Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[Loren Pechtel]

Haha. No, they were fighting the combination of the Viet Cong and NVA. It was the Viet Cong who operated clandestinally. They did it through assassinations and controlling villages through terror. If they were as popular as you say, did they knowing go about identifying themselves?

I assure you all those South Vietnamese the US killed and tortured were not laughing.

The US was a foreign aggressor trying to maintain an illegitimate government.

To support the US in this is to have no moral compass.

That's why people with moral compasses like Chomsky opposed it.

You're quite the one to speak about moral compasses. Yours is glued hard left.

 

[untermensche]

I assure you all those South Vietnamese the US killed and tortured were not laughing.

The US was a foreign aggressor trying to maintain an illegitimate government.

To support the US in this is to have no moral compass.

That's why people with moral compasses like Chomsky opposed it.

You're quite the one to speak about moral compasses. Yours is glued hard left.

I am opposed to massive acts of terrorism.

That is true.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're quite the one to speak about moral compasses. Yours is glued hard left.

I am opposed to massive acts of terrorism.

That is true.

So you opposed Ho Chi Minh and the VC because that was their primary tool of getting people to come to their side?

 

[untermensche]

I am opposed to massive acts of terrorism.

That is true.

So you opposed Ho Chi Minh and the VC because that was their primary tool of getting people to come to their side?

Do you oppose George Washington?

Or the British?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you opposed Ho Chi Minh and the VC because that was their primary tool of getting people to come to their side?

Do you oppose George Washington?

Or the British?

So terrorism performed by the "correct" side is okay?

 

[untermensche]

Do you oppose George Washington?

Or the British?

So terrorism performed by the "correct" side is okay?

There is a moral distinction between people fighting for self determination and people fighting to oppress.

But war is war.

So complaining that it is ugly is handwaving.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So terrorism performed by the "correct" side is okay?

There is a moral distinction between people fighting for self determination and people fighting to oppress.

But war is war.

So complaining that it is ugly is handwaving.

So you supported the South right to secede from the north in the US so they could continue slavery?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No.

Millions fled the insane US bombing and efforts to force the South into compliance.

The US did not have much willing support in the South. Mostly just people trying to survive the insane violence from across the ocean.

It is amazing how you just make up your own history, ignoring reality.

Millions, who were able to. fled Vietnam when the US left by any means available...

In the immediate aftermath of the war's end, the number of people fleeing Vietnam -- primarily people who were part of or supported the pro-US government -- numbered about 150,000 people. You could say "millions" left Vietnam, but in that case you're talking about just under 2 million people over the course of about 20 years (1975 to 1995).

Which is still about 5 million less than the number of Mexicans who fled to the United States during the same period.

For these people the takeover by the NVA was worse than the war they stayed through and lived through.

Well, for about 130,000 of them this is indeed true; an additional 20,000 left for economic reasons or because they were friends or extended families of U.S. sympathizers and thought life in the U.S. would be better anyway. For the Hoa ethnic group this was also probably true but most of them didn't leave the country at all (and those that did, not in significant numbers until the 1980s)

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the people who would be considered traitors fled the approaching army they opposed merely to survive?

Exactly. Millions and millions

One hundred and fifty thousand.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes it was a civil with the proxies in charge. But the support in the south for it wasn't very strong without the influence of the north and the backing of the Chinese and the Soviets. If the north had stayed out of it, the south would have been okay.

That makes NO SENSE AT ALL. As far as the Vietnamese were concerned, there was NO divide between the north and south, so there was nothing for the north to "stay out of."

They were supposed to have an election to unify the country under a central leader. That election was scheduled and planned, but ultimately canceled because the foreign governments mediating the election (and/or their proxies) would not allow it to go forward unless they could gaurantee victory. The war literally started because the unpopular sham government in Hanoi refused to unify the country and the NVA replied with "Fuck it, we'll do it ourselves."

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes it was a civil with the proxies in charge. But the support in the south for it wasn't very strong without the influence of the north and the backing of the Chinese and the Soviets. If the north had stayed out of it, the south would have been okay.

That makes NO SENSE AT ALL. As far as the Vietnamese were concerned, there was NO divide between the north and south, so there was nothing for the north to "stay out of."

They were supposed to have an election to unify the country under a central leader. That election was scheduled and planned, but ultimately canceled because the foreign governments mediating the election (and/or their proxies) would not allow it to go forward unless they could gaurantee victory. The war literally started because the unpopular sham government in Hanoi refused to unify the country and the NVA replied with "Fuck it, we'll do it ourselves."

It's interesting because in 54 when they were allowed to move between the two zones, about 800K moved from the north to the south. Not sure how many that moved up. The Viet Minh, the precursers to the Viet Cong were supposed to go north and the argument was who directed them, whether it was Ho Chi Minh to stay or by themselves. What happens when the groups have so much difference and that the unification would cause atrocities to the groups that didn't support the new government? Skeptic was right about the south not wanting the north and not wanting the US, though they hated the north more.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That makes NO SENSE AT ALL. As far as the Vietnamese were concerned, there was NO divide between the north and south, so there was nothing for the north to "stay out of."

They were supposed to have an election to unify the country under a central leader. That election was scheduled and planned, but ultimately canceled because the foreign governments mediating the election (and/or their proxies) would not allow it to go forward unless they could gaurantee victory. The war literally started because the unpopular sham government in Hanoi refused to unify the country and the NVA replied with "Fuck it, we'll do it ourselves."

It's interesting because in 54 when they were allowed to move between the two zones, about 800K moved from the north to the south...

... over the course of the next 20 years, yes. They didn't all move south at once. And a huge number of those who DID move were actually Viet Minh/Vietcong sympathizers looking to undermine what they saw as the illegitimate government in the south.

What happens when the groups have so much difference and that the unification would cause atrocities to the groups that didn't support the new government?

The "groups" in question were divided primarily along ethnic/religious lines, the exact nature of which makes very little sense to anyone who isn't from Vietnam. There were at least three different factions with three very different ideas about what unification should actually look like; the only thing they agreed on, really, was that it should be decided with a national election and the formation of a unity government. The LACK of an election and the lack of any sort of national unity (ironically) created a power vacuum that could only be filled by whichever faction was the most ruthless and the most aggressive. That, in the end, proved to be the Vietcong.

Skeptic was right about the south not wanting the north

No he wasn't, because there was no "south" to speak of. The factional division in Vietnam didn't nearly break down by geography, and it sure as hell didn't break down by some arbitrary line drawn by the French Occupation. There WAS a clash of different sects not really wanting to compromise with each other, but the majority of these -- including the Viet Ming -- were willing to accept the results of a national election and move on with a democratic process. In the absence of real democracy, their only viable option was war, and once they were left with THAT, the criteria for "success" shifted from "create a national system that is stable enough to keep the peace" to "completely dominate all opposition until we have complete control of the country."

The only (major) faction that didn't want to resolve the problem with a democratic process was a powerful clique of wealthy catholics backed by the United States (Ngo Dinh Diem being the most famous of these). They knew full well that no democracy = lots of war, but operated under the assumption that they -- and not the Viet Cong -- would be able to completely dominate the opposition, just by virtue of America's superior firepower. It was an assumption that proved every bit as delusional as Skep's theory that the north and south had coherent identities that actually meant anything to anyone in Vietnam.

 

[untermensche]

There is a moral distinction between people fighting for self determination and people fighting to oppress.

But war is war.

So complaining that it is ugly is handwaving.

So you supported the South right to secede from the north in the US so they could continue slavery?

I supported the right of the Vietnamese to throw off the yoke of imperialism.

Some supported the insane effort by the US to beat them into submission.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you supported the South right to secede from the north in the US so they could continue slavery?

I supported the right of the Vietnamese to throw off the yoke of imperialism.

Some supported the insane effort by the US to beat them into submission.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[coloradoatheist]

... over the course of the next 20 years, yes. They didn't all move south at once. And a huge number of those who DID move were actually Viet Minh/Vietcong sympathizers looking to undermine what they saw as the illegitimate government in the south.

Wrong migration. There was two migrations in Vietnam. One was in 54 to 55 and then the migration after the fall of Saigon. It was estimated that about 800,000 people moved from the north to the south when Ho Chi Minh won the north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Passage_to_Freedom

The "groups" in question were divided primarily along ethnic/religious lines, the exact nature of which makes very little sense to anyone who isn't from Vietnam. There were at least three different factions with three very different ideas about what unification should actually look like; the only thing they agreed on, really, was that it should be decided with a national election and the formation of a unity government. The LACK of an election and the lack of any sort of national unity (ironically) created a power vacuum that could only be filled by whichever faction was the most ruthless and the most aggressive. That, in the end, proved to be the Vietcong.

I agree with you about the faction being the most ruthless which were the VietCong. But it was estimated that in 59 their numbers were only about 3,000. But terrorism works.

No he wasn't, because there was no "south" to speak of. The factional division in Vietnam didn't nearly break down by geography, and it sure as hell didn't break down by some arbitrary line drawn by the French Occupation. There WAS a clash of different sects not really wanting to compromise with each other, but the majority of these -- including the Viet Ming -- were willing to accept the results of a national election and move on with a democratic process. In the absence of real democracy, their only viable option was war, and once they were left with THAT, the criteria for "success" shifted from "create a national system that is stable enough to keep the peace" to "completely dominate all opposition until we have complete control of the country."

The only (major) faction that didn't want to resolve the problem with a democratic process was a powerful clique of wealthy catholics backed by the United States (Ngo Dinh Diem being the most famous of these). They knew full well that no democracy = lots of war, but operated under the assumption that they -- and not the Viet Cong -- would be able to completely dominate the opposition, just by virtue of America's superior firepower. It was an assumption that proved every bit as delusional as Skep's theory that the north and south had coherent identities that actually meant anything to anyone in Vietnam.

They didn't want the unification under Ho Chi either. It would be like the UN saying that all the slaves were allowed to go north before the civil war and then a year later the whole country would have slavery.

 

[untermensche]

I supported the right of the Vietnamese to throw off the yoke of imperialism.

Some supported the insane effort by the US to beat them into submission.

You didn't answer my question.

Because it is irrelevant and you answered it yourself.

What is important here is the South Vietnamese wanted unification and the US attacked them and destroyed the lives of millions to stop it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You didn't answer my question.

Because it is irrelevant and you answered it yourself.

What is important here is the South Vietnamese wanted unification and the US attacked them and destroyed the lives of millions to stop it.

You still skipped it. And no the south didn't want unification. they didn't like the Diem brothers, but they didn't want unification under Ho Chi Minh either.

 

[untermensche]

Because it is irrelevant and you answered it yourself.

What is important here is the South Vietnamese wanted unification and the US attacked them and destroyed the lives of millions to stop it.

You still skipped it. And no the south didn't want unification. they didn't like the Diem brothers, but they didn't want unification under Ho Chi Minh either.

Bullshit!!!

That is why the US attacked the South and killed and tortured the people in the South.

To prevent them from supporting their friends.

Anybody who defends the US effort in this is either a sociopath or suffered a brain injury.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You still skipped it. And no the south didn't want unification. they didn't like the Diem brothers, but they didn't want unification under Ho Chi Minh either.

Bullshit!!!

That is why the US attacked the South and killed and tortured the people in the South.

To prevent them from supporting their friends.

Anybody who defends the US effort in this is either a sociopath or suffered a brain injury.

That's like saying the French attacked the US by joining the side of the US in the revolutionary war. It was a civil war and the diffeent powers supported the different sides in the civil war. You still won't answer my question about the supporting the south to secede.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit!!!

That is why the US attacked the South and killed and tortured the people in the South.

To prevent them from supporting their friends.

Anybody who defends the US effort in this is either a sociopath or suffered a brain injury.

That's like saying the French attacked the US by joining the side of the US in the revolutionary war. It was a civil war and the diffeent powers supported the different sides in the civil war. You still won't answer my question about the supporting the south to secede.

The people of the South did not see their government as legitimate. They saw it as an imperial puppet. A remnant of the French imperial puppet.

The US attacked the people wanting independence.

In the US Revolutionary War that was the British.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wrong migration.

Nope. The initial evacuation of Catholic Vietnamese from the north to the south in the first six months numbered a little over 300,000 people. About a quarter million followed by the end of 1955, with others moving in surges between 55 and 60. Migration continued even up to the mid 60s.

The majority of those moved in 1954 were French citizens, soldiers, and sympathizers. Which sort of mirrors the Fall of Saigon and the evacuation immediately after that: those who cast their lot with the loosing side wound up as refugees pretty quickly.

I agree with you about the faction being the most ruthless which were the VietCong. But it was estimated that in 59 their numbers were only about 3,000.

That's mainly because in 1959 the term "Vietcong" was an umbrella term for the 10 to 15 thousand former Viet Minh and sympathizers who had remained in the south after the French partition. It grew in size and strength -- and enormously at that -- in reaction to U.S. involvement and the consolidation of disparate independence movements that until then had no common ground to speak of.

Kind of amazing how quickly the arrival of a common enemy makes former rivals into allies.

They didn't want the unification under Ho Chi either.

They didn't want Ho Chi Minh to win the election, no. And when it became clear that that was extremely likely to happen, Diem declared "No election for you!" and kept the partition alive for years after it was set to expire.

It's pretty much the same move the South pulled when Lincoln was elected. They couldn't stand the rule of an abolitionist, so they decided they couldn't be part of any country that would have voted for him in the first place. Interestingly, the end result -- despite U.S. interference in the conflict -- wound up being exactly the same in both cases.

It would be like the UN saying that all the slaves were allowed to go north before the civil war and then a year later the whole country would have slavery.

Well, no, it would be like a the Confederacy seceding from the Union and then saying they would rejoin if they held a new election, then changing their mind once they discovered that Lincoln would probably win the new election too.

By way of comparison: the amount of damage caused by the Vietnamese on their OWN society was ultimately far less than was caused by the U.S. attempts to suppress the communists. North Vietnam did not have anywhere near the firepower, the manpower or even the MOTIVE to wreak the kind of destruction on the South that the U.S. did, nor for that matter did the South have the ability to visit that kind of destruction on the communists. In a side by side comparison, between the U.S. war effort no the one hand and the "Unification under Ho," along with the reeducation camps, the purges, the land grabs, the often violent suppression of Catholic dissidents on the other hand, there is NO QUESTION that unification under Ho Chi Minh would actually have been the lesser of two evils. The main reason for this is that the U.S. war effort was ultimately unsuccessful and communist unification happened ANYWAY. It was, for all intents and purposes, an inevitability. The price the people of Vietnam paid for that transition in terms of blood and misery was at least two orders of magnitude higher than it should have been.