Retelling An Old Lie

[Flanders]

Judi McLeod over at Canada Free Press wrote:

Move over Jane Fonda, President Barack Obama has all but toppled you from that iconic anti-aircraft gun perch as as America’s top Communist Viet Nam booster.

Talking to reporters as he stood beside Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang yesterday, Obama told his biggest whopper to date:...”we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” (Fox News, July 25, 2013)

Facts, Barack Obama style, are more like something made up as Obama goes along surrounded by a mainstream media who let him away with it.

Truth is Ho Chi Minh was about as inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson as Obama is.

Obama claims Ho Chi Minh was fan of Founding Fathers
By Judi McLeod
Friday, July 26, 2013

Obama claims Ho Chi Minh was fan of Founding Fathers

One thing hit me about Barack Taqiyya’s latest lie. The media promoted the same lie rank & file Communists were telling when the Vietnam War was raging. To understand why Barack Taqiyya dredged up an old lie is not that difficult. The US military fighting against communism has always been a major thorn in the Left’s side. They will never rest easy until they are certain it never happens again. Placing the US military under United Nations command is the guarantee they have been seeking since 1945.

Retelling an old lie also gives traitor John Kerry some cover. After all, how could Kerry betray the country when he was on the side of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson.

Also, most Americans under forty years of age probably never heard the lie; so a retelling was an important objective to the liar —— get as many young Americans to quote the lie as is possible. If as many people swallow the lie this time as they did the first time the backlash is worth it to the America-haters.

On the plus side the Internet will help sink the lie this time out.

Question: How come the Left hates all of those dead white guys who made this country, but suddenly a leading America-hater cites Thomas Jefferson, and the Constitution he has been trying to abolish?

NOTE: The Korean War makes American Communists see red (pun intended) but they have to keep quiet about it because Korea was a United Nations war. Even if American Communists had a lie as effective as the lie about Thomas Jefferson you would never hear Socialists/Communists say it. They would bite their tongues off before they rail against the Korean War even though both wars were fought for the same reason —— stop Communist expansion.

Liberals lie about why the Vietnam Was fought. More importantly, they lie about why they opposed it to the point of bringing defeat to their own country; so permit me to cite a forgotten truth about communism’s military expansion. Stop it in Asia or stop it in California.

Finally, I seldom read blogs, websites, articles, etc. written by Lefties. While looking around for more analyses of Barack Taqiyya retelling the Vietnam War lie, I stumbled upon a video connected to a MEDIAMATTERS piece. I could not find the same video on Youtube; so if you’re interested you’ll have to click on the link to hear Oliver North and Ralph Peters tell the truth about Ho Chi Minh:

Fox Ignores Facts To Declare Obama's Vietnam Remarks "Stupid" | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[Auteur]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

 

[jwoodie]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Thank you for explaining, once again, why the U.S. is the root of all evil in the world.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

 

[sambino510]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Thank you for explaining, once again, why the U.S. is the root of all evil in the world.

I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. He was simply citing some important background information about the two conflicts. There is no doubt the U.S. was obsessed with Communism, and that that was the main reason for our involvement in the two wars. Nor is there any doubt that we had absolutely no grasp on the political and cultural situations in each region. It's unfair to blame America for EVERYTHING about these two conflicts, but we certainly had a role.

 

[sambino510]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

To think we actually cared about the people of these countries is, I think, pretty ridiculous. Especially in Vietnam. You have to look no further than the South Vietnamese Diem regime, a dictatorship which WE supported, to realize that we had absolutely no idea what we were doing. Those nepotistic leaders slaughtered just as many Vietnamese people as the North Vietnamese. And then we just let the Vietnamese people over-run their palace and kill them in the streets. Doesn't sound like we had a great grasp on the situation.

 

[sambino510]

Ho Chi Minh was surely a dictator and a mass murderer, I can't argue with that. However, if he wants to say he was inspired by Thomas Jefferson, who are we to say he was lying? A genocidal maniac can say one of his icons is Martin Luther King Jr., but his actions don't make what he said any less true. It's irrelevant if their actions match up with the teachings of their inspiration.

That being said, it's not far-fetched to think Ho Chi Minh was inspired by our Founding Fathers, especially if you read his declaration of independence for Vietnam from French rule. Many of the same ideas of liberty and self-determination are present.

 

[konradv]

Admiring the FFs or at least their ideals wasn't something Obama invented, it was something Ho Chi Minh said himself.

Ho Chi Minh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Auteur]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

South Vietnam was not a "peaceful neighbour" of the north, but an intregal part of the nation of Vietnam. It was artificially divided in order to allow the French less embarrassing exit in '54, just as Americans negoicated a less embarrassing exit in 1973. As for peaceful, I guess that is a matter of degree. The Vietnamese fought French colonialists, then Japanese invaders in 1940, then the French again after WW2, and then the Americans for another decade. They were no doubt getting a little hardened near the end of this process.

America did not intervene to support peace or freedom, but to fight communism. This was made very clear. Even today, Mr Flanders is repeating the idiotic nonsense that Vietnamese communists would be swimming ashore in California, if not stopped sooner (with a little rust on their AK-47s, no doubt). The South Vietnamese leadership was not democratic, and in fact the US has never made any bones about the fact that it would support those who supported US interests, not matter how brutal they were. I think it was FDR that issued the classic line: They may be bastards, but they are our bastards!

Korea, also, was a singular state, divided only for the purpose of disarming the Japanese still there at the end of WW2. It's true that the Soviets armed and supported their favoured man in the north, Kim il Sung, and eventually gave him the green light to invade the south. Stalin was at first apprehensive though, and wavered. But by 1950, the south was already in turmoil, as America could not accept the idea that Koreans were forming worker's collectives, and doing a pretty good job of running their own affairs. This sounded to much like "communism" to them, and so they disbanded them. To rub salt into the wounds, in some cases they re-appointed former Japanese occupyers to administrative positions, due to a lack of such personal on the ground at that time.

Would Stalin have given the go ahead if it were not already the case that some southerners had already taken up arms, and were shooting at Americans? We don't know, but we do know that once again, an astonishing lack of historical knowledge, and cultural sensitivity, and overriding self-interest, were factors in a war that might not have happened.

 

[Flanders]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam.

To Auteur: Stopping Communist expansion was the right thing to do. Going through the United Nations was the first mistake Truman made in Korea. The second mistake was fighting a Peace Without Victory war. The second mistake was repeated in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second.

To Auteur: I guess you did not listen to Oliver North in the video link I provided. Aside from Colonel North’s correct analysis of Ho Chi Minh’s motives there is no such thing as a Communist nationalist.

It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality.

To Auteur: And rightly so. The choice is clear: Supporting dictators with no expansionist goals, or military capabilities, as opposed to supporting dictators like Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Mao and so on. Castro was supported by the American Left. Lacking military capabilities after he came to power he exported communist revolutions to Latin America. I hope I gave you a clue as to why there is no such thing as a Communist nationalist. Communism is their only true love not love of country.

Incidentally, I should have pointed this out in the OP:

Barack Taqiyya & Company would surrender America’s sovereignty to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) faster than they would abolish the Constitution, yet the president cited the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE as a plus for Ho Chi Minh?

Conversely, the busybody’s alternative is to support every violent revolutionary who always turns out to be more brutal than manageable ousted dictators. Isn’t that what Democrats; i.e., American Socialists/Communists demand? Isn’t that what gave us the current disaster in Iran. Isn’t that what the Arab Spring is all about?

A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart,

To Auteur: Who tore it apart? Answer: American Communists.

And for what reason? Answer: To support communism expansion irrespective of the crap they told about not fighting an unjust war. Their sense of justice dried up the minute the North Vietnamese began slaughtering the South Vietnamese. This excerpt from Judi McLeod’s article I linked in the OP gives an insight as to what happened after the US military withdrew in 1975:

Following Ho Chi Minh’s death in 1969, over a million Viet Nam people, many of whose relatives were put to death as dissidents by the brutal dictator fled to North America and elsewhere becoming forever known as “The Boat People”. The number of people who died at sea trying to find freedom is recorded somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000.

An accurate number of deaths suffered by the South Vietnamese is impossible to determine. Most guesstimates put the number in the millions. You can be sure of one thing. Had South Korea lost the war the murders and brutality would have equaled those in South Vietnam.

because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

To Auteur: As well they should be.

I’m guessing that you say the same thing about Islam. Note that Communists and Islamic fundamentalists have the same goal; worldwide domination. As far as intelligent people are concerned there is no difference between worldwide communism and a worldwide caliphate.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post.

To Auteur: Denying the slaughters that always follow a takeover by Communists is a dysfunctional focus on whitewashing butchers.

Whatever was done in the immediate aftermath off WWII was necessary because of the Soviet Union. Moscow set up a Communist government in the North. The two Koreas today clearly show South Korea came out better in the long run.

Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade.

To Auteur: You’re making it sound like the South Koreans wanted communism!

The truth is that Communist agitation in the South provided a weak justification for the North to invade. South Koreans willing fought against the Communist invaders. Eventually, China entered the conflict with troops while the Soviet Union provided Migs and Russian pilots. President Truman would not let General MacArthur bomb supply depots, on China’s side of the Yalu river. Inevitably, a Peace Without Victory war turned into a stalemate that ended with a truce that is still in place.

If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

To Auteur: Here’s a satellite picture of the misery Communists brought to the North. South Korea is lit up while North Korea remains dark:

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

To 9thIDdoc: Exactly so. South Vietnam was a peaceful neighbor. North Vietnam was an aggressive neighbor.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

South Vietnam was not a "peaceful neighbour" of the north, but an intregal part of the nation of Vietnam. It was artificially divided in order to allow the French less embarrassing exit in '54, just as Americans negoicated a less embarrassing exit in 1973. As for peaceful, I guess that is a matter of degree. The Vietnamese fought French colonialists, then Japanese invaders in 1940, then the French again after WW2, and then the Americans for another decade. They were no doubt getting a little hardened near the end of this process.

America did not intervene to support peace or freedom, but to fight communism. This was made very clear. Even today, Mr Flanders is repeating the idiotic nonsense that Vietnamese communists would be swimming ashore in California, if not stopped sooner (with a little rust on their AK-47s, no doubt). The South Vietnamese leadership was not democratic, and in fact the US has never made any bones about the fact that it would support those who supported US interests, not matter how brutal they were. I think it was FDR that issued the classic line: They may be bastards, but they are our bastards!

Korea, also, was a singular state, divided only for the purpose of disarming the Japanese still there at the end of WW2. It's true that the Soviets armed and supported their favoured man in the north, Kim il Sung, and eventually gave him the green light to invade the south. Stalin was at first apprehensive though, and wavered. But by 1950, the south was already in turmoil, as America could not accept the idea that Koreans were forming worker's collectives, and doing a pretty good job of running their own affairs. This sounded to much like "communism" to them, and so they disbanded them. To rub salt into the wounds, in some cases they re-appointed former Japanese occupyers to administrative positions, due to a lack of such personal on the ground at that time.

Would Stalin have given the go ahead if it were not already the case that some southerners had already taken up arms, and were shooting at Americans? We don't know, but we do know that once again, an astonishing lack of historical knowledge, and cultural sensitivity, and overriding self-interest, were factors in a war that might not have happened.

You're really big on speculation and conjecture about motives, interests, and your version of politics but the actual reason for the wars in Korea and Vietnam was quite simple and straight forward: invasion of the South by the North. No invasion; no war. End of story.

 

[numan]

Thank you for explaining, once again, why the U.S. is the root of all evil in the world.

You are wrong -- The U.S. is only responsible for about half the evil in the world.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US made essentially the same mistake in Korea as it did in Vietnam. A pathalogical obsession with communism blinded it to reality, something even the US defense secretary at the time of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, admitted later in life.

Ho Chi Minh reached out the the US in 1945, and insisted that they could do business and coexist. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. It is absurd to say that because he was a dictator, and killed people, that the US would abstain from relations. The US has supported whoever seemed to be in their own self-interest, throughout history, no matter their brutality. A million people (including 50,000 Americans) were killed, untold monies spent, and a nation torn apart, because those in Washington had a dim grasp on history and geography, and were obsessed with only one thing: communism.

So too in Korea. The US mishandled the occupation of South Korea in 1945, again due to a dysfunctional focus on communism. They were so afraid of some leftist leaders arising in the south, that they reinstated former Japanese occupation officials into key positions, rather than running the risk of having a "communist" in some government post. Needless to say, the long suffering Koreans rebelled at this action, and there was already a low level insurgency going on in the south in 1950- which gave the north the opening they needed to invade. If only the US could have seen any other colours than "red", endless misery could have been sidestepped.

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

To think we actually cared about the people of these countries is, I think, pretty ridiculous. Especially in Vietnam. You have to look no further than the South Vietnamese Diem regime, a dictatorship which WE supported, to realize that we had absolutely no idea what we were doing. Those nepotistic leaders slaughtered just as many Vietnamese people as the North Vietnamese. And then we just let the Vietnamese people over-run their palace and kill them in the streets. Doesn't sound like we had a great grasp on the situation.

What?! You think Diem was more of a dictator than Uncle Ho? Or is it that you think a foreign dictator should have more right to kill citizens than their own dictator?
The fact that we accomplished our mission until we left indicates that we did in fact know what we were doing.

"Those nepotistic leaders slaughtered just as many Vietnamese people as the North Vietnamese."

Untrue but please try to document

 

[sambino510]

Wrong. In both cases communist aggressors invaded a peaceful neighbor and we tried to help the locals resist being overrun.

To think we actually cared about the people of these countries is, I think, pretty ridiculous. Especially in Vietnam. You have to look no further than the South Vietnamese Diem regime, a dictatorship which WE supported, to realize that we had absolutely no idea what we were doing. Those nepotistic leaders slaughtered just as many Vietnamese people as the North Vietnamese. And then we just let the Vietnamese people over-run their palace and kill them in the streets. Doesn't sound like we had a great grasp on the situation.

What?! You think Diem was more of a dictator than Uncle Ho? Or is it that you think a foreign dictator should have more right to kill citizens than their own dictator?
The fact that we accomplished our mission until we left indicates that we did in fact know what we were doing.

"Those nepotistic leaders slaughtered just as many Vietnamese people as the North Vietnamese."

Untrue but please try to document

Who is the foreign dictator you are referring to? Both Diem and Ho Chi Minh were Vietnamese. I don't think ANYBODY has a right to kill their own citizens, but Diem and his family members were very vicious leaders. They would often kill off opposition movements in the rural villages, or just leave them lawless and susceptible to bandits and things like that. They were strictly Christian and enforced Christian teaching throughout South Vietnam. Diem also enforced hefty taxes on the citizens and completely screwed up the infrastructure with a failed land reform program. The regime was also very, very paranoid, and started shooting at the slightest hint of trouble.

Even if the North Vietnamese DID slaughter more people, is that how we are going to judge who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? By who committed MORE wrongdoings? They're both dictators, and both were disliked by the rural Vietnamese villagers.

Also, what "mission" did the U.S. accomplish? All we managed to rack up was a body count, both for us and for them.

It's a long read, but "Fire In the Lake" is a good, scholarly novel about the Diem regime and the Vietnam war and Vietnam culture as a whole.

 

[Flanders]

Who is the foreign dictator you are referring to? Both Diem and Ho Chi Minh were Vietnamese.

To sambino510: They lived in separate countries at the time. Each one was a foreigner in the other’s country.

Note that Communists swing both ways. They go with separatist movements when it suits them; they go with uniting two countries as in Korea and Vietnam when it suits them. Their method is to encourage discord and hatred among opposing sides until they can take over. Barack Taqiyya’s class warfare, race warfare, etc. are examples of Communist discord and hatred at work here.

I don't think ANYBODY has a right to kill their own citizens,

To sambino510: How generous of you. Unfortunately, the record shows that Communist and Muslim butchers are the only ones not covered by liberal compassion.

but Diem and his family members were very vicious leaders. They would often kill off opposition movements in the rural villages, or just leave them lawless and susceptible to bandits and things like that. They were strictly Christian and enforced Christian teaching throughout South Vietnam.

To sambino510: They were Catholics as was JFK. On top of everything else Communists stirred up religious unrest.

Not that it gives me special insight, but I was in Saigon on November 2, 1963. I don’t recall average Vietnamese cheering in the streets. Nor did anyone complain on my previous visits to Saigon about Diem being the brutal dictator you describe. I know the bar girls were unhappy when the Dragon Lady, Madame Nhu, banned dancing, but that hardly rises to the level of widespread unrest.

I do remember bars and restaurants installing screen doors made of heavy wire mesh so Communists on motor bikes could not throw in hand grenades as they rode by.

Diem also enforced hefty taxes on the citizens and completely screwed up the infrastructure with a failed land reform program.

To sambino510: Sounds like Barack Taqiyya & Company to me.

The regime was also very, very paranoid, and started shooting at the slightest hint of trouble.

To sambino510: How many Communists did they shoot?

Even if the North Vietnamese DID slaughter more people, is that how we are going to judge who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? By who committed MORE wrongdoings? They're both dictators, and both were disliked by the rural Vietnamese villagers.

To sambino510: You finally got to it. Civilized societies should judge Communists who slaughter in the tens of millions the same way they judge serial killers.

Also, what "mission" did the U.S. accomplish?

To sambino510: Asking loaded questions; the specialty of liberals.

The mission was to stop Communist expansion in SE Asia. The mission failed because of American Communists.

Better you should ask yourself why they brought defeat to their own country.

 

[sambino510]

Who is the foreign dictator you are referring to? Both Diem and Ho Chi Minh were Vietnamese.

To sambino510: They lived in separate countries at the time. Each one was a foreigner in the other’s country.

Note that Communists swing both ways. They go with separatist movements when it suits them; they go with uniting two countries as in Korea and Vietnam when it suits them. Their method is to encourage discord and hatred among opposing sides until they can take over. Barack Taqiyya’s class warfare, race warfare, etc. are examples of Communist discord and hatred at work here.

I don't think ANYBODY has a right to kill their own citizens,

To sambino510: How generous of you. Unfortunately, the record shows that Communist and Muslim butchers are the only ones not covered by liberal compassion.



To sambino510: They were Catholics as was JFK. On top of everything else Communists stirred up religious unrest.

Not that it gives me special insight, but I was in Saigon on November 2, 1963. I don’t recall average Vietnamese cheering in the streets. Nor did anyone complain on my previous visits to Saigon about Diem being the brutal dictator you describe. I know the bar girls were unhappy when the Dragon Lady, Madame Nhu, banned dancing, but that hardly rises to the level of widespread unrest.

I do remember bars and restaurants installing screen doors made of heavy wire mesh so Communists on motor bikes could not throw in hand grenades as they rode by.



To sambino510: Sounds like Barack Taqiyya & Company to me.



To sambino510: How many Communists did they shoot?

Even if the North Vietnamese DID slaughter more people, is that how we are going to judge who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? By who committed MORE wrongdoings? They're both dictators, and both were disliked by the rural Vietnamese villagers.

To sambino510: You finally got to it. Civilized societies should judge Communists who slaughter in the tens of millions the same way they judge serial killers.

Also, what "mission" did the U.S. accomplish?

To sambino510: Asking loaded questions; the specialty of liberals.

The mission was to stop Communist expansion in SE Asia. The mission failed because of American Communists.

Better you should ask yourself why they brought defeat to their own country.

Right, so the mission failed. Thus, what mission were we "accomplishing"? And who are these American communists that single-handedly brought down the war effort? Just because someone didn't support the Vietnam War (many Americans at the time) doesn't brand them Communists.

Sorry, the Diems were indeed Catholics. Should have been more specific. That's interesting that you were at Saigon. I can't say your wrong about what you personally heard, but since the regime was overthrown at that exact time I'd be curious to know how there could be so little unrest and then all of the sudden they overthrow him and his family and kill them in an alleyway. I suppose you would cite a Communist insurrection, which I guess is possible but I still have serious doubts that any Vietnamese citizens had a particular love for the leaders.

I think it'd be hard to define the Diem regime as simply "serial killers". I'm once again not saying they were NECESSARILY as bad as the North Vietnamese, but they deserve a bit more credit than that. Also, it seems to me that more atrocities were committed by the Viet Cong than the NVA itself, though I could be wrong on that.

Also I'm curious, what does "Taqiyya" mean? As in why do you replace Barack Obama's last name with that?

It's interesting to me that you cite Muslim and Communist mass murderers but ignore a long history of Christian violence. An ideology does not become violent until a violent person interprets it in that way; the seed has to have already been planted. The Qur'an does not say in any particular phrase "go out and kill all Christians" or "go and wipe out the developed world" or anything of that nature. It promotes violence no more than the Bible or the Torah. However, for the record, I do not sympathize with mass murderers of any particular religion or background.

As for Communists, there has never existed a true Communist country. The idea of Communism is utopian, and therefore unrealistic as a way of running a nation. Countries may claim that their government runs that way, like China, Vietnam, whatever, but it's by name alone. It's not the Communism ideology itself that is "evil", however much you might disagree with the ideas of redistribution of wealth and property and all that. It's the dictators that have adopted it throughout the past seventy years that have given it a bad name.

 

[Auteur]

You're really big on speculation and conjecture about motives, interests, and your version of politics but the actual reason for the wars in Korea and Vietnam was quite simple and straight forward: invasion of the South by the North. No invasion; no war. End of story.

Yes, well that is the very issue I'm trying to describe here. Do you really think that the entire sweep of history, and the billions caught up in it, are as simple as a Flinstones comic book? Both yourself and Flanders have reiterated cliches and slogans, but have not presented a reasoned line of thought.

The division of Vietnam was as artificial as if someone drew a line across the US, and said, OK, now you are going to have a N. USA, and a S. USA. That suits us for the time being, so don't get uppity. How do you think that would be received?

Vietnam had fought a long insurgency against both the Japanese and the French, and whether you, or the US in general liked it, many of those subscribed to leftist principles, even if they were to become disillusioned later. It was a war to throw off colonial influence, and many there saw the US as just number three in a long and tedious process. My point is that a lot of agony would have been avoided if those in Washington at the time understood some of these things, and did not see the world as "quite simple".

Today some that may have been 20 somethings fighting in the war, are now 60 somethings flying into Hanoi to make trade deals. The government there is still authoritarian and non-democratic, and in fact still describes itself as communist. It no longer matters to the US, because now they can do business. But they could have "done business" a half a century ago too. That's what makes the war, and all those deaths, so absurd.

 

[regent]

There is similarity not only with Vietnam and the American Revolution but between Vietnam and the American Civil War. A country divided and one side trying to win a military victory to reunite. Also the fact that a major power was thinking of giving support to one side, but, and this is one of the differences, that support never arrived, however, because one side issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

I agree with one of the posters that it was our fear of communism that crippled us from using our brain power to create a solution to Vietnam that benefited our own best interests.

 

[numan]

'
I appreciate what you are saying, Auteur, but Americans have an immense blind-spot about all this.

The war was not at all "absurd" from a basic point of view.

To a large extent the war was started, and almost entirely kept going for such a long time, BY PEOPLE WHO WERE MAKING MONEY OFF THE WAR!!

If an American really wants to understand USA history since the Second World War, every morning they should stand in front of a mirror and repeat 100 times,

WAR PROFITEER, WAR PROFITEER, WAR PROFITEER......

.

 

[Auteur]

The fact that we accomplished our mission until we left indicates that we did in fact know what we were doing.

The US did not accomplish its mission, mostly because the "mission" was never clear. The sort of ravings that are (sadly) still tossed around by Mr Flanders were doubtful then, even to the more patriotic and accepting. They were certainly doubtful to large numbers of draftees who didn't want to be over there in the first place. The mission shifted all over the place, and eventually just came to be shooting people who were dissident against the regime in the south, or who just saw the US as invaders, or who had leftist ideas, or who just got in the way (body counts). Despite massive firepower, the war was still going strong when the US negociated an exit during the Paris peace talks.