Blogcritics Comments on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Comment by Kal on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:57:09 EDT

How about we blame Bush, Sr. then? He didn't go after Saddam while he had the chance. Look, we created Saddam, he was our boy. Then, we decided he wasn't. Then, we had him completely locked down, no threat whatsoever, and we had the Bush cabal try to convince us that he was a threat to the entire world. Total B.S. We knew N. Korea and Iran were much bigger threats, but W and friends needed to go after the power and the oil and also to get re-elected. Here's the problem: Before this war, terrorists weren't sure what they were capable of. Now they know that we can't win against them, and that's the way insurgencies win---not by winning outright, but by simply not losing. ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:11:35 EDT

I've been to England, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and Canada. Had a great time in all of those places. The CIA has the best summer student intern programme. However the point remains that the poster probably hasn't been outside of his protectorate. But maybe that would be an ecumenical question -- oh, toilet duck! ]]>

Comment by debbie on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 22:23:34 EDT

Jim, "However, you don't really care about what happens in Iraq, you are just trying to cover the tushy of your junta in the States. Tell me, do you have a passport? How you answer that question will tell me much more than your provincial polemics." I do, what does that tell you about me? I've been to England, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and Canada. Had a great time in all of those places. ]]>

Comment by Mike M on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 02:36:12 EDT

The G.O.P. maybe a terrorist best friend. The emergence of Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil , Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski , retired general Anthony Zinni, and Big Media's associated and long-overdue new interest in how Shifty George handled al Qaeda and terrorism before and after 9/11, has clarified one thing: the Whitewatergate and Blue Dress hunting of Bill Clinton by the Republicans was more than just good clean American fun — it may have cost us 3,000 American lives on 9/11, as well as 610 and counting in Iraq. Bill Clinton was at best a C+ president. But, say what you will about Slick Willie, it is now crystal clear that Clinton and the Democrats during their eight years in power came to understand in a profound way the threat that fundamental Islamic terrorism in general, and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in particular, posed to America and American civilians. In light of the new information shaken loose by Clarke and collaborated by others, it just cannot be denied that the Democrats in the White House had correctly analyzed the importance of the al Qaeda threat. It is also clear that while the Democrats took some good steps on terrorism, the chief reason they could not do more was political paralysis: the president was being hunted — impeached, tried in the Senate, and attacked at every instant and in every possible forum by the rabid Republicans. Who tried their best to keep President Clinton doing his job? There is a lot of blame to go around: Bill Clinton (he never should have bothered with Monica, and once he was caught, he should have 'fessed up); the congressional assassins like Tom DeLay, Lindsey Graham, and Bob Barr; the non-congressional right-wing tear-down artists, including and led by Richard Scaife, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, etc.; a number of federal judges, including a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Nino Scalia, who allowed the Paula Jones civil suit to proceed while Bill Clinton was in office; Ken Starr; the big press, and specifically Time, Newsweek, and perhaps most of all, The New York Times. But regardless who bears responsibility for the existence of Bill Clinton's travails, the fact is that these hyper-partisans put there extremist zealotry ahead of America's interest. In light of the Clarke revelations, it no longer can be argued that the reason the United States did not do more to combat terrorism is because the threat posed by al Qaeda was not fully understood by those in charge. Thanks to Clarke and Clinton's support the Whitehouse foiled/prevented several domestic terrorists plots and quicly found and prosecuted the first attempt at attcking the World Trade Center. Let's give credit where it is due: who among us in 2000 recognized that the mass murder of large numbers of American civilians by Islamic terrorists was an inevitability? It wasn't Bush or Rice, they were probably on vacation. The number is small; it includes Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, who actually predicted this in their report to Congress; but guess what? It cannot any longer be denied that this small, far-seeing cadre of officials included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and much if not all of the Democratic high command. Props to them for realizing the danger and wanting to do more. Who stood in their way? Reptilian attack dogs like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, so blinded by their irrational hatred of the Clinton's they balked at any indication of foreign intervention by Clinton. Let's remember that Bush Sr left Saddam in power, and both Slick Dick Cheney and Colin Powell thought they did the right thing. As part of their mindless hunt and opposition to anything Clintonesque, the Republicans, simply put, opposed the Democrats' war on terrorism. In fact, one thing that makes looking back on this so particularly sad and painful is not only that Clinton and the Democrats in a deep way understood the danger of terrorism, yet were stymied from doing more by the politics of personal destruction, but also that the new president's team — in addition to lacking such understanding — indeed actively denigrated, downgraded, and belittled the Democrats' assessment that al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists posed a grave security risk to the nation. Bottom line: well before 9/11, the Democrats understood the threat posed by Osama, but the Republicans never did. Having failed to diagnose the disease in the first place, the Republicans still don't understand the nature of the sickness, and so they are now failing to treat it properly. George Bush has chosen at war with easy targets rather then fighting non-state affiliated terrorists, i.e. al qaeda. Bush has done nothing except create the next generation of fanatic west hating Islamic youths. Shifty George has tried to con america into thinking he has this big "bold" plan, when it's obvious to anyone, but his apologists that he and the Defense Policy Board are running the USS Clueless and using a made up war to shift our attention from the real issue, which is that we're stilll not safe at home: this country's seaports, airports, train system, and subways remain exactly as vulnerable as they ever were. The neo-con wet dream was attack Iraq, the Muslims would welcome us with open arms, embrace Israel, terrorism would stop and we'd all live happily ever after. What we got was a 50 year nightmare. At least half the Iraqi's hate us, Muslims still hate Israel, the number of terrorists and terror attacks has increased. The number of American victims of terrorism has increased by 150% during Bush's watch, not including the Iraq/Afghanistan daily death tolls. This is inexcusable. George Bush deserves to be fired, he sucks at fighting terrorism. ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:24:54 EDT

Uh oh! Jimmy uses adjectives-:). ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:01:24 EDT

I should point out, (before Flannelman (the right wing superhero!) tries to spread dis-info (his dad probably called it lying, but kidz these days, geez!) the above comes from the US Navy. Mommy, it's raining!
No, dear, it's just Flannelman sprinkling dis-info, it only smells like pee. ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:39:20 EDT

Did a quick Google, and Japan and Germany have said they would do something about Iraq, but like the Bush junta, saying something is all that matters. They actually haven't done anything. Of course, the Shrubites are too busy doing the cakewalk to do the real heavy lifting:

Given the World War II analogy that apparently guides U.S. policy for a transition to a stable, democratic, post-Saddam Iraq, what lessons might American policymakers draw from our "nation-building" experience in post-1945 Germany and Japan? The Bush administration's goal is to disarm Iraq. But it must make certain that Iraq never again troubles the stability of the Persian Gulf region. For this to happen, Saddam's ambitions to lead the Arab world in the "liberation" of Jerusalem must be utterly discredited, both in the eyes of his own people and of the world, especially the Arab world. This will probably require, as in Germany and Japan after 1945, an unambiguous military defeat of Baathist Iraq, followed by war crimes trials. The risk for the United States is that defeat, trials and a politique of "public shaming" may make Iraqis less, not more, receptive to a democratization process because Saddam has already effectively "de-Baathicized" his own people. Saddam's organizations of repressive state power must certainly be exorcised. In both post-war German and Japan, however the Allies discovered that, even though freed from SS, Gestapo, Kemptai and party supervision, entrenched government bureaucracies, in which alumni of the defunct ancien régimes continued to exercise their authority, remained wedded to authoritarian methods and hence proved remarkably resistant to the imposition of "democratic" ideas and practices.

]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:27:07 EDT

Mac, Could you please point out exactly where it was that I asked for an "updated" nickname? And since you insist on elementary school-level ad hominem attacks I suppose I should give you an appropriate elementary school-style response: Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me! ;-) David ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:22:03 EDT

Are you saying that the Nazi government in Germany was "legitimate"?! In that a State of War was officially declared, yes, and they were elected by many of the same methods later used in the States (there really hasn't been a legitimate election in the States since 1960). You really need to read "The Man In The High Castle". However, with Iraq, you broke it, you bought it. Welcome to your 21st cent Lebanon. There's a difference between support and "support". When I see German and Japanese mercenaries (won't be surprized to see Yakuza sub-contracters caught in a drug or oil deal gone bad) then yah, I'll see support. Right now, it seems to be a lot of "what do you mean "we" white man?". I'll note you neither responded to the inquiry about the passport (I suspect you have never been anywhere that doesn't have ignorant 'murrican in it) or about how the situation is more akin to the US supported imperial kleptocracies in Asia ie - Indonesia and the Phillipines. But then, you don't seem to be really comfortable with attempting ideas which don't fit within your polemics. ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:09:09 EDT

I seek to please, Flatulent Flanagan. You asked for an updated nickname. I gave you one. ]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:04:10 EDT

there was a previous legitimate government Are you saying that the Nazi government in Germany was "legitimate"?! I think you need to pay a little closer attention to history. As for Germany's and Japan's support, you also need to pay more attention to recent events. The Japanese have troops in Iraq right now and the German government has vowed to support the new Iraqi government and to forgive some or all of the debt that Iraq owed. David ]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:59:31 EDT

Mac, You are hilarious! First you use words too big for you, then you start an elementary school-level name-calling contest. Thank you for your "fatuous" humor! David ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:56:18 EDT

Is the German government a "corrupt puppet government," or Japan's government, or several other nations for that matter, all of whom we "installed"? Those were part of an Allied and UN effort, and there was a previous legitimate government. I think the comparison you are straining for is that of Indonesia under Sukarno or the Philipines under Marcos (which was prefaced by 300,000 killed as a result of the Spanish-American war in the last century). However, you don't really care about what happens in Iraq, you are just trying to cover the tushy of your junta in the States. Tell me, do you have a passport? How you answer that question will tell me much more than your provincial polemics. Could I please note neither Germany or Japan support the Iraq blitz and occupation? ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:44:51 EDT

I began using "Fatuous Flanagan" before I had the complete picture of what the specimen would be publishing here. I do indeed now believe he is purposely deceptive. Therefore, future references with be to "Flatulent Flanagan." ]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:31:22 EDT

in Iraq, the US is trying to install a corrupt puppet government and seems to be failing. Is the German government a "corrupt puppet government," or Japan's government, or several other nations for that matter, all of whom we "installed"? David ]]>

Comment by David Flanagan on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:28:23 EDT

Fatuous Flanagan ----------------------- fat�u�ous adj. Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish. See Synonyms at foolish. Delusive; unreal: fatuous hopes. ----------------------- Mac, The ONE thing you have said of me over and over in the past few months is that I am CONSCIOUSLY deceptive. Yet now you use a word that labels me as unconsciously deceptive. Perhaps you need to look some of these words up in the dictionary before you use them. I get the impression that they are too big for you. Just a bit of friendly advice. Thanks. David ]]>

Comment by Shark on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:12:03 EDT

"Fatuous Flanagan" Day Two of the new House Rules. ]]>

Comment by Joe on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:55:16 EDT

Alliteration and acronyms, two things the internet doesn't have enough of. ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:44:46 EDT

Two words: Gross oversimplification. Starting with the reasons the U.S. was in Vietnam. A neo-colonial, imperialistic war is presented as something it was not. I don't have time to say more at this point. But, there are other commenters on the thread who will break it down for you, Fatuous Flanagan. As for the attack on Clinton, TBE from FF. (To Be Expected.) ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:23:31 EDT

This is a rather huge slice of rationalization pie, but a couple of observations, like Vietnam, the aggression against Iraq was based on a contrivance (Gulf of Tonkin) which however has taken less time to be exposed as a lie. The big difference is that while in Vietnam, the US was propping up a corrupt puppet government and failed, in Iraq, the US is trying to install a corrupt puppet government and seems to be failing. Now if only Haiti had oil, they'd have it made. Oh, and Rwanda called and said on the 10th anniversary, thanks for nothing. ]]>

Comment by Shark on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:12:45 EDT

Iraq = Quagmire Bush wasn't elected -vs- "It's the system, get over it" = Quagmire ~ NEXT! ]]>

Comment by boomcrashbaby on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:21:22 EDT

It is ONLY because they are unhappy their guy didn't win. oh, and here for 4 years, I thought I was disgruntled at corruption. Thank you for letting me know I'm just a sore loser. ]]>

Comment by Craig Lyndall on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:43:34 EDT

"The whole point of my posts is that millions don't agree with that statement, not just because who they wanted didn't win." It is ONLY because they are unhappy their guy didn't win. Like I said previously though, if you want to discuss the need for the electoral college, we can discuss that. But if you want to use the election results as a way to bash Bush, then it has no use to me as an undecided voter. ]]>

Comment by boomcrashbaby on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:19:04 EDT

we work with a system, via that system we arrrived at a winner The whole point of my posts is that millions don't agree with that statement, not just because who they wanted didn't win. ]]>

Comment by JR on Can We Compare Vietnam & Iraq? YES!

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:17:59 EDT

I can find 1000 people who think Elvis is still alive. Yeah, and do you wanna tell those people their sentiment is meaningless? ]]>