The US..a poor international citizen..again. - Page 5

EoinC · #61 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrera

...So, I take the opposite view basically and believe multiculturalism will inevitably lead to the loss of social/political stability and freedom as Europeans gradually lose their own cultural histories and identities...

Another dose of Carrera's xenophobia. I've been away for a while, but not much seems to have changed. For your information, Carrera, my wife and I enjoy our multiculturalism - She's Thai and I'm a Kiwi Sheep Shagger. I've enjoyed living in Thailand and she's enjoyed living in New Zealand. In both places the people around us have enjoyed our company and our input. Neither of us have unstabilised each other's Country to any great degree.
A Nation's "Identity" is an ethereal concept that is always in a state of flux. Merry old England is not the same now as it was in 1950. In 1950 it was not the same as it was in 1900. In 1900 it was not the same...etc.
Get over it. What is happening in your Country is happening because it is acceptable to your Nation's "Identity". If it was not acceptable (and therefore not a part of your changing identity), you would have revolution.
If a lack of hot-cross buns is something that strikes a terrible blow to your English Identity, get some flour and make some.
Since everything you argue seems to be based on the Worlds of the Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks, you possibly need to be reminded that they no longer exist.
All through history, people have complained about how things aren't like the good old days. The good old days are only good for a few, and are usually associated with rose-coloured glasses, or beer goggles. Be here now, Carrera. I, for one, have no desire to live in ancient Rome or Spartica.

**limerickman** · #62 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

An "invasion" is where you go where you are not wanted. South Viet-Nam allowed advisors of the US into Viet-nam years before ground troops were placed there. The aggressor North Viet-Nam was attempting a coup of the Republic of Viet-Nam [South} and we then escalated troops in an attempt to keep the communist North in the North.China and Russia aided the North.
"Invasion " is not a correct term.

The Korean situation was caused by the North Koreans attacking Seoul. We had no troops there. War was declared by the North on the south.

American involvemnt began when Truman sent help to evacuate Americans.
Shortly after that Truman ordered the air and sea defenses to protect the waters south of the 38th parallel.
THEN >>>>>>> The UN Security Council passes a resolution calling for member nations to give military aid to South Korea. And the reason this was a UN situation was because the UN had set the government up in the south after the 1945 agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA.

During this time Seoul fell to the North. No ground troops of the US were involved yet. The only combat at this point was a small air battle.

Remember the troops were there on the UN's advice. It was not just the troops of the US, but it was a UN led involvement. Troops were there from GB and the Phillipines. This was more of a battle against the expansion of Russia and China. The Chinese had many of the troops in the trenches. I think Australia also had many troops there. I may be wrong on that.

The US saw Communism expansion as a problem. The Soviets and Chinese were expasion minded. Europe today looks differently today then it did back in the 60's and earlier. If the US and GB did not have a problem with communism expansion, Europe may have different boundaries at this time.

England and the US get a lot of flack for being aggressors. That is the advantage of being Wales, Scotland, and other small countries. You nothing really had nothing to offer against the expansion of Russia and China of the 50's and the 60's. I am sure though that some small countries did offer the few troops that they did have.

Again , the word "invasion " is being mis-used.

The death penalty is not available in very many places in the US.

Hold on a second here Wolf : The USA was not asked to go in to Korea.

Regarding Vietnam - Vietnam was controlled by the French until Vietnam got their independence and was the country was split under the Geneva accords
after WW2.
The USSR supported the North (as a socialist republic) and the USA supported the South.
Both territories were abused by the so-called superpowers.
If there was a Soviet on here - he too would suggest that his country was invited in - much like the case you make for your country's invasion of that country.

I take your point about Communism spreading - and I agree that the USA played a crucial role in the Cold War.
But think that the USSR would not have been able to encroach on Western Europe : France/Germany/Britain/Spain/Italy, the Low Countries, Scandanavia, all opposed the Communist ethos.

stevebaby · #63 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

The US had advisers and troops in VietNam years before the Gulf incident. I should know, my father and uncle were there before the gulf incident. . The gulf incident increased the US involvement and gave Johnson unlimited support for increased troops. But ground troops were there years before that. And the word "invasion" is not correct.
We were there in support of South Vietnam.... And to protect American {British too} oil interest.
There is a reason we get involved in other countries affairs. Usually the country has sold itself to us. And when they do that, they lose control of what they sold.
America has every right to protect it's investment in other countries.. Other countries open their doors to us because of the resources and technology that we have. We have the resources available to us because of the size of the US. And to other countries, we also are a market for their goods.
As far as human rights go , we have a excellent track record. It's easy to sit back and complain about America's human rights record when you are from a country that is not involved internationally enough to matter.

About the Domino Principle...(i.e.,if sth vietnam became communist then all the other countries in south east asia would inevitably "fall" to communism.)
It has now been 30 years since vietnam became a communist country.
How long will it be before the Domino Principle takes effect?

Hypnospin · #64 03-12.-2006

wolf,

please do not include references to "we" as if the long standing and ongoing global aggression of the us somehow represents the will of it's citizens, at least not to the point of including the long history all those who did not and do not approve of of these atrocities perpetuated in the name of some twisted concept of enforcing "democracy", as it is an injustice to all of us who are pacifists, esp. in recent matters.

these matters have nothing to do with national defense, in fact, they are a drain on rescources to this end as no less than the brass in the national guard recently reported, we are 40% depleted of military resources here at home, while the invasions
(yes, invasions, let us not blur definitions by conveniently applying semantics here)
and resultant occupations based on intentionaly manufactured deceit go on increasingly as we speak. this lack of resources was demonstrated in graphic manner regarding the inability to respond adequately in the katrina and rita hurricane aftermath.

and unlike the inevitable consequences of the invasive actions of the us you refer to as "we", i never killed or supported the torture or killing, to name just a couple of the human rights violations committed by the us, of a fellow human in the name of this "we" you so loosely term those of the us.

i hope this goes some way to offer contrast to the view of those from other nations who would refer to "you americans" as well...as this label describes less of the us population than you would be lead to believe.

this opposition to current bush regime policies, and alignment with progressive causes is esp. evident on the west coast, east coast and other population centers, attribute this to the cultural diversity, peer and family influences of peace support, attitudes of tolerance, access to alternative, public and non-commercial media sources, relative education levels and the progressive influences from the learning institutions of these regions, factors that are statistically more prominent in these areas.

QUOTE=wolfix]As far as human rights go , we have a excellent track record. It's easy to sit back and complain about America's human rights record when you are from a country that is not involved internationally enough to matter.[/QUOTE]

wolfix · #65 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

Hold on a second here Wolf : The USA was not asked to go in to Korea.

Regarding Vietnam - Vietnam was controlled by the French until Vietnam got their independence and was the country was split under the Geneva accords
after WW2.
The USSR supported the North (as a socialist republic) and the USA supported the South.
Both territories were abused by the so-called superpowers.
If there was a Soviet on here - he too would suggest that his country was invited in - much like the case you make for your country's invasion of that country.

I take your point about Communism spreading - and I agree that the USA played a crucial role in the Cold War.
But think that the USSR would not have been able to encroach on Western Europe : France/Germany/Britain/Spain/Italy, the Low Countries, Scandanavia, all opposed the Communist ethos.

Then what is the explanation of the resolution that the UN Security Council passed ? The UN asked for members to supply military aid to South Korea...... America, GB, Philipines responded. But previous to that , after less then 3 years of US occupation, the UN took over and the US pulled it's military and aid. It was a UN run country, not American when the conflict started.

This is another case of where America gets flack for it's actions. If at that time , the US would have denied the UN of it's American troops we would have been labeled as a "not a player." Then when we act without the UN's approval ,we get blamed for "not being a player." Personally, I think we should move the UN to Europe. It is taking up very valuable space that could be better used for a Starbucks and McDonalds.

I believe that is true too about what you say about Europe. Europe. However, you would have needed to spend alot of tax money building a military front. You had the luxury of having the US military there as NATO representives. Military aid that American taxpayers paid for.
Reminds me of a movie ...... The one with Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise. Tom C played a military attorney ..... I can't remmber the name of the movie. But there is that famous scene in the court room where Jack does that famous line..."You can't handle the truth!" That was a great movie played in the Hollywood fashion of feeling good about the little things. But in the reality of life, Jack's character was right about what he said in that court room. If that was a true story, on that day , America lost in that court room.
It seems to me that Europe is going through some changes. Changes in diversity that America has dealt with for many years. America has a 30% minority population if you figure in the illegals. And with that diverse of a population there is a greater chance for problems. In contrast, GB has 8% minorities. Ireland has what ????? 00 % ???? [I realize it is more then that.} Your area is now approaching the US for immigration numbers as far as overall percentages. Let's see how Europe handles the problems.... Give it about 40 years.

And to answer the question about the Domino Principle...... Did communism spread ...Pol Pot is a good answer. Millions died at the hands of communist insurgents. Of course, to a European, that is not the numbers that they could put up. Germany had more then 3 times that in Jews alone..... and they took a backseat to Lenin. And lets not leave out the "ethnic cleansing " of the guys over in Eastern Europe. Just what , a few years ago?
Why Pol Pot? Cambodia refused the aid being offered to them by the USA.
The domino thing ...... Next to Vietnam is a country called Laos.... Went communist in 1975.

On the other side of Vietnam is Thailand..... It's claim to fame is that is is the only SE Asia country never to be over run by Europeans. Of course,it never became communistic either. The reason ....... American aid helped put in a governemnt that was anti-communist. And a financial success that other countries in SE Asia hope to acheive.

Why Pol Pot? Cambodia refused the aid being offered to them by the USA.

Of course we have the Philippines which never really had a communist attempt. Of course the US has a really strong military presence there. That may be a small reason.

And we have Mayasia.....Never really had a problem with communism....

And of course....Taiwan ...... Do you think being a American ally might have kept the Chinese at home??? Think back several years ago....

So there was a Domino Effect to a certain degree. And with the million South vietnamese the Viet Cong killed after the USA pulled out, and the Pol=Pot problem , maybe the American mindset of "The domino principle" was a little exagerated. Right......

wolfix · #66 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypnospin

wolf,

please do not include references to "we" as if the long standing and ongoing global aggression of the us somehow represents the will of it's citizens, at least not to the point of including the long history all those who did not and do not approve of of these atrocities perpetuated in the name of some twisted concept of enforcing "democracy", as it is an injustice to all of us who are pacifists, esp. in recent matters.

these matters have nothing to do with national defense, in fact, they are a drain on rescources to this end as no less than the brass in the national guard recently reported, we are 40% depleted of military resources here at home, while the invasions
(yes, invasions, let us not blur definitions by conveniently applying semantics here)
and resultant occupations based on intentionaly manufactured deceit go on increasingly as we speak. this lack of resources was demonstrated in graphic manner regarding the inability to respond adequately in the katrina and rita hurricane aftermath.

and unlike the inevitable consequences of the invasive actions of the us you refer to as "we", i never killed or supported the torture or killing, to name just a couple of the human rights violations committed by the us, of a fellow human in the name of this "we" you so loosely term those of the us.

i hope this goes some way to offer contrast to the view of those from other nations who would refer to "you americans" as well...as this label describes less of the us population than you would be lead to believe.

this opposition to current bush regime policies, and alignment with progressive causes is esp. evident on the west coast, east coast and other population centers, attribute this to the cultural diversity, peer and family influences of peace support, attitudes of tolerance, access to alternative, public and non-commercial media sources, relative education levels and the progressive influences from the learning institutions of these regions, factors that are statistically more prominent in these areas.

QUOTE=wolfix]As far as human rights go , we have a excellent track record. It's easy to sit back and complain about America's human rights record when you are from a country that is not involved internationally enough to matter.

[/QUOTE]
In other words, you are a Californian who has such progressive insight that you elected Arnold. You are so full of ****. I own 25% of a business in Jackson, California and also rental property in Sacramento. I lived in the Bayarea in 1975 for a awhile. . I need you to know something ..... I attended school in Madison , Wisconsin , which is far more liberal then where you live. I now live just outside of Iowa City which is another major liberal place. But , your talk of being progressive is nothing but talk.

Hypnospin · #67 03-12.-2006

once again, you generalize, the actions that resulted in the election of arnold were no more by my involvement than were those of the bush regime...but we digress, to insult, that last refuge of those with less articulation than i would expect of you.

In other words, you are a Californian who has such progressive insight that you elected Arnold. You are so full of ****. I own 25% of a business in Jackson, California and also rental property in Sacramento. I lived in the Bayarea in 1975 for a awhile. . I need you to know something ..... I attended school in Madison , Wisconsin , which is far more liberal then where you live. I now live just outside of Iowa City which is another major liberal place. But , your talk of being progressive is nothing but talk.[/QUOTE]

davidmc · #68 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypnospin

wolf,

please do not include references to "we" as if the long standing and ongoing global aggression of the us somehow represents the will of it's citizens, at least not to the point of including the long history all those who did not and do not approve of of these atrocities perpetuated in the name of some twisted concept of enforcing "democracy", as it is an injustice to all of us who are pacifists, esp. in recent matters.

these matters have nothing to do with national defense, in fact, they are a drain on rescources to this end as no less than the brass in the national guard recently reported, we are 40% depleted of military resources here at home, while the invasions
(yes, invasions, let us not blur definitions by conveniently applying semantics here)
and resultant occupations based on intentionaly manufactured deceit go on increasingly as we speak. this lack of resources was demonstrated in graphic manner regarding the inability to respond adequately in the katrina and rita hurricane aftermath.

and unlike the inevitable consequences of the invasive actions of the us you refer to as "we", i never killed or supported the torture or killing, to name just a couple of the human rights violations committed by the us, of a fellow human in the name of this "we" you so loosely term those of the us.

i hope this goes some way to offer contrast to the view of those from other nations who would refer to "you americans" as well...as this label describes less of the us population than you would be lead to believe.

this opposition to current bush regime policies, and alignment with progressive causes is esp. evident on the west coast, east coast and other population centers, attribute this to the cultural diversity, peer and family influences of peace support, attitudes of tolerance, access to alternative, public and non-commercial media sources, relative education levels and the progressive influences from the learning institutions of these regions, factors that are statistically more prominent in these areas.

QUOTE=wolfix]As far as human rights go , we have a excellent track record. It's easy to sit back and complain about America's human rights record when you are from a country that is not involved internationally enough to matter.

[/QUOTE]
Here, here

I, too, wish to be left out of Wolf's "sweeping generalizations."

EoinC · #69 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

..."Invasion " is not a correct term...

The United States was 'invited' into Vietnam in the same way that the USSR was 'invited' into Afghanistan. An invitation from a puppet Government installed and dependent upon the 'invitees' does not count as a Nation calling for help. Ngo Dinh Diem was a very corrupt puppet who's power only existed through the overt and covert assistance of the United States. It was he who refused to allow the 1956 unified elections (that were called for in the Accords of the Geneva Convention of 1954) to proceed. The United States opposed the 1956 reunification elections, believing (with good reason) that Ho Chi Minh would win (how democratic is that?).
When Ho Chi Minh sort to establish Vietnam as an independent sovereign Nation at the close of WWII (having been abandoned by the French), he quoted the United States' Constitution a proposed Constitution (supplied by the OSS, I think) in his Declaration of Independence speach of Sept, 1945.
France, having worked in conjunction with the Japanese in Indochina for part of WWII, sort to re-establish control over Vietnam following the defeat of the Japanese. The French released and re-armed 1700 Japanese POW's to help them fight against the Vietminh. In the period from 1950 to 1954, the United States input $3 Billion into the French fight to regain colonial rule, and provided 80% of the supplies used by the French.
Ho Chi Minh had been supported by President Roosevelt during the campaign against the Japanese occupiers (who shared adminstrative duties with the remaining French), and was an avid Americanophile who repeatedly appealed to President Truman for recognition of Vietnam's right to exist as an independent Nation. He requested that Vietnam be treated in the same manner as the Philippines.
Here are some quotes from The Pentagon Papers:
"...Ho had built the Viet Minh into the only Vietnam-wide political organization capapble of effective resistance to either the Japanese or the French. He was the only Vietnamese wartime leader with a national following, and he assured himself wider fealty among the Vietnamese people when in August-September, 1945, he overthrew the Japanese...established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and staged receptions for in-coming allied occupation forces....For a few weeks in September, 1945, Vietnam was-- for the first and only time in its modern history--free of foreign domination, and united from north to south under Ho Chi Minh."

[p.461, US Defense Department study of the Vietnam war, from _The Pentagon Papers_]

"I wish to invite the attention of your Excellency for strictly humanitarian reasons to following matter. Two million Vietnamese died of starvation during winter of 1944 and spring 1945 because of the starvation policy of French who seized and stored until it rotted all available rice....Three-fourths of cultivated land was flooded in summer 1945, which was followed by a severe drought; of normal harvest five-sixths was lost....Many people are starving....Unless great world powers and international relief organizations bring us immediate assistance we face imminent catastrophe...."

[p.461, Ho Chi Minh, letter to the UN and President Truman, who did not reply, 1945-1946]
This all fell on deaf ears as France had pressured the United States to support it's claim on re-establishing control of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh's agreement to accept Soviet aid did not occur until July, 1955. The United States had begun shipping direct military aid to Saigon in January, 1955 in preparation for fighting against the reunification plan established at the 1954 Geneva Convention. In October, 1955, Bao Dai was ousted from power and Diem was installed with a lot of help from the United States. Diem was advised by Col. Lansdale, attached to the CIA, on how to go about extending and reinforcing his control. The Diem 'Government' was one of the World's finest examples of rampant nepotism at work. In 1955, Diem set about stealing land from Buddhist land owners and giving it to his Catholic supporters. He instituted a campaign of torture and execution against dissenters, aided by his brother, Nhu.
President Eisenhower pledged the support of the United States, including further military aid, to assisting this despot in carrying out his work. Eisenhower labeled Diem as the "Miracle Man" of Asia. President Johnson called Diem the "Winston Churchill of Asia".
In 1963, following the disturbing self-immolations by Buddhist monks, protesting against the violent crackdowns by Nhu's security forces on fellow Buddhists, Nhu's wife described the burnings as "barbecues".
In 1963, the United States realised that the "Miracle Man" was more trouble than he was worth, and debated supporting a coup against him. After a period of on-again / off-again deals, in October, 1963, the United States agreed with General Duon Van "Big" Minh that it will continue to support the South Vietnamese Government if he stages a coup, and will not interfere to support Diem. President Kennedy sought confirmation from Ambassador Lodge that the coup would be successful as he didn't want the United States to appear implicated in a failed attempt. Later, when Diem and Nhu are assassinated, he states that he feels that "we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it".
The plans for the resolution that resulted from the Gulf of Tonkin Incident were formulated in May, 1964. The actual "incident" occurred in July, 1964, when the USS Maddox received a single round of machine gun fire from 3 North Vietnamese Patrol Boats (who had fired torpedoes and machine guns) whilst chasing South Vietnamese commando's who had just carried out a raid on 2 North Vietnamese military bases under the CIA's Operation Plan 34A. The USS Maddox was 10 miles off the coast, supporting the commando raids.
US Navy planes then attacked the Patrol Boats, sinking 1 of them.
The United States warned Hanoi against any further actions, then continued supporting the commando raids along the coast of North Vietnam. A thunderstorm was mistaken for a torpedo attack, and the USS Maddox and USS C Turner Joy opened fire on several pre-selected targets. Although doubting the veracity of the 'torpedo' attack, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended carrying out retaliatory bombing raids against North Vietnam. Thus began the fully overt involvement of the United States in Vietnam's ongoing conflict.
A long post, but basically the regime that 'invited' United States' involvement was an artificially created one. This is not to belittle the efforts of those who took part in the War (I have many friends who did active tours there), but merely to point out that the involvement occurred through missed opportunities, ulterior motives and misrepresentations at many levels.
I see some disturbing parallels with the ongoing involvement of the Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the use of false premises being used, coupled with a seeming lack of seeking alternatives to direct military intervention.

wolfix · #70 03-12.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by EoinC

The United States was 'invited' into Vietnam in the same way that the USSR was 'invited' into Afghanistan. An invitation from a puppet Government installed and dependent upon the 'invitees' does not count as a Nation calling for help. Ngo Dinh Diem was a very corrupt puppet who's power only existed through the overt and covert assistance of the United States. It was he who refused to allow the 1956 unified elections (that were called for in the Accords of the Geneva Convention of 1954) to proceed. The United States opposed the 1956 reunification elections, believing (with good reason) that Ho Chi Minh would win (how democratic is that?).
When Ho Chi Minh sort to establish Vietnam as an independent sovereign Nation at the close of WWII (having been abandoned by the French), he quoted the United States' Constitution a proposed Constitution (supplied by the OSS, I think) in his Declaration of Independence speach of Sept, 1945.
France, having worked in conjunction with the Japanese in Indochina for part of WWII, sort to re-establish control over Vietnam following the defeat of the Japanese. The French released and re-armed 1700 Japanese POW's to help them fight against the Vietminh. In the period from 1950 to 1954, the United States input $3 Billion into the French fight to regain colonial rule, and provided 80% of the supplies used by the French.
Ho Chi Minh had been supported by President Roosevelt during the campaign against the Japanese occupiers (who shared adminstrative duties with the remaining French), and was an avid Americanophile who repeatedly appealed to President Truman for recognition of Vietnam's right to exist as an independent Nation. He requested that Vietnam be treated in the same manner as the Philippines.
Here are some quotes from The Pentagon Papers:
"...Ho had built the Viet Minh into the only Vietnam-wide political organization capapble of effective resistance to either the Japanese or the French. He was the only Vietnamese wartime leader with a national following, and he assured himself wider fealty among the Vietnamese people when in August-September, 1945, he overthrew the Japanese...established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and staged receptions for in-coming allied occupation forces....For a few weeks in September, 1945, Vietnam was-- for the first and only time in its modern history--free of foreign domination, and united from north to south under Ho Chi Minh."

[p.461, US Defense Department study of the Vietnam war, from _The Pentagon Papers_]

"I wish to invite the attention of your Excellency for strictly humanitarian reasons to following matter. Two million Vietnamese died of starvation during winter of 1944 and spring 1945 because of the starvation policy of French who seized and stored until it rotted all available rice....Three-fourths of cultivated land was flooded in summer 1945, which was followed by a severe drought; of normal harvest five-sixths was lost....Many people are starving....Unless great world powers and international relief organizations bring us immediate assistance we face imminent catastrophe...."

[p.461, Ho Chi Minh, letter to the UN and President Truman, who did not reply, 1945-1946]
This all fell on deaf ears as France had pressured the United States to support it's claim on re-establishing control of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh's agreement to accept Soviet aid did not occur until July, 1955. The United States had begun shipping direct military aid to Saigon in January, 1955 in preparation for fighting against the reunification plan established at the 1954 Geneva Convention. In October, 1955, Bao Dai was ousted from power and Diem was installed with a lot of help from the United States. Diem was advised by Col. Lansdale, attached to the CIA, on how to go about extending and reinforcing his control. The Diem 'Government' was one of the World's finest examples of rampant nepotism at work. In 1955, Diem set about stealing land from Buddhist land owners and giving it to his Catholic supporters. He instituted a campaign of torture and execution against dissenters, aided by his brother, Nhu.
President Eisenhower pledged the support of the United States, including further military aid, to assisting this despot in carrying out his work. Eisenhower labeled Diem as the "Miracle Man" of Asia. President Johnson called Diem the "Winston Churchill of Asia".
In 1963, following the disturbing self-immolations by Buddhist monks, protesting against the violent crackdowns by Nhu's security forces on fellow Buddhists, Nhu's wife described the burnings as "barbecues".
In 1963, the United States realised that the "Miracle Man" was more trouble than he was worth, and debated supporting a coup against him. After a period of on-again / off-again deals, in October, 1963, the United States agreed with General Duon Van "Big" Minh that it will continue to support the South Vietnamese Government if he stages a coup, and will not interfere to support Diem. President Kennedy sought confirmation from Ambassador Lodge that the coup would be successful as he didn't want the United States to appear implicated in a failed attempt. Later, when Diem and Nhu are assassinated, he states that he feels that "we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it".
The plans for the resolution that resulted from the Gulf of Tonkin Incident were formulated in May, 1964. The actual "incident" occurred in July, 1964, when the USS Maddox received a single round of machine gun fire from 3 North Vietnamese Patrol Boats (who had fired torpedoes and machine guns) whilst chasing South Vietnamese commando's who had just carried out a raid on 2 North Vietnamese military bases under the CIA's Operation Plan 34A. The USS Maddox was 10 miles off the coast, supporting the commando raids.
US Navy planes then attacked the Patrol Boats, sinking 1 of them.
The United States warned Hanoi against any further actions, then continued supporting the commando raids along the coast of North Vietnam. A thunderstorm was mistaken for a torpedo attack, and the USS Maddox and USS C Turner Joy opened fire on several pre-selected targets. Although doubting the veracity of the 'torpedo' attack, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended carrying out retaliatory bombing raids against North Vietnam. Thus began the fully overt involvement of the United States in Vietnam's ongoing conflict.
A long post, but basically the regime that 'invited' United States' involvement was an artificially created one. This is not to belittle the efforts of those who took part in the War (I have many friends who did active tours there), but merely to point out that the involvement occurred through missed opportunities, ulterior motives and misrepresentations at many levels.
I see some disturbing parallels with the ongoing involvement of the Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the use of false premises being used, coupled with a seeming lack of seeking alternatives to direct military intervention.

And your point is ?

EoinC · #71 03-13.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...Why Pol Pot? Cambodia refused the aid being offered to them by the USA...

Hate to burst the bubble, but Pol Pot received significant support from the West (including Britain sending 'off-duty' SAS personnel to provide training / weapons whilst Pol Pot was happily based in Trat Province in South-East Thailand. Whilst many in the World were calling for Pol Pot to face a War Crimes Tribunal, the West provided food, weapons and training for him to continue mounting insurgency raids on Hun Senn's provisional Government. Pol Pot was living in Thailand under the protection of the same Governments that would have you believe they abhorred his genocidal actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...The domino thing ...... Next to Vietnam is a country called Laos.... Went communist in 1975...

I must admit that Laos remains one of my favourite Countries. I first went there in 1986, and have been back a few times since. If that is what you consider a fallen domino to be, it seems to have done fairly well, despite being the most heavily bombed Nation in the World. If the opportunity arises, you should take a trip there just to see how hospitable people who've had the ****e bombed out of them can be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...On the other side of Vietnam is Thailand..... It's claim to fame is that is is the only SE Asia country never to be over run by Europeans. Of course,it never became communistic either. The reason ....... American aid helped put in a governemnt that was anti-communist. And a financial success that other countries in SE Asia hope to acheive...

Hmmm. Not quite blameless in the scheme of things. Thailand allowed the Japanese pretty much free access during WWII and, apart from the actions at a village level, did little to help stave off the atrocities that happened on the Thai-Burma railway. It has allowed the French and the Americans to carry out military actions against neighbours and near-neighbours in response to political, geographical and financial reward. Thailand has carried out a campaign of suppression against communists in the South, and now carries out similar campaigns against Muslim separatists in the same area (Naritiwat and surrounds). Again, I have lived for quite some time in Thailand (and shall probably move back there in a few years if the Gods are willing), but there is plenty of bad to go with the good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...Of course we have the Philippines which never really had a communist attempt. Of course the US has a really strong military presence there. That may be a small reason...

I don't know what books you've been reading, Wolfix, but the Philippines has experienced NPA activity for many years. Many areas are technically under NPA control (as opposed to Government control) and many rural people have a great sympathy for the NPA. You may only get to hear about the Muslim rebels of the South, but the NPA are widespread, particularly in the North of Luzon. Again, I enjoy the Philippines and have worked in areas the are under NPA control without any associated problems occurring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...And we have Mayasia.....Never really had a problem with communism...

Wrong book again, Wolfix. Ever hear of the 'Malaya Emergency'? It was a big enough deal for the British that they had to call on the Gurkha's to come and fight their fight for them as they tried to retain their colonial stranglehold on the rubber and tin resources. It was a big enough deal for the United States that, fearing that Sukarno would allow similar rebellion to occur in neighbouring Indonesia, they backed a coup by Suharto (and his wife, the aptly named Madam 10%) that resulted in massive bloodshed, with the river at Surabaya running red with the blood of the many 1,000's of ethnic Chinese who were slaughtered on Suharto's implication that they were communist insurgents. Suharto turned out to be a rogue (not that Sukarno wasn't), creating one of the most corrupt Governments of modern times. In a sign of tacit approval, the United States allowed Suharto to proceed with the 1975 invasion of sovereign Nation, East Timor, as long as it was delayed until after President Ford had left Indonesia. Another nice piece of domino playing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...And of course....Taiwan ...... Do you think being a American ally might have kept the Chinese at home??? Think back several years ago...

The people of Taiwan are a lot closer to Mainland China than you might believe. Some of the worship of Chiang Kai-shek seems to have wained over the course of a couple of generations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

...So there was a Domino Effect to a certain degree. And with the million South vietnamese the Viet Cong killed after the USA pulled out, and the Pol=Pot problem , maybe the American mindset of "The domino principle" was a little exagerated. Right......

I'm not sure where those numbers come from, but Vietnam was a wholly avoidable conflict. If the same principles of democracy that we hold dear, had been applied to the original appeals to removing the colonial shackles imposed by France, the sequential wars need not have happened. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia all seem to have reached a status quo that allows them to participate in the internatonal community, despite the long-standing exile periods they had to go through. The dominoes seem to have stopped largely by themselves.
Communism only arises as a veritable force in places where there is enormous disparity between the haves and the have-nots. If the World seeks to protect itself from communism, the best way is to make sure that the have-nots have enough for them not to see risking their lives as being the only way to survive. Nobody with a full belly and cable TV is going to get off their **** and risk getting shot in the fight for greater equality.

EoinC · #72 03-13.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

And your point is ?

You claimed that the United States was there at the behest of the South Vietnamese Government.
My point is that the United States effectively created that Government (and the invitation) and promoted reneging on the Accords of the 1954 Geneva Convention.
The invitation, if it can be called that, was staged - as was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The thunderstorm over the Gulf of Tonkin was equivalent to GWB's WMD premise. The hawks were waiting for a green light, and actually made a false start. Fortunately for them, there were plenty of 'eyewitnesses' (who, strangely, were not present) to provide verification of a multitude of torpedoes being cunningly disguised as lightning.
The whole deal was more about denying democracy than promoting democracy. The reunification election had to be stopped at all costs (and it did cost a lot) as those darstedly newly-democratised Vietnamese were going to vote for the wrong person!
Following WWII, members of the OSS campaigned fairly hard for recognition of the Vietminh and their independent Nation, but the fellows in the Whitehouse chose to back France, anxious to regain Euro-centric control over lands that the Japanese had just released.

ptlwp · #73 03-13.-2006

Go again and read Edwin Black's "IBM and the Holocaust" should you want to know the truth about dealing with and doing business with Hitler in the 20's and 30's.

It wasn't just business as usual; you are just hiding your head in the sand if that is what you want to believe.

Business as usual, my ass Prescott has plenty of blood on his hands, as does IBM.

Hypnospin · #74 03-14.-2006

the hailliburton of their day, they were then.

don't forget the us fruit companies behind the takeovers in latin america in the same time frame and much the same fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptlwp

Go again and read Edwin Black's "IBM and the Holocaust" should you want to know the truth about dealing with and doing business with Hitler in the 20's and 30's.

It wasn't just business as usual; you are just hiding your head in the sand if that is what you want to believe.

Business as usual, my ass Prescott has plenty of blood on his hands, as does IBM.

ptlwp · #75 03-14.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypnospin

the hailliburton of their day, they were then.

don't forget the us fruit companies behind the takeovers in latin america in the same time frame and much the same fashion.

The Holocaust had some particularly unusual features, I would have to say.

Of course, war is good business for the minority and always has been.

Someone has to make mustard gas, Agent Orange, Napalm, or Zyklon B, or whatever the poison du jour is, food that is inedible, something to rip off the system, Halliburton, and make life miserable for the masses. while a very few at the top of the ****pile, get away with murder.

As Goering said: "All you have to do is make the masses afraid" You can do anything. This works in anykind of government.

How true.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode