From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Deja Vu from the 1979 Movie
Published on October 16, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
Occasionally, we hear people compare the Iraq War to the Vietnam war that ripped this country apart in the 1960's and 70's. Others immediately charge that this comparison is "ridiculous" and "politically motivated." So I steer clear of making such comparisons, until now.

One of my favorite movies was American Graffiti. The 1972 groundbreaking George Lucas work shows a night in the life of several teenagers in the early 1960's, just as America was "losing it's innocence." At the end of the movie, the viewers get a single line follow up about what happened to each of the main charachters in the following years.

Seven years later, Lucas broke more ground by offering a sequel. the 2nd movie, titled "More American Graffiti" showed just how each of the people we left behind in the orig. story met the fates described in the postscript of the 1st movie. The sequel wasn't the greatest, but it was good. At times, it's hard to keep track which year the story is in, as the story is not told chronologically. In that movie, which shows the disconnect betwen the pro vietnam people and the anti war activists at the time, Cindy Williams plays the wife of Ron Howard, an insurance salesman. Both are what most would consider to be conservatives, or at least traditionalists. whatever you consider them, Williams charachter in particular is decidedly pro vietnam. And the lines she spews at times are chilling considering the current backdrop.

In one scene, Williams argues with her brother, an anti war activist that "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." In another scene, she pleads to her husband that we can't withdraw from vietnam, as that would just cause them to follow us back here to attack.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....sound familiar?

This movie wasn't made "post 9/11." It contains no political agenda concerning Iraq and is only looking to show the viewpoints held by both pro and anti war people as of 1967. Saddam Hussein wasn't even in power when this movie was being made.

Wow, was it true? are we repeating a history we don't remember?

I went out and dug up some of Johnson's old speeches. There's a lot of em, so I decided to start with his "State of the Union' speeches. And reading sections of these speeches was downright scary....here's some excerpts:

from state of the union 1967...

President Johnson: "we are in Vietnam beause...(they are threatening)...the independence of all the small nations of southeast aisa, and threatens the peace of the entire region and perhaps the world."
President Johnson: " we are there because the Congress has pledged by solemn vote to take all necessary measures to prevent further aggression."
President Johnson: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, i believe, if the communists succeed in overrunning and taking over south Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and i an supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later."
More comparisons are apparent when Johnson speaks of how they are kicking he enemy's ass, but we aren't leaving any time soon....

President Johnson: 'Our men in that area--there are nearly 500,000 now--have bourne well "the burden and heat of the day." Their efforts have deprived the communist enemy of the victory that he sought and expected a year ago. We have steadily frustrated his main forces. general Westmoreland reports that the enemy can no longer succeed on the battlefield."(kinda sounding like the "last throws of an insurgency")

President Johnson: "I think I reveal no secret when i tell you that we are dealing with astubborn adversary who is committed to the use of force and terror to settle political questions.

I wish i could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. for the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year--or come next year. Our adversary still believes...That he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist."
(scary, isn't it?)

Wow. The more i read, the more I saw the same lines, at least paraphrased, sometimes almost a direct quote, when Johnson was talking about Vietnam before the escalation, in January of 1967.

Some still contend that the comparisons are ridiculous. I'm not so sure anymore.



"

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 16, 2006

Actually, there is a real life comparison between the two wars.

Both are fought against an enemy that knows that the best way to defeat the U.S. military is not on the battlefield, but in Congress.  It worked for the North Vietnamese, and the result was dubbed "The Killing Fields".

In 1991 we let the Kurds down by not backing their uprising against Hussein, the result was Hussein retaliating by murdering as many as he could get away with...

Nowadays, shortsighted Americans say we should let the people of Iraq down by allowing the bacteria to claim victory in Iraq...

it has been said that "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.  Why does anyone think that it would be different if we did the same thing today?

The bacteria is counting on YOU!

 

 

 

on Oct 16, 2006
i dunno man,,,the commies didn't follow us here...and thousands died in a cause that was deemed a mistake privately before any public acknowledgement.

i really don't think the communists, like the terrorists give a rats ass about our congress

but points to consider, of course...

take care man:)
on Oct 16, 2006
Nowadays, shortsighted Americans say we should let the people of Iraq down by allowing the bacteria to claim victory in Iraq...


Do you believe that US presence is WANTED by the Iraqi people?
on Oct 16, 2006
shortsighted Americans say we should let the people of Iraq down

over 60% of Iraqis say it's ok to kill us,,,so i guess we'd be letting them down if we removed the target from our backs and redeployed in the region.
on Oct 16, 2006

Do you believe that US presence is WANTED by the Iraqi people?

Brandie, I think there are Iraqis that are glad we are still there; others who appreciate that we are there, but want us to leave as soon as possible; still others who wanted us to take out Hussein's regime, but want us to leave now; and then there are those who resent the crap out of the fact we ever showed up in the first place.

I also know that we would have been gone long ago if the bacteria hadn't have travelled to Iraq to kill as many civilians as they could get their hands on.  The bacteria isn't going to quit killing just because we turn tail and run, so what benefit is there for our troops or Iraq if we do?

on Oct 16, 2006
turn tail and run

these lil digs that imply cowardice are part of the problem...get over the '"ego" part of this...a strategic redeployment that is designed to contain them is hardly cowardice...it's smart... standing around waiting to get blown up is not a smart strategy imho.

on a lighter note,,,thanks for the vote , man:)

on Oct 16, 2006
a strategic redeployment that is designed to contain them is hardly cowardice...it's smart


I'd go for a "strategic redeployment" as long as it doesn't leave the bacteria in place to have their way with the people of Iraq.

It's sad to see that so many Americans (and other free people) seem to have no problem with leaving while the enemy is still willing to fight. To leave the country with them in place is surrendering no matter how you want to spin it.
on Oct 16, 2006
on a lighter note,,,thanks for the vote , man:)


Anytime
on Oct 16, 2006
Korean, Vietnam,Iraq wars were not lost because of Congress or even the dissidents at home, but because we underestimated the fury of those defending their own countries.
MacArthur wanted to use the nuclear bomb--bad idea--after China called his bluff when he sent the marines too far north; we bombed the hell out of Vietnam to no avail, Iraq we thought all it would take is a SWAT team via Rumsfeld.
on Oct 17, 2006
Great research, Sean.
on Oct 17, 2006
thanks def...when i get some time, i want to look at some more of the rhetoric that was flying around then. i'm only scratching the surface so far, but the parallels are just jumping out...no wonder the right was so adamant against anyone comparing this to vietnam, except when it came to lying about john kerry.
on Oct 19, 2006
Many people have said that Iraq is simply the 'right' biting the 'left' back for their unfullfilling Vietnamese experience.

ModerateMan sheds a bit of light on how this has became a recurring battle between left / right and pro-vet / anti-vet in his JU thoughts.

It's a bit scary Mr. Kissinger has practically come back from the past to guide this naive president.

Stay the course - it'll be fine.

I wish McNamara would jump out the shadows and club 'em.
on Oct 19, 2006
It's a bit scary Mr. Kissinger has practically come back from the past to guide this naive president.

scary indeed
on Oct 19, 2006
The Vietnam comparison doesn't ring true. This war is a continuation of the war in 1992 where Hussein invaded Kuwait, committed war atrocities there, lobbed SCUDs into Israel, etc. The wound had festered for 10+ years and the situation in Iraq was no different, and Hussein was constantly testing his boundaries and trying to rearm himself.

Vietnam was a foothold situation with two world powers fighting to who would control a country. In addition, the fear Johnson and other people at the time was real war and invasion. There's no comparing such an unrealistic idea to the very real threat of terrorist attacks.

Whether Hussein would have been much help to the al quaeda leadership that fled there is a matter of speculation. Whether paying suicide bomber's families 10k for killing Israelis is enough to warrant calling him a sponsor of terror is the same. The reality no one can dispute was that he was going to be a problem for the US and his neighbors as long as he was in power.

I think equating the two is stretching things quite a bit, and overlooking a lot. You have a handful of cherry-picked quotes that sound similar, sure. I did an article comparing Bush to Lincoln and you'd be surprised how similar the dissent now sounds like the dissent regarding Lincoln's 'careless' war...
on Oct 19, 2006
I think equating the two is stretching things quite a bit,


i'm not so sure,,,that's why i'm askin questions. i don't think they are direct parallels by any means, but doesn't the similarities warrant looking back and perhaps not repeating our mistakes?

The reality no one can dispute was that he was going to be a problem for the US and his neighbors as long as he was in power.


actually, lookin back, maybe we should have dealt with north korea 1st, or iran. maybe saddam was not enough of a threat relatively being pinned down as colin powell described him in 2001. as we've witnessed, these people don't like each other at all, let alone us. maybe sadam's iron grip was the only thing that kept those other loons over there from doing what they are doing today.

maybe in dealing with more direct threats, building better coalitions, keeping saddam pinned down, we could be looking at a different world now.
2 Pages1 2