We were involved in it from the beginning. The French could not have resumed their hold on Indo-China without our political and military backing. When the French finally proved not up to the task in spite of our deep involvement, we took it over ourselves. We denied them nationwide free elections promised in the Geneva Convention Agreements which we refused to sign and in 1956, set up our own little Diem. The story goes on from there. See this http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm"]Vietnam timeline
from 1945 on.
As for the rest of your post, what can I say? I suppose if I were
that I might very well share your views.
As it is, I’m willing to agree to disagree.
The world wars were different animals from our post-war involvements in which we presumed the role (and had the muscle) of a superpower. That’s not to say that the banks and arms manufacturers didn’t make out like bandits or that IBM didn’t supply the Nazis with card sorting machines that made the roundup of the Jews so efficient or that after the war, Ford did not successfully sue the US for a truck factory we destroyed in Vichy France.
They are not in it for the money per se, although it’s not a stretch for me to believe that there is some personal skimming. The CIA is never averse to allying itself with thugs to further what are perceived to be “our” corporate interests.
We were involved, but there’s a big difference between a few thousand troops for security/training/assitance and some advisory types and some political goodwill and money greasing the skids, and 200,000 troops put there in a rapid deployment to fight a full-blown war.
It really wasn’t ever quite a war in our view until it was too late.
The purpose for our being there was to prevent Vietnam from ever presenting to the world a successful popular socialist state. This fact was obscured with anti-communist rant.
When it became clear that no government which we could install in the south could ever really hold a partition, we just bombed the shit out of their infrastructure and destroyed their agriculture with Agent Orange. Mission accomplished.
I have no idea where you got your quote, so have no idea of its validity. But where in your quote is there a mention of the US’s ‘corporate’ interests? It relates directly to fighting the cold war with the USSR and the Chinese. And that ‘war’ was about keeping us from having to speak Russian. The result of which may have made people lots of money, but that was a side product, not the goal.
Bush just was more blatant. Halliburton and Blackwater and hundreds of other contractors were on the ground setting up immediately after we risked our soldiers lives to make Iraq safe for business. When Paul Bremer was in control he forced rules that made contractors immune from Iraqi justice. Do you think that was a coincidence? Sure seemed to work out well .didn’t it.
When Bremer got in he instituted rules such as
No. 2 100 % foreign ownership of businesses
12 suspended all tariffs and fees for goods leaving Iraq
57 appointed all inspectors and auditors over all ministries
5. granted corporations 40 year licenses
3. no preferences for Iraqi and local businesses in construction
2. drop corporation taxes from 40 to 15 %
40, allows foreign banks to purchase Iraqi banks
Funny how they had business interests all worked out in advance . Weird coincidence that it favored foreign businesses over Iraqi.
Yep, this war was about WMD and Saddam being a dictator. Crap, they sell you that shit and you just keep buying it.
To avoid corruption? (The ME is quite known for this, you know).
If I start a corporation, I have a license in perpetuity.
Like in the US?
To spur investment?
Like in the US?
Funny about how what is good economic practice in other countries would be implemented in Iraq.
When all the other crackpot theories are knocked down, that pretty much is all that remains. Sucks to be a tinfoil hat type, I guess. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Enjoy your swim in your pool of corporate Koolaid. Competition, I love the misuse of that term. Competition is the enemy of corporations. They do everything they can to eliminate it.
So, was I wrong in what I said (if so then I’ll admit I’m wrong if presented with rational relevant facts), or are you just upset that it took someone 30 seconds to blow your paranoid rantings out the the water?
Really. Do you not see you 100 percent agreed that going into Iraq was a business decision? Do you not know that you agreed with the premise. The difference is, I think it was wrong. We lied our way into a war to make the world safe for corporations. But ,it is ending.
The Bremer rules were at the expense of the Iraqis. They took their businesses away from them .We removed their tax base. Then, Bremer made himself and all the contractors immune from the Iraqi courts and laws. If that makes you all warm and fuzzy have at it.
Note Afghanistan land is supposed to be 85 percent under Taliban control. International news puts it at 98 percent. What is supposed to be working there?
I’m not disagreeing with the results. But that is a far cry from the reason it was done in the first place. They are two different things.
Kind of like the US not recognizing the international courts, too.
I’ve said before they way they are conducting the war in Afghanistan won’t work and it isn’t. But the reasons for going to Afghanistan had nothing to do with a potential pipeline. It had to do with a plane crashing into buildings in New York. The pipeline, no matter how ridiculous it is to even think about building it, is a secondary issue.
Umm, cite? There’s been an Afghan ministry map floating around the internets that shows the Taliban have de facto control of around 1/3 of the country and are threatening other parts, but nothing near that high.
We are lied to by the military over and over. I understand if you are trained and raised as a soldier it is hard to see what your life is about, being the problem instead of the solution. When do generals say we need less money, less soldiers and should cut back on the military? We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined and have people dumb enough to think it isn’t enough. We have over 800 bases draining our wealth. It is obscene.We have been at war over and over. When will we ever learn?
Iraq was supposed to not cost us money. Thats what our experts said. The problem is a lot of Americans believed it. Time after time they show their expertise and we say " these guys are generals and have information I don’t have So I must yield to their expertise’. But they are always wrong. It never comes out like they say.
You specifically said 85-98% of Afghanistan was under Taliban control. That’s not what your link says. The map is tracking the number of insurgent attacks/IEDs per week or month as well as perception of local Taliban activity. Attacks do not equal control, particularly since if they did control this much of Afghanistan, there would be no need for them to attack within those areas.
It was the politicians, not the generals (by and large) saying that the Iraq war could be done with a minimum number of soldiers, on the cheap, and over in 6 months to a year. Gen. Shinseki, who was Army Chief of Staff just before the Iraq war, wisely foresaw that it would probably take hundreds of thousands of troops for post-war occupation. When Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who both primarily planned the war, heard this, they immediately rejected it and cut Shinseki off at the knees. Much like writers, generals are rarely fully satisfied with whatever is in front of them, but the politicians are the ones making policy and the overall strategy.
You know, it doesn’t make make a fuck what the %s are. It’s all about justifying a heavy military presence in an area valuable to us strategically and a great source of corporate profit with plenty of room for corruption.
You want to bring peace to Afghanistan, turn it over to the Taliban. Compared to what’s in place now, the Taliban would be much preferred by the locals. Make it contingent that they eliminate poppy production within a year. They did it before, they can do it again.
What corporations are being served by the US staying in Afghanistan? I can at least see an argument for that in Iraq, but not so much in Afghanistan. And as Gen. McCrystal’s report points out, more troops aren’t going to win the war if the central government of Afghanistan is still considered corrupt and ineffective. Because the war isn’t really between US/NATO forces and the Taliban, it’s between the Afghan government supported by US/NATO forces and the Taliban. We could put 1 million troops in country, but if Karzai or whoever is ultimately elected president can’t run a reasonably efficient and effective government that can at least lower the corruption levels, the war will be lost anyway.
The problem is, unlike the Sunnis in Iraq who were mainly just fighting for power, it’s harder to bribe the upper echelon Taliban who believe in establishing an Islamic, sharia law-based holy government in Afghanistan which will not suffer any kafir (infidels) on their lands. And with the Taliban, Al Queda will follow shortly behind, re-entrenching themselves. It would be like going back in time to September 10, 2001, only without the good part.