US doesn't care about Vietnam: Top 7 reasons

[Viet]

1. In this thread, I never mentioned nukes.

2. There's a difference between an EMP and a thermonuclear blast. An EMP is nuke-based, but it is not a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.

3. You raised the Vietnam-US alliance idea. There isn't a scintilla of support for that idea here in the US. Anybody that reads US news would know that.

1. not this thread, but many other ones.

2. EMP is a foreplay of real nuclear blasts. if you fire EMP, your enemy will return with nuclear missiles. 100%.

3. there are discussions in vienam, in america and elsewhere in the world including china. that is the reason why chinese commies issue threats toward vietnam from time to time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/vietnams-overdue-alliance-with-america.html?_r=0

 

[Martian2]

1. not this thread, but many other ones.

2. EMP is a foreplay of real nuclear blasts. if you fire EMP, your enemy will return with nuclear missiles. 100%.

3. there are discussions in vienam, in america and elsewhere in the world including china. that is the reason why chinese commies issue threats toward vietnam from time to time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/vietnams-overdue-alliance-with-america.html?_r=0

Sunday Review by Tuong Lai does not reflect the view of the American political establishment.

It is merely the fantasy of a single Vietnamese.

Got any real citations?
----------

The US State Department repeated US neutrality on the South China Sea in June and December of 2014. That is official US policy.

Can we put a stake through the ridiculous idea of a Vietnam-US alliance and move on to the next phase of discussion?

 

[somsak]

US is constantly looking for strategic depth. If Vietnam want to be US's strategic depth, why not?
When US strategic depth is fully complete, there will be no US enemy in this world. Because all countries are US strategic depth.

 

[TaiShang]

can we trust china?

well, that is true with millions of deaths, sufferings and sorrows of our people during the vietnam war. by the way, it was the longest armed conflict for the americans. but from the historic perspective, that war was just a snapshot in our history, comparing to the 1,000 years + conflict with china.


do you want to gamble? do you want to put the fate of china on the poker table?

then I suggest you should go ahead and deploy oil rigs into our EEZ, staging military exercices along sino-vietnam border, in the south china sea. you would help the mind of the communist chief of vietnam a bit to rethink the strategy. my best estimated date for the alliance treaty?

Vietnam Plays Up US Invitation to Communist Party Chief

You can trust China that it will never interfere in your internal affairs, attempt a color revolution, pit one group against the other by arming one at the cost of other, seek fifth-columns and paid NGOs to bring down your government. Yes, on all these, you can trust China.

It is true that we have a territorial dispute. You are welcome to negotiate it on bilateral basis. Resources can be shared and disputes can be shelved. If Japan can negotiate and shelve the dispute, so can Vietnam, which shares a closer ideological affinity with China.

Our language in bilateral relations should be one of peace and mutual development. Personally, I think of Vietnam as a fiercely independent nation. That's beyond respect. So is China. Without letting any third party to intervene and to use each one of us as a playground for their own selfish ends, we can negotiate.

Do you honestly believe that others will think of Vietnam's interests more than China would?

International relations rule number one: Every free minded nation is alone in the jungle.

Number two: The lackeys are expendable. US will not hesitate to use South Korea (even at the cost of the North nuking them) if their greater interests require so.

Number three: You cannot change your geographic destiny. We have to sit next to each other even if we do not want.

 

[Martian2]

US is constantly looking for strategic depth. If Vietnam want to be US's strategic depth, why not?
When US strategic depth is fully complete, there will be no US enemy in this world. Because all countries are US strategic depth.

Can't chant USA USA USA forever

We have all waited five years for a Vietnam-US deal to happen.

To date, the US gave Vietnam five patrol boats.

I say that pretty much shows the US-Vietnam alliance is a dead turkey.

If the Vietnamese members would stop trying to bring it up or hint at serious US military support, we can move to the issue of what's next for Vietnam.

In all of the threads, the Vietnamese members post the same thing as the Indians.

I ask, "what's next for Vietnam?" Vietnamese: USA USA USA

I say, "it's been five years, the USA isn't coming. What's next?" Vietnamese: USA USA USA

I say, "the US never showed up in Georgia, Crimea, or Eastern Ukraine. What's next for Vietnam?" Vietnamese: USA USA USA

It's like being in an insane asylum. The Vietnamese chant the same thing over and over again and there's no real discussion.

 

[Rechoice]

Remember what I said? The clever and smart survive. Only an idiot would allow a pimp to use you. What did you get for sleeping with a pimp? You know they are using you, why are you letting them do that? LOLOL

Big Dick choose tight pussy
But small man never understand

Is this policy line of China, like this toy ?

 

[Oldman1]

US is MIA in Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine...

Obviously, you don't watch American war documentaries. On network television, it was widely aired that the US was ecstatic to see two communist countries wage war against one another. This was about the Sino-Vietnamese border skirmish.

Also, you really need to listen to Republicans (who control both houses of Congress). They are staunchly anti-communist. The Democrats (or liberal NeoCons) aren't that much different.

The U.S. was unwilling to risk a soldier for white democratic Georgians and white democratic European Ukrainians over Crimea.

You can keep on fantasizing about the US fighting and dying on communist Vietnam's behalf. The probability of that happening is zero.

The US is MIA in the heart of Europe (e.g. Eastern Ukraine) and NATO country. It's absurd to think the US would show up for a conflict in the South China Sea.

I predict there will never be a military alliance between the US and communist Vietnam. If you believe otherwise, give me your best estimated date for the alliance treaty.

Can you rely on those past events to show that China can do anything they want? Remember that the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and took down the Soviet Union. Support Vietnam and inflict massive casualties and damage to China to prevent its expansion and remind them its not worth the adventure. And as posters like to point out that the U.S. hasn't had peace for many years in its history.

 

[Martian2]

Realpolitik

1. The US is downsizing its Army to 450,000 or perhaps 420,000.
2. The US publicly proclaimed neutrality on the South China Sea twice last year in June and December.
3. The US gave Vietnam five patrol boats.

Basically, Vietnam is on its own. Whether you like it or not, that's the reality.

Vietnamese officials can visit the Philippines as much as they want. The Philippines has zero military power and it's irrelevant.

In the end, Vietnam has to negotiate with China. China is the military superpower. Thus, Vietnam can only expect a deal that befits a minor country of Vietnam's stature. The final deal will be on China's terms. This is Realpolitik.

Can you rely on those past events to show that China can do anything they want? Remember that the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and took down the Soviet Union. Support Vietnam and inflict massive casualties and damage to China to prevent its expansion and remind them its not worth the adventure. And as posters like to point out that the U.S. hasn't had peace for many years in its history.

Do you want to see the citations from June and December of last year? The U.S. State Department was crystal clear about US neutrality in the South China Sea.

There was no ambiguity whatsoever in the words of the U.S. government.

You can't go around making up stuff. It doesn't reflect the real world.

 

[BoQ77]

Martian2: we must complete the amendment mission first. LOL
[1973-2015] How Vietnamese and American passed over the past ( Vietnam War)?

Can't chant USA USA USA forever

We have all waited five years for a Vietnam-US deal to happen.

To date, the US gave Vietnam five patrol boats.

I say that pretty much shows the US-Vietnam alliance is a dead turkey.

If the Vietnamese members would stop trying to bring it up or hint at serious US military support, we can move to the issue of what's next for Vietnam.

In all of the threads, the Vietnamese members post the same thing as the Indians.

I ask, "what's next for Vietnam?" Vietnamese: USA USA USA

I say, "it's been five years, the USA isn't coming. What's next?" Vietnamese: USA USA USA

I say, "the US never showed up in Georgia, Crimea, or Eastern Ukraine. What's next for Vietnam?" Vietnamese: USA USA USA

It's like being in an insane asylum. The Vietnamese chant the same thing over and over again and there's no real discussion.

 

[Martian2]

Martian2: we must complete the amendment mission first. LOL
[1973-2015] How Vietnamese and American passed over the past ( Vietnam War)?

No one cares. It's a nice touchy-feely thing, but has zero strategic importance.

Simply not relevant.

 

[Oldman1]

Realpolitik



Do you want to see the citations from June and December of last year? The U.S. State Department was crystal clear about US neutrality in the South China Sea.

There was no ambiguity whatsoever in the words of the U.S. government.

You can't go around making up stuff. It doesn't reflect the real world.

Okay man thats like the U.S. State Department. Not the President of the U.S.A. which constantly changes office either 4 years or 8 years.

Remember FDR on so called neutrality. Even though he ordered U.S. Navy escorts to sink any Uboats while cargo ships convoyed to Britain while we were not at war yet.

 

[Martian2]

Okay man thats like the U.S. State Department. Not the President of the U.S.A. which constantly changes office either 4 years or 8 years.

Remember FDR on so called neutrality. Even though he ordered U.S. Navy escorts to sink any Uboats while cargo ships convoyed to Britain while we were not at war yet.

It's every US administration.

Forty years of US neutrality on the South China Sea issue

For those that are keeping track, the latest US pronouncement of neutrality on the South China Sea occurred on December 7, 2014. From 1974 (see chart below) to 2014, that's 40 years of US neutrality. Happy 40th anniversary everybody!

Beijing's and Washington's Dueling South China Sea Papers | Center for Strategic and International Studies

"Dec 9, 2014 - Two days earlier the U.S. State Department released a long-awaited ... islands in the South China Sea, reiterating the U.S. position of neutrality."
----------

China and America: A Superpower Showdown in Asia | The National Interest

 

[Oldman1]

It's every US administration.

Forty years of US neutrality on the South China Sea issue

For those that are keeping track, the latest US pronouncement of neutrality on the South China Sea occurred on December 7, 2014. From 1974 (see chart below) to 2014, that's 40 years of US neutrality. Happy 40th anniversary everybody!

Beijing's and Washington's Dueling South China Sea Papers | Center for Strategic and International Studies

"Dec 9, 2014 - Two days earlier the U.S. State Department released a long-awaited ... islands in the South China Sea, reiterating the U.S. position of neutrality."
----------

China and America: A Superpower Showdown in Asia | The National Interest

Doesn't mean anything.
“I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt – 30 October 1940 - See more at: Famous Quotes - Second World War - History in an HourHistory in an Hour

 

[Martian2]

Doesn't mean anything.
“I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt – 30 October 1940 - See more at: Famous Quotes - Second World War - History in an HourHistory in an Hour

Do you mind? This isn't about FDR.

Nothing has happened in US-Vietnam military relations for five years. I'm tired of waiting. Five patrol boats are pretty convincing evidence that the USA isn't coming to the rescue.

Now, what are Vietnam's realistic options on its own?

I say: Vietnam has to ultimately capitulate, because it is a very weak country. Not much stronger than Georgia.

 

[Oldman1]

Do you mind? This isn't about FDR.

Nothing has happened in US-Vietnam military relations for five years. I'm tired of waiting. Five patrol boats is pretty convincing evidence that the USA isn't coming to the rescue.

Now, what are Vietnam's realistic options on its own?

Britain was fighting against Germany alone besides the Soviet Union. What was the U.S. doing? Lend Lease Act, destroyers in return for lease on bases, firing on Uboats which Hitler complained about when U.S. was still not at war, etc.