Is Venezuela Next?

[pcgeek11]

The residents of Vietnam would beg to differ.

What it started as and what it became due to the politicians are two very different things. You are looking at one end.

 

[pcgeek11]

LoL, never heard of Noam Chomsky. Ever heard of William Buckley?

Yes.

 

[pmv]

We didn't invade Vietnam. This was a war between the North and South Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and others.

There was a war for national liberation against the French, and the US took the side of the imperialists. And ended up taking their place. You seem to have forgotten the US support for the French when they tried to restore their pre-war control of the country.

The communism I think came about partly by accident, because the French Communist party were the only significant faction that opposed French imperialism, and because the conflict then got absorbed into the cold war. I do think that ultimately it was more about self-determination. I wonder sometimes if there was ever the remotest possibility the US could have sided with the anti-colonial side right from the start, leading to a totally different outcome.

 

[MajinCry]

We didn't invade Vietnam. This was a war between the North and South Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and others.

The US didn't invade Vietnam? Either that's a joke, or a very awful attempt at historical revisionism.

I like how you looked up the Wikipedia article to find out who purported themselves as allies of South Vietnam, but didn't look at the paragraph before, nor any of the paragraphs after that wee excerpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies.[59] The war is therefore considered a Cold War-era proxy war.[60]


The minimum number of Vietnamese killed is just shy of a million, with the highest estimate being a bit under 4 million. The next line states that 58,000 US soldiers died. If the US didn't invade Vietnam, how did US soldiers die in Vietnam? Summer camp gone horribly wild?

You really should read about the US atrocities. Winter Soldier had over a hundred US veterans testify to the genocidal horrors your country committed whilst invading Vietnam. A select few testimonies were transcribed, and can be found here: http://links.org.au/node/3343

If you want to play historical revisionism, go back to /r/Physical_Removal

 

[ch33zw1z]

Pcgeek never heard of noam chomsky. Shocked, I tell you, shocked.

He would've been banned in my house growing up too.

 

[Meghan54]

The US didn't invade Vietnam? Either that's a joke, or a very awful attempt at historical revisionism.

I'd put it more into the willful ignorance category. Hasn't a clue about the origins of the Vietnam War, yet pontificates about it like he was there.

This is a good take on its origins:


"After World War II, France reoccupied its former colonies in Southeast Asia, only to be kicked out again by the forces of Communist leader Ho Chi Minh. In 1954, as the conflict wound down, the world’s powers reached an agreement to temporarily divide Vietnam in two, with all Ho supporters going north and all French supporters going south. Elections were supposed to reunite the country within a couple of years, but the United States opposed them over concerns that Ho would win the presidency. Instead, it propped up the corrupt and authoritarian government of Ngo Dinh Diem. South Vietnam “was essentially the creation of the United States,” the Defense Department would later admit in the Pentagon Papers. Within a few years, a rebellion had sprung up against Diem, aided by Ho’s forces in the north, who oversaw a string of assassinations against non-Communist village leaders.

"Under presidents Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the United States gave France—and then South Vietnam—economic aid and weapons with which to fight the Communist rebels. It also sent over more and more military advisors, some of whom participated in raids despite ostensibly being there only for self-defense. As part of one such covert operation, the United States trained and directed South Vietnamese sailors to bombard radar stations, bridges and other targets along the North Vietnamese coast. Meanwhile, U.S. warships such as the Maddox conducted electronic espionage missions in order to relay intelligence to South Vietnam. The rebels continued gaining ground, however, both before and after U.S. officials sanctioned a coup in which Diem was murdered."

http://www.history.com/news/the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident-50-years-ago


"During the spring of 1964, military planners had developed a detailed design for major attacks on the North, but at that time President Lyndon B. Johnson and his advisers feared that the public would not support an expansion of the war. By summer, however, rebel forces had established control over nearly half of South Vietnam, and Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president, was criticizing the Johnson administration for not pursuing the war more aggressively."

http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/gulf-of-tonkin-resolution

 

[JockoJohnson]

So you aren't going to say what country you are from. Ashamed of it?

Iirc, it is Norway, Sweden or Switzerland...not sure why he won't tell you.

 

[MajinCry]

Iirc, it is Norway, Sweden or Switzerland...not sure why he won't tell you.

If in doubt, check the profile page of the user.

The reason why I didn't bother answering, is that it's a completely useless question. He is trying to conjure up a retort that doesn't make him look like a buffoon, and the best he could come up with was a good ol' whataboutism. He then went for his next best argument, which was that the "US didn't invade Vietnam".

Like, gee-fucking-whiz. I'm particularly interested in the US' political history because my father is American, but everybody knows about the Invasion of Vietnam. How can an American say something that witheringly stupid?

 

[JockoJohnson]

If in doubt, check the profile page of the user.

The reason why I didn't bother answering, is that it's a completely useless question. He is trying to conjure up a retort that doesn't make him look like a buffoon, and the best he could come up with was a good ol' whataboutism. He then went for his next best argument, which was that the "US didn't invade Vietnam".

Like, gee-fucking-whiz. I'm particularly interested in the US' political history because my father is American, but everybody knows about the Invasion of Vietnam. How can an American say something that witheringly stupid?

True. But you have a special hard-on for US wars. Just like AgentFail has for calling everyone racist...except himself of course. The one trick pony show gets tiring. Ya, the US has been in alot of wars...bad shit is going to happen. It really sucks.

 

[agent00f]

True. But you have a special hard-on for US wars. Just like AgentFail has for calling everyone racist...except himself of course. The one trick pony show gets tiring. Ya, the US has been in alot of wars...bad shit is going to happen. It really sucks.

No, just the racists are racists, and democratic countries bombing hapless brown people to justify their white welfare have plenty of them.

For some reason your lot sure have a hard on for defending that institution, and it's not hard to figure out said reason, even for said lot.

 

[MajinCry]

True. But you have a special hard-on for US wars. Just like AgentFail has for calling everyone racist...except himself of course. The one trick pony show gets tiring. Ya, the US has been in alot of wars...bad shit is going to happen. It really sucks.

It's a forum predominately populated by Americans, posting about American politics. If this was the EU Politics And News subforum, you might have a point. And if the US' involvement in war, espionage, and propping up dictatorships is uncomfortable, you really shouldn't read anything concerning US politics, and world politics.

And this bad shit doesn't have to happen. A good start would be to quit the soldier worship.

 

[zinfamous]

Iirc, it is Norway, Sweden or Switzerland...not sure why he won't tell you.

I believe MajinCry is so bloody Scottish that he pisses whisky and shits peat.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I believe MajinCry is so bloody Scottish that he pisses whisky and shits peat.

Yes. I realize my mistake. I should have checked profile like he said.

 

[JockoJohnson]

It's a forum predominately populated by Americans, posting about American politics. If this was the EU Politics And News subforum, you might have a point. And if the US' involvement in war, espionage, and propping up dictatorships is uncomfortable, you really shouldn't read anything concerning US politics, and world politics.

And this bad shit doesn't have to happen. A good start would be to quit the soldier worship.

Makes sense. If we were to talk about global war atrocities then we have to include the Japanese vivisections. But now it makes more sense why some posters just bash the US and Europe.

 

[MajinCry]

Makes sense. If we were to talk about global war atrocities then we have to include the Japanese vivisections. But now it makes more sense why some posters just bash the US and Europe.

This is whataboutism.

The US has a history of doing horrible shit, and it looks like there's more horrible shit to be done on the horizon. We have some posters here, a prime example being @pcgeek11 , that don't know of these horrors (or refuse to acknowledge them, hint hint), so it's obvious that we should keep in mind the... track record of the US.

Your response is one of discomfort. You don't like people discussing the US' history, in a discussion about the US' future, so you say "Yeah well, what about Britain? Japan!? EUROPE!?". It's dishonest, dumb, and immoral.

 

[pcgeek11]

The US didn't invade Vietnam? Either that's a joke, or a very awful attempt at historical revisionism.

I like how you looked up the Wikipedia article to find out who purported themselves as allies of South Vietnam, but didn't look at the paragraph before, nor any of the paragraphs after that wee excerpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies.[59] The war is therefore considered a Cold War-era proxy war.[60]


The minimum number of Vietnamese killed is just shy of a million, with the highest estimate being a bit under 4 million. The next line states that 58,000 US soldiers died. If the US didn't invade Vietnam, how did US soldiers die in Vietnam? Summer camp gone horribly wild?

You really should read about the US atrocities. Winter Soldier had over a hundred US veterans testify to the genocidal horrors your country committed whilst invading Vietnam. A select few testimonies were transcribed, and can be found here: http://links.org.au/node/3343

If you want to play historical revisionism, go back to /r/Physical_Removal

Atrocities happen in EVERY war. You are obsessed with something that you cannot do anything about. It was ended over 4 decades ago. I am not defending the Vietnam War in any way. As I said earlier it ended up as quite a different kettle of fish than what it started as. It was a huge mistake to begin with and escalated due to politicians.

 

[pcgeek11]

This is whataboutism.

The US has a history of doing horrible shit, and it looks like there's more horrible shit to be done on the horizon. We have some posters here, a prime example being @pcgeek11 , that don't know of these horrors (or refuse to acknowledge them, hint hint), so it's obvious that we should keep in mind the... track record of the US.

Your response is one of discomfort. You don't like people discussing the US' history, in a discussion about the US' future, so you say "Yeah well, what about Britain? Japan!? EUROPE!?". It's dishonest, dumb, and immoral.

Almost as much as your self righteous obsession.

 

[pcgeek11]

If in doubt, check the profile page of the user.

The reason why I didn't bother answering, is that it's a completely useless question. He is trying to conjure up a retort that doesn't make him look like a buffoon, and the best he could come up with was a good ol' whataboutism. He then went for his next best argument, which was that the "US didn't invade Vietnam".

Like, gee-fucking-whiz. I'm particularly interested in the US' political history because my father is American, but everybody knows about the Invasion of Vietnam. How can an American say something that witheringly stupid?

It isn't the Vietnam War that is the issue. I think anyone agrees it was a disaster. It is you obsession.

 

[agent00f]

Atrocities happen in EVERY war. You are obsessed with something that you cannot do anything about. It was ended over 4 decades ago. I am not defending the Vietnam War in any way. As I said earlier it ended up as quite a different kettle of fish than what it started as. It was a huge mistake to begin with and escalated due to politicians.

Almost as much as your self righteous obsession.

It isn't the Vietnam War that is the issue. I think anyone agrees it was a disaster. It is you obsession.

Obsession.

 

[MajinCry]

It isn't the Vietnam War that is the issue. I think anyone agrees it was a disaster. It is you obsession.

First it was that I didn't know shit about war, that soldiers are stand-up blokes that would never do evil:

LOL. You never quit with this lie do you?

Where are you from anyway? Like what country.

Then it was you deflecting in order to not talk about the US' involvement in war:

Keep exaggerating the truth. Horrible things happen in every war from all countries and nationalities. You need to quit pretending you are so much better than everyone else.

So where do you live?

Then you showed that you know squat about the US' foreign affairs, when you admitted that you've never even heard of Noam Chomsky. Followed up with another attempt at a whataboutism:

Sure you can call it out, but your obsession is tiring and the exaggeration is old.

That isn't what I said. War is war and it is ugly and dirty. It doesn't matter who, all wars all sides. You are like a broken record.

Noam Chomsky? Never heard of him.

Looked it up... "An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism"
Lots of Americans were against the Vietnam War. I think if you want to rant against imperialism you should be ragging on the British.

So you aren't going to say what country you are from. Ashamed of it?

THEN you said that the US did not invade Vietnam, a fuckwitted statement of astronomical proportions, with a ctrl+c ctrl+v from Wikipedia, as you've never actually done any research about the Invasion of Vietnam:

We didn't invade Vietnam. This was a war between the North and South Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and others.

And finally, you claim that the problem is that I have an obsession:

It isn't the Vietnam War that is the issue. I think anyone agrees it was a disaster. It is you obsession.

You really doubled down on being a completely, and utterly, incompetent nincompooping moron.

I get it, you feel icky whenever your exceptional country isn't praised as a virtuous moral arbiter. But the solution isn't to make yourself look like a blithering village idiot, but to discuss and acknowledge that the US ain't what it's cracked up to be.

 

[hal2kilo]

First it was that I didn't know shit about war, that soldiers are stand-up blokes that would never do evil:




Then it was you deflecting in order to not talk about the US' involvement in war:




Then you showed that you know squat about the US' foreign affairs, when you admitted that you've never even heard of Noam Chomsky. Followed up with another attempt at a whataboutism:




THEN you said that the US did not invade Vietnam, a fuckwitted statement of astronomical proportions, with a ctrl+c ctrl+v from Wikipedia, as you've never actually done any research about the Invasion of Vietnam:




And finally, you claim that the problem is that I have an obsession:




You really doubled down on being a completely, and utterly, incompetent nincompooping moron.

I get it, you feel icky whenever your exceptional country isn't praised as a virtuous moral arbiter. But the solution isn't to make yourself look like a blithering village idiot, but to discuss and acknowledge that the US ain't what it's cracked up to be.

Great effort. It will have no effect on this low information idiot.

 

[MajinCry]

Great effort. It will have no effect on this low information idiot.

If he even bothered to read the Wikipedia article, the conversation would have taken a sharp turn for the better. It's disappointing, really.

 

[J.Wilkins]

So, US demands new IAEA inspections in Iran and Iran doesn't want to comply since it's not in the treaty....

Wonder if that has ever happened before... I seem to recall it has, right before an invasion.

 

[fskimospy]

So, US demands new IAEA inspections in Iran and Iran doesn't want to comply since it's not in the treaty....

Wonder if that has ever happened before... I seem to recall it has, right before an invasion.

I never supported the Iraq War but comparing these two is ridiculous. Assuming what you're saying is correct Iran is saying no because it's not what they agreed to, and therefore have no obligation. In the case of Iraq they were in clear, obvious violation of their treaty requirements and UNSC resolution 687.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I never supported the Iraq War but comparing these two is ridiculous. Assuming what you're saying is correct Iran is saying no because it's not what they agreed to, and therefore have no obligation. In the case of Iraq they were in clear, obvious violation of their treaty requirements and UNSC resolution 687.

Not comparing anything, just saying that the build up towards war is on track.

Iraq did not violate any treaty requirements at all, the expansion power granted was not part of the original resolution which was NEVER violated. The IAEA even gained more access through US demands but that didn't matter. The IAEA was happy both before that expansion but the US wanted war and was going to do anything and everything to ensure that they got it.

We're at the very beginning here but it's going to be used as justification.