Quote:
racerx said:
Our reason for being there was a plea from the then president of S. Vietnam to lend assistance in the form of military advisors. This was in 1962. JFK sent them in. I have the LIFE magazines where they are pictured training and conducting missions.
No one is denying that the US first entered South Vietnam under the auspices of being 'advisors'. But the real US purpose was to fight communism even though these events were played out thousands of miles away where there was no actual threat to mainland USA.
When I said that you're rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, I meant that you are arguing over trivialities about 'were they invited' or 'did they go there anyway' etc etc. No one is arguing that with you.
The 'Titanic' reference is because the entire venture was an unmitigated calamity. Surely you can see this 30 years after the event?
Quote:
racerx said:
As to biased TV coverage I am referring to live (in that day) coverage by the 3 news networks, journalists who reported what they saw. Much more graphic and more real than any coverage shown of Iraq. This live fire daily video was shown every night in the 60's.
You're missing my point. No one is arguing with you about the TV and film footage you saw or the magazines you read. The point is that dispassionate historical analysis usually happens years after the events have finished when the events can be assessed in the cold light of day not in the heat of the moment. As such, one should learn one's history from dispassionate analysis not from live footage.
Quote:
racerx said:
There was no oil, no gold, no resources of any kind. Just a people being attacked by evil communists. To say what the US tried to do was a selfish exercise just shows your anti US bias, imo.
You're utterly mistaken about the history of your own country's foreign actions. I love the USA and its people. I am certainly not anti US. I am however critical of US governments and US foreign policy whenever they have been wrong IMO. That's not the same as being anti US. It's called exercising one's critical faculty.
The statements you have made about the 'unselfish' motives of the US are IMO extremely naive (because, I assume, you have simply swallowed uncritically the US government propaganda of that time which was designed to get people to support US actions in the Vietnam War). I humbly suggest you read historical analysis of the real motives of US actions during the Cold War and how the Domino Theory was, incorrectly, a fundamental plank of US foreign policy thinking at that time.
Quote:
racerx said:
As to WW 11, did you ever hear of the lend lease program. FDR did everything he could for britain against germany, but knew he could not get congress to declare war, BECAUSE THE US DOES NOT LIKE WAR.
Yes, I am all too aware of lend lease. It took Britain over 50 years to repay the capital loaned and the interest that had accrued. Lend Lease wasn't aid. It was a loan.
Quote:
racerx said:
The US has had to be the world's policeman because no one else would or could. Without US action in this past century the world would be so different. Most of the map right now would be ruled from germania.
Our actions were only self-centered to the point of not wanting to be the only FREE ones left in a world dominated by either Nazi or Commie Totalitarians.
I'm not getting drawn into a futile discussion on the role of the US in global politics and how the creation of the UN and, in particular, the UN Security Council was deliberately hamstrung so that the 5 permanent members of the Security Council could act freely with impunity since they could veto any move against them. That's why the UN is so very much weaker than it could, and should, be.
The 5 permanent members can act individually or via the UN to stop a crisis affecting 'international peace and security'. But in practice, they only do so when it is in their national interest or that of their allies. They also block action by the UN if it hurts their national interest or that of their allies.
As such, UN action only happens when the interests of the permanent 5 members (or their close allies) is not affected.
It is a systemic flaw in the UN deliberately put there by the victorious countries of WW2 (US, UK, France, Russia and China) to keep control over every other country without being controlled themselves. It's very clever but fundamentally unethical.
We would therefore not need a US policeman if these systemic flaws had not been designed into the UN hierarchy.
I know you won't like that but it's my sincere opinion. The world needed security after WW2 but now it just needs to be a more fair playing field. The UN is powerless when it needs to act. The UN is no longer fit for purpose (as it is currently constituted) IMHO.
We need to remove the veto of just one country and leave it to majority voting in the Security Council. We believe in democracy after all, don't we?
Plus I would widen it so that we could consider the addition of stable democracies like Brazil, India, Germany, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, South Africa, Australia. It would make the world a fairer place less dominated by the historical victors of WW2.
That's it on this issue for me. I'm all done here. I'm sorry if my tone is a little strident today. I've had a fairly cr*p day so my patience levels are lower than usual. So I offer my sincere apologies if my choice of words causes any offence. Any offence is entirely unintended and I love you all really
(even nberry
)
Have a great weekend
All the best,
Easy
