Turn on thread page Beta

History - Foreign Conflicts - Vietnam watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I think he probably means something to Bush, that the Iraq people will finally be free and happy dancing among the daisies. :rolleyes:
    The fact that Iraqis, men and women of all ethnicities, will be able to vote for their local councillors and their government is evidently of no interest to you. Better off mocking that opportunity and parading an attitude that depends on the failure of this new Iraqi future.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which is why history will not judge this Iraq conflict as being either a great mistake or a particuarly black day for the US military.
    Ok I will present a feasible possiblity.
    Iraq manages to hold elections and there is a low turnout
    Insurgents continue to pesser troops for the next 5/10 years. (Lets be honest Iraq is a magnet for western haters who want to have a pop at the USA)
    USA evenutally withdrawls with a death toll of around 15 thousand troops dead. Not particularly large considering the length of occupation.

    Now that looks ok. However were the real problems are going to be are in Iraq.

    Government falls and civil war occurs. After two years we have islamic totalitarian dictatorship which also tortures and kills enemies of the state.
    => destabalises the whole of the middle east= mistake on the USA's part.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Like when Paul Bremer flew out of the country and the Iraqis started governing their country?
    Iraqis voting for their local councillors and elected government is meaningless? It may be of less practical consequence than we might hope, but its meaning to the Iraqi people and the US campaign is immense.
    The Iraqis are no more in control of their country than I am. We both know that despite the hype Iraq would crumble in about 24 hours if the US pulled out.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which is why history will not judge this Iraq conflict as being either a great mistake or a particuarly black day for the US military.
    I think History will. Historians will see the apparant lies fed to the public about the reasons to go to war (WMD), the lack of evidence for these reasons and then the long hard struggle to make any kind of progress in the country. Factor in how long it may take to actually install a fully working, democratic regime and I think History will view Iraq as a bit of a ****-up. Not on the scale of Vietnam, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    The Iraqis are no more in control of their country than I am.
    The Iraqi government is taking probably 90% of the decisions in that country. Im not so naive to believe that the US military is acting on behalf of the Iraqi government, but political definition would suggest they are there under request and commital of the Iraqi PM.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Thats the UN for you.
    That's more an indication of how unsafe Iraq really is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    The fact that Iraqis, men and women of all ethnicities, will be able to vote for their local councillors and their government is evidently of no interest to you. Better off mocking that opportunity and parading an attitude that depends on the failure of this new Iraqi future.
    What actual power is the government when they are reliant on the USA to do everythign for them? How are those up for election meant to campain when they cannot walk the streets freely? Who are people goign to vote for when they are being intimidated?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I think History will. Historians will see the apparant lies fed to the public about the reasons to go to war (WMD), the lack of evidence for these reasons
    no moralists will see lies where they are paid to.


    and then the long hard struggle to make any kind of progress in the country.

    as per Germany? That democratic society was knocked up in a year or two at the expense of millions of European men?

    Factor in how long it may take to actually install a fully working, democratic regime and I think History will view Iraq as a bit of a ****-up. Not on the scale of Vietnam, though.
    Nowhere near Vietnam. more people died on a training exercise for the D-day mission.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That's more an indication of how unsafe Iraq really is.
    Of course its comparably unsafe, theres no question of that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    What actual power is the government when they are reliant on the USA to do everythign for them? How are those up for election meant to campain when they cannot walk the streets freely? Who are people goign to vote for when they are being intimidated?
    You mocked the opportunity of democracy. I havent seen anything from you to suggest that this opportunity and what it represents, is inherently a favourable and meaningful step for Iraq.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    The Iraqi government is taking probably 90% of the decisions in that country. Im not so naive to believe that the US military is acting on behalf of the Iraqi government, but political definition would suggest they are there under request and commital of the Iraqi PM.
    Its not the decisions where the problems lie. \More to do with things like the Governor of Bagdad is dead and that the USA does not have any control in certain areas of the country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    You mocked the opportunity of democracy.
    IN IRAQ AS ITS NOT DEMOCRACY!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    The Iraqi government is taking probably 90% of the decisions in that country. Im not so naive to believe that the US military is acting on behalf of the Iraqi government, but political definition would suggest they are there under request and commital of the Iraqi PM.
    They could be taking 100% of the decisions. That's not the issue. The issue is that these decisions are meaningless without the backing of the US presence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Its not the decisions where the problems lie. \More to do with things like the Governor of Bagdad is dead and that the USA does not have any control in certain areas of the country.
    Correction. .........the USA does not have any control of MOST areas of the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    IN IRAQ AS ITS NOT DEMOCRACY!
    Iraqis are now fighting for and struggling to cast their votes for candidates that are threatened. that opportunity still exists for each Iraqi.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    They could be taking 100% of the decisions. That's not the issue. The issue is that these decisions are meaningless without the backing of the US presence.
    Are you saying democratic elections that take place with US security presence are not democratic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Iraqis are now fighting for and struggling to cast their votes for candidates that are threatened. that opportunity still exists for each Iraqi.
    If mr Hasan who is leader of the local miltia tells you not to vote or to vote for the hardliine islamic candidate, I think you would be pretty mad to disobey him. If the polling station is being mortared I wouldnt go. Ect.

    In a democracy you have the right to vote for who you want safely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Are you saying democratic elections that take place with US security presence are not democratic?
    No, I'm not saying that. The only point I'm making is that the country is really on the brink of civil war (and would be were it not for the US presence) and I don't know if holding democratic elections in a country this unstable is really worth a hill of beans.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Blamps]2,000,000 vietmanese were killed/USA = 60,000/[QUOTE]

    Perhaps, but the political consequences for America were pretty bad. The 'bastion of democracy' was challenged by poorly armed communist guerillas; the American people grew to despise their own military's tactics;

    (Original post by Fred0202)
    How is Bush a terrorist?
    Attacking a country without declaring war is one definition of terrorism used by the American government as evidence of how dishonurable Al-Qa'ida and other groups are. Apparantly, there was no official declaration in Vietnam or Gulf I, and the preliminary 'softening-up' attacks of Gulf II were not preceded by a declaration of war (I don't know whether there eventually was one).

    I don't really know how much of the above is independently verifiable. If it all is, then Bush is a terrorist mastermind at least equal to Usama bin Laden; if some or all of it is untrue he may be any, all or none of:

    (a) insane, (b) dangerous, (c) unconventional, (d) misinformed and (e) misunderstood.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Attacking a country without declaring war is one definition of terrorism used by the American government as evidence of how dishonurable Al-Qa'ida and other groups are. Apparantly, there was no official declaration in Vietnam or Gulf I, and the preliminary 'softening-up' attacks of Gulf II were not preceded by a declaration of war (I don't know whether there eventually was one).

    I don't really know how much of the above is independently verifiable. If it all is, then Bush is a terrorist mastermind at least equal to Usama bin Laden; if some or all of it is untrue he may be any, all or none of:

    (a) insane, (b) dangerous, (c) unconventional, (d) misinformed and (e) misunderstood.
    What a crock. One country attacking another without warning is the norm; an act of aggression often leading to war. I don't think there's ever been a war in world history when the premier of one country calls the premier of another and say's "oh.....btw....we're declaring war on you and will be rolling our tanks accross your border tommorow morning" That's not terrorism; that war.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.