What is your perception of the United States' foreign policy?

Eggy Baby!

No serious hating, I just want honest opinions with facts to back them up.

Personally I've always thought of them as unilateral and careless. Its funny that they've used the "Big Stick" ideology for the past hundred years and not felt the need to change it. I'm not a racist or a communist or a jihadist but I personally have some serious, serious disagreements with those adept Doublespeakers on Capitol Hill.

Bashing the American people or whatever is not tolerated.

SharpshooterTom

It's great again now, sure Obama won the nobel peace prize didn't he?

Eggy Baby!

Are you being sarcastic or what

Manic Moran

Don't forget that the first part of the 'Big Stick' philosophy is 'walk softly.'

The US can be your best friend, or your worst enemy, there isn't usually much in between. Despite all the waffle about multilateralism, of late there is a bit of a lack of patience with the US shouldering the burdens, witness SecDef's comments about NATO being a little past its useful life last week. I won't say the US is moving towards an isolationist philosophy, but it is moving to a "US'a best interests" philosophy even more so than it used to.

NTM

silja

My perception of the United States' foreign policy at what time, and regarding which country? While yes, they do pretty much consistently have the "Big Stick" policy, I don't think you can compare, say, Roosevelt with Kennedy, Reagan or Obama- each President shapes foreign policy, as do economic and outside factors.

I can say that I find Obama's foreign policy atrocious- he isn't doing anything fully. He seems to favour Palestinians over Israel, but isn't truly committing himself; he says he wants to pull troops from trouble spots, but is taking his sweet time, and he cannot decide whether China is friend or foe either.

And I think most of us agree with you, Eggy, about disliking the double talk on Capitol Hill, the question is just which side you think is doing it

Exile 1798

silja wrote: »

My perception of the United States' foreign policy at what time, and regarding which country? While yes, they do pretty much consistently have the "Big Stick" policy, I don't think you can compare, say, Roosevelt with Kennedy, Reagan or Obama- each President shapes foreign policy, as do economic and outside factors.

I can say that I find Obama's foreign policy atrocious- he isn't doing anything fully. He seems to favour Palestinians over Israel, but isn't truly committing himself; he says he wants to pull troops from trouble spots, but is taking his sweet time, and he cannot decide whether China is friend or foe either.

And I think most of us agree with you, Eggy, about disliking the double talk on Capitol Hill, the question is just which side you think is doing it

Yes, it's almost as if the world is a complicated place that should be approached with cautiousness and nuance. Screw that, you're either with us or against us!

Can you explain why you want China to be branded as either a friend or foe? What benefits to you perceive in treating it as one or the other?

Isn’t the managing of China’s emergence as an economic super power a serious matter that dwarfs the simple notions of them being good or bad, friend or foe?

Why do you want the President to commit himself on a nearly intractable issue? Isn’t it wiser to outline a general frame work and try and nudge the parties involved into working out a deal? After all its the Israelis and Palestinians who have to make and live up to any eventual deal. Can the American President really impose a deal on them?

OP, you asked for no "Bashing the American people" but it’s hard to understand the confounding aspects of American foreign policy without acknowledging the simplistic notions and attraction to binary thinking of some Americans. We outside the US considered it unbelievable that Bush won the '04 election on his Foreign Policy "credentials", but only because we didn't account for the view from Arkansas.

Kepti

Manic Moran wrote: »

I won't say the US is moving towards an isolationist philosophy, but it is moving to a "US'a best interests" philosophy even more so than it used to.

NTM

What makes you say that? Can you point to an example where they've done something which hasn't been in their self-interest? Genuinely curious here.

I've read that quite a broad range of people are starting to support the adoption of more isolationist policies. Few seem to be pleased about being forced to pay for the current wars, when money is so tight domestically. Is this accurate?

Overheal

Kepti wrote: »

What makes you say that? Can you point to an example where they've done something which hasn't been in their self-interest? Genuinely curious here.

Haiti.

Amerika

Current US foreign policy??? You mean "I'm not George W Bush... Love Me"... right?

That is my honest opinion, and Obama's actions (or should I say inaction's) on foreign policy seem to back it up.
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/02/president-obamas-foreign-policy-im-not.html

Eggy Baby!

Overheal wrote: »

Haiti.

They did it because Haiti is in their sphere of influence- they've always had interest in Haiti and view it, I suppose, as a possible ally in the vicinity of Cuba. If they show "altruism" now, won't Haiti eventually repay America for their "selfless" actions in the future by perhaps allowing permits for military bases to isolate the Cubans? In Politics, every action has a purpose which in some way benefits the policy-maker.

OP, you asked for no "Bashing the American people" but it’s hard to understand the confounding aspects of American foreign policy without acknowledging the simplistic notions and attraction to binary thinking of some Americans. We outside the US considered it unbelievable that Bush won the '04 election on his Foreign Policy "credentials", but only because we didn't account for the view from Arkansas.

Plus, Exile 1798, I wanted no comments like "Americans are gay" or whatever. I personally believe that Americans are incredibly apathetic to politics and what their government does, for living in a democratic country.

And I think most of us agree with you, Eggy, about disliking the double talk on Capitol Hill, the question is just which side you think is doing it

silja, both sides are doing it The Democrats tend to exploit public disillusionment with the Republicans to gain advantage in the polls; then they get in and change nothing in reality. And when the Democrats raise taxes, the Republicans say that they won't raise taxes, and when they get in they dump the treasury into a money pit and expect for dollars to grow on trees..that's the problem with a bipartisan state: there's only two options, or Independents, which, let's face it, they will never be as big as the Republicans or Democrats. Tbh, both parties are as crooked.

America's a big, bad and dangerous Empire...just thought I'd throw that in

Kepti

Amerika wrote: »

Current US foreign policy??? You mean "I'm not George W Bush... Love Me"... right?

That is my honest opinion, and Obama's actions (or should I say inaction's) on foreign policy seem to back it up.
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/02/president-obamas-foreign-policy-im-not.html

Were you supporting McCain/Palin? What would McCain have done differently?

Overheal

They did it because Haiti is in their sphere of influence- they've always had interest in Haiti and view it, I suppose, as a possible ally in the vicinity of Cuba. If they show "altruism" now, won't Haiti eventually repay America for their "selfless" actions in the future by perhaps allowing permits for military bases to isolate the Cubans? In Politics, every action has a purpose which in some way benefits the policy-maker.

If thats how you want to view it: You can't name me any country that has done what you have asked. Every country has always acted in it's own best interest.

Eggy Baby!

Overheal wrote: »

If thats how you want to view it: You can't name me any country that has done what you have asked. Every country has always acted in it's own best interest.

And what have I asked?

Overheal

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

And what have I asked?

Nothing quite as annoying as someone neglecting to re-read what they wrote themselves just a few posts ago:

Can you point to an example where they've done something which hasn't been in their self-interest?

silja

Exile: I think China is incredibly dangerous, and their human rights record is abysmal- I certainly don't want them as a friend. Yes they are an economic superpower, but that doesn't mean we should look the other way.

In terms of Bush's foreign policy- he made some big mistakes, but what he did is preferable to what Obama is (not) doing. And if you find it strange an Irish person saying that, you may want to check my .sig and see where I now live, quite happily so :P

Kepti

Overheal wrote: »

Nothing quite as annoying as someone neglecting to re-read what they wrote themselves just a few posts ago:

Can you point to an example where they've done something which hasn't been in their self-interest?

That was my quote, and I was happy with your Haiti answer.

silja wrote: »

Exile: I think China is incredibly dangerous, and their human rights record is abysmal- I certainly don't want them as a friend. Yes they are an economic superpower, but that doesn't mean we should look the other way.

In terms of Bush's foreign policy- he made some big mistakes, but what he did is preferable to what Obama is (not) doing. And if you find it strange an Irish person saying that, you may want to check my .sig and see where I now live, quite happily so :P

America's record on human rights is equally abysmal if not worse. Which country do you think has killed more innocent people in the last 5-10 years? Which country has more of their own citizens incarcerated?

silja

Kepti wrote: »

America's record on human rights is equally abysmal if not worse. Which country do you think has killed more innocent people in the last 5-10 years? Which country has more of their own citizens incarcerated?

Well, having citizens in jail isn't necessarily a bad thing (and your and my definition of innocent may vary), but yes, the US' Human Rights record isn't great either. Two wrongs don't make a right though.

Kepti

silja wrote: »

Well, having citizens in jail isn't necessarily a bad thing (and your and my definition of innocent may vary), but yes, the US' Human Rights record isn't great either. Two wrongs don't make a right though.

I wasn't trying to claim that two wrongs make a right. I just found it strange to read your vitriolic criticisms without an acknowledgement of America's failings. Everything that makes them so distasteful to you also applies to America.

I think it's an objectively bad thing to have a privatized prison system which incentivizes the incarceration of people to such an extent that a not-insignificant percentage of the population is behind bars. (3.1% of adults in 2009).

I think it's a bad thing to have draconian drugs laws which dole out unreasonable punishments for non-violent drugs offenses.

My definition of innocents includes unarmed non-violent civilians; men, women and children.

Amerika

Kepti wrote: »

Were you supporting McCain/Palin? What would McCain have done differently?

McCain was not my pick in the primaries, but yes... I supported McCain/Palin ticket over the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008. McCain basically supported George W Bush’s foreign policy and seemed to indicate a continuation of such if elected... which was good with me.

And regarding your question, I’d had hoped McCain, with his vast military background, would have known more of whom the rebels were and had a clearer military mission, before committing our military resources into action. But given his support for the rebels and the military action in Libya, I find myself questioning his reasoning.

Kepti

Amerika wrote: »

McCain was not my pick in the primaries, but yes... I supported McCain/Palin ticket over the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008. McCain basically supported George W Bush’s foreign policy and seemed to indicate a continuation of such if elected... which was good with me.

And regarding your question, I’d had hoped McCain, with his vast military background, would have known more of whom the rebels were and had a clearer military mission, before committing our military resources into action. But given his support for the rebels and the military action in Libya, I find myself questioning his reasoning.

I supported Obama/Biden, but am massively disappointed with how that turned out. Knowing what I know now, I probably still wouldn't support McCain/Palin, but I'd love to know what their America would look like.

Are there any republicans who stand out for you for 2012? I haven't been following the news nearly as much as last time around. I've read that Romney is strong, but could he legitimately challenge Obama?

Amerika

Kepti wrote: »

Are there any republicans who stand out for you for 2012? I haven't been following the news nearly as much as last time around. I've read that Romney is strong, but could he legitimately challenge Obama?

Choices like Obama and Palin (both being too ingrained to the far left and far right by US standards), are not what is best for America right now. After watching the GOP presidential debate last night, it is evident to me that all seven are more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. The debate showed that the “11th Commandment” was on display, and if that continues through the primary it will be a simple coronation of Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate. Romney, although not conservative enough for me, is probably the best choice to bridge the divide between both political parties and independents, and get America back on the right track to recovery.

By the way, I thought Michelle Bachmann came out the best in the debate.

Kepti

Amerika wrote: »

Choices like Obama and Palin (both being too ingrained to the far left and far right by US standards), are not what is best for America right now. After watching the GOP presidential debate last night, it is evident to me that all seven are more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. The debate showed that the “11th Commandment” was on display, and if that continues through the primary it will be a simple coronation of Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate. Romney, although not conservative enough for me, is probably the best choice to bridge the divide between both political parties and independents, and get America back on the right track to recovery.

By the way, I thought Michelle Bachmann came out the best in the debate.

Despite all his talk during the primaries, do you still regard Obama as far left rather than center-left? Any policies which stick out other than medicare?

I'll take a look at that debate later, if I can find it online somewhere. It's worth a watch if it makes Michelle Bachmann look good. I've seen very little I like about her to put it mildly.

Do you think the Christian republicans will have any issues voting for a Mormon? I read on another forum that some would be uncomfortable voting for him based on his religion, but I don't know if that holds any water.

Another thing I read that's hanging over his head is that his proposed healthcare plan during the previous election was similar to the one Obama enacted, which republicans fiercely opposed. Do people care enough for this to affect their vote? I wouldn't think so; people have more immediate concerns right now.

Manic Moran

Kepti wrote: »

What makes you say that? Can you point to an example where they've done something which hasn't been in their self-interest? Genuinely curious here.

Chilean miner rescue? Liberian Presidential Conflict?

If you are a believer in Karma, then yes, any act of assistance is going to be viewed as 'in self interest' in the hope that something good, even if it's just good-will will return to you.

On a cost/benefit relationship, however, would the cost of US action in Japan or Indonesia ever be truly recouped? It's not as if Japan would have suddenly stopped trading with the US had they not helped out with a very sizeable aid deployment.

I've read that quite a broad range of people are starting to support the adoption of more isolationist policies. Few seem to be pleased about being forced to pay for the current wars, when money is so tight domestically. Is this accurate?

Depends on the war. Afghanistan has much less opposition to it than Libya. Especially since the prime movers behind Libya are the UK and France but due to their lack of foresight, the US is being relied upon to do much of the hard/expensive work in a nation which hasn't really pissed off the US too much in the last decade.

And regarding your question, I’d had hoped McCain, with his vast military background, would have known more of whom the rebels were and had a clearer military mission, before committing our military resources into action. But given his support for the rebels and the military action in Libya, I find myself questioning his reasoning.

I think a difference would have been that McCain would have taken the position and owned it. The Libya thing is a half-hearted affair that took too long to get going to begin with, and seems to be taking no particular route to the stated end goal. If it's in the US's best interests to see Gadaffi gone, then just go ahead and make it happen, the amount of lives and money saved in the long run would have worked out for the better.

NTM

Eggy Baby!

Overheal wrote: »

Nothing quite as annoying as someone neglecting to re-read what they wrote themselves just a few posts ago:

Can you point to an example where they've done something which hasn't been in their self-interest?

But not quite as annoying as someone telling you that you said something which somebody else said. Dig?

The Libyan rebels are like the Whites in the Russian Civil War: rabble with no clear motives. Gaddafi out, they say, but who will fill the power vacuum in such a pivotal and resource-rich country afterwards? Gaddafi should stay, imo. But now that he knows who his friends and enemies are, the war will never end with him in power. There are even worse people that America and it's cronies tolerate; Mugabe, Saleh and the rest. The West are just stirring up s*** in the Middle East....I think its so that they can ride in and "save the day" in the end when it most suits them. Plus, the amount of agitprop coming out of the rebels to influence the West was pathetic...Gaddafi attacking his own people with attack planes? No evidence, but widely accepted by the West.

Seeing as Gaddafi has attempted on multiple times to negotiate a ceasefire, all of which were dismissed by the rebels, I believe that the best bet for Gaddafi is to offer a deal on splitting the country. When the East, held by the Benghazi government inevitably implodes due to mismanagement and infighting, they will come running back to him.

Similarly, why do people think it is so horrible that he cracked down so hard on a revolution in his own country against his own authority? I'm sure that in each country's constitution it gives the government powers to squelch a revolution against the establishment, I'm SURE. Even in America.

Gaddafi may be a freak of nature, and a tyrant, but he's a million times the man that the rebel leader is (oh wait, they don't have one, they're rabble). He stays; the rebels can go away to newly-"freed" Egypt if they wish.

Kepti

Manic Moran wrote: »

Chilean miner rescue? Liberian Presidential Conflict?

If you are a believer in Karma, then yes, any act of assistance is going to be viewed as 'in self interest' in the hope that something good, even if it's just good-will will return to you.

On a cost/benefit relationship, however, would the cost of US action in Japan or Indonesia ever be truly recouped? It's not as if Japan would have suddenly stopped trading with the US had they not helped out with a very sizeable aid deployment.

Could you expand on the Liberian presidential election part? A cursory reading of the Wikipedia page reveals America's involvement there as anything but altruistic. It says they were using the country as a staging area and trying to fight Soviet influence in Africa.

I'm not sure why I didn't think of the aid provided to the Japanese and Indonesians, I was thinking in more political terms. It's a good point though, and certainly counts.

I don't believe in Karma, as attractive a belief as it is.

Overheal

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

But not quite as annoying as someone telling you that you said something which somebody else said. Dig?

Touche.

Manic Moran

Kepti wrote: »

Could you expand on the Liberian presidential election part? A cursory reading of the Wikipedia page reveals America's involvement there as anything but altruistic. It says they were using the country as a staging area and trying to fight Soviet influence in Africa.

No need to go back to the Soviet days, I'm thinking of the time about a decade ago during the second Liberian Civil War when then-President Taylor was involved in a mild disagreement as to whether or not he should remain in power for a while.

GWB sent a Marine task force to sit off his beachfront property as a bit of an attention-getter, and Taylor was shortly therafter persuaded to take an extended leave of absence from his duties. A couple of companies of Marines then landed in company of ECOMIL troops to maintain the peace. This allowed the UN to set up UNMIL, to which the Irish Army dispatched some forces.

It didn't receive much press because it wasn't a very shooty operation, and frankly, nobody much cares about Liberia anyway.

NTM

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

But not quite as annoying as someone telling you that you said something which somebody else said. Dig?

The Libyan rebels are like the Whites in the Russian Civil War: rabble with no clear motives. Gaddafi out, they say, but who will fill the power vacuum in such a pivotal and resource-rich country afterwards? Gaddafi should stay, imo. But now that he knows who his friends and enemies are, the war will never end with him in power. There are even worse people that America and it's cronies tolerate; Mugabe, Saleh and the rest. The West are just stirring up s*** in the Middle East....I think its so that they can ride in and "save the day" in the end when it most suits them. Plus, the amount of agitprop coming out of the rebels to influence the West was pathetic...Gaddafi attacking his own people with attack planes? No evidence, but widely accepted by the West.

Yikes

Who will fill power in Egypt? or Tunisia? There's always a question of who'll fill power after the people rise up, there shouldn't be a question about people rising up in the first place.

No one "tolerates" Mugabe, there's little that can be done about him.

Gaddafi had protestors shot with anti-aircraft guns, used heavy rocket launchers against residential areas, used aircraft to bomb positions, I can provide proper links to all that if you'd like.

Seeing as Gaddafi has attempted on multiple times to negotiate a ceasefire,

He announced a ceasefire which he broke immediately

all of which were dismissed by the rebels, I believe that the best bet for Gaddafi is to offer a deal on splitting the country. When the East, held by the Benghazi government inevitably implodes due to mismanagement and infighting, they will come running back to him.

The very rebels he has threatened to "cleanse"?

Similarly, why do people think it is so horrible that he cracked down so hard on a revolution in his own country against his own authority?

He's a dictator, he rules with fear. The Libyans live in a society where they can be arbitrarily arrested, tortured and even disappeared for saying anything against the leadership. Despite some of the surprising benefits, human beings generally do not like living in those conditions. Unless of course you think they're all perfectly happy in North Korea?

I'm sure that in each country's constitution it gives the government powers to squelch a revolution against the establishment, I'm SURE. Even in America.

Not sure if serious.

Gaddafi may be a freak of nature, and a tyrant, but he's a million times the man that the rebel leader is (oh wait, they don't have one, they're rabble). He stays; the rebels can go away to newly-"freed" Egypt if they wish.

Yup just like the rabble in the French revolution

Anyway, back on topic, for me US foreign policy hasn't changed much since the Bush era, just the tone and transparency, plus the new problem kid on the block - Pakistan.

Eggy Baby!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not sure if serious.

I am serious...if there was an armed rebellion in America against the established authority, the government would destroy them with drones and the National Guard. I doubt even a democratically elected government as in America would long tolerate armed revolt...

They have chosen Gaddafi as their straw-man (which is ironic as they guy actually looks like a scare-crow) as Bin Laden is dead. All empires are fuelled by war- America goes to war to keep the armaments industry booming, and perpetuates wars abroad so that said armaments industry can sell to the belligerents...

Plus, I know he's a dictator, a nasty dictator. If he is a dictator it is expected that he is tyrannical... North Korea is a piece of crap, awful, awful country btw and the people are treated like robots and bombarded with propaganda every day..

Yup just like the rabble in the French revolution

Don't exactly know what you mean by this but it seems sarcastic... the French revolution was a failed revolution that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents...hmmm maybe you weren't that sarcastic after all.

Plus the Pakistanis are not a problem. They were probably keeping Bin Laden for Obama on their land so that Obama could kill him whenever his ratings dropped..

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

They have chosen Gaddafi as their straw-man (which is ironic as they guy actually looks like a scare-crow) as Bin Laden is dead.

Well I want their crystal ball then as they went after Gaddafi before Bin Laden was dead

Plus the Pakistanis are not a problem. They were probably keeping Bin Laden for Obama on their land so that Obama could kill him whenever his ratings dropped..

Ironically the ISI are going hammer and tongs to root out any native CIA support for that operation, not so worried about the extremists blowing up the school kids though faster than US drones can.

Memnoch

The US's foreign policy is to blame for Pakistani terrorism in a big way.

For DECADES the ISI has been sponsoring Jihad and Islamic terrorism in India. The US has turned a blind eye to this and been cosying up to Pakistan. As with Saddam, as with Al Queda and all the other questionable people they have supported through the years it is once more coming to bite them in the behind.

Yet they do not learn. Yet they support tyrannical regimes around the world.

Eggy Baby!

The Pakistanis supported the Taliban during their ascent to power in Afghanistan...as did the Saudis...Iran supported resistance against the Taliban, as did Russia. America did nothing as the Taliban took over the country and began to assert their nastiness on it. Nuff said.

Memnoch

What are you on about?

Pakistan supported the taliban with the help/guidance and at the best of the US. The US supported the taliban as a counter to Russia.

The Saudi royal family have been bedfellows of many US administrations.

If you want to talk about US foreign policy maybe you should brush up on some basics first.

Eggy Baby!

As the Taliban began to take over the country, America did nothing...even Clinton admitted it...they did support them during the Soviet war there but then were indifferent after that...

I have brushed up on my basics..read it up in a book called THE TALIBAN

RichieC

It's racist, hawkish and unjust. no different than anyother empire of the past.

always will be regardless which party that's in power. You'll find both parties and intellectuals on both sides agree on all the most egregious of their policies.

Exile 1798

silja wrote: »

Exile: I think China is incredibly dangerous, and their human rights record is abysmal- I certainly don't want them as a friend. Yes they are an economic superpower, but that doesn't mean we should look the other way.

Again, so your gripe with Obama's foreign policy is that he isn't making an enemy out of China, he's not poking them in the eye enough. You want a new Cold War initiated.

Your complaint isn't an legitimate one, nor is it even a comment on the Obama admins actual stance towards China. All it reflects is your own simplistic and flawed understanding of the world.

silja wrote: »

In terms of Bush's foreign policy- he made some big mistakes, but what he did is preferable to what Obama is (not) doing. And if you find it strange an Irish person saying that, you may want to check my .sig and see where I now live, quite happily so :P

Not doing stuff can be good policy.

For example, not invading Iraq, not letting Afghanistan drift aimlessly for 6 years, not labelling Iran as being part of an "Axis of Evil" after they'd offered to co-operation in Afghanistan post-September 11, not spurning Iran's cautious moves towards rapprochement under a reformist President Khatami ect

matthew8

US foreign policy has been flawed and hypocritical for a long time. Incidentally, their MOST infamous war of the last 50 years, the Vietnam war, was perhaps their most justified taking into account the genocide that followed. The drone attacks are the worst thing of all.

However I like the foreign policy of stopping in Shannon to refuel and have a drink. Gives us some employment.

Eggy Baby!

What genocide? Khmer Rouge?

matthew8

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

What genocide? Khmer Rouge?

Yes, Pol Pot and all. Millions killed following the withdrawal.

Exile 1798

matthew8 wrote: »

US foreign policy has been flawed and hypocritical for a long time. Incidentally, their MOST infamous war of the last 50 years, the Vietnam war, was perhaps their most justified taking into account the genocide that followed. The drone attacks are the worst thing of all.

However I like the foreign policy of stopping in Shannon to refuel and have a drink. Gives us some employment.

A complete inversion of reality. America's least justified major war is the "most justified" I can barely fathom what informs this thinking.

matthew8 wrote: »

Yes, Pol Pot and all. Millions killed following the withdrawal.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge who were ousted by and only by the Vietnamese Communists, the people who you think the the US was "most justified" in warring against for a decade.

getz

the united states foreign policy,is a way of teaching americans geography

matthew8

Exile 1798 wrote: »

A complete inversion of reality. America's least justified major war is the "most justified" I can barely fathom what informs this thinking.



Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge who were ousted by and only by the Vietnamese Communists, the people who you think the the US was "most justified" in warring against for a decade.

I used the word perhaps because it's arguable that had the US stayed in and won there would have been a lot less deaths.

Nodin

matthew8 wrote: »

I used the word perhaps because it's arguable that had the US stayed in and won there would have been a lot less deaths.

To win against a population that largely did not want them there they would have to have killed even more people. And, as pointed out, the khmer rouge were in a state which - though attacked by US forces - had no US presence.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

I used the word perhaps because it's arguable that had the US stayed in and won there would have been a lot less deaths.

I hope you aren't forgetting about the use of chemical WMDs by the US such as Agent Orange that continues to have devastating consequences for the local population for decades after the US forces had left. Somehow I doubt a prolonged presence would have saved lives.

Eggy Baby!

Exile, that is exactly what I was trying to lead him into

The Americans attacked the Vietnamese. The Americans lost, withdrew, whatever. Vietnam is Communist. Cambodia goes Communist..not as a direct result of Vietnam going Communist. Pol Pot et al murder millions of people during their social engineering programs and kill many Vietnamese in border raids.

The Vietnamese attack Cambodia, take it over, and install a puppet government. They discover the killing fields and all the other apparati of murder. They remove Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. While the Vietnamese take drastic steps to remove Pol Pot and his murder machine, America does nothing...but they do support, along with China, the Khmer Rouge and others as they attempt to launch an insurgency against the Vietnamese.

China invades Vietnam but is repelled after a long war which nobody really heard about but was very bloody and embarrassing for China. The end.

Since when is the murder of 2.5 million justified? I know, matthew, that you are trying to justify the Vietnam War by trying in an illogical way to connect the Cambodian genocide with US withdrawal. Try as you wish, but why did the Americans intervene in Vietnam and not Cambodia and save those millions who died? Why kill over 2 million people and then be indifferent to the murder of millions more innocents? Kennedy said: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality." It was ironic that after and indeed during his administration, his country practised that so often...sad really. I don't know why a country with so much resources and manpower doesn't use it for the good of all. Ah well. It's a shame Ireland doesn't rule the world, huh??

matthew8

It seems some on this forum are illiterate. I did not say I supported going into Vietnam. I never did. Whatver you may want my post to read, I was just pointing out that out of all US foreign operations leaving Vietnam resulted in millions of deaths and that this is America's most infamous war despite the fact that had America managed to control Vietnam and Cambodia the millions would not have died.

Nodin

matthew8 wrote: »

It seems some on this forum are illiterate. I did not say I supported going into Vietnam. I never did. Whatver you may want my post to read, I was just pointing out that out of all US foreign operations leaving Vietnam resulted in millions of deaths and that this is America's most infamous war despite the fact that had America managed to control Vietnam and Cambodia the millions would not have died.

That outline bears little relation to what actually happened, its context and aftermath.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

It seems some on this forum are illiterate. I did not say I supported going into Vietnam. I never did. Whatver you may want my post to read, I was just pointing out that out of all US foreign operations leaving Vietnam resulted in millions of deaths and that this is America's most infamous war despite the fact that had America managed to control Vietnam and Cambodia the millions would not have died.

So the willingness of the US to use WMD on the Vietnamese has no bearing on how many lives may or may not have been saved had they continued the war.

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

So the willingness of the US to use WMD on the Vietnamese has no bearing on how many lives may or may not have been saved had they continued the war.

I did not say that and you are making things up, besides there was no way they would use a Nuclear weapon against Vietnam.

Eggy Baby!

matthew8 wrote: »

I did not say that and you are making things up, besides there was no way they would use a Nuclear weapon against Vietnam.

WMDs aren't necessarily Nukes.....Agent Orange is a WMD?

Plus, we aren't saying that you supported the intervention in 'Nam but rather we disagree with the fact that you are saying it would have been better if they stayed and duked it out until the end; it somehow, in strange logic, according to you, would have prevented the Cambodian genocide and magically have lead to less deaths than the withdrawal did. So you are saying that if the Americans stayed in Nam they would have just sat there on their laurels and not shot or killed anyone, or dropped Agent Orange on them?

Noooope. They would have killed thousands every month with bombing offensives or with other nasty things like chemical weapons. The longer a war tends to go on, the more deaths it tends to cause. Fact.

Plus, I don't know why you think that some of us here are illiterate because we disagree with your viewpoint. I've noticed that the people commenting on this topic have very good grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation.

matthew8

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

WMDs aren't necessarily Nukes.....Agent Orange is a WMD?

Plus, we aren't saying that you supported the intervention in 'Nam but rather we disagree with the fact that you are saying it would have been better if they stayed and duked it out until the end; it somehow, in strange logic, according to you, would have prevented the Cambodian genocide and magically have lead to less deaths than the withdrawal did. So you are saying that if the Americans stayed in Nam they would have just sat there on their laurels and not shot or killed anyone, or dropped Agent Orange on them?

Noooope. They would have killed thousands every month with bombing offensives or with other nasty things like chemical weapons. The longer a war tends to go on, the more deaths it tends to cause. Fact.

Plus, I don't know why you think that some of us here are illiterate because we disagree with your viewpoint. I've noticed that the people commenting on this topic have very good grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation.

I didn't say they should stay in either you illiterate person. End wars, keep the budget deficit down, avoid conflict. I was just pointing out the genocide that followed the withdrawal, despite what you think I said.