IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM!
IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM!
Is it just me, or are there any other people out there that realize that IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM, no matter how many red-faced idiots in the liberal mainstream media say it is! Let's count the differences. Vietnam was divided into North and South, each with a different government. Iraq is one nation with one government forming through national elections. The "insurgent" terrorists have no government, and hold no signifigant territory. The North Vietnamese regime was being sponsored by the Soviet Union, and politics kept the military from bombing Hanoi. The terrorists in Iraq are sponsored by the rogue nations Syria and Iran, as well as our main foe in the war on terror, Al Queda. While Al Queda is pervasive worldwide, Syria and Iran pose nowhere near the threat that the Soviet Union did in the Vietnam era. They should be worried about how long they will stay politically "out-of-bounds" for US or allied bombing. The French had their asses kicked out of Vietnam 10 years before negotiating the US' political defeat there. The French were in bed with Saddam's Iraq regime for over 20 years, and now they just want to defeat the US again, and screw the Iraqi people. Luckily this time, we are not letting them get involved. The US and "world" media was solidly against the Vietnam war, and there were far fewer news outlets available. Today, there are more news outlets than there are views on the war to report, it seems. There has been an anti-war bias in the majority of media coverage. My analysis is that the media outlets that aren't afraid to also offer pro war reporting are doing better with the public. I've also noticed how large a roll the press must have played in our political defeat in Vietnam by the behavior of Dan Rather, among others. The media that played a signifigant role in events back then are dinosaurs now, known as "old media". Their attempts at morphing the current conflict in Iraq into another Vietnam fall short in the face of the facts being reported daily by the "new media", which more often compare Iraq and the war on terror to World War Two (see my previous post :1945-2005: same problems).
Is it just me, or are there any other people out there that realize that IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM, no matter how many red-faced idiots in the liberal mainstream media say it is! Let's count the differences. Vietnam was divided into North and South, each with a different government. Iraq is one nation with one government forming through national elections. The "insurgent" terrorists have no government, and hold no signifigant territory. The North Vietnamese regime was being sponsored by the Soviet Union, and politics kept the military from bombing Hanoi. The terrorists in Iraq are sponsored by the rogue nations Syria and Iran, as well as our main foe in the war on terror, Al Queda. While Al Queda is pervasive worldwide, Syria and Iran pose nowhere near the threat that the Soviet Union did in the Vietnam era. They should be worried about how long they will stay politically "out-of-bounds" for US or allied bombing. The French had their asses kicked out of Vietnam 10 years before negotiating the US' political defeat there. The French were in bed with Saddam's Iraq regime for over 20 years, and now they just want to defeat the US again, and screw the Iraqi people. Luckily this time, we are not letting them get involved. The US and "world" media was solidly against the Vietnam war, and there were far fewer news outlets available. Today, there are more news outlets than there are views on the war to report, it seems. There has been an anti-war bias in the majority of media coverage. My analysis is that the media outlets that aren't afraid to also offer pro war reporting are doing better with the public. I've also noticed how large a roll the press must have played in our political defeat in Vietnam by the behavior of Dan Rather, among others. The media that played a signifigant role in events back then are dinosaurs now, known as "old media". Their attempts at morphing the current conflict in Iraq into another Vietnam fall short in the face of the facts being reported daily by the "new media", which more often compare Iraq and the war on terror to World War Two (see my previous post :1945-2005: same problems).
Comments