Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 09:56:21

God, Tom pick up a history book or something. The King David bombing was in 1946 by Zionist terrorists led by Menachim Begin, a man who became Prime Minister of Israel. If you want me to reel off a list of modern IDF atrocities I will and as counterbalance I'll give a list of Palestinian ones too.
During the run up to the foundation of the state of Israel Jewish terrorists murdered, kidnapped and tortured hundreds of civilians and unarmed British soldiers. The leaders and many members of these terrorist organisations, Irgun, Lehi and to an extent Haganah became the leaders of the new state of Israel.
I will not condone Palestinian outrages but nor will I listen to your holier than thou bollocks. Fact is fact, the state of Israel was founded on terror by terrorists and your refusal to accept this shows you to be a hypocrite.

And who has killed british citizens lately, not nearly a century ago? What about the London Subway bombings, it wasn't Jews who did that? There were bad Jews in Israel's past, so? There were bad Americans who helped expand America's borders. All I really want is for Palestinians and Arabs to stop murdering innocent Jews now! What you talk about in the King David Hotel is ancient history as far as I'm concerned, what you are talking about is practically the World War II generation. I am not supportive of people who kill Germans or Japanese citizens and then use the excuse that the Germans and Japanese were responsible for attrocities in the past, and I think the Israelis should be given than same benefit. The fact is the Palestinians are murdering innocent people now, and as long as they continue to do that, they should be given nothing. I do note that the Israelis did stop murdering British citizens a long time ago, have the Arabs?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 10:09:14

it wasn't Israelis that voted terrorists into their government, if they did, we'd know about it, believe me!
Just a short list of former Zionist terrorists voted into high office in Israel;
David Ben-Gurion, Haganah but did much to disband Zionist terrorist groups
Yigal Allon, Haganah
Yitzhak Rabin, Palmach
Menachem Begin, Irgun
Yitzhak Shamir, Stern Gang, Lehi (an acknowledged admirer of the IRA)

And out of interest the terrorism did not stop with the founding of Israel. Menachem Begin and Irgun attempted to assasinate Konrad Adenauer, German Chancellor, in 1952 to scupper reparation talks between Israel and Germany.

You can continue to cherry pick Jewish badguys to make your case, Begin is not Prime Minster of Israel now, and neigther is Adolf Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. You have to blow off the dust and the cobwebs off those old Israeli terrorist cases, and I just have to read today's newspapers to fing the Palestinian ones. Palestinian terrorism is an ongoing phenominon, while Jewish terrorists are a footnote in history. The Palestinians have concentrated on killing as many Jews as they could, now think of what the Israelis might do with their capabilities if they had similar goals with regard to the Palestinians? Hamas launches rockets full of pellets into Israeli town hoping to kill as many innocent people as possible, attempting to assasinate Konrad Adenauer is targeting of a specific person, it wasn't as the Palestinians are attempting, to kill as many of a certain category of people as possible. Palestinians weren't trying to kill anyone specific in launching their rockets, their target was Jews in general, not some general or some prime minister, that is my definition of terrorism, totally divorced from military goals and only seeking to kill innocent people. Killing a head of state is an act of War. If Israel wanted to wage war on Germany, then killing its political leader is a perfectly legitimate target, but killing civilians unnecessarily is not. I don't know what political leader or military target Hamas was aiming for when it attacked those Israeli villages with missiles loaded with buckshot, seems their only goal was to kill Jews, and that meets my definition of terrorism.

By the way, what are you trying to do? Drive all the Jews out of the Mars Society? So much Jew Bashing going on here. I'm sure their are also plenty of Jews interested in Traveling to Mars, it would be nice if you could be more open-minded.

epocalypse · 2006-12-09 10:14:44

No Tom it was Britons that did it, British born Muslims. And before that it was British born Irish Catholics that were doing it (with American financing and still being protected by the US government from facing their crimes).

So it is ancient history to you but to those living in the middle east it is what thay are fighting for, the return of their land and property stolen from them by terrorists.

Incidentally the IDF killed James Miller (cameraman single shot to neck at 200m caught on camera), Tom Hurndall (photographer, single shot by IDF marksman whilst escorting children to safety), Britons both, in the last 3 years.

But we digress, you have not answered my original post.

I'm not prepared to accept terrorism as part of the legitimate struggle and strategy of modern warfare, therefore I can't see any side which employs terrorism as right or as deserving of victory.

Now I have presented evidence that Israel was founded on Terror, ruled by Terrorists and celebrates terrorism. Why do you see them as deserving of victory?

epocalypse · 2006-12-09 10:20:14

I am a British jew of Polish stock. I am not a zionist.

I think you should try getting facts straight before launching into racist tirades.

But since we will have plenty of Jews going to Mars are there any creeds, colours or viewpoints you will prevent going to Mars. I think we already know your opinion on the Chinese.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 15:04:42

I am a British jew of Polish stock. I am not a zionist.
I think you should try getting facts straight before launching into racist tirades.
But since we will have plenty of Jews going to Mars are there any creeds, colours or viewpoints you will prevent going to Mars. I think we already know your opinion on the Chinese.

Do you know what happened to most Polish Jews? There used to be a Jewish Community in Poland, the Jews thought of themselves as Poles, and then the Germans came, and murdered most of them, men women and children, and on those sites where many of the Jews lived, they turned into Ghettos or Death Camps, and then they shipped over Jews who thought they were German and exterminated them, they shipped over Jews who thought they were French and Exterminated them, and Jews from Russia they exterminated, even Jews from Italy went up in smoke, that was when alot of Jews figured that being a religious minority in someone else's country was not a good idea and it was the impetus for establishing Israel. You are only lucky that the Germans didn't succeed in conquering Great Britian, then British Jews would have joined the French, German, Russian, Italian and Polish Jews in the gas chambers. Maybe you feel safe in Great Britian, but you must know that the political winds can run foul for Jews their too, and their is an influx of Muslim migrant workers, and they have more children than native Brits, they may turn against you in their Israel bashing, no doubt about that. Palestinians kill jews, just like the Germans did. The Jews that end up dead as a result of Palestinian suicide terrorist attacks are just as dead as the ones that died in the gas chambers during World War II. I remind you that it might not be a good idea to join in a political movement which may turn against Jews, just as National Socialism did. I've already seen how the Democratic Party abandoned Senator Joe Liberman because he was a Jew.

All this anti-Israel bashing is a wedge issue, it serves to make antisemitism more acceptable in mainstream society. If people see others burning Israeli flags and saying, "Death to the Zionist Imperialists." Someone else may start flying swastikas and start saying, "Death to the Jews!" and once they start saying that and that sort of politics becomes more acceptable, then things will start happening to the Jews like the did in the 1930s in Germany and later in the rest of Europe. The Germans are the father of Israel more than anyone, it was they who demostrated the necessity of Israel's existance, and unless you can erase World War II and the Holocaust from History, Israel should remain.

RobertDyck · 2006-12-09 21:47:41

According to Statistics Canada, 2001 Census:

Religions
Catholic: 43.6%
Protestant: 29.2%
Christian Orthodox: 1.6%
Christian not included elsewhere: 2.6%
Muslim: 2%
Jewish: 1.1%
Buddhist: 1.0%
Hindu: 1.0%
Sikh: 0.9%
Eastern religions: 0.1%
Other religions: 0.2%
No religious affiliation: 16.5%

Ethnic background
"Canadian": 39.4%
English: 20.1%
French: 15.75%
Scottish: 14.0%
Irish: 12.9%
German: 9.25%
Italian: 4.3%
Chinese: 3.7%
Ukrainian: 3.6%
North American Indian: 3.377%
Dutch (Netherlands): 3.1%
Polish: 2.757%
East Indian: 2.4%
Norwegian: 1.2%
Portuguese: 1.2%
Welsh: 1.2%
Jewish: 1.2%
Russian: 1.14%
Filipino: 1.1%
Métis: 1.0%
Swedish: 0.954%
Hungarian (Magyar): 0.9%
American (USA): 0.8%
Greek: 0.7%
Spanish: 0.7%
Jamaican: 0.7%
Danish: 0.576%
Vietnamese: 0.5%

Conclusion: we're a country of minorities.

being a religious minority in someone else's country was not a good idea

Who do you think Canadians are?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-10 09:07:08

Do you really expect a Jewish person who had most of his family decimated in the Holocaust to go on living in Poland, Germany, or France as if nothing has happened? Wouldn't you expect his faith in his ability to exist in someone else's country as a minority to be a little shaken? That's why they need an Israel. Most of those other minorities in Canada didn't have extermination programs against them, and on top of that there are people who question whether Israel has the right to exist, and are rooting for the Palestinians, and Jewish people whose families came out of the holocaust are supposed to trust them? Of all the minorities there, the Jews have a demosratable need to have a country of their own, because the rest of the world just won't stop killing them or calling for their deaths. You expect them all to just shrug off the holocaust as if it was nothing special or no big deal?

I also note that Muslims outnumber Jews almost 2:1 in your country by your statistics. Canada has really rolled out the welcome mat for Muslims it seems, and you know how most muslims feel about Jews. I think some of the more recent Jews arriving in Israel may come from Canada.

RobertDyck · 2006-12-10 14:28:31

Tom, you keep holding onto the belief that "might makes right". You think that winning is everything. That's the primitive, animal belief. The ability to build things and the ability to work together as a team is what separates humans from animals. The attitude of destroying everything and constantly fighting with a winner and a looser is the attitude of a predator. If you are so obsessed with winning, then you're not human, you're just an animal and deserve to be treated as an animal. Have I gotten sufficiently insulting? Are you going to listen now? You didn't listen when I tried to explain things calmly.

If you are so committed to the delusion that one side is "good" and the other side is "evil", and you aren't going to listen to the facts, then again you are just an animal. Throwing out an accusation that Canada supports terrorism because we won't persecute Muslims, simply demonstrates the depth of your ignorance. I got the figures from Census Canada's website; they're published in numbers of individuals, I calculated percentage by dividing by the total number of individuals in Canada from the same table. The number of people of the Jewish faith as opposed to Muslim has nothing to do with any bias; it's merely the number of individuals in the world who belong to those religions. Canada welcomes everyone, but does insist that everyone assimilate the Canadian values of tolerance, acceptance, religious freedom, and non-violence.

And don't even try to throw out the old accusation that terrorists come from Canada. Some congressmen attempted to blame Canada for 9/11. I already pointed out that there was only 1 terrorist cell arrested in Canada, and that cell was founded and led by an American. And that American was determined to be loudmouthed by harmless by the FBI. He moved to Canada after the FBI detained him. The group was arrested with ammonium nitrate fertilizer, but the RCMP had to help them get even that. None of them had the agricultural certification necessary to purchase that fertilizer, only the RCMP infiltrator had it.

But you raised Poland and France. These countries were conquered, subjugated, and occupied by the Nazis. There were many Polish nationals exterminated in the camps as well, and France fought against Nazis until they were free. I don't think the Jews have anything against them. In fact, many Germans disagreed with the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews, but were afraid to act for fear they would be exterminated as well. The Nazis exterminated Serbs, homosexuals, as well as Polish and Soviet prisoners of war. 80% of those killed in the extermination camps were Jews, but don't think Poles hated Jews after so many Poles were exterminated too.

Nazi prisoner badges (Wikipedia)

The most common forms of the badge were:
Black inverted triangle
• The Mentally retarded
• Alcoholics
• Vagrants, the Habitually "Work-Shy".
• Roma and Sinti (later forced to wear the Brown Triangle).
• A woman jailed for "anti-social behavior", i.e., a lesbian, a prostitute or woman who used birth control.
Green inverted triangle — criminals.
Pink inverted triangle — a homosexual or bisexual man.
Purple inverted triangle — Jehovah's Witnesses
Red inverted triangle — a political prisoner. Social Democrats, Freemasons, anarchists (some anarchists were also given the black triangle), and other "enemies of the state". The color red was probably chosen because it represented the communists, the political enemies that the Nazis hated most (and the first to be officially outlawed).
Double triangles:
Two superimposed yellow triangles forming the Star of David — a Jew, including Jews by practice or descent.
Pink inverted triangle superimposed upon a yellow one, making the Star of David — a homosexual Jew.
Yellow triangle superimposed over a black inverted triangle, or "voided" black inverted triangle superimposed over a yellow triangle — an Aryan convicted of miscegenation and labeled as a "race defiler."

Miscegenation means interracial marriage. Don't think the Jews were the only ones badly treated. Even many Germans today are ashamed of what the Nazis did.

And none of this excuses what the Israelis did once there were in Israel. Two wrongs do not make a right. Notice I use the national term, not the religious one. There is a difference.

epocalypse please give post that list of modern IDF atrocities; Tom needs to see it.

Grypd · 2006-12-10 17:51:22

Completely on another thought you do know there is almost as many people in Canada calling themselves Scots as there actually reside in Scotland.

Very happy I am now

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-11 09:52:11

Tom, you keep holding onto the belief that "might makes right". You think that winning is everything. That's the primitive, animal belief. The ability to build things and the ability to work together as a team is what separates humans from animals. The attitude of destroying everything and constantly fighting with a winner and a looser is the attitude of a predator. If you are so obsessed with winning, then you're not human, you're just an animal and deserve to be treated as an animal. Have I gotten sufficiently insulting? Are you going to listen now? You didn't listen when I tried to explain things calmly.

Who is to be the arbitrator of "Goodness"? Certainly not the side supporting the terrorists, the one sending out suicide bombers into crowds to go blow themselves up. Israel does not send Suicide bombers and never has, by that measure it values human life more and is thus the default "good" side. Is it your intention to dwell on the Good versus evil debate in order to parayze people from defending themselves from terrorists? Do you want them sitting around thinking, "Do we deserve to survive? Perhaps we don't? Maybe we should just let them kill us?" Maybe you have doubts about whether the Israeli Jews should survive or their children, or whether the Israelis shoulc defend their children from Palestinians suicide attacks, or missile attacks across the border, but they don't. Franky your argument about whether the Israelis should allow the Palestinian terrorists to kill their children and not take all measures to protect them is not very persuasive. Are you trying to convince the Israelis to allow their children to be murdered because of some past history, and that maybe the Palestinians have a "right" to kill them because they were unlawfully deprived of their land.

My feeling is that so long as Palestinians continue to kill Jews, the Israelis have no obligation or reason to listen to them, let them stop first, and then lets discuss what's right for the Palestinians and arrive a some sort of compromise. clearly the Jews need the land more than the Palestinians, as the Palestinians can live alot more places than the Israelis can. If the Palestinians start killing again then the talks cease. Seems perfectly reasonable not to talk to someone who's trying to kill you.

If you are so committed to the delusion that one side is "good" and the other side is "evil", and you aren't going to listen to the facts, then again you are just an animal. Throwing out an accusation that Canada supports terrorism because we won't persecute Muslims, simply demonstrates the depth of your ignorance. I got the figures from Census Canada's website; they're published in numbers of individuals, I calculated percentage by dividing by the total number of individuals in Canada from the same table. The number of people of the Jewish faith as opposed to Muslim has nothing to do with any bias; it's merely the number of individuals in the world who belong to those religions. Canada welcomes everyone, but does insist that everyone assimilate the Canadian values of tolerance, acceptance, religious freedom, and non-violence.

The percentages of minorities influences foreign policy in a democracy, so instead of having Judeo-Christian values, Canada has Islamo-Christian values. Islamic values on the whole are illiberal and intollerant, and if Canada is not careful it may go from a liberal democracy to an iliberal intollerant one by tollerating intollerance. Canada has a small population, and if equal numbers rather than percentages go to both the USA and Canada, guess what's going to happen.

I think Canada is often the place for Muslims pursuing the "American Dream" but hate America so much that they are looking for an alternative. Canada for them is almost the USA, but without those "annoying" Stars and Stripes, and without the Superpower status, and nice humble "little USA" is what they want for pursuing their "American Dream", and if the want to kill some USA Americans for the "latest outrage" in foreign policy, they can just skip over the border.

And don't even try to throw out the old accusation that terrorists come from Canada. Some congressmen attempted to blame Canada for 9/11. I already pointed out that there was only 1 terrorist cell arrested in Canada, and that cell was founded and led by an American. And that American was determined to be loudmouthed by harmless by the FBI. He moved to Canada after the FBI detained him. The group was arrested with ammonium nitrate fertilizer, but the RCMP had to help them get even that. None of them had the agricultural certification necessary to purchase that fertilizer, only the RCMP infiltrator had it.
But you raised Poland and France. These countries were conquered, subjugated, and occupied by the Nazis. There were many Polish nationals exterminated in the camps as well, and France fought against Nazis until they were free. I don't think the Jews have anything against them. In fact, many Germans disagreed with the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews, but were afraid to act for fear they would be exterminated as well. The Nazis exterminated Serbs, homosexuals, as well as Polish and Soviet prisoners of war. 80% of those killed in the extermination camps were Jews, but don't think Poles hated Jews after so many Poles were exterminated too.

There is some overlap between Poles and Jews, since most of the Death Camps were built in Poland. Many Jewish Poles died in those camps. Whether its the Poles fault is irrelevant, the Jews didn't feel safe their and the Communist Authorities encouraged them to leave afterwards, alot of them moved to Israel. The problem with Jewish minorities in other countries is that they aren't allowed to form their own armies in their own self-defense, and as an independent Nation, they can. The Non Jewish French did not fight the Germans all that hard, since they knew only the Jews had the most to lose. I'm sure that of France was 100% Jewish, the Germans would have had a much tougher time conquering the place, as they would have had to exterminate every Jew in every population center and since no mercy would be given to any Jew that surrendered all would fight to the death. Most non-Jewish French soldiers surrendered, because they figured the Germans would let them live, and by their surrender they exposed the Jewish minority to the danger of extermination. The Jews thereby realized that they couldn't depend on their non-Jewish fellow citizens to defend themselves against a foreign enemy that wants to exterminate them, that is how I figure Jews would be safer in Israel where you have Jews defending Jews and they are all in the same "boat".

Nazi prisoner badges (Wikipedia)
The most common forms of the badge were:
Black inverted triangle
• The Mentally retarded
• Alcoholics
• Vagrants, the Habitually "Work-Shy".
• Roma and Sinti (later forced to wear the Brown Triangle).
• A woman jailed for "anti-social behavior", i.e., a lesbian, a prostitute or woman who used birth control.
Green inverted triangle — criminals.
Pink inverted triangle — a homosexual or bisexual man.
Purple inverted triangle — Jehovah's Witnesses
Red inverted triangle — a political prisoner. Social Democrats, Freemasons, anarchists (some anarchists were also given the black triangle), and other "enemies of the state". The color red was probably chosen because it represented the communists, the political enemies that the Nazis hated most (and the first to be officially outlawed).
Double triangles:
Two superimposed yellow triangles forming the Star of David — a Jew, including Jews by practice or descent.
Pink inverted triangle superimposed upon a yellow one, making the Star of David — a homosexual Jew.
Yellow triangle superimposed over a black inverted triangle, or "voided" black inverted triangle superimposed over a yellow triangle — an Aryan convicted of miscegenation and labeled as a "race defiler."
Miscegenation means interracial marriage. Don't think the Jews were the only ones badly treated. Even many Germans today are ashamed of what the Nazis did.
And none of this excuses what the Israelis did once there were in Israel. Two wrongs do not make a right. Notice I use the national term, not the religious one. There is a difference.

In other words you are asking Israelis to give up their citizenship and immigrate to other people's countries, where they are more vulnerable to extermination and their fellow non-jewish citizens may be less interested in defending them. You see in order for the French to fight to protect the Jews the way other Jews in Israel would, they must all be willing to fight to the death, the French weren't willing to be exterminated along with their Jewish minority, so they surrendered, thus exposing the Jews to more danger by reducing the Germans workload in conquering France. There is no guarantee that further pogroms won't occur if Jews migrate to other countries where they will be minorities. Being a minority means that you are outnumbered by everyone else, and that you are discouraged from forming your own seperate Jewish army to protect yourself with, and history has shown that Jews need that protection, because of all the special efforts that were mounted at various times to kill them and to make them the scapegoat. I think the Jews have had enough after 2000 years of this, and it is about time they have their own country, the rest of the world really gave them no choice.

epocalypse please give post that list of modern IDF atrocities; Tom needs to see it.

There are American and Canadian Attrocities as well, does that mean that neither country has a right to defend itself. No country is perfect, and having higher standards that you expect the Israelis to live up to that you expect the Palestinians or yourselves is not fair, and it is a form of bias against Jews. I think the way the Israelis are behaving as a whole is a darn site bettet than the Suicide bomber Palestinians. Israel is giveing up land to them, the Palestinians aren't, they keep what they have and they get more and yet continue to kill Jews.

RobertDyck · 2006-12-12 00:00:42

My feeling is that so long as Palestinians continue to kill Jews, the Israelis have no obligation or reason to listen to them, let them stop first... Seems perfectly reasonable not to talk to someone who's trying to kill you.

Palestinians say the same thing. Failure to listen is why they've been fighting over the same piece of land for thousands of years. They left Israel for the Nile delta, came back (the Exodus), the northern kingdom called Israel was conquered by Assyrians, the southern kingdom called Judah (hence the name Jew) was conquered by Romans, and all the rest. Through it all Hebrew and Arab have been fighting since Joseph and Ishmael. The fight was old when a teacher named Jesus of Nazareth was born. He taught tolerance and non-violence. Sound familiar?

Your accusation that Canada is dominated by Muslims is tiresome. If you were to draw a conclusion from those statistics, you would claim Canada is a purely Christian country, neither Judeo- nor Islamo- anything. Truth is Canada today has many religions.

If you really want to know, Canada learned the need for religious tolerance the hard way. It wasn't always this peaceful. From the Canadian Encyclopedia:

On 6 June 1853, Alessandro Gavazzi, a recently arrived Italian patriot, gave a speech in Québec City at the Free Presbyterian Church. A riot resulted, the principal participants being Irish Catholics who reacted violently to Gavazzi's anti-Catholic sentiments. Gavazzi attributed the failure of the Italian national movement of 1848-49 to the defection of Pope Pius IX from the cause, and therefore rejected Catholicism. On June 9 he repeated his diatribe at Montréal's Zion Church. In the following riot, the police lost control and Mayor Charles Wilson apparently called out a detachment from the local garrison. The soldiers opened fire, killing 10 and wounding 50. The riots caused by Gavazzi's incendiary preaching in Québec and Montréal illustrate the instances of religious fanaticism that occurred frequently throughout the 19th century.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-12 02:16:23

My feeling is that so long as Palestinians continue to kill Jews, the Israelis have no obligation or reason to listen to them, let them stop first... Seems perfectly reasonable not to talk to someone who's trying to kill you.
Palestinians say the same thing. Failure to listen is why they've been fighting over the same piece of land for thousands of years. They left Israel for the Nile delta, came back (the Exodus), the northern kingdom called Israel was conquered by Assyrians, the southern kingdom called Judah (hence the name Jew) was conquered by Romans, and all the rest. Through it all Hebrew and Arab have been fighting since Joseph and Ishmael. The fight was old when a teacher named Jesus of Nazareth was born. He taught tolerance and non-violence. Sound familiar?
Your accusation that Canada is dominated by Muslims is tiresome. If you were to draw a conclusion from those statistics, you would claim Canada is a purely Christian country, neither Judeo- nor Islamo- anything. Truth is Canada today has many religions.
If you really want to know, Canada learned the need for religious tolerance the hard way. It wasn't always this peaceful. From the Canadian Encyclopedia:
On 6 June 1853, Alessandro Gavazzi, a recently arrived Italian patriot, gave a speech in Québec City at the Free Presbyterian Church. A riot resulted, the principal participants being Irish Catholics who reacted violently to Gavazzi's anti-Catholic sentiments. Gavazzi attributed the failure of the Italian national movement of 1848-49 to the defection of Pope Pius IX from the cause, and therefore rejected Catholicism. On June 9 he repeated his diatribe at Montréal's Zion Church. In the following riot, the police lost control and Mayor Charles Wilson apparently called out a detachment from the local garrison. The soldiers opened fire, killing 10 and wounding 50. The riots caused by Gavazzi's incendiary preaching in Québec and Montréal illustrate the instances of religious fanaticism that occurred frequently throughout the 19th century.

Our tolerance for fanatics blowing themselves up, or crashing airplanes into our buildings while they practise their religion is rather low. It would be one thing if Islamic terrorism was a fluke, but just tune in for the latest suicide bomb attack in Iraq and you realize that its not. If it was a fluke it would not be so common, but since thousands of US soldiers have died from religious Islamic fanatics blowing themselves up, there is something wrong with that religion for them to allow such a thing, and I certainly don't want to roll out the red carpet for them so that there will be more of them to blow themselves up and kill more Americans.

Also if Iraqis can't tamp down their violence in Iraq, and are unready for democracy, then I don't want them in my country ruining what we have here. I prefer Islamic terrorism to be an Islamic problem, I don't want to make their problems my problems. Its too bad mainstream Muslims have allowed their religion to gain a reputation for suicide fanatacism, they have failed to condemn it in sufficient numbers and they complain too much when we fight Islamic terrorism.

RobertDyck · 2006-12-12 17:29:59

Terrorism is a military tactic, not an opponent. It has been used by every military force in history, including the American military during the War of Independence. It's used by a weak small force to combat a large strong one. Stopping use of a military tactic requires conventions and police action, not military combat. The "war on terrorism" can't ever be won. The sort of thing involved with the land mine ban is the only thing that can work.

As for Israel/Palestine, the point we've been trying to get through to you is Israel has used terrorism just as much as Palestine. If you want to rant on someone using terrorism, you have to include Israel. I know it isn't politically correct for someone in New York to criticize Jews, but reality is they aren't in better moral position than Palestine. I'm not justifying Palestinian use of terrorism, rather I'm criticizing Israeli use of it. Resolving that conflict can only occur when you start by treating both sides as equal; and they are equal. I saw a TV interview with Jimmy Carter and one pundit pointed out the Carter institute made a policy of starting negotiations without name calling. That means you can't call Palestinians terrorists, and you can't call Israel a terrorist state. Hard to do when reality is they are both guilty. Well, at least I treat them as equal; one prerequisite to starting peace negotiations.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-13 01:57:15

Terrorism is a military tactic, not an opponent.

Terrorism is pure murder and nothing else, it is not justified by any military goal, it purpose is entirely to kill civilians and no one else. When you bomb a military target and kill civilians in the process, that is not terrorism, that is collateral damage, but if you target the civilians themselves with no other purpose but to murder them, that is terrorism. I keep telling you this over and over, but you insist on using your own definition of terrorism. The Holocaust was terrorism, its entire purpose was to kill civilians that were not involved in the conflict Germany was fighting, the Holocaust had no military justification, and it was an act of terrorism on a grand scale.

It has been used by every military force in history, including the American military during the War of Independence.

You are talking about individual soldiers commiting murder because they are mad at the enemy that is shooting at them, in all such cases, these murders served no military purpose other than to satisfy the individual soldiers thist for revenge. Alot of soldiers also raped, looted and plundered, these activities served no military purpose, killing individual civilians does not defeat the enemy, and is therefore not justified as a military action, it is only murder. The military authorities did not order these actions in the case of America, they were all based on individual actions of individual soldiers a case of poor disappline and insubordination in other words, not an organized activity such as was the case of the Holocaust.

It's used by a weak small force to combat a large strong one.

It is also used by a strong military force to exterminate a weak opponent, as the Germans thus exterminated the Jews.

Stopping use of a military tactic requires conventions and police action, not military combat.

You can turn an asymmetric combat situation into a symmetric one, in which case the greater force wins. The enemy can be deterred from using terrorism as a tactic if it understands that terrorism can also be used against his people, if his asymmetric combat is made symmetric then he loses, that is how the North beat the South in the Civil War. The North had the preponderance of forces, superior numbers of troops and equipment, and towards the end of the Civil War when the Confederates were getting desperate, they started using Asymmetric combat techniques. William T. Sherman simply made it clear to them through his actions, that the South's Asymmetric strategy would be made symmetric and the South would be made to suffer all the greater, and that pursuaded the South to end the War rather than face devastation by a vengeful Northern Army. Israel does not exactly symmetrise the War, but pursuing the terrorists does have consequences for the civilians living around those terrorists. If the Palestinians don't want to live in a battlefield, then they should stop harboring terrorists in their community and then the Israeli gunships will have no reason to visit them, seems logical enough to me.

The "war on terrorism" can't ever be won. The sort of thing involved with the land mine ban is the only thing that can work.

If both sides are suffering from this tactic, then both sides have reason not to use it, especially the side with the weaker forces.

As for Israel/Palestine, the point we've been trying to get through to you is Israel has used terrorism just as much as Palestine. If you want to rant on someone using terrorism, you have to include Israel. I know it isn't politically correct for someone in New York to criticize Jews, but reality is they aren't in better moral position than Palestine. I'm not justifying Palestinian use of terrorism, rather I'm criticizing Israeli use of it. Resolving that conflict can only occur when you start by treating both sides as equal; and they are equal. I saw a TV interview with Jimmy Carter and one pundit pointed out the Carter institute made a policy of starting negotiations without name calling. That means you can't call Palestinians terrorists, and you can't call Israel a terrorist state. Hard to do when reality is they are both guilty. Well, at least I treat them as equal; one prerequisite to starting peace negotiations.

So you think Timothy McVeigh should have been treated as the equal of the United States Government because he used terrorism and as you say the United States used terrorism against say the Indians for example? So instead of arresting Timothy McVeigh the US Government should have sent a representative to negotiate with him and to sign a peace treaty?

I say Timothy McVeigh was wrong and the US government was right to arrest and execute him, just because there are two sides does in no way mean that both sides are morally equal. Just as I use my independent judgement to decide that Timothy McVeigh was wrong to blow up that building with children in it, I also use my independent judgement to determine that the Palestinians are also more wrong for murdering innocent civilians without justification than the Israelis.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-12-13 10:40:55

Yeah Tom

A Palestine hospital attacked byhelicopters from Israel, villages scorched in Vietnam, the homes and airports in Lebanon, Palestinian childrens school by bombed Israeli jets, the young women and old men of Hiroshima, Abu Ghraib torture, the deaths of Native Americans.

All LEGITIMATE TARGETS according to the Tom Kalbfus propaganda news network

He's almost as hypocritical as those damn terrorists

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-13 12:24:20

Yeah Tom

A Palestine hospital attacked by helicopters from Israel,

Were their terrorists hiding in that hospital? I don't see any reason why terrorists would not hide in a hospital or stock pile their weapons there, or plan their operations their, just like they hid in the Churh of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Terrorists will bring their war any place they think they can hide from the Israelis. The question is why do the Palestinians allow the terrorists to hide amonst them, why don't they turn them over to the Israelis. I'm sure if General William T. Sherman were running the Israeli side of thie operation, he'd be asking these questions. General Sherman burnt farm houses, destroyed crops and tore up rail roads all to destroy the Confederacy's ability to fight, and that's how we won our Civil War. When the Enemy fights ugly, then sometimes you have no choice but to include some ugliness in your battles with them if you want to win. If the enemy is hiding in hospitals and using them to kill your soldiers, then you have no choice but to attack those hospitals if you want to win. The terrorist enemy has no morals and no scruples about where he will hide and with whom. If the Palestinians would help the Israelis to root out the terrorists, then maybe it wouldn't be necessary for the Israelis to attack the hospitals, but unfortunately the Palestinians saw fit to support them and it has come to this.

villages scorched in Vietnam,

I'm sorry, the Israelis scorched no villages in Vietnam. Vietnam isn't supporting any terrorist attacks against Israelis, so the Israelis have no reason to go there. I don't know where you get this information from.

the homes and airports in Lebanon,

In modern war people's homes and airports will be destroyed. I don't know how you can fight a modern war in cities without that happening. However if the Hezbollah enemy would agree to meet the Israelis in a battlefield away from civilians, then I'm sure the Israelis would be happy to destroy them in detail without harming any Lebanese civilians, but so far they have not aggreed to do that. Feeling sorry for the attackers aren't you? Do you feel they have a right to attack Israel with no danger of relatiation from them? Are Israeli civilians supposed to willingly put their heads on the chopping block so that the terrorists can chop their heads off? If those are your expectations, then I feel they are kind of high. The Israelis will defend themselves even if that means harming their neighbors. Too bad for their neighbors really, but they should never have let the Hezbollah terrorists live amonst them and conduct their attacks on Israel from their neighborhoods. Do they expect the Israelis to come up with some miraculous way of killing the terrorists without harming any civilians? Do you? How can you expect something of the Israelis that you cannot do yourself. If you can make the terrorists simply drop dead where they stand without harming any of the surrounding areas, then why don't you?

Palestinian childrens school by bombed Israeli jets, the young women and old men of Hiroshima, Abu Ghraib torture, the deaths of Native Americans.

All LEGITIMATE TARGETS according to the Tom Kalbfus propaganda news network

He's almost as hypocritical as those damn terrorists

Trying to pull some emotional cords aren't you? Well the realities of modern war are such that if you intend to win, some civilian casualities are unavoidable. if you know some miraculous way to kill the enemy while they hide amonst the civilian population without harming any innocents, lets hear it. Come on if you got some ideas, then why don't you put them forward. The only ideas I've heard from folks like you lately has been how to surrender or give up to the terrorist enemy. I feel that letting the terrorists win is the greater of two evils and killing some civilians unavoidable while fighting them is the lesser of the two evils. Apparently you disagree and feel that we should let the terrorists win and rule the World, well that is your perogative, but remember we face the same choice when we fought the Germans during World war II.

As for hypocracy, modern warfare does not always allow for morally consistant positions. If its the "white knights" versus the Barbarians, the Barbarians will always win. I feel that it is more important for us to stop the Barbarians than it is for us to act as "white knights."

DonPanic · 2006-12-24 08:15:31

As for hypocracy, modern warfare does not always allow for morally consistant positions. If its the "white knights" versus the Barbarians, the Barbarians will always win. I feel that it is more important for us to stop the Barbarians than it is for us to act as "white knights."

So, you allow yourself an unconsistant moral position.
You do pretend that fighting with higher moral position is a looser position, I do claim that fighting with higher moral position is a winner position, allowing to get public opinion support, to get more easy capitulations in ennemies ranks if they know that if they surrender, they will be well treated. If not, they will tend to fight to death.

So I think that not only you are a poor strategist as well as a poor psycologist, but worse a poor morality human being.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-24 15:44:26

As for hypocracy, modern warfare does not always allow for morally consistant positions. If its the "white knights" versus the Barbarians, the Barbarians will always win. I feel that it is more important for us to stop the Barbarians than it is for us to act as "white knights."
So, you allow yourself an unconsistant moral position.
You do pretend that fighting with higher moral position is a looser position, I do claim that fighting with higher moral position is a winner position, allowing to get public opinion support, to get more easy capitulations in ennemies ranks if they know that if they surrender, they will be well treated. If not, they will tend to fight to death.
So I think that not only you are a poor strategist as well as a poor psycologist, but worse a poor morality human being.

Do you think you live in a storybook world, where there is always a moral at the end of each story?

Sometime the question is simply that of survival.

If the good guys don't win, then Evil wins.

If you let the evil side win then evil triumphs.

But sometimes the only strategy for defeating the forces of evil is slightly evil itself.

The dilemma is this, in order to survive the evil you are facing, you must do something that is somewhat evil yourself, and if you refuse to do that, the evil truimphs totally and the result is much worse.

Do you pretend that situations like that don't occur in the real world?

Terrorism often requires that you risk harming innocents in order to fight it. There is often no perfect strategy that you can follow where you can harm only the guilty and none of the innocent. If the good side adheres to a rigid moral conduct where it always gives the potentially guilty the benefit of the doubt in order to spare the innocent, then evil wins and none of the inncent is spared in their victory.

If you would rather the United States lose than do something wrong in order to win, then the terrorists win, the United States falls, and you don't get another chance to fight them, but in your perfect world, I suppose that never happens, for God is watching over you, and He makes sure that situations like that never occur, is that what you believe?

I think the United States represents the better of the two civilizations when held against that of the Islamic terrorists, and I think it should win and survive even if it has to do something evil in order to achieve victory. Because if the terrorists win, there will be no mercy for any of us, and no freedom either, no freedom of thought, no freedom of religion. Now if you want the US military to act as perfect knights in fighting these hordes, then they will fall, and fail to protect the civilization they claim to represent, is that what you want?

Most liberals avoid moral dillemmas whenever they occur, they shrink from them and hide in their shells shirking responsibility for the outcome.

Here is a simple question: If terrorists are shooting at you from a crowd that contains innocents, do you fire back?

Most liberals would say you don't fire back and let them slaughter you. If you follow their advice then the terrorists win and they can slaughter the innocents in the crowd at their leisure after they have gotten you out of the way.

So do you fire back into the crowd and almost certainly kill some innocents while shooting atthe badguys?

Most liberals are "Now People", they only care if you fight well and honorably, not if you win. Liberals don't care about the ultimate ourcome of the conflict only that you fight as righteous soldiers and never harm a hair on a innocent's head, even if that means you lose. Liberals can't see the big picture however, they want us sending our soldiers into the slaughterhouse have the enemy grind them up and giving them rules of conduct designed to protect the innocent and which also guarantee that they can't win, and after a while after we've slaughtered enough of our soldiers by their rules of engagement, they declare the war to be unwinable and say we should concede and retreat. The ultimate outcome for a policy of retreat will be our final demise and the distruction of the civilization, and the liberals within, that put these extreme demands on our soldiers to do no evil no matter what.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-24 15:52:24

...You do pretend that fighting with higher moral position is a looser position, I do claim that fighting with higher moral position is a winner position, ...

Not always.

The Civil War was won by burning people's homes and farms to deprive the Confederate Army of their support. The Confederate Army was literally starved into submission, and that was how we freed the slaves and ended this War.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-26 10:14:04

...You do pretend that fighting with higher moral position is a looser position, I do claim that fighting with higher moral position is a winner position, ...
Not always.
The Civil War was won by burning people's homes and farms to deprive the Confederate Army of their support. The Confederate Army was literally starved into submission, and that was how we freed the slaves and ended this War.

I'm not advocating burning down people's homes by the way, it is just that sometimes this world provides us with some unsavory choices. General Sherman had to make one of those, he didn't enjoy burning down those homes, he wanted to end southern resistance once and for all and end the War, that was the greater good he sought, and he was a big advocate for reapproachment after the South surrendered, he was not an evil man, he just though ending the War with victory was more important than preserving people's private property.

Gennaro · 2006-12-28 08:54:14

The United States wasn't trying to return Vietnam to French colonial rule it was only trying to safeguard South Vietnamese freedoms against the North's aggression.

This is a flawed and very lopsided interpretation. The United States supported the French comeback to Indochina after WWII, with arms, supplies and transport, because de Gaulle threatened that otherwise France itself might suffer revolution and turn communist. It’s true that Franklin D. Roosevelt did not like it, he had rather seen an independent Vietnam freed from the shackles of colonialism, but the French basically blackmailed the United States into playing its game, because of the much greater importance of Europe. Turned out the French threats were pretty empty of course, and besides, as soon as the BRD had been established, West Germany became the principal bulwark against communist expansion in Europe, not France.

In fact, the Indochinese communists (read: nationalists) and the US were pretty close buddies up till 1945, since the Americans helped the Viet Minh throwing the Japanese out. Uncle Ho wished for US support in establishing independence, which would have gained the US an ally in Southeast Asia, not least since the Vietnamese are rather inimical to China. It was only when the US proved to be helping the old colonial oppressors that cordiality wasted away.

As China turned red and the French, despite extraordinary amounts of aid from the US, were beaten by the Vietnamese, motivations for US foreign policy and explanations for interference in Indochina changed. The US leadership now convinced itself it had to oppose the Viet Minh because otherwise the whole region would fall to communism and “we would have to pull back to San Francisco”. Thus, the United States assisted Diem coming to power in the south and to establish South Vietnam, which properly speaking, never legally existed. See, in the Geneva accords of 1954, the French-communist armistice stated that half the country be given to Ho Chi Minh, while the southern half would remain under French jurisdiction for the time being, the 17th prallell being designated a provisional boundary until such time as elections could be held. Guess what, no elections were ever held, because it was so obvious the whole country would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.
The background to all of this was of course that there never were two Vietnams. It’s a single country, which wanted independence, just like the US in the 1700’s.

Instead, several successive US administrations went along with propping up dictatorship, its first president belonging to the catholic minority which had been favoured by the French, and which had no support from the people. First with arms and financial support, then with military “advisors” and finally with heavy bombing raids and US regular ground forces.

The South Vietnamese lost their right to vote ans choose their own government with the North conquered them.

Wrong, South Vietnam was never a democracy, and the US were never there to defend democracy (no matter what the present day cabal might want to have you think). It was a chapter in the history of the Cold War as perceived from Washington, and then any tattered tyranny will do as long as it claims itself to be anti-communist.

I think communism has been more oppressive for the South Vietnamese than French Rule ever has been…

This is very doubtful. The French exploited Indochina economically as far they were able, the rate of illiteracy was even higher when the French left than it had been in the beginning. So much for “mission civiliatrice” - like Vietnam needed civilising in the first place, the Vietnamese are a cultured people.
As for communism, the Vietnamese variety has been less oppressive than most, especially if one considers the absolute devastation left behind by the US they have had to deal with. Not saying that communism was ever a good thing, of course.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-28 16:11:41

The United States wasn't trying to return Vietnam to French colonial rule it was only trying to safeguard South Vietnamese freedoms against the North's aggression.
This is a flawed and very lopsided interpretation. The United States supported the French comeback to Indochina after WWII, with arms, supplies and transport, because de Gaulle threatened that otherwise France itself might suffer revolution and turn communist.

Then why didn't they threaten to do that with the Germans in 1939? "Hey Hitler, we need you to go into Vietnam and suppress a Communist revolution there otherwise we'll turn Communist here, and we know how much you hate Communists eh Adolf?"
"Oh anything but that! Oh dread! a communist France! Oh what shall we do? Ok, we'll send storm troopers to suppress the Communist Rebellion in Vietnam!"

If Germany can knock out France in 2 weeks, I doubt a few red flags would have stopped us if De Gaulle threatened to follow Ho Chi Min into Bolshevism. The More direct approach would be simply to go into France and replace the Communists with our own Vichy type government. We know how little trouble the French caused the Germans, they weren't about to drive out the Germans of their own accord. I seriously doubt the French wanted to be oppressed by the Communists any more than they wanted to be oppressed by us. Why didn't they threaten to go Nazi by the way?

It’s true that Franklin D. Roosevelt did not like it, he had rather seen an independent Vietnam freed from the shackles of colonialism, but the French basically blackmailed the United States into playing its game, because of the much greater importance of Europe.

The French. We just liberated their country, and they wanted us to hand over their empire to them on a silver platter at the price of American Blood, or they do what? I'd think I'd rather expend that American blood overthrowing a communist government in France, that is the more direct approach after all. I just don't buy the notion that the French can blackmail us into building an empire for them at our expense. The notion was to contain communism and promote democracy, that was what we were doing, your other theory just doesn't sound plausible to be true.

Turned out the French threats were pretty empty of course, and besides, as soon as the BRD had been established, West Germany became the principal bulwark against communist expansion in Europe, not France.

France never was a bulwark against communism, it never was an active participant in NATO, the only use it was, was to help the Allies liberate itself, then it wanted a piece of the German pie, then it sought to profit from the Cold War as we strove to protect Europe.

In fact, the Indochinese communists (read: nationalists)

Yes, its a well know fact that the Indochinese were always Marxist/Leninists, they've been making 5-year plans and doing central planning for their whole country since the beginning or recorded history.

and the US were pretty close buddies up till 1945, since the Americans helped the Viet Minh throwing the Japanese out. Uncle Ho wished for US support in establishing independence, which would have gained the US an ally in Southeast Asia, not least since the Vietnamese are rather inimical to China. It was only when the US proved to be helping the old colonial oppressors that cordiality wasted away.

You still have not explained to me why the Vietnamese would prefer one form of oppression over another. If they were a part of the French Empire, why would they effuse blood for another form of undemocratic government where they don't have a say? As far as I know, if what you are saying is true, why should the Vietnamese peasants care who their tax money goes to if it is not spent for them. Either Ho Chi Min takes it, or France takes it as you say, since neither one was offering them democracy, wouldn't it be much easier for them just to keep things as they were, rather than die by the millions just to change tyrants? You think they'd have a much worthier goal since they can only die once, that fighting to determine whether their undemocratic leader has "round eyes" or "slanted".

I do however think the US was promoting democracy, as Americans do not freely spill their blood to build other people's empires, I'd think we'd much rather fight France if it ever became a threat to us.

As China turned red and the French, despite extraordinary amounts of aid from the US, were beaten by the Vietnamese,

What else do you expect? They were beaten by the Germans with a numerically inferior German Army. Counting on the French to make good soldiers is a foolish endeavour, no matter how much money they are given.

motivations for US foreign policy and explanations for interference in Indochina changed. The US leadership now convinced itself it had to oppose the Viet Minh because otherwise the whole region would fall to communism and “we would have to pull back to San Francisco”. Thus, the United States assisted Diem coming to power in the south and to establish South Vietnam, which properly speaking, never legally existed. See, in the Geneva accords of 1954, the French-communist armistice stated that half the country be given to Ho Chi Minh, while the southern half would remain under French jurisdiction for the time being, the 17th prallell being designated a provisional boundary until such time as elections could be held. Guess what, no elections were ever held, because it was so obvious the whole country would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.

If they would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, then how come he didn't allow free and openly contested elections, why did he insist on one party rule? If he thought he was so popular, then why was he afraid to have a fair election?

The background to all of this was of course that there never were two Vietnams. It’s a single country, which wanted independence,

There's that magic word again: independence.
What exactly does that word mean for the average Vietnamese? That they get ruled by Ho Chi Minh instead of France or the Americans? So what? You still haven't established why Ho Chi Minh's rule was something worth fighting or dying for. I think, for example under the French or the Americans, the Vietnamese had more individual freedoms than they had under Ho Chi Minh, they had freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to own property, freedom to buy and sell to any one and to work for any employer, freedoms that were denied by Ho Chi Minh, all in exchange for some undefined something that you call independence. That their leader has slanty eyes instead of round ones is supposed to make up for all the rights and freedoms that they lost?

just like the US in the 1700’s.

Unlike Ho Chi Minh, George Washington didn't make himself "King"!

Gennaro · 2006-12-28 20:15:26

Tom, much of your reply is confused drivel. I only described how events unfolded. I never said the Vietnam War was based on rational calculation, political sense or any sort of clear sighted vision. It wasn't. The United States simply let itself get dragged into that quagmire, knowing full well it wasn't viable or worth it. It could well have been avoided, had the men in power not consistently maintained a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude, and created the monsters of their own propaganda, which in turn came back to keep them hostage. Examples of those are the idea that Vietnam for some unknown reason represented a "vital interest" to American foreign policy, or that communism would spread unchecked if it wasn't contained in Vietnam (it weren't).

However, I will reply to what seems to be at the heart of your confusion:

You still have not explained to me why the Vietnamese would prefer one form of oppression over another. If they were a part of the French Empire, why would they effuse blood for another form of undemocratic government where they don't have a say? As far as I know, if what you are saying is true, why should the Vietnamese peasants care who their tax money goes to if it is not spent for them. Either Ho Chi Min takes it, or France takes it as you say, since neither one was offering them democracy, wouldn't it be much easier for them just to keep things as they were, rather than die by the millions just to change tyrants? You think they'd have a much worthier goal since they can only die once, that fighting to determine whether their undemocratic leader has "round eyes" or "slanted".

This is where you have got it all wrong. People aren't interested in democracy just because the United States happen to think it's such a nifty system. Peoples are interested in sovereignity, in deciding for themselves, to be free to create their own future. Yes, independence is the magic word. One might have thought that an American would have understood this, since it is the founding myth of your own nation.

I do however think the US was promoting democracy...

Sure, they promoted democracy, alright. There was only the slight problem of the South Vietnamese leadership not wanting an inch of it. And for good reason, it would have been tantamount to signing their own demise from the gravy train and political power. Try getting this now, Diem and Thieu and the rest of them weren't popular with their own subjects. Their entire position and power rested on armed coercion (which was supplied by the United States).
Moreover, the effort of building democracy or nationhood or whatever can never be effected by an outside force. It must be an impulse of the people in question. This ought to have been a lesson of the Vietnam debacle. Instead we see the US unsuccessfully try the same superficial script over and over. It's really sad.
To reiterate, if the United States really had promoted democracy, the people would have elected the FNL and the Americans would have been forced to leave. That the US administrations in this case wanted to eat the cake and have it is just another feature of the fundamental self delusion of this entire endeavour.

...as Americans do not freely spill their blood to build other people's empires.

Which is why it became such an unpopular war.

What else do you expect? They were beaten by the Germans with a numerically inferior German Army. Counting on the French to make good soldiers is a foolish endeavour, no matter how much money they are given.

The fact that the German army was numerically inferior in 1940 wasn't a known or appreciated fact in 1945 or 1948. For decades the ruling idea was that the Germans in all respects were the big bad boogeyman, bent on subduing the entire world. That image, mainly created already by 1930's antinazi propaganda, was the ruling popular dictum. It has only begun to crack in recent years. As for "counting on the French" to defend Europe, don't blame me, blame Roosevelt and Truman. And yes, a communist France, albeit a flawed prospect, would have been a major disaster, anyway you cut it.

If they would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, then how come he didn't allow free and openly contested elections, why did he insist on one party rule? If he thought he was so popular, then why was he afraid to have a fair election?

There you go again. The Vietnamese weren't interested in democracy, had no concept of it and felt no need for it. It was a foreign idea that America was trying to implant over their heads and without the courtesy of even asking first. Their struggle on the other hand was against foreign domination and imperialism, which to their mind America came to embodify, meddling in their affairs (and defoliating and bombing people to bits).

There's that magic word again: independence.
What exactly does that word mean for the average Vietnamese? That they get ruled by Ho Chi Minh instead of France or the Americans? So what?

"So what?"

It means exactly what it sounds like. Vietnam has long had a strong sense of nationalism, struggling against a succession of foreign rulers. The Vietnamese communists were above all nationalists, and hence supported by the common man. That Ho Chi Minh became a communist was essentially a coincidence. He could have been any kind of southeast asian nationalist or national socialist, similar for example to Shiang Kai Shek of the Kuo Mintang.

This is a feature of southeast asian communism that the United States were unable to grasp then, and obviously still is, or at least some of you are.

Tom, when all's said and done, I must admit I admire your tenacity, if not your wilingness to be impressed. I have an assignment for you. To get a better understanding, I suggest you read the chapter on the Vietnam conflict in The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman. It's a great read and good breakdown of the vital issues which I'm sure you will (actually) enjoy.

Best,
G

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-28 22:27:09

Tom, much of your reply is confused drivel. I only described how events unfolded. I never said the Vietnam War was based on rational calculation, political sense or any sort of clear sighted vision. It wasn't. The United States simply let itself get dragged into that quagmire, knowing full well it wasn't viable or worth it. It could well have been avoided, had the men in power not consistently maintained a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude, and created the monsters of their own propaganda, which in turn came back to keep them hostage. Examples of those are the idea that Vietnam for some unknown reason represented a "vital interest" to American foreign policy, or that communism would spread unchecked if it wasn't contained in Vietnam (it weren't).
However, I will reply to what seems to be at the heart of your confusion:

When American soldiers die in a conflict, that calculation changes, the conflict suddenly becomes more important not to lose simply for the sake of those soldiers who gave their lives, Liberals don't seem to appreciate the sacrifices they make as they are all too willing to conclude the conflict is unwinnable and throw all those hard fought gains away for nothing. Vietnam meant something to the people who fought there, that their leaders betrayed them as Benedict Arnold would have betrayed the Continentals to the British made it all the more hard on them. What Vietnam really needed was a military genius who knew how to win rather than a bunch of cowards in Congress who knew how to quit.

You still have not explained to me why the Vietnamese would prefer one form of oppression over another. If they were a part of the French Empire, why would they effuse blood for another form of undemocratic government where they don't have a say? As far as I know, if what you are saying is true, why should the Vietnamese peasants care who their tax money goes to if it is not spent for them. Either Ho Chi Min takes it, or France takes it as you say, since neither one was offering them democracy, wouldn't it be much easier for them just to keep things as they were, rather than die by the millions just to change tyrants? You think they'd have a much worthier goal since they can only die once, that fighting to determine whether their undemocratic leader has "round eyes" or "slanted".
This is where you have got it all wrong. People aren't interested in democracy just because the United States happen to think it's such a nifty system. Peoples are interested in sovereignity, in deciding for themselves, to be free to create their own future. Yes, independence is the magic word. One might have thought that an American would have understood this, since it is the founding myth of your own nation.

How are they to decide their own future without democracy? If you rob them of democracy they are without the tools for deciding that future, their future is more or less decided on the whim of a dictator. Dictators are in it for themselves, it doesn't matter if that dicator is a foreigner or a native. There are plenty of benevolent foreigners and quisling local rulers who would oppress their own people for another power. A native dictator is no guarantee of a benevolent rule.

I do however think the US was promoting democracy...
Sure, they promoted democracy, alright. There was only the slight problem of the South Vietnamese leadership not wanting an inch of it. And for good reason, it would have been tantamount to signing their own demise from the gravy train and political power. Try getting this now, Diem and Thieu and the rest of them weren't popular with their own subjects. Their entire position and power rested on armed coercion (which was supplied by the United States).
Moreover, the effort of building democracy or nationhood or whatever can never be effected by an outside force. It must be an impulse of the people in question.

Worked in Germany, Japan, and even in North America, if you consider the British Colonists an invading force.
In any case, if something is not tried, it doesn't succeed.

This ought to have been a lesson of the Vietnam debacle. Instead we see the US unsuccessfully try the same superficial script over and over. It's really sad.
To reiterate, if the United States really had promoted democracy, the people would have elected the FNL and the Americans would have been forced to leave. That the US administrations in this case wanted to eat the cake and have it is just another feature of the fundamental self delusion of this entire endeavour.

That is an article of faith on your part since the people you say they wanted to elect would not have given them the chance to voice their opinion in a popular vote anyway once in power.

...as Americans do not freely spill their blood to build other people's empires.
Which is why it became such an unpopular war.

Well the idea itself is too implausible to be true, most of it was just hot air produced by the enemy to undermine the public moral on the propaganda front. The main problem was that we had and still have a Fifth Columnist mainstream press that only presents one-sided reporting on the War. They said that the United States was trying to rebuild the French Empire and they kept beating on that same drum and with little else to hear, the public started believing it, but that doesn't mean it was true.

What else do you expect? They were beaten by the Germans with a numerically inferior German Army. Counting on the French to make good soldiers is a foolish endeavour, no matter how much money they are given.
The fact that the German army was numerically inferior in 1940 wasn't a known or appreciated fact in 1945 or 1948. For decades the ruling idea was that the Germans in all respects were the big bad boogeyman, bent on subduing the entire world. That image, mainly created already by 1930's antinazi propaganda, was the ruling popular dictum. It has only begun to crack in recent years. As for "counting on the French" to defend Europe, don't blame me, blame Roosevelt and Truman. And yes, a communist France, albeit a flawed prospect, would have been a major disaster, anyway you cut it.

A communist France, just recovering from the War and occupation, would just be asking to have their cities bombed again, were they to stir up trouble, and it doesn't really matter what system they live under if their generals were just as bad and incompatent as they were during World War II. As it was France has not been much of an asset to the alliance, they are too willing to do double dealing and sell secrets to the enemy, if France was a member of the Warsaw Pact, they couldn't do that.

If they would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, then how come he didn't allow free and openly contested elections, why did he insist on one party rule? If he thought he was so popular, then why was he afraid to have a fair election?
There you go again. The Vietnamese weren't interested in democracy, had no concept of it and felt no need for it. It was a foreign idea that America was trying to implant over their heads and without the courtesy of even asking first. Their struggle on the other hand was against foreign domination and imperialism, which to their mind America came to embodify, meddling in their affairs (and defoliating and bombing people to bits).

Without a democracy there is no way to prove what the Vietnamese people are interested in, since no one will give them a chance to voice their opinions in a democratic vote. You must therefore take it as an unprovable article of faith that they don't want democracy. Saying a person doesn't want democracy is like saying a person just loves being a slave and just loves his master. Democracy is an inherent right to all people. If someone doesn't want democracy it means one of two things, either he loves being a slave or that he wants to enslave others by depriving them of the vote.

There's that magic word again: independence.
What exactly does that word mean for the average Vietnamese? That they get ruled by Ho Chi Minh instead of France or the Americans? So what?
"So what?"
It means exactly what it sounds like. Vietnam has long had a strong sense of nationalism, struggling against a succession of foreign rulers.

Foreign rulers or Domestic, what difference does it make, none of them are answerable to the people and they all rule just for themselves. If the people do not choose their own government, then that government, no matter what its origin, has no reason to listen to the people. People may try to rise up, but the modern Communist system is designed to make that very difficult, no matter what its rheteric or promises made prior to assumption of power, what communism is designed for is to control society, and make it very difficult for people to make their voices heard. Those that complain risk being arrested or worse, large spy organizations are typically employed to weed out dissent and rebellion at its inception to prevent it from growing. In a communist system all independence means is that the local ruler is native and not foreign, but a native ruler is not necessarily a benign ruler and neither necessarily is a foreign ruler a tyrant. Great Britian was successfully ruled by foreign rulers starting with William the Conquerer. Generally the good rulers are good to the people they rule, because they realize that they are the source of their political power.

The Vietnamese communists were above all nationalists, and hence supported by the common man. That Ho Chi Minh became a communist was essentially a coincidence. He could have been any kind of southeast asian nationalist or national socialist, similar for example to Shiang Kai Shek of the Kuo Mintang.

You know Communism is just as much a foreign Western Idea as is Democracy, the only difference between the two ideologies is that Democracy requires that the local undemocratic rulers give up power, while communism only requires that they "dance to a different tune" in order to keep it.

This is a feature of southeast asian communism that the United States were unable to grasp then, and obviously still is, or at least some of you are.

There is nothing native or indigenous about Marxist Leninism/communism. it is just as much an Import as is Western Representative democracy, the important thing is the later giver the local population some control of the government, while the former merely provides opportunity to have a revolution and to harness the popular passions of the moment to make a "Dictator Switch". What communism does is keep dictators on their toes lest other would be dictators use this ideology to mount a "revolution" to replace them. Communist Revolutions are only good at putting other dictators in power, all it does is waste people's blood by giving them false promises in exchange for supporting someone else's rise to power.

Tom, when all's said and done, I must admit I admire your tenacity, if not your wilingness to be impressed. I have an assignment for you. To get a better understanding, I suggest you read the chapter on the Vietnam conflict in The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman. It's a great read and good breakdown of the vital issues which I'm sure you will (actually) enjoy.
Best,
G

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-29 11:15:34

Also under the communist system, people aren't allowed to run their lives independently, citizens are beholden to the government as their sole legal employment, there is only one entity you can work for and that is the Government. Everything is tied into the command economy, the government employs all the farmers, owns all the farm land, runs all the factories, operates all the stores and decideds what is stocked in each store and what you can buy, that is the Communist system, if someone wants to be independent, I don't see why he should support Communist guerillas, knowing that the Command economy that they have in mind doesn't allow for much independence.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2006-12-09 09:56:21

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#227 2006-12-09 10:09:14

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#228 2006-12-09 10:14:44

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#229 2006-12-09 10:20:14

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#230 2006-12-09 15:04:42

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#231 2006-12-09 21:47:41

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#232 2006-12-10 09:07:08

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#233 2006-12-10 14:28:31

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#234 2006-12-10 17:51:22

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#235 2006-12-11 09:52:11

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#236 2006-12-12 00:00:42

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#237 2006-12-12 02:16:23

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#238 2006-12-12 17:29:59

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#239 2006-12-13 01:57:15

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#240 2006-12-13 10:40:55

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#241 2006-12-13 12:24:20

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#242 2006-12-24 08:15:31

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#243 2006-12-24 15:44:26

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#244 2006-12-24 15:52:24

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#245 2006-12-26 10:14:04

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#246 2006-12-28 08:54:14

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#247 2006-12-28 16:11:41

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#248 2006-12-28 20:15:26

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#249 2006-12-28 22:27:09

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#250 2006-12-29 11:15:34

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer