|
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
In Vietnam there was a large support for communism in the northern part of the country, and this was in a time where communism was gaining support the world over. The US (among others) didn't approve of this shift in power towards the Soviet, so they tried to stop it. However, if the matter had been put to a vote on the exact constitution of government (as is the norm in a democracy), the outcome would probably have been that the communists would have taken a large number of the seats in a resulting parlament. Thus, the US was not trying to promote democracy. They were trying to prevent further adoption of communism. |
Yes ofcourse they wanted to stop communism. That is my point. You are speculating on the outcome resulting in a soviet controlled government, which I highly doubt the US would have allowed upon them ousting the communist gov. and winning militarily. Based on the evidence of what the US has done in the past with other nations don't you think they would have inserted their own chosen democratic supporting puppet government instead? I absolutely do. Just as they have a hand in selecting the leaders in the new Iraq gov. right now.
| quote: | In Iraq the war was officially started in order to strip Saddam of his weapon of mass destruction, and thereby protecting the world from him. Unofficially, there has been some speculation as to whether the war was started from more selffish motives, such as the US' need for oil, or even the personal revenue of individual members of the Bush administration. What is clear, though, is that the introduction of democracy in Iraq never was a stated goal, until it became clear that the threat of weapons of mass destruction had been exagerated (or made up as we Bush haters call it  ). |
Well the intel of WMD came from numerous sources outside the US also including european nations. If it was merely Bush's admins intel I might be suspect of the credibility but because of the numerous sources the credibility that WMD was indeed a high likelyhood was high even if it turned out as unaccurate.
| quote: | | [Other things that makes the two wars different are: That Iraq was a *stable* society prior to US *invasion*. Vietnam was already at civil war with one side aided by the French. Furthermore, the US has control of most of Iraq now, and it is therefore feasible to leave Iraq in a stable state. In Vietnam the US had no control of the situation, and US sympathizers had to be evacuated in a hurry in the final days of the war. |
I know of all the unofficial speculation. But one thing that was said right around the start of the war (possibly even before the initial attack i'll have to check records) in a speach by Bush and Tony Blair is that they have a middle east peace plan. Funny that not very many ppl picked up on that line but they both essentially told the world then and there what the real purpose of the war was. Yet everyone seems to have kept focusing on WMD and not the big picture. No other words like those were ever uttered again in any later speaches as far as I am aware. It's very hard to give supporting evidence that this has been the Bush admin plan right after sept 11, because their intitial intent wasn't disclosed so early on to the public. But it is clear now that the US is trying to establish a democratic gov. in Iraq with dem elections etc etc.
|
thanks Trancaholic for sharing with us idiots who were just born yesterday that little piece of history. But you haven't answered the question.
