Bush equates Iraq with Vietnam

[Paddy]

Maybe he's starting to get the message in his own circuitous way:

President George W. Bush was to charge in a speech on Wednesday that advocates of a US withdrawal from Iraq would "pull the rug out" from under US troops whose efforts are paying off.

The White House released excerpts of Bush's remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) group, which claims 2.3 million members, on Tuesday as he headed to Kansas City, Missouri, for their annual convention.

Bush also tied anti-war forces in the Vietnam era to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the aftermath of the US pull-out, and hinted at a parallel catastrophe in Iraq if US forces leave too soon.

"Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people," he was to say. "The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be."

"In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation, torture, or execution. In Vietnam, former American allies, government workers, intellectuals, and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished," he was to say.

"Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea," said Bush, who pleaded for patience with the US-led security crackdown in Iraq.

US troops there "are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against Al Qaeda, clearing the terrorists out of population centers, and giving families in liberated Iraqi cities their first look at decent and normal life" Bush said in his prepared remarks.

"As they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?" he said.

"My answer is clear: We will support our troops, we will support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed," said Bush, who linked the painful US defeat in Vietnam to the situation in Iraq.

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," he said.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of Americas withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields,'" he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070821221133.r8brp1m8&show_article=1

[Standing Wolf]

We've won exactly one land war in Asia.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I bet we could win this one too, if we wanted to.

[longeyes]

Is Bush playing to win?

He's been sending mixed messages for six years.

[Paddy]

I bet we could win this one too, if we wanted to.

Of course we could, but we don't really want to.  Iraq is a classic 'pump n dump' scheme.  The cash register rings when we tear it down and rings again when we build it up.  Could go on indefinitely under the guise of 'fighting terrorism'.  It's a sham and a scam, that's all.

[Perd Hapley]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

[Sergeant Bob]

Mike! Fistful's talking dirty!

[Monkeyleg]

Just days after 9/11, I suspected that the American people would have no stomach for a real protracted war.

Sadly, I was right.

The parallels between Iraq and VietNam are the shenanigans in Congress. The Iraq war has never been a military war. Like VietNam, it's been a political war, with one party using the troops to gain momentum for the next presidential election.

We were winning in VietNam. And we would probably be in much better shape in Iraq if a few aspirants for federal elected office didn't decide that it was in their own personal interest to say whatever they thought might get them elected, no matter what course the Iraq war might take.

It goes without question that there are people on this forum who object to our presence in Iraq, and some who objected to the invasion in the first place.

I have no argument with those folks. They may be right, or they may be wrong. We'll know in maybe 30 years or so.

But there can be no doubt that a withdrawal of troops right now would leave the ME region in chaos. The level of chaos and barbarism will likely exceed what we saw in Cambodia, Laos, VN and other countries in the late 1970's.

Given what we know about creating a vacuum in a country in which we have fought a war, and knowing the history of leaving such countries in a vacuum, I just can't understand why people would advocate a pullout.

Even military historians who have been opposed to this war advise not to withdraw troops until the Iraqi government is stable. Some of these scholarly types have been very hostile in their language about the Bush administration, but also have been very reasoned in supporting our presence in Iraq until we have the area stabilized.

To me, a sleep-deprived numbskull, these arguments seem 100% logical.

What am I missing?

[280plus]

What am I missing?

The American requirement for instant gratification maybe?

[Perd Hapley]

It goes without question that there are people on this forum who object to our presence in Iraq, and some who objected to the invasion in the first place.  I have no argument with those folks. They may be right, or they may be wrong. We'll know in maybe 30 years or so.

My thoughts, as well.

[Leatherneck]

Of course we could, but we don't really want to.

Who's "We" white man?

Those of us with military backgrounds, no matter the initial misgivings about going back into Iraq in 2003, generally understand that there's a time for rendering one's best advice to the Boss, and when the Commander decides, it's then time to quit demurring and do your best to make it happen. Sadly, the Left in America does not subscribe to that simple mentality. i.e., they're not team players. They just bitch and moan trying to get their own way, not recognizing that the train has long since left the station.

TC

[wooderson]

Sadly, the Left in America does not subscribe to that simple mentality. i.e., they're not team players.

I daresay I'd wear that as a badge of honor. Screw the team.

[Paddy]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Better applies to fallacious reasoning like:

19 Saudis attacked our country on 9/11, therefore Iraq has WMD's and must be invaded.

Those of us with military backgrounds, no matter the initial misgivings about going back into Iraq in 2003, generally understand that there's a time for rendering one's best advice to the Boss, and when the Commander decides, it's then time to quit demurring and do your best to make it happen.

And that is exactly the way the military should respond.  We civilians, however, do not live in a dictatorship and it is our right and duty to question, hold accountable, and restrain the 'Boss' if necessary.

[K Frame]

"Won exactly one land war in Asia..."

I read it as being three...

Philippines excursion (OK, not really a war, but close enough)

World War II in the Pacific

Gulf War I.

The Korean War was a draw, the situation in Afghanistan is still unsettled but will probably come to count in the win column.

Then there's Iraq and Vietnam.


Oh, and Bush didn't "equate" Iraq with Vietnam. He drew comparisons between the situation in Iraq and Vietnam. He also drew comparisons between Iraq and World War II in the Pacific.

A FAR cry from "equating" the two.

[The Rabbi]

And the comparison he made was that withdrawing from Vietnam was the wrong decision because thousands of people were killed as a result.  Likewise withdrawing from Iraq will cause thousands of needless casualties.

[Sergeant Bob]

Notice that the same people who were crying about the US not supporting Afghanistan after helping oust the Soviets, resulting in the Taliban and Al Queda taking control, are now calling for us to pull out of Iraq.

[wooderson]

Those are generally the same people saying we shouldn't have destabilized that particular region (through a bunch of religious wackjobs who eventually became enemies of the good ol' USA) in the first place.

Wouldn't want to leave that out.

[The Rabbi]

And said people have forgotten that the whole reason we were there to begin with was because the Soviets invaded in iirc 1979.  But that was probably our fault too.

Because the same people who say today that al Qaeda's hatred of us is our fault for being too...whatever, also were saying the Soviet Union's expansionist plans were our fault because we were too...American.

It is amazing, having lived through the Cold War (or some part of it) to see the same self-deceiving rhetoric about the Soviet Union now used about radical Islam.  It is merely another opportunity for self-loathing on the part of the left (and right as well in some cases).

[Leatherneck]

But Rabbi, didn't you know:

I daresay I'd wear that as a badge of honor. Screw the team.

Is the new way to show you love your country?

TC

[The Rabbi]

But Rabbi, didn't you know:

I daresay I'd wear that as a badge of honor. Screw the team.

Is the new way to show you love your country?

TC

Leatherneck:
Expressions of hatred for your country are patriotic because it means you honor your right to free speech.  And so it goes:
Self-hatred=patriotism
Intolerance=honesty
Quotas=opportunity
Taxes=concern
Left=right
etc
etc
George Orwell would have a field day.

[Paddy]

As usual, any criticism of the Iraq war is met with the same old tired rah-rah rhetoric that completely fails to   explain, let alone justify, this war.  "self-loathing unpatriotic America hating leftists.......blah, blah, blah, yackety quack drivel.  You're going to have to come up with a new sales pitch 'cause that one ain't working and it never did.  The official raison du jour has gone from 'bring evildoers to justice' to 'Saddam has WMD's' to 'regime change' to 'democratization'.  Still, the U.S. military cannot even pacify the country, after 5 years.   All the while our men (and women) are getting killed in onsies and twosies (lately foursies & up) while we spend hundreds of $$billions to play footsy with these third world dirtbags. 

At home, our government passes laws to restrict our liberties, and expands bureaucracy to historic levels in the name of 'homeland security' while failing to enforce any immigration laws.   It's ludicrous.

Either get it on and win it, or get the hell out.

[Leatherneck]

As usual, any criticism of the Iraq war is met with the same old tired rah-rah rhetoric

Oh, I think

Screw the team.

Goes WAY beyond "criticism of the Iraq war".

TC

[K Frame]

"You're going to have to come up with a new sales pitch 'cause that one ain't working and it never did."

Funny, much the same could be said about your shinola sales, too.

[One of Many]

The majority of the American people do not have the stomach to do what is necessary to win any war.  They complain because a very small (from a historical sense) number of our military gets killed and wounded, and they complain because the government is spending money on weapons and logistics to fight that war, instead of spending it on their pet project.

War means killing people, innocent civilian and armed fighter alike. Collateral Damage is an artificial term invented as a way to justify not doing what is necessary to achieve victory.  Look at the way war was practiced in ancient historical times.  Entire cities were completely destroyed, with every man, woman, child, and even the livestock and farm fields wiped out.  That was the way to win a war, and you didn't spend decades fighting an insurgency, or trying to rebuild the culture and economy of your newly acquired territory.  When you conquered a territory, you sent in settlers to build new farms and cities, utilized the resources for your own profit, and didn't whine and cry because you lost a son or father in Battle.  The victors were heroes, and the enemy was either dead or slaves.

Now, we think of war as 'civilized', and when we discover that it is not some quick and clean sporting competition, we want to pack up our pieces and go home.  The middle/far east culture still practices war in the old fashioned way, and if we intend to win, we have to play by those rules. I still think it is better to play that game on foreign soil, than here in the USA.  If we don't keep the fighting over there, it will assuredly follow us back home.  Better to let the IED and mortars go off in Baghdad, than in some major US cities.

[Paddy]

"You're going to have to come up with a new sales pitch 'cause that one ain't working and it never did."

Funny, much the same could be said about your shinola sales, too.

Hmmmmm.....let's take a look and see how true that really is.......

The question is this:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Approve 26%
Disapprove 69%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Here's another:
Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

and it was the same two years ago:
Bottom line is that 59%, or 6 in 10, Americans want troop withdrawal from Iraq ­ starting now
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh06162005.html

and it continues:
WASHINGTON (CNN)  A new low of 30 percent of Americans say they support the U.S. war in Iraq and, for the first time, most Americans say they don't believe it is morally justified, a poll released Tuesday said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/27/poll-support-for-iraq-war-reaches-new-low/

and on and on.  Nope, Mike, I couldn't find anything at all to support your assertion.  The majority of the American people oppose this war and the number is growing every day.