 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tuomerehu
US has been supporting many cruel dictators in the 20th century just because of the paranoid fear towards 'evil commies' |
Correction. The US has supported many cruel regimes just to further its own interests too. Some times it didn't have anything to do with communism. They just labeled it as such.
The only difference now is that there is not a countering force. And that the US can no longer put forth its "to defeat communism" rhetorics when sponsoring juntas.
It has to think of something else...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Also sometimes, the communist regimes that US was supposed to battle off were more humane that the juntas the US installed.
Also some states prospered more under communism than under US juntas.
So it's all relative and it boils down to real politik. Furthering the interests of the nation. Not necessairily caring about human rights.
Which makes Osama a national - liberation fighter.
It's all very sad really.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah Shi has said, and is absolutely correct, the fight to stave off communism was worth the price. Seeing that communism is all but eliminated (like China is really the same as the USSR... HA!), it worked. The ends justified the means.
And what is so wrong with being amoral anyway? That's how I want my Presidents to be. |
You mistake is that communism isn't dead. China is alive and kicking, still communist. So what if the general's all want to be CEO's? The basis of their power is that their whole economy is rule by slave labor that the military enforces, and they're not about to let go.
N. Korea is fully communist and militarily prepared to march into S. Korea, which they will do if Bush spreads us too thin. Many S. Koreans also hate us now. Russia just brought back the Red Star to appease it's military and is hanging on to free market ideology by a thread. A lot of their people are starting to get wistful about the "good old days" when standing in line all day for a roll of toilet paper was preferable to being shot or raped by roving gangs.
The hills in South and Central America are full of Marxist guerillas, poised to move in as soon as the US backed dictatorships begin to weaken, i.e. the U.S. Begins to weaken. Most of SE Asia is already communist or also has hills full of Marxist guerillas, same deal. Most African nations are also fighting off Marxist guerillas, same deal.
Our failure to instill the cream of Western ideals in these countries instead of our worst has been the United States biggest blunder, and this was the best Kissinger had to offer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
MLK wasn't a war criminal, murderer, and traitor. Womanizing isn't even in the same league as Kissinger. |
Kissinger was a womanizer also. The guy did say "Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's rather low down on the list of his sins against the American people and the world. |
I don't know, being an horrendous mass-murderer and then bragging about how it enhances your virility is pretty sinful. Call it a capstone to a magnificent career, if you will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
Just for starters, I think Vietnam was totally FUBAR. The problems did not start with Nixon/Kissinger, they started with Kennedy. It was Kennedy who decided to take over the war in South Vietnam. It was Kennedy who decided to assassinate Diem. It was Kennedy who decided to take over the command structure of the army of the Republic of South Vietnam. It was Kennedy/Johnson who supported the corrupt military regimes that succeeded Diem. It was Johnson who built the American military presence in South Vietnam to 550,000 troops. It was Johnson who in 1965 told American troops that they could not fire into Cambodia even though the NVA were basing there and firing on them from Cambodia with heavy mortars and artillery.
In contrast, as soon as Nixon/Kissinger came to power they began to withdraw American troops and to build up the South Vietnamese army. By the end of 1972, United States had only 25,000 troops left in Vietnam.
The problem of Cambodia was simple. So long as Sihanók allowed the Communist to use Cambodia as a launching pad for its invasions of South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese kept the Khmer Rouge in check. In 1970 though, Sihanók essentially switched sides. He permitted America to go after the NVA inside Cambodia. When he did this, the Communists began to supply the Khmer Rouge with everything they wanted militarily. Eventually the Khmer Rouge won the war in Cambodia.
It is strange how Vietnam war turned out. Kennedy knew that the only way to win the war was to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnam people. But his actions were disasterous. The assassination of Diem was mistake one. The assumption of the responsibilities for the conduct of the war was mistake two. The introduction of U.S. combat troops was mistake three. All three actions contributed to losing the war for hearts and minds of the people of Vietnam.
But once the decision to introduce combat troops was made, Johnson's decision to deny our troops to right to defend themselves against cross-border attacks was a travesty. Johnson has to be utterly condemned by every American who breathes.
In contrast, Nixon's actions in withdrawing from South Vietnam and in allowing American troops to attack the NVA in Cambodia deserve nothing but praise. Bravo Nixon! Bravo Kissinger!
Last edited by Ned on 29-12-2002 at 06:54
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Just for starters, I think Vietnam was totally FUBAR. The problems did not start with Nixon/Kissinger, they started with Kennedy. It was Kennedy who decided to take over the war in South Vietnam. It was Kennedy who decided to assassinate Diem. . . . In contrast, Nixon's actions in withdrawing from South Vietnam and in allowing American troops to attack the NVA in Cambodia deserve nothing but praise. Bravo Nixon! Bravo Kissinger! |
The problems actually began when Ike divided the country in two and imposed a Catholic pro-West regime in the South. The South was 90% Buddist, neutralist and pacifist.
It was this American-installed regime which insisted upon fighting. When Buddist priests began burning themselves alive in protest of the war, they were declare to be in sympathy with the Viet Cong. Those who resisted the oppression of the Diem brothers were imprisoned and tortured. Diem's brother (Diem Ngo [?]), the head of the secret police, was a bloody butcher, who the Kennedy administration tried in vain to curb. Kennedy did not plan nor want the Diems to be killed, but he knew they were disasters and whated them out. So when he learned of the plans of the South Vietnamese generals to oust them, he acquiested.
The tragedy of the Diem ouster and killing was that there was no one to replace them except more corrupt, oppressive generals.
Years later, Nixon was elected based upon his "secret plan" to end the war. His "secret plan" turned out to be to widen the war. He bombed and invaded Laos, which destablized it, and it fell to the communists. He bombed and invaded Cambodia, which distablized it, and it too fell to the communists.
There was an attempt to have elections in the South, but Generals Ky and Thieu so corrupted the process that all candidates but those two pulled out in protest. So when Ford finally inherited the mess, the Thieu-Ky regime in the South was so unpopular that when the North invaded, the Army of South Vietnam collapsed, and the people of the U.S. were so disillusioned, they refused to spend anymore blood and money to prop it up.
Moral of the story: Real Politik is counter productive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joseph
I belived your number are a bit high by about 480,000 or so. Pol Pot was killing a lot of people there. The communist in Laos was killing a lot of people there also. |
According to Human Rights Watch, that number is low.
http://www.hrw.org/community/bookreviews/hitchens.htm
I've seen it elsewhere as 450-500k and went with an average of sorts. Pol Pot didn't start killing in earnest until the later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
The problems actually began when Ike divided the country in two and imposed a Catholic pro-West regime in the South. The South was 90% Buddist, neutralist and pacifist.
It was this American-installed regime which insisted upon fighting. When Buddist priests began burning themselves alive in protest of the war, they were declare to be in sympathy with the Viet Cong. Those who resisted the oppression of the Diem brothers were imprisoned and tortured. Diem's brother (Diem Ngo [?]), the head of the secret police, was a bloody butcher, who the Kennedy administration tried in vain to curb. Kennedy did not plan nor want the Diems to be killed, but he knew they were disasters and whated them out. So when he learned of the plans of the South Vietnamese generals to oust them, he acquiested.
The tragedy of the Diem ouster and killing was that there was no one to replace them except more corrupt, oppressive generals.
Years later, Nixon was elected based upon his "secret plan" to end the war. His "secret plan" turned out to be to widen the war. He bombed and invaded Laos, which destablized it, and it fell to the communists. He bombed and invaded Cambodia, which distablized it, and it too fell to the communists.
There was an attempt to have elections in the South, but Generals Ky and Thieu so corrupted the process that all candidates but those two pulled out in protest. So when Ford finally inherited the mess, the Thieu-Ky regime in the South was so unpopular that when the North invaded, the Army of South Vietnam collapsed, and the people of the U.S. were so disillusioned, they refused to spend anymore blood and money to prop it up.
Moral of the story: Real Politik is counter productive. |
On Ike, yes he did agree to a division of Vietnam - a communist North and a democratic South. Diem was a catholic and was suppressing the buddists, as you say. In Kennedy's opinion, he was "losing" the hearts and minds of the people of SV because of it. But what Kennedy did was then was to take over the war entirely. He did away with Diem, took command of the AVRN, and introduced American troops. What he should have done instead is simply cut Diem off unless he stopped suppressing the buddists. By taking over the war, it was easy for the communists to win politically even while they were losing militarily.
Of course, Kennedy himself was assassinated only weeks after he had Diem assassinated. Is there a connection? Regardless, had Kennedy lived, he might have realized his mistake and done something to fix it. Johnson, though, was totally inept and clueless. He really screwed up.
On Laos, that struggle had been ongoing well prior to Kennedy taking office. It, and not Vietnam, was his top priority when he took office. Nothing Nixon did destabalized anything in Laos. The communists simply won.
On Cambodia again, no one "bombed Cambodia." We attacked the NVA bases in Cambodia with the consent of Sihanók. We did not attack the Cambodian military. We were allied with them against the communists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
Joseph - quote:
I would not cross them. Beside most of the world people don't even know who they are. I don't. If we did and was not part of their circle, we would just disappear one day never to be seen again or have heart attack. |
I don't understand why you defend their assassination of a Chilean general who would not support a coup only to paint them as evil now.
quote:
I never said I did. However a communist is a communist and a enemy of the US and all of us. |
The general was not a communist and Allende was a democratically elected socialist. And you did defend the murder of the general. Btw, Kissinger is an enemy of the US Constitution, so I don't know why you value him over an alleged communist and a Chilean general who were not our enemies. Chile was not about to invade the US under Allende nor is there evidence he was going to invite the Soviets in to conquer S America.
quote:
2nd part. It depends on the situation. |
Situational ethics is not inherently flawed, but it sure doesn't justify murdering the innocent.
quote:
The problem is that we, meaning you and I are not privy to know all of the information that they do. Some of the info may be good or bad, but we will never know. |
I know enough thanks to Christopher Hitchins.
quote:
Cambodia, I seen to remember the NVA was using Cambodia as a staging ground to attack our troops in Nam and wasn't Pol Pot in power before the Khmer took over. |
Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer which took power because of US bombing in Cambodia. It was those evil N Vietnamese who went into Cambodia after the war to get rid of Pol Pot's regime.
quote:
Kissinger, the US would never stand for Kissinger being arrested by anyone. Now if some group shot him, who knows what the US might do. It would depend on who's President at the time. |
Then Henry shouldn't need to consult with lawyers about extradiction laws before leaving the country. And the US already knows there are countries with Henry on their list of wanted criminals...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-12-2002 17:09
I can only hope nobody noticed. 
|