Obama says Vietnam was a misunderstanding, >>mod edit<<

Just another thread that shows the sheer stupidity of the left wing anti American losers of this forum. They are so devoid of any knowledge that even when someone says something that is factually accurate they have to attack because it doesn't conform with the history that they have been told to believe by their handlers. Get off the damn internet and open up a book losers.

I'm not saying all liberals hate America, but if you hate America, then you're a liberal.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have a point to make and some facts to present, now would be a good time.

 

The problem with this argument is two-fold:

1. Socialism is not mutually exclusive with democracy. I direct your attention to Sweden, Denmark, Israel, and India.

2. Since when during the Cold War did we have a problem with allying with non-democracies? Look at Korea, Taiwan, and South Vietnam for that matter.

 

If you have to practice the abomination of hypocrisy then you must be a conservative.

 

For one, Ho Chi Minh didn't kill millions of people. The US killed far more people in Vietnam than the Vietnamese did.

For two, most of those deaths occurred AFTER the point in time when we could have taken his side.

For three, if the US had such a hard on for opposing dictators, why did we support Pinochet, Mubarak, Rhee, Giap, Mobutu, Saud, Batista, Franco, Suharto, Kai-Shek...do I need to go on?

 

If you got nothing, slander the messenger. Some of those messengers are not left wing.

If you want to ignore the truth, post the above comment.

 

My post was in response to another claiming that Ho may have embraced Democracy had Truman sided against the French after WWII. I just don't think it likely Ho would have done such. I think he would have stayed somewhat commie-socialist. Which I also think was the right thing for Vietnam at that time.

As for what the US did, I am not saying they were the best decisions. In hindsight, they certainly seem to not be. What I do understand, and commented on, is how I understand the process that made those decisions.

It is not an issue of that we did elsewhere. Fact is, Truman and Eisenhower were trying to appease the French, so Ho got thrown under that bus. By the time our massive expansion into Vietnam began, it was their misfortune that hawks such as Dulles saw them as the place to draw a line against what was seen as expanding Communist influence. We hadn't stopped Mao. "The Iron Curtain" had become common in Cold War vernacular. We had been helpless in Hungary. Castro had taken Cuba.

Vietnam became the place where we were going to make a stand against Communism. All along, Ho had just wanted Vietnam for the Vietnamese. Took 40 years for that to happen.

 

Thats a pretty extreme position. Would you say Jerry Falwell, the man who hated America for tolerating homosexuals, abortion, and teletubbies, was a liberal?

 

Am taking some time, while listening to baseball on a headset, to catch up on Ho Chi Minh. He sure got around !

However, this jumped out at me from Wikipedia, regarding Ho's maneuvering to keep the Chinese out of Vietnam after WWII:

- - - Updated - - -

Its a parody of post 69.

 

Nowhere does it say that Communism was inspired by the Constitution, or that Obama thinks that, or that he thinks Ho Chi Minh modeled his policies on the Constitution. Pretending otherwise is dumber than anything Obama ever said.

 

I just checked...it's Charles Krauthammer, the guy who was completely wrong about the Iraq war and WMDs and never owned up to it. He takes half a sentence and uses it out of context to support an accusation he pulled out of his ass. Gotta love FAUXNEWS LOL.

 

Aah, ok.

Also, that Mihn quote is amazing. You have to have both brains and balls to manage something like that.

 

What's your source for this? I hadn't heard that one before. And why would you think only "left-leaning" soldiers were desperate to get back home?

 

That's absolutely what should have been done. The Vietnamese fought off the French, and won their independence, then they had to fight off the Americans to keep it. We should have stayed out of it and let them have their victory.

Instead, thousands of US soldiers and millions of Vietnamese had to die. What a tragedy.

 

You are the exception to the rule, sir. But I commend you for being honest.

 

Whoops, my mistake. It wasn't Krauthammer. It was some other agent provocateur from FAUXNEWS (someone named Stirewalt?). I regret the error. I regret even more that the edit button doesn't last longer!

 

Another Conservative poster or two sounded off in defense of Ho's accurate characterization before me in this thread. The guy's life is a fascinating study of just about everything Indochina. I am no fan of Communism, but Ho has always been very high on my list of effective political leaders of the 20th century. The quote of his that always stuck with me, beginning when I was a kid in high school during the Vietnam War, having been assigned to write a paper about the strategy of the North Vietnamese, was this:

 

Please tell me where I've ever said that to Bush. I hate when both sides do it, and will condone both sides.

 

It was America's key foreign policy agenda to promote former colonial subjects' self-determination in the postwar era and the US government actively supported independence movements in the Third World. President Truman banned the US forces from transporting European troops to Asia and Africa to reimpose their colonial rule and the US was indeed the beacon of freedom for nationalist leaders all around the world at the time. Ho Chi Minh's Vietnamese independence movement was based on the American model and he petitioned President Truman for support for Vietnamese independence, citing the Atlantic Charter. But unfortunately for Vietnam, China sent 200,000 troops to Hanoi to impose Communism in 1945 and Ho Chi Minh had no choice but to acquiesce on Chinese influence in Vietnam in exchange for gaining independence from France.

 

Ridiculously brutal and effective at the same time.

Honestly, he was probably one of the most effective rebel leaders in history. No nation I can think of ever held up against such pressure so well as Nam that I can think of. And it was almost 100% of his leadership and the force of his will exerted beyond the grave.

 

Like others, I would note that he did not bring the culture of killing one's opponents to Indochina. A case can be made that he only responded in kind, and that he did so somewhat begrudgingly. Look at the three big powers that wanted to dominate Vietnam. The Chinese. The French. And then us. And God knows we had the least reason to be there.

Who was left standing ? Finally at peace. Thriving economically.

 

Try reading the post with a clear head dude. I said whenever the left does it. I didn't say specificaly you.

 

I read it as an attack on me. I am on the left, and it seemed like you were challenging when I say it to other people. Sorry, my bad.

 

Yes, you fell for the "White Hats" myth. No, the Cold War was the driving force. We supported dictators who were on our side. Is was not until the Soviet Union collapsed that we tried to create our kind of democracy whether the country wanted it or not.

 

Ummmmm .......... NO. Vietnam was the first real example of us trying to create a Democracy where the people didn't give a rat's ass. Would have hoped that even a few libs had figured that much out. Change that ... a few did. Just not you. Your post is ignorant.

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm... No, if we were trying to create a democracy, we would not have supported the corrupt government. I hope a few libs didn't believe that. Your post is ignorant.