Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[coloradoatheist]

I don't understand how this relates to US involvement in Vietnam? I mean is the justification to save people? Because I know that wasn't the justification at the time. The justification at the time was to keep communist influences out of indo-china. The funny thing is that Ho Chi Mihn didn't even want communism initially. At the end of WW2 he actually approached allied leaders to try and have them bring democracy to his nation and they flatly rejected him on account of French Indochina being a French holding.

The more you know, eh?

Truman say the communism system as a totalitarian regime that was worth fighting over. He saw it like the Nazi regime. Huh about communism? Ho Chi minh spent many years in both Russia and China studying communism and he was the one who worked to unite the different parties into one Communist party of Vietnam. So when he said he wanted independence for Vietnam did he say, "I'm giving up communism and supporting capitalism? Communism is evil"

 

[untermensche]

Vietnam: The north wanted to impose it's will on the south.

Delusion.

Vietnam was about most of the people in the South wanting to join the North and an imperial giant using force to try to stop them.

Iraq: Iranian-backed Shia engaged in ethnic cleansing of the Sunni. Of course they shot back. That fight killed far more than we did.

The US invasion of Iraq was a massive act of international terrorism.

It was the external use of force to change the internal politics of a nation.

It was a disaster.

Old dormant rivalries were reignited.

Just making the US terrorist invasion a bigger crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're only counting the ones that left at the end of the war, not the ones that left when Ho Chi Min took power.

They didn't leave Vietnam when Ho Chi Minh took power. And "the ones that left at the end of the war" is literally what we were talking about.

Pay more attention, dude.

Quit trying to twist things.

We were talking about the ones that went from the North to the South when the country was partitioned.

However, even after the war there were about 3 million that fled:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_refugee_crisis

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The war was because of the standard Red tactics: Create a puppet government, back it to the point it can seize some territory and then openly intervene to support their puppet as if it was the legitimate government of the country.

On the one hand, that is literally exactly what the United States did in Vietnam, so calling this a "standard red tactic" is amazingly ironic.

In the second place, the Vietnamese communists were not puppets of the soviets. Strictly speaking, they weren't even ALLIES of the Soviets. They were, if anything, closely aligned with the Chinese whom they at best TOLERATED by virtue of their having a mutual enemy. They had nothing but contempt for the Soviets and cooperated with them PRECISELY to the extent that the Soviets were willing to sell them weapons.

Calling North Vietnam a "puppet" of the Soviet Union is like calling the United States a puppet government installed by Napoleon (thereby claiming the war of 1812 was justified as it was just another front in the Napoleonic Wars).

Please note that I said "red", not "Moscow". And the reality is that the strings controlling the puppets were pretty loose. That doesn't change the fact that they were originally installed by the Red powers.

Your comparison to Napoleon is completely off target--France had nothing to do with the liberty movement in the US. They were merely allies we found afterwards.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So in the US Civil war, 400K died. That war wasn't about body count and saving lives per say, but getting rid of a tyrannical system. So how many lives would you have said it was worth it to get rid of slavery? If the north had lost the war, would you have considered it a valiant effort?

The US Civil War was about two sides deciding the future of their own nation through war.

The US invasion of South Vietnam was an imperial power using force to try to maintain imperial control over people that wanted no part of that imperial power.

Why did you rape your wife? There's no way she consented, it must have been rape.

 

[untermensche]

The US Civil War was about two sides deciding the future of their own nation through war.

The US invasion of South Vietnam was an imperial power using force to try to maintain imperial control over people that wanted no part of that imperial power.

Why did you rape your wife? There's no way she consented, it must have been rape.

The US raped Vietnam. It raped Laos. It raped Cambodia.

To defend the insane savagery is sad.

 

[LordKiran]

I don't understand how this relates to US involvement in Vietnam? I mean is the justification to save people? Because I know that wasn't the justification at the time. The justification at the time was to keep communist influences out of indo-china. The funny thing is that Ho Chi Mihn didn't even want communism initially. At the end of WW2 he actually approached allied leaders to try and have them bring democracy to his nation and they flatly rejected him on account of French Indochina being a French holding.

The more you know, eh?

Truman say the communism system as a totalitarian regime that was worth fighting over. He saw it like the Nazi regime. Huh about communism? Ho Chi minh spent many years in both Russia and China studying communism and he was the one who worked to unite the different parties into one Communist party of Vietnam. So when he said he wanted independence for Vietnam did he say, "I'm giving up communism and supporting capitalism? Communism is evil"

Whether Ho Chi Minh would have adopted capitalism or not is subject to debate, the merits of each system likewise so. What is NOT up for debate is that even as far back as the conclusion of WW1 Ho Chi Minh was appealing to western powers for a free independant Vietnam, citing their rights to self determination as a people.

Looking back on it now, how could Ho chi Minh not be disillusioned with western capitalism? A system that stipulates on the rights and virtues of the individual, but at the same time making allowances for the exploitation and subjugation of foreign lands (Namely yours?) Who wouldn't fall out with western capitalism? The fact remains that our people failed. We failed our own ideals in trying to retain control over a free people. That is more shameful to me than any lost battles or wars. And in the end what do we even have to show for it? Some veterans who got agent orange poisoning?

The Vietnam war is perhaps the most shameful part of our modern history. Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. We weren't 'saving' anyone from communism...Except perhaps native collaborators who stood to gain from the land's subjugation. In the US we call people like that royalists and traitors. What do you suppose the Vietnamese call them?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, it really didn't. We didn't intervene in World War II because Hitler was doing such terrible things to his own people; we didn't actually care at the time, and arguably we didn't care all that much for many years after. We didn't really care that much what Japan was doing to China, and we didn't care AT ALL what Mussolini was doing in Italy (for the most part, we still don't).

The United States got involved in World War II initially because Germany was invading our allies and trying to muscle us out of our position in international trade, and we only entered the war fully when Japan -- one of Germany's allies -- attacked Pearl Harbor. If Germany hadn't aligned with Japan, we never would have entered the war in Europe at all.

Which fits the pattern, since just ten years later we totally stopped giving a shit what Stalin was doing to his own people in Russia. In the mean time, we didn't give a damn what the Duvalliers were doing in Haiti, what Saddam was doing in Iraq, or what the Shah was doing to his people in Iran. Quite the opposite, in fact: we SUPPORTED those governments, because they were friendly to use and cooperated with our objectives.

And that's all there is to it, really. The United States didn't give half a shit about what the communists were doing to their own people. What they cared about was that the communists were not about to give U.S. politicians access to Vietnam's internal planning. Since they wouldn't cooperate with U.S. strategic or economic interests, the U.S. would not tolerate their having control of the government.


Under Stalin, yes. But Stalin wasn't the president of Vietnam; the high death toll in THAT case rests squarely on the shoulders of the United States, whose only interest in Vietnam was imperialist in nature.

The world wasn't going to be as complacent in the deaths as they were before.

That makes no sense. We not only failed to prevent those deaths, we actually CAUSED more deaths than the Vietnamese were even capable of. More than that, it was that same Vietnamese government that we tried to destroy that eventually jumped over and put a stop to Pol Pot.

In fact, looking at the history of all the tin-plated dictators we've supported over the years -- yes, that includes Stalin -- it seems like the death toll caused by our allies far exceeds that caused by our enemies.

If you count Stalin as an ally, who do you count as an enemy?

Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Now we didn't stop Germany from it, and there was a little guilt. But the leaders of the time like Truman certainly saw and believed that Communism was on par or even a further evil than Nazi Germany so they wanted to find ways to prevent it spread. It came partially in the form of dropping the A bomb in Japan to end the war and send a message to Russia that we were serious. We spent a lot of money in Europe to prevent the spread. We were forced to support the French in Vietnam because they said they would look at becoming friends with Russia if we didn't support them. We fought in Korea to stop the spread and eventually fought it Vietnam to stop the spread. It was certainly to stop the spread of communism in that part of the world.

Yes, that's exactly my point. And in the process of "stopping communism" we wound up killing millions of people, overthrowing a number of democratically elected governments, and completely destabilized entire civilizations just to keep them from selecting a form of government that we considered to be evil. Which, overall, makes our choice a fig leaf for 40 years of imperialistic bullshit.

The death toll for the spread of communism was twice that of Nazi Germany.

That's like saying "the death toll for civilian firearm ownership is higher than in all American wars combined." Do I really need to explain to you what's wrong with that statement?

We had the millions of death in Russia

Russia isn't Vietnam, and we didn't get involved.

the millions in china

China isn't Vietnam, and we didn't get involved.

the millions in Cambodia

Cambodia isn't vietnam, and we didn't get involved.

Hell, fucking VIETNAM had to get involved and stopped the genocide in Cambodia, remember?

There was some things on the south Vietnam after they took over, though not as big.

Significantly: the death toll from what the Vietnamese did to heir own people was less than a tenth of the destruction the United States inflicted on them. We killed more of their people BY ACCIDENT than the communist party killed on purpose.

In the case of Russia, China or even Cambodia, it's unlikely the results would have been any different. The millions killed in Stalin's purges would have been joined by TENS OF MILLIONS killed in the U.S. bombing/military campaign that would have been needed to remove him from power (if not billions of deaths if that conflict inevitably spun out into a nuclear exchange). This is equally true in China, with the added irony that a foreign invasion by U.S. troops would have almost certainly united the entire country against us and forced them to put aside their differences and work more collectively than before. For as bad as China's internal schisms and conflicts were, they hated us a hell of a lot more.

We don't know what the north would have had to do to get the south in line with communism.

Yes we do. Because the North DID get the south in line with communism not long after the United States pulled out. If you want to know what the north would have had to do, just read a fucking history book and then subtract ten years from the dates.

It's not only the deaths, but also the tyranny that was under those systems.

Is there any specific reason you do not consider Ngo Dinh Diem to be a tyrant?

So in the US Civil war, 400K died. That war wasn't about body count and saving lives per say, but getting rid of a tyrannical system. So how many lives would you have said it was worth it to get rid of slavery?

Is the wrong question.

The question is: WHO GETS TO DECIDE HOW MANY LIVES IT'S WORTH IT TO GET RID OF SLAVERY?

The answer to that question is: "The people whose lives have to be spent."

Foreign armies don't get to decide the value of your life vs. the potential evil of some political system you may or may not even care about one way or the other. That should have been -- and ultimately WAS -- up to the people of Vietnam to decide.

And what IS the legacy of communism in Vietnam, anyway? Is Vietnam a flaming hellhole, devoid of humanity or happiness? Are the people there starving by the thousands? Are bands of Vietnamese troops roaming the streets, raping and pillaging at will? From what I can tell, it aint exactly a New Hampshire suburb, but it's hardly hell on Earth.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They didn't leave Vietnam when Ho Chi Minh took power. And "the ones that left at the end of the war" is literally what we were talking about.

Pay more attention, dude.

Quit trying to twist things.

We were talking about the ones that went from the North to the South when the country was partitioned...

... and thus, didn't actually leave Vietnam, just moved from one part of Vietnam to another part of Vietnam.

However, even after the war there were about 3 million that fled...

... over a 20 year period, most of whom were economic refugees.

Or are you going to prepared to make the case that rampant unregulated capitalism in Mexico is the reason 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the U.S. right now?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why did you rape your wife? There's no way she consented, it must have been rape.

The US raped Vietnam. It raped Laos. It raped Cambodia.

To defend the insane savagery is sad.

Yet another point goes over your head.

You are simply deciding that we couldn't have been invited by South Vietnam so it had to be an invasion. I flipped it around and said your wife couldn't have invited you to have sex, therefore it must be rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, that's exactly my point. And in the process of "stopping communism" we wound up killing millions of people, overthrowing a number of democratically elected governments, and completely destabilized entire civilizations just to keep them from selecting a form of government that we considered to be evil. Which, overall, makes our choice a fig leaf for 40 years of imperialistic bullshit.

And the communists didn't kill millions? The hardline communist states tend to kill around 10% of their population in solidifying their rule. Thus stopping a communist takeover at a cost of under 10% of their population is probably a good thing.

There was some things on the south Vietnam after they took over, though not as big.

Significantly: the death toll from what the Vietnamese did to heir own people was less than a tenth of the destruction the United States inflicted on them. We killed more of their people BY ACCIDENT than the communist party killed on purpose.

And we have good numbers on this?

Yes we do. Because the North DID get the south in line with communism not long after the United States pulled out. If you want to know what the north would have had to do, just read a fucking history book and then subtract ten years from the dates.

And the result was millions fled. We don't know how many died.

It's not only the deaths, but also the tyranny that was under those systems.

Is there any specific reason you do not consider Ngo Dinh Diem to be a tyrant?

Nothing remotely like Ho Chi Minh.

And what IS the legacy of communism in Vietnam, anyway? Is Vietnam a flaming hellhole, devoid of humanity or happiness? Are the people there starving by the thousands? Are bands of Vietnamese troops roaming the streets, raping and pillaging at will? From what I can tell, it aint exactly a New Hampshire suburb, but it's hardly hell on Earth.

They're making progress back to sanity by now. However, back then they were executing people almost at random--around 5% of the population. That's the hell you're defending.

And it didn't take much with Google to find they were causing famine in Cambodia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ne-1980/54818acb-87b8-4371-b464-a499c05393e7/

And I find reports of people dying in the 1988 famine--entirely due to government mismanagement. If some are dying large numbers are starving. Famine is a common result of attempts to impose communist ideas on food production. It always trashes their production capacity and the people suffer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quit trying to twist things.

We were talking about the ones that went from the North to the South when the country was partitioned...

... and thus, didn't actually leave Vietnam, just moved from one part of Vietnam to another part of Vietnam.

They didn't need to go farther to get away from Ho Chi Minh at the time.

However, even after the war there were about 3 million that fled...

... over a 20 year period, most of whom were economic refugees.

Even if they were economic it was because the communists, as usual, wrecked the economy. When the economy is so trashed that people are starving to death I will not fault them for being "economic" refugees.

 

[untermensche]

The US raped Vietnam. It raped Laos. It raped Cambodia.

To defend the insane savagery is sad.

Yet another point goes over your head.

You are simply deciding that we couldn't have been invited by South Vietnam so it had to be an invasion. I flipped it around and said your wife couldn't have invited you to have sex, therefore it must be rape.

It was clearly a massive invasion. If you know the history.

The US bombed the South. It destroyed farms in the South. It rounded up people and put them in camps all through the South.

Maybe some of those people wanted the US there but once the US was there the only thing they wanted was for the US to leave.

The US was an invader that killed mercilessly. Destroyed the lives of millions.

Nothing can justify it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yet another point goes over your head.

You are simply deciding that we couldn't have been invited by South Vietnam so it had to be an invasion. I flipped it around and said your wife couldn't have invited you to have sex, therefore it must be rape.

It was clearly a massive invasion. If you know the history.

The US bombed the South. It destroyed farms in the South. It rounded up people and put them in camps all through the South.

Maybe some of those people wanted the US there but once the US was there the only thing they wanted was for the US to leave.

The US was an invader that killed mercilessly. Destroyed the lives of millions.

Nothing can justify it.

There was a massive invasion, by the north into the south. If the north had let the south live in peace the millions wouldn't have been killed either.

 

[untermensche]

It was clearly a massive invasion. If you know the history.

The US bombed the South. It destroyed farms in the South. It rounded up people and put them in camps all through the South.

Maybe some of those people wanted the US there but once the US was there the only thing they wanted was for the US to leave.

The US was an invader that killed mercilessly. Destroyed the lives of millions.

Nothing can justify it.

There was a massive invasion, by the north into the south. If the north had let the south live in peace the millions wouldn't have been killed either.

No such invasion ever happened. The people in the South wanted to reunite with the North. The US invaded to stop it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There was a massive invasion, by the north into the south. If the north had let the south live in peace the millions wouldn't have been killed either.

No such invasion ever happened. The people in the South wanted to reunite with the North. The US invaded to stop it.

No they did not, they fought them back for over 2 years once the American left and even further since the US got out ground troops similar. The north had to send almost half a million men or more to get the south to comply. If the north did not do that, the south would not have fallen.

 

[untermensche]

No such invasion ever happened. The people in the South wanted to reunite with the North. The US invaded to stop it.

No they did not, they fought them back for over 2 years once the American left and even further since the US got out ground troops similar. The north had to send almost half a million men or more to get the south to comply. If the north did not do that, the south would not have fallen.

Once the US left you had all these traitors in the South that had supported a foreign imperial power.

Yes they were afraid of the people who were not traitors.

 

[Derec]

Once the US left you had all these traitors in the South that had supported a foreign imperial power.

Yes they were afraid of the people who were not traitors.

I.e. purge of the counterrevolutionaries. Typical commie excuses for murder.

How did get on to Vietnam anyway, when the thread is about Venezuela?

 

[LordKiran]

Once the US left you had all these traitors in the South that had supported a foreign imperial power.

Yes they were afraid of the people who were not traitors.

I.e. purge of the counterrevolutionaries.

Counterrevolutionaries, royalists. Poh-tay-toe Poh-tah-toe.