Bush Accused of Twisting Asia History to Defend Terror War
Docrodile
Agence France-Presse
Last updated 11:28am (Mla time) 08/23/2007
WASHINGTON -- Experts say that US President George W. Bush may be
misrepresenting history when he drew a parallel between the bloody wars
Americans fought in East Asia to the current US "war on terror" to back
his case for maintaining US troops in Iraq.
The US leader on Wednesday likened the "terrorists" who wage war in Iraq
to the communist forces in Korea and Vietnam and imperial Japanese army,
and warned that a hasty Iraq withdrawal would trigger a bloodbath like the
one in Southeast Asia after the US defeat and retreat from Vietnam.
Bush spoke ahead of a key September assessment of military strategy, and
amid mounting calls from a war-weary public to pull US troops out of Iraq.
More than 3,700 US troops have died in Iraq since the 2003 US-led
invasion.
Bush especially argued that the rapid US pullout from Vietnam in 1973 was
to blame for millions of deaths in that country and the rise of the
murderous Khmer Rouge communist regime in neighboring Cambodia.
A similar catastrophe may befall the Middle East if the 162,000 US troops
pull out from the war in Iraq, he warned.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into
the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush told a group of cheering American
war veterans in Kansas City, Missouri.
"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam
is that the price of America's 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,'" said Bush.
More than half a million US troops fought for South Vietnam against the
communist North during the peak of the war, which left more than 58,000 of
them dead before Washington's humiliating pullout.
"My understanding of the history of the Vietnam war and the lessons of
that differs rather dramatically from Mr. Bush's," Robert Hathaway, an
Asian expert at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars,
told Agence France-Presse.
Hathaway said that despite the eight-year US military involvement and its
heavy casualties in Vietnam, Washington was still unable to create popular
support in the south for a government that was widely considered to be
corrupt and unpopular.
South Vietnam collapsed in 1975 not because American forces had withdrawn,
but because the South Vietnamese and their army simply did not care enough
about their government to fight in its defense, he said. The North
Vietnamese simply walked almost unopposed into Saigon.
"So one of the lessons, at least for me, is the American tragedy in
Vietnam is that military force by an outside power -- a power that many
people in Vietnam viewed as an occupying force -- was not sufficient to
create the political conditions for genuinely popular government in South
Vietnam nor the political will to fight for that government," Hathaway
said.
"Another lesson of Vietnam is that combination of great power and good
intentions is not necessarily sufficient for America to impose its will on
others," he added.
Retired US Brigadier General John Johns, an expert on counter-insurgency
who served in Vietnam, said Bush was "cherry-picking" history to support
his case for staying the course in Iraq.
"What I learned in Vietnam is that US forces could not conduct a
counterinsurgency operation. The longer we stay there, the worse it's
going to get," he said.
Steven Simon of the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, echoed
the comments.
Bush "emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from
Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not
too early," he said.
"It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the
genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The longer you stay the worse it gets," he
said.
About 1.7 million Cambodians died during the Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge's
reign of terror from 1975 to 1979.
Historian Robert Dallek, who had compared the wars in Iraq and Vietnam,
accused Bush of twisting history.
"We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we
did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American
lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we
couldn't work our will," he told the Los Angeles Times.
"What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long
enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion," he continued.
"We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II," he said. The
disaster in Iraq "is the consequence of going in, not getting out," he
added.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=84235
mukyuk
that mans mouth is a lie....
Woodswun
> Bush accused of twisting Asia history to defend terror war
> Agence France-Presse
> Last updated 11:28am (Mla time) 08/23/2007
>
>
> WASHINGTON -- Experts say that US President George W. Bush may be
> misrepresenting history when he drew a parallel between the bloody wars
> Americans fought in East Asia to the current US "war on terror" to back
> his case for maintaining US troops in Iraq.
>
> The US leader on Wednesday likened the "terrorists" who wage war in Iraq
> to the communist forces in Korea and Vietnam and imperial Japanese army,
> and warned that a hasty Iraq withdrawal would trigger a bloodbath like the
> one in Southeast Asia after the US defeat and retreat from Vietnam.
Interesting how the Bush admin didn't want anyone to draw a parallel to
Nam when he was getting us involved in the quagmire that is Iraq, but now
that it's coming back to bite him, he's all for drawing a comparison.
Fact is, it wasn't Americans dying when we pulled out of Nam, and it won't
be Americans dying when we pull out of Iraq, and that seems to be the only
thing Americans care about. (And gee, which political base drives that
thought process - lol!)
Woods
Docrodile
"Woodswun" <wood...@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:46ce013c$0$23583$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
The kicker in this article was: (quote)
"We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than
> we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American
> lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we
> couldn't work our will," he told the Los Angeles Times.
>
> "What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long
> enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion," he continued.
AND:
Bush "emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from
Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not
too early," he said.
And, yeah, you're right, previously Bush and neocons refused to draw a
parallel of any kind between Vietnam and Iraq. They steadfastly maintained
that Iraq in no way compared to the debacle in Nam. Now, their leader
draws parallels to support the US's continued digging of its deep hole
there. Apparently, when we reach China, the hole will be sufficiently
deep. LOL!
Doc :))
Steven Douglas
>
> And, yeah, you're right, previously Bush and neocons refused to draw a
> parallel of any kind between Vietnam and Iraq. They steadfastly maintained
> that Iraq in no way compared to the debacle in Nam. Now, their leader
> draws parallels to support the US's continued digging of its deep hole
> there.
The parallel is the Democratic Congress in both cases:
[quoting] The humiliating end result of the communists' final
offensive in early 1975 is usually placed on the shoulders of a
supposedly incompetent South Vietnamese military. Little mention is
made of the impact our "Watergate Congress" had on both its inception
and success. This Congress was elected in November 1974, only months
after Nixon's resignation, and it was dominated by a fresh group of
antiwar Democrats. One of the first actions of the new Congress was to
vote down a supplemental appropriation for the beleaguered South
Vietnamese that would have provided $800 million in military aid,
including much-needed ammunition, spare parts and medical supplies.
This vote was a horrendous blow, in both emotional and practical
terms, to the country that had trusted American judgment for more than
a decade of intense conflict. It was also a clear indication that
Washington was abandoning the South Vietnamese even as the North
Vietnamese continued to enjoy the support of the Soviet Union, China
and other Eastern bloc nations. The vote's impact was hardly lost on
North Vietnamese military planners, who began the final offensive only
five weeks later, as the South Vietnamese were attempting to adjust
their military defenses.
Finally, the aftermath of Saigon's fall is rarely dealt with at all. A
gruesome holocaust took place in Cambodia, the likes of which had not
been seen since World War II. Two million Vietnamese fled their
country -- usually by boat -- with untold thousands losing their lives
in the process. This was the first such Diaspora in Vietnam's long and
frequently tragic history. Inside Vietnam a million of the South's
best young leaders were sent to re-education camps; more than 50,000
perished while imprisoned, and others remained captives for as long as
18 years. An apartheid system was put into place that punished those
who had been loyal to the U.S., as well as their families, in matters
of education, employment and housing. The Soviet Union made Vietnam a
client state until its own demise, pumping billions of dollars into
the country and keeping extensive naval and air bases at Cam Ranh Bay.
[end quoting]
That was an excerpt from an article written in 2000 by James Webb. The
entire article is here:
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/vietvictors.htm
Docrodile
"Steven Douglas" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188007402.8...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
When we learn to save our precious soldiers' lives and limbs to be
expended as defense against a direct threat to the security of our nation,
then we'll finally advance to a mature, responsible, intelligent
superpower. Until then, we will continue to suffer greatly for getting
foolishly mired in other peoples' internal conflicts -- their civil wars.
It matters not whether the error of judgement of involvement is started or
escalated by either political partisanship. It matters only that our
leaders and their avid supporters recognize the costly folly of such
decisions, and their long-term consequences, socially, morally, etc.
Expenditure of human life to perpetuate an ideology, or to protect
national or individual pride, is a crime of immeasurable cost to the
national psychic well-being, and to international interrelationships.
The evidence is in your behaviour here, your leaders you supported, and
their lingering supporters. It is evident in the estrangement we feel from
humanity and the rest of the civilized world that refused, wisely, not to
engage in reckless ideological or commerical adventurism, while falsely
proclaiming a direct threat.
You will never understand it until your ship sinks, faithful neocon, until
the water rises up and over your pride-filled head, your egotistical
defensiveness, and your blind faith in the wisdom of tricky, lying, greedy
leaders. Even then, you will more likely drown than yell for help, but
don't be surprised that, if you do, no help is forthcoming...you
insufferable arsehole!
Doc :))~
>
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
Your reply is a non sequitur -- therefore, <snip, remainder unread>
Docrodile
That really hurtz me to have you not read my reply. But perhaps your ADD
will permit you to read this, counselor --
Denial is the psychological process by which human beings protect
themselves from things which threaten them by blocking knowledge of those
things from their awareness. It is a defense which distorts reality; it
keeps us from feeling the pain and uncomfortable truth about things we do
not want to face. If we cannot feel or see the consequences of our
actions, then everything is fine and we can continue to live without
making any changes.
LOL!
Doc :))~
>
Steven Douglas
>
> That really hurtz me to have you not read my reply. But perhaps your ADD
> will permit you to read this, counselor --
> Denial is the psychological process by which human beings protect
> themselves from things which threaten them by blocking knowledge of those
> things from their awareness. It is a defense which distorts reality; it
> keeps us from feeling the pain and uncomfortable truth about things we do
> not want to face. If we cannot feel or see the consequences of our
> actions, then everything is fine and we can continue to live without
> making any changes.
Is that why you ignore the disaster the Democratic Party caused in
South Vietnam? I posted an article by James Webb, a brand new
Democratic Senator, who told exactly what happened in Vietnam due to
the Democratic Congress elected in 1974. And you ignored it -- that's
your denial. Once again, you're the pot calling the kettle black.
Docrodile
Realistically, what difference does it make NOW whether I, or any leftist,
acknowledges what the Left has commonly said about the Nam conflict long
ago? And that is, that two Democratic administrations started and
escalated the conflict, lied and obfuscated as the war ravaged on, and got
drawn into a civil war from the primary 'incident' , the minor Tonkin Gulf
torpedo-launch by the Viet Cong. I don't know where you've been most of
your life, but the Left has always acknowledged the colossal mistake of
Nam by those two administrations, especially Johnson's, and certainly
comprised the majority of street protestors against it. I didn't see
hardly any conservatives out on the street with us. LOL! They were
Johnny-come-latelys, if at all.
Later, it was Nixon filling in for a tragic vacancy left by Bobby
Kennedy's death, and away we went with more years of heavy bombing,
denials, lies, and all-around horseshit that took thousands more lives. If
you want to ignore my previous post on the folly of fighting civil wars,
then I'm not wasting my time recounting it here.
I think you need to get a life, Stevie, and stop ruminating over the
mistakes leaders make, or their supporters, and grow up a bit, kid, and
realize that ideological allegiances don't override human fallacy.
You silly arsehole...
Doc :))~
>
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
I was referring to the disaster caused by the Democratic Party in
1974. You're still ignoring Senator Webb's article. I'd have liked for
you to address his article, but it's obvious you're in denial. So be
it.
Docrodile
You ignore my fine post on civil war follies by our government, and so,
Stevie, I ignore your lil' silly post by James Webb.
I've noticed that as the evening progresses, you remind me always of a
horse struggling down the last stretch, trying so hard to get across the
finish line, even by a nose.
I'd imagine that you must feel you've accomplished something important
here before you retire for the day, with Teddy. An imagined minor triumph
of will, of ideology, of self-righteousness...and that is why, kid, you're
just as mentally fucked up as anyone you argue with. Remember, junior, I'm
outta' the closet with my mental problems, and gettin' too old to deny
them any longer. I ask not that people sympathizie, as WH stupidly thinks
or others might think, but that people who are mentally ill in this group
at least emphathize.
You can't even admit the empathy based on your own severe mental problems.
And severe they are. You follow a prescribed course of engagement each and
every day here, racing to a self-satisfying finish near bedtime, and get
increasingly manic in posting.
If it's a war inside your head you're fighting with yourself, which I
think it is, then you'll never have any 'victory' here that'll soothe your
troubled mind and soul. Supporting civil wars is to be complicit in the
act of supporting unnecessary mass murder and maiming, and if you have no
qualms about your past long support of this war, or the leaders who led us
into and escalated it, or cannot even acknowledge that the ruling
executive and legislative power promoted it fervently (and still do),
then, for christ's sake, don't be passing the blame around like a lil'
child does. Take responsibility for your decisions in your life...you
arsehole.
And find yourself an ideologically warm and moist cunt of a group that can
make you feel your daily 'intercourse' more pleasurable. Getting your
'amusement' from whacking away at those 'few fringe leftists' here is
really another feature of your mental troubles.
And we know it.
Doc :))~
>