Who gets the last laugh?

[YASNY]

The sight is a pathetic one. An embattled president moves into a second term that quickly turns into an uninterrupted downhill slide: poll approval sinking to the low 30s; his own party members distancing themselves at every opportunity; his political capital now consumed by a once-popular war that became a hopeless quagmire with no end in sight; a war in which he persists, determined to stay the course despite the political cost, refusing to abandon the valiant allies who took his commitment seriously.

 

Read more here

[Rex Kickass]

There are lots of differences between Truman and Bush. First, Truman was willing to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within his own administration. Second, the Truman administration was willing to change tactics of operations in Korea when it was apparent that things weren't working.

 

Third Korea and Iraq don't deserve comparison. Korea was fought in a bipolar world regime where there was a legitimate need on the basis of US interests to combat a communist ideology and keep its interests alive and well in Asia.

 

Iraq was an elective war, fought with an enemy that had no ideological bend and was sold as a central front with the war on terror. Despite the fact that the administration itself knew within ten days of September 11, that Iraq most likely had nothing to do with recent terror attacks against the US and had no serious connection with Al-Qaeda - the main non-state actor that we have been "fighting" for the last five years.

 

The decision to go into Korea was an international one and for much of the fight was fought under the UN flag no less. That didn't happen in Iraq either.

[YASNY]

There are lots of differences between Truman and Bush. First, Truman was willing to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within his own administration. Second, the Truman administration was willing to change tactics of operations in Korea when it was apparent that things weren't working.

 

Third Korea and Iraq don't deserve comparison. Korea was fought in a bipolar world regime where there was a legitimate need on the basis of US interests to combat a communist ideology and keep its interests alive and well in Asia.

 

Iraq was an elective war, fought with an enemy that had no ideological bend and was sold as a central front with the war on terror. Despite the fact that the administration itself knew within ten days of September 11, that Iraq most likely had nothing to do with recent terror attacks against the US and had no serious connection with Al-Qaeda - the main non-state actor that we have been "fighting" for the last five years.

 

The decision to go into Korea was an international one and for much of the fight was fought under the UN flag no less. That didn't happen in Iraq either.

 

I thought it was an interesting comparison. Not worth arguing about, though.

[samclemens]

There are lots of differences between Truman and Bush. First, Truman was willing to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within his own administration. Second, the Truman administration was willing to change tactics of operations in Korea when it was apparent that things weren't working.

 

Third Korea and Iraq don't deserve comparison. Korea was fought in a bipolar world regime where there was a legitimate need on the basis of US interests to combat a communist ideology and keep its interests alive and well in Asia.

 

Iraq was an elective war, fought with an enemy that had no ideological bend and was sold as a central front with the war on terror. Despite the fact that the administration itself knew within ten days of September 11, that Iraq most likely had nothing to do with recent terror attacks against the US and had no serious connection with Al-Qaeda - the main non-state actor that we have been "fighting" for the last five years.

 

The decision to go into Korea was an international one and for much of the fight was fought under the UN flag no less. That didn't happen in Iraq either.

 

the administration knew within 10 days? never heard that before. i once heard that the bush administration blew up the pentagon too.

 

there are, in fact, many characteristics that are fundamentally the same- the main point being that truman stayed his course despite low public opinion, and bush is doing the same. i think their administrations are very similar in many ways. many difficult decisions (truman dropped the bomb most viably). of course there are differences, it was a different time and a different place. your argument on the iraq war could go the other way, and the same exact argument you used against the iraq war could also be used to oppose the korean war.

 

interesting article, i have heard that paralell used between those two administrations once before on some politico talk show.