I've seen most of Platoon and all of Good Morning Vietnam, and for sure Hollywood has created many more of the such portrayals. I took a course in Issues in Wor
I've seen most of Platoon and all of Good Morning Vietnam, and Hollywood has created many more of the such portrayals. I took a course in Issues in World Politics in first semester of university, and, although we never totally focused on Vietnam, we side-glanced it in discussion as we talked about this war in Iraq. So it would seem our great countries have their own interests in mind, always before their people. Call me a neo-realist, but as long as there is man, there will be conflict, and yes, even war. Everyone wants something and they'll risk lives and resources to get it. Gain over cost, that's how governments run (do you think any state, if we can call them states any more, would actively engage, while not under duress, any opponent unless there was nothing to be gained?). . . Yet, what was gained in Vietnam? Why do America and nations abroad scratch their heads over the cause of this war? Why couldn't France just let go of this colony and make a Common Wealth system like the British did? Well, who said the Brits were perfect in their transition out of the era of Colonization? Look at India. . . And yet Why did America agree to step in at France's request? Why did they take over that war? Why do so many say they failed, that it was a pointless war? What about those who risked their lives for their country? There are far too many questions and not enough solid answers, but I do know this: there was no gain over cost here. It was not a war in the American people's interest. The government did not consider its people. Is it any wonder why Americans feel the need to carry guns, and why they do not trust their own government? Is Iraq any different? No. Every once in a while you hear of 20 or so Americans getting killed by a suicide bomber or by rebels. There's no weapons of mass destruction found, still! But, hey, that doesn't matter now, because Iraq is already being conquered by the American government. Again, is this necessarily what the people wanted? No, I doubt that. The system is but a clever dictatorship, and the American system of democracy is but a peaceful mostly (minus the bombs) conquerer, no different then the great Roman empire of their day. Perhaps more devious and cunning and deceptive. The top civilization, perceives its threat and assimilates it as a part of its own system. American democracy: the new form of colonization.By no means am I anti-American. . . It's a wonderful country and has the most successful political system, arguably on this planet. That's why I'm so critical. Because even the seemingly best system is not perfect, it has its flaws. IT is not clean, lol. If you wish to debate the issue, I love to spar. Please do!
Add a comment
Comments
1 - 18 of 18
-
Imagine your home burnt down, you mother, wife and daughter ravaged, you son killed and everything you hold dear destroyed. Any moral leader could see Iraq needed help. We helped them. I know plenty of solierds and after having returned, after seeing the ruins that country was in, they said they were happy to have gone. Perhaps Bush did have a hidden, financial agenda he was thinking about when he declared war, but that matters not. We saved lives, we lost lives, but when our country goes to war you must support the troops. If their own country wont even stand by them, who will? Notice I made no personal attacks in this response, I respect your views, I am merely expressing my own. I also have no college training, I am a junior in highschool, so my reasoning may have gaps.
-Jake -
Hey buddy, thank you, thank you, thank you so much for the edit! No need to delete your comment. I know I'm not perfect and I appreciate your comment. Not many people would have the confidence or the heart to show me my errors. Mind you, some of it is a question of style, lol. . . I notice that you favour parentheses, where as, I have been taught to favour commas. And of course, everyone's voice and diction is distinctive, but. . . lol, I confess. . . it was a first draft. I wanted to get the thought out there and I'm also probably my own worst editor. Hopefully it is at least somewhat fixed now, lol. . . Thank you so much for your edit.
Now as for your comment. . . "Gain over cost" is the central element of of both politics and economics. For econonmics you want more profit then you do expenses. Politics, however is conflict. If there was no conflict, there would be no politics. And in any conflict you want a solution, or at least some advantage, because you can be losing and still be gaining in some way. And, no matter what, you always want this to be greater than the cost to get there, otherwise, what was the point? None. Politics happen because everyone seeks their own interests. You want something that will satisfy you (gain). Not something that will devastate you, that is against your will to be satisfied (cost). Is this the only issue in any foreign policy? You could argue no, there are too many other issues. . . that's why we have governments and departments to focus on various issues. . . But in the end, if you look at the heart of each of those, it is very hard to say that they have nothing to gain. -
Great job with this. Not really my favorite topic to read about, but I still enjoyed reading it. Thanks for sharing. Keep it up.
~Miranda -
I do not think I could win a debate with you , or I would quickly challenge you. But, after reading this column , I can quickly say without a doubt or without remorse..yu have some excellents points of contention. We are a great country ..no doubt...but when I takl to people who have fought in wars , I often here this said.."why are we never satisifed" I do not know ..as long as there is a world there will be wars .And I must ask ..do yuo think there is ever a true winner in a war? Very interesting piece of work ...shasta
-
I guess with such an issue, it is hard to find a very objective answer given the limited amount of intelligence that is shared with us by the decision maker(s).
For me, the answer is in the simplicity of things, foreign policy, weapons of mass destruction, whatever guise you want to us to wear, the end of the day, it is a war of necessity to preserve the limited resources for our children's children in a region where sanity does not prevail. Everything else is secondary.
Good write and good points made but I'll stick with the simple logic; also helps me preserve my own sanity, in a way.
Zoo'ie Side'aly yours,
Spear --> -
P.S. another great vietnam movie to watch is Bette Midlers "for the boys" a very very good movie.
-
I agree whole heartedly with you Monkey-turtle, this was a well thought out and intellegent piece of work,way to go.
-
hmmm
yeah ok. maybe the US government didn't have to take it over, but ain't it still good that they freed that country? or maybe not. they're fuckin outta control over there, so it's all messed up whichever way you look at it. A soldier is a patriot, and a patriot isn't a good thing anymore. Patriotism amongst americans and british has destroyed Iraq. Plain n simple. Take down the american flag and burn it. And burn the union jack. Flags are just the stamp that says: "we suck, we are liberal viewed nations who want to take over the world". Think about that. Maybe we are taking over the world....that's how it seems. Bush and Blair seem to want power. Greed. Retaliation let us realise what's fucked up over there, but we've made it worse. Fuck it. Politics and war are the diseases. We are , or "they" are the infected victims. But above all that, your er.."poem"...statement..speech whatever, is good. I like your attitude here. You know more than me, and maybe I'm talking bullshit but I know a what looks good, and this statement has awesome written all over it. Good job. Peace- 'spaz. -
I don't think that you even made an argument here, though I agree with many of the sentiments expressed. You must fix the many grammatical errors, if you wish to be taken seriously.
-
We were ambushed, and bamboozled by two men with an agenda who led us to believe that there was grave danger and then watered that down to saddam was a beast who needed removal ,and then watered that down again with establishing a democracy in a third world barbaric regime who spit on our ideals....now we are losing boys to the tune of 80 or more, and civilians held hostage, and the two idiots running this fiasco say stay the course.....of course they have no family there, why not..bastards,I am going to encourage all americans to drive those chads through the floor with a resounding bang that'll shake up some old election ladies and remove the ambush and dick from this countries ass.....Artis
-
I consider myself to be anti-american, as America's Government has only gone downhill. What I do not understand is how the government can call us free when we the people have no say what so ever as to what happens.
Personally I believe America agreed to help France because it is in a way a country we have always allied with. Look into the past world wars and you will better see my point. And then also realize that America took over for France because we have to be the best. We have always been like that, trying to dominate every situation.
The suicide bombings bring up another interesting point. For one, if we had REALLY conquered Iraq would we still be dealing with things like that? No. We all know conspiracies rarely exist, but I firmly believe the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and hide from us the sad and scary truth. We have no control over what goes on in Iraq, and we SHOULDN'T have control anyway, as they are their own country.
Live free or die. Americans need to return to that standerd set hundreds upon thousands of years ago. -
Well, I am not going to debate the merits of your argument, though I do believe much of it is quite beside the point. "Gain over cost" is not the be all and end all of American foriegn policy - I believe many people would say thatit is a policy of politics not economics. Your essay has several errrors in grammar and punctuation that I would be very happy to correct for you - I believe these corrections will eliminate these distractions from your argument.
I've seen most of Platoon and all of Good Morning Vietnam, and Hollywood has created many more of the same portrayals. I took a course in Issues in World Politics in the first semester of university, and, although we never totally focused on Vietnam, we side-glanced it in discussion as we talked about this war in Iraq. So it would seem our great countries have their own interests in mind (always before that of their people). I think I am being realistic when I say that as long as there is mankind, there will be conflict, and yes, even war (since everyone wants something and they'll risk lives to get it). Gain over cost is how governments are run. But what was gained in Vietnam? Why do America and nations abroad scratch their heads over the cause of this war? Why couldn't France just let go of this colony and make a Common Wealth system like the British did? Well, who said the Brits were perfect in their transition out of the era of Colonization? Look at India. And why did America agree to step in at France's request? Why did they take over that war? Why do so many say they failed, that it was a pointless war? What about those who risked their lives for their country? There are far too many questions and not enough solid answers, but I do know this: there was no gain over cost here. It was not a war in the American people's interest. The government did not consider its people. Is it any wonder Americans feel the need to carry guns, and why they do not trust their own government? Is Iraq any different? No. Every once in a while you hear of 20 or so Americans getting killed by a suicide bomber or by rebels. There are no weapons of mass destruction found. (Still!) But, hey, that doesn't matter now, because Iraq is already conquered by the American government. Again, is this necessarily what the people wanted? No, I doubt that. The system is but a clever dictatorship, and the American system of democracy is but a peaceful mostly (minus the bombs) conquerer, no different then the great Roman empire of their day. Perhaps more devious and cunning and deceptive. The top civilization, perceives its threat and assimilates it as a part of its own system. American democracy: the new form of colonization.
I hope you find this helpful. I will, of course, delete this comment once you have made the corrections (if any) that you see fit.
-
Dear MT, I am not sure that your point about carrying guns is very relevant here. Americans have always carried guns. Are you contending that America's foreign policy over the last 50 years has made it worse somehow?
The peoples interest is an interesting arena is it not? I wonder how many wars, police actions, and campaigns etc would actually have taken place if it were put to a vote?
Certainly America seems to be a lot more robust in defending their rights and also in defining what those rights are and where, but the nation is young, as civilisations go isn't it?
-
Great job I love this, no other thoughts then that i completly and totaly agree.
-
I like the outcome
American democracy: the new form of colonization.
And in fifteen to twenty years: Globalization and Continuous Economic Expansion (after the initial development of some) will be the new colonialist. It's much easier to destroy the one's you never have to look in the face. I wonder when we'll all be annihilated.
Although I do not agree with your statement: "because everyone wants something and they'll risk lives to get it." There is absolutely nothing that I am willing to give my life for. I am willing to fight to change things that do not make sense, political, social or economic mechanisms that are used to exploit people AND the environment, or simply stated anything that is a power structure and subordinator in any way.
And, of course the Americans are the new colonialists; but they aren't Americans. Americans are British, British are French, French are the Huns and the Germanics, the Barbarians are (much to the dismay of the fallen) the Romans, the Romans are the Macedonians....and it continues all the way to the Sumerians and beyond.
It may be because of our lack of correct and un-manipulated historical accounts of their lives, but the ancient cultures of the North and South American continent seem to be the best at not going for all out mass conquering of one another. Although there were wars, there were not as many. If you would like reasoning, why were the weapons of native Americans so primitive when the Europeans came over. For instance, their boats were used for useful endeavors, not war. These examples go on and on, and they show that it at least somewhat possible for an entire society to live without retributive justice, or mere conquer-and-destroy mentality.
However, I'm sure this has gone on way too long.
If I can say anything more about your post is that I am glad you wrote it because, above all, it does show what we do have in countries such as Canada and the United States and most of Western Europe have: freedom. Freedom to say what we wish whenever and where ever we wish. Freedom to know what our governement is up to (albeit well after most actions) and be able to take an active role in changing what we do not like.
p.s. by no means is America the strongest political system, they just have all the power right now (and that does not connote strength or the title of the best) -
lol we have the american government,,,and the roman catholic church,,,who said the roman empire is dead,,,,we are its allies,,,,,this is a wonderfull write,,,,,I feel all of what you are saying here,,,,and agree wholeheartedly,,,,,to often we turn to war to solve a problem we created,,,like iraq,,,,we are afriad of weapons he may have,because our government gave them to him,,,,,and yes it is irrelevent now,,,we have conquered that land,,,but in the end, I think we will see the truth of the follies of those in power,,and like the shock and awe of mister bush,,,,,we shall crumble beneath the barrage of falling eagles,,,,,,,for a nation devided within itself,,,shall fall,,,we are not so different from that would be dictator,,we jsut call him president instead,,,,,well writen,,,,
-
Thank you for seeing my point mystysaint. . . lol. . . I kinda was worried people would try and have me kicked off the sight for this one. . . *eye rolls* but people will be people. . . and I thought what the heck. . . risks are risks. . . My friend what is your opinion of China and India as rising powers? Will Communist China ever become as powerful as the Russians during the Cold War? Will Russia bounce back? What will take over Communism or Democracy? What will become the official world language, English or Mandrin?
I know, I know. . . question question question, lol. . . I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on these matters? lol. . . This goes for anyone else who's read this, or the column above too!
-
This I think is one of the better pieces questioning american government and their choices, without calling all americans fat and stupid you have raised interesting questions, and really, come across as anything BUT anti american ..you asked the same questions the members of this country are asking right now ....I just hope there are answers soon.
Adding your comment:
1 - 18 of 18
