The Vietnam War

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I wanted to post a reply to the 'Vietnam War' thread in the history section but I am forbidden for reasons unknown, so I'll create my own thread.



It wasn't worth our time. We should have left the French to extract themselves from the colonial mess they got themselves into. Unfortunately, they fucked it up so bad, they left a vacumn, and a potential communist takeover.

It was the right thing to do, at the time. Most of vietnam was not "communist", nor did they have any urge to go red. We were stopping the
communists. There was a clear progression, and Singapore, Malaysia, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand were all on the agenda.

Well... our politicians royally fucked up that war. It was the right war, at the right time, but was so bungled, and mismanaged, we had no hopes of winning, right up until the end. In retrospect, it was a good war, that we got into because another "western" ally fucked up, we could have won it, but our politicians fucked it up so bad, we would have had to get out, and start all over again, to do it right. So we just got out.

The benevolent Communists, having kicked our ass, proved after the fact, why we were there in the first place, with upwards of 3 million more of their own countrymen, or neighbors being killed after we left.

[redstar2000]

Well... our politicians royally fucked up that war. It was the right war, at the right time, but was so bungled, and mismanaged, we had no hopes of winning, right up until the end. In retrospect, it was a good war, that we got into because another "western" ally fucked up, we could have won it, but our politicians fucked it up so bad, we would have had to get out, and start all over again, to do it right. So we just got out.

Landslide Lyndon (liberal) and Tricky Dicky (conservative)?

Reminds me of the folks who say that Leninism was a "good idea" but "Stalin fucked it up". :lol:

No, you could not have "won that war" because your conscript army refused to fight...and your cannon-fodder refused to show up for induction.

A lesson that you may well have to learn again.

Try to pay attention this time.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Can't refute the historical facts eh redstar? I noticed how you didn't bother to even touch the other half of my post and specifically picked out whatever facts you can easily tear down. So let's see how knowledgeable (or propagandized) you really are?

And just because conscripts refused to fight (if this is even true), doesn't dispute the fact that it wasn't a wrong thing to venture into. Just look at what happened to Vietnam when we left? As an agricultural society, the war did very little economic damage to the North. Rubber was still exported in the same quantities, and they didn't need to import food.

The south however, constantly being under attack, suffered.

I'd also hesitate to call our troops finally going into Cambodia an invasion as some of you suggested that we did in the other thread. After all, they only penetrated far enough to intercept the HoChiMinh trail, and never actually held any territory. I'd be willing to admit to an "armed incursion", chasing foreign troops who also had no legal right to be there, but not an invasion.

In fact, the part of Cambodia that we did enter, was populated largely by the hill tribes, who were happy to see us. After all, they had been getting shit on by both Cambodians, and Viets, for centuries.

[Xvall]

It was the right thing to do, at the time. Most of vietnam was not "communist", nor did they have any urge to go red. We were stopping the communists. There was a clear progression, and Singapore, Malaysia, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand were all on the agenda.

http://botsan.com/burger.gif


In retrospect, it was a good war,

http://www.partypaket.de/images/burger.jpg


The benevolent Communists, having kicked our ass, proved after the fact, why we were there in the first place, with upwards of 3 million more of their own countrymen, or neighbors being killed after we left.

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2004/01/23/feat/fe23-burger-0104n-2.jpg

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I didn't realize mental wards had access to the internet? Only in America I guess?

[Xvall]

I didn't realize mental wards had access to the internet? Only in America I guess?

http://www.in-n-out.com/assets/burger.jpg

[Vinny Rafarino]

Let's relax on the spam please.




So, the point you are trying to make "lawyer" is that if it was you in charge of the "operation" then of course the good old USA would have most definitely "kicked some red ass" all the way back to the motherland right?

Where have I heard this before? Oh yes, I remember now....I have heard it on the lips of every conservative yanqui since 1975.

Try something new.

[PRC-UTE]

Armchair General Lawyer,

you should spend some time with Nam veterans. You are hopelessly naive.

A few stories I learned from hanging out with 'Nam veterans:

Not only did many American conscripts refuse to fight, but many of them disassembled their weapons, shipped them back to the States piece-by-piece.

Why? In their own words, to shoot the pigs.

Some American units (heard this story more than once) made arrangements with the People's Liberation Army to avoid each other on patrol. Some even claim to have given material assistance to the Vietnamese PLA.

The USA actually had a sound strategy: to deny the PLA guerillas the jungles to hide in, squeeze their supply routes, etc. So your uneducated silly analysis of why the war went wrong is wrong.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So your uneducated silly analysis of why the war went wrong is wrong.

What about the other points that I enumerated?

These in particular:

Most of vietnam was not "communist", nor did they have any urge to go red.

The benevolent Communists, having kicked our ass, proved after the fact, why we were there in the first place, with upwards of 3 million more of their own countrymen, or neighbors being killed after we left.

[Sabocat]

Most of vietnam was not "communist", nor did they have any urge to go red.

But yet, Diem cancelled national elections because it was widely accepted that 80% were going to vote for Minh.

There is an excellent analysis and history of Minh, Diem, and the rest here:

Link (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_involvement_in_vietnam.htm)

[redstar2000]

Can't refute the historical facts, eh redstar? I noticed how you didn't bother to even touch the other half of my post and specifically picked out whatever facts you can easily tear down.

Naturally, I picked out your central thesis and demolished it.

Your side points then become irrelevant. There's no need for me to argue against them.


The benevolent Communists, having kicked our ass, proved after the fact, why we were there in the first place, with upwards of 3 million more of their own countrymen, or neighbors being killed after we left.

A number presumably borrowed from some reactionary web site -- which is to say drawn forth in splendor from somebody's rectal orifice.

I wonder when people will realize that "body count" arguments are fruitless. No one is standing around "keeping score".

The war against Vietnam is a perfect example of this; remember how the dummyvision used to report "enemy casualties" every night on the "news"? All guesswork or outright fakery.

Make up any number you like, and I'll match you number for number...and your number and my number will be supported by the same amount of evidence: zero!

The only time that we know how many people have been killed in a particular event is when someone is on the scene with an interest in determining the exact number...usually these are isolated incidents involving a few hundred or a few thousand deaths at most.

Consider something completely "a-political"...like the Chicago week-long heat wave of 1995. Researchers from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta eventually determined that the "excess deaths" that week numbered more than 700. So, the heat wave "killed 700".

Or did it? After all, an average weekly death total is just that...an average. Sometimes more die, sometimes fewer.

We don't know if many of those people who died that week might have died anyway...perhaps from causes entirely unrelated to the temperatures.

Now, let's return to Vietnam...where a pious Vietnamese Catholic who hates "godless communism" boards a small unpowered craft to escape to "freedom". He is intercepted in the South China Sea by pirates, robbed, killed, and perhaps cooked and eaten.

Do you add him to your total of people "killed by communists"?

How could you? There's no record of his existence or his demise.

Here's something for you to ponder: how many people are murdered in the U.S. every year?

The answer is: we don't know.

We know how many reported murders take place every year. But unreported murders, at best, are just recorded as "missing persons". And that's only if someone bothers to report them as missing.

In a place like Vietnam, with primitive or non-existent methods of keeping track of people, saying that "communists killed three million people" is simply babble with no possible evidence to support it.

Someone's guessing...and you're just repeating their guess because it makes you feel "righteous" and "justified" in your opposition to the Vietnamese -- who, by the way, were really nationalists, not communists (as the last decade has demonstrated).

All body-count "arguments" are deeply suspect...it's "too easy" to arbitrarily inflate the numbers beyond all credibility.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 01:30 AM
...were really nationalists, not communists (as the last decade has demonstrated).
Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.

[LSD]

Wow

What the hell is happening in the US?

Suddenly it's hip to support the vietnam war, and those who argued against it (e.g., John Kerry) are the enemies again.
It's as if the US isn't just speeding towards the radical right but it's trying to go back to the fifites as well.

For thirty years, Vietnam has been a national shame... untill, it seems, now.....

I know that secretly the right has never admitted that they were wrong to, well, illegally invade a sovereign nation that had done nothing to them, but they could never really speak about it. The people had spoken, and through sheer effort managed to force one of the most reactionary presidents in American history to acceede to their wishes. It was a great day... one people seem to have forgotten.


I'm getting the bizzarre feeling that the right is trying to go back and erase the sixties from history....
WATCH OUT WOODSTOCK!!

[socialistfuture]

The sad irony of it was that Mihn respected america and asked them to help.

'Ho (Chi Mihn) proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam with himself as head of a provisional government. Ho based his speech on the American Declaration of Independence, but the Americans did not take the hint and offer recognition. The French wanted their colony back...'

'By 1950 the Viet Mihn had control of the countryside, where their land reforms
made them popular with the peasantry, while the French ere barricaded into the citites and towns. Ho reasserted Vietnamese Independence; this time he gained the recognition of the Solviet Union and China.. But he had given up hope of gainin American approval, ofr they were now caught up in the Cold War, alarmed by the 'loss' of China and inreasingly preoccupied with the Korean War. The US feared Communism more than it opposed colonialism, so it decided to back the French with arms and economic aid...'

There was later a ceasefire agreement tied to French withdrawl, and elections to be held.

'since it was clear that these election could bring Ho to power, non- Viet Mihn elements feared their consequences. So did the United States, which guranteed support for the Catholic leader Ngo Dihn Diem'

Diem seized power in the south.

so much for democracy aii...

[fernando]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 22 2004, 10:22 PM
Wow

What the hell is happening in the US?

Suddenly it's hip to support the vietnam war, and those who argued against it (e.g., John Kerry) are the enemies again.
It's as if the US isn't just speeding towards the radical right but it's trying to go back to the fifites as well.

For thirty years, Vietnam has been a national shame... untill, it seems, now.....

I know that secretly the right has never admitted that they were wrong to, well, illegally invade a sovereign nation that had done nothing to them, but they could never really speak about it. The people had spoken, and through sheer effort managed to force one of the most reactionary presidents in American history to acceede to their wishes. It was a great day... one people seem to have forgotten.


I'm getting the bizzarre feeling that the right is trying to go back and erase the sixties from history....
WATCH OUT WOODSTOCK!!
War is trendy and the US is in one of their war moods,so all wars were good and true or something, which is why all these people like the Vietnam war I guess

[Xvall]

I don't think that war is trendy right now. War has always been constant, as far as American affairs seem to be conscerned. We are always at war with something. Terrorism. Drugs. Tyranny. Whatever.

[Bruntovelli]

Alright i dont agree with communism.. but most of vietnam was actully communist.
it has done no good for vietnam. but the only good it has seemed to do.
is make america realise that america is beatable buy poor farlmers with pitchforks and pre-world war 2 guns. - and i think it hurts for america to be reminded of the utter shambles of vietnam.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2004, 08:35 AM
I don't think that war is trendy right now. War has always been constant, as far as American affairs seem to be conscerned. We are always at war with something. Terrorism. Drugs. Tyranny. Whatever.
You forgot 'communism'.

Oh, there was also that war on poverty. :lol:

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2004, 08:35 AM
I don't think that war is trendy right now. War has always been constant, as far as American affairs seem to be conscerned. We are always at war with something. Terrorism. Drugs. Tyranny. Whatever.
You forgot 'communism'.

Oh, there was also that war on poverty. :lol:

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2004, 08:35 AM
I don't think that war is trendy right now. War has always been constant, as far as American affairs seem to be conscerned. We are always at war with something. Terrorism. Drugs. Tyranny. Whatever.
You forgot 'communism'.

Oh, there was also that war on poverty. :lol:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.

Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

You obviously know very little about the Vietnam War and, honestly, I don't know where to start your education. Let me begin by noting the notion the North Vietnamese wanted no help from the CHICOMS or Russians is nothing more than a pure fabrication or a figment of your imagination.

Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?

Whenever our guys flew over NVN on Rolling Thunder missions they encountered SAM missiles. Where do you think they came from? When they engaged in dogfights with the MIG and Sukhoi ftrs who do you think was piloting them? North Vietnamese? No. People speaking a slavic tongue known as Russian. And when we finally knocked down the Paul Doumer bridge with our laser-guided bombs during Linebacker II, who did Le Duc Tho beg to resupply him with more SAMs? I know...it wasn't any other commie country since he never received any help from them to begin with "except about a dozen advisors."

And it boggles my mind to see you actually believe we killed more people in Cambodia through bombing than Pol Pot did. You, young man, have been brainwashed. I don't know by whom, but you have. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War is superficial, at best.

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.

Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

You obviously know very little about the Vietnam War and, honestly, I don't know where to start your education. Let me begin by noting the notion the North Vietnamese wanted no help from the CHICOMS or Russians is nothing more than a pure fabrication or a figment of your imagination.

Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?

Whenever our guys flew over NVN on Rolling Thunder missions they encountered SAM missiles. Where do you think they came from? When they engaged in dogfights with the MIG and Sukhoi ftrs who do you think was piloting them? North Vietnamese? No. People speaking a slavic tongue known as Russian. And when we finally knocked down the Paul Doumer bridge with our laser-guided bombs during Linebacker II, who did Le Duc Tho beg to resupply him with more SAMs? I know...it wasn't any other commie country since he never received any help from them to begin with "except about a dozen advisors."

And it boggles my mind to see you actually believe we killed more people in Cambodia through bombing than Pol Pot did. You, young man, have been brainwashed. I don't know by whom, but you have. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War is superficial, at best.

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.

Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

You obviously know very little about the Vietnam War and, honestly, I don't know where to start your education. Let me begin by noting the notion the North Vietnamese wanted no help from the CHICOMS or Russians is nothing more than a pure fabrication or a figment of your imagination.

Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?

Whenever our guys flew over NVN on Rolling Thunder missions they encountered SAM missiles. Where do you think they came from? When they engaged in dogfights with the MIG and Sukhoi ftrs who do you think was piloting them? North Vietnamese? No. People speaking a slavic tongue known as Russian. And when we finally knocked down the Paul Doumer bridge with our laser-guided bombs during Linebacker II, who did Le Duc Tho beg to resupply him with more SAMs? I know...it wasn't any other commie country since he never received any help from them to begin with "except about a dozen advisors."

And it boggles my mind to see you actually believe we killed more people in Cambodia through bombing than Pol Pot did. You, young man, have been brainwashed. I don't know by whom, but you have. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War is superficial, at best.

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:00 PM
Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.
It was a different time and situation. I try to understand what it would of fealt like for native people to be oppressed by colonialism. There would of had to been a nationalist aspect to defeating the colonialist French and later on the imperialist USA. The Veitnamese people being under white rule for decades wanted to defeat the reactionaires, and fight for there independance without the help of foreingers. Its like when Malcom X said that white people can assist them but cant help them because they had to defeat white oppression, its seems a bit stupid to have white people helping you when your trying to become independant. I think your comment was really arragonent and shows a narrow mind.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:00 PM
Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.
It was a different time and situation. I try to understand what it would of fealt like for native people to be oppressed by colonialism. There would of had to been a nationalist aspect to defeating the colonialist French and later on the imperialist USA. The Veitnamese people being under white rule for decades wanted to defeat the reactionaires, and fight for there independance without the help of foreingers. Its like when Malcom X said that white people can assist them but cant help them because they had to defeat white oppression, its seems a bit stupid to have white people helping you when your trying to become independant. I think your comment was really arragonent and shows a narrow mind.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:00 PM
Thank you redstar2000 for finally pointing this out. This is a accepted fact. Ho Chi Minh went to France, and when he lent of communism, he used it as a tool to free his people, to unite them. It was a nationalist movement. You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors), as the wanted to fight this themselves. If it really was a communist movement, there would not have been any distinction, but there clearly was.
It was a different time and situation. I try to understand what it would of fealt like for native people to be oppressed by colonialism. There would of had to been a nationalist aspect to defeating the colonialist French and later on the imperialist USA. The Veitnamese people being under white rule for decades wanted to defeat the reactionaires, and fight for there independance without the help of foreingers. Its like when Malcom X said that white people can assist them but cant help them because they had to defeat white oppression, its seems a bit stupid to have white people helping you when your trying to become independant. I think your comment was really arragonent and shows a narrow mind.

[DaCuBaN]

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

I'll be the first to admit I know precisely jack squat about the Vietnam War - I've never had a great interest in US history. However, you don't do yourself any favours by stating 'facts' without citing source, nor attacking other people.

Civility, if you please.

[DaCuBaN]

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

I'll be the first to admit I know precisely jack squat about the Vietnam War - I've never had a great interest in US history. However, you don't do yourself any favours by stating 'facts' without citing source, nor attacking other people.

Civility, if you please.

[DaCuBaN]

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

I'll be the first to admit I know precisely jack squat about the Vietnam War - I've never had a great interest in US history. However, you don't do yourself any favours by stating 'facts' without citing source, nor attacking other people.

Civility, if you please.

[Invader Zim]

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

I am no expert on Vietnam, quite the reverse, but you seem to have got it all wrong, from your first post.

"but was so bungled, and mismanaged, we had no hopes of winning, right up until the end."

Sorry but anyone even with limited understanding of the subject knows thats a heap of crap. the US was enjoying a 10-1 kill ratio (as i recall, if someone could confirm or deny this?), and had stretched the VC to breaking point, until they were forced into the do or die Tet offensive. Though the offensive had a preliminary success, and placed US forces into disarray, the US soon recovered, and actually defeated the offensive, which had the uS pressed its advantage would more than likley been the end of the VC. The US public however was horrified and heralded it as the end of the war, as did many of the troops. This forced the governments hand, and resulted in the withdrawl of troops.

So your suggestion that there was no hope of winning is false. The US could have and should have won.

They should not however have been there at all, and many of the US troops should have been put on war crimes charges, and not given minimal sentanses like Calley.

[Invader Zim]

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

I am no expert on Vietnam, quite the reverse, but you seem to have got it all wrong, from your first post.

"but was so bungled, and mismanaged, we had no hopes of winning, right up until the end."

Sorry but anyone even with limited understanding of the subject knows thats a heap of crap. the US was enjoying a 10-1 kill ratio (as i recall, if someone could confirm or deny this?), and had stretched the VC to breaking point, until they were forced into the do or die Tet offensive. Though the offensive had a preliminary success, and placed US forces into disarray, the US soon recovered, and actually defeated the offensive, which had the uS pressed its advantage would more than likley been the end of the VC. The US public however was horrified and heralded it as the end of the war, as did many of the troops. This forced the governments hand, and resulted in the withdrawl of troops.

So your suggestion that there was no hope of winning is false. The US could have and should have won.

They should not however have been there at all, and many of the US troops should have been put on war crimes charges, and not given minimal sentanses like Calley.

[Invader Zim]

You've obviously never done any research, any serious reading, or even put much thought into the matter. You're satisfied, that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

I am no expert on Vietnam, quite the reverse, but you seem to have got it all wrong, from your first post.

"but was so bungled, and mismanaged, we had no hopes of winning, right up until the end."

Sorry but anyone even with limited understanding of the subject knows thats a heap of crap. the US was enjoying a 10-1 kill ratio (as i recall, if someone could confirm or deny this?), and had stretched the VC to breaking point, until they were forced into the do or die Tet offensive. Though the offensive had a preliminary success, and placed US forces into disarray, the US soon recovered, and actually defeated the offensive, which had the uS pressed its advantage would more than likley been the end of the VC. The US public however was horrified and heralded it as the end of the war, as did many of the troops. This forced the governments hand, and resulted in the withdrawl of troops.

So your suggestion that there was no hope of winning is false. The US could have and should have won.

They should not however have been there at all, and many of the US troops should have been put on war crimes charges, and not given minimal sentanses like Calley.

[socialistfuture]

the yanks had 'advisors' too.
Vietnam has occupied by the french - a colony, the vietnamses resented this and a nationalist resistance emerged - ho chi mihn being a part of that. the japs came in during ww2 - after that the french wanted their colony back - there was resistance and america sent 'advisors' and funds.
'by 1954, the US was paying for 80 percent of the faltering French effort.' -
A ceasefire was eventually agreed on with French withdrawal and the temporary partition along the 17th parallel, with nationwide elections to be held in 1956. The US and their mate Ngo Dihn Diem backed out and he seized power.

As to Pol Pot it was the vietnamese that went in and removed him from power, and then faced china's wrath and had to fend them off.

Vietnam was invaded by the USA, in the same way France had invaded it.

lets have a wee look at agent orange:

Agent Orange was found to have toxic dioxin breakdown byproducts which have been blamed for causing health disorders and birth defects in both the Vietnamese population and U.S. war veterans. It has also been found to have carcinogenic properties affecting females primarily.

the BBC asserts that the effects of Agent Orange are still felt across Vietnam in 2004.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Agent+Orange

and of course the My Lai Massacre:

'They found no insurgents in the village on the morning of March 16 , but they had been psychologically prepared for a major attack. Under the orders of Lt. William Calley William Calley, the soldiers killed hundreds of civilians – primarily old men, women, children, and babies. The precise number killed varies from source to source, with 347 and 504 being the most commonly cited figures. The soldiers also engaged in torture and rape of villagers.'

America had no right to tell Vietnam what to do - in saying that it was the cold war so the USSR and the yanks were playing tug of war with the world - I don't think that excuses the atocities done to Vietnam by the foreign attackers.

[socialistfuture]

the yanks had 'advisors' too.
Vietnam has occupied by the french - a colony, the vietnamses resented this and a nationalist resistance emerged - ho chi mihn being a part of that. the japs came in during ww2 - after that the french wanted their colony back - there was resistance and america sent 'advisors' and funds.
'by 1954, the US was paying for 80 percent of the faltering French effort.' -
A ceasefire was eventually agreed on with French withdrawal and the temporary partition along the 17th parallel, with nationwide elections to be held in 1956. The US and their mate Ngo Dihn Diem backed out and he seized power.

As to Pol Pot it was the vietnamese that went in and removed him from power, and then faced china's wrath and had to fend them off.

Vietnam was invaded by the USA, in the same way France had invaded it.

lets have a wee look at agent orange:

Agent Orange was found to have toxic dioxin breakdown byproducts which have been blamed for causing health disorders and birth defects in both the Vietnamese population and U.S. war veterans. It has also been found to have carcinogenic properties affecting females primarily.

the BBC asserts that the effects of Agent Orange are still felt across Vietnam in 2004.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Agent+Orange

and of course the My Lai Massacre:

'They found no insurgents in the village on the morning of March 16 , but they had been psychologically prepared for a major attack. Under the orders of Lt. William Calley William Calley, the soldiers killed hundreds of civilians – primarily old men, women, children, and babies. The precise number killed varies from source to source, with 347 and 504 being the most commonly cited figures. The soldiers also engaged in torture and rape of villagers.'

America had no right to tell Vietnam what to do - in saying that it was the cold war so the USSR and the yanks were playing tug of war with the world - I don't think that excuses the atocities done to Vietnam by the foreign attackers.

[socialistfuture]

the yanks had 'advisors' too.
Vietnam has occupied by the french - a colony, the vietnamses resented this and a nationalist resistance emerged - ho chi mihn being a part of that. the japs came in during ww2 - after that the french wanted their colony back - there was resistance and america sent 'advisors' and funds.
'by 1954, the US was paying for 80 percent of the faltering French effort.' -
A ceasefire was eventually agreed on with French withdrawal and the temporary partition along the 17th parallel, with nationwide elections to be held in 1956. The US and their mate Ngo Dihn Diem backed out and he seized power.

As to Pol Pot it was the vietnamese that went in and removed him from power, and then faced china's wrath and had to fend them off.

Vietnam was invaded by the USA, in the same way France had invaded it.

lets have a wee look at agent orange:

Agent Orange was found to have toxic dioxin breakdown byproducts which have been blamed for causing health disorders and birth defects in both the Vietnamese population and U.S. war veterans. It has also been found to have carcinogenic properties affecting females primarily.

the BBC asserts that the effects of Agent Orange are still felt across Vietnam in 2004.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Agent+Orange

and of course the My Lai Massacre:

'They found no insurgents in the village on the morning of March 16 , but they had been psychologically prepared for a major attack. Under the orders of Lt. William Calley William Calley, the soldiers killed hundreds of civilians – primarily old men, women, children, and babies. The precise number killed varies from source to source, with 347 and 504 being the most commonly cited figures. The soldiers also engaged in torture and rape of villagers.'

America had no right to tell Vietnam what to do - in saying that it was the cold war so the USSR and the yanks were playing tug of war with the world - I don't think that excuses the atocities done to Vietnam by the foreign attackers.

[redstar2000]

You, young man, have been brainwashed.

It's been quite a while since I've been called "young man", but thanks anyway. :D

As an active member of Students for a Democratic Society (1962-1970), it was incumbent upon me to be far more informed about Vietnam than yourself.

Of course, I've forgotten quite a bit over the decades... :P


Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

What fabrication? That the Vietnamese were nationalists?

Are you aware that the Vietnamese are restoring capitalism as quickly as they can? For most, their "communism" was never more than "skin-deep".

The remainder of your post appears to be addressed to someone else...but I liked this part:


You're satisfied that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

My "Liberal professors" supported the war against the Vietnamese...it was, in fact, "the Liberals' War" and permanently alienated me from bourgeois liberalism.

Wasn't that nice of them? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

You, young man, have been brainwashed.

It's been quite a while since I've been called "young man", but thanks anyway. :D

As an active member of Students for a Democratic Society (1962-1970), it was incumbent upon me to be far more informed about Vietnam than yourself.

Of course, I've forgotten quite a bit over the decades... :P


Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

What fabrication? That the Vietnamese were nationalists?

Are you aware that the Vietnamese are restoring capitalism as quickly as they can? For most, their "communism" was never more than "skin-deep".

The remainder of your post appears to be addressed to someone else...but I liked this part:


You're satisfied that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

My "Liberal professors" supported the war against the Vietnamese...it was, in fact, "the Liberals' War" and permanently alienated me from bourgeois liberalism.

Wasn't that nice of them? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

You, young man, have been brainwashed.

It's been quite a while since I've been called "young man", but thanks anyway. :D

As an active member of Students for a Democratic Society (1962-1970), it was incumbent upon me to be far more informed about Vietnam than yourself.

Of course, I've forgotten quite a bit over the decades... :P


Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

What fabrication? That the Vietnamese were nationalists?

Are you aware that the Vietnamese are restoring capitalism as quickly as they can? For most, their "communism" was never more than "skin-deep".

The remainder of your post appears to be addressed to someone else...but I liked this part:


You're satisfied that your Liberal professors have told you all there is to know about it.

My "Liberal professors" supported the war against the Vietnamese...it was, in fact, "the Liberals' War" and permanently alienated me from bourgeois liberalism.

Wasn't that nice of them? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It's been quite a while since I've been called "young man", but thanks anyway.

I wasn't talking to you knucklehead...that comment was directed at the guy who has the anarchy symbol for his avatar.


My "Liberal professors" supported the war against the Vietnamese...it was, in fact, "the Liberals' War" and permanently alienated me from bourgeois liberalism.

Again, I wasn't referring to you.



What fabrication? That the Vietnamese were nationalists?

No, this fabrication for which you did not say.


You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors)

And I noticed how you didn't even refute these facts even though they weren't directed at you but feel free to give me your imput. Good luck.

You obviously know very little about the Vietnam War and, honestly, I don't know where to start your education. Let me begin by noting the notion the North Vietnamese wanted no help from the CHICOMS or Russians is nothing more than a pure fabrication or a figment of your imagination.

Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?

Whenever our guys flew over NVN on Rolling Thunder missions they encountered SAM missiles. Where do you think they came from? When they engaged in dogfights with the MIG and Sukhoi ftrs who do you think was piloting them? North Vietnamese? No. People speaking a slavic tongue known as Russian. And when we finally knocked down the Paul Doumer bridge with our laser-guided bombs during Linebacker II, who did Le Duc Tho beg to resupply him with more SAMs? I know...it wasn't any other commie country since he never received any help from them to begin with "except about a dozen advisors."

And it boggles my mind to see you actually believe we killed more people in Cambodia through bombing than Pol Pot did. You, young man, have been brainwashed. I don't know by whom, but you have. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War is superficial, at best.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It's been quite a while since I've been called "young man", but thanks anyway.

I wasn't talking to you knucklehead...that comment was directed at the guy who has the anarchy symbol for his avatar.


My "Liberal professors" supported the war against the Vietnamese...it was, in fact, "the Liberals' War" and permanently alienated me from bourgeois liberalism.

Again, I wasn't referring to you.



What fabrication? That the Vietnamese were nationalists?

No, this fabrication for which you did not say.


You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors)

And I noticed how you didn't even refute these facts even though they weren't directed at you but feel free to give me your imput. Good luck.

You obviously know very little about the Vietnam War and, honestly, I don't know where to start your education. Let me begin by noting the notion the North Vietnamese wanted no help from the CHICOMS or Russians is nothing more than a pure fabrication or a figment of your imagination.

Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?

Whenever our guys flew over NVN on Rolling Thunder missions they encountered SAM missiles. Where do you think they came from? When they engaged in dogfights with the MIG and Sukhoi ftrs who do you think was piloting them? North Vietnamese? No. People speaking a slavic tongue known as Russian. And when we finally knocked down the Paul Doumer bridge with our laser-guided bombs during Linebacker II, who did Le Duc Tho beg to resupply him with more SAMs? I know...it wasn't any other commie country since he never received any help from them to begin with "except about a dozen advisors."

And it boggles my mind to see you actually believe we killed more people in Cambodia through bombing than Pol Pot did. You, young man, have been brainwashed. I don't know by whom, but you have. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War is superficial, at best.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It's been quite a while since I've been called "young man", but thanks anyway.

I wasn't talking to you knucklehead...that comment was directed at the guy who has the anarchy symbol for his avatar.


My "Liberal professors" supported the war against the Vietnamese...it was, in fact, "the Liberals' War" and permanently alienated me from bourgeois liberalism.

Again, I wasn't referring to you.



What fabrication? That the Vietnamese were nationalists?

No, this fabrication for which you did not say.


You do realise that the Viet Minh refused help from the outside (including the USSR, China, and Cuba - except about a dozen advisors)

And I noticed how you didn't even refute these facts even though they weren't directed at you but feel free to give me your imput. Good luck.

You obviously know very little about the Vietnam War and, honestly, I don't know where to start your education. Let me begin by noting the notion the North Vietnamese wanted no help from the CHICOMS or Russians is nothing more than a pure fabrication or a figment of your imagination.

Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?

Whenever our guys flew over NVN on Rolling Thunder missions they encountered SAM missiles. Where do you think they came from? When they engaged in dogfights with the MIG and Sukhoi ftrs who do you think was piloting them? North Vietnamese? No. People speaking a slavic tongue known as Russian. And when we finally knocked down the Paul Doumer bridge with our laser-guided bombs during Linebacker II, who did Le Duc Tho beg to resupply him with more SAMs? I know...it wasn't any other commie country since he never received any help from them to begin with "except about a dozen advisors."

And it boggles my mind to see you actually believe we killed more people in Cambodia through bombing than Pol Pot did. You, young man, have been brainwashed. I don't know by whom, but you have. Your knowledge of the Vietnam War is superficial, at best.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:44 PM
Alright i dont agree with communism.. but most of vietnam was actully communist.
it has done no good for vietnam. but the only good it has seemed to do.
is make america realise that america is beatable buy poor farlmers with pitchforks and pre-world war 2 guns. - and i think it hurts for america to be reminded of the utter shambles of vietnam.
How Could most of Vietnam could have Communist at all? Communism is
the abolition of Class Society and Capitalism. North Vietnam was a "Socialist" Country
- Which ment that the mode of production was under the control of the
North Vietnamese State! in a real communist society -the mode of production is
under the control of the workers - not a state apperatus. So how could North
Vietnam and the rest of Vietnam, for that matter - have been communist? They
looked like they were Communists - but in reality - they were not that - they
were something else. But i guess You may not notice that.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:44 PM
Alright i dont agree with communism.. but most of vietnam was actully communist.
it has done no good for vietnam. but the only good it has seemed to do.
is make america realise that america is beatable buy poor farlmers with pitchforks and pre-world war 2 guns. - and i think it hurts for america to be reminded of the utter shambles of vietnam.
How Could most of Vietnam could have Communist at all? Communism is
the abolition of Class Society and Capitalism. North Vietnam was a "Socialist" Country
- Which ment that the mode of production was under the control of the
North Vietnamese State! in a real communist society -the mode of production is
under the control of the workers - not a state apperatus. So how could North
Vietnam and the rest of Vietnam, for that matter - have been communist? They
looked like they were Communists - but in reality - they were not that - they
were something else. But i guess You may not notice that.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:44 PM
Alright i dont agree with communism.. but most of vietnam was actully communist.
it has done no good for vietnam. but the only good it has seemed to do.
is make america realise that america is beatable buy poor farlmers with pitchforks and pre-world war 2 guns. - and i think it hurts for america to be reminded of the utter shambles of vietnam.
How Could most of Vietnam could have Communist at all? Communism is
the abolition of Class Society and Capitalism. North Vietnam was a "Socialist" Country
- Which ment that the mode of production was under the control of the
North Vietnamese State! in a real communist society -the mode of production is
under the control of the workers - not a state apperatus. So how could North
Vietnam and the rest of Vietnam, for that matter - have been communist? They
looked like they were Communists - but in reality - they were not that - they
were something else. But i guess You may not notice that.

[redstar2000]

I wasn't talking to you knucklehead...

Then why did you say...


Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

In fact, my username was the only username mentioned in your post.

Knucklehead? :lol:

As to the matter of "outside assistance"...

Both the French forces and their puppet regime were defeated by the Vietnamese in the early 1950s with weaponry supplied by China. The U.S. puppet regime set up after the French defeat ("South Vietnam") was defeated with almost no outside assistance at all (by 1961 or so). When Kennedy and then Johnson escalated matters further by massive invasion and the bombing of Hanoi, then massive assistance was requested from and granted by both the USSR and China.

However, it's known that Mao offered Ho at least 25,000 combat soldiers...and Ho turned him down.

In other words, the Vietnamese did not need any help in defeating their own parasitic ruling class...but, inspite of their personal wishes, had little alternative to accepting large-scale military aid when going up against French and then American imperialists.

What else would you expect them to do?

Have you forgotten how eagerly American revolutionaries successfully sought French "outside assistance" to defeat Great Britain? Or how America's decisive victory at Yorktown was won because the French fleet had trapped the British Navy some distance away...making it impossible to either supply or evacuate the beleagured British troops?

Nah, you didn't "forget"...you never knew in the first place.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be yapping about "outside assistance" as if it were some kind of "scandal".

If it weren't for "outside assistance", you'd still be singing God Save the Queen.

Idiot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

I wasn't talking to you knucklehead...

Then why did you say...


Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

In fact, my username was the only username mentioned in your post.

Knucklehead? :lol:

As to the matter of "outside assistance"...

Both the French forces and their puppet regime were defeated by the Vietnamese in the early 1950s with weaponry supplied by China. The U.S. puppet regime set up after the French defeat ("South Vietnam") was defeated with almost no outside assistance at all (by 1961 or so). When Kennedy and then Johnson escalated matters further by massive invasion and the bombing of Hanoi, then massive assistance was requested from and granted by both the USSR and China.

However, it's known that Mao offered Ho at least 25,000 combat soldiers...and Ho turned him down.

In other words, the Vietnamese did not need any help in defeating their own parasitic ruling class...but, inspite of their personal wishes, had little alternative to accepting large-scale military aid when going up against French and then American imperialists.

What else would you expect them to do?

Have you forgotten how eagerly American revolutionaries successfully sought French "outside assistance" to defeat Great Britain? Or how America's decisive victory at Yorktown was won because the French fleet had trapped the British Navy some distance away...making it impossible to either supply or evacuate the beleagured British troops?

Nah, you didn't "forget"...you never knew in the first place.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be yapping about "outside assistance" as if it were some kind of "scandal".

If it weren't for "outside assistance", you'd still be singing God Save the Queen.

Idiot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

I wasn't talking to you knucklehead...

Then why did you say...


Yeah, thank you Redstar for posting that fabrication....

In fact, my username was the only username mentioned in your post.

Knucklehead? :lol:

As to the matter of "outside assistance"...

Both the French forces and their puppet regime were defeated by the Vietnamese in the early 1950s with weaponry supplied by China. The U.S. puppet regime set up after the French defeat ("South Vietnam") was defeated with almost no outside assistance at all (by 1961 or so). When Kennedy and then Johnson escalated matters further by massive invasion and the bombing of Hanoi, then massive assistance was requested from and granted by both the USSR and China.

However, it's known that Mao offered Ho at least 25,000 combat soldiers...and Ho turned him down.

In other words, the Vietnamese did not need any help in defeating their own parasitic ruling class...but, inspite of their personal wishes, had little alternative to accepting large-scale military aid when going up against French and then American imperialists.

What else would you expect them to do?

Have you forgotten how eagerly American revolutionaries successfully sought French "outside assistance" to defeat Great Britain? Or how America's decisive victory at Yorktown was won because the French fleet had trapped the British Navy some distance away...making it impossible to either supply or evacuate the beleagured British troops?

Nah, you didn't "forget"...you never knew in the first place.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be yapping about "outside assistance" as if it were some kind of "scandal".

If it weren't for "outside assistance", you'd still be singing God Save the Queen.

Idiot.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
How Could most of Vietnam could have Communist at all? Communism is
the abolition of Class Society and Capitalism. North Vietnam was a "Socialist" Country
- Which ment that the mode of production was under the control of the
North Vietnamese State! in a real communist society -the mode of production is
under the control of the workers - not a state apperatus. So how could North
Vietnam and the rest of Vietnam, for that matter - have been communist? They
looked like they were Communists - but in reality - they were not that - they
were something else. But i guess You may not notice that.
Im getting sick of people going into this argument. If you called the vietnamese anarchist then you could have a huge cry like the ***** you are. Being communist is different to anarchist. Communist use to the state to achieve communism. Anarchist believe there is no need for a state to reach communism. So stop creating a argument over nothing.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
How Could most of Vietnam could have Communist at all? Communism is
the abolition of Class Society and Capitalism. North Vietnam was a "Socialist" Country
- Which ment that the mode of production was under the control of the
North Vietnamese State! in a real communist society -the mode of production is
under the control of the workers - not a state apperatus. So how could North
Vietnam and the rest of Vietnam, for that matter - have been communist? They
looked like they were Communists - but in reality - they were not that - they
were something else. But i guess You may not notice that.
Im getting sick of people going into this argument. If you called the vietnamese anarchist then you could have a huge cry like the ***** you are. Being communist is different to anarchist. Communist use to the state to achieve communism. Anarchist believe there is no need for a state to reach communism. So stop creating a argument over nothing.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
How Could most of Vietnam could have Communist at all? Communism is
the abolition of Class Society and Capitalism. North Vietnam was a "Socialist" Country
- Which ment that the mode of production was under the control of the
North Vietnamese State! in a real communist society -the mode of production is
under the control of the workers - not a state apperatus. So how could North
Vietnam and the rest of Vietnam, for that matter - have been communist? They
looked like they were Communists - but in reality - they were not that - they
were something else. But i guess You may not notice that.
Im getting sick of people going into this argument. If you called the vietnamese anarchist then you could have a huge cry like the ***** you are. Being communist is different to anarchist. Communist use to the state to achieve communism. Anarchist believe there is no need for a state to reach communism. So stop creating a argument over nothing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Shut the fuck up "comrade" Neonate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Shut the fuck up "comrade" Neonate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Shut the fuck up "comrade" Neonate.

[PRC-UTE]

NoXion wrote:
Shut the fuck up "comrade" Neonate.

how comradely of you, brilliant.

[PRC-UTE]

NoXion wrote:
Shut the fuck up "comrade" Neonate.

how comradely of you, brilliant.

[PRC-UTE]

NoXion wrote:
Shut the fuck up "comrade" Neonate.

how comradely of you, brilliant.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2004, 05:02 AM
Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?
I love how this guy talks like he knows half a pint of grey shit about what he's talking about and then comes at us with total left-fielders like this one.

To solve your little puzzle: they rode bicycles. That was one of the primary justifications for the use of Agent Orange. Do your own damn homework :rolleyes:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2004, 05:02 AM
Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?
I love how this guy talks like he knows half a pint of grey shit about what he's talking about and then comes at us with total left-fielders like this one.

To solve your little puzzle: they rode bicycles. That was one of the primary justifications for the use of Agent Orange. Do your own damn homework :rolleyes:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2004, 05:02 AM
Let me acquaint you with some facts. North Vietnam was nothing more than one great big truck park...trucks that were used to haul men and supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail which, for your information, was not a single trail, per se. Where did all those trucks come from? Did NVN have a truck industry?
I love how this guy talks like he knows half a pint of grey shit about what he's talking about and then comes at us with total left-fielders like this one.

To solve your little puzzle: they rode bicycles. That was one of the primary justifications for the use of Agent Orange. Do your own damn homework :rolleyes:

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 26 2004, 09:31 AM
Im getting sick of people going into this argument. If you called the vietnamese anarchist then you could have a huge cry like the ***** you are. Being communist is different to anarchist. Communist use to the state to achieve communism. Anarchist believe there is no need for a state to reach communism. So stop creating a argument over nothing.
I Never Called the Vietnamese anarchist at all! I was just pointing out to
this guy that Vietnam only appeared communist - but in terms of material
reality - they were not communist at all! And "comrade" nonate - i'm a Real
Communist - while you are just a Leninist that calls for a state - a socialist state
- that will have no real chance of advancing towards Real Communism - it will
only come back towards capitalism again and - does anyone who may be a real communist - wants to see that same theory of the "Socialist" state tried again ?? No - because because every time it has been tried - it failed! And Communism is Anarchism as they aim to abolish class society and capitalism along with the
state.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 26 2004, 09:31 AM
Im getting sick of people going into this argument. If you called the vietnamese anarchist then you could have a huge cry like the ***** you are. Being communist is different to anarchist. Communist use to the state to achieve communism. Anarchist believe there is no need for a state to reach communism. So stop creating a argument over nothing.
I Never Called the Vietnamese anarchist at all! I was just pointing out to
this guy that Vietnam only appeared communist - but in terms of material
reality - they were not communist at all! And "comrade" nonate - i'm a Real
Communist - while you are just a Leninist that calls for a state - a socialist state
- that will have no real chance of advancing towards Real Communism - it will
only come back towards capitalism again and - does anyone who may be a real communist - wants to see that same theory of the "Socialist" state tried again ?? No - because because every time it has been tried - it failed! And Communism is Anarchism as they aim to abolish class society and capitalism along with the
state.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 26 2004, 09:31 AM
Im getting sick of people going into this argument. If you called the vietnamese anarchist then you could have a huge cry like the ***** you are. Being communist is different to anarchist. Communist use to the state to achieve communism. Anarchist believe there is no need for a state to reach communism. So stop creating a argument over nothing.
I Never Called the Vietnamese anarchist at all! I was just pointing out to
this guy that Vietnam only appeared communist - but in terms of material
reality - they were not communist at all! And "comrade" nonate - i'm a Real
Communist - while you are just a Leninist that calls for a state - a socialist state
- that will have no real chance of advancing towards Real Communism - it will
only come back towards capitalism again and - does anyone who may be a real communist - wants to see that same theory of the "Socialist" state tried again ?? No - because because every time it has been tried - it failed! And Communism is Anarchism as they aim to abolish class society and capitalism along with the
state.

[Hiero]

I never said "you called the veitnamese anarchist" i said "if you called". The difference is the "if".

Marxist-Leninist theory has only been applied to undeveloped countries not first world countries with a advanced working class.

Communism yes Anarchism. But a Communist is someone who believes in the use of the state to achieve communism while a anarchist believe there is no use for a state. If there wasnt a difference why would Marx and Engels write to defute it.

[Hiero]

I never said "you called the veitnamese anarchist" i said "if you called". The difference is the "if".

Marxist-Leninist theory has only been applied to undeveloped countries not first world countries with a advanced working class.

Communism yes Anarchism. But a Communist is someone who believes in the use of the state to achieve communism while a anarchist believe there is no use for a state. If there wasnt a difference why would Marx and Engels write to defute it.

[Hiero]

I never said "you called the veitnamese anarchist" i said "if you called". The difference is the "if".

Marxist-Leninist theory has only been applied to undeveloped countries not first world countries with a advanced working class.

Communism yes Anarchism. But a Communist is someone who believes in the use of the state to achieve communism while a anarchist believe there is no use for a state. If there wasnt a difference why would Marx and Engels write to defute it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Any military analyst or historian will concede that the US military itself, overall, actually did very well in Vietnam, dare I say, superbly.

Most battles in the air, in the water, and on land were victories for US forces, and we are talking about battles against a well trained, well equipped, experienced enemy. For example, Hanoi had 3 concentric circles of Soviet SAM's around it, yet 1000's of lbs of bombs were still delivered on target once the US was allowed to attack in the north (which by then was too little too late). Also, North Vietnam was equipped with the Venerable Mig-15, at the time a SOTA combat aircraft, and we all know a few Ruskies were in some of those cockpits on occaision. Still, the US, often in inferior F-86 Sabres, still enjoyed a favorable kill ratio in the air. Again, the battles were won, it's just that such battles were over land and objectives that just didn't matter much. As enigma stated earlier, even the Tet Offensive was ultimately a US victory.

It was the concept of fighting a "limited war" espoused and implemented by Washington that "tied one hand behind the back" of the US military and ultimately compromised the US police action in Vietnam, not the lack of capability of US forces. There were a few dissenting conscripts, yes, but they were the excepton, not the rule. Most troops, and by most I mean the vast majority, fought hard and bravely, contrary to what many liberals seem to suggest in this thread.

If the US had simply gone north in the first place and hit Hanoi and supply sources instead of trying to simply stop lines once they were in the south, I think that the US would have had a much easier time.

However, as far as attrition goes, the NVA and cong were both on the losing end.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Any military analyst or historian will concede that the US military itself, overall, actually did very well in Vietnam, dare I say, superbly.

Most battles in the air, in the water, and on land were victories for US forces, and we are talking about battles against a well trained, well equipped, experienced enemy. For example, Hanoi had 3 concentric circles of Soviet SAM's around it, yet 1000's of lbs of bombs were still delivered on target once the US was allowed to attack in the north (which by then was too little too late). Also, North Vietnam was equipped with the Venerable Mig-15, at the time a SOTA combat aircraft, and we all know a few Ruskies were in some of those cockpits on occaision. Still, the US, often in inferior F-86 Sabres, still enjoyed a favorable kill ratio in the air. Again, the battles were won, it's just that such battles were over land and objectives that just didn't matter much. As enigma stated earlier, even the Tet Offensive was ultimately a US victory.

It was the concept of fighting a "limited war" espoused and implemented by Washington that "tied one hand behind the back" of the US military and ultimately compromised the US police action in Vietnam, not the lack of capability of US forces. There were a few dissenting conscripts, yes, but they were the excepton, not the rule. Most troops, and by most I mean the vast majority, fought hard and bravely, contrary to what many liberals seem to suggest in this thread.

If the US had simply gone north in the first place and hit Hanoi and supply sources instead of trying to simply stop lines once they were in the south, I think that the US would have had a much easier time.

However, as far as attrition goes, the NVA and cong were both on the losing end.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Any military analyst or historian will concede that the US military itself, overall, actually did very well in Vietnam, dare I say, superbly.

Most battles in the air, in the water, and on land were victories for US forces, and we are talking about battles against a well trained, well equipped, experienced enemy. For example, Hanoi had 3 concentric circles of Soviet SAM's around it, yet 1000's of lbs of bombs were still delivered on target once the US was allowed to attack in the north (which by then was too little too late). Also, North Vietnam was equipped with the Venerable Mig-15, at the time a SOTA combat aircraft, and we all know a few Ruskies were in some of those cockpits on occaision. Still, the US, often in inferior F-86 Sabres, still enjoyed a favorable kill ratio in the air. Again, the battles were won, it's just that such battles were over land and objectives that just didn't matter much. As enigma stated earlier, even the Tet Offensive was ultimately a US victory.

It was the concept of fighting a "limited war" espoused and implemented by Washington that "tied one hand behind the back" of the US military and ultimately compromised the US police action in Vietnam, not the lack of capability of US forces. There were a few dissenting conscripts, yes, but they were the excepton, not the rule. Most troops, and by most I mean the vast majority, fought hard and bravely, contrary to what many liberals seem to suggest in this thread.

If the US had simply gone north in the first place and hit Hanoi and supply sources instead of trying to simply stop lines once they were in the south, I think that the US would have had a much easier time.

However, as far as attrition goes, the NVA and cong were both on the losing end.

[Osman Ghazi]

CI, only a total deuschebag measures victory or defeat in kills. They don't matter. What matters is, did you achieve your objectives, and more importantly, did those objectives bring you closer to your final goal?

And for the US, the answer is no.

Could there even have been 'victory' for the US? I'm not so sure. Maybe if they could somehow have turned all of the population of Vietnam against the 'Communists', instead of doing the exact opposite, then maybe. All they could have done was defeat the 'communists' by invading all of Vietnam, and then their puppet regime could only last for a few years. In the end, it was inevitable.

And besides, CI, know one compliments a guy with a gun for killing a guy with a knife, or even ten guys with knives.

[Osman Ghazi]

CI, only a total deuschebag measures victory or defeat in kills. They don't matter. What matters is, did you achieve your objectives, and more importantly, did those objectives bring you closer to your final goal?

And for the US, the answer is no.

Could there even have been 'victory' for the US? I'm not so sure. Maybe if they could somehow have turned all of the population of Vietnam against the 'Communists', instead of doing the exact opposite, then maybe. All they could have done was defeat the 'communists' by invading all of Vietnam, and then their puppet regime could only last for a few years. In the end, it was inevitable.

And besides, CI, know one compliments a guy with a gun for killing a guy with a knife, or even ten guys with knives.

[Osman Ghazi]

CI, only a total deuschebag measures victory or defeat in kills. They don't matter. What matters is, did you achieve your objectives, and more importantly, did those objectives bring you closer to your final goal?

And for the US, the answer is no.

Could there even have been 'victory' for the US? I'm not so sure. Maybe if they could somehow have turned all of the population of Vietnam against the 'Communists', instead of doing the exact opposite, then maybe. All they could have done was defeat the 'communists' by invading all of Vietnam, and then their puppet regime could only last for a few years. In the end, it was inevitable.

And besides, CI, know one compliments a guy with a gun for killing a guy with a knife, or even ten guys with knives.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I agree with the 1st part of your post, Osman, I was merely stating the facts. As far as objectives alaigning with battlefield victories, that is exactly what I stated in my post, so thanks for agreeing.

However, as my previous post supports, your gun/knife analogy is not an apt one. The NVA were equipped with AK-47's, mines, soviet vehicles (including tanks), SAMs, and Mig 15's, artillery, AAA, etc., and all sorts of Soviet advisors (and sometimes combatants), not to mention they held the initiative being a defending force on their own land.

Make no mistake about it, Osman, the NVA and VC were very well armed and well equipped, as well as experienced. They were quite a worthy adversaey.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I agree with the 1st part of your post, Osman, I was merely stating the facts. As far as objectives alaigning with battlefield victories, that is exactly what I stated in my post, so thanks for agreeing.

However, as my previous post supports, your gun/knife analogy is not an apt one. The NVA were equipped with AK-47's, mines, soviet vehicles (including tanks), SAMs, and Mig 15's, artillery, AAA, etc., and all sorts of Soviet advisors (and sometimes combatants), not to mention they held the initiative being a defending force on their own land.

Make no mistake about it, Osman, the NVA and VC were very well armed and well equipped, as well as experienced. They were quite a worthy adversaey.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I agree with the 1st part of your post, Osman, I was merely stating the facts. As far as objectives alaigning with battlefield victories, that is exactly what I stated in my post, so thanks for agreeing.

However, as my previous post supports, your gun/knife analogy is not an apt one. The NVA were equipped with AK-47's, mines, soviet vehicles (including tanks), SAMs, and Mig 15's, artillery, AAA, etc., and all sorts of Soviet advisors (and sometimes combatants), not to mention they held the initiative being a defending force on their own land.

Make no mistake about it, Osman, the NVA and VC were very well armed and well equipped, as well as experienced. They were quite a worthy adversaey.

[Osman Ghazi]

soviet vehicles (including tanks)

. I mean, sure, did they have some? Ya. But tanks were not used extensively by either side, let alone the poor-ass NVA and absolutely never with the VCs, considering how they were guerillas and all.


SAMs

To be fair, the Sovs gave SAMs to everybody, including rebels in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea. Also, a SAM won't protect you from everything. For example, a SAM-7 is a medium altitude SAM. Now, I don't know what the placement of their three concentric circles were but I can imagine that there were plenty of ways to fly either under, over or plain out of their range.

But none of that really matters. All I'm saying is that you seem to be falling into the Jominian trap. Like the Germans in WW1 you seem to believe very highly in the morale of soldiers and that that makes the crucial difference in battle. I, however, live in a material world, where, if the kill ratio is 10 to 1, it means that the training and equipment of the Americans made their average soldiers 10 times as good as the average Vietnamese soldier.


experienced.

Again, . If the average kill ratio was 10 to 1, that means that very few Vietnamese were surviving combat, meaning that very few Vietnamese soldiers were experienced in any real sense.

And, you have to consider that better training and better equipment have a geometric, rather than linear effect on the performance of troops.

[Osman Ghazi]

soviet vehicles (including tanks)

. I mean, sure, did they have some? Ya. But tanks were not used extensively by either side, let alone the poor-ass NVA and absolutely never with the VCs, considering how they were guerillas and all.


SAMs

To be fair, the Sovs gave SAMs to everybody, including rebels in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea. Also, a SAM won't protect you from everything. For example, a SAM-7 is a medium altitude SAM. Now, I don't know what the placement of their three concentric circles were but I can imagine that there were plenty of ways to fly either under, over or plain out of their range.

But none of that really matters. All I'm saying is that you seem to be falling into the Jominian trap. Like the Germans in WW1 you seem to believe very highly in the morale of soldiers and that that makes the crucial difference in battle. I, however, live in a material world, where, if the kill ratio is 10 to 1, it means that the training and equipment of the Americans made their average soldiers 10 times as good as the average Vietnamese soldier.


experienced.

Again, . If the average kill ratio was 10 to 1, that means that very few Vietnamese were surviving combat, meaning that very few Vietnamese soldiers were experienced in any real sense.

And, you have to consider that better training and better equipment have a geometric, rather than linear effect on the performance of troops.

[Osman Ghazi]

soviet vehicles (including tanks)

. I mean, sure, did they have some? Ya. But tanks were not used extensively by either side, let alone the poor-ass NVA and absolutely never with the VCs, considering how they were guerillas and all.


SAMs

To be fair, the Sovs gave SAMs to everybody, including rebels in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea. Also, a SAM won't protect you from everything. For example, a SAM-7 is a medium altitude SAM. Now, I don't know what the placement of their three concentric circles were but I can imagine that there were plenty of ways to fly either under, over or plain out of their range.

But none of that really matters. All I'm saying is that you seem to be falling into the Jominian trap. Like the Germans in WW1 you seem to believe very highly in the morale of soldiers and that that makes the crucial difference in battle. I, however, live in a material world, where, if the kill ratio is 10 to 1, it means that the training and equipment of the Americans made their average soldiers 10 times as good as the average Vietnamese soldier.


experienced.

Again, . If the average kill ratio was 10 to 1, that means that very few Vietnamese were surviving combat, meaning that very few Vietnamese soldiers were experienced in any real sense.

And, you have to consider that better training and better equipment have a geometric, rather than linear effect on the performance of troops.

[Vallegrande]

America is FINALLY paying back the vietnamese people for all the agent orange that was spewed in the environment. However, money is nothing compared to the countless destruction that was caused.

"As if you could kill time without injuring eternity."
-Henry David Thoreau

[Vallegrande]

America is FINALLY paying back the vietnamese people for all the agent orange that was spewed in the environment. However, money is nothing compared to the countless destruction that was caused.

"As if you could kill time without injuring eternity."
-Henry David Thoreau

[Vallegrande]

America is FINALLY paying back the vietnamese people for all the agent orange that was spewed in the environment. However, money is nothing compared to the countless destruction that was caused.

"As if you could kill time without injuring eternity."
-Henry David Thoreau

[Louis Pio]

Again, . If the average kill ratio was 10 to 1, that means that very few Vietnamese were surviving combat, meaning that very few Vietnamese soldiers were experienced in any real sense.

Well the experienced vietnamese troups were very experienced. Having combatted both the japanese, french and then the americans. I think alot of the victims in the high killratio were the inexperienced peasant kids coming straight from the villages.

Now the thing about the situation in Vietnam was that it could have continued with Guerilla fighting for years, much like in Iraq now. Even if the americans had taken the north guerilla activities would have continued. That had a big effect on alot of the american population. A war is not just about fighting the enemy but also about how your own population reacts. Just look at WW1

[Louis Pio]

Again, . If the average kill ratio was 10 to 1, that means that very few Vietnamese were surviving combat, meaning that very few Vietnamese soldiers were experienced in any real sense.

Well the experienced vietnamese troups were very experienced. Having combatted both the japanese, french and then the americans. I think alot of the victims in the high killratio were the inexperienced peasant kids coming straight from the villages.

Now the thing about the situation in Vietnam was that it could have continued with Guerilla fighting for years, much like in Iraq now. Even if the americans had taken the north guerilla activities would have continued. That had a big effect on alot of the american population. A war is not just about fighting the enemy but also about how your own population reacts. Just look at WW1

[Louis Pio]

Again, . If the average kill ratio was 10 to 1, that means that very few Vietnamese were surviving combat, meaning that very few Vietnamese soldiers were experienced in any real sense.

Well the experienced vietnamese troups were very experienced. Having combatted both the japanese, french and then the americans. I think alot of the victims in the high killratio were the inexperienced peasant kids coming straight from the villages.

Now the thing about the situation in Vietnam was that it could have continued with Guerilla fighting for years, much like in Iraq now. Even if the americans had taken the north guerilla activities would have continued. That had a big effect on alot of the american population. A war is not just about fighting the enemy but also about how your own population reacts. Just look at WW1

[Vinny Rafarino]

You would think that individuals such as CI would stay away from this subject; especially since all they really rabbit on about are kill ratios. Does anyone else find this to be completely absurd?

Why would anyone in their right mind bring up the fact that no matter how many guerrillas and NVA were killed compared to the Imperialists, the war was still LOST?

If these dolts had any sense, they would let the scab heal the wound rather than pick at it.

I reckon it goes with the territory. :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

You would think that individuals such as CI would stay away from this subject; especially since all they really rabbit on about are kill ratios. Does anyone else find this to be completely absurd?

Why would anyone in their right mind bring up the fact that no matter how many guerrillas and NVA were killed compared to the Imperialists, the war was still LOST?

If these dolts had any sense, they would let the scab heal the wound rather than pick at it.

I reckon it goes with the territory. :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

You would think that individuals such as CI would stay away from this subject; especially since all they really rabbit on about are kill ratios. Does anyone else find this to be completely absurd?

Why would anyone in their right mind bring up the fact that no matter how many guerrillas and NVA were killed compared to the Imperialists, the war was still LOST?

If these dolts had any sense, they would let the scab heal the wound rather than pick at it.

I reckon it goes with the territory. :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2004, 09:46 PM
You would think that individuals such as CI would stay away from this subject; especially since all they really rabbit on about are kill ratios. Does anyone else find this to be completely absurd?

Why would anyone in their right mind bring up the fact that no matter how many guerrillas and NVA were killed compared to the Imperialists, the war was still LOST?

If these dolts had any sense, they would let the scab heal the wound rather than pick at it.

I reckon it goes with the territory. :lol:
RAF, I'm not a proponent of big kill ratios and attrition for their own sake.

I was hardly bragging, I was just submitting objective analysis.

I conceded that we did not acherive our objectives, but I was siply trying to paint a more comprehensive picture of the 'nam debaucle.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2004, 09:46 PM
You would think that individuals such as CI would stay away from this subject; especially since all they really rabbit on about are kill ratios. Does anyone else find this to be completely absurd?

Why would anyone in their right mind bring up the fact that no matter how many guerrillas and NVA were killed compared to the Imperialists, the war was still LOST?

If these dolts had any sense, they would let the scab heal the wound rather than pick at it.

I reckon it goes with the territory. :lol:
RAF, I'm not a proponent of big kill ratios and attrition for their own sake.

I was hardly bragging, I was just submitting objective analysis.

I conceded that we did not acherive our objectives, but I was siply trying to paint a more comprehensive picture of the 'nam debaucle.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2004, 09:46 PM
You would think that individuals such as CI would stay away from this subject; especially since all they really rabbit on about are kill ratios. Does anyone else find this to be completely absurd?

Why would anyone in their right mind bring up the fact that no matter how many guerrillas and NVA were killed compared to the Imperialists, the war was still LOST?

If these dolts had any sense, they would let the scab heal the wound rather than pick at it.

I reckon it goes with the territory. :lol:
RAF, I'm not a proponent of big kill ratios and attrition for their own sake.

I was hardly bragging, I was just submitting objective analysis.

I conceded that we did not acherive our objectives, but I was siply trying to paint a more comprehensive picture of the 'nam debaucle.

[socialistfuture]

the most powerful empire in the world lost to a peasant army and it is happening again in Iraq - no matter how much miliatry equipment, propaganda, funds and pr the US has - if the country they are invading does not support them they can not win. once the home support lowers, the troops moral drops and things go down for the Pentagon from there.
They commited atrocities in Vietnam and were condemed world wide. The empire will fall sooner or later...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:08 AM
the most powerful empire in the world lost to a peasant army and it is happening again in Iraq - no matter how much miliatry equipment, propaganda, funds and pr the US has - if the country they are invading does not support them they can not win. once the home support lowers, the troops moral drops and things go down for the Pentagon from there.
They commited atrocities in Vietnam and were condemed world wide. The empire will fall sooner or later...
The peasant Army did not defeat the US military, Socialistfuture.

And the US military itself is not losing in Iraq.

You need to do more reading and analysis before you discuss this subject.

[synthesis]

It was the concept of fighting a "limited war" espoused and implemented by Washington that "tied one hand behind the back" of the US military and ultimately compromised the US police action in Vietnam, not the lack of capability of US forces.

I like how CI thinks that the only reason we lost in Vietnam was because we weren't committing enough war crimes.

[Raisa]

I like how CI thinks that the only reason we lost in Vietnam was because we weren't committing enough war crimes. >>

The sad thing about the Viet Nam war is that part of the reason America lost is because of the reason they were there.
You can play toy soldiers your whole life and learn to hate the commies, but when your government throws you into a place you barely know about and there are no more commericals or flags fluttering you may ask yourself among the chatter of machine guns and screams of death "what am i doing here".
I think more american soldiers found themselves wondering what they are doing then any Viet Cong did. The VC had a clear reason to fight their war, they wanted their country reunified and they wanted to get rid of the opressive Diem government that ruled south vietnam, silenced workers protests, and used concentration camps among things. The people could just join the VC and fight for what they thought was a better viet nam. I dont think people were forced to join like the americans did and they had a real reason to be fighting a war.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 5 2004, 05:31 PM
The peasant Army did not defeat the US military, Socialistfuture.

And the US military itself is not losing in Iraq.

You need to do more reading and analysis before you discuss this subject.
Why did they pull back then? Thousands of American soldiers died fighting against a country whose population didnt want the Americans there.

Oh yes...it were those evil left wing bastards back at the home front who betrayed the troops...kinda similar to what the Nazis believed that happened to them at the end of WW1 right? :P

[PRC-UTE]

capitalist imperial wrote:

And the US military itself is not losing in Iraq.

They've basically lost actually. They've given up control of such a large part of Iraq's landmass that it will be almost impossible to win. The insrugents can parade openly in many areas.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:24 PM
capitalist imperial wrote:


They've basically lost actually. They've given up control of such a large part of Iraq's landmass that it will be almost impossible to win. The insrugents can parade openly in many areas.
Actually, US forces had control, and then turned control over to Iraqi securtrity forces, who then lost control.

The war in Iraq is far from over, and insisting that any side has won or lost would be inaccurate right now.

[Funky Monk]

Sounds a bit like excuse making CI. Sort of on the same line as we did what we set out to achieve in Vietnam and Korea and once we did, we left.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 8 2004, 05:46 PM
Sounds a bit like excuse making CI. Sort of on the same line as we did what we set out to achieve in Vietnam and Korea and once we did, we left.
This war is distinctly different than either Vietnam or Korea

Besides, Korea was a success, and we never "left" there. As I type this, there are still tens of thousands of US troops in South Korea.

Vietnam was a debaucle, of course, but the actual invasion of Bagdad and uprooting of the Ba'athists was a success. The insurgents now dug in are a totally different situation. They simply took advantage of the power vaccum and are trying to prevent democracy in lieu of funamentalist Islamic law.

They are merely postponing the inevitable.

There will be democracy in Iraq.

[fernando]

Democracy? What kind of democracy? Similar to what we had in South Vietnam before the Vietnam War? Or what we had in South Korea before the Korean War?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:33 PM
Democracy? What kind of democracy? Similar to what we had in South Vietnam before the Vietnam War? Or what we had in South Korea before the Korean War?
Similar to what we have in South Korea now.

[fernando]

Well...only time can tell that I guess, but I have this feeling that it will start with puppet governments like we have now in Iraq.

[Vallegrande]

The fact is I believe that a culture is being destroyed everytime this thing happens in the name of the war on terror. How do we know who the real terrorists are, when every other country is being blamed except the Industrialized countries.

And president Bush stated he did not want a world supreme court because they weren't trustworthy. It's really because many U.S. head honchos would be accused of war crimes most definitely.

And why in the first place does the U.S. have the power to prevent a World Supreme Court? Really, where does this terrorism start?

[bunk]

The U.S have made a peace deal with their biggest threats. The U.S have made a wise move.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:59 PM
The fact is I believe that a culture is being destroyed everytime this thing happens in the name of the war on terror. How do we know who the real terrorists are, when every other country is being blamed except the Industrialized countries.

And president Bush stated he did not want a world supreme court because they weren't trustworthy. It's really because many U.S. head honchos would be accused of war crimes most definitely.

And why in the first place does the U.S. have the power to prevent a World Supreme Court? Really, where does this terrorism start?
How is Iraq part of the War or Terrorism...ow wait they have changed "terrorism" into "terror"... <_<

[socialistfuture]

CI -
Vietnam was a debaucle, of course, but the actual invasion of Bagdad and uprooting of the Ba&#39;athists was a success. The insurgents now dug in are a totally different situation. They simply took advantage of the power vaccum and are trying to prevent democracy in lieu of funamentalist Islamic law.

They are merely postponing the inevitable.

There will be democracy in Iraq.

Vietnam ened because the American people didn&#39;t support it, the US could not control the country or gain the full support of the Vietnamese people.

I ain&#39;t gonna go to Vietnam
Because Vietnam is where I am
Hell no&#33; I ain&#39;t gonna go&#33;
Hell no&#33; I ain&#39;t gonna go&#33;

was a chant that became common in the States during the war.

You forget one thing: Iraqi opinions on the matter of... Iraq - suprising that is. The majority of Iraqi&#39;s view it as an occupation and would rather the US left.

The &#39;Insurgents&#39; you speak of are often regular everyday Iraqi people - not always extremists or saddamists. Many who now fight america also faught against Saddam. Al Sadr definatly was no fan of Saddam.

It is not as simple as then and us &#39;you are with the terrorists or with freedom&#39;. Freedom for who? Freedom to be beaten and abused in a prison? Freedom to ignore the Geneva convention? Freedom to ignore public opinion? Freedom to be bombed?

There are some that didn&#39;t support Saddam, don&#39;t support Bush or extremists..
Iraq will be free when Iraqi people decide what is going on not Americans. If it is not an occupation why the building of bases? Democracy cannot be bombed into Iraq on hatred can come from that.

I think one of the main problems is a lot of the troops serving in Iraq can&#39;t speak arabic, don&#39;t know the history of the place and don&#39;t know what is going on - just like in Vietnam. We all know of the racism that was harboured in Vietnam.

When America does not even have a proper democracy itself how the hell can it bring it to others?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 12:04 PM
This war is distinctly different than either Vietnam or Korea
This much is true - though CI is full of it on everything else - and communists should be the first people to realize that a war against an peasant revolution, led by parties with some relationship to the workers&#39; movement, is a very different thing than a war against a nationalist rebellion with a disorganized capitalist leadership, most of whom are "Islamic fundamentalists" with a very reactionary program or else are tied to a justifiably hated Ba&#39;athist regime which had plenty of workers&#39; blood on its hands. Then there are the tribal chieftains, who are basically the exploiting landlords in the Iraqi countryside.

Of course many of the rank-and-file independence fighters are working people, resisting the occupation which they hate for good reason, but leadership - or misleadership - organization, and consciousness matter. Among other things, it&#39;s necessary to have a program of what you&#39;re for, not just what you&#39;re against.

As Sandino said about the war to get the Marines out of his country, "only the workers and peasants will go all the way", and he wasn&#39;t even a communist.

A better analogy to Iraq is the Phillipines, where the U.S. invaded in 1898 promising to liberate the people from Spain. They made it a colony instead, and spent decades afterwards putting down a rebellion by the pro-independence forces, who&#39;d helped the U.S. against Spain. Amazingly, this analogy has also been made by rabidly pro-war columnist Max Boot, and even by Bush himself in one brief comment.

About 200,000 Filipinos were killed in the course of bringing them "freedom". The Phillipines were a colony for decades afterwards. When it finally became independent after WWII, there were a series of U.S.-appointed dictatorships. It is today one of the poorest countries in East Asia, and its biggest export is Filipinos going to work in other countries, including other Third World countries.

Iraq may escape a similar fate. If the current insurgents can somehow drive out the U.S., good for them. I wouldn&#39;t count on it though - Washington&#39;s aware that it&#39;s whole world credibility is on the line, just as Saddam&#39;s survival for so many years after Gulf War I damaged Washington&#39;s credibility and ability to rule the world through fear.

As Cheney said recently: "The second thing they ["the terrorists"] learned was that they could hit us, and if they hit us hard enough, they could change our policies because it happened a couple of times. 1983, after we lost 241 Marines in Beirut, when they bombed the barracks there, we pulled out Lebanon. 1993, in Mogadishu, in Somalia, after we lost 19 guys in a battle there one morning, we, within a matter of weeks withdrew from Somalia. So I think they believed going into 9/11, as I say, they could strike us with impunity, and they could get us to change our policy. I think they know now that it&#39;s a much tougher proposition." source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040929-5.html)

Note that this is not a mere partisan dig; it&#39;s directed against Reagan (Lebanon 1983) as much as Clinton (Mogadishu 1993). The U.S. ruling class is determined not to be driven out so easily as in the past, because it sends the wrong message to others determined to resist their domination.

This will be a long struggle, and in the long run I place more confidence in Iraqi workers than in Iraqi capitalist nationalists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 22 2004, 04:22 PM

For thirty years, Vietnam has been a national shame... untill, it seems, now.....

I know that secretly the right has never admitted that they were wrong to, well, illegally invade a sovereign nation that had done nothing to them, but they could never really speak about it. The people had spoken, and through sheer effort managed to force one of the most reactionary presidents in American history to acceede to their wishes. It was a great day... one people seem to have forgotten.
There&#39;s no secretly about it.

Not even any "right" about it, really.

Even liberal capitalist politicians and media say Vietnam was wrong because they lost.

Not because it was morally wrong.

As Chomsky points out in one of his books, many people in the U.S. hold the opinion that Vietnam was a national shame, that the war was morally wrong, despite this view being almost unrepresented in the major media. (He quotes some opinion poll showing a pretty large number holding this view.)

Arguments like "Capitalist Lawyer"&#39;s have been openly circulated since the late 70s...the "boat people exodus" and the Khmer Rouge&#39;s mass murders were the signal for the beginning of the "we shoulda stayed in Vietnam" campaign, which has continued ever since.

BTW, contrary to something RedStar says at the beginning of this thread, it is possible for serious historians to make ballpark estimates of mass-murders, based on evidence. They can probably come within a factor of ten, anyway.

The bizarre claim that the Vietnamese "Communists" killed 3 million people is not one of these estimates. RedStar is quite right that it&#39;s pulled out of someone&#39;s ass.

In fact, there was no "bloodbath" following the fall of Saigon, contrary to many predictions. Even some of the worst torturers and mass-murderers of the Saigon regime, who probably did deserve a firing squad, were merely sent to "reeducation camps". Which were no picnic, to be sure, but they weren&#39;t extermination camps.

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 07:04 PM
This war is distinctly different than either Vietnam or Korea

Besides, Korea was a success, and we never "left" there. As I type this, there are still tens of thousands of US troops in South Korea.

Vietnam was a debaucle, of course, but the actual invasion of Bagdad and uprooting of the Ba&#39;athists was a success. The insurgents now dug in are a totally different situation. They simply took advantage of the power vaccum and are trying to prevent democracy in lieu of funamentalist Islamic law.

They are merely postponing the inevitable.

There will be democracy in Iraq.
What about hte plan to unite Korean by invading North Korea? What happened to that?

[socialistfuture]

no the next plan is to invade france, britian, israel, russia, pakistan, india and some country starting with A.... for having nuclear weapons... WMD... no wait
only north korea and iran have dangerous weapons... hmm i bet they want some &#39;freedom&#39;.