iraq that happened in Vietnam.

And why not have Bush invoked Vietnam? The friggin' Left have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam since Day One!!



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by china12
 


While America did provide tons of man power for WWI and WWII, the US itself did not enter either war till half way through when we couldnt avoid it any longer. We let a lot of people die before we decided to do the right thing. And while we might have done the right thing in the past, we are not doing the right thing now. It is our job, the job of the American people, to stand up against wrong doings and help our nation stay on path... thats why we complain. We see the way we should be heading, and the way we are, and for the reasons we are heading that way, and we dont like it.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
OK...you're going to have to read this at least twice, but I think Bush is half right here.

If we make a clean break from Iraq like we ought to, the Revolutionary Guard is going to roll in and slaughter anyone who doesn't cooperate with the de-facto, inevitable Iranian takeover of Iraq. There will be a significant uptick in casualties, but without the U.S. running interference, this process should only take a couple of months. Just like post-pullout Vietnam, there will be a brief period of unpleasantness, but then the country can get down to the tough work of rebuilding, which cannot happen at the present because American interference prevents either the Sunnis or the Shias from gaining the upper hand, causing endless civil war.

What Bush did not mention is the prosperity that Vietnam is enjoying at the present. No, Vietnam is not free (are we?), but they are doing relatively well, in fact, I read not too long ago that Vietnam had the second-fastest growing economy in Asia.

money.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
As a student of history, I do see a great many paralells to Vietnam. I may not be the most right-wing person here, but I am here. I just finsihed redaing an old book in my collection that details Vietnam logistics. The similarities are right there and in your face. Ouch.

The one thing that stands out to me the most would be the way in which both wars have been waged. There's no doubt that we win on a miitary level each time we send out the troops. We are failing politically in much the same way as we did back then.

In Vietnam, we hunkered down and bunkered in much as we have done now. Today's sweeps through An Bar and other provinces bear an uncanny resemblance to the large jungle sweeps at/near the Cambodian border...that never quite managed to penetrate North Vietnam. Then as now, we insist on retaining mounted troops in urban terrain.

The Iraq war has many sins associated with that are unique to it. The surge is too little too late, and the costs are so particularly out of hand 0that0 they've become...silly. Equipment failures (read, helicopter crashes) attest to equipment stress of the kind that WAS experienced in vietnam, but...there's one major difference. We lack the industrial capacity to put this army back together now that we've broken it.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by uberarcanist
 


I just dont see that outcome coming out of iraq. We have destroyed 80% of the building and structures in the country. The crime is more outragous than it ever was. This is a different war, a different culture, and different times. Whether or not we stay or leave, its all going to end up badly... but whats the right thing to do?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Bush41 promised the Iraqi peole that we would liberat ethem. We were shamefully late in fulfilling our promise, but we have done it. They now have the freedom to choose what they do in their future. We've over-stayed our welcome, and its time to go. Will there be chaos? You bet. Most of the politicians in Baghdad now will grab their millions and run like the wind. Blood will flow, and whole generations will suffer until they decide for themselves that they really do want peaceful living.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Bush41 promised the Iraqi peole that we would liberat ethem. We were shamefully late in fulfilling our promise, but we have done it. They now have the freedom to choose what they do in their future.


To a degree I certainly agree with you Iraq certainly offers lesson on what happens you miss that opportunities that you create or are given. Crucially two chances came and were knocked the first was when Bush senior told the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam and then disgracefully stood back and did nothing. The 2nd chance was the Gulf War 1 it self the war was ended just before liberation could take place.



We've over-stayed our welcome, and its time to go. Will there be chaos? You bet. Most of the politicians in Baghdad now will grab their millions and run like the wind. Blood will flow, and whole generations will suffer until they decide for themselves that they really do want peaceful living.


Well out of the two options that are on the table neither of them is acceptable. The US doesn't have enough man power to win the war military so that means winning the war would be left up to local security forces who can be unreliable.
If the coalition withdraws from Iraq the act of setting a five year old kid on fire will only be the tip of the iceberg and we wont see the worst of it on our TVs.

IMO it adds up to a no win situation.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
If the U.S forces are seen by the world to cut and run again, do you honestly think that you will find allies next time.There will be a next time,you know that dont you?I have tried to tell you , its your minds they are trying to get to.Living in a media driven world you are going to see and hear some terrible things,your enemies are counting on that.They have no scruples,they will do anything ,try anything to shock you so that you do what they want.They want to be seen to win the war against you,the greatest military power on earth!They will stop at nothing .Hiding behind women and children and killing them and making it look like it was your fault ,well thats o.k if gets the headlines.Can you imagine the glory they will bathe in if you let them succeed?Can you also imagine the damage to your credability through out the world.I dont think it matters anymore who or why WE got into this mess but it certainly matters what we do now.We have the military capability to bring this war to an end and we should not shrink from using it.Used wisely it would ultumatley save lives,a great many lives.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Thre is a definite difference between a war and nation-building. We won the war. Now, we are inadequately prepared for he chore of building a nation. To make matters worse, we are not prepared to intervene in a civil war. Can you imagine Britain's intervention in the American civil war in the 1860's? They were the super power of their day, and they too would hav failed as we are now.

If we had more troops, I'd say send 'em. If we had the will to grit it out for the next tne years, I'd say do it. but, we don't. It hurts to say, but we need to learn from this, and we need to do it sooner rather than later. It will take a generation to restore our good name in the eyes of world opinion. We don't have to like it, but we do have to do it. We can't make the Shia and hte Sunnis get alone. We could force the issue and make the Sunnis leave Iraq, but even that would take more will than we have now.

With this in mind, I say its time for the Iraqis to be the masters of their own fate.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Who cares? Iran will be bombed before Bush leaves office, that's a 90% probability... which will lead to a great disaster... troops in afghanistan and in iraq will be killed for years if Hillary gets in... she'll stay in Iraq that's for sure. And to stop Iran killing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, what she'll do? Nuke Iran or invade it, which means a draft.

Or Ron Paul is elected and the US gets out, Turkey probably attack northern Iraq, Iran helps reconstruction and install their own backed militias just like in Lebanon, Saudi backs militias fighting Iranians and Iraqis... Seriously, most of the trouble we are in now comes from Saudi Arabia, the wahhabites, the mujahadeens, the government is far worse there than in Iran.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I wouldn't say that the US is involved in nation building in Iraq the war has nearly really finished instead the nature of the war has changed. IMO nation building is what took place in Japan and western Europe after World War two. Thanks to Marshall aid the wide spread destruction was repaired after combat operations had ended. Other wise I agree with Justin when it comes to have the man power and the will to win the war in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


how is there a 90% probability on this? where are your sources? and what type of bomb? Nuclear? very unlikely, even we are smarter than that.
Iraq gets bombed almost every day though, with low calliber military weapons.. so in that sence sure it will get bombed... its probably getting bombed right now... but thats just common knowledge...
so what kind of bombing are you on about?
and please give me some evidence of your claim.








Things to look out for: If Bush makes some irrational moves in his last year in office. If he starts making big plans and passing new laws, expect him to stay in office longer than he should. The last year of presidency is almost always quiet, simply awaiting the arrival of the next president, not making new problems for him/her. So yes, if bush bombs Iraq with a WMD, then look at him staying in office for longer than he is supposed to.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join