Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No Kissinger = No Killing Fields.

Henry Kissinger gave the world the Killing Fields through his national security "advice" to Richard Nixon. Henry Kissinger should be in the dock at the ICC.

jerico, I point you to a book called "Sideshow" by William Shawcross and then "When the War Was Over" by Elizabeth Becker.

Once you've read Shawcross, find "The Quality of Mercy" and "Cambodia's New Deal".

It's a rare pleasure to run across something i can so easily agree with you ( or shall i say the historic record we both seem to be agreeing on) and i would just like to clarify that i meant to write that it was the US national security state that chose to support Pol Pot knowing his record. It may very well have looked like i thought the Cambodian people supported him when that's just not the case.

Stellar

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Okay, this one is really off-topic, but it's so dead wrong I have to jump on it.

We are so offtopic on this thread it isn't funny anymore.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Take away those three supporters and the Khmer Rouge turn back into what they were in 1963: a few hundred miseducated dogmatics ranting in the jungle with nobody listening.

The "miseducated dogmatics ranting in the jungle" comment is pretty good. I'll have to steal that one.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

I point you to a book called "Sideshow" by William Shawcross and then "When the War Was Over" by Elizabeth Becker.

Once you've read Shawcross, find "The Quality of Mercy" and "Cambodia's New Deal".

I'll check those out.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jerico65
Civilians during Pearl Harbor didn't shoot down any aircraft. With freakin' what? Grandpa's shotgun?

Yes, the same Vietnamese Granpa's that shot down the American planes are Pearl.

Well, you obviously haven't read anything about Pearl. Civilians didn't shoot down squat. Just like McCain's aircraft wasn't shot down by civilians.

Originally posted by StellarX
Well if the US allowed the election to go ahead we might have known a bit more but because it was apparent to most that the South Vietnamese would have in fact voted for Ho Chi Minh the election were not held as specified by the partition agreement.

They MIGHT have, had not the Viet Minh executed about 8000 and had their land reform. After that, all bets are off.

Originally posted by StellarX
They might not have been welcomed because they had already collaborated with the occupiers, committed treasonous acts leading to the death of Vietnamese citizens or just generally feared that they might lose some wealth gained fairly or unfairly. A small percentage always have many many reasons to flee from the results of democracy.

You do know that some Vietnamese like the French? Enjoyed being brought up to date and more in step with the world? Willing to work with them to have their indepenance without having to resort to the gun?

"Flee the results of democracy"? That's not a democracy I'd like to know. If you didn't agree with the Communists, they were executing them. So much for free choice.

Originally posted by StellarX
It beats getting shot, sure, and i am for the most part open to learning new things.

That being said i have absolutely not researched what happened in those camps so it may be overly presumptions to think that much 're-education' took place. I will read information about that if you wish to provide me with some.

OK, "re-education camps" aren't some sort of college campus with reading rooms.

Originally posted by StellarX
Sure and it's a fact that the majority of US 'aid' to other countries consists of giving them weapons/bribes with the US taxpayer picking up the tab. Both regimes have been guilty of stealing from their citizens and my point is mainly that the Ak-47 has liberated more people than the M-16 ever did or were intended to.

Probably right, and just look at how those countries are doing now. Vietnam sure is the gardenspot and model of Communist doctrine.

Originally posted by StellarX
I never said anything about the Baltics ( referring to eastern Europe mostly) so what's with the bashing of that very big straw man? I am confident the Soviet Union found it in it's interest to 'help out' many nations and my point is that they very frequently supported popular national liberation movements in direct contrast to to how the US were almost always backing small minorities against the wishes of the majority of people.

They weren't helping out "the people" in any of those Baltic countries. If they were, how do you explain an active resistance well into the 1970's?

Originally posted by StellarX
I am not familiar with exactly how democratic Poland was prior to the second world war so if you wish to show that the government in exile were more legitimate feel free to do so with proper sourcing.

Ever hear of a library? Try "Rising '44" by Norman Davies

Originally posted by StellarXWhat's that got to do with anything? Did they make it as much of a secret as the US did their installation of mass murdering puppet leaders in South America?

Well, you seem to think it's just the US that does things like that. Communists are pretty guilty of that, too. You just don't want to look at it.

You mention the "tiny minorities" that the US backs. How about that "tiny minority" the Russians were backing in Czechloslovakia?

Originally posted by StellarX
I think that re-education camps and mass executions could be avoided if the US national security state did not choose to divide the citizens of countries against each other by supporting minorities with weapons enough to gain control over entire countries. I think that in civil wars horrible things happen and that's why democracy should be allowed to take it course without foreign powers supplying one faction with funds and weapons.

So, it's the US that are forcing these countries to set up gulags? Holy cow, now that's one I have to write down!! We forced Stalin to wipe out millions of his own people in the Gulag system.

You do notice when the Communist system does win, they start up with the reeducation camps? One of the doctrines that the Communist teach is when you take control, you wipe out the opposition.

Originally posted by StellarX
I don't like anything about communism and my points here were made in the apparently vain belief that i could provide some perspective as to the fact that the USSR were not the only power in the world that committed horrendous crimes against humanity. Your hopelessly uninformed and unjustifiable attempts to reduce the information i provided into 'proof' that i support the USSR or communist China is as laughable/sad as they are wrong. Frankly those regimes and their leaders can join bush/Clinton/Reagan etc in a hell i will believe into existence solely to consign them to.

Bush/Clinton/Reagan are the same as Stalin/Mao/etc? That's funny. Sad, but funny.

Well, you seem to be doing a fine job at being the cheerleader for the Communist party and their actions throughout history; that's all I'm attempting to "prove". I've never said that the US was innocent of anything, but trying to make it look like the US is worse than the Soviet Union, Communist China, etc, is a joke. I can drive across the entire Soviet Union and find gulags; haven't seen any in the US lately.

reply to post by StellarX


Sidebar:

Yeah, I know. At first that's how I read it. But a second look showed me the "they" you were referrring to was. Obviously I was just as ambiguous with my reply. I was mostly trying to show jerico what had really happened there. I still tend to disagree with you over the wider Vietnam War...

Cambodia (as some other posters have discovered) is my special hobby.

The two biggest criminals with involvment in Cambodia (outside of the KR themselves) are the US, for creating the conditions that gave Pol Pot victory, and China, for actively supporting and supplying Pol Pot when he had no other friends.

Anyway, for a clue as to how insane the guy was, your link to Becker's BBC column was pretty good.

But you really need to read Nate Thayer's interviews with Pol Pot and Nuon Chea. Brothers Number 1 and 2.

Why anyone even listen's to a fat overweight burger king loving man like Micheal Moore is beyond me.

he is a fat man that sit's around basically all day..eating and drinking...

has never EVER worked one hard day in his life...
and his word is gold to some ...

dang sheeple stop listening to bs people...

mommy mommy "When i grow up i want to be just like Micheal Moore"


that's right folk's you will never hear that come out of any kid's mouth...
so stop idolizing fool's.
Mcain did more for this country in Vietnam...than Mr.Moore or a pot smoking obama will ever do.
Mcain has proven himself to his country time and time again.
and you so called American's even give doubt's about his patriotism for us..shame on you
Heck even his kid's are serving in the military right now in Iraq.
that show's he has showed his kid's patriotism..
they are not going to college hiding from war ect...they said bring it on..
i will stand up for freedom.
so Micheal Moore type people can talk there bs against us.
isn't freedom great!!!!
Do you think obama would grab a gun right now to defend your country or stand up for freedom?
common that's a rhetorical question

Not only sholud the media be asking that,but also why he and John Kerry do everything they can to derail any real investigations about our MIA's and POW's still in Vietnam?

Want to quote some names to go with those POWs still being held in VN?...Or were you planning to send Sly and Chuck on a joint misson to go find them?...

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV




sorry for this, but that made me laugh out loud.

I really don't know if there any POWs there still.

Does anyone else?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Want to quote some names to go with those POWs still being held in VN?...Or were you planning to send Sly and Chuck on a joint misson to go find them?...

Sly is too old. And besides, Chuck Norris doesn't need anyone's help!!

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
you really shouldn't start walking through history without a good map and maybe a guidebook, a dictionary and possibly an infomred tour-guide...

I can give you a postal address if you want to send me gifts, money and or written advice. See if you can influence my beliefs better than you have by typing.

I'd be real hard-pressed to describe the pilot of a USAAF p-40 as a "civilian", I also really don't think this guy was a civilian, either...

Yes, and i am sure the Vietnamese just handed out Sa-2 missile complex to citizens like candy. Oh wait, they didn't even have much food.

Which Vietnam, exactly, are you talking about? Hint: get a clue about the conflict, where it was and who was involved BEFORE typing.

We are talking about the citizens of Vietnam; all of them. Neither initiated hostilities against the United States.

I'd love you to show me the evidence of "Many thousands" of fraggings. No, really. You see, I've been hearing about it all my life, but NOT ONE VN vet, Aussie, US or NZ, I've ever spoken to has described such an incident to me.

Vietnam

Source of Data Fratricide Rate

WE'___' (autopsy) 14% Killed in Action (rifle)
WE'___' (autopsy) 11% Killed in Action (fragments)
WE'___' 11% Casualties
Hawkins 14% Casualties

www.carlisle.army.mil...

Or for a summary:
query.nytimes.com...

Basically war is a mess and IFF isn't just a problem for Americans or in BVR aerial combat.

And who the US could likewise not follow home to finish the war. Again, get a clue about said war BEFORE typing.

Yes, the US extensively bombed northern Vietnam as well as a couple of surrounding countries while mostly destroying Southern Vietnam. Either way the war was visited mainly on the people of South Vietnam and they had absolutely no where to escape to.

Neither did the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) passively sit back and allow the US to "secure" the Republic of Vietnam against the communist invaders.

There were no communist invaders and this is admitted in the Pentagon papers. The US national security state well understood that this was a INTERNAL rebellion that were logically supported ( but not started or enabled ) by the North and thus could not be solved by bombing the North, the South or really shooting and bombing anyone. They tried any ways ( that's what empires do) and eventually had to leave.

Well, it could be that the USSR-supplied advisors were really good at explaining how the USSR-supplied SAM systems worked.

So good that attrition rates were apparently very near that of the USAF in the second world war. Since the Vietnamese could not have been all that well trained ( or exceedingly efficient then) i suppose we will have to credit either technology in general or Russian technology in particular. Either way my intent was to show that uniformed North Vietnamese personal shot down American planes in the same way that uniformed American soldiers shot down North Vietnamese aircraft; Mccain were not shot down by the Innocent civilians anymore than German schoolgirls were responsible for 'Liberators' being destroyed

Well, you said "Many thousands" of US troops were fragged by other US troops, with zero evidence to back it up.

They always knew it was at least 2% ( a little bit more than 1000) and as that indicates it was in fact much higher.

As for Vietnamese killing Vietnamese, I suggest you find out something about Hue. You might even discover that it was the single-biggest war crime of the Vietnamese conflict (apart from the North's deliberate mistreatment of prisoners), dwarfing by many times the celibrated My Lai massacre.

War crimes which were enabled by the fact that there was a war sponsored by a aggressive external power that did not even bother to back the leader that would have won a internationally sponsored/required election. What you are not addressing is the fact that any such atrocities would be INTERNAL thus a problem to be settled by the Vietnamese people. There is a HUGE difference between citizens who have some idea of each other's history and situation ending up killing each other and a totally foreign force interjecting itself on behalf of the interest of a very small minority

Once again, your history is worse than Budski's. I try to make it a point not to post about topics I've never studied. Clearly not your policy. your next bit makes that obvious.

Yes, yes, i don't know anything and i just make random comments from random google searches. The other guy must always be deaf, dumb and blind.

You do know who the Republic of Vietnam was, don't you? Well, maybe not. Because if you did, you'd know whose army the US was fighting in the A-Shau Valley and at Khe San and who the Australians fought at Long Tan.

Yes, and exactly how long were the Vietnamese in the North supposed to sit around and watch fellow Vietnamese being slaughtered for attempting to make a decent living in the South? Do you think the South Vietnamese were inspired to resist because they wanted 'freedom' so badly ( and no, they didn't, not many does) or were they fighting for a basic survival that were not being allowed them in the South?

That perfectly-good choice was clearly not the choice of everyone in Vietnam (both of them).

Well US leaders chose to intervene before they had allowed Ho Chi Minh to make reform mistakes that would cost him much support. Maybe the Vietnamese would in fact have been deeply devided as to who to support as a leader in the 1956 internationally agreed upon election? Why rob them of the opportunity to make a relatively free decision?

Even in a democracy, people who choose the loser are not punished for it and in a few years they are given another choice.

So do we have such unequivocal evidence that without the US intervention those who did not support Ho chi Minh would have been persecuted and if so why were so many allowed to simply leave the North? RIght and since Bush stole the last two elections your case is clearly proved. Americans, and many others, ( far be it from me to call what they have in the US a proper democracy) are free to vote for whoever they want because their wishes simply wont be respected.

Since the "re-unification" of Vietnam, how many times have the people been given the choice of leaders? No, well, how about this one: Since the "re-unification" of Vietnam, how many people have had their property restored to them? No, okaay, well, how about this one: Since the "re-unification" of Vietnam, how much money has the gov't spent on caring for the war cemetaries of the Republic of Vietnam?

Points that are largely mooted by the fact that national liberation movements are normally massively corrupted by the process of fighting such extended and devastating wars. Maybe if the French ( or those before them) had not been occupying it before or if Roosevelt actually responded to Ho Chi Minh's attempts for Vietnam's independence all of the rest of what happened to Vietnam could have been avoided. We will never know because the US national security state chose to support France ( as it did almost every other repressive regime that would follow it's lead) instead of democracy in Vietnam.

Continued

Ho Chi Minh is leading the Vietminh—a popular movement of Catholics, Buddhists, small businessmen, communists and farmers—in their fight for Vietnam’s independence from the French. He makes a dozen appeals to US President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee for help, insisting he is not a communist and suggesting that Indochina could be a “fertile field for American capital and enterprise.” He even mentions the possibility of allowing a US base in Camranh Bay. Likewise, US diplomats in Vietnam in their communications to Washington note that he has no direct ties to the Soviet Union and that he is a “symbol of nationalism and the struggle for freedom to the overwhelming majority of the population.” Major Archimedes L. A. Patti of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) later writes that Ho “pleaded not for military or economic aid,… but for understanding, for moral support, for a voice in the forum of western democracies. But the United States would not read his mail because, as I was informed, the DRV Government was not recognized by the United States and it would be ‘improper’ for the president or anyone in authority to acknowledge such correspondence.” Instead, the US will help the French—even offering them two atomic bombs. Ho Chi Minh is eventually forced in 1950 to look to the USSR and China for support. [Herring, 1986, pp. 10; Pilger, 1986, pp. 188]


www.historycommons.org...

But basically you can get it all in William Blum's

" Killing hope"

Or just read the first dozen pages of the Pentagon papers. Ho Chi Minh were a admirer of the United States, sought the help of the OSS to help him to adapt the US constitution for Vietnam and were generally distrustful of the USSR and China. The US national security state pushed Ho Chi Ming into a alliance with people he didn't trust and into a war neither he or Vietnam wanted to fight.

Feel free to track down the sources. It's sad that a man will be made a enemy when he pleads for help and assistance only to be branded a 'communist' when he eventually desperately seeks help elsewhere.

Oh, really, 'cause I could have sworn that in the US the Union spends money on the upkeep of Confederate cemeteries...

Right and they do it with American's tax money which are collected from all states. Americans are paying for it themselves so the smugness is not appreciated.

And yet, even when they do know how many there are, they have zero clue about the biggest and most-publicised of them all...

Obviously as disagreement with you must mean ignorance.

When you can quote one fact, military or political or social, about the Vietnam War, then we might have arrived at such a position as to the value of your opinion warranting a hearing.
Here are some good points to start with (try them out on Google)
Hue, boat people, Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Van Thieu, Pham Van Xuan, Neil Davis, Peter Arnett, Operation Menu, A Shau, Pleiku, Kontum...

Thanks but it's enough for me to know that you consider Ho Chi Minh a communist before a nationalist. Anyone who believes that it was some kind of internationalist communist conspiracy that were behind every national liberation movement is far too seriously misinformed to teach me a great deal about cold war history. It's one of those fundamental mistakes that begets becoming informed as to the true time line and perspective of the cold war and it's many atrocities.

Stellar