Real reasons for Korean and Viet Nam war

I know the common reasons for going to war with Korea and Viet Nam are "communism", but what's the real reason. Example- Iraq: fake reason for war=terrorism. real reason for war: oil.

 

Actually no oil wasn't the real reason for Iraq.

And we went to war with North Korea because they like, you know, invaded South Korea.

 

Bush II really is a religious wing-nut. He really does believe that God called him to be president, "at this time." The war in Iraq was his attempt at bringing about Armageddon.

The Korean and Vietnam wars were proxy wars between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Neither country had the means to fight a civil war without the backing of the two super powers. Had they been left alone they would have clubbed each other a while and been home in time for the rice harvest.

.

 

North Korea had near completely taken over South Korea minus the UN fortified area around Pusan though before the landing at Incheon happened.

 

We stepped in to stop Communist aggression. The war escalated from there. The Soviet Union armed the North and we armed the South.

How many N Korean fighter pilots do you think were flying those Russian MIGs? How many S Koreans do you think were flying the fighter jets we gave them. Ever try to train rice farmers to fight with jet airplanes?

Try Google, none of this is a secret now, nor was it then. I was a kid and I knew this was a war against the USSR. I was in the Navy during the Vietnam war and we all knew the Russians were the real force behind the North.

If we had let the Koreans and Vietnamese work out their own problems, the world would be a much different place today. To start, we would not have a Madd dictator pointing atomic bombs at us now.

.

 

Proxy wars:

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

.

 

To claim that the Iraq war was about oil and only about oil is to miss the nuances, oil was a factor but more as the cherry on the cake, attractive but not the whole reason for wanting the cake.

The views of the neo-con faction were well known before the Bush (jr) Admin gained power and they were pushing for the a ‘takeover’ of Iraq supposedly from day one. For them it was a strategic position, Iraq would have made a great base form which to dominate the Middle East (look at a map) with borders with old enemies like Syria and Iran. And after years of sanctions the place was presumed to be weak so any invasion would be a “cake walk”(*).

And I’m sure that if Iraq had gone the way they thought it would (quick victory, instillation of pro-US government, building of bases) that they would have expanded the policy (probably into Iran.)

It was power not oil the oil just meant it would - in there eyes - be a war that paid for itself.

(*)“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.” Richard Perle

 

The Anti-communist movement has been going on for years in the US, although it is actually aimed at all left wing views rather than just communisim. In the 1940-50 it was in the grip of the Second Red Scare, and aggressively trying to purge its society of left leaning ideas.

So it’s not surprising that it had an effect on the country’s foreign policy. Sometimes the motivation was genuine concern sometimes cynical manipulation.

For me what happened in Vietnam was a stupid and tragic mistake, the thing is that Ho Chi Minh was a great admirer of Americans and the US and spoke of it as a revolutionary model that Vietnam could follow because it too had fought for independence. Ho was a pragmatist not a hardliner and at that time although led primarily by Communists, the Viet Minh operated as a national front organization open to persons of various political persuasions.


On September 2, 1945, he declared the independence of Vietnam. He wrote to President Harry Truman asking for help. The Truman administration ignored him.


Here are the first few lines of Ho’s declaration -

“All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: “All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.”

Those are undeniable truths.”

*

Problems began when the US rejected Vietnamese independence in favour of re-installing the French, and then basically took over from them as the occupiers.

Compromise became increasingly difficult with the Viet Minh and the Viet Minh became increasing hard-line, needing assistance, they turned to Communist China and Russia for help making the communist element in the organisation all the stronger. The organisation of 1945 was very different by the time they reunited the country in 76 but then 30 years of war can do that.

*

(edited from a post in)
The President lied to start war
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=19321&f=28
and
US involvement in Southeast Asia.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=392290&f=36

 

Damn, I'm loving Balbus' posts right now. Jack's, too.

And for no other reason other than I think it's a tremendous one-liner: "Dog, the white man won't be denied!" -- Generation Kill

 

This is true, but you have to draw a big distinction between the Bush administration and Bush himself. Bush allowed himself to be a puppet of his own administration, particularly Cheney in the first term. Personally, his motivations were religious, and these motivations were used by his administration to manipulate him, like memos with bible versus every day.

As for the oil revenues paying for the war, I think it was only a propaganda angle to relieve the public's concerns of paying for the war. Kind of like the car salesman who tells you the car will pay for itself with the money you save on gas, but not telling you about the $500 a quart oil that has to be replaced every 1,000 miles.

.

 

JackFlash, I don't think you said why the Vietnam war started in the first place.

If I remember right, the bible quotes were added by one person...and only for a brief time. I think they stopped when the person who included the bible quotes retired. I don't think you should read so much into it, tbh.

 

I think Balbus did a pretty good job. The beginning of their war had little to do with us, we came on the scene and ramped up the carnage as a response to the Soviets.

There were also daily calls to that fundamentalist preacher, religious encroachment into government, proselytizing through the military. This is a widely held opinion, not just mine alone. try google: "Bush" "Armageddon"

.

 

Fair enough.

Who was that? I don't remember that one.

Do you mean: http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/18/christian-soldiers.html ?

I know. It doesn't make it true, though...does it?

Ok, straight after I Google "Bush" "Hitler"

I think there was a thread here about the Iraq war being about religion etc I'll try and find it. My opinion is that it doesn't stack up to too much scrutiny.

 

Ted Haggard, the guy who preached against gays on Sunday, after a rip roaring Saturday night of meth and wieners. I think there was another one, too, but I can't remember his name.

Yes.

Belief and fact are not the same. All I can say is, I am convinced from what I've seen.

.

 

I think the e.gs you gave have some truth to them...but you have slightly over exaggerated there importance and relevance...and come to the wrong conclusions. But I understand why that might be.

 

Interesting take.

We had a president who couldn't have been more up front about his fundamental religious beliefs if he had rented neon billboards across the country, called a fundamentalist preacher for advice on running the nation, had the U.S. military handing out Bibles during wartime against Islamic nations, gave taxpayer money to religious groups for distribution to the needy and made statements that God chose him to be president at that time. He attacked a country that was no threat to us, to the detriment of the war that was somewhat justified, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Please enlighten me as to what here is exaggerated and why I shouldn't come to the conclusion that Bush fancied himself as the instrument of Armageddon when many of those who were close to him believe the same.

.

 

I think you over exaggerated because from what I can gather, Bush didn't make daily calls to Haggard (or vice versa). He seems to have had contact with him a few times, along with many other religious people from varied faiths. Most, if not all, Presidents have done this too.

The Chaplin's in question were not breaking any military law by preaching as they did. The inference seems to be that the military were trying to spread the word of Jesus to Muslims and trying to convert them...which isn't true. There have been many cross faith forums set up in Iraq.
I do think Bush liked that Iraqis had faith rather than wishing to convert them into Christians. He was also concerned for Iraqi Christians being targeted because they were Christians not Muslims.
So wanted to open up dialoug between the faiths.

Yes, Bush made it quite clear he was a religious person...and?
It doesn't mean that he believes he was embarking on some kind of crusade...which it seems is being implied.

I think you came to the wrong conclusion because your premise wasn't accurate to begin with.

I would like to see what the people around him apparently said about him on this matter. Thanks if you can post a few links to expand upon your point.

Wow, now that is evil.

I think I read about that, it turned out it was similar to when Iran said they wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Not literally. Something was lost in translation. But we might be talking about different quotes.

 

I remember the sources at the time saying daily, but the internet sources I just checked are saying weekly. I find this a minor difference. Do you really want the president to be getting advice on the nation's affairs from a fundamentalist preacher who is smoking meth and lying about his homosexual behavior while he preaches an anti-gay agenda and the inevitability of the up and coming Armageddon?

They were breaking tradition, though. The U.S. Army handing out bibles during wartime in Islamic countries reeks of a Crusade. Have you given any thought to how insulting and demeaning this is to the people in these countries? And, at a time when we were trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis and Afghans.

And the best way to do that was to remind them of a time when they were beheaded for not bowing down to the Cross? Do you really think that Muslims would see a difference in Bush's occupying army handing out bibles and King Richard's Crusade? In the very least this is religious arrogance. And that's if I accept your premise here.

I'm not implying that, I am asserting that he did embark on a Crusade.

Obviously, you have a different take on the subject. I don't know if you are coming from a religious background or not, but as an atheist, I consider myself an expert on proselytizing, I've heard it all of my life.

I'll see what I can do.

Bush's statements were all in English, a language that needs no interpreting for me. When you have a president who believes Armageddon is about to happen any day, a statement like that carries implications; especially when he starts a war with a nation that is no threat to us, based on lies, and then has the army hand out bibles to Muslims.

Just the points with which you agree should at least lead you to some serious suspicions.

.

 

Try these:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/642352

http://www.counterpunch.org/hill01042003.html

You might also want to check out the "Oath Keepers." One of my neighbors is in that group and since we've had so many neighborhood problems because of him, I joined the group for a short while to learn about him. This is an armed militia group that considers itself an "army for god." They focus their attention on recruiting cops, firefighters and X-military personnel with influence and military experience. This is a very dangerous para-military group.

.

 

Not to nit pick, but I believe "Oath Keepers" are the militia type, not Promise Keepers.