Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re Bush’s VN analogy? Surely the ‘American’ war itself was worse than the aftermath?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re Bush’s VN analogy? Surely the ‘American’ war itself was worse than the aftermath?

    The great divider strikes again!!
    I see George is still thrashing around over there trying to drum up some kind of base-level support for his adventure in the Middle East, this time by playing the right-wing revisionist view of the Vietnam War card. At a Vets convention as you might expect (does this guy ever, I mean ever, face a hostile audience? He’s supposed to be heading the world’s greatest democracy for Pete’s sake!)

    Now, given that he mentions 'boat people', 're-education camps', and 'killing fields’ as legacies of the Vietnam War (just quietly Mr President, the Killing Fields were in Cambodia, a country meshed into the war largely by the 1970 US invasion) and given that these events occurred post - Communist victory (ie after mid 1975).
    I firmly believe that two of the above features would have occurred even in there has not been an ‘American war’ in VN.
    There is little doubt that if the Communists had won in 1965/67 (assuming the US did not commit major ground assets and did not implement the air campaign against North VN) they would have had little hesitation in implementing re-education camps in the late sixties.
    I also believe that if Vietnamese ‘boat people’ could have left the country after a communist 1965/67 victory via millions may have done so.

    However the killing fields s were a distinctly Cambodian development and it has been argued by historians that Pol Pot’s gruesome movement and eventual regime developed primarily as a result of the war and was greatly emboldened by the American intervention and clandestine bombing campaign. A communist victory in 65/67 in VN may well have meant no killing fields in Cambodia (lodestar makes claims that make the very earth tremble).

    Now given that according to most sources I have read some four million Vietnamese deaths resulted from the ‘American war’ (a fraction of what was lost in the earlier, longer ‘French war’ of the 1945-54 era) surely the war was worse than the admittedly sad and certainly in many ways tragic aftermath.
    It also needs to be remembered that Communist VN fought two post 1975 conflicts, both with Communist nations. Cambodia in 1978 and Chin in 1979. The domino theory was shown to a laughable piece of simplistic spin
    Is this speech by Bush for real?
    It can surely only increase division in an already badly fractured US. Sad really.
    Some observations from commentators have included:
    "He may well have stirred up a hornet's nest among historians," Gergen stated. "By invoking Vietnam, he raised the automatic question, 'Well, if you've learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire?' ... It's surprising to me that he would go back to that, and I think he's going to get a lot of criticism." David Gergen, advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.

    "Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars," Senator John Kerry (D-Mass).

    “Vietnam today is a unified and stable nation whose Communist government poses little threat to its neighbors and is developing healthy ties with the United States. Mr. Bush visited Vietnam last November; a return visit to the White House this summer by Nguyen Minh Triet was the first visit by a Vietnamese head of state since the war.” Thom Shanker

    “This smacks of spin, a last throw of the dice designed to pre-empt the anti-war lobby and justify the US’s continued presence” James Denselow , Iraq analyst

    lodestar was called a man with no honour, no courage, no integrity and no honesty. To which he replied: "Hey, you forgot to add no moral compass!! How could you miss that one?"
    keep reading the good read
    lodestar

  • #2
    ya leave it to bushitler to rile up the fascist white american racists. all he know how to do is kill brown people and take there oil. were are the wmds you rednecks?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hip E's Mel View Post
      ya leave it to bushitler to rile up the fascist white American racists. all he know how to do is kill brown people and take there oil. were are the wmds you rednecks?
      I certainly hope that that was a sarcastic comment. If not it screams a level of prejudice and ignorance that is shocking.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tsar View Post
        I certainly hope that that was a sarcastic comment. If not it screams a level of prejudice and ignorance that is shocking.
        Frankly, Tsar, I thought the grammer and spelling was enough indication, let alone the content.

        You know, the members try to keep things on the up and up in these forums, but there are always the ten percenters.....

        GG
        "The will of a section rooted in self interest, should not outweigh the vital interests of a whole people." -Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-

        "Fanatics of any sort are dangerous." -GG-

        Comment


        • #5
          This is not Viet Nam, and Bush so said two years ago--it disgraces our Viet Nam and Iraqi Vets. I don't know what he is making the parallels now.
          Regards,

          Scooter

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lodestar View Post
            "He may well have stirred up a hornet's nest among historians," Gergen stated. "By invoking Vietnam, he raised the automatic question, 'Well, if you've learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire?'
            Har!

            Less than 10 years ago, Dick Cheney agreed that taking out Saddam would lead to a quagmire.

            http://digg.com/videos/educational/D...reate_Quagmire

            Tim
            "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
            -The President of the United States of America.

            Comment


            • #7
              Alexander Solzynihtzyn in his commencement address to Harvard in 1978 "A World Split Apart" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...rvard1978.html
              was the first I am unaware of to speak of these despicable crimes by the ruling communists. He was all by eviscerated by the liberals for his remarks then. People want to know why the Germans did not speak out during WWII about the holocaust? For the exact same reason that America did not speak out about the 'reeducation camps' in Vietnam. We were too ashamed of ourselves.

              Once again, President Bush is right. People do no want to hear what he has to say, but he is just as correct now as the Soviet dissedent Alexander Solzynihtzyn was 3 decades back.
              "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                Now, given that he mentions 'boat people', 're-education camps', and 'killing fields’ as legacies of the Vietnam War (just quietly Mr President, the Killing Fields were in Cambodia, a country meshed into the war largely by the 1970 US invasion) and given that these events occurred post - Communist victory (ie after mid 1975).
                lodestar
                I will not bother myself with dissecting your entire rant since it is pure bias imagination with little basis of fact. I will use the above statement to demonstrate this.

                The 'boat people' did not exist either prior to, or during the Vietnam conflict. The 'boat people' did in fact exist. I work with one. Thus, this proves that they really were a legacy of the war.

                Now, 'reeducation camps' did already exist before the conflict ended, but they were in North Vietnam and used by the communist government for their political enemies. After the south was defeated they enlarged these concentration camps and made them in the south so hundreds of thousands rather than just thousands did indeed endure starvation, privation, communist endoctrination, brain washing and dehydration. Thus, these too were a legacy of the Vietnam conflict. Unless of course you wish to say that they really did not exist. In that case I will place you with the same nut jobs who say the holocaust did not exist. Oh, yeah, forgot to mention 'reeducating' in Vietnam is still going on, even as you read this. But then what else can you expect from a communist government, freed of speech?

                The 'killing fields' were in Cambodia, under the Khmer Rogue, which were communists backed by communist China. The bombing which occured in Cambodia and the invasion in 1970 had very little to do with the Khmer Rogue, these actions were targeted at the North Vietnamese military. Both worked too. As far as I'm concerned we did too little too late in Cambodia. Cambodia was NOT brought in the Vietnam conflict by the USA. It was brought into the conflict because the North Vietnamese military used many parts of it as a base of operations and the Cambodian Prince did little (if anything) to deter this invasion by the communists. The Prince finally got booted out by popular demand and Lon Nol replaced him who took up active arms against the Khmer Rogue. Unfortunately, the US popluation was tired of having their citizen soldiers die in a foreign Asian land and there was no political will to assist the Cambodians in the size that they needed it.

                You even contradict yourself. You deny these being the legacy of the Vietnam conflict then in the next sentence you state they occured after 1975. Duh, can you define the word l-e-g-a-c-y?
                Last edited by Trailboss49; 23 Aug 07, 18:38.
                "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                Comment


                • #9






                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In case any of you are wondering what the above photos are of they were smuggled out of a 'reeducation camp' at the peril of the photographer's life.
                    "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by trailboss49 View Post
                      I will not bother myself with dissecting your entire rant since it is pure bias imagination with little basis of fact. I will use the above statement to demonstrate this.

                      The 'boat people' did not exist either prior to, or during the Vietnam conflict. The 'boat people' did in fact exist. I work with one. Thus, this proves that they really were a legacy of the war.

                      Now, 'reeducation camps' did already exist before the conflict ended, but they were in North Vietnam and used by the communist government for their political enemies. After the south was defeated they enlarged these concentration camps and made them in the south so hundreds of thousands rather than just thousands did indeed endure starvation, privation, communist endoctrination, brain washing and dehydration. Thus, these too were a legacy of the Vietnam conflict. Unless of course you wish to say that they really did not exist. In that case I will place you with the same nut jobs who say the holocaust did not exist. Oh, yeah, forgot to mention 'reeducating' in Vietnam is still going on, even as you read this. But then what else can you expect from a communist government, freed of speech?

                      The 'killing fields' were in Cambodia, under the Khmer Rogue, which were communists backed by communist China. The bombing which occured in Cambodia and the invasion in 1970 had very little to do with the Khmer Rogue, these actions were targeted at the North Vietnamese military. Both worked too. As far as I'm concerned we did too little too late in Cambodia. Cambodia was NOT brought in the Vietnam conflict by the USA. It was brought into the conflict because the North Vietnamese military used many parts of it as a base of operations and the Cambodian Prince did little (if anything) to deter this invasion by the communists. The Prince finally got booted out by popular demand and Lon Nol replaced him who took up active arms against the Khmer Rogue. Unfortunately, the US popluation was tired of having their citizen soldiers die in a foreign Asian land and there was no political will to assist the Cambodians in the size that they needed it.

                      You even contradict yourself. You deny these being the legacy of the Vietnam conflict then in the next sentence you state they occured after 1975. Duh, can you define the word l-e-g-a-c-y>
                      Yeah TB,more of the myth that Cambodia's problems were the result of the incursion in 1970.They always leave out the fact of the NVA using Cambodia as a base for their troops and and also as a supplyline.
                      If you Ain't Cav,You Ain't S---

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                        The great divider strikes again!!
                        I see George is still thrashing around over there trying to drum up some kind of base-level support for his adventure in the Middle East, this time by playing the right-wing revisionist view of the Vietnam War card. At a Vets convention as you might expect (does this guy ever, I mean ever, face a hostile audience? He’s supposed to be heading the world’s greatest democracy for Pete’s sake!)

                        Now, given that he mentions 'boat people', 're-education camps', and 'killing fields’ as legacies of the Vietnam War (just quietly Mr President, the Killing Fields were in Cambodia, a country meshed into the war largely by the 1970 US invasion) and given that these events occurred post - Communist victory (ie after mid 1975).
                        I firmly believe that two of the above features would have occurred even in there has not been an ‘American war’ in VN.
                        There is little doubt that if the Communists had won in 1965/67 (assuming the US did not commit major ground assets and did not implement the air campaign against North VN) they would have had little hesitation in implementing re-education camps in the late sixties.
                        I also believe that if Vietnamese ‘boat people’ could have left the country after a communist 1965/67 victory via millions may have done so.

                        However the killing fields s were a distinctly Cambodian development and it has been argued by historians that Pol Pot’s gruesome movement and eventual regime developed primarily as a result of the war and was greatly emboldened by the American intervention and clandestine bombing campaign. A communist victory in 65/67 in VN may well have meant no killing fields in Cambodia (lodestar makes claims that make the very earth tremble).

                        Now given that according to most sources I have read some four million Vietnamese deaths resulted from the ‘American war’ (a fraction of what was lost in the earlier, longer ‘French war’ of the 1945-54 era) surely the war was worse than the admittedly sad and certainly in many ways tragic aftermath.
                        It also needs to be remembered that Communist VN fought two post 1975 conflicts, both with Communist nations. Cambodia in 1978 and Chin in 1979. The domino theory was shown to a laughable piece of simplistic spin
                        Is this speech by Bush for real?
                        It can surely only increase division in an already badly fractured US. Sad really.
                        Some observations from commentators have included:
                        "He may well have stirred up a hornet's nest among historians," Gergen stated. "By invoking Vietnam, he raised the automatic question, 'Well, if you've learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire?' ... It's surprising to me that he would go back to that, and I think he's going to get a lot of criticism." David Gergen, advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.

                        "Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars," Senator John Kerry (D-Mass).

                        “Vietnam today is a unified and stable nation whose Communist government poses little threat to its neighbors and is developing healthy ties with the United States. Mr. Bush visited Vietnam last November; a return visit to the White House this summer by Nguyen Minh Triet was the first visit by a Vietnamese head of state since the war.” Thom Shanker

                        “This smacks of spin, a last throw of the dice designed to pre-empt the anti-war lobby and justify the US’s continued presence” James Denselow , Iraq analyst

                        lodestar was called a man with no honour, no courage, no integrity and no honesty. To which he replied: "Hey, you forgot to add no moral compass!! How could you miss that one?"
                        keep reading the good read
                        lodestar
                        Oh, pity the simple fools for they look but to not see, hear but do not listen and think but do not understand. Pity the simple fool, for they know not what they do.
                        Last edited by TigerVI67; 23 Aug 07, 18:48. Reason: test

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                          Har!

                          Less than 10 years ago, Dick Cheney agreed that taking out Saddam would lead to a quagmire.

                          http://digg.com/videos/educational/D...reate_Quagmire

                          Tim
                          wow!
                          All your ACG posts are belong to us!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by trailboss49 View Post
                            Alexander Solzynihtzyn in his commencement address to Harvard in 1978 "A World Split Apart" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...rvard1978.html
                            But the issue is the cost of intervention.

                            The problems in Vietnam started WAY before the war escalated in the 60's. If we had simply stayed out of it (like back in '55), how many would have died? Unknown. How many would have suffered? Unknown.

                            The current statistics on Vietnamese civilian casualties from '75-'87 put the number at around 400,000.

                            The Vietnamese casualities caused by the Vietnam war are somewhere around 2-3 million? (Civillian and Military).

                            Vietnam is currently communist and we get along with them just fine. Maybe we could have saved ourselves (and millions of other people) a lot of trouble by working with them instead of against them.

                            Link to statistics: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm I don't know how reliable it is, but at least there are references to the sources.

                            Tim
                            "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                            -The President of the United States of America.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This AP report was in my mailbox...

                              Vietnam rejects Bush's Iraq comparison
                              Associated Press
                              08/23/2007

                              President George Bush's latest effort to rally support for his Iraq policy has touched a nerve in Vietnam, where previous US intervention led to the deaths of millions of people.

                              In a speech to US war veterans yesterday, Mr Bush invoked the Vietnam war, saying that widespread death and chaos would envelop Iraq if the US troops left too quickly, as he claimed had happened when America pulled out of Vietnam three decades ago.

                              But people in Vietnam, where opposition to the US intervention in Iraq is strong, said today that Mr Bush had drawn the wrong conclusions from the conflict.

                              "Doesn't he realise that if the US had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran who fought against US troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam war wasn't prolonged except Bush."

                              Vietnam's official government spokesman offered a more measured response. "With regard to the American war in Vietnam, everyone knows that we fought to defend our country and that this was a righteous war of the Vietnamese people," said the foreign ministry spokesman Le Dung. "And we all know that the war caused tremendous suffering and losses to the Vietnamese people."

                              Mr Dung said Vietnam hoped that the Iraq conflict would be resolved "very soon, in an orderly way, and that the Iraqi people will do their best to rebuild their country".

                              Although Vietnam opposed the US intervention in Iraq, Mr Dung stressed that ties between Hanoi and Washington had been growing closer since the former foes established friendly relations in 1995.

                              In his remarks in Kansas City yesterday, Mr Bush said that a hasty retreat from Iraq would lead to terrible violence.

                              "One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields'," he said.

                              But many people in Vietnam said the comparison was ill-considered.

                              The US could not have overcome the will of the Vietnamese people no matter how many bombs it dropped, said Mr Trieu.

                              "Does he think the US could have won if they had stayed longer?" Mr Trieu asked. "No way."

                              The only way to restore order in Iraq was for the US to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a Hanoi university student.

                              "Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," he said, adding, "suicide bombing was unheard of before."

                              If the US withdrew, he said, the violence might escalate in the short term but the situation would eventually stabilise. "Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Mr Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."
                              All your ACG posts are belong to us!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X