13-02-2005 13:28									#271
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I'm surprised that anyone would still want to defend the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war of aggression against all the Vietnamese people, a people who had been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years.

You mean like the hundreds of thousands who fled S. Vietnam when the North took over? Were they some of the 'all Vietnamese'?

	13-02-2005 14:15									#272
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You know, altough I don't usually read Agathon's posts (he's on my IgL), I have to agree with the quoted statement above.

Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

Imran:

quote: Neoconservatives are telling the administration to go into Sudan to fix that mess. I don't really see any oil there.

quote: NO, he [Rumsfeld] isn't [a neocon]. Rumsfeld is clearly a realist.

Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

	13-02-2005 14:21									#273
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by VJ Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

How do you jive that with what I quoted by Aggie?

	13-02-2005 14:27									#274
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Agathon: I'm surprised that anyone would still want to defend the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war of aggression against all the Vietnamese people, a people who had been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years.

quote: VJ: I have to agree with the quoted statement above. Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

To clarify my position: I'd be surprised, too, if anyone would still want to defend the communist terrorists fighting in the Vietnam war >30 years ago, for they were fighting an immoral war against the Vietnamese people, people who'd been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years btw.

	13-02-2005 14:33									#275
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ohh. I see. The bit that you missed due to my clipping is that it is the Yanks who were making war against all Vietnamese people.

	13-02-2005 14:37									#276
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, I guessed it. It is Agathon, after all. Just wanted to offer a different viewpoint to confuse him.

	13-02-2005 21:49									#277
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: To clarify my position: I'd be surprised, too, if anyone would still want to defend the communist terrorists fighting in the Vietnam war >30 years ago, for they were fighting an immoral war against the Vietnamese people, people who'd been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years btw.

They were on the side of the vast majority of Vietnamese. If you want to argue that a few people didn't like it and left, fine. But everyone knows they would have won the election slated for the first settlement, which is why the US sabotaged it.

Try going to school first, eh tard?

	14-02-2005 08:14									#278
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Relax, Aggie.

	14-02-2005 10:56									#279
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

Read the thread. Neoconservatism can also be called 'Hard Wilsonianism', ie, spreading democracy and capitalism through the world by force if need be. It's the belief that talking about problems hasn't spread democracy, and we need to remove brutal dictators from their positions of power and institute democracy.

	14-02-2005 11:39									#280
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: To clarify my position: I'd be surprised, too, if anyone would still want to defend the communist terrorists fighting in the Vietnam war >30 years ago, for they were fighting an immoral war against the Vietnamese people, people who'd been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years btw. They were on the side of the vast majority of Vietnamese. If you want to argue that a few people didn't like it and left, fine. But everyone knows they would have won the election slated for the first settlement, which is why the US sabotaged it.

Actually, it was 'only' around a million people who had the gumption and money to pick up and leave. I don't have any numbers about how many didn't like the NV regime, but who stayed. Do you? Do you think the old rule about 1 letter written representing 10 who didn't bother would apply? 5? 20?

No matter how you slice it, the 'all Vietnamese' claim is not really defensible, is it? Nor is the My Lai was the tip of the iceburg, is it?

I don't have to be 'defending' Vietnam to say you are distrorting things, big time.

	14-02-2005 16:03									#281
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"? Read the thread. Neoconservatism can also be called 'Hard Wilsonianism', ie, spreading democracy and capitalism through the world by force if need be. It's the belief that talking about problems hasn't spread democracy, and we need to remove brutal dictators from their positions of power and institute democracy.

Imran, i respect every persons right to believe what they feel is right - so i have no-problem with the fact that you call yourself a neo-conservitive.
But about the bit i've bolded; cant you see that therin lies a root problem?

My reasoning is that i would have no problem with this central neo-con belief if instead of installing democracies it was about installing dictatorships or something similar.
How can you(or the neo-cons) expect a true democracy to settle in by the use of external force?

I can expect it if it came from the native people of the country in question, if they rose up to throw out a dictator like Saddam(which they did in vast numbers in the last Iraq war - and were left hanging by the US, a missed opportunity), and they decided for themselves democracy was what they wanted.
Thats how many of the democratic countries, like ourselves, came to democracy.

But i just see it as using completely the wrong approach when an outside country(the US and UK in this current case) tries to invade and dipose a system to force democracy on a people. Even if many people in the country in question would support it, there will always be questions of legitimacy? How stable would this democracy be?

How would you react to China invaiding another country to impose communism for example? Can you understand the dangerous precident that the US+UK have set here?
You must see what i'm getting at? And its this central neo-con belief that i feel is its greatest flaw.

Democracy(a freedom) being forced onto a country with modern warfare(and collateral damage on those your imposing it on). They just dont seem to add up in many people's books.

Now if you want to spread democracy(no bad thing imho) look at the Ukaraine? US/UK involvement helping the 'people' get the result 'they' wanted. A much better scenario for a long term succesfull democacy no?

	14-02-2005 16:14									#282
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

External Force seems to have worked wellin both Germany and Japan. The ues of external force also allowed South Korea to remain free of North Korea while the threat of external force is the only reason Taiwan is still free. True both Taiwan and South Korea took a few decades to mature but they are now fully functioning democracies with all the modern protections which go along with it. To compare the mainland Chinese and the North Koreans can't vote for a dog catcher plus they're economically worse off to boot.

	14-02-2005 16:21									#283
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

BTW China has forcably exported communism in the past decades before Iraq. North Korea exists today solely because the communist Chinese started a war there and North Vietnam would have lost the war in 1968 or 1969 had nearly the entire north Vietnamese war effort been backed by China & the USSR. Just about every gun, bullet, missile or bomb came from those two countries. Thus there is nothing new about attemptig to export political ideologies and I'd say Democracy is a better option because if people really don't like it then they have a chance to fix it through voting.

	14-02-2005 16:42									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

well i can be argued that both Germany and Japan induced their current state by themselves being ideological invaiders - enough people got pissed of with them and crushed them in a united action.

Very diferent kettle of fish imho to what the neo-con thing is about

The US has been using various methods of 'regime cahnge' for decades(look at south america). The Neo-con approach is more of an upfront version of that strategy, with all the same complications(populist upriseings etc).

I just find it very ironic when in a matter of months we have a huge US success in the Ukaraine, with little comparative bloodshed and then we have Iraq, which looks like it has a long and hard(and hopefuly succesful) road ahead of it.

The two differnent approaches bring about two different results with two differing chances of long-term success.

Thats where my(and others) personal doubts come into play reguarding Iraq. To many the US(and UK) involvement has primarily been a story of revenge(how dare Saddam turn his back on the two countries that put him in power(for their own reasons=oil)) and money(in terms of oil control).
The democracy and freedon rhetoric coming from Bush(and the Neo-cons) are in all likely hood just a convieniant smokescreen to try to sell the war at home(a success at home in the US, not so much in the UK), and abroad(a resounding disaster for both countries).

This will always be the problem with this neo-con strategy. Unless it can pull of a miricle and use this strategy in places where it is blatently clear the US has no economic(not Iraq+Afghanistan) or strategic(again not Iraq+Afghanistan) interests.
It will have to be acting in a completely magnanimous/generous capacity for most countries in the world to come on-board.
Sadly it does seem(if you read the literature), that the Neo-con movenment is pretty much tied up with the economic/strategic gain aspect of its strategy

	14-02-2005 17:17									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If you think the US or UK put Saddam in power then you have no clue about the history of Iraq. Read Iraqi history from 1958 on word to get a better picture of how Saddam came to power and how the Ba'athists most certainly weren't the US/UK's boy until after the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis. Both the US & UK dispised the Ba'athists for 1) removing UK air bases from Iraq which both countries used 2) nationalizing first BP's oil interests in Iraq then every foreign owned company in Iraq then every large company in Iraq not owned by a member of the Ba'ath party. 3) The Ba'athists continually flirted with the Idea of being a Soviet Satillate and bought most of its weapons from the Soviets (not the west) 4) Both the US and UK continually objected to Saddam's treatment of Kurds and Shia and both countries provided military aid to the Kurds to fight rebellions against the Ba'athists (especially in the desasterous 1970-1975 uprising).

Read a bit more and you'll figure out Saddam got where he was dispite the US and UK's efforts and it wasn't until the Shah was out in Iran and the Iraqis were fighting Iranians that they got any help but even that was less then what the Soviets and the Chinese were giving.

	14-02-2005 17:38									#286
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

well there must be various 'versions' of history floating around.

From what i've read and been told ref Saddam; he was a small time thug from a working class(britishism-sorry) background.

The Cia got involved with him when they were conducting covert ops in Iraq during this time. They recruited Saddam(much like they did OBL in afghanistan), and hatched a plot for Saddam to assisnate the current king of Iraq.

He bungled the attempt and then the Cia(aided by british secret services) had to clear up the mess and smuggle him out while things settled down.

Later they used some army generals to succesfully carry out the assasination(the video documentary evidence of which is quite spine-tingling, but then when you see 'real' death as opposed to acted death, its always more uncomfortable).

Saddam was then put in power with this Cia/british backing. The deal being to supply cheap oil, which of course he renegaded on. Its all in some of the 'biographies' on Saddam and/or his regime you can find in local bookstores.

Now if this kind of stuff is all just 'black-ops' (like the book that caused the rise to power of the neo-cons in the republican party from the 50's onwards), then it would beg the question why? Someone tell me its just communist propaganda

	14-02-2005 18:02									#287
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

maybe it is. Just did a quick google and this is all i've found so far:

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/68.html

Its basically says the Kingship of Iraq was set up by the british(oil interests), and always had problems of legitimacy(which i feel the new democratic iraq may face too). It was eventually overthrown by a pro-arab coalition in a military coup in 1968.
At this time the Bathist party came into power which eventualy led to saddam.


So taking this info we have pro-western and artificially created regime being taken over by an arab(and presumably anti-western?) upriseing. The oil doesn't come as cheep so something needs to be done about it?

hmmm....my 'communist conspirecy theory/black-ops' could be fit into this frame work but i'll leave as it is - it seems good enough for what follows next?

Last edited by child of Thor on 14-02-2005 at 18:19

	14-02-2005 18:43									#288
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: But about the bit i've bolded; cant you see that therin lies a root problem?

No. The brutal dicators of this world should be deposed. We can't simply stand aside and say it is not in our interests to prevent the bloodshed. That is what happened with Rwanda and look what happened there. Frankly, I'd like the administration to be more neoconservative and overthrow the Burmese regime of butchers.

If we try to wait for the people in that country to uprise, we may have allowed thousands of more deaths.

The Ukraine really doesn't play into it. After all, they did have elections, even if they were rigged, and were trying to at least LOOK like a democracy. There are no such attempts in Saddam's Iraq or Burma or Sudan or Rwanda.


And the US didn't recruit OBL in Afganistan. That's another myth. The US supported the muhujadeen (later known as the Northern Alliance). OBL decided to get involved in the fight himself (the CIA didn't bring him in). Same thing with Saddam. The CIA didn't bring him into power. After all, the Ba'ath Party was SOCIALIST!

	14-02-2005 19:02									#289
	Remove this text

The world is just too damn complicated sometimes.

Who's myths should we believe? Anyway as to your reply Imran.
Ok i can see entirely where your coming from - bad people should not be given the opportunity to cause countless suffering to innocent people. We all agree on that one.
But the duplicity of the situation both the US and the UK finds itself in doesn't help in this mission. We've both been perfectly happy to support sadistic and 'evil' rulers when its suited our interests(Pinoche etc).

I'm basicaly after the same thing as you - i just dont think we have right to claim the moral high ground(especially considering our past) and then decide we know best for everyone else, especialy if that leads to the illegal occupation of whatever country takes our economic/strategic fancy.

This is how it looks. And the more we try your approach the more this will be born out.
I want that just and free world you do, i just dont see that doing it at the end of a gun will actualy bring his about. Being nice to people is much better in the long run.
Imperialism doesn't ultimately work - as the good folks of the USA should know, we certainly do over here in the uk(give us back our usa! ).

	14-02-2005 19:08									#290
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: But the duplicity of the situation both the US and the UK finds itself in doesn't help in this mission. We've both been perfectly happy to support sadistic and 'evil' rulers when its suited our interests(Pinoche etc).

Since we were wrong once, that means we should never work for right? I don't buy that argument. We may have been wrong in the past, but we have to move on, say it was wrong, and say we are trying for right. When leaders butcher their own people, we can't let them think that they are safe. Even if that means we admit we were wrong in backing them in the first place! If we have to say sorry, then we have to. Look at what Pol Pot ended up doing! We can't say that is ok.

	14-02-2005 19:20									#291
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

child of Thor: Get rid of your "west = evil" prejudice and start looking historical situations (what actually happened, what different factions knew of each other back then, the motives of different people etc...) more objectively. I'm sure you'll turn up to be a nice guy in the end.

quote: The US supported the muhujadeen (later known as the Northern Alliance).

I've always thought that "mujahdeen" (or however it's supposed to be spelled correctly in western alphabet) simply means "riding men" and it refers to all Islamic fighters... how would that exclude Taleban?

quote: Read the thread. Neoconservatism can also be called 'Hard Wilsonianism', ie, spreading democracy and capitalism through the world by force if need be. It's the belief that talking about problems hasn't spread democracy, and we need to remove brutal dictators from their positions of power and institute democracy.

"Hard Wilsonianism" = Heh. Who came up with that term? It's not practical, too hard to pronounce correctly. Well, anyway... I have no objections, I think you're right.

	14-02-2005 19:43									#292
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

@ Imran,

No of course we dont want a world like that.
Still i think your still failing to see the point i'm trying to get across? which is understandable as its the crux of the neo-conservitive ethos.
And past is sadly hugely important in all this - people dont forget injustices done to them.
You can force a dictator ship on people(its been done many times before). Force begets force.

But many people just fail to see how you can force a democracy on people, atleast not one that will stand the test of time. Support/encourage an upriseing if its there to support, atleast it will then have some semblence of legitamacy.

But really i know this isnt the only reason for the current and past moves in Afghanistahn and Iraq. Money/tactical reasons are the driveing force and this whole 'democracy' thing is the smoke screen. Its plainly obvious when you see what the founders and followers of the neo-conservitive(straussian too) movement have to say about their philoshopy(see my linked thread for details).

Wolf in sheeps clothing can only remain hidden for so long - soon the other sheep get wise to it

@ VJ,

well i just think we have to admit to our shady past, and if thats still on-going, how can we expect to be taken seriously in our mission to make a better world for all?

Last edited by child of Thor on 14-02-2005 at 19:52

	14-02-2005 19:57									#293
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Frankly, I'd like the administration to be more neoconservative and overthrow the Burmese regime of butchers.

With what? You may say that the admin bungled the build up to war but I really fail to see how they could have gotten the Security Council to back the invasion given its reluctance and backpedaling. And I really see no appetite for it among the American people. This is the problem I have with the Neo-con view of IR. It keeps getting us involved in unnecessary conflicts that don't effect our interests and tie down our armed forces.

PS Can we please stop polluting this thread by talking to Thor about Neo-conservatism when his very sig (Republican=Neo-con for all intent and purpose. be afraid) proudly displays the fact he hasn't the first clue on the subject?

	14-02-2005 20:11									#294
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Money/tactical reasons are the driveing force and this whole 'democracy' thing is the smoke screen. Its plainly obvious when you see what the founders and followers of the neo-conservitive(straussian too) movement have to say about their philoshopy(see my linked thread for details).

It's because you take people who aren't neoconservatives, assign that label onto them, and claim look at what the movement stand for! It's like calling idiot radicals 'true communists' and saying, see Communism is run by morons (which is done often and just as wrong). The neoconservative movement, which is based on liberalism, has been twisted by its critics to mean interest based foriegn policy. It's incredible! I'm sure those who believe in interest foriegn policy (like Dinodoc) would LOVE that to be the case, but they don't like the neoconservatives because they aren't in it for US interests, but for values like democracy.

Neoconservatives didn't want to go into Iraq for oil or for tactical reasons. Read the writings about democratizing the Middle East with Iraq are the first dominoe!

	14-02-2005 20:16									#295
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: With what? You may say that the admin bungled the build up to war but I really fail to see how they could have gotten the Security Council to back the invasion given its reluctance and backpedaling.

Look at Sudan. US leadership in the Security Council can result in some sort of armed intervention there. Though, frankly, I thought NATO, after Kosovo was going to be that force for change throughout the world. The problem is that because of our back and forth on why we wanted to go into certain conflicts, much of the world didn't trust us at all, and assigns, as child of Thor keeps say, the idea that the US was just interested in oil and its national interests, etc, etc. IMO, the view would be entirely different if the US was seen as a force for humanitarian change rather than just serving its own interests.

As for American heart for war... I guess that is where the Straussianism comes in (kidding, kidding)

	14-02-2005 20:26									#296
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Look at Sudan. US leadership in the Security Council can result in some sort of armed intervention there.

Are we talking about Southern Sudan or Dalfur? Because it was the AU not the UN that put the token force their and the UNSC is still reluctant to even impose sanctions on the country because of the economic ties 2 of its permanent members have with the government in Khartoum.

PS I'll bite. Can you explain Straussianism and how your comment applies?

	14-02-2005 20:46									#297
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by VJ Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

What are you talking about? We lost that war.

	14-02-2005 20:51									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: PS I'll bite. Can you explain Straussianism and how your comment applies?

Oh, Strauss is known for saying that philosophers have to conceal their true intentions from the people. Mainly because their intentions are really pretty radical (at least most philosophers). Therefore, concealing it, saves themselves from persecution and makes it more palatable to the masses. Or something like that.

The critics get on this and say that Neoconservatives are really hardcore Straussians and they say they want democracy, but their real intention is naked power grab. In the end, that is silly, because Strauss said the intentions should be hidden from the public, because the intentions were RADICAL.

	14-02-2005 20:53									#299
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The problem is that because of our back and forth on why we wanted to go into certain conflicts, much of the world didn't trust us at all, and assigns, as child of Thor keeps say, the idea that the US was just interested in oil and its national interests, etc, etc. IMO, the view would be entirely different if the US was seen as a force for humanitarian change rather than just serving its own interests.

EXACTLY now this is a problem, especialy when even potential allies can see this.

I want America to be that force for good in the world - its had the perfect oportunity. I just think its become so corrupted by greed that the goodness it could do in the world is a long distant dream, unless it does some serious in-house cleaning up first(and i mean pretty much the whole political/financial institutions).

And having the founders of the neo-con movement express that this isnt on the agenda doesn't fill one with hope over the current strategy. Thats about the sum of it.

And DinoDoc, i wont be confused by the 'shades of grey' approach, which is of itself part of the whole neo-con/straussian thing. The Republican party has become tainted by the neo-con movement. A spade is a spade as far as i'm concerned.

	14-02-2005 20:54									#300
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You mean like the hundreds of thousands who fled S. Vietnam when the North took over? Were they some of the 'all Vietnamese'?

Out of a country of 56 million? It looks good on tv, but it was a rather small part of the population. In addition, you have to consider that a good number of those folks were either ethnic Chinese (and thus associated with the 1,000 year Chinese occupation) or were French speaking Catholic Vietnamese, and thus associated with the dictatorship in South Vietnam. These were people who'd been killing Budhist monks, slaughtering peasants in the countryside, etc. I'm not gonna argue that the Communists weren't brutal, but it ain't like the people who fled were all innocent victims.