This just reduces the usefulness of the word ‘terrorist’, which, principally implies statelessness.

Statebased terrorist actions is an oxymoronic term. If a “terrorist” organization has state backing, by definition, its no longer a terrorist org. Authoritarian, fascist, militaristic, genocidal, racist, and on and on, sure. But keep definitions meaningful.

Slight correction Vietnam is not the most bombed country - Cambodia is. Same war, same reason, but on the other side of the border. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal.

I would not argue in favor of the crimes that the US has committed and I wish the leadership was held accountable for its crimes. However, I will definitely prefer a US hegemony, if there is a better alternative on the offering right now I will be the first to support it.

Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.

And yet, according to polling:

Today, the Vietnamese view the U.S. in a positive light. About three-quarters of Vietnamese (76%) expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. More highly educated people (89%) gave the U.S. especially high marks. Young people ages 18-29 were particularly affirmative (89%), but the U.S. is seen positively even by those who are old enough to have lived through the Vietnam War. Among those ages 50 and older, more than six-in-ten rated the U.S. favorably.

As you correctly say the US bombed them intensively. The US also committed untold war crimes.

Why do the Vietnamese see the US in such a positive light? Why are the communist government seeking closer (military) ties with the US?

The motivation for invading Afghanistan was to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. Talks with the Taliban broke down a few months prior and the plans were drawn up for the invasion.

Those plans were then followed when a decent enough excuse to do so was allowed to occur. This is why Al Queda were able to escape en masse to Pakistan.

The military industrial complex will not stop until it’s completely destroyed. Eisenhower tried to warn us against it over a half century ago, but it fell on deaf ears. The “defense” spending is almost completely allocated to “offense”. The US won’t even defend it’s southern border. Anyone can invade the country from the south, while the military is spending billions of dollars and spreading troops all over the world. It’s like driving a tank into the city and destroying buildings to “protect your house”, but leaving your house unlocked and the gate open.

I don’t think I’ll be able to change your mind (I personally don’t think you’re necessarily wrong—it is subjective after all) but some things can be explained a little bit.

Leadership knew that the taliban was not responsible for 9/11 but entered the country anyway. Unlike Iraq, there is no oil in Afghanistan. There was no strategic value in conquering this country other than intimidating other countries not to fuck with the states.

I don’t have anything here, really.

USA spends 39% of global spending on military but has only 4% of the population.

This is far more easily explained. The US has so many military commitments. NATO, Rio treaty, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, Korea…and that’s definitely not a complete list. The US is also sort of the only reliable military that can be anywhere rather quickly. The US has historically provided a lot of humanitarian via the use of its military logistics. Kosovo, Fukushima, and Haiti come to immediate mind, but I know there’s a lot more.

Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.

Probably. But it is important to understand the context of the world at the time. The Cold War was a weird and potentially dangerous time. It’s easy to look back on this now with “we shouldn’t have been there” but it’s also very certainly possible if the US wasn’t involved there, countries further S/SE of Vietnam could have also “succumbed to Communism/Socialism” or just been plain invaded.

The US has caused so much suffering, instated dictators like Pinochet, fueled proxy wars in Latin America and in the middle-east, they even funded the taliban in the 80s.

Yes, definitely a lot of bad choices. But some were often believed to be the least bad option at the time.

It’s also important to remember that Communist/Socialist leaders were also responsible for a large number of atrocities. Khmer Rouge killing fields comes to mind. I’d probably guess that Socialist/Communist leaders were more ruthless & responsible for more deaths than US-backed ones on a “per-instance case”, but I’m not a historian and am fully willing to be convinced otherwise with evidence.

American foreign policy is insane and USA is a terrorist state.

I’m curious what aspects of foreign policy you find insane. Some instances make a lot of sense to me (Ukraine, for example). Others, such as Israel, sort of make sense from a “cold-blooded” point of view (needing an ally in the region) even though I don’t agree with it with all on a personal level.

I guess my point of view sort of boils down to: If there’s a power vacuum, a single group or nation will attempt to take that power vacuum. And the US certainly isn’t ideal, but very well could be the “least bad option”. This may certainly me having this opinion because I grew up in the US, but I personally wouldn’t want China or Russia, for example, holding the same position the US currently does.

Duh doy

Agricultural society is a terrorist state

That military spending and heavy-handedness are the main reasons you’re not currently living under a Chinese or Russian boot barely subsisting on low quality food in a cold crumbling commieblock on roach patrol.