Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The Veteran

blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Veteran

A protest raged on a courthouse lawn,
round a makeshift stage they charged on.
Fifteen hundred or more they say,
had come to burn the Flag that day.
A boy held up the folded Flag,
cursed it and called it a dirty rag.
A man pushed through the angry crowd,
with an old gun shouldered proud.
His uniform jacket was old and tight,
he had polished each button, shiny and bright.
He crossed the stage with military grace,
until he and the boy stood face to face.
Then the old man broke the silence.
"Freedom of speech, is worth dying for,
Good men are gone, they live no more.
All so you can stand on this courthouse lawn,
and ramble on from dusk to dawn.
But before the Flag gets burned today,
this old veteran is going to have his say.
My father died on a foreign shore,
in a war they said would end all wars.
Tommy and I weren't even full grown,
before we fought in a war of our own.
Tommy died on Iwo Jima's beach,
in the shadow of a hill he couldn't reach.
Where five good men raised this Flag so high,
that the whole world could see it fly.
I got this bum leg that I still drag,
fighting for this same old Flag.
There's but one shot in this old gun,
so now it's time to decide which one.
Which one of you will follow our lead,
to stand and die for what you believe?"
The boy who had called it a dirty rag,
handed the veteran the folded Flag.
The crowd got quiet as they walked away,
to talk about what they heard that day.
So the battle for the Flag this day was won,
by a loyal veteran with a single gun.
Who for one last time, had to show to some,
That these colors will never, never run.
It is the veteran, not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the veteran, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the veteran, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the veteran, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the veteran, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the veteran, not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the veteran, who salutes the Flag,
who serves under the Flag,
whose coffin is draped by the Flag.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.
WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.
Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 10:09:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.
Only to preemptively protect ourselves.
WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.
Does it matter who attacked us if either country threatened our freedoms?
Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.
I'll give ya this one.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 2:37:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.
WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.
Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.

If our allies had lost WW1, how long do you think it would take for us to be attacked? I never said Germany attacked us in WW2. Since you brought it up, though, isn't having our soldiers killed in the bombings by Japan a violation of their right to life? That would mean that we were defending our rights from the time we entered the war rather than eliminating a risk to our rights. In Vietnam and Korea, there was the Domino Theory. If they fell, there was a fairly strong opinion that Asia and the world would follow behind them. That means that we saw a potential threat to our rights and we tried to eliminate it. What are these "vested interests" that you talk about?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 3:42:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.

We joined after we discovered Germany was having talks with Mexico urging Mexico to go to war with the U.S.

WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.

Japan is overseas and Germany declared war on us.

Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.

They were our allies. If we prove to never support our allies when they need it what makes you think they will return the favor down the line when the U.S. is no longer the owner of the most powerful military.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 4:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 10:09:42 AM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.
Only to preemptively protect ourselves.

The central powers did not present a threat to the US. @quarterexchange. Yeah, and Mexico had just lost a war to us. Like that was going to happen.
WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.
Does it matter who attacked us if either country threatened our freedoms?

Japan bombed one harbor that wasnt even in the continental US. We declared war on Germany, and we bombed Japan to the point where we were bombing rubble. Plus two a-bombs.
Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.
I'll give ya this one.

This is what the poem is about. K.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 4:24:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 4:07:23 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
The central powers did not present a threat to the US. @quarterexchange. Yeah, and Mexico had just lost a war to us. Like that was going to happen.

Mexico lost a war to us 60 years before WW1

Germany lost a war to France and England 21 years before WW2

It was a lot more likely than you think for Mexico to start a war with the U.S.

Japan bombed one harbor that wasnt even in the continental US. We declared war on Germany, and we bombed Japan to the point where we were bombing rubble. Plus two a-bombs.

It was still a U.S. base and threatened U.S. naval power and sunk several battleships, destroyed hundreds of airplanes and killed thousands of Americans

It is also a little known fact that Japan also attacked Guam, Midway, the Phillipines, and Wake Island as well as sunk several U.S. ships between Hawaii and the mainland U.S.

All of which occured before we declared war on Japan.

Germany declared war on the U.S.

Japan didn't accept defeat and rejected the surrender terms presented to them.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 5:42:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 3:42:58 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.

We joined after we discovered Germany was having talks with Mexico urging Mexico to go to war with the U.S.

Forgot about that. Thanks.


WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.

Japan is overseas and Germany declared war on us.

Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.

They were our allies. If we prove to never support our allies when they need it what makes you think they will return the favor down the line when the U.S. is no longer the owner of the most powerful military.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 8:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 4:24:53 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/7/2011 4:07:23 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
The central powers did not present a threat to the US. @quarterexchange. Yeah, and Mexico had just lost a war to us. Like that was going to happen.

Mexico lost a war to us 60 years before WW1

69 yrs.

Germany lost a war to France and England 21 years before WW2

Don't forget the good ol' USA.

It was a lot more likely than you think for Mexico to start a war with the U.S.

Japan bombed one harbor that wasnt even in the continental US. We declared war on Germany, and we bombed Japan to the point where we were bombing rubble. Plus two a-bombs.

It was still a U.S. base and threatened U.S. naval power and sunk several battleships, destroyed hundreds of airplanes and killed thousands of Americans

Pearl Harbor wasn't the only base attacked. It was jus the hardest hit.

It is also a little known fact that Japan also attacked Guam, Midway, the Phillipines, and Wake Island as well as sunk several U.S. ships between Hawaii and the mainland U.S.

All of which occured before we declared war on Japan.

Germany declared war on the U.S.

Japan didn't accept defeat and rejected the surrender terms presented to them.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 8:30:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 4:07:23 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/7/2011 10:09:42 AM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/7/2011 12:26:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

I have nothing against veterans.

World War One: We joined to help our ALLIES in Europe.
Only to preemptively protect ourselves.

The central powers did not present a threat to the US. @quarterexchange. Yeah, and Mexico had just lost a war to us. Like that was going to happen.
WWII: Japan attacked us, not Germany.
Does it matter who attacked us if either country threatened our freedoms?

Japan bombed one harbor that wasnt even in the continental US. We declared war on Germany, and we bombed Japan to the point where we were bombing rubble. Plus two a-bombs.

Well, others have covered most things I would have. So, I'm going to ignore the fact that you made it seem like American lives aren't important unless they're lost in the continental US. I wanted to point out your flaw in the order of war declarations. Japan attacked us and we declared war on Japan. Then Germany declared war on us. I'm not sure whether Japans declaration came before or after Pearl Harbor.

Korea/Vietnam: How does whether a communist regine is in place in tiny countries in Asia affect our freedoms? It doesnt. It was a war fought out of the holsters of vested interests.
I'll give ya this one.

This is what the poem is about. K.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:22:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Losing the lives of young men from both sides because of decisions fat-cat politicians make is sad, either American or Japanese. You don't see FDR in a plane or the Emperor of Japan flying his plane into a ship.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:25:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 1:22:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Losing the lives of young men from both sides because of decisions fat-cat politicians make is sad, either American or Japanese. You don't see FDR in a plane or the Emperor of Japan flying his plane into a ship.

FDR had a note from his doctor. And we actually often see political leaders being former military personnel (Eisnhower, JFK, etc).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:29:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

It's not about where they are fought, it is about the reason. Vietnam was not a threat to any of our freedoms. None of the World Wars were direct threats to our freedoms (they had the potential to become treats to our freedoms), though they were direct threats to other people's freedoms.

Don't get me wrong, I support most US wars, I just don't buy the fighting for our freedoms (probably because I don't value it so highly).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:35:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 1:25:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 1:22:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Losing the lives of young men from both sides because of decisions fat-cat politicians make is sad, either American or Japanese. You don't see FDR in a plane or the Emperor of Japan flying his plane into a ship.

FDR had a note from his doctor. And we actually often see political leaders being former military personnel (Eisnhower, JFK, etc).

My point was, the lives of soldiers and innocents due to decisions made up top is always a tragedy. The citizens and soldiers pay if they're superiors can't get along with those of another country.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:51:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 1:35:07 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/10/2011 1:25:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 1:22:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Losing the lives of young men from both sides because of decisions fat-cat politicians make is sad, either American or Japanese. You don't see FDR in a plane or the Emperor of Japan flying his plane into a ship.

FDR had a note from his doctor. And we actually often see political leaders being former military personnel (Eisnhower, JFK, etc).

My point was, the lives of soldiers and innocents due to decisions made up top is always a tragedy. The citizens and soldiers pay if they're superiors can't get along with those of another country.

True, what's the quote, "Old men declare war, but the Youth must fight and die," by President Hoover about WW1.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:52:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 1:29:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

It's not about where they are fought, it is about the reason. Vietnam was not a threat to any of our freedoms. None of the World Wars were direct threats to our freedoms (they had the potential to become treats to our freedoms), though they were direct threats to other people's freedoms.

Don't get me wrong, I support most US wars, I just don't buy the fighting for our freedoms (probably because I don't value it so highly).

I'll concede that there was no direct threat to our freedoms in WW1, but you couldn't convince me that we wouldn't have come under attack at some point after Europe fell. I also agree that Vietnam and Korea were pointless except for showing that we won't forsake our allies. We also needed to show that we weren't messing around when we created the Containment policy. Our freedoms were at risk in WW2, however. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and other bases there was a violation of the right to life that we had guaranteed our citizens. That right especially was at risk. Also, the Japanese invaded a small Alaskan island. Those people lost their freedom.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:24:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:52:06 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/10/2011 1:29:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:15:29 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:09:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Fighting overseas wars doesnt protect our freedoms.

WW1? WW2? If we hadn't fought those wars, then they would have been lost and we may not have those freedoms. Plus, what does the location of the war have to do with the fact that the Veterans still fought and died for us? They deserve our respect no matter where they fought.

It's not about where they are fought, it is about the reason. Vietnam was not a threat to any of our freedoms. None of the World Wars were direct threats to our freedoms (they had the potential to become treats to our freedoms), though they were direct threats to other people's freedoms.

Don't get me wrong, I support most US wars, I just don't buy the fighting for our freedoms (probably because I don't value it so highly).

I'll concede that there was no direct threat to our freedoms in WW1, but you couldn't convince me that we wouldn't have come under attack at some point after Europe fell. I also agree that Vietnam and Korea were pointless except for showing that we won't forsake our allies. We also needed to show that we weren't messing around when we created the Containment policy. Our freedoms were at risk in WW2, however. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and other bases there was a violation of the right to life that we had guaranteed our citizens. That right especially was at risk. Also, the Japanese invaded a small Alaskan island. Those people lost their freedom.

Alaska wasn't a US state until 1959. Now, if we want to ask whether other people's rights were being violated and that we should stand up for all being oppressed (not just americans), that is one thing, and I'll go with that.

With WW2. Japan did attack us (I'm pretty sure) and killed many people, but they were at no time trying to take over America and the American people. They were attempting to cripple us so we couldn't stop them from taking the Phillies and the oil reserves there (which they needed to keep fighting).

I also do believe that had Germany won against Europe that they probably would have eventually come after the US, but there is a gap between "the war was to stop someone that was probably going to come after our freedoms" and "the war was to protect our freedoms."

Kind of like the difference of killing a crazy person in self defence (when he was attacking you at the time) and killing a crazy person because you think there is a good chance he may attack you later.

I also don't support blind support of allies (especially South Vietnam, after the rigged election and all).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 5:05:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:24:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Alaska wasn't a US state until 1959. Now, if we want to ask whether other people's rights were being violated and that we should stand up for all being oppressed (not just americans), that is one thing, and I'll go with that.


I also don't support blind support of allies (especially South Vietnam, after the rigged election and all).

Why don't you support the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam on those same grounds? The massacre of 2-3 million Cambodians under Pol Pot and the mistreatment and deaths of the South Vietnamese people were direct results of the U.S.'s withdrawl.

http://vietka.com...

http://www.enotes.com...
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 5:43:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 5:05:58 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:24:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Alaska wasn't a US state until 1959. Now, if we want to ask whether other people's rights were being violated and that we should stand up for all being oppressed (not just americans), that is one thing, and I'll go with that.


I also don't support blind support of allies (especially South Vietnam, after the rigged election and all).


Why don't you support the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam on those same grounds? The massacre of 2-3 million Cambodians under Pol Pot and the mistreatment and deaths of the South Vietnamese people were direct results of the U.S.'s withdrawl.

http://vietka.com...

http://www.enotes.com...

When I said "I'll go with that" I meant, I accept that as an argument, not that I'll support it.

Much of that wouldn't have happened if the 1955 election of south vietnam wasn't rigged. Nor would much of it have happened if they actually had a unified government as they were suppose to in 1956, but since it was expected that about 80% of the population would support the communist party, we couldn't allow democracy and the people to freely choose communism.

Considering the Pol Pot took power in 1975, had the previous 2 decades panned out differently, it is very likely that Cambodia would have turned out much differently (that kinda happens if you erase 20 years of wars and replace it with 20 years of struggling to help the economy, different people take power).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 5:43:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When I said "I'll go with that" I meant, I accept that as an argument, not that I'll support it.

So then why do you support the U.S.'s involvement in WW2?

Much of that wouldn't have happened if the 1955 election of south vietnam wasn't rigged. Nor would much of it have happened if they actually had a unified government as they were suppose to in 1956, but since it was expected that about 80% of the population would support the communist party, we couldn't allow democracy and the people to freely choose communism.

Regardless most the deaths inflicted on the South Vietnamese and Cambodians were by trying to escape, large famines, and concentration camps all caused by the same government that the people

Considering the Pol Pot took power in 1975, had the previous 2 decades panned out differently, it is very likely that Cambodia would have turned out much differently (that kinda happens if you erase 20 years of wars and replace it with 20 years of struggling to help the economy, different people take power).

We didn't wage a large war in Cambodia, granted there were incurrsions and bombing raids but for the most part Cambodia was left alone and not a place of conflict remotely close to the scale seen in South vietnam.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 6:22:29 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/10/2011 5:43:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When I said "I'll go with that" I meant, I accept that as an argument, not that I'll support it.

So then why do you support the U.S.'s involvement in WW2?

One nation invaded another and thus violated the rules. Vietnam was one nation (well, one colony) which was broken in two as the French tried to hold it and then left it, and it was agreed that it was suppose to re-unify in 1956 with free and open elections. The leader of the south said "screw that, I'll lose an open election" so he broke the rules.

Atrocities were commited by both sides (north and south) leading to our active involvement in the war (we were actually involved in 1950).


Much of that wouldn't have happened if the 1955 election of south vietnam wasn't rigged. Nor would much of it have happened if they actually had a unified government as they were suppose to in 1956, but since it was expected that about 80% of the population would support the communist party, we couldn't allow democracy and the people to freely choose communism.

Regardless most the deaths inflicted on the South Vietnamese and Cambodians were by trying to escape, large famines, and concentration camps all caused by the same government that the people

And the south did the same to people trying to flee North back in 1954. They arrested and executed tens of thousands of people that were political enemies. By pitting them in a war against each other for 20 years, you allow military individuals to rise to power. Had the 20 years of war not happened, those individuals would not have been in power to cause those tramas.


Considering the Pol Pot took power in 1975, had the previous 2 decades panned out differently, it is very likely that Cambodia would have turned out much differently (that kinda happens if you erase 20 years of wars and replace it with 20 years of struggling to help the economy, different people take power).

We didn't wage a large war in Cambodia, granted there were incurrsions and bombing raids but for the most part Cambodia was left alone and not a place of conflict remotely close to the scale seen in South vietnam.

Cambodia tried to remain neutral for the entire war. As a direct result of the war, Cambodian land was used by the Vietcong and NV to launch attacks (that's why we started our Cambodia campaign in 69), and we helped a Coup in 1970, because the Cambodian leader (at the time, left the country for medical assistance) was not taking our sides and was not letting us use their air space.

So the Coup dragged the nation full into the war which is what destablized it enough for Pol Pot to take over in 75. Back in 66 (just 4 years before the Coup), the communists had almost no power and no favor with the people. It wasn't until we dragged them into a war that they said "to the snot with this!" and allowed a crazied leader to take over.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:49:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 6:43:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

And the south did the same to people trying to flee North back in 1954. They arrested and executed tens of thousands of people that were political enemies. By pitting them in a war against each other for 20 years, you allow military individuals to rise to power. Had the 20 years of war not happened, those individuals would not have been in power to cause those tramas.


I can't find out what website says that the South executed people fleeing to North Vietnam but I know that the North was waging a guerrilla war in South Vietnam since 1954 and it is also obvious that South Vietnam had no desire to take North Vietnam.

Cambodia tried to remain neutral for the entire war. As a direct result of the war, Cambodian land was used by the Vietcong and NV to launch attacks (that's why we started our Cambodia campaign in 69), and we helped a Coup in 1970, because the Cambodian leader (at the time, left the country for medical assistance) was not taking our sides and was not letting us use their air space.

As a direct result of a war instigated by North Vietnamese actions against the South Vietnamese North Vietnam began using Cambodian territory to get inside South Vietnam. South Vietnam wasn't try to convert the North, the North was trying to use force to convert the South.

Also show me how the U.S. helped the coup since I can't find anything that says they did so I'm hoping you have the links.

So the Coup dragged the nation full into the war which is what destablized it enough for Pol Pot to take over in 75. Back in 66 (just 4 years before the Coup), the communists had almost no power and no favor with the people. It wasn't until we dragged them into a war that they said "to the snot with this!" and allowed a crazied leader to take over.

I'm still not sure on whether or not the U.S. aided in the coup and if so, how much actual help the U.S. contributed.

All in all had North Vietnam not instigated a conflict between South Vietnam in an attempt to control them they would not have needed to use Cambodia for their military campaign which ignited anti-communist and anti-NVA/VC flares in Cambodia which spurred a 5 year long civil war where the communists won in Cambodia and eventually in Vietnam leading to the slaughter of millions and the oppression of millions more.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.