Warning: Graphic: It's been 50 years since AP photographer Nick Ut captured image of 9-year-old girl running naked from a napalm attack during Vietnam

[Hector12]

Who would the Vietnamese vote for after Eisenhower betrayed the French, unleashing the communists on Dien Bien Phu? Is that your question?

Can we direct you to page 338 of the book you suggest, to confirm that Eisenhower did in fact screw up, start the war in Viet-Nam.

Hospitals, roads, bridges, schools, cement plants, those terrible French built all across French IndoChina.

Eisenhower was a democrat general that turned his back on democrats, becoming a republican so that he could become president.

Eisenhower may of been good at taking orders as a general, but he was shitty at giving the orders and making decisions as president.

What matters is that the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese preferred Ho Chi Minh. Also, Vietnam was unimportant to our security and our economy.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your assertions go against my documented facts.

No they do not

You have failed to demonstrate why the elctions were something we failed to do

The geneva conventuon reqyuired that they be held not that they be held or conducted by the US.

The vietnamese simply did not hold them.

Dropping bombs on empty jungle is meaningless

Slaughtering innocents as minhs forces did is far more devastating

 

[elektra]

What matters is that the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese preferred Ho Chi Minh. Also, Vietnam was unimportant to our security and our economy.

The peasants of Viet-Nam never had the education to know what they would be voting for. The peasants of Viet-Nam have no education.

The Geneva convention required the USA to hold elections in Viet-Nam? Could you provide some sort of information confirming this. I do not see how it is possible.

This is certainly why the U.S. did not permit such an election, though the Geneva Convention of 1954 required it:

Viet-Nam never had a vote nor a system in place for voting. They also had not education that would allow them to make proper decisions on voting.

Freedom can not live only in the USA, All peoples desire freedom, that is why Marxism has lost all across the world.

 

[elektra]

We and the French had no right to impose our values on the Vietnamese.

We were invited to Viet-Nam, Laos, and Campodia, to protect them from the Chinese.

Freedom is not a value you have to impose on anyone, all people want freedom, naturally.

 

[Hector12]

We were invited to Viet-Nam, Laos, and Campodia, to protect them from the Chinese.

Freedom is not a value you have to impose on anyone, all people want freedom, naturally.

We were invited by unpopular dictators. Because they were unpopular, the Communists were popular, as I have explained.

Most of the people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia did not want what you consider to be "freedom." The people of Afghanistan did not either. That is why the Taliban survived for twenty years against the best equipped and best financed military in the world.

 

[Hector12]

The peasants of Viet-Nam never had the education to know what they would be voting for. The peasants of Viet-Nam have no education.

They knew they did not like Americans bombing them, and trampling around in their country.

It is ironic that conservatives want the U.S. government to leave them alone, but they want the U.S. government to tell other countries what to do.

 

[Hector12]

No they do not

You have failed to demonstrate why the elctions were something we failed to do

The geneva conventuon reqyuired that they be held not that they be held or conducted by the US.

The vietnamese simply did not hold them.

Dropping bombs on empty jungle is meaningless

Slaughtering innocents as minhs forces did is far more devastating

What matters is that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese wanted Ho Chi Minh to be their leader. Don't argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower and his advisors.

All we had to do to avoid that futile and immoral war was to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954.

 

[elektra]

We were invited by unpopular dictators. Because they were unpopular, the Communists were popular, as I have explained.

Most of the people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia did not want what you consider to be "freedom." The people of Afghanistan did not either. That is why the Taliban survived for twenty years against the best equipped and best financed military in the world.

you have not explained, how the communists were populars

You also dont seem to recognize that Viet-Nam was always two separate countries.

Dictators? You mean like Ho Chi Minh?

 

[Soupnazi630]

What matters is that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese wanted Ho Chi Minh to be their leader. Don't argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower and his advisors.

All we had to do to avoid that futile and immoral war was to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954.

There is no poll showing 80 % wanted that. It is assumption. Even the statement by Ike was second hand.

We had no need to honor an agreement we did not sign and ocne again it is irreielvant who someone thinks would have won if they did not bother to hold the election.

None of that justifies Minh's aggression.

 

[Hector12]

you have not explained, how the communists were populars

You also dont seem to recognize that Viet-Nam was always two separate countries.

Dictators? You mean like Ho Chi Minh?

President Eisenhower explained for me.

 

[Soupnazi630]

They knew they did not like Americans bombing them, and trampling around in their country.

It is ironic that conservatives want the U.S. government to leave them alone, but they want the U.S. government to tell other countries what to do.

They did not like communist armies and cadres murdering and torturing them either.

It is not ironic but quite predictable that communists always claim to be popular but have to impose their ideas by force and murder

 

[Hector12]

There is no poll showing 80 % wanted that. It is assumption. Even the statement by Ike was second hand.

We had no need to honor an agreement we did not sign and ocne again it is irreielvant who someone thinks would have won if they did not bother to hold the election.

None of that justifies Minh's aggression.

It was Ho's country. We did not belong there. Because you have not read the Geneva Agreement of 1954. I will except important parts for you.

-----------

Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part...

4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions. The Conference also takes note of the declarations made by the Governments of Cambodia and Laos of their resolution not to request foreign aid, whether in war material, in personnel, or in instructors except for the purpose of effective defense of their territory and, in the case of Laos, to the extent defined by the agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Laos.

5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties, the latter having the obligation to see that the zones allotted to them shall not constitute part of any military alliance and shall not be utilized for the resumption of hostilities or in the service of an aggressive policy...

6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary...

7. In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities...

Source:

from The Department of State Bulletin, XXXI, No. 788 (August 2, 1954), p. 164.

Internet History Sourcebooks: Modern History

 

[elektra]

President Eisenhower explained for me.

One sentence, explained the entirety of Viet-Nam, for you?

 

[Hector12]

One sentence, explained the entirety of Viet-Nam, for you?

It said all either of us need to know. We devastated Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese wanted.

Americans do not have the right to tell people in other countries which of their leaders are acceptable to us and which ones are not.

 

[elektra]

It was Ho's country. We did not belong there. Because you have not read the Geneva Agreement of 1954. I will except important parts for you.

It was not Ho's country. It is the people's country. Viet-Nam was never a unified country. North and South were separate.

Argue all you want, that Ho was entitled to rule as a dictator in the North, but when you argue that Ho is entitled to be the dictator of a unified North and South Viet-Nam then you show you have no knowledge of the history of Viet-Nam.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It was Ho's country. We did not belong there. Because you have not read the Geneva Agreement of 1954. I will except important parts for you.

-----------

Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part...

4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions. The Conference also takes note of the declarations made by the Governments of Cambodia and Laos of their resolution not to request foreign aid, whether in war material, in personnel, or in instructors except for the purpose of effective defense of their territory and, in the case of Laos, to the extent defined by the agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Laos.

5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties, the latter having the obligation to see that the zones allotted to them shall not constitute part of any military alliance and shall not be utilized for the resumption of hostilities or in the service of an aggressive policy...

6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary...

7. In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities...

Source:

from The Department of State Bulletin, XXXI, No. 788 (August 2, 1954), p. 164.

Internet History Sourcebooks: Modern History

It was not his country he simply took it.

As you pointed out we did not sign it making it irrelevant

 

[elektra]

It said all either of us need to know. We devastated Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese wanted.

Americans do not have the right to tell people in other countries which of their leaders are acceptable to us and which ones are not.

Speculation, at best.

No country ever accepted Marxism. Your idea that people would vote for Marxism is ridiculous.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It said all either of us need to know. We devastated Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese wanted.

Americans do not have the right to tell people in other countries which of their leaders are acceptable to us and which ones are not.

The communists caused the devastation.

Communist invaders ALSOhave no such right to tell others what type of leader to have and they were the ones starting tis whole thing

 

[Hector12]

The communists caused the devastation.

Communist invaders ALSOhave no such right to tell others what type of leader to have and they were the ones starting tis whole thing

Excuse me. I have already documented that we dropped many more bombs in Indochina than we dropped in World War II. Do I really have to go back and document that again?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Excuse me. I have already documented that we dropped many more bombs in Indochina than we dropped in World War II. Do I really have to go back and document that again?

You are excused for ignoring that bombing empty jungle is meaningless