<<[What was America doing in Viet Nam? In Iraq? Not imperialism.>>
I say that imperialism is not an explanation, it is the ONLY explanation of what America was doing in Viet Nam AND Iraq.
<<No ambition to take territory or resorces is defensable in those circumstances ,>>
It might not be defensible, but that does not stop it from being what you did in Viet Nam and are doing in Iraq.
<<confrontation with an evil that opresses the aspiration of mankind for freedom explains it so well that millions of Americans volenteer to join the effort.>>
It explains nothing. The "evil" that you were "confronting" in Vietnam was a communist-led nationalist movement that had the support -- according to Eisenhower himself, who decided to back the puppet South Vietnamese governement in its refusal to hold fair elections - - of 80% of the population of South Vietnam. EISENHOWER said 80%, I didn't. You had a French-occupied zone of Viet Nam which by treaty was obligated to hold elections , an unelected government of former French civil servants took it over and refused to hold elections, and EISENHOWER backed them, using the justification that if elections were held, 80% of the South Vietnamese would vote for Ho Chi Minh.
That's a great reason to block elections - - because you don't like the guy who's got the most votes. But it's sure typical of American policy, only they're not usually so honest about it.
Usually they are like plane, and raise some phony claim, "Oh we are doing it because they have WMD and we are in great danger from them," or in the case of Viet Nam, "Oh they are so evil that we must confront them and stop them." The fucking NAZIS were so evil, yet the U.S.A. made NO attempt to attack them or overthrow their government. The Trujillo government in the DR, the Batista government in Cuba and the Somoza government in Nicaragua were also "so evil" yet the U.S.A. did not attack THEM, they supported them to the end. If the Viet Minh really WERE as evil as the U.S. government claimed they were, the U.S. would not have "confronted" them, they would have supported them.
So thank you for your explanation that the U.S. in Viet Nam was not practising imperialism, but was "confronting" "evil." Rarely do I hear such ridiculous bullshit, but I thank you for publishing it because it's a pleasure to denounce it and demonstrate the absurdity of it.
<<Empire? Who woud join the Imperial American army? That appeal would not fill the Coast Guard.>>
Strange. And yet the Imperial American army IS filled, as is the Coast Guard. Who fills it? I have already told you who I think fills it, lowlife scum, killers, thugs, rapists, sadists and bullies, guys who in Ontario we used to call seven year men, i.e., it took them seven years to get through five years of high school. The so-called low-hanging fruit.
And now I think I'll tell ya who I REALLY think fills it: poor kids, green card wannabes, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, kids looking for adventure, patriotic kids, kids who want to blow people's heads off or torture them with a knife, kids from military families, rapists and perverts, Southerners, minority kids looking for a way out; and I'll even tell ya who DOESN'T fill the Imperial American Army: A-students from good schools, rich kids, Congressmen's kids, Bush administration kids, children of neocons, and the children of the CEOs, CFOs and CIOs of the Fortune 500 and kids with scholarships from Ivy league schools.
