Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/13/2009 10:50:51 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

...for fun and profit.

The American people were 83% against getting into WWII. Roosevelt set up the Japanese perfectly, knew full well they were going to foolishly attack. Within a few weeks after Pearl...1 Million people signed up for military service.

Here and Here

this meant WAR

The Gulf of Tonkin incident: (I'll save you the trouble) Wiki: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was two separate occurrences involving naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin that were presented to the US public as justification for the large-scale involvement of US armed forces in Southeast Asia. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) engaged three North Vietnamese P-4 torpedo boats, resulting in damage to the three boats. Two days later the Maddox (having been joined by the destroyer USS Turner Joy (DD-951) reported a second engagement with North Vietnamese vessels. This second report was later claimed to be in error.[1] The outcome of the incident was the passage by the United States Congress of the Southeast Asia Resolution (better known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian government considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression," including the commitment of US forces without a declaration of war.

The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating US involvement in the Republic of Vietnam US president the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the US Senate. It gave the way for US involvement and was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.

Kinkroids, our brass told the N. Vietnamese our deliberate tactical limitations like not firing upon any NVA AA batteries...until they were 'operational.' We could not pursue the VC or the NVA into Laos or Cambodia. The Viet Nam war was never to be 'won' only continued...on and on. After 10 years of western war...the communists 'won' anyway and have now turned VNam instead...into a new slave labor/profit center.

ALL wars are for profit. We are all now just as in the past...to live in fear of nazis, krauts, gooks, chinks, communists and now...terrorists. We are supposed to live in fear and live always at war.

The 'WAR' on drugs is now the longest running American war by far, is in its 36th year. We have spent 100's of billions to do what ? We are incarcerating 400-500,000/yr on possession of a 'controlled substance' and have successfully convinced society in general to castigate and shun users...leaving it in the black markets, profitable with a likewise very profitable ongoing war against it.

WAR IS the goal everywhere...for empire, linited...against the infidel, religious...for a profit...always.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/13/2009 10:53:18 PM >

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/14/2009 5:29:27 AM

thishereboi

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pIqxuygWwM

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/14/2009 5:38:51 AM

lazarus1983

Posts: 828
Joined: 2/25/2006
Status: offline

You did an excellent job not including the Korean Conflict. Why?

< Message edited by lazarus1983 -- 6/14/2009 5:40:59 AM >

_____________________________

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

- Ayn Rand

(in reply to thishereboi)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/14/2009 7:32:56 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

not including the Korean Conflict

Oh, plenty of profit there--in fact, Congress passed a "high profits" tax for just that reason, indiscriminate of profiteering or legitimate enterprise.

(in reply to lazarus1983)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/15/2009 5:43:03 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

You did an excellent job not including the Korean Conflict. Why?

Mainly because we (US) didn't come up with some ruse to get in. We didn't invite or force N. Korea to attack the south or invite the Chinese to get involved. Even WWI we deliberately sent a ship loaded with civilians into hostile waters knowing (hoping) it would be sunk thus drawing America into the war...which it did.

But another thing that I forgot and it was the MEastern problems that brought this to mind.

June 8, 1967: THE USS LIBERTY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SUNK BY THE ISRAELIS. YEP. The Israeli military ordered their pilots to sink the Liberty and under the threat of court martial. While it was OBVIOUSLY an American ship in international waters.

Everything was going according to the plan until a real problem showed up...the Russians. For that reason alone, the attack was broken off and we got an apology from the the Israelis. As it was 34 US military men were killed and dozens more injured but the question is why...

Here and Here

So the US and the Israelis could blame it on Muslim (Arab) terrorism.

(in reply to lazarus1983)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/15/2009 5:53:10 AM

Starbuck09

Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline

The fact that war makes a profit is not on it's own a moral argument against war as that is not the only thing that it produces. It affects the social hierarchy of the world and the spread [and destruction] of ideals and belief systems. It determines the balance of power in the world.
You are also too simplistic MrRodgers in some of your justifications. The reasons, for example, that America entered the first world war were widely varied. It didn't help that Germany had attempted to bribe Mexico to invade the southern states check out the Zimmerman telegram. War is too complex to be broken down into tiny incidents. The gulf of Tonkin incident alone didn't decide America's course of action, it was the fear of communist aggression and a domino effect if being instigated if the South fell not to mention that for more than a decade prior America had been involved in Vietnam as France scaled back their efforts in Indochina. The first world war was not started because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that was just the catalyst that brought a cauldron of motives to the boil.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/15/2009 7:53:24 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

The fact that war makes a profit is not on it's own a moral argument against war as that is not the only thing that it produces. It affects the social hierarchy of the world and the spread [and destruction] of ideals and belief systems. It determines the balance of power in the world.
You are also too simplistic MrRodgers in some of your justifications. The reasons, for example, that America entered the first world war were widely varied. It didn't help that Germany had attempted to bribe Mexico to invade the southern states check out the Zimmerman telegram. War is too complex to be broken down into tiny incidents. The gulf of Tonkin incident alone didn't decide America's course of action, it was the fear of communist aggression and a domino effect if being instigated if the South fell not to mention that for more than a decade prior America had been involved in Vietnam as France scaled back their efforts in Indochina. The first world war was not started because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that was just the catalyst that brought a cauldron of motives to the boil.

Excellent post, Starbuck.

Unfortunately, I suspect calm reason and discussion on the causes and effects of conflict will not be easily discussed in this thread.

[sarcasm]

One is obviously a war-mongering, neo-con, fascist, racists, megalomaniac, if you even attempt to do so.

Only the enlightened truly understand that only if we lay down all our weapons, and never even consider the use of force, will the US lead the world into peace and love.

[/sarcasm]

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Starbuck09)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/15/2009 8:28:09 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

Yes, most of the propaganda works. If Kennedy or Johnson had taken the idea of the spread of communism as the singular basis for war...they would have gotten nowhere. Recall that it was Eisenhower who advised Kennedy to stay in VN to protect OUR oil interests, not because of any communist threat other than to OUR profits on oil.

As with America through its history and even after WWII we were perfectly satisfied to 'come home.' Then however Truman decided we needed something called a CIA and should just remain armed...all of the time.

The Kennedy admin. in short order was going to take us out of Viet Nam yet Johnson newly empowered...actually built up our forces.

Understand that with the resolution on the Gulf of Tonkin, it empowered the pres. with new and unconstitutional war making powers.

My post is a set of facts that contradicts those who assume we must go to 'war' anytime we see a threat while disregarding the 'manufacturing' of that threat in order to take us to or build up a war...for a profit. This was all necessary because no citizenry actually wants to go to war given they will be the ones doing the dying.

Unless of course we could have something called a military draft (govt. involuntary servitude) where the rich and privileged can get deferments.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Iraq, Afgan., Pakist., WWII, Viet Nam...WAR is - 6/15/2009 8:48:20 AM

Starbuck09

Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline

What you are saying is not necessarily wrong MrRodgers but how you interpret the facts you've posted is, I feel, not broad enough. What is wrong with going to war for profit? The critical word in that question is profit as it's definition is very varied. All wars are fought for profit for the sake of argument take the second world war [only as most people see this as more morally legitimate than other conflicts.] The reason Germany could not be allowed to win [from the allies viewpoint] was the same as in the first world war, if Germany became a power that controlled the majority of europe then it would be so economically dominant that it would dictate terms to the world. Instead America and Russia became the first superpowers the ''profit'' of fighting the axis power. My own countries profit was that it did not become subservient to a greater Reich and remained a strong global power. The incidents you have given are flashpoints certainly they were the excuses for war but not the reasons. Germany kicked off the war in Europe by staging an attack by polish forces on their border, it gave them an excuse but it was not the motivation for Hitler to invade.
I think as well that you are unfair on the citizenry of countries. It is possible to join an army simply to serve your country as you feel a responsibility to do so. The citizens also share in the profit [if they win of course]. In the first world war billions were made by armaments factories but that was not the cause or motivation of the war it was just a byproduct. You are of course right that it is always convenient to have a spark to ignite the tinder but never forget that the tinder was always there to start with.

Cheers firmhand that's much appreciated