Africa is rebelling against de facto colonialism

Although this video consists of about 98% truth & fact it is a COMPLETE FAILURE in explaining the reason the US invaded, occupied and committed war in Vietnam. Perpetual lucrative wealth and power gained by the Military-Industrial Complex and the politicians who supported it by the grace of pocketing your tax dollars.

 

It's hard to find something that explains everything. Here's something else.

American Foreign Policy
https://chomsky.info/19850319/


Could you post something? I'd like to have a good article that explains Vietnam well.

 

Yep...Operator Starsky........I see his updates daily.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

 

One man's opinion.....just like others.

 

I wanted something objective – not mainstream propaganda*.


*
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798

 

What's your opinion of this info?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-de-facto-colonialism.612604/#post-1074367340

 

*L*

Oh lordy.

 

I served in the Central Highlands of Vietnam 1966-67. But what you said is true

I was 19 when I went to Vietnam (only a boy) and the only contact I had with anyone was other 19-year-old soldiers and Vietnamese whores so who could I ask or who could teach me anything? Still, we all knew something was wrong and it didn’t make any sense. It was only years later and after much reading that I began to understand what it was all about. What I read made sense with the facts as I knew them.


Quote from this video: 11:25 Johnson: “ … the US would never abandon its effort to create South Vietnam and the billions of dollars in spending would continue to flow to the Military-Industrial Complex for the war”.



... also .....

 

I've read that the main reason the US wanted to keep Vietnam as a colony was its tungsten mines.

Tungsten “gets crowned”, the world keeps an eye on the tungsten supply chain from Vietnam
https://vietnamnews.vn/brand-info/1...n-the-tungsten-supply-chain-from-vietnam.html

It also had rubber plantations.

The Harrowing History of Vietnam's Rubber Plantations
https://saigoneer.com/saigon-culture/17206-the-harrowing-history-of-vietnam-s-rubber-plantations
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The climate in the highlands of southern Vietnam offered ideal conditions for rubber trees. Colonial officials knew it was in their best interest to present the region as uninhabited, and thus free for the taking. In truth, numerous quasi-nomadic ethnic minorities, such as the Stieng, lived on the land. The colonial government nevertheless made vast swaths of forest available to European companies to start plantations while also establishing necessary transportation infrastructure and providing financial support. The development allowed the colonial government to exert political and social influence in the region, which partly explains their preference for large foreign plantations as opposed to smaller-scale operations run by Vietnamese. In the first decades of the 20th century, plantations were established in the south and Central Highlands, and by the start of World War II, the industry produced more than 60,000 metric tons of rubber annually.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish I'd kept a list of all the stuff I've read about Vietnam. I think Chomsky said somewhere that the cost of the war was much greater than the profits obtained from stealing Vietnam's rubber and tungsten. They continued in spite of that to send a message to its other colonies that there was no use in trying to get independence.

 

Those are not reasons to be there. You must understand that there was never any plan to "win a war" there. The objective was to wage war ... not to win a war. I assume you know how the Military-Industrial Complex works? Its purpose? Its goals? How it profits? How it loses?

1). That is Chomsky's own proof that the tungsten/rubber theory cannot possibly be true. Logic? Logic!

2). You speak of "the cost of the war" as though it's the government that is footing the bill. In case you haven't figured it out yet it's time you hit yourself in the head with a hammer and understand that the government doesn't spend a single penny of their money. You (your tax dollars) pay for everything. Weapons and ammunition is paid for by you. Those weapons and ammunition are expended by your son, who also happens to get killed over there. Replenishment in both arms and manpower is (again) paid for by you. The manufacturers are getting rich. The politicians are getting rich because they convince you that war is necessary and that the arms industry must step up production with better and better armament, which affords the politicians kickbacks from the industry for their recommendations. And you? Are you getting rich too? Well, that depends upon your line of work.

Come on now. You just proved the fallacy of the tungsten/rubber motive yet you say "in spite of"? I don't think you see the naked eye of the truth. There is no "in spite of" because that's the plan. War is lucrative for the wealthy in a country where the economy is heavily based upon the Military-Industrial Complex ........ peace is not. Peace is definitely not lucrative.

 

This kind of thing has been going on for decades already. Most of the neo-colonialism in Africa is from Europe rather than the US though, which is why Americans haven't known or cared much about it until recently. And that concern isn't about freedom and independence for Africans but about perceived competitor nations getting an advantage.

The idea that Russia is some kind of hero coming in to save Africans is as ridiculous as the idea that the Europeans initial colonisation were saving Africans. Russia (and China) are just seeking to replace Europe as the neo-colonising forces so they can benefit from the resources instead. The real tragedy is that there are no heroes here.

 

I have lived in Africa. I have also traveled overland from north to south and from west to east. I've seen a lot of it. But I'm not an expert. My impression is that Western Europe and the US have been raping the continent of its natural resources. Russia has been to educate and spread its political philosophy. China is a new kid on the block and my travels were prior to their arrival. I can say that China is building a solid infrastructure that will benefit the Africans. So, my sweeping and unqualified generalization is
W. Europe & USA: Bad.
Russia & China: Good.

In any case, Africa has been devastated by W. Europe and the US. This is a fact. It is also a fact that Russia and China have been improving the lives of Africans. Does that mean that they won't rape the continent behind the scenes or later on? So far ... we don't know.

 

You can blame colonialism until you turn blue in the face, but it really won't change that Africa has been nothing but a bunch of non-stop tribal wars of their own making and periods of colonial occupation have been the only times they have seen something resembling peace.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/11/africas-forever-wars/

https://politicstoday.org/african-politics-tribal-violence-and-socio-economic-rivalry-in-africa/

 

You don't get to use Chomsky as a source and then demand 'objective' sources from others. Practice what you preach.

First, there are no fully 'objective' sources in history or politics. Everything has some sort of overt or inbuilt bias. The difference is between those who try their best to reach evidence-based conclusions and those who start from a conclusion and work backwards. Good historians do the former. Your sources seem to consistently do the latter. People who only want their opinions repeated back to them rarely read good historians and handwave them out of existence in favour of agreeable propaganda.

Second, Chomsky is a polemicist who staked out a clear and firm position on the Vietnam War in the 60s - he was openly pro-Hanoi. Not just antiwar, but pro-Hanoi. He visited Hanoi and produced propaganda for the regime there. The fact Hanoi was illegally occupying parts of Laos & Cambodia at the time seems not to have bothered him then or now. If you want to understand that perspective on the war then he will give it to you. If you want to understand what actually happened then he is worse than useless.

For context, I was once a BIG Chomsky fan. I read numerous of his books, watched his videos and saw him live several times. I encouraged my friends to do the same. My opinion of him underwent a dramatic and ultimately permanent change when I began studying the Vietnam War in depth - to PhD level. As soon as I was exposed to a variety of historians & historical source material it was clear that he was worthless as a source of information. Reading his contemporary attacks on people trying to expose the genocide in Cambodia mad ethe scale of his prejudices clear.

I have read a mountain of books and articles on the Vietnam Wars from every perspective - French, American. North Vietnamese and even the perspective that dare not speak its name - South Vietnamese. I have read everything from narrative histories to personal accounts of the war to documents and LOTS of newspaper reporting from multiple nations (plus days worth of TV footage). If you actually want to understand the war, rather than just have your prejudices confirmed you will need to ditch your 'go to' sources, get off the internet and read books. Start with William Duiker, a fine historian of Vietnam who speaks & reads Vietnamese and has had access to archives in Hanoi. His histories of Vietnam & the war are good (if not complete) resources and his biography of Ho Chi Minh is the best in existence. There are others, but he is a good starting place.

Having typed all this I'm fairly certain you are just going to ignore it. You have already decided what opinions you want to hear and people like Chomsky fit the bill. At least now you can't claim ignorance.

 

I knew profits for the arms companies were a factor. I just wasn't sure how big a factor it was.

Yes. I agree with that but I think stealing resources is a factor. The companies that profit from the theft of resources don't pay the cost of maintaining the colony and the cost of maintaining the colony is usually higher than the profits. The companies get free protection paid for by the tax-payers. I've always known that.
The government seems to need more money that it has though. I saw a talk by Michael Rupert in which he said that the US government was letting the CIA bring cocaine into the country and sell it in inner-cities because the government wasn't getting enough money from taxes to pay for all of its military bases all around the world.

 

Sorry, but that is overly simplistic and either helplessly naive or grossly dishonest. There is no reason to believe there is any great differences between any of the outside powers currently intervening in Africa, with either their general self-interested motives or the consequences on the African countries and their people (good, bad and indifferent). European countries often have more problematic history in Africa (something I suspect is being played on by Russians in Niger at the moment) but in the neo-colonialism era, I don't see any great differences.

 

The United States wasn't "ousted"

 

Sorry, but you've got it all wrong. Pay attention, please. I'm fairly certain you've heard of "divide and rule", right? You do know what it means and how it works, yes? It's a tactic used by W. Europe and the US.

What you call "resembling peace" during "colonial occupation" is nothing but guns pointed at the Africans so that 'whitey' (sorry for the expression) can take what he wants while the Africans eat **** in measures dictated by which side of the occupying "divide" the tribe finds itself. Wonderful, huh? The same can be seen in the Franco-American occupation of Vietnam having divided Buddhist-Catholic lines of contention - with the Christians getting all of the favours and the Buddhists getting the shaft ... and then trying to divide the country up with that plan and call it sovereign.

Post-colonial rule of "non-stop tribal wars of their own making" is all that's left for the Africans to work with because that's the way the "divide and rule" infrastructure was created by 'whitey' so when he skedaddled back to Europe and the US the Africans were stuck with it.

What we are here to discuss, boys and girls is if the Russians and the Chinese are willing and able to straighten the mess out.

NOTE: For those of you who are not familiar with occupation let me remind you of the Tutsi and Hutu wars. THAT was a total clusterfuuuk created by European rule.

 

It was thoroughly "mauled" by the Vietnamese and sent the Yankees home with their tail between their legs.

 

lots of pro-russian folks it seems

 

The biggest.

You need to clarify what you mean by "colony". There were plenty of GS civilian workers in Vietnam and they wouldn't even be there if it wasn't profitable. So, what is the definition of "colony" and "profit"?

I knew an Englishman here in town who tried to get me to go halves with him on importing seasonal potatoes from the UK. I figured if he had a good idea I'd give it a try. But when I sat down to do some rough figures: renting a truck, purchasing the potatoes in the UK, fuel there and back, and the suggested affordable selling price here at home it turned out that there wasn't any profit left over for us. When I told him that he replied, "Well we could supplement the shipment of potatoes with some other things to make it more profitable." I told him to stick it in his ear. Do you see where I'm going with this?

On the question of "needing" more money than it has .... I don't believe that in the least.

 

Sooooo, only pro-Russians are concerned with the plight of Africa? Well, ain't that sumpin'! It's no wonder Americans are OK with raping the whole African continent - they don't like Russians so what else can they do!

 

I mean when the puppet president permits American companies to own the resources of his country and literally steal them. There's oil, mineral mines, agriculture and also tourism. When I was in Acapulco in 1987, I was told that none of the hotels along the beach were owned by Mexicans. All the profit left the country and the only money that the tourists spent that stayed there was the salaries of the hotel workers. They all lived in a really ratty neighborhood a few blocks inland. A leader that represented his people wouldn't permit this. All the oil, minerals and food produced in that country could be sold once the country's needs are met but not given away.
I think the wars in Iraq were mainly because of oil. Of course the arms companies profited too.

All I want to do is figure out what the truth is. If you think I'm wrong about something, I want you to say so.

i suppose they could just print the money. I'm not very big on economics.

 

I beg to differ. I've lived abroad for about thirty four years and I've had discussions with lots of people from different countries. That the US installs puppet governments in developing countries that let American companies steal the resources of those countries is just part of the basics outside of the US.

The info in this thread...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/american-imperialism.371897/

...is consistent with what those people tell me. Mainstream sources* are propaganda whose purpose is to spin the bad stuff that the US does to make it look like good stuff.

Outside of the US there's nothing more amusing than a group of Americans discussing politics.


*http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798