The American War: The US In Vietnam

I points out a pattern which has continued to this day. I suggest everyone read it, then research other information regarding war profiteering, and draw their own conclusions....War Is A Racket...always has been, still is...

 

Sure, read it I agree.

And lot's of other stuff as well.

Do not cherry pick and ignore everything else the way conspiracy nuts do

 

I agree...

 

Americans were under attack during Barbary wars.

The people of Iraq or Afghanistan did not threaten the USA in any way.

 

In both cases we were attacked and threatened and still are by islam.

Interesting that even the Barbary coast pirates were muslims.

Some things never change

 

The U.S. military wasn't defeated on the battlefields in Vietnam but on the streets of America with the help of the counter culture movement.

Gen. Giap in his biography said after getting his butt whipped big time during the Tet Offensive of 68, "the American soldier couldn't be beaten on the battlefield."

Of the 58,000 who were killed during the Vietnam War, 10,786 were killed in non combat accidents.

Serving in the U.S. military even during peace time is a serious, dangerous deadly business.

FYI:
During the first year of the Reagan administration there were no American troops in combat but 2,392 soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen died or were killed, 1,556 while training for war.

During the Iraq war, the year with the highest casualties (2007) 1,953 soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen died or were killed. 847 were killed in combat.

 

Iraq was the most secular government in the region when we attacked them. Most of the atrocities Sadaam was charged with was in keeping fundamentalist whack jobs at bay. By attacking Iraq, we assured that the region would be unstable for generations to come. The whole plan was hatched by oil barons in Texas and Saudi Arabia to drive up the price of oil and their war profiteering cronies like Cheney and his cohorts at Halliburton to create a cash cow for themselves. Like General Butler said: "War Is A Racket". Some things never change

 

Gen. Butler was referring to the Banana Wars. In some respect he was right.

There are four types of wars, "protective" (WW ll as an example) "punitive," "pacification," and "profiteering," (the Banana Wars)

The majority of America's wars and military actions were punitive wars. "Crush and Bolt" Punishing foreign nations for ****ing with America or American citizens. Send in the Marines who broke things, killed some people (Crush) and then return back to their ships (Bolt) leaving a message, **** with America again, we'll be back. No regime change or nation building.

From 1800 to 1934 U.S. Marines have landed on foreign shores 180 times. The vast majority of these small wars were punitive action wars. How many know that the first Korean War wasn't in 1950 but was in 1871, a punitive action war.

Now Smedley Butler made the claim that "war was a racket" referring to the Banana wars which were mostly profiteering wars and he said it before WW ll.

Gen. Holland Smith, Gen Vandegrift, Chetsy Puller, Marine Raiders Col's. Edson and Carlson all said the lessons learned during the Banana Wars were a direct result how we defeated the Japanese in the Southwest Pacific during WW ll.

It was the U.S. Marines who invented "Close Air Support" during the Banana Wars and German military attaches who were observing U.S. Marines during the Banana Wars caught on and CAS would be incorporated into "blitzkrieg."

I'm a conservative not a neocon. Neocons are liberals and like all liberals, they like nation building and have no problem using the U.S. military for nation building. Nation building wars would fall under "pacification wars."

I believe that the U.S. military should only be used for defensive and punitive action wars not for pacification or profiteering wars.

 

Drunk driving deaths surpassed the entire American death toll in Viet Nam every year, for a comparison.

I've read it and far more; I'm not interested in sources you use for confirmation biases, just objective examinations of the entire picture, not appeals to emotion and false assumptions of some moral authority hypocritically using dead soldiers as something you have some sort of concern for. You're just throwing out propaganda, and you have no idea if what you're saying is true or not, you just like the sound of it. Many of those crafting foreign policy are picked because they have first hand experience with the regions and many cases the players in that region, and in the U.S. the majority of that knowledge pool comes from international businessmen, same as it does for every other country around the world; whether you like that or not is not a relevant point.

Re deaths and casualties in Viet Nam look up drunk driving deaths and injuries from 1950 through 1973 for a sense of proportion, since you like to selectively use the dead just to feed a propaganda screed; American streets and highways were far more dangerous in terms of 'causalities' than Viet Nam, so how do you feel about banning alcohol? I don't drink so it doesn't bother in the least if booze were outlawed. Even the very inadequate and loophole ridden 18th Amendment had a positive effect on on the epidemic drunkenness in the U.S., despite all the cherry picking used to claim it was a 'failure'; a per capita consumption rate three times the rate of Europe's wasn't reached again until years after repeal. The domestic violence epidemic that brought on the Prohibition Movement in the first place rose again right along with it.

 

Yes. 'Neutrality' has always been a myth throughout our history. Other countries don't seem to want to acknowledge it, so better us than them when it comes to who gets to be the hegemon power. We should do a better job of making those who benefit from that pay a bigger share of it, no doubt.

 

I concur 100%.

I've read almost 200 personal diaries and journals kept by Americans from the early 1800's to 1900. From what I read by the late 1800's and the early 1900's, half of America was walking around in a state of inebriation.

How bad was it ? A typical western mining town like Tombstone had a population of 7,000 and 110 saloons. In the industrial cities in the north and on the east coast where ever you went you saw a saloons. Even in the residential neighborhoods you would find neighborhood saloons.

The 18th Amendment allowed America to sober up and when the 18th Amendment was repealed the states set age limits on who could drink and hours when liquor could be sold. Before the 18th Amendment there were no such regulations.

 

I am fairly liberal on many issues but never have supported Nation Builders and especially war profiteers no matter what political party they happen to belong to. That's why I had a particular dislike for the Bush/Clinton/Bush crew.

 

Don't tell me you are another teatottler....

 

Nope, but I've seen way to many waste their lives away with alcohol or actually drink themselves to death. It's really sad.

When someone is having troubles, resorting to alcohol has only made it worse.

As I have gotten older I have transitioned from beer to aged scotch.

I don't drink to get drunk.

 

Good, I have also toned it way down and like fine red wine and Irish and American Whiskey now. I rarely drink beer anymore either. I don't trust people who do not drink.

 

G.W Bush ? Donald J. Trump ?

 

GW had to quit because he was a fall down puker. Trump is a ninny. I like people that can handle their booze...

 

Invited by the leader you put in place but not invited by the leader of the other side.

 

Apart from 60,00 defeats in body bags and running away, you clearly won.

 

First, I don't give a rats about the 60,000 dead - They were an invading force killed by the defenders, no issue for me there but your government of the time holds blame.

As for communism, it's rubbish I wouldn't defend for 50 million quid stuffed into my bank and a promise of all the red hot chicks my tongue could handle.

The fact I dislike US foreign policy doesn't mean I support communism, but narrow minds tend to think in a very black and white manner, so you tend to think in a very limited way.

I hope I haven't made you look or feel stupid in clarifying this point.

 

The other side did not count as it was not his concern

 

MY OPINION.
Vietnam erupted while I was in high school.
We had had a near apocalypse with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Communism was described as a cancer spreading around the world.
The prevalent foreign policy was the "Domino Theory" - which meant as one country fell to communism, the odds that neighboring countries would also fall would go up, so we had to "contain" communism.
I knew some refugees from the Hungarian revolt of 1956, and I hated communism.
I had a world map on the wall of my bedroom - I saw where Vietnam was, and thought they (the commies) were pushing South to get Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, and Australia.
I felt if I enlisted in the Marines, the odds were very high I would be sent to Vietnam (Boy, was I right!).
I had a lot of time to think and observe while inVietnam:
1) The average Vietnamese had no idea of Communism - I think some thought the earth was riding thru space on the back of a giant turtle. They were worried where the next bowl of rice was coming from, not politics.
2) The VC were not Chinese (or commie) pawns, they wanted a unified Vietnam free from foreigners (French, Japanese, or US - all foreigners, including Soviets and Chinese). They were using the commies for support, and the commies were using them for a proxy war.
3) I realized that communism was not really a threat to the US. Communism did not give the US inner city slums, rivers that caught fire, air you would cough from breathing (remember, this was pre-EPA) bridges and roads that were falling apart... There would be no nuclear war, because the Commies knew they wouldn't survive, either.
McGovern was my candidate. He said (basically) - Look, we are not winning in Vietnam. Let's get our POWs back and leave. Nixon said "No! We will have peace with honor." He also said he had a "secret plan" for peace. Thousands more lives were lost under Nixon before we got our POWs back and said the hell with it - just as McGovern had said we should, years earlier.
Now there are McDonalds in Vietnam. We made it safe for capitalism - there are lots of clothes and furniture made there now and imported to the US.

WHAT A WASTE.

 

It was a dictatorship, and secular in the sense Turkey is 'secular', i.e. culturally Islamic and therefore a cesspool of brutality and corruption. Being 'the most secular govt. in the ME' doesn't mean anything, like being a 'moderate Nazi' is a meaningless distinction.

Nation building does work, it takes a long term committment to succeed and requires one or two generations to achieve. We were administering Japan and Germany for over 30 years after occupation; they are now two of the most prosperous countries and economies in the world now. wouldn't be the case if it weren't for 'nation building'. The U.S. doesn't have that kind of political will any more, too degraded by the instant gratification mentality and mindless self-indulgence and not even a real nation itself any more.

 

You realise the Soviet missiles were put into Cuba to counter the US missiles stationed in Turkey the previous year, don't you?
As usual, the US created a problem and went on to tell the world how evil the nasty Soviets were but neglected to mention it was the US that started the ball rolling.

 

Given America got its arse kicked out of Vietnam and the nearby countries didn't 'fall' to communism, it appears the policy was a load of old bollocks.