Democrats and the Killing Fields - Page 8 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jviehe · #**106** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Geez, jviehe, for a guy who's as concerned about taxation as you are, I'm surprised to see you advocating for imperialism, which is a losing proposition from a taxpayer perspective.

Im not advocating for imperialism, however, physical security is the number one responsibility of the govt, and so paying for that via taxes is never going to be a complaint of mine. We only spend about 15% of taxes on defense. Its the other 85% I have a problem paying for.

Pogo · #**107** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

I dont see in here where it indicates that the US killed those civilians. More facts please.

No, I think it's your turn to provide facts showing that we only killed 100,000, as you claimed, given what we know of the intensity of our bombing campaigns in the region and the fact that it was our policy to bomb the civilians out of the countryside and into the urban areas. In light of what we know, it's asinine to suggest that we only killed 100,000 civilians.

jviehe · #**108** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Then for all intents and purposes, you are saying that terrorism is an acceptable methodology.

Furthermore, why weren't the Vietnamese people entitled to decide for themselves which political model best suited them? Shall we throw out the concept of inalienable rights, as well, and if we do, what exactly does that leave us with in your estimation?

Terrorism, and any methodology, is acceptable when used in defense by a otherwise peaceful force. No methodology is acceptable when its used against US citizens. Its a matter of perspective and intent.

Furthermore the Vietnamese people should have been entitled to decide for themselves. Im no expert on the exact history, but the Geneva Accords set up elections in South Vietnam. If the US did indeed rig those elections, that was wrong. However, the south vietnamese did not want to be invaded and killed by the north either.

jviehe · #**109** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

No, I think it's your turn to provide facts showing that we only killed 100,000, as you claimed, given what we know of the intensity of our bombing campaigns in the region and the fact that it was our policy to bomb the civilians out of the countryside and into the urban areas. In light of what we know, it's asinine to suggest that we only killed 100,000 civilians.

We already covered that in this thread. Various sources have been posted.

Pogo · #**110** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

We already covered that in this thread. Various sources have been posted.

I looked and see no definitive source for determining precisely who was responsible for each civilian casualty.

Again, it's asinine to suggest that the US is only responsible for 100k out of the 2 million civilians killed when you look at the scope and nature of our bombing campaigns and the fact that it was our policy to bomb the rural population out of the countryside. The North Vietnamese undertook no such bombing campaigns, nor has it been suggested by anyone, so far as I know, that they engaged in genocidal slaughter on the order of what the Khmer Rouge did, so how then do you account for the remaining 1.9 million civilian casualties???

Pogo · #**111** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Terrorism, and any methodology, is acceptable when used in defense by a otherwise peaceful force. No methodology is acceptable when its used against US citizens. Its a matter of perspective and intent.

Well, that's a standard that necessitates violence, as no other nation will willingly accept something so inconsistent with what is fair and just for all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Furthermore the Vietnamese people should have been entitled to decide for themselves. Im no expert on the exact history, but the Geneva Accords set up elections in South Vietnam. If the US did indeed rig those elections, that was wrong. However, the south vietnamese did not want to be invaded and killed by the north either.

Doesn't it occur to you that from the perspective of the average South Vietnamese citizen, the division of their country was an unnatural artifice, hence unification with the North would be considered perfectly natural?

Furthermore, we were at a political disadvantage in the South. The North was viewed by the rural population more favorably than we were, which is why we undertook to bomb them out of the countryside, which is completely antithetical to the concept of democracy, no?

Imperator · #**112** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Doesn't it occur to you that from the perspective of the average South Vietnamese citizen, the division of their country was an unnatural artifice, hence unification with the North would be considered perfectly natural?

Furthermore, we were at a political disadvantage in the South. The North was viewed by the rural population more favorably than we were, which is why we undertook to bomb them out of the countryside, which is completely antithetical to the concept of democracy, no?

that’s not quite how it went and a fantastic statement, can you link to said research etc.?....

Pogo · #**113** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

that’s not quite how it went and a fantastic statement, can you link to said research etc.?....

From a previous post:

Quote:

To give you an idea of how these civilians were viewed by the policy gurus, here's a quote by Professor Samuel Huntington, who in 1968 was the chairman of the Council on Vietnamese Studies of the Southeast Asia Development Advisory Group. Writing in Foreign Affairs, "The Vietcong is a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from it's constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist."

He's referring to the South and to political power. The very reason we had to resort to such raw, naked power was because we had no support outside the urban areas, and that support was only on account of our dumping money on the population.

In essence, I think you could draw a parallel to what we were doing in our bombing campaign to what Stalin did with respect to collectivization/industrialization, in that they were both brought about by monstrous brutality. Which is not to say that our depredations match Stalin's in scale, but that we certainly didn't shrink away from the means necessary to bringing about forced urbanization.

Imperator · #**114** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

From a previous post:

He's referring to the South and to political power. The very reason we had to resort to such raw, naked power was because we had no support outside the urban areas, and that support was only on account of our dumping money on the population.

In essence, I think you could draw a parallel to what we were doing in our bombing campaign to what Stalin did with respect to collectivization/industrialization, in that they were both brought about by monstrous brutality. Which is not to say that our depredations match Stalin's in scale, but that we certainly didn't shrink away from the means necessary to bringing about forced urbanization.

okay you're quoting from US sources..and opinion, I agree, they were were totally screwed up and many of which Diem was vehemently against in toto...in effect, thats why he was offed....

jviehe · #**115** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

I looked and see no definitive source for determining precisely who was responsible for each civilian casualty.

Again, it's asinine to suggest that the US is only responsible for 100k out of the 2 million civilians killed when you look at the scope and nature of our bombing campaigns and the fact that it was our policy to bomb the rural population out of the countryside. The North Vietnamese undertook no such bombing campaigns, nor has it been suggested by anyone, so far as I know, that they engaged in genocidal slaughter on the order of what the Khmer Rouge did, so how then do you account for the remaining 1.9 million civilian casualties???

What 2 million civilian casualties? Your source likewise provides no definitive facts. You are accepting one claim, Im accepting another.

jviehe · #**116** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Well, that's a standard that necessitates violence, as no other nation will willingly accept something so inconsistent with what is fair and just for all.

Doesn't it occur to you that from the perspective of the average South Vietnamese citizen, the division of their country was an unnatural artifice, hence unification with the North would be considered perfectly natural?

Furthermore, we were at a political disadvantage in the South. The North was viewed by the rural population more favorably than we were, which is why we undertook to bomb them out of the countryside, which is completely antithetical to the concept of democracy, no?

I dont know. I wasnt there. What I know is that the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnames and killed their citizens. THe US fought against it. When we left, people were sent to re-education camps where they starved. From my perspective, life in south vietnam under a illegitimate govt backed by the US would have been preferable to life under communist rule.

Americano · #**117** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

I dont know. I wasnt there. What I know is that the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnames and killed their citizens. THe US fought against it. When we left, people were sent to re-education camps where they starved. From my perspective, life in south vietnam under a illegitimate govt backed by the US would have been preferable to life under communist rule.

Obviously the majority of Vietnamese disagreed with your ideology and history has proved them correct. If necessary they were prepared to fight western colonization for another 100-years. Regarding the US revolution your viewpoint would have supported the Tory position.

TSGracchus · #**118** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

I dont know. I wasnt there.

I wasn't either, although I was alive at the time; however, it's not as if there isn't plenty of documentation. We're not talking about some period before the invention of writing when we have to do an archaeological dig.

I appreciate the admission that it's something you don't know a lot about. However, my suggestion is that this is something to be remedied rather than accepted. Go to the library and get a good book on the history of Vietnam. Or here, just start with the Wiki article:

Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The legendary Hồng Bàng Dynasty of the Hùng kings is considered by many Vietnamese as the first Vietnamese state, known as Văn Lang. In 257 BCE, the last Hùng king lost to Thục Phán, who consolidated the Lạc Việt tribes with his Âu Việt tribes, forming Âu Lạc and proclaiming himself An Dương Vương. In 207 BCE, a Chinese general named Zhao Tuo defeated An Dương Vương and consolidated Âu Lạc into Nanyue. In 111 BCE, the Chinese Han Dynasty consolidated Nanyue into their empire.

For the next thousand years, Vietnam was mostly under Chinese rule.[1] Early independence movements such as those of the Trưng Sisters and of Lady Triệu were only briefly successful. It was independent as Vạn Xuân under the Anterior Ly Dynasty between 544 and 602. By the early 10th century, Vietnam had gained autonomy, but not independence, under the Khúc family.

Dynastic era

In 938 CE, a Vietnamese lord named Ngô Quyền defeated Chinese forces at the Bạch Đằng River and gained independence after 10 centuries under Chinese control. Renamed as Đại Việt, the nation went through a golden era during the Lý and Trần Dynasties. During the rule of the Trần Dynasty, Đại Việt repelled three Mongol invasions.[2] Buddhism flourished and became the state religion. Following the brief Hồ Dynasty, Vietnamese independence was momentarily interrupted by the Chinese Ming Dynasty, but was restored by Lê Lợi, the founder of the Lê Dynasty. Feudalism in Vietnam reached its zenith in the Lê Dynasty of the 15th century, especially during the reign of Emperor Lê Thánh Tông. Between the 11th and 18th centuries, the Vietnamese expanded southward in a process known as nam tiến (southward expansion). They eventually conquered the kingdom of Champa and part of the Khmer Empire.[3][4]

Towards the end of the Lê Dynasty, civil strife engulfed much of Vietnam. First, the Chinese-supported Mạc Dynasty challenged the Lê Dynasty's power. After the Mạc Dynasty was defeated, the Lê Dynasty was reinstalled, but with no actual power. Power was divided between the Trịnh Lords in the North and the Nguyễn Lords in the South, who engaged in a civil war for more than a hundred years. During this time, the Nguyễn expanded southern Vietnam into the Mekong Delta, annexing the Champa in the central highlands and the Khmer land in the Mekong. The civil war ended when the Tây Sơn brothers defeated both and established their new dynasty. However, their rule did not last long and they were defeated by the remnants of the Nguyễn Lords led by Nguyen Anh with the help of the French. Nguyen Anh unified Vietnam, and established the Nguyễn Dynasty, ruling under the name Gia Long.

So you see, Vietnam was an independent and unified nation from before 1000 CE, while South Vietnam was a temporary aberration that existed only between the years of 1954 and 1975, barely 20 years and always supported from outside the country. Most Vietnamese did not think of it as a separate, independent country, and most people worldwide regarded the war not as war between two countries (North and South Vietnam), but as a civil war in one country (Vietnam). In terms of the scope of history, that is the correct view.

You can also see that the Vietnamese have a strong sense of national identity and have always been very stubborn about demanding and fighting for their independence. They had done that against the Chinese a long time before they ever did it against the French or the Americans. So we were playing into an old, old pattern that the Vietnamese knew from their cultural history. It's been mentioned several times that they were willing to fight for 100 years to gain independence from the French, Japanese, French again, and Americans, but that's chump change compared to the thousand years they struggled against China. Would we have been willing to go on fighting the Vietnam War for 1000 years? No, I'm happy to say we're not NEARLY that insane.

(I have no idea what was wrong with the Chinese. But they lost, too.)

jviehe · #**119** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Ive fully read about Vietnam on Wikipedia and many other sources, including some thick books. This doesnt make me an expert. SImply reading wikipedia makes people quite less than an expert. Point is we're all arguing without much certainty.

TSGracchus · #**120** (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Point is we're all arguing without much certainty.

On the contrary, there's plenty of certainty. Your problem is that it goes against the views that you brought with you into the discussion.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode