Why Iraq is, at its core, exactly like Vietnam.

[Raenelle]

First, as someone said a couple of days back, this country needs to wrap its selfish motives up in a humanitarian wrapper. So, we are neither harsh enough to just pummel the Iraqis into submission, not kind enough to help them without strings (so no hearts and minds).

Second, what the famous North Vietnamese General Giap calculated was that the Vietnamese could accept many more casualties than the U.S. could, and so all he had to do was match his manpower vs. U.S. technology, with U.S. public opinion as the referee. Period. And he was right. The same strategy is open to anyone who is willing to accept casualties. I don't know if the Iraqis are willing or not, but I do know that puts them in control--if they are willing to pay the price, we lose.

[billbuckhead]

1. It's also a racial and religious war.

How can Iraqis/Muslims not fight to the death?

[Faygo Kid]

2. Worse than Vietnam, in one key way

Vietnam was a tragedy. Lyndon Johnson was not an evil person (see, civil rights). It was Shakespearean. It was wrong. This war is more immoral, more evil, because it was initiated with lies that made the Tonkin Gulf resolution look like purity itself.

[Ernesto]

9. Agreed. Vietnam was a tragedy

The "authentic Texan" LBJ was a good hearted man that was broken by a terrible mistake. The chimp is an evil liar with delusions of surpassing St Ronnie's "accomplishments". Bush is not wise enough to realize why he is TMHMOE (the most hated man on earth). He has plenty of "smart experts", aka PNAC, to tell him what to do.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. LBJ "was not an evil person"?? I'm a life-long Democrat, and I know...

...for a fact that "Landslide" Lyndon was know as an extremely shady politician, even by Texas political standards. While in Congress, he was known as the "bagman" for his tendency to deliver cash to his fellow Congressmen in exchange for votes.

There were also a number of scandals swirling around LBJ when he was VP. Do some research on Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes and their connections to LBJ. It is extremely doubtful that LBJ would have been on a second ticket with JFK, had their been no assassination.

I also know that LBJ was intimately involved in getting us into Vietnam. Do some research on NSAM 263 signed by JFK on October 26, 1963, and NSAM 273 signed by LBJ on November 26, 1963. It should bother you that LBJ escalated our involvement in Vietnam within four days of JFK's death.

Speaking of the Tonkin Gulf, maybe you ought to read what the late Admiral Stockdale, Ross Perot's former VP candidate, had to say about personally shooting up empty ocean in the Tonkin Gulf. Do a search on Stckdale and Tonkin Gulf. I'll give you the short answer...there were no North Vietnamese patrol boats at that location in the Tonkin Gulf.

And based on my personal 40-year research of the assassination of JFK, if LBJ wasn't involved in some way, I would be greatly surprised. JFK and LBJ had a major argument the night before the Dallas motorcade on the seating arrangements. LBJ wanted his political supporter, Governor John Connally, to ride with him in exchange for Senator Yarborough, JFK's political supporter. JFK stood firm on the seating but conceded a change in the order of the cars in the motorcade. The Secret Service car was moved to a position between JFK's limo and LBJ's limo.

I also point to the closed-door meeting that LBJ attended the night before the assassination with Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, three former CIA executives (think Bay of Pigs), some current CIA officials, some military brass, and some top Big Oil officials. LBJ later confided to his current mistress, Madeleine Brown, that they wouldn't have to worry about JFK anymore. I also point to his hand-picked appointments to the Warren Commission and the job they did to pin the crime on a so-called "lone-nut gunman".

Look, the only reason LBJ was willing to push through the Civil Rights Act, which was JFK's pet project in the first place, was because he knew that minorities would be carrying the brunt of the war in Vietnam. He needed something to offset the casualties that minorites were going to suffer. In fact, all of his domestic programs were designed to offset or soften the blow of Vietnam.

Oh, as to those so-called "LBJ tapes", LBJ was the one who had the system installed. He knew that at some point in time in the future historians would want to examine his role in a number of different situations. It was not beyond LBJ to make comments while on tape that would appear to exonerate him from blame on JFK, Vietnam, and a number of other issues. The man was crafty, to say the least.

[kalashnikov]

3. Big Difference

In vietnam we were trying to uphold a corrupt government that did not have the support of the general populace. In Iraq we overthrew a corrupt regime that did not have the support of the general populace. Thus, in Iraq we have the support of the people and in Vietnam we did not, for the most part.

[RichM]

5. Bull. We do not have the "support of the people" in Iraq. In Vietnam, we

CREATED the corrupt government that lacked the support of the populace. This is EXACTLY what we are trying to do now in Iraq, with the US-appointed "Council."

[kalashnikov]

16. The majority of Iraqis are supportive of the US

goals in Iraq; getting rid of saddam and establishing a democratic govt. Its only the minority in the so called sunnni triangle who liked saddam and violently oppose the US objectives. The rest of the population does support the US even if it is only lukewarm.

[RichM]

17. You are spouting RW talking points. How the hell do you know what

the "majority of Iraqis" support? As veganwitch noted below, Saddam himself was also the US man in Baghdad for a long time. Secondly, the US goal is NOT "establishing a democratic govt" - it's establishing an obedient puppet govt that will let US corporations control the oil. Third of all, the country is mostly Shiite, not Sunni. Therefore, a democratic government would have to be Shiite -- which the US won't accept, because it would give Iran too much influence.

This whole thing about "establishing a democratic govt" is pure propaganda, manufactured simply to seduce the US public into accepting what is going on. For you to cite this as a "US goal" with a straight face means you can't tell the difference between propaganda and reality.

[kalashnikov]

21. gallup poll said most iraqis support the goals

of the US. And the goals of the US are a democratic govt. If you think otherwise you are naive and paranoid. The propaganda was used to get us into the war. If you dont think that the US wants a legitamite stable democracy (preferably US friendly) than you do not understand the neo-conservative philosophy that is behind this administrations actions. Go read up on it.

[number6]

32. so, are you a neo ????

????

[number6]

33. the goals of the US people maybe, but not bu$hco..

the people of the US would want a legitamite stable democracy.

bu$hco looters want the oil ....

[kalashnikov]

44. no one seriously belives that

its nonsense like that that gives the liberals a bad name.

[number6]

53. so you believe bu$hco ???

or you don't believe the American people want a stable Democracy

so tell us what a great guy Bush is.

"its nonsense like that that gives the liberals a bad name"

like what, not believing in the great n wonderful Bush ???

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Maybe you ought to explain just who the gallup poll interviewed...

...in Iraq. Who did they talk with, and how did they conduct the poll? Did they go door-to-door, and were they accompanied by U.S. troops? Did they use the telephone? Did they poll each geographic area of Iraq? And finally, just when did they conduct this poll...within days of the so-called "fall" of Iraq, or somewhat later than that?

If you truly believe this poll was legitimate, maybe you're the one that's naive.

Maybe you ought to "read up on it".

[Nederland]

39. Naive?

Perhaps people that deny that a majority of Iraqis support the presence of US troops should provide a little proof of their own, because all I see on this thread in unsubstantiated claims. At t least the above poster has one source (Gallup) that indicts that his view is the correct one. You've given nothing to back up your claims. Nothing.

Furthermore, Gallup is not the only organization that has polled in Iraq, and yet every single organization that has done a poll reports the same thing: 70%-80% of all Iraqis are glad the US has a presence in their country. The reason is simple: they know that if the US leaves the country will descend into civil war. As bad as things are right now, they understand that civil war would be much much worse.

I challenge you to show me any evidence that this view is incorrect.

[DrWeird]

42. Tell yeah what...

how about an invading army attacks your country and kills thousands of civilians. When your sitting at home because you'll get shot if you go outside, you can reflect on how much you admire the invaders.

I suppose hundreds of iraqi civilians are showing up to cheer everytime a US troop gets his brains blown out on the sidewalk because they love us so much.

[Nederland]

48. Once Again

you present no evidence to back up your statements.

[DrWeird]

50. I did a poll.

It says that 109% of Iraqis want it out. With a three percent margin of error.

99% of those responding also say that anybody who thinks that polls conducted in a warzone can be accurate are bloody fucking idiots. The other one percent responded with "get a brain, morans."

[Nederland]

51. Goodbye

I see that asking you for proof is a waste of time.

[nolabels]

52. Could I ask who were they calling and what did they ask

This is the biggest joke I have heard so far.... Somebody has to get this stuff look here. Some the first targets they bombed were the telephone switching stations.

The invaders did not want these guys talking to each other so they knocked them out. Consider that on the top of the fact of the article below. Then somebody tells me to believe some poll like this!!

I am a duffus sometimes, but this takes the cake

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/world/iraq/2003-06-16-iraqi-phones_x.htm

Iraqis still frustrated by disabled telephone system
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)
(snip)
U.S. officials stress that Iraq had few phones to begin with.

The phone network was bombed in the first Gulf War. It languished in disrepair largely because of trade sanctions. In 1990, Iraq had 5.3 phone lines for every 100 people, but by 1998 there were only 3 per 100, according to the International Telecommunications Union. Neighboring Iran has 16; the United States has 67.

While the U.S. will handle some of the repairs, Kern said most of the work is someone else's business — perhaps private companies.

Kern said he expects Iraq's interim government, scheduled to be sworn in sometime after mid-July, to sell off Iraq's telecom network and other chunks of the state-run economy.
(snip)

[number6]

54. you rule DrWeird ..

:) "anybody who thinks that polls conducted in a warzone can be accurate are bloody fucking idiots" :) :thumbsup:

[leftchick]

43. Zogby did a poll too...

with very different results. Furthermore, the assaults the US military is doing nightly all over Iraq now to "root out those terrists" are accopmlishing nothing more than evaporating what goodwill remained and adding more people to the Iraq resistance movement.

[Nederland]

49. Wrong

The Zogby poll revealled that 59% of Iraqis want the US to stay for another year.

Link: www.commondreams.org/views03/1022-12.htm

[number6]

41. yes , I would like to know those details too.

..

[kalashnikov]

45. It was conducted by arabs going house to house.

it was done scientifically and is considered legitimate. It was not conducted right after the fall. You obviously havent read it.

[sable302]

23. Bingo

And this bull about recreating the Iraqi army to keep the peace when we're gone is just that...Bull! I believe that the propaganda went the same way in vietnam in the beginning. But I fear that things are getting worse over there. So, hunker down boys and girls. I'm afraid we'll be there for a while yet.

[nolabels]

28. I don't know if they have got that far yet (but good chance)

I posted this link in another thread in LBN but it got deleted I think. Anyway I think a lot of the rest of the world knows more about things in the USA than the people living here do.

http://www.vietvet.org/jeffviet.htm

"How the U.S. Got Involved In Vietnam"


By Jeff Drake


PREFACE
This article was written by me about two years ago and was, for me, extremely cathartic. I have not had a war nightmare since I wrote it, and I used to get a good one every couple of months or so for the past twenty years. Perhaps it was not so much the writing of the article I found so helpful, as the actual research I did prior to writing it (and I did a lot of research).

(snip)(snip)

In order to support State Department claims about the nature of the war and the reasons for American military actions in Vietnam, further fabricated information had to be generated. A former CIA officer, Philip Liechty, stated in 1982 that in the early 1960's he had seen written plans to take large amounts of Communist-bloc weapons, load them into a Vietnamese boat, fake a battle in which the boat would be sunk in shallow water, then call in Western reporters to see the captured weapons as proof of outside aid to the Vietcong. In 1965, this is precisely what occurred. The State Department "White Paper," titled "Aggression From the North," which came out in February 1965 relates that a "suspicious vessel" was "sunk in shallow water" off the coat of Vietnam on 16 February 1965, after an attack by South Vietnamese forces. The boat was reported to contain at least 100 tons of military supplies "almost all of communist origin, largely from Communist China and Czechoslovakia as well as North Vietnam." The white paper noted that "Representatives of the free press visited the sunken North Vietnamese ship and viewed its cargo."

Liechty said also that he had seen documents involving an elaborate operation to print large numbers of postage stamps showing a Vietnamese shooting down a US Army helicopter. Liechty stated that the professional way the stamps were produced was meant to indicate that they were produced by the North Vietnamese because the Vietcong would not have had the capabilities. Liechty claimed that letters, written in Vietnamese, were then mailed all over the world with the stamp on them "and the CIA made sure journalists would get hold of them." Life Magazine, in its issue of February 26 1965, did in fact feature a full color blow-up of the stamp on its cover, referring to it as a "North Vietnamese stamp." This was just two days before the State Department's white paper appeared.

In reporting Liechty's statements, the Washington Post noted:

"Publication of the white paper turned out to be a key event in documenting the support of North Vietnam and other communist countries in the fighting in the South and in preparing American public opinion for what was going to follow very soon: the large-scale commitment of the US forces to the fighting."(80)
(snip)

It's pretty long but has lots of information, snip about three quarters down

on Edit: forgot the link :-)

[veganwitch]

7. we propped up saddam

when he was useful. and osama.

thats what happens when you dont have a foreign policy that sees past tuesday.

[truthspeaker]

12. what he said ^ (no text)

^
|

[veganwitch]

19. im a gal

but genderfuck is cool to me :)

[number6]

13. not exactly .....

"Thus, in Iraq we have the support of the people"

some people, others just waiting too see what happens next,
just barely tolerate the occupation. A significant portion
just absolutely despise it, (whether there pro Saddam or not)
it will get worse as time goes on, because of the imcompetense
of bu$hco looters and company ...

[Ernesto]

15. Since we have the support of the people in Iraq

It must be the gal durned camels that keep blowing up things

[kalashnikov]

22. All it takes is a very determined minority

no matter how small. no camels neccessary.

[Blue_Chill]

24. We don't exactly have the support of the people but you are mostly right

This war differs from vietnam greatly in the sense that we are not trying to prop up a corrupt goverment, we took one out.

However we could get right back into the vietnam scenerio if we don't get a goverment up and running that the Iraqi people do accept. If not the anti-american feelings of the average joe Iraqi will increase and we will be seen as attempting to prop up a corrupt system.

[Rose Siding]

4. It will have the same effect

on some key players.

Don't miss this open letter to GI's by Stan Goff

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111703D.shtml

[leftofthedial]

6. "War" on Terrorism

is the new equivalent of the domino theory.

[theboss]

8. I hate using the Vietnam analogy for everything

It's so uncreative. And there are much more differences than similarities. (This is not a proxy war, the rebels do not have an entire country to supply them, there is no draft, etc, etc).

If anything, our current era is most like the Spanish-American war era. We are using unrelate events to justify wars with overmatched countries for quasi-colonial purposes. Granted, no one actually establishes colonies any longer but what we are doing is the modern equivalent.

[veganwitch]

10. no one establishes colonies??

U.S. Army 4th Infantry Division Spc. Lowary Rick Terry holds a machine gun mounted on a Humvee beside a stone image of the face of former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein which has been painted over with a US. flag and the name of the American forward operating base, Omaha, outside Tikrit, Iraq,Saturday, Nov. 15, 2003. (Efrem Lukatsky)

[DemoTex]

46. But Boss, it seems more like Vietnam every day.

Ask any helo pilot in Iraq or the Ashau during Lam Son 719. Granted, there were more helicopters shot down during any single day of Lam Son 719 than the whole Iraq war. But the Iraq war is escalating. The Vietnam war was winding down in winter 1971.

There is nothing like hearing a plaintive MAYDAY! MAYDAY! MAYDAY! on "guard" (the universal military aviation emergency frequency). The more they hear, the more nervous and skittish pilots become. Been there, done that.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Big difference: U.S. was not attacked (by someone) like the WTC

I don't care who did it, (and I know damn well Saddam did not) but quite a few Americans wanted to turn over every possible rock out there to insure our security.

ON edit- RE: Occupation- yes, it is a lot like Vietnam now that Bush and the Pentagon has fucked up everything, but the resolve for many Americans to "stay the course" in Iraq is much different than Vietnam because of 9/11.

[DemoTex]

47. But the 1960's "cold war" mind set and "domino theory game" ...

... was a big fear. The peeps were afraid. Their government made them afraid and they took the Vietnam war in, at face value, for what the US government said it was: U.S. vs Communism.

Ended up that it was pure bullshit, just like Iraq. Only Iraq is unravelling much quicker than Vietnam. Wait until the regime mentions D-R-A-F-T, and just try to duck the prevailing shitstorm! Verb sap!

[Minstrel Boy]

14. The potential consequences of this war far outweigh

the fallout from Vietnam.

Whether the United States "won" or "lost" Vietnam mattered little to anyone outside of South East Asia. There was still stasis in global security. Iraq has much broader implications.

Now, an aggressive United States - the world's only hyperpower - is threatening to knock over the dominoes of the Middle East for its own enrichment and security (and notably, energy security). Unless PNAC's White House is stopped in Iraq, the war will spread to new fronts, and we'll see, I think, a rapid coalescing of a formidable anti-US alliance.

For the sake of the planet, Bush's Iraq venture must fail. Nothing like that could have been said of Vietnam, whether you were rooting for Nixon or Ho.

[number6]

55. I agree with that ....

"the war will spread to new fronts, and we'll see, I think, a rapid coalescing of a formidable anti-US alliance."

[Nederland]

18. More different than similar

The biggest difference that you gloss over is the fact that Viet Cong enjoyed the support of a superpower, where as the Iraqis that resist US occupation have the support of hardly anyone.

[number6]

20. they may have more support than you relise...

its the US occupation that has the support of hardly anyone,
besides the UK....

[Blue_Chill]

26. No super power is going to assist the Iraqis here

at least not like in vietnam.

And I'm glad becasue vietnam II is not good for anyone.

[number6]

30. no overt super power assist.....

covert assist ?? yes, not like in Vietnam, but
do you trust China , Russia , Pakistan,
(some would say the US is the only super power now)
but there's a lot of money out there and groups synpathetic
to the resistance, and I doubt many of worlds 1.2B muslims
like the occupation ...

[Nederland]

27. US Support

Its a question proportion. The US side may be alone on the national stage, but it has the support of the US Congress to the tune of 87 billion dollars. That in and of itself is huge, and there is nothing remotely like that kind of support on the other side.

[LoneStarLiberal]

25. Six Fundamental Differences

Differences:

1. No contiguous logistical support for large-formation guerilla (Main Force) or conventional ground forces (NVA) exists in Iraq. For example Syria nor Iran are providing logistical support facilities and routes for units of the Iraqi Army in exile or battalion size operational units of Fedayeen.

2. Fewer boots on the ground in Iraq. But also a shorter time frame as well; perhaps the numbers will equal out over time.

3. No superpower umbrella to protect the resistance; North Vietnam and VC forces in South Vietnam enjoyed the large umbrella of support and protection afforded by China and the Soviet Union; resistance forces in Iraq do not enjoy any semblance of this guarantee.

4. Bordering nations' stability; while no one will hold up Syria, Jordan, or Iran as paragons of political stability, they are quite a bit more stable than Cambodia and Laos were during the Vietnam War. Lack of stability and Westphalian sovereignty (control of your own territory) in the RVN's neighbors greatly aided the Viet Cong and NVA operating in South Vietnam.

5. No oil to be had in Vietnam. Lots of it to be had in Iraq.

6. Vietnam was a war fought to try and stop the "domino" fall of countries in SE Asia to communism. Iraq is a war fought to (in the government's mind) begin to "drain the swamp" in which terrorism grows or (in the minds of many around the world) allow the U.S. to take control of Iraq's oil supply to balance Saudi instability.

Out of all these differences I think that #5 is the most salient. Why? Because of the deep windfall of Iraqi oil, we're going to have a whole lot more interest in sticking around than we did in Vietnam. Millions of barrels of interest, I'm afraid.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. That and the ideological "war on terror"

component which a LOT of people believe- (for better or worse).
The reasons to stick around are numerous.

[nolabels]

31. #3 is a lie and for #5 do you think the US is the only country with.......

Interest in that oil? So many missconceptions about that so called police action that millions of people died because off.

I wonder who could really come out with a straight face and say there were good reasons to be in that thing. In the history books at a lot my schooling they said it was a police action, and not a war till about seventh grade, 67 or 68.

Making war for profits and to be tough guys is all I can get out of any real reason for Viet Nam. Johnson seems to have been just an early model of the DINO.

Btw when is last time you remember anybody becomming freinds because they had killed several of the others family members?

Lastly, if you haven't figured out history yet, you might want to notice how many different groups of people have went into that place and said they conquered it, later to be driven out, one way or another.

[LoneStarLiberal]

34. Differences on 3 and 5

Calling Korea a police action doesn't make it any less of a war.
Calling Vietnam a police action doesn't make it any less of a war.
Calling Iraq liberated doesn't make it any less dangerous due to the ongoing war.

I'll have to beg to disagree with you over the North Vietnamese and, to a lesser extent, the Viet Cong, enjoying the protection of China and the Soviet Union. We expressly were not free to act as our military planners would have liked to curtail North Vietnamese support for their forces in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, nor for their support of the Viet Cong because of the implied threat of Soviet or Chinese involvement.

As for what we were in Vietnam "for," of course the official line is going to differ from the numerous interpretations to be found elsewhere. The official line was that we needed to prevent South Vietnam from "being the next domino to fall" as a result of communist insurgency.

I'm thinking maybe you got my post confused in a split screen with something else because I don't see where I ever stated or implied anything about friendship sprouting from killing family members or number of times the respective areas had been conquered by invaders.

I think it's better to phrase Vietnamization and Iraqization in terms that are more accurate. Simply saying Iraq is another Vietnam is the easiest kind of stuff for conservative pundits to shoot down and the easiest kind of stuff for them to point toward and say "see, those liberals don't know what they are talking about. Now about those tax cuts..."

It is horrible and there are similarities, but we need to address those specific similarities and not make easily refutable blanket statements.

[nolabels]

40. Fact, lies and something in between Iraq

I would not pretend to be an expert, but would say many of the stories I have heard from people that were on the ground don't jive with that party line too well. I am putting out opinion too.

There are a lot of differences but a lot similarities also, that’s for sure. The thing is I was trying to point out is how much the warmongers want to stay there is only part of the equation. Several things will be working against them in what looks to be an uphill battle. The list of the foolishness they have already done is endless.

Heavens sakes even the * misadministration is admitting a major failure and the needing to get out. Do we really need that much more information on what a colossal screw up that is taking place over there?

The biggest part I would chalenge you on is that I was just confused on the jest of the post that seemed to be saying they will have some choice in staying over there as they choose. I would be betting the opposite, but I guess we will see

http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij04012003.html

Arrogant Propaganda
US Propaganda During the First 10 Days of the Iraq War
By PAUL de ROOIJ


"Your BS detector must be on at full blast."

-- Michael Moore, March 28, 2003


In the good old days, the US used to tell a lie -- crass propaganda -- and it would stick for a long time. Journalists would have to scurry for months before they could expose the lies, but by then it would be almost irrelevant, e.g., the Tonkin incident lie provided to justify escalation in the Vietnam War, or the infamous throwing-babies-out-of-incubators story concocted to swing American opinion in favor of the Gulf War in 1991. In the run up to the US-Iraq war, it became increasingly evident that propaganda has a diminished half-life <1>. Whereas years ago the reigning technique was to repeat a lie often enough, now it seems to have given way to a constant barrage of lies or semi-lies with a very short half-life. As soon as a propaganda ploy has been exposed, the current media spinners will move to the next tall story. They seem to count on either the poor memory of the population, their general disinterest or their credulity. There are also good reasons to believe that the current barrage-propaganda approach is losing its effectiveness
(snip)
(snip)
There are several reasons for this war of aggression, but the position on this decision and the intellectual depth thereof were inadvertently revealed during Bush's ultimatum speech practice session. Therein the dear monosyllabic president states: "FUCK SADDAM, we're taking him out". After the eloquent "Axis of Evil" or "good vs. evil" phrases, one expected yet another eloquent justification for this war. This impromptu statement thus reveals a president with a mean-spirited streak, and a very shallow understanding of what is going on. It would be interesting for Americans to view their president's rehearsal, but unfortunately, this will not be shown to American or British publics thanks to the self-censorship of CNN and BBC, the main purveyors of the current war propaganda.

One of Dr. Josef Goebbel's cardinal rules for effective propaganda was that all news should be as accurate as possible and credible. Current practice overthrows this rule by a rapid succession of lies, and news about the war on major networks isn't credible anymore. A key question is why this has happened. One theory is that US propaganda has become a victim of its own spin; propagandists also have been permeated by the same arrogance afflicting the warmongers. Propaganda is something fed to others to sell your "product", and the spinmeisters are not meant to consume this themselves. So, they failed because they accepted the basic premise of an imminent Iraqi collapse. Given that this didn't happen, the situation has created panic among the propagandists, and their only response seems to be to live day-by-day. A few more lies today, some more tomorrow, and then hope--really HOPE--to obtain a total Iraqi capitulation. If this doesn't happen then the US risks the unraveling of its propaganda line. It doesn't fear that foreigners will rebel--these already don't buy the US line--but it is the American people who they fear losing. Many more tall stories, and suddenly many questions may arise from this quarter. Too many questions and the whole edifice may collapse.

Propaganda is about selling a war in such a way that the core populations don't realize the realities of what such a war entails. The American population wants to see "enemy" defeats, no losses of their own troops, and they want the effects to be antiseptic--video game style. Propaganda will attempt to direct your focus to the glamorous aspects of battle. Above all, propaganda papers over the fact that this is a war of aggression, that there are home team losses, and that the results are massively bloody. Propaganda hides the fact that there are virtually no painkillers left in Iraqi hospitals, and that the hundreds or thousands of Iraqi wounded will be operated on without anesthetics. The screams of the Iraqi victims as their limbs are amputated without anesthetics are what propaganda tries with all fervor to drown out. The propagandists must be pleased, as they have made it possible to demolish a country and to exact on the Iraqi people a horrendous toll--without the American public even noticing.
(snip)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. Where to begin? Let's start with your point #3....

You incorrectly stated the following:

"3. No superpower umbrella to protect the resistance; North Vietnam and VC forces in South Vietnam enjoyed the large umbrella of support and protection afforded by China and the Soviet Union; resistance forces in Iraq do not enjoy any semblance of this guarantee."

Wrong. If such an umbrella existed, the U.S. bomber forces would have been contested by swarms of Russian and Chinese jets. Another point to be made is that China and Vietnam were not getting along during that time period...in fact, China attempted to invade Vietnam in 1979. Russia was the primary benefactor of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, supplying SAMs and other war materials in large quantities. Russia was to North Vietnam as we were to Afghanistan in later years.
----------------------------

You also stated:

"5. No oil to be had in Vietnam. Lots of it to be had in Iraq."

Also wrong. Check out this site, and read II.2. Exploration History:

<http://www.petrovietnam.com.vn/internet/Promotion.nsf/EXP2002/PROEXPVII.htm>
----------------------------

And finally, you wrote:

"6. Vietnam was a war fought to try and stop the "domino" fall of countries in SE Asia to communism. Iraq is a war fought to (in the government's mind) begin to "drain the swamp" in which terrorism grows or (in the minds of many around the world) allow the U.S. to take control of Iraq's oil supply to balance Saudi instability."

Nothing but U.S. propaganda. The so-called "domino theory" was offered to the American public by the forerunners of the current group of people we now know as NeoCons. Based on the track record of the NeoCons for providing factual information, I allow you to draw your own conclusions. In many respects, what the NeoCons are attempting to do at the present time is a reversal of the old "domino theory"...we are the ones trying to topple the cultural and religious beliefs of an entire region of the world, one country at a time.

[LoneStarLiberal]

38. Clarification

I'm not trying to defend anything that our government used as a reason in Vietnam or as a reason in Iraq! Jeez! If we don't discuss these reasons and rationales, no matter how abhorrent they may be, then we're still not talking about the whole picture of the situation in Iraq or the situation in Vietnam.

I should have elaborated on #3: Superpower protection forced military planners to curtail CERTAIN options, i.e. employing nuclear weapons or carpet bombing civilian concentrations in the North. Supposedly one of the reasons that areas such as "Downtown" (downtown Hanoi) were off limits were due to Soviet signals that carpet bombing these areas would lead to the deployment of Soviet-crewed SAM batteries and a huge increase in material support. It was explicitly known on the diplomatic level that, as was explicitly known during the Korean war and throughout the Cold War that employment of nuclear weapons would provoke a response from the Soviet Union and was therefore a limitation on military planning.

I stand by my intent in the statement though I admit it should have been clearer.

Now to #5. Again, should have been less cavalier and more clear. Referring to the same document in your post, it's easy to see where the difference between petroleum resources in Vietnam and in Iraq lies: Iraq's resources are mostly know, already in production, and nearly all land-based. Vietnam's resources are still mostly unknown, mostly only exploratory, and nearly all oceanic. This is the reason for the Spratly and Paracel Islands dispute with China; these lumps of coral are strategically located in and around some of these choice oceanic lots.

Iraq's oil resources dwarf Vietnam's. They are also realized instead of merely in exploration. That's what I should have written instead of being flippant about it.

I would submit to you that the end result of the domino theory was caused as much by American support for scumbag dictators in places like Vietnam and Nicaragua as it was by communism, but what we are doing now in Iraq is not the same as what we were doing in Vietnam in terms of a theoretical justification for action. Therefore it's not like the domino theory.