A Great Hero Turns 97!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And the Vietnamese (the ones left) want it that way.

Now if teh freedom and democracy-loving South Vietnamese regime had it their way, it would have been so much prettier, right?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Cite?

Can't, it's been years since it came out, and it's not like it's something I read every day.

[David Floyd]

This subject was specifically discussed in one of my military history classes a couple of years back, with the fact of the matter being that available evidence showed that China was not going to intervene. I'll certainly be glad to look for a cite for that, but I don't have one at my fingertips either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Something to do with the all those murdered after they took over. The first few year of peace in SE Asia was deadlier than the previous twenty years of war.

Could that be because the destablization of Cambodia led to the Khymer Rouge taking power (which, btw, subsequently was deposed by the Vietnamese government)?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Something to do with the all those murdered after they took over. The first few year of peace in SE Asia was deadlier than the previous twenty years of war.

Only if you include Cambodia, and even then, the 2.5 million people we killed still edges out the killing fields by a factor of 50%. There was not post-war slaughter in Vietnam nor in Laos, although after what happened at Hue, one certainly not not have been faulted for expecting it. Furthermore, most of the people who died in the autogenocide in Democratic Kampuchea died because of famine, because the Pol Potists decided to attack Vietnam and took all the rice for the army. (Interesting fun fact: Cambodians didn't see corn as fit for human consumption, so while there was no rice, there was plenty of corn, which they refused to eat).

In any event, one can hardly blame Vietnam for Cambodia. The pro-Vietnamese wing of the Cambodian party were the first to find themselves at Toul Sleng. The most dangerous category of person to be in DK was to be a member of the Communist Party of Cambodia who had fought along side the Vietnamese. And it was the Vietnamese who expelled the Pol Pot wing of the CPC, whereupon the U.S. began supporting them until the Vietnamese withdrawal.

[LordShiva]

I wonder what those who, with a straight face, maintain that teh US was somehow fighting "teh good fight" against teh North Vietnamese communists, think about teh morality of teh US support to teh Khmer Rouge.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
This subject was specifically discussed in one of my military history classes a couple of years back, with the fact of the matter being that available evidence showed that China was not going to intervene. I'll certainly be glad to look for a cite for that, but I don't have one at my fingertips either.

I'm certain you did. After we lost in Vietnam, a lot of effort went in to trying to find out why we lost and whom to blame. After all, the U.S. is the mostest powerfullest empire in the universe for all time, it couldn't lose to a bunch of rice paddy farmers. We had to be stabbed in the back by teh Jewes Johnson Administration, etc. So we blame Johnson for not letting his generals win the war, even though the U.S. concentrated more firepower on that tiny country than was dropped on Germany and Japan, even though we dumped enough chemicals on it to deforest an area the size of Massachusetts, even though we had death squads running around killing anyone we even suspected of sympathizing with the enemy, even though we killed 2 million Vietnamese, half a million Cambodians, and an unknown number of Laotians. If only Johnson had let his generals invade the North, we might have won. China wouldn't have stopped us . . . etc.

But China after 1976, the China that fought Vietnam in 1979, was not the same China that was ready to cross the border in the 1960s. One of the main reasons the Chinese broke completely with the USSR (labeling them social-imperialist) was because the Chinese felt the Soviets weren't doing enough to aid the Vietnamese and was too interested in making nice with the West.

No way Mao lets the U.S. invade Vietnam.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I wonder what those who, with a straight face, maintain that teh US was somehow fighting "teh good fight" against teh North Vietnamese communists, think about teh morality of teh US support to teh Khmer Rouge.

It was okay, see, cuz the Pol Potists renounced communism. Ieng Sary (the number two guy) said that they anti-communist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not funny, incorrect, and not clever.

Dude, it was funny. Kuci zinged me good.

[David Floyd]

If only Johnson had let his generals invade the North, we might have won. China wouldn't have stopped us . . . etc.

Dude, it's almost incontrovertible - IF the US invaded the North, and IF China didn't intervene, then of course the US would have won. From a conventional military standpoint, the US won pretty much every major battle, including and especially Tet. The problem was the US home front - left wingers sympathizing with the Vietnamese regime, Walter Cronkite (a clear military expert ) declaring the war unwinnable, etc., were what caused the US to pull out. Now, I don't think we should have been there in the first place, but my view is the same as on the Iraq war - IF we go in, then we go in to win it.

The crux of the matter is whether China would intervene. As I said, I'll certainly look for a cite to back my position up. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will happily admit it. So save the sarcasm. The US wasn't and isn't the evil empire you make it out to be. Most of the actions taken were done to confront the ACTUAL Evil Empire - that is, the most brutal political system based on numbers killed in the history of the world. That's Communism. And yes, the Nazis were bad too - I don't actually care how you break it down in terms of "evil rankings", because the fact remains that in the name of communist ideals, tens of millions were slaughtered by the Soviet and Chinese governments.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I wonder what those who, with a straight face, maintain that teh US was somehow fighting "teh good fight" against teh North Vietnamese communists, think about teh morality of teh US support to teh Khmer Rouge.

It really is obvious, isn't it?

This is why Bush's speech a while back comparing the consequences of withdrawl from Iraq to [paraphrase coming] all that bad stuff that happened because we left Vietnam was utterly hilarious (in a really dark, cynical way).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Given the Chinese reaction to our trouncing of North Korea, I highly doubt they'd have let us invade and conquer North Vietnam. A coupla hundred thousand "volunteers" would've shown up to help their commie brothers. Sure, later on they might've still had their own tussle. By the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that...

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Dude, it's almost incontrovertible - IF the US invaded the North, and IF China didn't intervene, then of course the US would have won. From a conventional military standpoint, the US won pretty much every major battle, including and especially Tet. The problem was the US home front - left wingers sympathizing with the Vietnamese regime, Walter Cronkite (a clear military expert ) declaring the war unwinnable, etc., were what caused the US to pull out. Now, I don't think we should have been there in the first place, but my view is the same as on the Iraq war - IF we go in, then we go in to win it.

Funny thing, this thing called Democracy - in the end, decisions of war and peace are left to the whole polity. If a government fails to explain to the governed what they gain from their sacrifice, well, then they have failed in a way that no number of battlefield victories can overcome.

If the "American people" had trully supported the war in Vietnam, no number of "left wingers"" declaring the war unwinnable" would have actually led to the Congress (in which 578 out of 645 face re-election every two years) to remove the support for the war as it did.

It amazes me that a "Liberterian" like yourself has such an Authoritarian view on what the behavior of a Democratic polity should be in a time of war. Heck, obviously Giap understood these basic political facts better than, well, you do, even with 30 years hindsight.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Dude, it was funny. Kuci zinged me good.

Well, I will admit that you set him up pretty good. You should have expected it being around here as long as you have. Kuci is pretty predictable, which is why I didn't find it funny.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Dude, can the US do anything that you would find immoral?

QFT