Anyone else here remember the end of 'Nam, just before we left?

[reprobate]

I seem to sense a distinct parallel between then and now.

I saw a program last night-think it was on c-span but not sure, it was late, about 2am. On Booknotes.

Just looked it up. It was "Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy" by Fawaz Gerges. He is an analyst of political science for the middle east. According to him insurgent attacks on US forces are now up to 180 a day! Pity we don't get those numbers from our media. But more and more people I think are starting to see the truth.

In addition, he says that Iraq is now in the throws of a true civil war and it's secular. Shiite vs Sunni. The towns and villages that were mixed and got along fine before our invasion are now splitting up, with the Sunnis moving to Sunni territory and Shiite moving to Shiite territory. Iraq is now divided along purely religious lines. Plus the Shiites are being controlled by Iran.

Anyone who can't see the parallels between Viet Nam and Iraq must have their head firmly buried up their ass.

My only question is whether both sides will put away their animosity long enough to turn on us, or will the leadership of Iran have the Shiites drive us out? they have enough arms to supply real weapons to them and bring us to our knees.

How long before there are helicopters evacuating from the roofs of the green zone?

You'd think we would have learn something by this time. The United States hasn't won a war in over sixty years. Maybe it's time we tried a different way?

Or is it just that our leadership are not much more than little boys, not grown up enough to put down their toy soldiers and learn to talk like adults.

I now believe those who claim we've become a paper tiger are absolutely right.

[robbedvoter]

1. We accomplished what we wanted in Kosovo

But there, we weren't seeking occupation, profiteering.

[MADem]

4. What the little dunce sneeringly referred to as "nation-building?"

Of course, he's not doing that--he's "nation-destroying."

[madokie]

48. The little dunce is only thinking about one thing and that is himself

if the globe is right in the marital problems we are in for some shit when the story breaks in the msm. They will have to do something to take our minds off of his infidelity. Yesterday will not be soon enough to get this shitstain out of the wh. imo

[Terran1212]

17. Questionable that we weren't seeking profit

The last corner of Europe to keep non-neoliberal economic policies was smashed.

[robbedvoter]

29. Huh? Come again? non-neoliberal whatsit?

[Terran1212]

38. It's maybe the "far left" who says this but..

Serbia was following economic policies that were detrimental to investment. Some say the only corner of Europe still keeping some of those economic regimes. It would make a good case for "intervention" -- even if you call it "humanitarian." It's odd that the humanitarian intervention would occur there when far worse atrocities were occuring across the world. You have to wonder how the targets are picked.

[catmother]

2. oh, i remember it well. tricky dick kept saying "we would have

peace with honor".

how many more lives have to be sacrificed? even my repub husband who was for the war in iraq says we have to get the hell out of there.

[mike_c]

3. there is a guaranteed Pulitzer Prize awaiting the photographer...

...who photographs that last helicopter loading on the roof of a building in Baghdad.

[nytemare]

5. Why Iraq wasn't divided into three states, I don't know.

Three states, Kurdish, Sunni, Shiite, each having their own governments, falling under a central government. They should be able to have representatives and Governors as we do.

It is probably too late to do this now, but why this wasn't thought of from the start is beyond me. Three different ethnic groups with three ideas on how the government should be run. Give them each their own local government.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Because the Sunnis

would have been totally screwed. They don't have much oil in the Sunnie areas.

[nytemare]

12. They could have federal control of oil, or split the territory near the

oil fields.

This is just going to be an endless pissing match, now.

:shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Maybe you don't understand what is going on?

BushCo doesn't want peace in Iraq. They've done everything they can to provoke civil war.

Splitting the country in three or trying to come up with any other solution was not on their agenda.

[nytemare]

35. What I am saying is that their agenda is stupid.

I was in Iraq in '91, and I will take your suggestion that "maybe I just don't understand" with a grain of salt.

Bush's agenda was to get Hussein, it didn't matter that the reason was a lie. Obviously, he didn't think much further than that, and this mess of a quagmire we are in is the result of that.
I am not suggesting splitting the country in three, but that having three states or provinces under the main government would have been a good idea.

Maybe Joe Biden doesn't understand either, here is an article where he suggested the same thing.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01446278.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. I didn't mean my comment

to be a criticism of your idea. Any idea would be a great idea at this point. The issue is the will and desire of the US, ie BushCo, to do anything at all. The chaos we are seeing was what they planned for.

Google 'Michael Ledeen' who has publicly stated that their plan is not to bring stability to the ME, but rather to destabilize it. One more way to get rid of more of us useless eaters.

[nytemare]

40. This brings back something that was posted on page one a few months back.

regarding port security. I think a DU'er was talking to a fellow at the airport who worked for a company that manufactures scanning devices for shipping containers, cutting edge stuff. He said that he sells to foreign governments, because the US is more interested basically in keeping people aware of a threat than in dealing with it.

[theoldman]

6. There are only a few parallels between Nam and Iraq.

The common denominator between Viet Nam and Iraq is that they were both started by lies. In both cases the politicians tried to run the war in lieu of the military. We did not lose the war in Viet Nam, we quit.

Iraq is already in a civil war but it is a religious war not a secular war. I also doubt that the Shiites are being controlled by Iran.

Even if the Iranians and Iraqis united they could not defeat us. If this happened we would stop going from house to house and just bomb the hell out of whole cities.

I do not think that we are a paper tiger since we have the largest military in the world. Our problem is that our president has a big mouth and makes idle threats against the whole world. We cannot defeat the whole world.

[sandnsea]

10. The Vietnam War winning strategy

Please fill me in. It's a bafflement to me how we could have done more than drop more bombs than we did in WWII and kill a million or two people and lose nearly 60,000 of our own. For years I respectfully deferred to the "one hand behind our back" storyline, but I just can't do it anymore. Tell me the war winning strategy for Vietnam. And please don't fall back on the "we didn't lose any battles" because that's the whole point, the military can win every battle and still not be able to win a war.

[theoldman]

15. The winning strategy is for the military and government to work

together. It did not happen then and it's not happening now. BTW most of our bombs fell on small villages. Jungles are a tough place to fight a war. Think how hard it was to defeat the Japanese.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. "Think how hard it was to defeat the Japanese."

A lot easier than Vietnam. We lost with Vietnam.

[sandnsea]

19. And then what??

An elected government can agree to have its military stop fighting, but if the people don't agree, the war isn't over. That's the part of the equation that military types just can't seem to process, you can't militarily defeat a civilian population.

[ngant17]

25. Vietnam and Iraq

Well, I think it can be said that both countries had a bogus govenment which collapsed/will collapse
after exit of US military.

Unlikely that there will be a bunch of refugees escaping by boat from Iraq. The ones who picked their
lot with the occupation will not last long.

I do see a long term strategy in the insurgents, whether they are allied to Iran or not. The reason we don't see any large scale attacks by insurgency against occupation is because they want to slowly bleed us until we lose the political will to continue. Just as the Vietnamese were willing to do in their
land.

Eventually the US will have to spead its forces so thin in all the major cities of Iraq, that it will not be able to control the countryside. Or vice-versa.

The bigger problem that US faces in Iraq is the fact that there are a lot of borders, and all of those
people speak Arabic. This was not the case in Vietnam. There was a language gap with Cambodia, Thailand, China and other adjacent countries. That tends to isolate an insurgent army which needs to
broaden the battlefield against a more powerful enemy. Certainly, it did not stop arms coming from USSR and China, but no troops of course. In Iraq, there is more to worry about than just Syria and Iran. There is likely a hugh pipeline of new Arabic internationalist guerrillas ready to replenish the ones who find martydom within the high-tech US meat-grinding killing machines. Americans can't comprehend wars that might last a century or more. And no way they are going to support a pointless war for the length of time that even Vietnam took, about 12 years or so.

[Yupster]

42. If/when we leave Iraq

we need to take out the Iraqis who've worked with us before we leave.

I don't want another illing fields going on, and this time it will be collaberators getting their heads sawed off on TV every night.

That's a discrace this country can't handle. When we leave we have to evacuate our friends first.

[smoogatz]

32. Sorry, but that old "we didn't lose, we quit" argument is hogwash.

The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong made us quit by inflicting unacceptable losses. When the other side makes you quit, that means you surrendered, and that means you lost. The "if only we'd killed more of them" argument is hogwash, too. According to Vietnamese government figures released on April 3, 1995, "a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged." (http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/) Vietnam's prewar population was roughly 32 million--so we succeeded in wiping out approximately 15% of the population. If the US were to suffer comparable casualties inflicted by a foreign power today, we'd be talking 45 million dead. The obvious question is, how many more Vietnamese should we have killed? At what point does the rationale for war--saving the Vietnamese from the threat of communism/liberating the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator--become so ghoulishly ironic that no rational person can take it seriously anymore?

[Warren Stupidity]

49. In both cases: 'what government'?

In vietnam we propped up one illegitimate puppet regime after another. The only legitimate government had its capital in Hanoi. There is no legitimate government in Iraq. When we leave some other arrangement will replace the crap we have put in place.

Are you referring to our government and our military? They worked together. The military was given everything it asked for. With a few exceptions nobody in the military was suggesting that we take a different approach. (The one notable exception, John Paul Vann, is documented in 'A Bright And Shining Lie'.) The only limits were geopolitical: we couldn't invade the north as that would have resulted in a nuclear level crisis by violating the cold war rules on no direct conflicts. That was it. The military did not have its hands tied, it had a mission that was impossible to accomplish that it was more than happy to waste our blood and treasure on not accomplishing for 15 years. In Iraq once again our military has been assigned a mission it cannot accomplish, and once again for the most part our military leaders (the ones that aren't retired that is) are happy to waste our blood and treasure on this generation's imperial folly, knowing full well that there is no victory.

[Jacobin]

20. OMG

"We did not win the war in Viet Nam, we quit"

You do realize we had 550,000 troops there at the height of that war and dropped more bombs on VietNam than we did in all of WWII.

HOW in the fuck do you think 'we could have won' when the Vietnamese people hated the S. Vietnamese puppet government we installed?

How many more troops would it have taken?

How many more US and Vietnamese troops would have had to die and for WHAT? A fucking domino theory?

I lived through that era as an adult.

I humbly suggest that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

[Redstone]

24. Well, there IS a grain of truth in his post. We broke the back of

the Viet Cong in 1968 (Tet), and we broke the back of the NVA in 1972 (Quang Tri City, An Loc, et al).

Redstone

[Jacobin]

31. Hmm, those broken backs....

seemed to keep regenerating didn't they.

No disrespect to anyone who served there and many were drafted to that quagmire and had little choice but to go, go to Canada or go to jail (or get some Cheneydeferments)...but, there was no popular support for the corrupt puppet government in the south that we installed and so the war could not ever be won.

I wonder how many more millions would have needed to die in that sick adventure before more people would understand that?

[Yupster]

44. A general rule of a guerrilla type war

is that as long as the guerrilla force has a safe haven to flee to it can never be defeated.

It's particularly important in Afghanistan where the Taliban can flee to the Pakistani tribal regions, rearm, recruit and return next dry season.

[ngant17]

28. the end of the war?

It's funny how B$$$hit talks about a war that might not end in our lifetime. Isn't that what he said?

The war in Vietnam was unwinnable. We couldn't kill them as fast as they could re-populate and fight us again.

The Asians can think of a war lasting a generation or longer. What's the longest war we committed ourselves to? Vietnam, for 11 years or so?

Iraq is Bu$$$hit's war. He started it and why would anyone want to continue it? He choose to ignore a lot of experienced advice from some of the Pentagon generals.

[Yupster]

43. Saying the South Vietnamese people hated

the puppet regime is too simplistic.

The popular view is that the ARVN didn't fight, but that is not an accurate picture.

They fought and took much heavier losses than we did. In 1972 alone the ARVN lost as many men as we did in the entire war. In that year the North Vetnamese attacked from the very north and took some cities and some ARVN divisions buckled. But then some of the better ARVN divisions reinforced and counterrattacked and retook the entire lost land beating the North Vietnamese in large set battles. American airpower was important for sure but we had very few ground troops fighting by then.

Anyway, the ARVN gets a tough break in history. The communists call them traitors, and we belittle them so the blame goes away from us, but the osses they took and battles they fought makes it a much more complicated story than "they sucked."

I heard there were some histories coming out the next few years written by ARVN officers. It's a much needed part of history that needs to be filled in.

What was the real story? Uneven. Complicated. Some units fought well. Others fought badly. They were all badly infiltrated though the Viet Cong was too. Some units fled one day and fought well the next only to flee the next.

It's a lot more complicated story than what gets told.

[ngant17]

47. What battles were those in '72?

Are you sure about that date in 1972? From my research, the major battles in '72 in Vietnam were the
Hanoi bombings, Haiphong harbor bombings Apr - May 1972 and the Dec 72 Christmas carpet bombings.

What major ground assualts happened in '72 in Vietnam? Outside of the aerial bombings by USAF, I thought that was a relatively mild year compared to previous years.

OTOH during the previous year, Operation Dewey Canyon/Lan Son II took place and also Laos was invaded(Jan - Apr 1971), this was much more deadly for the SVA. From what I read, Operation Dewey Canyon/Lam Son II was perhaps the most bloodiest episode in the entire Vietnam war on the ground; approx. 50% of the entire South Vietnamese army were wiped out in the fierce battles initiated in that campaign of '71. This was also a bad year for US troops, too.

I still maintain that South Viet. army could not fight on its own on any level against the NVA or Viet Cong guerrillas at any time during the Vietnam conflicts.

[Yupster]

50. Got to go to work, but here's a brief summary

of the major offensives of 1972.

It was N Vietnam's largest regular offensive of the war - full armored assaults throughout the country with the idea of ending the war.

Though this article doesn't stress the north, that's where I remember seeing the major fighting on the TV news each night. The North Vietnameseswept from the DMZ and defeated the ARVN and took a large city called Quang Tri which was the base of the northern defenses. Then the ARVN flew up a division of marines from the Saigon area which stabilized the situation and together with US air assaults retook all the lost ground and beat the crap out of the retreating NVA. ARVN officers would be interviewed live on TV each night explaining what they were doing.

"A relatively mild year?"

This is what's wrong with history. Once the result of an event is known, the details that don't fit into the result are ignored. Therefore since ARVN lost the war, the story is just shortened to "ARVN wouldn't fight," which is grossly inaccurate.

In 1972, the NVA attacked with traditional armor and infantry with everything they had. Regardless of how much airpower was used, (and it was decisive no doubt), if ARVN wouldn't fight, then the war would have ended right there in 1972.

The year 1972 was the year that General Giap would show the world that without US groundtroops, they could roll right over the country because ARVN wouldn't resist them. Well ARVN did resist them. It was a spotty record for sure, but in the end, ARVN still controlled what they controlled before the offensive and General Giap's army got its ass kicked. The Viet Cong had already ceased to be a significant battlefield threat being crippled in Tet.

Any way, hope the link helps.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept1998/0998easter.asp

[ngant17]

52. '72, a year for USAF successes?

Thanks for the interesting link.

From what I read, that article does highlight the large role that the USAF played in S. Vietnam in the year of 1972.

Unfortunately, although the mobilized troop strengths are mentioned briefly in that article, I could NOT find the actual number of KIAs/casualties recorded on the ground. OTOH I will have to say my research into Viet Nam war did include some official military reference books at the library which recorded enemy KIAs/casualties as well as US/ARVN deaths/casualties in the time frame(1971) I mentioned.

I don't wish to say that 1972 was not a deadly year in the war, but only that I need some KIA stats to reference them from the battles that I got from the previous year. I still maintain that 1971 was the worst year for the S. Viet Army, in which approx. 50% of their forces were wiped out by the enemy. This comes directly from the source books I looked at.

[Yupster]

54. Here's what I found for ARVN deaths by year

1966 11,953
1967 12,716
1968 28,800
1969 22,000
1970 23,000
1971 19,901
1972 25,787

The North Vietnamese have claimed they lost 1.1 million men during the war between the NVA and VC in documents since released.

Since I thought the ARVN was generally about 350,000 to 450,000 in most of the war, I don't know how they could have lost half their men in one year.

[ngant17]

57. ARVN losses

Looks like I'll have to go back to library to reseach the numbers again.

I think the losses of ARVN I referred to was 50% of the mobilized troop strength in the campaign I referred to in 1971. Not the entire army as that would have been impossible, ARVN was too dispersed
across the whole country to wipe out that many at one time. But Dewey Canyon/Lam Son II was a real meat-grinder for them as well as USA. That I am sure about.

[Yupster]

55. An interesting battle you might want to read about was

the battle of Xuan Loc in the spring of 1975.

This was during the general collapse when the war was over.

The offensive hit the ARVN 18th Division which did not run, but defended its lines with skill and knocked the attack back. A larger attack was tried the next day by a second division and was again repulsed. A third try was made by more troops and again was repulsed. Eventually six divisions were used to overrun Xuan Loc and it was eventually flanked and defeated, but it is certainly an example of an ARVN unit standing up and fighting toe to toe with the NVA, even when the war was clearly lost and even greatly outnumbered.

Like I said earlier, the ARVN was a very uncertain army. Some units fought well, others ran quickly. Others fought well one day, ran the next and fought well the next.

In the early days of WWII, the German officers sent similar reprts about their Russian opponents. A nit that fled in panic one day would put up stiff resistance the next or vice-versa.

Anyway, the prevailing wisdom that ARVN didn't care enough to fight is way simplistic.

[ngant17]

58. Russian soldiers

Actually, it is my understanding that Russian/Soviet NKVD officers had assigned tasks to summarily execute any retreating Soviet soldiers from the frontlines against the German Nazis, NKVD were assigned to rear-guard detachments for this purpose.

[Taverner]

7. We won Kosovo.

And we did win Gulf War I (even though I was not too keen on it..)

[NoPasaran]

11. And we kicked Greneda's ass!

USA! USA! USA!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[theoldman]

16. And they had dozens of troups, maybe three or four.

Don't forget Panama.

[petgoat]

34. Dozens of troops, and a heavily fortified mental hospital

that required aerial bombardment.

[HereSince1628]

8. I thought I remembered the end of Viet Nam and I don't see the

parallels as clearly as you seem to do.

The issues in Vietnam weren't really sectarian, although I remember the Buddist Monks as being anti-war. I remember it as being a continuation fo the "anti-colonial" movements that followed WWII. Unfortunately for Vietnam, anti-colonial forces were allied with communism, the US cold-war opponent.

The real similarity is that it's an insurgency, but this time it isn't about colonial powers. Rather it is more about secular divisions. Most of the native antagonists aren't going to leave, win or lose, though many of them will certainly experience relocations.

But LIKE Vietnam, we once again find that "staying the course" is VERY expen$ive. One volunteer, costing only a couple of poor meals a day, a firearm and some amunition can cause THOUSANDS of Americans to remain deployed for months upon months. The asymmetry is simply unsustainable.

We cannot go on forever spending like this. And even if killing half the civilian population would get rid of the trouble (it won't) we clearly CANNOT do that. STAYING THE COURSE ISN'T A PLAN TO DO SOMETHING. It is a decision to do nothing different and is merely rhetoric trying to hold off/postpone the inevitable.

[MissWaverly]

14. Remember I was a kid during Vietnam so I could be biased

But I remember that there was a group that wanted us there among the South Vietnamese, and there
were real battles with real troops, I watched soldiers fighting on Tv every night. It was not
a catered war for war profiteers. It was fought under the cold war, fight the communists domino
theory. We invaded Iraq, they were not a at war with us, the war lasted 2 months and the infrastructure was intact. The occupation has been extensively bloody and seems to have
strategic objectives set by Halli-bacon. Money to rehabilitate the country has gone where????
And the money from the oil pumped during the last three years has gone where? And the missing
billions that congress appointed a Special Investigator to audit which Bush negated with a signing statement has gone where. I honestly believe that the Vietnam war may have been misguided but it was not for profit but I believe this war is.

[niyad]

21. you might try reading up on the history of the area

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

[robinlynne]

22. Bush has done exactly what he set out to do. an oil pipeline in

afghanistan, and billions and billions of dollars in iraq. His missiion was and is being accomplished. The power and the money the neocons are raking in would not be possible without the wars. It is going perfectly, according to plan. The worse it gets the more money they can steal. and the less oil iraq produces, and more moeny to steal at the gas pumps at home. This was never about anything other than greed and power.

[WinkyDink]

27. EXACTLY. It was never about "winning" in the normal sense.

I'm inclined to think drug-running is involved, also.

[MissWaverly]

30. and money being funneled into pockets back here

[cantstandbush]

41. And don't forget Halliburton us 600%. nt

[anarch]

60. correct

Also, is it ever possible to actually "win" a "war" in which you have aggressively invaded a country, and you are basically occupying it as a force that is hostile to pretty much all the inhabitants? How is there any "winning" even possible?

All they intended was to get their controlling hands on the Iraqi oil supply, and to line the pockets of the profiteers. Mission accomplished.

[petgoat]

23. "The United States hasn't won a war in over sixty years. "

What are you talking about? We kicked Grenada's ass! USA! USA! USA!

And you're forgetting Panama. We kicked their ass too. USA! USA! USA!

[ThoughtCriminal]

26. One thing I remember - the South Vietnamese Army

Did not seem to be putting up much of a fight.

[petgoat]

33. Their Vietnamese were the best soldiers in the world, and

our Vietnamese were the worst. And somehow our Best and Brightest
couldn't figure out why.

In "Fog of War" McNamara said if he'd known then what he knows now
--that we were fighting patriots who were going to repel any foreign
invader whether American, Chinese, Japanese, or French just as they'd
been doing for a thousand years--he would have run the war completely
differently.

The thing is, I knew it at the time. His daughter probably knew it.
Anybody who was informed knew it.

[Yupster]

45. That's not fair to the hundreds of thousands

of South Vietnamese soldiers and Marines who died fighting that war.

[JohnnyLib]

37. similarity

What I remember personally is a tardy conversion to anti-war sentiment and some activism in 1967, being cornered by the draft at around the same time, listening in disbelief to the death toll and the leadership lies and distortions for all those years, working with the human wreckage as they returned from RVN ---and then poof! --- helicopters on the roof.

The similarity I see is the sad repetition of stubborn adherence to a failed "policy." Damn it all.

[happydreams]

39. Both wars based on lies and corruption.

[Yupster]

46. I saw that program on C-Span last night too

It was fascinating. Three generations of Jihadists. I had no idea the movement was so young and started in Egyptian colleges.

[burythehatchet]

51. I posted in another thread

that the similarity is less to Vietnem and more to the USSR in Afghanistan. This occupation will bleed our treasury and bankrupt the country.

[KoKo]

53. Yes...but when the Helicopters arrive it will only be our troops scambling

on to "Geth the Hell Out" and not "sympathizers" with American Govt. and Diplomats. After all the "Bush Bots" got it RIGHT this time and the "Green Zone" will be evacuated FIRST with little Press Coverage. And once the "Green Zone" is out...then who the hell cares about the innocent Iraqi's who are still left in the Hell Zone we created for them. The Iraqi Upper and Middle Class have already Left!

It's only the "peasants" like us here in America who aren't Coporate CEO's/CFO's/COO's and Board members who will be left when they "pull the plug" on America. Remember that Blanco has called the National Guard out for NO's with five deaths yet during a Hurricane she needed to dither for days waiting for Bush communications. (Not that she wasn't correct in that instance...but still this is a woman who signed off on Not Allowing her fellow females the right to Pregancy Termination.)

:-(

[lavenderdiva]

56. Funny thing that you would post this today...

I was thinking about this same thing today. I was remembering the last helicopters pulling out, and how the people were clamoring to get over the fence of the U.S. Embassy there to escape. And I wondered if we would be seeing similar pictures when/if we ever pull out of Iraq....

[Yupster]

59. The panic will be much worse

It was uncertain what would happen when the Communists took Saigon.

The members of the current Iraq government will have no illusions to them what will happen when the jihadi warriors take Baghdad. They will have their heads sawed off on live tv.

It will be every man for himself trying to get out of the country when we leave.

[LibDemAlways]

61. A photo from the Fall of Saigon

It's only a matter of time before we see similar photos coming out of Iraq. However, I wouldn't imagine we'll be taking any of the locals with us. They wouldn't be welcome in today's anti-immigrant, anti Muslim climate. Those seen as US collaborators will be abandoned to suffer a horrible fate at home.

[Yupster]

62. The Killing Fields Part Two

but this time it will be televised.