Would you buy your medications from Amtrak?

[D1B]

I said Iraq AND Vietnam.

So we're halfway there: you don't dispute that Iraq was about oil, correct?

Edit: And your cool with Bryce's scholarship, correct?

I absolutely dispute Iraq was about oil. Our intelligence agencies and virtually every intel agencies the US dealt with said Sadamm had WMDs and he continued to seek them. So did most conks and donks leaders, and so did Bush. He ordered troops in based on that apparently faulty intel. So Bush was wrong. Doesn't mean he lied, and doesn't mean Iraq was about oil, not when at the time the US got less less than 3% of its total consumption from Iraq, and never has gotten more than 4.5%.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure Iraq has a shitload of oil and natural gas, and has auctioned off a ton of reserves, but US companies aren't getting squat:
http://moneymorning.com/2009/12/16/iraq-oil-companies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iraqi oil would have never, and will never, pay for the cost of the war. Pretty much pokes a hole in the theory that the invasion of Iraq was about oil.

Who cares who got the contracts, we still ultimately control that oil, which was our primary goal for that war. We'll get most of it in the end - very cheaply - which is another goal.

[houndawg]

I said Iraq AND Vietnam.

So we're halfway there: you don't dispute that Iraq was about oil, correct?

Edit: And your cool with Bryce's scholarship, correct?

I absolutely dispute Iraq was about oil. Our intelligence agencies and virtually every intel agencies the US dealt with said Sadamm had WMDs and he continued to seek them. So did most conks and donks leaders, and so did Bush. He ordered troops in based on that apparently faulty intel. So Bush was wrong. Doesn't mean he lied, and doesn't mean Iraq was about oil, not when at the time the US got less less than 3% of its total consumption from Iraq, and never has gotten more than 4.5%.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure Iraq has a shitload of oil and natural gas, and has auctioned off a ton of reserves, but US companies aren't getting squat:
http://moneymorning.com/2009/12/16/iraq-oil-companies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iraqi oil would have never, and will never, pay for the cost of the war. Pretty much pokes a hole in the theory that the invasion of Iraq was about oil.

1) Hans Blix was telling everybody that there was no evidence of WMD. Dick Cheney was telling us there could be a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.

2) You're missing the point with your consumption figures, the threat was Saddam flooding the market with cheap oil and even bigger, his threat to decouple the price of his oil from the dollar.

3) Every lefty in the country was saying that Iraqi oil money would never pay the cost of the war, BD. It was Donald Rumsfeld who was on national TV assuring us that this war would be a freebie. Jesus, man, don't tell me you can't remember that, it was on every media outlet in the nation.

[D1B]

BDK - just give up. CID (and no one else) attempting to come to your rescue should have been your first clue that you are fucked. Now, we're all just embarrassed for you.

Just take a break. We'll all forget about this in week or so.

[BDKJMU]

I absolutely dispute Iraq was about oil. Our intelligence agencies and virtually every intel agencies the US dealt with said Sadamm had WMDs and he continued to seek them. So did most conks and donks leaders, and so did Bush. He ordered troops in based on that apparently faulty intel. So Bush was wrong. Doesn't mean he lied, and doesn't mean Iraq was about oil, not when at the time the US got less less than 3% of its total consumption from Iraq, and never has gotten more than 4.5%.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure Iraq has a shitload of oil and natural gas, and has auctioned off a ton of reserves, but US companies aren't getting squat:
http://moneymorning.com/2009/12/16/iraq-oil-companies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iraqi oil would have never, and will never, pay for the cost of the war. Pretty much pokes a hole in the theory that the invasion of Iraq was about oil.

1) Hans Blix was telling everybody that there was no evidence of WMD. Dick Cheney was telling us there could be a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.

2) You're missing the point with your consumption figures, the threat was Saddam flooding the market with cheap oil and even bigger, his threat to decouple the price of his oil from the dollar.

3) Every lefty in the country was saying that Iraqi oil money would never pay the cost of the war, BD. It was Donald Rumsfeld who was on national TV assuring us that this war would be a freebie. Jesus, man, don't tell me you can't remember that, it was on every media outlet in the nation.

All the intel agencies, US, and foreign, were saying he did have WMD. Again, Bush being wrong on this account doesn't automatically= went to war for oil.

If Sadam flooded the market with cheap oil, that wouldn't help the US oil companies lots of lefties liked to accuse Bush of being in bed with. That would hurt the US oil companies.

So Rumsfeld was wrong too. That still doesn't = went to war for oil.

[CID1990]

Three or four snarky posts later, and no references to any legitimate scholarship that backs your claim. That was to be expected.

BTW- I am pretty damn close to US-Vietnam diplomacy as we speak. Everyone is here looking at the oil, but the VAST majority of oil interests that are actually currently here are European.

If you get your news from somewhere other than MSNBC, you will also know that our diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea over the last year have been centered more in helping the ASEAN nations settle the disputes over the Spratley and Paracels between China and Vietnam (as well as a couple other nations). The disputes ARE in fact fueled by the oil reserves in the area,but suggesting that we intervened in SE Asia in the 1960's in order to secure oil reserves for ourselves (when even Indonesia has a more legitimate claim) is just making things up.

The old 'fighting for oil' mantra you and yours like to spout is just that: old, tired, and generally inaccurate.

Again, show me some legitimate scholarship behind your assertion.

Were you close to US-Vietnam diplomacy in the 1960s, CID? If so, then I will concede the point on Vietnam, (not Iraq). I get it that you are a diplomat on the scene in Ho Chi Minh City and I'm a peasant on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Still think I'm right on this one.

But while we're speaking of making things up: for you to suggest that that our government and oil companies give a tinker's damn about anybody having a "more legitimate claim" to that oil, or any oil, and by inference that we would respect such "more legitimate claims" is really making things up and total revisionism of our entire 20th century.

No, I was not close to Vietnam in the 1960s outside of a couple family members I never knew who never left here.

Our interests in the South China Sea are historical though, and the issues we confront here now are echoes of earlier times. Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese and Indonesian claims to the islands of the South China Sea have been going on for a very long time. The disputes were active in the 1960s, as well. DOCUMENTED US involvement in these disputes, until just this summer, have always been that we expect the countries with dogs in the fight to settle the disputes on their own, preferably peacefully. If you do follow US foreign policy, you will know that Secretary Clinton's recent visit to SE Asia and attnedance at the ASEAN conference marked a sea change in our foreign policy as it pertains to the disputes. Nowhere in the record does our policy towards the area suggest that the US intends to lay any kind of a claim to the area (which would be necessary if we had desires to "take" the oil).

As for legitimate claims, American oil companies do not just waltz into sovereign nations and scoop up the natural resources. As spurious as our industries' histories may be when dealing with other nations, we do not simply come in and take the oil. As I said before about the Paracels and the Spratleys, even Indonesia has a more legitimate claim to those islands than we do (and their claim is less legitimate than Vietnam's.) If we DO wind up exploiting the oil in the South China Sea, it will be at the invitation and mutual cooperation of whatever country finally successfully exercises their claim to it. BP has already been here for years and they have the jump on it, anyway.

All that being said, I cannot find once iota of documented evidence that suggests that our motivation for being in SE Asia had anything to do with securing oil reserves for American companies. This is not some kind of weird "faith is the belief in things unseen" stuff, either. The data is not there. Nothing. You can't find any either, because you would have stopped tiptoeing around the question 10 posts ago and posted links from respected sources if you could.

As you said in a previous post, your belief that our actions in Vietnam were motivated by oil resources is simply a personal belief. In other words, no evidence to back up your claim. I asked for some kind of historical data on this and you cannot even provide the same from even spurious sources, MUCH LESS legitimate ones.

That brings me back to my original comment about moon landings, 9-11 truthers, and the tooth fairy.

That is all.

[CID1990]

BDK - just give up. CID (and no one else) attempting to come to your rescue should have been your first clue that you are ****. Now, we're all just embarrassed for you.

Just take a break. We'll all forget about this in week or so.

Actually, I was focused on Houndawg's Vietnam comment which he won't back up.

Since you seem to be the only one defending Houndawg, I'd say it's pretty much a wash.

[houndawg]

I haven't heard the oil theory for Viet Nam either, but military, or in the case of Iran, covert intervention to control access to oil ain't much of a conspiracy theory. Bush tried to name the invasion of Iraq after it.

I don't dispute you, Kalm, and the control of natural resources has been a major factor in warfare since... the beginning of warfare.

However, quoted in the above post you can see where Houndawg laid a whopper of a turd and now he needs to back it up.

Diverting to saying things like "Well, we fought in the Middle East for oil!" is not going to cut it.

No wonder you're in diplomacy! You have successfully argued both sides of the question!



Howz about you gentlemen favoring us with your supported-by-legitimate-scholarship opinions of why we were there?

There is absolutely no doubt that public opinion held far and wide became that this was an oil war. I strongly suspect by you guys comments that it was before your times and therefore ancient history. It wasn't for me, I was there watching it unfold, and the public was behind the war as long as they bought the government line about protecting our little brown brothers from communism. Nobody was rioting until our casualties began skyrocketing and people stated asking wtf was really going on here.


All wars are fought for money.

[houndawg]

1) Hans Blix was telling everybody that there was no evidence of WMD. Dick Cheney was telling us there could be a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.

2) You're missing the point with your consumption figures, the threat was Saddam flooding the market with cheap oil and even bigger, his threat to decouple the price of his oil from the dollar.

3) Every lefty in the country was saying that Iraqi oil money would never pay the cost of the war, BD. It was Donald Rumsfeld who was on national TV assuring us that this war would be a freebie. Jesus, man, don't tell me you can't remember that, it was on every media outlet in the nation.

All the intel agencies, US, and foreign, were saying he did have WMD. Again, Bush being wrong on this account doesn't automatically= went to war for oil.
But Blix was there on the ground. It wasn't about Bush being wrong it was about nobody wanted to hear the truth.

If Sadam flooded the market with cheap oil, that wouldn't help the US oil companies lots of lefties liked to accuse Bush of being in bed with. That would hurt the US oil companies.
Yes, exactly the point. Thank you.

So Rumsfeld was wrong too. That still doesn't = went to war for oil.
He wasn't wrong, he was lying.

You better let CID do your fighting for you.

[houndawg]

Here's a little "it's all about oil" link from an Ivy League guy.

http://www.oilcompanies.net/oil1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

I don't dispute you, Kalm, and the control of natural resources has been a major factor in warfare since... the beginning of warfare.

However, quoted in the above post you can see where Houndawg laid a whopper of a turd and now he needs to back it up.

Diverting to saying things like "Well, we fought in the Middle East for oil!" is not going to cut it.

No wonder you're in diplomacy! You have successfully argued both sides of the question!



Howz about you gentlemen favoring us with your supported-by-legitimate-scholarship opinions of why we were there?

There is absolutely no doubt that public opinion held far and wide became that this was an oil war. I strongly suspect by you guys comments that it was before your times and therefore ancient history.

It wasn't for me, I was there watching it unfold, and the public was behind the war as long as they bought the government line about protecting our little brown brothers from communism. Nobody was rioting until our casualties began skyrocketing and people stated asking wtf was really going on here.

All wars are fought for money.

Give it up, Houndawg. You had your chance and you failed. You made a sweeping, unsubstantiated claim, you were given ample opportunities to back it up, and you could only reply with an article from "oilcompanies.com", a far-left ecoactivist website, with the claim that because it was penned by an "Ivy League" guy. Hey! It must be true.

I mentioned earlier that you should stay away from the nutroot sources when you try to back up your claim, but you couldn't. That is because there is, as before, no legitimate scholarship that supports your claim.

As for your first statement above, YOU are the one who stuck your dick out in the wind, so don't try to turn it around by suggesting that your postition would somehow be bolstered by having ME enter into a debate about the causes of the Vietnam War. There are piles and reams of information on the subject, none of which legitimately claims that Vietnam was about oil.

In your second point, you have again laid a giant turd. Nothing about public opinion over the war suggests that it was about oil. Again you have repeated your claim with nothing to back it up except for a website that looks like something a teenager would put together, with pretty pictures to drive home the point.

Your third comment seems to suggest that because you lived through the Vietnam era makes you qualified to speak on the matter while the younger generation is not. I will remind you that there are some expert scholars on the 100 Years' War and the Peloponnesian Wars who also did not live through those experiences.

I don't care what you and your long haired bongo playing friends down in San Francisco felt about Vietnam. If you want to make goofy claims like that guy who comes on here and tries to put forth truther theories, then you need to back them up.

Back to your second point. This a challenge to you to substantiate something you have said there was "NO DOUBT" about: show me where Vietnam "is absolutely no doubt that public opinion held far and wide became that this was an oil war". Your words. Show me.Or you could just stop the bleeding and give this one up because it is already a smoking hole in the ground.

[houndawg]

I don't dispute you, Kalm, and the control of natural resources has been a major factor in warfare since... the beginning of warfare.

Yeah, you're right, CID. I don't know what came over me and tens of millions of Americans back then to think that the US would interfere in another country's government on behalf of the oil corporations. I guess there must have been some other reason.

[CID1990]

I don't dispute you, Kalm, and the control of natural resources has been a major factor in warfare since... the beginning of warfare.

Yeah, you're right, CID. I don't know what came over me and tens of millions of Americans back then to think that the US would interfere in another country's government on behalf of the oil corporations. I guess there must have been some other reason.

You are using your skills (or lack thereof) in reading comprehension to continue to divert. I'll assume you just can't back up your position since you haven't done so.

I have not disputed that resources have been a major factor in warfare IN GENERAL (maybe I should have stated that before so you would stop clinging to it in the hopes that I'll stop calling you on your bullsh!t). The Vietnam War was one major front of a much larger struggle against what was perceived as the gradual encroachment of communism across large regions of the world. You can twist and turn it all you want, but if it had been about oil, we never would have allowed the French to lose their colony in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a Soviet proxy and THAT was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our foreign policy after 1945.

[houndawg]

Yeah, you're right, CID. I don't know what came over me and tens of millions of Americans back then to think that the US would interfere in another country's government on behalf of the oil corporations. I guess there must have been some other reason.

You are using your skills (or lack thereof) in reading comprehension to continue to divert. I'll assume you just can't back up your position since you haven't done so.

I have not disputed that resources have been a major factor in warfare IN GENERAL (maybe I should have stated that before so you would stop clinging to it in the hopes that I'll stop calling you on your bullsh!t). The Vietnam War was one major front of a much larger struggle against what was perceived as the gradual encroachment of communism across large regions of the world. You can twist and turn it all you want, but if it had been about oil, we never would have allowed the French to lose their colony in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a Soviet proxy and THAT was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our foreign policy after 1945.

Oh, you must be referring to the Domino Theory.

"It is often argued that intervention was motivated by "blind anti-communism" and other errors. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between two kinds of "anti-communism". Opposition to indigenous movements in Asia that might be drawn to the Chinese model of development is not "blind anti-communism". Rather, it is rational imperialism, which seeks to prevent any nibbling away at areas that provide the Western industrial powers and Japan to relatively free access to markets, raw materials, a cheap labor force, the possibility for export of pollution, and opportunities for investment.

From "Vietnam: How Government Became Wolves" by Noam Chomsky, June 15, 1972.

[kalm]

Yeah, you're right, CID. I don't know what came over me and tens of millions of Americans back then to think that the US would interfere in another country's government on behalf of the oil corporations. I guess there must have been some other reason.

You are using your skills (or lack thereof) in reading comprehension to continue to divert. I'll assume you just can't back up your position since you haven't done so.

I have not disputed that resources have been a major factor in warfare IN GENERAL (maybe I should have stated that before so you would stop clinging to it in the hopes that I'll stop calling you on your bullsh!t). The Vietnam War was one major front of a much larger struggle against what was perceived as the gradual encroachment of communism across large regions of the world. You can twist and turn it all you want, but if it had been about oil, we never would have allowed the French to lose their colony in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a Soviet proxy and THAT was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our foreign policy after 1945.

Actually, it's closer to 99.7%. At least .2% can be attributed to the military industrial complex and political strategy. Just think, there's a small majority today that think fighting terrorism was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our efforts in Iraq. Unless twisted, manipulative liberals like Dawg and myself can hold onto the education system and the media, in 50 years everyone will think it was 100%.

[kalm]

You are using your skills (or lack thereof) in reading comprehension to continue to divert. I'll assume you just can't back up your position since you haven't done so.

I have not disputed that resources have been a major factor in warfare IN GENERAL (maybe I should have stated that before so you would stop clinging to it in the hopes that I'll stop calling you on your bullsh!t). The Vietnam War was one major front of a much larger struggle against what was perceived as the gradual encroachment of communism across large regions of the world. You can twist and turn it all you want, but if it had been about oil, we never would have allowed the French to lose their colony in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a Soviet proxy and THAT was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our foreign policy after 1945.

Oh, you must be referring to the Domino Theory.

"It is often argued that intervention was motivated by "blind anti-communism" and other errors. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between two kinds of "anti-communism". Opposition to indigenous movements in Asia that might be drawn to the Chinese model of development is not "blind anti-communism". Rather, it is rational imperialism, which seeks to prevent any nibbling away at areas that provide the Western industrial powers and Japan to relatively free access to markets, raw materials, a cheap labor force, the possibility for export of pollution, and opportunities for investment.

From "Vietnam: How Government Became Wolves" by Noam Chomsky, June 15, 1972.

Another consequence was that the rest of the industrialized world didn't need to develop large militaries as we were doing the heavy lifting. Once the USSR fell we were the only military super power left.

[houndawg]

Yeah, you're right, CID. I don't know what came over me and tens of millions of Americans back then to think that the US would interfere in another country's government on behalf of the oil corporations. I guess there must have been some other reason.

You are using your skills (or lack thereof) in reading comprehension to continue to divert. I'll assume you just can't back up your position since you haven't done so.

I have not disputed that resources have been a major factor in warfare IN GENERAL (maybe I should have stated that before so you would stop clinging to it in the hopes that I'll stop calling you on your bullsh!t). The Vietnam War was one major front of a much larger struggle against what was perceived as the gradual encroachment of communism across large regions of the world. You can twist and turn it all you want, but if it had been about oil, we never would have allowed the French to lose their colony in Vietnam.

We weren't in any position to keep the French from losing their colony in Vietnam because we were getting our asses handed to us in Korea, and after that debacle it was going to take a little time to convince the American public of the pressing need for more adventures in Asia. Chomsky was correct about the blind anti-communism being rational imperialism and the public came to share his view starting about '67. By '72 nobody but bitter-enders believed the government version of the Domino Theory. That's why we had to leave.

Vietnam was a Soviet proxy and THAT was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our foreign policy after 1945.

We couldn't have done much for the French if we had given a rip about the French because we were getting our asses handed to us in Korea at the time and after that debacle the public wouldn't have been very amenable to returning to Asia for another adventure. Chomsky got it right noting that the blind anti-communism of the Domino Theory was actually very rational imperialism, and by the time the above mentioned paper was published majority public opinion agreed with him, legitimate scholar or not. That's why so many of the signs at the thousands of protests had "No blood for Oil" written on them.

[Chizzang]

France..!!!


Mmm....

[CID1990]

You are using your skills (or lack thereof) in reading comprehension to continue to divert. I'll assume you just can't back up your position since you haven't done so.

I have not disputed that resources have been a major factor in warfare IN GENERAL (maybe I should have stated that before so you would stop clinging to it in the hopes that I'll stop calling you on your bullsh!t). The Vietnam War was one major front of a much larger struggle against what was perceived as the gradual encroachment of communism across large regions of the world. You can twist and turn it all you want, but if it had been about oil, we never would have allowed the French to lose their colony in Vietnam.

We weren't in any position to keep the French from losing their colony in Vietnam because we were getting our asses handed to us in Korea, and after that debacle it was going to take a little time to convince the American public of the pressing need for more adventures in Asia. Chomsky was correct about the blind anti-communism being rational imperialism and the public came to share his view starting about '67. By '72 nobody but bitter-enders believed the government version of the Domino Theory. That's why we had to leave.

Vietnam was a Soviet proxy and THAT was the prime mover behind 99.9% of our foreign policy after 1945.

We couldn't have done much for the French if we had given a rip about the French because we were getting our asses handed to us in Korea at the time and after that debacle the public wouldn't have been very amenable to returning to Asia for another adventure. Chomsky got it right noting that the blind anti-communism of the Domino Theory was actually very rational imperialism, and by the time the above mentioned paper was published majority public opinion agreed with him, legitimate scholar or not. That's why so many of the signs at the thousands of protests had "No blood for Oil" written on them.

Tell you what. I'm just going to leave you with the ass beating you have already received on this thread, but with one last request.

I think you should read about exactly how we did not care about the French presence in Vietnam (it had nothing to do with Korea). Look up US involvement in the French 1954 defense of Dien Bien Phu. Also look up the justifications for the loads of military hardware from the US that the French were being given.

[houndawg]

Chomsky got it right. Blind anti-communism = rational imperialism. Most consider him a legitimate scholar.

[houndawg]

We couldn't have done much for the French if we had given a rip about the French because we were getting our asses handed to us in Korea at the time and after that debacle the public wouldn't have been very amenable to returning to Asia for another adventure. Chomsky got it right noting that the blind anti-communism of the Domino Theory was actually very rational imperialism, and by the time the above mentioned paper was published majority public opinion agreed with him, legitimate scholar or not. That's why so many of the signs at the thousands of protests had "No blood for Oil" written on them.

Tell you what. I'm just going to leave you with the ass beating you have already received on this thread, but with one last request.

I think you should read about exactly how we did not care about the French presence in Vietnam (it had nothing to do with Korea). Look up US involvement in the French 1954 defense of Dien Bien Phu. Also look up the justifications for the loads of military hardware from the US that the French were being given.

US involvement in Dien Bien Phu? According to the late Bernard Fall that included the US withholding air strikes on the Viet Minh who were pounding the bejeezus out of the French with American 105mm howitzers.

Just like today, eh, CID? American gear on both sides of the fight. Like Socrates said thousands of years ago: All wars are fought for money. Eagerly awaiting your explanation of why Noam Chomsky, Bernard Fall, and Socrates are not to be considered legitimate scholars.

[CID1990]

Tell you what. I'm just going to leave you with the ass beating you have already received on this thread, but with one last request.

I think you should read about exactly how we did not care about the French presence in Vietnam (it had nothing to do with Korea). Look up US involvement in the French 1954 defense of Dien Bien Phu. Also look up the justifications for the loads of military hardware from the US that the French were being given.

US involvement in Dien Bien Phu? According to the late Bernard Fall that included the US withholding air strikes on the Viet Minh who were pounding the bejeezus out of the French with American 105mm howitzers.

Just like today, eh, CID? American gear on both sides of the fight. Like Socrates said thousands of years ago: All wars are fought for money. Eagerly awaiting your explanation of why Noam Chomsky, Bernard Fall, and Socrates are not to be considered legitimate scholars.

Which one of those made the claim that Vietnam was about oil, Houndawg?

OIL, idiot. You said the Vietnam War was about oil. That is all I am going to say to you on this thread. You made a claim, you couldn't back it up, and now all you are doing is backpedalling and invoking Socrates of all people.

No wonder you're a liberal. Too dumb to fvck.

[houndawg]

US involvement in Dien Bien Phu? According to the late Bernard Fall that included the US withholding air strikes on the Viet Minh who were pounding the bejeezus out of the French with American 105mm howitzers.

Just like today, eh, CID? American gear on both sides of the fight. Like Socrates said thousands of years ago: All wars are fought for money. Eagerly awaiting your explanation of why Noam Chomsky, Bernard Fall, and Socrates are not to be considered legitimate scholars.

Which one of those made the claim that Vietnam was about oil, Houndawg?

OIL, idiot. You said the Vietnam War was about oil. That is all I am going to say to you on this thread. You made a claim, you couldn't back it up, and now all you are doing is backpedalling and invoking Socrates of all people.

No wonder you're a liberal. Too dumb to fvck.

Chomsky in the aforementioned paper did. The part about the Domino Theory not being about ideology but about preserving access to markets, cheap labor, raw materials.........


Diplomats like you, it's no wonder we lost that war.

[CID1990]

Chomsky makes a compelling argument. I'm glad you were finally able to dig something up. You found one person who shares your opinion. It is not suprising at all that it would be Chomsky.

A self proclaimed anarchist-socialist as well as probably the most quoted opponent of US foreign policy since the 1960s. Of course Vietnam was about oil!

But--- I asked you to post one source of legitimate scholarship and you did.

I'll side with William F. Buckley when it comes to the debate with Chomsky. Buckley was a conservative and argued that intervention in Vietnam was due to the reasons I mentioned before. Chomsky is a socialist who argued that the Truman Doctrine was completely about an imperialistic land grab and had nothing to do with halting the spread of what was a very scary system at the time. The Buckley-Chomsky debate from 1969 is actually a very good read. Both men are very persuasive. However, Chomsky hardly represents widely accepted opinions on Vietnam or any other facet of US foreign policy, for that matter.

I guess opinions are all shaped by who you identify with.

As for diplomats- I am not a diplomat. I am a US vice consul, which means I represent the interests of US citizens who travel and work in the host country. Surely you know the difference between a consular officer and a political counselor?

[houndawg]

I guess we can all find scholars to agree with how we feel if we want to do so. But if anarcho-commies aren't your cup of tea, how about Kennedy's Undersecretary of State, U. Alexis Johnson, speaking before Economic Club of Detroit in 1963?:

What is the attraction that Southeast Asia has exerted for centuries on the great powers flanking it on all sides? Why is it desirable and why is it important? First it provides a lush climate, fertile soil, rich natural resources, a relatively sparse population in most areas, and room to expand. The countries of Southeast Asia produce rich exportable surpluses such as rice rubber, teak, corn, tin, spices, oil, and many others.

Edit: I think Buckley's "scary system" argument still devolves to natural resources, in this case denying your opponent access to them.

[houndawg]

Chomsky makes a compelling argument. I'm glad you were finally able to dig something up. You found one person who shares your opinion. It is not suprising at all that it would be Chomsky.

A self proclaimed anarchist-socialist as well as probably the most quoted opponent of US foreign policy since the 1960s. Of course Vietnam was about oil!

But--- I asked you to post one source of legitimate scholarship and you did.

I'll side with William F. Buckley when it comes to the debate with Chomsky. Buckley was a conservative and argued that intervention in Vietnam was due to the reasons I mentioned before. Chomsky is a socialist who argued that the Truman Doctrine was completely about an imperialistic land grab and had nothing to do with halting the spread of what was a very scary system at the time. The Buckley-Chomsky debate from 1969 is actually a very good read. Both men are very persuasive.However, Chomsky hardly represents widely accepted opinions on Vietnam or any other facet of US foreign policy, for that matter.

I guess opinions are all shaped by who you identify with.

As for diplomats- I am not a diplomat. I am a US vice consul, which means I represent the interests of US citizens who travel and work in the host country. Surely you know the difference between a consular officer and a political counselor?

I have no doubt that "Chomsky hardly represents widely accepted opinions on Vietnam or any other facet of US foreign policy, for that matter" to you and your crowd. But his opinion was, rather, became, widely accepted. I saw it every day, and it wasn't the opinion of just bongo playing long-hairs in San Francisco, especially after the Pentagon Papers revealed the government to be lying through their teeth about, well, everything.

As for diplomats - No I don't know the difference between a consular official and a political counselor, I'm a peasant on a farm in a isolated rural area. Also a Buckley fan.

Thank you for explaining and I suspect I'd be real smart not to travel in your sphere of influence.