The Vietnam War

[LutraMage]

Gaffer, I see you're about to become an Elf Lord (499 Posts) - way to go! Personally, I think I'll be retired before I get there, but glad to see you've made it to the heady heights of nobility. Don't forget us lowly Elven Warriors will you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The real test will come when the Iraqis vote in an Islamist government.

Oh - so the only way you will believe that this was not about oil is if Iraq votes in a government who is against America? As I said - I have feeling that a lot of people in the world just want to see us fail at anything possible - even when things will bring stability in the future.

There is going to be true democracy - not like the pseudo democracy in iran where the hardliners rule with an iron fist and prevent anything they disagree with from going through. They need a Constitution and so forth and chances are - it will be sumilar to Afganistans.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh - so the only way you will believe that this was not about oil is if Iraq votes in a government who is against America?

JD there goes your paranoia again! Why do you have to assume that an Islamic government is against America? There are plenty of Islamic governments that are allies of the US. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait etc, etc. Like I keep trying to tell you - don't fall into the 'stereotypical' pits your opponents open up for you!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by LutraMage
JD there goes your paranoia again! Why do you have to assume that an Islamic government is against America? There are plenty of Islamic governments that are allies of the US. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait etc, etc. Like I keep trying to tell you - don't fall into the 'stereotypical' pits your opponents open up for you!

I'm going by similar comments he made in various other threads - where it was plainly stated that he wanted to see if we would allow a government who was against the US to be elected. This time he only called it an islamic government - in a previous post he was more specific.

Oh and I'm not paranoid - just my long standing experience with what people have written in other threads. Gives me more of an insight into how they feel about things. (He may not want us to fail - that might have been a bit unfair - but based on previous comments - it's not much of a stretch to think that him as well as others would like us to fall flat on our faces.)

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm going by similar comments he made in various other threads - where it was plainly stated that he wanted to see if we would allow a government who was against the US to be elected. This time he only called it an islamic government - in a previous post he was more specific.

Oh and I'm not paranoid - just my long standing exp[erience with what people have written in other threads. Gives me more of an insight into how they feel about things.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - but my point is, go on the offensive. (I'm betting that your philosophy would agree with mine, ie the best form of defence is attack). Call The Gaffer's bluff. Don't just except that an Islamic government is anti-American, point out that a democratically elected government will probably be a pro-American government that will support Bush. Why not? After all, he's given them democracy. Hurray for the White House!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by LutraMage
Yeah, yeah, yeah - but my point is, go on the offensive. (I'm betting that your philosophy would agree with mine, ie the best form of defence is attack). Call The Gaffer's bluff. Don't just except that an Islamic government is anti-American, point out that a democratically elected government will probably be a pro-American government that will support Bush. Why not? After all, he's given them democracy. Hurray for the White House!

I beleive our philosophies do agree - from what I have seen you post - and even going by this latest post. It's just hard to repeat everything I have said over and over in past threads.

But I agree - there is nothing wrong with an islamic government - but I also know by what he means by Islamic government - and that is one that is contrary to the US Government's goals of freedom and peace. He wants to see if the US would allow a government to be democratically elected that is against the US and is spreading hate.

[LutraMage]

Yep. I'm with you all the way. But the answer is still not the one the Gaffer wants to hear. I'm betting (seem to be really into gambling tonight) that the US would actually let the Iraqi people elect a government that was not pro-US (even anti-US) so long as it was democratically elected. And that is the real difference between the US and its detractors - good or bad, greedy or generous, Bush or Clinton, the US fulfills the lines attibuted to Voltaire:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

JD, I think you and I are going to be friends!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by LutraMage
Yep. I'm with you all the way. But the answer is still not the one the Gaffer wants to hear. I'm betting (seem to be really into gambling tonight) that the US would actually let the Iraqi people elect a government that was not pro-US (even anti-US) so long as it was democratically elected. And that is the real difference between the US and its detractors - good or bad, greedy or generous, Bush or Clinton, the US fulfills the lines attibuted to Voltaire

I always use that quote. I have repeated that quote all over this board - just not always as it is quoted there.

At first I thought you might have dragged up one of my quotes from another thread.

JD, I think you and I are going to be friends!

Yes - I think we can be.

Also - I think we will live up to our promises that the iraqi people will vote on their president and so forth - just as long as it is democratic. That is why there must be a Constitution in Iraq which guarantees freedom and rights for all it's citizens, regardless of sex and religion. There must also be protections from any one person gaining control of the government. I don't think this will be a problem though - because Iraq had never been a country ruled by religion- women always had education, were/are able to drive and had positions in government - headscarves were also never mandatory.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I always use that quote. I have repeated that quote all over this board - just not always as it is quoted there.
At first I thought you might have dragged up one of my quotes from another thread.

Well there you go, I genuinely didn't know you had used this quote JD, it's always been one of my two favourite quotations (for the sake of completeness my favourite quotation is Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good man to stand by and do nothing." Again, a good yardstick for what the Anglo-American allies have done in Iraq).

Yes - I think we can be.

Great - you can never have too many friends, especially on the Moot!

Also - I think we will live up to our promises that the iraqi people will vote on their president and so forth - just as long as it is democratic. That is why there must be a Constitution in Iraq which guarantees freedom and rights for all it's citizens, regardless of sex and religion. There must also be protections from any one person gaining control of the government. I don't think this wil be a probable though - because iraq had never been a country ruled by religion- women always had education, were able to drive and had positions in government.

Way to go JD, now you're talking - and yea, what was said was the simple truth. In years to come perhaps this will be recorded as the first true constitutional democracy in the Middle East - but not the last. Democracy may be the least worst form of government, but its catching!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by LutraMage
Well there you go, I genuinely didn't know you had used this quote JD, it's always been one of my two favourite quotations (for the sake of completeness my favourite quotation is Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good man to stand by and do nothing." Again, a good yardstick for what the Anglo-American allies have done in Iraq).

That is very true and another quote I like. It describes too much the way the UN has worked and the way countries around the world have tried to solve problems. Too much has been - if we just ignore it - it will go away. And it doesn't it just grows and festers unhecked - until what we get is 9/11 and endless terrorist alerts.

Great - you can never have too many friends, especially on the Moot!

That is EXTREMELY true. From 2 years of experience I am well aware of that.

Way to go JD, now you're talking - and yea, what was said was the simple truth. In years to come perhaps this will be recorded as the first true constitutional democracy in the Middle East - but not the last. Democracy may be the least worst form of government, but its catching!

I think Afganistan will beat it as the first consitutional democracy. Afganistan has a lot of problems - but it's on the right track. it does have a Constitution now that protects the freedoms of ALL it's people and elections will be coming up.

Constitution Key Points

Below are the key points of Afghanistan's first post-Taleban constitution, adopted by the country's grand assembly, or loya jirga, on Sunday, as carried by the French news agency AFP.

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic with Islam as its "sacred religion";

Followers of other religions are free to perform religious ceremonies in accordance with the provisions of the law;

No law shall be contrary to the beliefs and practices of Islam;

Men and women have equal rights and duties before the law;

Afghanistan will have a presidential system of government;

The president is responsible to the nation and the lower house, or Wolesi Jirga;

The president will be directly elected by the Afghan people with two vice-presidents, who are nominated by presidential candidates when standing for election;

A national assembly will consist of two houses: a Wolesi Jirga or "house of people" and a Meshrano Jirga or "house of elders";

The Wolesi Jirga will be directly elected by the Afghan people;

The Wolesi Jirga has the authority to impeach ministers;

The president will appoint ministers, the attorney general and central bank governor with the approval of the Wolesi Jirga;

Ministers should not hold foreign passports but the Wolesi Jirga should vote whether to approve appointments of ministers holding dual nationality;

Former king Mohammad Zahir Shah is to be accorded the title "Father of the Nation" for his lifetime ;

Pashto and Dari are the official languages with other minority languages to be considered official languages in the areas in which they are spoken

Also - contrary to the Gaffer's recent statement concerning Iraq and the US, we have allowed Afganistan to freely choose to have an Islamic Republic and Islam as it's sacred religion. I think we have already proved something that the Gaffer is still questioning. But as I said - he really wants to see if we will allow an anti-American government to be voted in.

[Cirdan]

The biggest strategic failure of Vietnam was our own leadership's willingness to fight a war of attrition versus one of conquest. This lead to the attrocities (Mi Lai, napalmed children, the collection of ears as bounty). They thought that ruthlessness would gave subjegation but we just taught them to be ruthless as well.

The bit about Nixon is slightly off. He got in more trouble about the war precisely becuse he did promise to end it and then got caught expanding it. Like the quote earlier, it is easier for a politician to start a war than to overcome being caught lying.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The biggest strategic failure of Vietnam was our own leadership's willingness to fight a war of attrition versus one of conquest. This lead to the attrocities (Mi Lai, napalmed children, the collection of ears as bounty). They thought that ruthlessness would gave subjegation but we just taught them to be ruthless as well.

Yes - We were trying to fight for the status quo, while the enemy was trying to fight for the overthow of south Vietnam. It's hard to be continuously fighting a defensive war.

The bit about Nixon is slightly off. He got in more trouble about the war precisely becuse he did promise to end it and then got caught expanding it. Like the quote earlier, it is easier for a politician to start a war than to overcome being caught lying.

Well he didn't necessarily get caught lying - it's just that it is very easy on the campaign trail to say what you would do. It's a completely different thing when you are in the White House and see all the facts and intelligence though. No matter what democrat wins the democratic nomination - if they get into the white house - they will see that all their promises they made on the campaign trail concerning international relations, Iraq, Al Qaeda, 9/11, etc - were far easier to talk about and have plans for then to deal with in the real world and in the White House.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well he didn't necessarily get caught lying - it's just that it is very easy on the campaign trail to say what you would do.

No sorry, he did. Remember Kissinger was running back and forth during that time trying to make the peace process work, or look as though it was working. He said one thing and did the other during the administration as well as before. Expanding the war into Cambodia was both a bad military strategy and a bad political strategy. No as bad as those wage and price freezes though.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As I said - I have feeling that a lot of people in the world just want to see us fail at anything possible - even when things will bring stability in the future.

On the contrary, I am all in favour of greater stability in the world; what we disagree about is a) whether this will actually come about by the methods employed and b) whether the Bush administration really has Iraq's best interests at heart.

Originally posted by LutraMage
But the answer is still not the one the Gaffer wants to hear. I'm betting (seem to be really into gambling tonight) that the US would actually let the Iraqi people elect a government that was not pro-US (even anti-US) so long as it was democratically elected.

Your psychic powers are not what they used to be; I hope so too. This outcome would certainly weigh heavily in favour of the argument which seeks to justify thousands of dead civilians and the privatisation of Iraqi industry.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Your psychic powers are not what they used to be; I hope so too. This outcome would certainly weigh heavily in favour of the argument which seeks to justify thousands of dead civilians and the privatisation of Iraqi industry.

Well TG, you've hit the million dollar nail on the head (to mix a few metaphors). Those of us on this side of the argument are gambling that the outcome will be greater democracy and (ultimately) peace and goodwill to all men. However, as those on the other side of the argument eloquently point out, it's a very high price to pay if we're wrong.

I guess if politics was easy, we'd all be doing it!