War analogy strikes nerve in Vietnam


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : War analogy strikes nerve in Vietnam

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 625038 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 20:38:07 UTC

Bush Drops the 'V'-Bomb
ABC News
By BEN STOCKING, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 46 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_iraq_bush

HANOI, Vietnam - President Bush touched a nerve among Vietnamese when he invoked the Vietnam War in a speech warning that death and chaos will envelop Iraq if U.S. troops leave too quickly.
ADVERTISEMENT

People in Vietnam, where opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is strong, said Thursday that Bush drew the wrong conclusions from the long, bloody Southeast Asian conflict.

"Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."

He said U.S. troops could never have prevailed here. "Does he think the U.S. could have won if they had stayed longer? No way," Trieu said.

Vietnam's official government spokesman offered a more measured response when asked at a regular media briefing to comment on Bush's speech to American veterans Wednesday.

"With regard to the American war in Vietnam, everyone knows that we fought to defend our country and that this was a righteous war of the Vietnamese people," Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung said. "And we all know that the war caused tremendous suffering and losses to the Vietnamese people."

Dung said Vietnam hopes that the Iraq conflict will be resolved "very soon, in an orderly way, and that the Iraqi people will do their best to rebuild their country."

Although Vietnam opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Dung stressed that ties between Hanoi and Washington have been growing closer since the former foes normalized relations in 1995, two decades after the war's end.

In his remarks to U.S. veterans, Bush said a hasty retreat from Iraq would lead to terrible violence.

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said.

Many people in Vietnam said Bush's comparison was ill-considered.

The only way to restore order in Iraq is for the United States to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a university student.

"Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," Thang said.

If the U.S. withdrew, he said, the violence might escalate in the short term but the situation would eventually stabilize.

"Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."

Ton Nu Thi Ninh, former chairwoman of the National Assembly's committee on foreign affairs, said Bush was unwise to stir up sensitive memories of the Vietnam War.

"The price we, the Vietnamese people on both sides, paid during the war was due to the fact that the Americans went into Vietnam in the first place," Ninh said.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 625207 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 0:04:51 UTC

Bush is not one to talk about Viet Nam...he took the silver spoon dodge.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 626017 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 23:08:50 UTC

Bush unwise to link Vietnam, Iraq

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

August 24, 2007

Desperate presidents resort to desperate rhetoric, which calls new attention to their desperation. President Bush joined the club this week by citing U.S. failure in Vietnam to justify staying on in Iraq.

Bush's comparison of the two conflicts rivals Richard Nixon's “I am not a crook” utterance during Watergate and Bill Clinton's “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” in producing unintended consequences of a most damaging kind for a sitting president.

It is not just that Bush's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Wednesday drew on a shaky grasp of history, spotlighted once again his own decision to sit out the Vietnam conflict, and played straight into his critics' most emotive arguments against him and the Republican Party.

More important, Bush has called attention to the elephant that will be sitting in the room when his administration makes its politically vital report on Iraq to the nation next month. For Americans, the most important comparison will be this one: as Vietnam did, Iraq has become a failure even on its own terms – whatever those terms are at any given moment.

That is, the administration has constantly shifted its goals in Iraq to avoid accepting failure and blame – only to see the new goals drift beyond reach each time. Liberation of Iraqis became occupation by Americans, democracy became an unattainable centralized “national unity” government, and this year's military surge has become a device for achieving political reconciliation among people who do not want to reconcile.

Bush's appeal to Americans to turn away from “the allure of retreat” centered on the indisputably horrific consequences for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia of defeat in 1975. But his analogy also summons the historical reality that U.S. involvement in Indochina became untenable when that engagement itself became a threat to America's own social fabric and national cohesion – and then to the very institutions that had responsibility for the war, the U.S. military and intelligence services, as well as the presidency and Congress.

Iraq fortunately has not produced anything like the scale of casualties and domestic conflict that Vietnam visited on the United States. The two conflicts also differ greatly in their potential regional consequences. Bush had done well until now to steer away from such analogies.

But his words invite examination of the mounting damage that his approaches to the war in Iraq and to national security in general are doing to U.S. institutions in an American society that has significantly changed since 1975.

Some military commanders, CIA agents on the ground in Iraq, Republican members of Congress, State Department diplomats and others now make their highest priority the protection of their own reputations, careers and institutions – the three blend seamlessly into a single overriding ambition in Washington – for the post-Bush era, which thus draws closer, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The need to protect the White House, the Pentagon and both major political parties from greater Iraq fallout explains much of the blame being dumped on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at this late date – even though his deficiencies and close links to Iran and Syria were clearly visible when the administration helped install him in the job in 2006. As he has been throughout the Iraq experience, Bush is condemned to play the cards he dealt himself.

The prime minister's chances of producing the “national unity” government that Bush demanded but that al-Maliki never seemed to believe in himself is now being shredded by the maneuvering for position in the twilight months of the Bush presidency.

The U.S. military is helping Sunni tribes organize into armed militias that will owe their loyalty beyond the tribe to American commanders rather than to al-Maliki's government. Similarly the CIA has molded an Iraq intelligence service that draws no public funds from the Iraqi government and presumably is paid for by Langley. The agency's reluctance to act against Kurdish rebels operating against Iran and Turkey may also be part of a separate vision of the agency's future role in Iraq.

Such maneuvering is ultimately self-defeating, as was Bush's desperate bid this week to mobilize on his side the old resentments and fears of the political battles fought over Vietnam. Bush's speech fits Talleyrand's definition of something worse than a crime: It was a blunder.

Vietnam and Iraq are totally different situations. But U.S. institutions and their leaders will still follow the Washington laws of self-preservation when campaigns abroad begin to threaten their survival.
____________

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 626018 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 23:12:05 UTC
Last modified: 24 Aug 2007, 23:13:12 UTC

The Vets are even more upset...

“President Bush failed to adequately address many of the urgent issues facing veterans today. The last thing these veterans needed was a history lesson. They remember America’s wars because they actually fought them. Instead of making references to previous conflicts, we need the President to take more seriously the myriad of issues facing veterans and their families right now. There were glaring omissions in his remarks, including answering who will replace Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson when he steps down in October,” said Paul Rieckhoff, IAVA Executive Director. “Instead of offering a history lesson, President Bush should be specific about taking immediate action on the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission to fix the deplorable conditions and poor care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These are matters of life and death for America’s newest generation of veterans, but on these critical issues, President Bush came up short.”


____________
Account frozen...

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 626324 - Posted: 25 Aug 2007, 12:09:19 UTC - in response to Message 625207.
Last modified: 25 Aug 2007, 12:10:46 UTC

Bush is not one to talk about Viet Nam...he took the silver spoon dodge.



Of course, and that means he doesn't deserve the exact same right to free speech that every other American enjoys...nice, but expected.
____________

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 626372 - Posted: 25 Aug 2007, 14:04:14 UTC - in response to Message 626324.

Bush is not one to talk about Viet Nam...he took the silver spoon dodge.



Of course, and that means he doesn't deserve the exact same right to free speech that every other American enjoys...nice, but expected.

Of course also the President has the right to free speech. But if he is smart he will know that each word of him is immediately reported by the press or other witnesses, and set his words appropriately.
"With power comes responsibility." - That means the more power you have the more responsibility you have to show with your deeds - and with your words and even thoughts, to fit into your position. Well, as much as I've read so far, this President's words seldom showed up any responsibility.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 626409 - Posted: 25 Aug 2007, 15:21:36 UTC - in response to Message 626324.

Bush is not one to talk about Viet Nam...he took the silver spoon dodge.



Of course, and that means he doesn't deserve the exact same right to free speech that every other American enjoys...nice, but expected.

Who ever said he couldn't speak, it's just that his words ring hollow, especially among the men and women who have served in a combat zone.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 627697 - Posted: 27 Aug 2007, 9:59:11 UTC
Last modified: 27 Aug 2007, 10:02:49 UTC

Yes well I can't imagine why the President doesn't overly concern himself with not offending those who can't / don't / never have / and never will support him...and even though enlistment is down, the fact that our military is still 100% volunteer based proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that your words don't reflect the opinion of every solder...and I personally doubt it's even a significant percentage.
____________

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 632268 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 19:50:44 UTC

Time to let the ghosts of Vietnam rest

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.
THE UNION-TRIBUNE

September 2, 2007

You just can't please some people. After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, I remember a cartoon that lampooned Democrats for their two-faced approach to the conflict. In the first panel, a donkey was scolding President George H.W. Bush for invading Iraq. In the next, the donkey was scolding the president for leaving too soon.

Today, the Democrats' strategy is still fairly consistent with that model. They wait to see what President George W. Bush says, and then they say the opposite. Oddly enough, this happens even if Bush says something that Democrats have been saying for some time.

Such as comparing Iraq to Vietnam. War critics have drawn that comparison almost since the invasion of Iraq began, calling the U.S.-led operation a “quagmire” and insisting that Bush was ignoring the lessons of history. But people seem to draw their own lessons from Vietnam. And recently, after months of resisting the comparison, Bush actually embraced it. During a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he seemed to imply that the real lesson from Vietnam was that defeat comes at a heavy price.

The president was making two points, both legitimate. First, he insisted that Americans need to think long and hard about what would happen to those we left behind if we departed Iraq before stability takes hold, because what happened after the fall of Saigon wasn't pretty.

“One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam,” he said, “is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms such as 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields.' ”

Second, Bush believes our withdrawal from Vietnam actually emboldens our new enemies, all these years later.

“There's another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam,” he said, “and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle – those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001.” Bush then quoted al-Qaeda leaders pointing to the U.S. retreat from Vietnam as proof that America could be defeated – once there was an erosion of public support in the United States.

“Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price for American credibility,” he said, “But the terrorists see it differently. We must listen to the words of the enemy.”

You would think that Democrats would be flattered that the president seems to have come around to their point of view. But instead, their instinct was to flip their position and insist that Bush is wrong and that the two wars cannot be compared. In Vietnam, they say, we battled an insurgency and a communist government in the North; in Iraq, we're refereeing a civil war. All some Bush critics care about is seizing the opportunity to disagree with the president that they're willing to swallow their own words to do it.

There may be another reason that Democrats are feeling combative: Bush's words remind voters that Democrats don't have a good answer for the question of what happens to those Iraqis we would leave behind. I've watched nearly every Democratic presidential debate, and I've never heard a single candidate even broach the subject.

I will. One thing that should happen is that the United States should dramatically increase its visa allotment for Iraqis, so that more can escape that war zone once U.S. troops are gone.

Still, invoking Vietnam was obviously not a smart move for Bush. Americans know that the president spent the war stateside in the Texas Air National Guard. So most people just tuned out, and Bush's remarks became little more than a late-night TV punchline. He should have stayed out of the Vietnam minefield altogether.

And so should we all. We should eliminate the “V-word” from our political vocabulary. As a member of Generation X who was born eight months before the Tet Offensive in 1968, I'm tired of hearing about this conflict. I felt that way before the Sept. 11 attacks, but I have even less patience for the discussion now. Why should Americans waste time arguing over the lessons of a war that ended in the 1970s, when we're at war with a new enemy right now?

It's time to let these ghosts rest. And for that to happen, our leaders need to quit waking them.
____________

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 632426 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 22:51:43 UTC - in response to Message 627697.

your words don't reflect the opinion of every solder

The only opinion a soldier holds is the one they've been trained on... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 632464 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 23:31:27 UTC
Last modified: 2 Sep 2007, 23:32:31 UTC

All righteous people know that the Iraq war is as wrong and unnecessary as the Vietnam war has been, no matter what excuses the governments came up with. As wrong as has been all the wars after WW2. All these brave men and women who died in these wars died for the financial interests of US industry giants (like in Iraq: because of the oil there), and for several power-hungry US politicians.

Almost all of these wars and "military operations" have been absolutely unnecessary, and not only in my eyes:
Korean war, Suez crisis in Egypt, Operation "Blue Bat" in Lebanon, the Taiwan street, the war in Kongo, Operation "Tailwind" in Laos 1970, the Vietnam war, the Cuba crisis, Operation "Powerpack" in the Dominican Republic, the six-days-war and Operation "Nickel Grass" in the Middle East, Operations "Eagle Pull" and "Mayaguez" in Cambodia, Operations "Eagle Claw" & "Desert One" in Iran, the operations in El Salvador and Nicaragua, Operation "Golf of Sidra" in Lybia, Lebanon (again), Operation "Urgent Fury" on Grenada, Operations "Attain Document" and "El Dorado Canyon" in Lybia, Operation "Blast Furnace" in Bolivia, Operations "Ernest Will" and"Praying Mantis" in the Persian Gulf, "Just Cause", "Nimrod Dancer" and "Promote Liberty" in Panama, Operation "Ghost Zone" in Bolivia, Operation "Sharp Edge" in Liberia, the Operations "Desert Farewell", "Desert Calm", "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm" in the Middle East, Operation "Eastern Exit" in Somalia, Operations "Productive Effort" & "Sea Angel" in Bangladesh, Operation "Fiery Vigil" on the Philippines, Operation "Victor Squared" on Haiti, Operation "Quick Lift" in Zaire, Operation "Silver Anvil" in Sierra Leone, the Operations "Distant Runner", "Quiet Resolve" & "Support Hope" in Ruanda, Operation "Uphold/Restore Democracy" on Haiti, Operation "United Shield" in Somalia, Operation "Assured Response" in Liberia, Operation "Quick Response" in the Central African Republic, Operation "Guardian Assistance" in Zaire/Ruanda/Uganda, Operation "Pacific Haven/Quick Transit" in Irak and Guam, Operation "Guardian Retrieval" in Kongo, Operation "Noble Obelisk" in Sierra Leone, Operation "Bevel Edge" in Cambodia, Operation "Noble Response" in Kenia, Operation "Shepherd Venture" in Guinea-Bissau, Operation "Infinite Reach" in Sudan & Afghanistan, Operation "Golden Pheasant" in Honduras, Operation "Safe Border" in Peru & Ecuador, Operation "Laser Strike" in South Africa, the Operation "Steady State" & "Support Justice" in South America, Operation "Wipeout" in Hawaii, the Operations "Coronet Oak" & "Coronet Nighthawk" in Middle and South America, Operation "Desert Falcon" in Saudi-Arabia, the Operations "Northern Watch", "Provide Comfort" & "Provide Comfort II" in Kurdistan, the Operations "Vigilant Sentine I" & "Vigilant Warrior" in Kuwait, Operation "Desert Focus" in Saudi-Arabia, the Operations "Phoenix Scorpion I - IV", "Desert Strike" & "Desert Fox" in Iraq, Operation "Provide Promise" in Bosnia, the Operations "Maritime Monitor", "Maritime Guard", "Sharp Guard" & "Decisive Enhancement" in the Adria, the Operations "Sky Monitor", "Deliberate Fork", "Decisive Edeavor", "Decisive Edge", "Deny Flight" in Bosnia, Operation "Able Sentry" in Serbia, Operation "Nomad Edeavor" in Hungary, Operation "Nomad Vigil" in Albania, Operation "Quick Lift" in Kroatia, Operation "Deliberate Force" in Serbia, the Operations "Joint Forge", "Joint Guard", "Joint Edeavor" and "Determined Effort" in Bosnia, Operation "Determined Falcon" in Kosovo/Albania, the Operations "Eagle Eye", "Sustain Hope/Allied Harbour", "Shining Hope", "Cobalt Flash" and "Determined Force" in Kosovo, and now the actual wars after 9/11
____________
Account frozen...

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 632538 - Posted: 3 Sep 2007, 1:16:46 UTC - in response to Message 632464.

(like in Iraq: because of the oil there)

I haven't seen a single drop of it. Gas prices keep rising every year. Where is all of this oil?
____________

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 633074 - Posted: 3 Sep 2007, 22:11:11 UTC - in response to Message 632538.

(like in Iraq: because of the oil there)

I haven't seen a single drop of it. Gas prices keep rising every year. Where is all of this oil?

Ask your President, whose former company Halliburton is involved over there since before the invasion.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 633082 - Posted: 3 Sep 2007, 22:21:51 UTC - in response to Message 633074.

(like in Iraq: because of the oil there)

I haven't seen a single drop of it. Gas prices keep rising every year. Where is all of this oil?

Ask your President, whose former company Halliburton is involved over there since before the invasion.

He won't return my phone calls and my car is thirsty.
____________

Profile Xen
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 86
Credit: 2,032,257
RAC: 1,065
United States
Message 633129 - Posted: 4 Sep 2007, 0:22:32 UTC

ah yes (sigh)
____________
Nobody is nobody. Everyone has something to offer

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 633132 - Posted: 4 Sep 2007, 0:39:18 UTC - in response to Message 625207.

Bush is not one to talk about Viet Nam...he took the silver spoon dodge.


Oh? Were you there? I was. I do not agree that it was a 'dodge'. Unlike his immediate predecessor in the White House, Bush actually joined and served in the military... the 147th Fighter/Interceptor Group (currently known as the 147th Fighter Wing) of the Texas Air National Guard.

While it is true there was a waiting list (a kinda long one, at that) for the ground positions, they were short of pilots. Bush used no 'special favors' in joining. He just walked up, told them he wanted to be a pilot, and they snapped him right up.

Some people have tried to make the case that Bush joined the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. Nothing could be further from the truth in his case. While this is true of many of the people that joined the National Guard during the Vietnam war (remember that waiting list I mentioned? A large bunch of hippie-peacenik-druggie freaks, for the most part.. I frequently saw them in line for their pre-enlistment physicals... hair down to their behinds, and a total stranger to soap and water), it is NOT true of Bush.

It was common knowledge that members of the fighter squadrons that made up the 147th frequently volunteered for rotation to Vietnam. Bush did so. He didn't get to go because by the time he had accumulated enough experience (flight time) to qualify, the use of the fighter he was trained to fly (the F-102) had all but been phased out in Vietnam. Besides all that, the 147th had other (vital) functions as well, such as air defense of a good-sized chunk of the Gulf coastal region and monitoring what the Soviets might be launching our way from Cuba.

I just burns my butt when I hear people say/imply that, somehow, service in the various National Guard units is somehow 'dishonorable' when compared to service in the active-duty services. Bush served. As I mentioned before, his predecessor in office didn't. While it is true that Clinton joined the ROTC in college during the war so he wouldn't be drafted, it is also true that he quit the ROTC once he found out that the odds of them calling up his draft number in the lottery were somewhere between slim and none.

Clinton pulled a 'dodge'. Bush didn't.


Now, Bush's service in the Guard (especially how it ended) wasn't trouble free, by any means... But that is a different story.



Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 633135 - Posted: 4 Sep 2007, 0:42:00 UTC - in response to Message 633074.

(like in Iraq: because of the oil there)

I haven't seen a single drop of it. Gas prices keep rising every year. Where is all of this oil?

Ask your President, whose former company Halliburton is involved over there since before the invasion.


I thought that was the Vice President that ran Halliburton... Dubya ran the Texas Rangers baseball team (one of the reasons I didn't vote for him, for either Texas Governor or President... Couldn't get a winning season with a baseball team, so why should we trust him with our State or Nation??) :P

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 633262 - Posted: 4 Sep 2007, 7:52:22 UTC - in response to Message 632516.
Last modified: 4 Sep 2007, 7:55:37 UTC

thorin, I'm curious as to where you gleaned your listing from. Though you do have a partial disclaimer of "Almost all of these wars and "military operations" have been absolutely unnecessary...", why do you lump "operations" such as the humanitarian work Operation Sea Angel" in Bangladesh or decreasing illegal drugs in "Operation Wipeout" in Hawaii for example?

Please list each one of these "operations" individually and describe singularly why they were "absolutely unnecessary".


That's a German site, run by an university look here. I just shortened the list by skipping the dates, and putting it into this listing form.

That's the title paragraph:
US-Militäreinsätze und Kriege nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg
Eine Chronologie

Aus Anlass des Krieges gegen Afghanistan veröffentlichte die Wochenzeitung "Freitag" am 19. Oktober 2001 eine Chronik der Militärinterventionen der USA nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Vieles hatte man tatsächlich schon vergessen. Die Liste spricht für sich.

(Translation/interpretation by me:)
"US military operations and operations after World War 2
A chronology

The war against Afghanistan gave the weekly paper "Freitag" to publish a list of the military interventions of the USA after WW2 on October 19th 2001. Many of them indeed have been forgotten. This list speaks for itself."


Well, I can tell you some examples of unnecessary operations and wars: all military interventions in countries which are neither allies nor have begun a war against the USA are unnecessary. These are either invasions or acts of pure provocation, nothing else.
You really believe what your media say, do you?
What have the US military to do in Bangladesh, Africa, Middle East, Middle America, South East Asia? What has the US military to do in South Europe (Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania)?
What has the US military to do in any other country of the world except when it comes to NATO maneuvers? What are they up to?
Is it for destabilization? Demoralization? Monetary interests? Industrial interests? Political interests like the fear of the bad bad Commie? Or is it just bullying like: "Look how mighty we are, we can do whatever we want, wherever and whenever we want. If you challenge this our operation it'll become serious for you."?

You need no military for police work. You need no military for humanitarian work.
The only thing military is "needed" for is killing or at least threatening to kill people wearing the "wrong" uniform.
____________
Account frozen...

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : War analogy strikes nerve in Vietnam

Copyright © 2014 University of California