Opinion of Ho Chi Minh

[Intell]

Definitely FF, with or without context.

[Intell]

Stalinist murderer. The lesser evil when compared to South Vietnam and the United States, sure, but still, this is someone who obviously deserves an HP vote.

This. Though no doubt had I lived back then I would've chanted "HO HO HO CHI MINH THE NLF IS GONNA WIN!" many times.

Probably not, with your attitudes towards Russia/Soviet Russia.

[Intell]

Communist=HP

The lesser evil when compared to South Vietnam and the United States

ROFL

ROFL at supporting South Vietnam.

[Intell]

Stalinist murderer. The lesser evil when compared to South Vietnam and the United States, sure, but still, this is someone who obviously deserves an HP vote.

This. Though no doubt had I lived back then I would've chanted "HO HO HO CHI MINH THE NLF IS GONNA WIN!" many times.

Probably not, with your attitudes towards Russia/Soviet Russia.

All liberal all the time means opposing the Vietnam War.

Yes I understand that but with your attitudes towards communism, large subsects  of socialism, and soviet Russia being extremely negative, I doubt you would've supported Ho Chi Minh, youn wouldve opposed the Vietnam war, like the Iraq war, but you wouldn't go saying Sadam!, Saddam!, Saddam!.

I probably would've supported north Vietnam, as I do now, and would at that time, though I would wish it to be less Stalinist and more democratic and liberal, but would've accepted it, to advance the cause of anti-coloanlism and socialism.

[Intell]

Ironically, Ho Cji Minh was a huge fan of the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution

Well why shouldn't he be grateful to the US? Firstly Truman, Marshall and all the various communist agents working in the State Department had completely sabotaged the war effort against the communists in China. Having stabbed Chiang Kai-shek in the back in the mainland they were about to do the same in Taiwan and South Korea when Joe McCarthy burst on the scene with his allegations about communists in the State department. This forced Truman to start to show some success against the reds and probably saved both places.

Nevertheless having a communist giant next door helping with your war effort whilst the US completely failed to help the French with theirs must have been a big help.

Then there was the war in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Now isn't it curious that a country that had succeeded in defeating the Industrial giants of Germany and Japan at the same time and their huge armies was, a few years later, unable to defeat a little country like North Vietnam. Could it not have won if it had used the same tactics that were used against Germany and Japan? Of course it could but in Vietnam a totally different set of tactics were used.

As I mentioned above a 'no win' strategy was carried out by Truman and Kissinger, which was designed to demoralise the American public to soften them up for detente with communist China and the Soviets at the same time as selling out the whole of Indochina to the communists.

Yes Ho and the Vietnamese communist party had every reason to be grateful to the US

So, tell me, are you a far-right lunatic who binges off John Birch Society garbage, or are you an antisemitic poster who is using "communist" as a codeword for Jews? (we all know that Truman had a decent amount of Jewish staffers and that the crazy train constantly accused them of being communist agents).

Good grief. I just replied to you in the 'Jerusalem Embassy' thread agreeing with you that the canard that 'Israel runs US foreign policy' is nonsense and that a whole series of US Presidents have stabbed Israel in the back whilst pretending to be a supporter of Israel.

Here I'm just pointing out examples of US Presidents doing the same to anti-communists around the world, pretending to support them whilst stabbing them in the back. Its the same policy, carried out for the same reason.

[Intell]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

They were liberated from decades of colonialism and oppression of the indochinese people by foreign powers, through subdjication and force.

But please by into the own propaganda you have set out for yourself.

[Intell]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

They were liberated from decades of colonialism and oppression of the indochinese people by foreign powers, through subdjication and force.

But please by into the own propaganda you have set out for yourself.

Good Lord. You come out with a line of pure communist BS propaganda and then talk about not buying into propaganda. Just look at how much massively better off in every way the people of Taiwan are today compared to the people of mainland China. The ordinary people of Vietnam would have been and would be today much better off if the Saigon government had won the war and reunified the country just as the people of mainland China would be and would have been if Chiang Kai-shek had won the Chinese civil war.

The vast majority of people of Taiwan aren't better than the vast majority of the people of mainland china, and ask a Vietnamese about their stimulation in colonial France, and ask a person who actually lives in Vietnam about that, or Laos, or even Cambodia, after the west supported Khmer Rouge and that fascist regime.

Anyone you're an idiot with no logic, so I won't bother debating you. Probably a facist in that.

[Intell]

[Intell]

Furthermore if we are talking about Ho Chi Minh and what he and his government were responsible and why he has a far better reputation that he deserves and why far too may people, many of whom should know better, think that the communists were 'good guys' and the South Vietnamese were 'bad guys' during the war lets look at another blog article detailing media bias in one US media outlet (and the reasons for it), although this is all too typical.

This is a bit of a lengthy quote but I think its important to include chapter and verse on this particular issue just to make things clear

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://vnafmamn.com/VNWar_atrocities.html

In this thread so far I've said that the South Vietnamese government, highly flawed as it was, was far better for the ordinary people of Vietnam than the highly oppressive and totalitarian Northern communist government.

Further I've asserted that US could have won the war relatively easily if it had not been sabotaged by its own policy decisions and rules of engagement preventing it (deliberately in my view) from being able to win.

The response from lefties has been



On the other hand provide chapter and verse evidence of these facts (for example the evidence quoted above) and ask if they have any evidence to the contrary

The response from lefties

[Intell]

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-vietnam6aug06-story.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/the-war-behind-me-vietnam-veterans-confront-the-truth-about-us-war-crimes-in-vietnam/

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/02/the_burden_of_atrocity_how_vietnam_was_exposed_as_a_dirty_war/

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1802

Let's not forget this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

[Intell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Tr%E1%BA%A1ch_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binh_Tai_Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%ACnh_H%C3%B2a_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phong_Nh%E1%BB%8B_and_Phong_Nh%E1%BA%A5t_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A0_My_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_Ch%C3%BAc_massacre (Supported by the US, in every single way)

Let's not forget all the bombings, deaths and destructions perperated on on North Vietnam by the South Vietnam and it's war allies.

[Intell]

at everything fascist English Pete says.

[Intell]

There's not really any point engaging with these people on topics like this, you're not going to win anyone over to your way of thinking.

I'm pointing out where they're wrong but of course I'm not doing so for their benefit. I realise that their stubborn bigoted leftism isn't going to be influenced by the facts, hence why I'm now rolling eyes at their more idiotic statements. Where they make a specific claim however then I like to point out why its wrong for the benefit of anyone else who might happen to be reading and who might be interested in the real facts.

You're wrong but ok.

[Intell]

This is a fitting thread to post this hilarious clip: https://youtu.be/aSZosqXOyc0

You know I would have attributed to stupidity the idea that the Vietnamese people won the war when the communists won, the idea that the ordinary population of South Vietnam actively wanted the communists to win and saw a Northern victory as 'liberation'. I think many people can be tempted to think such a view is down to stupidity as such a view is so at odds with the facts that stupidity must be the explanation.

However I think it is due to something far worse. this passage I quoted above is written about people like Voter #652

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://vnafmamn.com/VNWar_atrocities.html

[Intell]

This is a fitting thread to post this hilarious clip: https://youtu.be/aSZosqXOyc0

That is stupid and I feel ashamed that I chuckled at it.