chucK Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 That's lovely how this is no longer Bush's or Saddam's fault, but now it's those damn Brit's. Similarities: 4) war kicked off via false pretenses Differences: 1) no forced conscription of US victims yet. 2) domestic opposition to current quagmire seems fully focused on US administration, rather than the troops; i.e., no protesters crying "baby killers!" yet. 3) have not yet launched invasions into neighboring nations harboring insurgents (unless you count Iraq as the neighboring nation harboring the insurgents fleeing from Afghanistan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 That's lovely how this is no longer Bush's or Saddam's fault, but now it's those damn Brit's. I'm not blaming them for the current conflict, but the legacy of European imperialism affects the world profoundly even to this day. Wait a minute, where did the Nigerian memo originate??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Everybody always wants to take down the big dog. If you are weak, the path you chose to safety might not be the same as a big tough guy. I don't think Iraq or Vietnam are situations where the people want to "take down the big dog". I think it's more like they want to kick the shit out of that big dog that's shitting all over their furniture and having their children for snacks. I didn't mean that we are fighting crazy fools in Iraq because we are the big dog. It is because, as you say, we pretty much showed up and shit all over their fucked up little party - which they deserved. What I meant was that the Swiss and the Swedes aren't going to run into the dilemmas the US faces because they are small countries with extremely limited power. They cannot get involved in world affairs to the extent the US can because they do not have the power to do anything about it. Thus, the path they chose when confronting an evil like Saddam may be different from the path the US chooses. Furthermore, any shaking up of the status quo might bother less powerful countries because, once again, they are at the mercy of others. Robert Kagan talks about this in his article I linked before: "Americans are “cowboys,” Europeans love to say. And there is truth in this. The United States does act as an international sheriff, self-appointed perhaps but widely welcomed nevertheless, trying to enforce some peace and justice in what Americans see as a lawless world where outlaws need to be deterred or destroyed, and often through the muzzle of a gun. Europe, by this old West analogy, is more like a saloonkeeper. Outlaws shoot sheriffs, not saloonkeepers. In fact, from the saloonkeeper’s point of view, the sheriff trying to impose order by force can sometimes be more threatening than the outlaws who, at least for the time being, may just want a drink." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 so refresh my memory - *why* are we in Iraq again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graupel Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 that depends, name the date you are asking this question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 13, 2004 Author Share Posted November 13, 2004 that depends, name the date you are asking this question When in doubt change the goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 There was a great piece on NPR this summer by Walter Cronkite marking the 40 anivershery of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. LBJs tape have recently been made public. Well worth digging up on thier website. Flakey inteligence then and now. Lies then and now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 There was a great piece on NPR this summer by Walter Cronkite marking the 40 anivershery of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. LBJs tape have recently been made public. Well worth digging up on thier website. Flakey inteligence then and now. Lies then and now. In Vietnam there was not a 10 year history of defying the terms of a peace agreement, and playing cat and mouse games with inspectors. In Vietnam there was no history of using chemical weapons on the Vietnamese people. Vietnam did not recently invade two sovereign nations and try to annex them. In Vietnam, only one side made the claims about the facts surrounding the Tonkin Bay. In Iraq everyone seemed to agree that Iraq had had WMD, had violated UN resolutions, and *something* needed to be done. Huge differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 In Vietnam there was not a 10 year history of defying the terms of a peace agreement, and playing cat and mouse games with inspectors. In Vietnam there was no history of using chemical weapons on the Vietnamese people. Vietnam did not recently invade two sovereign nations and try to annex them. In Vietnam, only one side made the claims about the facts surrounding the Tonkin Bay. In Vietnam there was almost 20 years of war; they didn't use chemical weapons, they had random executions; they only invaded one sovereign nation (South Vietnam); the North didn't lie about Gulf of Tonkin - I don't remember Saddam lying about WMD, he just acted like he had them. Kaskady for all time best avatar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 In Vietnam there was not a 10 year history of defying the terms of a peace agreement, and playing cat and mouse games with inspectors. In Vietnam there was no history of using chemical weapons on the Vietnamese people. Vietnam did not recently invade two sovereign nations and try to annex them. In Vietnam, only one side made the claims about the facts surrounding the Tonkin Bay. In Vietnam there was almost 20 years of war; they didn't use chemical weapons, they had random executions; they only invaded one sovereign nation (South Vietnam); the North didn't lie about Gulf of Tonkin - I don't remember Saddam lying about WMD, he just acted like he had them. Kaskady for all time best avatar! One more difference: Vietnam: gradual escalation Iraq: massive use of force/complete withdrawal/large use of force again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 One more difference: Vietnam: gradual escalation Iraq: massive use of force/complete withdrawal/large use of force again The military presence we maintained in Saudi Arabia since GW1 doesn't count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Wait a minute, where did the Nigerian memo originate??? If you're talking about the yellowcake docs, I believe those actually originated in Italy. See http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact and http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_27.php#003106 for more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The military presence we maintained in Saudi Arabia since GW1 doesn't count? Ok, but we were off of Iraqi soil. But, then again the no-fly zones were enforced by the air force for 10+ years. It's still a difference w/r/t Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacier Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Time to re-evaluate U.S. involvement Every day there are news reports of more deaths. Why are we still there? We see images of death and destruction on TV every night. Why are we still there? We took this land by force. We occupied it. It causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there? Many of our children go there but never come back. Why are we still there? Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles and Thugs enjoy celebrity status. Why are we still there? Their government is unstable. Why are we still there? Many of their people are uncivilized. Why are we still there? Their land is subject to natural disasters and we are obliged to come to their aid. Why are we still there? They have more than 1000 religious sects which we do not understand. Why are we still there? Their cultures, foods and diverse ways of life are unfathomable to most ordinary Americans. Why are we still there? They cannot secure their borders. Why are we still there? They are billions of dollars in debt and it will cost billions more to rebuild. Why are we still there? It is now quite clear! WE MUST PULL OUT OF CALIFORNIA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Time to re-evaluate U.S. involvement... WE MUST PULL OUT OF CALIFORNIA! Why do you think I left there? 12+ years now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 bwa ha ha ha ha! This place is a real peach of a site now. See what you did!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.