http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23history.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
But if you've got a great case for staying there until your grand children have done a tour I am happy to hear it.
My opinion is 2 random brain cells connected dont agree. Its just more of the same gradual decline in the rhetoric.
2007-08-23 13:46:01 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. Bush believes that if we stayed until 1985--we could've won the Vietnam war.
Bush just wants to stay till he leaves office. After that, he could care less if the troops come home or not.
2007-08-23 14:06:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Interesting to see Bush's knowledgeof history has not improved since his claim that America was never a colonial power.
The killings committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia can hardly be attributed to the US leaving the war. Rather we supported Pol Pot against the Vietnamese after we left turning a blind eye to the murder of 2 million people.
But most importantly he does not even understand what people want. The Dems have demanded a timeline for a handover of Iraqi security to the Iraqi government Dubya took such pride in installing (the funniest part was when he suggested the process could be called democracy). This is not a demand for helicopters taking off from the embassy roof.
2007-08-23 22:21:34 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if/when the US leaves Iraq the civil war will get much, much worse & it could spill over into the entire Mideast causing a regional civil war between Muslim Sunnis & Shiites which would make the current Iraq war look like a picnic. Millions could die & the effects on the world econmy would be so crippling you might not even have any grandchildren. Not to mention that it could easily spark WW3. The US is damned if the stay in iraq & damned if they don't.
2007-08-23 21:08:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
A few historians disagree with some of the aspects of Viet Nam/Iraq comparisson, yet none disagreed that about the millions upon millions killed, and none said that the same thing couldn't conceivably happen in Iraq. These historians are arguing semantics, yet none said Bush was wrong about the possibly slaughter of Iraqis or the displacement of millions more.
And, considering that the Nazis and Japanese military were using guerilla attacks against allies for years after WW2's end, I don't know why they tried to paint the reconstruction of Germany and Japan as rosey.
2007-08-23 20:59:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Libs have no clue when it comes to Viet Nam. In 2004 they thought it was a valid comparison, today, they don't believe the comparison. It was valid as long as they could claim a correlation between the two wars in finding the enemy. When someone else mentions the consequences of the US leaving Viet Nam, comparing them to the consequences of the US leaving Iraq, suddenly the two wars have nothing in common.
2007-08-23 21:25:19 · answer #5 · answered by madd texan 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i just find it incredibly strange that Iraq has been constantly compared to Vietnam since it began and now that Bush has done the same, it is ridiculed. i think it just shows that no matter what he says or does this segment will always find fault.
the New York times has known credibility issues, so i question your source's motives...on everything they print.
2007-08-23 21:21:57 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know you don't want to hear this - but - Bush's statements were accurate and factual. The link you provided is an analysis (fancy word for opinion.)
No one can know for sure what the results of staying in Iraq or withdrawing from Iraq will produce - but my money's on letting history be our guide.
2007-08-23 21:13:22 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
WOW, I thought liberals were all about calling Iraq, "Bushs Vietnam". Now that he disarms the loony left by bringing it up himself, you (they) attack him.
Will the left ever get a different play book or keep running with the same boring plays into eternity?
Of course there are similarities. The South Vietnamese GOVT was ineffective and corrupt. So is the Iraqi GOVT. Too few S Vietnamese would do anything to attain their own freedom, just like the Iraqis. The liberal left in America were actually siding with the N Vietnamese (Jane Fonda) just like the liberals are today. (Sheehan/Moore calling the insurgents "freedom fighters"....)
How many more similarities would you like? I could go on all night.
2007-08-23 20:58:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
It's ironic that Bush would attempt to make that link.
In Vietnam, the old "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" story was used by the politicians. After US troops came home the utter fallacy of that claim was proven.
Bush is spouting the same idiotic slogan about Iraq.
2007-08-23 21:04:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's almost identical:
Johnson alleges that U.S. warships are missiled by Viet Nam...
Bush alleges that Saddam Hussein has WMD's and a link to 911...
Johnson sends troops to Viet Nam to "spread" democracy...
Bush sends troops to Iraq and after failing to find WMD's, changes goal to "spreading" democracy...
Johnson keeps troops in Viet Nam because of his ties to munitions factories that his wife's family owned...
Bush decides to keep troops in Iraq because of his ties to Haliburton and the Carlyle Group's military contracts...
Sounds eerily similar...
Addendum: I'm a liberal and it's just the facts...
2007-08-23 21:08:52 · answer #10 · answered by Jeb R 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋