New Vietnam --- America Defeated Again

[Dr Adequate]

But you're all in denial, obviously.

The conflict in Yugoslavia is a war that NATO cannot win, and should not be fighting...

When a profound mistake has been made, there are only two choices: deny the mistake and compound it, or admit the mistake and adapt. President Clinton and his die-hard supporters are following the denial strategy into a Balkans quagmire...

We have returned to the familiar terrain of the credibility gap, postmarked Kosovo instead of Vietnam.

Putting the egos of politicians aside, there are ample reasons for reevaluating the Balkans war. It already is a strategic defeat, and it will take all the James Carvilles of the Western world to spin it as a victory...

The strategy of policing the new world order with high-tech, big-stick missiles has failed. Instead of intimidating would-be revolutionaries with our invincible image, the lesson is that the West couldn't defeat Slobodan Milosevic in 60 days and is highly unlikely to try extended military action elsewhere for a very long time.

Spookily accurate, no?

 

[Skeptic]

The problem with the American press today is that it is still re-living what it sees as its heyday, that is, the early 70s, when the press removed a sitting president and (or so they believe) got the US to quit Vietnam.

Since then, they have been living in a time warp: every conservative president is JUST THE SAME as Nixon, and every war or military operation is JUST THE SAME as Vietnam... based on the fading hope of recapturing those glory days.

It seems a bit narcissistic to me: the main reason for taking a stand about a president or a war seems to be, not its merit, but "how can I compare this to Vietnam/Nixon to make myself feel important again?".

 

[Mycroft]

The problem with the American press today is that it is still re-living what it sees as its heyday, that is, the early 70s, when the press removed a sitting president and (or so they believe) got the US to quit Vietnam.

I've been thinking this for years. Nobody wants to just report the story anymore, they want to be the story.

 

[Kerberos]

Why do Americans insist on comparing every war to Vietnam (well every war they're against, if they're for they compare it to WW2 which is equally silly)? How many troops was it you lost in Vietnam? 55.000 right? How many have you (with allies) lost in Kosovo? 55? I don't think it's even that many - so much or that analogy. Similar comparisons could probably be drawn in relation to civilians casualties.

 

[Skeptic]

Why do Americans insist on comparing every war to Vietnam?

They don't. The American media does.

And you're right, it's getting tiresome.

 

[Mark]

The problem with the American press today is that it is still re-living what it sees as its heyday, that is, the early 70s, when the press removed a sitting president and (or so they believe) got the US to quit Vietnam.

Since then, they have been living in a time warp: every conservative president is JUST THE SAME as Nixon, and every war or military operation is JUST THE SAME as Vietnam... based on the fading hope of recapturing those glory days.

It seems a bit narcissistic to me: the main reason for taking a stand about a president or a war seems to be, not its merit, but "how can I compare this to Vietnam/Nixon to make myself feel important again?".

The problem is the opposite: the press are so cowed by the Republican juggernaut, they pretty much accept whatever the administration feeds them. There are exceptions, of course, but they are far too few.

On the other hand, if they publish ANYTHING that is not in total lock step with what Republicans want, then it HAS to be "liberal bias." What a crock.

 

[Giz]

The problem is the opposite: the press are so cowed by the Republican juggernaut, they pretty much accept whatever the administration feeds them. There are exceptions, of course, but they are far too few.

On the other hand, if they publish ANYTHING that is not in total lock step with what Republicans want, then it HAS to be "liberal bias." What a crock.

Psst, you liberal bias is showing.

 

[Mark]

Psst, you liberal bias is showing.

No doubt (although I prefer the term Leftist...for the simple reason that the Right have managed to turn "liberal" into a pejorative).

Nevertheless, in my lifetime, I have watched our proud investigative news media traditions morph into virtual mouthpieces for the Republican Party. All the while with "conservatives" continuing to blather about "liberal bias."

Republicans: the Persecuted Majority.

And for those of you on the Right who have such disdain for free press, I suggest you take a long hard look at the countries who DO institute the views you espouse regarding free press.

 

[Mephisto]

Republicans: the Persecuted Majority.

And for those of you on the Right who have such disdain for free press, I suggest you take a long hard look at the countries who DO institute the views you espouse regarding free press.

Can they see that on Fox News?

 

[Tony]

And for those of you on the Right who have such disdain for free press, I suggest you take a long hard look at the countries who DO institute the views you espouse regarding free press.

They have, and they like what they see.

 

[Kodiak]

The problem with the American press today is that it is still re-living what it sees as its heyday, that is, the early 70s, when the press removed a sitting president and (or so they believe) got the US to quit Vietnam.

Since then, they have been living in a time warp: every conservative president is JUST THE SAME as Nixon, and every war or military operation is JUST THE SAME as Vietnam... based on the fading hope of recapturing those glory days.

It seems a bit narcissistic to me: the main reason for taking a stand about a president or a war seems to be, not its merit, but "how can I compare this to Vietnam/Nixon to make myself feel important again?".

The major difference today seems to be that journalistic ethics includes fabricating evidence, not confirming sources, and not checking facts.

What good is a free press if it is just as corrupt as the people, politicians, and organizations it is supposed to be reporting on?

 

[Tony]

The major difference today seems to be that journalistic ethics includes fabricating evidence, not confirming sources, and not checking facts.

What do you mean by "today"? One needs to only look at William Randolph Hearst to see that this phenomenon is not new.

 

[Kodiak]

What do you mean by "today"? One needs to only look at William Randolph Hearst to see that this phenomenon is not new.

Good point.

Maybe not new, but possibly worse now than ever before?

 

[Mephisto]

Press, Schmess . . .

I don't see any parallels between Vietnam and Iraq (and I'm a disabled Viet veteran)

We're cloistered in "fire bases" (green areas) from which we send patrols to be harrassed by insurgents that blend into the populace easily.

A majority of our losses are due to "boobytraps" and expedient explosives.

The enemy frequently lives among the indigeneous population.

They are a different culture and a different religion (we haven't fought any Caucasion, Christians since WWII)

There are no battlefronts. We secure one area only to have it return to enemy control after we've left.

Our indigenous allies aren't incapable of defending themselves and it will be a long arduous process until they can.

I don't see any parallels at all, especially when you consider that:

now, women are dying in combat, just like the men.

Bush HAD a withdrawal plan for Vietnam.

Vietnam didn't have oil.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem is the opposite: the press are so cowed by the Republican juggernaut, they pretty much accept whatever the administration feeds them.

Which was why Bush got such fawning, undestanding, non-critical press in the presidential race, for example. Just ask, er, Dan Rather, CBS, The NYT ("Al quaqaa" non-story), etc.

The "New York Review of Books" recently had an article titled, "What's the Matter With Liberals?", that concluded that real reason they lost the 2004 race was that they just didn't attack Bush enough.

I suppose you'd agree?

 

[Mark]

The problem is the opposite: the press are so cowed by the Republican juggernaut, they pretty much accept whatever the administration feeds them.

Which was why Bush got such fawning, undestanding, non-critical press in the presidential race, for example. Just ask, er, Dan Rather, CBS, The NYT ("Al quaqaa" non-story), etc.

The "New York Review of Books" recently had an article titled, "What's the Matter With Liberals?", that concluded that real reason they lost the 2004 race was that they just didn't attack Bush enough.

I suppose you'd agree?

a) I SAID there were exceptions, which, of course, you ignored.

b) Absolutely. Bush is undermining the very foundations of our liberty and way of life, and the Democrats are too cowardly to say anything most of the time. (Again, there are exceptions.)

Btw, I am NOT a Democrat. I am loyal to my country, not a party.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Press, Schmess . . .

They are a different culture and a different religion (we haven't fought any Caucasion, Christians since WWII)

Sorry to nitpick, but we did fight white, European Christians in the very war about which this thread started. Remember this sorry scene:

Jesse Jackson and then US Representative, now Illinois Governor Rod Blagojovich embarassing the POTUS (that'd be Clinton) by going behind his back and negotiating a POW release w/ the enemy in enemy territory during a time of war!

What's funny is that the BBC story that pic is from didn't even mention Blago.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's another Vietnam comparison, this time with Iraq. But it's not quite the normal comparison:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006881.php

"Fast forward to the current era. Large segments of the public have now:
* Learned that the sources and institutions they trusted (media, NGOs, social activists) can be trusted to deliberately lie to them, and that their descriptions of events often bear little resemblance to reality.
* Are losing faith in many of the institutions once held up as arbiters and exemplars of the best society offered. Media trust numbers are dropping like rocks. The U.N. is a sewer pit whose legitimacy is drowning in the stink. NGOs like Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and the International Red Cross are revealed as less than trustworthy, wasteful - and sometimes outright nefarious in pursuing policies anthithecal to their stated aims. "Toyota Taliban" is the soundbyte that says it all.
...
The current war may indeed be Vietnam redux. The Left erroneously assumes that it will therefore be on the winning side.
I wouldn't be so sure."

Vietnam comparisons are pretty maleable, aren't they?

 

[geni]

Good point.

Maybe not new, but possibly worse now than ever before?

Probably gets more coverage now. Also people are more likely to get found out.

 

[Ladewig]

The major difference today seems to be that journalistic ethics includes fabricating evidence, not confirming sources, and not checking facts.

And yet that list seems like an accurate discription of the Bush folks preparing for the Iraq invasion.