Iraq Veterans vulnerable to commit suicide

[Buffalo Roam]

Yup, thats racism for you. Liberating the Viets from the Chinese was fine, but France must be allowed her colonies.

What racism? now please explain who Ho Chi Min was at that time, and what his standing was that would make him preferable to France in blocking the Chinese Communist, from moving into Vietnam, in the same manner as they did Tibet, remember the Chinese invaded Vietnam in 1979, and got their ass kicked.

And do this from the point of view of 1945-50, not as a Sunday morning quarterback, with the full vision of the world history as it took place.

 

[John99]

S.A.M,

Its time to pick upm the pieces. Were your friends.

 

[S.A.M.]

What racism? now please explain who Ho Chi Min was at that time, and what his standing was that would make him preferable to France in blocking the Chinese Communist, from moving into Vietnam, in the same manner as they did Tibet, remember the Chinese invaded Vietnam in 1979, and got their ass kicked.

And do this from the point of view of 1945-50, not as a Sunday morning quarterback, with the full vision of the world history as it took place.

You mean the fact that Ho Chi Minh was fighting for liberating Vietnam was irrelevant? That France was occupying IndoChina was more relevant? oops I forgot, allies are allowed to occupy other people, especially if they are poor and helpless.

 

[quadraphonics]

Hmm so you're saying the hysteria over communism justified the Vietnam war? Or are you just not saying anything at all?

I'm telling you that the United States supported France in Vietnam out of fear of Communism, not because we approved of French (or any other) colonialism. Quite the contrary: that we were able to put aside our deep-seated opposition to colonialism is testament to exactly how worried people were about Communism in Southeast Asia.

The question of whether the war was justified is not one I find interesting, and, even if it were, I'm nowhere near naive enough to think I'd learn anything fruitful about it in this forum, let alone from engaging with you. I'm simply trying to inject a little bit of reality into your worldview.

And Vietnam was not an exception. Or is the Phillipines consigned to the dust? It did gain independence in 1946.

I said there were a handful of exceptions: the Philipines is the other notable one. If you read up on the history of the Spanish American war, you'll find that the question of what to do with the Philipines was extremely contentious inside America. Moreover, the character of the American period in the Phillipines was very different from that of European colonialism, as it was designed to result in eventual independence (which was indeed achieved as planned), rather than permanent subservience.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You mean the fact that Ho Chi Minh was fighting for liberating Vietnam was irrelevant? That France was occupying IndoChina was more relevant? oops I forgot, allies are allowed to occupy other people, especially if they are poor and helpless.

No, explain in the time frame of 1945 to 1950 why we should have went to a unknown rather than a known quantity, Ho Chi Min was a unknown, France was a known, we had treaties with France, and China was making noise about expanding its revolution to all of Asia, so in the time frame of 1947 please explain why we should have went with Uncle Ho, rather than the French.

With the full knowledge of history I can see that we should have went with Ho, but that is because I have the ability to look at exactly what happened in the years since 1945, but could you, or I, have made the same call with the information at that time?

Also remember thing could have just as easily went the other way, if the French had not put all of their marbles in Dien Bien Phou, or the U.S. had stayed the course, and not quit politically.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm telling you that the United States supported France in Vietnam out of fear of Communism, not because we approved of French (or any other) colonialism. Quite the contrary: that we were able to put aside our deep-seated opposition to colonialism is testament to exactly how worried people were about Communism in Southeast Asia.

Enough to go on a killing spree. Good for the US there are always bogies in every century. Too bad other people have to suffer the consequences of your wet pants.

The question of whether the war was justified is not one I find interesting, and, even if it were, I'm nowhere near naive enough to think I'd learn anything fruitful about it in this forum, let alone from engaging with you. I'm simply trying to inject a little bit of reality into your worldview.

Just as I thought. Saying nothing. Interesting that you only inject reality that justifies the mass murder of other people. Apparently communism was a bogeyman only until the economy needed to trade with the same communists; killing a lot of Vietnamese must be good for demolishing fear AND boosting trade prospects. Aint it wunnerful?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Enough to go on a killing spree. Good for the US there are always bogies in every century. Too bad other people have to suffer the consequences of your wet pants.


Just as I thought. Saying nothing. Interesting that you only inject reality that justifies the mass murder of other people. Apparently communism was a bogeyman only until the economy needed to trade with the same communists.

And you can't respond to the debate, you change the subject yet again.

 

[S.A.M.]

And you can't respond to the debate, you change the subject yet again.

I did respond to him. Unfortunately, I am not interested in the reasons Americans make up for killing people all the time or how they justify it to themselves. I just wish they'd find a more nonviolent way to deal with their fears. Therapy?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I did respond to him. Unfortunately, I am not interested in the reasons Americans make up for killing people all the time or how they justify it to themselves. I just wish they'd find a more nonviolent way to deal with their fears. Therapy?

No you are changing the subject, as you have done since, Post 191

Anyone who thinks going into a country and doing this to its people when they are minding their own business is justified, would have to be abnormal. The ones who commit suicide are the normal ones

Remember the Thread is;

Iraq Veterans vulnerable to commit suicide

 

[quadraphonics]

Just as I thought. Saying nothing.

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that if you're hoping to provoke me. I'm at a point now where I preemptively discount the juvenile trolling you substitute for meaningful responses. I mean, really, grade-school taunts about wetting one's pants? Is that really supposed to impress anyone?

Interesting that you only inject reality that justifies the mass murder of other people.

It's an artifact of your myopic (not to mention morbid) focus on warfare and death, and the consistency with which you mischaracterize the reasons and motivations that led to them. I'd be happy to rectify any of your misapprehensions about American views on, say, condiments or traffic ettiquete, but you never seem to get around to airing them.

Apparently communism was a bogeyman only until the economy needed to trade with the same communists;

No, Communism ceased to be a bogeyman when it collapsed. Although the eventual outcome of the Vietnam War (in particular the conflict with China, and the Sino-Soviet split) went a long way towards tempering the hysterical view of Communism that prevailed in the early portion of the Cold War.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, explain in the time frame of 1945 to 1950 why we should have went to a unknown rather than a known quantity, Ho Chi Min was a unknown, France was a known, we had treaties with France, and China was making noise about expanding its revolution to all of Asia, so in the time frame of 1947 please explain why we should have went with Uncle Ho, rather than the French.

With the full knowledge of history I can see that we should have went with Ho, but that is because I have the ability to look at exactly what happened in the years since 1945, but could you, or I, have made the same call with the information at that time?

Also remember thing could have just as easily went the other way, if the French had not put all of their marbles in Dien Bien Phou, or the U.S. had stayed the course, and not quit politically.

None of this explains why the US felt justified in first supporting Ho Chi and then dumping him. And why this has any basis as a justification for killing millions of people in Vietnam. You funded Ho, then backstabbed him because you had benefits from France and not from Ho.

In 1941 the Communist-dominated national resistance group called the "League for the Independence of Vietnam" (better known as the Viet Minh) was formed.[13] Ho Chi Minh returned to Vietnam and quickly assumed the leadership. He had been a Comintern agent since the 1920s, but as the leader of an independent Vietnamese communist party, Ho freed himself from the control of the Soviet Union.[14] He maintained good relations with the Soviets, however. The Viet Minh began to craft a strategy to seize control of the country at the end of the war. Ho appointed Vo Nguyen Giap as his military commander.

Ho Chi Minh's guerrillas were given funding and training by the United States Office of Strategic Services (the precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency). These teams worked behind enemy lines in Indochina, giving support to indigenous resistance groups. The Viet Minh provided valuable intelligence on Japanese troop movements and rescued downed American pilots. The Pentagon, however, viewed Indochina as a sideshow to the more important theatre of the Pacific War. In 1944, the Japanese overthrew the Vichy French administration and humiliated its colonial officials in front of the Vietnamese population. The Japanese began to encourage nationalism and granted Vietnam nominal independence. On March 11, 1945, Emperor Bao Dai declared the independence within the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Following the Japanese surrender, Vietnamese nationalists, communists, and other groups hoped to take control of the country. The Japanese army transferred power to the Viet Minh. Emperor Bao Dai abdicated. On September 2, 1945, Hồ Chí Minh declared independence from France, in what became known as the August Revolution. U.S. Army officers stood beside him on the podium.[15] In an exultant speech, before a huge audience in Hanoi, Ho cited the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

"'All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.' This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776 … We … solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country. The entire Vietnamese people are determined … to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty."[16]

Ho hoped that America would ally itself with a Vietnamese nationalist movement, communist or otherwise. He based this hope in part on speeches by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposing a revival of European colonialism. As well, he was counting on a long series of anti-colonial U.S. pronouncements, stretching back to the American War of Independence. Indeed, Ho Chi Minh told an Office of Strategic Services officer that he would welcome "a million American soldiers … but no French."[17] Power politics, however, intervened. The U.S. changed its position. It was recognized that France would play a crucial role in deterring communist ambitions in continental Europe. Thus, its colonial aspirations could not be ignored.

Ho tried several times to get help from the US but was summarily ignored

The new government lasted only a few days. At the Potsdam Conference the allies decided that Vietnam would be occupied jointly by China and Great Britain, who would supervise the disarmament and repatriation of Japanese forces.[17] The Chinese army arrived a few days after Hồ's declaration of independence. Ho Chi Minh's government effectively ceased to exist. The Chinese took control of the area north of the 16th parallel north. British forces arrived in the south in October and restored order. The British commander of Southeast Asia, Lord Mountbatten, sent over 20,000 troops of the 20th Indian division under General Douglas Gracey to occupy Saigon. The first soldiers arrived on September 6, 1945 and increased to full strength over the following weeks. In addition, they re-armed Japanese prisoners of war, known as "Gremlin force". The British began to withdraw in December 1945, but this was not completed until May 1946. The last British casualties in Vietnam were suffered in June 1946. Altogether 40 British and Indian troops were killed and over a hundred were wounded. Vietnamese casualties were 600[18] . The French prevailed upon them to turn over control.

French officials immediately sought to reassert control. They negotiated with the Chinese Nationalists. By agreeing to give up its concessions in China, the French persuaded the Chinese to allow them to return to the north and negotiate with the Viet Minh. In the meantime, Hồ took advantage of the negotiations to kill competing nationalist groups. He was anxious for the Chinese to leave. "The last time the Chinese came," he remarked, "they stayed one thousand years … I prefer to smell French turd for five years, rather than eat Chinese dung for the rest of my life."[19] After negotiations collapsed over the formation of a government within the new French Union, the French bombarded Haiphong. In December 1946, they reoccupied Hanoi. Several telegrams were sent by Ho Chi Minh to U.S. President Harry S. Truman asking for U.S. support. But they were ignored. Ho and the Việt Minh fled into the mountains to start an insurgency, marking the beginning of the First Indochina War.

Much hinged on the perception of Hồ's allegiances. In the wake of the Second World War, it was recognized that the Soviet Union would henceforth be a serious competitor to the West. America viewed the Soviet Union and its allies as a bloc. As far as Washington was concerned, the entire communist world was controlled by Moscow.[22] In spite of Hồ's pleas for U.S. recognition,[23] the U.S. gradually came to the conclusion that he was under Moscow's control. This perception suited the French. As United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson noted, "the U.S. came to the aid of the French … because we needed their support for our policies in regard to NATO … The French blackmailed us. At every meeting … they brought up Indochina … but refused to tell me what they hoped to accomplish or how. Perhaps they didn't know."

basically, the US just dumped Vietnam and then later used their fears as an excuse for a proxy war for cold war games.

 

[John99]

I did respond to him. Unfortunately, I am not interested in the reasons Americans make up for killing people all the time or how they justify it to themselves. I just wish they'd find a more nonviolent way to deal with their fears. Therapy?

S.A.M,

India and Pakistan went to war in early 1900s. Millions were slaughtered, theres alway people killing eachother all over the middle east- Iraq - Iran, Iraq - Kuwait. Soon that will end, isnt that what you want?

 

[S.A.M.]

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that if you're hoping to provoke me. I'm at a point now where I preemptively discount the juvenile trolling you substitute for meaningful responses. I mean, really, grade-school taunts about wetting one's pants? Is that really supposed to impress anyone?



It's an artifact of your myopic (not to mention morbid) focus on warfare and death, and the consistency with which you mischaracterize the reasons and motivations that led to them. I'd be happy to rectify any of your misapprehensions about American views on, say, condiments or traffic ettiquete, but you never seem to get around to airing them.



No, Communism ceased to be a bogeyman when it collapsed. Although the eventual outcome of the Vietnam War (in particular the conflict with China, and the Sino-Soviet split) went a long way towards tempering the hysterical view of Communism that prevailed in the early portion of the Cold War.

Goody, more explanations for nothing.

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M,

India and Pakistan went to war in early 1900s. Millions were slaughtered, theres alway people killing eachother all over the middle east- Iraq - Iran, Iraq - Kuwait. Soon that will end

Not while the US is dominating the arms trade and undermines all efforts for restraining it.

 

[John99]

The U.S has given financial aid to Pakistan, India...all over.

 

[quadraphonics]

Unfortunately, I am not interested in the reasons Americans make up for killing people all the time or how they justify it to themselves.

Indeed, you're apparently more interested in making up your own reasons for why America does things. Why anyone, including yourself, would be interested in these inventions, however, remains a mystery.

 

[John99]

Not while the US is dominating the arms trade and undermines all efforts for restraining it.

er whut????

 

[quadraphonics]

Goody, more explanations for nothing.

You know, if you're going to ignore me, there's an easier way to go about it. Simply forgo replying; it conveys the same message.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

None of this explains why the US felt justified in first supporting Ho Chi and then dumping him. And why this has any basis as a justification for killing millions of people in Vietnam. You funded Ho, then backstabbed him because you had benefits from France and not from Ho.





Ho tried several times to get help from the US but was summarily ignored





basically, the US just dumped Vietnam and then later used their fears as an excuse for a proxy war for cold war games.

Now explain when we supported Ho Chi Min as the Leader of Vietnam? Yes we provided support to him as a ally against the Japanese, but were did he have any standing as the Governing Representative of Vietnam?

 

[S.A.M.]

Indeed, you're apparently more interested in making up your own reasons for why America does things. Why anyone, including yourself, would be interested in these inventions, however, remains a mystery.

You must be very naive if you think the US went to war with Vietnam to halt communism. It went to war with Vietnam because it did not have the balls to go to war with an equally armed contender for power, the USSR. Vietnam was a game, the people of Vietnam pawns.