America's most hated woman prior to Pelosi.

[Rigby5]

COmmunism is inherently evil it is strictly about authoritarian tyranny and slavery

Wrong.
All families and religious orders are always communist inherently.
It is a nature and free human social system.
Whether or not it is practical on a large scale is another question, but there has never been anything authoritarian about Vietnam under rule from the industrial north.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is ridiculous.
There never were 2 separate countries of Vietnam.
The division was only a temporary one for who would administer the elections in each half.
The US breaking the Geneva Peace Accord between the French and Vietnamese, and preventing elections, was totally illegal.
And it is an incredible lie to call Ho Chi Minh to coup dictator, when it was clearly DIem and the US who illegally committed a coup.

There was conflict in the north when Ho Chi Minh established land reform to give the land to the peasants who had been forced to pay rent to evil landlords who had no right to the land. But it was they who started the violence by armed resistance.

The French and Vietnamese accord did apply to the US, using UN law.
Supporting the military coup of Diem was totally illegal under any concept of law.

There absolutely WERE two vietnamese kingdoms going back centuries. They were only forced into unification when colonized byu the french.

You are very ignorant of their history. It was not they who started the violence and it was not due to people owning land they had no right to he rounded them up and slaugt3ered them with no due process.
No the french accord did not apply to us and the UN is meaningless.'

Minhs coup and invasion of gthe south was MORE illegal he contorlled those fighting against Diem and caused the war

The entire war was a communisty war of aggression that is FACT

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
All families and religious orders are always communist inherently.
It is a nature and free human social system.
Whether or not it is practical on a large scale is another question, but there has never been anything authoritarian about Vietnam under rule from the industrial north.

Wrong.

Communsim and communal are not the same thing. Communism is authoritarian and tyrannical

VIetnam is indeed ruled by a communist dictatorship and has been since minh siezed power illegally

 

[Rigby5]

Outright lie and proven so

The US were there by a legally elected governmetns invitation.

Yes the majority did want protection from the illegallyu invaqding north vietnamese communist'

It is historic truth

We are not the french and not bound by their agreement.

We did not prevent anything mingh did by siezing power.

The north invaded the south WE DID NOT

Wrong.
Diem was never legally elected, and was an illegal military takeover.
Even the Buddhist monks who did not like Ho Chi Minh, were so upset with Diem, that they were setting thenselves on fire.
No one in Vietnam like Diem or the US.
And the US kept dumping dictators and installing new ones, like after we killed Diem, we installed Theiu, and then Ky, etc.
We did not even have any remote pretense of legitimacy.

If the majority in the south did not like Ho Chi Minh, then since the 2 halves were about the same population, with US weapons and support, the south should easily have won.

And yes, by UN convention, the US was bound by the peace accord between the French and Vietnamese.
The US is only allowed to use military force in defense, if we are attacked.
Ho Chi Minh did not illegally seize power.
He has always been the popular leader of Vietnam, even during the Japanese occupation.
We invaded the south, and all of Vietnam always belonged under the rule of Ho Chi Minh.
There is no way it could be otherwise.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Diem was never legally elected, and was an illegal military takeover.
Even the Buddhist monks who did not like Ho Chi Minh, were so upset with Diem, that they were setting thenselves on fire.
No one in Vietnam like Diem or the US.
And the US kept dumping dictators and installing new ones, like after we killed Diem, we installed Theiu, and then Ky, etc.
We did not even have any remote pretense of legitimacy.

If the majority in the south did not like Ho Chi Minh, then since the 2 halves were about the same population, with US weapons and support, the south should easily have won.

And yes, by UN convention, the US was bound by the peace accord between the French and Vietnamese.
The US is only allowed to use military force in defense, if we are attacked.
Ho Chi Minh did not illegally seize power.
He has always been the popular leader of Vietnam, even during the Japanese occupation.
We invaded the south, and all of Vietnam always belonged under the rule of Ho Chi Minh.
There is no way it could be otherwise.

You keep iognoring that Minh siezed power illegally first.

No we were not bound by any such peace agreement.

The US is allowed to use military force to support our treaty allies which included the legitimate nation of south vietnam which was attacked and invaded by the north.

Ho chi min illegally siezed power. Being popular is not a license to rule

We inded no where as we were legally there by invitation of south vietnam whcih was a legitimate government.

Minh had no claim to any of vietnam'
Those are facts and your claims are revisionist lies

 

[Rigby5]

There absolutely WERE two vietnamese kingdoms going back centuries. They were only forced into unification when colonized byu the french.

You are very ignorant of their history. It was not they who started the violence and it was not due to people owning land they had no right to he rounded them up and slaugt3ered them with no due process.
No the french accord did not apply to us and the UN is meaningless.'

Minhs coup and invasion of gthe south was MORE illegal he contorlled those fighting against Diem and caused the war

The entire war was a communisty war of aggression that is FACT

Wrong.
Vietnam was unified before the French.
{...

Nguyễn dynasty (1802–1945)​

...}

History of Vietnam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The UN is not meaningless because we not only created the UN, but congress ratified its charter into US law.
So only the UN could have intervened in Vietnam, not the US.
We were in violation of US and international law.
Everyone involved was a criminal.

Diem was not the legal leader of anything. Bau Dai was to be the temporary leader in the south, until elections.
Diem prevented free elections.
He was a criminal, and eventually even the US had to turn on him and have him killed.
{...
As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, non-communist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Bùi Diễm, later South Vietnam's Ambassador to the United States, reported in his memoirs that General Lê Văn Kim requested his aid in learning what the United States might do about Diệm's government.[141] Diễm had contacts in both the embassy and with the high-profile American journalists then in South Vietnam, David Halberstam (New York Times), Neil Sheehan (United Press International), and Malcolm Browne (Associated Press).[142]


Ngô Đình Diệm after being shot and killed in the 1963 coup
The coup d'état was designed by a military revolutionary council including ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh. Lieutenant Colonel Lucien Conein, a CIA officer, had become a liaison between the US Embassy and the generals, who were led by Trần Văn Đôn. They met each other for the first time on October 2, 1963 at Tân Sơn Nhất airport. Three days later, Conein met with General Dương Văn Minh to discuss the coup and the stance of the US towards it.[143] Conein then delivered the White House's message of American non-intervention, which was reiterated by Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the US ambassador, who gave secret assurances to the generals that the United States would not interfere.[144]

The coup was chiefly planned by the Vietnamese generals.[143] Unlike the coup in 1960, the plotters of the 1963 coup knew how to gain broad support from other ARVN officer corps. They obtained the support of Generals Tôn Thất Định, General Đỗ Cao Trí, General Nguyễn Khánh, the III, II Corps and I Corps commanders. Only General Huỳnh Văn Cao of IV Corps remained loyal to Diệm.[145]

On November 1, 1963, Conein donned his military uniform and stuffed three million Vietnamese piastres into a bag to be given to General Minh. Conein then called the CIA station and gave a signal indicating that the planned coup against President Diem was about to start.[146] Minh and his co-conspirators swiftly overthrew the government. With only the palace guard remaining to defend Diệm and his younger brother Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diệm exile if he surrendered. That evening, however, Diệm and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cha Tam Catholic Church in Cholon, where they were captured the following morning. On November 2, 1963, the brothers were assassinated together in the back of an M113 armored personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver by Captain Nguyễn Văn Nhung, under orders from Minh given while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.[147] Diệm was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the US Ambassador.
...}

Ngo Dinh Diem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can not possibly defend Diem and then defend the US having Diem killed as well.

(By the way, the references to Minh refer to General Dương Văn Minh , not Ho Chi Minh, in the quote.)

 

[Rigby5]

You keep iognoring that Minh siezed power illegally first.

No we were not bound by any such peace agreement.

The US is allowed to use military force to support our treaty allies which included the legitimate nation of south vietnam which was attacked and invaded by the north.

Ho chi min illegally siezed power. Being popular is not a license to rule

We inded no where as we were legally there by invitation of south vietnam whcih was a legitimate government.

Minh had no claim to any of vietnam'
Those are facts and your claims are revisionist lies

Wrong.
Ho Chi Minh was ALWAYS the leader of Vietnam during the fight against the Japanese and the French.
And YES, being the most popular most certainly IS a license to rule.
At least it is if you believe in democratic republics.
And in no way could Diem's government be legal, since is was a very unpopular coup.
If Ho Chi Minh was not the legitimate ruler, he would not have won.
He did win.
The US cheated, lied, poisoned, murdered, and committed so many crime, that the whole pentagon should have been imprisoned.

Obviously you would not have massacres like Mai Lai with Lt. Calley if we were remotely popular.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Vietnam was unified before the French.
{...

Nguyễn dynasty (1802–1945)​

...}

History of Vietnam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The UN is not meaningless because we not only created the UN, but congress ratified its charter into US law.
So only the UN could have intervened in Vietnam, not the US.
We were in violation of US and international law.
Everyone involved was a criminal.

Diem was not the legal leader of anything. Bau Dai was to be the temporary leader in the south, until elections.
Diem prevented free elections.
He was a criminal, and eventually even the US had to turn on him and have him killed.
{...
As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, non-communist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Bùi Diễm, later South Vietnam's Ambassador to the United States, reported in his memoirs that General Lê Văn Kim requested his aid in learning what the United States might do about Diệm's government.[141] Diễm had contacts in both the embassy and with the high-profile American journalists then in South Vietnam, David Halberstam (New York Times), Neil Sheehan (United Press International), and Malcolm Browne (Associated Press).[142]


Ngô Đình Diệm after being shot and killed in the 1963 coup
The coup d'état was designed by a military revolutionary council including ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh. Lieutenant Colonel Lucien Conein, a CIA officer, had become a liaison between the US Embassy and the generals, who were led by Trần Văn Đôn. They met each other for the first time on October 2, 1963 at Tân Sơn Nhất airport. Three days later, Conein met with General Dương Văn Minh to discuss the coup and the stance of the US towards it.[143] Conein then delivered the White House's message of American non-intervention, which was reiterated by Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the US ambassador, who gave secret assurances to the generals that the United States would not interfere.[144]

The coup was chiefly planned by the Vietnamese generals.[143] Unlike the coup in 1960, the plotters of the 1963 coup knew how to gain broad support from other ARVN officer corps. They obtained the support of Generals Tôn Thất Định, General Đỗ Cao Trí, General Nguyễn Khánh, the III, II Corps and I Corps commanders. Only General Huỳnh Văn Cao of IV Corps remained loyal to Diệm.[145]

On November 1, 1963, Conein donned his military uniform and stuffed three million Vietnamese piastres into a bag to be given to General Minh. Conein then called the CIA station and gave a signal indicating that the planned coup against President Diem was about to start.[146] Minh and his co-conspirators swiftly overthrew the government. With only the palace guard remaining to defend Diệm and his younger brother Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diệm exile if he surrendered. That evening, however, Diệm and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cha Tam Catholic Church in Cholon, where they were captured the following morning. On November 2, 1963, the brothers were assassinated together in the back of an M113 armored personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver by Captain Nguyễn Văn Nhung, under orders from Minh given while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.[147] Diệm was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the US Ambassador.
...}

Ngo Dinh Diem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can not possibly defend Diem and then defend the US having Diem killed as well.

(By the way, the references to Minh refer to General Dương Văn Minh , not Ho Chi Minh, in the quote.)

I do not need to defend diem or his killing.

You cannot defend the illegal tyranny of Minh who launched a war of aggreession.

We are not bound by the UN and we had every right to intervene.

The UN charter is not US law and we may disregard it as we see fit legally

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Ho Chi Minh was ALWAYS the leader of Vietnam during the fight against the Japanese and the French.
And YES, being the most popular most certainly IS a license to rule.
At least it is if you believe in democratic republics.
And in no way could Diem's government be legal, since is was a very unpopular coup.
If Ho Chi Minh was not the legitimate ruler, he would not have won.
He did win.
The US cheated, lied, poisoned, murdered, and committed so many crime, that the whole pentagon should have been imprisoned.

Obviously you would not have massacres like Mai Lai with Lt. Calley if we were remotely popular.

Wrong minh was not the leader of vietnam he was a soldier true but nothing more.

No being popualr is not a license to rule.

North vietnam was never a republic or a democracy it was a communist shit hole ruled by a tyrant. My lai was ONE isolated crime'

Ho chi minh did not win an election popularity does not win wars.

 

[Rigby5]

I do not need to defend diem or his killing.

You cannot defend the illegal tyranny of Minh who launched a war of aggreession.

We are not bound by the UN and we had every right to intervene.

The UN charter is not US law and we may disregard it as we see fit legally

Wrong.
When Congress ratified the UN charter, it became US law.

{...
When the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the UN Charter, the one opponent was reclining in a chair in the Senate barbershop with a hot towel draped around his face. California’s Hiram Johnson had been an isolationist since the end of World War I and had opposed U.S. membership of the League of Nations too. According to Life magazine’s report, a clerk ran to the barbershop to ask Johnson for his vote on the UN. Unwrapping the steaming towel, Johnson said “No.” The clerk reported Johnson’s dissent. But the isolationist was alone.

All other members of the committee voted “Yes.” The Senate followed on July 28, approving the Charter 89-2.

The debate about the UN Charter had continued during the five days of Senate hearings in late July. Sixty-one Americans testified for and against the UN Charter. The witnesses ranged from the sole member of the United Nations of the Earth Association to Dr. Helen Dwight Reid, consultant to the U.S. delegation at San Francisco and president of the American Association of University Women. While several witnesses suggested improvements to the Charter, the outright skeptics were few. Mrs. Cecil Norton Brey denounced the Charter, but she represented American United Inc., a group with a membership totaling a mere 23 people. Others, like Helen Reid and Ulric Bell of Americans United for World Organization, pushed for ratification.

Just over a week later, on August 8, President Truman signed the UN Charter. It was an eventful day, yet the signing did not receive as much publicity as the two other events that day. The first one was the establishment of an International Military Tribunal for War Crimes in Europe. The second was the Soviet declaration of war on Japan. Looking in the background was also the aftermath of the first ever atomic bomb, dropped on Hiroshima two days earlier.
...}

The American Ratification of the UN Charter | unfoundation.org

Editor’s Note: This post is the second in a series of blog posts on the founding of the United Nations 70 years ago. You can read the first post here. When the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee…

unfoundation.org

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
When Congress ratified the UN charter, it became US law.

{...
When the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the UN Charter, the one opponent was reclining in a chair in the Senate barbershop with a hot towel draped around his face. California’s Hiram Johnson had been an isolationist since the end of World War I and had opposed U.S. membership of the League of Nations too. According to Life magazine’s report, a clerk ran to the barbershop to ask Johnson for his vote on the UN. Unwrapping the steaming towel, Johnson said “No.” The clerk reported Johnson’s dissent. But the isolationist was alone.

All other members of the committee voted “Yes.” The Senate followed on July 28, approving the Charter 89-2.

The debate about the UN Charter had continued during the five days of Senate hearings in late July. Sixty-one Americans testified for and against the UN Charter. The witnesses ranged from the sole member of the United Nations of the Earth Association to Dr. Helen Dwight Reid, consultant to the U.S. delegation at San Francisco and president of the American Association of University Women. While several witnesses suggested improvements to the Charter, the outright skeptics were few. Mrs. Cecil Norton Brey denounced the Charter, but she represented American United Inc., a group with a membership totaling a mere 23 people. Others, like Helen Reid and Ulric Bell of Americans United for World Organization, pushed for ratification.

Just over a week later, on August 8, President Truman signed the UN Charter. It was an eventful day, yet the signing did not receive as much publicity as the two other events that day. The first one was the establishment of an International Military Tribunal for War Crimes in Europe. The second was the Soviet declaration of war on Japan. Looking in the background was also the aftermath of the first ever atomic bomb, dropped on Hiroshima two days earlier.
...}

The American Ratification of the UN Charter | unfoundation.org

Editor’s Note: This post is the second in a series of blog posts on the founding of the United Nations 70 years ago. You can read the first post here. When the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee…

unfoundation.org

Wrong the UN is a tool to be used or disregarded at will it is not law/

 

[gtopa1]

Hmmm...Rigby seems to forget that the Viet Minh were merely useful idiots to Stalin and Mao.

"As the United States poured men and money into South Vietnam, Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam also increased. The world’s largest communist powers, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, both lent material and support to North Vietnam. In doing so, they hoped to consolidate and expand communism in the Asian hemisphere, bog the United States down in a long, expensive conflict abroad and thus gain an advantage in the Cold War."

Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam

Across the border to the north, Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam was also building. Their support strengthened North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

alphahistory.com

Greg

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US did not invade.

The north vietnamese did

Ah yes, the north Vietnamese invaded their own country.....

 

[9thIDdoc]

Wrong.
It is obvious almost everyone in Vietnam wanted us out.
It was only the wealthy, who had gained that wealth by collaborating with the Japanese and the French, who did not want Ho Chi Minh to win.

Obvious to whom? What do you base your idiotic opinions on? I was there and paying attention and neither of those things were obvious. I suspect that you were neither there nor paying attention. All you do is spout long debunked Communist propaganda.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is triad of evil for you. Nancy, Jane and Hillary. When they show up to the gates of Hell, The Devil will drop to his knees chanting "I'M NOT WORTHY! I'M NOT WORTHY!!"

Those women have gotten a lot better chance of getting into heaven than any Republican.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US soldiers in Vietnam were there illegally and were illegally murdering 3 million Vietnamese.
All the US soldiers there were criminals by definition.
There was no legal way for them to be there, since Diem was illegal by taking over the South with a military coup.
Obviously the majority of the Vietnamese never wanted us there.

Lies.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Orders to even go to Vietnam were illegal.
The US was bound by the UN charter after it was ratified by Congress, and the Vietnamese and French had reached a Geneva Peace Accord that then bound the US to not interfere.
The US has no jurisdiction to be there.
Diem was not the legal representative of South Vietnam, and had taken over illegal by military coup.
He had no legal authority to invite the US in.

US is bound by charter that if they break the UN can do zero about? How does that make any logical sense?

 

[DGS49]

Where is the Cancel Culture when you need it? If she had called some homosexual actor a "***" sixty years ago she would be forever banned, but having openly committed treason...not a problem.

Hollywood is not substantially different from when it hosted a small army of closet-commies in the early 50's.

 

[Issa]

Because of orders. Why do you think?

Orders to go kill or get killed? F that thry rather jail me.

 

[Issa]

We did not invade Vietnam our military assistance was requested.

Bullcrap, same as Iraq, afghanistan, syria....?