CSM
Senior Member
Harmageddon said:
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
al-Qaida No. 2: U.S. 'Ran' From Vietnam
- Thread starter Lefty Wilbury
- Start date
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
Member
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Senior Member
Harmageddon said:
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
Member
I have indeed simplified the situation in Vietnam, however, my stance on the subject remains. To continue the debate:
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 its 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
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.
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?
Ive 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 its 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
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.
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.
Fair enough.
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
Member
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.
I realize there has been a lot of thought in this, Ive referred to the PNAC clan for a while. That is where the thoughts are that determine your countrys 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.
You may reject it. Although it seems that at present the targets of this Muslim terrorism have been America and its 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.
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 Zawahris 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 Zawahris goals: try and unite the Muslim world against the west.
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 historys dictators to see the truth of that statement.
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.
Cheers, same here.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Federal Court : Hackers will leave >>>NO EVIDENCE<<<<< That voting machine data has been breached !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Started by Contumacious
- Replies: 0
-
Trump Claims He Invented a New Word: Equalizing (already passing spell-check)- Started by citygator
- Replies: 10
-
American patients first: Trump orders drugmakers to match lowest global prices- Started by Edgetho
- Replies: 6
-
Black Nurse Claims She Kills White Patients On Facebook- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 2
-
