14-02-2005 21:08									#301
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin 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.

Uhm, to "remain free" one would have had to have been free in the first place. Korea only became mostly democratic in the 90s, and is still quite thuggish today. The same goes for Taiwan. The force applied by the West was to defend brutal dicatorships of the worst kind.

quote: 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

Exporting communism means spreading it someplace it did not already exist. In the case of Korea, China did not export communism, but defended a regime that was already there. In fact, if anyone exported anything, it was the United States, who occupied the South in 1945, and overthrew the Communist government there which had been established when Japan fell.

As for the Korean War, the fact is, both sides had been raiding and skimishing, and there was more or less a state of hostilities on both sides of the border. On the first day of the war, South Korea reported taking a North Vietnamese city, and there's some reason to believe the war started as a RoK border incursion which the DPRK escalated into a full blown war.

quote: 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.

Again, Communism already existed in Vietnam. This was not a case of exporting ideology as defending it from U.S. attack. In the case of South Vietnam, elections were canceled and the people of South Vietnam revolted. Had the United States not invaded the country, the war would have ended in the mid 60s with the Viet Cong taking power, instead of being put off another decade and needing the NVA to finish the liberation of Vietnam.

Communist revolution has been exported, however: Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Tibet. Most revolutions, however, are indigenous, and not spawned in the depths of the KGB, regardless of what Washington would have us believe.

	14-02-2005 21:14									#302
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Same thing with Saddam. The CIA didn't bring him into power. After all, the Ba'ath Party was SOCIALIST!

The CIA hired Hussein while he was in exile in Cairo after a failed attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq. In 1963, when the Ba'athists came to power, the CIA handed Hussein a list of 5,000 suspected Communists, most of whom ended up dead. That's about the extent of the CIA and Hussein's partnership. If they hadn't hired him, however, it's unlikely he would have risen to power later, as it was his performance in '63 that led to him becoming so important when the Ba'athists returned to power in '68.

As for the Ba'thists being socialist, the CIA and the US likely prefered that over the Communists that were in the previous government. IIRC, it was the previous government who pulled Iraq from the Bagdad Pact, nationalized Iraqi oil, and tossed out the West.

	14-02-2005 21:23									#303
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Thor, Yes Saddam was the muscle for the Ba'athists and he did attempt to assassinate Fiasel II but failed. Neither the US nor the UK wanted to see the monarchy over thrown since they worked very well with western interests (military bases and BP's oil production) but one of the first things the Ba'athists did upon taking power in 1958 was to close the bases and nationalize first BP's assets then the rest of the foreign assets. In 1962 the communists attempted to over throw the Ba'athists but failed the CIA then assisted liberal Republicans in a coupe d'estate against the ba'athists.

The new guys were politically incompetant and pissed off all parties including the communists, the west, the Islamists, and the Ba'athists. If memory serves it was 1967 when Saddam once again worked as the muscle behind a new Ba'athist coupe. He was one of three men who controlled the country though he teamed up with the top man to get ride of the number two then eventually forced out the number one giving him sole power. The west still was pissed about the coupe of there guys in '67 plus the nationalization of foreign assets in '58 and the closure of the bases. They blamed Ba'athists for that and so weren't going to help Ba'athists.

They finally changed their mind when Iran become the new public enemy number one.

Last edited by Oerdin on 14-02-2005 at 21:33

	14-02-2005 21:24									#304
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

thanks for clearing that up che and Oerdin - i knew i'd read/been told about it somewhere.

If i had more space in my sig i'd like to 'own' this thread title - many would say it sums me up nicely

	14-02-2005 21:29									#305
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The CIA hired Hussein while he was in exile in Cairo after a failed attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq.

I read at least half a dozen Iraqi history books in the run up to my going there and the CIa most certainly did not hire Saddam to kill the king. That was an entirely Ba'athist plot. The CIA did give Saddam a list of suspected communists in the late 60's as a way to reach detant with him and prevent communist influence and, yes, Saddam went out and killed most of them just as he killed most Kurdish leaders, Shi'a leaders, and monarchists.

In 1963 when the Ba'athist retook power Saddam was in excile in Egypt but because of his past work for the Ba'athists he was given the number 3 spot (by his uncle I believe).

	14-02-2005 21:37									#306
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I read at least half a dozen Iraqi history books in the run up to my going there and the CIa most certainly did not hire Saddam to kill the king.

I never said he did. I said he tried to kill the President, but failed. I never said the CIA had anything to do with it. They hired him after he went into exile.

quote: In 1963 when the Ba'athist retook power Saddam was in excile in Egypt but because of his past work for the Ba'athists he was given the number 3 spot (by his uncle I believe).

You mean 1968. I know Hussein was in exile in Egypt before '63, but I don't know where he went after the Ba'athist government fell.

	14-02-2005 21:40									#307
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by VJ Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

Conservatives who use Wilsonism as a cover for helping thier corporate buddies.

	14-02-2005 21:43									#308
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin one of the first things the Ba'athists did upon taking power in 1958 was to close the bases and nationalize first BP's assets then the rest of the foreign assets. In 1962 the communists attempted to over throw the Ba'athists but failed the CIA then assisted liberal Republicans in a coupe d'estate against the ba'athists.

You've got your years mixed up, Oerdin. "Brigadier Abdul-Karim Qassem ... overthrew the Hashemite monarchy on July 14, 1958." It was Qassem that Hussein tried and failed to kill. In 1963, the Ba'athists succceed in killing him and overthrowing the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...of_the_Monarchy

	14-02-2005 21:43									#309
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I read at least half a dozen Iraqi history books in the run up to my going there and the CIa most certainly did not hire Saddam to kill the king. edit......

maybe the 'wrong' ones? lets face it i'm sure the military would not clear(or at least 'flag') the kind of books you could get on camp. If it was from outside sources then maybe you were just lucky/unlucky in the books you got?

I'm certain the british and us had to smuggle him out of Iraq when his attempt failed, it was a bit of a balls up by all accounts and both the british and US interested parties were furious with him.

	14-02-2005 21:46									#310
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Che: OK, I can give you that communism had already been exported to both North Korea and North Vietnam so the Chinese just intervined to prevent they're collapse. I'm not so certain about most communist governments being created by domestic communist revolutions though since outside influence created all but the Soviet one. Even China was linked to the Soviets and they were on the ropes until the Soviets gave Manchuria to them along with most of the Japanese occupation army's weapons. None of Eastern Europe outside of the USSR was native and several attempted revoltsw to end communism.

Castro waqs previously just a nationalist dictator before the US became militantly hostile to him due to his nationalization of US assets; after that the Soviets offered him aid but only if he became a communist. The Sandinistas were originally after the traditional land redistrubition most Latin American revolutionaries were after and originally didn't plan state ownership of assets. It was only after Cuba and the Soviets started giving them aid that they became dedicated communists. Ethiopia, North Yemen, Tanzania, and a few other 3rd world spots in Africa and Asia were nothing more then military dictatorships experiencing a sudden conversion to communism when the Soviets offered them aid. While Cambodia, mongolia, Tibet, and Loas had communism forced on them by foreign occupying armies.

	14-02-2005 21:52									#311
	Got spare money?

Ok Oerdin, i'm with you on much of the communism thing. So what makes what the usa is trying to do around the world any different/better?
Is it really trying to make the world a better place or just self-interest and greed?

	14-02-2005 22:00									#312
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Che: OK, I can give you that communism had already been exported to both North Korea and North Vietnam

Exported is not the correct word to use. In both cases, Communist governments were established by indigenous forces, without the aid of outsiders. In both cases, Communists were the dominent force in leading anti-Japanese (and later anti-French) resistence.

The word export seems to indicate that it was the Soviets or Chinese who were the ones sending Communism to them, when it was the locals who brought it about, and then went to the USSR and the PRC for aid.

quote: I'm not so certain about most communist governments being created by domestic communist revolutions though since outside influence created all but the Soviet one. Even China was linked to the Soviets and they were on the ropes until the Soviets gave Manchuria to them along with most of the Japanese occupation army's weapons.

That's not exactly the case. While those things did happen, it was the fact that the PLA led the struggle against the Japanese (unlike the KMT, who only fought the Japanese when the Japanese attacked them, preferin instead to attack the PLA) that led to the PLA's growth and eventual victory. The Communists taped into the Chinese nationalism much more than the Nationalists did. If it was simply a matter of aid, than the massive aid the U.S. poured into the KMT would have countered the meager assistance of the USSR.

quote: None of Eastern Europe outside of the USSR was native and several attempted revoltsw to end communism

No, they attempted to throw out the USSR, which is different. In Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, the demands weren't "Down with Socialism!" but "Socialism and Democracy!" It's just overtime, anti-Soviet became equated with anti-communist.

	14-02-2005 22:00									#313
	Who says Apolyton isn't educational Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The critics get on this and say that Neoconservatives are really hardcore Straussians

Yes. I found an interesting essay on the subject. What Would Strauss Do?

	14-02-2005 22:07									#314
	Support Apolyton

Sava, re your original post: It looks like there might be hope for you yet.

On the US so-called double standard, we are signatories to the Nuke Non-Proliferation Treaty. It obligates us to negotiate our way to 0 nuclear weapons with other nuclear states. That is exactly what we have been doing.

Most importantly, there is no double-standard.

	14-02-2005 22:11									#315
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by child of Thor Ok Oerdin, i'm with you on much of the communism thing. So what makes what the usa is trying to do around the world any different/better? Is it really trying to make the world a better place or just self-interest and greed?

It is trying to make the world more capitalist and more democratic. Of course they expect to profit from this though more markets being open and growing faster then under communism or Islamism but, generally, they really do want to export the idea of democracy. In nearly every case that improves the lives of people tremendously. It's not always a straight line and it can get down right messy but the motivation to do good is sincere.

	14-02-2005 22:29									#316
	Re: Who says Apolyton isn't educational Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Yes. I found an interesting essay on the subject. What Would Strauss Do?

Very interesting. Thank you . I think I'd most identify myself with Fukayama among the neoconservatives. I'm not a die hard one by any means, and vasselate between it and realism.

Of course, my being a Nietszcheian sometimes conflicts with neoconservatism as well (I'm not into the whole absolute values crap that some expound... I just like liberalism and democracy in political life is all.. yes, yes, I'm aware that Nietszche wasn't as fond of those things ).

	14-02-2005 22:40									#317
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Even China was linked to the Soviets and they were on the ropes until the Soviets gave Manchuria to them along with most of the Japanese occupation army's weapons.

According to Wikipedia, the exact opposite happened.

quote: With the sudden end of WWII in East Asia, Soviet forces flooded into the Manchurian Provinces to seize Japanese positions and to take the surrender of the 700,000 Japanese troops still stationed in the region. Later in the year Chiang Kai-shek came to the painful realization that he lacked the resources to prevent a CPC takeover of Manchuria following the scheduled Soviet departure, he therefore made a deal with the Russians to delay their withdrawal until he had moved enough of his best-trained men and modern material into the region.

There goes another hoary old anti-communist myth.

	15-02-2005 08:36									#318
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 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.

Where does innocense enter into it?

A million who could afford to left. How many didn't have the money and were trapped?

	15-02-2005 08:40									#319
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Uhm, to "remain free" one would have had to have been free in the first place. Korea only became mostly democratic in the 90s, and is still quite thuggish today. The same goes for Taiwan. The force applied by the West was to defend brutal dicatorships of the worst kind.

As opposed to imposing Communist dictatorships of the worst kind.

I'd say the American-British record for imposing/defending regimes reads a bit better than that of the Soviets-PRC.

	15-02-2005 09:02									#320
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Yes. I found an interesting essay on the subject. What Would Strauss Do?

How could anyone tell? It's stock in trade for that bunch never to reveal their intentions.

A lack of respect for the public declaration of truth = Straussians. An Orwellian bunch of elitist twits if ever there was one.

	15-02-2005 09:06									#321
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Defending US actions in Vietnam is about as respectable as defending the holocaust.

	15-02-2005 09:07									#322
	Tired of ads?

Yay! Godwin!

	15-02-2005 09:21									#323
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It's about time.

Part of the idiocy of the whole Vietnam thing was that Americans are prone to believe that if various disparate groups call themselves "communists" or espouse some version of Marx, that they are all elements of a global conspiracy.

In fact, many "Marxist" revolutionaries simply had local or nationalist goals and like many before them, got hold of the latest revolutionary ideology as an intelllectual support for their revolution. Nixon was actually smart enough to realize this. A pity that no-one seems to have made the connection in the case of "Islamism" yet.

The July 26th movement was originally aimed at liberating Cuba from foreign dominated dictatorship. Guevara was the person who saw it as the first move in a global revolution, but he was in the minority.

Similarly, the Vietnamese really just wanted to have their own country, something which had been denied them for hundreds of years.

	15-02-2005 10:27									#324
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Yes. I found an interesting essay on the subject. What Would Strauss Do? How could anyone tell? It's stock in trade for that bunch never to reveal their intentions. A lack of respect for the public declaration of truth = Straussians. An Orwellian bunch of elitist twits if ever there was one.

"public declaration of 'intention'"! Truth is an entirely different thread .

	15-02-2005 10:48									#325
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Similarly, the Vietnamese really just wanted to have their own country, something which had been denied them for hundreds of years.

Too bad they didn't settle for the 'own' country they had and insisted on taking over someone elses.

	15-02-2005 13:35									#326
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Too bad they didn't settle for the 'own' country they had and insisted on taking over someone elses.

Eh? The partition was forced by the US and local fascists contrary to the expected will of the Vietnamese. The Americans removed the possibility of elections (which was the point of the Geneva accord - as was "reunification") because they believed (correctly) that Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

South Vietnam was a fictional state created solely in an attempt to deny the fact that the vast majority of Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. The US basically attacked Vietnam in an attempt to "defend" a partition that the Vietnamese didn't want.

This is even admitted in the Pentagon papers IIRC. If the US brass can admit it at the time, why can't you 30 years later.

Jesus, the Americans didn't even like the "South" Vietnamese and colluded in the coup that removed Diem.

	15-02-2005 13:58									#327
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Even China was linked to the Soviets and they were on the ropes until the Soviets gave Manchuria to them along with most of the Japanese occupation army's weapons.

No. The CCP was mostly home grown. The Soviet tie was mostly limited to a faction inside the CCP. It is widely held that the Long March was caused by this faction's incompetence in handling military matters.

As I pointed out before, the CCP did not occupy Manchuria for long after the end of WWII. KMT, with the help of the US, forced them out from major cities. As a result they didn't get much of the heavy weapons either.

	15-02-2005 14:02									#328
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Agathon In fact, many "Marxist" revolutionaries simply had local or nationalist goals and like many before them, got hold of the latest revolutionary ideology as an intelllectual support for their revolution.

Ho was first and foremost a nationalist. He approached the US for aid first, but was turned down.

	16-02-2005 02:27									#329
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Too bad they didn't settle for the 'own' country they had and insisted on taking over someone elses. Eh? The partition was forced by the US and local fascists contrary to the expected will of the Vietnamese. The Americans removed the possibility of elections (which was the point of the Geneva accord - as was "reunification") because they believed (correctly) that Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote. South Vietnam was a fictional state created solely in an attempt to deny the fact that the vast majority of Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. The US basically attacked Vietnam in an attempt to "defend" a partition that the Vietnamese didn't want. This is even admitted in the Pentagon papers IIRC. If the US brass can admit it at the time, why can't you 30 years later. Jesus, the Americans didn't even like the "South" Vietnamese and colluded in the coup that removed Diem.

Agathon, there is an element of truth in what you say here. But there is a great deal of misinformation as well. There was no "government of South Vietnam" in 1954. There was only the government of Vietnam, which was purportedly governed the whole of Vietnam. This government was formed years before, I think in the late 1940s. In 1954, the peace accords agreed that the Viet Minh would administer the North and the French would administer the South. Then in a couple of years there would be national elections to determine the government of Vietnam. But what happened next was that the French pulled out and left the administration all of the South to the government of Vietnam and particularly to Diem, who was initially was only the prime minister, I believe, but then usurped total power in a phony referendum, essentially terminating the state of Vietnam and establishing the Republic of Vietnam with its capital in Saigon.

As to Vietnam being under foreign occupation for hundreds of years, this is not quite accurate. The French moved into Vietnam in a series of moves during the mid-to late 1800s in response to persecution of Catholics by the emperors of Vietnam. The French didn't take total control of Vietnam until the late 1800s, if I recall correctly, after a war with the Chinese when they intervened. The persecution of the Catholics was very vicious and very reminiscent of what happened to Catholics in the Roman Empire. Think of why we went into Bosnia and why we went into Kosovo. At the time, the French went into Vietnam for the very same reason.

	16-02-2005 02:38									#330
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

What is very strange about the way US historians report the events in Vietnam is that they totally neglect to report the underlying dynamic of persecution of Catholicism by the Buddists and later the Communists. The very reason the French intervened in Vietnam in the first place in the 1800s was to prevent the total slaughter of of the Catholics by the Buddhists. Later the struggle against the Communists, while led by the French, included a lot of Catholic elements who were struggling for Vietnamese independence but under Catholic rule. After the division of Vietnam in 1954, Catholics from all over Vietnam streamed to the south and set up a new government in Saigon under Diem, who was a Catholic. The problem was that Diem then began to persecute the Buddists. This eventually cost him his life as Kennedy, himself a Catholic, authorized his assassination. Later, when Vietnam fell, the people who fled Vietnam were primarily the Vietnamese Catholics who again feared persecution by the Communists/Buddist who now were in control.

In a small sense, the struggle for Vietnam was a struggle between capitalism and communism. That is the way Washington preferred to see the issue. However, to the Vietnamese, it was a just as must a religious conflict, just like we saw in Bosnia and Kosovo.