The US Deploys Mercenaries In Vietnam

[Tielhard]

Fenwick,

The ARNV and VC did not have access to strong mutagens and so did not use them. The Americans made extensive use of herbicides containg large concentrations of strongly mutagenic compounds. They continued to do this even after it was shown that the herbicides contained compounds that were capable of causing injuries to unborn innocents, the far decendants of the enemies then engaged engaged. This is clearly a crime against humanity.

The Americans also employed daisy cutters and similar weapons in a WMD role. However, I am sure that the American apologists on this board would argue that as they use conventional explosives they are not WMD.

 

[Tielhard]

Live with it girls

Mr.Bluenote,

You wrote in response to my comments on Australia et. al. loosing the Vietnamese-American war: "What?!!! The Auzzies did very well in 'Nam! As did most of the US Forces btw. Sigh...."

No they (you?) did not, they lost, there is no silver medal for second place in this war, the Ockers might have been competent, it does not matter, they were part of a crap, evil and immoral team, they lost.

Let the good Mr. Springsteen, American patriot explain the situation to you:

" ...I had a brother at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there but he's all gone ..."

"They're still there but he's all gone" not exactly great literature by poingiant and to the point.

"as you might know, the CIA pumped money and guns and what not into Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, but did not distribute them, so to call the Taliban a direct proxy is a bit over the top. A Pakistani (Secret Service) proxy is more correct."

This is quite a fatuous argument, if America funds and supplies them the blood is on American hands. Your argument is a little like suggesting that USA was not responsible for the unprovoked invasion of Cuba by American irregulars, patently absurd.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Tielhard, only in the sense that conventional bombs are, by their very definition, NOT WMDs. And no one legitimately claim otherwise.

Also, sorry to break the bad news, but it is your beloved communists who have been established as the 'evil', 'crap', and 'immoral' losers before the bar of history. It is unfortunate that the people of Vietnam had to be one of the last groups to fall to the horrors of communism but at least their nightmare is beginning to ease, as Hanoi begs and pleads for closer ties to the US.

Oh, and the Viet Cong are also all gone. They were liquidated as a potential threat by Hanoi after they lost all military capacity in 1968. It must have been especially amusing for some of the few who survived and escaped, who then fled to the US for refuge, including the last number two in the VC.

 

[Wozza]

This is quite a fatuous argument, if America funds and supplies them the blood is on American hands. Your argument is a little like suggesting that USA was not responsible for the unprovoked invasion of Cuba by American irregulars, patently absurd.[/QUOTE]

The Taliban did not exist in the 1980s, they are 1 90s offshoot of the religious education organisations.

"blood on American hands"

NO WAY, not this time Tielhard

1st Communist Governmen of Afghanistan 78-79: 100,000 casualties

but that was a warm up

2nd communist government, post soviet invasion: 1.5 million dead

when you give weapons to protect people from mass murdering invaders you have no blood on your hands. Simple as that.

 

[Bulldawg85]

Pol Pot

Tielhard, as it has been pointed out, Pol Pot killed more citizens of Cambodia than the French, the U.S., and their allies ever did. Unless of course you are arguing that it never happened and that is AH.

 

[Tielhard]

"when you give weapons to protect people from mass murdering invaders you have no blood on your hands. Simple as that."

Wozza I cannot beleive you are supporting the Taliban! How can you even talk about the blood on other peoples hands when you take that position.



PS: I question your numbers. The 1.5E6, if the Communist regime was responsible for this many deaths how many were the Taliban and indirectly of course the Americans responsible for? Round figures will do.

PPS: When you give people guns the usually attack other people. It may be more democratic but the death rate usually goes up.

PPPS: WAY! I can do capitals too, mine are bigger and better than yours and I have even got an exclamation mark.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Tielhard, as it has been pointed out, Pol Pot killed more citizens of Cambodia than the French, the U.S., and their allies ever did. Unless of course you are arguing that it never happened and that is AH.

And who exactly brought an end to Pol Pot's regime?

 

[Tielhard]

"Tielhard, as it has been pointed out, Pol Pot killed more citizens of Cambodia than the French, the U.S., and their allies ever did. Unless Tielhard, as it has been pointed out, Pol Pot killed more citizens of Cambodia than the French, the U.S., and their allies ever did. Unless of course you are arguing that it never happened and that is AH."

That would be the Pol Pot the USA supported. Pol Pot the genocide, that the noble Vietnamese army liberated the Cambodian people from in the face of international hostility? Unless of course you are arguing that it never happened and that it is AH.

 

[Bulldawg85]

US supported

Pol Pot was U.S. supported?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Gee, and I thought that the Khmer Rouge were communist. I guess that I and 99.9% of the world's population were wrong. My mistake.

The next thing that you will tell me is that Stalin invaded Poland in 1939 to liberate them from Nazi opression.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza I cannot beleive you are supporting the Taliban! How can you even talk about the blood on other peoples hands when you take that position.

I did not, I justified US weapons in Afghanistan

PS: I question your numbers. The 1.5E6, if the Communist regime was responsible for this many deaths how many were the Taliban and indirectly of course the Americans responsible for? Round figures will do.

The numbers come from a book written by an Afghan. THe slaughter started before any US weaspons. The US was attacked by the Taliban regime, culpability for deaths in war lies with the aggressor except in the case of actual war crimes.

PPS: When you give people guns the usually attack other people. It may be more democratic but the death rate usually goes up.

Except where one side has guns and the other does not, see the Jew/Nazis phenomenon, and not simmilarly, but without crude parallels, the Hind helicopter/ Afghan village phenomenon

PPPS: WAY! I can do capitals too, mine are bigger and better than yours and I have even got an exclamation mark.
Point taken. But you cannot have a one sided debate focussing solely on US crimes ignoring what totalitarian regimes have done when given half a chance.

 

[Wozza]

And who exactly brought an end to Pol Pot's regime?

Who tried to stop it gaining power in the first place and was condemned by the same people who later condemned the US for allegedly backing that regime???

Also Humanitarianism probably was not the Vietnamese prime motivation.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

No they (you?) did not, they lost, there is no silver medal for second place in this war, the Ockers might have been competent, it does not matter, they were part of a crap, evil and immoral team, they lost.

Being a Dane and hardly old enough, Vietnam was not my war (had more than my fill, though), but it is important in this debate to understand the reasons for the US defeat in Vietnam. It was NOT a military defeat, but a political one. I have no idea what kind of education you have, be it civilian or military, but in the military, and elsewhere I presume, is does matter in what manner you are defeated. Basically, the US public grew tired of seeing their sons return in body bags - can't blame them, I might add -, but the Vietnamese leadership didn't have to take their opinion polls seriously, North Vietnam not being a democracy or anything like it. Which is again why the US failed, McNamara simply thought that the US could bleed the Vietnamese white, but he didn't take abovementioned factor into consideration. Rumsfeld, for all his other faults, have recognised that and TRY to fight a light, smart war instead.

And please bear in mind your original stand that the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, as was everybody else according to your former post. I'd say (again), that the US was defeated by the US. It was a political defeat, NOT a military ditto. One could even argue that the French defeat was a political defeat - not sending Conscripts abroad, not getting sufficient local backing, not having full US or let alone British support etc etc.

Nice song btw, and cheap trick!

It's hard, bloody and difficult in every way to defeat an enemy who care not for his fellow soldiers, brothers, sisters or neighbours.

This is quite a fatuous argument, if America funds and supplies them the blood is on American hands.

Oh, I haven't argued that the US was not in a rather circumspect way responsible for the rise of the Taliban, but they were not directly responsible, which is why it's wrong the call the Taliban a proxy for as such. It might be semantics, but in these debates, as in most of real life, it is improtant to phrase your opinions clearly.

Oh, and please, WMD are not by definition standard munitions - no matter their size -, nor anti-foliage agents (a herbicide). Besides, the BLU-something aka the Daisy Cutter was first used in Afghanistan as an AP weapon and is nothing more than a boody big bomb. In Vietnam, were they were codenamed something else, I believe, and were used to create instant LZ's etc etc. It's sometimes difficult to argue these things, when people, in this case you, contineously mix and confuse terms.

Funny thing about these Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq debates is that people tend to be politicallly motivated, not driven by historical knolwledge or even thirst thereof.

Best regards!

- B.

 

[Tielhard]

Death wrote: "Tielhard, only in the sense that conventional bombs are, by their very definition, NOT WMDs. And no one legitimately claim otherwise."
I wrote: "The Americans also employed daisy cutters and similar weapons in a WMD role. However, I am sure that the American apologists on this board would argue that as they use conventional explosives they are not WMD."

It is so nice to be proved right so quickly.

"Also, sorry to break the bad news, but it is your beloved communists who have been established as the 'evil', 'crap', and 'immoral' losers before the bar of history."

A time to reap, a time to sow, a time to lie fallow. Communism may be dead but I would not bet on it. As for crying out judgement from the bar (mine is a Chimay) of history I think we need to wait half a century or so before we get any real perspective on things.

"It is unfortunate that the people of Vietnam had to be one of the last groups to fall to the horrors of communism but at least their nightmare is beginning to ease, as Hanoi begs and pleads for closer ties to the US."

It was not the Communists bombing from so high in the sky they could not be seen, it was not the Communists burning thier children, it was not the Communists pouring so much shit into thier gene pool that thier children will be deformed for generations to come, it was not the Communists that dropped millions of land mines that rip the limbs from children every day, every week, every year. They are Americas sins.

"Oh, and the Viet Cong are also all gone. They were liquidated as a potential threat by Hanoi after they lost all military capacity in 1968."

Mr. Spock he say 'Illogical Captain"

"It must have been especially amusing for some of the few who survived and escaped, who then fled to the US for refuge, including the last number two in the VC."

I wonder ... infiltration ... spy ... these are good words.

 

[Wozza]

"Oh, and the Viet Cong are also all gone. They were liquidated as a potential threat by Hanoi after they lost all military capacity in 1968."

Mr. Spock he say 'Illogical Captain"

To take us back to history I read that the southern communist VC were all gone after 1968.
They were replaced by northern volunteers and finally by NVA regulars.
How the author of the book I read knew this I have no idea, does anyone?

Back to politics: This is strong evidence that the Hanoi government was waging aggressive war not representing all Vietnam.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Who tried to stop it gaining power in the first place and was condemned by the same people who later condemned the US for allegedly backing that regime???

Supporting the unpopular and corrupt military dictator Lon Nol's coup against the legitimate (but insufficiently pro-American) government of Cambodia - which led directly within the following two years to the rise of the Khmer Rouge - is hardly the best way to stop them from coming to power in the first place.

 

[Tielhard]

Bulldawg85 say: "Pol Pot was U.S. supported? <link to wikiwhatssit> Gee, and I thought that the Khmer Rouge were communist. I guess that I and 99.9% of the world's population were wrong. My mistake."

Yep. Communist and supported by the USA in the later year. Oh! and it is just you the rest of the world is quite clear on the situation.

Mr.Bluenote says, very elloquently, I might add: "It was NOT a military defeat, but a political one. I have no idea what kind of education you have, be it civilian or military, but in the military, and elsewhere I presume, is does matter in what manner you are defeated."

There is only victory or defeat. The nature of the defeat is irrelevant. The Americans were defeated because the Vietnamese destroyed the American soul. The Americans could only kill the Vietnamese. As Banks spent a whole book explaining everything is a weapon you just have to know how to weild it.

"It's hard, bloody and difficult in every way to defeat an enemy who care(s) not for his fellow soldiers, brothers, sisters or neighbours."

It is also dishonourable to dehumanise ones enemy. Especially when one knows it to be untrue. I offer you the opportunity to recant this remark?

Wozza:

"PS: I question your numbers. The 1.5E6, if the Communist regime was responsible for this many deaths how many were the Taliban and indirectly of course the Americans responsible for? Round figures will do.

The numbers come from a book written by an Afghan. THe slaughter started before any US weaspons. The US was attacked by the Taliban regime, culpability for deaths in war lies with the aggressor except in the case of actual war crimes."

Round figures will do? I'm waiting.

All:

Please return to the exciting subject of the effect of mercenaries in Vietnam otherwise Ian will throw a wobbler.

 

[Wozza]

Supporting the unpopular and corrupt military dictator Lon Nol's coup against the legitimate (but insufficiently pro-American) government of Cambodia - which led directly within the following two years to the rise of the Khmer Rouge - is hardly the best way to stop them from coming to power in the first place.

I know nearly nothing about this I confess. But the US did also fight the Khmer Rouge? And was criticised by the usual people?

 

[Leo Caesius]

But the US did also fight the Khmer Rouge? And was criticised by the usual people?

Yes. We supported Lon Nol because he promised to do something about the VC which had occupied parts of Cambodia and, incidentally, the Khmer Rouge, who were a growing threat. After Lon Nol's coup, the military government he formed did not last long, and the country fell into the Khmer Rouges' hands.

At that point, things began to get quite sticky. The Chinese negotiated with the new government and supported the KR against the Vietnamese, and IIRC so did the US - with aid and possibly guns. In return, the KR invaded Vietnam on several occasions. This lasted until the Vietnamese overran the country and established a new government, with free elections in 1993.

 

[Bulldawg85]

Facts

I cited facts and you cited opinions. The Khmer Rouge were supported by the U.S. after they took over Cambodia? Please provide facts to back up your statements, not opinions.

I will grant that we need to wait 50 or so years to tell if communism is dead. But pure communism has all businesses being state controlled and there is no way that one can argue that all businesses in the PRC are state owned.

 

[Wozza]

Yes. We supported Lon Nol because he promised to do something about the VC which had occupied parts of Cambodia and, incidentally, the Khmer Rouge, who were a growing threat. After Lon Nol's coup, the military government he formed did not last long, and the country fell into the Khmer Rouges' hands.

At that point, things began to get quite sticky. The Chinese negotiated with the new government and supported the KR against the Vietnamese, and IIRC so did the US - with aid and possibly guns. In return, the KR invaded Vietnam on several occasions. This lasted until the Vietnamese overran the country and established a new government, with free elections in 1993.

So, the US ineptly oppose then support the KR
US critics oppose US opposition then oppose US support
Consistency a rarity all round...

Are the rumours about actual western military support for the KR true? They tend to come from people like John Pilger, who is so agenda fuelled and has such a reputation for selective evidence that it becomes hard to blur fact from fiction