Quote from: RPGPunditYes, and you will recall that it was Ronald Motherfucking Reagan, the God-King of the Republicans, who decided to "cut and run" there.  I guess he was just a "defeatist" and a "collaborator" who wanted to allow "the terrorists to win".

RPGPundit

So you're saying he was brilliant and thoughtful for pulling out? Is that faint praise I hear?

Nah, not from Pundy.

Quote from: WerekoalaSo you're saying he was brilliant and thoughtful for pulling out? Is that faint praise I hear?

Nah, not from Pundy.

Republican presidents have been basically evil since Nixon (with the exception of Gerald Ford), but they used to be a hell of a lot smarter, at least. Reagan had the basic good sense to get the fuck out of Lebanon, and Bush Sr. had the good sense not to actually invade Iraq.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, and you will recall that it was Ronald Motherfucking Reagan, the God-King of the Republicans, who decided to "cut and run" there.

Well, I was thinking of Iraq and Lebanon as parallels in terms of their gong through multi-faction civil wars and having ambitious neighbours, and in terms of their likely fates in the wake of a pull-out of a Great Power.

Lebanon's multi-faction civil war couldn't go on without the help of Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so on - its ambitious neighbours. Once Israel and Syria stopped fucking about there, and the various Arab countries dropped funding for the many and various little insurgent groups, the Lebanese found some peace. That leaves only Iran fucking about, with Hezbollah, which wouldn't last six months without them.

Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon - these are all countries which have had multi-faction civil wars which settled down when they were left alone by the rest of the world, but flared up again when the other countries decided to "help".

In the case of Iraq the multi-faction civil war was unleashed by the US invasion, rather than being entirely domestic like those other countries, but it doesn't make much difference in the end. If you stay they'll go through 20 years of utter misery and mass death and then settle down. If you pull out they'll go through 2-10 years of utter misery and mass death and then settle down - unless someone else decides to "help" them instead.

We draw parallels with Vietnam because it was a relatively simple conflict - you had the Republic, the ambitious commie neighbour and the local commie sympathisers, and that was it. But Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and now Iraq had dozens of factions. And not all of them even want to achieve power, they're happy just making sure no-one else has power and looting away - which makes them a bit hard to negotiate with or properly defeat.

We also draw parallels with Vietnam because it saves our egos. Vietnam was an existing conflict which by entering we drew out a bit and possibly made bloodier by our "help" - but it wasn't started by us, or caused by us. Whereas with Iraq, we started it. They'd be living in oppression and peace without us, and live in oppression and bloody conflict with us. Here in the West we have this whole way of looking at wars - that we don't start them. That's why what used to be our Departments of War are now Departments of Defence.

We don't like to think that we started a big fucking mess which has caused the deaths of about a million people, and driven millions of the best and brightest - those who could rebuild the country we've destroyed - out of it. That's kind of embarassing to us. And all those different factions are so confusing, who among us could name even five of them? So rather than draw parallels with Lebanon, we draw them with Vietnam.  That makes things simpler and makes us feel less guilty.

In years to come we'll put all the blame on Bush and Blair and Howard, so we can avoid taking any responsibility ourselves. We like to do that.

Just as we like to put everything onto one leader to avoid our responsibility for the bad we've done, so too do we like to put all our hopes and dreams onto one leader to avoid responsibility for fixing things up. That's what this hero-cult stuff is about, it just happens to have fallen on Obama today.

There's too much worship and condemnation of "great heroes" in the modern West, and not enough sense of responsibility. In the end a US President is only one man, and he can't do a fucking thing without at least half the 500-odd Congresspeople behind him, and that lot were elected by a hundred million or so Americans. Whatever good or bad a US President does is not merely to their credit or blame, but falls as well on the citizens of that country. Likewise, in the UK, Australia and so on.

So, okay, Reagan was a senile twit, Dubya's dumb as a box of hammers, Clinton was corrupt - whatever, so what, they were elected, and so were the Congresses that passed their laws and policies. It's all down to the people in the end. And that's the same in any country, I only mention US Presidents because it's names everyone will know, and is the topic of this thread.

Let's set aside this hero-cult nonsense, it's all rather Napoleonic, a bit of a wank, really. Let's be citizens, and take responsibility for the good and the bad our leaders do in our names. You know, like in a democracy.

Quote from: walkerpVietnam seems to be doing okay these days.

So is Germany, Japan, and China so does that mean we should be indifferent to genocide, atomic bombings, and famines that kill tens of millions?  Of course it's convenient that dead people can't complain.  And compared to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and other countries that remained under the American umbrella, Vietnam is at best doing OK if you ignore the standard of living and political repression.  Dead bodies, oppression, and low standards of living are easy to hand-wave away when you don't have to deal with them or know them.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe real questions would be what the region was like before western powers started fucking with it; and whether a continued presence there would really have meant things would have gone better (either for the U.S. or for the people of that region) if they'd stuck around.

The region isn't a mess simply because the "Western powers" messed them up.  The Soviets (who I suppose you could call "Western"), Chinese, and locals infatuated with Communism (which you can blame on the West, I suppose, since many were educated in the West) all played a role and it takes two sides to fight a war.  Yes, the US bombed Cambodia because the North Vietnamese were using Cambodia to move resources and to hide out.  If the North Vietnamese weren't there, the Americans wouldn't have been bombing it.  And do you really think South Koreans would be better of the Western powers had just washed their hands of it and let the Glorious Leader take over the entire country?  Think of the carbon dioxide emissions that would be cut if all of the Korean peninsula was as dark as North Korea at night and if South Koreans had the living standard and life expectancy of those in the North, right?

Given that we can actually compare the places in the region where the US stuck around or offered protection (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) and the places where the US washed their hands of the problem or left the despots in power (North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia), I think it's safe to say that they'd be better off, unless you are indifferent to the fact that the Vietnamese still live under a government that limits their freedoms and that plenty of Vietnamese, given the choice, got into leaky boats to get out of the place.  Of course it's easy to spot the countries that you like.  Just look for the places where the people are getting into leaky boats to escape from.

Quote from: RPGPunditPointing out that that things went badly when the Americans left is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they had no business being there in the first place, and that things had pretty much gone to shit WHILE they were there.

So without the West's involvement, the communists would have been a bunch of harmless fuzz balls that would have created paradise on earth for their citizens?  You are like the left-wing equivalent of Pat Buchanan.

Quote from: John MorrowSo without the West's involvement, the communists would have been a bunch of harmless fuzz balls that would have created paradise on earth for their citizens?

That would be for the citizens of the countries involved to decide. You make the motives of the West sound so noble. You're right, dead bodies can't complain. And Vietnam is better off without the US. Even with all it's problems, it's people are attempting to solve their own problems and in the process becoming one of the rising powers in South East Asia.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian Absentia"We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in—but start leaving we must."

A good example of why he has no business being a project manager, never mind a president.  When you fix the timetable of a project, you inevitably wind up sacrificing the results to meet the timetable.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNot exactly the Fall of Saigon he's describing, is it?

Do you really want me to provide you with quotes from post-Watergate Democrats catapulted into power by a backlash against an unpopular two-term Republican President  about what they thought would happen in Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere when they cut off miltitary aid when they didn't have the 20/20 hindsight of looking backward to help them?

Yes, Ronald Reagan cut-and-ran out of Lebanon but it was already a mess by then.  I know it's really hard because the mainstream media has no interest in looking closely at it but try, really try, to take a good close look at the late 1970s starting from when the Democrats got post-Watergate control of Congress in 1974 through the Carter Presidency in 1980.  Yeah, you remember Jimmy Carter, the idiot that won't shut up despite being the worst President of the 20th Century and probably the worst ex-President, too.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYeah, what sour grapes?

What sour grapes?  It's called not wanting to repeat the late 1970s.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA major nothern offensive in '72 was fought off mostly by the ARVN and the USAF, but in '75 US support was not forthcoming, and what was intended by the north as an offensive for diplomatic positioning became a conquest.

The support "was not forthcoming" because the Democrat-controlled congress, against the advice of the Ford Administration, decided to cut off all military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia.  Even if you want to argue that the United States played a large role in the mess in Vietnam and Cambodia (and one can certainly make that case), cutting and running was not good for the indigenous people unless you want to take walkerp's optimistic long term view that things will probably won't be all that bad after a few decades and a few million dead bodies.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course, the Republic had only one ambitious or fearful neighbour, and had no internal factions worth speaking of - just the commies and everyone else. Today's Iraq has a multiple ambitious/fearful neighbours, and multiple internal factions... which could make things as messy after a US pullout as they are today. So I think the parallels are closer with Lebanon rather than Vietnam.

Again, a reminder of what Lebanon was like before it all fell apart.

Quote from: David RThat would be for the citizens of the countries involved to decide.

If you haven't notice, most communist nations don't have free elections and tend to come to power (or stay in power if the people are stupid enough to elect them at some point) via force, so it's really not up to the citizens to decide, in many cases.  The South Vietnamese certainly didn't vote to be conquered and the South Koreans seem to be pretty happy to have tens of thousands of American troops on their soil more than a half-century after they fought the North Koreans back.  If you haven't noticed, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and many got into leaky boats to get away.  Does getting in a leaky vote count as a decision about how they felt?

Quote from: David RYou make the motives of the West sound so noble. You're right, dead bodies can't complain.

In the big scheme of things, they often are.

Quote from: David RAnd Vietnam is better off without the US. Even with all it's problems, it's people are attempting to solve their own problems and in the process becoming one of the rising powers in South East Asia.

After killing tens if not hundreds of thousands, re-education camps, property confiscation, and the million or so that fled to other countries to get away and after decades of political repression.  You talk about the Vietnamese people solving their own problems.  Do they have free speech?  Do they have free and open elections?  Can the people travel freely and buy and sell freely?  And they've been a rising power in South East Asia since the 1990s, yet still they lag behind the nations not blessed with Communism.

It's also important to note that the people in the South didn't want to be conquered and the people in the North didn't have a choice.  And even if you want to argue that Vietnam or Korea should be unified, it's absurd to argue that letting the North conquer the South was the best way to do it.  That's like arguing that West Germany should have submitted to East Germany rather than waiting for the latter to collapse and join the West.  If unification and the will of the people was and is so important, why didn't the North simply agree to political unification under a free democratic system of government rather than conquering the South and then oppressing their people for decades?

Sorry, not buying it.  I find it curious that you have no problem spotting the flaws of the West but forgiving the flaws of the North Vietnamese.  It takes two to fight a war, yet only the West is expected to surrender and play nice.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you haven't notice, most communist nations don't have free elections and tend to come to power (or stay in power if the people are stupid enough to elect them at some point) via force, so it's really not up to the citizens to decide, in many cases.  The South Vietnamese certainly didn't vote to be conquered and the South Koreans seem to be pretty happy to have tens of thousands of American troops on their soil more than a half-century after they fought the North Koreans back.  If you haven't noticed, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and many got into leaky boats to get away.  Does getting in a leaky vote count as a decision about how they felt?

Who the hell says free elections is the only way to decide a nation's fate. There's revolution. Blood will be spilt and it should be their own. They want freedom, they fight for it.

QuoteIn the big scheme of things, they often are.

No. We are living in the big scheme of things.

QuoteAfter killing tens if not hundreds of thousands, re-education camps, property confiscation, and the million or so that fled to other countries to get away and after decades of political repression.  You talk about the Vietnamese people solving their own problems.  Do they have free speech?  Do they have free and open elections?  Can the people travel freely and buy and sell freely?  And they've been a rising power in South East Asia since the 1990s, yet still they lag behind the nations not blessed with Communism.

Who the hell cares about free speech. Who the hell cares about elections. Seriously there a whole set a different values in this part of the world. Do people want more freedom ? Sure. And it's up to them to take it....if that's what they want. People in China seem to be doing fine without free speech and elections. And those who care about such issues - if they care about it at all, because if you ever stepped foot in China, it's all about the money - they fight for it.

QuoteIt's also important to note that the people in the South didn't want to be conquered and the people in the North didn't have a choice.  And even if you want to argue that Vietnam or Korea should be unified, it's absurd to argue that letting the North conquer the South was the best way to do it.  That's like arguing that West Germany should have submitted to East Germany rather than waiting for the latter to collapse and join the West.  If unification and the will of the people was and is so important, why didn't the North simply agree to political unification under a free democratic system of government rather than conquering the South and then oppressing their people for decades?

Again with the nobility. Asia ain't Europe.

QuoteSorry, not buying it.  I find it curious that you have no problem spotting the flaws of the West but forgiving the flaws of the North Vietnamese.  It takes two to fight a war, yet only the West is expected to surrender and play nice.

We ain't talking about the flaws of the North  Vietnamese, here are we. I was commenting on your usual defence of American foreign policy. Normally I'd shrug it off, but when it comes to my region, I get a bit testy. And stop showing that video of Lebanon. As though Iraq is anywhere near what Lebanon was. Well it could have been maybe after Saddam or you know, you didn't bomb the shit out of the place.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowThe South Vietnamese certainly didn't vote to be conquered and the South Koreans seem to be pretty happy to have tens of thousands of American troops on their soil more than a half-century after they fought the North Koreans back.

After the 1954 peace accords between the French, the Republic and the North, there was supposed to be a plebescite on uniting the north with the south.

This plebescite was never held, prevented by the Saigon government at the behest of the US. Why? Because they thought the Communists would win, and Vietnam would be unified.

The US prevented a free vote for the country's future. The US later sponsored military coups in the Republic, supported the use of torture in prisons, carried out extrajudicial executions, and so on. Hardly the stuff of democracy.

South Koreans are not entirely happy with the US presence. Some of them perceive the US as a greater threat than the North, and many perceive the US as an obstacle to reunification. Obviously I don't agree - Pyongyang doesn't want to be unified with the South under joint or Seoul's leadership - but that's how many South Koreans perceive things. They also perceive the US as being partly responsible for their military government for thirty years.

The US sponsored the South Korean military government (openly military, and subverted democracy with military support) from 1961-1992. Again, not desperately democratic. Certainly better than the North, but... would you like your leg cut off at the ankle, or the hip?

As citizens of countries which have free and fair democratic elections, we are in part responsible for the good and bad our leaders do. No US President or British or Australian Prime Minister can do a damned thing on their own. They do what they believe is in the interests of their countries, and this perception of our interests is shaped by what we tell them and our Parliament Members, the stories in the media, and so on. We're responsible. Demonising this leader or idealising this other leader - that's just us evading our responsibilities as citizens. It's time to stop being infants, be adults and take responsibility.

Obama's just one guy. Get over it.

Quote from: David R. As though Iraq is anywhere near what Lebanon was. Well it could have been maybe after Saddam or you know, you didn't bomb the shit out of the place.

Regards,
David R

Most of the ongoing infrastructure damage was not caused by US bombardment but by home grown and foreign 'freedom fighters' who wanted to make the US invasion get bogged down in  'not helping the people'.  Most efforts to restore basic and more complex infrastructural support (water, power, telecommunications... that sort of shit) were delayed and even stymied by Iraqis, and their loss was, at the start of the land invasion, minimal due to bombing.

The actual 'war', if you want to keep it separate from the ongoing occupation was almost surgical in its neatness.  You'll want to rebut by pointing out the handful of civilian casualties that made international news, and the statistics for the ones that didn't, I'm sure. I'll rebut that by pointing out that most, if not all surgeries, involve damaging healthy tissue to get at the unhealthy tissue.  The difference between surgery and butchery is how much healthy tissue is harmed.

I was IN Iraq within days of the 'War' and what I saw was far different from the smoking ruin you are implying.   I could also point out that I was directly involved with a significant portion of the repairs, specifically building bridge easements and repairing roadways.  Neglect was one of the biggest problems that needed fixing, not 'bombing damage'.

Quote from: SpikeMost of the ongoing infrastructure damage was not caused by US bombardment but by home grown and foreign 'freedom fighters' who wanted to make the US invasion get bogged down in  'not helping the people'.  Most efforts to restore basic and more complex infrastructural support (water, power, telecommunications... that sort of shit) were delayed and even stymied by Iraqis, and their loss was, at the start of the land invasion, minimal due to bombing.

Well of course I question these so-called percision strikes and exactly how much damage they caused the country. The damage caused by the Iraqis themselves are a direct results of occupation whatever their real motives may be. Furthermore as an occupying force the US has the responsibility to maintain law and order. Of course this is an extremely difficult thing to pull off....hence the dangers of invading another country. Also, my comment was that the city could have been like Lebanon "after Saddam"...by this I meant either he was killed or replaced by his own countrymen.

QuoteThe actual 'war', if you want to keep it separate from the ongoing occupation was almost surgical in its neatness.  You'll want to rebut by pointing out the handful of civilian casualties that made international news, and the statistics for the ones that didn't, I'm sure. I'll rebut that by pointing out that most, if not all surgeries, involve damaging healthy tissue to get at the unhealthy tissue.  The difference between surgery and butchery is how much healthy tissue is harmed.

Spike I don't mean to be rude, but I find this analogy distasteful. Like Morrow said, the dead can't complain.

QuoteI was IN Iraq within days of the 'War' and what I saw was far different from the smoking ruin you are implying.   I could also point out that I was directly involved with a significant portion of the repairs, specifically building bridge easements and repairing roadways.  Neglect was one of the biggest problems that needed fixing, not 'bombing damage'.

If you take issue with the fact that I stated that the US bombed the shit out of the country....well fair enough. The invasion caused a massive amount of damage. Maybe not the bombings itself - although I question this - but definitely the occupation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWho the hell says free elections is the only way to decide a nation's fate. There's revolution. Blood will be spilt and it should be their own. They want freedom, they fight for it.

Revolutions rarely work out well for "the people" and they enslave them at least as often as they free them.

Quote from: David RNo. We are living in the big scheme of things.

Of course we are, which is why you have the luxury of bitching and moaning about American and Western foreign policy, a Western freedom you apparently enjoy but are willing to casually discount for others.

Quote from: David RWho the hell cares about free speech. Who the hell cares about elections. Seriously there a whole set a different values in this part of the world.

Sure, it's like we're two different species. :rolleyes:

Are you also going to tell me that women who remain in abusive relationships with men who beat them don't need love, affection, and tenderness because they want to be abused?

Quote from: David RDo people want more freedom ? Sure. And it's up to them to take it....if that's what they want.

Yeah, that's simple when the government has tanks and you have sticks.  I'm sure you believe that the people of Burma are happy to starve and that's why they aren't fighting back, right? And how did that whole Tiananmen Square protest work out?  Or the protests in Tibet?  Of course rather than getting themselves and their families killed trying to fight the systems, many Asians choose the same option that a million Vietnamese chose for more freedom -- they flee to the West.

Quote from: David RPeople in China seem to be doing fine without free speech and elections. And those who care about such issues - if they care about it at all, because if you ever stepped foot in China, it's all about the money - they fight for it.

It depends on which part of China and which Chinese you talk to, and it's easy to make people happy when you control what they learn and can say.  I don't have to step foot in China to meet Chinese people because plenty of them chose to leave China and plenty were pushed out by the Communists, as well as Vietnamese and other Asian ethnicities. And there are plenty of Chinese protesters, including various Falun Gong protests near various government offices in New York City.  I guess they weren't authentic enough to not care about freedom.  

North Korea looks like a great place to live, too.  I guess food, like freedom, is over-rated.  Real Asians don't need democracy, free speech, or even food.  They bask in the glorious aura of their leaders and like it that way. Look at how happy and prosperous they all look. :rolleyes:

Quote from: David RAgain with the nobility. Asia ain't Europe.

You were the one talking about the people working things out.  It's kinda difficult for "the people" to work things out when most of "the people" have no say in how the country is run.  

Quote from: David RWe ain't talking about the flaws of the North  Vietnamese, here are we.

No, and we never are.  The only flaws we are allowed to talk about are those of America and the West.  

Quote from: David RI was commenting on your usual defence of American foreign policy. Normally I'd shrug it off, but when it comes to my region, I get a bit testy.

Sure, but I've got to sit down and shut up while people piss on America?  If you had any perspective, maybe you'd grasp then when it comes to my country, I get a bit testy, too?

Quote from: David RAnd stop showing that video of Lebanon.

Why?  Don't you want people to see how quickly a paradise can turn into a Hell-hole when the terrorists take over?

Quote from: David RAs though Iraq is anywhere near what Lebanon was. Well it could have been maybe after Saddam or you know, you didn't bomb the shit out of the place.

We didn't bomb the crap out of Iraq nearly as much as Arab terrorists and militants have.  Oh, wait.  That's America's fault, too, isn't it?  Let me guess, if the Iraqi's wanted freedom from Saddam, they should have fought him, right?  How well has that worked out for the Kurds who, judging by the commercials they've shown on American TV and the way they've gotten their act together in Iraq, are fairly happy with the Americans stepping in.  Let me guess.  They don't count, right.  Not authentic enough.  Authentic Middle Easterners, like authentic Asians don't need liberty, free speech, democracy, or a high standard of living.

Quote from: David RWell of course I question these so-called percision strikes and exactly how much damage they caused the country. The damage caused by the Iraqis themselves are a direct results of occupation whatever their real motives may be.

But to get the full perspective for comparison, you also need to consider teh damage caused to Iraq by Saddam Hussein which includes, among other things, the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait and the resulting reprisals, the killing of Kurds including the use of poison gas, the subjugation of the Marsh Arabs and the purposeful destruction of the Marsh environment that they inhabited, the ongoing political and personal jailings, mutilations, rapes, and murders, the hardships caused by the sanctions against Iraq as a result of Saddam's various abuses, and so on.  It's not as if America invaded paradise and turned it into Hell.

Quote from: David RFurthermore as an occupying force the US has the responsibility to maintain law and order. Of course this is an extremely difficult thing to pull off....hence the dangers of invading another country.

Absolutely.  If we broke it, we have to fix it, which is why I oppose the strategy of simply pulling out of Iraq.  That's why I'm pointing out what happened in other instances where the United States just pulled out and let the people sort it out.  I think we have an obligation to not to abandon them like we did the South Vietnamese and Cambodians.

Quote from: David RAlso, my comment was that the city could have been like Lebanon "after Saddam"...by this I meant either he was killed or replaced by his own countrymen.

Yeah, that always happens.  Look at Putin and Raul Castro and Robert Mugabe will be giving up power any decade now.

Quote from: David RSpike I don't mean to be rude, but I find this analogy distasteful. Like Morrow said, the dead can't complain.

Why is his casual dismissal of the casualties any more distasteful than your casual dismissal of much larger body counts?

Quote from: David RThe invasion caused a massive amount of damage. Maybe not the bombings itself - although I question this - but definitely the occupation.

Saddam Hussein caused a massive amount of damage, from the sanctions he invited from the international community and his skimming of the nations wealth for himself and his close associates to his oppression of opposing ethnicities and the wars he wages against his neighbors.  It's not like Iraq was a tranquil pool disturbed by American rocks and need I remind you that the Americans and British continued to control the airspace and to bomb targets in Iraq throughout the 90s.