Iraq Veterans vulnerable to commit suicide

[Buffalo Roam]

So you think being the USSR being unfriendly to the US is sufficient justification for attacking Vietnam in a proxy war?

The war was already a decade old by the time the U.S. became involved, and it was still in progress as we did become involved.

 

[quadraphonics]

Like I said, it was a bid for power enforced by attacking small defenceless nations. So what are you saying different?

The difference is that you keep implying that this was some kind of one-sided endeavor initiated and sustained by the United States. In fact, America's posture arose in reaction to Soviet ambitions and revolutionary rhetoric. Likewise, your characterization of America "attacking Vietnam" is off-base: the conflict was started by North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam, and America didn't get involved until *years* later. The situation with Korea was similar. I get the impression that the last 15-odd years of American hegemony have left you unable to conceive of a world in which anyone other than America possesses any agency.

 

[S.A.M.]

The difference is that you keep implying that this was some kind of one-sided endeavor initiated and sustained by the United States. In fact, America's posture arose in reaction to Soviet ambitions and revolutionary rhetoric. Likewise, your characterization of America "attacking Vietnam" is off-base: the conflict was started by North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam, and America didn't get involved until *years* later. The situation with Korea was similar. I get the impression that the last 15-odd years of American hegemony have left you unable to conceive of a world in which anyone other than America possesses any agency.

Lets ignore that North Vietnam asked the US for help to attain independence. Lets ignore that the US was unilaterally supporting dictators and human rights abuses. Lets ignore the carnage initiated and sustained since WWII by the US in undermining human rights internationally both in politics, through military interventions, overthrow and death squads and School of Americas graduates; and trade, through imposition of conditions for aid and free trade through subsidised US corporations and industries. Lets ignore all these as defensive measures of a nation of people ruled by fear who trust their guns more than their neighbors.

Even then, after ignoring all this, there is no justification for the wars in Vietnam and also now in Iraq.

 

[spidergoat]

We have to support dictators sometimes, don't be so naive.

 

[S.A.M.]

The war was already a decade old by the time the U.S. became involved, and it was still in progress as we did become involved.

Did you really get involved so much later?

Dumping Ho

In the wake of the Second World War, it was recognized that the Soviet Union would henceforth be a serious competitor to the West. America viewed the Soviet Union and its allies as a bloc. As far as Washington was concerned, the entire communist world was controlled by Moscow.[22] In spite of Hồ's pleas for U.S. recognition,[23] the U.S. gradually came to the conclusion that he was under Moscow's control. This perception suited the French. As United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson noted, "the U.S. came to the aid of the French … because we needed their support for our policies in regard to NATO … The French blackmailed us. At every meeting … they brought up Indochina … but refused to tell me what they hoped to accomplish or how. Perhaps they didn't know."[24]

Supporting French colonialism

In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy and train Vietnamese soldiers.[27] By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80% of the cost of the war

Partition

As dictated by the Geneva Conference of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending national elections on July 20, 1956. Much like Korea, the agreement stipulated that the two military zones were to be separated by a temporary demarcation line (known as the Demilitarized Zone or DMZ). The United States, alone among the great powers, refused to sign the Geneva agreement.

Power politics and pawns

The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration,[36] some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil. Thus, the Domino Theory provided a powerful motive for the American creation of a client state in southern Vietnam.[37] The theory underpinned American policy in Vietnam for five presidencies.[38] Another important motive was the preservation of U.S. credibility and prestige.

The United States pursued a policy of containment. Following the North Atlantic Treaty Organization model, Washington established the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) to counter communist expansion in the region. The policy of containment was first suggested by George F. Kennan in the 1947 X Article, published anonymously in Foreign Affairs and remained U.S. policy for the next quarter of a century.

Handpicked leader

Ngo Dinh Diem was chosen by the U.S. to lead South Vietnam. A devout Roman Catholic, he was fervently anti-communist and was "untainted" by any connection to the French. He was one of the few prominent Vietnamese nationalist who could claim both attributes. Historian Luu Doan Huynh notes, however, that "Diem represented narrow and extremist nationalism coupled with autocracy and nepotism."[39]

In April and June 1955, Diem (against U.S. advice) cleared the decks of any political opposition by launching military operations against the Cao Dai religious sect, the Buddhist Hoa Hao, and the Binh Xuyen organized crime group (which was allied with members of the secret police and some military elements). Diem accused these groups of harboring Communist agents. As broad-based opposition to his harsh tactics mounted, Diem increasingly sought to blame the communists.[40]

Propaganda games

Beginning in the summer of 1955, he launched the "Denounce the Communists" campaign, during which communists and other anti-government elements were arrested, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Opponents were labeled Viet Cong by the regime to demean their nationalist credentials. During this period refugees moved across the demarcation line in both directions. Around 52,000 Vietnamese civilians moved from south to north. 450,000 people, primarily Catholics, traveled from the north to south, in aircraft and ships provided by France and the U.S.[41] CIA propaganda efforts increased the outflow with slogans such as "the Virgin Mary is going South." The northern refugees were meant to give Diem a strong anti-communist constituency

More games and "democracy"

In a referendum on the future of the monarchy, Diem rigged the poll which was supervised by his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and received "98.2 percent" of the vote, including "133 percent" in Saigon. His American advisers had recommended a more modest winning margin of "60 to 70 percent." Diem, however, viewed the election as a test of authority.[43] On October 26, 1955, Diem declared the new Republic of Vietnam, with himself as president.[44] The creation of the Republic of Vietnam was largely because of the Eisenhower administration's desire for an anti-communist state in the region.[45] Colonel Edward Lansdale, a CIA officer, became an important advisor to the new president.

As a wealthy Catholic, Diem was viewed by many ordinary Vietnamese as part of the old elite that had helped the French rule Vietnam. The majority of Vietnamese people were Buddhist, so his attack on the Buddhist community served only to deepen mistrust. Diem's human rights abuses increasingly alienated the population.

In May, Diem undertook a ten day state visit of the United States. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support. A parade in New York City was held in his honor. Although Diem was openly praised, in private Secretary of State John Foster Dulles conceded that he had been selected because there were no better alternative.[46]

Still more games

Successive American administrations, as Robert McNamara and others have noted, over-estimated the control that Hanoi had over the NLF.[25] Diem's paranoia, repression, and incompetence progressively angered large segments of the population of South Vietnam.[52] Thus, many maintain that the origins of the anti-government violence were homegrown, rather than inspired by Hanoi.[53] However, as historian Douglas Pike pointed out, “today, no serious historian would defend the thesis that North Vietnam was not involved in the Vietnam war from the start.... To maintain this thesis today, one would be obliged to deal with the assertion of Northern involvement that have poured out of Hanoi since the end of the war.

Coup and chaos

Some policy-makers in Washington began to conclude that Diem was incapable of defeating the communists and might even make a deal with Ho Chi Minh. He seemed concerned only with fending off coups. As Robert F. Kennedy noted, "Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with …"[65] During the summer of 1963 U.S. officials began discussing the possibility of a regime change. The United States Department of State was generally in favor of encouraging a coup. The Pentagon and CIA were more alert to the destabilizing consequences of such an act and wanted to continue applying pressure for reforms.

Chief among the proposed changes was the removal of Diem's younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. Nhu controlled the secret police and was seen as the man behind the Buddhist repression. As Diem's most powerful adviser, Nhu had become a hated figure in South Vietnam. His continued influence was unacceptable to the Kennedy administration. Eventually, the administration concluded that Diem was unwilling to change.

The CIA was in contact with generals planning to remove Diem. They were told that the United States would support such a move. President Diem was overthrown and executed, along with his brother, on November 2, 1963. When he was informed, Maxwell Taylor remembered that Kennedy "rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face."[66] He had not approved Diem's murder. The U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., invited the coup leaders to the embassy and congratulated them. Ambassador Lodge informed Kennedy that "the prospects now are for a shorter war".[67]

Following the coup, chaos ensued. Hanoi took advantage of the situation and increased its support for the guerrillas. South Vietnam entered a period of extreme political instability, as one military government toppled another in quick succession. Increasingly, each new regime was viewed as a puppet of the Americans. For whatever the failings of Diem, his credentials as a nationalist had been impeccable.

America moves in

Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military advisers from 800 to 16,300 to cope with rising guerrilla activity. The advisers were embedded at every level of the South Vietnamese armed forces. They were, however, almost completely ignorant of the political nature of the insurgency. The insurgency was a political power struggle, in which military engagements were not the main goal.[15] The Kennedy administration sought to refocus U.S. efforts on pacification and "winning over the hearts and minds" of the population. The military leadership in Washington, however, was hostile to any role for U.S. advisers other than conventional troop training.[69] General Paul Harkins, the commander of U.S. forces in South Vietnam, confidently predicted victory by Christmas 1963.[70] The CIA was less optimistic, however, warning that "the Viet Cong by and large retain de facto control of much of the countryside and have steadily increased the overall intensity of the effort

Gulf of Tonkin and War

. "The Gulf of Tonkin incident," writes Louise Gerdes, "is an oft-cited example of the way in which Johnson misled the American people to gain support for his foreign policy in Vietnam."[82] George C. Herring argues, however, that McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe."[83] Rising from 5,000 in 1959, there were now 100,000 guerrilla fighters in 1964.[15] Some have argued that ten soldiers are needed to deal with one every insurgent.[15] Thus, the total number of U.S. troops in 1964 needed to defeat the insurgents may have exceeded the entire strength of the United States Army.[15]
A Marine from 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, moves a supposed NLF activist to the rear during a search and clear operation held by the battalion 15 miles (24 km) west of Da Nang Air Base.
A Marine from 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, moves a supposed NLF activist to the rear during a search and clear operation held by the battalion 15 miles (24 km) west of Da Nang Air Base.

The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. On March 2, 1965, following an attack on a U.S. Marine barracks at Pleiku, Operation Flaming Dart and Operation Rolling Thunder commenced. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the NLF by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese.[84] Between March 1965 and November 1968, "Rolling Thunder" deluged the north with a million tons of missiles, rockets and bombs.[85] Bombing was not restricted to North Vietnam. Other aerial campaigns, such as Operation Commando Hunt, targeted different parts of the NLF and PAVN infrastructure. These included the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which ran through Laos and Cambodia. The objective of forcing North Vietnam to stop its support for the NLF, however, was never reached. As one officer noted "this is a political war and it calls for discriminate killing. The best weapon … would be a knife … The worst is an airplane."[86] The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, however, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the Communists that "we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age".[87]

 

[quadraphonics]

Lets ignore that North Vietnam asked the US for help to attain independence.

Not North Vietnam, the Viet Minh. North Vietnam didn't come into existence until 10 years later, at the end of the French period.

Even then, after ignoring all this, there is no justification for the wars in Vietnam and also now in Iraq.

Okay. As I've just said three or four times, understanding the reasons for America's actions does not require one to approve of them. And I've never indicated that the Vietnam war was a good idea, nor did I support the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure why you say these things to me as if they'll shock or upset me. Moreover, it would be great if you actually laid out your case, rather than simply making bald assertions backed by tired rhetoric.

 

[quadraphonics]

Supporting French colonialism

Your reference is explicit that American policy-makers did not want to support French colonialism, but felt compelled to do so by the Communist threat. He goes so far as to use the word "blackmailed." Only you would be obstinate enough to argue against this well-known fact for pages and pages, and obtuse enough to then turn around and post references which explicitly repudiate you as if nothing had happened.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not North Vietnam, the Viet Minh. North Vietnam didn't come into existence until 10 years later, at the end of the French period.



Okay. As I've just said three or four times, understanding the reasons for America's actions does not require one to approve of them. And I've never indicated that the Vietnam war was a good idea, nor did I support the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure why you say these things to me as if they'll shock or upset me. Moreover, it would be great if you actually laid out your case, rather than simply making bald assertions backed by tired rhetoric.

I don't understand your argument either, since all you have done in a roundabout way is verify what I already said.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your reference is explicit that American policy-makers did not want to support French colonialism, but felt compelled to do so by the Communist threat. He goes so far as to use the word "blackmailed." Only you would be obstinate enough to argue against this well-known fact for pages and pages, and obtuse enough to then turn around and post references which explicitly repudiate you as if nothing had happened.

Hmm so they felt compelled to support the military occupation of Vietnamese to undermine the Communist threat. Does this actually make sense to you?

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't understand your argument either, since all you have done in a roundabout way is verify what I already said.

Oh, I understand your argument just fine. That's why I'm so astute at pointing out the holes in it. For my part, I'm not so much making an argument as trying to rectify some of the more blatant falsities that you have built your position on. My goal is not to alter your final opinion of, for example, the Vietnam War, but rather to get you to form and present an opinion based on reality, rather than rewriting history in whichever erroneous way happens to accord most nicely with whichever diatribe you happen to be engaged in at the moment.

As far as verifying what you've said, that's an artifact of two phenomenon: your unaknowledged alteration of your position as certain facts become indisputable, and your obtusity in persistently misreading my statements. I judge myself to have already done a sufficient amount of hand-holding when it comes to getting through to you. I suggest you re-read my earlier posts if you still feel confused.

 

[quadraphonics]

Hmm so they felt compelled to support the military occupation of Vietnamese to undermine the Communist threat. Does this actually make sense to you?

As explained by the reference you posted, the French demanded their way in Vietnam in exchange for supporting NATO, which was the priority. NATO was the core element of the global struggle against communism, formed with the goal of containing Soviet advances in Europe. That Minh was thought to be controlled by the Soviets further sweetened the pot.

It would be frustrating to have you disputing your own references if I had any respect left for you. By now I'm content to let you look like a fool.

 

[countezero]

Why? I find it complete nonsense that everyone thinks the veterans committing suicide is somehow separate from the US policy of pointless wars and killing innocent people. Its a wonder that there are still some veterans with a conscience left in the US forces.

I find it complete nonsense that your think the US fights "pointless wars" and kills "innocent people," but I accept that's your point of view. What's even more nonsensical, however, is your inability to accept or appreciate the fact that people might view those wars as purposeful and the vast majority of the dead as something other than "innocent." But why should anyone bother with you? You've shown your colors in this thread, and they aren't pretty or worthy of comment.

 

[S.A.M.]

As explained by the reference you posted, the French demanded their way in Vietnam in exchange for supporting NATO, which was the priority. NATO was the core element of the global struggle against communism, formed with the goal of containing Soviet advances in Europe. That Minh was thought to be controlled by the Soviets further sweetened the pot.

It would be frustrating to have you disputing your own references if I had any respect left for you. By now I'm content to let you look like a fool.

So occupation of other people is alright when the goal is US struggle against <insert ideology>. This is the same argument that Americans use for all their atrocities. I believe the Nazis intended to built better humans. Everyone has a noble goal as long as other people have to die for it. Would you have sacrificed a few million of your own people in this noble war?

 

[S.A.M.]

I find it complete nonsense that your think the US fights "pointless wars" and kills "innocent people," but I accept that's your point of view. What's even more nonsensical, however, is your inability to accept or appreciate the fact that people might view those wars as purposeful and the vast majority of the dead as something other than "innocent." But why should anyone bother with you? You've shown your colors in this thread, and they aren't pretty or worthy of comment.

Yeah, all the Vietnamese and Iraqis are guilty. I'm sure you'll think of a crime befitting the punishment eventually.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, I understand your argument just fine. That's why I'm so astute at pointing out the holes in it. For my part, I'm not so much making an argument as trying to rectify some of the more blatant falsities that you have built your position on. My goal is not to alter your final opinion of, for example, the Vietnam War, but rather to get you to form and present an opinion based on reality, rather than rewriting history in whichever erroneous way happens to accord most nicely with whichever diatribe you happen to be engaged in at the moment.

As far as verifying what you've said, that's an artifact of two phenomenon: your unaknowledged alteration of your position as certain facts become indisputable, and your obtusity in persistently misreading my statements. I judge myself to have already done a sufficient amount of hand-holding when it comes to getting through to you. I suggest you re-read my earlier posts if you still feel confused.

I'm sure this all makes sense to you. From my reading of your posts, you've provided excuses but essentially said what I did. That the US fights pointless wars against defenseless nations, using bogeymen to further its agenda.

Now you can call the pointless war a noble struggle against communism, the defenceless country a proxy ground, the dumping of Ho the viable alternative to communism (which by the way is still around) and bogeyman, the biggest threat to world peace until the War on Terror.

To me, that's just using words to cover up what the essence is. The US smelled power after WWII and killed everyone who got in the way, except those who could fight back. This is why there was a war in Vietnam Aghanistan Iraq, there was support for dictators, overthrow of governments, death squads. Then, the bogeyman was communism, now its the war on terror. Ultimately, all it is, is power play. The motto being "we don't do body counts". That sums up the philosophy of US foreign policy rather well.

I can just imagine what the dialogue would be if it was an European country under occupation when the deal was to be made.

 

[quadraphonics]

So occupation is alright when the goal is US struggle against <insert ideology>.

No, the position is that supporting the French was the lesser of two evils (the other being losing Europe, and then the world, to Communism). That doesn't mean that the lesser evil isn't still evil. It just means that America has priorities.

And it wasn't an American struggle against Communism; we just happened to be the most powerful nation in the anti-Communist camp.

This is the same argument that Americans use for all their atrocities.

I don't think that the decision to back French colonialism in Vietnam is in itself an atrocity, as the word is generally understood.

Would you have sacrificed a few million of your own people in this noble war?

Well, we risked complete annihilation by engaging in a nuclear arms race with the Soviets. And we lost quite a few people in Korea and Vietnam. And then there's the huge piles of cash we dedicated to the struggle, which could have been used to save or improve untold numbers of lives.

As for nobility, I'll direct you to examine the response of Eastern European countries when the yoke of Communism was finally lifted from them: they all embraced capitalism and democracy and joined NATO.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, the position is that supporting the French was the lesser of two evils (the other being losing Europe, and then the world, to Communism). That doesn't mean that the lesser evil isn't still evil. It just means that America has priorities.

And it wasn't an American struggle against Communism; we just happened to be the most powerful nation in the anti-Communist camp.

And of course, who cares about some Third World country under occupation?

I don't think that the decision to back French colonialism in Vietnam is in itself an atrocity, as the word is generally understood.

I bet if you were under military occupation by a foreign power, you'd have a rosy view of anyone who supported it.

Well, we risked complete annihilation by engaging in a nuclear arms race with the Soviets. And we lost quite a few people in Korea and Vietnam. And then there's the huge piles of cash we dedicated to the struggle, which could have been used to save or improve untold numbers of lives.

Ah risk and money. American priorities are so wonderful. Whats a few million lives here and there?

As for nobility, I'll direct you to examine the response of Eastern European countries when the yoke of Communism was finally lifted from them: they all embraced capitalism and democracy and joined NATO.

All due to the US no doubt. I hope they were sufficiently grateful for their liberation at the cost of American <insert perceived sacrifices made>

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm sure this all makes sense to you.

Indeed. And I'm unsurprised that you are unable to make sense of it.

From my reading of your posts, you've provided excuses but essentially said what I did. That the US fights pointless wars against defenseless nations, using bogeymen to further its agenda.

If the wars are pointless, why does America pursue them? If the nations are defenseless, why doesn't America win? If Communism was a bogeyman, where did those armies that invaded and occupied Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, etc. come from? The nuclear missiles that menaced the West for so many decades? Why did so many other countries sign up for NATO?

The US smelled power after WWII and killed everyone who got in the way, except those who could fight back. This is why there was a war in Vietnam Aghanistan Iraq,

How did any of those wars increase American power? I don't dispute that power politics is a real force throughout the world history, but that doesn't mean American actions are based solely on cynical Realpolitick. Indeed, Americans policy has often been criticized as too idealistic.

For example, how do you square American efforts such as the creation of the UN and Peace Corps, or the undermining of the Anglo/Franco/Israeli attack on the Suez with your view of America as driven purely by the violent pursuit of power?

I can just imagine what the dialogue would be if it was an European country under occupation when the deal was to be made.

The entire motivation for the deal (and the formation of NATO) was that half of Europe WAS under occupation at the time.

 

[quadraphonics]

And of course, who cares about some Third World country under occupation?

Lots of people. It's just that other things, such as the fate of the entire world, are more important.

I bet if you were under military occupation by a foreign power, you'd have a rosy view of anyone who supported it.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean I'd let my frustration lead me into abusing the definitions of words. Atrocities are things like massacres of civilians. Political decisions as such don't really count.

All due to the US no doubt. I hope they were sufficiently grateful for their liberation at the cost of American <insert perceived sacrifices made>

Huh? No, those countries struggled for years to escape the chains of Soviet oppression, although they were glad to have our support. And, yeah, many of them were grateful to the point of effusiveness. They were among our staunchest supporters in the recent wars, for example.

 

[Enmos]

Today in the papers:

American Iraq Veterans are very vulnerable to commit suicide. Most of them return with severe psychological problems, such as post traumatic stress syndrome.
The papers wrote that the deathrate from postwar suicides is higher then the deathrate on the battleground.

Togheter with this phenomena a lot of veterans, from Iraq and Afghanistan, end up homeless. They live on the streets and are not helped not materialy not financialy.

If this is correct I wonder why people in the USA are driving around with stickers on their cars: 'I support our troups'.
Is nobody taking care of the young men and women that are risking their lives in a allready absurd war??

If you don't want to fight don't become a soldier.