We all like the Vietnam parallels to Iraq. So, in light of this week's events...

[Buzz Clik]

When were the first attempts by Congress to restrict our involvement in Vietnam? When was the first successful bill passed limiting the president's actions? When Congress finally passed a bill that totally stopped support for Vietnam, how many troops were in Vietnam?

http://www.nysun.com/article/55168

Take a deep breath, kiddies. It is going to be a long haul.

[LynnTheDem]

1. NY Sun; rightwingnut trash.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dave_p]

3. Mindboggling

So that's the best they can come up with? So long as Democrats don't get to pull the plug, we can achieve another Vietnam, but this time without the local civil war ever ending?

I like the bit about South Vietnam's "doughty little government" (a decaying miltary junta) being "prepared to fight on for another generation". Well it may have been, but it's army and people clearly weren't.

Come to think of it, that does sound familiar.
____________

The NT Times records earlier initiatives, but progress seems to have been slow. I guess this was the first time the nation had rebelled against a war conducted in its name.

[Toots]

4. Most efforts came after the Pentagon Papers were read into Congressional Record

We haven't yet had anyone of the caliber of Gravel to do such a brave thing..I am sure ths will continue far longer than Vietnam. Vietnam lasted ten years, I believe we are looking at fifty years of occupation if we are there a minute...

[acmavm]

5. Oh for goodness sake. Get real.

[Buzz Clik]

10. See post #9.

I am being VERY real, and I'm speaking beyond cliches.

[acmavm]

12. Thank goodness for people like you who are so politically naive. You

are the comic relief we so badly need.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Nice. You've got no rebuttal, so you bring out the insults.

You epitomize my argument against emotionalism. Thanks for the unsolicited demonstration that made my point.

[acmavm]

15. You're welcome.

[Forkboy]

19. First insult in this thread...post #2 by Buzz Clik

If you're representative of the mindset of the DU, this place is turning to shit.

DU isn't turning to shit,but it's always been funny.

[chiggerbit]

6. I can think...

....of several parallels off the top of my head: both VN and Iraq excuses for military action involve/d domino theories, both were started on deliberate lies, both were festering complications resulting from old colonization issues of European countries (GB and France), both are currently military actions complicated by occupation issues complicated by civil wars, both involve/d serious violations of the Geneva Conventions....

On edit, I forget one the the biggest: both are/were run on the blood of the working class. Within a short time of passing legislation that required the sacrifice to be spread across all classes lottery-style, the Vietnam war was terminated.

[Buzz Clik]

9. I think we all agree that Iraq is a disaster, and we need to get out.

That is really not the issue oon this thread.

[Toots]

7. Neither war had a Bush* or Cheney fighting in it.

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

8. PEOPLE! THINK FOR JUST A MOMENT. We've had enough emotionalism for a lifetime.

The entire point of this thread is this: the President controls the military. The ability of Congress to make changes comes entirely from the purse strings, and that's a very delicate task.

If we (i.e., the Democratically-controlled Congress) were to dramatically cut or even stop funding, all the potential consequences become OURS. This is not another Vietnam because both parties equally contributed to the mess. Iraq is currently a Republican liability. Stopping the war with a reasonable seque will take time. A lot of time -- probably until we get a Democratic President.

[Toots]

11. You are incorrect IMO

The way I read the US Constitution says The Power to Declare War rests in Congress. If Congress says there is no "War" bring our troops home the President must do so...The President has to Power to use Military force in "immediate" Defense of the Nation from Direct Attack. The President does not Control the Military. The US Constitution Controls our Military..At least that is the way I read the Constitution. I am sure there are those within the Administration that love your reading of it and will advocate for that very thing...

[Buzz Clik]

13. Congress didn't declare war, and the President is not calling this a war.

Nearly all the Dems supported this action, particularly Edwards and Clinton. Congress is left with very little leverage, and they must be very, very careful is how they ply it. If they withhold all funding, and Iraq turns into even more of a bloodbath, Congress will take 100% of the blame.

[doggyboy]

16. I'm not so crazy about the VN analogy

I think the analogy works as far as the impossibility of a military solution in Iraq goes. However, it's a stretch IMO to think that the peace process will take as long as it did in VN. The political dynamic is completely different.

In VN, our involvement had a good deal of international support as well as a good deal of support amongst americans. The opposition to the Iraq Occupation is much stronger than the opposition to the VN war. Also, the VN War did not start with a lie. Our involvement in VN was open and above board. It was the ESCALATION of that VN war that was based on a lie. IMO, a big difference. And the VN had nothing do with any event as traumatic as 9/11.

I don't think it will take us nearly as long to get out of Iraq. I give it two years, tops. After that, we will only have "residual" forces there to deal with the potential of terrorist training camps.

[LynnTheDem]

17. " VN War did not start with a lie. Our involvement in VN was open and above board"

Ummm...WTF??!

:wow:

[doggyboy]

18. There was a VN War before the US ever became involved

We took over for the Fench, who were faring poorly. When we first sent advisors in, it was done openly and without lies. When the Tonkin Gulf Resolution passed (I'm assuming the lie you refer to is the Tonkin Guld lie) we had already been in VN for some time.

[Buzz Clik]

20. I hope you're right about the two years. And I agree about the political process unless...

... unless we get another Republican in office or someone with Liebermann's mindset on the Democratic side.

[doggyboy]

21. Yep, two potential problems

The first is pretty unlikely, though I worry about the dems penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The bigger concern is what type of democrats will we be electing to congress in 08? Just because a district goes from D to R, that doesn't necesarily mean a 180 on every issue.

However, speaking specifically of Iraq, I don't see how the opposition could do anything but increase until it ends. This occupation is a loser in every way possible. No one fucks up like a bush.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Let's hope that it ends soon.

Public opposition has not translated into GOP votes in Congress, and we're all getting very impatient.

[ProSense]

23. Some information

here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes this is for the long haul

and back then it was the conservative democrats in swing districts that slowed us down

Santayana was right, this time it is the conservative, bluu dog DLC democrats that will again slow us down

That said, I am not taking this lying down... NO MORE MONEY for the national party


And locally will be VERY careful as to who gets my money