Soa

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The School of the Americas (SOA), in 2001 renamed the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation,” is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers, located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Initially established in Panama in 1946, it was kicked out of that country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former Panamanian President, Jorge Illueca, stated that the School of the Americas was the “biggest base for destabilization in Latin America.” The SOA, frequently dubbed the “School of Assassins,” has left a trail of blood and suffering in every country where its graduates have returned.

Over its 59 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people. Among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins.

Another shame in US!

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=100

[Trajan]

Wow, that's something new to me. I've never heard of this organization before but I'm not surprised that such an organization exists.

[Guderian]

Typical of US policy towards South America.

[Empyrean]

God forbid we train people in the methods and techniques necessary to overthrow their local regimes. Don't buy into the :wub: that they're trained to kill teachers and peasants. Anybody can do that, with practically no training required. The School of the Americas is a training center for irregular counter-government operatives. Killing peasants is not something that we train people to do, because it simply isn't worth our time or money to train them to do this.

Of course, the complete flaming retards that will believe anything bad about the United States will have a heyday over this one. So go ahead! The United States is training people to rape school teachers in South America! We do this because... just because! We're evil! And every raped school teacher makes us so happy, we train people in school teacher rape techniques at our own expense!

The School of the Americas was established when the world was a chessboard fought over by the United States and the USSR. The SOA's role was to train Latin Americans how to stop the spread of communism, and overthrow regimes that sided with the USSR. Bad things happened for everybody on both sides, but the United States was the lesser of two evils in the Cold War. Whine about it all you want, knowing that the United States (and the graduates of the School of the Americans) is the only reason you weren't all swept away in a red tide decades ago. You're able to complain about this because the USSR lost. While the methods of holding the communists in check were not desirable (and often required destabilizing governments) the alternative was living under communism. We didn't send soldiers, we trained their own people how to do what they already wanted to do.

Man, I feel like I'm giving Jack Nicholson's speech in A Few Good Men. Shut up, or pick up a weapon and stand a post.

[CommanderSela]

I heard of this school. In fact this school trained the "Contras", rebels trained by the cia to fight the left goverment in Nicaragua in the 1980's. The project was authorized by Reagan. It also trained the anticastrist cuba for the operation "Manguse" in the 1960's.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

stop blaabing and read more intead .... information is the only weapon we can have versus people that try to shape our lives against our conscient wills.....

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=1096

Human Resources Exploitation

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...t%20A1-G11.pdf

[Guderian]

Emp I can imagine you in the whitehouse with Kissinger and Reagan...lol jkin.

It is not school teachers being raped it is South America being raped by everyone from the Spanish to the Americans.

[Empyrean]

stop blaabing and read more intead .... information is the only weapon we can have versus people that try to shape our lives against our conscient wills.....

Pay some frigging attention. The SOA trained local people in irregular warfare techniques. We weren't sending in foreign soldiers to "shape your lives" in any way. We were teaching people how to fight governments that they had, but didn't like.

It is not school teachers being raped it is South America being raped by everyone from the Spanish to the Americans.

According to the article, the SOA has just been a big rapist/murderer factory. They certainly didn't have anything to do with your still having the ability to complain about them today. Of course not... they were too busy raping "educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor."

Emp I can imagine you in the whitehouse with Kissinger and Reagan...lol jkin.

Some bad stuff had to be done, and it was. It was better that a communist government be taken down in a hail of gunfire and bloodshed than it fester into "USSR Lite." But hey, the Soviets lost, so now we can all look back in the security of our own self-righteousness and talk about all the horrible things the Americans did in their desperate struggle to stop the global flood of communism.

[Guderian]

IMO realpolitk was a bunch of crap, just a way to forgoe the ethical duties of the Reagan and Nixon administrations, and communism was the scapegoat for everything, just like terrorism is today. Whatever the case the US has no right to depose democratically elected leaders, and fund terrorists, just like Al Queada has no right to smash planes into civilian buildings or assasinate democratically elected leaders. This is why I don't expect anyone to belive the crap coming out of GWB mouth now about freedom and maintaining ethical standards. He knows full well that the American government has never cared about ethics on the world stage, only when it comes to her own people. And even that is the result of the ability of watch groups (civil liberties groups etc) keeping a close eye on the goverments' BS thanks to Americas great constitution.

America's foreign policy is a twisted version of it's isolationist policies of the early 1900's, I quote the fictional candidate for the presidency from the Chris Rock movie Head of State:

God bless America. And no place else

[Empyrean]

Yeah, you just go on pretending the Communists weren't sworn enemies of All That Was Not Communist. Hey, the Cold War was just a big plot by the evil United States so they could go around doing... bad stuff! So what benefit did we have in training counter-government operatives to operate in South America? If they weren't trained to stop the Communists, what were they trained for? What did South America have to offer the United States at the time? It takes a retard of the highest degree to believe that the Communists were not a threat to anyone, anywhere who was not a Communist. They killed many millions of people, conquered a very large amount of territory, and ruled everyone under their domain with an iron fist.

But whatever, blame America. Ungrateful bastard.

[Guderian]

Guatemalan history has been marked by the scenario of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. The Central Intelligence Agency, supported by a small group of Guatemalan citizens, orchestrated the overthrow of the democratic socialist Guatemalan government in 1954. This was known as Operation PBSUCCESS and led to over thirty years of unrest in the nation in which over 100,000 Guatemalans were killed, mostly indigenous Mayan Indians, more than 450 Mayan villages were destroyed, and over one million people became refugees. This is alleged to be one of the worst ethnic cleansings in modern times. Contributing reasons include the will of several Guatemalan military governments to not lose the war, the widespread racism within the country, and perhaps most notably, the activities and strategies utilized by the URNG insurgents.

The US was far from innocent, and were responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians (well if you count Vietnam than it is true anyway) the only difference was they made others do thier dirty work for them. Why was the US any different from the USSR? because it is democratic and has a very strong consitution that upholds the freedoms of it people. The policies of the US government during the cold war goes agianst what the people of America (and the world) think the US is about. You can talk all day about the threat of communism, but the states in Latin America were never a threat to America and did not deserve what America did to them.

Contras

A key role in the development of the Contra alliance was played by the United States following Ronald Reagan's assumption of the presidency in January 1981. Reagan accused the Sandinistas of importing Cuban-style socialism and aiding leftist guerrillas in El Salvador. On November 23 of that year, Reagan signed the top secret National Security Decision Directive 17 (NSDD-17), giving the Central Intelligence Agency the authority to recruit and support the Contras with $19 million in military aid. The effort to support the Contras was one component of the so-called Reagan Doctrine, championed by American conservatives, which called for providing U.S. military support to movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist-led governments.

In 1984 Nicaragua filed a suit in the International Court of Justice against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States, which in 1986 resulted in a guilty verdict against the US, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua through placement of underwater mines by CIA operatives and training, funding and support of the guerrilla forces. The US was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and was ordered to pay reparations (see note 1). The US response to this ruling was to dismiss the jurisdiction of the court, holding that its power did not supersede the Constitution, and escalate the war, besides pointing out that the court did not take in consideration the alleged role Nicaragua played as a Cold War proxy in a purported Soviet offensive.

Chile

The nationalization of U.S. and other foreign-owned companies led to increased tensions with the United States. The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization. Interestingly, a CIA plan to buy the cooperation of Chilean members of Congress failed due to the shortage of sufficiently corruptible representatives. By 1972, the economic progress of Allende's first year had been reversed and the economy was in crisis. Political polarization increased, and large mobilizations of both pro- and anti-government groups became frequent, often leading to clashes.

Or Iran where the US overthrew the elected government to secure thier oil profits of US companies, the result of which is Islamic Iran of today. Talk about creating problems then claiming to be the people to solve them.

[Empyrean]

Removed Mild Troll -TBN

If we didn't stop the Soviets from taking something, they took it. That includes Iran, which, like it or not, was a strategic interest. We didn't give a crap about oil companies at the time, otherwise we wouldn't have put price caps on gasoline during the 70's. What we did care about was keeping that massive oil reserve out of the hands of the Soviets, who could use it as a logistical base for putting their armoured divisions anywhere in the world. If we were trying to protect oil companies, we would have subsidized all petroleum production. That's a lot easier, and a lot cheaper than invading other countries for oil. Unless, of course, you're not a total moron and think there might be a little more to holding the world's biggest oil reserves than just the profits of some oil companies. Something like... say... positioning yourself to take on the baddest army ever created? The United States had more accurate nukes than the USSR and we had reliable nuke subs. We also had slightly better tanks, but the Soviets had a lot more of them and they'd gotten a lot of practice in while rolling over little countries around their borders.

Yeah it sucked what we did to Iran and I understand why they hate us for it, but what we did was necessary to deny the Soviets the logistical base that would allow them to put ground forces anywhere in the world without having to worry about the oil requirements. Since you seem to think that the USSR was just a bogeyman and that we did it all for our oil companies... explain to me again why we put price caps on gasoline?

The US was far from innocent, and were responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians (well if you count Vietnam than it is true anyway) the only difference was they made others do thier dirty work for them.

Why is it that when people are blaming deaths on the United States, they count casualties inflicted by both sides? Communism killed millions of people living under Communism in non-warfare settings via state sponsored starvation and mismanagement of the economy, to say nothing of their intentional purges. There is no way in hell the United States killed anywhere near as many people as the Soviets did. Even if you count the people we helped equip (who were fighting anyway, we just gave them better weapons and training) in the list it's just stupid to claim that the United States killed millions of people. Stupid.

Why was the US any different from the USSR? because it is democratic and has a very strong consitution that upholds the freedoms of it people.

There's a bit more to it than that. Deviating from the classical liberal (libertarian, in contemporary terms) principles of the constitution does not make the United States the same as the USSR. Very few places in the world uphold the standards set forth in the United States constitution, but that doesn't make them USSR clones. Hyperbole is the very best thing ever! Says you.

You can talk all day about the threat of communism, but the states in Latin America were never a threat to America and did not deserve what America did to them.

And why were the Contras funded? Because they were fighting Communists. The Soviets were looking for footholds anywhere they could get them, they weren't just going to ignore South America. They went for it by funding leftist militant groups, and we responded by funding anti-leftist groups. We didn't just show up in South America and decide to screw everything up... South America was a footstep on the road to global conquest for the Soviets, and we opposed them. It sucks to have your home town turn into a battleground for two foreign superpowers, but that's what happened. It was the USSR that triggered the Cold War with their Communist goal of global conquest, so point the fingers where they belong, and be grateful that NATO and the United States were able to hold them back until they imploded.

And then you pretend that the Communists weren't involved in Chile, even though their government started nationalizing everything they could get their hands on. Yeah, right. You're trying to paint the Cold War as one big American business interest, which it was not. Communist countries nationalized everything, which is why you see a correlation between countries nationalizing businesses and countries getting counter-revolutionaries funded by the United States.

[Guderian]

As usual your toting the US can do no wrong argument. It had very little do with the soviets at the time, the communist became a convinient scapegoat for the US governement (im not saying that there was not a threat, but the cause of the coup were not primarily the soviets)

The United States also reacted with alarm as it watched developments in Iran, which had been in a state of instability since 1951.

Through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the British had a monopoly on the transporting pumping, and refining of oil in most of Iran. The company paid production royalties to the government of the Shah— placed on the throne by the British in 1941. But the royalties and salaries to Iranian employees were smaller, considering that the company's earnings were ten times greater than its expenses.7 Iran suffered from poverty, and nationalists insisted that controlling the company could alleviate this.

Many Iranians demanded that a higher share of the company's earnings be paid. In response, the AIOC replied that it had a binding agreement with the Shah until 1993, and collaborated with some Iranian political forces to draft a report opposing nationalization. In February 1951, the Iranian prime minister, suspected of being involved with the report— was assassinated and replaced by nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh. Later that year the new prime minister nationalized his nation's British-owned oil wells. The United States reacted with alarm as it watched Mossadegh begin to confront Western-owned corporations in Iran.

As the Iranians moved toward seizing the reserves, the Truman administration attempted to mediate. Later, the Eisenhower administration, convinced that Iran was developing Communist ties, used the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), joining forces with Iran's military leaders to overthrow Iran's government. Mossadegh drew on the Tudeh, Communist Party of Iran, for much of his support. However, by 1953 the party had began to criticize him as a U.S. "puppet." Since the Tudeh was the strongest Communist party in the Middle East at this time, the Eisenhower administration claimed to fear a first Communist takeover in the Middle East. In addition, Iran shared a border with the Soviet Union thus increasing Iran's strategic position.

To replace Mossadegh, the U.S. favored the young Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. In return, Pahlevi promised to allow U.S. companies to share in the development of his nation's reserves. According to CIA documents finally made public in 2000, the U.S. provided guns, trucks, armored cars, and radio communications in the CIA-assisted 1953 coup, which elevated Pahlevi from his position as that of a constitutional monarch to that of an absolute ruler.8 With Mossadeq out of the way, oil profits were then divided between the Shah's regime and a new international consortium; in turn the British were awarded 40% of the country's oil revenues, five US firms (Gulf, Socony Vacuum, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Texaco) won another 40%, and the rest went to Royal Dutch Shell and Compagnie Française des Pétroles.9

Since the turn of the century the United States had been trying to get into the Iranian oil fields only to encounter still British competition. Now the breakthrough for the U.S. was made possible by the Cold War-era ties to the Shah and under the guidance of the State Department official Herbert Hoover, Jr., who had gained a great deal of experience in the complexities of the international oil problem as a private businessman.

Why is it that when people are blaming deaths on the United States, they count casualties inflicted by both sides? Communism killed millions of people living under Communism in non-warfare settings via state sponsored starvation and mismanagement of the economy, to say nothing of their intentional purges. There is no way in hell the United States killed anywhere near as many people as the Soviets did. Even if you count the people we helped equip (who were fighting anyway, we just gave them better weapons and training) in the list it's just stupid to claim that the United States killed millions of people. Stupid.

Of course the Soviets killed millions there can be no doubt about that, but so did the Americans. Everyone agrees about the guilt of the soviets, while the American government pretends that they can do no wrong. The fact is both were equally despicable during the cold war. It doesn't matter who killed how many it matters that they both killed alot of people who didn't deserve to die, and caused such instabilities in many regions that the effects are being felt even now. Much of the poverty in former Soviet states is a direct result of the Soviet policies during the Cold war, much of the poverty in Latin America is the result of America unethical policies (realpolitik BS) also during that time. You cannot deny this and pretend that the American government were doing the "right" thing while the Soviets were not. It either both were wrong or both were watching thier own backs.

There's a bit more to it than that. Deviating from the classical liberal (libertarian, in contemporary terms) principles of the constitution does not make the United States the same as the USSR. Very few places in the world uphold the standards set forth in the United States constitution, but that doesn't make them USSR clones. Hyperbole is the very best thing ever! Says you.

Who said they were clones? I said both are in the wrong.

And why were the Contras funded? Because they were fighting Communists. The Soviets were looking for footholds anywhere they could get them, they weren't just going to ignore South America. They went for it by funding leftist militant groups, and we responded by funding anti-leftist groups. We didn't just show up in South America and decide to screw everything up... South America was a footstep on the road to global conquest for the Soviets, and we opposed them. It sucks to have your home town turn into a battleground for two foreign superpowers, but that's what happened. It was the USSR that triggered the Cold War with their Communist goal of global conquest, so point the fingers where they belong, and be grateful that NATO and the United States were able to hold them back until they imploded.

And why were the Contras funded? Because they were fighting Communists. The Soviets were looking for footholds anywhere they could get them, they weren't just going to ignore South America. They went for it by funding leftist militant groups, and we responded by funding anti-leftist groups. We didn't just show up in South America and decide to screw everything up... South America was a footstep on the road to global conquest for the Soviets, and we opposed them. It sucks to have your home town turn into a battleground for two foreign superpowers, but that's what happened. It was the USSR that triggered the Cold War with their Communist goal of global conquest, so point the fingers where they belong, and be grateful that NATO and the United States were able to hold them back until they imploded.

And then you pretend that the Communists weren't involved in Chile, even though their government started nationalizing everything they could get their hands on. Yeah, right. You're trying to paint the Cold War as one big American business interest, which it was not. Communist countries nationalized everything, which is why you see a correlation between countries nationalizing businesses and countries getting counter-revolutionaries funded by the United States.

But the Latin Americans states went to the Soviets not the other way around, and in many cases they were democratically elected govenments who came to power promising communist policies, the US has no right to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign nation. The US could've prevented this by supporting democratic process in Latin America, but they didn't give a **** about the region until the so called communist threat. Until then Latin America was something to be exploited for her resources.

THe USSR did not force many of the countries, most of them were rebeling against imperial rule by the old empires. For example Vietnam was a country united against France. Infact Ho chi minh tried to gain American support and even play the Star Spanlged Banner in many of his speeches, but the US ignored them, so they turned to the USSR. Lets not go back to the tired all US rhetoric of blame everything on someone else.

Again it was a democratically elceted government who got elected on the promise of communist based reforms. The people wanted these reforms, the government provided them, and then in comes America and destroys the entire economy with their meddling and Chile ends up with Pinochet, mabye if you start thinking outside of the box of patriotism you live in you'll realise the realities of the cold war.

[Empyrean]

As usual your toting the US can do no wrong argument. It had very little do with the soviets at the time, the communist became a convinient scapegoat for the US governement (im not saying that there was not a threat, but the cause of the coup were not primarily the soviets)

I never said that the US can do no wrong, I said that the cold war imposed some grim demands upon the United States, which had to get their hands dirty to deal with the Communists. You're pointing fingers pretending that the United States and the USSR are comparable ethically, which has no basis in fact or even plausible fiction.

Of course the Soviets killed millions there can be no doubt about that, but so did the Americans. Everyone agrees about the guilt of the soviets, while the American government pretends that they can do no wrong. The fact is both were equally despicable during the cold war. It doesn't matter who killed how many it matters that they both killed alot of people who didn't deserve to die, and caused such instabilities in many regions that the effects are being felt even now.

The Americans did not kill millions of people. Show me one scrap of evidence for that. Come on. One. The American government did what was necessary, and I've already said that it wasn't nice or pretty or desirable. The United States and the USSR were not "equally despicable" during the Cold War. When the United States had people unhappy with the status quo, four people were shot at Kent State. Big scandal, national attention, all that. When the Soviets had people unhappy with the status quo, Budapest was levelled with artillery following a failed armored assault on the city. Comparing the US to the USSR is like comparing a car wreck to a nuclear bomb. Not only was the USSR far more extreme in its disregard for human life, it was the initiator of the conflict and the aggressor waving their Manifesto with its demands for global Communism. The United States took actions to stop the Communists, not to take over the world.

Much of the poverty in former Soviet states is a direct result of the Soviet policies during the Cold war, much of the poverty in Latin America is the result of America unethical policies (realpolitik BS) also during that time.

They haven't exactly had a good run of things since then. They weren't very well off to begin with, either. I think you're overstating the impact of American policies while understating the impact of more recent corruption and mismanagement by their post cold-war leaders. In any case, the United States funded counter-revolutionaries to stop Communism from spreading, giving the USSR a foothold in the Western Hemisphere on which to place more nuclear missiles. Cuba was bad enough.

You cannot deny this and pretend that the American government were doing the "right" thing while the Soviets were not. It either both were wrong or both were watching thier own backs.

The United States was acting in self defense. The USSR and other Communist movements were acting to overthrow all other governments and replace them with world Communism. That is not up for dispute, their Manifesto is quite clear on that point. Or you can read Mao's Little Red Book, it's more of the same. (with more emphasis on "People's Armies" and how to use them)

Who said they were clones? I said both are in the wrong.

You implied that the only thing that made the United States different from the USSR was their Constitution and their democratic system. Your words: "Why was the US any different from the USSR? because it is democratic and has a very strong consitution that upholds the freedoms of it people." You then said that the United States fell short of those ideals, which makes it "not any different from the USSR."

But the Latin Americans states went to the Soviets not the other way around, and in many cases they were democratically elected govenments who came to power promising communist policies, the US has no right to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign nation.

When the declared goals of the Communists explicitly call for the overthrow of the United States government, it becomes our business from day one.

The US could've prevented this by supporting democratic process in Latin America, but they didn't give a **** about the region until the so called communist threat. Until then Latin America was something to be exploited for her resources.

I thought we didn't have any right to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign nation? Here's a tip: for best results, put at least one complete sentence in between your contradictions. They stand out too much otherwise. In any case, our policy was to intervene after it seemed necessary, not before. You're not a big supporter of the United States spreading Democracy in Iraq, why are you suggesting that we should have done it in South America? We left them alone until they went over to the Communists, then took action to deal with the threat. And the Communists were a threat.

THe USSR did not force many of the countries, most of them were rebeling against imperial rule by the old empires. For example Vietnam was a country united against France.

Oh, they didn't invade and conquer everyone who joined them so that makes it ok. (as if Vietnam could have held off the Chinese or the Soviets... I guess they figured it would be better to be Red than dead)

Infact Ho chi minh tried to gain American support and even play the Star Spanlged Banner in many of his speeches, but the US ignored them, so they turned to the USSR. Lets not go back to the tired all US rhetoric of blame everything on someone else.

Hồ Chí Minh declared himself a devoted follower of Lenin since at least the 1920's. A quote from Wikipedia:

"In (Lenin's Theses on the National and Colonial Questions) there were political terms that were difficult to understand. But by reading them again and again finally I was able to grasp the essential part. What emotion, enthusiasm, enlightenment and confidence they communicated to me! I wept for joy. Sitting by myself in my room, I would shout as if I were addressing large crowds: "Dear martyr compatriots! This is what we need, this is our path to liberation!" Since then (the 1920s) I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International!"

Yeah, sounds like a real Star Spangled Banner kind of guy. I wonder why we didn't like him?

Again it was a democratically elceted government who got elected on the promise of communist based reforms. The people wanted these reforms, the government provided them, and then in comes America and destroys the entire economy with their meddling and Chile ends up with Pinochet, mabye if you start thinking outside of the box of patriotism you live in you'll realise the realities of the cold war.

You're the one who pretends the Communists weren't out to conquer the world. The United States did some bad things in their attempts to stop the Communists, but we were clearly the lesser of two evils, and the more defensive party in the whole conflict. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to have a clear picture of what happened, you've got a frigging Marx quote as your signature.

[John I Tzimisces]

It is true, because we ignored Ho Chi Minh is his bid to throw off the yoke of French Imperialism, he had NO CHOICE but to turn to the USSR. He loved us, but we felt we could not risk damaging relations with France after The Great War...

Other than that I pretty much agree with you on everything Empyrean

[Guderian]

I never said that the US can do no wrong, I said that the cold war imposed some grim demands upon the United States, which had to get their hands dirty to deal with the Communists. You're pointing fingers pretending that the United States and the USSR are comparable ethically, which has no basis in fact or even plausible fiction.

Your right the USA, as in it's people and it's constitution were not comparable ethically with the policies of the USSR governement. And I never said that, It is the government who was. Read on.

The Americans did not kill millions of people. Show me one scrap of evidence for that. Come on. One.

Here's one:

Estimating the number killed in the conflict is extremely difficult. Official records from North Vietnam are hard to find or nonexistent and many of those killed were literally obliterated by bombing. For many years the North Vietnamese suppressed the true number of their casualties for propaganda purposes. It is also difficult to say exactly what counts as a "Vietnam war casualty"; people are still being killed today by unexploded ordnance, particularly cluster bomblets. More than 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed so far by landmines and unexploded ordnance. [2]

Environmental effects from chemical agents and the colossal social problems caused by a devastated country with so many dead surely caused many more lives to be shortened.

The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, reporting that 1.1 million fighters—Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers—and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and the south were killed between 1954 and 1975. Other figures run as high as 4 million civilian casualties with 1 million casualties being NVA or VC fighters. Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million. The number of wounded fighters was put at 600,000. It remains even more unclear how many Vietnamese civilians were wounded.

Of the Americans, 58,226 were killed in action or classified as missing in action. A further 153,303 Americans were wounded to give total casualties of 211,529. The United States Army took the majority of the casualties with 38,179 killed and 96,802 wounded; the Marine Corps lost 14,836 killed and 51,392 wounded; the Navy 2,556 and 4,178; with the Air Force suffering the lowest casualties both in numbers and percentage terms with 2,580 killed and 931 wounded.

American allies took casualties as well. South Korea provided the largest outside force and suffered between 4,400 and 5,000 killed[3] full details including WIA and MIA appear difficult to find. Australia lost 501 dead and 3,131 wounded out of the 47,000 troops they had deployed to Vietnam. New Zealand had 38 dead and 187 wounded. Thailand had 351 casualties. It is difficult to locate accurate figures for the losses of the Philippines. Although Canada was not involved in the war, thousands of Canadians joined the American armed forces and served in Vietnam. The American fatal casualties include at least 56 Canadian citizens. It is difficult to estimate the exact number because some Canadians crossed the border to volunteer for service under false pretenses whereas others were permanent residents living in the United States who either volunteered or were drafted. See also Canada and the Vietnam War.

In the aftermath of the war many Americans came to believe that some of the 2,300 American soldiers listed as Missing in Action had in fact been taken prisoner by the DRV and held indefinitely. The Vietnamese list over 200,000 of their own soldiers missing in action, and bodies of MIA soldiers from World War I and II continue to be unearthed in Europe.

Both during and after the war, significant human rights violations occurred. Both North and South Vietnamese had large numbers of political prisoners, many of whom were killed or tortured. In 1970, two American congressmen visiting South Vietnam discovered the existence of "tiger cages", which were small prison cells used for torturing South Vietnamese political prisoners (see Con Son Island). After the war, actions taken by the victors in Vietnam, including firing squads, torture, concentration camps and "reeducation," led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Many of these refugees fled by boat and thus gave rise to the phrase "boat people." They immigrated to Hong Kong, France, the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries, creating sizable expatriate communities, notably in the United States.

Among the many casualties of the war were the people of the neighboring state of Cambodia. Approximately 50,000–300,000 died as a result of U.S. bombing campaigns. The bombing campaigns also drove some Cambodians into the arms of the nationalist and communist Khmer Rouge, who took power after America cut off funds for bombing them in 1973, and continued the slaughter of opponents or suspected opponents. About 1.7 million Cambodians were murdered or fell victim to starvation and disease before the regime was overthrown by Vietnamese forces in 1979.

This one is indirect but that was my point, the US gov uses others instead of getting involved directly:

Guatemalan history has been marked by the scenario of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. The Central Intelligence Agency, supported by a small group of Guatemalan citizens, orchestrated the overthrow of the democratic socialist Guatemalan government in 1954. This was known as Operation PBSUCCESS and led to over thirty years of unrest in the nation in which over 100,000 Guatemalans were killed, mostly indigenous Mayan Indians, more than 450 Mayan villages were destroyed, and over one million people became refugees.

Another one:

600,000 Korean soldiers died in the conflict according to US estimates. The total including all civilians and military soldiers from UN Nations and China, was over 2 million deaths. More than a million South Koreans were killed, 85% of them civilians. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, 11.1% of the total population of North Korea perished, which indicates that 1,130,000 people were killed. In sum, about 2,500,000 people were killed, including north and south together. More than 80% of the industrial and public facilities and transportation works, three-quarters of the government offices, and one-half of the houses were destroyed.

Result of the US/CIA backed overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile

After the military's seizure of power, Pinochet engaged in brutal political repression, aiming to destroy all remaining support for the defeated Popular Unity (UP) government. Almost immediately, the junta banned all the leftist parties that had constituted Allende's UP coalition. Much of the regime's violence was directed toward those it viewed as socialist or Marxist sympathizers, though dissidents who spoke out against the government were also persecuted. Those murdered during Pinochet's 17 years in power are said to have "been disappeared." It is not known exactly how many people were killed by government and military forces during the 17 years that he was in power, but the Rettig Commission listed 2,095 deaths on both sides and 1,102 "disappearances." Torture was also commonly used against dissidents. Thousands of Chileans fled the country to escape the regime. In 2004, the National Commission on Political Prisoners and Torture produced the Valech Report after interviewing an estimated 35,000 people who claimed to have been abused by the regime. About 28,000 of those testimonies were regarded as legitimate. According to the Commission, more than half of the arrests occurred in the months immediately following the coup (approximately 18,000 of those testifying claimed they were detained between September and December of 1973).

Well thats all I can be bothered reading for now but Im sure there is alot more.

The United States and the USSR were not "equally despicable" during the Cold War. When the United States had people unhappy with the status quo, four people were shot at Kent State. Big scandal, national attention, all that. When the Soviets had people unhappy with the status quo, Budapest was levelled with artillery following a failed armored assault on the city. Comparing the US to the USSR is like comparing a car wreck to a nuclear bomb. Not only was the USSR far more extreme in its disregard for human life, it was the initiator of the conflict and the aggressor waving their Manifesto with its demands for global Communism. The United States took actions to stop the Communists, not to take over the world.

The US gov just killed everyone else instead of thier own people.

They haven't exactly had a good run of things since then. They weren't very well off to begin with, either. I think you're overstating the impact of American policies while understating the impact of more recent corruption and mismanagement by their post cold-war leaders. In any case, the United States funded counter-revolutionaries to stop Communism from spreading, giving the USSR a foothold in the Western Hemisphere on which to place more nuclear missiles. Cuba was bad enough.

No it is a direct result of US inteventions, many of the honest people were killed off by US backed coups who put corrupt officials into power, therefore creating the corrupt governments of today. This goes back to Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt. Sure Cuba was a threat, but there is no justification in striking out indicriminetely at any Latin country.

The United States was acting in self defense. The USSR and other Communist movements were acting to overthrow all other governments and replace them with world Communism. That is not up for dispute, their Manifesto is quite clear on that point. Or you can read Mao's Little Red Book, it's more of the same. (with more emphasis on "People's Armies" and how to use them)

I find it funny that you judge communism from Maos Little Red Book. But anyway it was not a defensive policy, the US government had a aggresive policy against Russia even before WW2 ended, they did not want Russia expanding because they had plan for America to be the world super power. The only reason they even conceded all that territory to Russia was because The red army already controlled it and to asking them to get out would've meant war. Read on.

You implied that the only thing that made the United States different from the USSR was their Constitution and their democratic system. Your words: "Why was the US any different from the USSR? because it is democratic and has a very strong consitution that upholds the freedoms of it people." You then said that the United States fell short of those ideals, which makes it "not any different from the USSR."

So that means they are clones? seriously mate comon...

I thought we didn't have any right to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign nation? Here's a tip: for best results, put at least one complete sentence in between your contradictions. They stand out too much otherwise. In any case, our policy was to intervene after it seemed necessary, not before. You're not a big supporter of the United States spreading Democracy in Iraq, why are you suggesting that we should have done it in South America? We left them alone until they went over to the Communists, then took action to deal with the threat. And the Communists were a threat.

Spreading democracy does not mean invading. It means supporting the democratic process. The US did not want to get involved at all. And you know what I meant by inferering, seriously comon...Just so it is clear I meant by supporting coups against democraticaly elected governments. To deny any form of intervention (political, economic etc) in world politics would just be stupid and only someone who has no understanding of politics would take my comment as such.

When the declared goals of the Communists explicitly call for the overthrow of the United States government, it becomes our business from day one.

You're the one who pretends the Communists weren't out to conquer the world. The United States did some bad things in their attempts to stop the Communists, but we were clearly the lesser of two evils, and the more defensive party in the whole conflict. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to have a clear picture of what happened, you've got a frigging Marx quote as your signature.

The evil communist were to blame for it all? well history says differently.

The United States hoped to shape the postwar world by opening up the world's markets to capitalist trade - a rebuilt capitalist Europe that could again serve as a hub in world affairs. The Atlantic Charter was publicized regarding this with principles such as self-determination - the right of nations to choose their own government - but was in practice abrogated by both the West as by the East. Franklin D. Roosevelt had never forgotten the excitement with which he had greeted the principles of Wilsonian idealism during World War I, and he saw his mission in the 1940s as bringing lasting peace and genuine democracy to the world. According to this view, it was important not to repeat the punitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles that had produced hardship and resentment in pre-war Germany.

But this vision was equally a vision of national self-interest. World War II resulted in enormous destruction of infrastructure and populations throughout Eurasia, from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, with almost no country left unscathed. The only major industrial power in the world to emerge intact—and even greatly strengthened from an economic perspective—was the United States, which moved swiftly to consolidate its position. As the world's greatest industrial power, and as the only world power unravaged by the war, the United States stood to gain more than any other country from opening the entire world to unfettered trade. The United States would have a global market for its exports, and it would have unrestricted access to vital raw materials. Determined to avoid another economic catastrophe like that of the 1930s, Roosevelt saw the creation of the postwar order as a way to ensure continuing US prosperity.

Truman could advance these principles with an economic powerhouse that produced 50 percent of the world's industrial goods and military power that rested on a monopoly of the new atom bomb. These aims were at the center of what the Soviet Union strove to avoid as the breakdown of the wartime alliance went forward. It also required new international agencies: the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which were created to ensure an open, capitalist, international economy. The Soviet Union opted not to take part.

The immediate post-1945 period may have been the historical high point for the popularity of communist ideology. The burdens the Red Army and USSR endured had earned it massive respect which, had it been fully exploited by Stalin, had a good chance of resulting in a communist Europe. Communist parties won sizeable shares of the vote in countries such as Belgium, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Finland and won significant popular support in Asia - in Vietnam, India, and Japan - and throughout Latin America. In addition, they achieved a significant popularity in such nations as China, Greece, and Iran.

The United Kingdom and the United States were concerned that a political victory by communists in any of these countries could lead to a Soviet takeover similar to those in Eastern Europe. While the Soviet Union acquiesced to Anglo-American efforts to impede Soviet access to the Mediterranean (a perennial focus of British foreign policy since the Crimean War in the 1850s), the Americans increased their anticommunist campaign.

Both East and West regarded Greece as a nation well within the sphere of influence of the United Kingdom. Stalin had respected his agreement with Churchill to not intervene, but Yugoslavia, under Tito, continuously sent arms and supplies during the Greek Civil War to the partisan forces of the Communist Party of Greece, the ELAS (National Popular Liberation Army). Initially, the UK had given aid to the royalist Greek forces, and ELAS leaders, failing to realize that there would be no Soviet aid and foolishly having boycotted the elections, were at a disadvantaged position. However, by 1947, the near-bankrupted British government, forced to take aid from such nations as New Zealand, could no longer maintain its massive overseas commitments. In addition to granting India independence and handing back the Palestinian Mandate to the United Nations, the British government decided to withdraw from both Greece and the nearby Turkey. This would have left the two nations, in particular Greece, vulnerable to a communist takeover.

Notified that British aid to Greece and Turkey would end in less than six weeks, the US government, already hostile towards and suspicious of Soviet intentions, decided that action was necessary. With the Congress solidly in Republican hands and populated by the traditional isolationists, Truman adopted an ideological approach. In a meeting with congressional leaders, the argument of "apples in a barrel infected by one rotten one" was used to convince them of the significance in supporting Greece and Turkey. It was to become the Domino Theory, the justification for containment. On the morning of March 12, 1947, Truman appeared before congress to ask for $400 million of aid to Greece and Turkey. Calling on congressional approval for the United States to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures," or in short a policy of containment, Truman articulated a presentation of the ideological struggle that became known as the Truman Doctrine. Although based on a simplistic analysis of internal strife in Greece and Turkey, it was to be the single dominating influence over US thinking until at least the Vietnam War.

Truman's speech had a tremendous effect. The anticommunist feelings that had just begun to hatch in the US were given a great boost, and a silenced Congress voted overwhelmingly in approval of aid. The United States would not withdraw back to the Western Hemisphere as it had after the First World War. From then on, the US would actively engage any communist threats anywhere in the globe under the ostensible cause of "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights." The US brandished its role as the leader of the "free world." Meanwhile, the Soviet Union brandished its position as the leader of the "progressive" and "anti-imperialist" camp.

In 1947, the Marshal Plan began which was designed to give billions of dollars to assist the recovery of Europe. The Soviets, however, refused to accept any aid in their satellite states. Consequently, the West gained an economic boom while the Eastern living standards remained low.

That does not sound like self defense agaisnt the evil communist expansionists at all. More like the usual politics.

Hồ Chí Minh declared himself a devoted follower of Lenin since at least the 1920's. A quote from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"In (Lenin's Theses on the National and Colonial Questions) there were political terms that were difficult to understand. But by reading them again and again finally I was able to grasp the essential part. What emotion, enthusiasm, enlightenment and confidence they communicated to me! I wept for joy. Sitting by myself in my room, I would shout as if I were addressing large crowds: "Dear martyr compatriots! This is what we need, this is our path to liberation!" Since then (the 1920s) I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International!"

Yeah, sounds like a real Star Spangled Banner kind of guy. I wonder why we didn't like him?

Your wrong about Ho Chi Minh here's why:

On September 5, 1945, Ho Chi Minh spoke at a ceremony heralding an independent Vietnam. In his speech he cited the American Declaration of Independence and a band played "The Star Spangled Banner." Minh had hoped that the United States would be an ally of a Vietnamese independence movement based on speeches by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt against the continuation of European imperialism after World War II. However the death of Roosevelt, the development of the Cold War, and Ho's Communist sympathies led to U.S. support being given to the French.

America chose France over Vietnam, simple as that. Then invaded the Vietnamese for trying to liberate their country.

[leeho730]

Then invaded the Vietnamese for trying to liberate their country.

"The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" defined the beginning of large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam. Historians have shown that the incident was, at its best interpretation, an overreaction of eager naval forces, or at its worst, a crafted pretext for making overt the American covert involvement in Vietnam."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident