[Dan Mc Intyre]

I have to disagree.

Originally posted by rrpjr
No, the analogy is false.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, there could not be a greater difference between a war fought with weapons of indiscriminate slaughter by a conscript Army deployed against a highly evolved revolutionary movement, as Vietnam, and a campaign by all-volunteer Army directed at the overthrow of a hideous and dangerous tyranny, and then taking the form of a drive for free elections and a constitution, as in Iraq.

Analogy - Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar
Using the word analogy to describe my comparision piece validates it further. While I'd agree that both conflicts were fought as you (Hitchens) describe, it is appropriate make the comparison based on the similarities I applied to it.

Originally posted by rrpjr
In Iraq we are pursuing and killing people who really are, unlike the Viet Cong, the common enemies of humanity. These are people who have every intention of carrying forward a war against western civilization, if not in Iraq, at the next available opportunity.

As I recall, none other than Reagan vilified the USSR, and all communists by extension, as "the evil empire." That same thinking was applied to the North Viet Nam communists. The "evil" had to be stopped before other countries fell to the commies like dominos. I recently read in a piece about Westmoreland's death, that he felt that we ultimately won Viet Nam because we stopped the dominos from falling. So, like Sadam and Iraq, the commies were "the common enemies of humanity" of their time. I think we'd all agree North Viet Nam was communist.

Originally posted by rrpjr
There is another difference. Vietnam was a liberal war, waged by democrats, ended by a republican. Iraq, however, either for good or ill, will be laid at the doorstep of republicans.

Gotta disagree once more. Advisors were sent to South Viet Nam in late the 50's under Eishenhower. A Republican IIRC. Futher more, aid to President Diem increased in 1960. I seem to remember that Eisenhower did not leave office until 1/20/61. What we have here, really, is a war that was started by the Republicans and laid, falsely I might add, at the doorstep of the Democrates. Where as Iraq, however, "either for good or ill, will be laid at the doorstep of republicans"...and for good reason, they started it, too.

I'm glad you contributed rrpjr. You served to point out that both wars were started by lying Republicans. One more similarity I didn't think of.


Dan