Parallels between the Vietnam War and Iraq Conflict?

The Vietnam lies started with the SEATO Conference, I think it was around October 1954. Nobody had ever before claimed that Vietnam was two states, but the US wanted to create legitimacy for the part they controlled, so they invented "South Vietnam" and secured a seat for that artificial pseudo-state at the table.

By pretending that South Vietnam was a real country, they were then able to claim that the North Vietnam forces were "invaders."

In reality the Saigon regime never controlled the territory it claimed was its "country." I don't think any of the neighboring states have ever recognized the existence of "South Vietnam" as a state.

The entry of the US into support of the French, which got the US involved, was at the instigation of Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, who knew that if free elections ever took place the winner would be Ho Chi Minh and the government would be largely Buddhist, taking away Roman Catholic control. The puppet ruler selected by the US State Department was Roman Catholic, and his brother was a cardinal.

When elections were in fact scheduled, the US stepped in to cancel them, observing that given the choice, the people of Vietnam would vote overwhelmingly for their national hero, Ho Chi Minh, not for any puppet installed by the French or Americans.

Vietnam had a patriotic national leader ready; Iraq does not.

The lie that launched the Iraq occupation (it's an occupation, not a war since actual wars take place between states) was the WMDs. The real reason Saddam had to be deposed and openly humiliated in the eyes of the world was that he had not only taken the oil trade off the dollar onto the euro, but he had made it very successful. Other oil producing countries were poised to follow his lead, and I think Iran has done so.

Euro oil trade replacing dollar oil trade cuts into the fortunes of the oil barons among the Cheney-Bush clique.

Iraq is essentially artificial, created by the British around 1920 out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Kuwait, the traditional seventeenth province of Iraq's rulers, was indeed part of Iraq, as Saddam later claimed correctly, but the British wanted in to be under their control so they could protect theur sea route to India and so they installed the puppet ruler of the Al Sabah dynasty which still runs Kuwait to this day. (Has Kuwait ever held an election?)

The Arabs had been promised an Arab state from Damascus to the Gulf, when they shed blood in Britain's cause in 1916, but after the war the French sabotaged this plan because they didn't want to lose their grip on Syria-Lebanon. So the Arabs were betrayed. The 1917 Balfour declaration was a British sell-out of the Arabs who had fought and died for them and given them the only allied victory of 1916 - the capture of Aqaba by Lawrence.

The Arabs, Britain's allies in combat, wre stabbed in the back, as Lawrence well knew when he had to return to England. Lord Rothschild, with his immense wealth, had won and the way was open for the seizure of Palestine lands by Europe's Jews. No suprise that the Arabs are bitter today.

I dont know if we in fact, went into Iraq for oil or not. I still have not seen any proof that this was the motive. I'm not supporting it or against it. Im Neutral, because I myself do not know the whole story. But as far as Vietnam, I think we did a good thing by going in there and ended up getting our rear ends handed to us for it. I don't think they are comparable at all. I think we had alot of good reasons to go into Vietnam and this is obvious to me. The reasons for iraq are not so obvious to me. The only thing I can compare between the 2 is that in both countries, there was an oppressed group (south vietnamese, and iraqi shiites), although one has been liberated and the other was not. But in both wars, there were 2 oppressed groups that were liberated as a result. Iraqi shiites are now free from saddam, and even though the bad guys (viet cong) won the vietnam war, they ended up getting rid of the khmer rouge in Cambodia who were even worse than them, so Cambodians could live relatively free again.