Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Korea, Vietnam, Agincourt!

What the fuck is Bush talking about?

The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up a Asian Tiger that is the model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East.

uhm, no. The North attacked, we kicked their asses back to the 38th parallel and then MacArthur convinced Harry Truman that the Chinese were no trouble at all and besides they only had 100,000 guys and they were way up north and talked him into invading iraq entering North Korea. At this point some 250,000 Chinese marched 18 miles a night for 18 days and hid during the day and then proceeded to kick our asses back to the 38th parallel and beyond.

South Korea would have been a much, much larger force in the asia economy if they didnt have to suffer the second invasion by the Chinese who killed ALOT of South Koreans. So, no one knows what the hell Bush is talking about.

And then he starts prattling on about the Japanese:
There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shiite Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Ayatollah Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic." Those who said Shiite Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken

So, we should welcome our new Shiite masters in Iraq? or what? I am just assuming he is refering to Islam, Shiari law and the Shiite here, because otherwise I dont have any idea what he is supposed to be saying.

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

uhm... it did.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution.

Cambodia... not Vietnam, buy a freaking map.

one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam had nothing to do with the rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia, saying so is crazy talk.

Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

Seriously, this whole speech is like one crazy bit after another. Does anyone really think that Bin Laden felt emboldened to attack us because we withdrew from Vietnam? If he did, doesnt that just show what a loon he is?

You want to talk about American credibility, WHERE THE FUCK IS BIN LADEN?

So Bush has brought up WWII before, in this speech he brings up South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam and Cambodia. I really dont think these guys have any idea what happened in any of those places. I think they just use words that have something to do with war, and then weave a narrative around those words.

"Were fighting the islamofacists like we did in Nam! err... Korea, no wait Agincourt! (rhymes with FISA court)"

UPDATE: Ah, perfect, thanks Drifty -- Here is Steve outlining how we actually lost Vietnam.

SECOND UPDATE For the love of mike!! The NYTimes tries to help but flubs it.

Historians Question Bush’s Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq

It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,

Hunh? What the hell are you talking about? Look, Pol Pot was well on his way to power in the mid to late 60's. If anything our getting involved in Vietnam led to disastrous consequences in Cambodia, not our withdrawal. The Times is more correct here:
But there are a couple of further points that need weighing,” he added. “One is that the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power in the absence of the war in Vietnam — this dark force arose out of the circumstances of the war, was in a deep sense created by the war. The same thing has happened in the Middle East today. Foreign occupation of Iraq has created far more terrorists than it has deterred.

and then
But the American drawdown from Vietnam was hardly abrupt, and it lasted much longer than many people remember. The withdrawal actually began in 1968, after the Tet offensive

hmmm... somewhat truerer but see the Steve post (via Drifty).
But please note the Anti-War movement really wasnt that large at all until the 70's, 72 or so being the peak.