Saddam Hussein: The New Ho Chi Minh?

You mean as in an evil, thuggish, murdering dictator who finds mass sympathy among the left despite the fact that his actions run starkly counter to everything they claim to stand for (peace, tolerance, human rights, etc)? Everything, of course, except for the tie that binds the left, anti-Americanism?

In that case, I'd say Saddam Hussein has out-Ho'd Ho; he doesn't have quite as much sympathy from the left, perhaps (at least not the left in America, where even most anti-war lefties admitted that while they opposed war, a US victory was preferable to a victory by Saddam; most Eurotrash lefties couldn't even go that far), but he's arguably even more brutal and more murderous than Ho was. More freedom of religion under Saddam, however.

RIP, the 6 brave Brits who died today. Their families and friends are in our hearts and minds and their deaths will not be in vain.

 

Being I a leftie I want equality.

So US lefties are US-trash lefties.

yeah, these are the battle of rights we lefties like to win and will win.

Power to the trash people!
Trash of the world unite!
Ho chi minh! Ho chi minh! Long live saddam or his DNA!

Dfb when will you leave to iraq? there's lots of iraqis dying (litterally) to welcome you.

 

Especially not in vain because its in support of your platitudes, dfb.

I'm sure that their families don't give a flying ************ about what a punk like you thinks, good or bad. So don't sully their memory with your attacks on the left.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Ho Chi Minh originally fighting the French for independence, as Vietnam was part of French Indochina, and the Americans got involved because (shock horror !!) he had left-leaning political views, so he just must have been a Chinese, and therefore a Soviet puppet. And wasn't the South Vietnamese government repressive, corrupt and unpopular at the time of it's existance ?.

I do say I'm fairly left-wing, from Europe (Britain to be precise), but not trash. I object to being insulted by some person behind a keyboard because I don't wave the flag at all times, supporting every military intervention that takes place without UN backing, or even a viable plan as to what happens after the victory. I was opposed to the war, not for a love of Hussein (whom the Republican government helped am in the 1980's), but for the following factors:

1. The USA went about this in the wrong way entirely. They steamed into the UN saying, 'back us or else you're tossed aside'. The jolt was needed, but the UN inspectors should have been given more time before Bush sent in the tanks. And don't say 'they had 12 years', as the whole speech Bush gave in September 2002 was based around the new effort being a new chapter.

2. Whilst the military campaign has been fairly swift, there had been no firm plan as to what happens next. British and US soldiers are no looking like they'll spend months or even years there, in the face of a hostile public. There seemed to be no post-war plan, and the whole war was and end in itself.

3. The basis of the war, WMD is seemingly based upon inaccurate intelligence at best, or doctored documents to justify a decision already made at worst.

4. The moral case for war is suspect. Yes, Hussein was an evil leader, no doubt about it. But what's going to happen with Mugabe, or the Burmese Junta, who also repress their citizens ?. You can't pick and choose which bad guys you go after if you want to spread liberal democracies across the world.

Those are the reasons that I was opposed to the war. You see, you can hide behind your flag and say 'you hate us, and you love Saddam' to comfort yourself. But that just simplifies this issue to absurd levels, and obscures many awkward issues from discussion. I am not anti-American, your goalkeeper is in my team for God's sake. I am just sick of all this petty name calling and questioning of whose 'side' people with different views are on.

 

Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first and foremost. He worked originally for the OSS against the Japanese. When the war ended, he tried to enlist American support for an independent state. The Truman administration decided to side with France. Mihn didn't side with China and the USSR for a couple of more years.

 

man i leave for 7 weeks and come back to horribly obscure references between two individuals that have about as much in common as a man and a bowling alley.

what happend to think before you post?

 

Please don't confuse us Bush bashing, French appeasing, conservative hating lefties with those that hate America. We are America.
By the way, hasn't the Bush family killed more Iraqis than the Baths by now. If not, it must be very close.
That will teach that evil Saddam for giving up the US dollar in favor of the Euro. Whose laughing now Saddam? huh? huh? You dog, you.

 

Not even vaguely close. But you might want to tally up the number of Allied deaths attributable to the decisions and actions of the Bush Administration, viz a viz the decisions and actions of the Saddam Administration ...

 

Congratulations. You're my first "Fixed your post".

 

If one tallies the loss of Iraqi soldiers, conscipts, civilians and, the hotly disputed wildcard-economic sanctions from 1991 to present,,,,,

 

[smarta$$]I think now we're getting a pretty good idea of why they couldn't find any in 12 years. [/smarta$$]

 

I don't see why not. The only other alternative is never go after any bad guys.

 

Are you saying the Twin Pillars of Freedom and Democracy, Bill Cliton (I accidentally didn't type the first "n", but I think it was a Freudian slip as I kind of like it) and the United Nations, BOTH repeatedly lied about Saddam's WMD program throughout the 1990s?

 

How was I using their deaths to support my beliefs? Just because it was in the same post, doesn't mean the 2 are connected...that's why I left space between them...

 

This is true. We should have supported an independent Vietnam in 1945, if we had done so the country's domestic economic policy might have been slightly leftist but it would have been a military ally of the US (much like a number of European countries throughout the Cold War). The only reason we supported the French was because they promised to let us station NATO troops in their country in return, and predictably they broke that promise. Because we supported the French, Ho turned to Beijing and Moscow for help and, by Dien Bien Phu, he was a stooge of those 2 countries (who interestingly were competing with each other for influence in North Vietnam just as they were competing with us for influence in the country as a whole), so it was neccesary to take him out.

 

Yes, but it was far less repressive and corrupt than the Communist government in the North (impossible to judge how popular the 2 were, given that in the North people were forced to support the government).

The important thing is that in 1945, an independent Vietnam would likely have been a democracy with a socialist-influenced economic system, and a US military ally, similar to a number of European countries...by 1960, it was a full-fledged Communist puppet state. Also, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969 and was replaced by more hard-line Communists.

Fair enough, I was referring to people who not only opposed the war but actually hoped for Saddam to win. Most American lefties were smart enough to realize that even if they were against the war in the first place, an Allied victory was preferable to a Saddam victory, but many European lefties did not--look at the poll taken in France where a third of those asked said they wanted Saddam to win, and another third said they didn't care. Those are the Eurotrash I was referring to.

I never said all those who opposed the war were intentionally anti-America and pro-Saddam, but there is no doubt that some (a large number in Europe) were. And if you were against the war you were supporting Saddam, even if indirectly, because you were opposing efforts to remove him from power. Maybe you didn't want to support Saddam, but your actions helped to.