Which side was the agressor in Vietnam?

[Howedar]

God BS, were two VIs not enough? Do you want a third?

[Wicked Pilot]

God BS, were two VIs not enough? Do you want a third?

Attentions whores really don't care.

[BoredShirtless]

God BS, were two VIs not enough? Do you want a third?

What did I say?! And lack of rebuttal against my posts noted.

[BoredShirtless]

God BS, were two VIs not enough? Do you want a third?

Attentions whores really don't care.

Ah so I must be an attention whore if I get into a conversation with someone! Anti social idiot.

[Wicked Pilot]

Ah so I must be an attention whore if I get into a conversation with someone! Anti social idiot.

Actually it is the worthless trolling and flamebait that distinguishes you as such.

[Plekhanov]

Because we didn't invade South Vietnam, shitbrick. The South Vietnamese government wanted us there.

Oh you mean the brutal puppet military dictatorship that the US imposed upon South Vietnam because as Eisenhower later admitted they couldn’t allow elections because

possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader

The US was clearly the aggressor in Vietnam it refused to allow the sovereign people of the North and the South to democratically choose to reunite and bombed the shit out of Vietnam and several surrounding countries when the Vietnamese attempted to free themselves of US imperial control.

[Howedar]

It was France that installed the South Vietnamise government.

[EmperorSolo51]

Oh you mean the brutal puppet military dictatorship that the US imposed upon South Vietnam because as Eisenhower later admitted they couldn’t allow elections because

I don't seem to remember any elections in North Vietnam even though they agreed to hold them after the French left in '54. Hell, I still don't see any elections after Vietnam was conquered by the North.

possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader

The US was clearly the aggressor in Vietnam it refused to allow the sovereign people of the North and the South to democratically choose to reunite and bombed the shit out of Vietnam and several surrounding countries when the Vietnamese attempted to free themselves of US imperial control.

What source did you use? I any case if that were true then why were millions of South Vietnamese Catholics, peasants, and middle class were sent "reducation camps" (little more than jungle gulags) where in the late late 1970's? Why were over 3 million of camp inmates either executed or starved to death. If 80% would have voted for Ho, then why would they need to send so many people to these camps in North Vietnam?

[Plekhanov]

France installed some of them the Americans took over where they left off

[Elfdart]

Oh you mean the brutal puppet military dictatorship that the US imposed upon South Vietnam because as Eisenhower later admitted they couldn’t allow elections because

I don't seem to remember any elections in North Vietnam even though they agreed to hold them after the French left in '54. Hell, I still don't see any elections after Vietnam was conquered by the North.

possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader

The US was clearly the aggressor in Vietnam it refused to allow the sovereign people of the North and the South to democratically choose to reunite and bombed the shit out of Vietnam and several surrounding countries when the Vietnamese attempted to free themselves of US imperial control.

What source did you use? I any case if that were true then why were millions of South Vietnamese Catholics, peasants, and middle class were sent "reducation camps" (little more than jungle gulags) where in the late late 1970's? Why were over 3 million of camp inmates either executed or starved to death. If 80% would have voted for Ho, then why would they need to send so many people to these camps in North Vietnam?[/quote]

Where did this 3 million figure come from?

[EmperorSolo51]

The three million statement is hyperbole on my partt. In truth as many as 1-2 million were sent to killed.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm- This site puts the number at 1 million. This inclues the 200,000 Boat people who were murdered while trying to escape vietnam.

http://humphrys.humanists.net/communism.html#se.asia- This site puts the number at nearly 2 million.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... asp?ID=185 -This front page article puts the number at about 1 million.

[EmperorSolo51]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM -According to this site, The author chronicles the genocide and mass killings in the Vietnam war. The Author has claims that 3.8 million Vietnamese died due to political violence. Of the 3.8 million, 1 out of every 10 people, about 1.250 million people were murdered outright.

[Plekhanov]

I don't seem to remember any elections in North Vietnam even though they agreed to hold them after the French left in '54.

To the best of my recollection the national (by which I mean North and South) elections agreed in Geneva due to be held in 55 or 56 were cancelled the South. Anyway that’s irrelevant I’m not claiming Minh was a democrat simply that the US were imperialist aggressors in the conflict and that they weren’t asked to intervene by a nice democratically elected South Vietnamese government as was previously claimed.

Hell, I still don't see any elections after Vietnam was conquered by the North.

Even if the Vietminh had been democrats to begin with you have to admit that after 20 or so years of being a pawn in the cold war, post civil war Vietnam was hardly in a position to hold elections.

What source did you use?

I used “The Enduring Vision A history of the American People” 4th Edition published by Houghton Mifflin Page 588, which was a recommended core background text for a module on American History I studied last year. It’s a fairly well used quote and is all over the net as well on some farily reliable sites. Here’s the quote more completely from www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk which I vaguely remember being referred to when I did my A’Levels. Link

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh."

I any case if that were true then why were millions of South Vietnamese Catholics, peasants, and middle class were sent "reducation camps" (little more than jungle gulags) where in the late late 1970's? Why were over 3 million of camp inmates either executed or starved to death. If 80% would have voted for Ho, then why would they need to send so many people to these camps in North Vietnam?

Got a source for all this? For the sake of argument accepting for a second that you can back up your claims, off the top of my head maybe the 20+ years of increasingly brutal fighting that took place between 1955 and the late 70s had something to do with it.

[Col. Crackpot]

Even if the Vietminh had been democrats to begin with you have to admit that after 20 or so years of being a pawn in the cold war, post civil war Vietnam was hardly in a position to hold elections.

over 30 years now. still , excuse.

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh."

appeal to athority fallacy

Got a source for all this? For the sake of argument accepting for a second that you can back up your claims, off the top of my head maybe the 20+ years of increasingly brutal fighting that took place between 1955 and the late 70s had something to do with it.

he provided 3 links.

[Elfdart]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM -According to this site, The author chronicles the genocide and mass killings in the Vietnam war. The Author has claims that 3.8 million Vietnamese died due to political violence. Of the 3.8 million, 1 out of every 10 people, about 1.250 million people were murdered outright.

Just as I suspected, Dr. Rummel. You might as well have logged onto zundelsite.com. His whole "democide" shtick is Farrakhan Math, pure and simple. Like that other Hawaiian huckster, David Stannard, he just pulls numbers out of his ass or from crank sources. He lists starvation deaths as murder. If that's the case, India has been far and away the worst regime. But India doesn't even make his list. I could go on, but this is way off topic and I don't want to hijack the thread.

David Henige's book Numbers from Nowhere debunks a lot of the wildly inflated numbers given for pre-Columbian Indian populations, and the principles apply to other suspicious demographic numbers. Rummel adds decimal points to give his numbers gravitas. Just be wary of numbers that are bigger and rounder than Jennifer Lopez's ass.

[Plekhanov]

over 30 years now. still , excuse.

And this means that the US weren’t the aggressors how exactly?

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh."

appeal to athority fallacy

No it isn’t, Eisenhower was the fucking President of the United States in 1954 he made some of the decisions that we are talking about, I posted clear admission from the man responsible that the US under his watch at least acted as an imperialist aggressor.

he provided 3 links.

I was called away from my computer for a while and submitted my post before I saw his, anyway my call for proof was legitimate emperorsolo made ill defined claims he had a responsibility to back up.

After reviewing emperorsolo’s sources (just to pre-empt you Crackpot I know this is an appeal to motive) I’m still somewhat sceptical

The first link doesn’t work for me
The 2nd is some right wing nut job concerned with human rights as long as the abusers aren’t right wing death squads and who claims that the PIRA are in some way Marxists
The 3rd is clearly yet another Republican propaganda site which lists titles to articles such as “Terrorists for Kerry”

I posted a quote from a middle of the road academic text book which is easily verifiable, solo posted sources which are effectively right wing diatribes with a few figures thrown in, these sources prove nothing.

However disputes about sources aside I’m not denying for a second that the Vietnamese government is unpleasant, it is but that’s irrelevant. The question under discussion this thread is “Which side was the agressor in Vietnam?” the fact that the eventually victorious communists North turned out to be bastards doesn’t stop the US from having been the origional aggressor.

[Col. Crackpot]

over 30 years now. still , excuse.

And this means that the US weren’t the aggressors how exactly?

it doesn't. it does however serve to portry the Vietnamese governmnet for what it is: an opressive non-democratic regime.

No it isn’t, Eisenhower was the fucking President of the United States in 1954 he made some of the decisions that we are talking about, I posted clear admission from the man responsible that the US under his watch at least acted as an imperialist aggressor.

it did seem that you were saying "it's so because Eisenhower said so." and even if he did say so, it is still his opinion. The fact is these thoretical elections never took place.

However disputes about sources aside I’m not denying for a second that the Vietnamese government is unpleasant, it is but that’s irrelevant. The question under discussion this thread is “Which side was the agressor in Vietnam?” the fact that the eventually victorious communists North turned out to be bastards doesn’t stop the US from having been the origional aggressor.

Still, the fact remains that the legitimate, recognized government of South Vietnam asked the United States for assitance. The agression of the North is further illustrated by the Gulf of Tonkin, which however trumped up, was stil an attack on US Naval forces. Romanticise them all you want, but the Viet Cong were clearly the agressors. If you really want to, one could make the arguement that the Soviet Union was the agressor, but do we really feel like going down that road tonight?

[Elfdart]

The "attack" in the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax. To claim that a purely fictional attack illustrates communist intentions is like saying the Tawana Brawley Hoax proves the intentions of New York policemen.

[Sea Skimmer]

So the United States were not the initial aggressors, but they did invade North Vietnam. Oh well I was half right.

No, the US never invaded the North. We really ought to have though, inital US planning for intervention in South Vietnam projected an invasion of the North should the conflict drag on too long. It certainly would have helped things but cutting off the communist supply lines and by turning a half gurrilia war half convetional war into just a gurrilia war. Its much easier to fend off gurrilia attacks when you don't have to worry about all your bases being strong enough to withstand mass ground attacks.

[Plekhanov]

And this means that the US weren’t the aggressors how exactly?

it doesn't. it does however serve to portry the Vietnamese governmnet for what it is: an opressive non-democratic regime.

Exactly it shows us what the government that emerged after 20 years of civil war is like it tells us very little about the Vietminh in 1954

it did seem that you were saying "it's so because Eisenhower said so."

then I shall endeavour to make my posts clearer in the future

and even if he did say so, it is still his opinion.

He emphatically did say so there’s no “even” about it, if you doubt my honesty a simple web search or trip to the library should convince you.

It’s a direct quote from the US President who intervened in Vietnams domestic situation at an arguably a crucial turning point, telling us why he PERSONALLY chose to stop the Vietnamese people having an election which could potentially have allowed them to peacefully reunite thus making war pretty much unavoidable.

The fact is these thoretical elections never took place.

That’s my whole fucking point they didn’t take place BECAUSE THE US KNEW THE “COMMUNISTS” WOULD WIN that’s why I quoted Ike to show why the elections didn’t take place.

However disputes about sources aside I’m not denying for a second that the Vietnamese government is unpleasant, it is but that’s irrelevant. The question under discussion this thread is “Which side was the agressor in Vietnam?” the fact that the eventually victorious communists North turned out to be bastards doesn’t stop the US from having been the origional aggressor.

Still, the fact remains that the legitimate, recognized government of South Vietnam asked the United States for assitance.

Legitimate? Recognized? The South Vietnamese Government was a brutal military dictatorship with no legitimacy (do I have to use the Ike quote again?) which was recognised by the US because THEY WERE YOU’RE FUCKING PUPPET of course you recognised them, it needed assistance because as has already been stated even Ike could see that the Vietnamese population didn’t want a brutal, corrupt, catholic nut like Diem governing them.

The agression of the North is further illustrated by the Gulf of Tonkin, which however trumped up, was stil an attack on US Naval forces.

You must be desperate to drag Tonkin out, yes your right North Vietnam wanted to start a war with the US, Minh saw how well it worked for the Japanese and thought he’d have a go as well

Romanticise them all you want,

You got me there free market, liberals such as myself always go misty eyed when people bring up the vietminh

but the Viet Cong were clearly the agressors.

Yup that’s right the vietminh were “clearly the aggressors” in their OWN FUCKING COUNTRY whereas France and the US just minding their own business

If you really want to, one could make the arguement that the Soviet Union was the agressor, but do we really feel like going down that road tonight?

The USSR was the aggressor against who exactly? Were there Soviet Troops in Vietnam? Any proof for that (and Rambo doesn’t count)? If they were there in what way were they aggressors, did they invade the North or something? This “at the invitation of the government” thing cuts both ways you know.

[Col. Crackpot]

The USSR was the aggressor against who exactly? Were there Soviet Troops in Vietnam? Any proof for that (and Rambo doesn’t count)? If they were there in what way were they aggressors, did they invade the North or something? This “at the invitation of the government” thing cuts both ways you know.

yell, you brought up the 'puppetmaster' bullshit. it was a proxy war for the Soviets, and you damn well know that. They sought to expand their sphere of influence with an even greater zeal than the US.

[Plekhanov]

I’ve heard that the North eventually used soviet technology and material support but how does this make the USSR aggressors? I don’t recall hearing of a Soviet representative screwing up the Geneva negotiations. Just how many troops did these Soviet “aggressors” deploy any way how many South Vietnamese did they kill?

It may well have been a proxy war, but the soviets didn’t start it and Minh wasn’t a puppet leader he was his own man who if anything was forced to seek Soviet support by US aggression. Diem was unquestionably a puppet of the US as was Nguyen Van Thieu who replaced him.

[Axis Kast]

Even if the Vietminh had been democrats to begin with you have to admit that after 20 or so years of being a pawn in the cold war, post civil war Vietnam was hardly in a position to hold elections.

This really says it all.

France and the United States were "evil imperialist aggressors" who today have no excuse for not having pushed South Vietnam to hold elections when there was but one viable option and the tricolour had barely been lowered for the last time, but the Vietminh, well, they had recently been under a lot of pressure... Give me a break.

As one of my professors put it, Vietnam (and many more of our Cold War interventions) was heart-wrenching not merely because it blurred the lines between combatant and non-combatant so horrifically, but also because the United States wasn't able to win despite having made an overall correct assumption: most people don't want to live under Communsit regimes. Our zeal to keep the South independant and eventually bestow something on the free market model was in keeping with a trend we have seen flower worldwide since the Cold War. Unfortunately, the approach we chose - which emasculated the South Vietnamese we were attempting to woo by taking so much from their control - was riddled with holes.

[EmperorSolo51]

Plekhanov, if the North was so democratic, why were thier mass emigrations from the country? Why Were people even being sent to "re-education" Camps? Why did 200,000 Boat People die while trying to flee South Vietnam after the North captured Saigon? If they really were as democratic as you say, most if not all of these things would not have happened. They would hvae had no reason to flee.

[Plekhanov]

Even if the Vietminh had been democrats to begin with you have to admit that after 20 or so years of being a pawn in the cold war, post civil war Vietnam was hardly in a position to hold elections.

This really says it all.

France and the United States were "evil imperialist aggressors" who today have no excuse for not having pushed South Vietnam to hold elections when there was but one viable option and the tricolour had barely been lowered for the last time, but the Vietminh, well, they had recently been under a lot of pressure... Give me a break.

Way to go Cast take one line (a line which I’d already stated was irrelevant to the discussion at hand ) from a thread and attempt to build a strawman out of it. I know I should dignify this with a response but I just can’t help myself.

First off I suppose once again I should state once again that I am in no way a supporter of the post war Vietnamese government and in no way seek to defend them. Their human rights record is appalling, their economic mismanagement and level of corruption is appalling so what? That doesn’t mean that the USA wasn’t the aggressor in the Vietnam War. Just to make it clear to you Kast I’ll state my position once more so even you can’t misunderstand THE USA WAS THE AGRESSOR IN THE VIETNAM WAR rebut that statement if you will.

To write the Vietnam War off as “a lot of pressure” in a bit of an understatement don’t you think? If you think the newly unified Vietnam was in a position to hold elections I look forward to your thread demanding immediate free and fair elections in Iraq.

As one of my professors put it, Vietnam (and many more of our Cold War interventions) was heart-wrenching not merely because it blurred the lines between combatant and non-combatant so horrifically, but also because the United States wasn't able to win despite having made an overall correct assumption: most people don't want to live under Communsit regimes.

I think you need to question your professors a little more, who the hell are “most people”? It seems that the US Pres at the time went antidemocratic exactly because he thought “most people” in Vietnam in 1954 did want to live under a Communist regime.

Our zeal to keep the South independent

Just checking by “independent” do you mean as a puppet military dictatorship?

and eventually bestow something on the free market model

“bestow” or impose?

was in keeping with a trend we have seen flower worldwide since the Cold War.

So your magnificent Prof justified the anti-democratic imposition of Diem’s brutal dictatorship in 1954 on the grounds that many countries chose the free market in the 1990s? That’s some skewed logic who the hell gave this guy his PhD?

Unfortunately, the approach we chose - which emasculated the South Vietnamese we were attempting to woo by taking so much from their control - was riddled with holes.

Well at least you can see that the US fucked up in Vietnam, just out of interest even with the benefit of hindsight how would you have given the Vietnamese control whilst stopping reunification?