The CIA's 'Secret War'

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Well, with the exception of Iran where democracy had a chance but the West helped the British empire in oppressing it with a dictator (the Shaa) until it turned radical. But its worth mentioning that even then, the Shaa was good to his people (again, relatively speaking).
Yes, the Shah was so good to his people that he got his ass overthrown after using American weapons to kill his people and suppress uprisings...

Read about Operation Ajax. The U.S. is responsible, more than any other country, for the failure of democracy in Iran and rise of the theocratic autocracy.
 

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
I'm not trying to blame this on anyone other then US and the British but compared to other dictators he was a pretty good one. Ofc democracy could have been better. Plus, the Shah licked British a**.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I'm not trying to blame this on anyone other then US and the British but compared to other dictators he was a pretty good one. Ofc democracy could have been better. Plus, the Shah licked British a**.
It's just ironic because the West today whines so much about the current Iranian regime, even though it was their fault for destroying any hopes of democracy in the region.

I really wouldn't care how many dictators the West supports if they were honest and open about their intentions. Its just this hypocrisy about "spreading democracy" that pisses a lot of people off.
 

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
I agree the West isn't so pure in its motives but I believe there is a moral element in the West's actions and as small as it may be at times, it exists. This may sound a little too optimistic but that's my opinion.

(with the exception of Britain)
 
Last edited:

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
I don't think there's anything 'optimistic' or purely based off a point of view of what you said, I would say if anything that the US role role in bringing about democracy or ending tyranny is unrealistically overshadowed by people who will point to a tree but not focus on the whole forest.

Nobodies history is perfect, yes the US has made mistakes before; repeating this is rather redundant in the overall picture, but when it comes to spreading democracy around the world, you wont find many better candidates than the US military. The US is certainly not responsible for the theocracy coming to power in the region. If the Ayatollahs really cared about bringing human rights and freedom to the average Iranian; rather than becoming a regime just as bad, if not worse than the previously CIA-backed Shah; then we would see that today. The insanity of Ahmadinejad and Khomeini/Khameini is their own responsibility.

Getting back on topic here; Vietnam is perhaps the only war in US history that I can recall where the Americans lost; although only due to the anti-war movement at home, as the US was winning on the ground in Vietnam. As John Lennon asked the world to give peace a chance, the US congress did and the result was millions would die or become refugees fleeing from the forces of North Vietnam, and the Khmer Rouge. The killing off of the Hmong people is the legacy of the withdrawal of our forces, a disaster and shame that the anti-war movement has not recognized even today.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I don't think there's anything 'optimistic' or purely based off a point of view of what you said, I would say if anything that the US role role in bringing about democracy or ending tyranny is unrealistically overshadowed by people who will point to a tree but not focus on the whole forest.
How many countries, in total, did America spread "democracy" to?
 

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
There's ww1 where US decided to help the democratic side, the same with ww2, the axis countries of WW2, Iraq, attempt at Vietnam, Egypt and Libya (in progress), Korea, certain parts of Black Africa and in a way also to the USSR and the rest of the communist block. I might be missing a few, maybe Spain. Not so sure what happened there in the 60's. I'm also not adding anything in Latin America and most of Asia because I know less about those areas.
Usually its not in the form of "they want democracy so we help them" but rather another calculation to be considered on who to support and who not to support. The amount of help and pure motive reason in each case is different so before you can get an actual number you need to define "spreading democracy".
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
There's ww1 where US decided to help the democratic side
WWI was an Allied tactical victory, but a huge strategic failure.

There were more dictatorships in Europe after WWI then there were before, and they were far more brutal in nature. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Nationalist Spain are the obvious examples.

Is in the process of failing.

attempt at Vietnam
Failed miserably.

Failed. Mubarak was a Western-backed dictator.

and Libya (in progress)
Another Western-backed dictatorship in the making.

certain parts of Black Africa
Specific examples?

USSR and the rest of the communist block.
Ironically, the USSR played a bigger role in spreading democracy here than any of the Western powers. It was due to the Soviet government's concious decision to free the press (glasnost) that caused an outpouring of nationalist, democracy-oriented protests throughout the East Bloc.

The Soviets could have easily done what China did, and free up the markets while keeping the press under strict state control, but they didn't. The US and the West in general could not and did not impact this process.

I might be missing a few, maybe Spain. Not so sure what happened there in the 60's.
Nothing important happened in Spain in the 60s. Franco died in 1975, and after his death Spain reverted to a constitutional monarchy by default. The West made little or no attempt to unseat Franco, mainly because he was pro-West in the postwar years.

the axis countries of WW2
You're right here. Postwar Japan and Germany are the only cases where the West supported and nurtured a successful democracy.

Of course, they had no other choice. A dictatorship in either country was obviously unacceptable after the horrors of WWII.


Usually its not in the form of "they want democracy so we help them" but rather another calculation to be considered on who to support and who not to support. The amount of help and pure motive reason in each case is different so before you can get an actual number you need to define "spreading democracy".
By "spreading democracy", I mean exactly that. Cases where the West intervened with the sole intent of establishing an effective democracy.
 

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
WW1 was actually a major strategic success for USA, its what made USA into a superpower. If you meant on a democratic view, would France and Britain lose, democracy would have been dealt an almost fatal blow. It was a success on both views. Germany, Italy and Spain (Spain wasn't in ww1) all had kings. It's not like they were democracies that turned totalitarian. Spain was a little more complex, it involved the West being to afraid to challenge the fascists that they didn't help the democrats in the Spanish civil war, unlike the Axis that supported the fascists. So big surprise, the fascists won the war. Eventually Franco did die but Spain could have easily stayed Fascist with another dictator, yet that didn't happen.

Iraq and Vietnam did fail but they still were times USA acted to spread the democracy.
Egypt and Libya were perhaps dictators that helped the Wests strategic interests but when the time came, USA chose to help the protestors and give democracy a chance. If you ask me, it was a strategic catastrophe but if anything, it was USA spreading the democracy. In fact, its a good example to show USA doing something for spreading the democracy against their strategic interests. You can argue it was done for internal reasons but that doesn't matter, the fact the Western public wants to spread the democracy writes down the government's actions. That's how democracies work.
For Africa again, not my best area of knowledge but I can name South Africa although I'm sure there are other examples.
For the communists, you can say it was the soviets but they had to do it largely because by that time the West had already kicked their ass in the Cold war. Who gets more credits is a matter of opinion but it's a fact the West worked to make that happen.
For the Axis of ww2 you also forget the mention Italy.

For defining spreading democracy you should know the West had ever worked to spread democracy as a sole intention. There was always something else that went along with it whenever a democratic faction was supported.

Edit: I can also add Israel but that wouldn't be that good an example because it was Israel that chose to side with USA in the cold war and not the other way around. In fact, in the beginning it was actually the USSR.
Another bad example but a one that should still be heard is how USA supported the democratic elections in Gaza that eventually led the Hamas to power.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
WW1 was actually a major strategic success for USA, its what made USA into a superpower.
WWII is what made the US into a superpower, not WWI. The US reverted to isolationism after WWI and made no attempt to influence global events on a large scale.

WWI was actually the only war where spreading democracy was the primary objective of the United States, due to Wilson's highly moralistic style of democracy, but Wilson failed in this regard. You could also argue that WWII was a war to spread democracy, but technically America joined only after it was attacked in Pearl Harbour. Otherwise, it would have probably kept its isolationist stance.

If you meant on a democratic view, would France and Britain lose, democracy would have been dealt an almost fatal blow. It was a success on both views. Germany, Italy and Spain (Spain wasn't in ww1) all had kings. It's not like they were democracies that turned totalitarian.
I think you will agree that Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy were both worse than their predecessors, even if they weren't democratic either.

Both regimes were able to rise to power because of the Treaty of Versailles, where the Allies severely punished and humiliated Germany, and shortlisted Italy by not giving what it wanted. If the Allies had followed Wilson's Fourteen Points and developed a more concillatory postwar policy, the rise of fascist regimes in Europe and WWII could both be avoided. It is due to the short-sighted Allied policy that I label WWI as a strategic defeat for the Alies.

Iraq and Vietnam did fail but they still were times USA acted to spread the democracy.
South Vietnam was a highly corrupt dictatorship under American influence. No democracy there.

The current Iraqi regime is also highly corrupt, which is unsurprising since it is essentially an American puppet regime. Its primary purpose is to secure oil reserves for the West (under the guise of democracy, of course).

Egypt and Libya were perhaps dictators that helped the Wests strategic interests but when the time came, USA chose to help the protestors and give democracy a chance.
The West intervened in Libya because Gaddafi is opposed to the West. Why isn't the West intervening in the Gulf States like Bahrain?


For Africa again, not my best area of knowledge but I can name South Africa although I'm sure there are other examples.
The same South Africa that forced all of its black citizens to live in ghettos under Apartheid? Not a shining example of democracy in my opinion.

Anyway, here's a video that you might find interesting.


For the communists, you can say it was the soviets but they had to do it largely because by that time the West had already kicked their ass in the Cold war.
No one "kicked ass" in the Cold War. If they "kicked ass" the world would be a nuclear wasteland right now.

The West could not influence the Soviet Union, because it was a closed society.


For the Axis of ww2 you also forget the mention Italy.
The Italian partisans are the ones who revolted against Mussolini and eventually killed him.

Italy as a nation actually joined the Allies before the end of the war.


For defining spreading democracy you should know the West had ever worked to spread democracy as a sole intention. There was always something else that went along with it whenever a democratic faction was supported.
The West supports democracy when it is in its interests to do so. Usually, however, the West supports dictatorships, because dictatorships are easier to control and more predictable than democracies.

A very good example is the Middle East. If Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all became democracies, what would they do? They would quit selling oil to America and declare war on Israel, because anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are huge in these countries. To prevent things like those from happening, the US and the West continues to support the Arab dictatorships and fight against democracy.

In the upcoming Egyptian elections, following Mubarak's ousting, I'm sure the West will play more than just an observing role. They will do everything they can to ensure a pro-West candidate comes to power, even if it means rigging the elections and corrupting the democratic process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
WWII is what made the US into a superpower, not WWI. The US reverted to isolationism after WWI and made no attempt to influence global events on a large scale.

WWI was actually the only war where spreading democracy was the primary objective of the United States, due to Wilson's highly moralistic style of democracy, but Wilson failed in this regard. You could also argue that WWII was a war to spread democracy, but technically America joined only after it was attacked in Pearl Harbour. Otherwise, it would have probably kept its isolationist stance.
WW1 did make US a superpower. US joined the war mostly to insure France and Britain survive to pay US back for all the Help they got from USA until that time. USA was not a superpower until after ww1.
In WW2 USA already started to join the allies side before pearl harbor. They just 'Sent their navy to Britain and said that whatever Canadian convoys that want to come are welcome to come with them on the way. At the time Britain was under heavy siege by the German Uboats so doing that was intervening in the war. ofc there were talks to join the war officially before that and it was pretty obvious that at some point USA will join the war. US can't just sit aside while their political rivals destroy all their allies around the world.

I think you will agree that Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy were both worse than their predecessors, even if they weren't democratic either.

Both regimes were able to rise to power because of the Treaty of Versailles, where the Allies severely punished and humiliated Germany, and shortlisted Italy by not giving what it wanted. If the Allies had followed Wilson's Fourteen Points and developed a more concillatory postwar policy, the rise of fascist regimes in Europe and WWII could both be avoided. It is due to the short-sighted Allied policy that I label WWI as a strategic defeat for the Alies.
That is true but it was never the intention (it was mostly done because of France, the rest of the allies were against that policy) and more importantly, it has nothing to do with this discussion because both were not democratic so this has no effect on spreading democracy. Also, later USA helped Germany and Europe economically and that helped keep the radicals from power until 1929 when USA's economy collapsed.

South Vietnam was a highly corrupt dictatorship under American influence. No democracy there.
MEh you got me on that one.

The current Iraqi regime is also highly corrupt, which is unsurprising since it is essentially an American puppet regime. Its primary purpose is to secure oil reserves for the West (under the guise of democracy, of course).
It doesn't matter what it is, its democracy and USA made that happen so Iraq is officially on the list.

The West intervened in Libya because Gaddafi is opposed to the West. Why isn't the West intervening in the Gulf States like Bahrain?
Gaddafi wasn't completely opposed to the left. The West kind of enjoyed him in the sense that oil kept coming. But the Western intervention there has to do with a lot of things bigger then oil such as internal politics, France's soft spot for her formal colonies and keeping massive of new immigrants from Europe.


The same South Africa that forced all of its black citizens to live in ghettos under Apartheid? Not a shining example of democracy in my opinion.

Anyway, here's a video that you might find interesting.
Na, I was talkign about the international arms embargo on South Africa that eventually made it lose the war on Angola.
Buy nice video, I never know about Cuba's part there.

No one "kicked ass" in the Cold War. If they "kicked ass" the world would be a nuclear wasteland right now.

The West could not influence the Soviet Union, because it was a closed society.
The West won the cold war, call it what you like. Had the Communist block won the cold war I doubt they would need to face the same fate.

The Italian partisans are the ones who revolted against Mussolini and eventually killed him.

Italy as a nation actually joined the Allies before the end of the war.
Italian partisans joined the war when they had the chance but they was almost nothing to the liberation of their country compared to what the Allies did.

The West supports democracy when it is in its interests to do so. Usually, however, the West supports dictatorships, because dictatorships are easier to control and more predictable than democracies.
Democracies are strategic allies, the Western public wants to spread the democracy, etc. Doesn't matter, the result is the West want's to spread democracy and that's a moral core at the actions of the West. Like I said before, its never only that, its always something of interest with it. But nevertheless, its one of the main calculations for every action.

A very good example is the Middle East. If Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all became democracies, what would they do? They would quit selling oil to America and declare war on Israel, because anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are huge in these countries. To prevent things like those from happening, the US and the West continues to support the Arab dictatorships and fight against democracy.
lol, Most Arabs would democratically vote their country out of democracy (that might have changed very recently but only time will tell). And that's why the West worked with the dictators over there, better a cooperative dictator that's relatively good then Radical Islam. But still, some idiots in Washington thought its a good idea to let Gaza elect their own government.

In the upcoming Egyptian elections, following Mubarak's ousting, I'm sure the West will play more than just an observing role. They will do everything they can to ensure a pro-West candidate comes to power, even if it means rigging the elections and corrupting the democratic process.
I don't think that's true. There's too much a risk in doing that not to mention the extremely low possibility of success and opposition from home. The Egyptian army is pretty strong and organized you know. If the Western public would have even suspected something like that the results would be huge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Thank you for the response here Nonynon, some very well thought out points.

Vietnam was only a failure due to media portrayal of the war, which in turn with other forms of propaganda; led the anti-war movement and the republicans in congress at the time to jump out of the war, even if on the ground the Americans were winning. This is arguably one of the few major failures of the US to bring about democracy to another part of the world, but concluding this is a failure would mean you would have to concede that the US shouldn't have pulled out, and finished the job. People prefer having it both ways, even if it means a few million people die in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos thanks to homicidal communist regimes.

The end of of WWII and the Cold War mark periods where democracy did spread considerably, whether it be in western/northern Europe, or the Eastern part; to name a few. Many of even the dictatorships the US supported in South America and elsewhere they later pushed into taking democratic reforms, I'm not sure I've seen many other major powers in history who have made efforts to this extent. It's too early to call whether or not democracy will succeed in North Africa/Middle-East, mistakes will be made, but if you want a more concrete resolution to these conflicts (such as the one in Libya); then you should support the idea of ground troops being sent in. People will instead look at the floor and pretend as if you've said nothing when it is the right thing to do.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
WW1 did make US a superpower. US joined the war mostly to insure France and Britain survive to pay US back for all the Help they got from USA until that time. USA was not a superpower until after ww1.
A superpower is a country that exerts great influence on a global scale. An isolationist country cannot be a superpower, but the United States reverted to isolationism after WWI. Wilson himself was an isolationist, and was forced to join the war due to a plethora of reasons, including economic pressure in supporting the Allies, the Zimmerman Telegram, unrestricted German submarine warfare, and especially his own moralistic concept "creating a world safe for democracy", which he unsuccessfully attempted to do through the League of Nations.

It was only after WWII that the United States became a superpower, because it saw the US being constantly active in all parts of the world, with considerable military power deployed all over the world. WWI did not make the United States a superpower, no matter how you look at it. What WWI did was begin the European dependence on America for defence. It also marked the beginning of the decline of European powers like Britain and France.


That is true but it was never the intention (it was mostly done because of France, the rest of the allies were against that policy) and more importantly, it has nothing to do with this discussion because both were not democratic so this has no effect on spreading democracy.
It has everything to do with this discussion. The harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, and the economic and political damage it caused, resulted in the rise of fascist regimes in Europe. If a more concillatory approach was adopted, it is very likely that democracy could have survived in the ex-Central Powers.


It doesn't matter what it is, its democracy and USA made that happen so Iraq is officially on the list.
Wait a few years. America just left the country a few months ago.


But the Western intervention there has to do with a lot of things bigger then oil such as internal politics, France's soft spot for her formal colonies and keeping massive of new immigrants from Europe.
Nothing is bigger than oil. Certainly not some pseudo-love that the French have for their former colonies. The conflict in Libya is 110% about oil. There is a reason why there is intervention in Libya and not in Yemen, Syria, or the others. No one cares about Yemen or Syria because they don't have a lot of oil.


Na, I was talkign about the international arms embargo on South Africa that eventually made it lose the war on Angola.
South Africa lost the war because of direct military intervention by Cuba, and huge amounts of military aid by the Soviet Union and East Bloc. At the height of the Angolan War, there were over 400,000 Cuban personnel in Angola, and billions of Soviet rubles were keeping the war going. Cuban manpower and Soviet cash and equipment won that war.

America and South Africa were on the same side during the Cold War, and America gave considerable aid to the anti-socialist factions in Angola, which was the same side that South Africa supported. The embargo on South Africa was for international "good feeling" only; it did nothing to change the Cold War realities on the ground.


The West won the cold war, call it what you like. Had the Communist block won the cold war I doubt they would need to face the same fate.
The East Bloc lost the Cold War because of the Soviet Union's own policies. Period.

The West did NOTHING to cause the collapse. The only argument that you could use against this point, is that the West fueled the Arms Race that eventually broke the Soviet economy. But that would be a null point, since no one forced the Soviet Union to place so much funds into building such a vast military force. They put that burden upon themselves.


Democracies are strategic allies, the Western public wants to spread the democracy, etc. Doesn't matter, the result is the West want's to spread democracy and that's a moral core at the actions of the West. Like I said before, its never only that, its always something of interest with it. But nevertheless, its one of the main calculations for every action.
That doesn't answer my point, but I generally agree with what you are saying.


lol, Most Arabs would democratically vote their country out of democracy (that might have changed very recently but only time will tell). And that's why the West worked with the dictators over there, better a cooperative dictator that's relatively good then Radical Islam. But still, some idiots in Washington thought its a good idea to let Gaza elect their own government.
So you agree that the West supports dictatorships in the Middle East? Now we're making progress :p


I don't think that's true. There's too much a risk in doing that not to mention the extremely low possibility of success and opposition from home. The Egyptian army is pretty strong and organized you know. If the Western public would have even suspected something like that the results would be huge.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't aiming for the presidency, because they know that the West would never allow them to come to power. I don't expect the West to intervene in the elections, provided that all the candidates are reasonably pro-West and the military keeps radicals under control. Both seem to be the case, for now.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Vietnam was only a failure due to media portrayal of the war, which in turn with other forms of propaganda; led the anti-war movement and the republicans in congress at the time to jump out of the war, even if on the ground the Americans were winning. This is arguably one of the few major failures of the US to bring about democracy to another part of the world, but concluding this is a failure would mean you would have to concede that the US shouldn't have pulled out, and finished the job.
Lol. In 1956, a superivsed free election was supposed to held that would unite the two Vietnams. This election was cancelled by the South Vietnamese "president" Ngo Dinh Diem. Now, why would South Vietnam, a shining beacon of democracy, supported by the greateast of all beacons of democracy, the United States, cancel free elections? Perhaps it was because Ngo Dinh Diem was afraid that his "99% sweeping victory" would not be replicable in a truly free election?

Indeed, the United States failed to bring democracy into Indochina, though not in the way that you think. I am glad that the American public rose to the occasion and demanded the US withdrawal from Indochina. Unfortunately, over 60,000 American troops had already died, many of whom were conscripts who did not care for the war, but simply wanted to live a normal life.

People prefer having it both ways, even if it means a few million people die in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos thanks to homicidal communist regimes.
According to the Vietnamese government, 2 million civilians died in that war due to famine and supply disruption caused by American bombing of farms, infrastructure, and factories.
 
Last edited:

Nonynon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
246
Likes
16
A superpower is a country that exerts great influence on a global scale. An isolationist country cannot be a superpower, but the United States reverted to isolationism after WWI. Wilson himself was an isolationist, and was forced to join the war due to a plethora of reasons, including economic pressure in supporting the Allies, the Zimmerman Telegram, unrestricted German submarine warfare, and especially his own moralistic concept "creating a world safe for democracy", which he unsuccessfully attempted to do through the League of Nations.

It was only after WWII that the United States became a superpower, because it saw the US being constantly active in all parts of the world, with considerable military power deployed all over the world. WWI did not make the United States a superpower, no matter how you look at it. What WWI did was begin the European dependence on America for defence. It also marked the beginning of the decline of European powers like Britain and France.

It has everything to do with this discussion. The harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, and the economic and political damage it caused, resulted in the rise of fascist regimes in Europe. If a more concillatory approach was adopted, it is very likely that democracy could have survived in the ex-Central Powers.
Well it comes down to what you call a superpower. Myself, I call a country that has great power and an economy that holds the world together a superpower.

As for after ww1, Germany got a new democratic government. At first it didn't work well, mostly because ww1 just ended and aside of the large destruction, German now owed the Entente a lot of money and more then it could afford. After that, with American aide Germany became a stable democracy until 1929 when USA's economy fell and the effects on Germany helped bring radicals to power. France wasn't exactly nice with what they did to the former Centrals but it was obvious that would happen after what happened to France in ww1. The point is Germany became a stable democracy and various reasons (mostly USA's economy) brought the radicals to power.
It would be silly to say ww1 was fought to bring democracy around but it was the result for awhile and that's mainly thanks to USA.

What I said wasn't the discussion was rather Germany was better of as a monarchy then as Nazis because were talking about democracy.

Wait a few years. America just left the country a few months ago.
Ok but if I'm right and democracy stays then I demand a browny point.

Nothing is bigger than oil. Certainly not some pseudo-love that the French have for their former colonies. The conflict in Libya is 110% about oil. There is a reason why there is intervention in Libya and not in Yemen, Syria, or the others. No one cares about Yemen or Syria because they don't have a lot of oil.
Ofc oil dictates policys, it would be stupid for the West to ignore their oil needs but when it comes to Lybia the West could easily have stayed neutral and let Gandafi kick the rebel as*es or even support him. Yet the West did it the hard way and ensured a long struggle that will most likely bring democracy to Lybia. I'm not saying the West are angles, Darfur and other conflicts and genocides prove that but I am saying there is some moral element in there.
My theory is that the West contacted the Rebel leaders and assured a future democracy but that's just me :)

Btw, the Ivory coast isn't exactly known for its oil but France still intervened heavily there.

South Africa lost the war because of direct military intervention by Cuba, and huge amounts of military aid by the Soviet Union and East Bloc. At the height of the Angolan War, there were over 400,000 Cuban personnel in Angola, and billions of Soviet rubles were keeping the war going. Cuban manpower and Soviet cash and equipment won that war.

America and South Africa were on the same side during the Cold War, and America gave considerable aid to the anti-socialist factions in Angola, which was the same side that South Africa supported. The embargo on South Africa was for international "good feeling" only; it did nothing to change the Cold War realities on the ground.
The international arm embargo was a decisive blow to South Africa. Without it, by cold war strategy the West would 100% have helped South Africa against their Communist funded allies. Instead, South Africa had no major ally to fund them.

The East Bloc lost the Cold War because of the Soviet Union's own policies. Period.

The West did NOTHING to cause the collapse. The only argument that you could use against this point, is that the West fueled the Arms Race that eventually broke the Soviet economy. But that would be a null point, since no one forced the Soviet Union to place so much funds into building such a vast military force. They put that burden upon themselves.
The east bloc lost the war because of the West. Mostly by the combination of the spy war, the economies and the spy war.

So you agree that the West supports dictatorships in the Middle East? Now we're making progress
I am saying more, Im saying at times the West SHOULD support the dictators. Even when you look at it morally.

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't aiming for the presidency, because they know that the West would never allow them to come to power. I don't expect the West to intervene in the elections, provided that all the candidates are reasonably pro-West and the military keeps radicals under control. Both seem to be the case, for now.
Yea i know their stories but they are the kind of people you cant trust and will obviously be very happy to have the country for themselves.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Lol. In 1956, a superivsed free election was supposed to held that would unite the two Vietnams. This election was cancelled by the South Vietnamese "president" Ngo Dinh Diem. Now, why would South Vietnam, a shining beacon of democracy, supported by the greateast of all beacons of democracy, the United States, cancel free elections? Perhaps it was because Ngo Dinh Diem was afraid that his "99% sweeping victory" would not be replicable in a truly free election?

Indeed, the United States failed to bring democracy into Indochina, though not in the way that you think. I am glad that the American public rose to the occasion and demanded the US withdrawal from Indochina. Unfortunately, over 60,000 American troops had already died, many of whom were conscripts who did not care for the war, but simply wanted to live a normal life.
Diem was corrupt, but he was later killed by members within his own regime, something you have ignored here. If you understood the history about the establishment of the Republic of South Vietnam, you would know that many US politicians were reluctant to give support to Diems regime until Kennedys administration. Of course bringing up the elections here in this context is laughable as North Vietnam has and still remains a one party state, riddled with poverty and still denying most human rights to its people. The Vietnamese communist regime has proven, like most other communist regimes, to be far more violent and oppressive than others of similar periods.

Of course how often in history do the Americans have the chance to work with a real from-the-ground-up democracy movement against the communists? Only rarely does this ever happen, and to sit on your hands if you were put in a position of power to effect the outcome would be a far more suicidal and negligible decision to make than otherwise. Syngman Rhee was no angel, but does that mean the US or the UN shouldn't have intervened in Korea? lol

According to the Vietnamese government, 2 million civilians died in that war due to famine and supply disruption caused by American bombing of farms, infrastructure, and factories.
Lol. Vietnamese government statistics are dubious, you will generally find the 2 million killed during the Vietnam war they attributed to the total of both sides, but generally will not go further into details because it would show that the vast majority of civilian killings actually happened at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Here is some reading on the the subject:

Rudolph Rummel discusses Vietnamese democide.
Communist Body Count. Vietnamese communists ranked 7th largest killer. Angola communist killings are also mentioned here.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Diem was corrupt, but he was later killed by members within his own regime, something you have ignored here.
Yes, Nicolae Ceacescu was also killed in a similar way. So was Mussolini. Why bring up something completely irrelevant?


If you understood the history about the establishment of the Republic of South Vietnam, you would know that many US politicians were reluctant to give support to Diems regime until Kennedys administration.
Who cares if they were "reluctant"? They still gave him plenty of support, as they did to a plethora of other dictators who agreed to follow the U.S. agenda.


Of course bringing up the elections here in this context is laughable as North Vietnam has and still remains a one party state, riddled with poverty and still denying most human rights to its people.
What's laughable is a democratic nation cancelling free elections, and then waging war a decade later on the basis of "spreading democracy" :pound:

The fact that North Vietnam is/was a one-party state is irrelevant. They were going to participate in elections that would involve the entire nation, not just the North, and they would be supervised by international groups. It was obvious that Ho Chi Minh was going to win, especially considering his opponent was someone a despicable as Diem, and Diem knew this better than anyone else.


The Vietnamese communist regime has proven, like most other communist regimes, to be far more violent and oppressive than others of similar periods.
Also irrelevant. "I killed only one of your cows, but you killed two of my cows. I am God and you are the Devil!". I'm sure there's a name for this kind of logical fallacy. You're lucky I don't know the Western names for the logical fallacies, or else I would bring them up as often as you enjoy doing.


Of course how often in history do the Americans have the chance to work with a real from-the-ground-up democracy movement against the communists?
Is the containment of Communism (not the spread of democracy, that was irrelevant in the Cold War) a goal that justifies the support of dictatorial regimes, and the massacre of millions of people, both directly and indirectly?

American politicians thought so.


Only rarely does this ever happen, and to sit on your hands if you were put in a position of power to effect the outcome would be a far more suicidal and negligible decision to make than otherwise.
Why would it be suicidal? What did America have to lose? What did America lose by losing the Vietnam War, besides the lives of 60,000 soldiers who did not deserve to die, and countless billions of dollars that could be used for far more noble goals?


Syngman Rhee was no angel, but does that mean the US or the UN shouldn't have intervened in Korea? lol
Once again, you are comparing two unlike things. North Korea initiated the aggression during the Korean War, and thus the UN and the international community at large were obligated to defend South Korea.

In the Vietnam War, it was America that initiated the aggression, after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the subsequent resolution of the same name was passed by the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, the UN is powerless to do anything about aggression by the superpowers.


Lol. Vietnamese government statistics are dubious, you will generally find the 2 million killed during the Vietnam war they attributed to the total of both sides, but generally will not go further into details because it would show that the vast majority of civilian killings actually happened at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Here is some reading on the the subject
Indeed, Vietnamese government statistics are dubious. I could also say that I find that Rummel guy you always quote to be dubious. Two can play at that game.

Actually, after reading more of the stuff that the Rummel guy wrote, I find that he has surprisingly little bias. The only problem is that you only use the parts that justify your agenda. For example, I found this:

Putting together all the subtotals (lines 333 to 350), in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable as 1,641,000 all told
Quite some number for the shining beacon of peace, democracy, freedom, etc. etc.

All though I'm sure you could attempt to justify American genocide through a variety of reasons, I'm not really interested in hearing them. I hold all murdering, war-mongering nations in the same low regard, regardless of whether they define themselves as "democracies" or not.
 
Last edited:

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Yes, Nicolae Ceacescu was also killed in a similar way. So was Mussolini. Why bring up something completely irrelevant?
The point is you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nobody was going to throw out the idea of a Romanian or Italian state because of those leaders, why throw out a South Vietnamese one?

Who cares if they were "reluctant"? They still gave him plenty of support, as they did to a plethora of other dictators who agreed to follow the U.S. agenda.
...And they supported the South after the realization that millions in South Vietnam did actually not want to live under a communist regime. This was proven during the Tet Offensive when the North Vietnamese invaded thinking it would have the entire country up in arms against the South; this did not happen, and they lost the offensive. The boat people fleeing after the war is also a testament to this, as is the case with all communist regimes when they seize power in any given country.

Is the containment of Communism (not the spread of democracy, that was irrelevant in the Cold War) a goal that justifies the support of dictatorial regimes, and the massacre of millions of people, both directly and indirectly?

American politicians thought so.
Gee, I wonder why anyone would want to contain communism? Beats me! :pound:

Perhaps this might be due to the fact that as early as Marx, communists saw capitalism and democracy as the ultimate enemies to fight; even more of a threat than monarchism, colonialism, and fascism. As anyone who has defected from a communist state during the Cold War would have told you, the communists felt and wanted to be in a constant perpetual state of war with western democracy.

As for the west supporting dictatorships or authoritarian regimes; well yet again it depends. Supporting a South Vietnamese state was a good idea, whether they were democratic or not, as the outcome would have been the same as Taiwan and South Korea. Those states are prosperous and free, where as Vietnam today is poor and still under communist oppression. Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We now know with hindsight given the statistics, fleeing refugees, and killings on all sides that the US supporting the South against the communists was a far more justifiable cause than allowing another violent and oppressive communist state to come into existance.

Why would it be suicidal? What did America have to lose? What did America lose by losing the Vietnam War, besides the lives of 60,000 soldiers who did not deserve to die, and countless billions of dollars that could be used for far more noble goals?
More US lives were lost at Normandy, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and WWII in general than in all of Vietnam. The Vietnam War; like all major conflicts in the Cold War, was symbolic of the American need to stand up to Soviet aggression and democide. 22 communist states were created in the last century by the Soviets, of which a combined total of 150 million people were killed; that's 4-5 times the number who died under fascist states in WWII. The Americans did not lay down and roll over in the face of communist oppression, and overall did a good job in opposing such a homicidal system. The Vietnam war was the only one where the media hijacked the conflict to make America give up, even if they were winning on the ground. Here's an interesting video on the subject:

[video=google;7223462422195110030]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7223462422195110030[/video]

What's laughable is a democratic nation cancelling free elections, and then waging war a decade later on the basis of "spreading democracy" :pound:
The fact that North Vietnam is/was a one-party state is irrelevant. They were going to participate in elections that would involve the entire nation, not just the North, and they would be supervised by international groups. It was obvious that Ho Chi Minh was going to win, especially considering his opponent was someone a despicable as Diem, and Diem knew this better than anyone else.
Once again, you are comparing two unlike things. North Korea initiated the aggression during the Korean War, and thus the UN and the international community at large were obligated to defend South Korea.
So why is Vietnam a one party state now? Why is their one party state then and now irrelevant? You talk of Diem accepting democracy and elections, why not Ho Chi Minh for the North Vietnamese? Why did he profess a form of politics and government that is as homicidal as all of the other communist states? Comparing South Korea to South Vietnam is very relevant and can be drawn, since both had military juntas in the beginning when fighting a communist state, and anti-Americanism was rampant in Korea at the time (same for Vietnam), only did a lot of that stop once the communists attacked and they saw who the real enemy was. In the Korean war case; The UN only acted when the North Koreans conquered most of Korea down to Pusan, which was held by the Americans; only at the last minute did they intervene. With the exception of this conflict, the UN has been a useless international political body.

In the Vietnam War, it was America that initiated the aggression, after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the subsequent resolution of the same name was passed by the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, the UN is powerless to do anything about aggression by the superpowers.
The North Vietnamese started the conflict in 1956 by supporting communist insurgencies in the South, which was one of the precursors to the Vietnam war; the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened in the early 60s. The UN is powerless to stop the USSR without American help, but the UNs problems run deeper than their inability to stop super powers.

Indeed, Vietnamese government statistics are dubious. I could also say that I find that Rummel guy you always quote to be dubious. Two can play at that game.
Actually, after reading more of the stuff that the Rummel guy wrote, I find that he has surprisingly little bias. The only problem is that you only use the parts that justify your agenda. For example, I found this:

Quite some number for the shining beacon of peace, democracy, freedom, etc. etc.
:pound:

I think the statistics Rummel has brought together and calculated come from far more sources and differing places than the biased Vietnamese ones. The Vietnamese government claims 2 million Vietnamese killed, yet you quote the following line that says the most the Americans killed throughout the last century, in every war comes to a total of 600 thousand to 1.6 million. How can they kill 2 million in one conflict there if they haven't even killed that many overall? Derrr maf iz nawt mai bezt subjekt.

I haven't used his sources for any kind of bias at all, in fact I agree with the premise of his work in statistics titled Power Kills, because in reality it does. The US (a democracy) in all of its wars in the the 20th century killed 0.6-1.6 million, yet the Soviet Union by itself killed 61 million, the PRC killed 73 million, and the North Vietnamese killed 1.7 million just between the periods of 1945-1987, not including 1 million that died during the Vietnam War. That's something worth pondering. The small state of North Vietnam killed more people in 42 years than the Americans did in the last century (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and all the wars in between), that's fairly staggering.

All though I'm sure you could attempt to justify American genocide through a variety of reasons, I'm not really interested in hearing them. I hold all murdering, war-mongering nations in the same low regard, regardless of whether they define themselves as "democracies" or not.
Also irrelevant. "I killed only one of your cows, but you killed two of my cows. I am God and you are the Devil!". I'm sure there's a name for this kind of logical fallacy. You're lucky I don't know the Western names for the logical fallacies, or else I would bring them up as often as you enjoy doing.
:rotflmao:

When have I ever justified Americas killings? Yet again more strawman arguments; you seem to be filled with more of an emotional and fallacious way of looking at things, rather than an objective one. Read Rudolph Rummels works and you will see exactly where I come from. Most of Americas killings of civilians happened during WWI and WWII, and those I do not endorse (such as the bombing of Dresden); however the number of killings that Americans commit in war has become less and less statistically over time, from Korea to Iraq, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. People like you will ignore this though and play moral equivalence, placing America in the same category of democide as the Soviet Union or the PRC. That is where the problem lies.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top