Why would losing in Iraq be different than in Vietnam? Or is it?

[Quixote1818]

I was watching Chris Matthews this morning and everyone was talking about how we had to win in Iraq no matter what. Someone said losing in Iraq would not be like losing in Vietnam and had much bigger ramifications. No one went into detail about why that was!

If we do pull out how do we do it?

Could we just pull out, pay reparations for all the damage we did, they would have a civil war which is going to happen anyway, everyone would hate us for a few years then forget. At least then we would not sink another 300 Billion and lose several thousand more soldiers for the same outcome. Right?

Is it that we took out the leadership and by us pulling out we would leave the new government vulnerable to be overthrown?

What a fucking MESS!

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

1. Radical Islam has become

the phantom bugaboo that Communism was in those days. I wonder who we will be taught to fear once it becomes clear in thirty years or so that radical Shiite Iraq is primarily a buyer of Marlboros and wants us as tourists.

[Postman]

2. People like Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSM say we "must"

"win" in Iraq (whatever winning means) because THEY were instrumental in selling this BS to us.

Blood is on THEIR hands as well as the Bush/Blair Administrations.

[thebigidea]

4. they never get around to explaining what a "win" would be, though

which perpetuates the cycle nicely.

besides, war is fun for fatcat journos to report on - beats years of peace and prosperity any day.

[ClintonTyree]

5. We're never going to "win" there.....

it's unlike Viet Nam in the sense that we've inflamed an entire portion of the world and it's people. Viet Nam was confined, with some outlying collateral damage in Laos, Cambodia and pissing China off. However, bush has taken on the entire Islamic world and despite what he says, it IS a crusade.

The only way to end this thing is to just leave and let the dust settle. Then perhaps we could send in heaps of aid via the U.N., but considering the hate the bushies have for the U.N., that will have to wait for a new administration. This "war" will go on until there is a new President in this country. How many more will die because bush is a pig headed asshole that will not change course one iota because he thinks that signifies weakness?

There's at least 4 more years of this crap left. Who will be the last to die for a policy that was completely wrong right from the beginning?

[Quixote1818]

6. We didn't take out the Vietnam leadership and replace it did we?

That's the part that concerns me. We left a huge finger print on the country. If we leave and the new Gov. loses control, man will we look bad!

The only good that may come from this is a Democratic congress and hopefully President in 08'. Barring rigged election machines that is.

[stillcool]

3. The only reason why we are there....

in the first place is oil. Not necessarily Iraq's oil, but pipelines in the Caspian Sea region. At this point it would be insane for those with the plan to even contemplate leaving. Two sites that help: http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/caspianpipes.html
http://www.winterboy.com/dejavuintro.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. 14 permanent military bases tells the whole story

They have no intention of leaving, much less of considering leaving. Period. They never have, and won't change with that kind of intention and agenda.

[PaulaFarrell]

8. The only difference is that Chris Matthews & co

are old to enough to think Iraq matters. Believe me, in the 60's/early 70's people (older people) felt the same way about Vietnam - that pulling out would be catastrophic. It certainly was for the people in Vietnam who worked with the US, and the same would be true in Iraq now, but in the long run, it would be better for us just to get the hell out. In the end, they are the ones who will have to sort themslves out.

[Quixote1818]

9. If we got out and put Bush in Jail I think all would be forgiven.

nt