|
|
|
|
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:36:20 PM |
saw convoys of big trucks going to Syria. There were even loads that were taken to Iran, but not nearly as many as went to Syria.
What was in these trucks? What we didn't find in Iraq. This is not news, and has been said before, but there are those who KNEW long before this was brought up that there was nothing to find in the first place...........
talk about a conspiracy theory....
what was in those truck
Elvis ... and JFK ... of course. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:36:49 PM | | Again Paul, you still believe in the conspiracy theory that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. You have repeated evaded queries as to how you maintain that conspiracy. Please provide your proof. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 3:47:36 PM | 1,000,000 dead? Please, at least show me the conspiracy sites where I can find that number, and the sites that point out where the information that we should have been told is?
Doctors without borders
World Health Organization
Red Cross
Al Jazeera
just to name a few
Edit: on the issue of actually being in iraq it doesnt mean to much. You could be in the greenzone in baghdad and not even know a war was going on. THat so happens to be where the palestine hotel is and where 90% of journalists are staying and working from.
Edit2:
I've learned one thing when discussing issues with those who fervently believe in conspiracy theorys........ You are wasting your time. Facts mean nothing if they don't align with their theories, and if the facts did align with their theories, it wouldn't be a conspiracy, now would it?
You called yourself out on that one. You try and talk to most pro war lunatics and its like talking to a wall...a really dumb, ignorant wall.
| |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:13:24 PM | First I will hold judgement on Doctors without Boards. An organization I respect. I have to do some independent research on that.
Both The World Health Organization and Al Jazeera, have been discredited in their reporting. The reason was they did not distinguish between natural deaths, criminal deaths, or deaths caused by combat related activites. Tisk Tisk. Both orgainzations have a politcial axe to grid.
Now in the part of the world it is the International red cresent. I would like to have your source material. This is not an error that the IRC is going to make. So it calls the data into question.
As to me, I was outside the wire quite a bit. I was also all over country. So I hope you will see the truth and as they say over there insallah.
Gadget. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:14:53 PM | Hey puppy
Like you......... I SPIT ON PROOF...............
Paul K
PS If you were to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I got my information from people who were actually there, at the beginning, and now. But why get in the way of facts........................ | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:34:46 PM | Some of the posts on this thread have wavered a bit off course. The subject is whether or not Iraq is really free........ I am sure that the way it got free is very important, but I thought the question was its current situation.
I could be wrong, after all, I was married once.
Paul K | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:31:29 PM | | Hearsay and anecdotal evidence do not a case make. Even Bush, Cheney and their cohorts backed off from the lies. More detail please. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:34:26 PM | I also got my info from Iraqis, and Americans who are there. Just shows to go ya,. you can make up any thing to suit your needs to believe.
"PS If you were to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I got my information from people who were actually there, at the beginning, and now. But why get in the way of facts........................" | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:10:17 PM | | What are we talking about? Here's my concern, I don't watch the Television news very often (its upsetting) and I see that there is an escalation in the violence in Iraq, but no plans to halt the withdraw of troops from the country? Personally I don't see this as a wise move, what do you all think? Could this take a potentially improving situation and have it cascade into quagmire again? I would especially like to hear from my Veitnam Veteran(s) | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/30/2009 3:34:27 AM |
Could this take a potentially improving situation and have it cascade into quagmire again? I would especially like to hear from my Veitnam Veteran(s)
Anybody that knew their ass from a row of rat s**t knew that iraq was going to be a quagmire(just like vietnam) before we went there. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:12:58 AM | It is because of our Vietnam service, that many of my colleagues in Veterans for Peace, opposed the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. History has shown that attempts to conquer those lands, as with Vietnam, have failed because of the will of the people to be free of colonization by outsiders.
Iraqi and Afghans will never be free as long as the US insists on propping up it's pro-US puppets in power. They will also resist such puppets as long as they exist. Both nations will be quagmires. The Afghan occupation was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union financially. With wars on two fronts, the US seems to be following suit financially.
Sami Ramadani from Iraq has his take on how "free" the Iraqis are today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/carnage-and-corruption-in-iraq
snip..
There is no doubt that the situation has improved for US forces, while British troops were airlifted from the fires of Iraq to be thrown into the flames of Afghanistan. The US plan for Iraq has so far succeeded in reducing its own casualties by pushing more of the Iraqi forces into the battle against the "insurgency" – better known in Iraq as the "honourable patriotic resistance" to distinguish it from the hated al-Qaida-style terrorists attacks.
But try to tell Iraqis who are not part of the ruling circles that their situation has improved since the occupation and they will remind you not only of the countless dead and injured but also of the million-plus orphans and widows, the 2 million who fled the country, and the 2 million internal refugees, most of whom live in dreadful squalor.
They will tell you about the sewage covering the streets of many towns and cities, the lack of clean water, fuel and electricity, and the ever deteriorating health and education services. They will tell you about the more than 50% unemployment, the kidnapping of children, the fear of women to move freely, and the rapid rise in drug abuse and prostitution. They will describe the horrific methods of torture inflicted on the tens of thousands of prisoners in Iraqi and American jails. They will remind you that if a "world-famous patriot" such as Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who threw his shoes at President Bush, was tortured by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's own guards and forces, what chance ordinary citizens?
Iraqis will also instantly refer you to the corrupt rulers who came to Iraq "on the backs of US tanks". They will tell you of the division of ministries and senior posts among the various sectarian and ethnically identified political allies of the US. Indeed, corruption has reached such levels that the minister of trade and his brothers have been accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars by the "Integrity Committee", while the deputy transport minister was caught receiving $100,000 as the "first instalment" of another huge bribe.
While Iraq and its people continue to suffer, with most of the western media ignoring their plight, President Obama is still pursuing President Bush's goal in Iraq – to have a government in Baghdad that is closely allied to the US. This is incompatible with bringing about a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq. What US strategists have yet to learn is that the Iraqi people will not freely accept a pro-US regime in Baghdad and that the "exit strategy" will inevitably result in long-term occupation, and bring only more bloodshed and destruction. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:19:00 PM | Hey pup
you wrote:
"History has shown that attempts to conquer those lands, as with Vietnam, have failed because of the will of the people to be free of colonization by outsiders."
You forgot one country in your quote above, and that would be Korea..... While most people know that it was the COMMUNIST CHINESE that came pouring south into Korea, carrying COMMUNIST SOVIET weapons, they somehow seem to want to ignore that the same DAMN FU#$%&G is what happened in Viet Nam. I know the details of the gulf of Tonken, but by that time, the COMMUNIST CHINESE had already been trying to take over the country for how long?
Lets ask the French, who did what the French are taught to do, and the surrendered and left. Why did they leave? Not because they were losing Frenchmen, but because most of the fighting on their side was done by the French Foreign Legion, who at the time was populated, to a large degree, by graduates of the Waffen SS........ and other parts of the German army. The french politicians were squeamish about the fact that the FFL, now populated by mostly Germans, were not French. Don't ask them to make sense, after all, who was the first person who looked at a snail and said...... Man, just a little butter and a lot of garlic.......................
At least we kept half of Korea from becoming a communist $hithole. Viet Nam is shaping up too, but only after trying to emulate western type freedom and open markets.
As far as the plight of Iraq, you really need to talk to people who were there recently, and stop going in circles with all of your CNJ buddies.
Paul K | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:20:41 PM | Paul K.
I know plenty of people who have been there and done that, as well as Iraqis living here and there who present the opposite case that you do. Your need to label people with other positions, aka, CNJ bs, does little to present your case or support it. You have repeatedly evaded providing "proof" that there was anything at all to do with our attack on Iraq after our frustrated misleadership decidede to to attack them rather than deal with the actual Saudi perpetrators, and you have consistently attacked people with facts as some sort of conspiracy theorists. I detect a level of denial and projection that you use to hide your lack of actual information, intelligence, and ability to debate the issue with honesty.
The Vietnamese did not suffer the Chinese well either. It did not matter that the invaders were Chinese, French, or American. The Iraqis, Afghans, Columbians, and others who suffer under our colonial dreams will do exactly what we would do if invaded but foreigners, pushing their agendas upon proud peoples. Why in the f#uck do people think that other peoples of the world would accept US as their know-it-all "saviors". The Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, and dozens of others see us as what we are...***holes, trying to make the world in our own twisted image. They want nothing to do with us, our corruption, our bully attitude, our "help", or our crusades. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:23:07 PM |
What are we talking about? Here's my concern, I don't watch the Television news very often (its upsetting) and I see that there is an escalation in the violence in Iraq, but no plans to halt the withdraw of troops from the country? Personally I don't see this as a wise move, what do you all think? Could this take a potentially improving situation and have it cascade into quagmire again? I would especially like to hear from my Veitnam Veteran(s) I'm not a Vietnam Vet. But my father served in 2 wars in Israel, as did my brother, and I always enjoyed learning about war, so I hope I have something to bring to the problem.
One thing I heard a long time ago, was that if you can understand why you are here in this place and in this time, you have everything you need to understand what to do. So this is my question, one that I have had for a long time: The war has been going on for 6 years. So why did the violence suddenly escalate once America announced it was planning to pull out of Iraq? It's almost as if the terrorists don't want America to leave Iraq. Why, I don't know. But I get very nervous when our enemies don't want us to leave them alone.
I can think of 3 possibilities:
1) The new terrorist attacks are funded by sections of the West that want America to stay in Iraq.
2) That the terrorists will have no-one to blame for the way Iraq is once America leave, and they will get the blame.
3) That the terrorists are trying tom prove to the world, that America is not leaving because they won, but because they LOST.
I think that #1 is doubtful, that #2 is possible, and that #3 is likely. But either way, I believe that if we stay, we are doing what we are being baited to do by our enemies, and that cannot be a good thing. Whoever is inciting this greater violence, it looks more likely to end once we've left completely.
However, if ALL Americans and British clear out, the troops, the private security companies, the defence contractors, the oil engineers, the oil businessmen, the MacDonalds' franchises, EVERYONE, and the violence STILL continues, THEN America has the right to petition the UN to re-enter the country. THEN that would be fair, as the countries of the world would be agreeing to this, and not just America and its allies. I can see everything right in that.
But to stay now, all I see is that it would give our enemies exactly what they want, an excuse for more and more violence.
RE Msg: 111 by Earthpuppy:
They will tell you about the sewage covering the streets of many towns and cities, the lack of clean water, fuel and electricity, and the ever deteriorating health and education services. Don't forget there was a Cholera epidemic there. We had a few Cholera epidemics in the UK, a long time ago. We still remember it. It's not something you forget in a hurry, not in a year, and not in more than 100 years.
They will tell you about the more than 50% unemployment, the kidnapping of children, the fear of women to move freely, and the rapid rise in drug abuse and prostitution. OK. That's a BIG problem. When countries like Russia became free of totalitarian control, they suddenly found drug abuse and prostitution exploded. The LAST thing we want in Iraq is it to be the next source of Cocaine and Heroin going to America, and the next source of human trafficking. We've had significant success at getting rid of violent dictators. But we've barely made a dent in drugs or human trafficking, even in our own countries, and even at home, it's considered an endless war, which we can only hope to stop getting worse at best. If that's what happens, we're screwed.
RE Msg: 112 by Paul K:
You forgot one country in your quote above, and that would be Korea..... While most people know that it was the COMMUNIST CHINESE that came pouring south into Korea, carrying COMMUNIST SOVIET weapons, they somehow seem to want to ignore that the same DAMN FU#$%&G is what happened in Viet Nam. I know the details of the gulf of Tonken, but by that time, the COMMUNIST CHINESE had already been trying to take over the country for how long? I watched "The Fog of War" by Robert S. McNamara. He met with the former foreign minister of Vietnam, and asked him about the Vietnam war. HE said that the Vietnamese HATED the Chinese and the Russians, and wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. The Chinese I get, because everyone in the Far East doesn't want to become part of China. If they did, they would. Anyway, this is what he said.
He said that the Vietnam War was a civil war. You know, like the American Civil War, North against South, only this was "different", it was North against South. There was absolutely no desire to get anyone else involved, and every desire to keep the Chinese and the Russians out.
McNamara, the Secretary of State during much of the Vietnam War, said that wasn't what the Americans believed, that the Americans believed that it was due to communist influences, and without that, the war would not have happened.
The Foreign Minister was most insistent that this wasn't the case, that the Americans were wrong.
Americans have a reputation all around the world for being insular, for not bothering to even enquire about how others think, and to go blazing in, and to "shoot first and ask questions later".
It appears that this is the considered opinion of Mr McNamara, that here too, Americans assumed everyone thinks like them, and never stopped to consider if not all 6 billion people in the planet think identically to only 1 in 20 people.
Just my $0.02 | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/30/2009 11:50:43 PM | | We have a long long history of sticking our noses where it doesn't belong. If we ever learned and implemented that lesson, we could possibly grow as a nation. But color me pessimistic. Those really pulling the strings thrive on chaos and play the public like a violin. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:57:33 AM | No other nation has mucked about in the affairs of so many others, used nuclear weapons of mass destruction on others, sold more arms, or lied to it's people so often. We're number one!
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
We act as a perpetual "enemy" generation machine. When the Berlin Wall came down, we suffered from an enemy deficit. It was a horrible time where we resorted to consorting with Contras, and Saddam, and had to find a nation like Granada to invade just to keep sharp. The US is happiest when we have a well defined, or at least well hyped threat to rally against, no matter how full of shiite our leaders or media are. The lunacy that led us to attack Iraq and lack of remorse in the aftermath, shows us to be a nation with a personality disorder. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:49:39 AM | | That's exactly what concerns me. It's not the economy, not swine flu, not health reform. These are only symptoms of a much deeper problem that we have and no one is really addressing that - only yelling back and forth about "fixes" for the symptoms. It's all smoke and mirrors. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:28:21 PM | Hey scorpion
I like reading your posts as you usually get it right.......... HOWEVER, I find it hard to believe that you are quoting Mcnamara as a source. I understand that he was in the midst of it then, but in the time from the wars end to now, many other sources that were actually fighting on the other side have been interviewed, and show a different story then what he says. If I had to choose between the guys on the other side telling me what and why they did what they did, or Mcnamara.......... well, the choice is pretty easy. I know that this is off subject, but I felt compelled to write.
In the first place, the french had been fighting with what became the South Vienamese long before we go there. Now the "other side' of this battle was equipped with what type of armament? AK47's, chinese and soviet tanks and artillery. To say that the other side did not want the chinese involved is being rather infantile about it, because they were involved, and were part of the instigation FROM THE BEGINNING. What was the civil war about in the US? Mostly states right to have slaves. What was the civil war in Viet Nam about? It was about the country becoming COMMUNIST. And you want to tell me that the chinese didn't have any interest in that? In the first place the communist chinese had proven that they were merciless, as they were on their way to killing how many MILLIONS of their own people in order to establish a socialist paradise?
How did the arms that the north used get to them? Fed Ex? They came from China...... and a lot of it was Soviet made.................. And the Chinese didn't have any part in it? What I find interesting is that when Mcnamara was prosecuting the war, there were those who said that he could not be believed whatsoever, after all, look at the Gulf of Tonkin. BUT, now that is saying what some people want to hear, he is their source of information. So Mcnamara said that he believed that there was no chinese communist influence????????? ARE YOU KIDDING?
Do you want proof? What happened to that country AFTER we left???? Basically a communist purge. Not as bad as Laos, but not far behind. In Southern California, we had HUGE influx of Viet Namese after we left them high and dry, HUGE. AND, almost all of them had the same story; they had to get out, because people were being killed INDISCRIMINATLY....... This is from the folks who left, not a "journalist' who asked some questions, and then wrote the article like he thought it should be written. There is an area here that has actually been renamed "Little Siagon", There is even a freeway sign telling you that this is the right exit for it.
The belief that communism was spreading and had to be stopped was right. Just look at the map of that area of the world in 5 year increments starting in the early 20th century, and then tell me that is not true. What is very interesting is if you were to talk to Vietnamese who actually left Viet Nam during the time we cut and ran, you will see that they have no idea why there are so many people who think that our involvment ther is considered an evil thing. Yet, we have a population here who believes that our involvement there was one of the most evil things we have ever done.
You really should ask those who were indigeonous to the area what THEY thought, ask the ones who risked life and limb to come to this chithole called America, at least it is a chithole according to some, and because they were there, can tell you the TRUTH. Nobody wants to leave the country where they were born, but there are times that you have to, and you are always sad to leave, and the biggest slap in the face to those who suffered so much just to get here, is to be told that it was "just a civil war".
Paul K | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/1/2009 2:18:21 PM | RE Msg: 118 by Paul K:
I like reading your posts as you usually get it right.......... HOWEVER, I find it hard to believe that you are quoting Mcnamara as a source. I understand that he was in the midst of it then, but in the time from the wars end to now, many other sources that were actually fighting on the other side have been interviewed, and show a different story then what he says. If I had to choose between the guys on the other side telling me what and why they did what they did, or Mcnamara.......... well, the choice is pretty easy. I know that this is off subject, but I felt compelled to write. I can understand that you've heard from others. I expect that. However, I considered McNamara to be reasonable and clear about his views, and not just claiming it off his own back, as he did bother to interview the Vietnamese, which is now a socialist and pro-democratic country, and he WAS the Secretary of State, and yet come out against the US. You cannot testify that your mother is innocent, because it is natural to protect her. But you CAN testify that she is guilty. In this situation, since he was privy to the views of leaders of the US during the war, and the documentation that the war was based on, and he's testifying against the US, it's like you testifying against your mother, based on things she was accused of doing, when you lived with her. It's valid testimony, and believable.
In the first place, the french had been fighting with what became the South Vienamese long before we go there. The Irish were fighting with the British in what became Northern Ireland, long before The Troubles. Does that mean the IRA were communists?
Now the "other side' of this battle was equipped with what type of armament? AK47's, They're the most popular gun in the world. You could probably find them used in the attacks of the IRA.
chinese and soviet tanks and artillery. I don't know about that. That might suggest that the country was involving Chinese and Russians. But that depends on whether these were arms sales, or acutal involvement. After all, half the goods in Britain say "Made in China" on them. Doesn't mean any of the people who buy them are card-carrying communists. Many are capitalists, and that's why they buy Chinese. Chinese is cheaper.
What was the civil war about in the US? Mostly states right to have slaves. Actually, it was an American who told me that the South were rebelling against unfair taxation, as they were being forced to carry most of the tax, and that got voted in, because most of the people and the states were in the Union. I believe that "no taxation without representation" was the basis of the American Revolution.
As far as slavery goes, I agree that was a factor. However, from what I've read, in most cases, when the slaves were freed, they just went back to working for their old masters like before, except that this time, they were paid, but had to pay for lodgings, whileas before they weren't paid, but didn't have to pay for lodgings. It improved their situation. But it wasn't quite the massive change in racial discrimination that it was made out to be. That level of change happened in the 60s, with the fight for civil rights.
What was the civil war in Viet Nam about? It was about the country becoming COMMUNIST. And you want to tell me that the chinese didn't have any interest in that? So Americans have a vested interest in the world becoming capitalist?
In the first place the communist chinese had proven that they were merciless, as they were on their way to killing how many MILLIONS of their own people in order to establish a socialist paradise? I gather that many millions died, in the Great Leap Forwards, to change the economy from an agricultural opium-based one, to one that produced rice and many modern goods. But that seems to be mostly a result of miscalculation of the effects of political decisions, rather like the decision to base the American dollar on oil and outsourcing Western goods to come from the Far East. Both of those are set to come back and bite us on the bum.
Mind you, I've considered the American Civil War, and realised that given how the African-American slaves did NOT run away from their masters when freed, they couldn't have been treated that badly as a whole, and that would mean that their Southern masters were not such ogres as they were painted out to be. So in reality, if negotiations were conducted with the South, I'm sure that something reasonable could have been worked out, that could have resulted in the freedom of African slaves, maybe not right away, but maybe over a period of 20 years, to adjust their employment laws, and find willing voluntary workers with the abolition of taxes against the South in compensation, and a rule that 2/3rds of new healthy immigrants had to move to the South and not the North. That could have worked, provided that the Union gave full credit for the changes to the Confederacy, and that the Union was its lesser and weaker self. Really, I suspect that had a settlement been desired by the North, it could have been achieved easily. But, as with most conflicts involving Americans or involving Brits, they would rather kill than share. America was founded by Brits, after all, and it is part of the nature of Brits to want to kill others and take what they want. I'm not sure. But if there is even the slightest possibility, then over half a million died for lack of negotiation. I'd call that merciless. Would you?
What I find interesting is that when Mcnamara was prosecuting the war, there were those who said that he could not be believed whatsoever, after all, look at the Gulf of Tonkin. BUT, now that is saying what some people want to hear, he is their source of information. So Mcnamara said that he believed that there was no chinese communist influence????????? ARE YOU KIDDING? I agree that McNamara screwed up. He admitted that he didn't notify Johnson immediately when things started to look like his earlier decision to attack was becoming questionable. Maybe that's why he said what he did. He knows first-hand that the administration assumed that the Vietnamese were far more in favour of anti-American behaviour than they actually were, and he screwed up based on that assumption. He's learned by experience. From what I've been told, it's the best teacher.
Do you want proof? What happened to that country AFTER we left???? Basically a communist purge. Not as bad as Laos, but not far behind. A bit of sources might be useful, like a link to a site that discusses the exact dates, and numbers we are dealing with, and the exact groups committing the killing, and open declarations of those groups' intents.
In Southern California, we had HUGE influx of Viet Namese after we left them high and dry, HUGE. AND, almost all of them had the same story; they had to get out, because people were being killed INDISCRIMINATLY....... This is from the folks who left, not a "journalist' who asked some questions, and then wrote the article like he thought it should be written. There is an area here that has actually been renamed "Little Siagon", There is even a freeway sign telling you that this is the right exit for it. We have an even bigger influx of Indians over here. You cannot find a "Little India" in the UK, because there are too many Indians on every street. But there are places like Rusholme in Manchester, nicknamed The Curry Mile, because almost every street is an Indian Restaurant, staffed almost exclusively by Indians. You can find similar influxes from almost every country previously controlled by the British, and you can find many of such immigrants seeking asylum, because asylum to escape torture and death is a guarantee of entry. However, this has become a real problem, because there are so many economic migrants, that many claiming asylum are not in fear of their life at all, but are simply escaping the poverty of their own country, and use it as an excuse to ensure entry. This has become such a problem, that now the UK has to examine each case of asylum seekers very carefully.
We also have a problem that when countries have previous groups expunged, like South Africa with apartheid, that forms a vacuum, that allows extremely brutal criminals to take over. That happened in Russia after the fall of the U.S.S.R., and that happened in South Africa after the fall of apartheid. So we have to be very careful to distinguish between what happened as a result of invasions causing a power vacuum to be filled by nefarious elements, and what happened
Also, Wikipedia seems to disagree:
After April 30, 1975, unlike the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath", but most government officials and military personnel were sent to reeducation camps. Nevertheless, many North Vietnamese soldiers and cadres began to realize that they had been indoctrinated into thinking that the South Vietnamese people were utterly poor and exploited by the imperialists and foreign capitalists and treated like slaves. Contradictory to what they were taught, they saw an abundance of food and consumer goods, fashionable clothes, plenty of books and music; things that were hard to get in the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam#Socialism_after_1975
That's not a proof. But I'm going to need something reliable, to disagree with the above, and, if you are right, then you will be able to provide 20 objective sources, although only a few will suffice.
The belief that communism was spreading and had to be stopped was right. Just look at the map of that area of the world in 5 year increments starting in the early 20th century, and then tell me that is not true. What is very interesting is if you were to talk to Vietnamese who actually left Viet Nam during the time we cut and ran, you will see that they have no idea why there are so many people who think that our involvment ther is considered an evil thing. Yet, we have a population here who believes that our involvement there was one of the most evil things we have ever done. There is the exact same confusion about the wars in Israel. Ask any Arab who remembers what it was like in Israel pre-48, and they'll tell it it's a paradise for them compared to them. You can even see their former homes in the country, where I used to live. A single-storey square stone building, not even big enough for a studio flat, with no running water, no electricity, no roads, not even a semblance of old roads. Even black and white pictures that my parents had from the 60s show that the major roads in major cities like Jabotinsky in Tel Aviv were just sand tracks. Their lives are transformed beyond all recognition. But ask many who don't remember what it was like then, and who say that the Israelis only wanted to oppress the Arabs. They don't know any Arabs from when the lands were mostly controlled by Arabs.
So I can sympathise with your claims. But you can understand why I'd like a bit more in the way of proof. I never did, because I never questioned if there was another side. But now that I've been shown that the views of the Vietnam War are not universal, I need something more substantial to prove things conclusively.
You really should ask those who were indigeonous to the area what THEY thought, ask the ones who risked life and limb to come to this chithole called America, at least it is a chithole according to some, and because they were there, can tell you the TRUTH. Nobody wants to leave the country where they were born, but there are times that you have to, and you are always sad to leave, and the biggest slap in the face to those who suffered so much just to get here, is to be told that it was "just a civil war". OK. Point me in the direction of some vietnamese who were there during the war, maybe even a forum devoted to vietnamese survivors of the war. I'll happily correspond with them. I'm always open to learn.
In a nutshell, what you've written is a lot of different points, all of which have a lot of possible conclusions, and you've only taken one consistent view to them all, that being what the American Union did, was always right, and everyone else on the planet are serial killers. It's not possible, as most of them WERE everyone else on the planet. Your country is full of immigrants and descendants of immigrants. These arguments don't really support your views, but merely MIGHT. ONE good argument would be enough, and I'm having trouble finding ONE.
But, as you pointed out, I'd be much, much better off speaking to native Vietnamese who were there during the conflict. I'm sure that there have to be some that have access to the internet. Some belong to America. But they can naturally be expected to be biased towards America. What we really need, is Vietnamese who were there during the war, who still are, and who say that the war was always about communism, and nothing else. Please, point me in their direction. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/1/2009 3:33:45 PM | I brought up Vietnam because I do see some interesting parralells between the two wars.
JSlade, You're point was a given. But what I was looking for, from your experience, and if you had the President's ear, is how would keep the situation from spinning out of control.
Earth puppy, some of the points that you brought in you post I have to agree with. Corruption is a huge problem. Getting the "leaders" to even show up for a meeting from my experience has been a challenge. Afganistan has a unique situation with the leaders "kidnaping" people then "negotiating" for the family for the caputured individual's release.
Much of the problem with infastructure and unemployment have to do with forgein sabotage. The reason that the "surge" worked is that the American presence was able to control more civil structures, to aid in the rebuilding of the nation. Afganistan has again is a different problem, where the Iraq model can't be used successfully. There is too my sparsity between population centers. We have to be careful not to mix the two theathers of war, with unique situations.
Moving Armies takes time. So assume that 18-36 month window of warfighting to withdraw troops. What solutions would you recommend.
We can all agree those that fight or fought wars are the last to want to engague in them. | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/2/2009 11:56:44 AM |
In the first place, the french had been fighting with what became the South Vienamese long before we go there.
No........not quite right.
Many, many centuries ago the Viet people were an ethnic minority of China. They were abused by the ethnic majority Han people and so fled south to what we now call Viet-nam. (Nam means South in Vietnamese) There the Viet people established their own empire with its heart in the ancient imperial capital of Hue where their emperors sat in their Forbidden City very much like the original Han Forbidden City in Imperial China. They had sovereignty over all of Viet-nam.
Fast forward...........................
Since 1859 France had been fighting the Vietnamese and Cambodian Résistance Movements in their initial attempts at conquering the region. In 1888 the French succeeded and Vietnam and Cambodia became French Colonies. Laos also capitulated to the French onslaught and was added to the French Colonies making up the tripartite region of Indochina. The Résistance Movements never ceased, making it a hard slog for the French Colonists from 1888 to 1941. The strongest faction of the Résistance was the Viet Minh, the forerunner of the NVA.
WW2 cropped up and France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Back in the Indochinese Colonies the French Colonial Masters morphed into the Vichy French closely allied to the Axis Powers so when the Japanese invaded Indochina, the French collaborated making the job much easier for Japan. With the Allied Counter Invasions of Europe successful in ousting the Germans from France, the Japanese lost trust in the Vichy French Colonists and interned the lot of them taking direct control themselves.
In order to gain the trust of the Vietnamese people, Japan promised to handover control back to the Vietnamese people. As a precursor to that promise, Japan re-established the Empire of Vietnam under the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, the last Emperor of Vietnam. Although a Japanese puppet, he controlled the whole of Vietnam.
1945 saw the defeat of Japan by the Allies and the rise of the Viet Minh whom took control of the whole of Vietnam in what was popularly called the “August Revolution” which had popular support throughout the Vietnamese population. The leader of the Viet Minh was Ho Chi Minh whom was admired throughout Vietnam and usually referred to as Bac Ho meaning Uncle Ho. HCM was to later declare for all the Vietnamese people the Independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam and pleaded to the Allies for recognition of his people’s sovereignty.
However the victors of WW2, UK, USA and the USSR had already decided that Indochina was to be returned to French Colonial power. But France was decimated by WW2 and did not have the assets or logistics to re-take Vietnam so the British invaded South Vietnam, liberated the Vichy French that were interned, set free the Japanese that had surrendered, re-armed them both and drafted them into the re-taking of South Vietnam. The Nationalist Chinese Army was allocated the task of re-taking the North. The French re-armed by the US were once again in control of the whole of Vietnam and in 1946 ousted the Viet Minh from Hanoi and voila the first Indochinese War had begun.
The war spread to Cambodia and Laos, that plus the 1949 victory of Mao Tzu Tung in the Chinese Civil War against opium and foreign dominance of its land saw the beginnings of the Cold War in earnest. The Viet Minh campaigns against the US armed French were hampered by a lack of weapons which was soon remedied by PRC/USSR supplies. Although Ho Chi Minh loathed having to accept weapons assistance from an old Viet foe the PRC and their ally the USSR, he nonetheless did as the battle to return Vietnam to the Vietnamese was paramount.
When war broke out on the Korean Peninsula US spin doctors began writing their theories on world domination as directed from Moscow. Fear of “Eastern Block” dominance spread like wildfire. By 1954 the US had become the primary supplier of arms and finance in the campaign to get the French re-installed as the Colonial Power of Indochina. The cost later blew out to over 80% financed by the USA. The US with Eisenhower/Nixon at the helm even planned the use of 3 nuclear strikes against Viet Minh positions so Cuba wasn’t the only country the US was willing to use its newly acquired nuclear capabilities on.
The Viet Minh military led by their shrewd General Vo Nguyen Giap delivered an astonishing defeat of the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, near the Lao boarder at which the French Garrison surrendered. At the subsequent Geneva Conference the French negotiated a ceasefire agreement with the Viet Minh and independence was granted to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Under the negotiated Geneva terms, Vietnam was temporary partitioned at the 17th parallel. By 1956 the French military had fully withdrawn from Indochina.
Under the Geneva Terms, elections were to be conducted but the South Vietnamese Gov’t bolstered by the USA under the influence of its own created propaganda of “The Domino Theory”, abrogated and so no elections were held. A PRC, USSR souring of relations encouraged the USA to insist on Hanoi accepting the partitioning of Vietnam as permanent, of which Hanoi would not. From then onwards the US increased its physical involvement in Vietnam and the rest......we all know.....is so well covered in the historical documentaries of such immortals as Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone. Oh....and of course Francis Ford Coppola.
In conclusion and using your style of analogy can you not see who the bad guy is in this scenario? | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/2/2009 12:04:49 PM | Hey scorpion
You ask for proof, and tell quote to me from wikipedia, when I have conversations with people that ACTUALLY LIVED IT, and you would rather believe wikipedia? IF there were no reprisals going on, no killings as happened in Laos, are all of the Viet Namese that left family and everything behind to escape crazy?
You wrote:
"I gather that many millions died, in the Great Leap Forwards, to change the economy from an agricultural opium-based one,"
Congrats, you get the award for the understatement of the century....... The closest numbers that anybody will admit to are over 30MILLION. And, they did this to change from an opium based economy to a rice based economy? The people died because they got in the way of the change to mao tse tungs vaunted communism........... Proof? Did he kill everybody? NOPE, just those who didn't want to go along with the new system. I am sure there were those who got away.
you wrote:
"Actually, it was an American who told me that the South were rebelling against unfair taxation, as they were being forced to carry most of the tax, and that got voted in, because most of the people and the states were in the Union. I believe that "no taxation without representation" was the basis of the American Revolution."
where do I start............. First..... ALL the states were in the union. The ones that wanted to cecede just happened to be in the south. The taxes that you refer to were FEDERAL taxes, and that is levied the SAME to all the states. I am sure that he probably read it in wikipedia.......................
I won't even go into jews/arabs................ that one will never be solved.
One more thing. You are absolutely right when you say that those Viet Namese who imigrated here would be biased towards the US, as they have seen what the other side really is, in stead of having talked to one American, or read about it on wikipedia. If you were to talk to them, you would get a whole different story. When the masses of Viet Namese came pouring in to the Southern California area, at first I looked at them as interlopers, and avoided them as much as possible. After talking to some of them, I realized that they considered the US to be the last bastion of freedom, and were willing to take whatever we dished out at first in order to live here, and raise their families here. Now, I consider the ones who came here after we left Viet Nam as courageous, and very patriotic citizens. Yes, they do become citizens as soon as possible. I ask them why they all live in their own communities, instead of elsewhere, and the most often spoken answer to that question is that they are educationg their children, and thye want their children to be AMERICANS.
Finally, you wrote:
"So Americans have a vested interest in the world becoming capitalist?"
No less than the communist world has a vested interest in the world becoming communist. Do yourself a favor, and look a map of the world in 5 year increments, starting in 1900............. and then tell me that commnism hasn't spread. AND, show me just ONE socialist/communist country where people are actually prosperous, and have the OPPURTUNITIES that a capitalist country affords you........ All I ask for is ONE.............
Paul K | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:04:52 PM | Hey chinny
What is see is what actually happened. BEFORE the US left the Viet Namese to their own devices, the Viet Namese could have LEFT AT ANY TIME, but didn't, except in very small numbers. After we, the US, ran from the fight, a funny thing happened. Do you remember the term "Boat People"?
As far as who is right in this disagreement, while you have laid out a reasonable history of the area, your conclusion is wrong, on two points. Number One, the people who lived there are the ONLY ones that should make the final judgement as to who was right or wrong, and Number Two, they voted with their feet........ they got the FU#% out of Dodge, as many as could. Now what does that tell you? If it was so great, why did they risk life, and many died, to GET OUT? I know, they couldn't stand the thought of living in the soon to be paradise that always happens when socialists/communists take over.
The only thing that ho chi minh returned to the Vietnamese people was a communist $hithole, where those could get out, did. To place HCM on a pedastal is unbelievable.
Paul K
Paul K | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:44:18 PM | Not sure where you seek your history Paul, but Vietnam was like most wars, where those who sided with the wrong invader suffered the consequences and found it easier to leave. We had a good support team here to bring the losing side over, as long as they were sufficiently converted enough. We created the Khmer Rouge by our presence in the region, much like we've created the growth of al-Quaeda today in the middle East with our presence, and the resurgence of the Taliban in their lands. Before they are over, our Vietnams in the Middle East will have affected as many millions or more than we did in our Vietnam empire dreams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23history.html
As far as the ....hole that you refer to Vietnam as, they are a willing trading partner now, and most Vietnamese have moved well on past the animosity of the past that you hold dear. From my fellow Veterans and others who have returned, there is a very different version of the Vietnamese, and their subsequent renewal after our years of bombing. The Vietnamese I know distinguish between the politicians and the people who caused the war and suffered from it, much like all wars, our new ones included.
Here is but one different version of Vietnam..
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/29/books/books-of-the-times-despite-all-vietnam-still-likes-americans.html | |
|
| Is Iraq really free now?
Posted: 11/3/2009 4:47:09 PM | Al-Quaeda, means the base a loose confederation of Islamists. Such members could be The JUI, Hammas, Hezbolah, Muslim Brotherhood, pick your favorite Terrorist organization, or symphatizers. Al-Quaeda has been around since the 1920's with the birth of the modern terrorist organization. It was just formalized under Usuma-bin -Laden when he networked these organizations.
Tali-ban Rough Translation is Student Movement. This was an organization, that was formed under Mullah Omar circa 1990, in response to the Muhjadin trying to establish a Arab Caliphate in Afganistan. Omar a neophyte student of the Qu'ran, and Shuria law tried to establish a government based on the tennets of Islam as he understood them. He would study in breaks in the fighting with the Soviets, in Pakistan. At the Red Mosque in the NWP. The major dysfunction of his Government was his own paronia and self-endgrandisment (He thinks he is the leader of all the Muslim people) after wearing the cloak of the Prophet. He would have is Minster's and Generals be the same people. If someone was being too successful in one area he would move them to another, where they couldn't establish any power base or govern.
A good book about the country prior to the GWOT is Taliban, 2000 | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
