I am not going to try and change your mind. You are free to believe whatever you want. But if you want to quote Vietnam history, at least get your facts right.

The Johnson Administration most certainly did lie to the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There is no dispute. That is a fact established a long time ago.

Military involvement in Vietnam goes back to WWII. America assisted the French until they left in 1954. However, it was Johnson who put Americna troops ashore as an independent fighting unit to do battle with the Vietnamese communists. It was March 8, 1964, and Marine elements went ashore near Danang to secure the airbase there. Prior to that, the American military were in a strictly advisory and/or support role. They were not allowed to participate as combatants.

Here is a chart of the military buildup in Vietnam:

Vietnam War Allied Troop Levels 1960-73

Richard J.

Bush was correct (and shocked the hell out of me) when he compared Iraq to Vietnam.

But it turns out he was against the comparison before he was for the comparison. In 2004, when he was asked specifically about Iraq looking more and more like Vietnam .....

If we go back further, to his 2000 acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, he said:

Hmmmmm. I think that pre-Iraq, Bush had the right idea - a just cause, a clear goal, and an overwhelming victory. Not exactly what happened with Iraq, is it?

Just my opinion, but Bush isn't right as often as a stopped clock, but he's right to compare Iraq to Vietnam - both are spectacular failures. And the man who dodged the first failure is the primary cause of the second failure.

__________________
Curly

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

- Hermann Goering

WELCOME!!

Finally we get a voice of common sense here among the left-wing, conspiracy saturated, Bush-haters.

I've made these points before, but I'll summarize them again. For Bush to have fabricated the evidence for war in Iraq, he would have had to have fooled all the people in the CIA, the DoD, State Department, and all the folks in the media. That's a pretty good trick for someone who is supposed to be a stupid hick from Texas.

Second, all the independent foreign intelligence agencies would have to be co-conspirators. For there is no way he had control over them. And remember, everyone had a chance to review the evidence at the UN and no one actually came forward and proved it wrong. They just tried to explain it away.

Third, Saddam Hussein had every chance in the world to prove he had no WMD. Instead, he used every opportunity to muddy the waters and leave doubt. With so much doubt about Saddam's intentions, it was no wonder everyone concluded he had WMD or at least clandestine programs ready to mass produce them.

Richard J.

Bush grasping at straws is no surprise which is what I think happened in his speech.
In effect, his comparison backfires simply because the Vietnam War itself was unjustified.
Nothing Bush says can be taken seriously. He is an ineffective leader. He is incompetent.

__________________

Actually I think his point was that if we cut and run as many anti-USA zealots and those mindlessly mimick them have suggested it could possibly have some very serious consequences similar to what the atrocities that the leftists did to millions of innocent people in SE Asia after the withdrawl from Vietnam.

For instance, look at what the famous leftist pundit/dictator Pol Pot did in Cambodia.

Bush is a very smart man and it was a very good speech.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Good try.

See: Gulf of Tonkin - 11/30/2005 and 05/30/2006 - NSA.

__________________
Curly

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

- Hermann Goering

What's your point and where's your evidence?

Richard J.

You presented something as an undisputed fact (although you did not provide any evidence).

I provided a great deal of evidence - primary source documents that, at a minimum, dispute the claim that Johnson lied.

All ya gotta do is read.

__________________
Curly

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

- Hermann Goering

That stupid hick from texas had one of the most experienced and effective political teams in US government history behind him. Bush' presedency was a long time in the making. And being a card holding member of the global power elite doesn't hurt either. Having said that, manipulation of its own classified information to serve particular purposes of government isn't difficult. And as you can see, neither is leading a nation of otherwise semi-intelligent, well-meaning people into supporting a war of aggression for control of resources and special interest monetary gain.

I'm just curious what you mean by this.

Depending on where you're coming from I could either agree or disagree with it.

Attempting to control and influence access to mid-east oil is a primary part of US energy/economic policy. Iraq is a prime location to set up numerous mega-bases for a nation who's leverage is waning. As far as special interest goes, the defence/security industry is a thriving US export and war, reconstruction, etc., is extremely profitable. There's also the Israeli's desire for the US to systematically eviscerate any regional threat to thier hegemony. I'm pretty sure policy makers also believe that a permanent and powerful military presence in the mid-east also helps ensure that oil will continue to be traded in US dollars, an absolute must for the US economy.

I don't see how any of this could actually come to pass short of our colonization of Iraq. There isn't a thing that we can or will do to prevent Iraq from joining the OPEC cartel. Once it does, your argument falls to pieces.

Aside from that, our bases in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Qatar, "mega" or otherwise, provide just as much leverage as bases in Iraq would. You're also assuming that Congress would authorize wars of aggression for reasons of economics against soverign Middle Eastern states. That's the logical conclusion of having "mega-bases" in Iraq. I mean, if we're not going to use those bases to project American might toward oil producing nations, then what's the sense in having them?

Do you really believe that Congress is going to authorize a war of aggression against Saudi Arabia from a mega-base in Iraq because they, along with the rest of OPEC, decided to trade oil in Yuan?

There's no arguing that. War certainly is profitable if you're in the right industry. But I still haven't seen much in the way of evidence tying the military hardware lobby to the war in Iraq. It certainly deserves our suspicion, but I don't think the accusation would hold up in court.

Of all the points you've made this one does make the most sense to me. It isn't a slam dunk, but I fear lobbying more than just about any other facet of our existing governmental structure.

Damn those maniacal Zionists!!! There are an aweful lot of Jews in the Bush administration though, I'll give you that. Maybe Libby, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Abrams are pawns of the evil Israeli puppet master?

Well basically that is what people like UBL, the myriad of leftist groups and Bullshit are using as anti-USA propaganda.

Obviously the USA is not going to colonize Iraq. It does not matter if the USA has no intention of doing it as long as anti-USA zealots such as UBL and Bullshit can convince the idiots in the area to drink the grape kool-aid.

However lately it seems that many Iraqis are developing a distaste for grape kool-aid and have started to turn against al Qaeda.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The only thing that brings A-Q to Iraq is Americans. The only pro-American aspect to war in Iraq is admitting our wrongs - and starting to restore the Honor in our great American values.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

So it seems. That sea-change in tribal alliance, however, is probably more a marriage of convenience than an ideological transformation.

Once that grape kool-aid is no longer a threat, American servicemen and women are going to be right back in their sectarian crosshairs. And when we're gone they'll turn on each other and play last man standing.

These recent tribal alliances are a good thing, as far as they go, but I don't think they're an indication that Iraq is ready to accept their own government or move toward a functioning democracy.