Iraq: Al Qaeda's Vietnam!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

All accurate there Gaffer.

Personally I don't think we should have ever helped Diem. Maybe if we didn't go and defend a dictatorship from Communists we would have been more able to go into Cambodia and stop the mass killing.

And maybe if we stuck our heads in the sand throughout history, we would still live in freedom and democracy in America? You are such an idiot! No, we shouldn't help anybody! We should've allowed the fucking Nazi's, Communists, Islamists, Pol Pot, or whothefuck ever, to just run roughshod over the people and dominate the goddamn world! That would make us safer in the long run, wouldn't it? You moron!

The mass killings in Cambodia happened as a result of our withdrawal from Vietnam!

 

[IHateGovernment]

And maybe if we stuck our heads in the sand throughout history, we would still live in freedom and democracy in America?

Ok Mr. Straw. I didn't know that saying we should not have helped Diem meant sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring everything.

Thats real classy to call names too. I didn't know that disagreement with you meant one was an idiot and a moron.

Before you call people names why don't you read history before you make such wild claims like the american withdrawal caused the Pol Pot exterminations?

Here's the background for that:

The king of Cambodia during most of the Vietnam were persued a policy of neutrality. In 1970 the US backed Lon Nol in a coup. Lon Nol was a pro western pro south Vietnam politician. King Sihanouk sided with the Khmer Rouge rebels against the Lon Nol government.

Without the coup by Lon Nol and the continuation of the status quo Pol Pot never would have come to power. So its actually closer to being the opposite of what you have said. A lack of American involvement there would have prevented the ascendancy of Pol Pot.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Instead of a rant filled with insults and exclamation points why don't you calmly tell me why it was important to assist the Diem government?

 

[Prakosh]

And maybe if we stuck our heads in the sand throughout history, we would still live in freedom and democracy in America?

Ok Mr. Straw. I didn't know that saying we should not have helped Diem meant sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring everything.

Thats real classy to call names too. I didn't know that disagreement with you meant one was an idiot and a moron.

Before you call people names why don't you read history before you make such wild claims like the american withdrawal caused the Pol Pot exterminations?

Here's the background for that:

The king of Cambodia during most of the Vietnam were persued a policy of neutrality. In 1970 the US backed Lon Nol in a coup. Lon Nol was a pro western pro south Vietnam politician. King Sihanouk sided with the Khmer Rouge rebels against the Lon Nol government.

Without the coup by Lon Nol and the continuation of the status quo Pol Pot never would have come to power. So its actually closer to being the opposite of what you have said. A lack of American involvement there would have prevented the ascendancy of Pol Pot.

Everybody here who disagrees with the great Dixie is an idiot, a moron, and a complete fool to the great flag wrapped Dixie, except Dixie, who as he will tell you again and again is very smart, not smart enough to conduct a conversation without name-calling but that must require a genius rather than just someone who is only "smart." Every time I read one of his posts about how stupid we all are, I can't help but wonder what it would be like to be his wife or worse one of his children. They must have really high self esteem coming from an environment dominated by this kind of mentality.

 

[uscitizen]

You never know, dixie might be living a fantasy on here and in real life is a meek wimpy yes dear guy
And takes all his frustrations out on us.

 

[Cypress]

And maybe if we stuck our heads in the sand throughout history, we would still live in freedom and democracy in America?

Ok Mr. Straw. I didn't know that saying we should not have helped Diem meant sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring everything.

Thats real classy to call names too. I didn't know that disagreement with you meant one was an idiot and a moron.

Before you call people names why don't you read history before you make such wild claims like the american withdrawal caused the Pol Pot exterminations?

Here's the background for that:

The king of Cambodia during most of the Vietnam were persued a policy of neutrality. In 1970 the US backed Lon Nol in a coup. Lon Nol was a pro western pro south Vietnam politician. King Sihanouk sided with the Khmer Rouge rebels against the Lon Nol government.

Without the coup by Lon Nol and the continuation of the status quo Pol Pot never would have come to power. So its actually closer to being the opposite of what you have said. A lack of American involvement there would have prevented the ascendancy of Pol Pot.

It's pointless to teach Dixie any history.

He learns his history from the Drudge report.

 

[uscitizen]

I think the drudge report is far too liberal foe dixie. It is actually far better than fox. I think Dixie is a Rush boy

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Instead of a rant filled with insults and exclamation points why don't you calmly tell me why it was important to assist the Diem government?

You know, at least you do present some semblance of intelligence, unlike your buddies, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb. I don't want to get off into some long, drawn out debate over Vietnam, that was not the intention of this thread. I will say this, though, you have a rather diluted view of what happened in Vietnam. It all started after the fall of Japan in WWII, and for nearly 20 years, the French tried to keep a lid on it. Diem was dead and gone, long before LBJ even signed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, so I don't see where we assisted the Diem government to any great extent. Russia and China backed Uncle Ho, and Communism threatened to sweep the entire region.

For some unknown reason, you seem to think people prefer Communist oppression over democracy and freedom, and I think this is absurd. I'm not claiming So. Vietnam was a free democracy, but I damn sure never saw a free and democratic Communist government, have you? Eisenhower's 'Domino Theory' was the motivating factor for fighting the Communist forces in Vietnam, and after Korea and Vietnam, Cambodia was the next domino. Had we prevailed in Vietnam and Korea, Cambodia would have never produced a Pol Pot.

There is no way to argue the Vietnam War in a few paragraphs on a message board, and the long history behind the conflict, can't be simplified to the point you seem to want to. The bottom line is, we weren't wrong to fight Communist oppression and aggression, we were wrong in not fighting to win. The extension of your mind set, is precisely the problem we face today, an unwillingness to face the problem and defeat the bad guys, and this Pollyanna view that we can allow our enemies to dominate and control other parts of the world, without any consequence to ourselves.

 

[IHateGovernment]

You know, at least you do present some semblance of intelligence, unlike your buddies, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb. I don't want to get off into some long, drawn out debate over Vietnam, that was not the intention of this thread. I will say this, though, you have a rather diluted view of what happened in Vietnam. It all started after the fall of Japan in WWII, and for nearly 20 years, the French tried to keep a lid on it. Diem was dead and gone, long before LBJ even signed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, so I don't see where we assisted the Diem government to any great extent. Russia and China backed Uncle Ho, and Communism threatened to sweep the entire region.

Yes Dixie thats right. Diem was assasinated with tacit approval by the US. However we were supporting Diem since the Eisenhower administration. Diem is the primary party responsible for the war however since he refused to allow South Vietnam to take part in the elections.


For some unknown reason, you seem to think people prefer Communist oppression over democracy and freedom, and I think this is absurd. I'm not claiming So. Vietnam was a free democracy, but I damn sure never saw a free and democratic Communist government, have you?

Actually Kerala Pradesh in India has consistently elected members from the Communist party so exceptions exist. Also in Vietnam especially in the north Ho Chi Minh was very popular and was seen as a father of the Vietnamese independence movement. If elections were held with North and South Ho's Communist party would have won the elections. This is why Diem refused to hold them because he knew he would have to relingquish power unto Ho.

Eisenhower's 'Domino Theory' was the motivating factor for fighting the Communist forces in Vietnam, and after Korea and Vietnam, Cambodia was the next domino. Had we prevailed in Vietnam and Korea, Cambodia would have never produced a Pol Pot.

Thats a chicken and the egg question. Did Vietnams success in taking over of the South aid Pol Pots rise to power or did the American involvement in the war lead to it. We can't say for certainty what would have happened had the US never backed Diem in the first place as soon as he refused to hold elections. At the time this happened in Vietnam King Sihanouk was the ruler of Cambodia. One can reasonably expect that he would have remained in power especially because of his popularity had the US not backed Lon Nol. Because of the coup of Lon Nol Sihanouk backed the Khmer Rouge no because the king was a Communist but because he saw them as the key to toppling Lon Nol.

Because of the Lon Nol regime China began providing the Khmer Rouge with more military support.

It is ironic then that it was the Vietnamese army who eventually deposed Pol Pot after he managed to depose Lon Nol.

We can speculate that had we not aided Diem the North Vietnamese would have taken over the south quickly and they would have then began aiding the Khmer Rouge. However it is likely that it would not have been Pol Pot who would have been backed as leader as the Vietnamese did not care for him and in our time line declared war on him because of abuses against ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia.

I would conclude that it is likely that without US backing South Vietnam would have fallen but Cambodia may not have and there most likely would not have been the killing fields there.

The Domino theory never really played out in practice. The communists prevailed in Indochina and created communist governments in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. However Communism did not spread from there even with our lack of involvement there. Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore did not become Communist.

The bottom line is, we weren't wrong to fight Communist oppression and aggression, we were wrong in not fighting to win.

I disagree I think we lose any moral authority when we back a party that is not willing to allow democracy. In the beginning it was the North that wanted democratic elections not the south. The south vietnamese government was the illegitimate government. Pure and simple we went in to prevent Communism not to support freedom or democracy. During the Cold War the US would support the most brutal of governments as long as they were pro west and anti communist. The Shah of Iran, Batiste of Cuba, Agosto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Suharto of Indonesia etc. The Cold war was a chess game between us and the Soviets for who would have more influence in the world. The battle was not over ideology but rather about being a client of the US or USSR. A nation that became communist became aligned with the USSR and/or PRC and this was unacceptable for American foreign policy but it is far from the "fighting the bad guys" paradigm you speak of.

The extension of your mind set, is precisely the problem we face today, an unwillingness to face the problem and defeat the bad guys, and this Pollyanna view that we can allow our enemies to dominate and control other parts of the world, without any consequence to ourselves.

I hardly see it as a polyanna view that the United States should stand up for Democracy and international law and not to back a dictator who refused to abide by the 1954 Geneva treaty by holding elections. I don't believe in an ends justify the mean foreign policy.

I believe America's strength lies in its moral authority as a defender of law and human rights one of those rights include being able to vote for who you wish including Communists.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where do you get the idea that we backed Diem? He was dead before we really became involved in Vietnam, and the only reason any support was realized by him, was because he represented the anti-communist element. Granted, he wasn't Yankee Fucking Doodle, but remember, this was during the Cold War, and Communist domination was a real threat.

The "elections" you keep mentioning, were an organized attempt between the Communists and French, to resolve the issue, but with rampant fraud, and overwhelming Communist influence, the election would have likely resulted in a Communist Vietnam, which was not in America's best interests at that time. What Diem's motivations were, are beside the point, really, we didn't go into Vietnam to keep Diem in power... he was DEAD! Our motivation was to keep Vietnam from falling to Communism.

As for your point about India, they are not a Communist government, they are a democracy. The US has elected Socialists, that doesn't mean we are a Socialist nation, nor does it mean we support Socialism.

Our positions on America's moral authority are similar, but you seem to think we should have ignored the spread of Communist oppression, and allowed it to flourish, because you think the people wanted to live under Communism. The So. Vietnamese wanted autonomy and independence, they didn't want Communism. Yes, it was a chess game between the Soviets and us, and the ideological difference in every case, was the US promotion of freedom and democracy, while the Soviets allowed the most brutal and oppressive regimes in history to slaughter millions.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Where do you get the idea that we backed Diem? He was dead before we really became involved in Vietnam, and the only reason any support was realized by him, was because he represented the anti-communist element. Granted, he wasn't Yankee Fucking Doodle, but remember, this was during the Cold War, and Communist domination was a real threat.

Dixie were you not aware that American involvement took place before the coup against Diem. JFK sent a small force of military advisors to train the ARVN to fight against the VC and VM. We also supplied them with weapons. It is true that our forces did not build up there until the Johnson administration but we were definitely involved beforehand.

The "elections" you keep mentioning, were an organized attempt between the Communists and French, to resolve the issue, but with rampant fraud, and overwhelming Communist influence, the election would have likely resulted in a Communist Vietnam, which was not in America's best interests at that time. What Diem's motivations were, are beside the point, really, we didn't go into Vietnam to keep Diem in power... he was DEAD! Our motivation was to keep Vietnam from falling to Communism.

You are arguing that the US was right to ignore the popular sovereignty of the Vietnamese people and to instead support a government which defied the popular will of the people. This is a difference between you and I. I support the right of the Vietnamese people to elect whatever kind of government they wish even if it meant it would align itself with the enemies of the United States. By the way it is also my opinion that had the United States not interfered Vietnam could have been an ally even though it was a Communist nation. Vietnam was a historical enemy of China and it is possible they would have collaborated with us against them. Ho Chi Minh also viewed the United States favorably and originally saw it as someone who would help his cause of independence.

However if you think that it is ok to topple governments because the politics of an elected government is acceptable than we will never agree on anything in this area of discussion. It would seem you are far more nationalist than I am.

As for your point about India, they are not a Communist government, they are a democracy. The US has elected Socialists, that doesn't mean we are a Socialist nation, nor does it mean we support Socialism.

India is a democratic nation. However India is a federal republic like the United States. Consider my example analogous to California electing a governor and state legislature from the communist party.

There has never been a Communist government on a nation state scale. Communism is a state that has no government at all it is leftwing anarchy. The Leninists and Maoists saw that Socialism is a necessary precursor to Communism. Even the Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is the intent of the Communist party in Kerala Pradesh to eventually be able to institute Communism on a local level or so they say anyway.

Our positions on America's moral authority are similar, but you seem to think we should have ignored the spread of Communist oppression, and allowed it to flourish, because you think the people wanted to live under Communism.

It seem a lot of people do want to though. Did you even see one of Hugo Chavez political rallies. Many people in the audience waved the hammer and sicle flag in the air. There are many people who want socialist transitions to communism. Granted I can't think of anyone that would voluntarily subject themselves to a Stalinist of Maoist type government. But often times when these people voted for Communism this is not what they expected to get. If people knew what they would get from Hitler do you think he would have been popularly supported.

The So. Vietnamese wanted autonomy and independence, they didn't want Communism.

That may be but according to the Geneva treaty S. Vietnam was to only be a temporary entity it has no historical grounding in being a separate country it didn't have a distinct ethnic makeup or culture. The treaty stated that the country was to be reunified at a later time and that the demarcation of the nation was not to confer separate nationhood status to north and south. In Politics rulers never wish to surrender power and submitting to the elections ensured that they would have to. It is also conceivable that he would receive large votes in the south because of his popularity. He was seen as a George Washington type figure and father of their independence movement.

Yes, it was a chess game between the Soviets and us, and the ideological difference in every case, was the US promotion of freedom and democracy, while the Soviets allowed the most brutal and oppressive regimes in history to slaughter millions.

It is ironic then that in order to promote democracy we stifled in in Vietnam. As far as freedom goes many of the nations we supported didn't support freedom at all they merely supported the west and capitalism. Freedom and democracy were not required.

The comparison of the Communist Bloc and the West was not a comparison of good vs. evil but rather really bad vs. bad.

Of course the Communists were worse. What happened in the Great Leap Forward, the Siberian Gulags, the Cultural revolution and the Killing fields are some of the most brutal acts in all of human history. But the regimes that we supported were not bastions of freedom and democracy. In fact we frequently defied the will of the people of foreign nations by installing leaders that would be friendly to us regardless of whether it defied the popular will of the people in that country. Examples include:

Installment of the Shaw. Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran was a socialist who wished to nationalize the oil of Iran. The US and Britain opposed this and helped the Shah overthrow him. Here we have the US toppling an elected head of state in favor of a Monarch who used brutal tactics against his people.

The overthrow of the elected government of Jabobo Arbenz by the CIA occured when his government tried to nationalize farms held by the United Fruit corporation. What followed was a military dictatorship which threw the country into civil war for 30 years. During this period the worst incidents of ethnic cleansing in Latin America occured primarily agains poor Mayans.

It is important to recognize that the cold war was not democracy vs. totalitarianianism. But rather capitalism vs. communism. Many of the coups the US instigated were to protect American business from nationalization by socialists/communists. This happened in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.

Trying to portray it as some idealistic battle of good guys vs. bad guys is way too simplistic.

I find this debate to be rather illuminating. If I cannot convince you that the Vietnam war was wrong with the benefit of being able to be 30 years from the events I have no hope of convincing you the current war in Iraq is wrong.

 

[Cypress]

I find this debate to be rather illuminating. If I cannot convince you that the Vietnam war was wrong with the benefit of being able to be 30 years from the events I have no hope of convincing you the current war in Iraq is wrong.

BINGO!

 

[Jarod]

I find this debate to be rather illuminating. If I cannot convince you that the Vietnam war was wrong with the benefit of being able to be 30 years from the events I have no hope of convincing you the current war in Iraq is wrong.

BINGO!

ROTFL

 

[AnyOldIron]

I've been crunching some numbers on the Iraq war lately, and I derived a startling conclusion. This war in Iraq, is al Qaeda's Vietnam. When you look at the number of alQaeda who have been killed or captured since the invasion, and compare it with the total number of alQaeda forces in the 'field of battle', it is remarkably similar to the ratio of fatalities we encountered during Vietnam. Not only that, but alQaeda has no 'base of support' or headquarters, like Saigon, to effectively control any aspect of the war. Unlike the incompetent Democratic administration which botched it in Vietnam, alQaeda is very intelligent and has compensated for the lack of military might, but they have encountered enormous losses, particularly in the area of field generals and leadership. In spite of haranguing from the left, the US and coalition forces, have managed to defeat alQaeda in every battle, and fully control most areas of the country, while eliminating the majority of effective alQaeda cells. Compound these losses with al Qaeda's losses in other theaters, and they have certainly been dealt a blow to their overall strength.

Iraq is al Qaeda's Vietnam, it is quickly becoming a quagmire they can't win, and they are reaching a point of not being able to withstand further losses. Recruitment might be on the rise, but in Vietnam, we had a draft, so fresh bodies were never an issue, it was the carnage of war... families concerned about their loved ones, or tired of grieving over the dead loves ones... Humanity kicked in, and people just wanted the killing to stop. Now, granted, alQaeda is a little short on Humanity, and it might take them longer to reach the point that we reached in Vietnam, but the power of humanity is inescapable, and sooner or later they will decide that Iraq is just not worth "winning" and they would do better to cut their losses and withdraw.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Right. Even when your own government states that Iraq has given AQ its best opportunity for recruitment, training and sourcing support for its cause, Dixie's fantasises that Iraq is a great success.

Dixie is such a delusional....

 

[AnyOldIron]

Dixie were you not aware that American involvement took place before the coup against Diem. JFK sent a small force of military advisors to train the ARVN to fight against the VC and VM. We also supplied them with weapons. It is true that our forces did not build up there until the Johnson administration but we were definitely involved beforehand.

Dixie is in need of reading Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American'.....