Kill anything that moves
The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era proxy war that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. ... The U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state.
Vietnam has a long history of oppression by western colonizers. The French colonial era lasted from 1858 to 1945. It was extended with French Indochina which lasted until 1954 when the French imperialists reluctantly left Vietnam. French colonial rule was, for the most part, politically repressive and economically exploitative. Anybody with at least a few working braincells knows that the capitalist power elite don't go to places in the world where they don't have anything to gain. When they go to war they have geopolitical, economic and financial gain in mind. For example Vietnam was important because it bordered China, an upcoming economic power which would eventually rival the United States. If the U.S. elite would have had nothing to gain in Vietnam they would have never been there in the first place.
The reasons for U.S. involvement
Along with Lippmann and Morgenthau, Kennan, the great practitioner who first introduced the concept of containment, insists that the U.S. 'had... no business trying to play a role in the affairs of the mainland of Southeast Asia' (1968: 58). ... the instability of the French regime in the Far East after 1950 gradually led the US to take France's position in the region. In terms of the relationship between the USSR and Communist China, China demanded that they be 'foreign friends' since, as Kirby points out, 'They could not remain standing alone or unaided, but would have to "unite" with others, in this case with the Soviet Union and its allies' (Kirby 1994: 13). The relationship between the two states, therefore, can be called bandwagoning, which Waltz defines as follows: 'States work harder to increase their own strength, or they combine with others, if they are falling behind' (1979: 126).
Free world dominion over the region would provide markets for Japan, rebuilding with American help after the Pacific War. U.S. involvement in Vietnam reassured the British, who linked their postwar recovery to the revival of the rubber and tin industries in their colony of Malaya, one of Vietnam's neighbors. And with U.S. aid, the French could concentrate on economic recovery at home, and could hope ultimately to recall their Indochina officer corps to oversee the rearmament of West Germany.
The main reason for the Vietnam War presented by the mainstream media is anti-communism. But of course the more realistic underlying reason for involvement in the Vietnam War had to do with power and imperialism. The main theme directly following World War II was the Cold War in which the Anglo-American elite competed for power with the Soviet elite. An important reason for U.S. involvement was geopolitical in nature. Vietnam borders China, an upcoming economic power with the potential to become a competitor on a global scale. It lies right next to the South China Sea which is a heavily disputed area. As of 2017 around one-third of global shipping and about 21 percent of global trade moves through it. China uses this maritime route as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. This is of course not to the liking of the Anglo-American elite. With military bases in Vietnam the U.S. could block and prevent China from this trade route and strengthen its own grip in Asia. Francis P. Sempa said that political theorist James Burnhamviewed the war in Vietnam as part of a larger struggle for control of Southeast Asia and predominance in the Asia-Pacific region.It's of course all about power. See also New Cold War.
Regime change (1955)
French imperialism caused communism to rise in Vietnam. The Vietnamese patriots wanted to claim back the land and divide it among the Vietnamese population. Ho Chi Minh started a revolution. The U.S. intervened...
Ngo Dinh Diem was the first president of South Vietnam (1955—1963). In the wake of the French withdrawal from Indochina as a result of the 1954 Geneva Accords, Diem led the effort to create the Republic of Vietnam. Accruing considerable US support due to his staunch anti-communism, he announced victory after a fraudulent 1955 plebiscite in which he won 600,000 votes from an electorate of 450,000 and began building a right-wing dictatorship in South Vietnam.
The top US officials in Vietnam tried to be optimistic, and tried to create the impression that Ngo Dinh Diem was a magnificent and popular leader who was winning the war. A few American reporters were saying that something was seriously wrong, but the US Embassy in Saigon did its best to discredit them.
The United States power elite supported and installed a dictatorship that clearly undermined democracy. The U.S. propaganda machine tried to hide the facts about this cruel regime by falsifying history. But it failed this time because Diem's cruel regime, supported by the U.S., became known to a wider public.
Regime change (1963)
In a letter from the U.S. Ambassador in Vietnam to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs dated to May 1963 we read the following...
Foreseeable situations in which there might be a change in government are listed in ascending order of likelihood that U.S. interests would be adversely affected. A possible U.S. role is suggested for each situation.
A. Diem retires before the end of his term and names Vice President as his constitutional successor.
(Unlikely but would be entirely acceptable. Presumably we would back Vice President Tho strongly, attempt to line up military support under officers sympathetic to Tho, e.g., his friend General Duong Van Minh, and encourage orderly elections.)
US officials in Saigon therefore began encouraging ARVN officers to overthrow Diem. ... The basic problem of the Saigon government--the incompetence and/or corruption of most of its officers--remained unchanged. ... While ARVN officers competed with one another for personal wealth and for political power in Saigon, the guerrillas continued to gain ground in the countryside.
US puppet leader Diem could not be maintained any longer due to public knowledge of his brutal regime so he had to be eliminated. That was done by means of the 1963 South Vietnamese coup. Of course this was controlled and he was replaced with another U.S. puppet, namely General Duong Van Minh.
Gulf of Tonkin false flag (1964)
The Gulf of Tonkin Incidents were used by the US power elite as justification for waging war against North Vietnam...
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, also known as the USS Maddox Incident, is the name given to two separate confrontations involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying US conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. ... It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that the second Tonkin Gulf incident occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved "Tonkin ghosts" (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.
It has now been confirmed that the second incident never took place. This is the cause of great controversy, as it was this second incident that led to the passage of the 'Gulf of Tonkin Resolution', which was used by President Lyndon B. Johnson as justification to scale up US involvement in the Vietnam War.
But the second Tonkin incident did not take place. It was a false flag used to seemingly justify their much wanted involvement in the war.
On 4 August 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson said...
As President and Commander in Chief, it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply. The initial attack on the destroyer Maddox, on August 2, was repeated today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoes. The destroyers and supporting aircraft acted at once on the orders I gave after the initial act of aggression. We believe at least two of the attacking boats were sunk. There were no U.S. losses.
Lyndon B. Johnson was the US Clown President who ordered the White House shower to be directed at his private part. On 7 August 1964 this pervert said about the Gulf of Tunkin incident thatFor all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there. So later he admitted that the second Gulf of Tonkin incident never took place. But it got their war started. See also D. D. Guttenplan's article "When presidents lie to make a war". So the way in which the Anglo-American power elite entered the Vietnam war was typical of U.S. entries into aggressive wars in other parts of the world.
My Lai Massacre (1968)
The My Lai Massacre was the Vietnam War mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968. It was committed by the U.S. Army soldiers from the Company C Infantry Division. Victims included women, men, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated.
Regarding this massacre General William Westmoreland, the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam commander, congratulated the unit on the "outstanding job". That sounds like a serious war crime. So what about serious consequences? Twenty six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Second Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest. House arrest?? So where is the true meaning of international law? Obviously so-called international law is a joke installed and abused by those who place themselves above the law. U.S. government officials turned a blind eye and tried to cover up the atrocity in yet another attempt to falsify history.
Involved in the cover-up was Colin Powell who at that time was army major and charged with investigating a letter describing ongoing and routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians on the part of American forces. Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities. Colin Powell later became United States Secretary of State under George W. Bush and was responsible for the false evidence presented at the United Nations in order to create the support for the Iraq War, another aggressive war. The U.S. is the most powerful member of the United Nations which merely understates the blatant hypocrisy of international law. In 2014 journalist Trent Angers wroteIt is now clear, after extensive research, that Nixon initiated the campaign to sabotage the My Lai massacre trials so no American soldier involved in the killings would be convicted of war crimes.In 1971 the Pentagon Papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg showing that the Johnson Administration systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress. President Nixon tried to prevent publication after Henry Kissinger, an influential U.S. foreign policy advisor and member of the Trilateral Commission, had warned that the papers were harmful. In the following video investigative journalist Nick Turse describes the "real Vietnam War"...
Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson have written about the War Crimes Working Group Files, using them to show that atrocities were more extensive than had been officially acknowledged. One of Nick Turse's books reads:...violence against Vietnamese noncombatants was not at all exceptional during the conflict. Rather, it was pervasive and systematic, the predictable consequence of official orders to "kill anything that moves.Professor of History Earl H. Tilford, Jr. said thatsince the 1960s, our moral compass has been skewed. With the rise of materialism comes the decline of morality.
Napalm ... is an American weapon: it was invented in America and has been used longer, more widely, and to greater effect by the United States than any other country. ... this is a story of America, from global authority at the end of World War II to its increasingly constrained position in a globalizing world.
Napalm, incendiary gel that sticks to skin and burns to the bone, came into the world on Valentine's Day 1942 at a secret Harvard war research laboratory. On March 9, 1945, it created an inferno that killed over 87,500 people in Tokyo—more than died in the atomic explosions at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It went on to incinerate sixty-four of Japan's largest cities. The Bomb got the press, but napalm did the work.
By the first half of 1964, it was clear that the Communists were winning the war. ... South Vietnam became, by a wide margin, the most heavily bombed country in the history of the world. ... The war was an unusually brutal and savage one. ... Most of the casualties the Americans suffered were inflicted by ambushes, night attacks, mines, and booby traps. ... On the other hand, when a Communist was killed or wounded it was generally done by bombing planes...
Napalm is an American invention. It was used extensively by the U.S. in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War. Terror made in USA. In the Vietnam War movie "Apocalypse Now" Colonel Walter E. Kurtz said:We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene!On top of that the United States power elite made extensive use of Agent Orange as part of its chemical warfare program called Operation Ranch Hand. In addition to its damaging environmental effects, traces of dioxin found in the mixture have caused major health problems for many individuals who were exposed.
War on the Anti-War Movement (1970s)
When the New York Times published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers on 13 June 1971, Americans became aware of the true nature of the war. Stories of drug trafficking, political assassinations, and indiscriminate bombings led many to believe that military and intelligence services had lost all accountability.
During the war the majority of people turned against the war. All this opposition to the war was not to the liking of the Anglo-American power elite. The opinion of the people eventually made them act, but not in a way that would be expected from a democratic government but rather from an authoritarian regime. They started a war against the anti-war movement, against their own people...
The United States power elite used their intelligence apparatus against their opponents and against their own population in order to shut down any opposition to the war. This was common practice in the US, see also for example Operation COINTELPRO, Project MINARET, Operation CHAOS. At the Kent State shootings on 4 May 1970 the police shot unarmed college students protesting the Vietnam War, killing four and wounding nine.
On 5 August 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson said...
Our policy in Southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 1954. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions: 1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments; 2. The issue is the future of Southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us; 3. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area; 4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence.
Can it get any more hypocrite than the president of the United States?
Robert S. McNamara, the forceful and cerebral defense secretary who helped lead the nation into the maelstrom of Vietnam... was the most influential defense secretary of the 20th century. Serving Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968, he oversaw hundreds of military missions, thousands of nuclear weapons and billions of dollars in military spending and foreign arms sales.
Robert McNamara is regarded as the architect of the Vietnam War. After the war he admitted that theywere wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. He also saidWar is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily.What a "clever" man, war sure is complex. It is military-industrial complex. War is business. And intelligent people like Robert know all about it. Robert is just another professional liar who only admits his terrible "mistakes" when the lies are really no longer tenable. Birds of a feather flock together.
The cost of war
Normally, we tend to assume that in a war of attrition, the side that is inflicting the greater number of casualties on its enemy is winning. In Vietnam, the United States enjoyed huge advantages in weapons, technology, and logistics, and furthermore was able to use those advantages quite effectively; the notion that the American forces were unable to make their technology relevant on the battlefield is a myth. The result was that the number of men who died while serving in the Communist forces was over ten times the number who died in the American forces. Nonetheless, it was the Communists who ultimately won the war of attrition against the Americans.
Each side suffered and inflicted huge losses, with the civilian populace suffering horribly. Based on widely varying estimates, between 1.5 and 3.6 million people were killed in the war. Journalist Byron Williams concluded thatthe choice of military intervention is seldom between good and evil, but rather between evil and more evil.The Vietnam War was one of the many evil and aggressive wars fought by the hypocrites in the 21st century after hypocrite US president Woodrow Wilson called forthe war to end all wars.