A very useful background on Afghanistan

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pocatello
North Vietnam had agree in a peace treaty in Paris not to invade South Vietnam. Reunification would be sought through peaceful mean. "Theft of South Vietnam", according to the North Vietnamese.

That treaty also required the election for a government of re-unified Vietnam be held, and so Ho Chi Minh had every right to expect those elections.

When South Vietnam, backed by the US, refused to hold the elections because they expected not to win, that was the break in the treaty.

The 'peaceful means' were refused by South Vietnam and the US, not the North.

After the Geneva Conference (1954), which divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, Ho became the first president of the independent republic of North Vietnam. The accord also provided for elections to be held in 1956, aimed at reuniting North and South Vietnam; however, South Vietnam, backed by the United States, refused to hold the elections. The reason was generally held to be that Ho's popularity would have led to reunification under Communist rule.

There has never been a fair election in Vietnam. Any opposition in North Vietnam would had been crushed. Many South Vietnamese had no idea who Ho was, he was a popular figure, many villagers were forced to support Ho. But the North Vietnamese who lived under him knew who he was, many of them fled when Vietnam was divided. Those in power will always remain in power.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
There has never been a fair election in Vietnam. Many South Vietnamese had no idea who Ho was, he was a popular figure, many villagers were forced to support Ho. But the North Vietnamese who lived under him knew who he was, many of them fled when Vietnam was divided. Those in power will always remain in power.

What a bunch of gobbledy ***** (no pun intended to the offensive racist term) that says nothing and evades the relevant isuses.

There comes a point where the words you post are so far from the issues, that they can't be responded to directly.

If you want to raise some topic about the impossibility of elections in Vietnam, the time to raise that was in the Geneva discussion - intead the US agreed to the elections.

You are evading the issues, such as that the US position was not much more than a power grab-based policy, prostituting the principles like freedom and democracy to do so.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pocatello
There has never been a fair election in Vietnam. Many South Vietnamese had no idea who Ho was, he was a popular figure, many villagers were forced to support Ho. But the North Vietnamese who lived under him knew who he was, many of them fled when Vietnam was divided. Those in power will always remain in power.

What a bunch of gobbledy ***** (no pun intended to the offensive racist term) that says nothing and evades the relevant isuses.

There comes a point where the words you post are so far from the issues, that they can't be responded to directly.

If you want to raise some topic about the impossibility of elections in Vietnam, the time to raise that was in the Geneva discussion - intead the US agreed to the elections.

You are evading the issues, such as that the US position was not much more than a power grab-based policy, prostituting the principles like freedom and democracy to do so.

Are you saying that election should be held because North Vietnam had crushed all opposition in North, which mean that 99% of the population in North Vietnam would "support" Ho, while 40-50% of South Vietnamese would support Ho, they wanted reunification, not under communist rule. Which mean Ho would have stolen the election.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
Are you saying that election should be held because North Vietnam had crushed all opposition in North, which mean that 99% of the population in North Vietnam would "support" Ho, while 40-50% of South Vietnamese would support Ho, they wanted reunification, not under communist rule. Which mean Ho would have stolen the election.

Yes, I'm saying the agreement by the US to hold the election should have been honored, rather than refusing to simply to keep half of the nation under our control.

None of this would have been an issue had we properly supported the freedom of the Vietnamese people after the Japanese occupiers were kicked out in WWII.

We wouldn't have had to choose from the worse options later had we done the right thing and not supported our ally France in their own pursuit of exploiting Vietnam.

Few may recognize it, but in that early period, Ho Chi Minh is a 'hero' in the American tradition, fighitng for freedom for his country from exploitave foreign colonization.

It's simply that the US lost its own way, with the citizenry caught up in Leave it to Beaver and the cold war, while the reactionary right had obtained power to use immoral means to pursue an agenda of empire, not justice, in contradiction to the values our nation was founded on. It's pretty shameful that Ho Chi Min was the better American at that time than our own nation.

While JFK did move us in the right direction while in power, we never really did lean the right lessons from Vietnam; we simply were defeated in an adventure of empire.

Ironically, one who did learn some of the most lessons was the architect of our war, Robert McNamara. I think you'd find he'd agree more with my position than yours now.

 

[Lemon law]

It seems to me that this thread is off to a somewhat confused debate, while there is nothing wrong with RichardE or Pocatello expressing personal opinions, the issue is really what the people in the various foreign countries pay attention to, and what is the bottom line for them.

No matter how traveled you are, if your opinions are opinions with blinders on, that describe only one side in a conflict, without taking the opinions of the other side of the conflict into account, those personal opinions are worthless.

In the case of Vietnam, the USA went against a historical mandate that the people of Vietnam always seek independence from foreign domination, its is ingrained in their 3000 plus year history, we could have aided that tendency and had some say, instead, in our own arrogance, we went against a powerful historical force and got run over.

In the case of Israel, RichardE does an excellent job of describing the Israeli position, but has not bothered to walk an an inch in Palestinian or Arab shoes. And if there is a single lesson to be learned from this sixty year conflict, its that no amount of Israeli repression will deter the Palestinian and Arab demands for equal justice.

In terms of Afghanistan, the Afghan people are now caught between three groups, a corrupt government and war lord thugs, Nato, and the Taliban. And such has been their lot for seven years now as they are now caught in a shooting gallery. Maybe, three to five years ago, the Afghan people had some remaining faith in the USA and Nato to form a stable government that could deliver anything, but now, since the USA and the corruption they allied with cannot win, they will likely side with the Taliban because only they can form a stable government. And the Taliban is a homegrown movement and Nato is not.

As a US citizen, I do not want the Taliban to win, but I have to be honest and say that is what is now what is likely to happen with any Nato military strategy.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It seems to me that this thread is off to a somewhat confused debate, while there is nothing wrong with RichardE or Pocatello expressing personal opinions, the issue is really what the people in the various foreign countries pay attention to, and what is the bottom line for them.

No matter how traveled you are, if your opinions are opinions with blinders on, that describe only one side in a conflict, without taking the opinions of the other side of the conflict into account, those personal opinions are worthless.

In the case of Vietnam, the USA went against a historical mandate that the people of Vietnam always seek independence from foreign domination, its is ingrained in their 3000 plus year history, we could have aided that tendency and had some say, instead, in our own arrogance, we went against a powerful historical force and got run over.

In the case of Israel, RichardE does an excellent job of describing the Israeli position, but has not bothered to walk an an inch in Palestinian or Arab shoes. And if there is a single lesson to be learned from this sixty year conflict, its that no amount of Israeli repression will deter the Palestinian and Arab demands for equal justice.

In terms of Afghanistan, the Afghan people are now caught between three groups, a corrupt government and war lord thugs, Nato, and the Taliban. And such has been their lot for seven years now as they are now caught in a shooting gallery. Maybe, three to five years ago, the Afghan people had some remaining faith in the USA and Nato to form a stable government that could deliver anything, but now, since the USA and the corruption they allied with cannot win, they will likely side with the Taliban because only they can form a stable government. And the Taliban is a homegrown movement and Nato is not.

As a US citizen, I do not want the Taliban to win, but I have to be honest and say that is what is now what is likely to happen with any Nato military strategy.

The Taliban are as corrupt as anyone. They want to achieve victory by any means necessary. Terrorizing the population, killing off any opposition. We've seen this times and times again. The Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam. You can have a stable regime through terror. Victory by any means necessary. If you send your daughter to school, they will kill off the teacher, pour acid on your daughter's face. After that, how many families are going to send their daughters to school?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
The Taliban are as corrupt as anyone. They want to achieve victory by any means necessary. Terrorizing the population, killing off any opposition. We've seen this times and times again. The Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam. You can have a stable regime through terror. Victory by any means necessary. If you send your daughter to school, they will kill off the teacher, pour acid on your daughter's face. After that, how many families are going to send their daughters to school?

And if you read the article, you would get the point that it was the left-wing government who was increasing education for woman, and the US helped replace them with the Taliban.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of Afghanistan, the Afghan people are now caught between three groups, a corrupt government and war lord thugs, Nato, and the Taliban. And such has been their lot for seven years now as they are now caught in a shooting gallery. Maybe, three to five years ago, the Afghan people had some remaining faith in the USA and Nato to form a stable government that could deliver anything, but now, since the USA and the corruption they allied with cannot win, they will likely side with the Taliban because only they can form a stable government. And the Taliban is a homegrown movement and Nato is not.

The Taliban hold control over innocent people in the region through sheer terror and the ever-present threat of brutal torture, rape, and murder; not by being "less corrupt" than the Kabul-led alternative.

In all of my travels throughout Afghanistan, I have yet to meet an innocent Afghan citizen who willingly supports the Taliban for any reason other than the fear of death, or worse.

But maybe you've met one or two while surfing on the interwebz? no? Imagine that...

This is the fatal flaw in your entire argument on this issue.. always has been.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
The Taliban are as corrupt as anyone.

You get no argument from me on that point. The problem is that it does not elevate the USA or Nato in any way as they too are corrupt as anyone.

After seven years of total anarchy, Afghans are tired of living in a shooting gallery, and it will not cease until either the Taliban or Nato are ousted. All the USA and Nato has delivered thus far is anarchy, corruption, and countless acts of collateral damage.

In such cases, usually the homegrown movement wins. Which was certainly the case in Vietnam, Pocatello denial duly noted.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Pocatello
The Taliban are as corrupt as anyone.

You get no argument from me on that point. The problem is that it does not elevate the USA or Nato in any way as they too are corrupt as anyone.

After seven years of total anarchy, Afghans are tired of living in a shooting gallery, and it will not cease until either the Taliban or Nato are ousted. All the USA and Nato has delivered thus far is anarchy, corruption, and countless acts of collateral damage.

In such cases, usually the homegrown movement wins. Which was certainly the case in Vietnam, Pocatello denial duly noted.

In honor of palehorse, I shall amend the last paragraph to, In such cases, usually the homegrown movement usually wins. Which was certainly the case in Vietnam, Pocatello and
and palehorse denial duly noted.

 

[Zebo]

Can't 'win' unless we act like Taliban. Better give up your dreams of 'we are all alike' and 'winning heart and minds' or 'moms and dads just like us' and let them come around on their own. Best thing we can do is human intel and assassinate those responsible one at a time otherwise you make 10 for every one you kill. the blowback from these wars is 20 years away - going to be fun watching little 6yr old Mo avenge his families death.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of Afghanistan, the Afghan people are now caught between three groups, a corrupt government and war lord thugs, Nato, and the Taliban. And such has been their lot for seven years now as they are now caught in a shooting gallery. Maybe, three to five years ago, the Afghan people had some remaining faith in the USA and Nato to form a stable government that could deliver anything, but now, since the USA and the corruption they allied with cannot win, they will likely side with the Taliban because only they can form a stable government. And the Taliban is a homegrown movement and Nato is not.

The Taliban hold control over innocent people in the region through sheer terror and the ever-present threat of brutal torture, rape, and murder; not by being "less corrupt" than the Kabul-led alternative.

In all of my travels throughout Afghanistan, I have yet to meet an innocent Afghan citizen who willingly supports the Taliban for any reason other than the fear of death, or worse.

But maybe you've met one or two while surfing on the interwebz? no? Imagine that...

This is the fatal flaw in your entire argument on this issue.. always has been.

Gotta love how LL quotes himself - reality never sets in with guys like that until he's strung up on a pole on the outskirts of Kanadahar. He does not understand people that can not be reasoned with, can not be bargained with, can not be placated by appealing to "better angels of or nature" oh well UNICEF is always looking for suckers albeit away from Jihadis since even they learned the hard way.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Pocatello
The Taliban are as corrupt as anyone.

You get no argument from me on that point. The problem is that it does not elevate the USA or Nato in any way as they too are corrupt as anyone.

After seven years of total anarchy, Afghans are tired of living in a shooting gallery, and it will not cease until either the Taliban or Nato are ousted. All the USA and Nato has delivered thus far is anarchy, corruption, and countless acts of collateral damage.

In such cases, usually the homegrown movement wins. Which was certainly the case in Vietnam, Pocatello denial duly noted.

In honor of palehorse, I shall amend the last paragraph to, In such cases, usually the homegrown movement usually wins. Which was certainly the case in Vietnam, Pocatello and
and palehorse denial duly noted.

Once again, for what may be the 1000th time, you've mischaracterized my position on an issue. I never denied that the "homegrown" team may eventually win; just that it certainly won't be because the innocent populace chooses them over a semi-democratic alternative. That "choice" will be made for them, at the tip of a Taliban rifle or knife... if we fail to destroy the Taliban first.

PS: it's ridiculous that the only time you use the actual quote function is when you're quoting yourself... wtf is that about!?