When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm surprised that anyone would still want to defend the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war of aggression against all the Vietnamese people, a people who had been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years.

You mean like the hundreds of thousands who fled S. Vietnam when the North took over? Were they some of the 'all Vietnamese'?

[RGBVideo]

You know, altough I don't usually read Agathon's posts (he's on my IgL), I have to agree with the quoted statement above.

Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

Imran:

Neoconservatives are telling the administration to go into Sudan to fix that mess. I don't really see any oil there.

NO, he [Rumsfeld] isn't [a neocon]. Rumsfeld is clearly a realist.

Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by VJ
Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

How do you jive that with what I quoted by Aggie?

[RGBVideo]

Agathon:
I'm surprised that anyone would still want to defend the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war of aggression against all the Vietnamese people, a people who had been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years.

VJ:
I have to agree with the quoted statement above. Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

To clarify my position: I'd be surprised, too, if anyone would still want to defend the communist terrorists fighting in the Vietnam war >30 years ago, for they were fighting an immoral war against the Vietnamese people, people who'd been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years btw.

[notyoueither]

Ohh. I see. The bit that you missed due to my clipping is that it is the Yanks who were making war against all Vietnamese people.

[RGBVideo]

Yeah, I guessed it. It is Agathon, after all. Just wanted to offer a different viewpoint to confuse him.

[Agathon]

To clarify my position: I'd be surprised, too, if anyone would still want to defend the communist terrorists fighting in the Vietnam war >30 years ago, for they were fighting an immoral war against the Vietnamese people, people who'd been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years btw.

They were on the side of the vast majority of Vietnamese. If you want to argue that a few people didn't like it and left, fine. But everyone knows they would have won the election slated for the first settlement, which is why the US sabotaged it.

Try going to school first, eh ****?

[Urban Ranger]

Relax, Aggie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

Read the thread. Neoconservatism can also be called 'Hard Wilsonianism', ie, spreading democracy and capitalism through the world by force if need be. It's the belief that talking about problems hasn't spread democracy, and we need to remove brutal dictators from their positions of power and institute democracy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

To clarify my position: I'd be surprised, too, if anyone would still want to defend the communist terrorists fighting in the Vietnam war >30 years ago, for they were fighting an immoral war against the Vietnamese people, people who'd been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years btw.

They were on the side of the vast majority of Vietnamese. If you want to argue that a few people didn't like it and left, fine. But everyone knows they would have won the election slated for the first settlement, which is why the US sabotaged it.

Actually, it was 'only' around a million people who had the gumption and money to pick up and leave. I don't have any numbers about how many didn't like the NV regime, but who stayed. Do you? Do you think the old rule about 1 letter written representing 10 who didn't bother would apply? 5? 20?

No matter how you slice it, the 'all Vietnamese' claim is not really defensible, is it? Nor is the My Lai was the tip of the iceburg, is it?

I don't have to be 'defending' Vietnam to say you are distrorting things, big time.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

Read the thread. Neoconservatism can also be called 'Hard Wilsonianism', ie, spreading democracy and capitalism through the world by force if need be. It's the belief that talking about problems hasn't spread democracy, and we need to remove brutal dictators from their positions of power and institute democracy.

Imran, i respect every persons right to believe what they feel is right - so i have no-problem with the fact that you call yourself a neo-conservitive.
But about the bit i've bolded; cant you see that therin lies a root problem?

My reasoning is that i would have no problem with this central neo-con belief if instead of installing democracies it was about installing dictatorships or something similar.
How can you(or the neo-cons) expect a true democracy to settle in by the use of external force?

I can expect it if it came from the native people of the country in question, if they rose up to throw out a dictator like Saddam(which they did in vast numbers in the last Iraq war - and were left hanging by the US, a missed opportunity), and they decided for themselves democracy was what they wanted.
Thats how many of the democratic countries, like ourselves, came to democracy.

But i just see it as using completely the wrong approach when an outside country(the US and UK in this current case) tries to invade and dipose a system to force democracy on a people. Even if many people in the country in question would support it, there will always be questions of legitimacy? How stable would this democracy be?

How would you react to China invaiding another country to impose communism for example? Can you understand the dangerous precident that the US+UK have set here?
You must see what i'm getting at? And its this central neo-con belief that i feel is its greatest flaw.

Democracy(a freedom) being forced onto a country with modern warfare(and collateral damage on those your imposing it on). They just dont seem to add up in many people's books.

Now if you want to spread democracy(no bad thing imho) look at the Ukaraine? US/UK involvement helping the 'people' get the result 'they' wanted. A much better scenario for a long term succesfull democacy no?

[Dinner]

External Force seems to have worked wellin both Germany and Japan. The ues of external force also allowed South Korea to remain free of North Korea while the threat of external force is the only reason Taiwan is still free. True both Taiwan and South Korea took a few decades to mature but they are now fully functioning democracies with all the modern protections which go along with it. To compare the mainland Chinese and the North Koreans can't vote for a dog catcher plus they're economically worse off to boot.

[Dinner]

BTW China has forcably exported communism in the past decades before Iraq. North Korea exists today solely because the communist Chinese started a war there and North Vietnam would have lost the war in 1968 or 1969 had nearly the entire north Vietnamese war effort been backed by China & the USSR. Just about every gun, bullet, missile or bomb came from those two countries. Thus there is nothing new about attemptig to export political ideologies and I'd say Democracy is a better option because if people really don't like it then they have a chance to fix it through voting.

[child of Thor]

well i can be argued that both Germany and Japan induced their current state by themselves being ideological invaiders - enough people got pissed of with them and crushed them in a united action.

Very diferent kettle of fish imho to what the neo-con thing is about

The US has been using various methods of 'regime cahnge' for decades(look at south america). The Neo-con approach is more of an upfront version of that strategy, with all the same complications(populist upriseings etc).

I just find it very ironic when in a matter of months we have a huge US success in the Ukaraine, with little comparative bloodshed and then we have Iraq, which looks like it has a long and hard(and hopefuly succesful) road ahead of it.

The two differnent approaches bring about two different results with two differing chances of long-term success.

Thats where my(and others) personal doubts come into play reguarding Iraq. To many the US(and UK) involvement has primarily been a story of revenge(how dare Saddam turn his back on the two countries that put him in power(for their own reasons=oil)) and money(in terms of oil control).
The democracy and freedon rhetoric coming from Bush(and the Neo-cons) are in all likely hood just a convieniant smokescreen to try to sell the war at home(a success at home in the US, not so much in the UK), and abroad(a resounding disaster for both countries).

This will always be the problem with this neo-con strategy. Unless it can pull of a miricle and use this strategy in places where it is blatently clear the US has no economic(not Iraq+Afghanistan) or strategic(again not Iraq+Afghanistan) interests.
It will have to be acting in a completely magnanimous/generous capacity for most countries in the world to come on-board.
Sadly it does seem(if you read the literature), that the Neo-con movenment is pretty much tied up with the economic/strategic gain aspect of its strategy

[Dinner]

If you think the US or UK put Saddam in power then you have no clue about the history of Iraq. Read Iraqi history from 1958 on word to get a better picture of how Saddam came to power and how the Ba'athists most certainly weren't the US/UK's boy until after the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis. Both the US & UK dispised the Ba'athists for 1) removing UK air bases from Iraq which both countries used 2) nationalizing first BP's oil interests in Iraq then every foreign owned company in Iraq then every large company in Iraq not owned by a member of the Ba'ath party. 3) The Ba'athists continually flirted with the Idea of being a Soviet Satillate and bought most of its weapons from the Soviets (not the west) 4) Both the US and UK continually objected to Saddam's treatment of Kurds and Shia and both countries provided military aid to the Kurds to fight rebellions against the Ba'athists (especially in the desasterous 1970-1975 uprising).

Read a bit more and you'll figure out Saddam got where he was dispite the US and UK's efforts and it wasn't until the Shah was out in Iran and the Iraqis were fighting Iranians that they got any help but even that was less then what the Soviets and the Chinese were giving.