Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians

Originally posted by budski
The ROE are subject to the GC in the same way the pilots and commanders were - unsign the treaty if you're not going to abide by it.

Now, how about you address some of the issues instead of hiding behind the same old chestnut of attacking the source.

Get a better source than "vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com". That's a BS source and you know it.

Originally posted by budskiSo far I've seen nothing from you to back up any claims you make - and let's not forget this thread is about mccain.

I don't see anything backing up the power plant was only used for the civilian population. The GC said you can bomb them if they were being used for the war effort.

Originally posted by budski

When obama does something equally repulsive, then I'll be sure to post it, but THIS thread is about the political opportunist that is John McCain.

So please, stop with the deflection and address the issue.

Didn't defect, just brought up a comparison. I could have said someone saying the Nazis were nice guys, and using a "ilovenazis.com" website. Sorry you didn't catch on.

Here's a tidbit about the power plant:

Dirty Bird (Power Plant)
This Hanoi prison opened in October 1967 in the vicinity of the Yen Phu thermal power plant in northern Hanoi. The North Vietnamese publicized the location of the prisoners, in what many believe was an attempt to discourage U.S. bombing of the plant and the area. Prisoners called the place "dirty bird" in honor of the camp's black dust, debris and general filthiness.

www.pbs.org...

You do know that locating a POW camp near a possible target is against the GC.

HE EXPLAINED THAT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES PAVN OCCASIONALLY
PUBLICIZED THE FACT THAT IT PUT U.S. POWS AT A LOCATION THE U.S.
HAD ANNOUNCED IT WAS GOING TO BOMB--FOR EXAMPLE, THE YEN PHU
THERMAL POWER PLANT IN HANOI.

(sorry for the caps, it was like that at the source. It's from paragraph E.). www.pownetwork.org...

4) American nicknames: Thermal Power Plant.

Notes: According to a mural on the wall outside the main entrance, an AAA gun crew defending the Yen Phu power plant shot down Senator McCain. A separate monument on the shore of Truc Bach Lake, a short distance west of the power plant, commemorates the persons who pulled him from the lake and captured him. In 1992, a former deputy director of the Enemy Proselyting Department told American interviewers that after the U.S. announced plans to bomb the Yen Phu power plant and the nearby Doumier Bridge, PAVN decided to place American POWs in the power plant and publicize the fact to prevent the U.S. from bombing the plant. Two American POWs escaped from the camp, but were recaptured as they tried to make their way down the Red River to the coast. The power plant stopped generating power sometime before my first visit in 1991.

www.nampows.org...


Here's a good article about Vietnam targetting. www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

It said that the thermal power plants were restricted until early 1967. In 1964, they had seven plus the Hanoi transformer station producing 82% of the electrical power. By the time they were on the strike list, the DRV had 2.5 years to acquire and disperse many smaller generators.

reply to post by jerico65


Again with the sidestepping - care to address the point about the GC, bearing in mind the reservations made upon accession of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on 28 June 1957?

Pay special attention to Reservation / Declaration : unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).

So they were in fact only a "partial" signatory to the GC - the US was a full signatory, and the reservations they expressed came only AFTER McCain had been released.

McCain IS a war criminal by any definition of the term except those who want to view him through rose (or olive green) coloured glasses.

I am fully convinced that he is a man who is just as dangerous and war hungry as bush/cheney - a man who has been quoted as saying he cares little for civilian casualties (yugoslavia) and happily sung along with "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

He's a man who his peers have many reservations about, and even his friends don't want him for president, fearing that he will undoubdtedly lead the world into further conflict.

He's a man who does not oppose the draft, and who seems to have little idea of the suffering caused by war, except the tiny bit he suffered.

He's a man who having been tortured himself, now condones torture.

He's a man with no regard for international or humanitarian law.

He's a lot like bush/cheney, and may be even worse, and if that doesn't scare people then there's little hope for the world.

reply to post by budski


budski, whilst I agree with your impressions and descriptions of McCain, as a current citizen of the country of my birth (USA) I feel that you have allowed yourself to be distracted from the main points.

It s really about Michael Moore, as a filmmaker, and his views.

I'd suggest everyone view some of Mr. Moore's films.....especially 'Bowling for Columbine'. (He won an Oscar for that)

"Fahrenheit 911"....he really got 'flamed' for that one!! I haven't seen "Sicko" yet, it's on my list.

Or, go back to his first...."Me and Roger"....(I think that's right)

The man is a champion of human rights. He can also use a bit of showmanship along the way, but who doesn't do that, to some extent??

EDIT...I think it's actually "Roger and Me"....

[edit on 8/28/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by budski
Again with the sidestepping - care to address the point about the GC, bearing in mind the reservations made upon accession of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on 28 June 1957?

Pay special attention to Reservation / Declaration : unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).

So they were in fact only a "partial" signatory to the GC - the US was a full signatory, and the reservations they expressed came only AFTER McCain had been released.

Dude, have no idea what you're babbling about. Sorry.

Not to mention "sicko" which was an excellent evaluation of the american leaders failure to adequately care for their citizens health, while at the same time passing laws which force americans to pay far more for the rank 47th health than any other country in the world. While like all documentaries it was biased, it was also full of indisputable facts and statistics, and just because someone may be biased doesnt mean they are wrong. I may be biased towards my fiancee because i love her, but just because im biased in no way means im wrong in thinking she's a kind loving, wonderful person.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Night Watchman
They didn't make the policy. They don't get to choose the actions they take. They are simply doing their jobs and because they do, the citizens of their country can feel safe (except the paranoids who hide under the bed because they see govt conspiracies at every turn.

They CHOOSE to join the armed forces!

These days, when mutually assured destruction means that we'll never have another convential World War, people choose to become soldiers. They know the risks when they sign up and that's their problem. If they're dumb enough to be loaded onto a boat and be lead into a Middle Eastern desert to fight like pawns for bankers and politicians, then remember, it's their choice. I feel absolutely no sympathy for any troops who are deployed overseas. There's nothing heroic in it.

Sensible people would choose to live their lives with their families and stay home with a peaceful life.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Force Fire]

reply to post by Force Fire


Force, you are forgetting that in that era, there was a 'draft'....

When I turned 18, the 'draft' was over....I was not required to register with the 'Selective Service', as it was called then. Guys older than me, they got snagged into the 'lottery' as it was called.

Terrible times...

NOW, in the USA....it's all volunteer....so far....

Originally posted by Force Fire
Sensible people would choose to live their lives with their families and stay home with a peaceful life.

As much of a 'peacenik' as I am (isn't that a 60's word...to equate a vision of a peaceful world with communism...sigh), I respect the choices of those who go into the military. They do so for a lot of reasons, among them patriotism and love of country. However, I also respect their ability to look around them and know when they're doing wrong. The judges at Nuremberg valued that too.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by greysave
When do innocent civilians get surface to air missiles to shoot down fighter aircraft.

When they want to defend themselves from aggression they did not initiate; how did the 'innocent' civilians are Pearl Harbor manage to shoot down dozens of Japanese aircraft?

you really shouldn't start walking through history without a good map and maybe a guidebook, a dictionary and possibly an infomred tour-guide...

I'd be real hard-pressed to describe the pilot of a USAAF p-40 as a "civilian", I also really don't think this guy was a civilian, either...

To say that we only bombed innocent civilians in Vietnam is flat out false.

The people of Vietnam were innocent based on the fact that they did not initiate hostilities and never had the means to attack the continental USA if the US national security state withdraw from Vietnam.

Which Vietnam, exactly, are you talking about? Hint: get a clue about the conflict, where it was and who was involved BEFORE typing.

What about the 58000 or so american troops who died. I guess that was all fratricide.

Many thousands were, yes

I'd love you to show me the evidence of "Many thousands" of fraggings. No, really. You see, I've been hearing about it all my life, but NOT ONE VN vet, Aussie, US or NZ, I've ever spoken to has described such an incident to me.

but they mostly died because they were withing rifle range of Vietnamese citizens that could have never followed them home to continue the war.

And who the US could likewise not follow home to finish the war. Again, get a clue about said war BEFORE typing.

They died because not all Vietnamese civilians passively took the terrorism and air strikes as proof that Americans were liberating them.

Neither did the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) passively sit back and allow the US to "secure" the Republic of Vietnam against the communist invaders.

As a matter of fact, the us airforce must have shot his navy plane out of the air because they knew what the navy was up too.

Clearly so as it's hard to believe that such badly trained and equipped citizen soldiers could have had much success against the professional air force of the USAF/USN.

Well, it could be that the USSR-supplied advisors were really good at explaining how the USSR-supplied SAM systems worked.

It is so easy to criticize the US. How about the 3 million civilians murdered by the north Vietnamese for collusion.

Where? When? How do people come up with these fantastical nonsense?

Well, you said "Many thousands" of US troops were fragged by other US troops, with zero evidence to back it up. As for Vietnamese killing Vietnamese, I suggest you find out something about Hue. You might even discover that it was the single-biggest war crime of the Vietnamese conflict (apart from the North's deliberate mistreatment of prisoners), dwarfing by many times the celibrated My Lai massacre.

That is fine of course because they fought the US. I have n o problem with people finding faults with the US.

It's not fine because it NEVER HAPPENED.

Once again, your history is worse than Budski's. I try to make it a point not to post about topics I've never studied. Clearly not your policy. your next bit makes that obvious.

The US fought South Vietnam's citizens because they were not happy with the US choice of puppets especially given the fact that they had a perfectly good choice in Ho Chi Minh.

You do know who the Republic of Vietnam was, don't you? Well, maybe not. Because if you did, you'd know whose army the US was fighting in the A-Shau Valley and at Khe San and who the Australians fought at Long Tan.

That perfectly-good choice was clearly not the choice of everyone in Vietnam (both of them). Even in a democracy, people who choose the loser are not punished for it and in a few years they are given another choice. Since the "re-unification" of Vietnam, how many times have the people been given the choice of leaders? No, well, how about this one: Since the "re-unification" of Vietnam, how many people have had their property restored to them? No, okaay, well, how about this one: Since the "re-unification" of Vietnam, how much money has the gov't spent on caring for the war cemetaries of the Republic of Vietnam? Oh, really, 'cause I could have sworn that in the US the Union spends money on the upkeep of Confederate cemeteries...

I have problems with people ignoring everyone else's faults and blaming the entire worlds problems on the US.

I can understand that but i have found that few people who employ this defense had any idea of how many interventions and military campaigns the US national security state had staged in foreign countries since the end of the second world war.

And yet, even when they do know how many there are, they have zero clue about the biggest and most-publicised of them all...

When you can acknowledge these interventions and the exceedingly small role 'communism' or the USSR played in the vast majority of them we might arrive at a point where your opinion is informed enough to be heard.

When you can quote one fact, military or political or social, about the Vietnam War, then we might have arrived at such a position as to the value of your opinion warranting a hearing.

Here are some good points to start with (try them out on Google)

Hue, boat people, Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Van Thieu, Pham Van Xuan, Neil Davis, Peter Arnett, Operation Menu, A Shau, Pleiku, Kontum...

Originally posted by pexx421
ok, lets look at pol pot. His party was losing until we killed a huge mass of the population there, and thus he was able to take over of the desolation that we left behind.

No. Let's look at Lon Nol.

"Who?" I hear you ask. Right, rule no 1: don't talk about what you don't know.

Pol Pot's "party" weren't losing anything. Not at any time until December 1978.

"Huh? When?" You ask. "But the war ended in '75, I've seen the movie". Perhaps you forgot to notice that bit where VN invaded "Kampuchea". By the way, the movie is "The Killing Fields".

Don't talk about Pol Pot or the Cambodian genocide until you've actually studied it.

You got one thing right: Pol Pot was victorious thanks to US intervention in Cambodia. That intervention wasn't bombing, it was diplomatically recognising the coup by Lon Nol.

Lon Nol lost the Cambodian civil war, no-one else. Lon Nol lost it and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger helped him do it.

While he needs to go on a diet. I like MM. I especially liked him chasing senators like rabbits regarding if they had any kids in bagafnanisidad. I'll never forget one senator in particular who took flight like the devil was after him. MM definately has his place in society. I believe the mods would highly appreciate if I remain of topic.
I don't think getting your head kicked in by the vietcong should preclude any votes. And what with Cindy sporting the orange cast. I would make a speculuation but it would be purely that.
I did not say that right. Preclude was not my intention. A sky pilot roaring on his medal for votes...that was my intended intention.

[edit on 9/1/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/1/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/1/2008 by jpm1602]

Originally posted by jerico65
Really? They did? With what? The US Navy filled the sky with flak, yet I'm to believe that civilians at Pearl shot down aircraft?

I am to believe that the civilians in North Vietnam shot down aircraft? Civilians are only innocent if their American? Right...

We really didn't invade Vietnam. We went there to assist the South Vietnamese and got deeply involved in that mess.

The US national security state got more actively involved in South Vietnam when they French could not keep their puppet afloat even with the massive American injection of funds. The US national security state willingly involved itself in the civil affairs of Vietnam ( if they allowed national elections to be held the country would have been independent and communist free under Ho Chi minh) because they could not allow a national liberation movements to succeed often knowing that it would fuel the spirits of those fighting against oppression everywhere in the world. They were worried about a 'domino effect' only not the one they used as pretext for killing millions of Vietnamese.

The words you're looking for is "Viet Cong", which were insurgents. The VC also enjoyed murdering their own people if they didn't agree. Google "Hue City".

The Vietcong were those fighting for national unity and liberation from the intervention of foreign powers such as France and the United States. How you can be a 'insurgent' in your own country fighting for the liberation of your own people is probably something you should ask your average imperialist to 'explain'. Sure the VC killed South Vietnamese who were cooperating with the American puppet regime and serving in the South Vietnamese army. The fact that many hundreds of thousands chose to get paid ( or at least get food on the table and be safe from American air strikes) to hide from the Vietcong , which is what the mostly did, is not surprising and it's even less surprising that they fought back when their lives where in danger and where thus sometimes killed. If you want to see what the citizens of a country can do to each other when they are artificially divided by the actions of their leaders you can look into the history of every country on the face of the Earth.

So everyone loved Ho, and hated the US? How do you explain the Boat People?

Everyone did not love Ho Chi Minh or hate the United States as they well understood that the people are rarely able to pick the leaders they want. I explain the 'boat' people as those who had the means to flee or guilt enough to know that they might not be welcome in the new system. Collaborators rarely escapes punishment of one sort of another and we should not be surprised that many fled North or South Vietnam at various times.

How about the re-education camps that so many disappeared into after the fall of the South???

Would you rather have had them all shot for treason or for collaboration that resulted in the deaths of fellow countrymen? Poor countries have re-education camps/firing squads and rich countries have jails , secondary education or universities; it's just a question of resources and how far along that country has come in the struggle for democracy and civil rights.

Small role the Soviet Union played? Now that's funny! You do know that the Russians were giving away AK-47s to Communist insurgents whereever they were involved.

Yes, small role the Soviet Union played. The Russians were SELLING Ak-47's in the same way that American were selling small arms and mines and calling those who fight for what the majority of the people in their country wants 'insurgents' wont help you to gain a understanding of what has, and still is, happening in the world. If you can not accept that the USSR/China/Cuba sold weapons to other nations you may want to reflect on the role American lend lease played in the second world war and what in enabled Britain and the SU to eventually accomplish. We would all help those who's interests are the same as ours and if we could only get the right people in charge of our various countries that logic would extend to international affairs as well.

[If this is true, then why did the even get involved anywhere? If they were just interested in "self-defense", they would have just stayed home.

They did just stay home; it was the west that invaded half a dozen or more countries directly while sponsoring dozens of oppressive undemocratic rulers all over the world. What the USSR took it took by force from Nazi Germany ( it actually gave alot of to the western allies when it could have held on to it , Berlin comes to mind, ) in the second world war and for the overwhelming part those countries did not have elected leaders when they cooperated with Germany or when they were occupied by Germany towards the end of the war. There are many good books on the topic ( 'KIlling hope' probably being the best amongst them) and i suggest you read them and attempt to discover which nation have in fact been responsible for the most death and destruction around the world.

Stellar

Originally posted by jerico65
Really? We haven't supplied medical aid?

Iraq had a very good health care system before the two decades that involved two wars and more than a decade of genocidal sanctions. In fact as i remember the UN acknowledged it had the best for it's population size.

Hang on, I'll give my friend a call; she'll be happy to know she can come home now. She's a med-tech and 99% of the people they are treating are Iraqi civilians.

Civilians who would not have been suffering so if not for the illegal invasion and occupation perpetrated by the US national security state. If she is a med-tech she is getting well paid for her expert services and hardly requires either your or my 'compassion' or thanks for saving Iraqi lives.

Well, that was a nicely skewed version of Vietnam. France didn't invade; they were there prior to WW2.

Because we all know that the French originally came from Indochina and only later settled in modern day France......

You do know after the first Indochina war, the Geneva Agreements divided VN north and south.

Yes, and the division was to hold until a national election would be held for the entire Vietnam in 1956. Since it was quickly clear that Ho Chi Minh would win such a election the US national security state conspired to topple the somewhat popular Southern government to replace him with their dictator of choice who apparently cared little for anything but his own self interest and power.

Diem had a coup in the South, didn't allow elections, and the North sent the VC down to bring the South under Communist rule;

Diem could not and did not manage the coup in the South and by doing so also ensured that a national election never took place. The Vietcong did not come from the North and were in fact just Vietnamese resisting the same old oppressions. North Vietnam did not have the power to do anything much to the South Vietnamese army with their western equipment and training and could not have done anything in south, had they concertedly tried, if not for the outrages the Diem's forces committed to crush any dissatisfaction with his autocratic government. There is obviously a reason why South Vietnam received the vast majority of USAF/USN bombs and it's most certainly not because it was North Vietnam that 'created' the resistance in the South from whole cloth.

NOT to allow elections or anything democratic, that's for sure.

Because we all know that it is only the United States that ever uses violence to bring about 'freedom' and 'democratic' elections, right?

And I'm sure you just mistakenly forgot about the attrocities that the VC committed, right? As I mentioned, check out "Hue City" where the US Marines found mass graves of teachers, politicians, professors, etc, with their hands bound and executed. Just another day in Communist Vietnam.

Pexx is not attempting to be a apologist for the horrible things that were done ' in the name of liberation' by the few criminals and opportunist in every society that exploits these situations for personal gain and satisfaction. It happened in the American civil wars ( yes, wars) as much as it happened in others and it never could or did make the movements that liberated their countries any more legitimate than the national elections and referendums indicated. The problem is not the crimes of citizens against other citizens but the intervention of completely foreign individuals who makes meting out justice and creating order in civil society all but impossibly by it's protection of those individuals that aids imperial power. If the people of various countries are left to their own devices without foreign intervention or aid to any side we could at least have a world where the MAJORITY of individuals are getting their voices heard instead of a a current world where minorities are supported and maintained in power despite the wishes of the majority.

Maybe you ought to read a bit about Vietnam first, huh?

Maybe you ought to check your data for consistency instead of ignorantly presuming that what you have read are necessarily correct? I mean it's like the Pentagon papers were never stolen ( by the black panthers) and leaked to the world! Interestingly it's not a lack of information that allows these minorities to reign but their very successful propaganda campaigns to spread misinformation thus allowing them to use and abuse the majority for their own empowerment.

I contend that you should follow your own advice and read about Vietnam from more than just the books and documents the American national security state benefits by.

Stellar

EDIT: With respect to the previous post about Iraq's health care being the 'best' i intended to say best in the region according to the UN:

Unlike other poorer countries, which focused on mass health care using primary care practitioners, Iraq developed a Westernized system of sophisticated hospitals with advanced medical procedures, provided by specialist physicians. The UNICEF/WHO report noted that prior to 1990, 97 percent of the urban dwellers and 71 percent of the rural population had access to free primary health care; just 2 percent of hospital beds were privately managed.

Infant mortality rates fell from 80 per 1,000 live births in 1974, to 60 in 1982 and 40 in 1989, according to government statistics. A similar trend characterized under-five mortality rates which halved from 120 per 1,000 live births in 1974 to 60 in 1989. (Later studies have questioned these optimistic Iraqi government figures.)

With the 1991 Gulf War that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the situation changed dramatically. The war damaged hospitals, power generation, and water treatment facilities; foreign nurses left the country; and the health budget was slashed. From US$500 million in 1989, the import budget plummeted to US$50 million in 1991 and then to $22 million in 1995. Spending per capita fell from a minimum of US$86 to US$17 in 1996.

www.alternet.org...

Before Iraq suffered through an embargo and two wars with the United States starting in 1990, its healthcare system was

considered one of the best in the Middle East. Iraq had well-trained physicians and modern facilities. Today, the healthcare

system barely exists at all, with few healthcare workers and hospitals that are battlegrounds.

www.fpif.org...

Before 1990 Iraq, with a GNP per capita of USD 2,800, belonged to the group of middle-income countries. The large

investments in infrastructures and in human resources development carried out during the sixties and seventies had led to the

development of an efficient health system that was considered one of the best in the Middle-East Region.

Malnutrition was virtually not seen, as households had easy and affordable access to a balanced dietary intake. Health care

services were guaranteed by an extensive network of well-equipped, well-suppplied and well-staffed health facilities. The

access of patients to higher levels of care was easy and effortless, supported as it was by a distributed network of secondary

and tertiary hospitals/institutions. Ambulances and emergency services were well developed and benefitted from a properly

maintained network of roads and telecommunications.

Water and sanitation services benefitted from large investments in water and sewage treatment plants during earlier decades,

assuring nearly universal access to abundant safe drinking water and to a relatively clean environment. Electricity had been

made available even to remote villages.

Health conditions were comparable to those of the middle or high-middle income countries.

www.who.int/disasters/repo/6386.doc

Originally posted by jerico65
....quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Yep, the US is pretty freakin' evil, that's for sure.

The US national security state are doing their best to be deserving of the the 'evil' epitaph.

How come you make it sound like everything that's every happened in the world since time began was the fault of the US?

Well he did mention conflicts that all happened in the last 60 odd years so where did you get the impression that he thought the native Americans were trying to take over the world 'since time began'. Do you have some type of secret information that you are not making us aware of?

You do know that in probably all of those cases, the Communist party was involved? Greece, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, you name it.

They were 'involved' in that they were largely blamed for why the US had to stage economic terrorism, old fashion terrorism, installing murderous dictators and staging coups or direct invasions. In the vast majority of cases the best the communist parties ever managed was to serve as scapegoat for regular imperial ambitions and to end up with the support of the people who would rather have voted for someone else if not under attack by western imperialist powers. In Cuba, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam the leaders all attempted to strike 'deals' with the US but since they were interested in independence and setting their own courses in world affairs they never stood a chance and were in great part thus pushed into closer cooperation with the USSR and other more independent powers.

I guess it's OK for them to be involved (meaning Russia and China), but if the US gets involved backing our dog in the fight, it's just wrong.

Well i would rather have no one involved in the affairs of others and if the Russians and Chinese people fare no better in keeping their leaders from visiting violence on the world we will in turn all unite against them when they eventually show themselves to be as aggressive.

Let's look at Cambodia. Pol Pot, year Zero, forced labor camps. They figure he schwacked about 750,000 to 1.7 million of his people.

It wasn't really his people ( they never even voted for him) and 'they' knew his crimes about as well as he knew it and still chose to support him instead of the Vietnamese when they put a end to his reign of destruction.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.thirdworldtraveler.com...
www.media-criticism.com...

If you want to discuss a liberation movement we can much but i wont often involve the US national security state or the American people.

Are you trying to say this is the fault of the US? Oh, I guess if we weren't involved in Southeast Asia it wouldn't have happened?

No, it probably would not have as these types of maniacs largely gain power in the chaos that is war. Without the US bombing and devastation i seriously doubt that Pol would have ever gotten anywhere.

The Communist didn't do any favors for the people of that area, that's for sure.

They did tend to support more prominent leaders and normally also those that had a great deal of public support. That being said the USSR never had to 'instigate' national liberation movements as that's what oppressed people do with or without help.

There was a bloodletting that was out of this world after the US left.

And after the civil strife caused by the bloodletting that was the US national security states war on the people of Vietnam it is hardly surprising that there were scores to settle and collaborators that were discarded by their former imperialist employers. Many people in Vietnam chose to put their own interest first ( hell, it's the natural thing to do) and when that eventually blew up in their faces many of them got exactly what they deserved for their treasonous behaviour. Obviously not everyone deserved the punishment that were meted out but at least there was some measure of judgement unlike the type of 'justice' a 1000 pound bomb does in a civilian area.

Stellar

[edit on 2-9-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jerico65
Really? They did? With what? The US Navy filled the sky with flak, yet I'm to believe that civilians at Pearl shot down aircraft?

I am to believe that the civilians in North Vietnam shot down aircraft? Civilians are only innocent if their American? Right...

Civilians during Pearl Harbor didn't shoot down any aircraft. With freakin' what? Grandpa's shotgun?

Originally posted by StellarX
The Vietcong were those fighting for national unity and liberation from the intervention of foreign powers such as France and the United States.

Did you think that the average South Vietnamese might liked to be aligned under the French or US, or maybe have their own country and rule without the interventions of the Communists?

Originally posted by StellarX
Everyone did not love Ho Chi Minh or hate the United States as they well understood that the people are rarely able to pick the leaders they want. I explain the 'boat' people as those who had the means to flee or guilt enough to know that they might not be welcome in the new system.

"Might not be welcomed into the new system". Nice way of saying that they would have been executed. And ike I said, not every person on the Boat lift were pro-US. Some were anti-Communist and knew what was coming.

Originally posted by StellarX
Would you rather have had them all shot for treason or for collaboration that resulted in the deaths of fellow countrymen? Poor countries have re-education camps/firing squads and rich countries have jails , secondary education or universities; it's just a question of resources and how far along that country has come in the struggle for democracy and civil rights.

So, re-education camps are a GOOD thing? Right...

Originally posted by StellarX
Yes, small role the Soviet Union played. The Russians were SELLING Ak-47's in the same way that American were selling small arms and mines...

Dude, it's a fact that the Soviets were giving away AKs. Maybe not all the time, but they have in the past.

Originally posted by StellarX
They did just stay home; it was the west that invaded half a dozen or more countries directly while sponsoring dozens of oppressive undemocratic rulers all over the world. What the USSR took it took by force from Nazi Germany ( it actually gave alot of to the western allies when it could have held on to it , Berlin comes to mind, ) in the second world war and for the overwhelming part those countries did not have elected leaders when they cooperated with Germany or when they were occupied by Germany towards the end of the war. There are many good books on the topic ( 'KIlling hope' probably being the best amongst them) and i suggest you read them and attempt to discover which nation have in fact been responsible for the most death and destruction around the world.

Stellar

So, the Soviets were just helping out? Right. Once again, you are a no-go at this station. They were "given" the Baltic states by the Nazis. Then the Nazis over ran them, and the Soviets in turn took them back at the end of the war. Since you're having a hard time understanding this, it's like China telling Japan, "Hey, you want Korea; it's yours!" How can you give away another country that's not yours?

And, once the war was over, they established their own Communist puppet government. Poland comes to mind. You do know that there was a rightful Polish Government in England during WW2, but they didn't get a chance once the Russians took over and put their own guys in power.

"Gave back" Berlin? And how do you explain East Berlin? What country that they overran did they give back??

You might want to hit those books again.

Originally posted by StellarX

I guess it's OK for them to be involved (meaning Russia and China), but if the US gets involved backing our dog in the fight, it's just wrong.

Well i would rather have no one involved in the affairs of others and if the Russians and Chinese people fare no better in keeping their leaders from visiting violence on the world we will in turn all unite against them when they eventually show themselves to be as aggressive.

The Communists tend to suppress their revolts sort of strongly. How about the revolt in Czechoslovakia?

Originally posted by StellarXThey did tend to support more prominent leaders and normally also those that had a great deal of public support. That being said the USSR never had to 'instigate' national liberation movements as that's what oppressed people do with or without help.

The "support" them thru the barrel of a gun. Usually an AK-47, one of the worlds most popular assault rifles. Cheap, easy to maintain, easy to use.

Never "instigated? national liberation movements? You mean they never sent anyone to stir up trouble in countries so they can establish a Communist form of government? Get real.

Originally posted by StellarX
And after the civil strife caused by the bloodletting that was the US national security states war on the people of Vietnam it is hardly surprising that there were scores to settle and collaborators that were discarded by their former imperialist employers. Many people in Vietnam chose to put their own interest first ( hell, it's the natural thing to do) and when that eventually blew up in their faces many of them got exactly what they deserved for their treasonous behaviour. Obviously not everyone deserved the punishment that were meted out but at least there was some measure of judgement unlike the type of 'justice' a 1000 pound bomb does in a civilian area.

You seem to think that re-education/forced labor camps, gulags, and mass executions and graves are OK things to do, since you're "settling the score" with the US backed opposition?

Hey, if you want to to think Communism meted out thru the Soviets and Chinese is cool, knock yourself out.

Originally posted by jpm1602
While he needs to go on a diet. I like MM. I especially liked him chasing senators like rabbits regarding if they had any kids in bagafnanisidad. I'll never forget one senator in particular who took flight like the devil was after him.

A bit of selective editing. He asked that one of one senator, and all you see is the Senator saying he had no kids there. MM didn't include his following statement of saying his nephew was there with the Marines.

Originally posted by jpm1602
A sky pilot roaring on his medal for votes...that was my intended intention.

Actually, "sky pilot" is the military slang term for a chaplain.

"roaring on his medal for votes? Like John Kerry?

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jerico65
Let's look at Cambodia. Pol Pot, year Zero, forced labor camps. They figure he schwacked about 750,000 to 1.7 million of his people.

It wasn't really his people ( they never even voted for him) and 'they' knew his crimes about as well as he knew it and still chose to support him instead of the Vietnamese when they put a end to his reign of destruction.

Okay, this one is really off-topic, but it's so dead wrong I have to jump on it.

(off-track: They never even voted for Hun Sen prior to 1993, either.)

A small minority of the Cambodian people, consisting largely of the Khmer Rouge itself and their families chose to continue supporting the Khmer Rouge. Another minority of the Cambodian people chose to support Prince Norodom Sihanouk (Funcinpec) and a third minority chose to support former-Prime Minister Son San (Khmer People's National Liberation Front).

When the UN arrived (UNTAC) to broker a peace agreement (Paris, '92) all parties were included and all parties were included in the election. The KR chose to boycott the election and threatened to disrupt it with violent attacks on election day. As it happened they did no such thing. The Cambodian people voted in the majority for Funcinpec under the leadership of Prince Norodom Ranarridh.

Without the assistance of China, the US and Thailand, the Khmer Rouge would have ceased to exist as anything but a bunch of jungle bandits by 1984.

The US gave them diplomatic support (because they were fighting the Vietnamese), the Chinese gave them guns and money and ammo (because they were fighting the Vietnamese) and the Thais gave them sanctuary and a conduit for those Chinese guns and bullets. The Thais also did business with the "ultra-Maoists", trading in timber and gems.

Take away those three supporters and the Khmer Rouge turn back into what they were in 1963: a few hundred miseducated dogmatics ranting in the jungle with nobody listening.

Cambodia has always been the poorest pawn in the superpowers' games of geo-politics and the Khmers have been the biggest losers.

I was particularly offended when Gorge W Bush tried to use the end of the first Cambodian civil war and the resulting "killing fields" as a justification for not hurriedly leaving Iraq. Without US intervention in Cambodia there would have been no Killing Fields.

But then, when you take advice from Henry Kissinger (look up the "salted peanuts" memo) what can you expect but a clear distortion of history and the truth.

No Kissinger = No Killing Fields.

Henry Kissinger gave the world the Killing Fields through his national security "advice" to Richard Nixon. Henry Kissinger should be in the dock at the ICC.

jerico, I point you to a book called "Sideshow" by William Shawcross and then "When the War Was Over" by Elizabeth Becker.

Once you've read Shawcross, find "The Quality of Mercy" and "Cambodia's New Deal".

Originally posted by jerico65
Civilians during Pearl Harbor didn't shoot down any aircraft. With freakin' what? Grandpa's shotgun?

Yes, the same Vietnamese Granpa's that shot down the American planes are Pearl.

]Did you think that the average South Vietnamese might liked to be aligned under the French or US, or maybe have their own country and rule without the interventions of the Communists?

Well if the US allowed the election to go ahead we might have known a bit more but because it was apparent to most that the South Vietnamese would have in fact voted for Ho Chi Minh the election were not held as specified by the partition agreement.

"Might not be welcomed into the new system". Nice way of saying that they would have been executed. And ike I said, not every person on the Boat lift were pro-US. Some were anti-Communist and knew what was coming.

They might not have been welcomed because they had already collaborated with the occupiers, committed treasonous acts leading to the death of Vietnamese citizens or just generally feared that they might lose some wealth gained fairly or unfairly. A small percentage always have many many reasons to flee from the results of democracy.

So, re-education camps are a GOOD thing? Right...

It beats getting shot, sure, and i am for the most part open to learning new things. That being said i have absolutely not researched what happened in those camps so it may be overly presumptions to think that much 're-education' took place. I will read information about that if you wish to provide me with some.

Dude, it's a fact that the Soviets were giving away AKs. Maybe not all the time, but they have in the past.

Sure and it's a fact that the majority of US 'aid' to other countries consists of giving them weapons/bribes with the US taxpayer picking up the tab. Both regimes have been guilty of stealing from their citizens and my point is mainly that the Ak-47 has liberated more people than the M-16 ever did or were intended to.

So, the Soviets were just helping out? Right. Once again, you are a no-go at this station. They were "given" the Baltic states by the Nazis. Then the Nazis over ran them, and the Soviets in turn took them back at the end of the war.

I never said anything about the Baltics ( referring to eastern Europe mostly) so what's with the bashing of that very big straw man? I am confident the Soviet Union found it in it's interest to 'help out' many nations and my point is that they very frequently supported popular national liberation movements in direct contrast to to how the US were almost always backing small minorities against the wishes of the majority of people.

Since you're having a hard time understanding this, it's like China telling Japan, "Hey, you want Korea; it's yours!" How can you give away another country that's not yours?

Which is obviously wrong and something i would have readily admitted if we were busy discussing that.

And, once the war was over, they established their own Communist puppet government. Poland comes to mind. You do know that there was a rightful Polish Government in England during WW2, but they didn't get a chance once the Russians took over and put their own guys in power.

I am not familiar with exactly how democratic Poland was prior to the second world war so if you wish to show that the government in exile were more legitimate feel free to do so with proper sourcing.

"Gave back" Berlin? And how do you explain East Berlin? What country that they overran did they give back??

You might want to hit those books again.

The USSR conquered all of Berlin with about half being handed back to the western allies after the war. You i am always going back to my books any ways as there is always much more to learn and some information to correct.

The Communists tend to suppress their revolts sort of strongly. How about the revolt in Czechoslovakia?

What's that got to do with anything? Did they make it as much of a secret as the US did their installation of mass murdering puppet leaders in South America?

The "support" them thru the barrel of a gun. Usually an AK-47, one of the worlds most popular assault rifles. Cheap, easy to maintain, easy to use.
Never "instigated? national liberation movements? You mean they never sent anyone to stir up trouble in countries so they can establish a Communist form of government? Get real.

I didn't say never and i said national liberation movements for a reason. They surely had it in mind to at least foster close relationships with any successful liberation movements and my point was that they at least backed popular movements that in fact represented majorities instead of those tiny minorities the US national security state supported and maintained in power.

You seem to think that re-education/forced labor camps, gulags, and mass executions and graves are OK things to do, since you're "settling the score" with the US backed opposition?

I think that re-education camps and mass executions could be avoided if the US national security state did not choose to divide the citizens of countries against each other by supporting minorities with weapons enough to gain control over entire countries. I think that in civil wars horrible things happen and that's why democracy should be allowed to take it course without foreign powers supplying one faction with funds and weapons.

Hey, if you want to to think Communism meted out thru the Soviets and Chinese is cool, knock yourself out.

I don't like anything about communism and my points here were made in the apparently vain belief that i could provide some perspective as to the fact that the USSR were not the only power in the world that committed horrendous crimes against humanity. Your hopelessly uninformed and unjustifiable attempts to reduce the information i provided into 'proof' that i support the USSR or communist China is as laughable/sad as they are wrong. Frankly those regimes and their leaders can join bush/Clinton/Reagan etc in a hell i will believe into existence solely to consign them to.

Stellar