PDA

View Full Version : Was the Vietnam War worth fighting? Millions killed for "containment"



Wei Wu Wei
04-11-2011, 07:49 PM
The Vietnam war remains one of the most brutal and terrible wars in history.

An example of America jumping into an internal conflict that was happening within Vietnam, taking sides in the conflict, and having to face the consequences for a decade.

The arguments and justification for this were outlined as part of an overall plan of "containment" towards the threat of Communism.

Without going into a long drawn-out analysis of the conflict, I just want to ask a simple question: Was the Vietnam War worth fighting?

When you look at the casualties (millions), the terrible war crimes committed, the lives broken and lost, the impact it had on Americans - was all this a worthy price to pay for our goals in that conflict?

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 07:51 PM
Hindsight is 20/20

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 07:53 PM
Well it wound up undermining our democracy permanently on top of being the King Quagmire of all Quagmires. I'm gonna say no, but I'm very excited to see the craziest defense of the war CU can come up with. Let the games begin!

Phillygirl
04-11-2011, 07:55 PM
Yes.

Wei Wu Wei
04-11-2011, 07:56 PM
Hindsight is 20/20

Of course but there were voices speaking out with extreme clarity during the conflict.


This was spoken in 1967.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U

This is Martin Luther King Jr speaking on the subject of Vietnam (as well as Racism, economic justice, and more), and is in my opinion one of the best speeches/analyses given on this topic.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2011, 08:00 PM
Well it wound up undermining our democracy permanently on top of being the King Quagmire of all Quagmires. I'm gonna say no, but I'm very excited to see the craziest defense of the war CU can come up with. Let the games begin!

Simple: Noble cause, horrid execution, ungrateful and traitorous youth demonstrators.

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 08:02 PM
I think Weible is just starting another hate America rant.

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 08:04 PM
Wei was it Okay for the communists to take over and then kill over a million people in Cambodia?

Wei Wu Wei
04-11-2011, 08:05 PM
Simple: Noble cause, horrid execution, ungrateful and traitorous youth demonstrators.

I invite you to listen to the MLK speech, it's not the longest speech ever and it isn't too difficult either. I'd like to hear your reactions to it because you seem to have wrapped up a decade of intense conflict into a pretty simple picture.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-11-2011, 08:10 PM
Wei was it Okay for the communists to take over and then kill over a million people in Cambodia?

Millions died in Viet Nam you know?

Novaheart
04-11-2011, 08:14 PM
The Vietnam war remains one of the most brutal and terrible wars in history.

An example of America jumping into an internal conflict that was happening within Vietnam, taking sides in the conflict, and having to face the consequences for a decade.

The arguments and justification for this were outlined as part of an overall plan of "containment" towards the threat of Communism.

Without going into a long drawn-out analysis of the conflict, I just want to ask a simple question: Was the Vietnam War worth fighting?

When you look at the casualties (millions), the terrible war crimes committed, the lives broken and lost, the impact it had on Americans - was all this a worthy price to pay for our goals in that conflict?

Should oppression only be resisted when success is certain?

Wei Wu Wei
04-11-2011, 08:19 PM
Wei was it Okay for the communists to take over and then kill over a million people in Cambodia?

no obviously that's not okay

of course i am not a follower of Pol Pot nor am I Cambodian so this is of less interest to me personally

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 08:22 PM
Millions died in Viet Nam you know?

Because a communist regime was taking over you know.

Wei Wu Wei
04-11-2011, 08:26 PM
Because a communist regime was taking over you know.

surely couldn't have had anything to do with the millions of tons of bombs, napalm, and bullets being hurled at the place

nah...

BadCat
04-11-2011, 08:26 PM
Lots of dead commies.

Yup.

fettpett
04-11-2011, 08:27 PM
mmmmm...lets see;

supporting the French when they tried to take back a Colony that had been independent and formed a national identity by then because FDR "promised" the French to help them regain their country.

sending troops over to do a "police action" and then when it turned into a full scale ground war running it like 2 year old with ADHD.

then running the domestic side of this like complete idiots.

Then when the War is all but won, one side plays politics and yanks the money out. And since we've been cleaning up the mess that the Democrats created.

BadCat
04-11-2011, 08:30 PM
Tread carefully in this thread, WeeWeeWeeWee...you know what happens to you when you go off on one of your America hating diatribes.

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 08:30 PM
surely couldn't have had anything to do with the millions of tons of bombs, napalm, and bullets being hurled at the place

nah...

We did that to remove the communist aggressors, we should have allowed our military to do much more.

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 08:32 PM
mmmmm...lets see;

supporting the French when they tried to take back a Colony that had been independent and formed a national identity by then because FDR "promised" the French to help them regain their country.

sending troops over to do a "police action" and then when it turned into a full scale ground war running it like 2 year old with ADHD.

then running the domestic side of this like complete idiots.

Then when the War is all but won, one side plays politics and yanks the money out. And since we've been cleaning up the mess that the Democrats created.

Pretty much, in a nutshell but there were other factors. It is hard to look at this without reviewing the Korean conflict.

malloc
04-11-2011, 08:34 PM
Hindsight is 20/20, that's the truth.

America had an ally in Ho Chi Minh once. He helped to rescue downed pilots in WWII and worked with the U.S. OSS gathering intelligence on the Japanese. Ho Chi Minh worked for Vietnamese independence, and early on wanted Vietnam to be the spitting image of America. Of course FDR screwed the pooch here.

However, once Ho Chi Minh turned to the communists in a screwball attempt to trade French colonialism for communist oppression, America had to protect it's interests. I think we had a lot of better options open to us, rather than continually escalate the conflict and play political games around it, but the tactics of containment were sound. After all, the communist Soviets did lose in the end.

fettpett
04-11-2011, 08:46 PM
Pretty much, in a nutshell but there were other factors. It is hard to look at this without reviewing the Korean conflict.

I agree, but at lest Truman didn't have his head up his ass when letting the military run the war unlike Johnson, even if he fired MacArthur for his stance on Nuclear Weapons being used against the Chinese and Korean troops

Sonnabend
04-11-2011, 10:32 PM
Millions died under Communism...communism always is accompanied by piles of skulls.

Was Vietnam worth fighting? Yes. Did we win in Vietnam? Yes.

Case closed.

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 10:40 PM
Millions died under Communism...communism always is accompanied by piles of skulls.

Was Vietnam worth fighting? Yes. Did we win in Vietnam? Yes.

Case closed.

It is one of those deals where in the long run we won, but we could have won better with less casualties, but they weren't the only ones with communists in their midst.

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 12:36 PM
It is one of those deals where in the long run we won, but we could have won better with less casualties, but they weren't the only ones with communists in their midst.

What did we win?

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 12:39 PM
What did we win?

Given your communist predisposition and general dislike of the U.S. perhaps you should clarify who you mean when you say "we" Comrade.

fettpett
04-12-2011, 01:13 PM
What did we win?

By the rules of war, we beat the North Vietnamese, they were on the ropes and ready to collapse, the Tet Offensive (very much in the vein of the Battle of the Bulge) was a last ditch effort by the VC to get the American's to stop. Less than a year and the North would have fallen completely

Rebel Yell
04-12-2011, 01:27 PM
By the rules of war, we beat the North Vietnamese, they were on the ropes and ready to collapse, the Tet Offensive (very much in the vein of the Battle of the Bulge) was a last ditch effort by the VC to get the American's to stop. Less than a year and the North would have fallen completely

Here's a better way to put it. If the Patriots beat the Canadian School for the Blind on a fumble return in overtime, they still won. Was it something to brag about? No. Does it give Patriot haters something to bash them about yes.

That is Vietnam.

fettpett
04-12-2011, 01:30 PM
Here's a better way to put it. If the Patriots beat the Canadian School for the Blind on a fumble return in overtime, they still won. Was it something to brag about? No. Does it give Patriot haters something to bash them about yes.

That is Vietnam.

true, Vietnam shouldn't have taken more than 5 years, hell shouldn't have taken more than 2 if the idiots in Washington had run it properly

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 01:31 PM
Saving millions of people by killing millions of the exact same people. I dont understand.

Minh volunteered for us to help him out, he really dug American values while he was doing the whole revolt thing. We shunned him and he turned to the communists.

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 01:35 PM
true, Vietnam shouldn't have taken more than 5 years, hell shouldn't have taken more than 2 if the idiots in Washington had run it properly

Have you seen The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara?

fettpett
04-12-2011, 01:38 PM
Have you seen The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara?

nope

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 01:39 PM
nope

It is pretty good. He talks at one point about conversations with the enemy after the conflict was over. I wish I could remember the exact quotes but he was shocked at their level of acceptable deaths.

fettpett
04-12-2011, 01:43 PM
It is pretty good. He talks at one point about conversations with the enemy after the conflict was over. I wish I could remember the exact quotes but he was shocked at their level of acceptable deaths.

I'm sure that he was, he wasn't fighting to win, at lest didn't act like it. They didn't go for the objectives like one would expect to in a war, instead of the big things that could win, going after stupid little villages that had not strategic point was moronic.

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 01:46 PM
I'm sure that he was, he wasn't fighting to win, at lest didn't act like it. They didn't go for the objectives like one would expect to in a war, instead of the big things that could win, going after stupid little villages that had not strategic point was moronic.

This may have been what I was thinking of:



"Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us." - Thach, former Foreign Minister of Vietnam, 1995, as recalled by McNamara.~

fettpett
04-12-2011, 01:47 PM
This may have been what I was thinking of:



"Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us." - Thach, former Foreign Minister of Vietnam, 1995, as recalled by McNamara.~

yeah, which is why I don't think we should have never supported the French's attempt to take over the country


edit: ever should have been never

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 01:50 PM
yeah, which is why I don't think we should have ever supported the French's attempt to take over the country

colonialism causes blowback

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 01:54 PM
colonialism causes blowback

And people expect neo-colonialism to be any different.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2011, 01:54 PM
colonialism causes blowback

Anti-colonialism is a staple of Communism, and therefore, I mistrust anti-colonists, as the two things (Communism and anti-colonialism) are tied together.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 01:56 PM
Anti-colonialism is a staple of Communism, and therefore, I mistrust anti-colonists, as the two things (Communism and anti-colonialism) are tied together.

I do not follow at all.

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 02:00 PM
I do not follow at all.

Neocolonialism is a word used, pejoratively, by Che Guevara.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Neocolonialism is a word used, pejoratively, by Che Guevara.

So... anti-colonialism = communist? What is CITM trying to say?

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 02:03 PM
So... anti-colonialism = communist? What is CITM trying to say?

That is close to what I thought CITM was saying.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2011, 02:03 PM
So... anti-colonialism = communist? What is CITM trying to say?

I would say yes, the two often make for good bedfellows. Anti-Colonialists from what I've seen do tend to be also Communist.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:06 PM
I would say yes, the two often make for good bedfellows. Anti-Colonialists from what I've seen do tend to be also Communist.

You do know that the decidedly un-communist USA was the motivating drive for the release of British colonial possessions after World War 2? You dont not have to be a communist to believe in self-determination for nations and understand the moral issues with looting resources at gunpoint.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2011, 02:07 PM
You do know that the decidedly un-communist USA was the motivating drive for the release of British colonial possessions after World War 2? You dont not have to be a communist to believe in self-determination for nations and understand the moral issues with looting resources at gunpoint.

Modern communists have taken up anti-colonialism as their stance, though. Because it represents an oppressor and the modern Communists see the need for there to be an oppressor to cause conflict

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 02:10 PM
I do not follow at all.

glenn beck spent a couple months at the beginning of last year using his chalkboard to highlight a bunch of loose associations. anti-colonialism was one of his favorite buzzwords.

people who watched learned that anticolonialism is almost as bad as the guy in Rocky IV but not nearly as bad as the guys in Red Dawn

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:11 PM
Modern communists have taken up anti-colonialism as their stance, though. Because it represents an oppressor and the modern Communists see the need for there to be an oppressor to cause conflict

It more than represents an oppressor... it is an oppressor. Many a former colony has forgone communism completely, including the grand-daddy of them all India. The release of French Indo-China as Viet Nam was not an issue of communism vs. capitalism as much as it was about self-determination.

I mean, does this mean you support colonialism as an anti-communist? Your logical connection here between the two is kinda random.

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 02:13 PM
Modern communists have taken up anti-colonialism as their stance, though. Because it represents an oppressor and the modern Communists see the need for there to be an oppressor to cause conflict


So you think colonialism is great because many communists are opposed to it?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2011, 02:16 PM
So you think colonialism is great because many communists are opposed to it?

Well, I don't see the downside to it.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:17 PM
Im beginning to see CITM's point in all its bigoted narcissism. Members of a nation are not necessarily entitled to fruits of their labor or natural resources if they are owned by powerful foriegn influences. If the people were to rise up and sieze those resources it could be construed as nationalization, even if control of them was ceded to domestic capitalists and aristocrats.

Its bullshit CITM... dont believe it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 02:19 PM
Well, I don't see the downside to it.

damn son

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:21 PM
Well, I don't see the downside to it.

For the colonial power its great, just ask Europe. But for the ones being colonized its degrading and culturally destructive. In order to believe in colonialism you have to believe that some groups of people have inherent rights that make them superior to others, and that is the responsibility of the strong to manipulate and profit off the weak. They make it sound human by calling it "Westernization", but its an ugly thing that causes more problems than it solves.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:22 PM
It is fun to do in Victoria 2 though, I mean they're only pixels so you dont feel bad.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-12-2011, 02:24 PM
damn son

Well, look---
I consider myself as a Liberal. Thanks to the workings of the post 1960s Left who were influenced by Marxists, many now conflate being a Liberal with being a communist. I see that as a grave hijacking of what I feel is a good ideology, and I don't want any association or hold any belief that would brand me a Communist.

Basically, I can relate to the way Barry Goldwater felt in the 1990s when the Religious Right took over the GOP: He felt his party and Conservatism had been hijacked, and that he, Mr. Conservative, was now a Liberal in the new GOP. It's the opposite for me. I feel cultural Marxists hijacked Liberalism sometime in the 1960s and took over the Democratic Party. I'm an FDR Liberal, or a Rockefeller Republican. I do not believe in the multicultural paradise or in moral relativism; I believe in the American culture, and strong borders, and a strong national defense. The Dems since the 60s became wusses in that regard.

I'll put it this way: FDR on June 6th, 1944 led the nation in prayer over the radio as thousands, if not millions, listened in. At the same time, thousands of miles away, millions of soldiers were landing on the beaches of Normandy. FDR led the nation in prayer for these soldiers and their cause and said they were in essence, doing God's will; protecting the world from tyranny and conquest. Today's Democratic Party would go apeshit if a public figure wanted to lead the nation in prayer. Look at how they acted towards GW Bush with regard to his faith.

fettpett
04-12-2011, 02:24 PM
anti-colonialism doesn't make one a communist, however what the communist that use the phrase do is swing it around like they use racist and to be anti-American. I personally see that European Colonialism completely fucked up Africa to this day, however the difference between American and European is we tend not to make colonies, usually turn them into territories that join the Country as States, West, Hawaii, Alaska, or they become independent or semi-autonomous, Philippians, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Pacific Islands.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:27 PM
Our colonial efforts have been more geared towards abusing our international pull by using intergovernmental organizations like the IMF and World Back to force poor states into opening up thier borders and cheap labor for overseas manufacturing. We typically dont meddle too much in a states politics until they become aware enough of the situation to consider kicking us out. Then we get mad. Real mad.

CITM.. I have no idea how that post you made pertained to anything being discussing in this thread.

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 02:37 PM
Well, look---
I consider myself as a Liberal. Thanks to the workings of the post 1960s Left who were influenced by Marxists, many now conflate being a Liberal with being a communist. I see that as a grave hijacking of what I feel is a good ideology, and I don't want any association or hold any belief that would brand me a Communist.

Honestly, it sounds like you are more concerned with the label of "communist". You often post over and over how you want to make it clear that you consider yourself a Liberal but not a Leftists. it sounds like you are struggling with your changing ideas (which is a good thing) but you are steadfast in not wanting to be seen by other people as a communist. lol jokingly -it's like men who come to explore their sexual identity and learn what it is they like (but they know god damn well they aren't gay and don't want anyone to think they are).

This is understandable. Living in Texas I know that people have a natural aversion to anything related to "communism".

Don't worry about the labels, don't worry about what category you fit into, that stuff isn't important.





Basically, I can relate to the way Barry Goldwater felt in the 1990s when the Religious Right took over the GOP: He felt his party and Conservatism had been hijacked, and that he, Mr. Conservative, was now a Liberal in the new GOP. It's the opposite for me. I feel cultural Marxists hijacked Liberalism sometime in the 1960s and took over the Democratic Party. I'm an FDR Liberal, or a Rockefeller Republican. I do not believe in the multicultural paradise or in moral relativism; I believe in the American culture, and strong borders, and a strong national defense. The Dems since the 60s became wusses in that regard.

You claim to be a history buff, here is a link you should read - it includes old Presidents, 20th century problems, world wars and yes, SOCIALISM.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/socchal13.html


The problem with classical liberalism is that it failed. Marxism isn't something that suddenly arose in the 1960's, there was a very strong Marxist/Socialist/Labor movement in the united states until WWI.

In the early 20th century the limitations of liberal capitalism were beginning to show, and new ideas were beginning to form about what to do about it. Being an FDR liberal would have made more sense in that time period, but since then we've seen the problems and limitations of that ideology.

Socialists and Marxists in the United States are responsible for many of the labor laws we take for granted, and for offering an articulate leftists position from which compromises could be found. Socialism has an important history but ever since the Cold War history has been fogged up by ideology.


You seem to be basing your political ideology off of Cold War Propaganda, and it's not the best idea. That's like trying to judge Japanese culture based on WWII propaganda. Here, you are actually believing all the propaganda and trying to identify yourself as opposed to that.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 02:48 PM
I'm just gonna add to what Wei is saying.

The current system is extremely beneficial to a select few very powerful people in the United States including both politicians and businessmen. Reforming it to help the people is an expensive and very threatening gesture to them, as they'd be the ones paying increased taxes and possibly seeing less government contracts given out.

So they've blurred the definitions of reform into being synonyms with political enemies who we are opposed not because of ideology but because of realist international relations theory (balance of power, etc). Were taught that communist = Soviet, socialism = no freedom and workers privaledge = higher cost of goods. In its place we've been presented with two (now three if you count the TEA Party) corporate conservative parties who differ primarily on social issues like abortion and gay marriage as a method of distraction from how hard we are getting boned.

Do not oppose things like universal healthcare simply because they seem to bear some semblance to the USSR, because they dont. They amount of abbhorence we'd need to endorse to even enter the stratosphere of Soviet inhumanity is almost inconcievable in 2011. You are being confused purposefully by a power structure that is scared of your ability to realize what they're doing to you and unseat them.

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 07:01 PM
The Vietnam war remains one of the most brutal and terrible wars in history.
More brutal and terrible than WWI? WWII? The Hundred Years War? The Thirty Years War? The Civil War? The Islamic conquest of India? :rolleyes:


An example of America jumping into an internal conflict that was happening within Vietnam, taking sides in the conflict, and having to face the consequences for a decade.
Only if you don't consider North and South Vietnam to be two separate nations, with two separate governments.


The arguments and justification for this were outlined as part of an overall plan of "containment" towards the threat of Communism.
Which was a valid justification, although Reagan's policy of "Rollback", i.e., "We win, they lose," was far superior.


Without going into a long drawn-out analysis of the conflict, I just want to ask a simple question: Was the Vietnam War worth fighting?
It was certainly worth winning, and had the Tet Offensive not been spun as a US defeat, despite the fact that it was a debacle for the NVA and Viet Cong, it would have been won in 1968.

When you look at the casualties (millions), the terrible war crimes committed, the lives broken and lost, the impact it had on Americans - was all this a worthy price to pay for our goals in that conflict?
The war could have been ended at any time if the North had been willing to give up its intent to conquer the south. The war crimes were far more pervasive among the NVA and Viet Cong, who routinely assassinated civilians en masse and violated the laws of land warfare throughout the conflict. The disruptions in our society were the result of an antiwar movement populated mostly by spoiled college kids (antiwar protests ended with the draft, even though US combat troops remained on the ground for another two years) manipulated by leftist ideologues who sought a communist victory.


surely couldn't have had anything to do with the millions of tons of bombs, napalm, and bullets being hurled at the place

nah...
Which were the results of the NVA's violation of Cambodia's neutrality by taking over the eastern region of the country in order to turn it into a logistics route and staging area for their operations, not to mention their arming and training the Khmer Rouge so that they would have a communist cadre to assist them in Cambodia. And don't call him "Shirley."


For the colonial power its great, just ask Europe. But for the ones being colonized its degrading and culturally destructive. In order to believe in colonialism you have to believe that some groups of people have inherent rights that make them superior to others, and that is the responsibility of the strong to manipulate and profit off the weak. They make it sound human by calling it "Westernization", but its an ugly thing that causes more problems than it solves.
Is it? The British conquest of India drove the Muslims rulers from power, which ended centuries of oppression of the Hindu majority. Since the end of the Raj, India has achieved tremendous growth, while Pakistan has stagnated.

Do not oppose things like universal healthcare simply because they seem to bear some semblance to the USSR, because they dont. They amount of abbhorence we'd need to endorse to even enter the stratosphere of Soviet inhumanity is almost inconcievable in 2011. You are being confused purposefully by a power structure that is scared of your ability to realize what they're doing to you and unseat them.

No, we oppose leftist reforms on their own lack of merits, but that doesn't mean that we should disregard cautionary tales from the rest of the world. They will fail here, just as they have failed everywhere else. The USSR, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe and the rest of the communist world show examples of how leftist policies have failed in industrial societies, agrarian societies, modern nations, primitive tribal cultures and everything in between. Does that mean that a government takeover of healthcare will fail the same way in America? No, it means that the unique circumstances of America's economy and society will breed a new kind of failure, but make no mistake about it, it will fail and it will fail ugly.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 08:29 PM
Universal health care ruined Sweden (actually not only Sweden, were the only industrialized country in the world without it).

Strong labor made it impossible for German manufacturing to recover from World War II.

Tight banking regulations wiped out the Dutch and British banks to where there was no trace left.

^Things Odysseus would like to you to believe.

As for India, yea... putting grease in cartridges was a really nice gesture and a very culturally sensitive decision. Same goes the ethnic rivalries crafted through Africa by European powers looking to divide and conquer. Or the mess that is Zaire/Congo/DRC/Notreallyacountrybecauseitsstillirreperablyfuckedu pbycolonliasm. Or the carving of Somalia. Or the arbitrary borders in the Middle East. Or the never-ending India-Pakistan fued. Or the...

Colonialism sure was great.

Odysseus
04-13-2011, 12:12 AM
Universal health care ruined Sweden (actually not only Sweden, were the only industrialized country in the world without it).
And, naturally, that cannot continue, because we just can't be unique. Do you always feel the need to follow the rest of the lemmings?


Strong labor made it impossible for German manufacturing to recover from World War II.
Are you sure that it wasn't the Marshall Plan?


Tight banking regulations wiped out the Dutch and British banks to where there was no trace left.
Funny, but I remember when the Pound was the world's reserve currency. I also remember when it stopped being the reserve currency, just a few years after the implementation of the NHS and the rest of the Labour Party program. Britain was a basket case in the 70s, and it took Thatcher to restore some semblance of prosperity. As for the Dutch, when was the last time that you saw somebody spending a Guilder?

^Things Odysseus would like to you to believe.
Vs. things that Shoeboy would like you to believe:


Karl Marx, a bitter failure who spent his life sponging off of others, and who had to beg for the money to bury his children, was actually a brilliant prophet who could come up with a plan that would fix every economic problem in the world, even if he couldn't balance his own checkbook.
Communism hasn't killed more people than bubonic plague.
Nikita Krushchev, who once swore that the Soviet Union would bury us, doesn't lie entombed within sight of a McDonalds, a Gap and a Walmart.



As for India, yea... putting grease in cartridges was a really nice gesture and a very culturally sensitive decision.
Except that the cartridges with grease were never issued except in one location, Meerut, and then they were hastily withdrawn. It was a lie spread by mullahs in order to foment the rebellion:


By January, the rumours were abroad that the Enfield cartridges were greased with animal fat. Company officers became aware of the rumours through reports of an altercation between a high-caste sepoy and a low-caste labourer at Dum Dum.[21] The labourer had taunted the sepoy that by biting the cartridge, he had himself lost caste, although at this time such cartridges had been issued only at Meerut and not at Dum Dum[20][22]. But the rumours circulated rapidly.
On January 27, Colonel Richard Birch, the Military Secretary, ordered that all cartridges issued from depots were to be free from grease, and that sepoys could grease them themselves using whatever mixture "they may prefer".[23] A modification was also made to the drill for loading so that the cartridge was torn with the hands and not bitten. This however, merely caused many sepoys to be convinced that the rumours were true and that their fears were justified. Additional rumours started that the paper in the new cartridges, which was glazed and stiffer than the previously-used paper, was impregnated with grease.
Just like the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy, which wouldn't have had a body count if a group of imams hadn't carried the cartoons throughout the Middle East (and forged a few more for effect) in order to stir up mobs.

Same goes the ethnic rivalries crafted through Africa by European powers looking to divide and conquer.
Because, of course, before the Europeans came, there were no ethnic rivalries, right? Pull the other one...

Or the mess that is Zaire/Congo/DRC/Notreallyacountrybecauseitsstillirreperablyfuckedu pbycolonliasm.
Just out of curiosity, what do you know about the culture of Sub-Saharan Africa before the coming of the Europeans? Do you really believe that the ethnic hatreds between tribes suddenly sprang up because a group of whites suddenly appeared? How ignorant of the indigenous cultures can you possibly be?

Or the carving of Somalia. Or the arbitrary borders in the Middle East. Or the never-ending India-Pakistan fued. Or the...
The "arbitrary" borders were mostly derived from the Ottoman provinces. Pakistan and India had far more to do with 1400 years of Islamic rule that resulted in the deaths and enslavement of millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs, and the refusal of the Muslims to accept a majority Hindu state. But, hey, if you want to wallow in ignorance, be my guest.


Colonialism sure was great.
You don't seem to mind it when it was the Soviets establishing colonies, or Muslim armies conquering and destroying whole cultures. Funny how you never mention how screwed up Congo became after the Soviets armed the Simbas, or how the tribal backwaters reverted to tribal backwaters after the Europeans left. You pretend that the primitive tribes of Africa lived in some sort of Rousseau's paradise, instead of Hobbs' description of primitive life, which was "nasty, brutish and short." You are so blinded by ideology that you cannot see beyond the caricature of western civilization that you loathe, even while it has provided the only society in which someone as clueless as you are wouldn't have been left far behind.

NJCardFan
04-13-2011, 01:22 AM
I find it funny but listening(reading) WeeWee and KS discuss war is like listening to women talk football.

MrsSmith
04-13-2011, 06:36 AM
I find it funny but listening(reading) WeeWee and KS discuss war is like listening to women talk football.
Hey!! Some women really understand football! There is no point insulting them!! :mad::mad:

txradioguy
04-13-2011, 07:59 AM
Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe
Colonialism sure was great.

Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Turkestan
Poland
Bulgaria
Hungary
Romania
Afghanistan
East Germany

namvet
04-13-2011, 09:28 AM
christ. not this fuckin' shit again

txradioguy
04-13-2011, 09:46 AM
christ. not this fuckin' shit again

It gives the Communist loving America hating nitwits like Wee Wee and Shoe a chance to relive their youth from the 60's.

:rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
04-13-2011, 10:17 AM
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Turkestan
Poland
Bulgaria
Hungary
Romania
Afghanistan
East Germany

I think you meant Turkmenistan. You forgot a bunch too, like Ukraine (the jewel in Russia's imperial crown).

Busy atm Ody, I'll get at you sometime today when I've got the time.

Odysseus
04-13-2011, 10:52 AM
I find it funny but listening(reading) WeeWee and KS discuss war is like listening to women talk football.
No, it's like listenting to Europeans talking American football. Lack of understanding coupled with contempt and an inexplicable preference for shorts on male players instead of female cheerleaders that no amount of discussion will pierce.

Hey!! Some women really understand football! There is no point insulting them!! :mad::mad:
Even the ones who don't understand it know better than to cheer against the home team.

I think you meant Turkmenistan. You forgot a bunch too, like Ukraine (the jewel in Russia's imperial crown).
Yes, the Holdomor was one of communism's greatest accomplishments. :rolleyes:


Busy atm Ody, I'll get at you sometime today when I've got the time.

No hurry. I can get the same effect by talking to my three-year-old, except that she'll grow out of her lack of knowledge.

txradioguy
04-13-2011, 01:47 PM
I think you meant Turkmenistan. You forgot a bunch too, like Ukraine (the jewel in Russia's imperial crown).

Nope I had it right.

And you know exactly what I was getting at.

So I think you're smart enough as well to know what to do with your U.S. Colonialism crap.


Busy atm Ody, I'll get at you sometime today when I've got the time.

Translated...hopefully everyone will forget and this thread will go away.

Wei Wu Wei
04-13-2011, 01:50 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8653788864462752804#

really cool documentary featuring former Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara

he talks about his involvement in WWI, firebombing Japan, the Cuban Missile crisis and Vietnam

he explains 11 lessons he's learned from his life involved in war and gives insight into what was happening behind the scenes when some of the most important events in history took place.

very interesting

Odysseus
04-13-2011, 04:03 PM
I'm curious, Wei and KS: Which side do you think should have won in Vietnam?

Bailey
04-13-2011, 04:14 PM
I'm curious, Wei and KS: Which side do you think should have won in Vietnam?

Do you honestly believe you'll get a straight forward answer? if you get anything it'll a bunch of tripe.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-13-2011, 06:23 PM
And, naturally, that cannot continue, because we just can't be unique. Do you always feel the need to follow the rest of the lemmings?
Hipster politics: "Just because other people like, it means we dont. Ugh, I'm gonna listen to Pavement."


Are you sure that it wasn't the Marshall Plan?
Are you sure it was? Because when the half of Germany that benefited from the Soviet-Marshall Plan (and I use the word benefit extremely loosely) re assimilated into a new Unified Germany the country became the most powerful state in Europe. Did the Marshall Plan extend into 1991?

I know the USA would like to take credit for all of it, but I think you should maybe give the Germans a little bit of credit.


Funny, but I remember when the Pound was the world's reserve currency. I also remember when it stopped being the reserve currency, just a few years after the implementation of the NHS and the rest of the Labour Party program. Britain was a basket case in the 70s, and it took Thatcher to restore some semblance of prosperity. As for the Dutch, when was the last time that you saw somebody spending a Guilder?

Funny, I remember the fall of the British Colonial Empire and rise of the American Empire precipitating the Pound's decline more than the Labour Party. Britain was, and still is, a basketcase because it is still the most conservative country in Europe. Germany has already passed them, France is about equal. You'll dispute this, but the rest of Europe has essentially cast its vote in places other than Britain for who should lead the continent.


Except that the cartridges with grease were never issued except in one location, Meerut, and then they were hastily withdrawn. It was a lie spread by mullahs in order to foment the rebellion:

Only Ody will admit something happened in one sentence and then in the very next statement call it a lie. The quote you have is the British recollection of what happened, I doubt they're an objective source for treatment of indigenous people in colonial India.


Because, of course, before the Europeans came, there were no ethnic rivalries, right? Pull the other one...

Just out of curiosity, what do you know about the culture of Sub-Saharan Africa before the coming of the Europeans? Do you really believe that the ethnic hatreds between tribes suddenly sprang up because a group of whites suddenly appeared? How ignorant of the indigenous cultures can you possibly be?


Belgian rule created more of an ethnic divide between the Tutsi and Hutu, and they supported Tutsis political power. Due to the eugenics movement in Europe and the United States, the colonial government became concerned with the differences between Hutu and Tutsi. Scientists arrived to measure skull—and thus, they believed, brain—size. Tutsi's skulls were bigger, they were taller, and their skin was lighter. As a result of this, Europeans came to believe that Tutsis had Caucasian ancestry, and were thus "superior" to Hutus. Each citizen was issued a racial identification card, which defined one as legally Hutu or Tutsi. The Belgians gave the majority of political control to the Tutsis. Tutsis began to believe the myth of their superior racial status, and exploited their power over the Hutu majority. In the 1920s, Belgian ethnologists analysed (measured skulls, etc.) thousands of Rwandans on analogous racial criteria, such as which would be used later by the Nazis. In 1931, an ethnic identity was officially mandated and administrative documents systematically detailed each person's "ethnicity,". Each Rwandan had an ethnic identity card.

Before Belgian colonial control the Hutu's and Tutsi's lived peacefully and never had any conflict whatsoever. Divide & Conquer, its the oldest trick in the colonial book.


You don't seem to mind it when it was the Soviets establishing colonies, or Muslim armies conquering and destroying whole cultures. Funny how you never mention how screwed up Congo became after the Soviets armed the Simbas, or how the tribal backwaters reverted to tribal backwaters after the Europeans left. You pretend that the primitive tribes of Africa lived in some sort of Rousseau's paradise, instead of Hobbs' description of primitive life, which was "nasty, brutish and short." You are so blinded by ideology that you cannot see beyond the caricature of western civilization that you loathe, even while it has provided the only society in which someone as clueless as you are wouldn't have been left far behind.
Hobbs is a dated antiquity that is only taken seriously in our day and age by pseudo-intellectual morons. Also, I dont understand how the Soviets could fuel ethnic rivalries but Western Europe couldn't?

Ody, you build this strawman of me that I'm a raving Soviet-style communist who looks back on the Cold War with sadness that the Americans won and Soviets lost. Honestly, extracting insane amounts of hyperbole is the only way you ever make an argument. It always boils to "Well... Shoe HATES the West so much that it only makes sense that he holds such and such belief". You consistently fail to realize that I rather like the West in general. I just disagree with much of the policies it has pursued collectively.

Colonialism was dehumanizing. The Spaniards didnt come to the Americas to spread the wonders of Western Europe and create a great Mesoamerican Society in the mold of Europe. They came to loot the people who lived there of everything they had, including their culture. That model was endorsed by the Vatican, who literally split the world in two between the Portugese and Spaniards on who could conquer what. The death toll from the earliest colonization still isn't known and probably never will be. We do know however that there are no more Aztecs because they were wiped off the face of earth sometime after the Europe showed up. Coincidence? I think you'd like to believe that but the truth is a bit obvious.

Europe, unfortunately, never really progressed past the Spanish days. During the release of Javan sovereignty in 1949 Dutch troops committed what amounts to War Crimes against the indigenous people. Not to even maintain their hold on the region (which was all but gone already), but out of spite that self-determination was finally being given to their favorite colonial pinata.

Also in the immediate aftermath of World War II the UK struck a deal with the USSR to keep Soviet influence out of Greece to halt the growth of the communist party there. It worked for the British, and they used the puppet Greek government to eradicate all political enemies in the country.

Stories like these over the course of colonial history are literally endless. It was a concerted global effort to destroy anything that could possibly inhibit European powers efforts to extract resources from their growing peripheral colonies. It is arguably the most destructive single policy in human history, and certainly the largest ever in scope. It is indefensible, which is why I dont defend it. You, however, are more than eager to hop behind it and sing its praises. I wondered how you could possibly do that until I came to a bit of a realization about you Ody.

Everything is politics to you, you sniff it out of even the most innocuous sources. You dont care about atrocities at all unless you can twist the histories of them to prove a political point. You have absolutely zero moral code when it comes to the treatment of people. You see the fiascos of collectivization as a ripe opportunity to make a political point, but atrocities committed by the West are only met with typical strawman arguments or outright denial. I have never once seen you actually even imply that the atrocities were necessarily a bad thing, just that it is generally viewed by most people as bad and can easily be cited as evidence to support your political ideology.

KhrushchevsShoe
04-13-2011, 06:26 PM
I'm curious, Wei and KS: Which side do you think should have won in Vietnam?

My argument is that it never should have happened, but if you're gonna make me pick between the two I'll say the South Vietnamese and USA after the point at which it became clear the French were not going to keep control of the country.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-14-2011, 12:33 AM
Millions died in Viet Nam you know?


Most at the hands of the North and the VC.

txradioguy
04-14-2011, 01:07 AM
Originally Posted by Odysseus
I'm curious, Wei and KS: Which side do you think should have won in Vietnam?

I doubt either one of them would cite any war they think we should have been in...to include the Revolutionary War...much less tell you honestly who they think shoud have won or who they were rooting for in Vietnam.

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 01:01 PM
Hipster politics: "Just because other people like, it means we dont. Ugh, I'm gonna listen to Pavement."
So, if I don't want a failed socialized medicine model, that makes me a hipster? Cool. I look good in black. But, that doesn't change the fact that arguing that we're the only industrialized nation that doesn't have nationalized healthcare is an argument for lemmings and obsessively conformist teenagers ("Mom! I have to have a tribal tattoo to prove my individuality! Everyone else has one!"). You can enjoy the benefits of Britain's National Health Service by simply emigrating, and those of us who don't want to put up with decade-long waits for routine procedures don't have to. London is lovely this time of year.


Are you sure it was? Because when the half of Germany that benefited from the Soviet-Marshall Plan (and I use the word benefit extremely loosely) re assimilated into a new Unified Germany the country became the most powerful state in Europe. Did the Marshall Plan extend into 1991?

I know the USA would like to take credit for all of it, but I think you should maybe give the Germans a little bit of credit.


ROFLOL!!!!! And maybe you ought to thank the US for giving the Germans that credit, which they've been extending ever since. East Germany remains vastly underdeveloped and the process of reunificaiton is ongoing. The East gest huge subsidies but remains economically backwards. In 2009, Angela Merkel stated that "The process of German unity has not ended yet", and Merkel should know, having grown up in the east. In fact, quite a few people compare East Germany to the South during Reconstruction.


Funny, I remember the fall of the British Colonial Empire and rise of the American Empire precipitating the Pound's decline more than the Labour Party. Britain was, and still is, a basketcase because it is still the most conservative country in Europe. Germany has already passed them, France is about equal. You'll dispute this, but the rest of Europe has essentially cast its vote in places other than Britain for who should lead the continent.

Sounds like ideology talking. Britain shed the empire because Labour took over. Clement Atlee's major foreign policy initiatives can be described as a repeat of French military policy in 1941, which was retreat and surrender. He shed the empire faster than a drunken prom date sheds a dress, only it was the Brits that got screwed. Labour's economic policies, the expansion of their public sector and the borrowing that paid for it ruined the pound, and resulted in a deliberate policy of inflation and devaluation in the sixties, which led those nations which had used the pound for foreign exchanges to drop it in favor of the dollar. In other words, Britain declined because one party decided that decline was inevitable and desirable and imposed it on an accelerated schedule, a cautionary tale for Obama supporters.


Only Ody will admit something happened in one sentence and then in the very next statement call it a lie. The quote you have is the British recollection of what happened, I doubt they're an objective source for treatment of indigenous people in colonial India.

No, the lie was that the cartridges were being issued throughout India. The imams took a kernal of truth and expanded it to foment a mutiny. But, if you want to take obvious and well-documented facts and pretend that they are simply matters of opinion, be my guest. It's not like I can stop you.
And my conception of British rule is actually based on my readings of Hindu and Sikh historians, including M.A. Khan and V.S. Naipaul. The Brits were loathed by the Muslim rulers because they abolished slavery, ended dhimmitude, professionalized the civil service and empowered the Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists (restoring them to equality). Ghandi and Nehru were more than happy to exploit this hatred, even though Ghandi knew that the Muslims would never accept living in a majority Hindu state.


Before Belgian colonial control the Hutu's and Tutsi's lived peacefully and never had any conflict whatsoever. Divide & Conquer, its the oldest trick in the colonial book.

That is patently false. The Kingdom of Rwanda was ruled by the Tutsi. They expanded this kingdom through conquest, subjugating the neighboring tribal kingdoms, which reached its greatest size under the Tutsi king, Kigeli Rwabugiri. Among his policies was uburetwa, which was a system of forced labour for the Hutu. The other major tribal group in the region, the Twas, eventually all but vanished during Rwabugiri's reign. Thus, the Hutu/Tutsi rift began over a century before the Germans arrived (Rwanda became part of Germany's Ruanda-Urundi colony in 1884, and was later absorbed into Tanganyika to form German East Africa, much less the Belgians. You don't know your history.


Hobbs is a dated antiquity that is only taken seriously in our day and age by pseudo-intellectual morons.
Oh, please. Hobbs was one of the great philosophers of the Enlightenment. Those who dismiss him tend to be clueless lefties who are enamored of that truly dated antiquity, Marx, or who have never actually read Hobbs.


Also, I dont understand how the Soviets could fuel ethnic rivalries but Western Europe couldn't?
I didn't say that the Europeans couldn't. I said that in many cases, they didn't, although sometimes, they would pick one group to administer a colony at the expense of others, but as the group chosen was often the previous rulers, it didn't create new tensions so much as exacerbate ongoing ones. OTOH, the Soviets (and other communist regimes) created new ethnic conflicts, as well as class conflicts, where none had previously existed. Stalin used to exile whole peoples to regions that could not sustain them, only allowing them to return after they had been decimated by the conditions of their exile. While in exile, they were dependent on the central government for survival, while the peoples that they displaced were driven off and harbored resentments. The Chechens, for example, suffered horribly this way. Additionally, a favorite communist tactic was to take two groups that had ethnic tensions and forcibly exchange some of their populations, so that an enclave of group A was now living in the midst of group B and vice versa, with both groups dependent upon the central government to protect their fellows from the depredations of the surrounding groups. The ethnic cleansings that swept Yugoslavia, for example, are the direct result of these policies, which were also enacted by the Chinese (ethnic Chinese in Tibet and Mongolia depend on Beijing for protection), Russians (Stalin did the same thing throughout the USSR) and even in the Americas (Ortega's forced relocation of the Miskito Indians was a classic example of this tactic).


Ody, you build this strawman of me that I'm a raving Soviet-style communist who looks back on the Cold War with sadness that the Americans won and Soviets lost. Honestly, extracting insane amounts of hyperbole is the only way you ever make an argument. It always boils to "Well... Shoe HATES the West so much that it only makes sense that he holds such and such belief". You consistently fail to realize that I rather like the West in general. I just disagree with much of the policies it has pursued collectively.

Most pampered lefties like living in the west, even as they attack the policies and principles that they benefitted from. You are no exception. But as to your characterization of my view of you as a raving Soviet-style communist, if the shoe fits, you know, the one that you took as your screen name, then you're going to have to wear it.

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 02:54 PM
Colonialism was dehumanizing. The Spaniards didnt come to the Americas to spread the wonders of Western Europe and create a great Mesoamerican Society in the mold of Europe. They came to loot the people who lived there of everything they had, including their culture. That model was endorsed by the Vatican, who literally split the world in two between the Portugese and Spaniards on who could conquer what. The death toll from the earliest colonization still isn't known and probably never will be. We do know however that there are no more Aztecs because they were wiped off the face of earth sometime after the Europe showed up. Coincidence? I think you'd like to believe that but the truth is a bit obvious.
Europe, unfortunately, never really progressed past the Spanish days. During the release of Javan sovereignty in 1949 Dutch troops committed what amounts to War Crimes against the indigenous people. Not to even maintain their hold on the region (which was all but gone already), but out of spite that self-determination was finally being given to their favorite colonial pinata.
I don't deny that the Spanish and Portuguese were brutal bastards, or that they committed atrocities (although the deliberate elimination of the Aztecs wasn't one of them, as the vast majority died from smallpox and typhus, which the Spanish didn't realize they had brought with them, making it a tragedy, not an atrocity), but you, who would be the first to object to stereotyping or profiling, lump ever European nation into one. In fact, colonization wasn't a concerted effort, it was a competition among nations, with a continuum that ran from viciously brutal (Spain and Portugal) to relatively benign (Britain), with the remainder running somewhere in between. And you falsely idealize the pre-colonial peoples, ignoring tribal or ethnic conflicts that were often held in check by the colonial powers, rather than intensified. For example, the Aztecs were loathed by the people that they had conquered, and they were quick to ally themselves with Cortez to throw off the Aztec yoke. The people of India blamed the British for a multitude of sins, but they kept the British institutions after partision, and are now beginning to realize that British rule wasn't entirely the horror that Ghandi, Nehru and the rest of the revolutionary propagandists made it out to be.


Also in the immediate aftermath of World War II the UK struck a deal with the USSR to keep Soviet influence out of Greece to halt the growth of the communist party there. It worked for the British, and they used the puppet Greek government to eradicate all political enemies in the country.
Again, wrong. The agreement was made during WWII, and was meant to keep a united front against the Nazis. The Soviets agreed to the disbanding and disarming of the communist militias (they were too busy pushing to Berlin to be sidetracked), but the militias reneged and the Soviets ended up backing them in the Greek Civil War in 1946 via their proxies, the Yugoslavians and the Bulgarians. The government of Greece was no puppet, but the former government in exile, which included the king and his ministers. The head of the government, George Papandreou, was a liberal politician who was a lifelong opponent of the Greek monarchy, but joined the government-in-exile under king George II. He came to see the Greek Communist Party's militias as the main threat to Greek democracy and, although nominally on the left, fought them. Calling Panandreou a puppet is a vile slander.


Stories like these over the course of colonial history are literally endless. It was a concerted global effort to destroy anything that could possibly inhibit European powers efforts to extract resources from their growing peripheral colonies. It is arguably the most destructive single policy in human history, and certainly the largest ever in scope. It is indefensible, which is why I dont defend it.
Especially when you know so little about it because of your ideological blinders.


You, however, are more than eager to hop behind it and sing its praises.
No, I simply point out that there were praises. That every time a European stepped outside of the continent wasn't an atrocity, and that western civilization is not the demonic force that you pretend it is (when you aren't hypocrtically claiming to like parts of it).


I wondered how you could possibly do that until I came to a bit of a realization about you Ody.
Oh, this should be good...


Everything is politics to you, you sniff it out of even the most innocuous sources. You dont care about atrocities at all unless you can twist the histories of them to prove a political point. You have absolutely zero moral code when it comes to the treatment of people. You see the fiascos of collectivization as a ripe opportunity to make a political point, but atrocities committed by the West are only met with typical strawman arguments or outright denial. I have never once seen you actually even imply that the atrocities were necessarily a bad thing, just that it is generally viewed by most people as bad and can easily be cited as evidence to support your political ideology.

And I was right. It's a doozy. It's also projection. You, who view everything through a prism of leftist politics, accuse me of politicizing history? That would be funny if it weren't so outrageous. But to accuse me of indifference to atrocities is a vile slander. In fact, I do care about atrocities. I've spent most of my professional life preventing them. But unlike you, I recognize atrocities committed by both sides in wars (as opposed to only the western ones). When I provide the context of past horrors, I do so because I know the back story, and it's never as black and white as you try to present it (because you are presenting them as propaganda, to support your agenda). I also take a dim view of manufactured atrocities, such as Israeli combat actions against Hamas, which were presented as attacks against civilians. You, however, present such fictions as fact and then slander me as indifferent to the suffering of the victims when I confront you with the truth. You also make false moral equivalences to justify horrific actions by those you claim to sympathize with. For example, you are outraged by the use of tallow in cartridges in India, but say nothing about the European civilians slaughtered by the Sepoys. You blame Europe for slavery, but ignore the fact that the slave trade couldn't have happened without the complicity of the tribes themselves, or the Arab slavers whose depredations were legendary. You condemn the Dutch in Indonesia without recognizing the brutality of Sukarto's rebels, or admitting that the violence that occurred on both sides escalated, and was not simply due to the bloodthirsty colonialists. Your manichean world view blinds you to facts that don't support your prejudices, and makes you, not only indifferent to atrocities committed by those with whom you sympathize, but an apologist for them. When you and Wei ignore the fact that Hamas fires on Israeli civilians from behind Palestinian civilians, and accuse Israel of barbarism for its extremely careful and measured responses, you are not simply ignoring one atrocity and fabricating another, you are complicit in the former, since you are allowing yourself to be used as a propaganda tool.

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 02:56 PM
Last one. Sorry for the long posts, but it takes more time for a farmhand to clean up a steaming pile of BS than it does for the bull to deposit it.


My argument is that it never should have happened, but if you're gonna make me pick between the two I'll say the South Vietnamese and USA after the point at which it became clear the French were not going to keep control of the country.

Okay, now ask yourself what would have happened if our media hadn't presented the Tet Offensive as an American defeat, but reported it accurately. The NVA was prepared to accept a permanent ceasefire after their losses in Tet (the Viet Cong had been completely destroyed as a fighting force), and the war could have ended as early as the summer of 1968. There would not have been seven more years of war. Cambodia would not have been repeatedly violated by the NVA, forcing the US to bomb and invade. The NVA wouldn't have impowered the Khmer Rouge to serve as their proxies in Cambodia. Two-million Cambodians would still be alive. There would not have been reeducation camps in Vietnam, with another 200,000 deaths prevented, not to mention the horrors visited upon the boat people who fled Vietnam in numbers that are incomprehensible except in the context of a tyranny that produced more refugees than the war that put it in power. South Vietnam would be like South Korea, a prosperous, peaceful state, bordered by a contained artifact of an absurd doctrine. These are, BTW, atrocities. And despite your feigned moral superiority, they apalled me.

And how would the rest of the world look? The US would not have left in ignominious defeat. We would not have spent the 70s under the presumption of our eventual defeat in the Cold War, and the Soviet collapse might have been hastened, which would have saved millions of lives. It certainly would have reduced their overseas adventurism. There would not have been a Soviet-backed takeover of Nicaragua, for example, or an invasion of Afghanistan, which would have meant no Taliban or al Qaeda. There would have been no communist instigated civil wars in Central and South America. Sub-Saharan African nations that were wracked by Marxists insurgencies, Angola, Mozambique, etc., would not have been put through those horrors.

In other words, if we had fought and won in Vietnam, the world would have been a freer, more peaceful place, and we would not be seeing many of the post Cold War pathologies that we are now embroiled in. And the war was winnable. The North Vietnamese leaders have repeatedly conceded this since it ended. Tet destroyed their forces, and they were ready to accept our terms. The downside of not fighting the war was that the Domino Theory, which was proven correct, would have dragged the region under. Not only would Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia become communist hellholes, but Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia would have fallen. Vietnam gave those countries the time to defeat their own communist insurgencies, and ultimately resulted in their continued independence of the Soviets.

Arroyo_Doble
04-14-2011, 03:07 PM
Okay, now ask yourself what would have happened if our media hadn't presented the Tet Offensive as an American defeat, but reported it accurately. The NVA was prepared to accept a permanent ceasefire after their losses in Tet (the Viet Cong had been completely destroyed as a fighting force), and the war could have ended as early as the summer of 1968. There would not have been seven more years of war. Cambodia would not have been repeatedly violated by the NVA, forcing the US to bomb and invade. The NVA wouldn't have impowered the Khmer Rouge to serve as their proxies in Cambodia. Two-million Cambodians would still be alive. There would not have been reeducation camps in Vietnam, with another 200,000 deaths prevented, not to mention the horrors visited upon the boat people who fled Vietnam in numbers that are incomprehensible except in the context of a tyranny that produced more refugees than the war that put it in power. South Vietnam would be like South Korea, a prosperous, peaceful state, bordered by a contained artifact of an absurd doctrine. These are, BTW, atrocities. And despite your feigned moral superiority, they apalled me.

And how would the rest of the world look? The US would not have left in ignominious defeat. We would not have spent the 70s under the presumption of our eventual defeat in the Cold War, and the Soviet collapse might have been hastened, which would have saved millions of lives. It certainly would have reduced their overseas adventurism. There would not have been a Soviet-backed takeover of Nicaragua, for example, or an invasion of Afghanistan, which would have meant no Taliban or al Qaeda. There would have been no communist instigated civil wars in Central and South America. Sub-Saharan African nations that were wracked by Marxists insurgencies, Angola, Mozambique, etc., would not have been put through those horrors.

In other words, if we had fought and won in Vietnam, the world would have been a freer, more peaceful place, and we would not be seeing many of the post Cold War pathologies that we are now embroiled in. And the war was winnable. The North Vietnamese leaders have repeatedly conceded this since it ended. Tet destroyed their forces, and they were ready to accept our terms. The downside of not fighting the war was that the Domino Theory, which was proven correct, would have dragged the region under. Not only would Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia become communist hellholes, but Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia would have fallen. Vietnam gave those countries the time to defeat their own communist insurgencies, and ultimately resulted in their continued independence of the Soviets.

That is an interesting fantasy alternate history. Do you have one for if we didn't enter the conflict?

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 03:48 PM
That is an interesting fantasy alternate history. Do you have one for if we didn't enter the conflict?

Did you not read to the bottom? See below. And since you call it a fantasy, do you have an alternative? What do you think the result would have been?


... The downside of not fighting the war was that the Domino Theory, which was proven correct, would have dragged the region under. Not only would Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia become communist hellholes, but Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia would have fallen. Vietnam gave those countries the time to defeat their own communist insurgencies, and ultimately resulted in their continued independence of the Soviets.

If you want the effect that this would have had on the rest of the world, it's likely that the Soviets would have kept up their proxy wars, as they did during the 70s. Pol Pot would most likely have been the leader of the Khmer Rouge, and the postwar bloodbaths in Vietnam and Cambodia would have looked pretty much as they did, but expanded to include Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, where we might have ended up involved. Sooner or later, we'd have been drawn into a proxy conflict somewhere. However, the line of presidents would have been very different. Johnson might have been reelected without the albatross of Vietnam over him, or a more fiscally conservative Republican might been elected in a reaction to Johnson's highly controversial Great Society programs, and without the distraction of Vietnam, those programs might have been rolled back. Either way, there would have been no McGovern campaign in '72. The antiwar left would not have coalesced into a potent force, and it's unlikely that the campuses would have been radicalized to the extent that they were. In addition, the far left would not believe that American losses in war will empower them politically, and the Democratic Party would look an awful lot like it did in 1960, as would the electoral map.

Arroyo_Doble
04-14-2011, 04:03 PM
Did you not read to the bottom? See below. And since you call it a fantasy, do you have an alternative? What do you think the result would have been?


African independence movements began long before Vietnam and that train would have gone down the tracks with or without an American victory in southeast Asia. Also, South and Central America had their move toward socialism before our adventure so I don't see how that changes.

I believe History is a thundering beast, and if you forgive the mixed metaphor, with deep roots. Change is hard to stop. As important as the Vietnam war was, it would not have impacted the broad historic changes that occurred after World War II that much had the outcome been different.


If you want the effect that this would have had on the rest of the world, it's likely that the Soviets would have kept up their proxy wars, as they did during the 70s. Pol Pot would most likely have been the leader of the Khmer Rouge, and the postwar bloodbaths in Vietnam and Cambodia would have looked pretty much as they did, but expanded to include Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, where we might have ended up involved. Sooner or later, we'd have been drawn into a proxy conflict somewhere. However, the line of presidents would have been very different. Johnson might have been reelected without the albatross of Vietnam over him, or a more fiscally conservative Republican might been elected in a reaction to Johnson's highly controversial Great Society programs, and without the distraction of Vietnam, those programs might have been rolled back. Either way, there would have been no McGovern campaign in '72. The antiwar left would not have coalesced into a potent force, and it's unlikely that the campuses would have been radicalized to the extent that they were. In addition, the far left would not believe that American losses in war will empower them politically, and the Democratic Party would look an awful lot like it did in 1960, as would the electoral map.

The shift in the electoral map had more to do with the Civil Rights Act than it did the Vietnam War. That change was coming before the ink was dry on Brown v Board of Education. It took a long time for the re-alignment, not really finishing until the 90's, but it was inevitable that support for the party of segregation in the South, the Democratic Party, would not stay aligned with the political forces that brought about the destruction of their societal framework.

Now, a new history is occurring. Where will it go? I'm not sure but it is here and if I were the Republicans, I would look at what caused the re-alignment in California back in the 90's, and the 2010 Census, a little harder before they run off in high 1070 spirits.

Chuck58
04-14-2011, 04:20 PM
Millions died in Viet Nam you know?

They're still dying in Vietnam. At the end of the war, there were an estimated 5 million Hmong tribesmen (aka Montagnards, Meo). The number now is maybe a million to 1.5 million.

Vietnam has been carrying on a small scale genocide against them since the war ended because, 1. They helped us and, 2. They're not ethnic Vietnamese.

People seem to overlook the fact that N. Vietnam conducted reprisals on many of the people that helped us, and continues to enact reprisals against those people. This is over and above the massacres conducted by the VC against village elders, teachers, clergy, govt officials and anybody who didn't agree with them during the war.

Odysseus
04-14-2011, 05:16 PM
African independence movements began long before Vietnam and that train would have gone down the tracks with or without an American victory in southeast Asia. Also, South and Central America had their move toward socialism before our adventure so I don't see how that changes.
If we had won in Vietnam, the Soviets would have been far less likely to back those independence movements. Those that succeeded would have been less heavily influenced by Marxism and the resulting failures would have been fewer and further between. The Central and South American flirtation with socialism would have gone the same way as the Eastern bloc countries' experience with it, i.e., profound rejection.


I believe History is a thundering beast, and if you forgive the mixed metaphor, with deep roots. Change is hard to stop. As important as the Vietnam war was, it would not have impacted the broad historic changes that occurred after World War II that much had the outcome been different.

I disagree. History is full of points were a minor variation would have had huge impacts. For example, Alexander the Great came within a hair's breadth of dying in his first battle in Asia. If he had, his army would never have gone as far as it did. There would have been no Hellenistic cultural expansion. The Pharoahs would have remained Egyptian. There would not have been a Greek conquest of Persia. Would Rome have discovered the Greek culture? Imagine how Rome would have developed without Greek democratic ideals (which heavily influenced Republican Rome). Would there have been a Renaissance?

What would have happened to Europe if Charles Martel had not won at Tours?

Let's go forward to WWII. What if Churchill had been rejected by the British people? What if they had gone with Lord Halifax and made peace with Germany in 1941? Without a second front, could the Soviets have beaten back the Nazis? Would the resources wasted in the Battle of Britain have proved decisive against the Soviets? What would have happened to the US after Pearl Harbor? Hitler might have still declared war, but without the need to protect Britain, the US war in the Pacific would have been our primary effort. We'd have beaten Japan more quickly, I suspect, but then what? Would the world of 2011 be a bipolar Cold War between the US and Nazi occupied Europe, with a neutral Britain? There was a very good novel called Fatherland, which explored a similar possibility (only in that book, the D-Day landings were repulsed, with the same effect).


The shift in the electoral map had more to do with the Civil Rights Act than it did the Vietnam War. That change was coming before the ink was dry on Brown v Board of Education. It took a long time for the re-alignment, not really finishing until the 90's, but it was inevitable that support for the party of segregation in the South, the Democratic Party, would not stay aligned with the political forces that brought about the destruction of their societal framework.
You're right about the cause, the Civil Rights Act, but I disagree about the effect. The act was passed by Northerners of both parties, but Republicans supported it in far greater numbers than Democrats did. The critical thing that changed the party alignments was that the left came to prominence in the Democratic Party, mostly as a result of the antiwar movement. The post-Watergate congress brought a highly radicalized freshman class in, and the changes that they made polarized the parties along ideological lines, rather than regional ones. For example, the introduction of campaign finance limits resulted in the rise of soft money, which was controlled by the parties, and the decline of direct contributions to campaigns. Parties that could control funds found it easier to enforce party discipline, which, among the Democrats, meant ideological litmus tests that drove conservatives and some moderates out of the party. The Republican Party back then was the party of the northeastern establishment (think Rockefeller, Javits, Lodge, Nixon, etc.), and was not conservative until conservatives began leaving the Democratic Party. Without the Vietnam War and Watergate, the parties most likely would have kept their regional alignments.


Now, a new history is occurring. Where will it go? I'm not sure but it is here and if I were the Republicans, I would look at what caused the re-alignment in California back in the 90's, and the 2010 Census, a little harder before they run off in high 1070 spirits.
Or, look at Texas. California's realignment came from several issues, not just demographics. The end of the Cold War shut down defense industries throughout the state. Those industries attracted employees who were more conservative, and kept the state on a more even keel. The departure of those industries and the BRAC resulted in a significant decline in California's commitment to the defense industry. As California's economy tanked, and the most conservative residents began moving on, the remaining population became more liberal by default. A more likely model is Texas, which has had the same growth in Latino immigrants, but has become even more conservative, as it has attracted many of the defense contractors who left California's defense sector.

They're still dying in Vietnam. At the end of the war, there were an estimated 5 million Hmong tribesmen (aka Montagnards, Meo). The number now is maybe a million to 1.5 million.

Vietnam has been carrying on a small scale genocide against them since the war ended because, 1. They helped us and, 2. They're not ethnic Vietnamese.

People seem to overlook the fact that N. Vietnam conducted reprisals on many of the people that helped us, and continues to enact reprisals against those people. This is over and above the massacres conducted by the VC against village elders, teachers, clergy, govt officials and anybody who didn't agree with them during the war.

Very true, but to Wei and KS, the Hmong were counterrevolutionary running dogs who deserve what they got.