Question for our friends on the left

[icanhelp1]

Well, Jeezus, Ogg, this was obviously a war that should not have been started.

Subsequent history of Vietnam proves that they were never a significant threat to the USA. Once you start a war like that, and then realize it is wrong, you have a moral obligation to quit, not to bomb your opponent into oblivion just to "win".

Many German soldiers in WW2 took your advice to "not restrict yourself unnecessarily", even after learning that Jews and others were being rounded up and slaughtered in camps.

Regarding Vietnam, what you call political interference in winning a war, I call moral consciousness. I'm proud of those who stopped that war.

The conflict over Vietnam, was, at the time, an attempt to stop the spread of communism which we believed at the time was an existential threat to the west. After WWII the Soviets became our #1 enemy. They built the Berlin wall and became kind of a hermit government that killed millions of its people.

 

[oggbashan]

The conflict over Vietnam, was at the time, an attempt to stop the spread of communism which we believed at the time was an existential threat to the west. After WWII the Soviets became are #1 enemy. They built the Berlin wall and became kind of a hermit government that killed millions of its people.

The UK had fought communists in Greece immediately after WW2, supported General De Gaulle in France against the communists who had fought bravely against the Nazis as a resistance movement, and later in Malaya. We won, even if our tactics in Malaya were morally dubious but matched the communists' actions. We fought fire with fire and damn the consequences.

Vietnam was backed by communist China, not Russia (as had been Korea). There was always the possibility if the US and its allies had defeated North Vietnam and/or Korea, either could have developed into a major war with China who even then was very powerful.

 

[coati]

The conflict over Vietnam, was at the time, an attempt to stop the spread of communism which we believed at the time was an existential threat to the west. After WWII the Soviets became our #1 enemy. They built the Berlin wall and became kind of a hermit government that killed millions of its people.

Yes, I was old enough at the time to be aware of the rationale you describe for war in Vietnam, but I was also old enough to comprehend the long history of Vietnam being under colonial control by Western nations and Western corporations.

And I was aware of how the Vietnamese delegation seeking independence and peace in Geneva were snubbed by the American diplomatic delegation. To that American delegation, they were nothing but dirty communists, and to the Vietnamese the American delegation were dirty colonialists. The Vietnamese revolutionaries had been under the thumb of China, also, and mainly took Chinese aid out of expediency during that war. Bottom line was that they wanted independence, not the puppet regime of the West nor domination by China.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, I was old enough at the time to be aware of the rationale you describe for war in Vietnam, but I was also old enough to comprehend the long history of Vietnam being under colonial control by Western nations and Western corporations.

And I was aware of how the Vietnamese delegation seeking independence and peace in Geneva were snubbed by the American diplomatic delegation. To that American delegation, they were nothing but dirty communists, and to the Vietnamese the American delegation were dirty colonialists. The Vietnamese revolutionaries had been under the thumb of China, also, and mainly took Chinese aid out of expediency during that war. Bottom line was that they wanted independence, not the puppet regime of the West nor domination by China.

There was a legitimate fear of Stalin's Soviet Union and the spread of communism was real.

I wonder how different things would have been had JFK not been assassinated. There are may parallels with Vietnam and Afghanistan, corrupt governments, religious persecutions on and on.

The French and its rule over French Indochina is a long story all by itself.

 

[Lazaran]

Yes, I was old enough at the time to be aware of the rationale you describe for war in Vietnam, but I was also old enough to comprehend the long history of Vietnam being under colonial control by Western nations and Western corporations.

And I was aware of how the Vietnamese delegation seeking independence and peace in Geneva were snubbed by the American diplomatic delegation. To that American delegation, they were nothing but dirty communists, and to the Vietnamese the American delegation were dirty colonialists. The Vietnamese revolutionaries had been under the thumb of China, also, and mainly took Chinese aid out of expediency during that war. Bottom line was that they wanted independence, not the puppet regime of the West nor domination by China.

The often overlooked aspect of U.S. involvement in SE Asia is the plundering of natural resources. The French were doing the same thing, and U.S. support for the French ultimately led America to fight the Vietnam war.

My grandfather worked at a port where the U.S. was shipping massive amounts of mining and lumber machinery to the region. He said he never saw anything like it.

After China fell to the communists, the U.S. was determined to establish a permanent base of operations in South Korea while its natural resources were used to supply Japan's industry which was solidly under U.S. control.

America had legitimate(selfish) logistical reasons / goals for fighting the wars in S.E. Asia, but the human costs associated with achieving those goals will forever be a stain on America's legacy.

Also; America was pretty damn indiscriminate in its use of force as it achieved its goals in the region.

About the ONLY thing America didn't do was use nukes. Probably because we didn't want to shit where we were still eating.

 

[icanhelp1]

Hitler= 42 million dead

Stalin= 80 million dead

Mao= 80 million + dead

Pol Pot= 2 million dead

Saddam Hussein= 250,000+

Yet that fucking racist anti-American communist POS Lorazepam just loves to hate on America. Never anything good to say.

Maybe you can move to the DPRK, they only killed somewhere in the vicinity of 2 million.

I’ll even buy your fucking ticket.

 

[Lazaran]

.
ineedhelp1 is so ignorant that he doesn't realize he just supported my point.

That's some good company he included the U.S. with in his list.

Some very fine people.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[CornusKousa]

.
ineedhelp1 is so ignorant that he doesn't realize he just supported my point.

That's some good company he included the U.S. with in his list.

Some very fine people.

JFC

SAD!!!

No, he just points out how much you hate the USA while slobbing socialist knob....totally unaware that you're the evil piece of shit.

 

[Lazaran]

.
BoBo must think ineedhelp1 needs help.

*chuckles*

 

[CornusKousa]

.
BoBo must think ineedhelp1 needs help.

*chuckles*

No I just like playing with my play thinggy *slap slap*

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

Let's say for discussion sake that the USA does the above, withdraws from world leadership, draws down the military, becomes isolationist etc. How do you see the world after that happens? How do you see China in this future? How do you see Russia in this future? How do you see the Middle East in this future? How do you see Europe in this future?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I truly would like to understand how and why you arrived at your present view. I'm hoping we can have an adult discussion about this. Can we leave the name calling out of this?

Who said "withdraw from world leadership"?

How about economic, cultural and diplomatic leadership as opposed to killing brown people in "shithole" countries?

If we spent $2 Trillion investing in Arica the way China has and with their new "silk Road" the world would be a lot different. Instead we squandered it in the desert.

 

[icanhelp1]

Who said "withdraw from world leadership"?

How about economic, cultural and diplomatic leadership as opposed to killing brown people in "shithole" countries?

If we spent $2 Trillion investing in Arica the way China has and with their new "silk Road" the world would be a lot different. Instead we squandered it in the desert.

Killing brown people in shithole countries. Whom may that be?

 

[Lazaran]

.
LMFAO

I kicked ineedhelp1 in the ass and broke BoBo's nose at the same time.

 

[icanhelp1]

.
LMFAO

I kicked ineedhelp1 in the ass and broke BoBo's nose at the same time.

A little moron like you couldn’t kick anyone in the ass, like I’ve written before, a low life like you would have to climb a ladder to give a dung beetle a blowjob.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Yep, that ass kicking is still causing ineedhelp1 some serious butthurt.

*bigliest chuckles *

 

[icanhelp1]

Yup! One more wrung to go, you can do it!

 

[adrina]

I see the sellout hypocrite is trying to put on airs.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yup! One more wrung to go

rung

r

 

[Lazaran]

rung

r

He meant to do that.

 

[pecksniff]

Nature abhors a vacuum. The United States military excels at Breaking Stuff (their historical mission), but absolutely shits the bed at Nation Building (their role since 1945). The Marshall Plan is looking increasingly like a one-off victory.

Ceding the role of the "world's policeman" gives China carte blanche to increase it's sphere of influence unimpeded.

I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

 

[pecksniff]

Hitler= 42 million dead

Stalin= 80 million dead

Mao= 80 million + dead

Pol Pot= 2 million dead

Saddam Hussein= 250,000+

In terms of percentage of population, I think Pol Pot wins.

 

[YDB95]

.
ineedhelp1 is so ignorant that he doesn't realize he just supported my point.

Happens all the time, as you probably know.