Bush finally admits Iraq similar to Vietnam

[steppinthrax]

AND WHEN I MADE THIS FORM

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=52&threadid=1926063

IRAQ=MODERN VIENAM

PEOPLE WERE JUMPING ON MY ASS!!!!!!!!!

 

[techs]

When will Bush admit that Rumsfeld is just like McNamara and fire him??

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: techs
When will Bush admit that Rumsfeld is just like McNamara and fire him??

Don't be so harsh on McNamara!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
When will Bush admit that Rumsfeld is just like McNamara and fire him??

I?ve been very disappointed in the management of our military?s combat operations.

Military itself is wonderful, they can kill and defeat anyone/anything. Problem is we?ve been entirely incompetent at disarming the population and using soldiers as police officers has had horrific consequences and I don?t like it at all.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq is, Bush, Jr. knew how to get out of Viet Nam.

OMG! This might have to be my new sig.

Actually, I want this as a bumper sticker.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Not surprisingly to me but shocking to many, the President obviously knows more history than his interviewer. When President Bush "accepts" the analogy of the surge in violence in Iraq to the Tet offensive in Vietnam, he is not "accepting" that Iraq is an unwinnable struggle against a noble enemy. He is saying that victory or defeat in Iraq will not be a function of the amount of violence that the enemy is able to do during any given period, but our will to keep fighting notwithstanding that violence. In that one regard, Iraq is dangerously similar to Vietnam, which fact the mainstream media would know if the typical editor read military history instead of the journalism pretending to be history that fills the bestseller lists.

QFT. But, as usual, the resident libs have taken a quote and ran with it.

 

[techs]

The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq is, Bush, Jr. knew how to get out of Viet Nam.
Man, I am going to use it as my sig also!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Not surprisingly to me but shocking to many, the President obviously knows more history than his interviewer. When President Bush "accepts" the analogy of the surge in violence in Iraq to the Tet offensive in Vietnam, he is not "accepting" that Iraq is an unwinnable struggle against a noble enemy. He is saying that victory or defeat in Iraq will not be a function of the amount of violence that the enemy is able to do during any given period, but our will to keep fighting notwithstanding that violence. In that one regard, Iraq is dangerously similar to Vietnam, which fact the mainstream media would know if the typical editor read military history instead of the journalism pretending to be history that fills the bestseller lists.

QFT. But, as usual, the resident libs have taken a quote and ran with it.

Awwwwwwww and as usual the Chimp Apologists come out in force to support him.

It's so touching if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Aisengard]

Guys, we'd all love if Iraq could become a utopia and everyone greets us as liberators. That would make my day. I would be ecstatic if North Korea was overthrown by the populace and reunited with South Korea. I would love if the Vietnam war had gone better, and the communists had been defeated.

But the fact is, that didn't happen. And it's not going to happen, no matter what Bushie tells all of you. The real world is not church, where the pastor tells you something and it's suddenly the gospel truth. The real world is real, and involves harsh realities like: North Korea is a dangerous enemy that's only been made more dangerous by writing it off as 'evil' and ignoring any diplomatic process, the Vietnam war was not 'winnable' by any stretch of the imagination, and was not lost by the media or liberals or John Kerry. It was lost because it was not going to be won in the first place. And Iraq was a terrible, terrible mistake, a hole that grows larger each and every day we commit long-term to it. Perhaps this could have been prevented, if not by not invading in the first place, but perhaps by non-retarded leadership in the White House. But that didn't happen, and now we're faced with the choice. Continue fighting a futile offensive that helps no one, least of all the Iraqis, with hope that something falls into place and all the insurgents suddenly go away, or pull out, cut our losses, and acknowledge that invading countries under false pretenses is never a good idea.

That's the real world. You can listen to Father Bush's sermon if you like, but he is full of it. And it's very sad for the 30% or so of Americans that hasn't realized this yet. Thankfully, they are in the minority and about to be marginalized.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guys, we'd all love if Iraq could become a utopia and everyone greets us as liberators. That would make my day. I would be ecstatic if North Korea was overthrown by the populace and reunited with South Korea. I would love if the Vietnam war had gone better, and the communists had been defeated.

But the fact is, that didn't happen. And it's not going to happen, no matter what Bushie tells all of you. The real world is not church, where the pastor tells you something and it's suddenly the gospel truth. The real world is real, and involves harsh realities like: North Korea is a dangerous enemy that's only been made more dangerous by writing it off as 'evil' and ignoring any diplomatic process, the Vietnam war was not 'winnable' by any stretch of the imagination, and was not lost by the media or liberals or John Kerry. It was lost because it was not going to be won in the first place. And Iraq was a terrible, terrible mistake, a hole that grows larger each and every day we commit long-term to it. Perhaps this could have been prevented, if not by not invading in the first place, but perhaps by non-retarded leadership in the White House. But that didn't happen, and now we're faced with the choice. Continue fighting a futile offensive that helps no one, least of all the Iraqis, with hope that something falls into place and all the insurgents suddenly go away, or pull out, cut our losses, and acknowledge that invading countries under false pretenses is never a good idea.

That's the real world. You can listen to Father Bush's sermon if you like, but he is full of it. And it's very sad for the 30% or so of Americans that hasn't realized this yet. Thankfully, they are in the minority and about to be marginalized.

Have you ever seen "Schindler's List"?

What you are suggesting would unemploy an enormous number of people.

Is it still a right to bear arms in the states?

In terms of what the US should do now...it's an interesting concept. What does one do after they've punched someone in the face?

The aspect of the situation that I have yet to fully comprehend is how and why the "humanitarian aid" did not go directly to the Iraqi people. Can precision-guided bombs not be altered to drop food?

What about a means to provide a 100% free vote for the Iraqi people, where they could write their own constitution and nominate their own candidates. I'm thinking that some wind-up WIFI routers dropped with precision along with some basic computer hardware could go a long way. Is a WIFI router and a computer cheaper than a bomb?

/ideas

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
In comparison, Iraq is a testament to the skill, courage, and supremacy of today's US soldiers and military leadership.

In case you forgot, the violence in Iraq has been progressively getting worse (ie: we are losing).

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
America lost 58000 soldiers in Viet Nam from about 1964 to 1973 (roughly nine years).

In comparison, Iraq is a testament to the skill, courage, and supremacy of today's US soldiers and military leadership.

No, it's a testament to the modernization of body armor and the proximity of wounded to triage and better medical care. Considering that we have tens of thousands of walking wounded it has nothing to do with leadership.

Consider that the number of permenantly disabled, brain damaged, and alive soldiers per the number of total wounded, we are saving more but at a higher cost, as they will never be able to lead a "normal" life again.

Apples to oranges buddy.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Craig234

So you are saying the troops in Viet Nam lacked skill and courage?

You know, when you account for the larger number of troops in viet nam, the superiod technology we have in baghdad, the advantages in Iraq over the jungle terrain of Viet Nam, and the huge increase in medical technology which increases the percentage of soldiers wounded, the numbers start to be a lot closer.

And what is the point to that topic comparing the soldiers? Other than the mistake the current troops made in volunteering, the troops aren't the issue.

Point taken, my post did not convey my thoughts well. Today's military is much better educated, trained, and equipped than 30-40 years ago. And our military is voluntary, hence the comment on courage.

The US will not lose 58000 troops in Iraq.. not even a fourth of that. And assuming the congress continues to support the troops via spending bills, the US will leave Iraq a relatively stable country.. in spite of the liberal media's desire for a civil war.

So, you are telling me that some day we will have killed *ALL* terrorists and the Iraqi's have stopped killing eachother, just because we wish it?

Your victory conditions are unattainable. There will be no pacification of Iraq and no resolution of the "war on fear". Furthermore, the only safety we probably have at this point domestically is the fact that most terrorist focus is on Iraq. Now, in order to accomplish a tranquil Iraq *AND* safety at home we will essentially have to destroy all terrorists forever.

Considering that terrorists have been around since before the Roman Empire, I highly doubt we'll get anywhere close to that lofty goal, especially since the Romans controlled a massive part of the known world and we don't.

Iraq is nothing more than a diversion, both for A-Q and people like you. It's like one of those shiney toys your parents gave you when you were a kid. Great distraction for you and it allowed them to get work done without you bugging them.

Unfortunately, people like you are too easily distracted by that shiney toy and Bush's work is only to abrogate your (and my) rights. He does that by also distracting the terrorists by attaching them to that shiney toy also.

Essentially, he is killing two birds with one stone (or shiney toy).

 

[Starbuck1975]

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is an exercise in futility...sure there are parallels...there are parallels between numerous wars...one could make a parallel between Tito's Yugoslavia and Saddam's Iraq, which also explains why, like the Balkans, Iraq is gravitating towards ethnically and factionally motivated civil war.

People like to bring up the Vietnam War because it polarizes people...Vietnam is not so far in America's past that people alive then don't remember the political and cultural ripples that shaked this nation at its very foundation.

However, the dynamics of Vietnam and Iraq are quite different...in Vietnam, we arguably had plenty of troops on the ground, but followed ludicrous rules of engagement that made the war unwinnable from day one.

Iraq, we arguably have too few soldiers on the ground to fight a war that was highly winnable...also the professionalism and effectiveness of our soldiers today are infinitely higher then they were during Vietnam...sure, we have a few instances of American soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq...every war has examples of that unfortunately.

But by and large, we had the technology, expertise and ability to "win" in Iraq...the folly was perhaps going there to begin with.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is an exercise in futility...sure there are parallels...there are parallels between numerous wars...one could make a parallel between Tito's Yugoslavia and Saddam's Iraq, which also explains why, like the Balkans, Iraq is gravitating towards ethnically and factionally motivated civil war.

People like to bring up the Vietnam War because it polarizes people...Vietnam is not so far in America's past that people alive then don't remember the political and cultural ripples that shaked this nation at its very foundation.

However, the dynamics of Vietnam and Iraq are quite different...in Vietnam, we arguably had plenty of troops on the ground, but followed ludicrous rules of engagement that made the war unwinnable from day one.

Iraq, we arguably have too few soldiers on the ground to fight a war that was highly winnable...also the professionalism and effectiveness of our soldiers today are infinitely higher then they were during Vietnam...sure, we have a few instances of American soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq...every war has examples of that unfortunately.

But by and large, we had the technology, expertise and ability to "win" in Iraq...the folly was perhaps going there to begin with.

The same could be said for vietnam. The domino theory is just reversed in the case of Iraq. Spread democracy instead of stop communism.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The same could be said for vietnam. The domino theory is just reversed in the case of Iraq. Spread democracy instead of stop communism.

Although there was some merit to the domino theory...the Cold War went hot on numerous occasions, largely through wars on the periphery...while we may have "lost" Vietnam, it did send a very strong message to the Soviets not to make attempts at expanding their sphere of influence into the Pacific...China learned the same lesson during the Korean War.

An irony of Cold War politics is that the current war on terrorism is largely an extension of that conflict...much of the resentment towards the west from the Middle East is due to American, European and Soviet military engagements in the region. The Taliban was certainly America's buddy when it was fighting the Soviet occupation...we played Iraq and Iran against one another during their nasty little war to keep a balance of power in the region...the very national boundaries in the Middle East are arbitrarily carved regions due largely to European imperialism. That, and many in the region still haven't gotten over the fall of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after WW1.

 

[ProfJohn]

As much as you wish to compare Vietnam to Iraq it is not a great comparison.
Vietnam was an all out war, this is a low intensity conflict.

And I am not sure how you compare what is going on to the Tet offensive. 1536 American died in the battle of Tet, and another 7764 were wounded. That was within the space of 5+ months.
So far in Iraq we have had 2784 dead and around 13000 wounded due to enemy activity over a period of 3 ½ years.

In Vietnam during the 8 years of real combat (1965-1973) our troops suffered 58,209 fatalities and another 153,303 wounded.

That works out to 7276 per year. In Iraq we are ?only? losing 795 soldiers a year.
I?d say that shows a rather large difference.

How about wounded? Vietnam 19162 per year, Iraq 3714 per year, again NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The biggest difference, we were able to leave Vietnam and not worry about the Vietnamese launching attacks on us.
If we leave Iraq to the terrorists and Iran we risk the chance of terror attacks being planned and launched against us from within Iraq.

Let?s see what the Baker plan says and see what happens after the election.

And I love the way the OP takes the Presidents words and twists them to make it look like Bush actually admitted that Iraq is like Vietnam.
Read the WHOLE exchange about Tet

MICHAEL ROWLAND: On that basis Mr Bush has been having a particularly hard time of late. The increasing intensity of the insurgency has led the prominent New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to describe it as the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive.

This was the series of well-targeted attacks by the Vietcong in early 1968 that punctured the US military's assertion that it was winning the Vietnam war.

In an interview with American ABC Political Editor George Stephanopoulos Mr Bush was asked whether he agreed with Mr Friedman's analysis?

GEORGE BUSH: He could be right. There is certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we're heading into an election.

No where near admitting that Vietnam and Iraq are alike, barely an acknowledgement that what is going on now might be like Tet.

One thing that is certainly a parallel to Vietnam, the daily body count on the nightly news. All we need is a modern day Cronkite's to say something along the lines of "We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest cloud." He concluded by saying that the U.S. was "mired in a stalemate" and called for a negotiated end to the conflict.

 

[Pens1566]

Whatever will you do if the Baker plan is something other than "stay the course"??? You know, something sensible and obvious like strategic redeploy... er.... cut and run???

 

[Fern]

Thread title doesn't match the body of the post.

I don't see where he said Iraq=Vietnam.

If the journalist said, "the invasion of Normandy was a key turning point in WW2, so is this increased violence a turning point in Iraq"?

And Bush said "Could be", does that mean he agrees WW2=Vietnam? No.

He was basically asked if this "Ramadan" violence might be a "turning point". He said could be. IMHO, it's a BIG stretch to say Bush said the two wars were comperable.

All wars have turning points. So, any war = any other war? Meh

Fern

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Whatever will you do if the Baker plan is something other than "stay the course"??? You know, something sensible and obvious like strategic redeploy... er.... cut and run???

Cut, run, and pay reparations. Oil may be an interesting currency to utilize.

 

[eleison]

We lost vietnam because the liberal media lied to the public and told them how bad the soldiers were... how they indescriminately killed civilians... how they rape girls... etc. WHile there were some of this happening, it was NOT normal.. 99.99% of the time, the soldiers bravely did their jobs...

The Tet offensive was a BLUNDER on the North Vietnamese. After the offensive, the north vietnamese was pretty much devastated. But the media made it seem like the USofA lost. That the soldiers lost.

The US liberal media cause us to lose the Vietnam war. These are NOT my words, these the are words from the enemy themselves: General Giap , Ho chi Min.. etc.

If we lose the war in Iraq, it will be because of the US liberal media.. not the US fighting men and women. It has happened before.. and if liberals have it their way, it will happen again..

-Eleison

ps. read your history books folks...

 

[TRUMPHENT]

A Blast From the Past!

He is probably best known for his role in the fall of Saigon when, as a People?s Army colonel, he accepted the surrender of Saigon?s presidential palace. It was Tin who countered Col. Harry Summers? observation that Hanoi had never defeated American troops in the field with the simple rejoinder, "This may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eleison
We lost vietnam because the liberal media lied to the public and told them how bad the soldiers were... how they indescriminately killed civilians... how they rape girls... etc. WHile there were some of this happening, it was NOT normal.. 99.99% of the time, the soldiers bravely did their jobs...

The Tet offensive was a BLUNDER on the North Vietnamese. After the offensive, the north vietnamese was pretty much devastated. But the media made it seem like the USofA lost. That the soldiers lost.

The US liberal media cause us to lose the Vietnam war. These are NOT my words, these the are words from the enemy themselves: General Giap , Ho chi Min.. etc.

If we lose the war in Iraq, it will be because of the US liberal media.. not the US fighting men and women. It has happened before.. and if liberals have it their way, it will happen again..

-Eleison

ps. read your history books folks...

QFT.

Liberal media + propaganda caused our defeat in Vietnam.

Many of these same clowns are at it again now.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: eleison
We lost vietnam because the liberal media lied to the public and told them how bad the soldiers were... how they indescriminately killed civilians... how they rape girls... etc. WHile there were some of this happening, it was NOT normal.. 99.99% of the time, the soldiers bravely did their jobs...

The Tet offensive was a BLUNDER on the North Vietnamese. After the offensive, the north vietnamese was pretty much devastated. But the media made it seem like the USofA lost. That the soldiers lost.

The US liberal media cause us to lose the Vietnam war. These are NOT my words, these the are words from the enemy themselves: General Giap , Ho chi Min.. etc.

If we lose the war in Iraq, it will be because of the US liberal media.. not the US fighting men and women. It has happened before.. and if liberals have it their way, it will happen again..

-Eleison

ps. read your history books folks...

You're aware that the US media refused to properly report on a chemical injected in cattle, right?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eleison
We lost vietnam because the liberal media lied to the public and told them how bad the soldiers were... how they indescriminately killed civilians... how they rape girls... etc. WHile there were some of this happening, it was NOT normal.. 99.99% of the time, the soldiers bravely did their jobs...

The Tet offensive was a BLUNDER on the North Vietnamese. After the offensive, the north vietnamese was pretty much devastated. But the media made it seem like the USofA lost. That the soldiers lost.

The US liberal media cause us to lose the Vietnam war. These are NOT my words, these the are words from the enemy themselves: General Giap , Ho chi Min.. etc.

If we lose the war in Iraq, it will be because of the US liberal media.. not the US fighting men and women. It has happened before.. and if liberals have it their way, it will happen again..

-Eleison

ps. read your history books folks...

QFT.

Liberal media + propaganda caused our defeat in Vietnam.

Many of these same clowns are at it again now.

Damn, I never knew that much about the Tet Offensive, I just read the wikipedia page on it...... I never knew that it was such a large US victory...

The Viet Cong's operational forces were effectively crippled by the Offensive. Many Viet Cong who had been operating under cover in the cities of South Vietnam revealed themselves during the Offensive and were killed or captured. The organization was preserved for propaganda purposes, but in practical terms the Viet Cong were finished.

NVA/VC: Total casualties: ~60,000-100,000
US/SV: Total casualties: 20,985

Result Decisive ARVN & US Military victory

Looks like the NVA got their asses handed to them in that offensive.