John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Patroklos]

We could've actually spent the money Congress allocated for reconstruction (we used their oil revenues, for the most part)

You mean the Iraqi's used there own resources to help themselves, investing in their own future and able to point at the fact that they finaced their recovery? Were is the bad here, glad we did this. We used the money to cover our end, theirs for their end.

to contract out to Iraq businesses and Iraqi workers, rather than give out corporate welfare with these oil revenues to some notoriously antiunion American firms

You mean the nonexistant Iraq firms that are incapable of doing what is nessasary. Of course the vast majority of the workers are Iraqi, unfortunetly their engineers and such fled as soon as possible. The only thing you really have against Haliburton is that they are a "corporation," wich despite being entities responisble for our way of life have some how been equated with "devil."

Not sure where the union is coming from, I guess current events bleeding in. The last thing Iraq needs is labor unions, that is the later phase of economic development (shouldn't skip steps).

We could've supported democracy in Iraq, instead of handing out power exclusively to corrupt exiles

Agree but again what we want not what we can. We had no idea who these elusive better leaders you speak of were at the time, still don't. Easy answer, there are none. Of course we could have held elections in each town as we overran it, I don't think the results would be encouraging.

who used that power took over large parts of the Iraqi economy.

As has been said, anyone smart enough to lead an economy was either part of the last one, or fled. Seems perfectly reasonable they shoulds run it. Corruption yes, but what do you expect, they just had a war!

We could've opposed militas, instead of having an idiotic policy towards them, even importing the Badr Corps from Iran.

Agree with you, but can you imagine the bloodshed there. I can handle it, how about the average whiny American though.

We could've supported Iraqi freedom of press, instead of squashing the Sadrist paper, which set off their rebellion (in addition to the various other aforemented actions).

Again you are skipping steps. There was abviously more important things than freedom of the press, like functioning utilities and whatnot. In due time. As if that would have made any difference to Sadr, that revolt was coming regardless. Nevermind he was accused by Iraqis of assasination. But I will go with you, keep freedom of press, assasinate Sadr.


Alot of this is because we assume the Iraqis are a peace loving, advance people eager to lift themselves out of the mess given too them. No one ever stops consider that maybe they are not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
I guess sour grapes to the hundreds of thousands of Cambodian civilians who were killed from the bombing, as well.

This is pure conjecture and communist propaganda.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What's your point? I didn't say that shouldn't have done it, if one ignores the point that the U.S. shouldn't have been in Vietnam at all. Now if Nicaragua used the Cambodia precident as justification and invaded Honduras to clear out the Contras, the U.S. would have used it as a pretext to invade Nicaragua. But that's perogative of superpower. It's nothing to do with international law.

You also ignore the point that our intervention directly led to the collapse of the Sianook monarchy (not that I give a **** about monarchs) and the establishment of a military dictatorship, which led to a massive increase in the Kmher Rouge's popularity, which led to the killing fields. Plus we killed half a million Cambodeans.

As I'm not a nationalist, I don't think trading half a million Cambodians for a few hundred Americans is right.

I think you got you time sequence backwards.

[chequita guevara]

I remember an old Dunesberry about the secret bombing. BJ had been shot down and was wandering around with a guy from the Pathet Lao in Laos (which we were also secretly bombing, turning the Plain of Jars into a plain of craters). Anyway, Phred mentions it's two o'clock, time for the bombing, and BJ says the bombing's supposed to be a secret. Phred is like, secret to who?

Ned, bombing from 10,000 is pretty indiscriminate. B-52s don't just take out Commies. They also take out whole villages who have nothing to do with the war. That's why we killed half a million Cambodians, as well as two million Vietnamese. We destroyed whole ecosystems. An area the size of Massachusetts was turned into a desert in Vietnam. That doesn't happen with pinpoint accuracy.

When you consider the miniscule numbers of troops and supplies coming down the Ho Chi Min trail, the effort we put in to interdicting it and the damage that resulted from it weren't worth it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I think you got you time sequence backwards.

By intervention I'm including the bombings, not just whe our troops crossed the border.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
This is pure conjecture and communist propaganda.

It's not conjecture, even if it is commie propaganda. When the U.S. kills half a million people, it makes for excellent propaganda for the commies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
The main problem I have with intervening (bombing or otherwise) in a neutral country in order to interdict enemy supply lines in an ongoing war is that it shouldn't have been secret. To me, it's perfectly understandable the we would wish to stop the NVs from using Cambodia against us. So we shoudl've announced that if they keep doing it, and the Cambodians can't stop them, we will do it for them. Provided Congress would approve it. If not, no-go. Congress exists for a reason. You know, that whole "checks and balances" thing?

-Arrian

Arrian, I strongly disagree. A commander in chief has full authority to conduct a war in a manner to win it and to protect the troops. When an enemy is basing in a so-called neutral country, that country is no longer neutral. It either supports interdiction or it becomes and enemy.

In Cambodia's case, it became an ally.

[Patroklos]

I am sure it was less that 500,000 Cambodians killed, and I assure you it saved American lives in the thousands.

Of course Cambodia could have stopped the NVA from entering their territory, but hell why shoud Cambodians be responsible for anything. Apparently only Americans should be respsible for national actions, and then only if your Republican.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


We never bombed "Cambodia." We bombed communist troops, bases and supply lines. You make it seem as if we were bombing our allies in support of the communists.

Let me guess, with pinpoint accuracy, using bombs that were careful not to kill Cambodians, only nasty North Vietnamese types.


Pretty advanced machinery of war you have there Ned.


But then you didn't want to believe your uncle might have bombed civilians in WWII.

Tell me, how exactly from the vantage point of a B-52 do you accurately distinguish between a Cambodian village by the Mekong and a Communist supply point?

When the idea surely, was that they looked entirely similar?

Or are you suggesting that the Viet Cong and North Viet Namese troops put conveniently large targets overhead, saying:

'We love you long time, you bomb us' ?

[Arrian]

Arrian, I strongly disagree. A commander in chief has full authority to conduct a war in a manner to win it and to protect the troops.

When you start crossing those annoying lines on the map, Ned, I believe it is time for Congress to have a say. In this case, I do not see how being open about interdicting supply lines in Cambodia would've hurt us. It's not like the NVA didn't know we were trying to bomb them. The only reason for the secrecy was to get around Congress, and that's bull****.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

You mean the Iraqi's used there own resources to help themselves, investing in their own future and able to point at the fact that they finaced their recovery? Were is the bad here, glad we did this. We used the money to cover our end, theirs for their end.

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that we used their oil revenues to fund our corporate welfare. They didn't have any input on how the reconstruction funds were disbursed. We gave corporate welfare to our businesses, and had the Iraqis foot the bill.

You mean the nonexistant Iraq firms that are incapable of doing what is nessasary.

Except they were there. And they were offering their services at far lower prices than those we contracted.

Of course the vast majority of the workers are Iraqi,

Lots of businesses that we contracted imported their workers from other places (East Asia, India, etc.), so they would have less bargaining ability than Iraqi workers.

unfortunetly their engineers and such fled as soon as possible.

What are you talking about?

The only thing you really have against Haliburton is that they are a "corporation," wich despite being entities responisble for our way of life have some how been equated with "devil."

No. The big problem is that it's been given massive corporate welfare out of the Iraqis' pockets.

Not sure where the union is coming from, I guess current events bleeding in. The last thing Iraq needs is labor unions, that is the later phase of economic development (shouldn't skip steps).

Labor unions are about economic justice. At a time when workers are being ****ed over, they're especially needed. And there are no "steps." Again, we've been using Saddam's own laws to crush labor unions.

Agree but again what we want not what we can. We had no idea who these elusive better leaders you speak of were at the time, still don't.

Sistani, for example, has been an excellent leader.

Of course we could have held elections in each town as we overran it, I don't think the results would be encouraging.

That's what democracy is about (as for holding elections as we overrun a town, I don't know what you're on about). It doesn't matter if we don't like the results. Besides the intrinsic value of democracy, this would've been the single thing that could've quelled the Shia insurgency (and it'd help in other areas of Iraq).

As has been said, anyone smart enough to lead an economy was either part of the last one, or fled.

And you base that bald assertion on what?

This is a very educated society.

Corruption yes, but what do you expect, they just had a war!

There would've been less corruption if we didn't hand over the economy to a man convicted of bank fraud.

Agree with you, but can you imagine the bloodshed there. I can handle it, how about the average whiny American though.

Not very much bloodshed would be needed. Not importing the Badr Corps doesn't take any bloodshed. Not giving these relatively small, unpopular groups police powers doesn't take any bloodshed.

As if that would have made any difference to Sadr, that revolt was coming regardless. Nevermind he was accused by Iraqis of assasination. But I will go with you, keep freedom of press, assasinate Sadr.

Assassinating him would've been foolish, arresting him (before he grew so powerful) would've been fine.

Alot of this is because we assume the Iraqis are a peace loving, advance people eager to lift themselves out of the mess given too them. No one ever stops consider that maybe they are not.

No, it's because we gave power exclusively to the elites and undermined democracy and freedom at every turn. They're not happy to be ****ed over by Chalabis and Allawis that we impose on them.

[Patroklos]

So we illegally bombed Cambodia and Kerry said he was there, so what should his prison term be. We could hang him I guess...

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I'm not a fan of Kerry- but I'm not a fan of Ned's version of history either.


If he doesn't want the conduct of the Nixon administration brought up, he should stop whitewashing it.



And it's clear he's never heard of Anna Chennault.

Oh and Ned- the covert/illegal/secret bombing of Cambodia stimulated support for the Khmer Rouge.

I must say, covertly bombing the civilian population of a country you're not at war with is an odd way of trying to stop an insurgency and win friends and influence people.


Perhaps to win hearts and minds in Iraq you should try it in Jordan.




I swear, Ned, you just make this Nedaverse history up as you go along.

You are too much, Molly. Revisionist!

The Khmer were supported by North Vietnam, not by the people of Cambodia. "Support" for the Khmer increased alright, but it was support from North Vietnam after the overthrow of Sihanouk. The "bombing" had nothing to do with this "support" as the "support" had nothing to do with the people of Cambodia.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's not conjecture, even if it is commie propaganda. When the U.S. kills half a million people, it makes for excellent propaganda for the commies.

If we even killed close to that in terms of NVA and Khmer body count, the bombing would be considered to be successful. I doubt whether we ever go more than 10,000 commies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I remember an old Dunesberry about the secret bombing. BJ had been shot down and was wandering around with a guy from the Pathet Lao in Laos (which we were also secretly bombing, turning the Plain of Jars into a plain of craters). Anyway, Phred mentions it's two o'clock, time for the bombing, and BJ says the bombing's supposed to be a secret. Phred is like, secret to who?

Ned, bombing from 10,000 is pretty indiscriminate. B-52s don't just take out Commies. They also take out whole villages who have nothing to do with the war. That's why we killed half a million Cambodians, as well as two million Vietnamese. We destroyed whole ecosystems. An area the size of Massachusetts was turned into a desert in Vietnam. That doesn't happen with pinpoint accuracy.

When you consider the miniscule numbers of troops and supplies coming down the Ho Chi Min trail, the effort we put in to interdicting it and the damage that resulted from it weren't worth it.

Wildly inflated, of course. Even when bombing troops, we were nowhere near as effective as you claim.