al-Qaida No. 2: U.S. 'Ran' From Vietnam

[CSM]

Hey, if you quit playing stupid, I'll lay off the intellectual hat.
Obviously this Giap is correct, since it was public opinion about the war that led to the American retreat. That is the truth, and if it hurts, I'm sorry.

That is exactly the point! "public opinion" in this case (VietNam) consisted of a bunch of left wingers who created enough disturbance. Ever hear of the "silent majority"? They stood by and watched as a bunch of pot smoking leftists lost Vietnam for us. By the way...I was there too.

Al Zawahri is a narcistic extreme right wing Muslim.
What that has to do with the American right? About just as much as the antiwar protesters have to do with Al Zawahri, i.e. nothing

The connection is not their wing. You are deliberately disregarding the connection, that much is obvious. Therefore, I will say it. Zawahri is counting on the anti-war folks (leftists) to force a US withdrawal as they did in VN. The leftists are playing right into the terrorists hands. This letter specifically says as much and is more damning (in my eyes) than the Downing Street Memo. It clearly identifies the anti-war effort as aiding and abetting the enemy.

I've quoted you GunnyL and CSM because you were agreeing on the fact that "lefties" are, "a live, snivelling coward with no honour" aka honourless pieces of shit. Some heartwarming support of your fellow countrymen.

Horsecrap. I never called them anything though I do hold them in contempt. Heartwarming support for my countrymen I have plaenty of....I do not support those who aid and abet the enemy...even if they are supposedly US citizens. By the way, I hold foriegners who support the terrorists in even more contempt.

No wonder this Al Zawahri pours some more oil on the flames of dissent.
You've just handed him the petrol.

I guess if we be real quiet and dont rock the boat everything will be peachy ....oh wait, that didn't work before the US invaded, it is not working in Europe now either...hmmmm

The pat on the back of the provider.
You are hereby complicit in handing the petrol to Al Zawahri. Are you proud?

One could construe by your posts that you support the terrorists...are you proud? That was sarcasm by the way....if I thought you really supported the terrorists, I would have quit this discussion long ago. I think you support the Europeanist views very well and obviously support the European philosophy of appeasement

I am trying very hard to keep this on an adult level....please don't attribute any name calling to me as I try very hard not to do that

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by CSM:
I am trying very hard to keep this on an adult level....please don't attribute any name calling to me as I try very hard not to do that

It's good to see we agree on this. Thank you for your efforts.
However, I made my previous reply to GunnyL and Kathianne's statements, which started along the lines of "cheesedick" by GunnyL and was affirmed by Kathianne. If stuff like this is what is required for reputation points, I'm glad I'm in the low zone.

Originally posted by CSM:
That is exactly the point! "public opinion" in this case (VietNam) consisted of a bunch of left wingers who created enough disturbance. Ever hear of the "silent majority"? They stood by and watched as a bunch of pot smoking leftists lost Vietnam for us. By the way...I was there too.

I gather from this that you'd rather have won that war.
The way it is it cost 58,000 American lives, and well in the order of 2 to 3 million Vietnamese lives. You were in Vietnam you say, then you must know firsthand that the Vietnames would never surrender to a foreign army in their jungle. As it has been in every war since the dawn of time: the local populace will never put down their weapons as long as there is a foreign force.
What makes you think you had a chance of winning there?

Originally posted by CSM:
The connection is not their wing. You are deliberately disregarding the connection, that much is obvious. Therefore, I will say it. Zawahri is counting on the anti-war folks (leftists) to force a US withdrawal as they did in VN. The leftists are playing right into the terrorists hands. This letter specifically says as much and is more damning (in my eyes) than the Downing Street Memo. It clearly identifies the anti-war effort as aiding and abetting the enemy.

Whether or not the published letter by Al Zawahri is real (I hear it's credibility is being questioned) I find it small wonder that Al Zawahri tries to play this card. This guy a megalomaniac narcistic fraud, that loves to trumpet violence as long as he's not in the middle of it. As are all of our modern leaders.

I've stated Al Zawahri is on a failed mission for the better part of his entire life. He has tried to overthrow governments and instigate "regime change" for several decades already. To no avail.

And the response of the United States has strangely enough not been to capture and kill this Al Zawahri, but invade a country that would be seen as the second greatest enemy of Al Zawahri, namely Iraq. Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but he refused to have Islam dictate the law. They had a secular law in Iraq under Saddam, which is a small wonder if one realizes he was a dictator. One of the key elements that make a person a dictator is the fact that they never share power. Not with anyone, including an Imam or other Muslim religious leader.

Therefore, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or international terrorism.

Originally posted by CSM:
Horsecrap. I never called them anything though I do hold them in contempt. Heartwarming support for my countrymen I have plaenty of....I do not support those who aid and abet the enemy...even if they are supposedly US citizens. By the way, I hold foriegners who support the terrorists in even more contempt.

Exactly: contempt.
This contempt for fellow Americans divides your nation more than any terrorist could hope to achieve. Divide and conquer, my friend. That is the key.
Now you may sit back and have a long and hard look at who has divided and conquered your nation, for it sure isn't Muslim terrrorists.

Originally posted by CSM:
I guess if we be real quiet and dont rock the boat everything will be peachy ....oh wait, that didn't work before the US invaded, it is not working in Europe now either...hmmmm

I have never suggested to refrain from acting.
However, I have suggested that thinking before acting may be a wise move.
You do not honestly believe the bombing of Afghanistan was the first act by the US, so your nation has been rocking the boat plenty as it was already.

Al Zawahri is particularly mad at the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt for instance have bowed down to western powers, in his eyes they collaborate with the enemy.
Iraq on the other hand, was very much a pain in the ass of the west.
So, in fighting international terrorism, why choose Iraq?
To me it seems that would only fuel Al Zawahri's point of view.

Originally posted by CSM:
One could construe by your posts that you support the terrorists...are you proud? That was sarcasm by the way....if I thought you really supported the terrorists, I would have quit this discussion long ago. I think you support the Europeanist views very well and obviously support the European philosophy of appeasement

Yeah I was being sarcastic too, maybe even cynical.
But both GunnyL and Kathianne were asking for it by insulting me like that.

I do indeed support the European view most of the time.
Although Europe as such is far from wielding influence at the bargaining table, for we too experience a lot of internal struggles.

Because there is too much of a difference in opinion between the European nations, the European parliament has chosen to stand on the sidelines of the world's evergrowing conflicts and take a passive stance.

That is something I cannot agree with, but then, I'm only a single civilian.

Thank you so far CSM.

 

[CSM]

It's good to see we agree on this. Thank you for your efforts.
However, I made my previous reply to GunnyL and Kathianne's statements, which started along the lines of "cheesedick" by GunnyL and was affirmed by Kathianne. If stuff like this is what is required for reputation points, I'm glad I'm in the low zone.

Fair enough

I gather from this that you'd rather have won that war.

Obviously

The way it is it cost 58,000 American lives, and well in the order of 2 to 3 million Vietnamese lives. You were in Vietnam you say, then you must know firsthand that the Vietnames would never surrender to a foreign army in their jungle.

Point of clarification: The South Vietnamese fought along side Americans....we were not fighting the Vietnamese as a people per say. I know first hand that the South Vietnamese appreciated the US soldier (can't say as much for the corrupt South Vietnamese government). The North Vietnamese (mostly communists) did not "own" South Vietnam's jungles...in fact, most of those guys had never been out of their own locale (which sure as hell wasn't the jungles of South Vietnam!)


As it has been in every war since the dawn of time: the local populace will never put down their weapons as long as there is a foreign force.
What makes you think you had a chance of winning there?

You need to brush up on your understanding of the War in Vietnam. Despite what you think, the US was NOT fighting the "local populace". They were fighting the Viet Minh (communists backed by the Chinese and North Vietnam) initially and then North Vietnamese regulars. We were not fighting the South Vietnamese. Either you are deliberately twisting the facts to make a point, or you have not studied the history of that war.


Whether or not the published letter by Al Zawahri is real (I hear it's credibility is being questioned) I find it small wonder that Al Zawahri tries to play this card. This guy a megalomaniac narcistic fraud, that loves to trumpet violence as long as he's not in the middle of it. As are all of our modern leaders.

I have no doubt that some would call into question the authenticity of the letter. Not sure about all modern leaders, but we can agree on Z.

I've stated Al Zawahri is on a failed mission for the better part of his entire life. He has tried to overthrow governments and instigate "regime change" for several decades already. To no avail.

Agree

And the response of the United States has strangely enough not been to capture and kill this Al Zawahri, but invade a country that would be seen as the second greatest enemy of Al Zawahri, namely Iraq.

Strategically, it makes sense to establish a democracy in the heart of enemy territory. As for capturing any of the terrorists leaders, if it was so damn easy, why hasn't Europe done it, since they feel so strongly about stopping the US "aggression" and such an action would most certainly take the wind out of US sails and force a withdrawal of US forces. To think that capturing the terrorist leaders is an easy thing is rather simplistic.

Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but he refused to have Islam dictate the law. They had a secular law in Iraq under Saddam, which is a small wonder if one realizes he was a dictator. One of the key elements that make a person a dictator is the fact that they never share power. Not with anyone, including an Imam or other Muslim religious leader.

No argument from me there.

Therefore, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or international terrorism.

I do not believe anyone ever said that Iraq had any thing to do with 911, but the whole debate over Iraq's connection to terrorism has been done to death on this board already.

Exactly: contempt.
This contempt for fellow Americans divides your nation more than any terrorist could hope to achieve. Divide and conquer, my friend. That is the key.

You missed the point. I hold them in contempt for sure. They are the "enemy within". I am sure that everyone in the Netherlands are all one big mutual admiration society and that the netherlands has no internal conflict whatsoever....

Now you may sit back and have a long and hard look at who has divided and conquered your nation, for it sure isn't Muslim terrrorists.

Totally agree. The extreme left, the ACLU, and the DNC have done more damage to this country than any terrorist has or ever will. Tus my contempt for them.

I have never suggested to refrain from acting.
However, I have suggested that thinking before acting may be a wise move.

You presume that no one put any thought into all this...you presume wrong; because the thought process does not agree with your europeanist philosphy does not mean that it is not valid. I could say the same about Europe's stance, if they were thinking, they would be just as aggressive (if not more so) than the US.

You do not honestly believe the bombing of Afghanistan was the first act by the US, so your nation has been rocking the boat plenty as it was already.

You know damn well what I meant. You are deliberately trying to misplace the blame. Of course, that is the European line anyway, now that I think about it....you obviously espouse the belief that the US brought this on themselves. I reject that notion.

Al Zawahri is particularly mad at the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt for instance have bowed down to western powers, in his eyes they collaborate with the enemy.

Agree

Iraq on the other hand, was very much a pain in the ass of the west.
So, in fighting international terrorism, why choose Iraq?
To me it seems that would only fuel Al Zawahri's point of view.

You lost me here....First you say that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism then you make the above statement which would suggest that Iraq (knowingly or unknowingly?) was an aid to Z. The fact that Iraq was a pain in the ass to the west is only a small impact on why the US went there....or did you forget the whole Iraq invades Kuwait thing? In fact, Iraq was really a minor blip on the radar screen until they decided they wanted Kuwait.

Yeah I was being sarcastic too, maybe even cynical.
But both GunnyL and Kathianne were asking for it by insulting me like that.

I do indeed support the European view most of the time.
Although Europe as such is far from wielding influence at the bargaining table, for we too experience a lot of internal struggles.

Obviously. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point of view and respect the fact that you stand by it. However, do not expect me to hold the same view or to stand by and listen to others denigrate the US because of that view.

Because there is too much of a difference in opinion between the European nations, the European parliament has chosen to stand on the sidelines of the world's evergrowing conflicts and take a passive stance.

Real decisive leadership there. I know from your posts that you think all governments are bad....no need to defend them.

That is something I cannot agree with, but then, I'm only a single civilian.

I too am only a single civilian (now). There is much I do not agree with about the current administration; however, the defense of the US is and always has been one of my primary concerns (thus 30 years of commitment to that!). We can debate all day about exactly how the war on terrorism should be fought, but there is no doubt in my mind (and obviously the current administration's) that the war need to be fought.

Thank you so far CSM.

I am enjoying the debate, despite our difference of opinion. You have given me points to consider (once you get past the name calling and idelogical rhetoric)

I thank you as well for stimulating debate, though I think neither of us is going to change our stance very much. It is encouraging that we can agree on some points at least.

 

[Harmageddon]

I have indeed simplified the situation in Vietnam, however, my stance on the subject remains. To continue the debate:

Originally posted by CSM:
Point of clarification: The South Vietnamese fought along side Americans....we were not fighting the Vietnamese as a people per say. I know first hand that the South Vietnamese appreciated the US soldier (can't say as much for the corrupt South Vietnamese government). The North Vietnamese (mostly communists) did not "own" South Vietnam's jungles...in fact, most of those guys had never been out of their own locale (which sure as hell wasn't the jungles of South Vietnam!)

Originally posted by CSM:
You need to brush up on your understanding of the War in Vietnam. Despite what you think, the US was NOT fighting the "local populace". They were fighting the Viet Minh (communists backed by the Chinese and North Vietnam) initially and then North Vietnamese regulars. We were not fighting the South Vietnamese. Either you are deliberately twisting the facts to make a point, or you have not studied the history of that war.

I’ve done some re-reading of what happened there, this is it:
During WW II, the USA had supported the Viet Minh in their resistance against the Japanese Empire. The Japanese were defeated in 1945 by America, and Ho Chi Min declared an independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam on september 2nd, 1945. Then the French got involved in the region again (as they had been before) but their recoloniazation efforts to rule over Indochina (i.e. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) resulted in a bitter war, the first Indochina war. During that war, the communist Ho Chi Min who was then leader of the Viet Minh, declared an independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam again in 1950, which was then recognized by China and the Soviet Union.

The French were eventually defeated by the Viet Minh at the gruelling battle of Dien Bien Phu, in 1954.

Vietnam had split in the north, under Viet Minh control, and the south, the Republic of Vietnam, which had the support of the USA, the United Kingdom, and France. Laos and Cambodja gained their indepencence from the French ambitions in 1954 as well.



This state of affairs evolved into the Vietnam war – originally a civil war between the two independent nations, the north and south. Fighting began in 1957 and with US and Soviet/China involvement and support it would readily escalate into the surrounding regions.

South Vietnam and allies such as America, portrayed the conflict as one based in a principled and strategic opposition to communism, to deter its expansion throughout Southeast Asia and elsewhere. North Vietnam and its Viet Cong allies claimed the war as a struggle to reunite the country and to repel a foreign aggressor; virtually a continuation of the earlier war for independence against the French.

After 15 years of war with massive civilian and military casualties, war-weariness with the American public reached it’s height and resulted in the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
This ended the direct involvement of America, although the war continued to rage.

The point of all this: escalation of the conflict between north and south Vietnam because of the meddling of America on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. This resulted in Laos and Cambodja being dragged into the conflict as well and evolved into a decades long war with millions of casualties.

The similarities with Iraq thus involve the longtime presence of colonial forces in the region (the French in Indochina, the British in the Middle East) and from this one may conclude these regions are not very stable, nor very trusty of western intentions. Thus, military intervention by a foreign power equals escalation of the local conflict.
Information mostly from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Originally posted by CSM:
I have no doubt that some would call into question the authenticity of the letter. Not sure about all modern leaders, but we can agree on Z.

What I was referring to is the fact that leaders in the old days inspired their troops by fighting on the frontlines with them. I realize in modern warfare that cannot be the case, but this state of affairs does make me claim they are basically cowards – they only act to inspire the troops while remaining as far from the carnage as possible.

Originally posted by CSM:
Strategically, it makes sense to establish a democracy in the heart of enemy territory. As for capturing any of the terrorists leaders, if it was so damn easy, why hasn't Europe done it, since they feel so strongly about stopping the US "aggression" and such an action would most certainly take the wind out of US sails and force a withdrawal of US forces. To think that capturing the terrorist leaders is an easy thing is rather simplistic.

As far as it making sense from a strategical point of view you are correct. However, from a tactical point of view, the idea of bringing democracy at gunpoint is a rather large mistake.
As for the hard task of capturing any of the terrorist leaders, it still is far more easy when compared to the task of restructuring the Middle East through violent intervention.

Originally posted by CSM:
I do not believe anyone ever said that Iraq had any thing to do with 911, but the whole debate over Iraq's connection to terrorism has been done to death on this board already.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by CSM:
You missed the point. I hold them in contempt for sure. They are the "enemy within". I am sure that everyone in the Netherlands are all one big mutual admiration society and that the netherlands has no internal conflict whatsoever....

Obviously the Netherlands is not one happy community, but we choose to settle our differences through conversation rather than through agression. We are a democracy, which basically means that there is a continuous conflict of interests.

The "enemy within" has in your view prevented American from winning the Vietnam war? I mean, I guess we can agree it did help to bring an end to it, but do you reckon it is the major reason for your defeat there?

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by CSM:
Totally agree. The extreme left, the ACLU, and the DNC have done more damage to this country than any terrorist has or ever will. Tus my contempt for them.

I have said previously:
This contempt for fellow Americans divides your nation more than any terrorist could hope to achieve. Divide and conquer, my friend. That is the key. Now you may sit back and have a long and hard look at who has divided and conquered your nation, for it sure isn't Muslim terrrorists.

Now, your contempt for your ideological/political enemies is yours to have.
However, in a democracy you will have to come to accept the fact that they exist and have a voice. Thus they will have an effect on the policy, it is a democracy after all, is it?
Besides, the divide/conquer scheme is a far stronger tool in the hands of the policymakers than in the hands of a citizen.

Originally posted by CSM:
You presume that no one put any thought into all this...you presume wrong; because the thought process does not agree with your europeanist philosphy does not mean that it is not valid. I could say the same about Europe's stance, if they were thinking, they would be just as aggressive (if not more so) than the US.

I realize there has been a lot of thought in this, I’ve referred to the PNAC clan for a while. That is where the thoughts are that determine your country’s current foreign policy. As to the hand that feeds them, you will find some “conflict of interest” there.
A democracy should ultimately follow the voice of the people, not the voice of the corporations. Although both have a say at the bargaining table, one should always be weary of one of them growing too strong for the other to oppose.

Originally posted by CSM:
You know damn well what I meant. You are deliberately trying to misplace the blame. Of course, that is the European line anyway, now that I think about it....you obviously espouse the belief that the US brought this on themselves. I reject that notion.

You may reject it. Although it seems that at present the targets of this Muslim terrorism have been America and it’s close allies in the War on Terror: Australia (the Bali bombings were aimed at Australian tourists), Britain and Spain. All these terrorist attacks seem to have been carried out by local muslim extremists that got a little hyped up on the whole state of affairs.
This explains why Japan, Norway and Italy have not yet been hit; there's hardly any muslims there - thus no muslim extremists.

Originally posted by CSM:
You lost me here....First you say that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism then you make the above statement which would suggest that Iraq (knowingly or unknowingly?) was an aid to Z. The fact that Iraq was a pain in the ass to the west is only a small impact on why the US went there....or did you forget the whole Iraq invades Kuwait thing? In fact, Iraq was really a minor blip on the radar screen until they decided they wanted Kuwait.

Iraq had nothing to do with International Terrorism.
Iraq could be considered an enemy of Bin Laden and Al Zawahri, since Saddam ruled by secular law, not Islamic law. Saddam may also have been a pain in the ass to the west, but in Al Zawahri’s eyes that would still make him less of a threat to a greater Islamic ruled world than Saudi Arabia or Egypt, which had fallen to western power already.

Therefore I remain with my stance that invading Iraq for whatever reason was nothing but fuel on the flames of Al Zawahri’s goals: try and unite the Muslim world against the west.

Originally posted by CSM:
Obviously. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point of view and respect the fact that you stand by it. However, do not expect me to hold the same view or to stand by and listen to others denigrate the US because of that view.
Real decisive leadership there. I know from your posts that you think all governments are bad....no need to defend them.

Not all governments are bad. But I do believe that power corrupts, and as one English historian once said, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” – one need only look at our history’s dictators to see the truth of that statement.

Originally posted by CSM:
I too am only a single civilian (now). There is much I do not agree with about the current administration; however, the defense of the US is and always has been one of my primary concerns (thus 30 years of commitment to that!). We can debate all day about exactly how the war on terrorism should be fought, but there is no doubt in my mind (and obviously the current administration's) that the war need to be fought.

I understand your concern about the safety of your country, I have my own as well.
But this terrorism, despicable as it may be, has roots in historical events. Do you remember the IRA? They were fighting for freedom, blowing up civilians to prove their point that they were not giving in, they were going to have their say.

The muslims of the world have been oppressed by the western powers, both European and American, for over a century. Does it surprise you it has fueled hatred for the western societies that be? Yet they refrained from offensive actions towards the west for very a very long time, partly because the west does bring democracy and freedom, partly because we were too powerful to invade. This uneasy balance has severely been disrupted by the events of 9/11 and the American response that followed. Not so much the initial response towards Afghanistan, as the global war on terror proclaimed on the Islamic world. That is in my view a very dangerous pretext for a war that may very well last several decades, with the potential to escalate throughout the Middle and Far East.

This is why Europeans in general, and me specifically, would have preferred a more delicate approach to the Iraqi debacle.

Originally posted by CSM:
I am enjoying the debate, despite our difference of opinion. You have given me points to consider (once you get past the name calling and idelogical rhetoric)

Cheers, same here.