New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#26 2016-06-07 18:23:45

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: A Trump Presidency

GW Johnson wrote:

Tom:

Your rantings have become insanely bizarre,  or maybe bizarrely insane.

As a matter of fact,  in 1969 I left college and joined the Navy,  intending to become a fighter pilot,  and go to Vietnam. 

Don't you EVER question my patriotism again!

GW

Well North Vietnam started the Vietnam War by attacking the South. Before there were two separate countries North Vietnam and South Vietnam, and the North attacked the South, started this war where 58,000 of our servicemen and women got killed, and then took South Vietnam for all the damage and destruction they wrought, does that seem just, right and fair to you? We let them win because of action taken by Congress, and because of that millions of Vietnam Citizens in South Vietnam lost their freedom and representative Government. Now the regime of North Vietnam may be Soft Communism rather than the Hard Communism of North Korea, but it still isn't a representative democracy, the South Vietnamese citizens don't enjoy the constitutional protections they did when South Vietnam was a free and independent state. Why do you think there are so many South Vietnamese refugees still living in the United States? Now I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm just appealing to your reason. Maybe someday, the South in Vietnam will rise again! What do you think about that? If the Northerners like their Communism, they can keep it!

Offline

#27 2016-06-08 10:22:52

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,757
Website

Re: A Trump Presidency

Tom:

Vietnam was one country (just not a free one) until the mid 1950's when the French left.  Then it was partitioned between a communist north and non-communist south. 

Under French rule,  independence movements were ruthlessly quashed,  very similar to what the Brits did in Ireland for about 300 years.  Then the Japanese invaded and threw the French out.  Japanese domination was far worse.  But,  unlike some other neighboring lands,  the Vietnamese threw the Japanese out without significant help from the allies. 

For a moment in time,  they were independent.  Then we helped the French walk back in and re-dominate them.  Ho Chi Minh (who became a Soviet-style communist between the world wars) came to the US first to ask that we support their independence,  but we chose to side with the French.  Then he went to the Russians.  All of this is well-documented history that you cannot deny.

After partition,  there was a repressive communist government in the north,  and an equally repressive de-facto dictatorship in the south (elections notwithstanding) that we supported as opposition to the spread of communism.  You can make a pretty good argument that the series of puppet dictators supported by "outside powers" (us and the Russians) was more visible in the south.  You cannot argue with the fact that these puppets in the south were corrupt and despicable people,  because they were.  This,  too,  is documented history that you simply cannot argue with.

Evil dictators like that always spur violent opposition.  That was the Viet Cong.  Their "natural" allies were their communist brethren in the north,  nothing surprising about that.  Most of the common folk in the north and the south just wanted to reunite their country without any foreign powers controlling it.  Folks in that part of the world cared far less than we do whether something was "communist" or not.  That,  too,  is a demonstrated historical fact.  You cannot argue with it.  You don’t have to like it.  It simply “is”. 

In the mid 1960's,  when LBJ vastly escalated our war effort there,  we essentially dominated the south and everything in it militarily,  also documented historical fact.  From the point of view of the civil population in the south (quite different from ours),  the US was a foreign occupying power,  no different from the French or the Japanese.  The Russian presence in the north was far less dominating.  So,  it was no surprise that our troops could not tell friend from foe.  Basically,  most of the local folk all wanted us gone.  That's why that war so difficult,  and why conventional battle approaches seemed so ineffective,  in spite of our overwhelming military superiority.   Good leadership,  bad,  made no difference.

Once you understand that,  then you can understand why we lost.  It didn't really matter who said what or who voted which way in DC,  how do you win a thing like that,  when the entire civil population is fundamentally your foe?  They're your foe,  because what they want and what you want,  are fundamentally incompatible.  You cannot win,  you can only exterminate them.  Which got done on a small scale in some places like My Lai,  unfortunately.  Extermination is against all American values.  But it did happen.  And it made things even worse. 

Assigning blame to the Democrats for losing the war is somewhere between pointless and wrong,  and has almost nothing to do with what actually happened.  You really need to take off your political glasses when you read history.  It leads you to incorrect assessments.  Have you not noticed how many correspondents (not just me) on these forums take you to task for it?  There's a pattern there.

Vietnam has been unified and independent for about 4 decades now.  From what I read and see on TV,  while still communist in name,  and still an authoritarian state,  they converted to a capitalist market economy long ago.  As far as I can tell,  the only such communist state that hasn't yet gone capitalist is Cuba,  and their days as a non-capitalist economy are numbered,  now that the cold war embargo is ending. 

It has taken decades on both sides to emotionally recover,  but I notice in recent years that there have been reunions of vets from both sides in Vietnam.  I'm just glad it's long over.  We could use more friends in the region to hold back the ambitions of the Chinese. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-06-08 10:25:41)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#28 2016-06-08 11:58:22

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: A Trump Presidency

GW Johnson wrote:

Tom:

Vietnam was one country (just not a free one) until the mid 1950's when the French left.  Then it was partitioned between a communist north and non-communist south.

 
Much like the United States was during the Civil War.

Under French rule,  independence movements were ruthlessly quashed,  very similar to what the Brits did in Ireland for about 300 years.  Then the Japanese invaded and threw the French out.  Japanese domination was far worse.  But,  unlike some other neighboring lands,  the Vietnamese threw the Japanese out without significant help from the allies.

 
If they had Communism in mind, what good is independence? Lets say you ran a business in South Vietnam, it was very profitable, and some independence movement where Ho Chi Minh gets to take power and run everything, wants to nationalize your business without paying for it, its all your hard work down the drain. Now your business did well under the French, and under the Americans, and suddenly the political winds change in Washington, the the Communist troops are closing in in Saigon, where your business is located, people are fleeing, trying to get into America. The Northern troops come in and nationalize your business, you were counting on that business to support you in your retirement and the Communists stole it! Kind of like that scene in Gone With the Wind when Northern Troops burnt down the plantation house under orders from General Sherman. So you are evicted, and you find yourself on a boat in the Pacific, evicted from your home, your business and your country left with nothing! Would you say if you were in that position that independence has done you a lot of good? I think you might prefer the French or the Americans, or the Republic of South Vietnam over what Ho Chi Minh had in mind for your life saving, all stolen by a bunch of Communist troops that invaded from the North.

For a moment in time,  they were independent.  Then we helped the French walk back in and re-dominate them.  Ho Chi Minh (who became a Soviet-style communist between the world wars) came to the US first to ask that we support their independence,  but we chose to side with the French.  Then he went to the Russians.  All of this is well-documented history that you cannot deny.

Russia started the War on the side of the Germans, when they invaded Poland, the Soviet Union back then was the only Communist nation, and someone who was also a Communist asked for our help? Why would we want to advance the cause of Communism, it is no better than Fascism? the French however were an established Democratic Republic under occupation by the Germans, so we figure if we helped the French regain their freedom, those under the French would also be free. Now the Communists wanted independence for Vietnam, because they would have a country to rule, rather than something that was a part of the French Empire ruled by a democratic government.

After partition,  there was a repressive communist government in the north,  and an equally repressive de-facto dictatorship in the south (elections notwithstanding) that we supported as opposition to the spread of communism.  You can make a pretty good argument that the series of puppet dictators supported by "outside powers" (us and the Russians) was more visible in the south.  You cannot argue with the fact that these puppets in the south were corrupt and despicable people,  because they were.  This,  too,  is documented history that you simply cannot argue with.

So they weren't perfect, I'd say the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton were corrupt also, does that justify a totalitarian state taking over and nationalizing private property and businesses, all of which they didn't build? They also got to rename the City Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City, that egomaniac didn't build that city, Saigon was its traditional name, why did he get to rename it? Does that sound fair to you? Communism is itself corrupt. If corrupt officials abused their power in South Vietnam, Communism introduced systematic corruption in the government structure itself, no fair elections, a political monopoly for one party, the Vietnamese population doesn't get a say in who rules them! I would say the two are not equal, and South Vietnam was a more fair and just political system that what the Communist North offered.

Evil dictators like that always spur violent opposition.  That was the Viet Cong.  Their "natural" allies were their communist brethren in the north,  nothing surprising about that.  Most of the common folk in the north and the south just wanted to reunite their country without any foreign powers controlling it.  Folks in that part of the world cared far less than we do whether something was "communist" or not.  That,  too,  is a demonstrated historical fact.  You cannot argue with it.  You don’t have to like it.  It simply “is”.

 
Why were there so many boat people coming out of occupied South Vietnam then, if they liked the Communists so much? If they liked getting their property appropriated by the Communist Government, and if they liked being threatened with death if they complained about it?
So North Vietnam starts a war with South Vietnam, and we reward them by giving them the land they started the war to get, how does that encourage peace in the future? for North Vietnam is was simply: Start a war, and get what you want, you double the size of your country at your neighbor's expense. What does the South get out of this, an unrepresentative dictator that looks like them, instead of a round-eyes French Administration, that is an ally of the United States and thus subject to its pressure on human rights, North Vietnam is not going to listen to us on that score. I don't see the advantage in being dominated by the Communist North instead of by France or the United States, unless "slanted eyes vs. round eyes" is the most important thing for you.

In the mid 1960's,  when LBJ vastly escalated our war effort there,  we essentially dominated the south and everything in it militarily,  also documented historical fact.

 
And the Communist North did not? Did we appropriate as much private Property in South Vietnam as did the government of North Vietnam? How many people were left poor and destitute because of us as compared to what the Communists did?

From the point of view of the civil population in the south (quite different from ours),  the US was a foreign occupying power,  no different from the French or the Japanese.

 
And North Vietnam was not? The Japanese at least looked more like them, they shouldn't mind the Japanese occupation as much by that logic. The Japanese were brutal, but then so where the North Vietnamese, both had slanted eyes, both were Asians.

The Russian presence in the north was far less dominating.

 
Well they had "round eyes" too, looking much like Americans as far as they were concerned, why should they like their "round eyes" better than our "round eyes?"

So,  it was no surprise that our troops could not tell friend from foe.  Basically,  most of the local folk all wanted us gone.  That's why that war so difficult,  and why conventional battle approaches seemed so ineffective,  in spite of our overwhelming military superiority.   Good leadership,  bad,  made no difference.

Then why did so many Vietnamese come to America after the War, if they wanted us gone?

Once you understand that,  then you can understand why we lost.  It didn't really matter who said what or who voted which way in DC,  how do you win a thing like that,  when the entire civil population is fundamentally your foe?  They're your foe,  because what they want and what you want,  are fundamentally incompatible.  You cannot win,  you can only exterminate them.  Which got done on a small scale in some places like My Lai,  unfortunately.  Extermination is against all American values.  But it did happen.  And it made things even worse.

 
Extermination is not against Communist values if you look at Cambodia, So you are saying they wanted us gone because they didn't like the way we look? There is another word for that and it begins with the letter 'R'
.

Assigning blame to the Democrats for losing the war is somewhere between pointless and wrong,  and has almost nothing to do with what actually happened.  You really need to take off your political glasses when you read history.  It leads you to incorrect assessments.  Have you not noticed how many correspondents (not just me) on these forums take you to task for it?  There's a pattern there.

When you get your country into a war, and you draft young men, who had other careers in mind, into that war to fight for your country, or so you tell them, you have a responsibility to win the war for their sake and for the sake of the sacrifices you are asking them to make. You should go down to the Vietnam War memorial in Washington DC and look at those 58,000 names there. Those names are the names of the victims of Democratic Party politics where they decided to go to war to whip up patriotic fervor, and then the political winds shifted and they decided to go against the war, and thus undermine the cause we send those young people out to fight for in the first place, and they said to those widows, and parents, and children who lost loved ones in the Vietnam War that they were a bunch of suckers to listening to the Democrats in the first place, tough luck about losing a family member to shifting political winds, had we not gone in their in the first place, many of those people would still be alive, it was because mostly of Kennedy and Johnson that they are not, and what did they make that sacrifice for? Because of the Democrats shifting political calculations, they made that sacrifice for nothing!

Vietnam has been unified and independent for about 4 decades now.  From what I read and see on TV,  while still communist in name,  and still an authoritarian state,  they converted to a capitalist market economy long ago.

 
Just as corrupt as you say the South Vietnamese government was, but at least back then they had elections that meant something. The North Koreans weren't so lucky. Its not Capitalism that matters so much as Democracy, Capitalism is nice, but without Democracy, property rights aren't safe, they are subject to the whims of a dictator, and could be taken away just as fast, and there are no elections that can stop them. Independence, and by the way, South Vietnam lost its independence, is meaningless unless it comes with freedom, otherwise it is just an employment opportunity for a dictator.

As far as I can tell,  the only such communist state that hasn't yet gone capitalist is Cuba,  and their days as a non-capitalist economy are numbered,  now that the cold war embargo is ending.

 

And I ask you what good has Cuban Independence done the Cubans, are they happier there now? Why are so many Cubans fleeing their homeland? Cuban independence was a failure if it resulted in Communism, they would have been better off as a US Territory or State. As part of the United States, they would not have been under Fidel Castro, the only thing you could say in his favor is he spoke Spanish!

It has taken decades on both sides to emotionally recover,  but I notice in recent years that there have been reunions of vets from both sides in Vietnam.  I'm just glad it's long over.  We could use more friends in the region to hold back the ambitions of the Chinese. 

GW

In the American Civil War, when the South Lost, there was Freedom, can you say the same thing about when the South lost in Vietnam? The North in that country freed no slaves.

Offline

#29 2016-06-08 12:28:49

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,757
Website

Re: A Trump Presidency

Arguing with you and your politics is a colossal waste of time.  You are unable to objectively read.  I'm done with this thread.

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#30 2016-06-08 13:35:24

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,862
Website

Re: A Trump Presidency

29c3ac52c975094e7e2342b83f511ca0.jpg

p329m.jpg

Offline

#31 2016-06-09 07:38:12

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: A Trump Presidency

GW Johnson wrote:

Arguing with you and your politics is a colossal waste of time.  You are unable to objectively read.  I'm done with this thread.

GW

I read every bit of what you wrote, that is why I broke it down and refuted it in detail. I don't agree with you that the Vietnam War was an unworthy cause, I may question the way it was fought, but the cause of liberty and freedom was unimpeachable, and it is too bad we allowed the North to win, because they certainly didn't deserve to, they were the ones that started that war in the first place, South Vietnam didn't start it, they were quite willing to live in peace with the North as a separate country until they attacked! It was a terrible war, and we didn't start it, so its not our fault. Our fault was sending hundreds of thousands of drafted US soldiers there, and then abandoning them because of changes in the political winds of Washington!

Offline

#32 2016-06-09 17:02:12

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,757
Website

Re: A Trump Presidency

Tom,  you still cannot read. 

"I don't agree with you that the Vietnam War was an unworthy cause"  -- I NEVER said that.

"North to win, because they certainly didn't deserve to, they were the ones that started that war in the first place"  -- I NEVER said that,  and the actual facts of history do NOT support that statement.

"Our fault was sending hundreds of thousands of drafted US soldiers there, and then abandoning them because of changes in the political winds of Washington!" -- no US forces were abandoned at all.  Only South Vietnamese allies like the Hmong were abandoned during that evacuation in 1975.  Look at the f**ing news reels,  for Christ's sake!  Your history is extremely faulty.  It is far too driven by your extremist politics. 

For the last time,  please learn how to read!!!!  It's a 1st grade skill. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-06-09 17:25:27)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#33 2016-06-10 00:30:06

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: A Trump Presidency

I believe allowing the North to win, only encouraged other enemies to attack us later, say on September 11, 2001. If we let the enemy win once, then other enemies will think they will stand a chance against us and attack! Even if you think our involvement in Vietnam was unjust, it would have been better for us to win that "unjust" war, than to give future enemies the idea that they could beat us if they just drive up the causalities high enough. Which is why we must crush ISIS and other such enemies! Now I'm not interested in restarting the War in Vietnam, if there are people in Vietnam who want their freedom, they can fight for it themselves, but in the future, if we get ourselves into a war, we should win it no matter what! We need to defeat the enemy who ever it happens to be, so we don't have this post-Vietnam effect of enemies attacking us thinking they can beat us. Us pulling out of Vietnam without winning it set a bad precedent and it endangers many American lives. If we get into another such war, we need to win it! Question the war, argue about what we should have done after the war is over with.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB