How does Bush go from comparing the Iraq war to WW2 to now comparing it to the Vietnam war?

Question

Which is it? Or does Bush just like to pick certain pieces of history that he can spin to match whatever it is he is trying to con the American people into thinking what he does about Iraq is actually right?

Are Americans that dumb to actually believe Bush after 6 years of deceit about the war & his failure to win it?

Answer 1

You know you really can't believe that this guy is our President. What were we thinking when we hired this guy. People in other countries are sitting around scratching their heads going "The US is losing it's power and status in the World if this is the best they can do."

He's an absolute loser. I just can't believe how embarassing his whole presidency is. It would be hilarious if so many people haven't died for his stupidity.

Answer 2

The 'war' part of the equation is fairly straight forward. The defeat of an enemy's military and their surrender means the 'war' is over. Now comes the occupation. Japan was fairly easy. When the emperor said it was 'over', it was over. The US, long before it 'was over' had a well designed, well funded culturally constructed plan to feed the population and restore the infastructure. The US wrote the new Japanese constitution....elections were held, but nobody doubted who was in charge. The people of Japan accepted the situation....there was no ethnic or religious opposition. Germany was an almost carbon copy of Japan...at least the western zones. If this sounds nothing like Iraq, you'd be right! Vietnam was lost for two main reasons...the north, fighting on its own turf, supplied with appropriate weapons, excellent leadership and willing soldiers had the home field advantage. The second factor was that only a small minority of the south Vietnam population supported their government. Most of the support came from the Catholic minority..a minority that tended to be the owning and governing class. Basically, with heroic exceptions, the ARVN never could outfight the VC or the NVA. The US backed a weak 'Vichy Vietnam' government much like the 'Vichy Iraq' government. You can bet the outcome will be the same. Bush is simply wrong, and worse, knowingly wrong. The history and facts simply don't prove his case.

Answer 3

Anyone who defends the President comparing Iraq to Vietnam has not been paying attention. He's fought this comparison for a long time, in fact in 2004 he said at a press conference:

" Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April [2004] is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy."

Bush was adamant that Iraq was nothing like Vietnam since the beginning, but now that the comparison serves his purpose he conveniently uses it to support staying the course.

Oh and Kerry pointed it out in 2004. So now he's got the right message?

Answer 4

Its a war, its probably comparable to any war in some way. Personally I liken it to the 300 at Thermopylae.

Bush's mention of the Khmer Rouge was in response to Dems calling it a "quagmire like VietNam" not a comparison. Perhaps the VietNam conflict was a bad idea, it was certainly poorly run. But maybe it saved us from WW3? We'll never know. One thing is certain, we left SE Asia far worse off than we found it, and that's where we find ourselves again in Iraq.

Answer 5

You don't know your history do you? I guess not. Many people in the United States were against the USA staying in Germany and Japan after the war ended. The job was already done, and soldiers has been fighting for four years. America wanted their boys home asap. However, the powers in charge learned from history. After WW1, the allies left Germany in ruin, made them pay reparations, and basically set the stage for the rise of Hitler.

Truman and co. decided the best thing to do would be to help rebuild the countries and help them as much as was possible in order to ensure fascism wouldn't arise again. Basically if the allies left, we'd have been fighting the Germans and Japanese again.

Now look to Viet Nam, we cut and ran and left thousands of our former allies and friends, people who risked their lives to help the Americans in Viet Nam to be killed and slaughtered by the Viet Cong. We also left Eurasian children to be locked up in internment camps simply for being born.

Both wars offer parallels to what could and probably will happen if we cut and run from Iraq.

Answer 6

Bush and his speech writers are total idiots. Comparing the second biggest US foreign policy mistake (Vietnam) to the BIGGEST US foreign policy mistake (Iraq). The Repubs would be better served to never allow Bush to talk at all, he always seems to only make a total *** of himself when he does.

Answer 7

We should have learned from Vietnam but history is not a big american trait. We are more into the silly slogans Bush comes up with to hynotize us. Hopefully, many of us are awakening to reality.

Answer 8

Its quite comparable..in fact wasn't that Murtha's big thing... Maybe some Dem's should learn from Bush since they obviously haven't learned from history... If you remember ever learning (oops!) I mean ever seen the movie Patton.( I know how Libs love Hollywood).. every great man learns from history ,not ignores it..

Answer 9

It can be compared to the Vietnam conflict. read about it.I lived it.