Remembering Vietnam

[Trajan]

I think it's more likely we created the civil war in Vietnam when we installed Ngo Dinh Diem as South Vietnam's first "President", a tactic we employed a decade earlier in South Korea. In both cases there were massive uprisings against our choices:

"A devout Roman Catholic, Diem was fervently anti-communist, nationalist, and socially conservative. Historian Luu Doan Huynh notes, however, that 'Diem represented narrow and extremist nationalism coupled with autocracy and nepotism."[96]

"As he was a wealthy Catholic, many ordinary Vietnamese viewed Diem as part of the elite who had helped the French rule Vietnam; Diem had been interior minister in the colonial government."

Between 1955 and 1957 about 12,000 suspected Diem opponents had been killed.
By the end of 1958 around 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed.
Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles conceded privately "Diem had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki...yea ok then.

so, who would you have gone with George? tell us....

bonus q, just to keep perspective- what is the difference between how karzai came to power and Diem....really?

 

[Trajan]

Agent Harkins??

"General Paul Harkins, the commander of U.S. forces in South Vietnam, confidently predicted victory by Christmas 1963."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and what happened in nov 1963 that changed that George....?

don't get this wrong george...

"Aftermath

"The US secretly agreed to withdraw...missiles from Italy and Turkey.

"The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of US missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public at that time—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev."

Are you trying to say JFK would have won the Vietnam War in 30 days?
With or without Nikita's help?

Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yup, you got it wrong, nov. 2nd 63, Diem was assassinated......see now?.

 

[Trajan]

1. The Khmer Rouge was funded, trained, and cadred by the NVA, same same as invaded.
2. Communist imperialism, whether Soviet or Asian, is still imperialistic, despite you saying "no".
3. Western imperialism in Asia and Africa was driven by market acquisition as much as anything else.
4. I agree that we as Americans define the myths of Manifest Destiny and American Imperialism far differently than scholars trained to look at data in objective manner.

yup...
the KR was led by Pot, a former member of the KPRP, a party funded by the Vietnamese circa 1960. The Sino Viet war of 79 was to a very large extent ( and feelings of ingratitude) an argument between Nor Viet, and China over Cambodia......

 

[Trajan]

Yes, because the NVA invaded Cambodia because the USA was tied up in SV.

No, it didn't. Cambodia was overthrown by its own indigenous Communist insurgency, the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia took place in 1978, three years after the fall of Saigon, and in that invasion the Khmer Rouge were overthrown.

Destabilized? You don't know what it means?

The point is that it doesn't mean anything specific. It's a way for you to claim that neighboring countries "sort of fell" when the reality is that they didn't fall. There are a great many possible elements of "destabilization" which may indicate anything or nothing. The fact remains that not one other Southeast Asian country fell after or arguably as a result of our failure to prevent the fall of South Vietnam, and that this disproves the domino theory, which SPECIFICALLY predicted that such countries would FALL. Not "be destabilized. Fall. And they did not.



Yes, and as I pointed out, you were wrong.



Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was imperialistic, but only because Soviet troops occupied those countries. Communism in China, Vietnam, and Cuba was not a result of Soviet imperialism. ONLY Communism in Eastern Europe fits that description (well, maybe in North Korea, Mongolia, and Afghanistan as well), and ONLY because Soviet troops invaded and occupied those countries.

This does not show that Communism is a form of imperialism. It only shows that the Soviets practiced imperialism, which is a different claim.

Yes, both terms are imperialistic. You better reconsider the western powers taking of Africa and Asia as economically driven as well as culturally.

Just as with Communism, that doesn't establish that capitalism is imperialistic, in the sense that wherever you see a capitalist economy it's imposed from without by an imperial power. There are a great many examples of capitalist economies evolving without any foreign country making that happen; in fact, in Africa and Asia the Western powers mostly prevented capitalist economies from evolving, keeping the colonies dependent on the mother country for manufacturing and as suppliers of raw materials.

We were not anti-colonialist, though, Dragon.

Let's just say that our anti-colonialism was less than ideally manifested in practice. Our history and national mythos and morality are anti-colonialist, or supposed to be.

This does not show that Communism is a form of imperialism. It only shows that the Soviets practiced imperialism, which is a different claim.

and jesus wept...dude, really, I mean really?

 

[georgephillip]

I think it's more likely we created the civil war in Vietnam when we installed Ngo Dinh Diem as South Vietnam's first "President", a tactic we employed a decade earlier in South Korea. In both cases there were massive uprisings against our choices:

"A devout Roman Catholic, Diem was fervently anti-communist, nationalist, and socially conservative. Historian Luu Doan Huynh notes, however, that 'Diem represented narrow and extremist nationalism coupled with autocracy and nepotism."[96]

"As he was a wealthy Catholic, many ordinary Vietnamese viewed Diem as part of the elite who had helped the French rule Vietnam; Diem had been interior minister in the colonial government."

Between 1955 and 1957 about 12,000 suspected Diem opponents had been killed.
By the end of 1958 around 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed.
Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles conceded privately "Diem had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki...yea ok then.

so, who would you have gone with George? tell us....

bonus q, just to keep perspective- what is the difference between how karzai came to power and Diem....really?

Regarding your first question, I would have left the decision up to a majority of Vietnamese, and I expect Ho Chi Minh would've won any election by a landslide.

I don't see any difference between our selections of Karzai, Diem or Syngman Rhee in Korea.
Karzai's a little more Gucci, I guess.
They were/are all US puppets, imho.

 

[georgephillip]

and what happened in nov 1963 that changed that George....?

don't get this wrong george...

"Aftermath

"The US secretly agreed to withdraw...missiles from Italy and Turkey.

"The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of US missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public at that time—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev."

Are you trying to say JFK would have won the Vietnam War in 30 days?
With or without Nikita's help?

Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yup, you got it wrong, nov. 2nd 63, Diem was assassinated......see now?.

How could I be so blind? (please, no cheap shots)

It's all perfectly clear now.. Diem and General Harkins would have routed the dastardly communists by Christmas.

Thank you, Yoda.

 

[Trajan]

I think it's more likely we created the civil war in Vietnam when we installed Ngo Dinh Diem as South Vietnam's first "President", a tactic we employed a decade earlier in South Korea. In both cases there were massive uprisings against our choices:

"A devout Roman Catholic, Diem was fervently anti-communist, nationalist, and socially conservative. Historian Luu Doan Huynh notes, however, that 'Diem represented narrow and extremist nationalism coupled with autocracy and nepotism."[96]

"As he was a wealthy Catholic, many ordinary Vietnamese viewed Diem as part of the elite who had helped the French rule Vietnam; Diem had been interior minister in the colonial government."

Between 1955 and 1957 about 12,000 suspected Diem opponents had been killed.
By the end of 1958 around 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed.
Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles conceded privately "Diem had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki...yea ok then.

so, who would you have gone with George? tell us....

bonus q, just to keep perspective- what is the difference between how karzai came to power and Diem....really?

Regarding your first question, I would have left the decision up to a majority of Vietnamese, and I expect Ho Chi Minh would've won any election by a landslide.

I don't see any difference between our selections of Karzai, Diem or Syngman Rhee in Korea.
Karzai's a little more Gucci, I guess.
They were/are all US puppets, imho.

karzai yes, rhee and diem no. they had a vision of their country, that was especially in diems case lost to us, Vietnamese never wanted to be or was fit to be at that time especially a parliamentary or republican gov. and we have not stopped making the same mistake, ala Afghanistan.



do you know what Ho's comment was when he had heard that Diem had been assassinated?"I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid." yup, do know why he said that? And, You do know too that Kennedy had a poor view of where the country would go when he was gone as well.....so dod the Nor Viet. politburo which pretty much predicted the aftermath as in the miasma that overtook so viet. and the plethora of coups and weak, inept men that followed.

 

[konradv]

Vietnam now, is free.

Wrong. South Vietnam is now occupied by North Vietnamese. That's about as far from "free" as it gets.

A simple case of invasion by communist imperialists that they are still trying to spin as something else.

I disagree. It was a war to rid the country of a foreign power propping up the government of SV, in response to their refusal to put the question of re-unification in the hands of the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'Free' is a relative term. The peasants in the rice fields when we and the NVA and the VC and the SVA were tearing up the country side really did not care who ruled as long as they had enough rice to feed their families and safety from the ravages of war.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Vietnam now, is free.

Wrong. South Vietnam is now occupied by North Vietnamese. That's about as far from "free" as it gets.

A simple case of invasion by communist imperialists that they are still trying to spin as something else.

I disagree. It was a war to rid the country of a foreign power propping up the government of SV, in response to their refusal to put the question of re-unification in the hands of the people.

Really? Do you know of any reason to believe N.Vn. was ever interested in what "the people" thought about anything? In the North when the State wanted to sieze land that had belonged to families for time out of mind they would simply kill them and take it if they put up too much of a fuss. NVn neither wanted, or had any intention allowing, a free or fair vote on anything.

When the UN particianed the country thousands of people gave up everything to flee the North for the South effectivly voting with their feet.
During the fighting the NVA and VC used torrorist tactics against SVn civilians as SOP. Slaughtering women and children may influence people but is certainly no way to assert comradeship or solidarity.
In the end far too many South Vietnamese fought far too hard for far too long for the idea that they actually wanted to be ruled by NVn to make any sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If that is so, then why did the US and SV not conduct the plebiscite to reunify the coutnry in 1956 under a democratically elected president. Probably because Ho was going to get 75 to 80% of the combined vote.

 

[9thIDdoc]

If that is so, then why did the US and SV not conduct the plebiscite to reunify the coutnry in 1956 under a democratically elected president. Probably because Ho was going to get 75 to 80% of the combined vote.

Maybe; maybe not. Pointless speculation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your comment is pointless for sure, 9ID.

The refusal to hold the plebiscite is directly related to reunification and whether the Vietnamese wanted a Vietnam for Vietnamese.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your comment is pointless for sure, 9ID.

The refusal to hold the plebiscite is directly related to reunification and whether the Vietnamese wanted a Vietnam for Vietnamese.

If you have an idea how an honest vote could have been carried out I'm sure someone somewhere will be interested in hearing about it. Neither side was willing to abide by the outcome of a fair vote which made it pointless even if it had been possible.

"...whether the Vietnamese wanted a Vietnam for Vietnamese."

Did you miss the fact that both countries were governed by Vietnamese? Or are you trying to claim that the South Vietnamese were somehow less "Vietnamese" than the North Vietnamese? Would you consider the situation the same if we had aided SVn in an invasion of the North? Reunification.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you miss the point the North was willing to hold the vote under international supervision?

You really don't know the story, do you?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Did you miss the point the North was willing to hold the vote under international supervision?"

Did you miss the fact that the North was somewhat less than forthcoming with the truth? And, yes, so were all the players.

Ho made no secret about the fact he intended to rule South Vietnam no matter what it took to seize it. And in the end it required a conventional invasion.

 

[georgephillip]

"The U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment.

"The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state."

If the US hadn't intervened in Korea and Vietnam, the populations of those two countries would have remained united as they had been for generations. US planners were afraid the Great Depression would come roaring back in the absence of war, and their solution was to murder, maim, displace, and incarcerate millions of innocent human beings.

At least ask yourselves if it's likely the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq would ever have been waged if the richest 1% of Americans were required to risk their lives (and the lives of their children) first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Diem_era.2C_1955.E2.80.931963

 

[Wry Catcher]

VietNam was a good idea but tragically mishandled by the democrat administration who thought they could create new rules for a new kind of war. It was LBJ not JFK that faked the "Gulf of Tonkin Crisis" to get Troops into VietNam when Most Americans were reluctant to send the Military on another democrat sponsored adventure. LBJ and his boys set the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war. Just when LBJ's crazy plan for wearing out the enemy was beginning to show some promise after the US victory in the TET invasion, good old Walter Cronkite put on a helmet and flack jacket and pretended to be under fire for the cameras and pronounced the US hard won victory as a "stalemate". The NVA commander was astounded about the good news after his entire army was wiped out. Walter Cronkite gave him some breathing room and LBJ tearfully threw in the towel on National TV telling the world he had enough and would not run for another term just when America needed leadership. The left wing media managed to blame Nixon for the entire debacle after LBJ quit.

How old are you? I was on active duty in Feb. 1968 - where were you?

 

[Douger]

Who brought the agent orange?

monsanto

Don't forget Dow:

"Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

"It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (208 litre) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called 'Rainbow Herbicides'.[1]

"A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

"The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, an extremely toxic dioxin compound. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects."

Agent Orange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True that. All brought to you by the DuPont family.Scum of the earth.

 

[Douger]

Let's kick this up a notch. Another family of Masters that murkin slaves adore.
the secret history of how the rockefellers found oil in vietnam and went to war to get it