Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: pax americana - vietnam style

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 11, 2014, 2 p.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Bruno Jantti: U.S. Aggression Against Vietnam

Out of all the peculiarities of the political milieu in the U.S., what probably stands out the most is the discourse on the U.S. obliteration policies against Vietnam. If in any other country there exists a wider gap between the conventional portrayals and narrative on a war of aggression carried out by that country, on one hand, and the documentary record, on the other, then I have yet to come across it.

What does the general picture on U.S. aggression look like? The U.S. air force dropped more bombing tonnage solely in South Vietnam than the total bombing tonnage of every single aerial bombing campaign by all sides in WWII put together. The total amount of U.S. bombings during the Vietnam War was more than twice the size of all the bombings in WWII.

12 million acres of forest and 25 million acres of farmland, at the bare minimum, were destroyed by U.S. saturation bombing. The U.S. sprayed over 70 million liters of herbicidal agents to Vietnam.

Reflecting the fundamental defects of the conventional narrative on the matter, the death toll of the Vietnamese caused by the U.S. military onslaught is routinely debated in hundreds of thousands, sometimes in millions. According to Robert McNamara, for example, 3,6 million Vietnamese were killed in the war. Among the most comprehensive studies on the matter was published in 2008 by Harvard Medical School and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. They put the Vietnamese death toll at 3.8 million. According to Dr. Nick Turse, an American historian and investigative journalist who has conducted pioneering research on the Vietnam War, even the “staggering figure” of 3.8 million “may be an underestimate”. Furthermore, the U.S. attack wounded 5,3 million Vietnamese civilians and up to 4 million Vietnamese fell victim to toxic defoliants used by the U.S. against large parts of the country. The U.S. assault created 200,000 prostitutes, 879,000 orphans, 1 million widows and 11 million refugees.

To enter from the realm of international law, facts and figures to what at times goes by the name of ‘internal U.S. debate’ on the matter of U.S. attack on Vietnam is tantamount to an abrupt teleportation into an unsavory twilight zone. Consider the following results of a Gallup poll conducted in November, 2000. Of respondents aged between 18 and 29, 27% said that the U.S. was backing North Vietnam, 45% said South Vietnam and 28% expressed no opinion at all.

What about support for the war among the U.S. public, say, at the end of the 1960’s? According to a Gallup poll conducted in July, 1969, more than a year after the My Lai massacre, 53% of the respondents approved of Nixon’s handling of the war. Arguably the main trend after the termination of U.S. aggression against Indochina has been a systematic glorification of U.S. actions. During a conference in 2006 titled Vietnam and the Presidency, former U.S. head of state Jimmy Carter gave his well-known account on the war and its effects to his presidency. Carter, not regarded as an ardent advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policy among post-WWII U.S. presidents, perhaps quite the contrary, stressed the importance of moving “beyond the Vietnam War to better things”. Carter gave special emphasis on what he called a “healing process” – a healing process for American society, needless to say – and proclaimed that, under his administration, “that healing process made major strides forward”. Not only that, the “healing process” was no less than “complete” when “the Vietnam heroic monument, one of the most popular places in Washington” was set up, soon after the Carter presidency.

The inscription on the world-renowned Vietnam Veterans Memorial states that “[o]ur nation honors the courage, sacrifice, and devotion to duty and country of its Vietnam veterans.” Instead of having prosecuted war criminals and paid enormous compensation to Vietnam, for starters, the U.S. gave Vietnam the above sentence. Carter’s commentary serves as an odious, yet illustrative, reminder of the standard line of thinking in the U.S. political culture. In short, when the U.S. attack on Vietnam had finally come to its end, what was of uttermost importance was a “healing process” for the United States, and reflecting the progress, if not completion, of that healing process was the erection of a monument singing the praises of the “courage” and “sacrifice” of the U.S. veterans. Now, let us move “beyond the Vietnam War to better things”.

Perhaps even more revealingly, Carter has asserted on the Vietnam War that “I don’t feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability”, stressing that “the destruction was mutual”. In 2000, the then Secretary of Defence William Cohen expressed similar approach towards the U.S. actions in the Vietnam war. “I don’t intend to go into any apologies, certainly, for the war itself” Cohen declared upon his visit to Vietnam. “Both nations were scarred by this. They have their own scars from the war. We certainly have ours.”

The tenets of the official U.S. position towards the unparalleled crimes the U.S. military committed in Vietnam remain as disturbing as ever: no apologies for U.S. conduct during the war, certainly no reparations; no intentions to prosecute U.S. government officials and military personnel for any of the countless war crimes the U.S. committed in Vietnam; romanticizing and glorifying the overall performance of the U.S. military in the war. Indeed, in the post-WWII era, the conventional narrative in the U.S. on the Vietnam war has emerged as arguably the most disturbing case of the perpetrator’s nationalistic indifference towards, and often approval of, an apocalyptic destruction of the target of its attack. Finally, let us all bask in the shining light of American self-criticism, embodied by the following quote by the U.S. President Barak Obama at the commemoration ceremony of the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War: “Veterans, families of the Vietnam War, I know the wounds of war are slow to heal. You know that better than most. But today we take another step. The task of telling your story continues. The work of perfecting our Union goes on. And decades from now, I hope another young American will visit this place and reach out and touch a name. And she’ll learn the story of service members — people she never met, who fought a war she never knew — and in that moment of understanding and of gratitude and of grace, your legacy will endure. For you are all true heroes and you will all be remembered. May God bless you. May God bless your families. May God bless our men and women in uniform. And may God bless these United States of America.”

59 Comments

59 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Nevada1 (5843) 3 years ago

Thank you flip, for post.

Rockefeller - War Is For Profit - Central Banks Are For War Finance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoimzqUqm8E

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

The war machine has moved to an entire different level, the never ending level.

Which will come first? It causes a collapse at home here, and needs to turn on its people to maintain control?

Or the rest of the world has enough and suddenly supposedly allies are now bombing us?

Its going to be one of two, because throughout history, that is how it has always gone.

And the people will have no clue how it could happen. Their faces stuffed in a bowl of chocolate syrup drenched cheetos for the last 30 years.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

Years ago, I took a lot of criticism for my style of writing with very long paragraphs or no paragraphs at all. At the time, I just didn't get it. I do now. It is very difficult to read a long entry like this with no paragraphs. Aside from that, it is an excellent post.

I see Vietnam as hands down the most immoral and illogical war America has ever fought. All that unnecessary suffering, death, and misery. and for what? Because a bunch of paranoid die-hard capitalist American cry babies just couldn't sleep at night with communism spreading in other parts of the world. As if it were any of our God damn business.

As if that rational weren't disgusting enough, the Vietnam war was almost certainly, like the Iraq war, managed for profit.

Among the many divisive issues that liberals, conservatives, and the rest of us argue about, the Vietnam war should be an example to all that America has done wrong. Very, VERY wrong. I have nothing against patriotism (modest patriotism) but as Americans, we should feel ashamed for our country as well.

The Vietnam war was pure evil. There was absolutely no excuse for it. It's no wonder it's veterans, those who are still alive, are so fucked up. That's not a rip on them. It's a rip on those who sent them overseas to slaughter their way through a war that never should have been fought to begin with.

I don't think it's appropriate to say "May God bless America." when referring to the Vietnam war. It would be more appropriate to say "May God forgive America."

[-] 6 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

I'm no psychologist, but I have this theory on what causes PSTD which so many of our soldiers seem to have. I believe it is not simply caused by stress from being in a high trauma situation, but rather it is caused by stress in doing something that one knows deep down inside is very wrong. Like in your mention above, I'm not out blaming any soldiers for their condition. I'm blaming those higher ups that forced or otherwise conned our soldiers into PSTD causing situations. One saving grace for a soldier coming back from war with PSTD is that one knows one has a moral conscience ( that was at odds with what one was forced/conned into doing,) and that knowledge alone may be enough to help one get started back on a road to recovery. Unforetunately, the military psychologists will never admit to any treatment based on that, but instead prefer to sugar coat the problem up with a lot of bull shit patriotism which only exasperates the problem more.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

you are right - i posted this from an article and never looked at the result - sorry

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

That's alright. I see you fixed it. Perfect.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Vietnam was a mistake, so was Iraq, and the Big Bad Wolf needs to be tamed to become a good old German Shepard guard dog.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

fool

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Okay, let me wise up. Vietnam was not a mistake, nor was Iraq.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i doubt you can wise up but it is a good idea. give it a try - start by recognizing the empire. it will never be a guard dog - except for it's own power and privilege. vietnam and iraq were not mistakes but carefully thought out plans to destroy systems and maintain hegemony. agreed?? if you do we can get past foreign policy and discuss monetary policy - "there are none so blind as those who will not see!"

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

I am surprised that you think that Vietnam and Iraq had any carefully thought-out plans at all. In my opinion, you may be giving U.S. leadership far too much credit for forethoughts. It seemed to me more like improvisational jazz on the battlefields and cover-ups elsewhere all started emotionally without knowing Sun Tzu's classic "The Art of War," as trashyharry referred to. His dad seemed to be of the opinion that both Vietnam and Iraq were bungled messes.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

Well you can read the state dept planning documents from that time. They are not as stupid as one might think. They did not want Vietnam to develop into a different economic system and a model for others. That was the virus. If successful it could spread to other countries. Same reason we squeeze Cuba. Imagine how Cuba would look if it had not been tortured economically for the past 50 years. Even so it is the best place to live of all the countries in the region - for the masses anyway. We will not see planning docs on Iraq for another 20 years but keep in mind that those whole rule over us have done so for centuries. They know what they are doing. Got to create enemies just like Orwell said. 'War is the health of the state' according to muste.

[-] 3 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

No matter how well thought out the military campaigns were, the wrong premise for taking the actions makes the campaigns useless and even ridiculous. I mean, the Bush'ite was literally looking in a press conference under his lectern, and left and right for WMDs and reported not finding them. I was not surprised because I remember that he had let 9/11/2001 happen and landed in a flight suit in a fighter jet onto the aircraft carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Donald Rumsfeld when asked about looting in Iraq said, "Things happen!" Then there was the firing of the old hands in Iraq allowing the chaos to spread. Sun Tzu advised something like retaining the hired hands after decapitating the enemy. Iraq was not homogeneous and Bush 41 knew better not to invade Iraq. Bush 43 could have received advice and not be so disrespectful (as a former Texas "national guard") of the women and men who served.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

yes yes yes and this mess leads to isis and beheadings and we send in more troops and give more money to the military. when the soviets boogey man went down our fearless leaders searched for an enemy - drug lords didn't quite work. looks like we have our enemy no? perpetual war for perpetual peace. we have destroyed Iraq and Libya (Lebanon much earlier) and are now working on Syria. those were the most highly functioning countries in the region out side of Israel of course. coincidence?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

I wonder if the candid Chinese "business" enlightenment holds some truths here, "You can catch BIG fish in murky waters!" Hmmm, the U.S., under the direction of the most significant domestic constituents, must therefore CREATE the murky waters first.

Has Congress hung out the "Gone Fishing!" sign yet?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

I just don't get why Putin, seemingly intelligent, had fallen for the trap set for him in Ukraine. It is a lot easier to break than to make. The U.S. is the greatest in the world in its ability to break but it has problems with intelligence and idealism.

I do not accept that the factious nature of the Greater Middle East was due to the U.S. alone. The cultures there matter. Long before the U.S., there were many wars there. Long after the U.S., there will be many wars there, too.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

I imagine you have heard of colonialism? we can go back thousands of years if like but the modern era is a result of the fucking british and u.s. as for putin I don't see how he had much choice - nato in Ukraine - the loss of crimea - not possible for him. he would go down as the leader who lost Russia

here is noam on the recent history of the middle east

  • "And what they found, and if someone went a little bit further with minimal effort, they would discover that this question -- you know: "Why do they hate us when we're so good?" -- George Bush's poignant question -- it's a very old question, for it was asked by President Eisenhower in 1958 -- actually, in secret at that time. But now it's a pretty free country, we have a lot of documentary evidence so we know what's been going on. Back in 1958 -- which turned out to be a very crucial year in world history -- that was the year, in particular, in which the US fought a major clandestine war to try to break up Indonesia, and a number of other things. ... The US at that time had three major crisis areas, according to the internal discussions, all in Islamic countries, all in oil-producers. One was Indonesia, one was Algeria, one was basically Iraq -- the Iraqi region. Those were the three crises. It was made explicit in the internal meetings. In fact, Eisenhower, vociferously, according to the minutes, insisted on this: there was no Russian involvement. The enemy is indigenous nationalism. In fact, that's true throughout the Cold War, but very explicit then, and Eisenhower did discuss it with his staff, said there is a campaign of hatred against us -- not on the part of governments but on the part of the people, and we wanna know why that's true. And he got some answers. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, said the problem is that the communist -- "communist" just means anybody who's a nationalist, and the CIA was telling them strongly that their main enemy wasn't communist but it didn't matter, "communist" just means the ones we don't like -- and they said the communists have an advantage over us, an unfair advantage. He said they can appeal to the masses of the population. That's an appeal that we can't counter. And the reason is they appeal to the poor and the poor have always wanted to plunder the rich. That's the big problem with world history. And we somehow find it hard to sell our message that the rich can -- should -- plunder the poor. That sentence I added -- the rest was his.

But there was a more serious and considered answer given by the National Security Council, the highest planning agency. They pointed out that there's a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports status quo regimes which, of course, are brutal and oppressive, and does so in order to secure its own interests in obtaining oil, and then they said, well, it's hard to counter this perception because it's correct. They said it's natural for the United States to link itself up with the status quo regimes and try to sustain them and to pursue its interest in obtaining oil. So the end result is that there's a campaign of hatred against us among the people who we're basically robbing and on whom we're imposing harsh, brutal, repressive and corrupt regimes, and it's pretty difficult to counter that campaign. You know, that's exactly what The Wall Street Journal is finding after September 11th. It wouldn't take much research to discover this. Do a little more research you'd find out quite a lot, that this is very consistent.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Oil was tainted with a lot of human blood - that I knew but it was awfully hard to get the message into the minds of people. I figured that the only way in which people would notice was to have higher oil-product prices. Now that the U.S. produces so much oil and gas from fracking, it is an opportunity to put some pressure on the harsh, brutal, repressive, and corrupt regimes to reform.

I found that corruption was always bad but there might be justification for brutality. The regimes need to be responsive and harshness, brutality, and repression may be somewhat culturally relative.

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

When your goals are hegemonic as our's are, it is not congruous to have your "harsh, brutal, repressive, and corrupt [puppet] regimes ... reform," rather it is then to our advantage to send them whatever equipment that they need to control their populace.... So that we can either get their resources OR to maintain and add to our control over them...and hence the World.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

An operational question: How do you determine that the goals are hegemonic?

Often, U.S. aids to countries are mandated by our Congress to be in the form of weapons. I think that it was due to the desire to create weapons-related jobs in the Congressional districts. In some cases, they are needed for creating a sense of security for the receiving countries and are in fact preferred by them. There is no stopping them from using the weapons on their own people, for example. The U.S. can try to influence but it may not succeed.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Having seen what instabilities created around the world, you must agree that stability is preferable. There are different models of stability. The U.S. has an "earthquake" in its politics every two years to clean house. There are countries which have the same powerful civil servants years in and years out but people seem to be happy with them even though they use harsh methods on the criminals. Also one culture's model of propriety differs from another culture's and even the same culture at different times. The guillotine, for example, was invented to clean up and improve the efficiency of the practice of beheadings. Now the French would clearly be horrified by the guillotine being brought back.

I surmise that countries are culturally different enough that we must admit some "play" in these culturally relative practices. I saw people prop up their feet and shoes on the conference table before the meeting started and I was not the least bit bothered but it is not true for someone from the Middle Eastern cultural background. Japanese dignitaries seemed agitated due to insufficient bending down in the bowing that most Westerners would not even notice or care. I say that we may not want to extend similar cultural parochialisms to other countries.

Trading in some sense is actually getting others' resources but would it be preferable instead to make sure that everyone keeps their resources by prohibiting trading? I say not. The problem of fairness and exploitation is rooted in the political and economic power structures of the countries involved, not in the trading businesses themselves. I have no problem with trading with "enlightened" monarchies, for example. In fact, it is even easier than dealing with multiple overlapping authorities. When the monarch agrees to the deal, there is no more going around to get more authorities to bless it. A no is a no and a yes is a yes.

[-] 4 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

When "instabilities" arise in countries, in the face of injustices that we have assisted in propagating, it becomes kinda illogocal and assinine for us to think that we are lending a helping hand, or to fancy ourselves like a Superman-like hero in trying to quell the up-rising.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Without good intelligence, there is no way for the U.S. to impose justice. A rough guide is that nearly all countries which suppress the free press of their people are very likely committing injustice. A first-cut foreign policy for the U.S. to achieve some semblance of justice is to take out these countries' leadership. That is what I meant by pax americana - baptism through fire (as you may know, there are different kinds) for all oppressive regimes. Putting them all through the wringers may not be 100% fair but the resulting world order will be better for all. No pain, no gain so pain is to be expected if we want to improve the human condition worldwide. The first order of business for the U.S. should be to carry out the judgment of the International Court of Justice.

We are on the verge of 2015, deadline for the Millennium Development Goals promised by the so-called authorities. Where is each country now?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33307) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Absolutely - someone else said earlier = it is easier to destroy than it is to create. What would happen if the UN secured an area ( cease fire ) and aid was brought in for both sides of a conflict or all sides as a lot of this shit is multi-factional.

The aid being provided is infrastructure = Wind Turbine electricity production ( the equipment and training on how to use and maintain and a supply of basic maintenance parts and equipment ) - Access to water = wells and or desalinization plants and or water treatment plants (powered by the wind turbines or solar cells or fuel cell or combination and include power storage batteries so that the power being generated does not need to be used immediately or be lost but instead can be saved/stored for later use as needed). Providing these things - including education/training on the use and maintenance - could well solve many frictions - could remove strife that causes armed conflicts for resources.

This must be accompanied with a hearts and minds education effort for the whole areas populations - educating on these new supports for society to use for food production and to power hospitals and schools and to provide plentiful clean water. While using their own religious beliefs in the communications - that support acceptance and good fellowship with all - that support doing good works and living in peace. The populations need to be shown clearly the benefits of getting along and the prosperity ( home food clothing health etc ) that will be created by getting along. The vicious cycle of competition for scarce resources must be ended.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

I don't think you understood the meaning of Chomsky and Eisenhower. this was at a time when the u.s. was exporting oil. it is about control of energy and resources - always has been. reread what Eisenhower's cabinet told him. carefully

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Yes, it was before the U.S. Hubbert's Peak so the ambition extended beyond the needs of the U.S.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

You are nuts. Like an old time Pax Americana type thinking we will civilize the natives. What collassal horse shit. Do you really think this or are you playing some john Wayne character. JFK. You mean that murdering whoremonger. Son of Joseph the one who lobotomized his daughter because she wouldn't obey

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Have you been to New York City? Which side (North, South, East, or West) of Manhattan can we find Strawberry Fields? What should have been the numerical value for Lexington Avenue if we are counting avenues starting from the east side of Manhattan? Is Amsterdam Avenue east or west of Broadway?

JFK sent in the military advisors but LBJ did the escalations in Vietnam.

Do you know the history of lobotomy at all? That it was a mistake by an overzealous medical pioneer?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

maybe there is hope for you?? the best hope for justice in the world is for us to take out our own leadership since "they are the greatest purveyors of violence in the world"

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

The U.S. leadership has already been "taken out" for a long while in effect, though not in name. Our dysfunctional political system provided gridlock for years on end although the kabuki continued. We dropped the ball in Iraq, Syria, etc. to enjoy a few years of peace and quiet so we must now drop bombs to catch up for the years of missed acoustic production quota.

The best defense is forward-deployed offense. We should showcase the world the source of our superpower. Bring their countries' leaderships to visit our sewerage and water treatment plants, the chemical and biological warfares we wage and victories we win every day. Show them the history of our "Five Points, Manhattan neighborhood" near NY City Hall, Canal Street that was a waterway draining into the Hudson River. Yes, "Bomb" the world with a thousand sewerage and water treatment plants, and wage chemical and biological warfares there and win a victory every single day worldwide.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

look you can make pronouncements all you like but that does not make it true. you can believe in pax americana but you should go to pine ridge first to see what it really looks like. no - instead you read your 1950 high school history book where custer was a hero and was "massacred" and wounded knee was a "battle." now how about responding and saying how incorrect your version of history was here - "If the Vietnamese themselves could have settled matters without resorting to civil war marshaling foreign powers, I am sure that the U.S. would not have intervened in Vietnam in the 1960s. Did you actually live through the times of Sputnik launch, Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis? After screeching through a crack to escape the nuclear Doomsday, who with any good sense would have called themselves the Vietcong, the Vietnam Communists? It amounted to the waving of a red cape in front of a maddened bull so why should anyone be surprised at the results? Apparently, Ho Chi Ming, statesman though he allegedly was, had no foresight about this and instead decided to infiltrate and invade South Vietnam.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Pax Americana is indeed coming to Vietnam for its cheap labor as it has gone to China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. All of them have emerged from war ruins or economic doldrums to economic predominance under U.S. patronage, tutelage, or military protection. Pax Americana pays. Do the three little pigs get it?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

what the hell kind of history are you reading - not even close to the truth about vietnam or the missile crisis. and yes i lived through that time and wondered if my parents would build a bomb shelter. first of all there was no civil war in vietnam - it was an anti colonial struggle against the french. and how exactly did the french get vietnam back after ho liberated it from the japanese? also who stopped the vote that was to be held according to the geneva convention?? the north did not infiltrate the south they did not need to. the peasants of the south knew very well what the french and the landlords were doing to them. as for your missile crisis who caused that one - jfk and his macho administration. he could have made the deal to pull the missiles out of turkey and promise not to invade again without pushing the world to the brink. this history is uncontroversial - yours is old time right wing shit! your comments about arrows in the back and isolation are even more stupid. look up the creel commission first of all. then show me the arrows - dope - we have bombed the world many times over - sure we took a few arrows but they took lots of napalm and cluster bombs. i imagine you think the american indians were the aggressors also. go to pine ridge and tell me about pax americana - idiot!

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

If the U.S. had taken the ancient Romans' approach by giving no lands or countries back to the natives or their colonial masters or mistresses, the post-war messes in Vietnam or Iraq would not have occurred. Imposing Pax Americana would have spared the world much suffering.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i imagine you think that intentions matter here - "The Vietnamese government estimates that 400,000 people were killed or maimed and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of this spraying of what were called by the Americans 'rainbow herbicides'.[2]" - did you miss that little piece? there are none so blind as those who will not see - do you think that applies to you or do you feel you are open to different ideas?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

What do you propose instead of Vietnam and the U.S. normalizing relations and developing trade? Have a Vietnam War II - The Empire Strikes Back?

Maybe the U.S. should have started a Korean War II and occupied China instead of trading with it to build it into the largest economy in the world. Yes, there were Hordes of Chinese involved in fighting U.S. soldiers in North Korea. The nature of wars is that they always end by withdrawals, cessation of hostilities, engagements, and reconciliations. There are no other options than enemy, neutral, frenemy, and friend. The truth is that we are all stuck here on Earth with each other whether we like it or not. We are all neighbors and good neighbors form happy neighborhoods. China got over the Chinese Exclusion Act of the U.S. and the U.S. got over the murderous Yellow Peril in North Korea. Chimerica sounds chimeric but it rules (now and for the foreseeable future).

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

He is nuts

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

If the Vietnamese themselves could have settled matters without resorting to civil war marshaling foreign powers, I am sure that the U.S. would not have intervened in Vietnam in the 1960s.

Did you actually live through the times of Sputnik launch, Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis? After screeching through a crack to escape the nuclear Doomsday, who with any good sense would have called themselves the Vietcong, the Vietnam Communists? It amounted to the waving of a red cape in front of a maddened bull so why should anyone be surprised at the results? Apparently, Ho Chi Ming, statesman though he allegedly was, had no foresight about this and instead decided to infiltrate and invade South Vietnam.

Pax Americana was not and may not be a piece of cake but there is no choice for the U.S. because it has been collecting so many arrows in its back from friends and foes alike in spite of its isolationist streak. It took WWII to teach the U.S. populace that it could not retract into its turtle shell behind the two greatest oceans. We repeated this recently with Iraq. I see no other country even remotely close to being able to replace the role of the U.S. so we just have to live with the Big Bad Wolf and train it the best that we can. Let us do a rundown of candidate permanent countries in the UN Security Council:

China - distracted by its restive Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and migrant worker/urban underclass problems; no blue-sea navy.

U.K. - already an intimate partner with the U.S. internationally but replacing the U.S. by itself is a bit far-fetched.

France - again an ally who although not as dependable as U.K. in actions, nonetheless has the identical devotion to freedom and democracy; it is often even more gungho going against tyrants.

Russia - a rundown superpower dependent on oil and gas exports for foreign reserves; has blue-sea navy but not that much economic power and worldwide bases to support running it around.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i understand better now - you are ignorant as well as a bit nuts - let me inform you about jfk and operation ranch hand - Operation Ranch Hand was a U.S. military operation during the Vietnam War, lasting from 1962 until 1971. Largely inspired by the British use of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D (Agent Orange) during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s, it was part of the overall herbicidal warfare program during the war called "Operation Trail Dust". Ranch Hand involved spraying an estimated 20 million U.S. gallons (76,000 m3) of defoliants and herbicides[1] over rural areas of South Vietnam in an attempt to deprive the Viet Cong of food and vegetation cover. Areas of Laos and Cambodia were also sprayed to a lesser extent. Nearly 20,000 sorties were flown between 1961 and 1971. The Vietnamese government estimates that 400,000 people were killed or maimed and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of this spraying of what were called by the Americans 'rainbow herbicides'.[2]

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

I heard of the usage of herbicides in Vietnam war but not much detail about them aside from the veterans' lawsuits about cancer-causing dioxins included. A well-developed chemical industry can help with chemical warfares against germs and diseases. Peoples' intentions behind the industry determine good or ill.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

you really don't get it - how about we start with a smaller step - like not blowing up their sewerage and water plants. and what exactly is our superpower source. nuclear weapons and a military that spends more than the rest of the world while our citizens go hungry and have no health care? super power - what the hell are you looking at?

[-] 2 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

My ancestor saw the "Greatness of America" in the running hot water in its public toilets. I am more knowledgeable than my ancestor so I know where the water came from and where it went to. The U.S. rose to world prominence by its conquest of diseases. New York City went from a diseased hell hole to a prominent financial capital of the world. I recommend exporting our chemical and biological warfare technologies worldwide. Remember JFK 's inaugural speech? The mission must continue.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

you are so twisted that it is impossible to have a conversation. i have right wing ignorant friends but the discussion is at least somewhat linear. i wonder how you got through life so far. anyway i will leave you to your own cesspool of infinite zen stupidity - luckily i know how to block certain people on this site so i will not feel the need to waste more time reading your nonsense. good luck grape - you need it.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Life, being transmissible wirelessly IS design, and a plan for action, according to Eames. To get through a twisted design through inflation and betrayals, grapes must execute a twisted plan for action, by looking at the world through compensating lens like that for fixing the Hubble telescope.

We who look at the shadow of a jet on the hilly terrain say the jet twists and turns but the jet flies straight in the air.

[-] -2 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

The U.S. does not have an empire. The U.S. has persistently conquered countries and tried again and again to get out of them. That does not seem like an empire's behavior.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33307) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

The thing is - the USA's MIC got in kicked some asses and left the door open for the corp(se)oRATion infiltration and control of the countries afterwards. This way the USA need not claim territory - the USA leaves it up to the private sector to do it kind of "on the down low"!

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

From my observations, the overwhelming majority of people in the World are far more moral than their governments are. So what do most people want? It's simple....Just a chance for a better life for themselves and their families.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33307) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Just a chance for a better life for themselves and their families.

[ edit ] Yep

Waging Peace NOT War

[-] 2 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

The U.S. and Canada won the peace. Burying the hatchets against the Traitors of the American Revolution who ran up north had its great payoffs for the descendants of both the Patriots and the Traitors. Both the U.S. and Canada have much of the continent to develop for mutual benefits. Not having war but huge volume of trade make both sides live better. Beating the swords into ploughs worked very well. After settling the political differences, give peace a chance. Peace is often prosperity in disguise.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33307) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

And then came the rise of the greedy bastards (again - new world chapter) - that ruined healthy peaceful prosperity for all - they went on their program of war against the worker so that "they" could have more - they then also looked for ways to make money outside of this country - and along with exploiting other countries/nations/continents resources - they invested in creating and building the MIC so that they could supply weapons to conflicts around the world as well as sell weapons to the military of the USA. Now the MIC has also legitimized the private (mercenary) corp(se)oRAT armies to hire out in conflicts - corp(se)oRAT conflicts as well as USA governmental entered (created) conflicts.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

New Business Opportunity for the MIC is growing in Hong Kong.

"You can catch BIG fish in murky waters!" - Chinese "business" enlightenment. Here come murky waters.

It is a chance to see if the U.K. can replace the U.S. in its dealings with China. Must Pax be Pax Americana? Does Pax Britannica suffice?

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 3 years ago

Hey DKA, You made a good point here.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33307) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Hey N1 - Long time No chat. Thanks for the comment approval. Yeah Empires can be hidden = corp(se)oRAT empires. They are real - just not easily perceived by the average individual. And where do corp(se)oRAT empires receive much of their power to conquer? THAT power is purchased from government in policies and practices to support corp(se)oRAT conquests.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

If this corporate ownership were how countries are controlled, we are controlled by the Brits, Dutch, Japan, China, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, etc. including the most significant domestic constituents having foreign affiliations.

This so-called U.S. empire does not pull its own strings!

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

"getting out" is PR

the US wants to rule those nations through proxy government

[-] 1 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

I just don't see how the U.S. is ruling France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. A real U.S. empire would not have tolerated deviations from U.S. positions. We don't even see eye to eye on many international issues. The ancient Romans would have sent in the legions, conscripted the natives, and executed the deviants. None of that happened under alleged rule by the U.S.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

egypt military executed deviants

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

The ruling Egyptian military junta that overthrew Mohamed Morsi are of the same con ilk as the people who screw us on a regular basis, and some might consider us to be "deviants"... too, hence....

[-] 2 points by grapes (5049) 3 years ago

Egypt's military is U.S.? No. First and foremost, it is Egyptian. If it were actually U.S., it would have already been commanded to depose Bashar al Assad and impose military rule in Syria years ago and fight IS. Only the military seems capable of stabilizing countries in the Greater Middle East, probably due to the cultural backgrounds there.