Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is like comparing Bush to King Minos

Obscure joke (King Minos ran the minoan empire who worshipped bulls! Bush&Bull - Bull is what Bush mostly talks) - anyhow, to cut to the chase:

So, the Wall Stret Journal and Financial Times battle it out to
see who can win the argument over Bush's typical confused
comparison of the "success that could have been vietnam" argument on why to stay
in iraq

WSJ and
FT and
more FT comment on Bush's recently fabulously insulting speech about how Vietnam informs Americans about what to do in Iraq (or what not to do:-)

Fascinating stuff all this albeit completely irrelevant to any possible
useful way of finding an effective way forward.
Reasoning by analogy has always been a very poor intellectual tool.
If one can relate iraq to vietnam, answer me these simple questions, by way of an
excercise in thinking about this mode of debate:

Who is the equivalent of China, or more generally, is there
an equivalence between the Sunni/Shia fight, and some internal
communist/capitalist debate?

(more close to home for me:-)
Who is the equivalent of France's role in Vietnam, in Iraq?
or
Who was the equivalent of Syria's role in Iraq, in Vietnam?

Why did the UK send troops to Iraq, but decline to support the US in
Vietnam?

Is 9/11 some sort of deep metaphor for the the Cuban Missile Crisis, and
the march of world socialism supposed to be a plugin for Islamic Jihad/Al Queda?

Frankly, this all looks like high school kids debates, and for me really doesn't
do any more than show what a skewed view of the world journalists and politicians
have, and how little interest ether have in solving things.

Most worryingly, it continues the US-centricism which is just going to piss off
more people in the region, as usual.

No it is clear to me that the nearest lesson in history to the US role in Iraq
is Ancient Rome's role in Carthage. Or maybe, the Bay of Pigs fiasco:-)

Saddam is Fidel. Viva la Revolucion!

Consused yet? no more than Geo. W. Bush, illiterati supremo!