It is amazing how you left-wingers can overlook the murders of mearly 200 million people at the hands of totalitarian tyrants such as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Tojo, and Pol Pot while working up ridiculous criticisms of the one country that has actually saved millions of lives.

You are of the same mindset as the crowd that was against Roosevelt saving Europe and Asia, Truman saving Korea, Kennedy saving Vietnam, Reagan saving Europe again, Bush I saving Kuwait., and Bush II liberating Iraq and Afghanistan.

You have been wrong all along and you are wrong now.

Economic and social liberty, as epitomized by the United States of America, are the natural state of humanity and you cannot stop their spread.

Mike, Austin, Texas

One of Bush's comparisons in his speech yesterday referred to Australia & New Zealand. He said: At the start of World War 2( the American one in 1941 I assume) Australia & New Zealand were the only far eastern democracies. How do the Aussies & Kiwis feel about being described as far eastern countries?

Alan Webster, Geneva, Switzerland

I don't always agree with G. Bush, but on this occasion I do. If the armies leave Iraq and Afghanistan, there is going to be a never ending blame pointing towards the United States. True there is a lot of blame now, but if it is all the same I think that they should stay rather than leave. When all the allied countries decided to send their soldiers over to the two countries, it was a mission of very noble standards. The theme was to help establish democracies and to improve the lives of the people. Well, the mission is not completed as of yet.

Zico, Hamilton,

It's astonishing and very frightening to realize that the Commander in Chief of the world's largest military power has so little understanding of history as well as so little comprehension of the present. Talk about cognitive dissonance... Bush has donned the blinders LBJ wore!

R. Morgan, Cedar Falls, IA

1st Vietnam was the result of U.S. Stupidity, thanks to the Bogeyman fears perpetrated by the infamous Dulles Brothers. History will tell you that Ho Chi Minh was a U.S. Ally in W.W.2, his ambition was to throw out past Colonial Administrations and to return Vietnam to independence. The U.S. wouldn't help because of a misguided attitude, believing De Gaulle & France were our allies. Yeah right! So uncle goes to the other great armamament providers USSR & China. Dumb Dulleses & their Domino Baloney was the result.
Iraq is the result of another idiot trio, Wolfowitz, Cheney & Rumsfeldt, backed of course by the stupid religious Neocons.
If the U.S. wants to do something right, get the hell out of Iraq,Saudi & Iran and go after the Taliban & that maniac in North Vietnam.

Pete Goswell, Masinloc, Philippines

The war on terrorism has evolved into a war between two Evils, on one side is the American Neocons with support of the Controllers of American Money and Media which is the Head of Evil it controls the American Politicians and Public opinion, anyone not following the lies and opinions being put forward, and having a different view, is tarred anti Semitic and anti American and a traitor. Over 70 percent Americans understand the dilemma they are in but are helpless in front of the power of these Evil forces. The opposing Evils is Islamic Fascists Terrorists a bye product of the manipulations of the first Evil, they are hated by over 95 percent of Muslims for propagating a twisted interpretation of Islam. The only alternative left for all peace loving people in the world is to let these TWO Evils fight it out and not stop them. We are confident once these Evils who are in a no WIN War are weakened and exhausted by this fight, we will have a better and saner world.

Khalid Mian, London,UK,

The real analogy with Vietnam is that US troops are in the middle of a civil war among an ethnically different people, where (at leat) one side attacks the US troops with terrorist means while these troops are supposed to support the "civil population" which cannot be discerned from "the terrorists". This leads to the troops being distrustful and aggressive towards all natives around them thus undermining their goal of supporting the "good natives". This situation turned out to be unwinnable in Vietnam and it also looks unwinnable in Iraq.

Paul Katz, Vienna, Austria

"The comment above about the Sunni and Shia hating one another is written by a guy from Tulsa, Arizona who has probably never been to New York, let alone the Middle East."

Given Alfred's address, perhaps he may be forgiven his insular views?

Simon Richards, Brussels,

you all sound like a bunch of self-righteous people who live in relative comfort while billions of people who were never educated probably know more world history than any of you. i will be the first to say, i don't know. sometimes. i feel it was right to go in ( and it was mandated by the u.n.) because iraq was strategically better than afghantistan for a U.S. presence in the middle east. we need that presence there because of radical idiots who think they can unilaterally ( no one speaks of that) invade another country and with malice murder people and then bray about it. to me, no matter why we got there, it is just wrong to start this mess and then just walk away. i believe, if you start something, finish it. my day to day life has not been affected and i bet 95% of your lives have not been affected either. i hope we win and make our soldiers sacrifice mean something. their is evil out there, but i think it will be many years before the effect is shown.

laura, oklahoma city, oklahoma

There is one other crucial similarity between Iraq and Vietnam that has not been mentioned: both are examples of the impotence of super powers to effectively control and change states that do not want to be controlled, or that are subject to counter influences from other forces. Super powers can flatten any country with traditional military might, but always fail to go on to re-create a compliant state thereafter if the people are not supportive. The word 'super power' is in reality a very limited and highly constrained concept today. Beyond Vietnam and Iraq one only has to look at Afghanistan to see similar impotence by Russia (even with hundreds of thousands of troops), and that same country today under US and NATO intervention. Again, Chetyna still refuses to be compliant. This is the real lesson for super powers and other nations that aspire to 'improve' and 'democratise' by intervention. The results are invariably disaster and misery on a huge scale. Will we ever learn?

John E Farrington, Newcastle upon tyne, UK

Bush constantly parrots ' If we leave they will follow us here' What happened, of course if that El Quaida followed him to Iraq. Incidentally what coulsd he mean by asserting that 'Vietnam' followed us back home?

Colin Nicolson, London, UK

Dear All

President Bush vision of the causes of the "Killing Fields" show clearly the stupidy of this administration.

With the savage bombings all over northern and eastern cambodia , the US military was no more than the greatest "partner and ally" of the Khmer rouge.
Mass destruction and mass killings started way before that awful April 75. Fueled on the ground by the KR and in the air by the US air Force.

same in Irak

Simon

Paris

SIMON J, Paris,

Bush's Japan and South Korea analogies are particularly crass as those have been homogenous and deferential cultures for many centuries. Afghanistan and Iraq have always been diverse and confrontational cultures. I would say that I am surprised Bush skimmed over something so obvious, but I don't think anyone is surprised anymore.

He can still fool enough of the people enough of the time though! God help America...

Free from Tulsa - If ending Saddom (sic) was enough reason for invading Iraq, then why not invade Rwanda, N Korea, Darfur, Congo etc etc in their times of "need"? Oh yeah, not enough oil...

Also, isn't it funny that conservatives are so willing to give up our freedoms in return for supposed safety from "terrorism" at home, but maintain that Saddom's repression for the sake of control was so evil he needed hanging? And what price has Iraqi humanity paid since the invasion? Pot, kettle....

JK, The Wharf, England

Strange how those who support extending without end the Iraq war never mention the costs, from dollars to lives, ended and broken. For the supporters, this is all a free ride. How easy and glib to say "stay the course," when it costs them nothing. Leaving Iraq will cost lives, certanly not theirs, and the lesson of Vietnam is the longer the USA stays the higher the number of ensuing casualties. Predictiions of an all-out war among the surronding states with an outcome that favors al Qaida come from the same mindset that forecast, wrongly, an all communist region in southeast Asia if the USA left Vietnam. Predictions of "success" by the Adminsitration have filled the headlines for the last six years; each has been wrong. There is no reason to to believe predictions of success now. One of the true tragedies of the war against those who challenge the Adminsitration is the absence of a broad range of people in public life, e.g. candidates for public office, to say, "no more."

David, Arlington, USA

Mr. Burke:
I can't speak for 'Free', but I at least have heard of the UN Charter and International Law and know them for what they are: pious fictions. The notion that the United States or any other nation's exercise of sovereignty should be subjected to a Russian or Chinese or French veto is risible. There are many legitimate arguments to be made against this disastrous adventure in Iraq: but the UN's Simon Says isn't one of them.

Solicitor, Richmond, Virginia

Mesopotamia, now Iraq, was cobbled together from three disparate provinces of the dying Turkish empire. They liked each other then as little as they do now, as they have throughout the intervening nine decades. Preserving the integrity of the country has always needed hard - harsh - control.

Remove this, leave them to their own resources, and they will surely fight a most bloody civil/religious war that can only end in disintegration. The way out, in both senses, is to accept that Iraq is going to break up whatever we do, and partition it - fast, in a single month, to deny diplomats time to fudge - with the movement of peoples that is bad-mouthed as ethnic cleansing but saves lives, before withdrawing even faster.

Britain did pretty much this in India in 1947, more successfully than is sometimes admitted.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

Critics cry foul when Bush uses Vietnam-era terms like "killing fields" and "boat people" but... heck there are at least 2 million Iraqi refugees and Dem-Senator-Presidential candidate Obama has already conceded withdrawal will likely cause genocide. So whats the big deal ? Admit the painful truth ! Defeat will be very unpleasant.

On the other hand, it will be interesting watching the applause Gen Petraus will likely get when he presents his case for victory in Sept. How many Dems will applaud ? Watch their grim faces : )

Petras Vilso, Ottawa, Canada

There are a lot of countries with no democracy and dictator that violate human rights. Why US does not invade them? Why are the iraqis so fortunates?

Carlos, Valdoviño,

So what is the difference Mr Bush? While the U.S. has been in Iraq hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have already died, not to mention many of the best of America's youth. Staying in Iraq is not going to change things. But you can stop the appalling waste of valuable young American lives.

Frank , Carlisle, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Mr Bush forgot to bring up those places where american policies has been involved such as El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela to name some. The question is ¿why Bush´s government is loosing that confrontation in Iraq?

Miguel Angel del Pozo, Caracas, Venezuela

While it is easy to make fun of and deride the US political machinations, let us not forget that the US is being and has been attacked for decades by elements that want to see it crash and burn. Responses to these threats- real and perceived- have not always gone well, but if any of you Brits think about your own history of attacking innocent peoples and subjugating them, you might be a little more introspective. The world came to hate you too!
The US has been handed a huge job- by default. There are no better "leaders." If there are, name them and let's get behind them. That, of course will not happen as there is no one else to balance the forces that want to either bring the West down- Taliban and other Muslim wackos- or the serious interplay between China, Russia and Iran- and to a lesser extent a gloating Europe-- all of whom see themselves as the real World Leaders and can't wait for the US to crumble. Every one of these could have helped fix the current disasters...

Robin Willcourt, Adelaide, Australia

I think Bush is lucid, steadfast, and absolutely right.

Jeanne, Paris, France

Bush's comparison of Iraq with Vietnam leads to another similarity, which he did not mention: In both countries the US was/is facing a national resistance to a foreign occupation. It is hilarious to watch how our propaganda machine uses "insurgents" or "radicals" or "extremists," but never "resistance fighter."

Rimvydas Sliazas, Cary, USA

Korea? Vietnam? If you want an example of foreign interference lasting for centuries one need only look at Ireland in the 17th century. Mass killings by two religious factions in the midst of a British government trying to impose its rule on an indigenous population wanting independence.

Fast forward to Iraq in 2007 and ask Mr. Bush what his definition of "the long haul" is and remind him of the British "long haul" in Ireland.

Patrick Legris, Toronto, Canada

Alfred, you say it's "doubtless" that once the US withdraws the Iraqis will sort out Al Qaida on their own. I'd say there's a fair bit of 'doubt' about that, actually. I'd say that judgment was best left to the people actually on the ground, both the allied commanders and the elected Iraqi government. Because tens of thousands more lives could rest on that judgment.

And what if the guy from Tulsa has never been to New York? So what? How does that affect the quality of his argument? Isn't the whole point of a global media that you can form opinions on world events without actualy having to travel to the places concerned? I've never been to the South Pole, but I'm pretty sure it's cold.

Steve, Liverpool, UK

"Ending Saddom was justification enough for going into Iraq." - Free of Tulsa

Ah, but that's not why we're there in the first place is it?

Remember Sept 11th? Remember weapons of mass distruction? Remember axis of evil?

How quickly people forget when force fed a diet of biased news. Say something enough and people start to believe and history is re-written.

Now it seems people think we invaded to get rid of Saddam. And that's simply not true. Just before we invaded, we were saying that he could stay so long as he got rid of the weapons (or at least allowed the inspection to proceed unhindered). Talk about hypocritical.....

Dave, Hove,

What did Bush do during the Vietnam War that he can now make such gross distortions of history? Was he in the front line with other combat troops? The fact is the USA was beaten militarily in Vietnam and rightly so. The lesson which should have been learned, but clearly wasn't, is that even so-called super-powers cannot impose Governments on other nations.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

The genocide in Cambodia came as a direct result of Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war, ie bombing Cambodia to stop North Vietnamese from crossing the border into South Vietnam. The real comparison is to the US threat to bomb Iran, not that Iran would be destabilized as Cambodia was. One of Bush's sole remaining choices, which should be the world's fear, is to expand the war in Iraq as Nixon did the Vietnam war into Cambodia. Both presidents share a fault: Neither is or was willing to be responsible for failure in war, and neither is willing to admit that tens of thousands died because of their mistakes.

Jim Talin, Brewster, MA

Free, Tulsa.
Check the facts, Shia and Sunni have not been in existence for "thousands of years". Since the original violent schism their differences were largely philosophical until very recently in historical terms.
Perhaps if more americans were aware of the world´s history, they would be more circumspect in their interference.

Phil S, Málaga,

Since Bush brought about Korea and Vietnam, let me bring somethings else up.

In Korea, during and after the war, the US supported a dictator-like, right wing government that was pretty corrupt and was resented by most Koreans. True, communism was a worseer eveil in some sense, but it was seen as the propping up on a government that would not turn left. Humans rights in fact, were ignored. Also, lest we forget, the Korean War was not really a war of ideologies. It was first a war that Koreans, after many years of foreign occupation, wished for unity. Yes the North invaded, but there was the hanging promise of a united Korea.

If Korea doesn't sound as convining, the Vietnam War is even more a war for independence and unity.The SU and China had no direct wish of spreading comunism there as the Domino theory suggested. A major poinf of US failure there was that the US once agained supported a dictator-like government that was again right wing and not communism but non-democratic.

Jiesheng Li, Singapore, Singapore

Vietnamese were more willing to seek independence. The favourable side after a while was the North, which while brutal, was pushing for a pro-independence agenda from the start. THe Us failure to win the hearts and minds of the the Vietnamese as a whole is a great a factor as military blunders there. In any case, early withdrawal or continued fighting would not have made any difference if the context was not taken into account.

In Iraq, the people weren't fighting for independence and there was little clashing of ideologies until the US made it so in 2003. Vietnam and Korea and even World War II are not clear parallels to the conflict in Iraq. However, if a parallel must be drawn, it is once again the failure of the Us to identify the enemy. To them, Korea and Vietnam was that of fighting a communist bogey, which was almost nonexistnent. They US instead support non-communist corrupt regimes and caught themselves in pro-independence wars. In Iraq, it is worse since the US is in

Jiesheng Li, Singapore, Singapore

Bush, of course is just in a holding pattern.
Indeed, some republican strategists big
fear is that Bush is replaced by another
republican in the White House who continues to muck around in the Iraq
quagmire for another 4 years, while all the time
losing more seats in congress and not being
able to shift the blame for Iraq onto Hillary or Obama.

rkerg, oakland, USA/CA

Free, of Tulsa, USA, tells us: "Freedom, liberty and rule and respect for law and order will make a lasting peace, and this takes time..." That really is a laugh, coming from the USA! Has Free, of Tulsa, never heard of the UN Charter? Never heard of international law? Has he/she no trace of realisation that the American invasion of Iraq, without a UN mandate, was a gross violation of international law? You cannot impose cowboy justice on the whole world!! The letter of the law is the letter of the law. Why do you think Tony Blair, an Oxford graduate in law, has chucked out of the whole scenario and become a journalist without a newspaper?

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Bush senior and his advisers foresaw all this happening following Desert Storm when the Allies stopped short of pushing on to Baghdad and toppling Saddam. It beggars belief that Bush senior did not caution his reckless son on the inevitable consequences of invading and occupying Iraq. One day we shall hear of the real reason for this insane folly . Weapons of mass destruction it will not be.

B. J. Carroll, Hong Kong, China

after my wrorest regsrds
BUSH ADMINSTRATION IGNORS THE REALITY AND WHAT THEFAC IS THAT BUSH
DOES"T KNOW WHAT TO DO NOW AND IS SEARCHING SOME THING TO SCAPE OR SOME OTHER POLITIC TO WITDRAW HIS TROOPS>
BUT IF AMERICANS ARE REAOY PEOPE WHO NEEDS PEACE MUST WITHDRAW THEIR TROOPS FROM IRAQ
AT THE SAME TIME WE SOMALIS AMERICAN ONCE CAME HERE ADN WE FIGHT AT THAT TIME OUR FIGHTING WAS NOT RIGHT BUT NOW

NOW AMERICANS ARE SEARCHING TO SURVIVE THEIR SEOLS FROM WHAT THE CAL TERORIST
YYOU SEE THEY ARE TERORIST THEY DO NOT KNOW TEROR AND PEACE SINCE THEY DONOT KNOW THEY WILL SUFFER LIKE THIS.

KALAY SOMALIA Mogadishu

Kalaay, Mogadishu, Hamar

"Free," I am sorry, but we in the United States have NO idea what being political really means. What is right and left, when it is merely right and left of the center? And to put forth that we were entitled to enter a sovereign country and remove it's existing leadership, is about as absurd as going in and putting that leadership into power to begin with; which is exactly what we did with Saddam. Likening Iraq to Viet Nam is a sad, but apt comparison, just not in the way Mr. Bush intended. If we as individual American citizens behaved as we allow our government, particularly the current administration, to behave; we would have long ago been institutionalized or jailed for our megalomaniacal behaviors, and the resulting chaos we created. I will never understand how we let any of this happen. We are, each of us, responsible; for every death in this war.

Michele Roys, Copperas Cove, Texas

The US can never face up to policy errors or military defeat.
Thus the persistence of the myth that Vietnam policy was just (it wasn't) and that the military were betrayed by devious politicians (shades of Hitler). The goals were not only "out of reach", they were horribly misguided.
Bush should read Barbara Tuchman - The March of Folly.

John Maynard, Cranbrook, UK

When Bush's daughters, and their class, enlist for Iraq/Afghanistan, I will believe what their father says.

The facts are simple. According to a senior British officer, 90% of the violence in the Basra region is against the British. Only 10% is Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.

Doubtless, if the USA were to withdraw soon (they will withdraw eventually regardless of what Bush wants), the Iraqis will sort out Al Qaeda and foreign fighters by themselves. The comment above about the Sunni and Shia hating one another is written by a guy from Tulsa, Arizona who has probably never been to New York, let alone the Middle East.

Alfred, Ryde, Isle of Wight, UK

fighting not just a extremist group. It is fighting different religious sects, angry citizens, and others who just want to be left alone.

Jiesheng Li, Singapore, Singapore

How long does it take to change a culture? The Shia and Sunni have been fighting for thousands of years. The culture of fear the Iraqi people have lived under during the Saddom Regime may have kept the county stable but the price to humanity was tremendous. Saddom and his cruel family murdered anyone and everyone they felt was a threat to them or to the peace. Mass graves, genocide, torture, you name it. Ending Saddom was justification enough for going into Iraq. Freedom, liberty and rule of and respect for law and order will create a lasting peace and this takes time, usually over generations to change the hearts and minds of freed people. Leaving Iraq right now would be immoral. We can't leave until the government of Iraq is prepared for us leave. The US is a tremendously political country. The right and left are continually trying to diminish the opposing party. If the Democrats had placed us in Iraq just like they placed us in Vietnam, you can bet they would fight to stay in.

Free, Tulsa, USA

What the hell does Bush know about Viet Nam. He and Chaney and Rumsfeld all found ways to avoid that conflict. He has not had a loved one killed in combat, nor has he mingled with those who have. Bush will continue to fight his war and pay the price with "OPC" (not the oil cartel, but other people's children). Viet Nam was a disaster because we invaded another country based upon lies and misjudgments, killed several hunded thousand people in the process and "stayed the course" to protect the egos of those who got us there. There is very clearly an anology, but not the one Bush is trying to sell. If we had a draft now (which we may yet have) this country would be facing the same internal turmoil it was during the late 1960s.

Larry Fleming, St. Louis, Missouri