Why are we still talking about Vietnam?

[gulliver]

I know there "are no dumb questions," but, well, that's a dumb question.

We obviously talk about Vietnam instead of Iraq because the problems of Vietnam are in the past and understood. The problems in Iraq are in the future and little understood. We talk about Vietnam because we supposedly learned something from it that we might be able to use to do better in Iraq.

And yes, the two wars are starting to look more and more similar in terms of likely outcome. Anyone who thinks we are now going to end up with a pluralistic, democratic, America-friendly state in Iraq needs to be hooked up to the jumpers. Sorry, they're nuts.

We look at Vietnam in order to compare Kerry and Bush. There was a war in Vietnam. Kerry served in it with valor and distinction. Bush supported the war verbally but couldn't quite bring himself to support it physically. We learned from Vietnam about guerrilla wars and insurgencies. We learned from Vietnam about the character of two men. Or did we?

Let's talk about Vietnam.

[babylon_system]

1. Because there is no substantive distinction between the parties on Iraq

Unfortunately..........

[gulliver]

2. Absurd. Just plain wrong.

Unfortunately...

Where'd you get that idea? That's a belief for Bushies and the uninformed (not exactly mutually exclusive groups).

[babylon_system]

3. Two pro-war party platforms leave pacifists with no viable candidate

Democratic Party Platform Turns Toward the War Party

by Stephen Zunes
Against the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, the Democratic Party formally adopted their 2004 platform on July 28 at their convention in Boston. The platform focused more on foreign policy than it had in recent years. It represented an opportunity to challenge the Republican administration’s unprecedented and dangerous departure from the post-World War II international legal consensus forbidding aggressive wars as well as a means with which to offer a clear alternative to the Bush Doctrine.

Even the Republican Party under Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 did not openly challenge such basic international principles as the illegitimacy of invading a sovereign nation because of unsubstantiated claims they might some day be a potential security threat.

Yet not only have Senators John Kerry and John Edwards continued to defend their support of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the 2004 Democratic platform complains that the administration “did not send sufficient forces to accomplish the mission.” The most direct challenge to Bush administration policies in Iraq contained in the platform is its alleged failures to adequately equip American forces.

The only thing the 2004 Democratic Party platform could offer opponents of the war is a sentence which acknowledges “People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq.” As the Los Angeles Times editorialized, “Indeed they do. That is why we have elections, and it would have been nice if the opposition party had the guts to actually oppose it.”

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3254

[gulliver]

4. Pathetic reasoning. Trolling?

It just shows how facts can be twisted to miss the truth entirely. I am going to assume you are trolling if you don't have anything to say for yourself. Just posting links isn't kosher.

Bush himself said he didn't want to go to war but his hand was forced. Does that make him anti-war? Was his hand really forced? Was he "taking the right position?"

If the sort of argument you are linking to really sways you, then may I respectfully suggest that you think a little harder. This is not the time to rest our decisions on superficialities.

If Kerry had been president, there would have been no war. Kerry supported giving the president the authority to wage war. However undeserved by Bush, the IWR is the same authority we would wish a Democratic president to have if that president assured us that a dictator was a grave and gathering threat seeking nuclear weapons.

[babylon_system]

5. Did Kerry say he would withdraw US forces from Iraq?

No. He said he would send more US Forces to "get the job done right". That's a great alternative to our president's warmongering. Perhaps you are the troll boy.

[gulliver]

7. Bush just said Kerry was "more heroic". What a laugh!

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040829_603.html

What a loser! Bush said, "I think him (Kerry) going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets," said Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard. "He was in harm's way and I wasn't. On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I would have gone."

Bush was a plain coward. His daddy got him into the Texas National Guard. Everyone knows that is how the rich avoided serving in Vietnam. But Bush now acts like he took some degree of risk, like he is in some degree heroic. It's disgraceful. Bush is a disgrace, and his supporters (at least as regards military matters) are too.

Bush is more Clintonian than Clinton. How else do you package a plain coward as being heroic -- in any degree?

Vietnam taught us much. Your post is nonsense.

[babylon_system]

8. You are living in the past

Play your Vietnam fiddle while Fallujah burns.

[gulliver]

9. And you aren't learning from it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- Santayana.

And yes, I do live in the past ... and the present ... and (God willing) the future. Got a problem with that? I think you are mis-learning the past, obfuscating the present, and helping to condemn us to a poor future.

Once again, if you don't see the difference between Kerry and Bush in the light of both the past and present, you aren't trying very hard. Try harder.

[babylon_system]

10. Kerry promises to send more US troops to Iraq

Hoooray!

[gulliver]

12. LOL! Look at the quotes in your own post.

"Fund 40,000 more troops for the U.S. military. It doesn't say additional troops should be deployed to Iraq, however."

As I say, people who support Bush from a war or military perspective are supporting a disgrace and are themselves disgraces. The only excuse is if they are misinformed. And that's exactly what some of the scummier Bush supporters attempt to do.

[babylon_system]

11. Hooray for Kerry, new and improved version of Bush

An overwhelming 82% of Democrats think the war was a mistake, according to the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, taken June 21-23. But the document walks the same line as the party's presidential candidate, John Kerry. The Massachusetts senator voted to authorize the war but criticizes Bush's handling of it since then.

"People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq," according to the draft, written in coordination with the Kerry campaign. Some anti-war Democrats say they will try to revise and harden the platform's stance toward the war.

The document is scheduled to be debated by the platform committee in Miami on Friday and Saturday and adopted at the Democratic National Convention in Boston at the end of this month.

Presidents and candidates typically feel free to ignore their party's platforms, but they do stand as a statement of principles and positions. Divisive battles over what to say can sometimes flare.

The 16,000-word document is shorter and more thematic than the 2000 platform. A copy was made available to USA TODAY and other news organizations.

It says Democrats will:

• Finish the job in Iraq. "We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East," it says. It calls for persuading NATO to contribute additional military forces, a step NATO has declined to take.

• Fund 40,000 more troops for the U.S. military. It doesn't say additional troops should be deployed to Iraq, however.

• Fight against "a global terrorist movement committed to our destruction."

• "Launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post-September 11 world." It criticizes the Bush administration for "a new — and dangerously ineffective — disregard for the world."

• Support an independent Palestinian state as well as controversial security guarantees to Israel — the same position the Bush administration has taken.

[eleny]

6. Because Bush* said he is "the war president"

So Kerry needed to point out his direct war experience and how he handled situations during his tour in Vietnam. And that's when the fight started.