European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Jacob]

I would love to respond, but in total sincerity, I have no interest in a debate about whether or not the US intervention in Vietnam was more or less "Imperialist" than its intervention in, say, Korea.

Okay, no worries 

There was not "imperialist" in any meaningful sense of the word in the US intervention in Vietnam, Korea, Greece, etc., etc., etc. They are all much better catergorized as cold war proxy conflicts, not "wars of imperium".

I'm happy with the term "cold war proxy conflict".

[Jacob]

Just asking ...   

Here you go:

You have a situation where a rich, powerful country A sends military and political advisors to one faction in country B to ensure that they prevail. A also funnels significant money to friendly elites in B, conducts significant intelligence and covert operations in B, and think nothing of discarding and replacing the elites they fund if there's disagreement, up to and including encouraging the violent overthrow of recalcitrant former clients (not to mention opposition in country B). If things go sideways, country A is perfectly willing to push for their preferred outcome by using their clearly superior military.

[DGuller]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

[Jacob]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

Why do you have to resort to personal attacks?

[DGuller]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

Why do you have to resort to personal attacks?

On the contrary, this is a very impersonal attack.  I'm attacking the whole lot of you as a group.

[Viking]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

This sentence confuses me since I do not debate grumbler.

[dps]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

Actually, I think it's been one of our better recent discussions.

[Valmy]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

Really I am rather enjoying watching this one.  The nature of Imperialism and Empires in the 21st century is something that interests me.  Surely nobody today would build the sort of old School Empire we have had for centuries.  But perhaps with international institutions and mass communications and so forth you do not have to.  You can get the benefits without the burden of maintenance.  But really that cannot really be called an Empire so perhaps it is something else entirely.  I see 'heremony' and the like thrown around sometimes.

[Razgovory]

Oh, my.  You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate.

Actually, I think it's been one of our better recent discussions.

And I started it.