Sorry.. Jammer said that the US invaded Iraq out of greed and for oil. Being South African and having the benefit of neutrality and objectivity, it seems to be that liberation is America's justification for the war. Be it liberation from Saddam Hussein or terrorism or whatever. I am inclined to believe that it is far more sinister. Never in the history of humanity has any super power ever been so benevolent. Why should that change now
Originally posted by ASROMAthat was discussed in the document linked in the "no wmds?" thread:
Sorry.. Jammer said that the US invaded Iraq out of greed and for oil. Being South African and having the benefit of neutrality and objectivity, it seems to be that liberation is America's justification for the war. Be it liberation from Saddam Hussein or terrorism or whatever. I am inclined to believe that it is far more sinister. Never in the history of humanity has any super power ever been so benevolent. Why should that change now
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26367
Originally posted by zeeblebot
the next time someone tells you the Coalition was not justified in invading Iraq, point them to this link, a 108-page rebuttal:
Iraq: Setting the Record Straight
April 2005
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf
Originally posted by ASROMAPlease show the thread where I said that .. or admit that you mis-quoted me.
Sorry.. Jammer said that the US invaded Iraq out of greed and for oil. Being South African and having the benefit of neutrality and objectivity, it seems to be that liberation is America's justification for the war. Be it liberation from Saddam Hussein or terrorism or whatever. I am inclined to believe that it is far more sinister. Never in the history of humanity has any super power ever been so benevolent. Why should that change now
...........
I did make a long post in this thread yesterday. It was deleted (my 4th deletion) for reasons unknown to me. There was no profanity at all.
Do the mods ever explain why they delete posts?
.........
I'll try (again) to post my thoughts on Iraq = Vietnam.
...........
ASROMA
Find and site my post you refer to above .. or admit the truth .. you either made a mistake or you misrepresented my position intentionaly.
Vietnam/Iraq
.......
Vietnams struggle for independence began before WWII, kept up the fight on the battlefield and politically against the French Empire, the Japanese Empire and (after 1945) the French Empire again. In 1954 after the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the French pulled up there skirts and went home. Eisenhower (US Pres) knew that Ho Chi Minh would win any possible all-Vietnamese election. The Cold War caused Ike to take over where French colonialism had failed.
Mistake!
This War had already been lost.
Ho Chi Minh based his declaration of Vietnamese independence on the words of Thomas Jefferson (not bad) This attracted many non-Marxist supporters to his side. He had also been an ally of the West in the War with Japan.
Nothing like this can be said of the Iraqi Baathists or jihadists who are the decendents of those who took the side of the Axis and who oppose elections on principle.
If the "insurgents" in Iraq today have any analogy at all in Southeast Asia it would be the Khmer Rouge.
Vietnam as a state had not invaded any neighbor until the US left. Then it overthrew the Khmer Rouge (many would say in self-defense)
Contrast this with the record of Saddam Hussian in relation to Iran and Kuwait.
Vietnam never suffered under internation sanctions for it's contempt of international law, nor had they build, acquired or USED WMDs
Vietnam had never commited or attempted to commit genocide as is the case with Saddam and the Kurds.
In Vietnam the Communist Party was against partition and against American intervention. They called for a boycott of any election not "all Vietnamese"
In Iraq the deep rooted Communist Party is for regime change and has joyfully taken part in the elections and is as well an opponent of any partition of the country.
al-Zarqawi (not even an Iraqi) hates the Kurds and considers the religion of most Iraqis to be heresy .. a mistake no Viet Cong leader would be likely to make.
No car bombings, hijacking or susicide bombers was ever commited on American or any other soil. Nor did they ever harbor any international gangsters or murders.
Hanoi was backed by the Warsaw Pact and China thus able to challenge American troops on the battlefield. The Iraqi "insurgents" are based among a minority within a minority, localized without a source of resupply. These insurgents are formed by the leftovers of a fallen regime, discredited and detested in it's own country and universally condemed.
This could not be said of Ho Chi Minh of the NLF
The option of accepting a unified and Communist Vietnam always existed It was not until Kennedy decided to make a stand there, in revege for his failures in Cuba and Berlin that quagmire became inevitable.
The option of leaving Iraq to whoever may take over is not quite so appealing. I can't quite see OBL, al-Zarquwi or Sadr sitting at a roundtable, nor a gradual negotiated turn over to such people.
In Vietnam the worst excesses were commited by US forces ... free fire zones, carpet bombing, forced relocation, chemical defoliation .. etc. In Iraq the crimes of mass killings, aerial bombardment, ethnic deportation and scorched eart have already been commited by the ruling Baath Party.
In Vietnam the US policy favored the Roman Catholic minority. In Iraq we attempt to resolve religious differences to form a solid goverment.
The analogy doesn't work at all IMO.
Originally posted by The Slow PawnI agree. People didn't learn from Vietnam. Critics should be persistent about Iraq.
IF you really cared, you would have never invaded the country in the first place but would have collaborated with the UNO and NATO who where long investigating whether Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction (by the way, where are all those found weapons ?????????).
Since the weapons of mass destruction was never the real reason of wh ...[text shortened]... America invaded the country in the first place, your statement is wrong on all levels anyway...
Originally posted by STANGVietnam was a self-inflicted wound arising from an essentially dishonorable strain of American neurosis.
I agree. People didn't learn from Vietnam. Critics should be persistent about Iraq.
What it all comes down to is that you can always find vague points of comparison between wars, whether it's Iraq and Vietnam or the War of 1812 and WW2. What's happening in Iraq today is a fundamentally different conflict from Vietnam and quite frankly, that should be rather obvious to anyone other than liberals who insist that practically every war we fight is "another Vietnam."
Originally posted by The Slow PawnSorry again Jammer... It was posted by Slow Pawn and you responded. That's why I thought you posted it. My apologies. I would never slate anyone for having an opinion or intentionally misquote.
LMAO (yeah, right and I'm the son of god)
The only reason America is in this country is [b]GREED. Greed to exploit the vast oil resources that this country has...[/b]