[QatzelOk]

There is a lot of text out there about how the US is "losing" Iraq, or leaving "defeated."

Likewise, a few decades ago, there was a lot of ink spilled over America "losing" or, at least "not winning" that particular attack.

But this is just propaganda.

In reality, all of these wars were pillaging missions. So they were, in fact, won.

The reason some of our leaders/media gurus pretend they were "lost" or, at least "not won" is because they don't want the mass public to know that our soldiers are running pillaging missions to destroy national solidarity in nations they want to plunder.

That might demoralize our armed personnel, and that level of disillusionment might bring down our capitalist regimes.

"Your mission is to destroy a nation of people so that our banks/corporations can better dominate the earth."

[GandalfTheGrey]

I agree except Vietnam wasn't a "plunder" mission. It was a mission to destroy independent economic development - which they succeeded.

Also don't speak too soon about Iraq - seems to me the Americans have inadvertently handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Clearly there were some winners from Iraq though - particularly haliburton and other contractors providing services for US troops, as well as military contractors. They must have made a bomb.

[QatzelOk]

I agree except Vietnam wasn't a "plunder" mission. It was a mission to destroy independent economic development - which they succeeded.

Also don't speak too soon about Iraq - seems to me the Americans have inadvertently handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Clearly there were some winners from Iraq though - particularly haliburton and other contractors providing services for US troops, as well as military contractors. They must have made a bomb.

Your definition of the Vietnam Atrocity sure looks like plunder, Gand. "destroy independent economic development." This was pretty well NATO's/the West's "mission" in Yugoslavia as well.

And the Iraq that the USA "handed to Iran" was actually encased in a toxic, poverty-stricken platter. By destroying Iraq, the USA permitted Israel - its military colony - to dominate the region. This was a plunder mission as its only goal was to destroy.

Capitalists are always looking for ways to skim more money off of humanity. And one strategy that haunts the earth every few years is "destroy non-capitalist (evil) systems and steal their resources."

This creates the illusion of "growth" for a short time. Which is all capitalism seems to consider since it's based on selfishness, and an individual adult human rarely lasts more than a half-century.

[GandalfTheGrey]

By destroying Iraq, the USA permitted Israel - its military colony - to dominate the region.

how so? Iraq had been on its knees for over a decade before the invasion. How exactly has Israel's "dominance" of the region been enhanced by the destruction of Iraq?

This creates the illusion of "growth" for a short time. Which is all capitalism seems to consider since it's based on selfishness, and an individual adult human rarely lasts more than a half-century.

I doubt there was either any real or illusory economic growth as a direct result of the Iraq war. Some individual contractors may have benefited as already mentioned, but the American capitalist system overall could, I think, consider this as a net loss: US companies faired pretty ordinarily in the bidding for Iraq's oil last year, but more importantly, even now oil production is barely at pre-invasion levels. They have been below pre-invasion levels for most of the occupation. So as a plundering exercise, I think the capitalists can feel dissapointed.

[QatzelOk]

Gandalf, you are asking questions as if you have never heard of a war before the current ones.

How did the USA benefit from destroying every competent government in Latin America for a few centuries?

Does this even need to be debated?

And you are looking at Iraq "today" to see what kind of future bombing it has given the Corporate Elite. But the pillaging/destruction of other cultures is a long-term strategy for maintaining hegemony.

All the alternatives to Western consumerism/banking/class stratification are smeared in Western media, and then destroyed.

This is the victory. Destruction.

Colonies (unofficial ones) can be created by capital in the ashes a few decades later.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Qatz I am well aware of the strategy of destroying cultures in order to benefit corporate elites, and I am also convinced that this strategy is constantly put into practice. It doesn't mean it always works as the aggressors intended though. You seem to assume that just because the corporate elites do something sinister and destructive, it is a given that they will achieve the results they were seeking.

Now in respect to your original contention, I would say yes, they succeeded in Vietnam because they destroyed any ability of the Vietnamese had of pursuing an independent economic development - but at a fairly high price. As for Iraq, I would point out that there were surely much more efficient ways of pillaging and destroying the country. Just saying "they destroyed the country - mission accomplished" doesn't really cut it. You have to look at the geo-strategic consequences of America's mission in Iraq - especially in terms of empowering their main threat in the region - Iran. Who knows though, you'll probably argue that it was just a deliberate ploy to show the public how threatening Iran is, and justify an attack on her. Personally though, if I wanted to destroy Iraq and maintain US hegemony at the same time, I'd continue Clinton's policy of starving the population through a brutal siege, keep half the country under US control under the auspices of a "no fly zone", and keep Saddam in power - thus maintaining his status as the ultimate bad guy (justifying the continued siege).

[QatzelOk]

You have to look at the geo-strategic consequences of America's mission in Iraq - especially in terms of empowering their main threat in the region - Iran.

This is what corporate media would like me to be obsessing about right now: the West's next victim of plunder.

This distracts attention away from the hateful and grotesquely greedy behavior of our parasitic Elite.

[GandalfTheGrey]

^ members and representatives of the elites themselves - including Barak Obama - were criticisising the Iraq war in terms of what they termed a "strategic blunder". meh who knows though, maybe you are right and it was all just a ploy: we made a mess in Iraq, now we have to destroy Iran to fix it.

[redcarpet]

The Korean war wasn't 'won' though. Korea wasn't unified under the puppet military dictatorship. North Korea stands defiant right to this day. So the Korean war was indeed 'lost'.

[Smilin' Dave]

plun·der
   [pluhn-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to rob of goods or valuables by open force, as in war, hostile raids, brigandage, etc.: to plunder a town.
2. to rob, despoil, or fleece: to plunder the public treasury.
3. to take wrongfully, as by pillage, robbery, or fraud: to plunder a piece of property.

By definition, plundering requires something be taken as profit. What was taken from Vietnam during the war with the US that resulted in profit Qatz? Same question for the Korean war, which the US did not start (though redcarpet appears confused on this point)?

[Brio]

What was taken from Vietnam during the war with the US that resulted in profit Qatz?

Air America (aka the CIA) profited a lot from running heroin out of the Golden Triangle.

[Smilin' Dave]

How much of that profit though was simply funnelled back into related 'projects' though? The whole point of smuggling drugs wasn't so the CIA could have a pool full of money in Langley, it was to help the counter-communist forces to finance themselves. Same goes for the later drug smuggling for the Contras in the 1980s.

[QatzelOk]

Code: Select allSmilin Dave's "non-event" didn't happen is not a proof that this was not a war to destroy the solidarity of a competing and independent system of governance.

Independent cooperative or socialist experiments are bad news for our Western banking cartels.

All private corporations benefit when they are destroyed. So the plunder - like everything else in the modern era - is indirect and hidden.

I guess the 18th Century vocab threw you off.

[Rich]

South Korea could have been a glittering paradise, like its northern neighbour if it hadn't been raped by America. Japan cruelly exploited by America reduced to medieval barbarism and lets not forget Taiwan and Hong Kong GDP per person a third the level of Haiti denied the freedom prosperity and harmony of Maoist China.

[Smilin' Dave]

Independent cooperative or socialist experiments are bad news for our Western banking cartels.

All private corporations benefit when they are destroyed. So the plunder - like everything else in the modern era - is indirect and hidden.

No, you've used the wrong word. What you've described isn't plunder. There is a definition for plunder, your further elaboration does not fit in it.

You might go down the path of "words have no rigid meaning, po-mo is wonderful etc. except:
1. Words always have meaning, even if it is one created communally
2. When you use words 'incorrectly', you fail to make an effective point
I suppose we could assume you're waging a one man campaign to re-cast certain words, in keeping with the 'Qatz uses totalising strategies in supposed opposition to totalist society/s', but again your application is completely ineffective. Given a lot of your 'credibility' is derived from your ability to 'read the text', giving false conclusions through incorrect use of language undermines your own position.

But, let's move away from your misuse of words. Let's interpret your original statement as you (apparently) intended: the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars were all about fought with the intention of destroying independent competitors and generally take advantage. Let's unpack that for a moment:
- North Korea wasn't entirely independent at all, it was sufficiently beholden to the PRC and USSR that Kim il-Sung asked for permission before his invasion in 1950
- Speaking of which, North Korea started that war, full scale war occured when the North tried to invade the South. How on earth did the "West Inc." set that up? This was their 'mission' in your words.
- In what sense was North Korea a competitor? North Korea was not sufficiently popular to win via general uprising, hence their decision to invade.
- In what way did 'The West Inc.' win in Korea? At the end it was pretty well the status quo. Had there been no war, there would likely have been little change in how the west did business in South Korea, and the continued to do no business in the North.
- Vietnam is again not an apparent competitor. Vietnamese Communist was fairly nationalistic and thus difficult to export. It certainly wasn't an economic competitor.
- It's not apparent to me that 'The West Inc' won in Vietnam either. The subsequent export-market type reforms of Doi Moi (sp?) didn't immediately follow the end of the Vietnam War. If anything the Vietnamese Communists only strengthened and expanded their power in the aftermath of the war while 'The West' was driven out of the surrounding area (even the rather unfortunate Khmer Rouge proxies were defeated).
- Iraq was not a competitor. Ba'athism as an ideology had already had its heyday and was now in decline, instead Iraq was 'threatened' by the successor ideological rally point of Islamism. Economically by the 1990s Iraq was a wreck, its profits from oil were dreadful.
- Again, Iraq is the aggressor... they invaded Kuwait, and largely for economic reasons. How did the West plan this again?
- Attacking Iraq did not open up markets, the war in 1990-1991 actually shut that market. France and Germany were certainly doing business with Iraq prior to the war. Subsequent sanctions left little room for trade.
- Did 'The West Inc.' really win in the end economically? Not exactly, the big corporate interests with the exception of 'big oil' have made no gains. Oil itself isn't the great winner either, since Iraq experienced significant security problems and the whole affair has ended with a largely independent Iraq.

So in summary, since you'll be reluctant to address the individual points, your thesis appears to ignore the lack of actual competition from these states, lack of apparent initiative by 'The West' in all cases and the lack of success in all cases. Thus the three examples you've picked are wrong for the case you're trying to make, there is no evidence of a 'mission' and apparently even if there was a mission it hasn't really resulted in victory.