The bitter end!

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

blacksmith RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 12:47:36 AM

Right now the body count in the 4 1/2 years of the GWOT have made it to about 9:00 o'clock in the morning on D-Day. Why did we sacrifice those men on the beaches of Normandy? To free the French. REMEMBER, the Germans did not attack the US. Germany posed no threat to the US. Hitler was rather scrupulous not to aggrevate the US before the US declared war on his ally the Japanese, which forced his hand to declare war on us. War is generally not linear and doesn't necessarilly make sense. Afterall, what was the first country the US invaded after Japan attacked us and Germany declared war? It was Morocco. World War II in the Pacific could be called a war of revenge (it wasn't, but that's not the point). But in Europe it was strictly to preserve freedom, defeat Fascism and defend countries we considered worthy of defending. So now we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another fascist philosophy has arisen and we are fighting it. An old fashioned kind of fascist was also rising and we took care of him, too. Six hundred thousand died to free four million slaves once. Now, fifty million people have been freed from conditions not much above that of chattel slavery. Should we just send them back? The people who complain about liberating the Afghans and Iraqis claim that because of that, the US cannot stop the carnage in Dharfur. How ironic that the people who claim to be so concerned about the Sudanese care so little for the people of Iraq. At his historic rate, Saddam Hussain would have killed over 150,000 people since March 2003 and would never have stopped. But Sadddam didn't kill people in villages accessible to the foreign press. He killed them in secret in dungeons and in public where foreign journalists were forbidden in his Republic of Fear. The press knew about it. But CNN covered it up for him so they could retain "access". Anyone who says the US should intervene in the Sudan is a hypocrit if they say we should not have gone into Iraq. If somebody thinks the US should go into Sudan, maybe they should try to convince the Europeans to do something. The most vile characteristic of the surrender monkeys is that they would sacrifice American honor, waste the lives already sacrificed, sell millions into slavery just so they can embarress George Bush. War is hard. That's why only the hardy win, and the sniveling cowards loose.

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 12:53:49 AM

"I post this in light of Mr Bush's recent visit too (sic) Baghdad. According to the report's i (sic) have read from iraq (sic) , so far. Many of the iraqi's (sic) are starting too (sic) think about taking us seriously! Should (sic) they be wrong in doing so?" Possibly ? If we elect a democratic president, senate and house.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 6:04:40 AM

Panther, a few points on this: "Cambodian statesman Sirak Mitak penned a final note to the U.S. ambassador refusing his offer of evacuation. "I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty....You leave and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under the sky. "But mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we all are born and must die one day. I have only committed this mistake in believing in you, the Americans." (He was executed shortly after by the vietnamese)" First: If Vietnamese executed Sirik Matak the must have been BADLY lost. I'm not aware of any Vietnamese units takking part in the seizure of Phnom Penh. I think it was the Khmer Rouge who offed Sirik Matak. Second: Few men in history have more deserved execution than Sirik Matak. Before he & Lon Nol removed Norodom Sihanouk in 1970 (with active US encouragement), Sihanouk had maintained an uneasy balance between the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese & the US. He basically turned a blind eye to US bombing & Vietnamese use of the border regions, and in return the Vietnamese made sure the KR remained no more than a minor irritant. He also had a close relationship with the Chinses, who helped to keep the Viets in the place. With Nixon keen to cover the US withdrawal of troops & shore up the RVN, he wanted to remove the Viets from Cambodia. This suited head of the Army, Lon Nol, and Sirik Matak, an ambitious member of a rival noble family that had been passed over by the French in favour of the Norodoms. In addition to being incompetent, the ensuing regime set new benchmarks for corruption. What ensued was a holocaust. No amount of US weapons could make the Cambodian Army into a competent fighting force. Increased US bombing & the invasion pushed the Viets into central Cambodia. Despite their dislike of the KR, the Viets armed & trained them - kept the Cambodian army off their back. In fact, the KR could have taken Phnm Penh as early as 1971, the Viets held them back because they didn't want to spook the US into staying in Vietnam. This allowed the Cambodian govt/military to organise well eonough to put up a fight, but they didn't stand a chance. The Cambodian Civil war (including US bombing) killed about 600,000 people & displaced about 1.5 million. These deaths are usually folded into those who later died at the hands of Pol Pot (750,000 - 1 mill) and the famine after he was removed (another mill). If not for the ambitions & delusions of grandeur of Sirik Matak & Lon Nol Cambodia stood some chance of surviving the Vietnam War with relatively little lasting damage. Can't say I weep for his passing. If America backs a government as bad as the Lon Nol/Sirik Matak regime in Iraq it will most definately leave with its tail between its legs as Iraq descends into bloody chaos. Lets hope that lesson has been learned from history. Third: America was never committed militarily to Cambodia in the way it was to Vietnam or the RVN. I don't forsee a rapid withdrawal no matter who is in the White House. The problem AFAICS is that no one (including the current admin) seems to have a plan beyond 'stay the course'. I'm afraid this is going to wear thin without some sense that it is achieving something concrete. The next President, no matter which side, stands to inheret a very difficult political situation. I think a gradual withdrawal is on the cards then. All that might differ will be the rhetoric.

Quote Reply

Thomas3 RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 6:41:48 AM

Good post bigfella! Some guidelines for small nations: 1. First find out what the major players real interest is. No matter what you think, suppose, wish, recrimate: The big nation will not honour any notion that goes AGAINST it's interests. 2. You are personally in the game for your own sake and your personal cause can never be anybody elses problem. 3. A small nation has nuisence value: Either You take off a nuisence of a big players back, and the reward might be out scale with the effort, as your problems are likely to be insignificant either way to the big player. Or you might make a nuisence of yourself, and then your future depends on the ratio of nuisence/effort to replace you.

Quote Reply

eon RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 9:55:02 AM

Also (4); If Democrats are running the US, the best way to get them on your side is to hate the US. Spouting Marx and/or Mao at random moments helps, too. Ask Hugo Chavez. Cheers. eon

Quote Reply

xylene RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 2:09:33 PM

Standing by our allies in the face of danger is honorable and is our duty. But our allies also have the responsibility to stand by us. We may be seeing a change in the attitudes of Iraqis but it is a shame that it took 2500 American lives before they started having second thoughts hiding and allowing the insurgents to operate in their midst. The insurgents were before and now operating in Iraqi neighborhoods. The Iraqis knew who the foreigners were and even to this day are by default being shielded by the Iraqi population. Also large numbers of Iraqis support the various militias, most of which are fiercely anti-American. We?ll have to watch how the attitudes of the Iraqi people change. Rigidly sticking to a mission is one thing. Being duped into helping people that dislike you and for all your good efforts they plan to be your enemy or help your enemy is not something any American wants.

Quote Reply

ProDemocracy RE:The bitter end! 6/15/2006 2:21:38 PM

"i'm not so sure anymore that the american public is really that well informed about iraq or of the potential consequences of leaving a job half done! " --Panther, I would be careful about comparing Iraq and Vietnam...Vietnam is now growing very fast (economically) and the US has strong military ties to Vietnam (by strong, I don't mean Britain strong, I mean China, perhaps Pakistan strong). In any case, Iraq has more than one faction - with Vietnam, North Vietnam was strong enough to take S VIetnam - they were only held up by the US....if we were to turn and leave the job "half done" in Iraq and we could be assured of the same outcome, I would have to give it serious consideration. But as things stand in Iraq now, no f***ing way would I advocate leaving.

Quote Reply

ProDemocracy RE:The bitter end!- Panther - PS from last post 6/15/2006 2:23:01 PM

PS - you might compare our inaction and lack of response to the Islamic revolution in Iran. We didn't back a gov't very friendly to the US and look what happened? Even Reagan had an opportunity to topple that shaky regime. Now we face the consequences of Carter and to a lesser extent, Reagan's inaction.

Quote Reply

xylene RE:The bitter end!- ProDemocracy 6/15/2006 3:25:27 PM

Also if we had strengthened and given decisive support to the coup against Hugo Chavez several years ago he may not be a destabilizing force he is now.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:The bitter end!- xylene 6/15/2006 6:00:17 PM

"Also if we had strengthened and given decisive support to the coup against Hugo Chavez several years ago he may not be a destabilizing force he is now." So the message the US should send is 'we support democracy, as long as you elect governments we agree with'? That sort of behavior is actually what got the US into this mess in the first place. America has a woeful record at picking & choosing governments. Back the democratic process & stop obsessing about occasional govts you don't like. The long term result will be much better.

Quote Reply

1 2