Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[coloradoatheist]

No they did not, they fought them back for over 2 years once the American left and even further since the US got out ground troops similar. The north had to send almost half a million men or more to get the south to comply. If the north did not do that, the south would not have fallen.

Once the US left you had all these traitors in the South that had supported a foreign imperial power.

Yes they were afraid of the people who were not traitors.

You mean a very large portion of the south who did not support the north. The ones that if north hadn't sent 400,000 into the country who would have stopped the south from becoming communist?


And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And the communists didn't kill millions?

Not in Vietnam they didn't.

The hardline communist states tend to kill around 10% of their population in solidifying their rule...

1) Bullshit. You literally pulled that number directly out of your ass and are not prepared to even BEGIN to justify it.

2) A hardline ANYTHING will kill a huge chunk of its population in solidifying its rule. Why is being murdered by pro-capitalist dictators preferable to being murdered by communists?

For that matter, why is the MASSIVE death toll from U.S. carpet bombing of Vietnam preferable to the much smaller death toll the Vietnamese would have collected? Upwards of one and a half million people died during that war. AFTER the war, 300,000 people were sent to "reeducation camps" where about 15,000 of them died from totally preventable conditions and a combination of abuse, neglect and overwork.

So ten years of war plus 1.5 million dead and 300,000 in reeducation camps = Communist victory.
0 years of war plus 15,000 dead and 300,000 in reeducation camps = Communist victory

Which one of those would the people of Vietnam probably prefer?

tl;dr: You don't get to try and justify the atrocities and mistakes of a war if you're on the losing side.

stopping a communist takeover at a cost of under 10% of their population is probably a good thing.

How about FAILING to stop a communist takeover at the cost of 5% of their population?

And we have good numbers on this?

We do.

And the result was millions fled. We don't know how many died.

Yes we do. Upper estimate somewhere in the vicinity of 180,000. The only thing that's unclear is to what extent the communist party was actually responsible for those deaths. Vietnam had MASSIVE economic problems after the war and malnutrition cranked up the infant mortality rate -- and mortality rate in general -- for a decade afterwards. There was also a huge uptick of health problems that hadn't existed before, with a difficult to confirm but very likely link to the widespread use of Agent Orange (I have three uncles and my wife's father who all had serious chronic health problems after Vietnam, so there's no question about the link for me. We poisoned that country along with our own soldiers).

The people who initially left Vietnam did so because they were known sympathizers with the pro-U.S. government and were trying to avoid prosecution and/or execution. Those who left later did so because their country was poor and the economy was falling apart. If you think there was a massive genocide on top of all that, you're going to have to come up with a reliable source of inf

ROFL never mind, I forgot who I was talking to.

They're making progress back to sanity by now. However, back then they were executing people almost at random--around 5% of the population. That's the hell you're defending.

5% of the population would have been another 2.1 million people. I'm not even going to ASK if you have a source for that because you DEFINITELY made that bullshit up.

And it didn't take much with Google to find they were causing famine in Cambodia

Bullshit. By most accounts the famine in Cambodia was caused by a combination of natural disasters and Pol Pot's fuckery (much like the deaths that resulted were also laid at the feet of the Khmer Rouge). Vietnam gets the blame for refusing to take in their refugees, as do Laos and Thailand for the same reason.

For the record: do you happen to know how many people died directly as a result of the famine and nothing else? No, of course you don't... but I'm sure if I give you a few hours you'll be happy to make something up with no evidence at all.

And I find reports of people dying in the 1988 famine--entirely due to government mismanagement.

Because when communists mismanage a country's natural resources it's the same thing as genocide; when capitalists do it, it's "tragedy."

If some are dying large numbers are starving. Famine is a common result of attempts to impose communist ideas on food production.

No, famine is the common result of a country lacking enough food for its population. This happens for one or two reasons:

1) The country cannot produce enough food for everyone
2) The country cannot import enough food for everyone.

Vietnam lost much of its production capacity in the 1970s due to the war and took a long time to recover; they were already in famine conditions before the war was over, hence the subsequent looting of Cambodia.

The event you're describing from 1988 -- which is clearly the result of you googling "vietnam famine" and clicking on one of the first pages to pop up without actually reading the background -- was a famine SCARE reported by a Hanoi newspaper, largely as a backhanded way of criticizing the government after they completely fucked up the collectivization of one of its northern economic zones. It wasn't an ACTUAL famine, it was one of those "Some observers are saying a famine is inevitable" news stories.

It always trashes their production capacity and the people suffer.

Are the people of Vietnam suffering now?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Once the US left you had all these traitors in the South that had supported a foreign imperial power.

Yes they were afraid of the people who were not traitors.

You mean a very large portion of the south who did not support the north. The ones that if north hadn't sent 400,000 into the country who would have stopped the south from becoming communist?

Answer the following two questions, with your above sentiment in mind:

1) How many troops did the Allies send into occupied France on D-Day?

2) How many Frenchmen wanted to remain occupied by Germany?

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

Because Chomsky never picked up a rifle and engaged in guerilla combat on behalf of a foreign government that wanted to impose its own version of democracy on the U.S.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You mean a very large portion of the south who did not support the north. The ones that if north hadn't sent 400,000 into the country who would have stopped the south from becoming communist?

Answer the following two questions, with your above sentiment in mind:

1) How many troops did the Allies send into occupied France on D-Day?

2) How many Frenchmen wanted to remain occupied by Germany?

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

Because Chomsky never picked up a rifle and engaged in guerilla combat on behalf of a foreign government that wanted to impose its own version of democracy on the U.S.

Tens of thousands on the first one.

Not sure on 2

But your argument is that if 2 was less than 5% of the country than that's what the country wanted.

So in North Korea would Chomsky's equivalent on the opposite, would that person have been sent to a re-education camp even if they didn't lift a weapon? That's the whole issue with the tyrannical form of communism. They wouldn't have allowed a Chomsky in their ranks.

 

[untermensche]

Once the US left you had all these traitors in the South that had supported a foreign imperial power.

Yes they were afraid of the people who were not traitors.

You mean a very large portion of the south who did not support the north. The ones that if north hadn't sent 400,000 into the country who would have stopped the south from becoming communist?

They had opposed their own countryman in favor of a foreign tyrant and murderer.

They had something to fear.

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

I don't think Chomsky is a hero. He is an honest man who tells it like it is.

Something incredibly rare in this world.

The anti-Communism madmen in the US are the people to despise.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You mean a very large portion of the south who did not support the north. The ones that if north hadn't sent 400,000 into the country who would have stopped the south from becoming communist?

They had opposed their own countryman in favor of a foreign tyrant and murderer.

They had something to fear.

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

I don't think Chomsky is a hero. He is an honest man who tells it like it is.

Something incredibly rare in this world.

The anti-Communism madmen in the US are the people to despise.

That's like saying Jewish people had nothing to fear from Hitler. Black people should just suck it up and enjoy being a slave.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Answer the following two questions, with your above sentiment in mind:

1) How many troops did the Allies send into occupied France on D-Day?

2) How many Frenchmen wanted to remain occupied by Germany?

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

Because Chomsky never picked up a rifle and engaged in guerilla combat on behalf of a foreign government that wanted to impose its own version of democracy on the U.S.

Tens of thousands on the first one.

150,000

Not sure on 2

Why do you suppose they had to send 150,000 troops -- and God knows how many more over successive months -- to liberate France? If the French didn't want to be under German occupation, those troops shouldn't have been necessary at all, right?

But your argument is that if 2 was less than 5% of the country than that's what the country wanted.

No, that's YOUR argument. That if you have to send in a huge army to remove a country's government, that government must have been unpopular. Aside from the fact that this pretty much invalidates every war the United States has ever fought, it would also mean the D-Day invasion was an act of aggression against those poor Nazi-loving frenchmen, yes?

So in North Korea would Chomsky's equivalent on the opposite, would that person have been sent to a re-education camp even if they didn't lift a weapon?

If I were a Klingon, and your mom was the President of Narnia, would Tyrion Lannister have sent Sonic the Hedgehog to Band Camp?

Your questions are silly and irrelevant.

That's the whole issue with the tyrannical form of communism.

That's the whole issue with the tyrannical form of ANYTHING.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They had opposed their own countryman in favor of a foreign tyrant and murderer.

They had something to fear.

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

I don't think Chomsky is a hero. He is an honest man who tells it like it is.

Something incredibly rare in this world.

The anti-Communism madmen in the US are the people to despise.

That's like saying Jewish people had nothing to fear from Hitler.

No, that is LITERALLY like saying "Jewish people had something to fear from Hitler." And if they had known what Hitler was planning, they probably would have left in similar numbers as the U.S. sympathizers did after the fall of Saigon.

Black people should just suck it up and enjoy being a slave.

No, black people fled from slavery in huge numbers before the civil war. And despite the majority of the south not owning slaves, despite slaves overwhelmingly favoring freedom over slavery, it still took the Union Army 4 years to defeat a Confederacy that was specifically founded to preserve the institution of slavery.

War is not a democratic process, col. You can't judge the popularity of a regime by how many troops it takes to overthrow it.

 

[untermensche]

They had opposed their own countryman in favor of a foreign tyrant and murderer.

They had something to fear.

And you regard Chomsky as a hero but why with this belief shouldn't Chomsky have been seen in the same light as being a traitor to the US?

I don't think Chomsky is a hero. He is an honest man who tells it like it is.

Something incredibly rare in this world.

The anti-Communism madmen in the US are the people to despise.

That's like saying Jewish people had nothing to fear from Hitler. Black people should just suck it up and enjoy being a slave.

The US was the only Hitler in Vietnam.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If we had gone into France after the Germans had left and the majority of the people were fighting the US you would not say that the people of France had the support of the US. How many French kept fighting against the US after the germans left the country? The South Vietnamese fought for 2 more years after the US left to keep the north out. You two are making the argument is was well supported in the south when it wasn't.

And with the US Civil war example. There is a huge problem clash in democracy even when it violates the human rights of the minority.

 

[untermensche]

The US predicted Saigon would hold out until 1976.

But the opposition to the North was not there. They took it in 1975.

Basically the North took what it wanted when it wanted. It was devastated by the insane US bombing. It had a lot to do besides take the South.

The stupidity of the US cost a lot of people their lives and cost a lot in military equipment.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The US predicted Saigon would hold out until 1976.

But the opposition to the North was not there. They took it in 1975.

Basically the North took what it wanted when it wanted. It was devastated by the insane US bombing. It had a lot to do besides take the South.

The stupidity of the US cost a lot of people their lives and cost a lot in military equipment.

It was two years after the americans had withdrawn from the country and almost 4 years after the US had withrdrawn most ground force combat troops. Le'ts compare it to what happened when allied forces liberated a European town or city after the Germans left. There were parades and flag waving, not people continuing to fight the allied forces from the town.

 

[untermensche]

The US predicted Saigon would hold out until 1976.

But the opposition to the North was not there. They took it in 1975.

Basically the North took what it wanted when it wanted. It was devastated by the insane US bombing. It had a lot to do besides take the South.

The stupidity of the US cost a lot of people their lives and cost a lot in military equipment.

It was two years after the americans had withdrawn from the country and almost 4 years after the US had withrdrawn most ground force combat troops. Le'ts compare it to what happened when allied forces liberated a European town or city after the Germans left. There were parades and flag waving, not people continuing to fight the allied forces from the town.

Do you know how much tonnage was dropped on the North?

They knew the South was a wasteland.

Your argument rests on the erroneous belief they were in a hurry.

They had a lot of rebuilding and regrouping to do.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It was two years after the americans had withdrawn from the country and almost 4 years after the US had withrdrawn most ground force combat troops. Le'ts compare it to what happened when allied forces liberated a European town or city after the Germans left. There were parades and flag waving, not people continuing to fight the allied forces from the town.

Do you know how much tonnage was dropped on the North?

They knew the South was a wasteland.

Your argument rests on the erroneous belief they were in a hurry.

They had a lot of rebuilding and regrouping to do.

So they had to rebuild for another invasion force to invade a division of the country that didn't want them there? If the south had thought of the americans as invaders as you said, they would have had parades when they left and it would have taken less than 100 soldiers to take back the country.

 

[untermensche]

Do you know how much tonnage was dropped on the North?

They knew the South was a wasteland.

Your argument rests on the erroneous belief they were in a hurry.

They had a lot of rebuilding and regrouping to do.

So they had to rebuild for another invasion force to invade a division of the country that didn't want them there? If the south had thought of the americans as invaders as you said, they would have had parades when they left and it would have taken less than 100 soldiers to take back the country.

They had to rebuild their homes and farms and way of life.

The South offered no real defense. They crumbled.

 

[Bomb#20]

When the heck was Chomsky ever arrested for anything he said? He was arrested for trespassing, which he committed because he was trying to get himself arrested.

You clearly don't know the history.

Enjoy your sleep.

I.e., you can't produce ONE case.

He's getting condemned for turning a blind eye to the Khmer Rouge.

Something that never happened. You can't produce ONE quote.

Only the insane condemn people for events that never happened.

He called Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution "a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it". That book is completely uncritical of the Khmer Rouge, relies primarily on the Khmer Rouge itself as a source, claims "The evacuation of Phnom Penh undoubtedly saved the lives of many thousands of Cambodians", and calls refugees' reports of what was really going on "a systematic process of mythmaking."

About Murder of a Gentle Land, Chomsky characterized its sources as "unverifiable documentation: alleged interviews with Cambodians." and "in toto: specialists at the State and Defense Departments, the National Security Council, and three unnamed foreign embassies in Washington."

When Chomsky agrees with a book's viewpoint he thinks it's carefully documented; when he disagrees with its viewpoint he accuses the authors of lying about having talked to refugees. He said that in 1979, by which time eyewitnesses backing up what MoaGL had described were too numerous to dismiss.

That's turning a blind eye.

There's extensive documentation here of Chomsky's decades-long record of double standards about Cambodia:

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

 

[untermensche]

He's getting condemned for turning a blind eye to the Khmer Rouge.

Something that never happened. You can't produce ONE quote.

Only the insane condemn people for events that never happened.

He called Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution "a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it". That book is completely uncritical of the Khmer Rouge, relies primarily on the Khmer Rouge itself as a source, claims "The evacuation of Phnom Penh undoubtedly saved the lives of many thousands of Cambodians", and calls refugees' reports of what was really going on "a systematic process of mythmaking."

Show me his quote in context.

About Murder of a Gentle Land, Chomsky characterized its sources as "unverifiable documentation: alleged interviews with Cambodians." and "in toto: specialists at the State and Defense Departments, the National Security Council, and three unnamed foreign embassies in Washington."

If that is what he called it you have to show that is not what it was.

When Chomsky agrees with a book's viewpoint he thinks it's carefully documented; when he disagrees with its viewpoint he accuses the authors of lying about having talked to refugees. He said that in 1979, by which time eyewitnesses backing up what MoaGL had described were too numerous to dismiss.

Total bullshit!!!!!

Chomsky is an impeccable researcher. One of the very few honest voices in the whole mess. You have no evidence to the contrary.

Vietnam and the bombing of Cambodia were two massive US crimes.

The people who ordered it deserved to be hung.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Total bullshit!!!!!

Chomsky is an impeccable researcher. One of the very few honest voices in the whole mess. You have no evidence to the contrary.

Vietnam and the bombing of Cambodia were two massive US crimes.

The people who ordered it deserved to be hung.

Except that was what he said. He called any books pointing out the genocide as political hacks. He should have apologized and said, "My anti-west bias unfortunately lead me to overlook the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So they had to rebuild for another invasion force to invade a division of the country that didn't want them there? If the south had thought of the americans as invaders as you said, they would have had parades when they left and it would have taken less than 100 soldiers to take back the country.

They had to rebuild their homes and farms and way of life.

The South offered no real defense. They crumbled.

I think you do need to take your comedy show on the road. The north lost battles at Tet and the Easter offensive. They needed to rebuild so their invasion was big enough to overcome all the people fighting back in the south.

 

[untermensche]

They had to rebuild their homes and farms and way of life.

The South offered no real defense. They crumbled.

I think you do need to take your comedy show on the road. The north lost battles at Tet and the Easter offensive. They needed to rebuild so their invasion was big enough to overcome all the people fighting back in the south.

They did not fight the South in those cases.

They fought the US. Not the same thing.

Talk about comedy.