'The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.
Consider the following facts. In 1962 the U.S. Air Force began direct attacks against the rural population of South Vietnam with heavy bombing and defoliation . It was part of a program intended to drive millions of people into detention camps where, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, they would be "protected" from the guerrillas they were supporting--the "Viet Cong," the southern branch of the former anti-French resistance (the Vietminh). This is what our government calls aggression or invasion when conducted by some official enemy. The Saigon government had no legitimacy and little popular support, and its leadership was regularly overthrown in U.S.-backed coups when it was feared they might arrange a settlement with the Viet Cong. Some 70,000 "Viet Cong" had already been killed in the U.S.-directed terror campaign before the outright U.S. invasion took place in 1972.
Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish a government in Saigon to invite us in. We had to overthrow regime after regime in that effort. Finally we simply invaded outright. That is plain, simple aggression. But anyone in the U.S. who thought that our policies in Vietnam were wrong in principle was not admitted to the discussion about the war. The debate was essentially over tactics.
Even at the peak of opposition to the U.S. war, only a minuscule portion of the intellectuals opposed the war out of principle--on the grounds that aggression is wrong. Most intellectuals came to oppose it well after leading business circles did--on the "pragmatic" grounds that the costs were too high.
Strikingly omitted from the debate was the view that the U.S. could have won, but that it would have been wrong to allow such military aggression to succeed. This was the position of the authentic peace movement but it was seldom heard in the mainstream media. If you pick up a book on American history and look at the Vietnam War, there is no such event as the American attack on South Vietnam. For the past 22 years, I have searched in vain for even a single reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to an "American invasion of South Vietnam" or American "aggression" in South Vietnam. In America's doctrinal system, there is no such event. It's out of history, down Orwell's memory hole.
If the U.S. were a totalitarian state, the Ministry of Truth would simply have said, "It's right for us to go into Vietnam. Don't argue with it." People would have recognized that as the propaganda system, and they would have gone on thinking whatever they wanted. They would have plainly seen that we were attacking Vietnam, just as we can see the Soviets are attacking Afghanistan.
People are much freer in the U.S., they are allowed to express themselves. That's why it's necessary for those in power to control everyone's thought, to try and make it appear as if the only issues in matters such as U.S. intervention in Vietnam are tactical: Can we get away with it? There is no discussion of right or wrong.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. propaganda system did its job partially but not entirely. Among educated people it worked very well. Studies show that among the more educated parts of the population, the government's propaganda about the war is now accepted unquestioningly. One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read more, so they receive more propaganda. Another is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia and therefore work in some capacity as agents of the propaganda system--and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large, they're part of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
On the other hand, the government had problems in controlling the opinions of the general population. According to some of the latest polls, over 70 percent of Americans still thought the war was, to quote the Gallup Poll, "fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake." Due to the widespread opposition to the Vietnam War, the propaganda system lost its grip on the beliefs of many Americans. They grew skeptical about what they were told. In this case there's even a name for the erosion of belief. It's called the "Vietnam Syndrome," a grave disease in the eyes of America's elites because people understand too much.
Why are you still talking about this? No one denies the intel was faulty. That's yesterdays news.
So there's a time limit after which all Government lies and deception are to be forgiven? Who set this time frame? Was it you? Do you think that the families of those being killed inn Iraq also adhere to the short shelf-life of this subject?
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.
Democracy doesn't work in the streets, it works in the ballot boxes. Because a bunch of unemployed Europeans protest, we should change our leadership. Most Europeans protest just about everything. We need to protest with our votes, and we have not been very good about doing that. That is why I argue for supporting realistic candidates in this country and not wasting votes on people like Ralph Nader. Whether we like it or not, this country is strongly conservative. Has been, always will be.
"Democracy doesn't work in the streets, it works in the ballot boxes"? So you think that ticking a box once every four years in order to get to choose between two shades of corporate sponsored shit amounts to Democracy?
"Unemployed Europeans"? Strange fantasy you have there.
"Most Europeans protest just about everything"? It's called Democracy. And unfortunately there's not enough of it in the world.
'The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.
Consider the following facts. In 1962 the U.S. Air Force began direct attacks against the rural population of South Vietnam with heavy bombing and defoliation . It was part of a program intended to drive millions of people into detention camps where, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, they would be "protected" from the guerrillas they were supporting--the "Viet Cong," the southern branch of the former anti-French resistance (the Vietminh). This is what our government calls aggression or invasion when conducted by some official enemy. The Saigon government had no legitimacy and little popular support, and its leadership was regularly overthrown in U.S.-backed coups when it was feared they might arrange a settlement with the Viet Cong. Some 70,000 "Viet Cong" had already been killed in the U.S.-directed terror campaign before the outright U.S. invasion took place in 1972.
Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish a government in Saigon to invite us in. We had to overthrow regime after regime in that effort. Finally we simply invaded outright. That is plain, simple aggression. But anyone in the U.S. who thought that our policies in Vietnam were wrong in principle was not admitted to the discussion about the war. The debate was essentially over tactics.
Even at the peak of opposition to the U.S. war, only a minuscule portion of the intellectuals opposed the war out of principle--on the grounds that aggression is wrong. Most intellectuals came to oppose it well after leading business circles did--on the "pragmatic" grounds that the costs were too high.
Strikingly omitted from the debate was the view that the U.S. could have won, but that it would have been wrong to allow such military aggression to succeed. This was the position of the authentic peace movement but it was seldom heard in the mainstream media. If you pick up a book on American history and look at the Vietnam War, there is no such event as the American attack on South Vietnam. For the past 22 years, I have searched in vain for even a single reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to an "American invasion of South Vietnam" or American "aggression" in South Vietnam. In America's doctrinal system, there is no such event. It's out of history, down Orwell's memory hole.
If the U.S. were a totalitarian state, the Ministry of Truth would simply have said, "It's right for us to go into Vietnam. Don't argue with it." People would have recognized that as the propaganda system, and they would have gone on thinking whatever they wanted. They would have plainly seen that we were attacking Vietnam, just as we can see the Soviets are attacking Afghanistan.
People are much freer in the U.S., they are allowed to express themselves. That's why it's necessary for those in power to control everyone's thought, to try and make it appear as if the only issues in matters such as U.S. intervention in Vietnam are tactical: Can we get away with it? There is no discussion of right or wrong.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. propaganda system did its job partially but not entirely. Among educated people it worked very well. Studies show that among the more educated parts of the population, the government's propaganda about the war is now accepted unquestioningly. One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read more, so they receive more propaganda. Another is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia and therefore work in some capacity as agents of the propaganda system--and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large, they're part of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
On the other hand, the government had problems in controlling the opinions of the general population. According to some of the latest polls, over 70 percent of Americans still thought the war was, to quote the Gallup Poll, "fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake." Due to the widespread opposition to the Vietnam War, the propaganda system lost its grip on the beliefs of many Americans. They grew skeptical about what they were told. In this case there's even a name for the erosion of belief. It's called the "Vietnam Syndrome," a grave disease in the eyes of America's elites because people understand too much.
So there's a time limit after which all Government lies and deception are to be forgiven? Who set this time frame? Was it you? Do you think that the families of those being killed inn Iraq also adhere to the short shelf-life of this subject?
We have forgiven you Europeans for your centuries long brutal colonization of most of the world, and of having dragged us into your bloodbaths. We can catch a break now and then.
i'll agree with those who think Mr. Reid was just being a typical, ahistorical, opportunistic, shithead politician when he made that claim.
but i also think iraq is already worse than vietnam, obviously not in terms of loss of life but certainly in terms of america's strategic interests. in iraq, the idea of a 'domino theory' occuring after the us pulls out seems much more plausible. and this is all taking place in a region that is vital to america's interests and the global economy, unlike southeast asia was. furthermore, the iraq war could very well have been the single insurmountable obstacle to mitigating the real threat emanating from iran. iran, if for no other reason, is the biggest reason why iraq was a mistake.
So i guess you knew more than, say, Collin Powell did ya? People did the best they could with the information provided. People on both sides of the Atlantic fucked up. But this country was, and still is, in a great deal of shock from the horrors of 9/11. We all weren't thinking so clearly back in 01-02. There was a great deal of fear over here, which wasn't improved very much by the abandonment of our "allies". It's still very injurious to many Americans. Maybe not many here, but many who voted cared more about protecting ourselves than about what our n'er do well "allies" thought about it.
Again, there was no mistake, no fuck-up. The decision to invade had been made as early as July 2002. The so-called 'intelligence' was a fraud. I'm amazed that anyone couldn't see that at the time. So you weren't thinking so clearly back in 01-02? And you cared about protecting yourselves?
Well, you've done a nice job of protecting yourselves. The Bush Administrations top advisors informed them that an invasion of Iraq would certainly increase the risk of terrorism against Americans at home and abroad. The Bush administration went ahead and invaded anyway based on a bunch of lies. So much for your Government caring about protecting you.
...
That's the tough part... where do we go from here?
But, just because we are where we are, doesn't mean we can't beat the fuck out of the asshole that got us here. And at what point do we figure out that listening to this asshole has gotten us deeper and deeper into the shit? When do we say, "ENOUGH! You've been consistantly wrong in the past, why should we believe you now?"
We can stabilize it with tons of troops going out on patrol and living in opolice stations outside of the Green Zone... but, for how long? If I was Muqtada al Sadr... I'd sit tight, knowing that the American HAVE to leave at some point... even if it's 10 years from now... time is on Al Sadr's side. We cannot stay there forever. When we do leave... he can come back in and begin his payback for all those death's under Hussein's watch.
It's tough... but, at some point, we may have to concede that it is a lost cause because the fact of the matter is.. the Shi'ites are in control, now... and it's going to be tough to keep them from eventually teaming up with their brothers in Iran.
those were YOUR victories now? Not gonna go there...Were still friends and id like to keep it that way
9 out of every 10 German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed in Russia, so I'd say the odds are tipped in their favour. Still, many thanks for helping us in 1942 when 3/4's of the German army were occupied on the Eastern front.
We have forgiven you Europeans for your centuries long brutal colonization of most of the world
I hope you did, it served us both well.
"So i guess you knew more than, say, Collin Powell did ya? People did the best they could with the information provided"
I remember when Powell said he would bring to the world undeniable truth of the presence of wmd's in Iraq. And a few days later we were all looking at a picture of a truck. I can't remember anyone believed in that.
what it means is that the japanese were never going to win fighting the war the way they were.
America was just two aircraft carriers away from being completely crushed at Pearl Harbour. Fortune was on your side on that day.
Anyway, back to topic.
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.
If i'm not mistaken the Japanese did land on the Northern parts of Australia, or at least some of the islands up there. And lets not forget the part the Aussies played in the war in the Pacific, or the Brits for that matter.
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.
Iraq = a setback in American foriegn policy. Is your name Henry Kissinger? Or Dr Strangelove?
If i'm not mistaken the Japanese did land on the Northern parts of Australia, of at least some of the islands up there. And lets not forget the part the Aussies played in the war in the Pacific, or the Brits for that matter.
the japanese bombed darwin and northern queensland. midget subs entered sydney harbour targetting the USS chicago that was in town at the time. australians fought the japanese basically hand to hand in new guinea, so they didn't make the next leap across to the mainland. the japanese didn't manage to land in australian and for that we can thank the tenacity of the australian soldiers and their fuzzy wuzzy angels in the people of new guinea. and yes we can also thank the united states navy bigtime.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
'The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.
Consider the following facts. In 1962 the U.S. Air Force began direct attacks against the rural population of South Vietnam with heavy bombing and defoliation . It was part of a program intended to drive millions of people into detention camps where, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, they would be "protected" from the guerrillas they were supporting--the "Viet Cong," the southern branch of the former anti-French resistance (the Vietminh). This is what our government calls aggression or invasion when conducted by some official enemy. The Saigon government had no legitimacy and little popular support, and its leadership was regularly overthrown in U.S.-backed coups when it was feared they might arrange a settlement with the Viet Cong. Some 70,000 "Viet Cong" had already been killed in the U.S.-directed terror campaign before the outright U.S. invasion took place in 1972.
Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish a government in Saigon to invite us in. We had to overthrow regime after regime in that effort. Finally we simply invaded outright. That is plain, simple aggression. But anyone in the U.S. who thought that our policies in Vietnam were wrong in principle was not admitted to the discussion about the war. The debate was essentially over tactics.
Even at the peak of opposition to the U.S. war, only a minuscule portion of the intellectuals opposed the war out of principle--on the grounds that aggression is wrong. Most intellectuals came to oppose it well after leading business circles did--on the "pragmatic" grounds that the costs were too high.
Strikingly omitted from the debate was the view that the U.S. could have won, but that it would have been wrong to allow such military aggression to succeed. This was the position of the authentic peace movement but it was seldom heard in the mainstream media. If you pick up a book on American history and look at the Vietnam War, there is no such event as the American attack on South Vietnam. For the past 22 years, I have searched in vain for even a single reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to an "American invasion of South Vietnam" or American "aggression" in South Vietnam. In America's doctrinal system, there is no such event. It's out of history, down Orwell's memory hole.
If the U.S. were a totalitarian state, the Ministry of Truth would simply have said, "It's right for us to go into Vietnam. Don't argue with it." People would have recognized that as the propaganda system, and they would have gone on thinking whatever they wanted. They would have plainly seen that we were attacking Vietnam, just as we can see the Soviets are attacking Afghanistan.
People are much freer in the U.S., they are allowed to express themselves. That's why it's necessary for those in power to control everyone's thought, to try and make it appear as if the only issues in matters such as U.S. intervention in Vietnam are tactical: Can we get away with it? There is no discussion of right or wrong.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. propaganda system did its job partially but not entirely. Among educated people it worked very well. Studies show that among the more educated parts of the population, the government's propaganda about the war is now accepted unquestioningly. One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read more, so they receive more propaganda. Another is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia and therefore work in some capacity as agents of the propaganda system--and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large, they're part of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
On the other hand, the government had problems in controlling the opinions of the general population. According to some of the latest polls, over 70 percent of Americans still thought the war was, to quote the Gallup Poll, "fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake." Due to the widespread opposition to the Vietnam War, the propaganda system lost its grip on the beliefs of many Americans. They grew skeptical about what they were told. In this case there's even a name for the erosion of belief. It's called the "Vietnam Syndrome," a grave disease in the eyes of America's elites because people understand too much.
So there's a time limit after which all Government lies and deception are to be forgiven? Who set this time frame? Was it you? Do you think that the families of those being killed inn Iraq also adhere to the short shelf-life of this subject?
this is his most enlightened interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro
"Democracy doesn't work in the streets, it works in the ballot boxes"? So you think that ticking a box once every four years in order to get to choose between two shades of corporate sponsored shit amounts to Democracy?
"Unemployed Europeans"? Strange fantasy you have there.
"Most Europeans protest just about everything"? It's called Democracy. And unfortunately there's not enough of it in the world.
I can't access YouTube at work. What is it?
Edit: O.k, Just seen that's a link to the Ali G vid. :rolleyes:
save it for your party meeting comrade
but i also think iraq is already worse than vietnam, obviously not in terms of loss of life but certainly in terms of america's strategic interests. in iraq, the idea of a 'domino theory' occuring after the us pulls out seems much more plausible. and this is all taking place in a region that is vital to america's interests and the global economy, unlike southeast asia was. furthermore, the iraq war could very well have been the single insurmountable obstacle to mitigating the real threat emanating from iran. iran, if for no other reason, is the biggest reason why iraq was a mistake.
Most antizionists are antisemites
Again, there was no mistake, no fuck-up. The decision to invade had been made as early as July 2002. The so-called 'intelligence' was a fraud. I'm amazed that anyone couldn't see that at the time. So you weren't thinking so clearly back in 01-02? And you cared about protecting yourselves?
Well, you've done a nice job of protecting yourselves. The Bush Administrations top advisors informed them that an invasion of Iraq would certainly increase the risk of terrorism against Americans at home and abroad. The Bush administration went ahead and invaded anyway based on a bunch of lies. So much for your Government caring about protecting you.
This can be translated as "I can't dispute the above arguments so i will resort to personal attacks instead".
Does your use of the word 'World' here include the America's?
I agree.
9 out of every 10 German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed in Russia, so I'd say the odds are tipped in their favour. Still, many thanks for helping us in 1942 when 3/4's of the German army were occupied on the Eastern front.
I hope you did, it served us both well.
"So i guess you knew more than, say, Collin Powell did ya? People did the best they could with the information provided"
I remember when Powell said he would bring to the world undeniable truth of the presence of wmd's in Iraq. And a few days later we were all looking at a picture of a truck. I can't remember anyone believed in that.
America was just two aircraft carriers away from being completely crushed at Pearl Harbour. Fortune was on your side on that day.
Anyway, back to topic.
If i'm not mistaken the Japanese did land on the Northern parts of Australia, or at least some of the islands up there. And lets not forget the part the Aussies played in the war in the Pacific, or the Brits for that matter.
Iraq = a setback in American foriegn policy. Is your name Henry Kissinger? Or Dr Strangelove?
the japanese bombed darwin and northern queensland. midget subs entered sydney harbour targetting the USS chicago that was in town at the time. australians fought the japanese basically hand to hand in new guinea, so they didn't make the next leap across to the mainland. the japanese didn't manage to land in australian and for that we can thank the tenacity of the australian soldiers and their fuzzy wuzzy angels in the people of new guinea. and yes we can also thank the united states navy bigtime.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Dwight David Eisenhower