1
   

Another eerie parallel with Vietnam

 
 
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 04:00 pm
With the Dos Passos article being trumpeted by our conservative friends, I offer another interesting article from a similar time....

New York Times- Sept. 4 1967 wrote:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 548 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 04:03 pm
That's eerie, all right. Good find, ebrown_p!

Of course, it could never happen again.....Or could it?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 04:13 pm
And the alternative to holding elections is. . . ?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 04:42 pm
Quote:
And the alternative to holding elections is. . . ?


And that last statement had to do with...?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 04:51 pm
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 05:02 pm
Sounds to me that Hitchens has to justify his differing opinions of the two wars by saying they have nothing in common, rather than, perhaps, that he's changed his politics over the course of 40 years...
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 05:11 pm
Hitchens' perspective on everything has changed fundamentally in the last 40 years. The only thing that hasn't changed is his pompous attitude.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 08:51 pm
JustWonders wrote:

Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common.


This in itself is an absurd hyperbole, even to those who might be sympathetic to your point of view. It is as absurd as if I were to say the two wars are exactly the same.

The similarities and differences is where the interesting discussion lies.

That being said, Hitchens points out some similarities between Vietnam and Iraq that I hadn't considered.

Hitchens wrote:

[Ho Ci Mihn] had, moreover, been an ally of the West in the war against Japan. Nothing under this heading can be said of the Iraqi Baathists or jihadists, who are descended from those who angrily took the other side in the war against the Axis, and who opposed elections on principle.


1) Ho was an ally of the US before the conflict. Saddam (and the Baathists) were an ally of the US before the conflict. The jihadists were allied with the US against the Soviets before the conflict.

Quote:
In Vietnam the deep-rooted Communist Party was against the partition of the country and against the American intervention. It called for a boycott of any election that was not an all-Vietnam affair.

In Iraq, the deep-rooted Communist Party is in favor of the regime change and has been an enthusiastic participant in the elections as well as an opponent of any attempt to divide the country on ethnic or confessional lines. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is not even an Iraqi, hates the Kurds and considers the religion of most Iraqis to be a detestable heresy: not a mistake that even the most inexperienced Viet Cong commander would have been likely to make.)


2) Hitchens is not making the right comparison here. The Communist party in Vietnam represented the anti-American forces. The role the Islamicists are playing in Iraq is very similar to the role of communists in Vietnam.

An even more intersting similarity is the way Terrorists of today and Communists of the Vietnam era are being talked about at home.

Remember what we believed about the Communists in the 60s and 70s?

--------------
Communists lived presented an imminent threat, they lived among us and could strike at any moment. Communists hated American freedom and it was their goal to end it. If we were not vigilant Communists would end stability in portions of the world. Communists did not respect human rights. They mistreated their citizens with prison labor and even massacres.

Worst of all Communists had the ability to unleash massive attacks against American cities with weapons of mass destructions.

This fear of Communism spread among the American people provided the political will to prosecute the Vietnam war and ensured the support of a large part of the American public.
--------------
Terrorists are an imminent threat, they live among us and can strike at any moment. Terrorists hate American freedom and it is their goal to end it. If we were not vigilant the Terrorists will end stability in portions of the world. Terrorists did not respect human rights. They mistreat their citizens and their governments will use forced labor and even massacres.

Worst of all the Terrorists hav the ability to unleash massive attacks against American cities with weapons of mass destruction.

This fear of Terrorism spread among the American people provides the political will to prosecute the war in Iraq and ensures the support of a large part of the American public.
------------

Which part of this do you disagree with?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another eerie parallel with Vietnam
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 11:38:09