Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,850
- 6,812
- 335
It was not liberated it was conquered by imperialists who happen to be communists
That is historic truth . You are spouting revisionist fiction and propaganda
Last edited:
Fifty Years After Saigon: Remembering the Nobility of a Betrayed Cause
- Thread starter Doc7505
- Start date
That is historic truth . You are spouting revisionist fiction and propaganda
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
You never try to explain any facts that contradict your false claims. You never cite any sources. You just keep repeating long-debunked Communist talking points about the Vietnam War.
How was Vietnam "liberated" by the Communists when the Communists imposed one of the most brutal, vicious tyrannies on the planet, even according to left-leaning human rights groups? How is that "liberation"?
Under the Saigon government, at least the people of South Vietnam had most of the basic rights that people usually have in democracies. They had more rights than the people of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam have today.
The only "imperialism" was North Vietnam's unprovoked invasion of South Vietnam.
Deadstick
Platinum Member
Well first they fought against French Colonialism, they fought the Japanese and the US Imperialists, if that isn't liberating what the hell is?
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
The US wasn't an imperialist. We were supporting the FREELY ELECTED legal government that was under attack by invading Communist forces openly supported by The USSR and PRC. The North Vietnamese government has NEVER allowed free and open election with only the approved candidates of the Communist Party being allowed to run for office.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Are you a teenager or something? You seem to lack basic reasoning skills.
"Liberation" is not the imposition of a brutal tyranny, a "reign of terror," as even a former Viet Cong leader described it. "Liberation" is not the imposition of a cruel regime that does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of private property, and freedom from unjust invasion of privacy. It is not the imposition of a lawless regime that only denies basic human rights but sends hundreds of thousands of people to brutal concentration camps.
You simply refuse to acknowlege that North Vietnam was a vicious tyranny and that Communist Vietnam is still one of the most repressive regimes on the planet.
You are calling the bad guys the good guys and calling the good guys the bad guys. We went to wara to keep South Vietnam free so that 19 million South Vietnamese would not have to suffer under the same kind of brutal repression that the North Vietnamese had to suffer.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,850
- 6,812
- 335
Your argument is a dipshit celebrity traitor supported the enemy?
You really are a very stupid person.
Using that idiotic logic you must worship Harvey Weinstein since Meryl Streep told he is god
Try a neew argument moron. So far the only thing you have is imperialism, imperialism, imperialism.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
A few facts:
-- Ho Chi Minh was not the most popular Vietnamese leader after WWII ended. Huynh Phu So, the charismatic founder of the Hoa Hao and of the Vietnamese Democratic Socialist Party, had far more followers than did Ho Chi Minh. However, the Communists murdered Huynh Phu So in April 1947.
-- The French only decided to work with and recognize the Viet Minh, i.e., the Communists, because the Viet Minh were the only nationalist group that was willing to allow France to deploy troops in Vietnam. The other major nationalist groups opposed allowing French troops to return to Vietnam.
-- The Viet Minh came to power through a mix of deception, intimidation, and violence. They did not speak for the majority of Vietnamese, especially after they began to show their true colors when the French began to withdraw.
-- Although the Geneva Accords called for Vietnam-wide elections in 1956, and even though Communist propaganda attacked the U.S. and South Vietnam for refusing to hold elections in 1956, the North Vietnamese themselves had no intention of holding free and fair elections in 1956 (or in any other year), and, equally important, they knew that no elections would take place. Furthermore, the U.S. and South Vietnam were not bound by this provision of the Geneva Accords. Historian Guenter Lewy:
There are strong indications that nobody at the conference took the idea of an early unification through free elections seriously. Why have a massive exchange of population if the two zones were to be unified within 700 days or so? Why was the machinery for settling future disagreements on the implementation of this agreement so haphazard?
“The provision for free elections which would solve ultimately the problem of Vietnam,” wrote Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau in 1956, “was a device to hide the incompatibility of the Communist and Western positions, neither of which can admit the domination of all of Vietnam by the other side. It was a device to disguise the fact that the line of military demarcation was bound to be a line of political division as well. In one word, what happened in Germany and Korea in the years immediately following 1945 has happened in Vietnam in the years following 1954.”
The likelihood that the provision for a political settlement in Vietnam through free elections in 1956 was indeed a hastily improvised afterthought to help save face for the Viet Minh is strengthened by the fact that the final declaration remained unsigned and was not even adopted by a formal vote. Five of the nine delegations present at the final session failed unreservedly to commit their governments to its terms. Laos, Cambodia and the DRV [North Vietnam] did not expressly associate themselves with the declaration.
The South Vietnamese delegate filed a protest against the armistice agreement which he asked to have incorporated in the final declaration. South Vietnam specifically objected to the date of the elections and reserved “to itself complete freedom of action to guarantee the sacred right of the Vietnamese people to territorial unity, national independence and freedom.” Undersecretary of State Walter B. Smith stated that the U.S. government “is not prepared to join in a declaration by the Conference such as is submitted.”
The American representative insisted that elections to be free and fair had to be supervised by the United Nations. “With respect to the statement made by the representative of the State of Viet-Nam, the United States reiterates its traditional position that peoples are entitled to determine their own future and that it will not join in an arrangement which would hinder this.” (America in Vietnam, Oxford University Press, 1980, pp. 8-9)
-- North Vietnamese sources confirm that the American war effort in South Vietnam was going quite well from early 1962 until December 1963, until a few weeks after the murder of South Vietnam’s president, Ngo Dinh Diem.
-- North Vietnamese sources confirm that the Hanoi regime decided to launch the 1968 Tet Offensive because the Communist war effort had gone badly in 1967, and because the Hanoi Politburo concluded that the protracted war strategy was not going to work.
-- Two of the other reasons that the Hanoi Politburo decided to launch the Tet Offensive were that they were certain that the South Vietnamese army (ARVN, pronounced ar-vin) would collapse as soon as they were attacked, and that the majority of the South Vietnamese people would rise up against the Saigon government (South Vietnam’s government).
-- Hanoi’s leaders were so certain the Tet Offensive would succeed that they made the astounding mistake of not making any retreat plans.
-- General Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnam’s commanding general, thought the Tet Offensive was a bad idea, but Le Duan and his fanatical allies overruled him. Giap was so opposed to the offensive that he left North Vietnam for several months and played no role in the offensive.
-- We now know from North Vietnamese sources that even Ho Chi Minh opposed Le Duan’s plans for the Tet Offensive. However, by 1967, Ho was merely a figurehead, and Le Duan was the driving force in the Hanoi Politburo.
-- In late 1967, Le Duan and other Politburo hardliners jailed dozens of officials and officers who opposed the Tet Offensive.
-- The 1968 Tet Offensive was a crushing military defeat for the Communists.
-- After nearly all the Communist assaults were quickly and severely repulsed, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong suffered unusually high casualties in flight because they had no retreat plans.
-- The Viet Cong never recovered from their losses in the Tet Offensive, and from that point onward North Vietnamese soldiers filled most of the ranks of the Viet Cong.
-- Much to the Hanoi regime’s surprise, if not shock, ARVN fought well in most cases during the offensive, and the vast majority of the South Vietnamese people stayed loyal to the Saigon government.
-- By 1970 and 1971, the vast majority of South Vietnam had been pacified and was stable.
-- The collapse of the southern insurgency was one of the main reasons that the Hanoi Politburo decided to launch the Easter Offensive in spring 1972.
-- North Vietnamese sources reveal that another reason that the Hanoi Politburo decided to launch the Easter Offensive was that they did not believe the U.S. would intervene in a significant way. They were stunned by the massive aerial campaign that the U.S. waged in support of South Vietnam.
-- North Vietnamese sources confirm that the North Vietnamese army suffered such horrendous losses in the Easter Offensive that for a few months a majority of the Hanoi Politburo actually turned against Le Duan and other fanatics and voted against continuing large-scale warfare against South Vietnam. However, this changed when the U.S. Congress began to slash aid to South Vietnam, and when Congress placed severe restrictions on President Nixon’s ability to enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
-- After the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973, the U.S. Congress shamefully began to slash vital aid to South Vietnam.
-- South Vietnam actually held its own in 1973, with no U.S. intervention, which proved that South Vietnam could survive if the U.S. provided adequate aide. But, as mentioned, the U.S. Congress began to slash aid to South Vietnam in mid-1973, and the disastrous impact of those cuts began to be felt in early 1974.
-- Although the Saigon government was hardly a model of democracy, it was far less oppressive than the Hanoi regime. There were 15-20 independent newspapers in South Vietnam, a number of which routinely lambasted government corruption and malfeasance, etc. There were no independent newspapers in North Vietnam.
There were opposition parties in South Vietnam; they held seats in South Vietnam’s national assembly, and they frequently criticized government actions. In North Vietnam, only the Communist Party (the VWP) was legal and allowed to operate.
In South Vietnam, private schools were allowed to operate, and public schools had some flexibility in deciding on their curriculum. North Vietnam did not allow private schools and strictly controlled all public schools.
-- Over and over again during the war, Hanoi’s leaders insisted that they had no desire to conquer or occupy South Vietnam but only to expel the “foreign invaders.” Over and over again, Hanoi’s leaders promised that South Vietnam would have its own government and substantial autonomy after the “foreign invaders” were gone. Yet, the Hanoi regime egregiously broke these promises immediately after South Vietnam fell.
-- After South Vietnam fell, the North Vietnamese executed at least 60,000 South Vietnamese and sent at least another 800,000 to brutal concentration camps (“reeducation camps”), where the death rate was at least 5%.
These facts are documented in hundreds of books. Below are a few of the better and more-available books that document these facts (all of the books below are available in Kindle form on Amazon):
America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1980), by Dr. Guenter Lewy.
Hanoi’s War (University of North Carolina Press, 2012), by Dr. Lien-Hang T. Nguyen.
Vietnam’s American War (Cambridge University Press, 2018), by Dr. Pierre Asselin.
Kissinger’s Betrayal: How America Lost the Vietnam War (RealClear Publishing, 2023), by Dr. Stephen B. Young.
Black April: The Fall of South Vietnam, 1973-75 (Encounter Books, 2013), by Dr. George Jay Veith.
America and Vietnam, 1954-1963: The Road to War (McFarland Publishers, 2022), by Colonel Michael M. Walker (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired).
The Vietnam War Reexamined (Cambridge University Press, 2017), by Dr. Michael Kort.
Losing Vietnam: How America Abandoned Southeast Asia (University Press of Kentucky, 2013), by Major General Ira Hunt (U.S. Army, Retired).
Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975 (Harper Publishers, 20180, by Dr. Max Hastings.
This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive (Encounter Books, 2010), by Dr. James Robbins.
I have numerous sources on the Vietnam War on my website The Truth About the Vietnam War.
-- Ho Chi Minh was not the most popular Vietnamese leader after WWII ended. Huynh Phu So, the charismatic founder of the Hoa Hao and of the Vietnamese Democratic Socialist Party, had far more followers than did Ho Chi Minh. However, the Communists murdered Huynh Phu So in April 1947.
-- The French only decided to work with and recognize the Viet Minh, i.e., the Communists, because the Viet Minh were the only nationalist group that was willing to allow France to deploy troops in Vietnam. The other major nationalist groups opposed allowing French troops to return to Vietnam.
-- The Viet Minh came to power through a mix of deception, intimidation, and violence. They did not speak for the majority of Vietnamese, especially after they began to show their true colors when the French began to withdraw.
-- Although the Geneva Accords called for Vietnam-wide elections in 1956, and even though Communist propaganda attacked the U.S. and South Vietnam for refusing to hold elections in 1956, the North Vietnamese themselves had no intention of holding free and fair elections in 1956 (or in any other year), and, equally important, they knew that no elections would take place. Furthermore, the U.S. and South Vietnam were not bound by this provision of the Geneva Accords. Historian Guenter Lewy:
There are strong indications that nobody at the conference took the idea of an early unification through free elections seriously. Why have a massive exchange of population if the two zones were to be unified within 700 days or so? Why was the machinery for settling future disagreements on the implementation of this agreement so haphazard?
“The provision for free elections which would solve ultimately the problem of Vietnam,” wrote Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau in 1956, “was a device to hide the incompatibility of the Communist and Western positions, neither of which can admit the domination of all of Vietnam by the other side. It was a device to disguise the fact that the line of military demarcation was bound to be a line of political division as well. In one word, what happened in Germany and Korea in the years immediately following 1945 has happened in Vietnam in the years following 1954.”
The likelihood that the provision for a political settlement in Vietnam through free elections in 1956 was indeed a hastily improvised afterthought to help save face for the Viet Minh is strengthened by the fact that the final declaration remained unsigned and was not even adopted by a formal vote. Five of the nine delegations present at the final session failed unreservedly to commit their governments to its terms. Laos, Cambodia and the DRV [North Vietnam] did not expressly associate themselves with the declaration.
The South Vietnamese delegate filed a protest against the armistice agreement which he asked to have incorporated in the final declaration. South Vietnam specifically objected to the date of the elections and reserved “to itself complete freedom of action to guarantee the sacred right of the Vietnamese people to territorial unity, national independence and freedom.” Undersecretary of State Walter B. Smith stated that the U.S. government “is not prepared to join in a declaration by the Conference such as is submitted.”
The American representative insisted that elections to be free and fair had to be supervised by the United Nations. “With respect to the statement made by the representative of the State of Viet-Nam, the United States reiterates its traditional position that peoples are entitled to determine their own future and that it will not join in an arrangement which would hinder this.” (America in Vietnam, Oxford University Press, 1980, pp. 8-9)
-- North Vietnamese sources confirm that the American war effort in South Vietnam was going quite well from early 1962 until December 1963, until a few weeks after the murder of South Vietnam’s president, Ngo Dinh Diem.
-- North Vietnamese sources confirm that the Hanoi regime decided to launch the 1968 Tet Offensive because the Communist war effort had gone badly in 1967, and because the Hanoi Politburo concluded that the protracted war strategy was not going to work.
-- Two of the other reasons that the Hanoi Politburo decided to launch the Tet Offensive were that they were certain that the South Vietnamese army (ARVN, pronounced ar-vin) would collapse as soon as they were attacked, and that the majority of the South Vietnamese people would rise up against the Saigon government (South Vietnam’s government).
-- Hanoi’s leaders were so certain the Tet Offensive would succeed that they made the astounding mistake of not making any retreat plans.
-- General Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnam’s commanding general, thought the Tet Offensive was a bad idea, but Le Duan and his fanatical allies overruled him. Giap was so opposed to the offensive that he left North Vietnam for several months and played no role in the offensive.
-- We now know from North Vietnamese sources that even Ho Chi Minh opposed Le Duan’s plans for the Tet Offensive. However, by 1967, Ho was merely a figurehead, and Le Duan was the driving force in the Hanoi Politburo.
-- In late 1967, Le Duan and other Politburo hardliners jailed dozens of officials and officers who opposed the Tet Offensive.
-- The 1968 Tet Offensive was a crushing military defeat for the Communists.
-- After nearly all the Communist assaults were quickly and severely repulsed, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong suffered unusually high casualties in flight because they had no retreat plans.
-- The Viet Cong never recovered from their losses in the Tet Offensive, and from that point onward North Vietnamese soldiers filled most of the ranks of the Viet Cong.
-- Much to the Hanoi regime’s surprise, if not shock, ARVN fought well in most cases during the offensive, and the vast majority of the South Vietnamese people stayed loyal to the Saigon government.
-- By 1970 and 1971, the vast majority of South Vietnam had been pacified and was stable.
-- The collapse of the southern insurgency was one of the main reasons that the Hanoi Politburo decided to launch the Easter Offensive in spring 1972.
-- North Vietnamese sources reveal that another reason that the Hanoi Politburo decided to launch the Easter Offensive was that they did not believe the U.S. would intervene in a significant way. They were stunned by the massive aerial campaign that the U.S. waged in support of South Vietnam.
-- North Vietnamese sources confirm that the North Vietnamese army suffered such horrendous losses in the Easter Offensive that for a few months a majority of the Hanoi Politburo actually turned against Le Duan and other fanatics and voted against continuing large-scale warfare against South Vietnam. However, this changed when the U.S. Congress began to slash aid to South Vietnam, and when Congress placed severe restrictions on President Nixon’s ability to enforce the Paris Peace Accords.
-- After the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973, the U.S. Congress shamefully began to slash vital aid to South Vietnam.
-- South Vietnam actually held its own in 1973, with no U.S. intervention, which proved that South Vietnam could survive if the U.S. provided adequate aide. But, as mentioned, the U.S. Congress began to slash aid to South Vietnam in mid-1973, and the disastrous impact of those cuts began to be felt in early 1974.
-- Although the Saigon government was hardly a model of democracy, it was far less oppressive than the Hanoi regime. There were 15-20 independent newspapers in South Vietnam, a number of which routinely lambasted government corruption and malfeasance, etc. There were no independent newspapers in North Vietnam.
There were opposition parties in South Vietnam; they held seats in South Vietnam’s national assembly, and they frequently criticized government actions. In North Vietnam, only the Communist Party (the VWP) was legal and allowed to operate.
In South Vietnam, private schools were allowed to operate, and public schools had some flexibility in deciding on their curriculum. North Vietnam did not allow private schools and strictly controlled all public schools.
-- Over and over again during the war, Hanoi’s leaders insisted that they had no desire to conquer or occupy South Vietnam but only to expel the “foreign invaders.” Over and over again, Hanoi’s leaders promised that South Vietnam would have its own government and substantial autonomy after the “foreign invaders” were gone. Yet, the Hanoi regime egregiously broke these promises immediately after South Vietnam fell.
-- After South Vietnam fell, the North Vietnamese executed at least 60,000 South Vietnamese and sent at least another 800,000 to brutal concentration camps (“reeducation camps”), where the death rate was at least 5%.
These facts are documented in hundreds of books. Below are a few of the better and more-available books that document these facts (all of the books below are available in Kindle form on Amazon):
America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1980), by Dr. Guenter Lewy.
Hanoi’s War (University of North Carolina Press, 2012), by Dr. Lien-Hang T. Nguyen.
Vietnam’s American War (Cambridge University Press, 2018), by Dr. Pierre Asselin.
Kissinger’s Betrayal: How America Lost the Vietnam War (RealClear Publishing, 2023), by Dr. Stephen B. Young.
Black April: The Fall of South Vietnam, 1973-75 (Encounter Books, 2013), by Dr. George Jay Veith.
America and Vietnam, 1954-1963: The Road to War (McFarland Publishers, 2022), by Colonel Michael M. Walker (U.S. Marine Corps, Retired).
The Vietnam War Reexamined (Cambridge University Press, 2017), by Dr. Michael Kort.
Losing Vietnam: How America Abandoned Southeast Asia (University Press of Kentucky, 2013), by Major General Ira Hunt (U.S. Army, Retired).
Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975 (Harper Publishers, 20180, by Dr. Max Hastings.
This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive (Encounter Books, 2010), by Dr. James Robbins.
I have numerous sources on the Vietnam War on my website The Truth About the Vietnam War.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 82,275
- 46,002
- 2,605
Deadstick
Platinum Member
The Genocide apologists are in total denial about any of it, we can't debate with these people they are just too far gone, they support it so we just have to accept these creatures walk among us.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,850
- 6,812
- 335
You have not proven anything to be in denial of
You have however denied a lot of factys and truth. There is also no WE you are a lone idiot
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Another good book on South Vietnam is the book The Republic of Vietnam, 1955-1975: Vietnamese Perspectives on Nation Building, published by Cornell University Press in 2020. “The Republic of Vietnam” was the official name of South Vietnam.
This is a great book to understand the stark contrast between the emerging democracy of South Vietnam and the cruel Stalinist police state of North Vietnam. The book examines key aspects of South Vietnam, specifically, political reform, education, freedom of the press, book publishing, South Vietnamese press coverage of the war, public security and the national police, the steady improvement of the South Vietnamese army (ARVN), the South Vietnamese film industry, and the distorted portrayal of South Vietnam in many American history books.
The chapter on freedom of the press in South Vietnam is particularly interesting and important, partly because there were no independent newspapers in North Vietnam. Throughout the war years in South Vietnam, there were 15 to 20 independent newspapers, and they frequently criticized government policies and occasionally ran stories about corruption among certain government officials. This was unheard of in North Vietnam.
The two chapters on South Vietnam’s educational system are also worthwhile. If you know anything about North Vietnam, you will see the drastic contrast between education under the Hanoi regime and education in South Vietnam. The Saigon government allowed numerous private schools to operate and did not interfere with their curriculum. As for public schools, the chapters highlight the substantial progress that was made in improving education from grade school to university.
If American liberals had not betrayed the Saigon government, South Vietnam would today be another South Korea or Taiwan, an economic miracle and a thriving democracy.
All the contributors to the book are South Vietnamese expatriates. Their chapters were translated and edited by Dr. Tuong Vu and Dr. Sean Fear.
Dr. Tuong Vu is the director of Asian studies and a professor of political science at the University of Oregon and has held visiting fellowships at Princeton University and the National University of Singapore. His books include Vietnam’s Communist Revolution: The Power and Limits of Ideology (2017) and Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia (2010), both published by Cambridge University Press. Dr. Vu is also a coeditor of Dynamics of the Cold War in Asia: Ideology, Identity, and Culture (Palgrave Press, 2009) and Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis (Stanford University Press, 2008).
Dr. Sean Fear is a lecturer in international history at the University of Leeds. He earned his doctorate in history from Cornell University and has held post-doctoral positions at Dartmouth College and McGill University. Fear’s work has been published in Diplomatic History and the Journal of Vietnamese Studies.
This is a great book to understand the stark contrast between the emerging democracy of South Vietnam and the cruel Stalinist police state of North Vietnam. The book examines key aspects of South Vietnam, specifically, political reform, education, freedom of the press, book publishing, South Vietnamese press coverage of the war, public security and the national police, the steady improvement of the South Vietnamese army (ARVN), the South Vietnamese film industry, and the distorted portrayal of South Vietnam in many American history books.
The chapter on freedom of the press in South Vietnam is particularly interesting and important, partly because there were no independent newspapers in North Vietnam. Throughout the war years in South Vietnam, there were 15 to 20 independent newspapers, and they frequently criticized government policies and occasionally ran stories about corruption among certain government officials. This was unheard of in North Vietnam.
The two chapters on South Vietnam’s educational system are also worthwhile. If you know anything about North Vietnam, you will see the drastic contrast between education under the Hanoi regime and education in South Vietnam. The Saigon government allowed numerous private schools to operate and did not interfere with their curriculum. As for public schools, the chapters highlight the substantial progress that was made in improving education from grade school to university.
If American liberals had not betrayed the Saigon government, South Vietnam would today be another South Korea or Taiwan, an economic miracle and a thriving democracy.
All the contributors to the book are South Vietnamese expatriates. Their chapters were translated and edited by Dr. Tuong Vu and Dr. Sean Fear.
Dr. Tuong Vu is the director of Asian studies and a professor of political science at the University of Oregon and has held visiting fellowships at Princeton University and the National University of Singapore. His books include Vietnam’s Communist Revolution: The Power and Limits of Ideology (2017) and Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia (2010), both published by Cambridge University Press. Dr. Vu is also a coeditor of Dynamics of the Cold War in Asia: Ideology, Identity, and Culture (Palgrave Press, 2009) and Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis (Stanford University Press, 2008).
Dr. Sean Fear is a lecturer in international history at the University of Leeds. He earned his doctorate in history from Cornell University and has held post-doctoral positions at Dartmouth College and McGill University. Fear’s work has been published in Diplomatic History and the Journal of Vietnamese Studies.
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
Notice the silence of the liberals now. Yet, I'd bet good money that they will repeat their Communist myths about the Vietnam War in future replies in other threads. I just don't understand why anyone would want to believe things that are demonstrably false.
One of the liberals (Deadstick--an appropriate nickname) said that the brutal regime of Vietnam is a "vibrant country" and that conservatives just can't stand this: "now today Vietnam is a vibrant Country and independent and you can't stand it."
This is the same Vietnam (officially known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) that still ranks as one of the most repressive nations on the planet, even according to left-leaning human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In its 2026 report on Vietnam, Human Right Watch notes that
Vietnamese authorities severely restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, movement, and religion. . . (LINK).
Out of desperation, facing economic collapse and after enduring years of poverty, Vietnam's tyrants finally decided to try capitalism and instituted free market economic reforms in 1986, as did Communist China in 1978. Naturally, the free market reforms worked and Vietnam's economy grew substantially. But, like Red China's tyrants, Vietnam's ruling thugs maintained their repression of basic human rights.
According to Amnesty International,
Vietnam’s government maintains tight control, leading to severe human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests of activists, bloggers, and rights defenders. Key issues include the suppression of freedom of expression, association, and religion, alongside torture, unfair trials, and harsh prison conditions. Recent trends show increased digital surveillance and transnational repression. (See Human rights in Viet Nam)
But liberals prefer to focus on Vietnam's economic progress and to ignore the brutal tyranny imposed on the people. Heck, in the years just before WWII, Nazi Germany was a "vibrant country" if you only consider economic progress. Communist China's Beijing regime remains one of the most repressive on the planet, but one can say that China is a "vibrant country" if you only consider economics.
As bad as Vietnam is now, it used to be even worse. For the first two decades after the war, Vietnam was literally one big giant gulag where tens of thousands of people died of starvation, where hundreds of thousands of people languished in concentration camps, where hundreds of thousands of people had their homes and property stolen by the government, etc., etc.
Liberals don't want to admit that the Democrats' betrayal of South Vietnam led to the imposition of a vicious tyranny on the former South Vietnamese and led to the continuation of the Hanoi regime's tyranny over the North Vietnamese. That tyranny included sending nearly 1 million southern Vietnamese to brutal reeducation camps, where the death rate was at least 5%. It also included executing some 60,000 southern Vietnamese and the mass confiscation of private property in southern Vietnam.
Last edited:
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 82,275
- 46,002
- 2,605
Who’s a liberal?
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,850
- 6,812
- 335
You ARE the lead genocide apologist. You did so right in this thread. Justifying the mass murder commited by minh.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 82,275
- 46,002
- 2,605
This from Allen Dulles’ grandson and Jesus Angleton’s Satanson!
A dumbass who believes the WC, Oswald acted alone, and 9/11 was committed by just 19 radical Muslims.
Lol.
Zincwarrior
Diamond Member
So, speaking as someone completely not involved, per the OP, who betrayed the cause? We fought under both Dem and repub Admins. We bombed the region far more than WW2. At one point we had 500K troops there yes? SO was it South Vietnam that betrayed us?
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,850
- 6,812
- 335
Deadstick
Platinum Member
For some reason you can't get it into your head that some people don't want to live under the Colonialist and Imperialist jackboot, the Americans fought a war of independence for that reason, why would other people be any different?
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,850
- 6,812
- 335
What you cannot get into your head is that the war in vietnam was not a revolution or war for independance it was a foreign invasion of conquest commigted by the communists.
They were liberating NOTHING they were invading and imposing Minhs communist regime on the south
Deadstick
Platinum Member
Bollocks!! that just makes you feel better, are you telling me Vietnam wasn't part of the French colonial Empire just like Algeria and many others?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Parents charged with murder in death of 7 year old, 255 lb. son.- Started by odanny
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Only 13 Moderate Democrats (two are hopefuls) Reject Socialism On New ‘Promise To America’ Pledge- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 10
Latest Discussions
-
-
Trump May Have Damaged Reflecting Pool by Having Motorcade Drive Over It
- Latest: TruthSeeker112125
-
Support is growing on the right to fully prosecute women seeking abortions.- Latest: Concerned American
