SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (119893)11/18/2003 12:13:28 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Nazi Germany never attacked the US mainland and neither did Vietnam."

Germany declared war against the US. Vietnam did not. Germany used submarines to destroy US shipping. Iraq did not. These are historical facts.

Re: "Nazi Germany was invading and brutalizing its neighboring countries, and so was N. Vietnam. ..."

So? We didn't get involved when N. Vietnam attacked China. Or when the USSR invaded and brutalized various countries in Eastern Europe. Or when the Austro Hungarian empire invaded Serbia in 1914. Or when Brazil invaded Paraguay. Or when El Salvador got into the "soccer war".

All these wars were occasions for the US to get involved but we didn't. The reason is simple. They were "optional"
wars and we didn't choose to get involved in them.

We did choose to get involved in Vietnam, and since that place was already fighting, it made a hell of a lot more sense than Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq, the country was at (defacto) peace with every one of its neighbors. You just can't compare that situation to Nazi Germany or Vietnam.

Re: "There's a damn good reason we have so many American servicemen buried in foreign cemeteries Bilow. It's because we've had a long-standing policy of preferring to defend our allies against totalitarianism instead of waiting for it to directly threaten us."

Great argument, but Iraq wasn't threatening anybody, as is now clear. Maybe Kuwait, but Kuwait wouldn't even send any troops in to help us keep the peace. Hell, the Kuwaitis wouldn't even send in interpreters so that our relations with the locals would be better.

Re: "To attempt to nip the onslaught of Islamo-Fascism in the bud before it becomes a force that cannot be reckoned with minus a major national mobilization and declaration of war."

Bush's war was the best thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda. While there must have been at least a few Arabs who thought that the US did NOT have designs on Arab oil, the invasion convinced the fence sitters that Osama bin Laden was right. Now we've got Al Qaeda problems spreading all over, especially in Iraq itself.

And as far as avoiding the "major national mobilization", the only way we can stay in Iraq is with exactly such a mobilization. Give the conflict another six months. You'll see that the Iraqi forces that we're training will be providing aid and comfort to the guerillas, not us. Blood runs thicker than money.

Re: "The point is that even if Germany didn't declare war upon us, it would have been right for the US to have become involved and waged war against Hitler."

That's cause Hitler was a threat, and was already fighting wars all over the place. Saddam was a tiny tyrant, a pipsqueak who could make life tough only in the tiny country of Iraq.

To compare Hitler with Saddam is a fantasy. Hitler's Germany made the BEST WEAPONS IN THE WORLD. Saddam's Iraq can't even make an automobile, a technology that Germany had MASTERED many DECADES before WW2. There simply is no comparison between the two countries. Germany is also a hell of a lot bigger, more populous, and more skilled at warfare (though not less skilled at insurrection).

Re: "Call me crazy, but I prefer my ounce of prevention over your pound of cure."

The invasion of Iraq didn't solve anything. It made our problem worse. There is no cure. The Bushies are already making internal noises about cutting and running before the November election.

Personally, I think they're stuck in place, and the next administration will be the one that pulls us out of Iraq. That's because this administration is in hope mode, and people in hope mode keep klinging to the hope that things will be better in a little while. (For example, that bankrupt stock will come back in price and we'll sell it then.) Since the situation in Iraq is steadily deteriorating, there aren't any opportunities for Bush to get out.

-- Carl



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (119893)11/18/2003 1:00:11 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 281500
 
<Nazi Germany never attacked the US mainland and neither did Vietnam.> Aloha.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (119893)11/18/2003 1:27:20 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
re: <Nazi Germany never attacked the US mainland >

Your analogy is strained.

Japan attacked us, killing Americans on U.S. soil. Then Germany fulfilled her promise to back up Japan; without that promise, Japan wouldn't have dared attack. Our government was debating whether to declare war on Germany, when Germany settled the question by declaring war on us. So our war on Japan and Germany was a war of self-defense. Virtually 100% of the American people thought so, which is why there was 100% support for the war. Today, America would be just as united as the "Greatest Generation", if we were being asked to defend the country, rather than support a series of wars of aggression.

For years before we entered the war, both Japan and Germany had been engaged in massive human rights abuses. We knew all about Germany's concentration camps, and the massacres in China, and we did nothing. Both those countries had invaded a string of other countries, before December 1941, and the U.S. stayed out of it. We acted only when we were attacked.

In WW2, we were attacked. In Vietnam and Iraq2, we waged wars of aggression against tiny nations that had not attacked us, never had, and didn't have the capability of attacking us.

In WW2, our soldiers defended the democratic nations of the world. In Vietnam, we were "invited" in, by a "government" that was a creation of the CIA, and had zero democratic legitimacy. In fact, the string of thugs who ran S. Vietnam, from 1954-1975, used exactly the same methods to maintain power, as the Communist thugs in N. Vietnam. To assert that we were championing freedom and democracy in Vietnam, requires a willful ignorance of the actual history of those puppet regimes.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (119893)11/18/2003 1:47:42 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Let me just add one more thing in response to: Nazi Germany was invading and brutalizing its neighboring countries, and so was N. Vietnam.

North Vietnam was never a "country". The Geneva Accords of 1954 defined the political situation in Southeast Asia following the pullout of the French. The text is reproduced below. You will not find reference to a "country" named "North Vietnam" or to one named "South Vietnam" either. This was a fiction created by the Dulles brothers in the US. The accords say that elections will take place in July 1956 (see especially numbers 5, 6, 7 and 12 below). The elections never took place because we knew that Ho would easily win, and the Dulles brothers were not going to allow the godless commies to "take over" yet another country, not on their watch. Your version of history is a myth, dangerous mainly because it is common here in the US and is one of the things that makes us so damned self-righteous on the one hand and makes some of our citizens willing to allow our political leaders to use our remarkable military might far too often. That is what scares the rest of the world, not to mention quite a few US citizens as well.

The Final Declarations of the Geneva Conference July 21, 1954.

1.The Conference takes note of the Agreements ending hostilities in Cambodia, Laos, and Viet-Nam and organizing international control and the supervision of the execution of the provisions of these agreements.
2.The Conference expresses satisfaction at the ending of hostilities in Cambodia, Laos, and Viet-Nam; the Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present Declaration and in the Agreements on the cessation of hostilities will permit Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Nam henceforth to play their part, in full independence and sovereignty, in the peaceful community of nations.

3.The Conference takes note of the declarations made by the Governments of Cambodia and of Laos of their intention to adopt measures permitting all citizens to take their place in the national community, in particular by participating in the next general elections, which, in conformity with the constitution of each of these countries, shall take place in the course of the year 1955, by secret ballot and in conditions of respect for fundamental freedoms.

4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Vietnam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as all kinds of arms and munitions. The Conference also takes note of the declarations made by the Governments of Cambodia and Laos of their resolution not to request foreign aid, whether in war material, in personnel or in instructors except for the purpose of the effective defence of their territory and, in the case of Laos, to the extent defined by the Agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Laos.

5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-nam to the effect that no military base under the control of a foreign State may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties, the latter having the obligation to see that the zones allotted to them shall not constitute part of any military alliance and shall not be utilized for the resumption of hostilities or in the service of an aggressive policy. The Conference also takes note of the declarations of the Governments of Cambodia and Laos to the effect that they will not join in any agreement with other States if this agreement includes the obligation to participate in a military alliance not in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations or, in the case of Laos, with the principles of the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Laos or, so long as their security is not threatened, the obligation to establish bases on Cambodian or Laotian territory for the military forces of foreign powers.

6.The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the Agreement relating to Viet-nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present Declaration and in the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam.

7. The Conference declares that, so far as Viet-nam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for principles of independence, unity and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot. In order to ensure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the Member States of the International Supervisory Commission, referred to in the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities. Consultations will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from 20 July, 1955 onwards.

8. The provisions of the Agreements on the cessation of hostilities intended to ensure the protection of individuals and of property must be most strictly applied and must, in particular, allow everyone in Viet-nam to decide freely in which zone he wishes to live.

9. The competent representative authorites of the Northern and Southern zones of Viet-nam, as well as the authorities of Laos and Cambodia, must not permit any individual or collective reprisals against persons who have collaborated in any way with one of the parties during the war, or against members of such persons' families.

10.The Conference takes note of the declaration of the Government of the French Republic to the effect that it is ready to withdraw its troops from the territory of Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Nam, at the request of the governments concerned and within periods which shall be fixed by agreement between the parties except in the cases where, by agreement between the two parties, a certain number of French troops shall remain at specified points and for a specified time.

11. The Conference takes note of the declaration of the French Government to the effect that for the settlement of all the problems connected with the re-establishment and consolidation of peace in Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Nam, the French Government will proceed from the principle of respect for the independence and sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Cambodia, Laos and Viet-nam.

12.In their relations with Cambodia, Laos and Viet-nam, each member of the Geneva Conference undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the independence, the unity and the territorial integrity of the above-mentioned States, and to refrain from any interference in their internal affairs.


13.The members of the Conference agree to consult one another on any question which may be referred to them by the International Supervisory Commlssion, in order to study such measures as may prove necessary to ensure that the Agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Cambodia, Laos and Viet-nam are respected.

SOURCE: Gravel (ed.), Pentagon Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 279-282.

vietnam.vassar.edu