Iraq Equals Vietnam?

Daily Bulletin: "Asked whether the U.S. was wading into another Vietnam, Abizaid said no."

Massive anti-war protests in the streets, a country becoming polarized between hawks and doves, disgruntled soldiers fragging their commanders, a war where civilians we hope to democratize provide cover for enemy troops, limited international support for a war, an administration refusal to use the U.N. for a negotiated settlement, an administration that creates fake evidence for war, where have we seen all this before?

There has been a hard-core group of conservatives who believed we lost Vietnam because of the pussy liberals. They are now in power and see this as their chance.

Sure, they argue about 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction but before they would have been arguing about domino theory and stopping the spread of communism.

Hawks argue there is once difference, this time we were attacked on our soil and we must, again, make the world safe for democracy. Doves argue that 9/11 is the administration's Tonkin Gulf incident, the country we are attacking had nothing to do with the incident.

What do you wanna bet we discover democracy is messy and try to prop up new corrupt dictators while a gorilla war wages for years.

This time the hawks will be harder to stop. It was hard enough last time. Now they have a stronger position in the media, the churches, the corporations, and they control all the branches of government. The only thing the doves have is most of the people in the world.

It is hard to believe I am writing stuff I would have ignored or dismissed as too radical a few years ago. The only position that hasn't changed is I knew years ago that even if we had invaded North Vietnam we would have still lost the war. Capturing the cities does not stop a war when most of the people think you are foreign invaders. I see no difference in Iraq.