Originally Posted by Impugn

Hate America first. Haliburton. Haliburton. Haliburton. Neocons. Scooter Libby. Zionists. Haliburton. WMD. Cheney. Hanging chad.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Regardless of how I worded it, if you want to actually understand what went on as opposed to playing "gotcha," the important consideration is how many Vietnamese were killed during the war, because of the American presence. Remember, we are not trying to indict the U.S. for war crimes here, but rather to analyze the consequences of the U.S. departure. Thus, any Vietnamese deaths that resulted from the U.S. troops being there, whether killed by Americans or by the Vietnamese themselves, should count on one side of the equation, and those killed after the American departure by the Vietnamese government on the other. What's more, we must somehow project the Vietnamese war deaths into an indefinite future, resulting in a much higher toll than actually occurred.

And finally, we must ask ourselves how many of the Vietnamese who were executed by the government or died accidentally while trying to flee would have lived if the country had been unified in 1946 or 1956, or even 1965, rather than in 1975.

While some of these questions are difficult to answer, it is very easy to see that the death toll, even if we only count actual as opposed to potential deaths, is far higher due to U.S. intervention.

As for the Khmer Rouge, it is completely incorrect to tie what they did in with the Vietnamese when trying to answer this question. The two groups were allies in the war; the U.S. and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II; does that make the U.S. responsible for Stalin's terror? The fact that Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 to overthrow the Khmer Rouge and put a stop to the slaughter speaks rather loudly to this question.

Also, we must ask ourselves whether the Khmer Rouge would even have existed absent U.S. intervention in the war.

Originally Posted by jviehe

The answer is of course no. If the US had mantained its presence, the Khemer Rouge would not have been able to exert its power.

Originally Posted by goober

Vietnam bears a striking resemblance to Iraq. In both cases we were involved for years before the major conflict at a low level. In both cases it was a president from Texas who launched the major combat. And I think in both cases the president believed that the whole thing would be over in six months once the full power of the US military was unleashed.

I know Johnson poured hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam, and ordered them into combat, while at the same time offering Hanoi a ten billion dollar aid package if they'd make peace, he figured that faced with a choice between a pile of cash and taking on the US military only one choice was possible, he was unprepared for Vietnamese to continue the fight.

I think Bush thought that Saddam would be overthrown by a coup once the threat of US invasion appeared, and he'd have a bloodless victory, I don't think Bush was prepared for Iraq to resist the occupation.

So two wars started by Texans who thought a little tough talk and some swagger was all it would take.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

That wasn't the question. The question was whether the Khmer Rouge would even have existed absent U.S. intervention. In other words, if there had never been a U.S. presence to maintain, not if it had been maintained.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Yay! Another pointless troll!

Just what the forum needed!

Originally Posted by jviehe

Yes, they would probably have still existed. We dont have any problem with them winning elections in Cambodia. It was the resulting authoritarian and abusive practices that they subsequently employed. With the US present, that would not have happened. In fact, they might even have gone out of power quickly when not able to coerce the people. The same thing goes with Iraq. As long as the people have some basic level of security, they choose more freedom.

Originally Posted by Americano

Judging by five-years of fierce ongoing resistance to US occupation, Iraq obviously doesn't want the type of security the US demands; gimme control of your oil in USD and shut up. Is this another instance of they don't know what's good for them so we'll just keep killing them until they understand?

Originally Posted by Impugn

And what kind of person uses the opinions of terrorists to divine the will of an entire nation? Oh, you do.

Interesting that you couch "fierce ongoing [terrorism]" as "Iraq obviously doesn't want...".

My "side" won't even talk/negotiate with terrorists. Meanwhile, you are interested in allowing them to set the agenda for a free Iraq.

Pfft.

Originally Posted by Americano

Seems obvious anyone in disagreement with 'your side's' subservient role for Iraq is immediately deemed a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Impugn

Go ahead...say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" so I can laugh heartily.

Originally Posted by Americano

No, I was thinking more of resistance to a brutal military invasion and occupation that destroyed a country for no other purpose than to reelect a corrupt US administration.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Yes, they would probably have still existed.