Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam...Finally

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I love the "US leaving Vietnam = Khmer Rouge" thing. Immediately historians jumped in and said the US destabilizing Cambodia, by bombing it and and sending our troops through there led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Who cares? The point is that leaving Iraq could result in genocide similar to that caused by the Khmer Rouge.

Of course Bush destabilized Iraq. He has admitted screwing up. That is no reason to run and support people who would further destabilize the country.

[Berzerker]

I care


just for the record


and that genocide was occurring when we were there, leaving freed up the Vietnamese to go in and stop it. Hanging around wouldn't have saved any lives, it cost lives. Our involvement wasn't out of love for the S Vietnamese, it was to stop the Domino Theory from becoming reality. The end of the war and the Viets turning on China and stomping on the Khmer disproved that nonsense...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam...Finally

Originally posted by Berzerker
--- The Khmer Rouge went on a murder spree because we left

Well, they actually started their cultural purge when we were bombing convoy routes within Cambodia, and it was the Vietnamese who went into Cambodia and ended the slaughter.

At which point we donned our ideological blinkers and supported -- yep, you guessed it -- the Khmer Rouge.

Really, of all the historical analogies you'd think this administration wouldn't want to invoke...

[Berzerker]

At which point we donned our ideological blinkers and supported -- yep, you guessed it -- the Khmer Rouge.

Really, of all the historical analogies you'd think this administration wouldn't want to invoke...

Really? Sheesh! I didn't know we supported the Khmer against the Viets. Wouldn't surprise me, we became friendly with Saddam after the Iranian Revolution.

[Berzerker]

Was China backing the Khmer? I thought they were behind them initially and didn't like it when the Viets went in after them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Was China backing the Khmer? I thought they were behind them initially and didn't like it when the Viets went in after them.

Yep. When the Viets invaded Cambodia, the US and China both backed the Khmer Rouge, though the US backed a different faction within the KR than China did ("white" vs. "red" Khmer Rouge, IIRC).

I'll never forget a chat I had with a Cambodian gentleman a couple of years ago on a trip there. His first job -- at age 14 -- had been disinterring bodies in the Killing Fields outside Phnom Penh. I asked him how the country managed to get itself started again after the Khmer Rouge had killed off practically everybody with any skills or education. He gave a simple, forceful answer: "The Vietnamese. They saved us. We owe them everything." Given that the Cambodians and Vietnamese hate each other, and have for centuries, it was an extraordinarily powerful response.

Again, of all the historical analogies you'd think this administration wouldn't want to invoke...

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Of course Bush destabilized Iraq. He has admitted screwing up.

I demand a bush quote saying "we screwed up iraq" :doitnow!

[Chemical Ollie]

I was more disturbed that he still uses 9/11 to justify Iraq

[Sandman]

If anyone knows anything about Vietnam, it's George Bush.

[Robert]

Iraque has been screwed up because nations like Russia, China, France and Germany have given the Ba'ath parties and the terrorists a legitimation to start their war.

It's a known fact that if the parties who want the same (a stable, save Iraque) disagree about almost everything, their enemies (those who want a destabilisted and/or Sharia ruled Iraque) will get advantage.

Bush didn't compare the Iraque crisis to the Vietnam crisis. He said that if the exit out of Iraque will be executed poorly, the same may happen as in Vietnam, where millions were killed after the USA left Vietnam.
Saying that Bush compared Iraque in it's entirely to Vietnam in it's entirely is turning his words to fit into your political image. (and it's nothing but opportunistic politic bla bla)

The question if the USA are to blame for the reasons that led to the death of millions after their exit is a different matter then the faults they made while leaving the country.

Bush has made mistakes in Iraque, that's a sure thing. Not his invasion, but more what happened afterwards.
But the mistakes made by Russia, China, France and Germany are worse, and I blame them more. They were never interested in helping Iraque. All they did was serving their own good.

I don't understand why the Bush-haters are apparantly that satisfied with Putin, Chiraque and Schröder. Not to mention the Chinese.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I was more disturbed that he still uses 9/11 to justify Iraq

9/11 was connected to Iraq.
It was the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia to contain SH that caused OBL to get angry at the USA and made 9/11 happen.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Iraque has been screwed up because nations like Russia, China, France and Germany have given the Ba'ath parties and the terrorists a legitimation to start their war.

How exactly? And if you're talking about the Iran-Iraq thing, you do realize that the US supported Iraq too back then? And that they did as well sell weapons to Iraq in the 1980ies (though admittedly France and USSR sold much more)

[Berzerker]

9/11 was connected to Iraq.
It was the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia to contain SH that caused OBL to get angry at the USA and made 9/11 happen.

That would be of our making... All we had to do was leave and tell Saddam to be a good boy... and he would have listened. If we had told him prior to his invasion of Kuwait about our reaction, he would have stayed home and bluffed Kuwait for concessions relating to their dispute over border oil fields. But we were wishy washy and he took that as a green light to take a prize for fighting the Iranians on behalf of the west.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by CyberShy
9/11 was connected to Iraq
It was the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia to contain SH that caused OBL to get angry at the USA and made 9/11 happen.

Yes, that is the one and only connection.

But that's not the connection Bush uses to justify the war, quite contrary he still sticks to the argument that the presence is needed to "prevent the terrorist from coming to our streets".

The correct response to the "troops in Saudi pissed OBL off enough to attack USA" connection would be to pull out, in order to avoid provoking further terrorist attacks. The conclusion Reagan made in Lebanon.

[Robert]

How exactly?

1. by sending troops
2. by at least supporting the invasion
or:
3. by at least giving an alternate solution that would actually work, thus not: let's do nothing and wait till things may become better

And if you're talking about the Iran-Iraq thing, you do realize that the US supported Iraq too back then?

I wasn't talking about that thing.
Yes, I do realise that.
That's what happens in international politics, that you support the lesser evil who becomes the great evil with your help against your will.

It's a common used strategy during large parts of the last century. I think we've learned a lot from that. (though it's not always possible to not do things that way)

And that they did as well sell weapons to Iraq in the 1980ies (though admittedly France and USSR sold much more)

In the 80's there was no boycot against SH. And eventhough it wasn't smart to do, it's not as bad as the Russians (and most probably the French) who traded with Iraque during the boycot. (which may have resulted in not supporting the US invasion, only to cover their own @sses)

That would be of our making... All we had to do was leave and tell Saddam to be a good boy... and he would have listened.

You are aware of the big report made after the Iraque invasion, in which was stated that there were no WMD in Iraque? It's a famous report which was used to slap GWB with.

A part of that report, which was hardly cited, talked about SH's lack of WMD because the UK/USA presence in Kuweit and SA secured that he couldn't do what he wanted to do. The report also stated that SH would start building WMD as soon as the UK/USA presence in the regio would have ended.

The fact that SH didn't have WMD was BECAUSE of the USA/UK presence. And that same presence caused 9/11. That's a status quo that had to end one day.

Not to mention that it had to end one day anyway.
It's easy for France/Germany/Russia to oppose an attack on Iraque. They weren't there, doing the difficult job.

But we were wishy washy and he took that as a green light to take a prize for fighting the Iranians on behalf of the west.

Faults may have been made in those days indeed.
Though in the end, SH was an expansionistic power-hunger person who could only be contained by force.

Yes, that is the one and only connection.

No, SH was also connected to terrorism in the ME, especially regarding Hezbollah. SH also supported suicide bombers by giving $25000 to their families.

But that's not the connection Bush uses to justify the war, quite contrary he still sticks to the argument that the presence is needed to "prevent the terrorist from coming to our streets".

That's a valid, though a bit demagogic, argument.
There have been no bounds between Al Qaida and SH, that's true. Though Agents from Al Qaida did visit Iraque in the years prior to 9/11.

But that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to prevent any such bounds to form in the future.
It's known that SH was keen to support Islamic terrorism against western targets.

but it's true that it's pure demagogy to use that argument that often in public after 9/11. Even more if a pre-9/11 connection was suggested, which wasn't there (as far as we know).

The correct response to the "troops in Saudi pissed OBL off enough to attack USA" connection would be to pull out

which would've given SH the change to rebuild his WMD again and his army.