Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Do some Americans still defend the Vietnam War?
fucking hilarious.
Hehe, I was reading this thread, thinking the exact same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
do you actually know anything about the vietnam war? being unpopular doesn't mean it was without just cause.
Me being so uneducated and all, could you please tell me the "cause" that justified the Vietnam war?
Posted by Krypton on Jul-27-2008 18:34:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Do some Americans still defend the Vietnam War?
fucking hilarious.
That really is beyond me. Even though South Vietnam was a corrupt right wing government, and America had no business in Vietnam's civil war. It doesn't matter to these people.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-27-2008 21:05:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Do some Americans still defend the Vietnam War?
fucking hilarious.
how am i defending the Vietnam war?
Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Jul-27-2008 21:11:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
That really is beyond me. Even though South Vietnam was a corrupt right wing government, and America had no business in Vietnam's civil war. It doesn't matter to these people.
it's hypocrisy at its best. As an historian, I find it interesting that many Americans go on about European nation's past colonialism yet they are essentially the main western imperialist nation and have been since WW2. It's just imperialism in a more modern form.
Eisenhower was an interesting guy. He condemned the British and French for trying to take back the Suez Canal in 1956 when Nasser closed it off, but then he was all for American interference in Vietnam.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-27-2008 23:07:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
it's hypocrisy at its best. As an historian, I find it interesting that many Americans go on about European nation's past colonialism yet they are essentially the main western imperialist nation and have been since WW2. It's just imperialism in a more modern form.
Eisenhower was an interesting guy. He condemned the British and French for trying to take back the Suez Canal in 1956 when Nasser closed it off, but then he was all for American interference in Vietnam.
Here's the difference. Nassar nationalized the Suez Canal. A LEFTIST action. Vietnam's LEFTIST revolution threatened a RIGHT WING government that couldn't even support itself without foreign intervention. We could also look at the Nicaraguan Civil War. Even though the people overwhelming supported a left wing leadership, the CIA gave support to the RIGHT WING Contras who are guilty of massacres and other war crimes. Just as long as they're right wingers, war aggression/intervention/war crimes is A OK! The Baathist Party of Iraq? Socialist to the core. Iran? Certainly not more leftist than the Iraqi Baath Party, but certainly no liberal capitalist economy. It's been socialists versus capitalists, and it still is today!
Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Jul-27-2008 23:23:
well personally I don't see a reason why democratic nations can't be both capitalist and socialist. Canada is a good example of a free market with strong social programs and we're doing ok right now. Just like the US though, we're losing all those high paying manufacturing jobs as we convert to a service economy (ugh) but I dont understand why socialism is such an evil word in the United States!
You're right about Nasser closing off the Suez being a leftist action, but the justification for Ike's stance against it was that it was more imperialist interfering on Britain and France's part (which it certainly was), while Vietnam was essentially the same thing
Posted by Krypton on Jul-28-2008 00:23:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
well personally I don't see a reason why democratic nations can't be both capitalist and socialist. Canada is a good example of a free market with strong social programs and we're doing ok right now. Just like the US though, we're losing all those high paying manufacturing jobs as we convert to a service economy (ugh) but I dont understand why socialism is such an evil word in the United States!
You're right about Nasser closing off the Suez being a leftist action, but the justification for Ike's stance against it was that it was more imperialist interfering on Britain and France's part (which it certainly was), while Vietnam was essentially the same thing
Here in America, during the Cold War, ESPECIALLY the 1950's, propaganda greatly instilled a sense of fear of "socialism" and "leftists", as communists who wanted to overthrow the government. Since then, there is this sub-conscience fear of anything thought of as "socialist". SOCIALIZED MEDICINE...Oooooooo Oh noooooez!!! I think it's a ploy by the insurance corporations to scare people away from it. They don't want to socialize medicine, but they want to socialize tens of BILLIONS of dollars worth of financial losses by banks run wild! Hypocrisy is ripe in contemporary conservatism. (Emphasis on contemporary)
Posted by jerZ07002 on Jul-28-2008 05:14:
quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
Me being so uneducated and all, could you please tell me the "cause" that justified the Vietnam war?
i'll take you for your word about being uneducated since i wasn't even talking to you.
anyway, here it goes: communists in the north and sympathizers in the south engaging in an armed struggle against the legitimate government of the south. the south vietnamese government requested help from the americans. that is a justification regardless of your position on the matter.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jul-28-2008 05:21:
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
i'll take you for your word about being uneducated since i wasn't even talking to you.
anyway, here it goes: communists in the north and sympathizers in the south engaging in an armed struggle against the legitimate government of the south. the south vietnamese government requested help from the americans. that is a justification regardless of your position on the matter.
yeah, i tend to agree. the US' behaviour whilst in vietnam is another matter entirely of course.
you don't hear too many people complaining about evil western imperialism in the korean war. perhaps it just feels too rude to do so in the face of (regular) north korean famine?
Posted by jerZ07002 on Jul-28-2008 05:46:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, i tend to agree. the US' behaviour whilst in vietnam is another matter entirely of course.
you don't hear too many people complaining about evil western imperialism in the korean war. perhaps it just feels too rude to do so in the face of (regular) north korean famine?
it amazes me how many people have a severe inability to make these distinctions. i don't agree with the decision to fight with the south vietnamese, however, that doesn't mean there wasn't a justification for doing so.
Posted by The17sss on Jul-28-2008 06:50:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
it's hypocrisy at its best. As an historian, I find it interesting that many Americans go on about European nation's past colonialism yet they are essentially the main western imperialist nation and have been since WW2. It's just imperialism in a more modern form.
I know you guys are past this already, but I just read it. I think there's a difference because the U.S. is not involved in "colonialism" like the europeans of the past. The U.S. is uniquely different in that we are the only country in the history of the world NOT to claim any land from the country defeated in battle. Not Korea, Germany, Japan, or wherever else. Anyway, all this talk of Vietnam and Pol Pot, different regimes and political ideals that lead to all that maddness makes me think of this clip by Carl Sagan... starting at 1:22 into it, things really get put into perspective.
Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Jul-28-2008 07:21:
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I know you guys are past this already, but I just read it. I think there's a difference because the U.S. is not involved in "colonialism" like the europeans of the past. The U.S. is uniquely different in that we are the only country in the history of the world NOT to claim any land from the country defeated in battle. Not Korea, Germany, Japan, or wherever else. Anyway, all this talk of Vietnam and Pol Pot, different regimes and political ideals that lead to all that maddness makes me think of this clip by Carl Sagan... starting at 1:22 into it, things really get put into perspective.
but modern imperialism is different than imperialism before the Second World War. And do you not factor in the conquest of the Native Americans as an imperial venture? It fits the definition to a tee. And what of the gains during the Spanish American War? Mckinley was a blatant imperial expanionist at the turn of the 20th Century.
Anyway, American imperialism is based on economic influence, rather than direct control. the United States didn't need to take control of defeated nations (although they pretty much ran Japan for the first two decades after WW2) and take their resources when they could just export their own products and services to the rest of the world and make a fortune, which is precisely what the US has done over the last 60 years.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jul-28-2008 07:43:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
but modern imperialism is different than imperialism before the Second World War. And do you not factor in the conquest of the Native Americans as an imperial venture? It fits the definition to a tee. And what of the gains during the Spanish American War? Mckinley was a blatant imperial expanionist at the turn of the 20th Century.
Anyway, American imperialism is based on economic influence, rather than direct control. the United States didn't need to take control of defeated nations (although they pretty much ran Japan for the first two decades after WW2) and take their resources when they could just export their own products and services to the rest of the world and make a fortune, which is precisely what the US has done over the last 60 years.
oh bollocks.
imperialism
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
it describes government, or the manner in which a goverment is behaving. its not some catch-all cry you can wave about at anyone exerting influence over another. the mainstay of US power comes from its economic power, which is in the hands of the private sector (which isnt sitting in on executive foreign policy decisions).
what you are talkking about primarily is a billion billion billion individual choices and decisions, made by governments, corporations, private citizens across the globe.
one of the main reasons the US dominates the globe economically is that they were the only industrialised nation that didn't suffer horrific war damage. everyone needed the US for everything. of course power will drawn to a nation like that at that time.
the idea that the US is dominating the world's resources and/or markets because they are 'taking' it in some imperialist action is simply not true.
i would be interested to hear your arguments providing specific examples of US imperialism and the economic and strategic benefits this imperialism has generated, since world wae 2.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-28-2008 08:11:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
but modern imperialism is different than imperialism before the Second World War. And do you not factor in the conquest of the Native Americans as an imperial venture? It fits the definition to a tee. And what of the gains during the Spanish American War? Mckinley was a blatant imperial expanionist at the turn of the 20th Century.
Anyway, American imperialism is based on economic influence, rather than direct control. the United States didn't need to take control of defeated nations (although they pretty much ran Japan for the first two decades after WW2) and take their resources when they could just export their own products and services to the rest of the world and make a fortune, which is precisely what the US has done over the last 60 years.
I would equate it more to multinational corporatism.
Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Jul-28-2008 08:15:
I guess you haven't read much on the American Empire?
and are you really trying to tell me that government doesn't act in accordance to the private sector's wishes? dude...governments are practically slaves to corporations these days.
What do you make of American interference in Cuba and in Central and South America? What of their actions in the Middle East? If that isn't imperialism, the I don't know what is.
You've listed the defintion of the word in its strict historical sense but it has taken on a new meaning in today's world. The phrase "US economic imperialism" is bandied about quite often so I really dont' know where you're coming from here.
oh and this isn't directed at you, Krypton but to the guy above you.
Posted by Dj Smitty20 on Jul-28-2008 08:17:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I would equate it more to multinational corporatism.
yes definitely, but what do you make of the ties between the private sector and government and the influence that's exerted over the other? I'd say that the private sector has a pretty big influence over American politics. Just look at who funds the Republican Party....
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Jul-28-2008 08:57:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i would be interested to hear your arguments providing specific examples of US imperialism and the economic and strategic benefits this imperialism has generated, since world wae 2.
in case you missed it the first time.
Posted by The17sss on Jul-28-2008 15:32:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Just look at who funds the Republican Party....
Dude, the Dems get more of their funding in corporate donations now than the Republicans. This isn't 1984.
You keep blasting out these comments that have no validity, like "unemployment is at its highest level in US history, Iraq is completely unwinable, nobody can afford their mortgages anymore (because of Bush), backdoor drafts are the only way to keep people in the military..." ALL of which can easily be refuted. LOL.. and you question other people on here where they get THEIR news from? I know they get Al Jazeera in Canada but you can check out other sources too Donation link below. I already debunked your other falsehoods earlier but if you want links for those too, I'll provide.
Originally posted by The17sss
The U.S. is uniquely different in that we are the only country in the history of the world NOT to claim any land from the country defeated in battle. Not Korea, Germany, Japan, or wherever else.
the spanish american war the US claimed the phillipines, cuba, and puerto rico. In the mexican-american war the US took from mexico practically the entire western US including arguably our most important state - california. the US is not much different than western europe in that territorial colonialism effectively stopped at the beginning of the 20th century.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-28-2008 18:07:
quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
yes definitely, but what do you make of the ties between the private sector and government and the influence that's exerted over the other? I'd say that the private sector has a pretty big influence over American politics. Just look at who funds the Republican Party....
I call it multinational corporatism. Multinational corporations have no loyalty to country because they have no country. They are essentially a state of their own. They certainly have much more influence than the average well informed citizen. Too much influence if you ask me. Especially within the Republican Party, because they are essentially the party of deregulation and pork barrel spending.
Posted by jerZ07002 on Jul-28-2008 18:37:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I call it multinational corporatism. Multinational corporations have no loyalty to country because they have no country.
bs - multinational corporations are incorporated in one country, normally have their headquarters in that country, and the executives are overwhelmingly from the country of incorporation. to that end, they are stakeholders in the community in which their headquarters operate and support that community. If corporations have split loyalties it is becasue the corporation is a stakeholder in multiple jurisdictions.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-28-2008 19:02:
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
bs - multinational corporations are incorporated in one country, normally have their headquarters in that country, and the executives are overwhelmingly from the country of incorporation. to that end, they are stakeholders in the community in which their headquarters operate and support that community. If corporations have split loyalties it is becasue the corporation is a stakeholder in multiple jurisdictions.
I disagree. A corporation's sole purpose is to generate a profit. It doesn't matter where they are incorporated. Stakeholder's in the community? BULLSHIT. Tell that to all the workers who've lost their jobs to foreign outsourcing! Ohhhh, I don't think you thought about that huh? What about the numerous multinational corporations whose earnings come from mostly FOREIGN MARKETS! Coca-cola? Yea? They have no loyalty to the nation. If they don't like the government policy, they can pack up and move to China at any time! They don't care! Corporations are amoral. Profit is their sole purpose for existence. Not love of country.
Posted by St_Andrew on Jul-28-2008 19:08:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I disagree. A corporation's sole purpose is to generate a profit. It doesn't matter where they are incorporated. Stakeholder's in the community? BULLSHIT. Tell that to all the workers who've lost their jobs to foreign outsourcing! Ohhhh, I don't think you thought about that huh? What about the numerous multinational corporations whose earnings come from mostly FOREIGN MARKETS! Coca-cola? Yea? They have no loyalty to the nation. If they don't like the government policy, they can pack up and move to China at any time! They don't care! Corporations are amoral. Profit is their sole purpose for existence. Not love of country.
You forget that a company's profit is based on its ability to get people to buy its products/services, if they behave like complete shit they won't make a good profit.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-28-2008 19:23:
quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
You forget that a company's profit is based on its ability to get people to buy its products/services, if they behave like complete shit they won't make a good profit.
Customer's yea, their own people, hell no. If they have the choice of cheap labor in Vietnam to keeping people in America, they don't care. The bottom line is all that matters in that case. They don't care about the "Made in America" label.
Pages (3): «1 [2] 3»
