US Foreign Policy = Clueless

[brandondrury]

Read "Eisenhower" By Stephen Ambrose and then read "Why Nations Go To War" by John G. Stoessinger.

It's immediately obvious that America has been so busy chasing it's own tail in a desperate fit of fear and insecurity for absolutely ZERO reason that's its bordeline criminally insane.

By nature, I'm an isolationist. After doing a little bit of reading, I've concluded that it's illogical to intervene in nearly any skirmish. Let me explain.

In "Eisenhower", I'll essentially summarize it like this: Congress was huge on this notion that Eisenhower was more concerned with a balanced budget than national security. A) A balanced budget and national security are related more than anyone gave them credit for back then, but I have a feeling we'll learn that lesson the hard way in the future. B) Eisenhower was the most celebrated military dude in America since Grant or Washington. To suggest that the guy who planned D-Day doesn't understand national defense is ridiculous and insulting.

I have to admit that I know little about the world. I never really got into wars among 2nd and 3rd world countries. I'm too fascinated by Hitler and the Cold War. But in my "Why Nations Go To War", I've gotten a chance to get a summary of other wars. In this thread, the one that stands out is India vs West Pakistan. Long story short: India is Hindu and Pakistan is Moslem. They are fighting over a territorial dispute.

The Soviet Union is getting pissed at China and is trusting China less and less every day. Because India and China are also having a territorial dispute, The Soviet Union doesn't want India distracted by West Pakistan and therefore attempts to smooth over the India-West Pakistan situation to keep pressure on China.

The United States gives a shit load of weapons to both India and West Pakistan so that they can "fight the communists". They turn around and use these weapons on each other because this whole communist concept is nothing compared to nations of different religion having a border dispute.

Ho Chi Minh is in Vietnam. He knows that his country is the "little guy" and isn't particularly fond of Soviet or Chinese influence. He gets a little help from them from time to time, but doesn't want too much help. (It turns out that he's a been a big wig in the Commie world since 1920 and by comparisions the leaders in the USSR and China are in the pee-wee league. They respect this "elder statesmen".)

Some tryant asshole overthrows the puppet democracy in Cambodia, switches to communism, begins mass genocide. The Soviets and Vietnamese recoginize that this dude is a scumbag, invade Cambodia, and the problem gets resolved.

Long story short. America, which has had nothing to worry about since the 1860s in terms of security is pissing away all it's wealth fighting communists when communism is not even relevant to what was really going on in the world. West Pakistan and India are using our military aid ($zillions) to blow the shit out of each other. Russia doesn't trust China. China doesn't trust Russia. Vietnam tolerates both of them in exchange for aid. Even though no white people gave a damn when Vietnam signed it's "Declaration of Independence" after WW2, the French continue to fight (CLEARLY imperialism designed to exploit the Vietnamese). The French get bored, tired, or smart. The US "invades" South Vietnam all the while the communists have no problem overthrowing another communist who happens to be a tyrant asshole. The US loses 50,000 lives and dramatically screws up probably 1,000,000 more so that the bullshit government can say it did all it could to fight communism from spreading. We blow a billion kazillion dollars (which we STILL owe and therefor lowers our standard of living NOW) fighting an idea that is so far from threatening the American way of life that it takes some strong dillusions and paranoia to even begin to think that it was a noble cause.

Brandon

[izzme]

i agree with almost everything you said except about cambodia. i have a unique insight into the situation in cambodia.my daughter is married to a guy whose parents escaped cambodia,thanks to some mormon missionaries[and no his parents were not mormans].it's an incredible story they could make a movie of it.i'm sorry, i digress.the old boys in power whith pol pot are still in power now,they just aren't killing everybody now .

[brandondrury]

I admit that I know VERY little about Cambodia. I'm very new to conflicts that involve Cambodia, Pakistan, Indian, etc. The point, however, was we have spent trillions stock piling nukes to combat the Russians because their communism was evil. American citizens and politicans were freaking out, screaming, and going beyond panic. However, when a truly bad dude takes power, these "evil" dudes (Russia / Vietnam) have the ability to step in.

I do need to do WAY more research to understand this completely. However, the simple fact that Russia and Vietnam were willing to remove a threat who was COMMUNIST completely throws a wrench into this American created gang war between Communism and Democracy. The world is more complex.

Brandon

[lumpy]

The US funded / fought / started all these wars in order to prevent the spread of communism, yet Western bathrooms are breeding Bolcheviks. Was it Kruschev who said that the US would "go communist" without a shot being fired?

These historical figures from the 50's are more relevant today than I thought. Eisenhower was given hardly a mention in American History 101; more so for his role as commander of the European theater in WWII than president. All the political science coarses I took in college were the same story; they all propped FDR and JFK up as some sort of immortal demi-gods. Even Woodrow Wilson was given much more time than deserved.

I heard a gentleman on Coast to Coast AM (don't laugh asshole!) the other day who claimed to have pictures of a world map from 1941 that pre-dates Pearl Harbor. The borders on the map were all fucked up with nations listed as "Soviet" or "USA", or "European Union", including a split Germany. The map was called "Post War New World Order".

I almost fell outta the driver's seat! I thought George HW Bush created that phrase.

I have no doubt that this stage has been set for some time and that almost everything is going according to plan.

Lump

[brandondrury]

The US funded / fought / started all these wars in order to prevent the spread of communism, yet Western bathrooms are breeding Bolcheviks. Was it Kruschev who said that the US would "go communist" without a shot being fired?

You are 100% correct. The fastest way for the United States to go communist was to fight communism.

I've been perplexed by just how insignificant the communist "threat" really was. There was NO communist threat other than that fabricated in the minds of the US propaganda machine.

You are right on with your Eisenhower statements. His methods have EXTREME relavency in 2008. I am COMPLETELY FUCKING PISSED that my education was so inadequate. I got goosebumps at least 20 times in that book. Eisenhower had it figured out for the most part. Hell, even when he was fighting the communists the budget was still balanced. I can't help but wonder what my financial situation would be like if I didn't owe China $30,000.

Brandon

[Andrew07]

Cool thread here guys- nice and civil too!

Im not an economist buff, but Id be interested to see how the impact of the Vietnam War compares to the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (rough estimates to my knowledge is Vietnam-$130 billion Iraq-$320 billion. but with the changing value of the dollar after 40 years, dunno how this would equate)

Well look at the outbreak of communism mid-WWI. After the armistice of WWI, the US entered Russia and secretly fought the communists there for (1-2) years. Although we don't seem to remember much about WWI-up to the Depression, there was still some pretty interesting things happening in the US. Not only women's suffrage, but i think also you can trace some beginnings of the black civil rights movement.

I think there WAS some legitimized fear of communism during this time. They had effectively thrown over the Russian govt and the radicalism of a growing number of americans in the US scared the govt. A group of anarchists were carrying out a plan to to send bombs to several dozen other big political figures. So Wilson tied them in with communists. This book is very good on this subject: Amazon.com: Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919: Books: Ann Hagedorn

Its strange--I'm also against going to war, yet I love reading military books and watching military programs. I guess im just some kinda fucking sadist

[brandondrury]

rough estimates to my knowledge is Vietnam-$130 billion Iraq-$320 billion.

I read recently that we had already spent one trillion dollars in Iraq. We'll never know for sure. I heard we were spending one billion bucks per day.

After the armistice of WWI, the US entered Russia and secretly fought the communists there for (1-2) years.

I never heard that one. WW1 is still pretty new to me. I watched a 10 part documentary but that is about it.

I think there WAS some legitimized fear of communism during this time.

I can't say that there was NOTHING to be afraid of. If there was nothing to be afraid of we would have no military. However, the notion that we need anything more than what Eisenhower called "deterrent" in regard to nuclear weapons is 100% insanity. The missile gap that Commander Cocksucker (JFK) spoke about was complete horseshit propaganda used to scare the Amerian public into electing him. I'm glad he was destroyed. My $ would be worth even less right now if that piece of shit would have lived longer.

Its strange--I'm also against going to war, yet I love reading military books and watching military programs.

That's funny that we have the same interests. I never knew. I've been big on the Nazi/WW2/Cold War shit for several years now. I too have 0 interest in joining the military but it's practically all I read about.

[.tom]

here's an article written by noam chomsky in the late 90's i believe you'll find interesting. among some points, he also hits on u.s. military presence in the middle east, policing/regulating the oil industry to keep oil prices from gouging u.s. oil profits... the article is titled; how free is the free market?

[brandondrury]

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood."

How are these principles upheld in the richest country in the world, with absolutely unparalleled advantages and no excuses for not completely satisfying them?

Easy. Because no one really gives a shit. Everyone wants their SUV, a house they can't afford, a $6,000,000 church building, and an Iphone in America. No one really gives a damn about people who are legimately starving. If they did, most of our problems could be solved both at home and abroad.

UNESCO estimates that about 500,000 children die every year from debt repayment alone.

Interesting. I like this logic. It's ironic that we keep piling up astronomical amounts of debt.

[.tom]

ya, he's got a fresh outlook and a educated tung. it is rediculous hundreds will die of starvation in this country today yet, the corporations, the govt, the media and most peeps that make over $50k/yr. can't consider it. our foreign policies favour multi-national corporate interests. when tax monies fail to get the foreign interest tasks completed, the black (market)monies will -like a bottle of whiskey amidst prohibition.