All Hail the Glorious People's Revolution in Vietnam!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

What should I watch today? Apocalypse Now? Platoon? Viet-Konga Babes 6?

I think I'll watch Platoon.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
On the American Experience the other night, they played the Fall of Saigon. It was particularly interesting. I had always believed the Neddite lies that it was was the NVA that broke the peace accords and restarted the war. In fact, it was Thieu who launched an offensive in 1973, which broke the cease fire and resulted in the resumption of hostilities, leading to the fall of Saigon less than two years later.

Could be. But the situation had to break out into hostilities because there was no permanent peace and no withdrawal by commie forces from occuppied territories. In a sense, the Paris Peace accords were a fraud and an American surrender by Kissinger and company.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Ho was more of a nationalist, he just wanted to get the French out. When the US turned him down he went to the other side instead.

Yeah. But the first war did not justify the second. The French had long been gone from Vietnam when Ho began his war of aggression to conquer the South (liberate Saigon, in Che's parlance).

[Ned]

BTW, Che, do you contend that Commies have the right to invade other countries to "drive out imperialism" and to impose Communism?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Vietnam was one country. It just had two governments, one of its own chosing (North) and one imposed upon by outsiders (South).

Why of course, Che.

The same could be said today of Korea, could it not?

And, what about Red China and the ROC?

[Agathon]

BTW, Che, do you contend that Commies have the right to invade other countries to "drive out imperialism" and to impose Communism?

I don't know if Che does, but I do.

On the other hand, this sort of thing isn't likely to work. Better to foment revolutionary fervour from within.

[Master Zen]

So, if South Korea invades and conquers North Korea will we see Che dancing around and starting threads with nonsensical titles like this?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon

BTW, Che, do you contend that Commies have the right to invade other countries to "drive out imperialism" and to impose Communism?

I don't know if Che does, but I do.

On the other hand, this sort of thing isn't likely to work. Better to foment revolutionary fervour from within.

We know the plan, Agathon.

What is interesting is that very few credit Reagan's resisting of these commie insurgencies worldwide with the collapse of Soviet Communism. Before Reagan was elected, the march of communism did seem "inevitable."

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


We know the plan, Agathon.

What is interesting is that very few credit Reagan's resisting of these commie insurgencies worldwide with the collapse of Soviet Communism. Before Reagan was elected, the march of communism did seem "inevitable."

Because Reagan's "resistance of these commie insurgencies" more often than not involved support of equally despisable and unpopular regimes which ended up commiting far more crimes against humanity than the commie regimes they replaced.

[Agathon]

What is interesting is that very few credit Reagan's resisting of these commie insurgencies worldwide with the collapse of Soviet Communism.

What dreamworld do you live in? The collapse of the Soviet Union had bugger all to do with Reagan. It was living on borrowed time before he was elected.

The Soviet economy was poorly managed during the Brezhnev era and sustained by high oil prices. When those went it was in trouble and Gorbachev realized that reforms were necessary. Unfortunately for him he hadn't realized that dissident movements in countries like Poland were developed enough to use the aura of reform to overthrow their communist regimes. Gorbachev was simply not prepared to impose rule by force and the whole thing collapsed like a pack of cards.

You seem to forget that Reagan dumped his confrontational stance in his second term and decided that it was worth working with Gorbachev (whom he rightly saw as a reasonable and decent man trying his best). I think that Reagan had realized that it was imperative to avoid nuclear war at all costs and he did an excellent job of building up trust with Gorbachev so that when the collapse came, we weren't blown to pieces.

Despite his other crimes there's a gold star beside Reagan's name for that - and I think it is his most important achievement.

Can you imagine what would have happened had the Soviet Union started to break up without the preceding era of openness? I shudder to think.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's not unrelated. South Vietnam was a foreign installed puppet government with no support from its population. That wasn't true of the North. Despite your assertion, most Communist led revolutions have been popular, supported if not by the majority, as in Vietnam, then by a significant minority.

If you think it's okay to invade South Vietnam and prop up a dictatorship that was imposed from the outside only ten years earlier because it's in the best interests of the people living there, then you have to agree it would be better for Finland if the United States invaded it and set up a new government for you.

Che, even if everything you say about the legitimacy of the Republic of Vietnam is true, what right did this give North Vietnam, with the material support of the USSR, to wage aggressive war to conquer it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Because Reagan's "resistance of these commie insurgencies" more often than not involved support of equally despisable and unpopular regimes which ended up commiting far more crimes against humanity than the commie regimes they replaced.

Yeah, in a way, this may be true. After all, we were once allies with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

But, this does not take away from the point that Reagan was very effective at putting the whole Soviet communist system under pressure.

[Agathon]

But, this does not take away from the point that Reagan was very effective at putting the whole Soviet communist system under pressure.

He did nothing essentially different from what Truman did.

[Ned]

Agathon, the pressure forced Gorbachev to seek changes, including arms reduction. Reagan responded to an extent. But still, he kept the pressure on his entire administration.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon

But, this does not take away from the point that Reagan was very effective at putting the whole Soviet communist system under pressure.

He did nothing essentially different from what Truman did.

True. But what he did was a restoration of Truman's policy. It had lapsed during the Nixon administration.