lol Cate enjoys taking credit for the unconditional surrenders. Otherwise, her government is just a bunch of mindless, conservative idiots who should have never been involved.
no i don't 'enjoy taking credit for unconditional surrenders'. the way you americans crap on about it you'd swear you were the only ones involved. all i'm saying is that everyone involved contributed to get the result.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
400,000 Chinese KIA. Russian pilots were shooting down US airmen in migs.
They weren't a threat to who?
Exodus said you should have left us to the chinese and russians. that's what i was directing my comment to. obviously his was an ambiguous statement that i failed to grasp the meaning of.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah yeah i know it was supposedly a united nations thing.
and yeah yeah i know we were there as well. as usual.
You started it. Don't place the burden of an entire war, a UN action, on the United States just because it wasn't won in your opinion. Then rationalize that everyone was a part of the outcome of WW2.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
You started it. Don't place the burden of an entire war, a UN action, on the United States just because it wasn't won in your opinion. Then rationalize that everyone was a part of the outcome of WW2.
what i am placing the burden on in regards to korea is the fact that the peninsula was arbitrarily divided between russia and the US after WWII. without that division there would have been no korean war for which the united nations would have had to take responsibility for.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and bitching about it to boot while not doing anything to help. feels very familiar.
...
Bitching about what? The current situation?
And doing nothing? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have written to my elected representatives about it. I know is isn't much, but it is what I can do... voice my dissent to my representatives in the House and Senate as well as my President. I'm not wasting my time yelling at the television... they do not represent me.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
what i am placing the burden on in regards to korea is the fact that the peninsula was arbitrarily divided between russia and the US after WWII. without that division there would have been no korean war for which the united nations would have had to take responsibility for.
Well in that case, we should have never defeated the Japanese and Korea would have never been a problem to anyone.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
What does that even mean? Beyond the obvious bash America reference.
what it means is that the japanese were never going to win fighting the war the way they were.
and yes america over extends itself. we see that in iraq where they failed to secure the country. someone thought the job could be done with the minimum amount of troops. they were wrong and now the soldiers and the iraqis are paying for that short sightedness. that's all.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what it means is that the japanese were never going to win fighting the war the way they were.
and yes america over extends itself. we see that in iraq where they failed to secure the country. someone thought the job could be done with the minimum amount of troops. they were wrong and now the soldiers and the iraqis are paying for that short sightedness. that's all.
Japanese occupation of Korea in the late 1800's has nothing to do with WW2.
Fighting a war with a minimal amount of military resources does not define overextension.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The insurgency has no clue about "American overextension." Democrats in this country wont allow it to happen. Overextension only applies when dicussion of possible future engagements is brought to the table. Full American power in Iraq would have been Colin Powell's way. Colin Powell would have the situation fully under control. That I'm certain of. The fact that we tried to quell violence in Iraq with as little of a presense as possible (the civilian way of fighting wars) is a major reason why Powell is no longer a part of this administration.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
You suggested that the American/Russian division of Korea was the leading reason the Korean war began. The Japanese occupied Korea since the late 1800's. That's why I suggested we should have never defeated the Japanese and we would have never arrived at that problem.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
You suggested that the American/Russian division of Korea was the leading reason the Korean war began. The Japanese occupied Korea since the late 1800's. That's why I suggested we should have never defeated the Japanese and we would have never arrived at that problem.
i think we need to go have a drink and change the subject.
we're pissing in each others pocket and it's getting us nowhere.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
400,000 Chinese KIA. Russian pilots were shooting down US airmen in migs.
They weren't a threat to who?
No one is a threat to you all the way down there except the bloody kangaroos. Actually, you guys were very close to invasion in 1941-42. Our navy made sure you were spared.
No one is a threat to you all the way down there except the bloody kangaroos. Actually, you guys were very close to invasion in 1941-42. Our navy made sure you were spared.
well what the hell else were you gonna do? allow us to be 'invaded' and lose such a strategic ally?
and you know we shoot the kangaroos, so they're no threat.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no i don't 'enjoy taking credit for unconditional surrenders'. the way you americans crap on about it you'd swear you were the only ones involved. all i'm saying is that everyone involved contributed to get the result.
You Aussies have nothing to brag about. The pattern is redundant. World crisis, Australia can be counted on to send a small band of soldiers, then return to the safety of their continent and claim victory when someone else does the majority of fighting and dying. I love how you jump on our victories and kick us for our defeats.
You Aussies have nothing to brag about. The pattern is redundant. World crisis, Australia can be counted on to send a small band of soldiers, then return to the safety of their continent and claim victory when someone else does the majority of fighting and dying. I love how you jump on our victories and kick us for our defeats.
who's bragging? i guess if we had more people we'd send more soldiers.
and we don't 'claim victory'. we just know we contributed.
and hey if someone cared enough to jump on australia for our defeats then i could banter. but you don't cause maybe you're not up to speed? but by all means bring it on.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
who's bragging? i guess if we had more people we'd send more soldiers.
and we don't 'claim victory'. we just know we contributed.
and hey if someone cared enough to jump on australia for our defeats then i could banter. but you don't cause maybe you're not up to speed? but by all means bring it on.
i think we need to go have a drink and change the subject.
we're pissing in each others pocket and it's getting us nowhere.
I'm not pissing in anyone's pocket. You're just a prime example of someone who takes pot shots whenever possible at any American setback in foreign policy, in your own opinion, and drives it into the ground. Likewise, anytime there's a victory around the globe you do your best to minimize American impact on the conflict. All the while crying wolf and playing the arrogance card when someone calls you out on it.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The insurgency has no clue about "American overextension." Democrats in this country wont allow it to happen. Overextension only applies when dicussion of possible future engagements is brought to the table. Full American power in Iraq would have been Colin Powell's way. Colin Powell would have the situation fully under control. That I'm certain of. The fact that we tried to quell violence in Iraq with as little of a presense as possible (the civilian way of fighting wars) is a major reason why Powell is no longer a part of this administration.
...
I agree with this. I believe that if Colin Powell was the Secretary of Defense, instead of the Secretary of State... we may not have gone into Iraq in the first place.... and if we did, we would have had contingencies to address the complecations created with the collapse of the Hussein regime. Powell cut his teeth in Viet Nam and he and Swartzkopf learned the lessons Viet Nam taught us. Overwhelming forces with the overwhelming support of our citizens with clear military objectives and contingency plans to address variables and an exit strategy... and planned and executed from the command and control of the military in close proximity of the battlefield, not by the civilian politicians in Washington. We had a model that worked... the 1991 Gulf War.
And no, 'We didn't finish the job' arguements. We DID finish the job by completing the mission and accomplished the military objective... Eject the Iraqi military from the soverign nation of Kuwait. George H.W. Bush knew this... as did Secretary of State Baker, Joint Chief of Staff Powell and Commander Swartzkopf.
Rumsfeld's plan was to do it on the cheap... to maintain the appearances that is wasn't that big of a deal. We don't go to war with the Army we got... we go to war with the Army we need.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I agree with this. I believe that if Colin Powell was the Secretary of Defense, instead of the Secretary of State... we may not have gone into Iraq in the first place.... and if we did, we would have had contingencies to address the complecations created with the collapse of the Hussein regime. Powell cut his teeth in Viet Nam and he and Swartzkopf learned the lessons Viet Nam taught us. Overwhelming forces with the overwhelming support of our citizens with clear military objectives and contingency plans to address variables and an exit strategy... and planned and executed from the command and control of the military in close proximity of the battlefield, not by the civilian politicians in Washington. We had a model that worked... the 1991 Gulf War.
And no, 'We didn't finish the job' arguements. We DID finish the job by completing the mission and accomplished the military objective... Eject the Iraqi military from the soverign nation of Kuwait. George H.W. Bush knew this... as did Secretary of State Baker, Joint Chief of Staff Powell and Commander Swartzkopf.
Rumsfeld's plan was to do it on the cheap... to maintain the appearances that is wasn't that big of a deal. We don't go to war with the Army we got... we go to war with the Army we need.
The bottom line is, whether Powell wished to go into Iraq or not, if he would have, he would have done it the right way.
He stated it best when asked how the American military planned to defeat the Iraqi military in '91:
"We're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."
We wouldn't have to deal with this political bullshit over who we might offend or frighten. We would have used overwhelming military force to achieve the objective. Obviously, overwhelming force was not needed to defeat the Iraqi military in 2003, but it was needed for post-war operations. Powell already knew this.
20/20 is quite clear.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
If i remember correctly, we killed what was left of the Iraqi army yet again in 2003. They did fight back.....Were just not doing that well with the occupation thing.
The bottom line is, whether Powell wished to go into Iraq or not, if he would have, he would have done it the right way.
He stated it best when asked how the American military planned to defeat the Iraqi military in '91:
"We're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."
We wouldn't have to deal with this political bullshit over who we might offend or frighten. We would have used overwhelming military force to achieve the objective. Obviously, overwhelming force was not needed to defeat the Iraqi military in 2003, but it was needed for post-war operations. Powell already knew this.
20/20 is quite clear.
...
But, we HAD 20/20 going in. We HAD the 1991 Gulf War as a model.
Going in, we knew that the removal of Hussien would have created a power vaccuum and we were supposed to have a viable plan to prevent that from happening. An overwhelming force to occupy the country, shut down access into and our of the country, secure Iraq's oil assets, impose martial law, establish curfews and call in the U.N. (who are in the business of Nation Building) to do their job. But, all of that required hard work and tough negotiations. We took the easy route and are paying for it today.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not pissing in anyone's pocket. You're just a prime example of someone who takes pot shots whenever possible at any American setback in foreign policy, in your own opinion, and drives it into the ground. Likewise, anytime there's a victory around the globe you do your best to minimize American impact on the conflict. All the while crying wolf and playing the arrogance card when someone calls you out on it.
no i don't take potshots at american foreign policy at any setback. cause as far as i can see since the end of WWII at least your foreign policy has been one big setback. i don't minimise the input from the US. i know exactly what they contribute and why they do it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
...
No. I do not think Viet Nam was anything other than a testing ground for waepons and tactics to defeat a guerilla war that the Pentagon had predicted would occur in Latin America.
I call it immoral on the part of American politicians and military planners to allow the war to continue after 1969 when they figured out that there was no way to declare a conventional 'Victory' over there. The men and women who died on both sides meant nothing to them. All they were looking for was a way to save their political careers rather than the lives of those lost.
You think Vietnam was merely 'a testing ground for waepons and tactics to defeat a guerilla war that the Pentagon had predicted would occur in Latin America'?
Strange theory. Have you any evidence?
...
I agree. The U.S. military of the late 50s/early 60s was not prepared to fight a guerilla tactics war. After the fall of Batiste's Cuba send a chilling effect and planners worried about 'Communist/Socialist' rebels in Latin America.
Viet Nam provided a perfect testbed for these tactics... and it was far removed from U.S. soil, so we would not experience any side effects, such as pesky war refugees. We took over the war from French Imperialists and sold it to Americans as the stemming of the Communist scourge. We inaccurately labeled Ho Chi Mihn as a Communist, when he was really a nationalist seeking to re-unify his homeland.
Those people died because our 'Best and Brightest' wanted to test out their striker tactics using helicopter transports and gunships in an environment that was not suitable of heavy ground armour.
After the Tet Offensive of 1968, military planners realized that their experiment wasn't yielding the results they wanted to see. From that point, they should have cut their losses and brought home our troops. The war was lead by politicians and the military personel were pawns and guinea pigs in their little test. The deaths of the people (on both sides) should be placed in the hands of the ones who prolonged the war for their political survival. The policy failed, not the soldiers.
Sorry dude, but i didn't say that Vietnam was a mere testing ground for a war in Latin America. I don't believe that for a second.
The United States did not invade South Vietnam. There was a civillian government already present in South Vietnam that was nominally democratic. We never inviaded South OR North Vietnam, even though we should have and could have.
Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?
Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.
The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.
And most of us who were opposed to the war, especially in the early 60's -- the war we were opposed to was the war on South Vietnam which destroyed South Vietnam's rural society. The South was devastated. But now anyone who opposed this atrocity is regarded as having defended North Vietnam. And that's part of the effort to present the war as if it were a war between South Vietnam and North Vietnam with the United States helping the South. Of course it's fabrication. But it's "official truth" now.
Q: This question of who the United States was fighting in Vietnam is pretty basic in terms of coming to any under- standing of the war. But why would the U.S. attack South Vietnam, if the problem was not an attack from North Vietnam?
Chomsky: First of all, let's make absolutely certain that was the fact: that the U.S. directed the war against South Vietnam. There was a political settlement In 1954. But :n the late 50's the United States organized an internal repression South Vietnam, not using its troops. but using the local apparatus it was constructing. This was a very significant and very effective campaign of violence and terrorism against the Vietminh -- which was the communist-led nationalist force that fought the French. And the Vietminh at that time was adhering to the Geneva Accords, hoping that the political settlement would work out in South Vietnam. [The Geneva Accords of 1954 temporarily divided Northern and Southern Vietnam with the ultimate aim of reunification through elections. -- editor's note]
And so, not only were they not conducting any terrorism, but in fact, they were not even responding to the violence against them. It reached the point where by 1959 the Vietminh leadership -- the communist party leadership -- was being decimated. Cadres were being murdered extensively. Finally in May of 1959 there was an authorization to use violence in self-defense, after years of murder, with thousands of people killed in this campaign organized by the United States. As soon as they began to use violence in self-defense, the whole Saigon government apparatus fell apart at once because it was an apparatus based on nothing but a monopoly of violence. And once it lost that monopoly of violence it was finished. And that's what led the United States to move in. There were no North Vietnamese around.
Then the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was formed. And its founding program called for the neutralization of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And it's very striking that the National Liberation Front was the only group that ever called for the independence of South Vietnam. The so-called South Vietnamese government (GVN) did not, but rather, claimed to be the government of all Vietnam. The National Liberation Front was the only South Vietnamese group that ever talked about South Vietnamese independence. They called for the neutralization of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as a kind of neutral block, working toward some type of integration of the South with North Vietnam ultimately.
Now that proposal in 1962 caused panic in American ruling circles. From 1962 to 1965 the US was dedicated to try to prevent the independence of South Vietnam, the reason was of course that Kennedy and Johnson knew that if any political solution was permitted In the south, the National Liberation Front would effectively come to power, so strong was its political support in comparison with the political support of the so-called South Vietnamese government.
And In fact Kennedy and later Johnson tried to block every attempt at neutralization, every attempt at political settlement. This Is all documented. There's just no doubt about It. I mean, it's wiped out of history, but the documentation is just unquestionable -- in the internal government sources and everywhere else.
And so there's just no question that the United States was trying desperately to prevent the independence of South Vietnam and to prevent a political settlement inside South Vietnam. And in tact It went to war precisely to prevent that. It finally bombed the North in 1965 with the purpose of trying to get the North to use its influence to call off the insurgency In the South. There were no North Vietnamese troops In South Vietnam then as far as anybody knew. And they anticipated of course when they began bombing the North from South Vietnamese bases that it would bring North Vietnamese troops into the South. And then it became possible to pretend it was aggression from the North. It was ludicrous. but that's what they claimed.
Well, why did they do it! Why was the United States so afraid of an independent South Vietnam; Well, I think the reason again is pretty clear from the internal government documents. Precisely what they were afraid of was that the "takeover" of South Vietnam by nationalist forces would not be brutal. They feared it would be conciliatory and that there would be successful social and economic development -- and that the whole region might work!
This was clearly a nationalist movement -- and in fact a radical nationalist movement which would separate Vietnam from the American orbit. It would not allow Vietnam to become another Philippines. It would trade with the United States but it would not be an American semi-colony.
And suppose it worked! Suppose the country could separate itself from the American dominated global system and carry out a successful social and economic development. Then that is very dangerous because then it could be a model to other movements and groups in neighboring countries. And gradually there could be an erosion from within by indigenous forces of American domination of the region. So this was no small thing. It was assumed that the key to the problem was preventing any successful national movement from carrying out serious social and economic development inside Indochina. So the United States had to destroy it through a process which would become the war against South Vietnam. And, it should be pointed out that on a lower level we were doing the same things in Laos and Cambodia.
Q: So the irony is that the very reason given in the United States for fighting the war -- the independence of South Vietnam -- is exactly what had to be destroyed.
Chomsky: Exactly
Q: Do you think this distortion of the war is successful?
Chomsky: It's hard to say. People who lived through the period know better. But younger people who are being indoctrinated into the contemporary system of falsification -- they really have to do some research to find out what is the truth. In the general population, people forget or don't care that much And gradually what you hear drilled into your head everyday comes to be believed. People don't understand what you're talking about any more if you discuss the American war on South Vietnam.
Comments
400,000 Chinese KIA. Russian pilots were shooting down US airmen in migs.
They weren't a threat to who?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
no i don't 'enjoy taking credit for unconditional surrenders'. the way you americans crap on about it you'd swear you were the only ones involved. all i'm saying is that everyone involved contributed to get the result.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Exodus said you should have left us to the chinese and russians. that's what i was directing my comment to. obviously his was an ambiguous statement that i failed to grasp the meaning of.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You started it. Don't place the burden of an entire war, a UN action, on the United States just because it wasn't won in your opinion. Then rationalize that everyone was a part of the outcome of WW2.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
what i am placing the burden on in regards to korea is the fact that the peninsula was arbitrarily divided between russia and the US after WWII. without that division there would have been no korean war for which the united nations would have had to take responsibility for.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Bitching about what? The current situation?
And doing nothing? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have written to my elected representatives about it. I know is isn't much, but it is what I can do... voice my dissent to my representatives in the House and Senate as well as my President. I'm not wasting my time yelling at the television... they do not represent me.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well in that case, we should have never defeated the Japanese and Korea would have never been a problem to anyone.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
how so? the japanese over extended themselves. sound familiar?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What does that even mean? Beyond the obvious bash America reference.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
what it means is that the japanese were never going to win fighting the war the way they were.
and yes america over extends itself. we see that in iraq where they failed to secure the country. someone thought the job could be done with the minimum amount of troops. they were wrong and now the soldiers and the iraqis are paying for that short sightedness. that's all.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Japanese occupation of Korea in the late 1800's has nothing to do with WW2.
Fighting a war with a minimal amount of military resources does not define overextension.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
who said it did?
it does if it means the job is not getting done with expediency and a minimum loss of life.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
You suggested that the American/Russian division of Korea was the leading reason the Korean war began. The Japanese occupied Korea since the late 1800's. That's why I suggested we should have never defeated the Japanese and we would have never arrived at that problem.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
i think we need to go have a drink and change the subject.
we're pissing in each others pocket and it's getting us nowhere.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well what the hell else were you gonna do? allow us to be 'invaded' and lose such a strategic ally?
and you know we shoot the kangaroos, so they're no threat.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
who's bragging? i guess if we had more people we'd send more soldiers.
and we don't 'claim victory'. we just know we contributed.
and hey if someone cared enough to jump on australia for our defeats then i could banter. but you don't cause maybe you're not up to speed? but by all means bring it on.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not pissing in anyone's pocket. You're just a prime example of someone who takes pot shots whenever possible at any American setback in foreign policy, in your own opinion, and drives it into the ground. Likewise, anytime there's a victory around the globe you do your best to minimize American impact on the conflict. All the while crying wolf and playing the arrogance card when someone calls you out on it.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I agree with this. I believe that if Colin Powell was the Secretary of Defense, instead of the Secretary of State... we may not have gone into Iraq in the first place.... and if we did, we would have had contingencies to address the complecations created with the collapse of the Hussein regime. Powell cut his teeth in Viet Nam and he and Swartzkopf learned the lessons Viet Nam taught us. Overwhelming forces with the overwhelming support of our citizens with clear military objectives and contingency plans to address variables and an exit strategy... and planned and executed from the command and control of the military in close proximity of the battlefield, not by the civilian politicians in Washington. We had a model that worked... the 1991 Gulf War.
And no, 'We didn't finish the job' arguements. We DID finish the job by completing the mission and accomplished the military objective... Eject the Iraqi military from the soverign nation of Kuwait. George H.W. Bush knew this... as did Secretary of State Baker, Joint Chief of Staff Powell and Commander Swartzkopf.
Rumsfeld's plan was to do it on the cheap... to maintain the appearances that is wasn't that big of a deal. We don't go to war with the Army we got... we go to war with the Army we need.
Hail, Hail!!!
no.just myself.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The bottom line is, whether Powell wished to go into Iraq or not, if he would have, he would have done it the right way.
He stated it best when asked how the American military planned to defeat the Iraqi military in '91:
"We're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."
We wouldn't have to deal with this political bullshit over who we might offend or frighten. We would have used overwhelming military force to achieve the objective. Obviously, overwhelming force was not needed to defeat the Iraqi military in 2003, but it was needed for post-war operations. Powell already knew this.
20/20 is quite clear.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
But, we HAD 20/20 going in. We HAD the 1991 Gulf War as a model.
Going in, we knew that the removal of Hussien would have created a power vaccuum and we were supposed to have a viable plan to prevent that from happening. An overwhelming force to occupy the country, shut down access into and our of the country, secure Iraq's oil assets, impose martial law, establish curfews and call in the U.N. (who are in the business of Nation Building) to do their job. But, all of that required hard work and tough negotiations. We took the easy route and are paying for it today.
Hail, Hail!!!
no i don't take potshots at american foreign policy at any setback. cause as far as i can see since the end of WWII at least your foreign policy has been one big setback. i don't minimise the input from the US. i know exactly what they contribute and why they do it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You think Vietnam was merely 'a testing ground for waepons and tactics to defeat a guerilla war that the Pentagon had predicted would occur in Latin America'?
Strange theory. Have you any evidence?
Sorry dude, but i didn't say that Vietnam was a mere testing ground for a war in Latin America. I don't believe that for a second.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html
Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?
Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.
The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.
And most of us who were opposed to the war, especially in the early 60's -- the war we were opposed to was the war on South Vietnam which destroyed South Vietnam's rural society. The South was devastated. But now anyone who opposed this atrocity is regarded as having defended North Vietnam. And that's part of the effort to present the war as if it were a war between South Vietnam and North Vietnam with the United States helping the South. Of course it's fabrication. But it's "official truth" now.
Q: This question of who the United States was fighting in Vietnam is pretty basic in terms of coming to any under- standing of the war. But why would the U.S. attack South Vietnam, if the problem was not an attack from North Vietnam?
Chomsky: First of all, let's make absolutely certain that was the fact: that the U.S. directed the war against South Vietnam. There was a political settlement In 1954. But :n the late 50's the United States organized an internal repression South Vietnam, not using its troops. but using the local apparatus it was constructing. This was a very significant and very effective campaign of violence and terrorism against the Vietminh -- which was the communist-led nationalist force that fought the French. And the Vietminh at that time was adhering to the Geneva Accords, hoping that the political settlement would work out in South Vietnam. [The Geneva Accords of 1954 temporarily divided Northern and Southern Vietnam with the ultimate aim of reunification through elections. -- editor's note]
And so, not only were they not conducting any terrorism, but in fact, they were not even responding to the violence against them. It reached the point where by 1959 the Vietminh leadership -- the communist party leadership -- was being decimated. Cadres were being murdered extensively. Finally in May of 1959 there was an authorization to use violence in self-defense, after years of murder, with thousands of people killed in this campaign organized by the United States. As soon as they began to use violence in self-defense, the whole Saigon government apparatus fell apart at once because it was an apparatus based on nothing but a monopoly of violence. And once it lost that monopoly of violence it was finished. And that's what led the United States to move in. There were no North Vietnamese around.
Then the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was formed. And its founding program called for the neutralization of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And it's very striking that the National Liberation Front was the only group that ever called for the independence of South Vietnam. The so-called South Vietnamese government (GVN) did not, but rather, claimed to be the government of all Vietnam. The National Liberation Front was the only South Vietnamese group that ever talked about South Vietnamese independence. They called for the neutralization of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as a kind of neutral block, working toward some type of integration of the South with North Vietnam ultimately.
Now that proposal in 1962 caused panic in American ruling circles. From 1962 to 1965 the US was dedicated to try to prevent the independence of South Vietnam, the reason was of course that Kennedy and Johnson knew that if any political solution was permitted In the south, the National Liberation Front would effectively come to power, so strong was its political support in comparison with the political support of the so-called South Vietnamese government.
And In fact Kennedy and later Johnson tried to block every attempt at neutralization, every attempt at political settlement. This Is all documented. There's just no doubt about It. I mean, it's wiped out of history, but the documentation is just unquestionable -- in the internal government sources and everywhere else.
And so there's just no question that the United States was trying desperately to prevent the independence of South Vietnam and to prevent a political settlement inside South Vietnam. And in tact It went to war precisely to prevent that. It finally bombed the North in 1965 with the purpose of trying to get the North to use its influence to call off the insurgency In the South. There were no North Vietnamese troops In South Vietnam then as far as anybody knew. And they anticipated of course when they began bombing the North from South Vietnamese bases that it would bring North Vietnamese troops into the South. And then it became possible to pretend it was aggression from the North. It was ludicrous. but that's what they claimed.
Well, why did they do it! Why was the United States so afraid of an independent South Vietnam; Well, I think the reason again is pretty clear from the internal government documents. Precisely what they were afraid of was that the "takeover" of South Vietnam by nationalist forces would not be brutal. They feared it would be conciliatory and that there would be successful social and economic development -- and that the whole region might work!
This was clearly a nationalist movement -- and in fact a radical nationalist movement which would separate Vietnam from the American orbit. It would not allow Vietnam to become another Philippines. It would trade with the United States but it would not be an American semi-colony.
And suppose it worked! Suppose the country could separate itself from the American dominated global system and carry out a successful social and economic development. Then that is very dangerous because then it could be a model to other movements and groups in neighboring countries. And gradually there could be an erosion from within by indigenous forces of American domination of the region. So this was no small thing. It was assumed that the key to the problem was preventing any successful national movement from carrying out serious social and economic development inside Indochina. So the United States had to destroy it through a process which would become the war against South Vietnam. And, it should be pointed out that on a lower level we were doing the same things in Laos and Cambodia.
Q: So the irony is that the very reason given in the United States for fighting the war -- the independence of South Vietnam -- is exactly what had to be destroyed.
Chomsky: Exactly
Q: Do you think this distortion of the war is successful?
Chomsky: It's hard to say. People who lived through the period know better. But younger people who are being indoctrinated into the contemporary system of falsification -- they really have to do some research to find out what is the truth. In the general population, people forget or don't care that much And gradually what you hear drilled into your head everyday comes to be believed. People don't understand what you're talking about any more if you discuss the American war on South Vietnam.