Thursday, August 30, 2007

What would happen after a "Fall of Baghdad?"


Finally, more good news seems to be coming out of Iraq.
One of the religious leaders has declared a ceasefire.
And the US army veterans seem more confidence of success too.
The latest push seems to be working and maybe Adolf’s patience will at last be rewarded.
But what gets me is why do the left seem so keen on American failure?
Just as they enjoyed the 'Fall of Saigon' (pictured).
Can they honestly believe that the world will be a safer place if Islamic terrorists and assorted third-parties succeed against a democratically elected government in Baghdad?
What will be the impact on other Middle East Countries?
How will this impact on the rights of women and gays in such places?
Aren’t the left supposed to support these ideals?
Or do they come second in their lust for a defeat of America, their hatred of George Bush?
How would the mullahs in Iran react? President Armed Jihad would certainly go nuclear. Do we want to see this despot with his finger on the button?
Do we really think Al Queda will give up its struggle? That Osama Bin Laden will return to the family construction firm in Saudi, or will he plan greater attacks knowing he has defeated The Great Satan?
And how will other despots react the world over knowing that America has been humiliated?
It could be Islamic terrorists in Thailand and the Philippines. Chavez in Venezuela, or places we do not yet even know about.
I am sure an increasingly belligerent Russia with its strongman Putin would also take advantage of the situation. Do we really want another Cold War that might even get warm or hot?
And what about Israel? What about Taiwan? Might China also take advantage there?
Just in case you are wondering, Mark Steyn looks back at the Vietnam War and how the defeat of America impacted on geo-politics in the 70s and 80s.
It was not a happy result. Millions died and many countries were in turmoil.
Once more, it seems the ‘lessons of Vietnam’ need to be learnt once more, but not the lessons the left have us believe.

20 comments:

The Perfect Man said...

The left can't bear any other ideology winning anything. Fuck the people involved, ideology is more important to them. There is nothing good in anything if the good is done by the 'enemy'- i.e. the right, christians etc... They'd rather be wrong and take everyone down screaming with them into oblivion than to admit others were right. Simple as that.

Socrates said...

I didn’t think that the US should have gone is as they did, however once in they needed to stay until their withdrawal would not leave Iraq worse off. I am glad to see the surge working, but I think it shows that there was a lack of thinking about what would happen after pushing Sadam out. The whole show has been poorly run from start to now, but it is good to see that they seem to be finally getting it right.

Ackers said...

"millions died and many countries were in turmoil' after the US left Vietnam.

Delusional doesn't begin to describe it. Where did you get you history from Adolf? Did it just pop into your brain on the off chance that something....anything might stick regardless of whether it had any connection to what actually happened.

It's truly pathetic the way the right are trying to rewrite history on this one. I would have thought following Bush headlong into each successive disaster might have given you pause for thought but it appears you are incapable of learning from mistakes and just keep repeating the same tired failed mantra....on and on and on you go victory is just around the corner meanwhile changes occur and you blithely fail to recognise any of them.

Falafulu Fisi said...

Ackers, there is a place call Dafur that you better waste your air on, regarding the massacres that is taking place over in there. Why is it that when the US intervenes somewhere and the likes of you (& Keith Locke, Robert Fisk) concentrates only on the US while ignoring the constant killings that is going on around the world at the same time? Are the humans that died as a result of a US soldier's bullet are more important than humans in Dafur? The reason is because you're anti-US rather than anti-killing of humans.

You should concentrate on organising a march along Queen St or wherever you are to protest against the killings that is taking place in Dafur right now, where the number of dead are far higher over there than in Iraq.

Psycho Milt said...

The left are keen on American failure? Oh yes, we're overjoyed to have large numbers of Iraqis dead just for the sake of being able to say "I told you so." I think "keen on American failure" isn't quite the right phrase, Adolf.

All the questions you ask in this post are exactly the questions the unspeakable mofos who started this war should have asked themselves before they started it. They took a punt with a whole lot of other people's lives as the stake, and they lost. Don't blame the Left, sheet the blame home where it belongs, to the fucks who use other people's lives as gambling chips - all of them on the right, as it happens.

Steyn's assessment of the impact of the Vietnam War is ass-backwards. The lesson to be learned from it was that perhaps we should have let the Vietnamese elect the govt they wanted - it may be an unpleasant and embarrassing lesson for Americans to face, but they really ought to face it.

TJ said...

Elect the government they wanted? Sure, that was why millions left/were ethnically cleansedafter the defeat of South Vietnam...Would seriously doubt that any elections held with the North Vietnamese a puppet of Communist China would ever have had a chance to be free or fair.

Ackers said...

Democracy of course has never been the main aim of the Americans.

http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/us_iraqitecture/

"Although the U.S. government regularly proclaims confidence in Iraq’s democratic future, the United States has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future. Instead, the United States has built a fortress capable of sustaining a massive, long-term presence in the face of continued violence.”

Is there any truly free, democratic country on the face the earth that would tolerate a complex like this on their soil? As Eric notes, the entire project shows the utter contempt in which the US holds the concept of Iraqi sovereignty and puts a lie to any claims about security conditions improving any time soon. It also suggests that, whatever the rhetoric—we’ll stand down when the Iraqis stand up, in George Bush’s formulation—the US is planning on being in Iraq for a long time, and I suspect that will be the case regardless of which party is in power in the US.

And by the way, for any Iraqis wanting a visa or to apply for refugee status in the US, the Embassy is off limits. "

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Ackers, when you accuse someone of rewriting history and sundry other misdemeanors, it would help your case quite a lot if you bothered to refer to the actual author.

Psycho Milt said...

TJ, you need some history lessons. The US wouldn't allow the UN-mandated elections to take place because it was clear Ho Chi Minh would win them. Not a good start. Also, North Vietnam and China were/are bitter enemies - perhaps you're confusing Vietnam with Korea.

Simon said...

The left don’t trust Bush but when it comes to a Stalin indoctrinated commie like Ho they would trust him to run fair elections in northern Vietnam. Pathetic.

Ackers said...

What's truly disturbing is that no lesson has been learnt from either conflict and the groundwork for an attack on Iran is plainly being laid in the same systematic way as the attack on Iraq was and by the same people.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Shit eh, Ackers? Have you at last woken up? In your little world, the bad guys get weapons which can finish off the world as we know it, threaten to use them, foment murderous insurgency in a neighboring country, kill off those in their own country who oppose their theocratic beliefs and you are surprised that sane people in the western world develop a stategy to clean the pricks out before they unleash their attacks?

Did you seriously think the surge was just about Bahgdad?

barry said...

I supported the Coalition's invasion of Iraq, and still do:

1. Saddam defied the UN Resolution on weapons of mass destruction and Hans Blix's inspectors. Every intelligence agency on the planet were convinced Saddam had WMD, even his Generals were surprised there was no evidence, perhaps they were spirited over the border into Syria.
2. The coalition removed the tyrant and his sons in terms of international law against genocide to Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and others. He was tried by an Iraqi Court and executed. [The same authority was cited in the case of Milosevic except he died first; however Charles Taylor is now on trial in The Hague for similar crimes].
3. The coalition has given Iraqis political freedom for the first time, with elections and a Parliament.
4. It is no blame on US foreign policy that the Iraqis have spurned this and reverted to sectarian bloodshed.
5. The Sunni hate the Shia; the Arabs hate the Persians; they all hate the Jews. For this they all blame the Americans!!

Ackers said...

You think these people are sane?


Sorry Adolf, I think they are completely delusional.

As for formenting a murderous insurgency in a neighbouring country, if you buy that lie you'll buy anything they want you to believe, which I suspect is pretty much what you will do.

The Shia majority in Iraq and the Iranians are natural allies.

Attack Iran and unleash the devil in Iraq. Way to go.

Bush is a complete idiot

TJ said...

For such bitter enemies the Viet Cong sure had a lot of AK47s etc, where do you reckon they found them? Also re Ho Ch Minh winning the elections, ever read about the well documented intimidation of the vietnamese by the cong? Again one could hardly imagine any elections held under such conditions to have been free and fair

Anonymous said...

AK47 Kalashnikov Russian designed and made - join the dots.

Anonymous said...

There are in fact two versions the russian ak 47 and the chinese. The chinese one was slightly less reliable but killed just as well. Now you join the dots.

TJ said...

Exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56

You might note paragraph 3 which details China's support for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam . Dots joined. QED.

Anonymous said...

Did you read all of para 3?

...When relations between China and the Vietnamese government declined in the 1970s and the Sino-Vietnamese War began...

Which goes back to the point of friendship of China and Vietnam, and whether they were a puppet state.

Rick said...

Err the article points out that the Vietnamese and Chinese fought each other with same types of rifles, which suggests that the Vietnamese acquired the weaponry before the decline in relations...