Originally posted by bluerev002+Dec 26 2003, 10:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bluerev002 @ Dec 26 2003, 10:18 PM) I agree with this one, although it did have a little bit to do with the Vietcongs setting an example to others in the region. [/b]
Yes, you are quite right there. In fact, that was the problem with Castro as well, I'll go into a little bit of depth on that case below.
But U.S. losses in Vietnam and in the Bay of Pigs made it possible for other opressed people throughout the world to feel like they could fight back against imperilaist nations. The US rulers knew this (and still know this) and so I think their motives did have to do with a domino theory of sorts.
I was arguing against the actual Domino Theory. You know, the supposed threat of Communism one. This above statement has truth in it, and that sort of worry of influence goes deeper. Not just the struggly against aggressors and imperialists, but sucessful (And apparently opposing) ideological changes. Like to quote Arthur Schlesinger for an example in the case of Cuba: "the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands." And that was a threat because in Latin America "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favours the propertied classes, [and] the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." Defiance of U.S. businesses and nationalization are part of this as well. Castro is an example of both of these factors.
Why would the UK and US rulers not let a former French colony have it's independence even when it was clear that the French could not win? This is because they knew that their (US and UK) hold over other people would also be in jepardy.
That's not so much the case as it is simply to having control over the Vietnamese.
I do not think the US rulers were concerned (in the case of Vietnam) with communist domino theory as much as they were just concerned that it would send a message to other opressed people in the world that the US can not control their territories.
I agree completely with this statement.
I think if it were not for vietnam and the "vietnam-syndrome" then the US would have done much more than merarly fund and train paramilitaries and terrorists in Latin AMerica and the Middle East, but because of Vietnam, the US could not just openly go into other countries for obvioulsy imperialist motives.
First off, do you know what the "Vietanam-syndrome" is? (I just want to make sure for clarification and correct interpretation of your statement.) Also, in the case of the views of its own people, the U.S. apparently never goes into other countries for obvious imperialist motives. If it did, they wouldn't be able to carry the operations out. That's the point of propaganda, the U.S. isn't going to admit it's helping the Salvadoran army torture human rights groups. And the U.S. did have direct operations in other countries. Those operations could often be carried out in almost complete secrecy, in which the details are only found out many years later. There are plenty of options.
And the loss in Vietnam for the USG did create a domino effect... in early 1968, the tet offensive, showed the world that regular people could fight back against the biggest military force in the world. Later in that year there were massive popular figtht-backs all throughout the world: Chicago, Paris, Mexico City, the eastern Block countries and so on.
Honestly, do you believe those had anything to do with the Vietnamese specifically? There will always be people to fight back. I'm not saying that they can't be influenced from the fighting of others, and perhaps some were influenced by the conflict in Vietnam, but I think you are exagerating a bit. Who's to say they weren't influenced by Martin Luther King? Or Fidel Castro? Or maybe they were influenced by the Tran Dynasty of Vietnam.
All this relates to what is going on now... the US is trying to reassert its power to go in anywhere it wants to set terms and conditions for other countries. But the international anti-war movement and the Iraqi resistance movements are showing that people can still fight back against the US or other repressive systems.
And have U.S. actions been halted to much of an extent? Just look at the amount of adventures the U.S. has had, they're quite numerous.
[email protected] 27 2003, 05:31 AM
I say fuck the U$ troops. Honestly. I gotta agree with Urban Rubble. I absolutely don't agree with the idea of camps and torture, but that's what the troops want! Ask any soldier and they'll tell you that they are happy to go to war. I remember an interview I saw before the war with Iraq started. The troops were cheering and happy to go to war. I am sure they didn't think different back in nam. So to hell with them, that's what they want, that's what they are looking for.
They don't feel bad for shooting an innocent human being, so why should we feel for them.'
You do realize you are upholding massive generalizations and prejudices?
sigh, im not trying to justify it, what the fuck were the US troops supposed to do, well were surrounded, with nowhere to go, lets just give up. If the US troops gave up, they were fucked, all in all the troops were fucked. I dont like nam, but i like the troops. Dont forget your precious vietcong rigged babies with explosives,tortured US troops,mowed down civilians, on Tet they also attacked universities. I respect the VC, but i also respect the soldiers.
Sigh, I'm not trying to justify the above Vietnamese actions, but don't forget your precious U.S. soldiers poisoning crops, murdering peasents, driving people into concentration camps, using torture, raping women, and causing birth defects and diseases with the use of chemical weapons.
Possibly one of the most pointless wars ever, for all those years America couldn't accept that the people actually wanted the leftist leaders of the North.
All the money spent in the war was enough to build everyone in 'Nam a 3 bedroom house!
How was it pointless? I am shocked, I would think people that call the U.S. "imperialists" would never describe their wars as "pointless." That's blatant contradiction.