Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: for mr grapes

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 12, 2016, 5:04 p.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

" When I visited Auschwitz I was horrified. And when I visited Iraq, I thought to myself, 'What will we tell our children in fifty years when they ask what we did when the people in Iraq were dying.' "

Mairead McGuire, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Northern Ireland

" With unfailing consistancy, U.S. intervention has been on the side of the rich and powerful of various nations at the expense of the poor and needy. Rather than strengthening democracies, U.S. leaders have overthrown numerous democratically elected governments or other populist regimes in dozens of countries ... whenever these nations give evidence of putting the interests of their people ahead of the interests of multinational corporate interests. "

michael parenti

" America's inability to come to terms with revolutionary change in the Third World...has created our biggest international problems in the postwar era. But the root of the problem is not, as many Americans persist in believing, the relentless spread of communism. Rather, it is our own difficulty in understanding that Third World revolutions are primarily nationalist, not communist. Nationalism, not capitalism or communism, is the dominant political force in the modern world. You might think that revolutionary nationalism and the desire for self-determination would be relatively easy for Americans - the first successful revolutionaries to win their independence - to understand. But instead we have been dumbfounded when other peoples have tried to pursue the goals of our own revolution two centuries ago."

Former U.S. Senator Frank Church

"The crimes of the U.S. throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them."

Harold Pinter

"The Soviet Union and something called communism per se had not been the object of Washington's global attacks. There had never been an International Communist Conspiracy. The enemy was, and remains, any government or movement, or even individual, that stands in the way of the expansion of the American Empire, by whatever name the US gives to the enemy - communist, rogue state, drug trafficker, terrorist."

William Blum, Killing Hope

"[The ruling elites] know who their enemies are, and their enemies are the people, the people at home and the people abroad. Their enemies are anybody who wants more social justice, anybody who wants to use the surplus value of society for social needs rather than for individual class greed, that's their enemy."

Michael Parenti

82 Comments

82 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

''The Empire has a range of weapons to maintain its power: from its courts to its military. But it also has effective ideological weapons.

''Everyone in the United States knows that "socialist" or "communist" is considered a bad word. How did things get that way? Abby Martin explores the history of anti-communism in the US, and the heavy repression of an idea that became an unofficial religion.'' - from this video ...

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

we must have an enemy - always. the military industrial complex has to have a reason for its existence. trump craziness is simply a more extreme version of the mainstream politics of the establishment. I remember clearly the panic when the wall came down and a "peace dividend" was openly discussed. first they tried humanitarian intervention and then narco terrorists (remember Noriega and panama - another crime against humanity). then they found the perfect enemy - the clash of civilizations! the never ending war on terror - a war that can never be won. a war against an idea - a war as old as the crusades. once again I would suggest reading nsc68 for an understanding of the roots of the cold war

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

Well NSC-68 was a brain-jolt and something about which I was not previously fully aware!!! It is itself a part of U$A's historical continuum of War, Militarism & Death-Dealing!! Scary - but thanx! Ergo, see ...

We, on this Good Earth .. will know no peace until enough of the citizenry are sufficiently aroused so to dismantle the military apparatus. Furthermore, we must recognize the link between Militarism, War and Capital & then build a better system; a form of government that serves The 99% People rather than self-serving, unconscionable 0.01%. The American Military, is not abroad defending freedom and sowing the seeds of democracy .. as they & MSM seem to believe. One need only examine the history of The U$A in order to recognize the familiar patterns of conquest & oppression. The Post Cold War Peace Dividend has vanished & been swallowed up & then some by US' latest War; this time against a word & concept! USA Oligarchy doesn't really care which of tRUMP or Hellary is PotUS, just as long as it's NOT Bernie!!

fiat lux; fiat justitia; fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

yea the cold war was mostly an invention like too much of the shit we swallow. I would say that even Bernie bought into to much of it. we must dismantle the military industrial complex - I am sure that a huge section of the population is on board with that idea. what will make it happen is the next question.

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

''America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776'':

This important knowledge and information seems to have escaped your other interlocutor on this thread and so perhaps you may think it appropriate to bring it to his attention as he thinks that .. ''The military strength of the U.S.A. comes from its military-industrial complex. Dismantling it is a crazy idea.''!! I end by quoting someone who knew a thing or two about War and The Military Industrial Complex ... namely Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower ...

fiat lux; fiat justitia; fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

that is a good one for sure. I am afraid it might not be effective here but I will use it in other ways and on other people. thanks very much for that

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

Consider ... ''Neoliberalism: The Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems'' .. by George Monbiot:

Another VERY "good one" fyi & here appended as I am not too sure if I copied to you before. Also see:

multum in parvo ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

I will check them all out and get back to you. I am semi retired so I have time - but not so much energy. as an aside have you seen the Chomsky monbiot back and forth. long exchanges about Serbia and western crimes and from what I can read there poor George is not up to the task. if it doesn't make your head spin I will be impressed. it is a classic case of sniping and debate bullshit of the left.

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

''Exceptionalism’s Wars'' ... with Peter Kuznick, Pepe Escobar & Peter Lavelle:

This is a rather "exceptional'' and erudite insight in to U$A's ''Exceptionalism'' when it come to relations with the rest of the world. I feel it apt here and am sure that you'll enjoy it even if you're already familiar with the points raised. Sorry about all the links, which can be hard work sometimes ... just that there's so much relevant info to share! Ignore what is onerous and/or skim and glance through if at all possible.

I was only vaguely aware of the Monbiot/Chomsky spat as it was conducted at the height of ''Occupy in Zucotti Park, NY''. I'm not sure it'd be too edifying to rehash it here BUT I do thoroughly recommend the excellent summary re. Neoliberalism & its history in the article in my link in my previous reply to you & to paraphrase it: ''Imagine living in The Soviet Union and NOT having the word 'Communism' to describe the regime'' - ie. we live in an age where the dominant ideology has no name and is assumed to be the only system/ideology available for human relations and progress! Yet - that is where we're at right now!!

I hope you, mayda and your family are well & that you're enjoying your ''semi-retirement''. Solidarity flip.

pax, amor et lux; hic, nunc et semper ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

I read pepe every time he is on znet. he is terrific. the Chomsky back and forth is only interesting in that it shows the crazy debates the left gets itself into. I read the neoliberal article but not sure what would be different if we were in the plain old vanilla capitalism of the 1960's. the capitalists always work to roll back wages etc and take a bigger slice of the pie. the capitalists went on the attack right after the war to roll back union rights. same old story which he seems to say during the article.

all good here - and you?

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

''Neoliberalism is constantly evolving and with it forms of imperialist exploitation as well. It starts as a free trade zone or 'customs' union. A single currency is then added, or comes to dominate, within the free trade customs union. A currency union eventually leads to the need for a single banking union within the region. Central bank monetary policy ends up determined by the dominant economy and state. The smaller economy loses control of its currency, banking, and monetary policies. Banking union leads, of necessity, to a form of fiscal union. Smaller member states now lose control not only of their currency and banking systems, but eventually tax and spending as well. They then become 'economic protectorates' of the dominant economy and State-such as Greece has now become.'' from:

Glad ''all good'' with you and yours. Ditto with me and mine, despite age and aches and pains, lol. I am trying to contact and exhort past posters here to return for the #S17, 5th anniversary. Do feel free to do same if you in touch with any of them. OWS was/is a significant milestone in USA's 99% Struggle and has gone on to seed & share much. Bernie was another such milestone &, though he fizzled out at the end of The Dem Primaries - he too has seeded much for the days ahead. Here's hoping Dr. Jill Stein & Ajamu Baraka can be a third stage to The Awakening!

per ardua ad astra ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

I read jack a few days ago - again on znet. that was a good one - sometimes he seems a bit out there for me but I always check out what he is up to when he writes there. I do understand the concept of neoliberalism and I know it is the latest phase of our beloved system. what I am not clear about is how things would be different under good old free market capitalism. you know the company store and 16 hr work day etc.

I would certainly vote for fdr and Keynes running the show again. that was a different style of capitalism but still we face the same basic problems of growth in a finite eco system and owners taking all the can get. no? fdr was saving the capitalists from themselves just like bismark seems to me. your thoughts??

and by way you can disagree with me on this and I will not rant at you. I know that is not clear from much of my recent history here. what I cannot deal with is "we didn't allow our soldiers to fight to win Vietnam" and "full spectrum dominance is a good thing cause the usa is great" and short of shit. and it is shit - anywhere and anytime but most definitely here on a site that carries the ows name!

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

Neoliberalism is a mutant, psychopathic form of Crapitalism and it's the ideology that can not speak its name! If you'll read George Monbiot's excellent summary, ( http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35692-neoliberalism-the-ideology-at-the-root-of-all-our-problems ) itself an essential synopsis of his book ... so much more can & will - make sense. It also probably needs to be seen in the light of The Powell Memo too { http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/ } - BUT be assured flip, this evil psychopathy is NOT forever & its days are numbered [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics ]. Sorry about the links; but so much right there in those three links, I truly consider to be indispensable and as good as, if not better than - most current Uni courses!

I totally get you re. your final paragraph above but I'm limiting myself right now to just sliding this your way: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm

Solidarity for #S17 to you, mayda and all your family. I know you have concerns for the future for your younger kith, kin and friends - BUT have hope. Most humans are good and decent ... it is just that we need to self educate and exercise solidarity - to free ourselves from being Mind Managed by Oligarchy into being Turkeys Voting For Thanksgiving!

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

thanks for the links - i liked the last one especially and have sent it out to a few friends. and yes hope - we must have hope. as gramsci said - i am a pessimist because of intelligence and an optimist because of will

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22772) 1 year ago

Happy 5th Anniversary of Occupy Wall Street!

"The Lasting Effects of Occupy Wall Street, Five Years Later"

http://time.com/money/4495707/occupy-wall-street-anniversary-effects/?xid=tcoshare

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

''Financial Cost of Wars Nearly $5 Trillion: Latest Estimate:'' ... by Naomi LaChance:

I loved the Gramsci quote btw :-) Solidarity to u&m for #S17! Viva OWS!! Viva Los 99%!!!

fiat lux et fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

The military strength of the U.S.A. comes from its military-industrial complex. Dismantling it is a crazy idea. The U.S. has an economic machine unequaled by any other since ancient times. There are connections between the military and the commercial enterprises that are best left undisclosed to foreign powers.

Military strength comes from harnessing the economic might in times of national needs. The U.S. proved that it knew how to mobilize its economy. The U.S. could handle vast projects, a rather unique capability.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

yes military spending has commercial uses as a side effect. so you think that is the best way to spend our tax dollars. make jet fighters and hope something spills over into the consumer economy. wow - not sure what to say to that. and what exactly do we need to protect ourselves in your opinion - other than w very strong coast guard and a few nukes. maybe some good intelligence for a chance - no

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

You misunderstood me. A strong military can sprout from a strong economy, Not the other way around. The reason is that the military is capital-intensive. Two billion dollars spent on a new aircraft carrier will create or support far fewer jobs than the same amount spent on the civilian economy. Building aircraft carriers also tends not to increase productivity in the economy more than civilian productivity improvement efforts.

The former Soviet Union had made this strategic mistake and it was the primary reason why it met its demise. Of course, there were other reasons, too, such as the inherent inefficiencies of centralized planning that also led to shoddy qualities to meet quota or in some cases to bureaucratic lyings that undermine trust and breed cynicism. It's Not really a joke that "You pretend to pay me and I'll pretend to work for you!" This built-in inferiority pays off for the centralized power élite but weakens the whole system.

Reagan grasped this instinctively that the economic might of the U.S. could break the Soviet Union which had embarked on an ambitious armament buildup in the 1970's. The C.I.A. was impressed by the military might of the Soviet Union but it was like a gigantic peacock's tail grown on a small rooster. Cockadoodle-doo a few times and it's over. We should not make the same stupid mistake as the Soviets who had lost World War III.

What's needed is an agile fast-reacting heavy-hitting conventional military force deployable worldwide with sufficient logistical support. Some nuclear deterence will be helpful but it will be a very stupid mistake to take that to extremes. The U.S. has never won any nuclear war (hopefully Never! - "Winning" a nuclear war is really for FOOLs.) but it had won production on the homefront consistently for the conventional war efforts.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

you respond to my point that the cold war was an invention by the ruling elites of the usa by telling me that a strong military must have a strong economy behind it. then by giving a history lesson on the decline of the soviet union. so yes i misunderstood you maybe his is why i did - "The military strength of the U.S.A. comes from its military-industrial complex. Dismantling it is a crazy idea. The U.S. has an economic machine unequaled by any other since ancient times. There are connections between the military and the commercial enterprises that are best left undisclosed to foreign powers"

ok so i agree that ww2 was won because of our economic power but i disagree with much of your history - no surprise there. it is very important to understand that history if we are going to have a rational conversation about how to move forward. if we accept the history of the ruling class we will end up with their plans for fixing our problems - no?

first of all long before reagan the usa elites forced the soviets into military spending it could ill afford. Khrushchev made unilateral cuts in the soviet military thinking the american people would force kennedy into doing the same. he misunderstood american "democracy." i would also say here that if Brezhnev was in power instead of Gorbachev the soviet union would still be in place.

secondly it is a mistake to say the soviets failed economically. take a look at the soviet union and brazil in 1918 - they look quite similar as far as they are third world economies. fast forward to 1987 and wow - 90% of brazilians would run to have the life and economic conditions of the soviets. now this was done through much suffering and death but then we could talk about the brazilian black bean famine and so on no? and all the while brazil had the capital and "expertise" of the west while the soviets were under attack economically - to say nothing of the destruction of ww2.

lastly why do you think we need - "an agile fast-reacting heavy-hitting conventional military force deployable worldwide with sufficient logistical support" sweden does not have one and the people there seem to be doing just fine. why do you feel we have to be able to meddle anywhere we like. do you think china and russia and iran need the same type of military force or is it just the usa because we are the exception!

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Sweden has ABBA. The U.S.A. has Bay Watch, the Love Boat, Dynasty, and Dallas. We have long had a dearth of brains even before the Zika virus has reached our shores. New York City has lousy TV programs compared to other places. We probably have endemic microcephaly if we somehow end up having the Clintoris Dynasty rerun after escaping that of the Dallas Mainer Cowboys.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Brazil had tremendous offshore oil discoveries in the last decade. Yes, former President Lula da Silva even exclaimed that "God is Brazilian!" Well, where is Brazil now? There was a scandal involving overcharging the state-owned oil company to fund political contributions. President Dilma Rousseff was also suspended. There was even the Zika virus invasion causing babies' microcephaly.

Brazil had things lined up perfectly for an economic takeoff (the investment world had already forgiven Brazil's previously defaulting on what it owed international lenders) but the lack of integrity squandered it. Soviets killed many millions of people so I suppose integrity is achievable if one does not mind a blood flood. Could it be why China starved to death tens of millions of peasants in their Great Leap Forward modeled on the Soviet "success" of collectivization in Ukraine?

There was a saying, "Blame it on Rio!" - when playing Pokémon STD Jamaican-blitzkrieg version.

Ob den Himmel, ob die Hölle, das Herz wählte aus.

"Wind of Change," anyone? Celebrate the hope and joy of 9.11.1989 instead of the despair and rage of 9/11/2001. The N.S.A. will help with das Projekt des Schlüsselloches, really? She's always a woman to me.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

i wonder if you have a number for the millions starved to death in brazil and india under those wonderful capitalist regimes? you are old enough to remember the black bean famine - no? the regimes that had all the benefit of our help and investment and the huge benefit not to be under attack by the "free world."no i guess not - my 8 yr old grandson would say - "you're stupid" and just fyi- that brazilian oil is 290 km offshore and 7000m below the surface of the ocean. try to get it!

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

The Brazilians pioneered the technology to get at that oil but they need the capital to do so. This is where integrity counts. (Here's a lesson for China - the Moon is made of blue cheese! Only Mickey Mouse took a bite of it and the rest is all ripe for CNOOC's Chewy. Titan is even oilier! I'm putting it on sale beside the sweet and sour chickens - FDA warning: Excessive consumption of Titan can cause Titanic disease)

I learnt at a young age from a banking insider that there would always be three classes of people. The best is those who keeps on borrowing money and repaying the principal with interest. The next is those who borrow the money and never repay in full (they still count as "assets"). The worst is those who never borrow or repay anything (they're the real deadbeats! - be this if you want to irritate the bankers but it's bad for your wealth due to built-in inflation). (Donald Trump is Not a bankers' deadbeat. He's at least Middle Class as the U.S. is. Better classes owe. Deadbeats don't. In banking [or Aryan businesses], the more one owes, the more "assets" the Lucky One owns - $ owl, owe, own, get it?)

The reason for the classification is that the so-called money loaned out was credit. It's no big deal if we have to create more of it. We've been doing it nearly as long as money has existed in fast and easy forms. Inflation is a symptom of this. We've all been brainwashed that inflation is good for us so we got our governments to have goodly inflation done to us. Better classes need inflation to eat away their debts owed.

Venezuela and Zimbabwe have goodly inflation but they're teetering on the brink of chaos. They have too much of a goodly thing. Why's inflation not curing their ills? Integrity was lost. Private properties had been confiscated. Trust was lost so there was a de facto sanction put on by the investment community. No capital, no tools, no labor, no know-how, no enterprises, no anything eventually!

Do that long enough to fall off of the cliff or crash and burn. Dried leaves and mosses can become quite handy.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

i don't think anyone has a good way to get at that oil and for sure it will take mucho $$. it may also take 2 barrels of oil to get one past the well head??

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

The technology is available but only the capitalists have the risk capital. If it takes two barrels to retrieve one barrel, it assures us that we'll never run out of oil, doesn't it? It's no different from the situation with the "End-of-the-World" craters blown up by natural gas or who-knows-what (could it be permafrost melting and decomposing making methane?) deposits in Siberia. Russia can certainly fart! Ship that to Ukraine for influence.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Sweden has ABBA. What does the U.S.A. have? The U.S. has ties to almost everywhere. Our people are or were from every country on Earth. We also have humanitarian operations to protect in trouble spots worldwide.

China, Russia, and Iran cannot do what the U.S. does because they have worrisome neighbors to deal with. The U.S. fought our neighbors and settled scores at least a century ago. Since then, peace treaties have reigned so yes, the U.S. is exceptional in that regard - peace broke out in North America. The oceans by and large were natural moats that had been somewhat peaceful till recent decades.

As the Earth figuratively implodes(the Netherlands was on top of warring East Ukraine next to Russia, on the doomed flight MH17), everyone will become everyone else's neighbor so cultural, ecological, financial, and other clashes must become inevitable. The U.S. can provide an example of how diversity needs not lead to strifes. I'm well pleased with Switzerland's having modeled our system of government and molded a country out of at least German-, French-, and Italian-speaking cantons which stayed peaceful for more than a century.

Switzerland is rather prosperous despite its being mountainous, landlocked, and surrounded by powerful neighbors(it sounds rather like Afghanistan, doesn't it? Why is Afghanistan not the "Switzerland" of Asia?). Normally, these attributes predict a poor and often overrun war-ravaged country. I guess peace had also broken out for Switzerland (so yeah, it's exceptional, too, but it's not hemmed in by the oceans as the U.S. is so the U.S. often plays with rubber duckies, guppies, floating yen coin, and floating steel-needle moral compass) perhaps because it's neutral and well armed. Peace is the handmaiden of prosperity.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

humanitarian operations - like Iraq I imagine. you should always respond in german - it suits you. you are the problem not the solution

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Der Irak verweigerte den Gehorsam, den Japan und Deutschland leisten. Der Gehorsam machte die Errichtungen möglich. Den Himmel oder die Hölle wählt das Herz aus.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

good bye - will look for you on breitbart

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Das Problem ist immer der Schatten der Lösung.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

not surprised to see that you follow orders - like a good german" now answer the question german boy - like Iraq or did you have some other intervention in mind

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Südsudan - weil die chinesische Soldaten die Feiglinge waren.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

tá tú breoite

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

that's a joke right - our soldiers are brave right. like when they executed bin laden as he was wimpering and lying on the ground - or - oh never mind you are blind. i give up

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Das war keiner Witz. Unsere Soldaten haben ihre "Heimat des Helden," natürlich.

War Osama bin Laden schwarz? Ist das wahr?

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

In many cases, so-called losers are great people.

Gorbachev was in some sense the Messiah pulling us back from the nuclear annihilation staged for the alternate ending of World War III. Brezhnev would have engaged Reagan with an obese bear hug and rolled off of the cliff in embrace, with the sicko-and-hammock as well as the stares-and-strips waving in glorious synchrony.

John McCain spent his time honorably and "tortuously" on his "vacation" in the "Hanoi Hilton" which unfortunately had not been emblazoned with the garish neon-bright "Moscow Trump."

"Losers" who do the right things even under duress are great people. Right is might.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

lots of rather silly opinions and some ny post history. not sure what to make of this but I guess it is good you are still here and banging away. we should end this. it is obvious you are either incapable of rational thought or don't want to engage in real dialogue.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Nie ist das Herz nur vernünftig. Siehst Du die viele Sterne nicht?

I habe einen Traum. Fast kann ich die Änderungen fühlen.

Imagine (HQ). Imagine (subtitled in English and Spanish).

[-] 0 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Hello, Greater America. We were flossing the plaque between the "will and what will be" - blasting guppies with Texass Instruments' Regency transistor radio. Socrates choked on (Ars)Kansas's dust and died of demonkraptic hemlock but Archimedes reincarnated. Acropolis shines.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

i have to wonder why you would take the time to write such silliness. maybe you have changed your opinion of the usa as a beacon of freedom in a dark world and can't quite bring yourself to say it. maybe you just have too much time on your hands and not much thought in your head but this is ows after all. should be the home of real resistance no? partenti says it all here no?? and which side are you promoting - the elites or the people?

"[The ruling elites] know who their enemies are, and their enemies are the people, the people at home and the people abroad. Their enemies are anybody who wants more social justice, anybody who wants to use the surplus value of society for social needs rather than for individual class greed, that's their enemy."

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

I try not to promote or pick sides. A well-balanced economically diverse society is what I prefer. It's better to have the rich around simply because they are often more capable of getting problems solved with their resources. On the other hand, the poor or resource-limited are great at creating novel (high-efficiency) solutions to problems.

As a child, I was rescued from really bad luck/fate by well-off strangers when I was sunstruck on a remote island in the afternoon and stranded in the sea later on in the evening because our boat's motor had just died. I was fortunate that we could wave down strangers speeding by in a motorboat. It definitely helped to know how to speak foreign languages.

They asked me to sit/kneel(for better visibility of the boat's driver) on the foredeck of their motorboat, handed me a bottle of orange juice to drink, and sped homebound jam-packed in the back with a few of our crew members to get help. While I was drinking the orange juice with the winds whooshing by in my ears as the sun set in glorious colors behind the horizon in the sea till it turned dark, I understood Mercy and Grace. Did it matter to me that they were posh foreigners? Not a bit. God cannot be everywhere so I have a dream that there are indeed angels on Earth!

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Alright so the U.S.A. is a beacon of darkness in a free world. There is malware planted worldwide for spying, aiming for global domination through the total control of info-sphere of targets but who owns the malware?

Japanese students were surprised that Japan had fought the U.S.A. and wondered which country won. Haha! Did Japan keep them inside of a drum? Germans were saying that Hitler had made a strategic mistake by declaring war on the U.S.A. Otherwise, Germany would have conquered Europe and the Soviet Union. Yeah, Aryan Supremacy! Master race domination. China has its Great Firewall which will probably work as well as the Great Wall and Japanese drumming, I hope. The takedowns of negative media articles about the U.S. election written by independent contributors indict the U.S. lame-stream cheesy media engaging in pubic surfice to hoi polloi. Russia denies meddling in East Ukraine, repeatedly. Hey, how did these "Little Green Men" who spoke Russian fluently get their Russian equipments galore, from the neighborhood Ukrainian thrift stores?

We are ALL being manipulated. I tried to counteract the manipulations by reading information fast, widely in different languages, and globally but there is a growing eclipse of the info-sphere.

We are ALL being fed a lot of lies and partial truths. If hoi polloi don't realize this, we'll be at each others' throats fighting over a mountain peak here and a barren reef there. Apparently, the cavemen are still with us.

Muslims don't eat pork but Chinese eat a lot of pork. Hindus don't eat beef but Americans eat a significant amount of beef. We condemn the Chinese for eating dogs because we love our best friends (especially in Washington, D.C.). People don't grasp the origins of these religious, national, and cultural differences before feeling disgust and condemning others. Many of these customs are no longer valid. Pigs and dogs are not foraging in the dumps anymore. Cows are not ploughing the fields in the U.S. unlike other countries. We all need Peter's wisdom about these (stupid circumcision) customs.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

yes we are all fed misinformation but seems that reading it fast is not helping you counteract it. if you have a point to all of this i missed it - sorry. no need to go on if you don't want to - this seems pointless. first of all the nazis might have won (and we might have been on their side?) if they played nice with us. if they had gone after the commies and not england they would be heroes in our (capitalist) history books. i do have real problems when you say things like this - "I've no problem with U.S. full spectrum dominance because I am American. ......................... Vietnam War was lost on both moral grounds as well as technical grounds. Our government lied to us, again and again, and trust was lost(so no more backing from hoi polloi), starting with Gulf of Tonkin incident, secret bombing of Cambodia, etc. AK-47 was superior to our troops' rifles which were unreliable. Both Soviet Union and Red China were supporting North Vietnam as a proxy in war."

  • and no! the vietnamese did not sent us packing because of the ak47 - they did for the same reason the soviets beat the nazis. they were able to endure more punishment than a normal society would take. the war was immoral to say the least - disgusting and horrifying and you speak of it blandly. this is not good - especially here at ows.
[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Greater America is the World. What we Americans can achieve should make all peoples proud. "It's one small step for [an American] and one giant leap for mankind." I've been watching the Olympiade so I'm thrilled by the prospect of the dominance of the U.S. in amateur sports. Full spectrum? - No problem!

Wars are won or lost at home although battles are won or lost on the battlefields. Vietnam War was lost by Nixon's loss of the mandate and his resignation. The American people did not have the appetite to slap the wrist of the North Vietnamese after Nixon had resigned. "I'm not a crook!" Oh, yes, he lied many times. Where does the truth lie? Truth cannot lie, can it? It can only stick up. In the olden days, he had the recording tapes. Nowadays, there are the emails.

I don't see much point in getting all worked up emotionally about the Vietnam War. Vietnam has apparently come to the conclusion that the U.S.A. is less of a threat than China is, similarly for the Philippines, having previously kicked out U.S. military bases. Did North Vietnam's breaking a promise to our crook warrant emotional excitement? No, lying to a crook is fine in my mind.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

wtf! vietnam was lost?? slapping the wrist? are you out of your mind. this is a disgusting way to talk about the massive suffering and destruction we inflicted on a poor country - and why? because they drove the japs out in ww2 and did not want the french back in sucking the wealth out to benefit france!

as for your nationalistic feelings i do not share them but you know that already. no you wouldn't see much point in getting worked up about vietnam. neither does kissenger. are you guys tennis partners or do you play with zbig and charlie rose. same thinking no or am i wrong here. do you differ with henry and zbig and if so where and how? that is really the question i would like answered. can you do that for me then i will stop bugging you. if you make the answers clear i will try very hard not to misunderstand them

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Shortly after my ancient-Greek (a)mensa style comment about gymnastics' twisting me, the U.S. woman gymnastics team really did win team gold medals, Amerika über alles!

The success of America can shame the Old World eelites to create better laws and institutions for the betterment of the lives of their charges because America is a microcosm of all of the Old World's Departed Souls. We showed that the common people, even the ones from the bottom of the barrel, when given Hope and Liberty under our laws and institutions have the ability to prosper and live great and happy lives in self governance in contrast to the oppressed masses still in the Old World.

America needs a global fast-response heavy-hitting military force (disengagement of the U.S. from the world after World War I sowed the seeds [Japan or Italy felt being a loser despite its being on the winning side and Germany was pinned down so it was ready for round two] for World War II - America Always does the right thing after trying everything else) because we must HAUNT the Old World as the beacon of Hope. We shall stand guard on this lonely reef and be our lighthouse's keeper. We'll keep the lights on for you. Our Destiny!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

takes a really twisted mind to look at what we have done to the world - third world that is - and declare - "America needs a global fast-response heavy-hitting military force because we must HAUNT the Old World as the beacon of Hope" do you post on breitbart also? well this says it all no -Amerika über alles! - not sure how old you are but for sure old enough to know better. you deserve the choice of trump or Clinton - the rest of us do not

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Much of the third world suffers from learned incompetence, impotence, superstitutions, hero worships, and heirloom corruptions. America has tried many different approaches but maybe the boundary conditions are truly contradictory so that no solution is possible, aside from destroying totally and reconstructing for decades from scratch, starting with the constitution.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

john McEnroe would say -"you can't be serious!" - as for what the third world suffers from did you forget colonialism and imperialism. your blind spots are showing. since you love to recite history how about a short synopsis of the years 1500 to 1940 - maybe start with vasco de gama and move right to king leopold and the congo. you might quote mark twain on that one.

as for America trying different approaches even mcenore is at a loss for words. luckily Chomsky is not - take note that the rich plundering the poor is the only policy we have pursued in the third world - everywhere and always!

"Despite much pretense, national security has not been a major concern of US planners and elected officials. The historical record reveals this clearly. Few serious analysts took issue with George Kennan's position that "it is not Russian military power which is threatening us, it is Russian political power" (October 1947); or with President Eisenhower's consistent view that the Russians intended no military conquest of Western Europe and that the major role of NATO was to "convey a feeling of confidence to exposed populations, a confidence which will make them sturdier, politically, in their opposition to Communist inroads."

Similarly, the US dismissed possibilities for peaceful resolution of the Cold War conflict, which would have left the "political threat" intact. In his history of nuclear weapons, McGeorge Bundy writes that he is "aware of no serious contemporary proposal...that ballistic missiles should somehow be banned by agreement before they were ever deployed," even though these were the only potential military threat to the US. It was always the "political" threat of so-called "Communism" that was the primary concern.

(Recall that "Communism" is a broad term, and includes all those with the "ability to get control of mass movements....something we have no capacity to duplicate," as Secretary of State John Foster Dulles privately complained to his brother Allen, CIA director, "The poor people are the ones they appeal to," he added, "and they have always wanted to plunder the rich." So they must be overcome, to protect our doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor.)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Our involvement in Vietnam was a cluster fuck. We should not have been there. Having sent our troops (sons and daughters mothers and fathers brothers and sisters) there the government did not allow them to fight the war that they were inserted into.

They (the troops as well as the USA's Public) were told that this was a police action.

Blatant LIE as policing never had a chance to succeed.

The North Vietnamese were backed by China and were conducting a full scale war to overthrow the government of South Vietnam.

American military forces were denied the ability to be successful in fighting in a war by the government of the USA. Because the government of the USA was scared to death of escalating the war to include China in an active military roll with the North Vietnamese troops, wanting to keep the Chinese as they were = supplier/supporter "only" to the North Vietnamese.

I say again - we should never have been in Vietnam.

We should never have been in Iraq.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

what the hell is with you and the grape one. how many Vietnamese did we kill - 2 million as the cia estimates or 4 million as is more likely. how many would we have killed if we were "allowed" to fight it properly. korea was a police action since the un was involved.

Vietnam was called a war when I wrote a paper about it in 1967 as a high school senior. read Marilyn young's book on Vietnam or bruce cummings on korea. educate yourself about how horrific those sick interventions were. villages burned - civilians raped and murderer - damns blown up - all war crimes worthy of the Nazis or Japanese. and no! ho chi minh was not backed by the Chinese until well into the war. he fought the japs in ww2 and deserved our help for it. instead we "gave" his country back to the French to "boost their morale." and look up the Geneva accords of 1954 and then tell me who stopped the elections that they called for and why.

ok great you say we never should have been there but as to the rest of what you say it is right wing propaganda and worse - much much worse. you owe it to those here to educate yourself. start with the two books I mentioned. it is horrifying what you and grapes are saying and it belongs on a trump or cheney chat room.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

nice non response - just like grapes. no way for you to respond really except to say - "i was wrong" - not sure why i started looking at this site again. or responding to you two. what a waste of time. i think you achieved your objective. you shut me up

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

During the Vietnam War, we had a whole bunch of Hogwarts-infested desk-bound technocratic professional idiots in charge at the Death-Starfish who kept on filtering out nasty truths to hoi polloi. There were lies upon lies which caused incorrect assessments whose truth was needed for proper political and military responses. Have you ever caught the truth testes-frying lying down and not sticking up?

The wealthy and powerful enrolled their draft-age offspring in colleges and universities for "perpetual-student draft deferments." Many took long "vacations" to Canada and Mexico. Some future commanders-in-chief joined the National Guards, bought medical excuses, and registered for the draft near the war's end to keep themselves "viable for the political process." Only the foolhardily patriotic, poor, or stupid ended up being shipped as cannon fodder. The system was rigged.

The atrocities committed by both sides in the Vietnam War were fewer and less disgusting than those of the Nazis and Japs. Still they were horrific, such as knife-induced auto-fellatio(they would cut for you but bring your "hotdogs" and "walnuts") for males and screwdriver, brokenneck-glass-bottle, or firecracker coitus/orgasm for females. Suspected villages were burnt to the ground. Innocent civilians were murdered.

These were sad chapters of history that plainly violated the Geneva Conventions that the nuts in charge had signed onto. In those days, incurable ideologues could use a surely humane cure, a bullet through the mouth.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

the usual non response to what I wrote but that is no surprise. I wouldn't respond either if I were you since there is no rational response except - you are right I was an idiot. sure atrocities on both sides - you and jimmy carter - "the destruction was mutual" - sick - really sick. you are a waste of time. worse than that you promote and support the worst aspects of this imperial country - what a shame - exactly why are you here?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I agree = sour g is more than a little strange.

U ?

U seem 2b quite excitable.

I never said that there were no crimes against humanity committed in Vietnam. Agent Orange was a horrendous crime against the living as well as against generations not yet borne.

Every war has crimes committed against the innocent populations by both sides (all sides) of an armed conflict.

I am here to try to encourage a change of heart and thought to bring people to an understanding that everyone deserves a peaceful healthy and prosperous life.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

How many g's do I pull flipping in this wok? Sugarcoat me a bit more and we'll have deliciously flippant and familiar sweet and sour chickens for all, sweetie.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

well thanks for that reasonable response. at the risk of starting this all up again i would like to point out that chomsky feels that we won the war and many in the state department agreed with him at the time. we achieved our objective of preventing vietnam from creating an alternative economic system. that is what it is all about right - money, power and the mafia principle. nobody can get away without paying the don and an example must be made of anybody who tries.

lastly the war killed probably 4 million vietnamese (according to the people i trust) but who knows exactly and caused untold devastation. agent orange and birth defects and cluster bombs still exploding. it was a horrific event in our history (just like korea if you read a real history of that war) and we have many. i would say that the difference is that the vietnamese 9and the koreans) were able to withstand more killing and suffering than most. cuba, panama, salvador and many others did not continue to fight back after we demonstrated how powerful and crazed our military was.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

We may very well say that the U.S. won the Vietnam War through diplomatic maneuvering through China which had been backing North Vietnam. Strictly speaking, the Vietnam War had ended Before North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam yet again. There was peace for a while.

I prefer to think of the U.S. as having won the peace. The U.S. fought Red China in Korea but China saw that the only country that could save it from the Soviet Union was the U.S. Now a similar thing has happened with Vietnam. The U.S. fought North Vietnam and now the united Vietnam sees that the only country that can counter-balance the growing might of China is the U.S.

The U.S. dislikes the bullying of any country by any other. Of course, that turns the U.S. into the number-one gang in the world sticking its nose into many places. It's a bit like the love-hate relationship with the police.

When Japan raped China and the U.S. fought Japan, the Chinese loved it. When the polar bear was marauding in the neighborhood, China appreciated U.S. backing again. Now that China has become strong, it starts acting like a bully to its neighbors and the U.S. defies it, the Chinese don't like it. The sword of fairplay cuts both ways. The U.S. was never China's private security guard! Actually, it's China's most important customer.

It's possible that Vietnam can be our friend, too. We had invaded Canada in our republic's formative years but we have been good neighbors for more than a century already. Both have been collecting the peace dividend from the longest undefended border in the world and the voluminous trade. There's a time for war. There's a time for peace. There's a time for its deliverance of prosperity (if its distribution be done equitably).

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

the whole invasion of vietnam was a crime. and i wonder which u.s. civilians were killed in that one. oh yea none! excitable - don't think so. this type of nonsense deserves a forceful response -no? " American military forces were denied the ability to be successful in fighting in a war by the government of the USA." - back that one up - what did you mean by that. more troops - more bombs - more phoenix programs?? what did you mean - maybe i misunderstood.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

the whole invasion of vietnam was a crime

Ummmmm - like are you saying invasion of Vietnam - as in like the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam - or what? Because - you know - that was the whole deal - Right?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

zero ground force incursions into north vietnam by u.s. forces (not relevant really but i am trying to be restrained) and how many bombing runs over the north (by people like the great hero john mccain) - a few?? your facts are largely inaccurate and your assumptions also. if you want to hold on to fantasies about our goodness that is fine with me but do not expect me to go along. if you are intersted in real change i believe you must understand real history. i would recommend howard zinn - "a peoples history of the united states" as the best place to start

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

oh my god you are dumber than i thought possible. i talked to people like you in 1969 but they were old then and i thought they were all dead by now. sure the north invaded the south and the white man did not invade with his 500,000 troops - those brave green berets and 11th cav blackhorse regiment. john wayne was there also right - helping his little yellow brothers to fight off thier little yellow brothers?? wait is that right?

i do not remember a north vietnam in 1940 from my reading of history - i must have read the wrong book. maybe you can help here. but please not nazi history this time. maybe i can help

1945

Ho Chi Minh Creates Provisional Government: Following the surrender of Japan to Allied forces, Ho Chi Minh and his People's Congress create the National Liberation Committee of Vietnam to form a provisional government. Japan transfers all power to Ho's Vietminh.

Ho Declares Independence of Vietnam

British Forces Land in Saigon, Return Authority to French

First American Dies in Vietnam: Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, head of American OSS mission, was killed by Vietminh troops while driving a jeep to the airport. Reports later indicated that his death was due to a case of mistaken identity -- he had been mistaken for a Frenchman.

1946

French and Vietminh Reach Accord: France recognizes Vietnam as a "free state" within the French Union. French troops replace Chinese in the North.

oh yea we "gave" vietnam back to the frenchies - was it ours to give?/ yes of course like that deep water port we should have had. then poor little yellow Ho shoves it up the frenchies ass and they run away! geneva convention sets u1945

Ho Chi Minh Creates Provisional Government: Following the surrender of Japan to Allied forces, Ho Chi Minh and his People's Congress create the National Liberation Committee of Vietnam to form a provisional government. Japan transfers all power to Ho's Vietminh.

Ho Declares Independence of Vietnam

British Forces Land in Saigon, Return Authority to French

First American Dies in Vietnam: Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, head of American OSS mission, was killed by Vietminh troops while driving a jeep to the airport. Reports later indicated that his death was due to a case of mistaken identity -- he had been mistaken for a Frenchman.

1946

French and Vietminh Reach Accord: France recognizes Vietnam as a "free state" within the French Union. French troops replace Chinese in the North. election which Ho will win overwhelmingly and eisenhower cancels them and we are off - no? and remember the rules of occupy no nazi history

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

not sure what i am supposed to learn from wiki - it does not seem to back up your facts but i have no intention of reading a long wiki history. i have read too many good books on the subject and i suggest you find some different sources for your historical reading. i can suggest some if you like. i am also willing to look at what you think is interesting but there is much revisionist history (as with all imperial powers - read chomsky on the role of the intellectual) and i react badly to it - as we have just seen!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

is 117,000 in 3 years a few? you said "And no I am not talking about the few airborne operations that did cross out of South Vietnamese territory."

Defense Department figures put the number of combat missions flown over North Vietnam from February 1965 to December 1968 117,000, dropping over 2.5 million tons of bombs and rockets.

and i am the dick head? how many times must i show you that your facts are (wildly) inaccurate before you stop calling me names. give up you have been shown to be a fool too many times now

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

AGAIN !!!

How many ground force incursions into North Vietnam did the USA military undertake?

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

Tonnage of bombs and rockets used might have been impressive but their effectiveness was obviously in doubt. The Ho-Chi-Minh Trail was not highly bomb- and rocket-susceptible. Overwhelming firepower used on underground tunnels was just so much fireworks display. The hunt for Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora had the same ineffectiveness.

Capturing/killing fugitives in, taking control of, and occupying a territory still call for brave soldiers as it has always had. I knew that our troops were in trouble when they could not trust the locals to supply them with basic necessities. No support from hoi polloi meant that the cause was as good as lost.

You, DK, and I all agreed on the unnecessary destructions of the Vietnam War. There are finer distinctions that we argued about such as whether it was allowed to be won, or was actually lost. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. was still haunted by the memories of the Korean War fighting China. Fighting the ghosts of the last war occurs often, such as those of the impregnable Maginot Line and the Great Walls of China. They became irrelevant.

I considered the Vietnam War to be a lost war because it did not achieve its objective of blocking North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam but it was really at the end a battlefield stalemate being turned into a face-saving withdrawal helped by the U.S. re-opening of China (which got the Soviet polar-bear scare and needed the U.S. counter-balancing), and then into a loss by Watergate and Nixon's resignation with North Vietnam breaking a promise to Nixon.

I hate colonialism and imperialism but the U.S. allied with the traditional European colonial and imperial powers. FDR though pushed for the end of the British version. Praise be to Queen Elisabeth II and Her Majesty's government for doing that pretty well, fulfilling the promises. The U.S. allying was not of my doing because I was too young to even really understand what the Vietnam War was about.

My greatest achievement around that time was finding a discarded bicycle dynamo at the neighborhood dump and giving it to the recycling pedlar. I received a honey-glazed cracker in return. It was delicious. War, eh? What's waffle? Honey pie?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

luckily yes - i can tell you different. first of all it was not an invasion from the north as anyone who read the pentagon papers would know (that is the official history of the conflict done by the rand corp in case you didn't know - stolen by ellsberg - the snowden precurser). here is the point on this subject -

"And so there’s just no question that the United States was trying desperately to prevent the independence of South Vietnam and to prevent a political settlement inside South Vietnam. And in fact it went to war precisely to prevent that. It finally bombed the North in 1965 with the purpose of trying to get the North to use its influence to call off the insurgency in the South. There were no North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam then as far as anybody knew. And they anticipated of course when they began bombing the North from South Vietnamese bases that it would bring North Vietnamese troops into the South. And then it became possible to pretend it was aggression from the North. It was ludicrous, but that’s what they claimed."

and please don't force me to lay out the whole history of the conflict. this is getting boring (not sure why but fish in a barrel comes to mind). secondly if we had gone to the north it would not have won the war only caused more death and suffering by all concerned. especially the vietnamese (of course you would be railing about 200k u.s. dead and not cared how many yellow bodies were stacked up - and jimmy carter would still have said "we don't need to apologize since the destruction was MUTUAL!"). it should be clear even to an idealogue like you that they were not going to give up. we would have had to do the same thing we did to the indians here - wipe out 95% and call it pax romana. some people will take unheard of suffering not to be conquered by an invader. the soviets come to mind here. if we endured what they did at the hands of the nazis we would all be standing to salute the flag with a swastika on it. well not kapernick - but you would wouldn't you bully boy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Dick Head !!!!!!

The only thing that matters "IS" - were USA military forces allowed or not allowed to pursue the North Vietnamese across the DMZ and destroy their military assets.

That's "IT"

Plain and Simple

And no I am not talking about the few airborne operations that did cross out of South Vietnamese territory. I am talking about the whole day to day standard operational procedures.

were USA military forces allowed or not allowed to pursue the North Vietnamese across the DMZ and destroy their military assets.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

yea sure i am the dick head. you are the one quoting the 11th cav blackhorse regiment. on how they never lost a battle to the gooks! everytime they got into a fight they call down holy hell and turned the surrounding area into cinders. why even you and the other macho asshole grapes could probably win a fight with that firepower advantage. and to be clear our soldiers have not really fought a real fight since the civil war. if your beloved 11th cav fought on the eastern front in ww2 they would not last a day. the american style of war has been blow the shit out of whatever is in front of them and hope nothing survives. the germans ate our lunch when there was anything like equal footing.

so how many did we kill in vietnam (4 million) and how many did we need to kill to "win' that war. that immoral illegal unholy war - read marilyn young and get back to me there. or no - why not you and grapey swap stories from the waffenn ss and custer and the 7th cav about how they could have won also. and yes we would have had a deep water port ( we would have had it - funny language no - we - in vietnam??) if only we supported that great democrats diem and minh and thieu - puppets all. you are so blind that it is not worth the time. the problem is that it is people like you who fuck everything up by buying the bullshit - dickhead

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW

U are saying that the USA was alone in killing 4,000,000 civilians? Or did you mean - just the 11th air cav was responsible?

Sorry - get your facts straight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Ya dick head!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What is your malfunction?

Are you Drain Bamaged?

I said we should never have been there in the 1st place.

That does not change the fact that our government sent our forces there anyway and then kept our forces from winning!

So

GFYS

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

my reading comprehension are good - i read what you said. i took exception to your shit about not allowed to win. with 8 million tons of bombs and 4 million dead i think your beloved 11th cav was given a good chance to "win."

as to my numbers well the cia estimates 2 million but you how they fudge the numbers don't you? ok we could stick with that one if you like and you can argue that it wasn't enough dead if it were 4 million we would have won. is thaat what you would like to argue? that we did not kill enough vietnamese? and by the way is your real name ann coulter??

"US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos."

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are dumber than a box of rocks.

I stated a simple fact = the US military was prevented from winning the war. It is a simple fact that the US military was not allowed to go into North Vietnam to destroy their military assets. This IS a FACT ! That is all I am saying. I am not saying that there were no crimes committed - I am also saying that of the crimes against humanity the US was not the only guilty party.

I am just stating a fact That The US military was prevented from crossing into North Vietnam to stop "their" invasion of the South.

Can you tell me different?

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

oh my god. do not ever ever say anything again about me being quite excitable. this is sick stuff - from the 11th cav no less. yea they never lost a battle - we killed millions and still they did not give up. sure we could have done what we did to the indians here. or do a pax romana - "they created a desert and called it peace." as to sanctuaries - google the plain of jars and "anything that flies on anything that moves" - your thinking is sick and twisted - go away - far away. my god have you no shame!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33169) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Listen DICK Head. You asked about not being allowed to win in Vietnam.

I answered.

Don't wanna know something?

Don't ask!

BTW - I started out by saying we should never have been in Vietnam in the 1st place.

So

GFYS

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 1 year ago

So you say Kennedy forced Khrushchev to build up Soviet arms so I can also say that Brezhnev forced the U.S. to embark on an arms race under Reagan. Where does this begin or end? Tic-tac-toe, or global thermonuclear war, anyone?

Soviets stole nuclear secrets from the U.S. via the Brits. They also launched Sputnik and threatened the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles. Was it any surprise that the U.S. put missiles close to the Soviet Union? No.

If we trace it far back enough, it was the Big Bang at fault, no doubt? Let's blame it all on Mikey. He ate the rancid GMO cereals rejected by the EU!

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

read nsc68 - try to understand the origins of the cold war for real not just some patriotic idiotic bullshit. yea sure Reagan was just responding to the aggressive soviet superiority. what a load of crap as should be obvious since the air went out of that bag in 1989. the dreaded soviet invasion of Europe was a cruel joke as anyone with two brain cells could see at the time but now even obvious to those with only one