Forums | MacLife

Then you skipped the bits about the US having none and neutron bombs not being nearly as amazing as required?

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

Then you skipped the bits about the US having none and neutron bombs not being nearly as amazing as required?

err we don't?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa015.html

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief."
Go 'Kurtz' (Apocolypse New sic)
The 'policy' would be better served by drawing down troops as we 'train' security/police/army.

Leaving behind 5 to 10 thousand highly motivated volunteers. Seals/Rangers, intel.
Can't beat 'em...
"Wnen the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

We're not the iPod in this market; we're more like Sony.

To look at the motivations of these things, you have to toss aside the rhetoric. It's just boilerplate.

In the case of Vietnam, the talk of saving the place from communism was just hogwash. There were uprisings across Eastern Europe throughout the 50s, and the West didn't do squat to help them, America least of all. And that was on the border of one of the most strategically important areas on the planet. Yet somehow rural communism in a distant Asian country that most people still can't find on a map was crucial to America's national security?

Internationally, they needed to keep the Europeans happy. It was a time when the colonial empires were melting away, but few of the colonial masters wanted to give them up without a fight. The First Indochina War (French against VC) was underwritten by Washington, which supplied most of the weapons and cash. Washington needed the French to keep going, otherwise there were serious fears that the French government would collapse (which it eventually did), to be replaced by a communist government (which it wasn't).

After the French left Vietnam, an anticommunist regime was set up, in violation of the peace deal. The hope was to set up the Vietnamese equivalent of South Korea. Didn't work, though; the government was so blitheringly corrupt and brutal that it had almost no support, no matter how much the US tried to prop it up (and assist in pathetically fraudulent elections).

It was a civil war in which the United States took sides. Truth be told, there was no right side in that war, but the non-communist side was the one with almost zero chance of victory. If you read the confidential record from the mid-60s, the conversations in the LBJ administration, you quickly see that they're completely flummoxed by the whole thing -- their best-case scenario was a stalemate that would force the communists to negotiate. They really had no expectations of actually winning.

Domestic Americna politics played a key role too. Democrats were fanatically terrified of "losing" another country to communism (they way the "lost" China). Pressure from the right wing made it impossible for them not to fight hard in Vietnam, despite the very clear sense, that was present right from the very very beginning, that it couldn't be won.

What happened in Iraq can be seen as something similar; it was basically the US taking sides in a low-grade civil war that's been going on in the Mideast for quite some time. That is over who will lead the region as the expiring dictatorships fade away. Like the communists in Vietnam once upon a time, in the Mideast the Islamo-fascists are in the ascendant. Not so much because they're beloved, but, like the communists, are tough, ruthless, disciplined, well-organized and well-financed. The US basically trying to counter that with a vague notion of democracy, but, as happened in Vietnam, it's very clear that such a goal is completely hopeless, especially if carried out by force.

The likely outcome with Iraq will probably be similar to what happened with Vietnam. Let the bad guys win, let them screw up their country, then let them come back in a few years begging for trade, recognition and aid projects.

resedit wrote:

We went into Afghanistan because of Afghanistan 911 links

nope. we went into afghanistan to get the guy/s responsible for 9/11.
afghanistan as a nation, nor the taliban (as far as i've heard) had anything to do with 9/11.

Last edited by [MA] Flying_Meat (2005-10-26 11:34 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Vietnam was the commies, Iraq is the terrorists.

In both cases it was imposing America's will on a foreign country that had zero interest in receiving it.

So you know a lot of people from Vietnam and Iraq who've personally assured you that they had no interest in being protected from Ho Chi Minh or Saddam Hussein?

I doubt that. In fact, i doubt it pretty severely.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

after-life wrote:

Standing up to what? Honesty? Dignity? Grace? Intelligence? Tact? Well-being?

Yeah, those are exactly the traits Saddam Hussein displayed proficiently that pissed us all off. He was so honest, dignified, graceful, intelligent and tactful, and really had the well-being of his people at heart.

Learn how to type. Then speak to me.

That's clearly not what was meant by his post . . . and I really don't see how his ability to "type" would in any way affect his ability to "speak" to you.

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Vietnam was the commies, Iraq is the terrorists.

wrong. it's all about money and control.

i think many conservatives miss that one. don't feel bad, k?

Control of what?

resedit wrote:

We didn't have a public vote on wether to go into Iraq, congress authorized it - and surely they knew Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11.

Quit saying "responsible for!"  I've already corrected you.  There was an obvious misconception concerning Iraq and Al-Qaeda.  Look to the many public polls taken at the time.  Belief in such a thing was much higher for FOX News watchers, remember?

With respect to Iraq - we went in because they were a terrorist friendly nation, we thought they had WoMD, and they were not giving proper access to the inspectors.

We did not go into Iraq for 9/11 and the Bush administration never made that appeal, and in fact specified that Saddam was not involved with 9/11.

The relying on the misconception bit is your own invention.

Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link.

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda.

Bush insists on Iraq-al Qaeda link

9/11 Panel Challenges Bush on Al-Qaeda-Iraq Links.

Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

Bush disputes 9/11-Iraq findings

Last edited by bratboy (2005-10-27 9:46 am)

Pwned.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2005-10-27 10:11 am)

I'm waiting for res to start spouting the old myths about Vietnam having been winnable ... even that it was being won when the evil protesters and Democrats in Congress forced a withdrawal.

I love it when he talks like that.

Kev, the flaw I find in your reasoning is that the madison ave. reasons were all BS. . . and all shown to be such. The administration had nothing to gain by putting forth BS as the justification for an invasion. If there were REAL reasons they would have come right out and played those cards. . . because they needed public support both domestically and internationally. the propaganda effort via FOX and talk radio, in spite of the lack of viable evidence for the war, was sufficient to garner enough public support that they didn't have to feel that badly about proceeding.

There were and are no WMD. There is no direct military threat. There was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The flaw I find in the way the US administration has responded to any alleged institutionalized terrorist threat is that Global terrorism as such cannot be addressed by attacking any discrete sovereignty. . . but Idealogues WILL be able to justify terrorist acts to people willing to believe that the US is engaged in institutionally oppressing Muslims.

The world is no safer in response to the US led invasion and we have the bombings in Madrid and London in response and published accounts that stand to this effect.

Saying that it's about terrorism and that we just don't understand is just an unmitigated load of crap.

Farmerkev wrote:

Edit- I should have also mentioned that just like the political leaders now and through out history, Quinlan is using words to elicit an emotional response and not a rational one.

Isn't that the kettle calling the skillet black? The Administration is the kettle and the critic Quinlan is the skillet. That's exactly my point. People get spun into an emotional fog and without thinking jump into the abyss with no regard to the possible consequences. They think with their heart instead of their brain. That's exactly what this Administration, including the majority of Democrats did. Act first, think later. Dumb.

My main point is: Now we know how this dumb thing went down. It hasn't been worth the price we paid and continue to pay. It's time to wake up, smell the coffee and leave before we are bankrupt emotionally and financially.

It's time to take the 'emotion' out of the equation and look at the smurfing results that just about every 'experienced and educated' expert is telling us is going to happen: The longer we stay, the harder it will be to 'teach' these people about democracy. We are occupiers. We weren't invited. We invaded. Think how you would feel if the situation were reversed. Would any of us be happy to be occupied? For any reason?

Better we use 'trade' to bring them and their backward clerics into the 21st century. China is communist, but they are learning super fast how 'democratic capitalism' brings back their economy. They still have a long way to go, but it is working. Once a strong middle class is functional, we'll see a swing to the 'western' style of government. That is, IF and it's a big IF, the USA doesn't flounder and lose its status as a super power and an egalitarian leader.

This system brought back Europe, India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. It's working, slowly, in Vietnam but working. In a twisted way it is working again as it did in the Soviet Union, in Iran -- the young people see Western equality and quality of life and want change. They wouldn't if we or any other country invaded their homeland.

We aren't far apart on this, kev. It's more a matter of choice as to how to get out of this before we reach ground zero.