Why do Bush suporters believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq?
915037
Because Bush is a jack ass, a moron, a wannabe cowboy and a hedious fool, baby.
252941
I don't think you have got your facts quite straight on Vietnam. However, we are in a basic no win situation in Iraq until the people agree to solve their own issues. AlQeda will continue to surface wherever the US has interests to blame us for all the worlds problems. Iraq has 2 basic issues now, internal civil unrest and AlQeda based terrorist activities. We will have little effect over controlling either of them without support by the government of Iraq.\nThe parrallels between Iraq and Vietnam are that we have no firm exit strategy. When we do leave, it will not be a graceful exit. Removing Sadam was necessary and the succeeding government will have its problems internally and with Iran.\nUnderestimating the needs and desires of the Iraqi people and not understanding the Muslim culture will continue to be problematic for our government.\nI spent 2 years in Vietnam, in combat and am having the same emotions now that I had then, when our efforts went for naught.
754802
That was only the first reason for going to war.  Then it was to remove Saddam, then it was to liberate Iraq, and then it was to spread democracy in the middle east.  He keeps changing the reasons to look like he knew what he was doing all along.  And he did all this because he can.  People will follow him and believe him no matter what.  Why should he tell the truth when people keep believing his lies.  There are still lots of people who will say that we did find WMDs.  People don't realize there are differences between the WMDs in the 80s, the WMDs during Clinton, and the WMDs we went to war for.
234135
We should mind our own business!\n\nWe should never have been in Vietnam to begin with, it was a chemical corporation war that was intended to aid in the distribution of cocaine.  We should have learned from the French that we had no right to try to liberate them.  They did not want us in their country and we lost a lot of people because of a "politcal war" that should never have happened!\n\nThe one main objective of Iraq began with Osama Bin Laden and has escalated from there to rumors of weapons of mass destruction which have not been there since the 1990's when Bush Sr. was in office.  That was a war that should have been finished off but was never brought to an end and Hussein was then able to continue his wrath without having been brought to justice when he should have been paying for his crimes of war!\n\nThe main objective of Iraq was to gain control of their Oil and try to liberate the people of Iraq.  In the after affect of our actions as of thus, we have caused massive destruction to Iraq, their people and ours!  And you cannot change a culture that knows only one way and only accepts that way.  This is a war that we can never win.  America can never have prosperity without terrorism...which has been proven throughout the history of man.
1071597
Mr Clinton stated that the reason he was sending troops was because Milosevic was committing genocide.  He was right and it was stopped.  Mr. Bush claimed he was sending troops because Saddam had WMD's, was starting a nuclear weapon program, had ties to AL Quada and was involved in 9-11.  All those things were wrong and now thousands of people are dead and the killing continues.  If Mr. Bush would have stated he was sending troops because Saddam was committing genocide, then he would have been right, also.  That's the difference: being right vrs. being wrong.
1000150
Gee i seem to understand that America had a few problems ourselves after the revolution.  I mean like a previous answerer stated Germany and Japan were not fixed overnight.  The biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam the Democrats would not let the military fight to win, but were more interested in making money on our dead 58,000 American soldiers than doing what needed to be done to help democracy succeed, but now the Republicans, much to the anger of the liberals, have turned the conflict over to the military so that they can do what they need to in order to win.  In wartime someone always makes money, but something you need to keep in mind is that most of the major conflicts America has been involved in the Democrats have squarely planted us in them.  You are so concerned with getting us out of Iraq, and so worried about the soldiers dying there, because Bush got us there, but you have said nothing about the American, and allied troops that still get into firefights in Bosnia!!!  Clinton put us there 11 years ago, and we still rotate troops there, but no says anything about Clinton's screwup!!  If you are going to ask these kind of questions, then at least have the balls, and intestinal fortitude to ask about ALL the places AMERICAN troops are dying in!!!!!
182012
When President George HW Bush was in office, it was a defensive war fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. The goal of the war was only the freedom of Kuwait, not to move into Iraq, although a number of US generals were pushing for it. Bush, Powell and other leaders decided it was not in the best interest to go in at that time - this wasn't an "unfinished war" despite what people want to say to demean the current President. The Kurds, thinking we were going to help them free themselves from Hussein, started an uprising. When we didn't come into Iraq, Hussein's army easily suppressed the rebellion and then proceeded to torture and kill entire villiages and towns, including through the use of WMDs (sarin gas), and then openly attempted to assassinate Bush after he was out of office.\n\nAs part of Hussein's surrender, they had to comply by UN laws and treaties. They did not for 12 years. Why would you fault Bush for taking a murderous dictator for task? And name one war that we "got out right away?" We still have troops stationed overseas from WWII, Korea and Vietnam. For some reason, Americans decided that wars can be fought during commercial breaks during sitcoms. Wars are drawn out processes that result in many lives lost, but for the hopefully greater good of society.\n\nGod bless your son, but don't trivalize what he is fighting for.
456060
I don't know, only bush's cabinet can tell you that. Only I think that they want bush to clear up the mess in which he started in Iraq or most likely leave the British to finish off. I think it is just another Vietnam where they get in a mess, leave in a hurry and no-one gets put on trial. I also think when coalition troops do pull finaly out iraq, I think bush go on trial for War Crimes.
1030416
There absolutely is no reason 4 the war in Iraq except 4 oil. It is very evident from the fact that in spite of Saddam accepting to step down, the reply from bush was that we shall enter Iraq whatsoever. History is witness beside WHERE are all the weapons 4 which we r loosing innocent lives from both sides 4 the few in the white house. Where are the FABRICATED lies of the CIA about bombs in Iraq????? and so many other questions that logic fails to reply but bush does????
65298
Hi there.  I'm military, and I don't have any trouble seeing the parallels between the two. First, Viet Nam was a morally ambiguous war.  Lots of people thought we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and lots of people believed that our actions were doing more to prolong the war and harm the population than allowing the Communists to take over would have.  The enemy we fought was basically a guerilla force that used asymmetric warfare.  The management of the war was criticized as being (at times) militarily inept as well as fiscally wasteful.  Then, as now, there were unconvincing official pronouncements of progress from the administration's spin doctors. (How many times have we heard about the insurgency being played out, or that we had turned the corner, or that they were "on their last legs" as Dick Cheney said last summer?)  Then there's the whole sense that the war could drag on year after messy year without any clear hope of victory.      \n\n\nThere are, of course, important differences. In Viet Nam, there were front lines.  The enemy had territory, and they were far more numerous and cohesive than the Iraqi insurgency is.  The Viet Cong were an army, even if their hit hard then melt away tactics seem superficially like the Iraqi insurgents'.  US soldiers were largely draftees that did not want to be in the service at all, unlike our all-volunteer servicemen today.
818731
Its what needs to be down to secure Iraq, but it wont happen because the American people as a whole don't want to be in Iraq.  Americans see Iraq as another Vietnam, but Iraq can't be won unless we see the middle east as we once saw the wild west.
144001
If you read some of the misinformation that still is out there, I guess it's obvious why some think Bush is the lesser of two evils. Kerry the flip-flopper versus Bush the straight shooter???\nHardly. Bush said he did not favor nation-building (flip). He now favors nation-building (flop).\nBush is against a department of homeland security (flip). He subsequently favored a department of homeland security (flop). \nOr, the reason for invading Iraq is because of the threat of WMDs (flip). Now the reason is because we want to help them build a democracy (side-flop). Tomorrow it will be because....\nHow about this--"we do not do any wiretapping without warrants." (flip) "We are wiretapping without warrants." (flop)\nFrankly, the concern about flip-flopping is foolishness and I for one am tired of the lame rhetoric that defends Bush at all costs. \nWould you really rather have someone who makes a decision based on little or no evidence, and then stubbornly refuses to change it? Do you really want someone who lets his staff decide to sell the ports to Dubai, and then stubbornly refuses to consider that the decision might be a security threat?\nGive me a thoughtful and honest person in the white house any time, whether republican, democratic, or independent.
643074
The war is wrong no matter who supported it. Besides, you can get yourself into a half-baked idea and later realize it was foolish. That's the real problem with what's going on; we refuse to pull out and spare American lives and resources.
512579
Thanks for your question, I thought the same thing as I read most answers to anything about Iraq.  Unfortunately, the only answer I have for you is that most people follow what they believe the "party line" is for either side.\n\nFor Bush fanatical supporters then, we are there because of whatever reason justifies us to be there, facts or no facts.  And, they refuse to even acknowledge any other options.\n\nFor Bush fanatical haters, they too are blinded by their conspiracies about 9/11 etc. to look at the facts and use the same opposite rhetoric that gives Bush supporters opportunities to say they are stupid.\n\nThe bottom line is that we have become SO opposed politically that no supporter can admit ANY wrong doing and waive the flag and invoke 9/11 and tell any of us against the war that we are not patriotic and should leave the country.  They are this way, because the opposite side is often times ridiculous.\n\nWe NEVER went to Iraq to fight terrorists, we went there first because of wmd's - when none were found - we went there to free the Iraqi people and bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.  Now that THAT story isn't working, we are now suddenly there because of the war on terror.\n\nPeople need to recognize that Iraq is NOT Afghanistan.  When I am against us being there (and please, we are fighting Iraqi's - not just other country's insurgents) I am not against our troops (which are the greatest in the world) but because I disagree with our President's actions (and NO, I am not unpatriotic - to be able to freely and openly oppose our leaders is what our country is based upon)  Or would those of you who say otherwise believe Iraq should have more freedom of thought, expression and speech than the US?
573119
Murtha is absolutely right. \n\nEvery reason the Bush administration has given for going to Iraq has proven to be a lie, and every justification they have made for staying in Iraq is complete nonsense.\nIt is time to declare Iraq a failed mission, and cut our losses. It is time to come home.
1021670
Well said, and may I add "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa." \n   It's for the oil. Saddam is a murderous bastard, but if all they wanted was him out, then as an ex SEAL and Nam vet told me "send in a black bag team and take him out" Wasn't what they really wanted. It was / is the oil. \n   Now think about this - all those HUGE SUVs rolling down the highway, the industry, the HUGE consumption of power here .... what does this give us? Dependence on foreign oil. Carter sat in the White House in a sweater in the 70s during the oil crunch and said CONSERVE- he was righ. BUT NO! We wanted to party on! In with Reagan and Big Consumption again. I sometimes wonder if the amount of fuel used by our tanks and vehicles there in Iraq doesn't almost consume as much oil as we are getting. \n  The war is every day looking more and more like Nam (yup the SEAL said that too) - impossible to control insurgency, waste of civilian lives, an ongoing civil war that we should NOT be caught up in, an Administration that is trying to salvage a hopeless situation, and soldiers uncertain at any given time who the hell is friend or foe. Bush had NO clue what he was getting into.Had he asked moi, even saying "we need that oil" I'd have said Mr President, the Arab world is insane now. We DO NOT need to be involved in it directly. They'll turn on us and on each other.
1028994
Well the point I think is not so much that Bush actually knew there weren't WMD's, but that while not knowing there were WMD's, he authorized an invasion on the pretext that there were.  I totally agree that Bush could not have known whether or not there was WMD's - hence the need to allow weapons inspectors to do their job.  The major point of the anti-war movement is that war should not be started unless it is absolutely necessary: if the justification for war is the possession of WMD's and there are weapons inspectors currently in country searching for them, then jumping the gun is not justifiable, and is even less so when it turns out there were no WMD's.  \n\nAnother point of the anti-war movement is that the intelligence reports supporting the claim that Saddam had WMD's were not in fact so clear cut; now it has come out that much of the intelligence used to justify the war to the public and the world at large was faulty.  The claims of uranium purchases in Africa, the trailers of biological research, the ability to launch a WMD attack in 40 minutes; not only have these turned out to be false, but they were in fact not even supported by the data at the time.\n\nOf course political slogans tend to be simplistic.  The situation is not as simple as "bush lied people died."  But the fact remains that he invaded not only on a false pretext, but on a pretext which was then in the process of being investigated.  A leader has the obligation to not start a war unless it is deemed absolutely necessary.  You make a good point that there may have been an overzealous interpretation of data, not an outright motivation to lie, but the fact is that a leader who overzealously interprets data which leads to an unnecessary war is a very poor leader, if not an outright war criminal.\n\ndriveranderson: don't be silly now.  even the administration and the military are not using that as justification of the war.  why? because those shells contained gas which had been manufactured before 1991 and was degraded to such a state that it was unusable as a WMD.  And do you really want to justify a war on the grounds that a nation had 500 old shells with degraded gas which were unusable in combat?  If Bush had justified the war to the American people on the grounds that Saddam had 500 shells which had been manufactured 15+ years ago and were no longer threatening, what do you think the American people would have said?  I suggest you not cite WMD claims which even the military and the administration are steering clear of.  And try to watch something other than fox news too, it tends to rot the brain.\n\nthealligator414: yes, because the WMD's that the UN and Hans Blix failed to find were quickly found by American forces, thus validating Bush's preemptive invasion!  Maybe it has occurred to you that if we cite a reason to invade a country, we need to have a valid justification for believing that reason?