Iraq syndrome?

[Imperializt Russia]

coughs.. Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan..

Yes the Marshall Plan turned out to be an excellent investment didn't it?

Not really certain how any of those countries could really be called "failures"?

[Myrensis]

Marco Rubio's interview on Fox News was hilarious because the interviewer kept pestering them to answer "was the Iraq war a mistake?". Rubio couldn't seem to grasp the concept enough to give a clear answer.

Rubio was killing it, IMO. He really impressed me. No one on the GOP side should flat out say that invading Iraq was a mistake. Given all the information on the table if the exact same thing happened again all candidates in both parties would do the exact same thing. If everyone would do it, it isn't a mistake. Just because later you get information that contradicted your decision doesn't make that decision a mistake.

I've had health insurance my whole life and never come out ahead, I've always spent more on premiums than I would have on actual health costs. If you ask me "Knowing what we know now, was it a mistake to have health insurance?" The answer is of course not, it is never a good idea to take that risk. It is the same concept, just because you find out later the risk you were responding to wasn't going to come to pass makes NO impact on if the risk assessment was correct at the time. It was. And Rubio communicated it better than anyone else in the GOP field has so far, he definitely did much better than Bush did.

Uhh, no. Even if you don't believe that the Bush Administration was deliberately fabricating and/or altering evidence, it's pretty damn clear that all intelligence was weighed and analysed through the lens of "Will this give us a justification for invading Iraq?", which was high on the agenda of Bush or at least his inner circle of Neocon advisors. With the possible exception of John 'Rogue State Rollback' McCain, it's highly unlikely that any other theoretical President of either party would have taken such a myopic approach to assessing Iraq.

[Claven]

Yes. The Marshall Plan was a great success. But the real reason the US government initiated the plan was because they were scared that if they didnt help these countries, they would fall to communism.
Though I suppose its a good thing that actually thought of that, unlike the Bush administration whose actions left Iraq, a divided, impoverished nation stuck in a civil war.

[Genivaria]

Yes. The Marshall Plan was a great success. But the real reason the US government initiated the plan was because they were scared that if they didnt help these countries, they would fall to communism.
Though I suppose its a good thing that actually thought of that, unlike the Bush administration whose actions left Iraq, a divided, impoverished nation stuck in a civil war.

I think some variation of the Marshal Plan needs to become standard policy for dealing with former enemies.

[Claven]

Yes. The Marshall Plan was a great success. But the real reason the US government initiated the plan was because they were scared that if they didnt help these countries, they would fall to communism.
Though I suppose its a good thing that actually thought of that, unlike the Bush administration whose actions left Iraq, a divided, impoverished nation stuck in a civil war.

I think some variation of the Marshal Plan needs to become standard policy for dealing with former enemies.

Yeah, but the US doesnt have the money to just throw around fixing other countries. Just enough to throw at the military

[Jamzmania]

Yes. The Marshall Plan was a great success. But the real reason the US government initiated the plan was because they were scared that if they didnt help these countries, they would fall to communism.
Though I suppose its a good thing that actually thought of that, unlike the Bush administration whose actions left Iraq, a divided, impoverished nation stuck in a civil war.

Iraq was fairly stable until recently.

[Hollorous]

I think some variation of the Marshal Plan needs to become standard policy for dealing with former enemies.

Yeah, but the US doesnt have the money to just throw around fixing other countries. Just enough to throw at the military

Actually the US wasted a shit ton of money on Iraqi "hearts and minds" programs, most of which were gross failures.

Read this guy's book on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Buren

Basically there was a sort of Marshall Plan. Just a very, very incompetent one.

[Teemant]

Korea and Vietnam are quite similar in my opinion but people view these differently and main reason is outcome.
There is no question today that helping South Korea was a right thing to do. South Korea wasn't democratic back then either.

And wasn't since, until the late eighties.

Intervention in South Korea and indeed South Vietnam may well have been the "right thing to do".
How those wars and interventions were conducted before and after, that's another story entirely.

The best intentions in the world can be completely undermined by poor execution of that intention. Like, say, Vietnam.

USA couldn't conduct anything in South Vietnam because South Vietnam ceased to exist when North Vietnam conqured it.

[Teemant]

North started this war. I'm pretty sure that it was how it all started in Vietnam.

The US prevented re-unification from happening because it was clear that the majority of people would vote for the communists in a democratic election. They then propped up a dictatorship in the South despite the fact that the people in the South had no desire to be under said dictator.

North Vietnam wasn't democratic either so don't start talking about how undemocratic South Vietnam was.
And people migrated from North Vietnam to South Vietnam during 50s. I guess because they liked North Vietnam?

And South Vietnam was initally backed by France not USA.

Everything you say is a lie.

[Hollorous]

Yes. The Marshall Plan was a great success. But the real reason the US government initiated the plan was because they were scared that if they didnt help these countries, they would fall to communism.
Though I suppose its a good thing that actually thought of that, unlike the Bush administration whose actions left Iraq, a divided, impoverished nation stuck in a civil war.

Iraq was fairly stable until recently.

Fair according to what metric? The war has been going on steadily since 2003 with very little respite. The west just finally noticed again when the anti-government side (the Daesh, in this instance) finally got their shit together and started winning. You could argue that the Awakening movement and the 2007 troop surge quelled the intensity of the violence somewhat (and those were both very, very temporary face-saving fixes anyway), but there has never been a point where a war hasn't been going on. That means plenty of people killed, displaced, wounded, property destroyed, etc...on a regular basis. Iraq literally has millions of refugees with no homes to go back to. If that's stability, it's the stability of a really hard turd (that will eventually crumble anyway).

[Osterreich-Bayern]

Was not expecting so many people to view the war in Iraq as a success

[Hollorous]

The US prevented re-unification from happening because it was clear that the majority of people would vote for the communists in a democratic election. They then propped up a dictatorship in the South despite the fact that the people in the South had no desire to be under said dictator.

North Vietnam wasn't democratic either so don't start talking about how undemocratic South Vietnam was.
And people migrated from North Vietnam to South Vietnam during 50s. I guess because they liked North Vietnam?

People actually migrated to and fro both countries. More people went or stayed south though. This was due to three main reasons:

1) Northern government's anti-landlord campaign, which quickly snowballed into a reign of terror.
2) CIA agit-prop campaigns. Leaflets of Ho Chi Minh burning churches, etc... Also, promises of employment and special treatment by the Southern regime, many of which never came to fruition.
3) Plenty of pro-communist people stayed behind in the South, partly to act as sleeper agents, partly because they didn't recognize the partition as legitimate, and partly because, you know, they're southerners and its their home.

It's worthwhile talking about how undemocratic the South was, because plenty of people seem to not know what a horrid, corrupt, ineffectual tinpot dictatorship the US spent so much blood and treasure defending. People already know that the North was a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Really it's not a clear cut "good vs evil" situation. "Bad vs. worse" maybe.

[Teemant]

North Vietnam wasn't democratic either so don't start talking about how undemocratic South Vietnam was.
And people migrated from North Vietnam to South Vietnam during 50s. I guess because they liked North Vietnam?

People actually migrated to and fro both countries. More people went or stayed south though. This was due to three main reasons:

1) Northern government's anti-landlord campaign, which quickly snowballed into a reign of terror.
2) CIA agit-prop campaigns. Leaflets of Ho Chi Minh burning churches, etc... Also, promises of employment and special treatment by the Southern regime, many of which never came to fruition.
3) Plenty of pro-communist people stayed behind in the South, partly to act as sleeper agents, partly because they didn't recognize the partition as legitimate, and partly because, you know, they're southerners and its their home.

It's worthwhile talking about how undemocratic the South was, because plenty of people seem to not know what a horrid, corrupt, ineffectual tinpot dictatorship the US spent so much blood and treasure defending. People already know that the North was a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Really it's not a clear cut "good vs evil" situation. "Bad vs. worse" maybe.

Everyone who knows something about Vietnam war knows that nor North or South were democratic countries so I really don't get why in this forum people only point out South Vietnam.
North Vietnam was actually far worse than South Vietnam when it comes to human rights. But communists and socialists in this forum skew things as they want.

[Hollorous]

People actually migrated to and fro both countries. More people went or stayed south though. This was due to three main reasons:

1) Northern government's anti-landlord campaign, which quickly snowballed into a reign of terror.
2) CIA agit-prop campaigns. Leaflets of Ho Chi Minh burning churches, etc... Also, promises of employment and special treatment by the Southern regime, many of which never came to fruition.
3) Plenty of pro-communist people stayed behind in the South, partly to act as sleeper agents, partly because they didn't recognize the partition as legitimate, and partly because, you know, they're southerners and its their home.

It's worthwhile talking about how undemocratic the South was, because plenty of people seem to not know what a horrid, corrupt, ineffectual tinpot dictatorship the US spent so much blood and treasure defending. People already know that the North was a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Really it's not a clear cut "good vs evil" situation. "Bad vs. worse" maybe.

Everyone who knows something about Vietnam war knows that nor North or South were democratic countries so I really don't get why in this forum people only point out South Vietnam.
North Vietnam was actually far worse than South Vietnam when it comes to human rights. But communists and socialists in this forum skew things as they want.

By what standard? The South Vietnamese government killed, imprisoned, and tortured people on a regular basis. They maybe pretended to allow dissent (there was open anti-war sentiment in the South, whereas such a thing was automatic jail time in the North), but didn't really in practice. The North ultimately killed more people, but that was because they won and hence they were able to clean house after the war.

And, no, some people still do labor under the belief that the US was defending a real democracy in South Vietnam. It does good to point out the opposite in order to separate truth from wartime propaganda.

[Hollorous]

Was not expecting so many people to view the war in Iraq as a success

\Well, if you set the bar low enough...

[Teemant]

Everyone who knows something about Vietnam war knows that nor North or South were democratic countries so I really don't get why in this forum people only point out South Vietnam.
North Vietnam was actually far worse than South Vietnam when it comes to human rights. But communists and socialists in this forum skew things as they want.

By what standard? The South Vietnamese government killed, imprisoned, and tortured people on a regular basis. They maybe pretended to allow dissent (there was open anti-war sentiment in the South, whereas such a thing was automatic jail time in the North), but didn't really in practice. The North ultimately killed more people, but that was because they won and hence they were able to clean house after the war.

And, no, some people still do labor under the belief that the US was defending a real democracy in South Vietnam. It does good to point out the opposite in order to separate truth from wartime propaganda.

It is not my fault if some people think that South Vietnam was a democratic country but what bothers me more is the amount of people who just think that Vietnam was one country which USA decided to attack during Cold War - people who think that exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam#Politics

According to last paragraph of Politics section in wikipedia things weren't that bad in South Vietnam. I'm not saying it was a democracy or anything like that but it gives a clear picture that South Vietnam was not nearly as bad as North Vietnam.

South Vietnam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of it's own people even before Vietnam war as we know it started. People in this forum tend to portray South Vietnam worse than it actually was (I'm not saying that it was democratic - just to make sure that people understand) but if I had to make my judgement based on what people in this forum say I would think that South Vietnam was one of the worst totalitarian regimes ever to exist in the history of mankind and that North Vietnam wasn't that bad at all and had only some minor flaws.

So it is easy to see that people here portray North Vietnam less bad than it actually was. It's some serious bias.

[Chestaan]

The US prevented re-unification from happening because it was clear that the majority of people would vote for the communists in a democratic election. They then propped up a dictatorship in the South despite the fact that the people in the South had no desire to be under said dictator.

North Vietnam wasn't democratic either so don't start talking about how undemocratic South Vietnam was.
And people migrated from North Vietnam to South Vietnam during 50s. I guess because they liked North Vietnam?

And South Vietnam was initally backed by France not USA.

Everything you say is a lie.

The Americans stopped democratic elections from happening because they knew that the vast majority of the Vietnamese, North and South, would have voted for the communists. And yes, people migrated from North to South, mostly Catholics who fled due to American propaganda and scaremongering.

Initially, yes, but later no. And like I said, America protected the South by preventing democratic elections.

[Teemant]

Was not expecting so many people to view the war in Iraq as a success

Who has said here that Iraq was a success?

[Teemant]

North Vietnam wasn't democratic either so don't start talking about how undemocratic South Vietnam was.
And people migrated from North Vietnam to South Vietnam during 50s. I guess because they liked North Vietnam?

And South Vietnam was initally backed by France not USA.

Everything you say is a lie.

The Americans stopped democratic elections from happening because they knew that the vast majority of the Vietnamese, North and South, would have voted for the communists. And yes, people migrated from North to South, mostly Catholics who fled due to American propaganda and scaremongering.

Initially, yes, but later no. And like I said, America protected the South by preventing democratic elections.

The same wiki article where you red that Catholics fled to South Vietnam it says that North Vietnam was againt UN monitored re-unification referendum. And can you back your claim that vast majority of the Vietnamese would have voted for the communists? Did you run statistics agency or something and conducted political ratings polls in Vietnam during 50s?
I think you're engaged in something called wishful thinking and it's easy to see why - you're a communist.

[Chestaan]

The Americans stopped democratic elections from happening because they knew that the vast majority of the Vietnamese, North and South, would have voted for the communists. And yes, people migrated from North to South, mostly Catholics who fled due to American propaganda and scaremongering.

Initially, yes, but later no. And like I said, America protected the South by preventing democratic elections.

The same wiki article where you red that Catholics fled to South Vietnam it says that North Vietnam was againt UN monitored re-unification referendum. And can you back your claim that vast majority of the Vietnamese would have voted for the communists?
I think you're engaged in something called wishful thinking and it's easy to see why - you're a communist.

I have no love for North Vietnam, but I also have no love for the USA throwing it's weight around, preventing democratic elections and getting involved in a nation where it wasn't wanted.

http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/politics.html

"...Furthermore, according to the terms of the Accords, national elections would be held in two years in an effort to reunify the country. The U.S. predicted that if the elections took place, Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Party of Vietnam would be certain to win. Thus, the concessions in the peace agreement, U.S. Secretary of State Dulles reported, would have disastrous consequences; it's all "something we would have to gag about," he remarked.""

The US believed that Ho Chi Minh's party would win any election held, and so they refused to sign the Geneva Accords which would have allowed elections to take place, Vietnam to be united and no war to take place.

. Diem understood that he stood to lose the 1956 elections, likely by a wide margin. He was exceedingly unpopular; he represented the wealthy landlord class in a country of peasants and tenant farmers, and he favored Vietnamese Catholics in a largely Buddhist state (only about 15% of the country was Catholic)

...and the US backed him, pushing Vietnam into a war.

I fail to see what my political beliefs have to do with this. You don't need to be a communist to be opposed to the US propping up shitty regimes and causing wars, just someone sensible.

[Camelza]

There is such a syndrome in West's politics. Nevertheless intervention is sometimes necessary, but it should have the approval of the UN and its cause should be humanitarian in nature, unlike most of the interventions by great powers we've witnessed during the last ace and also during contemporary times.

[Hollorous]

By what standard? The South Vietnamese government killed, imprisoned, and tortured people on a regular basis. They maybe pretended to allow dissent (there was open anti-war sentiment in the South, whereas such a thing was automatic jail time in the North), but didn't really in practice. The North ultimately killed more people, but that was because they won and hence they were able to clean house after the war.

And, no, some people still do labor under the belief that the US was defending a real democracy in South Vietnam. It does good to point out the opposite in order to separate truth from wartime propaganda.

It is not my fault if some people think that South Vietnam was a democratic country but what bothers me more is the amount of people who just think that Vietnam was one country which USA decided to attack during Cold War - people who think that exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam#Politics

According to last paragraph of Politics section in wikipedia things weren't that bad in South Vietnam. I'm not saying it was a democracy or anything like that but it gives a clear picture that South Vietnam was not nearly as bad as North Vietnam.

South Vietnam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of it's own people even before Vietnam war as we know it started. People in this forum tend to portray South Vietnam worse than it actually was (I'm not saying that it was democratic - just to make sure that people understand) but if I had to make my judgement based on what people in this forum say I would think that South Vietnam was one of the worst totalitarian regimes ever to exist in the history of mankind and that North Vietnam wasn't that bad at all and had only some minor flaws.

So it is easy to see that people here portray North Vietnam less bad than it actually was. It's some serious bias.

There are people around who think all sorts of stupid things. When was it ever implied that anything was your fault?

Anyway, that last paragraph was the testimony of one US congressman. There's other testimony that exists of torture, secret police, rapes in police custody, the malevolent and corrupt implementation of the Phoenix program, etc...

You can argue that South Vietnam wasn't as bad as the North, sure. You may even be right. But all that would be is the South Vietnamese regime coming in second in a body stacking contest.

[Jamzmania]

Iraq was fairly stable until recently.

Fair according to what metric? The war has been going on steadily since 2003 with very little respite. The west just finally noticed again when the anti-government side (the Daesh, in this instance) finally got their shit together and started winning. You could argue that the Awakening movement and the 2007 troop surge quelled the intensity of the violence somewhat (and those were both very, very temporary face-saving fixes anyway), but there has never been a point where a war hasn't been going on. That means plenty of people killed, displaced, wounded, property destroyed, etc...on a regular basis. Iraq literally has millions of refugees with no homes to go back to. If that's stability, it's the stability of a really hard turd (that will eventually crumble anyway).

Yeah, crushing al Qaeda and ending a lot of the violence really are signs of a constant war with lite respite. The fact is that the surge did stabilize Iraq, but those gains were lost when Obama pulled all the troops out.

[Myrensis]

Iraq was fairly stable until recently.

Fair according to what metric? The war has been going on steadily since 2003 with very little respite. The west just finally noticed again when the anti-government side (the Daesh, in this instance) finally got their shit together and started winning. You could argue that the Awakening movement and the 2007 troop surge quelled the intensity of the violence somewhat (and those were both very, very temporary face-saving fixes anyway), but there has never been a point where a war hasn't been going on. That means plenty of people killed, displaced, wounded, property destroyed, etc...on a regular basis. Iraq literally has millions of refugees with no homes to go back to. If that's stability, it's the stability of a really hard turd (that will eventually crumble anyway).

Jamzmania is part of the camp that says that Iraq was a stunning success flawlessly executed in every detail and on the fast track to stable western liberal democracy....until LIBERAL OBAMA got his hands on it and ruined everything.

Aka, the delusional neocon camp.

[Jamzmania]

Fair according to what metric? The war has been going on steadily since 2003 with very little respite. The west just finally noticed again when the anti-government side (the Daesh, in this instance) finally got their shit together and started winning. You could argue that the Awakening movement and the 2007 troop surge quelled the intensity of the violence somewhat (and those were both very, very temporary face-saving fixes anyway), but there has never been a point where a war hasn't been going on. That means plenty of people killed, displaced, wounded, property destroyed, etc...on a regular basis. Iraq literally has millions of refugees with no homes to go back to. If that's stability, it's the stability of a really hard turd (that will eventually crumble anyway).

Jamzmania is part of the camp that says that Iraq was a stunning success flawlessly executed in every detail and on the fast track to stable western liberal democracy....until LIBERAL OBAMA got his hands on it and ruined everything.

Aka, the delusional neocon camp.

Your strawman is stunning.