History According to Bush

[Eki]

Bush claims that millions of people died because the US left Vietnam. I'd like to know how and where. Were there autopsies and full crime scene investigations that proved they died just because the US left Vietnam?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294781,00.html


Last week, in front of an assembled group of veterans, Mr. Bush did it again. While giving a history lesson, he said that those who opposed Vietnam were wrong and that millions died because we left Vietnam — and that it will happen if we now leave Iraq.

[Daniel]

Oh get a new hobby Eki......

So you think a power vacuum in Iraq is best for the country?

[Caroline]

I like the guy's style. (No, not Bush, the author of the article).

'While giving a history lesson, he said that those who opposed Vietnam were wrong and that millions died because we left Vietnam — and that it will happen if we now leave Iraq. I gotta tell ya, whatever bonehead wrote and whoever approved this speech needs to go down the road.

When the president evokes Vietnam, it gives everyone free reign to, once more, compare one disaster to another — this while the combined poll ratings of the administration and Congress are in the crapper.'

Who'd have thought Foxnews.com would be so enjoyable to read?

[leopard]

I have a worry there will be more painful vandalism once US leaves Iraq. They may still need assistance to recover the whole of nation with the new strong government after the older regime toppled. The US enemy was the former regime, not Iraq as an independent nation, they have their own right to manage their own affair.

As long as they didn't too much interfere their internal affair and have the right target to leave Iraq and withdraw all troops of alliance countries once they are ready to stand up on their own feet, Iraq may became the new partner bilaterally work in more congested traffic of trading.

[Eki]

Who'd have thought Foxnews.com would be so enjoyable to read?
I for one.

[Eki]

Oh get a new hobby Eki......

I will when Bush will. Currently it seems to be same ol' same ol':

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294932,00.html


Bush Warns of Iran's Influence Over Iraq

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

AP

Aug. 28: President Bush warns an audience at the American Legion national convention about Iran's efforts to destablize Iraq and the Middle East.

RENO, Nev. — President Bush warned on Tuesday that Iran is plotting to extend its "murderous" influence over Iraq and is threatening to destabilize the Middle East under a "shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Iran, Bush said, "is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah, who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel and destabilize the Palestinian territories."

[Eki]

So you think a power vacuum in Iraq is best for the country?
That's not what I was thinking, just Bush's version of history.

Biden seems to have more realistic thoughts:


Responding to the president's speech, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a 2008 presidential candidate, said the only evident political progress in Iraq is from the bottom up.

Biden said his plan to split the country into three confederated states based on sectarian factions — Sunni, Shia and Kurd — is the best approach, and could involve Iran in negotiations.

"We should refocus our effort on making federalism work for all Iraqis. And what I would do — and what the president should be doing now — is initiating a diplomatic offensive, not a new surge offensive, to do just that: a diplomatic offensive, bringing in the United Nations, the major countries around the world, including Germany, and Iraq's neighbors, to help implement and oversee the political settlement I am proposing and what the Iraqi constitution calls for," he said.

[leopard]

Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel and destabilize the Palestinian territories.

I had problem with translation, so who murdered whom of this paragraph? :(

[Drew]

I had problem with translation, so who murdered whom of this paragraph? :(

Read up, the innocent as in the Israeli army, who'd never hurt a fly. Less sarcasticaly, some of the Israeli population too :)

TB's been pretty quite recently, he must be busy clearing up a bit of mess.

[Eki]

Who'd have thought Foxnews.com would be so enjoyable to read?
Here's another enjoyable article from the Foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294648,00.html


The only real question in Iraq is not whether we can win, or whether we should stay, but how we get out in a way that hurts innocent people the least. That is what needs to be addressed. But you can’t address problems you’re unwilling to face; you can’t come up with any realistic solution until and unless you’re ready to face reality.

"Freedom," Janis Joplin so famously said, "is just another word for nothing left to lose." Maybe that’s how George W. Bush feels. His popularity could hardly go lower, his administration is just over a year from ending, he is the lamest of ducks. In that sense, he is totally free. But those under his command are not. The country and its soldiers have a great deal to lose, and we’re losing it, every day.

Have a nice vacation, Mr. President. No one else is.

[BDunnell]

This is revisionist history of the highest order on Bush's part. I would like him to explain the ways in which the Vietnam conflict could have had a different outcome had the US not withdrawn; I would also like him to explain how, given the range of tactics used against the North Vietnamese over a long period of time, the war itself could have been waged in a way that led to a different outcome. If he can come up with specific reasoning on both counts, I might be able to take his view on the matter seriously.

[Eki]

This is revisionist history of the highest order on Bush's part. I would like him to explain the ways in which the Vietnam conflict could have had a different outcome had the US not withdrawn; I would also like him to explain how, given the range of tactics used against the North Vietnamese over a long period of time, the war itself could have been waged in a way that led to a different outcome. If he can come up with specific reasoning on both counts, I might be able to take his view on the matter seriously.
True. The way I see it is that the American intervention prolonged the Vietnamese civil war and got millions of people killed. If they hadn't gone there in the first place, the war would have been over much earlier, just like they claim the atom bombs in Japan shortened WW2.

[Canada Cornrow]

[quote="Eki"]I will when Bush will. Currently it seems to be same ol' same ol':



Pace yourself. You've got 17 months until your obsession expires.

[L5->R5/CR]

That's not what I was thinking, just Bush's version of history.

Biden seems to have more realistic thoughts:



Partitioning Iraq is the worst idea possible.

Partition has NEVER worked successfully, especially in the long term.

What needs to happen is there needs to be an overwhelming security force in Iraq. All the power struggles and violence is a product of an insufficient military and government presence. Provide a stable living environment, one in which there is no domestic measure of power that impacts ones position at the bargaining table and sort it all out.

You cannot form a civil government capable of ruling a nation when there is civil war. One party has to win or all of the parties have to lose, this is the only way. Seeing as the 3 major power seeking groups in Iraq are fairly even, all parties must lose.

But partition is the WORST Possible idea ever. Thats worse than the flawed decision to invade, or send far too few troops, or over extend US domestic military resources, or alienate the allied countries, or even elect Bush twice...

[Eki]

Partition has NEVER worked successfully, especially in the long term.


Not even in the USA? It's partitioned into 50 different states.

[BDunnell]

Not even in the USA? It's partitioned into 50 different states.

Totally different, and you know it.

[Daniel]

Not even in the USA? It's partitioned into 50 different states.
You really are one of the most ridiculous people I've ever seen on this forum.

[Eki]

Totally different, and you know it.
OK, was it not wise to split Yugoslavia? Or the Soviet Union? Or Czechoslovakia?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have better things to do then spend all day arguing with Eki, but I will say this. The reason Bush thinks this way is because there is more than one historian and political expert that noticed that Vietnam ended with many in the south being jailed or killed. One should also know that the North used their arms to fund Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. If the US had gone out of their way to actually win the damned war instead of fighting hoping the North would just go away, they may have prevented all of this. The problem with Vietnam is the US never had a game plan to actually win the war.

Iraq is a different battle, but the result will be the same. If the US pulls out before there is something to fill that vaccuum, then there will be a full out civil war. Right now, the Sunnis and Shiites are not really committed to a civil war, but rather that Iranians and Al Quaida are funding dissendents to go at each other. The fact is, if this insurgent campaign ended tomorrow, the US wouldn't be there now. The whole point of staying there for the US is to show the Arab world, and the detractors that the US wont just bail on their allies in that part of the world. The US bailed in Somaila, which they went to under UN auspices and the noblest intentions, and by leaving after a few casualties, they said to the world they would run from a fight. That fight came to them on 9/11.

Now Eki will have a great pile of fun trying to bury Bush, but the point is that Bush might just have a point here. The slaughter wont stop with the US out of there, it may just get worse. Face the reality, the US broke it, now they gotta stay and FIX it. Eki is just claiming he is concerned for all the innocent dead, but believe me, he didn't put posts on here about Saddam before the war, and you can bet he doesn't care about the innocents being slaughtered else where in the world. I haven't seen his thread about the genocide in Darfur, the murderous regime in Zimbabwe, or his concern for the Chechens. Eki likes dictators, and hates the US. I cant believe anything else because his thread history seems to prove it.

Eki, what will you do if the US elects a Democrat who pulls out of all foreign wars? You might have to get a life...

[race aficionado]

You really are one of the most ridiculous people I've ever seen on this forum.

Man, I totally disagree.

And by the way, president Bush is an official nut job.
Letterman has a daily skit called "Greatest moments in Presidential Speeches" and we are reminded of what a petty leader this great country has.

The skit is funny but in a very sad way.

This Vietnam comparison is another example of his delusions.

I think I've just alerted home land security.

. . . . . again . . . .

:s mokin:

[Eki]

I have better things to do then spend all day arguing with Eki, but I will say this. The reason Bush thinks this way is because there is more than one historian and political expert that noticed that Vietnam ended with many in the south being jailed or killed. One should also know that the North used their arms to fund Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge.
What??? It was Vietnam who overthrew Pol Pot. The US unofficially supported Pol Pot just to piss off Vietnam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Fall_of_the_Khmer_Rouge


By December 1978, because of several years of border conflict and the flood of refugees fleeing Cambodia, relations between Cambodia and Vietnam deteriorated. Pol Pot, fearing a Vietnamese attack, ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. His Cambodian forces crossed the border and looted nearby villages. Despite American and Chinese aid, these Cambodian forces were repulsed by the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese forces then invaded Cambodia, capturing Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979. Despite a traditional Cambodian fear of Vietnamese domination, defecting Khmer Rouge activists assisted the Vietnamese, and, with Vietnam's approval, became the core of the new puppet government.

At the same time, the Khmer Rouge retreated west, and it continued to control an area near the Thai border for the next decade. It was unofficially protected by elements of the Thai Army and the United States Special Forces, and was funded by diamond and timber smuggling. Despite its deposal, the Khmer Rouge retained its UN seat, which was occupied by Thiounn Prasith, an old cadre of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary from their student days in Paris, and one of the 21 attendees at the 1960 KPRP Second Congress. The seat was retained under the name 'Democratic Kampuchea' until 1982, and then 'Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea' until 1993.

[BDunnell]

OK, was it not wise to split Yugoslavia? Or the Soviet Union? Or Czechoslovakia?

Please tell us how any of these have any parallels with the USA or Iraq.

[leopard]

Read up, the innocent as in the Israeli army, who'd never hurt a fly. Less sarcasticaly, some of the Israeli population too :)


Are you conscious to call weaponed army as innocent, how to call those killed Palestine's children?

That paragraph may need traction control :laugh: :)

[L5->R5/CR]

OK, was it not wise to split Yugoslavia? Or the Soviet Union? Or Czechoslovakia?



The Soviet Union wasn't partitioned, it was allowed to disintegrate into autonomous sub countries. Nobody came in and said your group gets X land and your group gets Y land and you have to share power equally. The Soviets largely kept the nation states intact, at least geographically, and simply subjected them to Moscow's administrative authority and all that the regimes entailed. The break up of the Soviet Union was more the re-recognization of those districts and fully autonomous rule as opposed to partition.


As for the break up of Yugoslavia, are you saying the ethnic cleansing and genocide that happened in the early 90s wasn't a bad thing? There are numerous studies being done in the region that suggest that the current partition based government is simply propped up by the Dayton accords and that the people have very little faith and actually distrust the government. Arguably ethnic tensions are as high as ever as partition has brought about more heterogeneous regions and administrative districts than ever before.

Czechoslovakia is different as well as that is not a case of partition, at least not in the academic sense. From that separation two separate nation states were formed, not two semi-autonomous districts under one collective weakened federalist government.


And before you come back with some twitty remark about how this definition of partition isn't what you were talking about; even you can't be as blind as to suggest that forming three separate nation states would ever work. First of all, the Turks would go mad if the Kurds got a Kurdish state, and all out war on ethnic bases is worse than the current situation. Secondly, you could never fairly divide up the vital economic interests between the two groups. The inbalance of oil in various ethnic groups "home land" aside, the very precious little usable coast line in Iraq would inevitably fall into the hands of one of the groups. This would land lock the oil of the other group making it severely devalued (due to much higher costs to bring to market) and pose very severe new tensions.



Anyone that thinks partition on any serious level will work needs to be b***h slapped with a dose of history and common sense. You might not like the way I say it but I'm not the only person that knows this is the cold hard truth...

[Eki]

Please tell us how any of these have any parallels with the USA or Iraq.
Civil wars in the former Yugoslavia ended when the federation was split into several independent nations.

[Eki]

As for the break up of Yugoslavia, are you saying the ethnic cleansing and genocide that happened in the early 90s wasn't a bad thing?
The ethnic cleansing and genocides occurred before Yugoslavia and Serbia disintegrated, after the disintegration the ethnic cleansing and genocides ceased. Are you saying there aren't ethnic cleansing and genocides going on in Iraq right now:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/22/africa/iraqAA.4.php


23 members of a minority sect are gunned down in Iraq
Published: April 22, 2007

Men in the northern city of Mosul shot and killed 23 people from a minority sect Sunday after pulling them off a bus in an apparent revenge attack, the police said.

The attack came on a violent day in Baghdad, with at least 20 people killed in car bombings, most in a double suicide strike against a police station in a religiously mixed neighborhood.

In the Mosul killings, armed men in several cars stopped the bus as it was carrying workers from the Mosul Textile Factory to their hometown of Bashika, which has a mixed population of Christians and Yazidis.

The gunmen checked the identification cars of the passengers, then told Christians to get off the bus, said Mohammed al-Wagga, a senior police official. With the Yazidis still inside, the gunmen drove the bus to eastern Mosul, where they were lined up along a wall and shot to death, Wagga said.

After the execution-style killings, hundreds of Yazidis took to the streets of Bashika, a town in Ninevah Province that is 80 percent Yazidi, 15 percent Christian and about 5 percent Muslim. Shops were shuttered and many Muslims shut themselves in their homes, fearing reprisal attacks.

[leopard]

That is also my concern that people killing each other. Each case might need different approach. Partitioning a nation into several independent ones isn't always applicable for different case. That is for sure destroy a nation as integrity. Unfairness on natural source and existing industries as economic power from different region might bear another risk of further conflict. However this solution is very contextual and very much depend on history why should the conflict arose up.

Ethnic conflict in Iraq might have existed long time before until each group of parties in conflict has strong organization to make the riot and the former regime muzzled up repressively against such movement. Hence once the regime toppled, civil war and commotion intensely burst out.

United Nation through their security board was supposed to take action and deployed there in this transition period until the new legal government inaugurated. US cs troops might relieve this chaotic situation but a more independent board like UN usually gain more respect and acceptable for all parties in Iraq and all nations of the world in general. IMO

[Camelopard]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]

Another wrong, totally INCORRECT FACT that you have presented to us.

I watched with horror John Pilger's film "Year Zero"in London in 1979 or 1980, reviews of the film in the papers the next day stated that it was only 'Vietnamese propaganda' and nothing bad had happened at all. The Vietnamese had invaded Cambodia as a start to colonising all of South East Asia.
The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot had been supported and funded by the Chinese who had had a major falling out with the Vietnamese at that time even fighting a border war.
After the end of the Vietnam War the Chinese saw the rise of Vietnam as a threat to their traditional spheres of influence.

Pilger was demonised in the west as being a stooge of the Vietnamese....
Please do some simple research before bombarding us with any more of your 'undenaiable facts'.

US support for Pol Pot from just one article.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

A few other facts for you. The US dropped more bombs tonage wise on to Laos and Cambodia than were dropped on Europe during Second World War.
The US dropped 80 million cluster bombs on Laos that are still maiming people now.

The Khmer Rouge held a seat at the United Nations years with the support of the west for years after Vietnam liberated Cambodia. read this, it may enlighten you:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html

I don't normally get quite so angry with your postings, I quite often take what you say with a grain of salt, however in this case I'll make an exception.
In fact believe it or not I do sometimes agree with you (in particular your postings on China and the Olympics/Tibet).
I just wonder sometimes how much research of your own do you do before replying to others postings, or does everything you sprout come from US talk shows and rabid right wing shock jocks?

[Eki]

That is also my concern that people killing each other. Each case might need different approach. Partitioning a nation into several independent ones isn't always applicable for different case. That is for sure destroy a nation as integrity.
But the integrity in Iraq and relative peace between different ethnic groups was based on Saddam's harsh rule, just like the integrity in Yugoslavia was based on Tito. Now that Saddam's gone, there isn't anybody to keep the country together unless they'll get another ruthless dictator.

[Camelopard]

Another fact, after fleeing Cambodia, Pol Pot fled to Thailand where he lived for the next six years under the protection of the Thai Military Dictatorship. His headquarters was a plantation villa near Trat. He was guarded by Thai Special Unit 838.
The Thai Military Dictatorship also made money from selling arms to the Khmer Rouge. Eventually Pol Pot was able to rebuild a small military force in the west of the country with the help of China.

[L5->R5/CR]

The ethnic cleansing and genocides occurred before Yugoslavia and Serbia disintegrated, after the disintegration the ethnic cleansing and genocides ceased. Are you saying there aren't ethnic cleansing and genocides going on in Iraq right now.


Currently in Iraq we don't have the pre-meditated mass murder and domicide (traditionally a key factor in ethnic cleansing) that we had in the former Yugoslavia.


Arguably, the ethnic cleansing and genocide in TFY was a product of the inevitable partition or break up of that country and the partition of that country, and some of the new countries that have formed has only worsened some of the driving ethnic tensions that caused the conflict in the first place...

Maybe Europeans have a much different viewpoint of this tragedy, with it happening in their backyard under their noses. The history and the studies that have been presented by academia don't necessarily agree with the view point you are presenting.

[Drew]

Are you conscious to call weaponed army as innocent, how to call those killed Palestine's children?

That paragraph may need traction control :laugh: :)

Read again, especially "less sarcastically" ;)

[leopard]

But the integrity in Iraq and relative peace between different ethnic groups was based on Saddam's harsh rule, just like the integrity in Yugoslavia was based on Tito. Now that Saddam's gone, there isn't anybody to keep the country together unless they'll get another ruthless dictator.
Iraq needs a strong and charismatic leader universally acceptable for all ethnic groups in Iraq, and also have abroad diplomatic politic background to accommodate international importance to support higher level of life Iraq itself. I think among Iraqis there must be a son of it who have all this requirement.

Military background of the president I think still a must to unify all ethnic groups that usually have better capability than civil, but not a profile who have character to commanding the nation in dictator style. And ideally the vice president comes from civil to make the government in good balance, strong economic background preferably to make speedy recovery on economic social sector collapsed post the toppling of former regime.

However, dictator is no longer relevant to running a nation in this today's life. That's certainly a concrete violation of humanity and the freedom of life.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Cossie, my apolgies...my "sources" were a little off, and my memory of their arguements may of lost some steam.

I still contend though that the Americans were not the total cause of much of the suffering in Vietnam. No nation being conquered by the North was going to get an easy go of it is they resisted, and that is a fact. Ask any one in the South who were seen as "unloyal" to Hanoi how their "reducation'' went, As for the US, they shouldn't have been in Vietnam, but once they went in, they should have tried to actually win the war rather than just hope the Russians, Chinese and Hanoi just got tired of it.....

First rule of war, don't fight for a tie, and that is what the US basically did. President Johnson basically didn't want to provoke an all out war with the Russians, but he still esclated the war in the first place. It was a mess, a tradgedy and a waste of lives, but only because they never actually accomplished anything. If the US left Iraq now, I contend it would be a similar act.....

[leopard]

Read again, especially "less sarcastically" ;)
:) ;)

[Malbec]

Arguably, the ethnic cleansing and genocide in TFY was a product of the inevitable partition or break up of that country and the partition of that country, and some of the new countries that have formed has only worsened some of the driving ethnic tensions that caused the conflict in the first place...

Maybe Europeans have a much different viewpoint of this tragedy, with it happening in their backyard under their noses. The history and the studies that have been presented by academia don't necessarily agree with the view point you are presenting.

The biggest difference between Iraq and Yugoslavia was that the leaders of the various factions involved in Bosnia knew exactly what their objectives were, ie independent states for their people with as big a slice of the land as possible. The situation was also simpler in that Yugoslavia's neighbours were largely united in not wanting the conflict to spread and that the land involved had a fairly equal spread of resources.

In Iraq the killing is less organised with tit-for-tat or criminal killings being as numerous or more so than ethnic cleansing related ones. Also the various parties involved are far from united in what they want out of the conflict, and we have the various neighbours involved as well. Neither Turkey nor Iran would allow a breakup that would result in an independent Kurdistan, nor the Saudis an independent Shia state bordering their own under Iranian influence. The Syrians and Jordans would also not like a weak Sunni state on their border with a large insurgent population lest they become the next targets.

Like most of Eki's similes the two situations are only similar on a very superficial level as you pointed out.

And regarding Pol Pot, his main sponsors weren't in Hanoi or Washington but in Beijing. The Chinese were so upset by his ousting that they invaded Vietnam as a result and ended up as the latest on the list of superpowers beaten by the Vietnamese. The Americans facilitated his rise to power by destroying the infrastructure of the Cambodian government under King Sihanouk.

The South Vietnamese were as brutal and oppressive if not more so than the Northerners were. They had a Roman Catholic government trying to rule a Buddhist country and didn't flinch from using terror to suppress dissent. That Buddhist monk in the famous picture quietly meditating as he burned himself to death wasn't protesting against the war, he was protesting the suppression of Buddhism and Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government.

[BDunnell]

I still contend though that the Americans were not the total cause of much of the suffering in Vietnam. No nation being conquered by the North was going to get an easy go of it is they resisted, and that is a fact. Ask any one in the South who were seen as "unloyal" to Hanoi how their "reducation'' went, As for the US, they shouldn't have been in Vietnam, but once they went in, they should have tried to actually win the war rather than just hope the Russians, Chinese and Hanoi just got tired of it.....

First rule of war, don't fight for a tie, and that is what the US basically did. President Johnson basically didn't want to provoke an all out war with the Russians, but he still esclated the war in the first place. It was a mess, a tradgedy and a waste of lives, but only because they never actually accomplished anything. If the US left Iraq now, I contend it would be a similar act.....

I don't, on reflection, have any arguments with any of the above, especially about the nature of the South Vietnamese. However, the one thing that leads me to think maybe a little differently is the fact that no matter what the US military did tactically, it almost never worked. The number of new/different tactics and items of military hardware that were used in Vietnam mostly seemed to make little difference. The US forces certainly threw a lot at North Vietnam to little effect. There were plenty of instances where equipment simply failed to work. Strategically, though, was where the whole enterprise broke down. It was certainly a huge wake-up call for US forces in all sorts of ways.

One last point — to add to your comment that 'the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam', I am always astonished by the way in which brief retrospectives of Kennedy's presidency gloss over his crucial role in going to war in south-east Asia and the disaster that followed. I know the same is true of many of his less savoury sides, but even so, I feel it's worth saying.

[Eki]

The Finnish army had a rule that said "ei tyhjään päähän", which literally translated means "not to an empty head". In practice it meant that you should only salute taking your hand to your head if you're wearing a hat, cap or a helmet, bareheaded you should bow. An "empty head" seems to be OK by the US army:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/307049/5_61_090307_bush.jpg

[Mikeall]

Maybe that's why they're laughing in the background.