Thursday, December 18, 2008
An Open and Shut Dead-End to Nowhere
O'Reilly always loves to bring up the fact that, once the war in Vietnam was over/American troops left that country for good, millions of people in that section of the world (Cambodia, southern Vietnam, especially) were slaughtered, forced to flee, etc.. America is a noble nation that tries to do noble things, he goes on to argue - one of which was to deliver freedom to South Vietnam. It was they, the Vietnamese government/people, who screwed it up, ultimately. This appears to be his basic thrust.........................................................Typical O'Reilly, in other words. This, I'm saying, in that whatever you happen to think of Bill's analysis here, his views on America's motivation, whether or not Vietnam was in fact a just war, etc., once again you sense a reticence to dig a little deeper. For instance, what, prey tell, is O'Reilly thinking here - that we SHOULDN'T have left Vietnam? I mean, certainly, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were despicable humans (the former, especially) and all but, what, we stay inside the quagmire indefinitely....just so we can delay what was going to happen inevitably? Oh, and, yes, let's not forget, we'd continue to lose hundreds and hundreds of our own guys EVERY MONTH - again, indefinitely. Yes, Mr. O'Reilly, what happened was a tragedy and the people who were responsible for it were thugs. But so, too, was the Vietnam War an unwinnable war/idiotic enterprise. Perhaps it would be advisable for you, especially, to occasionally come to this conclusion as well.
The French surrendered in Viet Nam and handed the mess over to us in 1954. People like O'Reilly with Communist paranoia got us into the mess.
ReplyDeleteAnd the French? Smart move.
This is one example where we clearly should have listened to the French.
ReplyDeleteYo numbnuts, I said that and YOU cried like a wounded juvenile cause I said your man crush Eisenhower was DUMB for sending troops and the CIA into Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteJesus fucking Christ your as hypocritical as Bush is.
Clif, I've always said that it was a mistake for American presidents (all of them) to have involved us in Vietnam. My only point was that Eisenhower, given the climate of the country and the world, ultimately did what basically any other politician of that day also would have done. In fact, he probably did less. That's all. Just my opinion, bro.
ReplyDeleteThat's assuming his successor would have been able to resist involvement. It's also assuming that the wretched Ho Chi Minh would have behaved himself and allowed future elections (didn't seem like the type that would have). And even if it was a mistake, future presidents could have easily deescalated the situation. Eisenhower's decision didn't cause LBJ from lying his ass off; fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin episode, etc.. As for right wingers (which I'm absolutely not) hating Democracy, wasn't it Obama and Biden who criticized Bush for allowing the Palestinian elections. He should have known that Hamas would win, they went on to say. Wow, you liberals really need to get on the same page with this Democracy issue.
ReplyDeleteHey fuck face, John F Kennedy was WITHDRAWING troops before the reich-wing murdered him .. asswipe,
ReplyDeletehow fucking stupid are you?
Remember shit for brains the only reason Eisenhower allowed the CIA to over throw Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who was democratically the elected prime minister of Iran, was for the oil corps greed.
ReplyDeleteSounds like reich-wingers HATE democracy, they are always overthrowing DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments like they did in Chile in the 1970's, or Nicaragua in the 1980's, or not allowing the people of the country of Vietnam to choose for themselves like Eisenhower did in 1956.
But then again Eisenhower did make a Nazi enabler his CIA chief.
ReplyDeleteWhich made it convienient for the Nazi financier to cover for all the reich wing nazi supporters like Prescott Bush, and then cling to power by bankrolling Nixon.
ReplyDeleteClif, please stop with the abusive laguage. I'm not going to allow that, alright? Yes, Kennedy did have an about-face on Vietnam. He saw it as an unwinnable situation. But early on he was probably far more virulently anti-Communist than Eisenhower was (he ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy in 1960, remember?). Kennedy's evolution was admirable. The right wing murdered Kennedy? Gee, I always thought it was Castro. I'm kidding. Oswald killed him, Clif. As for Iran, Clif, I've always said that that was Eisenhower's most bone-headed decision. I've never defended it. Yet another straw argument. Yes, Prescott Bush made some mistakes in the years leading up to WW2. But they were no greater than those of Averill Harriman (he the owner of 3,997 shares of Union Bank Corps stock....as opposed to Bush's 1, FDR's best friend, Truman's most trusted advisor). And, besides, George Bush Sr. fought against Hitler (nearly got killed). I mean come on, Clif, you got to get off this white knight/black knight stuff. You're looking like a fool.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about Obama and Biden razzing on Bush for ALLOWING the Palestinian elections. Is it now the Democratic party that is afraid of Democracy? Again, I'm kidding.
ReplyDeleteHomophobic fool
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian has an interesting article on Prescott Bush doing business with the Nazis. However, there's some question as to whether he supported their ideology.
ReplyDeleteThere's a more vehement castigation of the Bush Dynasty, but I can't vouch for the veracity.
There's a little too much conspiracy theory in Anonymous' comments. You are trying to impose the current political perspective on history. That leads you to specious logic. People were terrorized by the Cold War, thanks to that asshole Joe McCarthy.
Accordingly, Ike wanted to protect the nation and got us into 'Nam. On the flip side, he is responsible for initiating the entire American interstate highway system.
They acted accordingly: that's what fear does to people. The only parallel is that the American public was subjected to the same type of propaganda after 9/11.
I am a die-hard progressive, Anonymous. And, by the way, everyone's asshole is full of shit. If you continue in that tone and rudeness, no one will take you seriously. Why should they?
Stella, as always, your comments are measured and well thought out. I consider myself progressive on many issues, too. But I do respect certain Republicans like Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Linc Chaffee, Bill Cohen, and Chuck Hagel. Anonymous (his real name is Clif) basically despises anyone to the left of Marx/Engels and is, thus, extremely difficult to deal with. Sorry for his rudeness toward you.
ReplyDeleteSo according to "stella" building roads for the people who murdered Indians to steal their land levels the moral playing field? After all all what Eisenhower started was the murder of the Vietmanese people by US troops and munitions for the political controll of Vietnam
ReplyDeletehow reich-wing of her, killing non Europeans is OK if we build roads afterwords in our stolen country
Anonymous (his real name is Clif) basically despises anyone to the left of Marx/Engels and is, thus, extremely difficult to deal with.
ReplyDeleteCan you actually PROVE that anonymous is always a person named clif, or are you making suppositions with NO proof?
Didn't you have problems with a poster named "mike" and another named "1138", not to mention somebody who goes by the name nicholas?
But you know for certain all the anonymous posts are by somebody you call clif?
Well, maybe not, Clif. But from now on, I'm calling all "Anonymous" commenters "Clif."
ReplyDeleteSince they don't have the courage to supply an identity, I'm happy to do it for them.
You missed my point: I wasn't discussing building a national highway system in Viet Nam, but in the United States. Creating this infrastructure was a necessary part of this country.
Study your history, Clif. Ngo Dinh Diem, President of the Council of Ministers of Vietnam, asked for help from the U.S. Here is Eisenhower's response. Like most wars, our assistance in Viet Nam was intended to be an humanitarian effort. Unfortunately, it never stays that way.
Eisenhower wrote to the Council President of South Viet Nam...it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.
You need to study history based on the times, not what you impose. Clif, your opinions seem to arise from someone quite young.
LOL, reich-wing? Me? OK, if you wish.
Whatever.
Sorry but since Diem was set up by the CIA, I wouldn't suggest his request to undermine the will of 90% of the Vietnamese people (by Eisenhower's own admission) I wouldn't consider a request by a CIA stooge for help from the CIA legitimate, sorta just like the Shah in Iran did, got the CIA to put him in power then asked for their help to stay there.
ReplyDeleteEisenhower wrote to the Council President of South Viet Nam...it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.
Too fuckin' bad HE imposed his opinion in place of the whole of the Vietnamese people's opinion of who really gets to run their country.
Kind of make him a hypocrite also don't you think
Damn you're as dumb as will bimbo.
And you're the moron who equated Eisenhower's agreement to trample the rights of the Vietnamese people in Vietnam with his building roads in the USA I just filled in the hypocrissy for you to see.
You may not claim to be reich wing but many people in the US saw through the charade as far back as the mid 1950's when it was happening. For some reason you buy the reich wing spin of history instead of the truth, which may people in the US and the rest of the planet rejected when it was foisted the first time.
Try reading a history NOT approved by the right wing military industrial complex which in the end even Eisenhower realized was bad for the US.
Like this OP ED from the Washington Post;
ReplyDeleteColby's Vietnam: History misrepresented
Washington Post Op Ed. May 1, 1981
COLBY'S VIETNAM: HISTORY MISREPRESENTED
Former CIA director William Colby's article "El Salvador: Which Vietnam"? [op-ed, 4/20] describes the various stages of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and offers the period 1968 to 1972--the era of the CIA "Phoenix" assassination teams--as a model for use in El Salvador. In addition to this heinous recommendation, his article ignores the massive evidence of the Pentagon Papers and grossly distorts the facts.
According to Colby, a prime architect of U.S. policy in Vietnam, America's role in that country began in 1960. This "first" stage lasted until 1963. This era "marked the start of Hanoi's effort to overthrow the South." Colby's statement contains two major misrepresentations. U.S. involvement started in 1949, not 1960, when we sponsored French attempts to reimpose their colonial rule over Indochina. The second major misstatement relates to Hanoi's role in 1960. All objective Vietnamese experts attest to the great reluctance of the North Vietnamese to challenge U.S. power in South Vietnam. However, both the CIA's intelligence and a State Department white paper claimed the opposite was true. From that point forward until April 1975, the war, in U.S. intelligence reports, was portrayed as a North Vietnamese attack on South Vietnam.
Colby forgets to mention that the CIA created the Diem regime. After the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in early 1954, the CIA plucked Ngo Dinh Diem out of obscurity in the United States and established him as the ruler of South Vietnam. He arrived in Saigon in mid-1954, controlling nothing except the complete dedication of CIA's covert action warriors. Even President Eisenhower questioned Diem's viability and admitted that Ho Chi Minh and his government commanded the loyalty of 80 percent of all Vietnamese.
Using the 1954-1955 Geneva-Conference-imposed cease-fire, the CIA ran propaganda and covert operations in North Vietnam--including the implied threat of nuclear destruction--to scare and lure the minority Catholic population to migrate south. Once in South Vietnam, the CIA and the U.S. military formed them into an army, police force and government for Diem. Catholic Vietnamese never represented more than 10 percent of South Vietnam's total population but under Diem, a co-religionist, that small group enjoyed all status and privileges.
Through a series of operations the CIA managed to capture control of Saigon for Diem, and the Agency issued a Special National Intelligence Estimate (SNIE) that omitted any reference to it role in Diem's success. The SNIE proclaimed that Diem alone was responsible for his victory. Concurrent with the release of that false information, the CIA conducted a worldwide disinformation campaign portraying Diem as the miracle worker who saved South Vietnam.
From 1955 to 1960 Diem, pushed by his U.S. advisers, attempted to assert his authority over rural South Vietnam. His minions killed, tortured and imprisoned tens of thousands who resisted his unfair rule. It was this vicious repression that eventually forced the North Vietnamese to join with their compatriots in the South to fight against Diem and his U.S. backers.
Colby's second "Vietnam" from 1964 to 1968 is the common perception of Vietnam. "Instructed to find, fix and fight the enemy [American servicemen] reacted with frustration and frequently fury before an enemy that only occasionally could be found." One cannot disagree with that alliterative statement.
The third "Vietnam" appears between 1968 and 1972. Colby, giving himself all credit, reserves his praise for this era--a time when he served as director of the multi-agency Civil Operations and Rural Development Support (CORDS) mission. He states the rural countryside was rebuilt and pacified by a reliance upon village participation in defense and development....The combat was turned on the secret political enemy..." Here he is referring to the CIA's Phoenix program that sought out and killed or captured political opponents of Thieu's U.S.-backed dictatorship. Colby forgets to mention other realities of that era, the free-fire zones, the napalming, the bombing, the search-and destroy missions, and all the other attendant horrors of the U.S. fighting politicized civilians.
The fourth "Vietnam" appears from 1973 until 1975, when South Vietnamese tactical errors...led this time to the total collapse before the oncoming North Vietnamese armor, artillery and regular forces...."
Colby's article does not question the legitimacy of the current El Salvadoran government or remark on the cause of opposition to that government..."
Colby, on the basis of his incomparable experience and research, goes on to recommend a program for action in El Salvador offering the "Vietnam" of 1968 to 1972 as a positive model." In other words, bring back the CIA assassination teams, bomb, napalm, search and destroy." One can but wonder at his suggestion.
I think I've developed a sense of these various writers' blogging styles. These comments are far closer to Clif's style than those of Mike and 1138. While the latter 2 are also paranoid and depraved, Clif is the paramount lunatic chief in this regard. And that last "cut and paste" performance is vintage Cliffy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Stella, just to let you know, many of Cliffy's comments (and those of his alter-ego, Nicholas) I've had to delete. This, I'm saying, in that sometimes when he gets extremely mad, he resorts to sexual inappropriateness and homophobia. Strange man - he claims to be a "progressive" but tries to insult people by calling them names such as "faggot". Just to let you know what you're up against here.
ReplyDeleteSorry widdle will, but I have never posted as nicholas .......... NEVER.
ReplyDeleteHoly crap there are actually comments for once in this echo chamber.
ReplyDeleteWill "take no prisoners" Hart said...
ReplyDeleteAlso, Stella, just to let you know, many of Cliffy's comments (and those of his alter-ego, Nicholas) I've had to delete. This, I'm saying, in that sometimes when he gets extremely mad, he resorts to sexual inappropriateness and..."
HMMMMMMM.... hey mr Kettle your Reich wing hippocrissy is showing............you piss and whine about some idiot spamming YOUR BLOG with sexually inappropriate baby talk then you turn around and do the same thing on other people's blogs!
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said... 3 paranoid lunatics affixed to their computer screen, drooling, masterbating, etc.."
interesting that you would post juvenile sexually inappropriate baby talk on other people's blogs yet cry like a little bitc with hippocritical self righteous outrage when the same thing is done to you.
ReplyDeleteYou need to open your eyes Stella and take a look at the REAL Willy!
Billy is realy just a paranoid thin skinned hippocrite with a Don Quixote complex hanging out with Reich Wing partisan trolls...........he needs a token liberal for street cred.........at least in his own mind he does.
ReplyDeleteYes, Mike, I occasionally retaliate. For every ten of Cliffy/Nicholas's abusive/homophobic rants, I occasionally paw out a jab over at LC's. And I have never, NEVER, even come close to the level of crap that's been left by Cliffy in all of that spare time he evidently has over here. You show one tepid example and try to assign equivalence. Ridiculous, but typical.
ReplyDeleteI don't differentiate between liberal and conservative any where near as much as I do between decent and despicable. You just don't get that, do you, Mike? And you're still on this guilt by association kick of yours. You hated it when it was applied to Obama but you never miss a chance to use it against me. Grow up, would you?
ReplyDeleteAnd, finally, Mike, I've asked you many, MANY, times, NICELY, not to utilize Nazi imagery/innuendo when commenting here. If you find yourself intellectually incapable of accomplishing this, then I ask you not to comment at all. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter will, got coal in your stocking?
ReplyDeleteYou seem so angry for some reason.
Fuckin homo
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of Cliffy's homophobia, folks.
ReplyDeleteSorry widdle will, but I have never posted as nicholas .......... NEVER.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that somebody else don't like you for some reason.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Clif. You are a such a sick individual that maybe you don't even know that you're doing it. You're not on a mental health disability because of your looks. I'm pretty sure of THAT.
ReplyDeleteSorry willy boy but no mental son.
ReplyDelete