We found 29 Reddit comments about Kill Anything That Moves (American Empire Project). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
No, it's not an isolated incident — in terms of scale, US atrocities pale in comparison to those atrocities carried out by both North and South Vietnamese forces, but My Lai was just the most-publicised incident.
A DoD working group set up after My Lai to examine alleged US war crimes identified 320 incidents (not including My Lai) that were found to have some basis in fact. Army investigators substantiated seven massacres by US troops in addition to My Lai.
The LA Times reported the working group's files extensively once they were declassified — the stories they published are here. Nick Turse, the reporter who led the Times investigations, wrote a book called Kill Anything That Moves, which documents atrocities against civilians in Vietnam.
Investigators concluded that there was enough evidence to charge 203 US servicemen in connection with violence against civilians; 57 were eventually court-martialled and 23 were convicted. From the Times:
> Fourteen received prison sentences ranging from six months to 20 years, but most won significant reductions on appeal. The stiffest sentence went to a military intelligence interrogator convicted of committing indecent acts on a 13-year-old girl in an interrogation hut in 1967.
>He served seven months of a 20-year term, the records show.
>Many substantiated cases were closed with a letter of reprimand, a fine or, in more than half the cases, no action at all.
>There was little interest in prosecuting Vietnam war crimes, says Steven Chucala, who in the early 1970s was legal advisor to the commanding officer of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. He says he disagreed with the attitude but understood it.
It's also worth reading this long series of reports by the Toledo Blade (for which they won a Pulitzer prize) investigating atrocities by a US counter-insurgency unit called Tiger Force.
Yes, obviously. Perception IS reality in people's minds. And when people are acting on false and extremely negative information, it can lead to racial discrimination, attacks, fear, hate, and even war. Look at what lots of people believe.
Uyghur cultural genocide
Eating dogs is widespread
Steals hundreds of billions in ip each year
China's state subsidies to companies are unfair [this is common among numerous Western nations]
T square massacre
OBOR Debt trap
China is a colonizer
China is just as bad as America [https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md]
Live organ harvesting
Huawei is a spying system
On top of that
America is NOT an empire so we don't need to worry where it goes [http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/]
America cares about human rights so when a massacre is reported we brush it off as an isolated incident [http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061/]
America's debt are transparent and fair [http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/]
American dream is alive and well [social mobility is one of the lowest of developed nations]
America does not conduct economic espionage. [yes, it does since at least 1990's]
None of these things are true yet are widely believed. They aren't believed by everyone but they are believed by enough people that it's massively harming China's reputation.
Two book recommendations:
Killing Hope - explores the United States' covert and overt operations globally, including crimes like Colombia and Guatemala.
Kill Anything That Moves - focuses specifically on Vietnam.
Since I got banned from your sjw sub (yeah, so much for your claims of them banning only for “rape threats”, “misogyny”, “racism”), I’ll respond to you here.
> Not to derail this topic, but your mod u/Natalie-Ng and a user I believe u/dat0kki (sp?) have resorted to calling me a slut and whore as a defense in threads.
lol dafuq???? Where the fuck did I ever called you a slut and whore? YOU were the one that came flying out of nowhere to attack me and called me an ad hominem when I wasn’t even talking to your dumbass in the first place and was politely explaining why the wording of a title can upset some readers. So please don’t try to pull that victim card bullshit here.
And speaking of victim card…
> Imho, this male toxicity has everything to do with Asian culture. Asian culture has been extremely patriarchal, while yes this exist in all cultures, I believe it's unique for Asian culture and heighten in some senses towards misogyny.
Lol, I see white brainwashing has done its number on you and you’ve successfully, and rather stupidly, eaten up every negative stereotype about our community thrown at you.
Since everyone with half a brain was already able to debunk your bullshit here, I would just like to know, if you truly care about misogyny so much, why don’t you spend half the time calling out the REAL misogynists that also happen to be both Asian men and women’s and every other POC’s oppressors as you do shitting on your own race?
Pedophile profile: Young, white, wealthy
Your dearly beloved whites traveling to rape little kids
Your dearly beloved whites most likely to commit familicide
Invading multiple countries and mass raping women? Not exactly something they’re unfamiliar with.
And please explain the Agent Orange Privilege
More and more sexual violence: http://imgur.com/AHK6D2R
More and more dehumanization by white men who pretend to be “egalitarian”
MRA/MGTOW just sweeping the west happily
Apparently, you do.
> The history of Western imperialism in Asia and its lingering effects present the greatest source of inequality for Diasporic Asian women today. White sexual imperialism, through rape and war, created the hyper sexualized stereotype of the Asian woman. This stereotype in turn fostered the over prevalence of Asian women in pornography, the mail order bride phenomenon, the Asian fetish syndrome, and worst of all, sexual violence against Asian women.
> Without first undermining the White sexual imperialist regime, violent crimes against Asian victims will continue to be largely perpetrated by White men
> For the Asian woman at the intersection of gender and race, achieving equality means overthrowing not only male supremacy or White supremacy, but specifically White male supremacy.
> It is the White male’s sexual dominance over the Asian female which emerges as the source of inequality the Asian female suffers.
> White Sexual Imperialism: A Theory of Asian Feminist Jurisprudence
> Sexual violence directed at Asian women by white men—and any Asian woman can tell you how unrelenting and commonplace such violence and sexualized racism are—is a direct result of Western imperialism
> No One Is Free Until All Are Free By Chris Hedges
> the foreigners here--mainly US and Canada--are unreal. It's a joke. And because of this, Korean women generally have a bad impression of western men. Add all of the ridiculous army assholes here…
>If you're not an English teacher, you're instantly higher value. Again, I cannot impress enough how deplorable the white man is here. It has to be seen...
> Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, China or Japan?
> I know it sounds like an over-generalization, but it kind of seems that ESL teachers fall into to two categories: white guys with no game who want to give getting laid a try, so they go to some Pacific Rim country and hope the wealth disparity gives them that edge they need; and pedophiles who want to try out the underage hookers in Thailand or whatever.
> I don't know, it's just that I've known at least three guys who have gone across the ocean to teach english, and they've all been dirtbags.
> Tell me about it dude. Most of them don't even know how to teach or even have degrees. A lot of guys that get discharged in Korea stay here and teach english and make bank and use girls. And they don't even speak Korean!
Guys who teach english overseas are all scumbags | Sherdog Forums | UFC, MMA & Boxing Discussion
> “So you're coming to China to run away from your problems... Social anxiety, unattractiveness and/or loneliness. I don't blame you. I'm sure many here would admit to the same reasoning if they had the balls. Myself included…
> And you know what? It fucking works. You step foot in some shit tier city and suddenly you're the coolest, most interesting motherfucker in town. I get it. It’s an awesome feeling.
> But here’s the thing. Deep down, under the barriers and walls you’ve put up, all those problems will still exist. You can bang all the Rainies you want and feel like the biggest badass but there will always be a little feeling in the back of your mind, gnawing at your psyche like a ravenous molerat. A voice that whispers: I can’t cut it back home.
> Some guys will overcompensate to the extreme, banging anything that walks and being straight up assholes to everyone just because they can. Just to make that voice a little smaller. But it will still be there. That tiny, frustrating little whisper. This is all a dream. In 5 minutes, you’re gonna wake up in your old bed at your folks’ house in Bumfuck, Arkansas. And everything's gonna be shit again.”
> So you're coming to China to run away from your problems, eh? : China
> Young guy is thinking of moving to China to work as a teacher. He'd heard about sexpats and alcoholic expats. China is full of them, he was told. What a bunch of losers.
> I've told the girls I'm not sure I'm ready for a serious relationship. It's their fault if the choose to hang on hoping for something more.
> He starts using tantan for hookups. It's so easy to have a few different girls on the go. I was hurting the girls I was hooking up with (they all seem to be looking for marriage).
> I'd become some sort of sexpat alcoholic. I'm just as shitty as any other guy.
[SERIOUS] Did China force you to face your inner demons? : China
Read or listen to Kill Anything that Moves by Nick Turse. Excellent overview and description of the atrocities that occurred during the late 60s in Vietnam. Nothing went too far, literally the worse things you can possibly think of to do to other humans and just scale it up to US War Machine levels. To all humans: babies, children, women, and men. To animals, livestock, cultivated fields, and whole ecosystems. And the attitudes, no remorse, no empathy, just kill as many humans as possible as quickly as possible. I can’t believe it’s not generally known what the US did down there, it’s just not taught in schools. You’d be lucky to find someone who remembers the My Lai Massacre, but that’s about it.
There are a whole host of reasons. I don't claim that my list is exhaustive.
The war wasn't particularly popular. The North Vietnamese (Viet Minh) were never a threat to the USA except in the paranoid anti-communist atmosphere of the times. It was a war fought to demonstrate our willingness to uphold the treaty obligations in the SEATO pact.
US society was undergoing several huge convulsions; there was the civil rights (and later, black power) movement and the big counter-cultural upheaval (free speech, drugs, and hippies) going on at the same time the anti-war movement was becoming a political force.
Morale withing many of the ground forces was steadily sinking. The war was difficult and the campaigns seemingly unending. Much of the ground combat was fought at the platoon and company level and the way the rotations of men were scheduled there were new guys ("cherries") replacing seasoned men all the time. There wasn't the same sense of belonging to a particular fighting unit. Each GI had his own personal calendar with the dates of his return from overseas and estimated date of termination memorized.
The lousy fighting conditions — jungle warfare, invisible enemy, unfriendly and treacherous villagers. and later, a feeling of alienation —
resulted in well publicized atrocities carried out by US troops. A lot of this stuff happens in every war but in these early days of the infant Information Age more of these incidents were recorded, documented, and broadcast than ever before.
Since many people (in growing numbers) didn't believe in the rationale for fighting the war to begin with they were less likely to identify and sympathize with soldiers who were involved in massacres of civilians or other commonly reported acts of barbarism. See Nick Turse's book.)
Actual incidents where Vietnam veterans were attacked or spat on are hard to substantiate. I do know of incidents where returning servicemen attacked anti-war demonstrators and bragged about it, however.
The idea of a psychopathic murderous American fighting man was at odds with the society envisioned by the anti-war movement and the drugs and rock counter-culture. Much of the disrespect for the Vietnam veteran comes from the vets themselves. Or maybe I should say "ourselves" — I was drafted and spent '68 and '69 in Vietnam. And while I can gratefully say that I personally did nothing to be ashamed of, I can't say my experiences gives me any sense of pride or patriotism.
TL:DR Another '60s guy complaining about the Vietnam war
My Lai was not an one off event, it was standard operating procedure. It is only remembered because people found out about it.
The atrocities - massacres and rapes - the Americans committed in Vietnam was approaching what the Japanese did in Nanking. It is similar in level of brutality if not in scale. Here are some quotes from testimonies of returning Vietnamese vets.
> I saw one case where a woman was shot by a sniper, one of our snipers. When we got up to her, she was asking for water. And the Lieutenant said to kill her. So he ripped off her clothes. They stabbed her in both breasts. They spread-eagled her and shoved an E- tool up her vagina, an entrenching tool, and she was still asking for water. And then they took that out, and they used a tree limb, and then she was shot.
> After she was questioned, and, of course, dead, this guy came over, who was a former major, been in the service for twenty years, and he got hungry again and came back over working with USAID, Aid International Development. He went over there, ripped her clothes off and took a knife and cut, from her vagina almost all the way up, just about up to her breasts, and pulled her organs out, completely out of her cavity, and threw them out. Then he stopped and knelt over and commenced to peel every bit of skin off her body, and left her there as a sign for something or other.
> As I was walking over to him, I turned and I looked in the area. I looked to where the VCS were -- supposed VCS -- and two men were leading a young girl, approximately 19 years old, very pretty, out of a hootch. She had no clothes on, so I assumed she'd been raped, which was pretty SOP. That's standard operating procedure for civilians. And she was thrown onto the pile of the 19 women and children, and five men around the circle opened up on full automatic with their M-16s. And that was the end of that.
> I was picked up by a truckload of grunt Marines with two company grade officers, 1st Lieutenants. We were about 5 miles down the road, where there were some Vietnamese children at the gateway of the village, and they gave the old finger gesture at us. It was understandable that they picked this up from the GIs there. They stopped the trucks -- they didn't stop the truck, they slowed down a little bit, and it was just like response, the guys got up, including the lieutenants, and just blew all the kids away. There were about five or six kids blown away, and then the truck just continued down the hill. That was my first day in Vietnam.
Massacring entire villages:
> and there was a river on each side, and there was another company behind each river, and like the people were running around inside, and they were just shooting them, and like the newspapers said, "Operation Stone, like World War II movie," and we just sat up there and we wiped them out. Women, children, everything. 291 of them.
> Because we went into the area, and it was to set the example to show that we weren't fucking around. So the first thing we do is burn down the village and kill everybody just to let them know we weren't fucking around.
> When we went out, I'd say 50% at least of the villages we passed through would be burned to the ground. There was no difference between some that we burned and the ones we didn't burn. It's just that some we had time and we'd burn them. We were given orders whenever we moved into a village to reconnoiter by fire. This means whenever we step into a village we're to fire upon houses, bushes, anything to our discretion that looked like there might be someone hiding behind or in or under. What we did was we'd carry our rifles about hip high and we'd line up low to the village and start walking, firing from the hip.
And there are many more stories like these. Photos and transcript here. There is also a book. If anyone doesn't believe you, look at this iconic photo from My Lai: women and children moments before their deaths. The woman in black had just been raped, and is still buttoning her shirt.
I'll stick with the testimony of the soldiers who were there, and that of the Vietnamese victims and the serious historians who've gone through the documents and archives.
I've spoken with Scott Camil who is featured throughout the Winter Soldier, he gave honest testimony corroborated by comrades and by Vietnamese victims whom he visited and apologized to in 94'.
Read Nick Turse's work "Kill Anything That Moves", every single atrocity is painstakingly verified by multiple sources many of which are direct US gov documents that were suppressed.
>How do you talk about a group that often has individuals that work against AAPI well-being for personal interest, without being offensive?
Make sure to be clear about who is being addressed eg self haters. Do not generalize.
>We cannot override love.
Very wrong. You're assuming these relationships are love. I have facts and proof that very often, it absolutely is not. Do you realize that Af are preferred by sexist, racist, and misogynistic white men? Go read the redpill, hundreds of thousands of white men read that. Here's the latest..
If the Asian community is ever going to improve, they must face the fact that we're being divided and conquered by whites (mostly males). They are the enemy - not each other. See the list of crimes below. ALL done by wm who turn around and 24/7 show images of themselves "saving Af" from "evil Am". All Asians are being brainwashed constantly.
Some research below for support.
>White hegemonic ideologies of masculinity and femininity determine who gets to have sex with whom …We do not make choices of attraction in a vacuum…Hegemonic ideology becomes our commonsense notions.
>Women were painted as perpetually sexually available to white men while Asian American men were constructed as castrated or impotent…
Asian American Sexual Politics: The Construction of Race, Gender, and Sexuality: Rosalind S. Chou
>racialized images can cause Asian American women to believe they will find greater gender equality with white men and can cause white men to believe they will find greater subservience with Asian women. This dynamic promotes Asian American women’s availability to white men and makes them particularly vulnerable to mistreatment.
Asian American Women And Racialized Femininities 'Doing' Gender across Cultural Worlds
>He defines internalized racism as “the ‘subjection’ of the victims of racism to the mystifications of the very racist ideology which imprison and define them” (Hall 1986 - 26).
>it is referred to as “internalized racial oppression,” “internalized racism,” “internalized White supremacy,” “internalized Whiteness,” and the much criticized term “racial self hatred.”
>The dominant group controls the construction of reality through the production of ideologies or “knowledge” (Foucault 1977 ) that circulate throughout society where they inform social norms, organizational practices, bureaucratic procedures, and commonsense knowledge. In this way the interests of the oppressors are presented as reflecting everyone’s best interests, thereby getting oppressed groups to accept the dominant group’s interests as their own
>the subjugated inculcate, seemingly by cultural osmosis, negative stereotypes and ideologies disseminated as taken for granted knowledge.
>individual inculcation of the racist stereotypes, values, images, and ideologies perpetuated by the White dominant society about one’s racial group, leading to feelings of self doubt, disgust, and disrespect for one’s race and or oneself.
>All systems of oppression not thoroughly coerced through brute force and overt repression involve the dominant group’s ability to win consent of the oppressed.
>When the oppressed come to accept these identities as “real,” they are in effect internalizing their subjugated status
>One need not experience discrete, identifiable instances of overt discrimination to internalize racial oppression.
>White racism can infiltrate the world view of the racially oppressed without their conscious consent (Osajima 1993) in a subtle process some refer to as “indoctrination” and “mental colonialization” (hooks 2003).
What is Internalized Racial Oppression and Why Don't We Study it - Acknowledging Racism's Hidden Injuries
The origins of self hate and white worship are the same – racist stereotypes and lies that masquerade as “facts”…
>Even at a young age, the white racial frame that normalizes whiteness affects children.
>A study of sixty-five Asian Americans at an elite university found that respondents spoke more positively about their physical features when they seemed "less Asian" and more "white" or "American."
>Earlier research has shown Asian Americans being ashamed or attempting to hide their race or pass for white.
>At least I didn't have a Korean accent; then it would have probably been even worse.
>It made an impact over time, when all you hear is the negative instead of the positive. I always felt like the outsider and I was teased for just being Asian. They'd pull their eyes down, and they always thought I was Chinese.
>All sixty respondents had memories of being teased and feeling like a racial "other”.
>Asian Americans, especially girls and women, are disturbingly overrepresented with rates of depression and suicide. As recently as spring of 2011, The National Alliance on Mental lllness released a report that Asian American girls have the highest rates of depressive symptoms of any racial/ethnic or gender group.
Asian American Sexual Politics: The Construction of Race, Gender, and Sexuality: Rosalind S. Chou
A sliver of the crimes committed by whites against Asians.
Hiding America’s War Crimes in Laos | http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/2715
● China’s Rise, Fall, and Re-Emergence as a Global Power | http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/03/chinas-rise-fall-and-re-emergence-as-a-global-power/
● USA’s warfare against China ½ | http://www.voltairenet.org/article177063.html
Asians need to ask themelves....why are they talking about their "progressive afwm relationships" and taking foodie pictures and demonizing Am for their "toxic masculinity" while being TOTALLY SILENT on mass rape, genocide, the white male pedophile epidemic in Asia. I can provide sources for that too if required.
Really, how does the ONE group that commits BY FAR, the most horrific crimes imaginable come out looking like heroes. That's the question everyone should be asking.
>how do you respond when people claim that we don't have a right to complain about discrimination due to the fact that there is racism/sexism within our community?
Ask them if the "tone police" would rather be born Asian than white. Or, you can point out the myriad of wm oppression like 620+ % MORE domestic violence than Am, 297% more raping than Am, etc. Point out their ludicrous "stop white genocide" campaign. Never get gas lighted by white hypocrites. They are absolute experts in bullshitting. I've seen it too many times.
>look at the context. SK was a Western puppet that collaborated with compradors and the Imperial Japanese. They killed leftists. It's like "invading" your home to save your own family from thugs. See http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061/ same pattern [of killing leftists because they got in the way of Western capital] in every country.
There's a great book a journalist put together from primary sources.
Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (American Empire Project) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250045061/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_q74TCbEW3ZD02
I referred to it elsewhere in this thread, this book shows that My Lai was just the tip of the iceberg.
Not that irrelevant. You claimed that the US "condemned" the Khmer Rouge genocide thus somehow absolving it of genocidal responsibility. So I mentioned that the US has no moral high ground here as it was committing a genocide of its own. And I do dispute your opinion that the US presence didn't somehow affect the intensity of the genocide.
[https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061] Not leftist per se, but honest.
>The distinction I was trying to make is between serious religious study, and the cheap bullshit used to justify horrendous crimes.
Argument can be made, and has been made by the likes of Harris, Dawkins, et. al. that fundamentalists are actually espousing the realities of the foundational religious tenants, whereas moderates are not. I see theology as a way to meld reality with religious dogma in order to hold onto outdated and irrelevant belief structures - such as god. I had this conversation with someone just yesterday who identified as an agnostic deist. I asked him why he felt he needed to hold onto the concept of god. Essentially what I got from him is that it gave him a sense of community because, although his concept of what ‘god’ is was probably different than others they could still share the common bond offered through using the same linguistic term to define this supreme being.
I am totally in the Harris/ Dawkins camp that sees religious moderates as only providing legitimacy to fundamentalism, and that the practice of fundamentalism is the true practice of these religious ideologies in their unaltered, unabridged, to-the-letter, way. I’m an antitheist because I don’t believe it’s feasible to have an individual relationship with religion and use it to make just yourself feel better. Religion comes with tremendous baggage, and ultimately there’s runoff. Those who attach themselves to religion are those who are not satisfied with reality – they need to have more, there needs to be a higher purpose to things, as if what they have is not enough. This thinking ultimately leads to classism (it’s the foundational thinking of capitalists – never being satisfied with sustainability – always wanting more). Classism dictates the need for superiority over others and in religious terms this translates to othering non-believers. Now, this is all fine and well if an individual adopts a religious perspective completely on their own and lives a monastic life without contact with anyone else that may be affected by their beliefs – but that is statistically highly improbable. (This idea is used by many religious and self-loathing atheists as a justification for the perpetuation of religious thinking: “It’s alright if it makes them feel better, do good things and doesn’t hurt anybody else.”) Ultimately there is spill-over, because of the human need to collectivize and socialize with the like-minded. The worst part, in my opinion, is the ultimate indoctrination of children (of which the majority of religious adherents have been). I’m in the Hitchens/ Dawkins camp that view childhood religious indoctrination as a serious form of child abuse. There is no training manual for parents, and they want what’s best for their children so they tend to mimic and bestow the best parts of their perception of their upbringing and lives onto their children. Because they were brainwashed into believing religion is one of the best parts of their lives they pass that onto their children. As so many commenter’s in this thread have already said, statistically, religious indoctrination instills a lack of skepticism and stunts critical thinking outside the borders of their prescribed faith. By indoctrinating their children into their religious beliefs parents are stunting their children’s mental development with regards to being the best uninfluenced individual decision maker possible once they reach maturity. I speak this from experience as someone who was raised Jehovah’s Witness. It took me a LONG time to free myself from that, and had I not been forced by the government to attend school, I would probably never have had an out intellectually.
>Would you agree with this [re. my Vietnam Statement]?
Yes and no. I do see religion as playing an important if not often mentioned part in the historical narrative of Vietnam. At the “great man” political level, there was a heavy influence from the Catholic Church in the affairs of the Vietnam War. (Here’s an interesting read on that)
With regards to the American soldiers on the ground I haven’t been able to locate the demographics from 1958-75, but considering the current religious demographics of the U.S. Military, I would fairly assume that the levels would have been higher in previous years (especially considering the recent uproar over an atheist in the air force refusing to pledge “under god” and the after effects of that in the courts). Also if you boil down the tenants of Nationalism as being the same as religiosity, you can argue that the same mind set is at work, and they go hand in hand. (I’m just as opposed to nationalism as I am to religion, by the way – both stifle critical thinking).
Two notable examples on either end of the spectrum is that of Ron Kovic, who was devoutly catholic when he enlisted for the Vietnam War, and then fought against it after he returned disabled (If you’ve seen “Born on the Fourth of July” you’ll know Ron’s story). And that of the soldiers who took part in the “Incident on Hill 192”, particularly Pfc. Steven Cabbot Thomas who was a co-founder of a white supremacist church following his crimes in Vietnam. (The incident on Hill 192 was dramatized in the Michael J. Fox/ Sean Penn film “Casualties of War”).
>it seems more like common human cruelty, considering that the majority of these soldiers probably weren't that well versed in Christianity anyway.
Considering the amount of army chaplains in the military and the requirements that still exist, It is fair to say that most were well versed in various forms of Christianity. There would need to be a study of Vietnam Veterans which would pose the question of how their religiosity played a role in their view of the war to come to a definitive conclusion and I know of no such study.
>From what I have seen, it seems as if racism and bigotry play a larger role than religious belief in many conflicts, even those based on religion.
Racism and Bigotry played a tremendous role in the Vietnam Conflict, and in fact those ideas have come to dominate the Historical narrative on that war. A fantastic book to read that covers the topic of American atrocities committed in Vietnam is “Kill Anything That Moves” by Nick Turse. Turse doesn’t really talk about religion but does talk a great deal about racism and ideas of National and ethnic superiority as being justification for horrible things like the Incident on Hill 192 and the Mai Lai Massacre.
But again, I wouldn’t absolve Religious influence by separating it from Racism and Bigotry – they work hand in hand. Religion has historically played a tremendous role in fostering racism and bigotry. As I explained above, religious adherence comes from a need to have more, which is the same as needing to be better than others. This is a core tenant of racism and bigotry – the adherence of superiority/inferiority. I assume you’re a theologist? If so, how many pages of the Old Testament are spent describing the ethnic superiority of the Jews (chosen people) and their military conquests over inferior races with the blessing of god? This plays a tremendous reinforcement of the concepts of racism and bigotry. There is significant weight in the argument that children are born racist, just as Dawkins says all children are born atheist.
Historians have to be careful because the information that is omitted from the factual accounts can play an important role in supporting and shaping the public perception and can tremendously aid the goals of state propaganda. As I mentioned in my previous wall of text, Many Cold War Historians have talked about how the Orthodox Church was persecuted because the Soviets wanted to take their land. This paints the Soviets as being the bad guy – flat out. What they don’t mention is the additional information of the Church’s resistance because they wanted to maintain control of the lands they owned and the power they had over the peasants. They don’t mention the incitement for rebellion for selfish reasons because it challenges the pro-capitalist message that has been established. “Great Man” history succeeds by simplification and omission, whereas Marxist History that focuses on the people and mass movements is a clearer, fuller and thus more accurate account in my opinion at least.
> This will only get worse for them over time; and I suspect we will see a lot more white violence because of it.
Bring it on I say. This isn't the Vietnam or Korean war era where their superior tech and firepower allowed them to kill asians like stepping on ants.
The comments will make your blood boil:
>...Recruits in boot camp were trained never to call the people "Vietnamese" but gooks or dinks. Even our southern Viet allies in the war. There was an acronym "MGR": The "Mere Gook Rule". Recruits were trained to dehumanize all Vietnamese, they weren't real humans. Commanders wanted body counts, the higher the better, and there was hell to pay if the numbers weren't good. The quality and weapons recovered weren't important. Soilders learned fast they wouldn't be held accountable as long as they were giving the body count numbers leadership wanted to report. Intense pressure for high count rates. The dead tell no tale if they were civilian or not.
>The "My Lai Massacre" story of over 500 civilians killed that Seymour Hersh broke turns out to be the rule, not the exception. The metric of "body count" was a driving motivation. Immediate reports after the My Lai incident painted it as a glowing victory in the American press. Amazing. The driving metric was almost like commanders in civilian police forces issuing ticket quotas to officiers is the ananolgy I took away from this. They wanted body count numbers to convey back on American stateside nightly TV news how well they were doing in the war. And that is one vivid takeaway I remember as a child, seeing the nightly body count numbers on the evening news. "Yea! We're winning" my childhood mind would think. The adults at the time thought no differently, apparently. Journalists were taking the Pentagon press releases and brainwashing Americans with it. Nixon's 72 landslide win backs that ...
>...As a combat veteran of the Viet Nam war, I can attest the "mere gook rule" was operative throughout the war. Most GI's had complete disdain, if not intense hatred, for the Viet Namese people. I distinctly remember numerous conversations with troops who said "gooks" were not fit to live. They carried that mentality with them on combat operations. The body count was all important. Some commanders, fortunately including mine, were equally concerned with the weapons count; and fully expected the weapons count to be in line with the body count. But there were other unit commanders who cared less about the weapons count and accepted any recording of Viet Namese dead as VC. Torture? Yes, it occurred and was common. Rape? That too. One of my best friends in ROTC was commissioned in Military Intelligence (I was Airborne Infantry), and had the misfortune of getting assigned to the Phoenix Program. After going to MACV HQ in Sai Gon to beg for any kind of reassignment and being refused, he committed suicide. Why? Because, as he said, he could not bear going out night after night, pulling farmers and their entire families out of their hooches, watching as all of the family members, children included, were tortured, women and girls raped, bodies mutlilated and eventually, the entire family killed.
>...Even former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey admitted to having massacred villagers.
This is not to minimize the racism that other groups have against mongoloid looking people. If these other groups have the same degree of tech disparity, maybe they would be slaughtering mongoloid looking people too.
We have no idea on the Viet Cong losses, as Nick Turse explains in Kill Anything that moves civilian deaths were explained away as VC on an epic level to meet targets that were set in place. Was really a fucked up system introduced to reach some fabled "Attrition Rate" that never happened. What we do know is that the longer the war lasted, the larger the NV Army became.
The perfect example of this was General Ewell of the 9th Infantry Division who led Operation Speedy Express in the Mekong Delta and claimed that his men had a Kill Ratio of 134:1. American medical teams who were treating the wounded however claimed that upwards of 80% were in fact civilians, earning him the nickname "The Butcher of the Delta".
They were not caught in the middle but deliberately killed by the US military. There is a good book about that, it is called Kill Anything That Moves.
This is my final reply. I can't waste any more time on you. You can reply if you wish.
>They were not wars over racial domination or genocidal aims as you so desperately want them to have been.
Good good. Use more emotionally charged words like that. That'll make your baseless claims MUCH stronger lol
Explain the following for readers:
Disclaimer: I don't know anything.
On Vietnam: really? From what I've gathered, I've thought up to now that American forces were pretty brutal at times - leading to accounts such as this https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061.
I'm taking this bait because you're making a very serious claim: that American failure in Vietnam (among other countries) was, I repeat, solely due to a lack of sufficient brutality by Western forces. That's somewhat testable, and I'd be interested to learn more.
Here is the mobile version of your link
> I'm saying we helped stop Hitler.
We? You mean the Americans stopped Hitler in WWII? Doubtful you were even alive then. And that statement is pretty meaningless. A lot of things stopped Hitler. One, he was almost out of oil. Two, the Russians. Three, his mental health due to his various drug addictions. Yes the Americans are somewhere on that list but to say "We stopped Hitler" is not accurate.
>And yes, the Vietnam War was a waste, because congress decided to break our promise, abandon South Vietnam, despite South Vietnam desperately begging us not to leave, and we let the North Vietnamese burn, pillage, enslave, and murder their way through South Vietnam, killing hundreds of thousands, throwing a million in slave labor camps, and displacing millions more.
Are you just parroting your government history books? This is far from the truth. Please read this book Kill Anything That Moves and get back to me: https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061 It is well documented that American soldiers were burning down villages and mass raping women in Vietnam. Leaving was the only thing they could do, because they were also getting their ass kicked.
>And Cambodia also fell because we left,
>and over one million were slaughtered in the Killing Fields as a result. Worst atrocity in US history.
That wasn't US history, that was Cambodian history, which you aren't accurately describing. The US bombed the shit out of Cambodia for a decade, killed thousands of innocent people, and even to this day, innocent Cambodians get mangled by US land mines. "We" fucked up that country beyond belief, then left and the Khmer Rouge came in and continued fucking it up.
> South Korea would not exist today if the US didn't fight the North Koreans. It would be one big Korea, only it would be like North Korea is today, a slave state.
Where is your proof of this claim?
> The nuclear bomb on Japan? That ended the Japanese Empire,
It was already over before the bomb(s). They were running out of oil as well.
>which up to that point, had murdered over twelve million people across Asia.
>Right up until they surrendered, they were still committing mass genocide in several Asian countries. The bomb put a stop to that, and it was the right thing to do.
I'm sure the surviving families of the nukes would totally agree! Anyway there were 2 bombs and the second one was 100% unnecessary, but the US wanted to flex its muscles and show the world what it had, to hell with the innocent Japanese people!
>Yeah the USSR taking over Europe sucked, but the US and Britain were fighting the greater evil at the time, the Nazis.
I know that's what the history books say, but where is your proof that the nazis were worse than the Soviets? Do you know how many died under communism? It's even more than Hitler managed to kill.
I'm just asking you to step away from the mainstream narrative a little. That's not where the truth lies here.
ya...China's neighbors were "protected" by USA..especially Vietnam right?
oh look, USA protected China too
USA’s warfare against China 1/ - http://www.voltairenet.org/article177063.html
i read the book, "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam" by Nick Turse and in it Turse makes the argument that the United States government was so focused on the body count that they did not care if the bodies were NVA, or civilian. Do you agree with this?
READ THIS if you want to learn about the Vietnam War, from the men involved.
Kill Anything That Moves
and here's some videos.
Yeah...no. There was pretty horrific brutality, the equivalent of a Mai Lai massacre every week of the war. Millions of civilians were killed. In Vietnam the only potential 'game change' would have been invading the North and shutting down the NVA bases/recruitment centers. The reason that wasn't done was because of fears of fighting China again as was the case in Korea...which given their performance against Vietnam right after the Vietnam war (conflict over the Vietnamese invading Cambodia and toppling Pol Pot) shows that they were a paper tiger at the time. Still, given the rate of casualties was much higher for the US in the Korean war vs. Vietnam, I could see how the politicians were deathly afraid of fighting the Chinese again for political reasons (high body counts were not politically popular), especially just to secure Vietnam.
What are your opinions on systematic war crimes committed by US forces, which have been well documented from the DoD and from people whom have been interviewed?