War on Terrorism, What is Terrorism?

[Comrade]

Please Comrade, note that I was trying to define terms.

Personally, I think that many aspects of international law concerning war crimes are antiquated and unrealistic. And it has always been the case that these are only very rarely applied to the victor in any case.

True indeed, but take the last century of American war history and any opposing enemy who might have tried to adhere to such conventions in a manner even remotely close to what our soldiers consistently practiced in the field, and I can't point to single enemy who merits comparison.

However, one thing I do think is that prisoners should almost always be treated humanely and with reasonable respect. What happened at Abu Graib was a blight on the honor of the USA, and especially that of our military. Only when a prisoner is specifically known to have commited atrocities (such as hi ranking Al-Queda) should such respect be denied. At Abu Graib, we lost a lot of hearts and minds to the enemy.

So by the same logic, the mutalation, beheadings, and civilian slaughter of those who fight against us in Iraq must have also won over not only those lost from the 'underwear on the head' antics but a huge number in addition. Right? Or is this a game of double standards where our 'crimes' are 100X more severe then our enemies barabarism.

As for Bin-Ladin, he had too much time to clear out, and too much awareness we were comming. The way to get him was to strike without warning, and make sure we hit a wide enough area to get him. We knew about where he was, and about what his initial escape path would have been (and this was a very unpopulated region allowing us freedom to bombard with neutrinos).

But where? You must know something we couldn't even guess. The whole opening week after 9-11 was a game where the Taliban couldn't find Bin-Laden and we didn't have a single fly over to prove otherwise. Or say you differently?

Using neutron weapons to ensure we got him within a few days, perhaps weeks, of 9/11, with no buildup or sign that America was there, rather than using conventional means after we had time to get into position, would very likely have gotten him.

And where then?

As for VN, our policies are what wrought our destruction. You must win the hearts and minds of the people, and this is something we failed to do. We treated the SVN people with no respect, turned their women into whores, killed villagers who were caught between a rock and a hard place, supported the worst of their own people, and eventually were surrounded by only enemies.

Imagine whatever you may, but it's easy to condemn us for a war we failed to wage properly by invading and defeating North Vietnam like we should have done from the start. If we'd have won a stalemate, South Vietnam would be no less prosperous and free today as South Korea is now. It's something we always achieve and will continue to do, that is, create free, prosperous nations after victory brings peace among those we occupy.
Ask around.

Finally, I point out that just because our enemies do something in no way justifies that we do it too.

Wade.

But we do nothing of the sort like our enemies. They slaughter and oppress in a vaccumm beyond the mistakes of America and no one cares anymore. But you have to pick a side, and when you want to dish it out to America you qualify what transpires without the rancour, and then in good faith compare the acts of it's opposition and let truth lie.

Don't you dare pretend like only America matters here, because it's a choice between us and the enemy. To drill into every fault of the USA and even rehash propaganda from the enemy playbook against us, while you can leave them out completely, you must love the enemy. How many people have you seen harp on America up to the end, as if it didn't matter what the enemy did then or ended up doing? What's the point? America is not perfect? No doubt. We know. But leave out the truth of the opposition and some poor novice is going to read that as how we never did belong there, that we caused all these horrible things, and that without us the opposition would have been dandy... but the trick is you don't mention them at all. Which is right out of the playbook, and it's tiresome that nobody can really compare what is better anymore, and instead runs through the horrifying war crimes as a pattern I'm tired of hearing. You see?

 

[wade]

True indeed, but take the last century of American war history and any opposing enemy who might have tried to adhere to such conventions in a manner even remotely close to what our soldiers consistently practiced in the field, and I can't point to single enemy who merits comparison.

On this I agree.

So by the same logic, the mutalation, beheadings, and civilian slaughter of those who fight against us in Iraq must have also won over not only those lost from the 'underwear on the head' antics but a huge number in addition. Right? Or is this a game of double standards where our 'crimes' are 100X more severe then our enemies barabarism.

If only it were so simple. It is we who are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's and other Arabs, or at least not have them turn against us. They on the otherhand, are trying to instill fear in us, since they know they cannot convert us to their cause. So the audiences and goals are different. It's not a game, and it's not about fairness.

But where? You must know something we couldn't even guess. The whole opening week after 9-11 was a game where the Taliban couldn't find Bin-Laden and we didn't have a single fly over to prove otherwise. Or say you differently?

I think we knew approximately where he was within Afganistan and specifically (within a few hundred yards) on several occasions. I could be wrong but what I know of our intel and survielance makes me believe this was the case. It was not until he went into the hills that he became difficult to pin down and escaped. If we had neutron bombed key areas in Kabul and other Afgani cities and taken out the Taliban, we would probably have gotten him. And we also could have neutron bombed large sections of the hills where he was likely to be hiding just in case we missed him in the cities.

Imagine whatever you may, but it's easy to condemn us for a war we failed to wage properly by invading and defeating North Vietnam like we should have done from the start. If we'd have won a stalemate, South Vietnam would be no less prosperous and free today as South Korea is now. It's something we always achieve and will continue to do, that is, create free, prosperous nations after victory brings peace among those we occupy.
Ask around.

The situation in Vietnam was far different than that in Korea. Remember, in VN we were basically enforcing French rule, where in Korea we were not.

But we do nothing of the sort like our enemies. They slaughter and oppress in a vaccumm beyond the mistakes of America and no one cares anymore. But you have to pick a side, and when you want to dish it out to America you qualify what transpires without the rancour, and then in good faith compare the acts of it's opposition and let truth lie.

Don't you see that there is a huge difference between what a peoples do to themselves and what we do to them?

Don't you dare pretend like only America matters here, because it's a choice between us and the enemy. To drill into every fault of the USA and even rehash propaganda from the enemy playbook against us, while you can leave them out completely, you must love the enemy. How many people have you seen harp on America up to the end, as if it didn't matter what the enemy did then or ended up doing? What's the point? America is not perfect? No doubt. We know. But leave out the truth of the opposition and some poor novice is going to read that as how we never did belong there, that we caused all these horrible things, and that without us the opposition would have been dandy... but the trick is you don't mention them at all. Which is right out of the playbook, and it's tiresome that nobody can really compare what is better anymore, and instead runs through the horrifying war crimes as a pattern I'm tired of hearing. You see?

I see your point. I just think that you are denying that these things are context sensitive, which they are.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

You two watched how inmates were pictured in humuliating positions and even made to wear underwear on their heads. And then watch as those acts become front page news for a month of marathon of media scrutiny, free of all censorship, and invoke outrage and condemnation from all of our leaders, and finally see those perpetrators tried in a court of law and convicted in due process.

Which also equates to the methodical, cold blooded, execution of hundreds of civilians for public consumption, held in capitivity for days and made to beg for the camera.

Forgetting those twelve Nepalise cooks/cleaners working for a Jordanian firm were simply methodically beheaded in a row in the most brutal manner imaginable without any demand for salvation, the broadcast provided for consumption invoked very little outrage, zero expectation of justice, or even blame for their acts in light of their oppression... or what?

Oh sure that's a 'bad' thing, we'll surely hear that. In fact, you might want to say, it's just as bad as the human pyramid, the same kind of "terror and torture" inflicted upon those 'innocent' held as fighters supporting those who would cut from the neck as retribution to American wrought horrors visited upon them by Lydie the penis pointer.



Seems like America is still the bankrupt ideology, still the one who invokes outrage, still a singularly ammoral power among the oppressed and worthy of continued despise. Terror and Torture? MY ASS.




And International law by what means you say?

You can bring up the Geneva conventions in that time and place, but then have to excluse all the Viet Cong from any such protection while they never claimed nor practiced such conventions... so as per the letter of the international law in effect they are indeed spies and subject to summary execution by Geneva. And sure, that allowance wasn't really the common practice in any case, but I bet that once there is mention the actions of North Vietnam and the communist supporters supported inside the South we can end that whole sanctified preacher act.



Unfortunately large areas are not protected by conventions. Niether are small facilities protected from conventions. You want to say that non-combatants were targetted intentionally, really. Almost like the millions killed in South East Asia by victorious Communist regimes in oppression and not really remotely connected to acts that could be tried as murder to any US soldier in the field.



I think the gentle ones all die in battle.



Apparently it's the assumption from CMS that we knew where to target Osama and/or Saddam from the open stages, which we certainly tried to do anyway, several times in fact, with a little less mass death and a good deal more restraint but at times with massive conventional firepower no less lethal than any field WMD.

And so we eliminated the Taliban and Al-Queda as any viable force. Isn't that believable?



Now, there is something to be said for being a lunatic with a zeal for murderous rampages and how people just don't fuck with that type of person.

But look... the thing is when you and CSM pretend that Abu Gharaib is a terrorist acts, with torture by design, and then work in the barb about Vietnam and that the civilian slaughter that 'we' committed is illegal, well WTF?

All the while the Communist takeover of Hue after Tet and then the fall of South Vietnam in 1973 did in fact wreak mass murder and what I hear from both of you as 'terror and torture' is something Lydie waged on naked Iraqi men, and not mentioned with respect to the 12 senseless beheadings of Nepalese, by those who call us enemy... well fuck that. Nothing like a series of neutron bombs to clear our name, right?

I never said that what happened at Abu Graib was "terror and torture". What I said was that I did not think it was US policy to torture prisoners. As for VN, I pointed out that free fire zones and search and destroy missions were not necessarily bad things; same thing with bombing with B-52s.

I did say that I thought 10,000 to 20,000 civilian casualties was excessive when trying to strike a single target. I also realize that civilian casualties and collateral damage is a sad side effect of war. I know for a fact that the US military does not intentionally target civilian populations; I also know that when it comes to defending themselves and when deemed necessary, the US military will act despite the risk of civilian casualties.

Finally, don't lump me in with Mr. Wade. We do not agree on most issues.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What went on at Abu Graib and other prisons was too extensive to have been less than actual policy.

A spurious assertion based on nothing.

 

[Comrade]

On this I agree.



If only it were so simple. It is we who are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's and other Arabs, or at least not have them turn against us. They on the otherhand, are trying to instill fear in us, since they know they cannot convert us to their cause. So the audiences and goals are different. It's not a game, and it's not about fairness.

I've read through enough Iraqi blogs and of our soldiers' own comparisons from a host of sources, all of which give me faith that the vast majority of people in Iraq now having a chance to live free are fighting to overcome those who would seek to oppress them again. You have to have faith, that people naturally prefer freedom over all else and as long as we ensure security for the next several years, they will have it and make it work. Why not? Are they any different than all of the worlds' people who found that they could live free under our protection?

I think it may also come down to deposing the tyranny of both Iran and Syria to make it work permanently, but we don't have to do it now nor should we try.

I think we knew approximately where he was within Afganistan and specifically (within a few hundred yards) on several occasions. I could be wrong but what I know of our intel and survielance makes me believe this was the case. It was not until he went into the hills that he became difficult to pin down and escaped. If we had neutron bombed key areas in Kabul and other Afgani cities and taken out the Taliban, we would probably have gotten him. And we also could have neutron bombed large sections of the hills where he was likely to be hiding just in case we missed him in the cities.

You think that after 9-11 this was true? Clinton tried that and failed a few times... and that was the best intelligence we could have, and at no particular chosen time. And that was also when Osama had his sattlight phone to track.

But after 9-11 that was no longer a device he had, and if we knew even remotely where he was, Bush would have capped his skanky ass, because that was his primary goal at the time. And without a general location to go on, no neutron bomb would be usefull at all, right? And with a general location, we'd have recon aloft and would need to verify his presence before any kind of attack. And if we did that, which is standard proceedure anyway, a MOAB is almost overkill... let alone a radiation bomb. We'd catch hell for going around carpet bombing with neutron bombs anyhow... I remember the outrage over how Bush considered developing tactical nuclear bunker buster bombs, and that was just a program, let alone a strike.

Anyway, what I think first off is that such nuetron bombs are politically poisonous and entirely overkill, assuming we has a position on him.

And secondly, Bush's call for Osama was a mistake, he's nothing but a figurehead and we need not make him a martyr when he's either dead anyway, or already too close to death to be anything but a useless old man. We don't require vengeance, we needed to stop Al-Quada. And we did.

The situation in Vietnam was far different than that in Korea. Remember, in VN we were basically enforcing French rule, where in Korea we were not.

I disagree, the French ruled VN as a colonial empire, and the US eventually established an honest to god Democracy after 1967 and the ouster of Diem.

Instead of a quick resolution to the war and the fall of Hanoi and the end of all support to the communist rebels in the south, who were supplied from the North, we were chicken of China and hampered by domestic concerns for a new war.... without any kind of serious action against their sponsors from the North, the rebels were always active and supplied and it was simply a stupid way to fight a war. It's a lesson learned, and for that same reason, we should expect to either liberate Iran or face the same, endless guerilla actions sponsored from them and active in Iraq. Bush's 2nd term will take care of it.

Don't you see that there is a huge difference between what a peoples do to themselves and what we do to them?

You have to be specific or else it sounds like we did something 'to them' in general as a rule.

We did everything we could 'for them', those in South Vietnam. North Vietnam was a communist state, under the tyranny of Ho Chi Mihn, leader for life. What he did 'to them' was no more than oppression. What he also did was to violate the UN plan for free elections in all of Vietnam and chose instead to wage a guerilla campaing against the capitalist economy in the South. What the Viet Cong did 'to them' was to disrupt and destabilize a government who was not as militant as the north, and unprepared for this. What we did was to help them... in many tangible ways in their economy and in their security. Eventually the regular army invaded the South and we still kept ourselves limited to defence in the South. And when domestic demands forced us to pull out, we left the South with all the equipment we could send them. All the while China and Russia produced a flood of the same for the North ruled by Ho Chi Mihn. And the South fell a few years laters. And then a few million people in the South were murdered, imprisoned, relocated, or otherwise stripped of all status and property, because that is what Communist tyrants do. And yet a few hundred thousand were brought into America as well. So what you might think of as simple is a huge and complex war for the benefit of the people of South Vietnam, who don't have oil either. And if we had forced Ho Chi Mihn to ultimate peace we'd have made those people rich and vibrant, and I have no doubt of that. They would be no less properous than Germany, Japan, or South Korea. But the Democrats were running the whole circus for years and only Nixon ended it by massive bombing raids on the North.

Like I said, it's a very complex war... but not like Korea, of course. With that war, we actually fought Chinese troops in the field as well. But in the end, South Korea was held and now they are kicking ass right behind Japan. I've been there three times, too. So I know.

[/QUOTE]
I see your point. I just think that you are denying that these things are context sensitive, which they are.

Wade.

The universal theme of any discussion from the left is a focus session upon the crimes of America in war. The only point is to paint America, as in Vietnam, as the primary antagonist for conflict, an imperialist power with no regard for the people. Which is just propaganda. If you ask about the adversary, and how they carried out mass murder, door-to-door, took everything the people owned and sent them off without their family to work for the state, then you understand why we fought and what we tried to prevent. So there are two parties involved, and one will prevail. The one which prevailed there was a nasty murderous tyrant, so you take that and compare to America and how among those it protected grew to be great nations and you know the answer.



All I am saying is that the left propaganda will denigrate America as much as possible, ignore the adversary (it adores as a communist state) and leave some kind of bad taste in the mouth. And that pure bullshit.

 

[wade]

Comrade,

You really think there were "honest to God free elections" in SVN in 1967? I think that is revisionist history at its worst. Free elections require that the people be able to select who runs for office, not just who will lead from a pre-selected cast.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade,

You really think there were "honest to God free elections" in SVN in 1967? I think that is revisionist history at its worst. Free elections require that the people be able to select who runs for office, not just who will lead from a pre-selected cast.

Wade.

So now that you have a specific issue to challenge me, why don't you name first who won that election, just so I know you know anything about it.

 

[Comrade]

I never said that what happened at Abu Graib was "terror and torture". What I said was that I did not think it was US policy to torture prisoners. As for VN, I pointed out that free fire zones and search and destroy missions were not necessarily bad things; same thing with bombing with B-52s.

As an aside, the B-52's unleashed in Linebacker I and II by Nixon were the only things that really worked to make the North concede first to talks, and then to a treaty. We haven't had a decent Democrat in last half century who could be commander in chief without some half-assed liberal policy which created the hopeless war in Vietnan, or heralded the birth of state terrorism in Iran, or even stop Castro from taking power and then failed to take him out and then brought us to the brink of total annihilation over that entire clusterfuck that people like Kerry will only ensure. Not that I direct it at you because you probably already agree with it.

I did say that I thought 10,000 to 20,000 civilian casualties was excessive when trying to strike a single target. I also realize that civilian casualties and collateral damage is a sad side effect of war. I know for a fact that the US military does not intentionally target civilian populations; I also know that when it comes to defending themselves and when deemed necessary, the US military will act despite the risk of civilian casualties.

Be on the watch for those who want to discuss numbers of civilian casualties, especially regarding Iraq. They will never, ever, assume that these will happen in the course of Saddam's rule as the direct alternative to our own invasion. If you ever see a liberal playing the number game you ask about how great it would be if we had left Saddam himself to continue his 100,000+ annual civilian deaths, and they shut up. They want to act like there is no price to pay for them had the US not taken him out. And this ultimately means they really don't care about the civilian deaths at all, but would rather blow smoke up our asses and blame us for the deaths among what is already a drastic reduction in total as a result of our invasion. Even when they include the deaths from the terror bombing among the Iraqi public, which they do as a rule, they can't or won't face the real alternative.

Finally, don't lump me in with Mr. Wade. We do not agree on most issues.

Yeah, without Mr. Wade it would be boring.

 

[wade]

So now that you have a specific issue to challenge me, why don't you name first who won that election, just so I know you know anything about it.

Some dude named Nugen VanThu or something like that.

Okay, looking it up the last name was Thieu. Just read through these declassified CIA documents for yourself and tell me if you think this was really a "free" election:

http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=browse&descriptor=1967+PRESIDENTIAL+ELECTION

More specifically:

Resumption of distribution of funds to Thieu-Ky presidential campaign organization
"Resumption of distribution of funds to the Thieu-Ky presidential campaign organization [campaign representatives in IV Corps have received $300,000 for each province, and the other three Corps areas will receive their funds during the week of Aug. 13"
http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=427

This one is espeically interesting:
Contigency plans to rig elections in Vinh Long province in favor of Thieu-Ky ticket
"Contingency Plans to Rig Elections in Vinh Long Province in Favor of the Thieu-Ky Ticket [source reports that the US has decided to back the Thieu-Ky ticket, that the campaign organization considers the Chau Thanh district to be crucial, and that to ensure a plurality, an emergency plan for tampering with elections has been organized]."
http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=441

Obstacles to planned manipulation of election in favor of the Thieu-Ky presidential ticket in Vinh Long province
"Obstacles to Planned Manipulation of Election in Favor of the Thieu-Ky Presidential Ticket in Vinh Long Province [the source is concerned that the Thieu-Ky ticket will not be victorious in Vinh Long and that he will be unable to manipulate the election results because of the presence of foreign correspondents; if the ticket obtains 40% of the vote in Chau Thanh district, tampering with election results will be unnecessary]."
http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=442

Instructions given to unofficial Thieu-Ky campaign workers in Vinh Long and Sa Dec provinces
"Instructions given to unofficial Thieu-Ky campaign workers in Vinh Long and Sadec Province [workers are to use all individuals under their influence to generate support for the Thieu-Ky ticket, recruit reliable men to interfere with other candidates' campaigns, and observe Thieu-Ky campaign representatives to determine if they are giving full support]."
http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=423

Note: each of these has a variety of associated sub-documents which provide more detail.

These candidates were hand picked and financed by the USA. Read through the documents and then tell me this political process was truly a "free election", rather than just a dog-and-pony show. And there was no re-unification option on the ballot, "anti-government" parties were effectively shut down.

Read through these documents, they are very enlightening about a lot of things. And keep in mind they are all "sanatized" versions.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Some dude named Nugen VanThu or something like that.

Okay, looking it up the last name was Thieu. Just read through these declassified CIA documents for yourself and tell me if you think this was really a "free" election:

Sure it was. You won’t discredit the election from what you showed me, nor should you try, unless you want to back the communist rule in Vietnam.

If you can believe the entire election as a lie, and you certainly seem to imagine it’s a farce, you simply leave yourself open to the one single alternative of tyranny under Ho Chi Mihn, which is exactly how they work. If you take that first step of rejecting the election completely you will then be receptive to communist tyranny, which doesn't pretent to be elected.


But you’d have to really fool yourself to get there. I mean you’d have to almost want to belive this as true:

These candidates were hand picked and financed by the USA.

You lose credibility every time you say such things.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96winter/rostow.htm

Starting in September 1966, a political process was started. A Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a constitution. Despite communist intimidation, 81 percent of the population voted, out of 5.3 million registered. On 3 September 1967, a well-inspected presidential election was held. The Thieu-Ky ticket won with 34.8 percent of the votes. Typical of an underdeveloped country, there were ten civilian candidates. Registration had increased 11 percent since the vote of the previous year. Fifty-seven percent of the population of the country of voting age took part. Ambassador Dobrynin of the Soviet Union was almost precisely accurate when he said before the election that the Popular Front candidate commended by the communists would get 16 percent of the vote. The rest were explicitly anti-communist.

Even though it would mean defeat for the US if the communist candidate won, he still made a good show with 16%, a sizable amount among all ten candidates from the assembly. But never was a communist elected in all of democratic history, they rely on force to achieve tyranny, which is incompatible with democracy.

Read through the documents and then tell me this political process was truly a "free election", rather than just a dog-and-pony show.

Well if you can vote for a communist in the middle of the war against the democracy by a communist regime, then I say that's as free as it gets.

And there was no re-unification option on the ballot, "anti-government" parties were effectively shut down.

And if you think about it, the re-unification vote is pointless. Think.

If there was an ‘anti-government’ party why would they run for government? Am I missing something?

Read through these documents, they are very enlightening about a lot of things. And keep in mind they are all "sanatized" versions.

You do have a point here.

And maybe it was enough to offset the communist tampering, and it broke even. But you can’t expect perfection on the first try and especially in wartime.


But it didn’t need to be. We carried through with an open, free election and the opposition never could touch that. Which is the point. If you want to reject it then you choose communism. If it's not perfect but more than anything they ever had, you must by default assume the USA was a better hope for Vietnam.


Otherwise it’s not an argument, just a rant.

 

[wade]

Sure it was. You won’t discredit the election from what you showed me, nor should you try, unless you want to back the communist rule in Vietnam.

If you can believe the entire election as a lie, and you certainly seem to imagine it’s a farce, you simply leave yourself open to the one single alternative of tyranny under Ho Chi Mihn, which is exactly how they work. If you take that first step of rejecting the election completely you will then be receptive to communist tyranny, which doesn't pretent to be elected.

That's just bull shit. Freedom means FREEDOM! Even the freedom to make mistakes. I guess it's pointless to have such a discussion with you after all Comrade. You see the evidence and you discount it, even though it is declassified CIA documents showing that the CIA chose its candidates, funded them, sent in thugs to break up opposition organizers through violence, and fixed the election.

You lose credibility every time you say such things.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96winter/rostow.htm

You use a self serving retrospective over primary source documatation? And you talk about me loosing crediblity?

Even though it would mean defeat for the US if the communist candidate won, he still made a good show with 16%, a sizable amount among all ten candidates from the assembly. But never was a communist elected in all of democratic history, they rely on force to achieve tyranny, which is incompatible with democracy.

But they had ZERO chance of winning. The only candidate that could possibly win that election was Thieu, because it was rigged. Didn't you read the documents? Are you claiming they're fakes?

Well if you can vote for a communist in the middle of the war against the democracy by a communist regime, then I say that's as free as it gets.

Only if that candidate can actually win. In this election, he could not. It wasn't free at all, it was just a show for the US public.

And if you think about it, the re-unification vote is pointless. Think.

If there was an ‘anti-government’ party why would they run for government? Am I missing something?

Yes, the CIA defined "anti-goverment" as any party that did not support the war and the status quo. Again, read the documents.

You do have a point here.

And maybe it was enough to offset the communist tampering, and it broke even. But you can’t expect perfection on the first try and especially in wartime.

Umm.. second time. The first time were the elections called off by Diem and Eisenhower in 1957 because it was apparent that Ho-Chi-Miehn was going to win with better than a 70% majority.

But it didn’t need to be. We carried through with an open, free election and the opposition never could touch that. Which is the point. If you want to reject it then you choose communism. If it's not perfect but more than anything they ever had, you must by default assume the USA was a better hope for Vietnam.

Otherwise it’s not an argument, just a rant.

Boy you are one egocentric puppy Comrade. Look at the facts. The USA shut down the free elections in 1957, and rigged them in 1967. You stick to the idea that the 67 election was legitimate even in the face of documentation showing they were fixed on many levels. I guess your idea of a free election is different than mine. In my definition, more than one candiate needs to run, and it needs to be possible for more than just one candidate to win.

You can talk about freedom all you want but it is nothing more than dictatorship if the will of the people is repeatedly ignored and elections are repeatedly subverted. In the end, the will of the people did win in VN. This manifest itself through the defeat of the the South through war, where the whole mess could have been avoided by simply allowing the free elections to take place in 1957 and striving for normal relations with VN from the get go, even if they were communist.

And you seem to think that communism is by default totalitarian. It is not, it can even be somewhat democratic. Remember, the USA is not really a democracy, we are a fairly democratic republic. Our method of elections and voting allow for as little as 25%+1 voters to determine election outcomes. True democracy would be one man one vote, and we are no where close to that!

The main difference in theory between what we call communism and what we call democracy is not "democracy vs. totalitarianism", it is "capitalism vs. socialism".

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

That's just bull shit. Freedom means FREEDOM! Even the freedom to make mistakes. I guess it's pointless to have such a discussion with you after all Comrade. You see the evidence and you discount it, even though it is declassified CIA documents showing that the CIA chose its candidates, funded them, sent in thugs to break up opposition organizers through violence, and fixed the election.

Yes, we chose to support a candidate. You assumed violence.

You want to define FREEDOM as a puratanical standard, and again you act like I already explained. It's not FREE and Communism without elections are not FREE. Therefore it's no better than Communism.

You use a self serving retrospective over primary source documatation? And you talk about me loosing crediblity?

Yes, I have a link and you still don't. If you want to be so rude about that you are simply beyond reason. Are you drunk or tired or is this how you will act now?

But they had ZERO chance of winning. The only candidate that could possibly win that election was Thieu, because it was rigged. Didn't you read the documents? Are you claiming they're fakes?

Yes I read them and no they are not fakes. Until you can claim with certainly that such contigency plans were approved by oversight and actualy carried out 'in Vinh Long Province' specifically, and by such actions did indeed ensure that Thieu carried the entire country, then you can mock me.

What I said is that I don't really care for your presumptions because you won't also consider that no such thing was either necessary or authorized.

[/QUOTE]
Only if that candidate can actually win. In this election, he could not. It wasn't free at all, it was just a show for the US public.

Yes, there was meddling.

If you presume that every CIA document is authorized from above automatically, and carried out flawlessly, without discovery, and achieves the purpose, you may then say this.

And N.K. intelligence operations were in play to undermine the CIA, and under your logic they are also guaranteed to ensure that only the Communist candidate can win.

My point is you continue to assume America exists in a vacumm. I said earlier how this is typical of the left.

Yes, the CIA defined "anti-goverment" as any party that did not support the war and the status quo. Again, read the documents.

And when I look at the four you gave me I wonder why have to hunt it down for you? I have one here which says the CIA didn't stop anything and that 7 of the 10 felt "anti-goverment".

http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=429

Anti-Government Feeling among Civilian Presidential Candidates [seven of the ten civilian presidential candidates considered, but did not adopt, either a proposal by Tran Van Huong that elections be boycotted or a proposal by a revolutionary Dai Viet spokesman that all civilian candidates except one withdraw and unite behind the remaining candidate; they did decide that the most practical course would be to suspend further campaigning until the govt. guarantees campaigning facilities]. Intelligence Information Cable, TDCS I read the ones you linked to, Which leads to assume the communist candidate was

And now what?

Umm.. second time. The first time were the elections called off by Diem and Eisenhower in 1957 because it was apparent that Ho-Chi-Miehn was going to win with better than a 70% majority.

If Ho's little Communist tyranny was the people's choice it's probably as accurate as the year you quote.

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet5.html

The United States and the State of Vietnam had made it clear at the Geneva Conference that they did not like the results of the conference, which recognized Communist control of North Vietnam immediately, and created a likelihood that the Communists would take the South in two years. Both the US and the State of Vietnam conspicuously refused to promise that they would obey the Geneva Accords.

A piece of paper, not an accord. If we didn't obey Geneva they should probably revise the terms or bugger off then.

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet4.html

In the middle of 1956 the Communist leadership in Hanoi was just realizing the disastrous results of its errors, and starting to clean up the mess it had made. It had no attention to spare for events in the South. The chaos in North Vietnam was so bad, in fact, and the Viet Minh had lost so much of its popularity there, that some US officials began to regret that the US had so strongly opposed carrying out the elections called for by the Geneva Accords. They thought that if elections had been held in 1956 the Viet Minh might not have won after all.

If you got the (poll?) and it was already a year off I can only assume this 20 point advantage is of similar quality. Everything is always slanted with you, never linked, and wrong. And does that piss you off when I point that out? Well it pisses me off I have to keep pointing it out.

Boy you are one egocentric puppy Comrade. Look at the facts.

That's all I've done is feed you links to facts, but if you want to assume every time I correct you I'm egotistical, well denial is not just a river in Egypt, bub.

The USA shut down the free elections in 1957,

1956. Never agreed upon. Not under US control.

and rigged them in 1967.

And Thieu just won anyway.

You stick to the idea that the 67 election was legitimate even in the face of documentation showing they were fixed on many levels.

Only because you want to presume the operation was approved, implemented, and 100% effective. And you ignore how N.K. operations were presumed to be just as effective. Because if you actually brought that in you'd be stuck.

Which is why all of this propaganda doesn't work when you consider the USA does not exist in a vaccumm but under direct opposition. Lefists will never compare and contrast, because everything depends upon only faulting the USA on pithy details like election tampering. And that's far more free than Communist without elections, aint it?

I guess your idea of a free election is different than mine. In my definition, more than one candiate needs to run, and it needs to be possible for more than just one candidate to win.

10 in fact ran, but North Korea tampered with it.

You can talk about freedom all you want but it is nothing more than dictatorship if the will of the people is repeatedly ignored and elections are repeatedly subverted.

Well why not install Ho Chi Minh because without the pretense of democracy the will of the people is always behind a communist tyrant 100%.

I already explained where you were going with this a few posts back:

If you can believe the entire election as a lie, and you certainly seem to imagine it’s a farce, you simply leave yourself open to the one single alternative of tyranny under Ho Chi Mihn, which is exactly how they work. If you take that first step of rejecting the election completely you will then be receptive to communist tyranny, which doesn't pretent to be elected.

I'm dissapointed to played the game for so long only to find you are simply following the program to the letter, without deviation or insight. Very boring.

In the end, the will of the people did win in VN.

Sure it did. And surprisingly many seemed to want to be exectuted and buried in mass graves. Everyone with property or wealth actually wanted to be stripped clean of their lifelong earnings. And among the professionals most seemed to want to be reassigned to manual labour and leave the wife and kids behind. All of those desperate soldiers who fought on until the end were anxious and excited to see the NVA take over and let Ho Chi Minh decide their fate and their future. And that's still leaving out how all those horny woman really desired to be ravished by the victorious NVA troops.

So everyone obviously won. You know how you can tell when people are truly free in a Democracy? When they vote 100% for communism!

And then elections are simply redundant.

This manifest itself through the defeat of the the South through war, where the whole mess could have been avoided by simply allowing the free elections to take place in 1957 and striving for normal relations with VN from the get go, even if they were communist.

Well you mean 1956, and assume the accord was agreed upon, and that the US actually kicked themselves after realizing Ho would have maybe lost, but all that is meaningless anyway. Communist tyrants don't just step down because of some stupid election because it's rigged. Much like 1967, the only way a US favored sponsor won was because it was rigged. If N.K. intelligence managed to 'sponsor' the communist and get him from 16% to 40%, it's obviously the will of the people. But you've already learned of the truth from other revolutationaries.

And you seem to think that communism is by default totalitarian. It is not, it can even be somewhat democratic.

True communists like Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Jong, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, all of them are totalitarian dictators for life. A spade is really a spade.

Remember, the USA is not really a democracy, we are a fairly democratic republic. Our method of elections and voting allow for as little as 25%+1 voters to determine election outcomes. True democracy would be one man one vote, and we are no where close to that!

You make it sound like it's somehow unfair to those who simply choose not to vote. If you are not free to ignore the voting booths then I suppose the next logical step is to enforce actual familarity with the candidates, unless this is about herding ignorance into the process. But how they certify that is going to be too frightening... instead assume true freedom include the choice to not vote, as it should be.

The main difference in theory between what we call communism and what we call democracy is not "democracy vs. totalitarianism", it is "capitalism vs. socialism".

We call communism totalitarian states for good reasons, none of which are to be confused with state vs. private ownership of property. Are you honestly saying you don't know the differences between Sweden and North Korea?

 

[wade]

Comrade,

I don't know about you, but I have a life beyond the discussions on this msg board. I had some time while i was on vacation and happened upon it, and had a fair bit of time to burn in the first few weeks, but I don't have that kind of time any more. So I'm not always going to look up every little detail to confirm it, this is an informal discussion. You know what elections I meant, so stop making such a big shit about my saying 57 when I meant 56, it's not like there is any possiblity which election is being referenced could be confused. At the same time, I won't deride you for saying North Korea when you mean North Vietnam. Fair?

---------------------------------------

Yes, we chose to support a candidate. You assumed violence.

Ummm, when the CIA spends 300,000 undisclosed dollars per province and has a plan in action to use "unofficial" campaing workers instructed to disrupt opposition campaigns what do you think is going on? $300,000 in 1967 VN is like $20 million here in the USA today - it's a shit load of money. Don't be naive, this means thugs and other dirty tactics to prevent the opposition from waging an effective campaign.

You want to define FREEDOM as a puratanical standard, and again you act like I already explained. It's not FREE and Communism without elections are not FREE. Therefore it's no better than Communism.

Say what? You're not making any sense here. Are you saying that freedom is no better than communism?

Yes, I have a link and you still don't. If you want to be so rude about that you are simply beyond reason. Are you drunk or tired or is this how you will act now?

Hmmm...you insult me, then you get outraged when I insult you back. Either don't start it in the first place, which I'd prefer, or stop being a cry baby.

And I've provided you with pleanty of links. What you provided was someones opinion, and an opinion that is self serving to boot. I provided you with factual historic information. Hardly the same thing.

Yes I read them and no they are not fakes. Until you can claim with certainly that such contigency plans were approved by oversight and actualy carried out 'in Vinh Long Province' specifically, and by such actions did indeed ensure that Thieu carried the entire country, then you can mock me.

Don't be obtuse. These memos clearly show actions were being taken, they are always stated in a way to provide at least some level of plausible deniabilty. When a CIA memo says they are considering some action, it pretty much means they are doing it. Why bother to report something you are only thinking you might do?

What I said is that I don't really care for your presumptions because you won't also consider that no such thing was either necessary or authorized.

Whether it was necessary or not is not the issue. The point is the USA was not taking any chances. They weren't about to leave the election process alone on the hope they might win. If this kind of black money was spent and another candiate were to win CIA heads would have been rolling from Saigon all the way back to Washington!

If you presume that every CIA document is authorized from above automatically, and carried out flawlessly, without discovery, and achieves the purpose, you may then say this.

Discovery? How could the CIA be effective at the kind of black-ops they were running if they had the kind of checks and balances you describe. It just didn't work that way. After abuses were uncovered via Watergate, there was a period where there were more check and balances in the CIA, but that was well after Vietnam and it didn't last.

And N.K. intelligence operations were in play to undermine the CIA, and under your logic they are also guaranteed to ensure that only the Communist candidate can win.

That's an obserd contention. NV activities were totally underground at this time. They pretty much could assasinate candidates but the could not conduct the kind of intimidation and disruption activities the CIA and SV authorities could. Provide one source of information that indicates NV tried to covertly subvert the elections in any way. It's really kinda silly, as by this time NV was no longer concerned with SV's politics - it was commited to the miltary option and getting ready for TET.

My point is you continue to assume America exists in a vacumm. I said earlier how this is typical of the left.

And when I look at the four you gave me I wonder why have to hunt it down for you? I have one here which says the CIA didn't stop anything and that 7 of the 10 felt "anti-goverment".

http://library.usask.ca/vietnam/index.php?state=view&id=429

How do you read this into that one memo? All it says is that 7 out of 10 candiates choose not to boycott the election, but complained about the lack of campaign facilities. Read through more of that webisite, you are missing the big picture.

If Ho's little Communist tyranny was the people's choice it's probably as accurate as the year you quote.

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet5.html

Again, your sentance just doesn't make any sense.. it's just babble.

A piece of paper, not an accord. If we didn't obey Geneva they should probably revise the terms or bugger off then.

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet4.html

If you got the (poll?) and it was already a year off I can only assume this 20 point advantage is of similar quality. Everything is always slanted with you, never linked, and wrong. And does that piss you off when I point that out? Well it pisses me off I have to keep pointing it out.

That's all I've done is feed you links to facts, but if you want to assume every time I correct you I'm egotistical, well denial is not just a river in Egypt, bub.

You're ranting. Just because you say South Korea when you mean South Vietnam does this mean I should discount everything you say? Stop being an ass and start writing meaninful sentances.

I've provided you with at least as many factual links as you've provide me. It is you who won't consider both sides of the discussion. It is you who believes America is a country that wears a big S on it's shirt, always tells the truth, and is always on the side of justice - no matter how tall the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

1956. Never agreed upon. Not under US control.

Ummm.. Why was US approval and control essential to this agreement involving a foriegn country? The US went into the Genevia confrence agreeing to abide by the outcome, and then backed out of the deal when things didn't go our way. Is it your position that the USA has the right to dictate the terms of any and all international agreements, and if it does not they are not legitimate?

And Thieu just won anyway.

Did he really? We shall probably never know.

Only because you want to presume the operation was approved, implemented, and 100% effective. And you ignore how N.K. operations were presumed to be just as effective. Because if you actually brought that in you'd be stuck.

You're ranting again, and this was already covered earlier. Again, show me some evidence to support your claim that NV was in any way involved in subverting the honest election process in SV.

Which is why all of this propaganda doesn't work when you consider the USA does not exist in a vaccumm but under direct opposition. Lefists will never compare and contrast, because everything depends upon only faulting the USA on pithy details like election tampering. And that's far more free than Communist without elections, aint it?

No. It's just a choice between dictatorships.

10 in fact ran, but North Korea tampered with it.

NORTH VIETNAM! - support your contention. (again, you're repeating yourself)

I'm dissapointed to played the game for so long only to find you are simply following the program to the letter, without deviation or insight. Very boring.

LOL - you have it backwards. It is you who are following the program to the letter. You cannot open your mind to the idea that the US policy in VN was corrupt, despite the evidence.

[......repetative ranting deleted......]​

Well you mean 1956, and assume the accord was agreed upon, and that the US actually kicked themselves after realizing Ho would have maybe lost, but all that is meaningless anyway. Communist tyrants don't just step down because of some stupid election because it's rigged. Much like 1967, the only way a US favored sponsor won was because it was rigged. If N.K. intelligence managed to 'sponsor' the communist and get him from 16% to 40%, it's obviously the will of the people. But you've already learned of the truth from other revolutationaries.

WELL YOU MEAN N.V......More ranting... geeze, do you read what you write? The idea that Ho-Chi-Mihn might have lost is contrary to everything I've ever read about Vietnam, and contrary to what my professor on Vietnamese Politics (who was Vietnamese) said as well.

True communists like Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Jong, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, all of them are totalitarian dictators for life. A spade is really a spade.

Hmmm.. how about the Democracies that have fallen to totalitarian dictators for life... Hitler, Marcos, a host of S. American countries... you cannot say that only Communist countries suffer this fate.

[Please do not use racist terms when carrying on a discussion with me okay Comrade? I'll assume you didn't mean it as such.]

You make it sound like it's somehow unfair to those who simply choose not to vote. If you are not free to ignore the voting booths then I suppose the next logical step is to enforce actual familarity with the candidates, unless this is about herding ignorance into the process. But how they certify that is going to be too frightening... instead assume true freedom include the choice to not vote, as it should be.

Rant rant rant... I have no idea what your point is here.

We call communism totalitarian states for good reasons, none of which are to be confused with state vs. private ownership of property. Are you honestly saying you don't know the differences between Sweden and North Korea?

You are talking about a sheltered modern state, and choose an unusual example in Sweeden.

Democracy has generally failed, not suceeded, dating all the way back to the Greeks. The US democracy was born out of unique circumstances. The population was not homogenous, outside powers were unable to signficantly threaten the new state, and land reform was totally unnecissary.

I agree with you Communism is an undesirable form of Government, but not because it inherantly means dictatorship. We have no idea what might have happend if the USA had chosen communism back in the 1780's instead of a democratic republic for its form of government. The Soviet Union fell from communism to dictatorship because of all the stresses to the union not faced by the USA. Remember, after the communists took power the western powers sent armies to try to dispel the new government. Under constant threat from outside powers and in the face of horrible economic conditions, it was easy for a dicator to seize power.

Trying to install a democracy on top of a feudal or long term colonial society is almost certainly doomed to failure if the old injustices are not dealt with. Opposition groups will rise seeking redress for these issues, and the democracy will turn totalitarian to deal with them. In VN we were effectively trying to install a democracy on top of the colonial dictatorship of the French. No serious attempt at economic redistribution was conducted, espeically in terms of land reform.

From your own source:

"Diem's government generally sided with the landlords against the peasants. This was especially important in the area southwest of Saigon, the Mekong Delta, where most of the land was owned by quite wealthy absentee landlords. Many villages had been controlled by the Viet Minh up to 1954; in those villages, the peasants had gotten accustomed to paying little or no rent. In 1955 and 1956, when Diem's government in Saigon established its control over such villages, the landlords resumed collection of rent. The usual level was about 25% of the crop. After a short time Diem's American advisors persuaded him to carry out a land reform program to win greater peasant support, but even in theory Diem's program was not as generous toward the peasants as the program the Viet Minh had carried out up to 1954, and in practice Diem's officials did not always carry out the land reform program properly. This inspired much peasant resentment.

Finally, Diem made what may have been a mistake by hunting down and attacking people in the countryside who had supported the Viet Minh during the war. These people had lost much of their faith in the Viet Minh; some felt it had betrayed and abandoned them between 1954 and 1956. They might have been willing to forget politics if the government had been willing to let them alone. However, when Diem's police began arresting them, often beating and killing them, they began to think of resistance.

By the late 1950's, Diem's government had become so corrupt and brutal that many South Vietnamese were eager to overthrow it."
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet5.html

And the US decided to side with Diem, basically on the side of the landlords against the peasents. This is the problem with American installed "democracies" in third world nations. They generally do not redress the wrongs of the past. This leaves the core problems in place within the society. Because these nations need land (and other economic) reform, they have to stand against the US, and unfortunately the only other games are Communism or Religious fundimentalism.

In the pursuit of our own interests in VN, we screwed the pooch. We were, in effect, telling the SV peasents they would have to continue to live under the same oppressive social and economic situation they'd lived with under French rule, but instead of the French directly running things, their installed cronies would do so, with US guns to back them up. They would continue to work for slave masters till the end of time.

In any case, you claim that the US was installing a democracy in SV. I dispute this - I say the US was installing a dictator under the guise of democracy. I think the facts bear out my assertion.

You need to take your blinders off and realize the USA is not always a standard bearer of freedom and justice in the world. There are far to many instances where US self interest, not freedom or justice, have dicatated our actions at the expense of the people we have claimed we were bringing "freedom". The only freedom we were offering the SV was the freedom to be brutalized slaves forever.

And finally I'd point out that VN is actually a rather progressive country in the 3rd world today. After a brief period of reprisal after the end of the war it has developed a fair economy which benifits the people. It has implemented a fair land reform for the people. It has worked its way out of the inevitable post-war economic crisis, has succeeded in eductating its population (it has 94% literacy rate), and has gradually reduced governmental controls in both the urban and rural sectors. Within another generation, it will probably convert to a modern democracy that will actually work!

Now compare this to the "democracies" we have created and supported in our own hemisphere, which are mostly little more than dictatorships in disguise, have literacy rates well under 50%, and offer not real hope for the improvement of their peoples situation in the forseeable future. Had VN remained under the installed governement they'd pretty much be in the same situation.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How far back should we go to redress the wrongs of the past?

 

[wade]

That depends on the nature of the wrongs and their effect on the present.

Sometimes, as in the case of Vietnam, or about 200 years before, in france, a complete reset was needed. This is probably true in the case of many South American countries today as well.

In some cases, such as Britain, a less than total reset can be negotiated.

Is it your contention that if a small power elite which gained its position through corruption and violence sustains it for more than some fixed period of time that it should perminantly retain that advantage? And even more importantly, that we, the USA should provide miltary support to them so they can retain the advantage when the people rise up to seek redress?

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That depends on the nature of the wrongs and their effect on the present.

Sometimes, as in the case of Vietnam, a complete reset was needed. This is probably true in the case of many South American countries today as well.

Is it your contention that if a small power elite which gained its position through corruption and violence sustains it for more than some fixed period of time that it should perminantly retain that advantage? And even more importantly, that we, the USA should provide miltary support to them so they can retain the advantage when the people rise up to seek redress?

Wade.

It is my contention that sometimes we need to control a region by any means necessary to stop our global enemies from controlling it. WHich country or group hasn't maintained power through force? We must make a distinction about what vision of governance the parties in question intend to inflict on populaces they control. Our hands are the least dirty. if we're so evil and intent on subjugating the world, it would already be done. Face it, wade, all your seeming smarts and intelligence do not hide your basic antiamerican agenda.

 

[wade]

I do not have an anti-american agenda. I want America to be what it should be, the force for real freedom and justice in the world, not just our own self interest dressed up in sheeps clothing. What I want is the mistakes of the past to be recognized so they don't continue to happen.

In the end, Vietnam didn't turn out to be of much value to our "global enemies" did it? The whole war was foolishness. It all dates back to our refusal to accept that land/economic reform was necessary in China - if we had recognized and supported this need China would probably not be communist today and the true threat to the USA would not exist. Instead we supported the status quo in a nation where that meant we supported continued tyranni, and the price we pay for that is inestimable.

And why, if contending with global enemies justifies our bad behavior in SE Asia, do we also behave badly w.r.t. the countries in Latin America? Why do we hold them in a continuing state of desperate poverty while reaping their natural resources and labor for our own profit.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I do not have an anti-american agenda. I want America to be what it should be, the force for real freedom and justice in the world, not just our own self interest dressed up in sheeps clothing. What I want is the mistakes of the past to be recognized so they don't continue to happen.

In the end, Vietnam didn't turn out to be of much value to our "global enemies" did it? The whole war was foolishness. It all dates back to our refusal to accept that land/economic reform was necessary in China - if we had recognized and supported this need China would probably not be communist today and the true threat to the USA would not exist. Instead we supported the status quo in a nation where that meant we supported continued tyranni, and the price we pay for that is inestimable.

And why, if contending with global enemies justifies our bad behavior in SE Asia, do we also behave badly w.r.t. the countries in Latin America? Why do we hold them in a continuing state of desperate poverty while reaping their natural resources and labor for our own profit.

Wade.

You're just as antiamerican as the liberals you pretend your not one of. We have done more good than any other nation. Are we perfect? no. but we're closer than anyone has ever come before.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Guess what wade. Utopia is not an option right now. Bitching about niggling little details against a backdrop of monumental good is just annoying.

 

[wade]

You're just using a tactic to justify wrong/evil behavior.

You conservatives will destroy this nation with your fear mongering and rationalizations. You just don't understand that principals are more important in the long run than immeadiate gratification.

One day you will wake up and realize the price of bankrupt philosphy, but it will probably be too late to do anything about it. When the USA goes fascist, that's the ball game.

What "monumental good"? Explain what monumental good the USA has done since WWII.

Wade.