No so-called 'war' better illustrates the lies the government spreads to 'justify' its participation than the War in Vietnam. The "Official Reason"(keep this in mind) for our entry into this carnage was our fear of the dreaded "domino effect", which was certain to occur throughout Southeast Asia, if we allowed Vietnam to accept Communism. Well, guess what?,, after many years of 'useless fighting', with thousands dying, on both sides, we gave up and Vietnam did go for Communism, and far from a "hair-on-fire" condemnation of this deplorable event, we were able to miraculously embrace this dreaded enemy Communist nation and even went so far as to grant it good trading status and now, instead of killing each other, we're happy to call them our good trading partners. How can any reasonably sane person look on this episode as anything but certifiably insane??? And how can anyone put a different spin on what I call "losing over 57,000 troops for exactly NOTHING? I know we have many memorials for soldiers who died for "freedom" (as our head propagandists would call it) but Is there a 'memorial' somewhere, for troops who "died for nothing"? Can anyone come up with a different conclusion? I challenge anyone to put a different spin on this. (Full disclosure, yes, I was part of that debacle, in 67/68 during the TET Offensive, which has been described as 'the worst of it').
Now NCs analysis somewhat misses how critical and important the heroic defeat of the US was. And may underestimate how limited and nationalist as opposed to truly revolutionary and communist the Vietnamese leadership was.
Chomsky argues that the US so devastated Vietnam as to prevent it from becoming a true revolutionary domino capable of inspiring real socialist revolutions in other Third World nations. The "threat of a good example" --of real radical development outside the US imposed imperial order ---was averted in that sense. Maximal US goals were not achieved but in this key minimal sense the USA "won" the so called Vietnam War by Chomsky's analysis.
No can do, but I can site 2 that may be close. First, war protest songs. Too many to name but “Handsome Johnny” by Richly Havens and Lou Gossett Jr. Also, “There’s a wall in Washington” by Iris DeMent. Second, referring to Paul Street’s inclusion of the prairie lands in his article. For more on this I recommend “Altars of Unhewn Stone: Science and the Earth” by Wes Jackson.
Tomorrow I will report on the limits of elite US imperial debate regarding the carnage in Ukraine.
Please do Paul,
But please if you can be concise
Cheers
Jfc
Love you Paul
I wish everyone would read/read Paul Street!
You and me both! 😂
This is a great piece.
Appearances can be as important as realities in most areas of government. Someone's "heroic defeat" could be someone else simply "giving up".
No so-called 'war' better illustrates the lies the government spreads to 'justify' its participation than the War in Vietnam. The "Official Reason"(keep this in mind) for our entry into this carnage was our fear of the dreaded "domino effect", which was certain to occur throughout Southeast Asia, if we allowed Vietnam to accept Communism. Well, guess what?,, after many years of 'useless fighting', with thousands dying, on both sides, we gave up and Vietnam did go for Communism, and far from a "hair-on-fire" condemnation of this deplorable event, we were able to miraculously embrace this dreaded enemy Communist nation and even went so far as to grant it good trading status and now, instead of killing each other, we're happy to call them our good trading partners. How can any reasonably sane person look on this episode as anything but certifiably insane??? And how can anyone put a different spin on what I call "losing over 57,000 troops for exactly NOTHING? I know we have many memorials for soldiers who died for "freedom" (as our head propagandists would call it) but Is there a 'memorial' somewhere, for troops who "died for nothing"? Can anyone come up with a different conclusion? I challenge anyone to put a different spin on this. (Full disclosure, yes, I was part of that debacle, in 67/68 during the TET Offensive, which has been described as 'the worst of it').
Now NCs analysis somewhat misses how critical and important the heroic defeat of the US was. And may underestimate how limited and nationalist as opposed to truly revolutionary and communist the Vietnamese leadership was.
Chomsky argues that the US so devastated Vietnam as to prevent it from becoming a true revolutionary domino capable of inspiring real socialist revolutions in other Third World nations. The "threat of a good example" --of real radical development outside the US imposed imperial order ---was averted in that sense. Maximal US goals were not achieved but in this key minimal sense the USA "won" the so called Vietnam War by Chomsky's analysis.
No can do, but I can site 2 that may be close. First, war protest songs. Too many to name but “Handsome Johnny” by Richly Havens and Lou Gossett Jr. Also, “There’s a wall in Washington” by Iris DeMent. Second, referring to Paul Street’s inclusion of the prairie lands in his article. For more on this I recommend “Altars of Unhewn Stone: Science and the Earth” by Wes Jackson.
Very well put...
I'd invert your proposed rltsp between capitalism and the killing machine.