50th Anniversary of Vietnam War

georgephillip

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2009
43,529
5,101
1,840
Los Angeles, California
"It is no cliché that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. Unless we are provided an honest accounting of the disgraceful history of the US war on Vietnam, we will be ill equipped to protest the current and future wars conducted in our name."

The Pentagon is ramping up its version of the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam of one-half-a-century ago. According to Marjorie Cohn, this $30 million program is designed to rewrite and sanitize the millions of deaths the US was directly responsible for in Southeast Asia while stimulating enlistment in and support for today's "Permanent War."

"Indeed, just as Lyndon B. Johnson used the manufactured Tonkin Gulf incident as a pretext to escalate the Vietnam War, George W. Bush relied on mythical weapons of mass destruction to justify his war on Iraq, and the 'war on terror' to justify his invasion of Afghanistan.

"And Obama justifies his drone wars by citing national security considerations, even though he creates more enemies of the United States as he kills thousands of civilians.

"ISIS and Khorasan (which no one in Syria heard of until about three weeks ago) are the new enemies Obama is using to justify his wars in Iraq and Syria, although he admits they pose no imminent threat to the United States.

"The Vietnam syndrome has been replaced by the 'Permanent War.'"

"Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. A veteran of the Stanford anti-Vietnam War movement, she is co-author (with Kathleen Gilberd) of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent. Her latest book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues, will be published in October. She is also co-coordinator of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign."

Marjorie Cohn US Government Sanitizes Vietnam War History
 
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.
 
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill
 
I am just glad that kids today do not see the war on the evening news....

That's part of the problem with kids today:

They don't see a whole helluva lot of anything — unless it has something to do with Kim Kardashian's ass, that is. :badgrin:
Kid's today see a lot more than kids of the 60's and 70's. We didn't have the net back in those days.
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.
 
I am just glad that kids today do not see the war on the evening news....

keeping up with the sharts said:
That's part of the problem with kids today:

They don't see a whole helluva lot of anything — unless it has something to do with Kim Kardashian's ass, that is. :badgrin:

camp said:
Kid's today see a lot more than kids of the 60's and 70's. We didn't have the net back in those days.

Yeah, but see, homie, the point I was making is that it's just as possible for someone to see and know too little when he or she has access to too much information by way of too much technology as it is for him or her to be better informed and/ or better educated because of those same advances.

Technology isn't a bullet-proof social elixir merely because of its mere existence.

And the American kids today who can't do simple arithmetic without a calculator are proof-positive of that. :thup:
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.
You and Yours.

"By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam.

"The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control.

"So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright.

"That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated.

"By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed..."

"There was very little protest at that time.

"The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed.

"That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq."

Chomsky's forgotten more about US imperialism than you'll ever know, get it?
On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart of a woman said:
Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

georgephillip said:
You and Yours.

"By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam.

"The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control.

"So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright.

"That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated.

"By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed..."

"There was very little protest at that time.

"The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed.

"That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq."

Chomsky's forgotten more about US imperialism than you'll ever know, get it?
On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

Like I said, motherfucker, FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY.

I have had and have relatives who have fought and died in that goddamned war, unlike his self-congratulatory, narcissistic ass has.

His opinion is worth no more than mine, no matter what he and/ or the idiots like you who put him on a pedestal would like to think.
 
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

A total waste.

We should have left them alone, and let them grow rice and make fine furniture, like they are doing now.

Of course, we don't talk about it too much, because of the non-person Demonrat President LBJ.
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart of a woman said:
Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

georgephillip said:
You and Yours.

"By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam.

"The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control.

"So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright.

"That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated.

"By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed..."

"There was very little protest at that time.

"The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed.

"That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq."

Chomsky's forgotten more about US imperialism than you'll ever know, get it?
On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

Like I said, motherfucker, FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY.

I have had and have relatives who have fought and died in that goddamned war, unlike his self-congratulatory, narcissistic ass has.

His opinion is worth no more than mine, no matter what he and/ or the idiots like you who put him on a pedestal would like to think.
Some of your relatives died in another illegal war of aggression?

Good.

When are you planning to follow in their heroic footsteps, Polly?
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart of a woman said:
Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

georgephillip said:
You and Yours.

"By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam.

"The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control.

"So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright.

"That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated.

"By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed..."

"There was very little protest at that time.

"The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed.

"That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq."

Chomsky's forgotten more about US imperialism than you'll ever know, get it?
On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart slinger said:
Like I said, motherfucker, FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY.

I have had and have relatives who have fought and died in that goddamned war, unlike his self-congratulatory, narcissistic ass has.

His opinion is worth no more than mine, no matter what he and/ or the idiots like you who put him on a pedestal would like to think.

georgephillip said:
Some of your relatives died in another illegal war of aggression?

Good.

When are you planning to follow in their heroic footsteps, Polly?

Awwwww, wouldja look at this, now: an e-tough guy. Isn't he pwecious? :badgrin:

When are you going to stop talking shit to AMERICANS ON AN AMERICAN MESSAGE BOARD, YOU CHICKENSHIT FOREIGN MOTHERFUCKER?!?!?
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart of a woman said:
Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

georgephillip said:
You and Yours.

"By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam.

"The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control.

"So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright.

"That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated.

"By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed..."

"There was very little protest at that time.

"The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed.

"That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq."

Chomsky's forgotten more about US imperialism than you'll ever know, get it?
On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

Like I said, motherfucker, FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY.

I have had and have relatives who have fought and died in that goddamned war, unlike his self-congratulatory, narcissistic ass has.

His opinion is worth no more than mine, no matter what he and/ or the idiots like you who put him on a pedestal would like to think.
Some of your relatives died in another illegal war of aggression?

Good.

When are you planning to follow in their heroic footsteps, Polly?
You'll get Ebola first.

Karma is a bitch.
 
sharting an elephant said:
I saw the History Channel's Vietnam in High Definition again this past weekend, and couldn't stop fluctuating between being mad as hell and crying — especially when that "Purcell" widow was talking about what it was like for her and her little children when the news came to her via her pastor at her church one Sunday in the late 60s/ early 70s that her husband had been located as a POW.

I realize I'm at odds with defense contractors and population control engineers in saying this, but the Vietnam War was the most stupid war in US history. We had absolutely no business whatsoever being in Southeast Asia.

I'm just glad for former President Lyndon Baines Johnson—given all the souls he destroyed in his and Bell Helicopter's Southeast Asian "War on Poverty"—that The Almighty is a forgiving sort.

georgephillip said:
You might consider what Noam Chomsky has to say about whether the US invasion/occupation of South Vietnam qualifies as a mistake; for some, it was, and still is, a highly profitable success:
"Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success.

"This is somewhere where I disagree with just about everyone, including the left, right, friends and so on.

"To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were.

"In the case of Indo-china, the US is a very free country; we have an incomparably rich documentary record of internal planning, much richer than any other country that I know of.

"So we can discover what the goals were.

"In fact it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at.

"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate.

"And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions."

From the standpoint of independent nationalism, it's clear that with the exception of Cuba none of the nations Chomsky mentioned became completely free of US domination, in one form or another.

On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart of a woman said:
Nope.

I refuse to consider what a self-absorbed wanna-be anarchist of American Academia thinks about the positive implications of an horrific war that didn't cost him anything personally — in terms of lost family members and/ or close friends.

The point he's trying to make there is further complicated by the fact that Islamofascism is eminent in Southeast Asia now, too.

In other words, the US presence there did nothing to curtail the rise of America's true long-term enemy — which wasn't the Soviet Union, per the Domino Theory.

Fuck Noam Chomsky.

georgephillip said:
You and Yours.

"By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam.

"The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control.

"So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright.

"That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated.

"By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed..."

"There was very little protest at that time.

"The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed.

"That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq."

Chomsky's forgotten more about US imperialism than you'll ever know, get it?
On the War in Iraq Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill

shart slinger said:
Like I said, motherfucker, FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY.

I have had and have relatives who have fought and died in that goddamned war, unlike his self-congratulatory, narcissistic ass has.

His opinion is worth no more than mine, no matter what he and/ or the idiots like you who put him on a pedestal would like to think.

georgephillip said:
Some of your relatives died in another illegal war of aggression?

Good.

When are you planning to follow in their heroic footsteps, Polly?

Awwwww, wouldja look at this, now: an e-tough guy. Isn't he pwecious? :badgrin:

When are you going to stop talking shit to AMERICANS ON AN AMERICAN MESSAGE BOARD, YOU CHICKENSHIT FOREIGN MOTHERFUCKER?!?!?
:fu:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top