The Liberal Vietnam Comparison to Iraq is it a Myth?

Ho Chi Minh was never captured Saddam and his sons were either captured or killed


MacNamarra did not believe the war could be won


Rumsfeld does.


Hanoi was never captured Baghdad was


The head of the Viet Cong was never captured Zarqarwi was killed.


Democracy did not exist in the Republic of Vietnam


it exists in Iraq.


The population in South Vietnam had only tepid support for the government. The Iraqis Ratified their Government and support it.


Walter Cronkite and John Kerry remain the same


the left remains the same.


The media changed and the politics changed.


The social conditions are different and the Economic conditions are better.


Troop morale is better.


Less troops have been killed


We are not fighting both a field army and an insurgent army at the same time, Very different animals I might add


There is not a Soviet Union to worry about.


I see little comparison except for the French wing of the Democratic media and party,

The Liberal Vietnam Comparison to Iraq is it a Myth?
All you say is true, but there are some comparisons. For example, in vietnam there was Hanoi Jane Fonda. In this war there is Jihad Cindy SheHAMM. It seems in both wars the press is anti america. In this war not only is the press anti american, its anti Bush. I think if Clinton would have started this war the press would be licking his toes , and praising the gloriousness of our troops. But they hate Bush so much, its like a blind hatred. Come to think of it, they hated Nixon too.





If this war fails it will be because of our media and the left. They constantly drag down the effort which reinforces the insurgency. I truly believe if it wasnt for the media and our american left, the war would have been won long ago. Their fat mouths keeps the enemy motivated.
Reply:It is a bit of a stretch. The comparison refers to the fact that this Iraq war, like the Vietnam war, can not be won.
Reply:well another comparison is that this war is being fought longer than it has to be.
Reply:Take a leap! Both were started over lies, both are getting innocent people killed.





In one respect Iraq was different. They had an army that would cut and run. The North Vietnamese didn't!





We never lost a major battle in Vietnam, including Tet. Hanoi was on it's knees and we could have invaded them and taken Hanoi, but the Prez didn't want to go there!! It was a political war. This one is over OIL!!





And I loved the way the prez and Rice are even backtracking on whether there is even going to be a democratic government in Iraq or Afghanistan.





Rice: No guarantees on Iraq, Afghanistan By ANNE GEARAN and TIM WHITMIRE, Associated Press Writers


2 hours, 52 minutes ago





GREENSBORO, N.C. - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan do not assure those countries will become successful democracies. But she said the chance for success is worth the price.





NOW WE WENT TO WAR FOR"THE CHANCE FOR SUCCESS"??? What BS is that?? Think anyone would buy that lousy excuse to bring 2,723 body bags home to their families!! We might get someone over there that will be worse than Saddam!! Then what??








Oops!! Another reason Bush went to war just went down the tubes!!!!





The Iraqi President doesn't want us there!!
Reply:nah.
Reply:Rumsfeld and the media are the resemblance, we could already be home had they let the military fight the war, not the evening news, not Rumsfeld. The same thing happened in Nam, the politicians wanted to run the war from DC, and the media only reported the bad news.