I'm Afraid of Americans.. I'm Afraid I Can't Help It

[Floating Onion]

Thanks Mockney. (6)

Anyways... Having grown up in a tourist destination just off the US we got all manner of American tourists. Lots of sterotypical loud ones, but plenty of quiet, respectful ones as well. Unfortunately people only remember the loud, obnoxious ones.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Care to offer something more mature and constructive then?

Not really but as you've asked, and as it wasn't aimed at you anyway, I'll chip in...... I find Mockney's formula for attributing 20 million plus deaths (almost worked out to the nearest 100) solely down to the USA's foreign policy, without any other contributory factors whatsoever, a little lacking in sophistication. For example....Did they start the Vietnam War? Was the Cold War entirely down to them? Were other NATO countries complicit?

Also loved the line about sanctions hurting babies. So if military intervention = bad, and economic sanctions = bad, exactly how do you enforce international law.

[snorky]

Scruffy Mummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm American and have been following this thread

> with much amusement. I moved to Canada when I was

> 10 and so, am very used to being on the receiving

> end of criticism for the place of my birth!! I

> was brought up a Quaker and was always fairly

> critical of US policy - in Central America and in

> lots of places. Most of my American friends are

> pretty critical of governement and policy

> decisions. I have to say I don't think it's

> racism really - I don't mind people criticising

> the governement, policy decision or being critical

> of ignorant behaviour when they see it. I just

> feel uncomfortable about me, my campaigning

> friends and family being lumped under one big

> banner!

>

> What always amuses me though is how British people

> - who have a vast history of oppressing others and

> of being known for having flocks of irritating

> insular tourists (i.e. packing baked beans, stag

> do's in historic Prague, annoying the Weslsh etc.

> etc) go OTT about individual Americans without

> applying the same self-critical ness. An example

> is how I was once very piously lectured in the

> late 80's by a young British lefty about the

> short-comings of Americans - which I took with

> good grace as I do know that Americans like any

> once else can have faults and our support of a

> governement which was often an occuping force. I

> did then point out that as an Englishman he too

> was guilty of supporting an occupying power to

> which he looked blank. 'Northern Ireland?' He

> still looked blank. 'You know, why do you think

> the IRA is conducting a bombing campaign on the

> mainland?' 'Oh, but that's different - they are

> just terrorists.' Hmmmmm.....

Um

young text book lefties often lack the capacity to think atround the subject too much and are likely to spew out the usual old toss thatyve read in some pamphlet somewhere ( bless them )

for one of my degrees - 'Merican Politix - I worked a great deal on the IWW/ Wobblies history in the NW states - remarkably interesting and still is to this day - remarkably few Brits grasp that teh US isnt one country nor is is the fabled melting pot of yore - it is more akin to lumpy undercooked stew , bound together by a common sauce

Its easy to critisise teh yanks, as they do line themsleves up for it in many ways and we are Brits after all - thats what we do , but its not racism, cos 'Mericans are not a trace - it is stereotyping, but we are all guilty of that - see comments using Chav or Pikey terms in various threads.

[david_carnell]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Care to offer something more mature and

> constructive then?

>

>

> Not really but as you've asked, and as it wasn't

> aimed at you anyway, I'll chip in...... I find

> Mockney's formula for attributing 20 million plus

> deaths (almost worked out to the nearest 100)

> solely down to the USA's foreign policy, without

> any other contributory factors whatsoever, a

> little lacking in sophistication. For

> example....Did they start the Vietnam War? Was the

> Cold War entirely down to them? Were other NATO

> countries complicit?

>

> Also loved the line about sanctions hurting

> babies. So if military intervention = bad, and

> economic sanctions = bad, exactly how do you

> enforce international law.

Sorry, that was a bit aggressive on my part, unintentional I assure you.

Glad you pitched in though. Mainly because I agree with your post entirely.

[mockney piers]

"Did they start the Vietnam War? "

Well if you're going to get picky, yes, pretty much they did start it.

The OSS (the precursor to the CIA) trained and supplied Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh to fight the Japanese, who ceded control to the Ho at the end of the war.

He wrote up a lovely declaration of independence for Vietnam which went something on the lines of "we hold these truths to be self-evident" which the OSS took to Washington with the advice that it should be recognised.

...And were ignored and control handed back to the French, then propped up their effort financially. France lost, there was a pragmatic split and the corrupt regime would have fallen but for US support.

And despite every obvious lesson to be learnt about Vietnam simply wanting independence, not being a client regime for china's insidious spread of communism, and despite the advice of tjeir military advisers who had witnessed the fall of France there and said the war was unwinnable, they continued to pour in materiel then men to support yet another military dictatorship (once they'd toppled the government of course), and deliberately bomb civilian targets in the north.

So did they start it? Perhaps. Did they prolong it? Yes. Did they then prosecute it needlessly? Certainly.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to your history books in the sixth form and spent less time in the common room ;-P

[Keef]

See what you've started Sean, mentioning Americans seems to stir up a response almost as passionate as class, M&S Simply food, and kids in pubs!

[atila the gooner]

What's wrong with M&S simply food? :-S

[david_carnell]

All well and good MP, but Chinese and Soviet military support to the Viet Minh was crucial in their successful struggle against the French.

Secondly, after the French withdrawal and partition, the Viet Minh established a social-ist state and engaged in a land reform program in which the mass killing of perceived ?class enemies? occurred. Hardly the actions of a forward thinking regime. Genocide was one of the issues you maintained was acceptable for intervention over. I don't have figures on how many were killed....this time ;-)

Not only that, but in 1957 the Viet Minh embarked on a whole scale terrorist campaing in the South. Four hundred government officials were assassinated in 1957 alone. While the terror was originally aimed at local government officials, it soon broadened to include other symbols of the status quo, such as school teachers, health workers, agricultural officials, etc. One estimate purports that by 1958, 20% of South Vietnam's village chiefs had been murdered by the insurgents. See any similarities to China?

The greater affect on the US war effort in Vietnam was not the defeats in military terms, but growing discontent back home. With mass protests and burning of draft papers the US government recognised the war was unwinnable from a domestic POV rather than a military one.

A similar situation is occuring in Iraq now. If the US administration really wanted to, they could flood the country with troops and make militia attacks alomost impossible. The problem is not only the logisitics of this, and the fact that those forces would need to remain in place indefinitely but the lack of support for such measures back home. Hence the Obama and Clinton "bring the troops home" spiel.

[mockney piers]

Ooh, and the Birth of the Cold War was one of my dissertation topics. I won't bore you with the details, but the one word answer to 'did they start it?' is again yes. I truly believe that if FDR had lived longer that the world would be a very different place.

Truman wasn't cut out for the world stage, he just couldn't grasp the big picture, he liked the simple biploar offering from his more hawkish advisers. He wasn't unlike Bush in that respect.

[SeanMacGabhann]

If Gerry feels I owe him an apology then I'd like to hear him say it (just edited this bit because I reread it and it sounds threatining - What I meant was rather than have Alan stir up trouble, if Gerry et al are genuinely upset I'm sure they will make it known! phew!)

- bless Keef for EVER for reminding me of how ridiculous this can be. And seriously Gerry + any other Americans - PM me, come up to me at a forum drinks or let me know in public on here if you think I have been anti-American

I have on this very thread stood up for Americans AND put the stereotypical Brit abroad into the same category. But the sheer power and size of America, with some attendant scariness (the rise and influence of fundamentalist Christians for example) was the inspiration of the song title in the thread's...erm, title. That doesn't make anyone anti-American on a wholesale basis

My initial post was about AN arrogant American who represents a swathe of opinion of his countrymen - that people then turned the thread into this ridiculous "racism" is solely down to you Mr Dale. I should know better than to rise to your bait but our relative absence from these shores blunted my defences. I thought that incident worthy of comment...

I feel no need whatsoever to compare American, British, European or Irish (that's me) to the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin et al. I'm able to make up my own mind about the why's and wherefores of "our" actions. As the supposed good guys, I hold our standards to much higher critical standards than the aforementioned. However - as soon as some people on here got a whiff of "anti-Americanism" they have straw-manned the thing to f***ing death

People seem to be either a) shit-stirring or b) unable to listen to any criticism of western policy. As westerners it's that policy we have to defend and stand by (or amend) - not anyone elses. Someone said on here they would, on balance prefer to live in a capitalist country than a communist one - if someone suggested or even intimated something to the contrary on here than I missed that meeting - but that doesn't give capitalism a blank cheque to do what it will.

There has been a whole load of other arguments thrown into the mix, which Mockney has largely dealt with heroically but some are amazing. For starters if ANYONE mentions "6th form debate" - they ARE John Gaunt and need not be listened to (give or take! ;-) )

The whole "would Iraq be better off if Saddam was still in power?" - seriously - the guy just magicked up from somewhere did he? And we fixed it? And we are so righteous we shall now move forward and fix the world remaining trouble spots? Does anyone, from any country, seriously believe this is Western policy?

[Alan Dale]

removed

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, on THAT score...... I do appear guilty. Maybe I should work in Cheltenham ;-)

[mockney piers]

"All well and good MP, but Chinese and Soviet military support to the Viet Minh was crucial in their successful struggle against the French". Couldn't that be seen as our helping the Kiwis when viewed from a different angle?

I agree with you that the Viet Minh were no angels, but you an I both know that that had nothing to do with the intervention there. If we're actually going to do humanitarian intervention, then lets at least be consistent about it. Remember that was happening at almost exactly the time that iran's democratic government was overthrown by an MI6 and CIA enabled coup, and one of the post-wars nastiest beasts installed in power.

I think i know what you're getting at, but the in 5 years they never got close to defeating the viet cong, though North Vietnam could certainly never have won a military conflict outright as the Tet Offensive proved.

As my dad used to say, you can defeat an army, but you can never defeat a people.

Short of a permanent, highly militarised occupation, defeat was inevitable. Advisers said the war was unwinnable, not unloseable.

ANd the US military just has flooded the country with troops, and the military is stretched to breaking point. The surge will end, not because it's ends have been achieved (they have, but largely through negotiation), but because it's logistically unsustainable without a very big expansion of military resources, or with drastic moves out of other theatres of operations (germany, south korea etc etc).

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

And despite every obvious lesson to be learnt about Vietnam simply wanting independence, not being a client regime for china's insidious spread of communism, and despite the advice of tjeir military advisers who had witnessed the fall of France there and said the war was unwinnable, they continued to pour in materiel then men to support yet another military dictatorship (once they'd toppled the government of course), and deliberately bomb civilian targets in the north.

What Vietnam would that be? North or South? They were both given independence by the Geneva Conference (pending elections), and carte blanche to form political alliances with whatever countries they wanted to. The North chose China and the USSR, and the South chose (rather unsuprisingly) the USA. You make it sound that all Vietnamese supported the North's communist regime, when this was far from the case as is highlighted by the millions who fled the North after 1954. You mention that the South was a dictatorship, well who voted for Ho Chi Minh?

So did they start it? Perhaps. Did they prolong it? Yes. Did they then prosecute it needlessly? Certainly.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to your history books in the sixth form and spent less time in the common room ;-P

So did they start it? No, absolutely not. It was started originally by the effects of de-colonialism and fought by the French. It was then reignited by the North after 1960. The U.S sided with its Asian ally in exactly the same way as the USSR and China did.

Did they prosecute it needlessly? Wasn't my question, and impossible to answer in light of how the US and USSR fought the cold war.

[david_carnell]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> If Gerry feels I owe him an apology then I'd like

> to hear him say it (just edited this bit because I

> reread it and it sounds threatining - What I meant

> was rather than have Alan stir up trouble, if

> Gerry et al are genuinely upset I'm sure they will

> make it known! phew!)

>

> - bless Keef for EVER for reminding me of how

> ridiculous this can be. And seriously Gerry + any

> other Americans - PM me, come up to me at a forum

> drinks or let me know in public on here if you

> think I have been anti-American

>

> I have on this very thread stood up for Americans

> AND put the stereotypical Brit abroad into the

> same category. But the sheer power and size of

> America, with some attendant scariness (the rise

> and influence of fundamentalist Christians for

> example) was the inspiration of the song title in

> the thread's...erm, title. That doesn't make

> anyone anti-American on a wholesale basis

>

> My initial post was about AN arrogant American who

> represents a swathe of opinion of his countrymen -

> that people then turned the thread into this

> ridiculous "racism" is solely down to you Mr Dale.

> I should know better than to rise to your bait but

> our relative absence from these shores blunted my

> defences. I thought that incident worthy of

> comment...

>

> I feel no need whatsoever to compare American,

> British, European or Irish (that's me) to the

> likes of Pol Pot, Stalin et al. I'm able to make

> up my own mind about the why's and wherefores of

> "our" actions. As the supposed good guys, I hold

> our standards to much higher critical standards

> than the aforementioned. However - as soon as some

> people on here got a whiff of "anti-Americanism"

> they have straw-manned the thing to f***ing death

>

> People seem to be either a) shit-stirring or b)

> unable to listen to any criticism of western

> policy. As westerners it's that policy we have to

> defend and stand by (or amend) - not anyone elses.

> Someone said on here they would, on balance prefer

> to live in a capitalist country than a communist

> one - if someone suggested or even intimated

> something to the contrary on here than I missed

> that meeting - but that doesn't give capitalism a

> blank cheque to do what it will.

>

> There has been a whole load of other arguments

> thrown into the mix, which Mockney has largely

> dealt with heroically but some are amazing. For

> starters if ANYONE mentions "6th form debate" -

> they ARE John Gaunt and need not be listened to

> (give or take! ;-) )

>

> The whole "would Iraq be better off if Saddam was

> still in power?" - seriously - the guy just

> magicked up from somewhere did he? And we fixed

> it? And we are so righteous we shall now move

> forward and fix the world remaining trouble spots?

> Does anyone, from any country, seriously believe

> this is Western policy?

Well fuck me Sean...if most of that polemic wasn't dumped squarely at my door!

1) "I would rather live in a capitalist country than a communist one". Yeah, I said that. And I stand by it. No, it doesn't mean that anyone had expressed the opposite - I wasn't aware that had to happen for me to voice my own opinion. No, it doesn't mean we don't need to hold ourselves to account when wrong had occured but if you think for one minute there wasn't a real chance of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe if it wasn't for the actions taken by the US then you are living in cuckoo-land. This is about pragmatism. Do you think you can conduct a cold war against a foe who is prepared to let millions of their own citizens die, without occasionally committing sin yourself?

2) I can listen to criticism of the west. I've already said I found the whole post-invasion plan ((or lack of) for Iraq ridiculous and unforgivable.

3) "Would Iraq be better off with Sadaam"...that was my point too. Unless you want to have discussion on the entire history of UK involvement in the middle east it is quite a valid question. Should we allow dictators to have free reign? He was a de-stablising influence on the region. The fact that it has now descended into chaos is another issue. Should we go galavanting around nobbling all dictators...I don't know. I'd get rid of Mugabe like a shot. It's our own mess...we should clear it up.

And Mockney is more than capable of standing up for himself, in fact if anything, I'm the one in the minority here, not you two.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

My initial post was about AN arrogant American who represents a swathe of opinion of his countrymen -

that people then turned the thread into thisridiculous "racism" is solely down to you Mr Dale.

It wasn't though was it?

[mockney piers]

I'm not making a case for the communist north. I know about the Geneva accords thank you very much.

The intention was not to set up two countries, the demarkation line marked the positions at the end of hostilities between the VM and the French Forces.

There were supposed to be free elections on unification, but these were heavily rigged in the South, so a pro-unification insurgency supported by the north grew up.

It wasn't a war between north and south that America ended up embroiled in. It was this popular insurgency in the South that it was attempting to suppress. By 1962 it should have been pretty much game over for the government in the South if American support hadn't arrived, which by 1968 numbered half a million men. If it takes that many to keep a government in power against the will of it's own people then I may think about letting the people having their say.

Yes many Fled the North, but certainly not millions, and tens of thousands moved north. Most didn't move because they people were generally closely tied to their lands and ancestors.

Both governments were pretty brutal, but people fought for unification alot more than they fought against it.

[david_carnell]

So the tyranny of the majority should have been allowed to prosper in Vietnam?

I've already given you examples of what happened when the Viet Minh came to power - do you have any reason to believe that they wouldn't have continued to massacre their political opponents in the rest of the country should they have succeeded in early 60s?

[Scruffy Mummy]

Doesn't anybody have some work that you should be doing?

[mockney piers]

I can't for a minute believe that they would have killed the 2 million people that died as a result of a superpower trying to enforce the rule of the equally ruthless government in the south; leaving alone the bitter legacy of unexploded ordnance, landmines and the horrors that agent orange has inflicted.

Well may, Sukarno killed half a million so called communists in Indonesia with direct US logistical support, so anything's possible, but the subsequent history of Vietnam doesn't suggest that to be the case.

[mockney piers]

Ha ha, yes, you're probably right scruffy mummy.

I'm having another 'tea break'

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

It wasn't a war between north and south that America ended up embroiled in. It was this popular insurgency in the South that it was attempting to suppress. By 1962 it should have been pretty much game over for the government in the South if American support hadn't arrived, which by 1968 numbered half a million men. If it takes that many to keep a government in power against the will of it's own people then I may think about letting the people having their say.

Popular insurgency? It was guerrilla warfare planned and executed in the North with the financial and military support of China and Russia. It wasn't just a few plucky peasants.

Anyway, this thread is getting bogged down on one small issue. You seem to refuse to accept that from 1945 until 1990 there was a very real war going on, not one defined by tank battles on the plains of Europe, but fought by proxy, and the subsequent casualties cannot just be blamed on one of the many protaganists.

[david_carnell]

Hmmm, yes on reflection you're probably right on that issue MP. If I continued to argue with you onthis it would be for the sake of it rather than a genuine belief. On a wider scale, I think we shall have to continue this further.

Scruffy Mummy - I'm multi-tasking!

[mockney piers]

Good point, and I think I'm ending up in the same position there DC, arguing for the sake of it.

DPF has a good point about the proxies and not blaming it on one side. However far more often than not the US was the active participant, and the soviets/chinese the perceived threat that justified the actions.

It was always about Europe, maybe we shold have just had done with it and had a good fisticuffs on the German plains.

The Red Army's performances in Cechnya probably suggest that they might not have been the all conquering steamroller many of us grew up in fear of.

I'm a pacifist by nature and my starting point with a conflict is why on earth do it rather than not do it, with the same going for getting involved in someone else's fight. I have found very few examples that really justify violence* in a world that has suffered the terrible conflicts of World Wars 1 and 2, not to have learned these lessons is unforgivable.

*at least from those with power; the disenfranchised often have no other means, though I like to think dialogue and democracy can achieve aims where possible.

*edited for woeful spelling*

[DaveR]

Going all the way back to Sean's first post

Any museum of any stature in the US would not represent the Vietnam war in a "Green Berets" kind of way, because the causes and morality of that war have been debated more thoroughly and passionately in the US than anywhere else on earth. Citizens of the US are able to do this because theirs is a country where freedom of expression is not just theoretically guaranteed but is actively asserted and protected in the courts on a regular basis.

So let's be charitable to the American victin of Sean's cyber-snooping - maybe he just expected a more critically rigorous approach to history