US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

DesiDude RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/5/2003 6:50:10 PM

Gunner, US intervention is not always "Greed Fuelled" as you call it. Vietnam war was definitely not about greed. Vietnam does not produce oil, or any other natural resource that US covets. Suez crisis erupted, If I am not grossly wrong, because Egypt suddenly wanted to control Suez and hold the world trade to ransom. US pressurizing Egypt to keep it open helped the entire world, not just US. Gulf War I was started by Saddam Hussein, when he decided to help himself to Kuwaiti oil. US intervened to bail out the Kuwaiti govt, and a fearful Saudi Arabia. The oil keeping flowing was obviously a factor. (Nobody in the world is going to be bothered if Ethiopia and Eritria take on each other. They are not critical to global economic stability). Gulf War II is debatable. But I still maintain, that the real target of US's latest gulf foray is not Saddam, but Saudi Arabia, the sponsors of global terrorism. US does not snatch resources from other countries. It pays cash, just like everybody else.

Quote Reply

gunner RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/6/2003 6:06:18 AM

Oh boy, I got a bite, I got a bite! :) Vietnam: We should all know by now that the Vietminh were armed and trained by the OSS, and that Ho Chi Minh was a CIA patsy, agreed? What might not be so clear is that, as well as ostensibly fighting the Japanese, the Viet Minh were also ultra-nationalist even during the Second World War, and intended to fight French Colonial forces also. The French themselves had Free French special forces and indigenous loyalists operating as guerrillas against the Japanese, but these received no support from the Viet Minh or OSS. The Americans in fact wanted to dismantle colonial institutions wherever they found them, and promote nationalism. On the face of it, laudable goals. However, this meant that they were actually taking sides against the French, their allies during the War. The excuse has been that Vichy French collaboration with the Japanese made their territory somehow forfeit. The British wanted to expand the front from Indochina, to bring pressure to bear on the Japanese Southern flank while they pushed through Burma. The Americans advising in China, under the abrasive and tactically questionable General Stilwell, were dead set against anyone else having a say in how 'their' war was fought. After the Japanese capitulation, the VietMinh exploited the power vacuum in Indochina and seized control. The French remained imprisoned and the neutered Japanese tried their best to maintain law and order (under a 'gentlemans agreement' with the allies), while the British and French rushed forces to regain control. However, General McArthur, resenting the reassertion of British and French power in what America now considered it's own area of jurisdiction (ie the entire Pacific area), ordered the relief forces to delay their re-occupation of Vietnam until after the official Japanese surrender had been signed. This was at least another 3 weeks in coming, allowing the VietMinh to consolidate power. When the French did finally return, they had to root out American armed and trained terrorists, and were regrettably heavy handed about it, doing little to quell the fires of anti-French feeling aongst the populace. Apparently, no-one wanted the French, or the Japanese since their defeat, but their was widespread support for the British, even to the point of desiring British colonial rule (seen as fairer and freer than any alternatives). The VietMinh thugs were as feared by the civilians as the VC would later be, due to their reprisals against 'collaborators' amongst the population. Britain, not wanting to be associated with French atrocities in the region, and under a new pacifistic government that was itself under pressure from the US to back off, withdrew it's troops, finding them to be urgently needed to fight communist terrorists in Indonesia. Thus ended Britain's short involvement in Vietnam, and began 30 years of civil war. The irony is that the US realised they had created a communist force that threatened the entire of SE Asia, and that the French were unable to contain it. They had to step in to fight the very troops they had themselves trained, armed, funded and supported. And no, President Homer J Simpson wasn't in office at the time, though you'd be forgiven for thinking it! The greed in this case is greed for regional influence and power, and envy for existing (and stable) colonial institutions. During Suez, Nasser (sponsored by the CIA, in order to overthrow British dominion, again) went a step further than expected and siezed the canal. The UN went in to retreive it, but US intervention, designed to seize back the initiative and with it some credibility, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by insisting on a 'diplomatic solution'. Almost a reversal of current US foreign policy, where pleas from the world to give diplomacy one last chance seem to fall on deaf ears (I'm not a peacenik, but I do want to see an end to the use of unilateral force 'on behalf of the World' but with no-one else allowed to do the same). Had it been American, not 'Imperial' interests under threat, then I'm sure America would have done the same. Oh, wait, THEY DID! I give you... Panama! Almost exactly the same scenario, but this time in America's back yard, not someone elses. The first Gulf War (Iran-Iraq) was a case of a US supported dictator used as a proxy to fight Islamic fundamentalists, and America was VERY supportive, albeit clandestinely, as the Soviet Union has always had a historical interest in Iraqi oil, and of course those old rivals, Britain and France, both had a strong regional 'presence'. But then, *whoops!* Saddam goes AWOL in Kuwait and suddenly he's the bad man. D'oh! says the President again. I hope you can see why I find this a little annoying and hypocritical from the premier World power that always tries to claim it is acting in the National Interest (which if you are a World power, means the whole world, doesn't it?). What about other nation's interests? Are we just going to get shouted down by the big mouthed football player every time we get the ball?

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/6/2003 1:05:39 PM

I'm gonna "bite" as well. "I hope you can see why I find this a little annoying and hypocritical from the premier World power that always tries to claim it is acting in the National Interest (which if you are a World power, means the whole world, doesn't it?). What about other nation's interests? Are we just going to get shouted down by the big mouthed football player every time we get the ball?" Welcome to world politics. The first thing I'm not sure you understand, is that this is the way all "Great" powers, throughout history have acted. I'm sure the Greeks complained how the Romans were "annoying and hypocritical" as the Roman institutions and practices replaced or modified the Greek practices in Egypt and other "former" Greek powers. What about other nations interests? Will you get shouted down by the bigger football player? Darn straight. Just like when kids play, its my ball, so you play by my rules. Nations act in thier own self-interest first. Otherwise, there is no need for a national government. Since there is no "world" government, no one is looking out for the overall benefit of the world. Thats why its sad when people talk in terms of doing whats "right" or "wrong", who is "evil" or "good". Its never that clear cut. Its more "whats in it for me" than anything else. One of the reasons the US as a great power is so benevolent in its actions, is that the US threats, be they economic or military, have always been of a lesser intensity than any other recent Great power. While you have quite a few facts correct about Vietnam, Suez, Gulf, etc, you have put a certain twist on why it was done that wasn't entirely correct. There is no one "mind" behind any action a government takes, especially western democratic ones. You have different political factions, each wanting to accomplish something thier own way. They may cooperate with each other, then again they may fight each other worse than any outside "enemy" ever will. US actions (ie FDR), pre and during WWII, were the actions of a nation that felt it should be the world leader, not the Europeans. Ensuring the Europeans lost its power base helped achieve that goal. When FDR died, others took power who may or may not have shared his beliefs. You end up with the nation acting like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, cause chances are it doesn't. One thing you implied, was that the Vietenamese wanted colonial rule, British being the preference instead of the VietMinh "terrorist". Colonial rule was something only the Vietnamese "elite" wanted. The VietMinh on the other hand, had bought into the "liberty and democracy" spouted by the US. We screwed them, they went to the Communists for support, which ended up dragging us into a unnecessary war. So your subject title is really misleading. Does the US meddle? Sure, just like everyone else. Did it cause the Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, Gulf Wars? Not entirely. Is this "meddling" unique to the US? Not at all. All nations meddle, screw up, and cause conflicts. The US is no worse than anyone else and because of our riches, alot "nicer" about it when it meddles than others in history have had the luxury of being.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/6/2003 6:20:50 PM

You're overthinking, people. More and more, we see, on the internet, bald assertions which have no basis, whatever, in fact. Some is sheer ill will but, regretably, a growing segment of the western world seems to have learned history from scrawls on the walls of public restrooms and the back of matchbook covers. 1)The Vietnam war began because a communist movement fostered in Moscow, during the 1930s, launched a war to expell the French from SE Asia. America was not involved for the best part of a generation after it began. 2)The Suez Crisis came about because Nasser nationalized the Anglo-French owned Suez Canal and Britain and France decided that they wanted to reverse the nationalization. 3)The Gulf War happened because after many years of telling his people and the world that he considered Kuwait a part of Iraq, which was to be reclaimed, Saddam Hussein got around to invading and conquering Kuwait.

Quote Reply

gunner RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/7/2003 7:49:04 AM

Well guy's, I just wanted to see if everyone was awake, chuck a bit of controversy in the mix to stir people up a bit :) Shaka: I agree with what you say. My spin was deliberate in order to polarise reactions, but I stand by my belief that the CIA knowingly sponsored communists in Indochina, rather than the VietMinh switching allegiance later. Ho Chi Minh was a confirmed communist even as early as the '30's. I like this quote: "Just like when kids play, its my ball, so you play by my rules". Are we children? Sometimes if you imagine World leader's disputes as playground altercations, diplomacy doesn't seem to have grown up much. But I guess I'm an idealist. I believe we can and ought to rise above such immature, selfish behaviour. It's ultimately self-defeating to keep the ball and play it your way. You find that the other kids don't want to play with you, and they drift off to form other teams, and use rules that are mutually agreed between themselves. Imagine if a team turned up at an NFL game and said "We're playing by our own rules today, which will help us to win more easily, and for you other teams, tough doo doo!" BSL: If only the world were as uncomplicated as you would have us believe. "America was not involved for the best part of a generation after it began" That's on your restroom wall, not mine :) If you mean 'overtly involved', you are right, but it goes way back, as you ought to know, as one who believes he reads a little deeper than most. " Nasser nationalized the Anglo-French owned Suez Canal" Not disputed. I would simply like to open the box on clandestine US power-projection (in this case the promoting of Nasser and Egyptian nationalsm), so that no-one is under any illusion that the US ever offers freedom and democracy for it's own sake. There's a big caveat attached to American foreign policy, but it's often in the small print. "The Gulf War happened because..." I can't believe a historian wrote this, so I'll pretend I didn't see it. E-, try again. During the Roman Empire, victorious generals would keep a slave, who would remind them as they rode through Rome to a tickertape welcome, that they were only men, not Gods, after all, with the same faults and vulnerabilities as everyone else. It was aimed to engender some humility and reduce the hubris that Romans could often be guilty of. His role was especially dangerous, since a party that is 'on the up' is one that is the least receptive to critiscm. Ideally the Democrats should play the mortal-reminders to Republican victors, but after 9/11 an almost McCarthy-like backlash condemned any nay-sayers as un-patriotic (read 'traitor' in Rep-speak), and prevented the US from taking an objective look at it's World image. No, the US didn't 'cause' any of these conflicts, and lot's of factors interwove to affect events, but, lest we forget, my angle is just a 'memento homo' whipsered in American readers ears.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/7/2003 5:00:15 PM

Sorry, sonny. The rest room walls I read were at two of the leading universities in America and this is a field and era in which I specialized. I've read some of the better known academic consipiracy theorists, developed by people whose delusional structures were elaborate, well crafted, and partook of reams of actual facts. Knocking down drivel is much easier. 1)Vietnam Yep. America was uninvolved until the end of the 1950s, by which time the war against the French had been going on for more than a decade. In fact, the bulk of American opinion and the leanings of American policy, before the first, tentative gestures by Eisenhower, who finally accepted the general notion of a domino theory and linkage between events in Indochina and the larger Cold War, were AGAINST the French. American policy and opinion, since the late 1800s, had tended to be critical of European imperial and colonial policies, and tended, on balance, to favor colonial peoples and people threatened by colonial expansion. That's apart, of course, from our own actions, but this, in turn, is beside the point at issue. 2)Nope. The US didn't sponsor Nasser. There was a brief period immediately after he helped overthrow Farouk, then took control from Naguib, when America tried to reach a modus vivendi with Nasser, willing to accept him as a nationalist not impossibly hostile to America and the West, generally. (This was part and parcel of the American anticolonial tendencies cited, above.) This was a brief period because it took Nasser very little time to show both a deep, bitter hatred of the West generally, and to align with the USSR, which was willing to help in a variety of ways in order to hurt the West. Nasser was a strong opponent of CENTO from the beginning and a strong opponent of any of the almost forgotten Arab leaders of this era who were relatively proWestern and aligned to varying degrees with the West in the antiSoviet posture. Had America really been connected with Nasser in any meaningful way, we'd have been working against our own central, antiSoviet policy, and to believe this requires the sort of self-blinding delusion which is usually associated with Marxist historians. The truth is that Nasser spent the 1950s and 1960s working against any number of American/NATO policies and trying to overthrow local leaders who supported them. You'd do much better accusing America of supporting the Saudi rulers of this era, which we did, seeing them as antiSoviet allies and **opponents** of Nasser. Ditto, the Shah of Iran. American policy during the postWar 1940s and through the 1950s was contrary in our desire to align, closely with France and Britain in an antiSoviet alliance while we simulateously favored the end of their colonial empires. 3)Closing your eyes to inconvenient facts doesn't surprise me. It appears to be part and parcel of your worldview. Try this one; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 9/7/2003 5:02:54 PM

Oh, and what the Roman custom referred to actually consisted of was the slave whispering into the ear of the man granted a triumph, by the Senate, while riding in his chariot through the streets of Rome, "fame is fleeting". It was a hint not to get too big for their britches, which is not exactly the same thing you're suggesting.

Quote Reply

gunner RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. BSL 9/9/2003 4:18:17 AM

1. "America was uninvolved until the end of the 1950s" What about the OSS in WW2? Answer: Laurence Gordon was one of three men involved in that intelligence operation which contacted Ho Chi Minh following the Japanese coup (March 5, 1945) against the Vichy French in Indochina. This operation is known as GBT. Harry V. Bernard was another of the three-man GBT group. Major Allison Kent Thomas, directed the OSS Deer Mission which collaborated with the Viet Minh in 1945. He was in Hanoi in September, following Ho's August Revolution. According to historian Cecil Currey, he questioned Ho as to his communist affiliation; Ho responded that he was but then asserted he and Thomas could still be friends. Archimedes Patti was a key OSS officer who headed the OSS operations in both Kunming and Hanoi. He developed a close relationship with Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap, was in Hanoi during the August Revolution. His contacts with Ho encouraged each to expect more out of the U.S.-Viet Minh collaboration, and his later book presented Ho as more nationalist than communist. Lt. Col. Peter Dewey was part of the OSS leadership group (including Patti) in Hanoi at the time of the August Revolution. Soon thereafter, in Saigon, Dewey died as a result of an accidental shooting by Viet Minh September 26, 1945. This made Dewey the first American to die in Vietnam. His daughter attended the New York City conference. link You precis of US attitudes toward the French doesn't differ from my original point: "The Americans in fact wanted to dismantle colonial institutions wherever they found them, and promote nationalism. On the face of it, laudable goals. However, this meant that they were actually taking sides against the French, their allies during the War", so we are in agreement about one thing. 2. "The US didn't sponsor Nasser." What about the CIA? Answer: 1952 - The US helps engineer a coup against British puppet ruler of Egypt, King Farouk. CIA backs a young colonel, Gammal Abdel Nasser. But when the US later tries to pressure Nasser into joining Washington's `new order' for the Mideast, the Baghdad Pact, Nasser rebels and becomes America's enemy number one. CIA tries first to overthrow, than assassinate Nasser. All attempts fail. "American policy during the postWar 1940s and through the 1950s was contrary in our desire to align, closely with France and Britain in an antiSoviet alliance while we simulateously favored the end of their colonial empires" That's my point. I don't understand why you haven't realised it. Please re-read my posts, when your red-mist has cleared, and apart from 'the conspiracy theory' that I ascribe to, we are clearly in agreement. Maybe you trust your governmental institutions to conduct their business wisely on your behalf, despite Watergate, Irangate and far too many other 'gates' than I care to mention. I come from Britain, and we've learned that if there's one truth in life, it's that you can never trust politicians, bureaucrats or monolithic institutions. Well OK, 3 truths in life... 3. "The Gulf War happened because after many years of telling his people and the world that he considered Kuwait a part of Iraq, which was to be reclaimed, Saddam Hussein got around to invading and conquering Kuwait." How did Saddam get there? Answer: 1958 - Britain's Iraqi puppets, King Faisal and Nuri as-Said, overthrown by the bloodthirsty Col.Kassim. US uses Kassim to attack Nasser. Kassim murdered by Col. Aref in CIA-mounted coup. Aref's helicopter blown up. A few more murders later, CIA helps engineer into power a promising, young, Baath Party enforcer, Saddam Hussein. Why wasn't he put under Western pressure when he made those threats? Why did we ignore him for all those years as he acted so belligerently? Answer: 1976 - US, Iran and Israel secretly arm Iraq's Kurds and promote their rebellion to destabilize Iraq. Kurdish revolt plays major role in igniting Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 in which one million died. US abandons Kurds, gets chummy with Baghdad. 1980 - Saddam Hussein becomes America's most important Mideast ally in trying to crush Iran's Islamic revolution. Urged on, armed and financed by the US, Saddam invades Iran in 1980. CIA and Pentagon supply military advice and intelligence on Iran. US and British intelligence help Iraq obtain its chemical and biological warfare capabilities.

Quote Reply

Mameluke RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 12/6/2003 5:35:05 PM

"Suez crisis erupted, If I am not grossly wrong, because Egypt suddenly wanted to control Suez and hold the world trade to ransom. US pressurizing Egypt to keep it open helped the entire world, not just US." Ok, a few things to clear up here. That statement is mistaken on a few counts. First off, Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal in order to be able to pay for it's Aswan Dam project, not to strangle world trade or anything crazy like that. After it was nationalized, Britain, France, and Israel conspired with each other and invaded Egypt. US and Soviet pressure is what caused them to pull out. The US had nothing to do with the Suez Canal crisis, and was instrumental in bringing it to an end. It's a shame that the US wouldn't lend Egypt the money for the Aswan Dam. Pretty much pushed Egypt into the arms of the soviets. I wonder how different the Middle East would be today if that hadn't occured.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 12/6/2003 7:38:06 PM

They still would have gone over. Hatred of Israel would have trumped all. And the US was never comitted to the desruction of Israel like Russia was.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 12/6/2003 8:41:17 PM

"After it was nationalized, Britain, France, and Israel conspired with each other and invaded Egypt" Conspiracy. Yeah. Israel conspired to try to stop Egyptian cross border attacks, and Britain and France conspired to stop Nasser from stealing an important economic asset Egypt was treaty-bound not to touch, without compensation. As we speak, our local police force is busy conspiring to fight crime and the local firefighters are conspiring to suppress the free expression of arsonists.

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. BSL 2/28/2004 7:42:27 PM

kuwait used to be part of iraq but the british carved it off and declared it independant between the world wars. so saddam did have some historical claim on the territory. just an fyi.

Quote Reply

DrCruel Suez? 3/19/2004 11:18:47 PM

We stopped the Israelis, Brits and French from seizing Suez back from Nasser - because of greed? That's a new one. Can't see how we profited from the Vietnam war all that much either - as I recollect, we were in it to stop the Vietnamese from doing what the Khmer Rouge did. Not that we were successful in the end, the communists did end up slaughtering a million or so "bourgeois elements" in the south, but we did try.

Quote Reply

DrCruel Kuwait and their Brothers in Iraq 3/19/2004 11:24:43 PM

kuwait used to be part of iraq but the british carved it off and declared it independant between the world wars. so saddam did have some historical claim on the territory. just an fyi And Spain has the right to re-annex Belgium and the Netherlands, because they were once part of that country too. If Iraq was liberating their 19th province, why did they loot the country six ways to Sunday? What were all those civvie cars on the "Highway to Death" stocked with clothes and electronic stuff all about - gifts from their friends in Kuwait, in appreciation? And where did all those disappeared Kuwaiti civilians go? People like you make me sick.

Quote Reply

swami RE:US meddling was responsible for Vietnam War, Suez Crisis, and Gulf Wars. 3/22/2004 12:04:28 AM

Yes, the USA supported guerilla movements, including the Viet Minh, against Japan. What did you expect us to do? We were also allied with the USSR. That doesn't mean that we caused the Vietnam war anymore than we caused post-war events in the USSR. And Eisenhower did a great job stopping British and French imperialism. One of the few foreign policy stands that I agree with him on. But we did not cause Nasser or the Suez crisis. And we gave Iraq agricultural credits when he appeared to be losing a war with a very dangerous Iran. That does not mean that we caused the Gulf war. An activist foreign policy requires picking sides and those sides often change over time. The only way to keep totally clean hands is to be an isolationist.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - January 7, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us