Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam...Finally

[Arrian]

Originally posted by CyberShy

You think that you can learn the real courses from the window dressing?
But indeed, later on the WMD became the key thing around everything resolved. Not b/c of GWB but b/c of Europe and Russia.

Funny. When those of us who saw this at the time mentioned it, the right-wingers here scoffed at us. "You think you know better than the CIA/MI6?" they laughed. "Everyone who has the info is in agreement about this!" And so on and so forth. The

NOW you admit that it was cooked up because nobody was gonna buy into the casus belli without it. You know, the whole "clear and present danger to the national security of the United States" thing?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am reacting soley to the "Just like Vietnam," and "OMFG ANOTHER VIETNAM WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE," crowd.

There wasn't much of the former, as most of us who thought this dubious enterprise was a bad idea were smart enough to understand that the two situations, while they may share certain similarities, also had many differences. Unlike, I might add, many right-wingers who liked to draw comparisons to Japan/Germany after WWII.

I cannot remember anyone claiming the second. That there be a strawman.

-Arrian

[Robert]

When time passed, the GWB speeches were more and more focussing on the WMD.
But the regime change thing has been there since Clinton, somewhere in 1995.

Appantly the western (decadent) people didn't care about the suffering people in the ME, far from their beds.
All they cared about was their own security.

Politicians use demagogy to get their means. And yes, GWB did so. As I've said before, that's been his fault. He let himself being pulled into the WMD crowd by his counterparts in Europe/Asia.

But the Iraq war was already in preparation long before 9/11, and it's always been regime change since all other means to re-stabalise the ME and SH had failed.
Oh, and the WMD was of course still a valid argument as well to invade Iraq. Just not the main argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But the Iraq war was already in preparation long before 9/11, and it's always been regime change since all other means to re-stabalise the ME and SH had failed.

Re-stabalise? Don't you mean de-stabalise?

[Patroklos]

There wasn't much of the former, as most of us who thought this dubious enterprise was a bad idea were smart enough to understand that the two situations, while they may share certain similarities, also had many differences.

Are you being serious?

[Arrian]

Do you actually believe GWB invaded Iraq because he "cared about their suffering?"

He did it because he thought it was the right policy to advance US interests. He was wrong, but I do not doubt he had the best interests of the USA in mind.

If I thought he didn't, I'd be a lot more pissed off now. The responsibility of the government of the United States is the safety and welfare of United States citizens, first and foremost. Until we have a world government, or at least a stronger UN, that's the way it is and SHOULD BE.

Blaming Europe for the WMD argument That's priceless.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Are you being serious?

Absolutely. Remember, I'm talking about here at 'poly.

People mentioned that Iraq could be a quagmire. Immediately, other posters starting laughing and mockingly saying "it'll be another VIETNAM!!!"

There are many types of guagmires. Again, if all comparisons to Vietnam (including those will qualifies/caveats, like "I get that it's a desert country and that ethnic/religious divisions are different") are laughable, what about all comparisons to Germany/Japan?

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Appantly the western (decadent) people didn't care about the suffering people in the ME, far from their beds.

Western decadent people? Isn't rhetorics of that kind usually AQ's part?

He let himself being pulled into the WMD crowd by his counterparts in Europe/Asia.

How so?

Oh, and the WMD was of course still a valid argument as well to invade Iraq. Just not the main argument.

WMD stuff is most significant in the speech I linked to. Sounds pretty much like the main argument - given to the public - to me. How should anybody know that it was not the main argument when even the guys in charge used it most prominently?

[Arrian]

That's great. He spends a bunch of time retreating from the WMD argument (oh, it was just to convince the Euros, oh it was just windowdressing) and then he turns around and claims it was still a valid casus belli.



-Arrian

[Patroklos]

There are many types of guagmires. Again, if all comparisons to Vietnam (including those will qualifies/caveats, like "I get that it's a desert country and that ethnic/religious divisions are different) are laughable, what about all comparisons to Germany/Japan?

I remember whole threads of me pointing out how Iraq is not anything but superficially similar to Vietnam, and I didn't do it for my health.

I can't recall a single "Iraq resembles WWII" thread. Though it is perfectly acceptable to apply general military maxims from one conflict to the next, whether Vietnam or WWII.

[Arrian]

Now I must ask if you're joking. There were tons of comparisons made between Iraq and Germany/Japan. When people questioned whether we could successfully turn Iraq into a democracy (especially a friendly liberal democracy), various posters scoffed and held up Germany and Japan as examples. Then the skeptics were accused of belittling the Iraqi people, for not thinking they were capable of democracy...

-Arrian

[Robert]

Re-stabalise? Don't you mean de-stabalise?

There's almost always a period of destabilisation after a dictator has been removed in a nation that consists of multiple ethnical group.

Not to mention that not removing the murdering dictator because of a possible destablisiation is obviously a serious weird way of thinking.
It's like: "let's not rescue the hostagers because they may get mental problems after they're freed"

"cared about their suffering?"

Why can a right-wing person not act out of an ideology, while a left-winger can do it everyday?
I think that's the first problem in this debate, people don't believe that the neocons have a partly ideologic agenda.

I obviously can't look into the head of GWB for his real thoughts, but me myself consider the freeing of enslaved people as a very good reason for a war.

I hope the world will free the North Korean people soon as well.

Blaming Europe for the WMD argument That's priceless.

For making the WMD argument the only argument that counts for an Iraq invasion, that's true.

[Patroklos]

None, as far as I know ever said it would be just like WWII. In fact I remember very clearly stating that it would not be like WWII because the Iraqi people were not war wearied.

In any case, I would disappear for six months at a time during the heyday of these arguements (I missed the creation of the Nedeverse, took me a while to figure out what you all were talking about), but I don't remember what you speak of. I do remember "Iraq is another Vietnam" threads.

[Arrian]

I'm sure we both have some selective memory going on here. I too took a hiatus from 'poly, though I can't remember the exact timing of it. It's possible I missed some Iraq = Vietnam (exactly) threads or something.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Why can a right-wing person not act out of an ideology, while a left-winger can do it everyday?
I think that's the first problem in this debate, people don't believe that the neocons have a partly ideologic agenda.

I believe the neocons had an ideological agenda. I'm sure some of them even cared about the Iraqi people and hoped to help them. But their ultimate goal was about transforming the ME in a way that would help... the USA.

I'm not against that. I think they were wrong about a lot of things, but the ultimate goal they had - making the world a better place for the USofA - is ok by me (not that I'm terribly excited about using the US military to do it unless absolutely necessary).

-Arrian