Retelling An Old Lie

[numan]

'

America has not yet suffered; it is an illusion to think that it can possess the virtues of command.
Ortega y Gasset, "The Revolt of the Masses"

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I am not going to let you get away with the dirty, stinking lie that the USA was a force for good in Cambodia!!

Cambodia was a peaceful kingdom until the US carpet-bombed the country and destroyed its social fabric.

Bullshit. This is a picture I took 1 May '70 when we liberated (temporarily) these Cambodians from their NVA communist oppressors who had occupied their part of the country for years. I think they seem happy to see us.

 

[sambino510]

I am not going to let you get away with the dirty, stinking lie that the USA was a force for good in Cambodia!!

Cambodia was a peaceful kingdom until the US carpet-bombed the country and destroyed its social fabric.

Bullshit. This is a picture I took 1 May '70 when we liberated (temporarily) these Cambodians from their NVA communist oppressors who had occupied their part of the country for years. I think they seem happy to see us.

Both sides of our argument should avoid making blanket statements. There were no doubt Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghan, etc. people who appreciated and supported our efforts in their respective countries. However, there is another side to that coin as well, and no matter what villagers supported or disparaged our war efforts, the repercussions of our involvement are another issue entirely. Meaning, some of the people may support us, but that's irrelevant to the fact that some of our actions may lead to bad things happening down the line. Good picture though, good to see some happy people in that area during that time.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I am not going to let you get away with the dirty, stinking lie that the USA was a force for good in Cambodia!!

Cambodia was a peaceful kingdom until the US carpet-bombed the country and destroyed its social fabric.

Bullshit. This is a picture I took 1 May '70 when we liberated (temporarily) these Cambodians from their NVA communist oppressors who had occupied their part of the country for years. I think they seem happy to see us.

Both sides of our argument should avoid making blanket statements. There were no doubt Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghan, etc. people who appreciated and supported our efforts in their respective countries. However, there is another side to that coin as well, and no matter what villagers supported or disparaged our war efforts, the repercussions of our involvement are another issue entirely. Meaning, some of the people may support us, but that's irrelevant to the fact that some of our actions may lead to bad things happening down the line. Good picture though, good to see some happy people in that area during that time.

You ignore the fact that they were not supporting our war efforts; we were supporting theirs. The invading army we fought was the NVA you are so fond of making excuses for.

 

[sambino510]

I am not going to let you get away with the dirty, stinking lie that the USA was a force for good in Cambodia!!

Cambodia was a peaceful kingdom until the US carpet-bombed the country and destroyed its social fabric.

Bullshit. This is a picture I took 1 May '70 when we liberated (temporarily) these Cambodians from their NVA communist oppressors who had occupied their part of the country for years. I think they seem happy to see us.

Both sides of our argument should avoid making blanket statements. There were no doubt Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghan, etc. people who appreciated and supported our efforts in their respective countries. However, there is another side to that coin as well, and no matter what villagers supported or disparaged our war efforts, the repercussions of our involvement are another issue entirely. Meaning, some of the people may support us, but that's irrelevant to the fact that some of our actions may lead to bad things happening down the line. Good picture though, good to see some happy people in that area during that time.

You ignore the fact that they were not supporting our war efforts; we were supporting theirs. The invading army we fought was the NVA you are so fond of making excuses for.

I don't recall saying I support the NVA. As a believer that war is not a solution to anything, I support neither side. I'm well aware of who we were fighting. Our goal in Laos and Cambodia was, among other things, disrupting the Ho Chi Minh Trail which leaked over into these territories. That being said, I think it is an exaggeration both to say that all the Cambodians supported us or that none of them supported us. The situation in Vietnam and its neighboring countries was very, very complex. However, it is certainly possible that we received more support from Cambodians than we did, say, from South Vietnamese villagers.

 

[Auteur]

2) What sort of rights and freedoms are you defending when the only point you seem to be able to make here is that if someone in a uniform tells you to shoot someone, you'll do it, the rational behind it is either remote from your grasp, or unimportant. That's the society of Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, not that of Thomas Jefferson.

How about the freaking right to be free and live as they are in the nation of South Vietnam, without another nation invading them and demanding they do what they want to do, instead of living in their own nation in peace?

First off, you fellows need to brush up on your English skills. I'm not anti-American, nor am I pro-communist. I'll put it to you in a nutshell: before you start shooting, you need to start reading. Because if not, you are quite likely to make a hash of things, and this has been done, multiple times in recent history.

As for South Vietnam, did you take a poll? A lot of people around the world would, I'd bet, think Americans who vote for those like Bush or Romney must be nuts. No one is massing troops to move in and teach Americans the virtues of social democracy however. If they did, some might support their efforts, some might just try and stay out of the way, some would undoubtedly try and push them out. Some would know exactly what was going on, and others would go by emotion and limited understanding. This starting to sound familiar?

The division of Vietnam was as artificial as if I lopped off Florida from the US, and if anyone asked, I just said it suits my aims for the time being. Live with it. How would Americans react?

Excuse me, rant coming on here. Please forgive the foulness I am about to utter.

I wonder what in the fucking hell gives people the fucking right to sit on their god-damned high-horse, and act in this manner? "What sort of rights", "what are you defending", that is all so much bullshit. It is pure unadulterated bullshit, and I am sure that those who utter it know it, but they are so fucking trapped in their little worlds that they really do not give a fuck about anybody but themselves.

Look, you hate the US, fine. You hate any nation that is not Socialist or Communist, fine. But how dare anybody try to act all pompous and indignant and "assholier then thou" when whining "Oh, we had no right to get involved in Vietnam".

Bullshit. The moment South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam, we were obligated by treaty to get involved, Period. If they really gave a fuck about their own soldiers, they would have stayed on their side of the border, hmmm?

And the same goes in Kuwait, Lebanon, and a great many conflicts from 10,000 BCE until today. It always amazes me how people can honestly try and blame the US for things like Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima, and not see at all that in none of those situations did the US start the conflict, it was either attacked, or a nation we are allied with and have a treaty with was attacked.

Another highly simplistic view of history. Do you really think that's it? The US sits back and yearns for peace, but helps deserving friends when needed? This has never been the case in history, not with the British Empire, the French, Spanish, and on and on. The US played the imperial game, just as any other. Allies were not so much allies as pieces on a chess board, to be moved with strategic needs in mind. In WW2, Britain was briefly considered being thrown under the bus. The Soviets, as anti-US as it comes, were embraced a "friends". Iraq and Sadaam Hussien were "friends" while it was convenient, until it was no longer convenient. If the only goal of the US was to help the deserving in the world, then why not go to Africa? Intervene in Burma. You know the answer. Intervention has taken place solely based on US perceived strategic interests, rightly or wrongly (and they were often mistaken). In other words, as one diplomat put it, there are no friends in international relations- only interests. And those interests have been rendered murky by a frequent lack of depth of understanding of the world in Washington.

So if this is honestly your belief, and that the US should not get involved in the affairs of anybody else, then don't even think of asking the military or FEMA or anybody else for help next time you get a hurricane or tornado or earthquake. And don't even think of calling the police if you are attacked or robbed or burglarized. Because it is not their problem, you are entirely on your own.

Now excuse me as I go and become violently ill, because of those who have such little concern for others that they would behave in this manner. Now I understand why things like Darfur and Cambodia and former Yugoslavia happen. It is because of these kinds of individuals who pat themselves on the back saying "it is not my concern", while ignoring slaughters.

*rant off*

I detect strawmen out in the fields here. In some cases, the US has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into worthy geopolitical goals (such as WW2). And if you are talking about foreign aid, the US spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations. The US supported Pol Pot's Cambodia when Vietnam intervened in that country, because- well, no reason other than the chess pieces had moved. Again.

 

[Mushroom]

I detect strawmen out in the fields here. In some cases, the US has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into worthy geopolitical goals (such as WW2). And if you are talking about foreign aid, the US spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations. The US supported Pol Pot's Cambodia when Vietnam intervened in that country, because- well, no reason other than the chess pieces had moved. Again.

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

In case you did not know this, the Khmer Rouge was put into place by North Vietnam, and was their nominal puppet for several years. The United States never supported them.

As far as US involvement in the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, it was restricted to attempting to trying to arrange a UN backed cease fire between the two nations (along with China, France, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). It was the Soviet veto in the Security Council that prevented that from happening.

So I guess in the Auterverse, a cease fire is the same as supporting.

And no, no straw men present there, however I often see that argument raised when there is no defense as a way to try and deflect/ignore a point.

And if we want to diverge into foreign aid, then you have to be honest with the numbers. This "spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations" is complete nonsense when you consider the fact that the United States is the largest donator nation in the world when it comes to food. The US donates more food to countries and organizations then all of Europe combined.

And 90% of the time, that is what is needed, food and not money.

And I am sure that if you were to figure that food donated at "fair market value", it would amount to a lot more then it actually is. But that does not matter to you, I am sure.

 

[sambino510]

I detect strawmen out in the fields here. In some cases, the US has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into worthy geopolitical goals (such as WW2). And if you are talking about foreign aid, the US spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations. The US supported Pol Pot's Cambodia when Vietnam intervened in that country, because- well, no reason other than the chess pieces had moved. Again.

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

In case you did not know this, the Khmer Rouge was put into place by North Vietnam, and was their nominal puppet for several years. The United States never supported them.

As far as US involvement in the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, it was restricted to attempting to trying to arrange a UN backed cease fire between the two nations (along with China, France, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). It was the Soviet veto in the Security Council that prevented that from happening.

So I guess in the Auterverse, a cease fire is the same as supporting.

And no, no straw men present there, however I often see that argument raised when there is no defense as a way to try and deflect/ignore a point.

And if we want to diverge into foreign aid, then you have to be honest with the numbers. This "spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations" is complete nonsense when you consider the fact that the United States is the largest donator nation in the world when it comes to food. The US donates more food to countries and organizations then all of Europe combined.

And 90% of the time, that is what is needed, food and not money.

And I am sure that if you were to figure that food donated at "fair market value", it would amount to a lot more then it actually is. But that does not matter to you, I am sure.

Though I don't disagree with anything you say in particular, my main beef with people that try to talk up our involvement in Vietnam is that they speak as if helping the South Vietnamese, or fighting the Khmer Rouge, or whatever, was our primary goal.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that we gave a damn about any particular villager in South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. (Individual soldiers or groups of soldiers may have wanted to help these people, but I mean as an official mission statement of the military.) I don't mean to re-hash the old anti-war stuff, but our mission in Laos and Cambodia was, by my understanding, to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail used by the NVA and, obviously, prevent the further spreading of Communism. This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

My point being, whatever positive side effects our involvement had on the region were ancillary benefits, and I don't think they were ever our primary motive for getting involved in the conflict. Whether that means we shouldn't be applauded for our alleged good deeds is debatable I suppose. Personally, I don't find it hard to believe that the South Vietnamese would applaud us for trying to kick out the NVA, nor do I find it hard to believe that they would disparage us for burning their territory.

In terms of our role in foreign aid, indeed we do a lot to help various countries all over the world. However, that chart you have shown only applies to Haiti, and I don't see how that proves the point that we are always the largest supporter of foreign aid like food to other countries. I'm not saying you're wrong, but one example can't define the argument.

 

[Auteur]

I detect strawmen out in the fields here. In some cases, the US has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into worthy geopolitical goals (such as WW2). And if you are talking about foreign aid, the US spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations. The US supported Pol Pot's Cambodia when Vietnam intervened in that country, because- well, no reason other than the chess pieces had moved. Again.

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

In case you did not know this, the Khmer Rouge was put into place by North Vietnam, and was their nominal puppet for several years. The United States never supported them.

As far as US involvement in the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, it was restricted to attempting to trying to arrange a UN backed cease fire between the two nations (along with China, France, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). It was the Soviet veto in the Security Council that prevented that from happening.

So I guess in the Auterverse, a cease fire is the same as supporting.

And no, no straw men present there, however I often see that argument raised when there is no defense as a way to try and deflect/ignore a point.

And if we want to diverge into foreign aid, then you have to be honest with the numbers. This "spends less in relation to the size of its economy than a number of other nations" is complete nonsense when you consider the fact that the United States is the largest donator nation in the world when it comes to food. The US donates more food to countries and organizations then all of Europe combined.

And 90% of the time, that is what is needed, food and not money.

And I am sure that if you were to figure that food donated at "fair market value", it would amount to a lot more then it actually is. But that does not matter to you, I am sure.

No, the US didn't install the Pol Pot regime. But the point is that Cambodia became a pawn in the geopolitical game then being played. They were used by the Vietnamese, bombed by the US, and then might have suffered, presumably, with a longer reign by Pol Pot and his associates if the Vietnamese had withdrawn. These maneuvers were all about power, and not one wit about freedom or altruism, as America will continually crow about. Other nations have owned up to their pasts, and no longer claim moral supremacy. The US has not yet reached this level of development.

My point about foreign aid is similar. Yes, the dollar amounts are fairly large, but in terms of ability, that is the size of the economy and national wealth, the US has a number of other nations ahead of it in terms of foreign aid distributed. Fair enough, but please don't exclaim that the US is at the top of the heap in this sphere as well, because it is simply not true.

The US was in Vietnam because it thought that was in its strategic interests. When this was no longer so, it withdrew from the country. This is not much different from the actions of many other nations in the past. The difference is that the US must always put a Hollywood spin on things.

 

[numan]

The US was in Vietnam because it thought that was in its strategic interests. When this was no longer so, it withdrew from the country.

I disagree. The USA was in Vietnam because the war profiteers of the Military-Industrial Complex saw that they could make obscene profits robbing the American people through war.

It was kept going so long because once the hogs were at the trough, they could not be pulled away.

It ended when the militarists had so distorted and wrecked the American economy and social system that it could no longer be sustained.

Sound anything like recent history?

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

[ Rouge, or whatever, was our primary goal.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that we gave a damn about any particular villager in South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. (Individual soldiers or groups of soldiers may have wanted to help these people, but I mean as an official mission statement of the military.) I don't mean to re-hash the old anti-war stuff, but our mission in Laos and Cambodia was, by my understanding, to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail used by the NVA and, obviously, prevent the further spreading of Communism. This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

I do not understand your confusion. Where is it written that those goals are in any way incompatible? The primary mission was to aid S. Vietnam in defending herself against communist aggression. Doing so did in fact support human rights and self-determination and stop the spread of communism.
The areas known as the Ho Chi Minh trail were occupied and controlled by the NVA and was way more than just a trail but was also a string of NVA bases, supply depots, training and staging areas. We fought the invading NVA there as part of defending S. Vietnam and ourselves.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US was in Vietnam because it thought that was in its strategic interests. When this was no longer so, it withdrew from the country.

I disagree. The USA was in Vietnam because the war profiteers of the Military-Industrial Complex saw that they could make obscene profits robbing the American people through war.

It was kept going so long because once the hogs were at the trough, they could not be pulled away.

It ended when the militarists had so distorted and wrecked the American economy and social system that it could no longer be sustained.

Sound anything like recent history?

.

No, actually it sounds more like fantasy than history.
If there is such a thing as a Military-Industrial Complex it at least provides jobs and other useful things. "Foreign aid" is simply money stolen from taxpayers to throw away.

 

[sambino510]

[ Rouge, or whatever, was our primary goal.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that we gave a damn about any particular villager in South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. (Individual soldiers or groups of soldiers may have wanted to help these people, but I mean as an official mission statement of the military.) I don't mean to re-hash the old anti-war stuff, but our mission in Laos and Cambodia was, by my understanding, to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail used by the NVA and, obviously, prevent the further spreading of Communism. This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

I do not understand your confusion. Where is it written that those goals are in any way incompatible? The primary mission was to aid S. Vietnam in defending herself against communist aggression. Doing so did in fact support human rights and self-determination and stop the spread of communism.
The areas known as the Ho Chi Minh trail were occupied and controlled by the NVA and was way more than just a trail but was also a string of NVA bases, supply depots, training and staging areas. We fought the invading NVA there as part of defending S. Vietnam and ourselves.

Yes, those goals are compatible, I agree. Specifically, what I meant is that our concern about the spread of Communism was not out of our admiration or dedication to the people of Indochina. It was, in my opinion, one of our many proxy conflicts against the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes.

Personally, I'm not sure that South Vietnam (as arbitrary and temporary as the term "South Vietnam" is) would support our democracy or Western ways more than they would have supported Communism. Again, I'd say they just wanted to be left alone by both parties. Even if we wanted to help them, the cultural, religious, and ethnic realities of that region and the history resulting from French colonization, Japanese occupation, the revolution against the French, etc. are far too complex for us to just waltz in and fix all their deeply rooted problems with the snap of the finger.

I understand what the Ho Chi Minh trail was, no worries. All I was saying was that no matter what benefit our involvement bestowed upon the people of that region, that was not really what we cared about. Once again, in my opinion. And no, my opinion is not all that matters.

 

[sambino510]

The US was in Vietnam because it thought that was in its strategic interests. When this was no longer so, it withdrew from the country.

I disagree. The USA was in Vietnam because the war profiteers of the Military-Industrial Complex saw that they could make obscene profits robbing the American people through war.

It was kept going so long because once the hogs were at the trough, they could not be pulled away.

It ended when the militarists had so distorted and wrecked the American economy and social system that it could no longer be sustained.

Sound anything like recent history?

.

No, actually it sounds more like fantasy than history.
If there is such a thing as a Military-Industrial Complex it at least provides jobs and other useful things. "Foreign aid" is simply money stolen from taxpayers to throw away.

I agree with your point about foreign aid. I don't want to single out Israel (though I kind of do), but three billion dollars a year? Seems a bit excessive, even for a country that indeed is in a tumultuous region.

Of course the Military-Industrial Complex provides jobs; that's the whole point of the theory. The various manufacturing jobs it requires employs so many people in this country and is so inter-woven into the economy that it can never be stopped. Now, it's just simply become an accepted reality. Before, it seemed war-time would come along and THAT'S when we'd really ramp up production of vehicles, planes, guns, etc. Maybe that was inefficient and unreliable, but at least in peace time we could cut down on our defense budget and focus on more important things.

 

[Auteur]

[ Rouge, or whatever, was our primary goal.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that we gave a damn about any particular villager in South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. (Individual soldiers or groups of soldiers may have wanted to help these people, but I mean as an official mission statement of the military.) I don't mean to re-hash the old anti-war stuff, but our mission in Laos and Cambodia was, by my understanding, to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail used by the NVA and, obviously, prevent the further spreading of Communism. This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

I do not understand your confusion. Where is it written that those goals are in any way incompatible? The primary mission was to aid S. Vietnam in defending herself against communist aggression. Doing so did in fact support human rights and self-determination and stop the spread of communism.

The primary mission in Indochina was to support US perceived interests. If that could have been done with a Jeffersonian democracy in Saigon, I'm sure the US would have been happy with that. The point is that this was secondary, just as such issues were in the past, and continue to be today, for the most part. South Vietnam was run by an army strongman, and was hardly a democracy that was enthusiastic about human rights.

The US has supported anyone that was of use to them, historically, even if such were murderous dictators. That is the point that you and mushroom cannot accept, which is a problem, because those that do not read the mistakes of history will go out and commit them again. Iraq 2 is a good example of that

.
The areas known as the Ho Chi Minh trail were occupied and controlled by the NVA and was way more than just a trail but was also a string of NVA bases, supply depots, training and staging areas. We fought the invading NVA there as part of defending S. Vietnam and ourselves.

"The invading NVA". If the US were divided by the UN down the middle, because it suited certain international interests, and your "9th division" said, bullshit, were are going to put things back the way they were, and have been for 200+years, would you classify yourself as invaders? Transfer this argument to Vietnam, and you'll get the picture.

 

[Auteur]

I disagree. The USA was in Vietnam because the war profiteers of the Military-Industrial Complex saw that they could make obscene profits robbing the American people through war.

It was kept going so long because once the hogs were at the trough, they could not be pulled away.

It ended when the militarists had so distorted and wrecked the American economy and social system that it could no longer be sustained.

Sound anything like recent history?

.

No, actually it sounds more like fantasy than history.
If there is such a thing as a Military-Industrial Complex it at least provides jobs and other useful things. "Foreign aid" is simply money stolen from taxpayers to throw away.

I agree with your point about foreign aid. I don't want to single out Israel (though I kind of do), but three billion dollars a year? Seems a bit excessive, even for a country that indeed is in a tumultuous region.

Of course the Military-Industrial Complex provides jobs; that's the whole point of the theory. The various manufacturing jobs it requires employs so many people in this country and is so inter-woven into the economy that it can never be stopped. Now, it's just simply become an accepted reality. Before, it seemed war-time would come along and THAT'S when we'd really ramp up production of vehicles, planes, guns, etc. Maybe that was inefficient and unreliable, but at least in peace time we could cut down on our defense budget and focus on more important things.

I disagree with both you fellows about foreign aid. Yes, some of it is misplaced and squandered. But much of it is also vital. The world is not fair, and some portions have received distinct historical and geographical advantage, which contrary to some of the beliefs of the uber-right, has little or nothing to do with the work ethic or innate intelligence of the residents of said favoured areas. A little more aid, and a little less napalm would go a long way to making for a better world.

 

[9thIDdoc]

[ Rouge, or whatever, was our primary goal.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that we gave a damn about any particular villager in South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. (Individual soldiers or groups of soldiers may have wanted to help these people, but I mean as an official mission statement of the military.) I don't mean to re-hash the old anti-war stuff, but our mission in Laos and Cambodia was, by my understanding, to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail used by the NVA and, obviously, prevent the further spreading of Communism. This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

I do not understand your confusion. Where is it written that those goals are in any way incompatible? The primary mission was to aid S. Vietnam in defending herself against communist aggression. Doing so did in fact support human rights and self-determination and stop the spread of communism.

The primary mission in Indochina was to support US perceived interests. If that could have been done with a Jeffersonian democracy in Saigon, I'm sure the US would have been happy with that. The point is that this was secondary, just as such issues were in the past, and continue to be today, for the most part. South Vietnam was run by an army strongman, and was hardly a democracy that was enthusiastic about human rights.

The US has supported anyone that was of use to them, historically, even if such were murderous dictators. That is the point that you and mushroom cannot accept, which is a problem, because those that do not read the mistakes of history will go out and commit them again. Iraq 2 is a good example of that

.
The areas known as the Ho Chi Minh trail were occupied and controlled by the NVA and was way more than just a trail but was also a string of NVA bases, supply depots, training and staging areas. We fought the invading NVA there as part of defending S. Vietnam and ourselves.

"The invading NVA". If the US were divided by the UN down the middle, because it suited certain international interests, and your "9th division" said, bullshit, were are going to put things back the way they were, and have been for 200+years, would you classify yourself as invaders? Transfer this argument to Vietnam, and you'll get the picture.

Beside the point. It is a matter of historical record that the NVA invaded S. Vietnam and Cambodia along with Laos and Thailand and anybody else that got in their way.

 

[sambino510]

No, actually it sounds more like fantasy than history.
If there is such a thing as a Military-Industrial Complex it at least provides jobs and other useful things. "Foreign aid" is simply money stolen from taxpayers to throw away.

I agree with your point about foreign aid. I don't want to single out Israel (though I kind of do), but three billion dollars a year? Seems a bit excessive, even for a country that indeed is in a tumultuous region.

Of course the Military-Industrial Complex provides jobs; that's the whole point of the theory. The various manufacturing jobs it requires employs so many people in this country and is so inter-woven into the economy that it can never be stopped. Now, it's just simply become an accepted reality. Before, it seemed war-time would come along and THAT'S when we'd really ramp up production of vehicles, planes, guns, etc. Maybe that was inefficient and unreliable, but at least in peace time we could cut down on our defense budget and focus on more important things.

I disagree with both you fellows about foreign aid. Yes, some of it is misplaced and squandered. But much of it is also vital. The world is not fair, and some portions have received distinct historical and geographical advantage, which contrary to some of the beliefs of the uber-right, has little or nothing to do with the work ethic or innate intelligence of the residents of said favoured areas. A little more aid, and a little less napalm would go a long way to making for a better world.

I have no doubt that much of our foreign aid is absolutely necessary. However, military foreign aid is something I'm almost completely opposed to, i.e. deals with Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Things like food or medicine, I have no problem with. That being said, we still have to be realistic about not stretching ourselves too thin. America cannot take on all the world's problems at once, and nor should it be obligated to. It is the U.N. and its members which must work in unison if we are to have a long-lasting positive effect on this world.

 

[Auteur]

This was the goal of the war in general, not to support the human rights or rights to self-determination of South Vietnam or its neighbors.

I do not understand your confusion. Where is it written that those goals are in any way incompatible? The primary mission was to aid S. Vietnam in defending herself against communist aggression. Doing so did in fact support human rights and self-determination and stop the spread of communism.

The primary mission in Indochina was to support US perceived interests. If that could have been done with a Jeffersonian democracy in Saigon, I'm sure the US would have been happy with that. The point is that this was secondary, just as such issues were in the past, and continue to be today, for the most part. South Vietnam was run by an army strongman, and was hardly a democracy that was enthusiastic about human rights.

The US has supported anyone that was of use to them, historically, even if such were murderous dictators. That is the point that you and mushroom cannot accept, which is a problem, because those that do not read the mistakes of history will go out and commit them again. Iraq 2 is a good example of that

.
The areas known as the Ho Chi Minh trail were occupied and controlled by the NVA and was way more than just a trail but was also a string of NVA bases, supply depots, training and staging areas. We fought the invading NVA there as part of defending S. Vietnam and ourselves.

"The invading NVA". If the US were divided by the UN down the middle, because it suited certain international interests, and your "9th division" said, bullshit, were are going to put things back the way they were, and have been for 200+years, would you classify yourself as invaders? Transfer this argument to Vietnam, and you'll get the picture.

Beside the point. It is a matter of historical record that the NVA invaded S. Vietnam and Cambodia along with Laos and Thailand and anybody else that got in their way.

Well, at least that sums up the problem. It is the inability of so many in the US to understand the historical background of such events, or to think in the abstract enough to understand how others might feel that has caused so much grief in the past, and still does.

 

[Auteur]

I agree with your point about foreign aid. I don't want to single out Israel (though I kind of do), but three billion dollars a year? Seems a bit excessive, even for a country that indeed is in a tumultuous region.

Of course the Military-Industrial Complex provides jobs; that's the whole point of the theory. The various manufacturing jobs it requires employs so many people in this country and is so inter-woven into the economy that it can never be stopped. Now, it's just simply become an accepted reality. Before, it seemed war-time would come along and THAT'S when we'd really ramp up production of vehicles, planes, guns, etc. Maybe that was inefficient and unreliable, but at least in peace time we could cut down on our defense budget and focus on more important things.

I disagree with both you fellows about foreign aid. Yes, some of it is misplaced and squandered. But much of it is also vital. The world is not fair, and some portions have received distinct historical and geographical advantage, which contrary to some of the beliefs of the uber-right, has little or nothing to do with the work ethic or innate intelligence of the residents of said favoured areas. A little more aid, and a little less napalm would go a long way to making for a better world.

I have no doubt that much of our foreign aid is absolutely necessary. However, military foreign aid is something I'm almost completely opposed to, i.e. deals with Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Things like food or medicine, I have no problem with. That being said, we still have to be realistic about not stretching ourselves too thin. America cannot take on all the world's problems at once, and nor should it be obligated to. It is the U.N. and its members which must work in unison if we are to have a long-lasting positive effect on this world.

Far enough, but actually the US is not taking on all the world's problems, but tends to focus what is of strategic importance, for the most part. On a per capita basis, most of Europe and Japan are ahead of the US when it comes to doling out aid.

The Soapbox