Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Keith, not a bad idea you have there, and I am going to act on it. Well done, sir- as we say over here, even the blind pig gets an acorn now and again. (just winding you up)
Syria
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Hell no there is no reason to mess with the internal affairs of Syria. Not our war, not our area of the world.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Not knocking you Randy but hard to believe how quickly we have forgotten the origins of Vietnam. Prior to WWII, Indochina was a French colony. Japanese kicked the French out and were initially hailed as liberators, soon revealed as just another imperialist power. Vietnamese nationals fought guerrilla war against the Japanese, led by Ho Chi Minh and supported by the OSS (precursor to the CIA).
After the war, OSS officials recommended supported an independent Vietnam with Ho as leader. French demanded their colony back in exchange for post-war US policies on European reconstruction, and in opposing the new threat of the Soviet Union. We sided with the French and kicked Ho to the dirt.
Ho resumes guerrilla war against the French, ultimately defeating them at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. US steps in, brokers peace and sets up national elections to unify North and South. Fearing Ho (now labelled a communist because he sought and received help from the USSR and China) would win, we disavow election and setup regime in the South. Regime is Catholic in a buddhist country, oppressive and corrupt, and ultimately replaced by a military dictatorship in 1963. North's guerrilla war against the South, brewing since the late 50s, ramps up after 63 and we become committed.
No Jeff. I didn't forget at all... Where were the French after we appeared on the scene to help?
Our leadership in Washington listen to us only up to the point of being elected, then they go deaf and crazy... It matters not if Democrat or Republican. Drunken with power they continue on whatever agenda they feel is best regardless of public opinion, polls or otherwise.
Waking up wet and smelly too many times - Eventually you get tired of pissing into the wind..
Our leadership in Washington listen to us only up to the point of being elected, then they go deaf and crazy... It matters not if Democrat or Republican. Drunken with power they continue on whatever agenda they feel is best regardless of public opinion, polls or otherwise.
Waking up wet and smelly too many times - Eventually you get tired of pissing into the wind..
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
The French fought the war with very limited US material assistance (although I believe 2 Americans were killed at Dien Bien Phu) - they lost 10,000 soldiers at DBP in two months, we lost 50,000 in 12 years. They didn't disappear when it was there colony, they were committed. They were just committed to an old idea -- imperialism -- that wouldn't work. And in 54, they realized that and got out completely. It was our baby after that.
I'm not sure you can characterize our errors and failings in Vietnam to the political issues you list above. It was far more complex than that. In fact, I'd chalk it up to broad brush demonization very similar to what we see with Islamic countries these days. In the late 50s, both the US government and the US population jointly believed the Soviets to be an incorrigible, monolithic enemy bent on spreading communism across the world.
We now know of course that the Soviets were in fact an internally unsustainable regime, and very afraid of yet another invasion from the west, and more interested in developing a barrier of client states against that invasion that in truly exporting any political ideology.
Our reaction -- both of the public and government -- wasn't unexpected and perhaps unavoidable, but dividing up the world into the "good" (meaning pro-Western) and "bad" (meaning pro-Soviet) regardless of nationality, or ideology, or moral character resulted in a lot of bad foreign policy, including things like overthrowing democractically elected regimes, ignoring the fact that many of the "communist" movements in the Third World were in reality nationalistic in nature, failing to push for democracy rather than anti-Sovietism, and supporting tin pot dictators (Pinochet, the Shah, Batista, and many others) simply because they were "pro Western."
Vietnam is an example of that. If we had supported Ho post war like the OSS wanted to do, we may not have gotten exactly the government in Vietnam we wanted but we would have had in place a democratically elected, self determining nation that could hav echarted its own course.
Instead, over MANY internal misgivings, Kennedy, Johnson and then Nixon sought to impose a government on Vietnam as part of the "War on Communism" that simply ignored the geopolitical realities of the country in question. The public bought into it, seeing communism as an evil monolith much like it appears to do with Islam now.
The world is a complicated case. Much of our (America's) failings post WWII has been in not comprehending that.
I'm not sure you can characterize our errors and failings in Vietnam to the political issues you list above. It was far more complex than that. In fact, I'd chalk it up to broad brush demonization very similar to what we see with Islamic countries these days. In the late 50s, both the US government and the US population jointly believed the Soviets to be an incorrigible, monolithic enemy bent on spreading communism across the world.
We now know of course that the Soviets were in fact an internally unsustainable regime, and very afraid of yet another invasion from the west, and more interested in developing a barrier of client states against that invasion that in truly exporting any political ideology.
Our reaction -- both of the public and government -- wasn't unexpected and perhaps unavoidable, but dividing up the world into the "good" (meaning pro-Western) and "bad" (meaning pro-Soviet) regardless of nationality, or ideology, or moral character resulted in a lot of bad foreign policy, including things like overthrowing democractically elected regimes, ignoring the fact that many of the "communist" movements in the Third World were in reality nationalistic in nature, failing to push for democracy rather than anti-Sovietism, and supporting tin pot dictators (Pinochet, the Shah, Batista, and many others) simply because they were "pro Western."
Vietnam is an example of that. If we had supported Ho post war like the OSS wanted to do, we may not have gotten exactly the government in Vietnam we wanted but we would have had in place a democratically elected, self determining nation that could hav echarted its own course.
Instead, over MANY internal misgivings, Kennedy, Johnson and then Nixon sought to impose a government on Vietnam as part of the "War on Communism" that simply ignored the geopolitical realities of the country in question. The public bought into it, seeing communism as an evil monolith much like it appears to do with Islam now.
The world is a complicated case. Much of our (America's) failings post WWII has been in not comprehending that.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
"The public bought into it, seeing communism as an evil monolith much like it appears to do with Islam now."
The wisdom here is perhaps not in avoiding things we see as evil monoliths, but in staying out of other people's fights.
There's a running joke in emergency medicine about the two most dangerous people in the world, as follows: Frequently when I see a patient in the ER who's beaten up, shot or stabbed, if I ask who did this to you, the answer will be "two dudes" or "some dude".
The dude and the two dudes get around, because their victims show up in ERs all over the country at the same time. Getting involved in other peoples' affairs is toxic, and thankless, and yet our government does this all too often, generally citing some high-minded pledge about supporting various values etc. Frequently the values being supported have to do with some corporate entity that is delighted to have American servicemen dying to protect its profit margins.
There's no wand to be waved in Syria, and many of the actors share, if nothing else, a great dislike of Americans and our country. Generalizing from what happened in Libya is pointless and stupid (even without invoking what occurred in Benghazi) The bottom line is this: the Syrian rebels began this series of events as peaceful opposition to a regime that will not tolerate ANY opposition, peaceful or otherwise. What has happened after that is disgraceful, but it still is not our war. While I wish them well in toppling Assad, and no doubt they will feel entitled to string him up after they win (and they WILL win) it is STILL not our affair. It is theirs, no matter how much we may sympathize, and I don't want to see Americans or Brits or Frenchmen in Syria. Send aid, fine, maybe even send weapons, but don't send us. If I have to, I'll die for this country, even at my advanced age. I'm not going to die for theirs.
The wisdom here is perhaps not in avoiding things we see as evil monoliths, but in staying out of other people's fights.
There's a running joke in emergency medicine about the two most dangerous people in the world, as follows: Frequently when I see a patient in the ER who's beaten up, shot or stabbed, if I ask who did this to you, the answer will be "two dudes" or "some dude".
The dude and the two dudes get around, because their victims show up in ERs all over the country at the same time. Getting involved in other peoples' affairs is toxic, and thankless, and yet our government does this all too often, generally citing some high-minded pledge about supporting various values etc. Frequently the values being supported have to do with some corporate entity that is delighted to have American servicemen dying to protect its profit margins.
There's no wand to be waved in Syria, and many of the actors share, if nothing else, a great dislike of Americans and our country. Generalizing from what happened in Libya is pointless and stupid (even without invoking what occurred in Benghazi) The bottom line is this: the Syrian rebels began this series of events as peaceful opposition to a regime that will not tolerate ANY opposition, peaceful or otherwise. What has happened after that is disgraceful, but it still is not our war. While I wish them well in toppling Assad, and no doubt they will feel entitled to string him up after they win (and they WILL win) it is STILL not our affair. It is theirs, no matter how much we may sympathize, and I don't want to see Americans or Brits or Frenchmen in Syria. Send aid, fine, maybe even send weapons, but don't send us. If I have to, I'll die for this country, even at my advanced age. I'm not going to die for theirs.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............................................................................................................................................hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
:laugh:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Agreed, I can't see it happening in our lifetime.
Worth striving for though.
Worth striving for though.
Some very good points made here... I'm actually PROUD of the Paddock right now!
So Jeff, I think we are on the same wavelength regarding Vietnam - but I did not want to stray too far off the topic of Syria. My point was to draw a potential parallel to what may well happen in Syria which happened in Vietnam. Where was our ally France in 1955? Where were we and how the phuq did we get there? I spent some of the most miserable days of my life there, fighting a war that was not a war. Fighting along side of people who thought that the very reason their families were being killed off was because we (USA) were there...
Wnners of the week were judged by land held and body counts. It was miserable and I, for one, wish that we would let people fight their own battles with weapons of their own construction.
So Jeff, I think we are on the same wavelength regarding Vietnam - but I did not want to stray too far off the topic of Syria. My point was to draw a potential parallel to what may well happen in Syria which happened in Vietnam. Where was our ally France in 1955? Where were we and how the phuq did we get there? I spent some of the most miserable days of my life there, fighting a war that was not a war. Fighting along side of people who thought that the very reason their families were being killed off was because we (USA) were there...
Wnners of the week were judged by land held and body counts. It was miserable and I, for one, wish that we would let people fight their own battles with weapons of their own construction.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Hear, hear. Me too.
Pat
Supporter
Fellas, there are THOUSANDS of TONS of chemical weapons at stake in Syria. It scares the daylights out of me as to what would happen if they get into the hand of Jihadists. At least, we need to seal the borders to insure it doesn't proliferate.
While you can't win other people's civil wars, it is possible to control the borders, unless of course you refer to the one with Mexico.
While you can't win other people's civil wars, it is possible to control the borders, unless of course you refer to the one with Mexico.
+1. 'Biggest waste of my life to date.
...and BOTH were a fluctuating joke depending on whatever the propaganda - uh, "sitrep" - needed at the time happened to be. 'Only problem was the cost American in lives to get 'em...
IN PRINCIPLE I completely agree with that. But, $$$s and covert supply ops always manage to upset the apple cart there.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
:lol::lol::lol:
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Probably not. You are postulating a level of purpose and organization seldom seen in that part of the world. Not impossible, but I think unlikely.
It appears that the Israelis have taken this into their own hands. Fair enough, as it's happening in their part of the world right next door to them.
It appears that the Israelis have taken this into their own hands. Fair enough, as it's happening in their part of the world right next door to them.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
John McCain quoted on the radio today as saying we have to intervene in Syria and some blathering about "finding the right guys" and assisting them.
Hey, John, when you figure out how to find the right guys, let the rest of us know, okay? In the meantime, shut the fuck up and stop agitating for us to go in there.
Hey, John, when you figure out how to find the right guys, let the rest of us know, okay? In the meantime, shut the fuck up and stop agitating for us to go in there.