report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Political Chat
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 08-23-2007, 06:31 AM
sojustask's Avatar
sojustask sojustask is offline
Lady Moderator- Just call me Your Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Texas
Posts: 13,894
Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Vietnam By Dummies
(Prof. G.W. Bush Lecturing)


President Bush finally got something right by comparing the US war in Iraq with the disastrous US war in Vietnam. After five years of denying there were any similarities at all, Bush lectured us on the lessons he says we should have learned from that war and apply them to Iraq.

So far so good. Trouble is the lesson Bush suggested we should learn from our failure in Vietnam four decades ago goes something like this:

We cut and ran in Vietnam. We let our allies down. We allowed a rag tag group of insurgents to win against the great American military. And that's why we're in the mess we're in today. Our enemies today, another group of rag tag insurgents called al-Qaeda – have been emboldened by our retreat from Vietnam.

Therefore, Bush posits, we must stay the course in Iraq, no matter how bleak the situation becomes. Because, to do otherwise would be to reinforce our enemy's belief that the US lacks staying power and has no stomach for taking casualties. That in turn will encourage them to cause trouble throughout the region and to even launch attacks against the American homeland itself... or as Bush claims, if we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll have to fight them right here in the US of A.

Of course no well-read (or sane) person would draw such lessons from Vietnam. In fact, had Bush and Congress had heeded the real lessons of Vietnam they would have scoffed at the idea of putting tens of thousands of US combat troops on the ground in the heart of the Middle East.

(Note: Few will also miss the bitter irony of being lectured on “the lessons of Vietnam” by a guy who spent that war hiding out in the Texas Air National Guard, drinking beer and malingering by skipping out on monthly drills. (It was good to be the son of a powerful Texas congressman.)

Those of us who lived through the Vietnam era, or have since studied declassified documents from the Johnson and Nixon administrations, have walked away with much different lessons:

1) Super-power status is meaningless against a enemy fighting on and for their own land and willing to incur and take unlimited casualties.

2) Puppet governments set up under foreign occupying forces are viewed by their own people as illegitimate and therefore cannot govern.

3) The hurdle for an occupying army is very high – they need to win. The hurdle for an indigenous insurgency is much more achievable – they simply need to not lose.

4) When the vast majority of Americans cease to support a foreign war, that war is lost – period.

5) Retreat from Vietnam did not result in a “domino effect,” in the region, as threatened.

6) When we retreated from Vietnam the Viet Cong did not “follow us home.”
Our retreat from Vietnam did not result in permanent estrangement, just the opposite.

7) The only Vietnamese who “followed us home,” were refugees who have since become among some of the most highly educated and successful American citizens.



George W. Bush learned none of the real lessons of the Vietnam War. Because Bush and his Neo-con co-dependents insulated themselves from the those lessons by soaking their gray matter in the Koolaide of denial – that it was the “liberal media” and “liberals in Congress,” that cut the ground from under our troops. In other words, as far as Bush et al are concerned, we didn't lose in Vietnam, we cut and ran before the job was done. They surely believe to this day that, had we only stuck with it a few more months, surged a few more times, that we would have won. The light was right there they say, at the end of that tunnel – a tunnel that never itself seemed to have not end.

And if you believe that, then I have a war in the Middle East to sell ya.

We've gone through so many iterations of the Bush doctrine with Iraq that I've lost the thread. But this appears to be a whole new version of the Bush doctrine: Never give up. Never admit defeat no matter how many soldiers are dying each week (especially since none of them are related to you.) Keep fighting.... no matter the cost in treasure or to our nation's soul. Because, as long as we keep fighting no one can say we lost. No one can say we cut and ran.

It's not a new idea. In fact it's just a reworked version of the military doctrine of another George --

George Custer.


www.newsforreal.com
__________________
.
When an honest man/woman who is mistaken learns the truth, at that exact moment, he/she ceases to be mistaken or he/she ceases to be honest.

When we are unable to find tranquility within ourselves, it is useless to
seek it elsewhere.
---= Francois de La Rochefoucauld


Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 08-23-2007, 07:42 AM
Batarang Force - Apostate's Avatar
Batarang Force - Apostate Batarang Force - Apostate is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 535
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

“George W. Bush learned none of the real lessons of the Vietnam War.”

This is excellent stuff and correlates with everything I've read so far, being on book 7 right now on Vietnam. Re-read #4 “When the vast majority of Americans cease to support a foreign war, that war is lost – period.” This is what I was talking about earlier. If the U.S. population can make a big enough stink, it will have an impact on governmental foreign policy.

When will people finally wake up and realize that the perceived external threat is something that is due to our own government’s foreign policy of empirical omnipresence in every country of the world. It’s origin resides from within our own country.



Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 08-23-2007, 08:11 AM
Photobones Photobones is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 434
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

1) Super-power status is meaningless against a enemy fighting on and for their own land and willing to incur and take unlimited casualties.

First, a high percentage of these insurgents are of foreigh origin and are not fighting for their own land. Second, the coalition is not fighting to take the land OR OIL away from the Iraqis (dream on...) If they truly wanted what was best for their land they'd let us install generators, water wells, schools, hospitals and then leave. They are fighting to reinstate a bloodthirsty regime that wants to control the area and resources. From the insurgent's perspective this is about power, not what the humanitarian best interest is for all Iraqis.

2) Puppet governments set up under foreign occupying forces are viewed by their own people as illegitimate and therefore cannot govern.

Bullsh|t, I give you Japan, Germany, etc.

3) The hurdle for an occupying army is very high – they need to win. The hurdle for an indigenous insurgency is much more achievable – they simply need to not lose.

Agreed--however, did you hear Bush's killed and captured figure? Since January we have averaged 1,500 insurgents killed / captured a month. Can you imagine the outcry if WE were losing that many? This isn't mentioning all the weapons caches (thousands) that we have either recovered or destroyed. Such material losses would have killed us. (The missing 190,000 US rifles... who knows... paperwork SNAFU?)

4) When the vast majority of Americans cease to support a foreign war, that war is lost – period.

Agreed. Finally, the Dems and MSM have been brought on board kicking and screaming.

5) Retreat from Vietnam did not result in a “domino effect,” in the region, as threatened.

That is blatantly false. Cambodia, Laos and Burma make a very small string of dominos. Thailand had to bolster her defenses along her northern borders after the fall of S. Vietnam or she would have been usurped as well.

6) When we retreated from Vietnam the Viet Cong did not “follow us home.”
Our retreat from Vietnam did not result in permanent estrangement, just the opposite.

Hostilities with Viet Nam didn't start with them flying airliners into Los Angeles skyscrapers either. Had they started in that manner, perhaps we would have maintained a higher West Coast defense level.

7) The only Vietnamese who “followed us home,” were refugees who have since become among some of the most highly educated and successful American citizens.

This is why trying to equate the two wars is very difficult. Bush was trying to thwart the nonsense promoted by the lefties for so long. About time, too.


Last edited by Photobones : 08-23-2007 at 08:18 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 08-23-2007, 08:16 AM
Batarang Force - Apostate's Avatar
Batarang Force - Apostate Batarang Force - Apostate is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 535
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Photobones.... you're showing off your ignorance. It's best to at least have read up on a subject before voicing an opinion you so adamantly align yourself with.

Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 08-23-2007, 08:33 AM
Photobones Photobones is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 434
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Is it me showing ignorance or you showing a slavish devotion to a partisan agenda which you want to be true? I think the latter. Lets see... there have been no aerial dogfights with MiG fighters, there have been no TET offensives with large scale enemy troop formations backed with infantry, there have been no Paris Peace talks and the like, there have been no Jane Fonda media visits to enemy prison camps where tens or hundreds of US POWs were held, there have been no US midnight aerial sorties against 'suspected truck parks' or bamboo bridges and the like, there have been no SWIFT boat operations in the Tigris or Euphrates that I'm aware of, we never gave the South Vietnamese government a constitutional overhaul...

There HAVE been VBIEDs and IEDs and new improvised weapons that the Vietnamese didn't use whereas they used conventional landmines as did we, there HAS been frequent use of suicide attacks whereas that was rare to nonexistent among the Vietcong, the North Vietnamese were not trying to stir up sectarian violence in the South in any sort of parallel manner to Iraq, and to a large extent they weren't hiding in mosques and holy places or even using civilians as human shields.

Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 08-23-2007, 11:11 PM
chocho's Avatar
chocho chocho is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 476
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Interesting. The draft-dodger is suddenly an authority on Vietnam.

He's been denying for years that there is any similarity between the two wars. Now, suddenly he sees parallels.

Additionally, he seems to have forgotten that Vietnam eventually became democratic after we left.

He also seems to be oblivious to the obvious: Vietnam was engaged in a political civil war. Iraq is engaged in a religous civil war.

The only parallel here is that Vietnam was a mismanaged, blood-soaked quagmire. As is Iraq.

We lost over 53,000 troops in Vietnam. We dropped more bombs on them, and destroyed more infrastructure than we did in Europe during WWII - and none of it worked.

The REAL lessons of Vietnam are 1) Don't start a war that you haven't fully researched and aren't fully committed to, and 2) Don't keep pouring lives and money down a bottomless well.

Mr. Bush must have skipped that history class.


Last edited by chocho : 08-23-2007 at 11:23 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 08-24-2007, 06:23 AM
Photobones Photobones is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 434
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Quote:
Originally Posted by chocho
Interesting. The draft-dodger is suddenly an authority on Vietnam.

He's been denying for years that there is any similarity between the two wars. Now, suddenly he sees parallels.

Additionally, he seems to have forgotten that Vietnam eventually became democratic after we left.

He also seems to be oblivious to the obvious: Vietnam was engaged in a political civil war. Iraq is engaged in a religous civil war.

The only parallel here is that Vietnam was a mismanaged, blood-soaked quagmire. As is Iraq.

We lost over 53,000 troops in Vietnam. We dropped more bombs on them, and destroyed more infrastructure than we did in Europe during WWII - and none of it worked.

The REAL lessons of Vietnam are 1) Don't start a war that you haven't fully researched and aren't fully committed to, and 2) Don't keep pouring lives and money down a bottomless well.

Mr. Bush must have skipped that history class.

According to the CIA factbook, Viet Nam is still not a democratic nation.

Country name:
conventional long form: Socialist Republic of Vietnam
conventional short form: Vietnam
local long form: Cong Hoa Xa Hoi Chu Nghia Viet Nam
local short form: Viet Nam
abbreviation: SRV

Government type:
Communist state

Capital: name:
Hanoi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In my entry above, when I said: "TET offensives with large scale enemy troop formations backed with infantry." I meant "TET offensives with large scale enemy troop formations backed with artillery." Grrrrrr!


Last edited by Photobones : 08-24-2007 at 06:36 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 08-24-2007, 06:41 AM
Grim17's Avatar
Grim17 Grim17 is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SW United States
Posts: 6,759
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photobones
1) Super-power status is meaningless against a enemy fighting on and for their own land and willing to incur and take unlimited casualties.

First, a high percentage of these insurgents are of foreigh origin and are not fighting for their own land. Second, the coalition is not fighting to take the land OR OIL away from the Iraqis (dream on...) If they truly wanted what was best for their land they'd let us install generators, water wells, schools, hospitals and then leave. They are fighting to reinstate a bloodthirsty regime that wants to control the area and resources. From the insurgent's perspective this is about power, not what the humanitarian best interest is for all Iraqis.

2) Puppet governments set up under foreign occupying forces are viewed by their own people as illegitimate and therefore cannot govern.

Bullsh|t, I give you Japan, Germany, etc.

3) The hurdle for an occupying army is very high – they need to win. The hurdle for an indigenous insurgency is much more achievable – they simply need to not lose.

Agreed--however, did you hear Bush's killed and captured figure? Since January we have averaged 1,500 insurgents killed / captured a month. Can you imagine the outcry if WE were losing that many? This isn't mentioning all the weapons caches (thousands) that we have either recovered or destroyed. Such material losses would have killed us. (The missing 190,000 US rifles... who knows... paperwork SNAFU?)

4) When the vast majority of Americans cease to support a foreign war, that war is lost – period.

Agreed. Finally, the Dems and MSM have been brought on board kicking and screaming.

5) Retreat from Vietnam did not result in a “domino effect,” in the region, as threatened.

That is blatantly false. Cambodia, Laos and Burma make a very small string of dominos. Thailand had to bolster her defenses along her northern borders after the fall of S. Vietnam or she would have been usurped as well.

6) When we retreated from Vietnam the Viet Cong did not “follow us home.”
Our retreat from Vietnam did not result in permanent estrangement, just the opposite.

Hostilities with Viet Nam didn't start with them flying airliners into Los Angeles skyscrapers either. Had they started in that manner, perhaps we would have maintained a higher West Coast defense level.

7) The only Vietnamese who “followed us home,” were refugees who have since become among some of the most highly educated and successful American citizens.

This is why trying to equate the two wars is very difficult. Bush was trying to thwart the nonsense promoted by the lefties for so long. About time, too.
DING DING DING... WE HAVE A WINNER!

The statements in black, are baseless and short sighted views by an anti-war/anti-military/anti-US member of the liberal media, that emanate from nothing more than a seething hatred for the Bush administration and their policies. Where as, the statements in red are the fact based realities that seem to always allude those on the political left.

GREAT RESPONSE PHOTOBONES!

Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 08-24-2007, 06:46 AM
Dawud's Avatar
Dawud Dawud is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,509
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

The list of questions a leader should ask before getting involved in any foreign conflict by Vietnam veteran Colon Powell. It is known as the "Powell Doctrine".

The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

1) Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2) Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7) Is the action supported by the American people?

8) Do we have genuine broad international support?



Unfortuntly none of these questions were addressed. And that's why the uncanny parallels between Vietnam and Iraq exist.

Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 08-24-2007, 11:32 AM
Batarang Force - Apostate's Avatar
Batarang Force - Apostate Batarang Force - Apostate is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 535
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photobones
Is it me showing ignorance or you showing a slavish devotion to a partisan agenda which you want to be true?
Don't be so ignorant. The democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) got us into Vietnam. It was Nixon, a republican, who pulled us out. Vietnam was wrong regardless who was in charge or who got us in there. It could have been and should have been prevented. I'm not blindly devoted to democrats as robber baron, elitist, neocons are in love with the republican conservative party and it's fascist anti-American ideals. I'm not in bed with the democratic party waving their flag like a blind fool. If you've ever heard me rant you would recall that I am no friend to the democratic party. You are simply barking up the wrong tree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photobones
I think the latter. Lets see... there have been no aerial dogfights with MiG fighters, there have been no TET offensives with large scale enemy troop formations backed with infantry, there have been no Paris Peace talks and the like, there have been no Jane Fonda media visits to enemy prison camps where tens or hundreds of US POWs were held, there have been no US midnight aerial sorties against 'suspected truck parks' or bamboo bridges and the like, there have been no SWIFT boat operations in the Tigris or Euphrates that I'm aware of, we never gave the South Vietnamese government a constitutional overhaul...
Do you have a point to this rabid rambling or do you just like to hear yourself vomit senseless nonsense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photobones
There HAVE been VBIEDs and IEDs and new improvised weapons that the Vietnamese didn't use whereas they used conventional landmines as did we, there HAS been frequent use of suicide attacks whereas that was rare to nonexistent among the Vietcong, the North Vietnamese were not trying to stir up sectarian violence in the South in any sort of parallel manner to Iraq, and to a large extent they weren't hiding in mosques and holy places or even using civilians as human shields.
As I said. You are showing your ignorance. I simply can't... won't argue with you since you are obviously unread I suggest you do some reading, learn about the VC, learn about the NLF, learn that they were in the South, seperate from the North but with the same nationalist agenda.

Your illogical argument is simply presenting inconsequential differences between the two wars that are not primary, fundamental, nor substantial items of any importance what-so-ever. You’re talking about IEDs?!? Jesus man, a war isn’t about IEDs. You might as well say they use different bullets.

Seriously… go read some books before you start espousing opinion over legitimate history.

Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 08-24-2007, 11:38 AM
Batarang Force - Apostate's Avatar
Batarang Force - Apostate Batarang Force - Apostate is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 535
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Quote:
Originally Posted by chocho
...He also seems to be oblivious to the obvious: Vietnam was engaged in a political civil war.
This actually isn't true. It's touted all over the place, but it’s really not true. Yes there was a “South” and a “North” Vietnam, but Vietnam wasn’t under a civil war. It was involved in a revolutionary war. They were merely revolting against the French and then the Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chocho
The REAL lessons of Vietnam are 1) Don't start a war that you haven't fully researched and aren't fully committed to, and 2) Don't keep pouring lives and money down a bottomless well.
So sorry, I have to disagree again. Even though you are correct on #2, the actual REAL lesson was stated in The Princess Bride, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!" As well as Dana Carvey's George Bush Sr. impersonation when talking about Vietnam, “… stay out of Vietnam!”

I would change #1 to "Don't start a war with a corrupt, unmotivated loser on your team."... that being S. Vietnam. The US Govt. was TOTALLY committed, them and their silly domino theory. They were just motivated for the wrong reasons as well as on the wrong side as well as totally ignorant of who the Vietnamese people were.


Last edited by Batarang Force - Apostate : 08-24-2007 at 11:43 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 08-24-2007, 11:45 AM
Batarang Force - Apostate's Avatar
Batarang Force - Apostate Batarang Force - Apostate is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 535
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawud
The list of questions a leader should ask before getting involved in any foreign conflict by Vietnam veteran Colon Powell. It is known as the "Powell Doctrine".

The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

1) Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2) Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7) Is the action supported by the American people?

8) Do we have genuine broad international support?



Unfortuntly none of these questions were addressed. And that's why the uncanny parallels between Vietnam and Iraq exist.
Amazing! I was not aware of this. Good stuff! Good ol' Powell! The only one out of the entire group that ever had any amount of integrity. He was able to earn the respect of many people on both sides of the fence.

Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 10-21-2012, 10:09 PM
PaulM's Avatar
PaulM PaulM is offline
-- ---- --------, ---- ----.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,322
Re: Lecture: "The Lessons of VietNam" by Professor G.W. Bush

WOW... what insight! Well I've made up my mind, I'm definitely NOT voting for G.W. Bush!


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VietNam Vets Blow The Whistle On "Songbird" McCain dchristie Political Chat 3 09-15-2008 04:22 PM
"Songbird" McCain Stabbed VietNam Vets In The Back dchristie Political Chat 1 08-19-2008 09:26 AM
Foreign Policy 101 With Professor Condi "Texaco" Rice dchristie Political Chat 3 02-19-2007 10:38 AM
Author of "Bush's Brain", Put on "No Fly" List DeeDee1965 Political Chat 27 01-09-2006 04:16 AM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 PM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.