• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

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.


Yes they did fight the south in both cases. Tet had more US involvement, but by the Easter offensive we had scaled back most of the ground forces. It was ARVN who was fighting the north in that battle. You are dismissing the two years too lightly. If the north hadn't invaded the south two countries would have formed just like Korea.
 
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.

That was a result of a fairly quick search with Google. Note that the deaths are often not direct. (For example, in China they set unrealistic production targets for farms. They took a percentage of what they said was produced, not of what was actually produced. The cities survived, tens of millions of farmers did not.) Stalin was even worse, deliberately taking all the production from farmers he didn't like. Cambodia was the worst.

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?

You realize there's an order of magnitude of difference here? Your worst example killed about 1%. The midrange value for the worst of the communists, Cambodia, is 25% of the population.

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?

Honest statistics. Your number is too high and less than half of that number is civilian.

And your 15,000 isn't even in the ballpark:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM said:
Finally, I can calculate the overall democide of Vietnam in the post-Vietnam War period (lines 762 to 764). This amounts to 346,000 to 2,438,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians, probably about 1,040,000.

(First on-target hit from my Google search, it appears to be an honest counting of the numbers.)

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

In other words, politics is more important than the truth.

And we have good numbers on this?
We do.

From what, Pravda?

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).

1) Your upper estimate is off by at least an order of magnitude.

2) Those massive economic problems are because they fucked the economy with their attempts at implementing communism--I consider the government responsible for them. The communists go through and remove the well to do---which means they remove those who actually make the system work. Of course things fall apart!

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.

Look up what they did with land reform. Note that I was talking about before the war.

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.

But Vietnam was taking the food aid.

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."

You persist in dividing the world up into communists and capitalists. What you are missing is that most of the evil you ascribe to capitalists was actually done by dictators out for themselves. Also, your link hardly supports your claims. While they are ascribing the deaths to the Indonesian army the link itself actually shows that most of the famine deaths were due to the strategy employed by the resistance elements. They took a subsistence population and moved into the hills. Oops, farm production would drop. Oops, now they're supporting troops. Famine is the expected result.

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.

1) Food production crashes when the communists try to organize people their way. Collective plots are never as productive as private plots.

2) Not being able to import enough is almost always the fault of the government. They choose to use their money on things other than the welfare of the people. If they're truly unable to afford it the world will usually provide. (Where the world will not provide is cases like sub-Saharan Africa where the population exceeds the carrying capacity. That's not a crop failure, that's a permanent situation.)

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 looting I was referring to was more than a decade after the war. And they were looting a country even worse off than they were.

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.

I guess you work for Pravda.

It always trashes their production capacity and the people suffer.
Are the people of Vietnam suffering now?

Vietnam has to a fair degree gone capitalist by now--although university graduates have a hard time getting a job because they spent so much of their education on communist crap rather than whatever they were theoretically studying.
 
They did not fight the South in those cases.

They fought the US. Not the same thing.

Talk about comedy.


Yes they did fight the south in both cases. Tet had more US involvement, but by the Easter offensive we had scaled back most of the ground forces. It was ARVN who was fighting the north in that battle. You are dismissing the two years too lightly. If the north hadn't invaded the south two countries would have formed just like Korea.

Did the US provide air support?

Tet was turned away by the US, not the South which had no coherent leadership. It was just a mercenary army of the imperial invader.
 
Yes they did fight the south in both cases. Tet had more US involvement, but by the Easter offensive we had scaled back most of the ground forces. It was ARVN who was fighting the north in that battle. You are dismissing the two years too lightly. If the north hadn't invaded the south two countries would have formed just like Korea.

Did the US provide air support?

Tet was turned away by the US, not the South which had no coherent leadership. It was just a mercenary army of the imperial invader.

Yes they provided some air support. But it was the south fighting on the ground. It was mostly the south fighting starting late 71 and 72. If that army didn't want to fight it would have mass deserted and falling apart very shortly after the Americans left in 73 instead of fighting on until 75. You are short changing them.
 
Did the US provide air support?

Tet was turned away by the US, not the South which had no coherent leadership. It was just a mercenary army of the imperial invader.

Yes they provided some air support. But it was the south fighting on the ground. It was mostly the south fighting starting late 71 and 72. If that army didn't want to fight it would have mass deserted and falling apart very shortly after the Americans left in 73 instead of fighting on until 75. You are short changing them.

Mercenary armies fight for as long as they can as long as they are being paid and provided with equipment.

These people were not following some South Vietnamese patriot.

They were following orders from Washington DC.
 
Yes they provided some air support. But it was the south fighting on the ground. It was mostly the south fighting starting late 71 and 72. If that army didn't want to fight it would have mass deserted and falling apart very shortly after the Americans left in 73 instead of fighting on until 75. You are short changing them.

Mercenary armies fight for as long as they can as long as they are being paid and provided with equipment.

These people were not following some South Vietnamese patriot.

They were following orders from Washington DC.

This wasn't a third party mercenary army. This was them defending their homeland. They were not following orders from DC. They were following their own beliefs, keeping the north out and they were upset because they thought we abandoned them from our promises to them.
 
Mercenary armies fight for as long as they can as long as they are being paid and provided with equipment.

These people were not following some South Vietnamese patriot.

They were following orders from Washington DC.

This wasn't a third party mercenary army. This was them defending their homeland. They were not following orders from DC. They were following their own beliefs, keeping the north out and they were upset because they thought we abandoned them from our promises to them.

Bull.

It was a mercenary army doing the bidding of a foreign power.

They had no leader. No philosophy. No support from any of the people.

Imperial powers have been using indigenous mercenary armies for a long time.
 
This wasn't a third party mercenary army. This was them defending their homeland. They were not following orders from DC. They were following their own beliefs, keeping the north out and they were upset because they thought we abandoned them from our promises to them.

Bull.

It was a mercenary army doing the bidding of a foreign power.

They had no leader. No philosophy. No support from any of the people.

Imperial powers have been using indigenous mercenary armies for a long time.

And you raped your wife. She certainly didn't consent!
 
Not in Vietnam they didn't.


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

That was a result of a fairly quick search with Google. Note that the deaths are often not direct.
Therefore that number is bullshit.

You realize there's an order of magnitude of difference here? Your worst example killed about 1%.
Actually, my worst example killed 50% of the population there, in the case of a man who was BY NO MEANS AT ALL a communist.

You didn't answer the question: why is it preferable to be killed by capitalists than communists?

Honest statistics. Your number is too high and less than half of that number is civilian.
Nope. If you include combatants on both sides, the number goes up to 3.2 million.

(First on-target hit from my Google search
Meaning you moved the goalpost to a specific position and then searched desperately for a source that hit it. Par for the course with you.

1) Your upper estimate is off by at least an order of magnitude.
So on the one hand you're claiming that the death toll from 10 years of massive carpet bombing with the world's most powerful military only caused a quarter million deaths, while on the other hand you're claiming that 20 years of communist rule in a country that could barely afford to feed its own armies caused 2 million deaths.

Silly bullshit is silly.

What you are missing is
... the fact that you are a bullshitter? No, i didn't miss that at all.
 
Bull.

It was a mercenary army doing the bidding of a foreign power.

They had no leader. No philosophy. No support from any of the people.

Imperial powers have been using indigenous mercenary armies for a long time.

And you raped your wife. She certainly didn't consent!

If your wife consented why did you blow her up?
 
That was a result of a fairly quick search with Google. Note that the deaths are often not direct.
Therefore that number is bullshit.

So indirect deaths don't matter? I dig an impassible mote around your house and I'm not responsible for your starvation?

You realize there's an order of magnitude of difference here? Your worst example killed about 1%.
Actually, my worst example killed 50% of the population there, in the case of a man who was BY NO MEANS AT ALL a communist.

That wasn't one of your examples and your own source gives a pretty extreme range for the death toll--taking the middle of the range as the best guess would leave your 50% number effectively impossible.

You didn't answer the question: why is it preferable to be killed by capitalists than communists?

I never said it was.

Honest statistics. Your number is too high and less than half of that number is civilian.
Nope. If you include combatants on both sides, the number goes up to 3.2 million.

Check your numbers. You're taking the total and assuming it's civilian and then adding the military yet again.

(First on-target hit from my Google search
Meaning you moved the goalpost to a specific position and then searched desperately for a source that hit it. Par for the course with you.

No. I meant the first on-topic hit. The problem was most of the hits were for deaths during the war rather than after. That link was the first discussing deaths after.

1) Your upper estimate is off by at least an order of magnitude.
So on the one hand you're claiming that the death toll from 10 years of massive carpet bombing with the world's most powerful military only caused a quarter million deaths, while on the other hand you're claiming that 20 years of communist rule in a country that could barely afford to feed its own armies caused 2 million deaths.

You realize most of those bombs were aimed at troops hiding in trees or suspected troops hiding in trees--most of the casualties were just trees. If they were on target they got some Viet Cong also, but our spotting left something to be desired, many times we blew up nothing but empty jungle.

- - - Updated - - -

And you raped your wife. She certainly didn't consent!

If your wife consented why did you blow her up?

You're the one saying consent was impossible.
 
It's funny how you don't consider Ho Chi Minh a puppet of the USSR or China when he spent many years in those countries though Diem never spent time in the US. Diem and Ho wanted a one Vietnam but they didn't want the others political philosophy running the country, it was a divided country. And there wasn't support in the south until the Viet Minh started using terrorism to get people to follow.
 
It's funny how you don't consider Ho Chi Minh a puppet of the USSR or China when he spent many years in those countries though Diem never spent time in the US. Diem and Ho wanted a one Vietnam but they didn't want the others political philosophy running the country, it was a divided country. And there wasn't support in the south until the Viet Minh started using terrorism to get people to follow.

He was a Revolutionary leader. Not a puppet.

That is why we know his name.

Who was the leader of South Vietnam?
 
It's funny how you don't consider Ho Chi Minh a puppet of the USSR or China when he spent many years in those countries though Diem never spent time in the US. Diem and Ho wanted a one Vietnam but they didn't want the others political philosophy running the country, it was a divided country. And there wasn't support in the south until the Viet Minh started using terrorism to get people to follow.

He was a Revolutionary leader. Not a puppet.

That is why we know his name.

Who was the leader of South Vietnam?
It's a mystery. :rolleyes:
 
Therefore that number is bullshit.

So indirect deaths don't matter?
Of course they matter. They're just impossible to quantify in terms of causality and it is unfair and spurious to assign blame to indirect deaths to the actions of one government or another. That, at least, is the reason you refuse to attribute indirect civilian deaths of Palestinians to Israelis, or the massive death toll in Iraq to the U.S. invasion, or the 300,000ish serious cancer cases and resulting deaths in Vietnam to the U.S. use of agent orange.

I dig an impassible mote around your house and I'm not responsible for your starvation?
That depends. Are you Israeli?

Honest statistics. Your number is too high and less than half of that number is civilian.
Nope. If you include combatants on both sides, the number goes up to 3.2 million.

Check your numbers. You're taking the total and assuming it's civilian and then adding the military yet again.
Nope. My original figure was the widely accepted estimate excluding combatants. That includes regular soldiers of the NVA, ARVN soldiers, Vietcong militants and those executed by both sides as spies and/or saboteurs (and excluding U.S. military and civilian casualties). That figure is about 1.5 million dead over the course of ten years. This is kind of to be expected when you drop 2.5 million tons of explosives on a 40 million people in a country the size of Montana.

Put another way: not counting the deaths caused by direct fire gun battles, it's the equivalent -- in terms of raw explosive firepower -- of hitting the East Coast of the United States with six randomly targeted thermonuclear warheads.

There was a time not too long ago when the United States was PLEASED with itself for killing so few civilians. Under the circumstances, that's probably fair. But to claim the civilian death toll never exceeded tripple digits? That's just bullshit.

You realize most of those bombs were aimed at troops hiding in trees or suspected troops hiding in trees
BULLSHIT.

Most of those bombs were aimed at BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE that supported the north, the majority of which was run by civilians. This means power plants, truck parks, factors, quarries, mills, warehouses, oil fields, etc.

Heavy bombs -- especially in the 1960s -- were deployed from attack aircraft like the A-6 intruder or the B-52, at a time when precision guidance was FAR from reliable and actionable intelligence on targets was hard to verify and even harder to communicate to central command groups. On top of that, Vietnam had some of craziest air defenses in the history of mankind; flak thick enough that you could walk on and missile batteries fucking EVERYWHERE. Close air support against "troops hiding in trees" came in the form of helicopter support or small, agile aircraft like the A-1 skyraider. The A-6s, A-7s, F-111s and F-14s were NOT being sent to bomb "soldiers hiding in trees" just because it was way too dangerous and time consuming to sortie heavy aircraft through the Seventh Circle of Aviation Hell that WAS the skies over Vietnam just to hit a bunch of rice pickers in the jungle who may or may not even be there when the strike rolls in. No, those heavy aircraft and bombing raids were hitting priority and strategic targets, the majority of which were in CITIES.

And no, they were NOT using the cute "Target designated by a spotter, let's drop a single bomb on him from high altitude and then wring our hands over collateral damage that we're going to blame on the enemy anyway" bullshit tactic. That's the PR tactic from a generation or two LATER, after the Gulf War. Vietnam era bombing missions RARELY involved fewer than a half dozen aircraft, and it was even more rare for a single aircraft to release less than half of its full load at a single target.

The closest they had to "precision strikes" were the Wild Weasel missions, in which fighter pilots would would basically joust with SAM batteries; you see me, you paint me with your radar, I fire an anti-radiation missile at you; you kill your radar, my missile looses lock, you light up your radar and shoot one back at me; I jam your radar, dodge your missile, fire another ARM; you kill your radar, wait for my missile to loose lock; round and round we go. Two of my great uncles were shot down doing this, one was killed, another came back with stories he doesn't like to tell. The one thing he DID tell me -- and was never shy about -- was that the bombers he was protecting blasted whole neighborhoods into parking lots. Deliberately. Repeatedly, in some cases.
 
It's funny how you don't consider Ho Chi Minh a puppet of the USSR or China when he spent many years in those countries though Diem never spent time in the US.
Yes he did. Back in the early 1950s, Diem spent time just about EVERYWHERE trying to find a patron to support his rise to power. The U.S. didn't bite, but he was able to get the backing of the French and a few powerful European Catholic and anti-communist hardliners. Diem was no puppet, he was just a con man.

Diem and Ho wanted a one Vietnam but they didn't want the others political philosophy running the country, it was a divided country.
It was a divided PEOPLE, and even then the division was hardly even. Diem's faction was the minority in Vietnam and only had as much power as it did because it had the backing of the French, who had just gotten their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu. The only reason the partition happened AT ALL is because the French were able to consolidate the rest of their resources and supporters in the south in enough strength to keep the communists from sweeping them altogether, and even the partition was only supposed to last for a year until the elections unified the country (at which point France would be completely out of Vietnam with a declaration of "Your circus, your monkeys.")

And there wasn't support in the south until the Viet Minh started using terrorism to get people to follow.

People don't follow you because of terrorism. People use terrorism because they follow you.
 
You're the one saying consent was impossible.

No. With imperial puppet governments that do not represent the will of the people but represent the will of the foreign imperial power it is meaningless.

Repeating your mistake doesn't make it true.

Nobody except a few revisionists like you say that we weren't invited by South Vietnam. While they might not have particularly liked us they liked us an awful lot better than they liked being part of the North.
 
So indirect deaths don't matter?
Of course they matter. They're just impossible to quantify in terms of causality and it is unfair and spurious to assign blame to indirect deaths to the actions of one government or another. That, at least, is the reason you refuse to attribute indirect civilian deaths of Palestinians to Israelis, or the massive death toll in Iraq to the U.S. invasion, or the 300,000ish serious cancer cases and resulting deaths in Vietnam to the U.S. use of agent orange.

Palestinians: You need to show a mechanism of those civilian deaths being Israel's fault. The reality is that their standard of living crashed when they started the Second Intifada. That was a Palestinian action, not an Israeli action--pretty hard to blame Israel for it.

Iraq: I blame the US for the invasion casualties--but note that they were far below what Saddam was doing to his own people. I do not blame the US for the Shia/Sunni fighting that followed. That was stirred by outside forces.

Agent Orange: I don't believe we have good data on how many it killed. The problem is we are looking at long-delayed cancer deaths--something that's incredibly hard to figure. About 20% of the population will die of cancer anyway, to attribute cancer deaths to a specific cause requires a population that suffers a statistically significant increase over this baseline, or else specific and not too common forms of cancer at a level significantly above the normal.

What happens in cases like this is that all the cases are blamed on the proposed cause. Given the number that served in Vietnam, 300k cancer deaths aren't evidence of anything. You need something more than finger pointing.

(Remember Dow Corning and the silicon breast implants? A big ruckus stirred up by the lawyers--but when the dust settled Dow Corning had been destroyed for nothing--women with implants were actually less likely to get any of the conditions the implants were being blamed for than the population at large. The only true issue was ruptures--and that was a small number of cases. Or the ruckus about bone marrow transplants for breast cancer. Big flap, legislatures getting involved--and when the dust settled it came down to no increase in life expectancy.)

I dig an impassible mote around your house and I'm not responsible for your starvation?
That depends. Are you Israeli?

I see no mote around Gaza. They can import as much food as they want.

Nope. My original figure was the widely accepted estimate excluding combatants. That includes regular soldiers of the NVA, ARVN soldiers, Vietcong militants and those executed by both sides as spies and/or saboteurs (and excluding U.S. military and civilian casualties). That figure is about 1.5 million dead over the course of ten years. This is kind of to be expected when you drop 2.5 million tons of explosives on a 40 million people in a country the size of Montana.

The numbers you give are what I found for total dead. I think you're looking at mislabeled data.

There was a time not too long ago when the United States was PLEASED with itself for killing so few civilians. Under the circumstances, that's probably fair. But to claim the civilian death toll never exceeded tripple digits? That's just bullshit.

"Triple digits"?? What in the world are you trying to say? The number in question has 6 figures!

Most of those bombs were aimed at BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE that supported the north, the majority of which was run by civilians. This means power plants, truck parks, factors, quarries, mills, warehouses, oil fields, etc.

You don't carpet bomb buildings.

Heavy bombs -- especially in the 1960s -- were deployed from attack aircraft like the A-6 intruder or the B-52, at a time when precision guidance was FAR from reliable and actionable intelligence on targets was hard to verify and even harder to communicate to central command groups. On top of that, Vietnam had some of craziest air defenses in the history of mankind; flak thick enough that you could walk on and missile batteries fucking EVERYWHERE. Close air support against "troops hiding in trees" came in the form of helicopter support or small, agile aircraft like the A-1 skyraider. The A-6s, A-7s, F-111s and F-14s were NOT being sent to bomb "soldiers hiding in trees" just because it was way too dangerous and time consuming to sortie heavy aircraft through the Seventh Circle of Aviation Hell that WAS the skies over Vietnam just to hit a bunch of rice pickers in the jungle who may or may not even be there when the strike rolls in. No, those heavy aircraft and bombing raids were hitting priority and strategic targets, the majority of which were in CITIES.

There was heavy air defense around the fixed targets in the north. Mobile targets hiding in the jungle were another matter. A target hiding in the jungle will have no defense against being carpet bombed.

And no, they were NOT using the cute "Target designated by a spotter, let's drop a single bomb on him from high altitude and then wring our hands over collateral damage that we're going to blame on the enemy anyway" bullshit tactic. That's the PR tactic from a generation or two LATER, after the Gulf War. Vietnam era bombing missions RARELY involved fewer than a half dozen aircraft, and it was even more rare for a single aircraft to release less than half of its full load at a single target.

I never said it was. Guided bombs only showed up later in the war at all and only for hard targets--things like bridges. Usually it was a mass of iron bombs.
 
Back
Top Bottom