Vietnam visit: Anti-American exhibits abound, but people are friendly

[Obambam]

Of course you do, as evident now as you Chinese boys are working so very hard to hide the historical records that China was complicit in starting the Vietnam War.

Your opinions of China got debunked over and over, yet you still come back for more with your ridiculous claims that it was China who started the war.
The entire event was well documented information on all aspects of the war are there for all to see. If all you could do is to come up here with your whiney comments on how China started the war, how we screwed you boat people up and how your former powerless puppet government of the south could have lead your beloved country to freedom then you are very welcome to. Our patience are tested and we will listen to you regardless of what you have to say

Now, let me reiterate myself. We are not here to save face. There is no need for us to. It is not our country that was incompetent in freeing itself from a colonial power; it is not us who begged for help and it is not us who has to worry about the future of Vietnam. Those are of your concern.
We are simply here to listen to your absurd and falsified claims and debunking them as they come like any users would.

The Soviet Union was there to hold China's hand. China abandoned several thousand years of enviable history and submitted to the Kremlin's will, even to absurd science...

The Soviet Union was not there to hold China's hand. Submitted to Kremlin's what will? I'd like to see you elaborate on that statement of yours.
The absurd science was a tragic indeed. However, what happened has happened and end of the day, we took it on with our chin and no one helped us. It is amazing how the determination and will power of the people can turn China around from being colonized, impoverished to the second richest in the world.
Our enviable history cannot be abandoned and it will forever be there for us to reflect on and use as a guide. I particularly relish the way the Vietnam and the west subjected themselves to SunTzu's famous stragetigy guide "The Art of War", which still has tremendous relevance to our current military and political affairs.

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lysenko affair - The Lysenko Affair, Science, Philosophy and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union

China developed a Lysenkoist movement in the early phases of Mao Tse-Tung's rule. Between 1949 and 1956, a period in which Chinese leaders copied Soviet policies, Lysenkoism was the only officially sanctioned approach to genetics. Led by Luo Tianyu, a plant breeder in the Beijing area, Chinese Lysenkoism stressed populist and nativist themes, ascendant since the 1949 revolution, and won political favor more for these reasons that for any imagined contribution to agricultural technology.

Looks like some serious hand-holding to me.

Sorry but I think I fail to see what your definition of holding hands is? Can you really call the borrowing of someone's short lived ideology holding hand?
However China did have to hold your hands and walk you to freedom. Could Vietnam do so without military assistance? French was mistreating your people daily during its colonial days and Vietnam was powerless to fight back. Ho asked America for help, they refused so he turned to Russia and China. Look at what happened when Americans got involved? Nepalm sure was nice wasn't it? How about My Lai? oh wait they even cut aid for South Vietnam when they pulled out.
Yet today, the South Vietnamese boys like you can come out without shame and gloriously speak of America and South Vietnam? May I ask what was South Vietnam and Americas objective in the war?

You seem to think that the United States has been a monumental success and failed to realize that its society is at an advance stage of decay. The Americans and people such as yourself are too delusional to spot any disasters coming, often until it is too late. Americans and the south jumped into a meaningless war with little achieved objectives, little reasons to fight and low morale. I guess your country's history isn't rich enough to open up your eyes.

This clearly mean you dispute the historical record that it was Ho who admitted France back into Viet Nam but you are too much of a coward to to come straight out and say so.

What historical record? Since when did Ho Chin Minh gave away Vietnam? After World War II the Japanese Army left and he saw it as an opportunity to claim independence for Vietnam. The post war French governemt wouldn't let him and the US refushed to help and they ended up in a war with the French. It didn't change until Mao defeated Chiang Kai-shek in 1949. So you have to refer to your little name calling now? the only coward here is you for refusing to learn history properly and for refusing to accept the truth.

Yes...And I have pointed that out already. That 'acceptance' came only AFTER the US as appraised of the news that Ho committed all Viet Nam, of which he had no right and moral authority to do, back to France. The Potsdam Conference was convened, by common sense and necessities, to establish control in war ravaged regions. Common sense, you do know what that is, no?

Where are your sources for this? As said before Ho Chi Minh never committed all of Vietnam to France. If he did, then there is no need for him to ask US for help to secure independence for Vietnam? makes sense?
After WWII France continued to pour more money, time and effort into keeping Vietnam, despite the fact that they were losing money. French military expenditure in Vietnam surpassed the total of all French investments in Vietnam, and although a few investors made enormous profits, they were not influential enough to determine French foreign policy. So why throw more good money down a hole?
Well, it is to do with the psychological and political factors of the French imperialist ideology than economic reasons. France had already experienced a major defeat in World War II. Most Frenchmen would have considered having one of their colonies throw them out on their ear as a further loss of national dignity. They also feared that if the Vietnamese won independence from them, restive nationalists in their other colonies such as Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia would be inspired to follow their example.

The historical record paints Bao Dai and Ngo Dinh Diem as the traitors that sold Vietnam out, not Ho Chi Minh. As a Vietnamese that you say you are, it is shameful of you not to know your country's history.

the increase in popularity of Ho Chi Minh throughout all of Vietnam convinced the French that they would not defeat the Vietminh by pure military means, so they decided to establish a Vietnamese regime to compete with the Vietminh. Although France would be the one pulling the strings, they wanted this group to have enough of an appearance of independence to attract substantial nationalist support away from the Vietminh. So, the French chose Bao Dai.
Bao Dai agreed on the condition that all of Vietnam would be "independent within the French Union.". The Elysee Agreements now comes into play.
Elysee Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Élysée Accords were an agreement made in 1949 which would give Vietnam greater independence from France. The agreement was intended to increase U.S. support for France’s actions in Indochina as well as to convince ex-emperor Bảo Đại that France would give Vietnam greater independence. The accords stated that Vietnam could conduct its own foreign affairs, control its finances and have an army; although, the agreements fell short of complete independence.

The agreements led to the U.S. moving from a position of neutrality to supporting Bảo Đại. The French portrayed their actions in Indochina as fighting the communism of Hồ Chí Minh while attempting to regain control of their colonies after World War II.

Throughout the eight years of fighting with the French, the US had provided them $2.5 billion in U.S. aid up until they lost the final fight in 1954, at the Battle of Dienbienphu.

And in no way did American reluctance back then to support the Viet Minh came from malice. Whereas Ho's willingness to commit all of Viet Nam back to France colonialism was motivated by a malicious desire to eliminate rival Vietnamese nationalists with French assistance. Let me guess...You do not believe there were rivals to Ho and the Viet Minh?

Already debunked and is now irrelevant to further discuss that warped part of history.

You disputed the North-South refugee flow during the war. So if you dispute it, then all you have to do is explain the 'boat people', which I found woefully inadequate, and that is just one example. I am not attributing the refugee problem to China. Although, Chinese abuses of the Vietnamese peasantry during the mid 1950s did motivated a lot of northern Viets to migrate down south.

It was Chiang Kai Shek's KMT who were occupying the North at the time, though they should have been spending the time to round up the Japanese, showed more interest in looting the countryside. That was during the mid 40's, not 50's. Those were the events which was recorded down in history.
I have already talked about the boat people and I personally do not see the need for me to talk about them any further. The waves of boat people took place between the 70's through to the 80's. As said before, they were either trying to leave Vietnam due to political reasons or to seek a better living away from the aftermath of their former country.

That should be 'anh' as most likely am old enough to be your father. In a non-familial conversation, the expressions should be 'anh-tôi' with 'anh' conferring respect to an elder while 'tôi' putting the speaker as a peer. Same for 'chị-tôi' or 'cô-tôi'. And 'không có chi', am always glad to educate anyone.

You have just as much idea as I have over you age. The use of "em" was deliberate since you are seemingly in love of belittling others. You can go ahead and teach us more of your Vietnamese and in return we will educate you more on the real history.

Which you know by now that is not true. Now are you not glad you were educated by a Viet on this matter?

Debunked again. Now aren't you glad to be educated by a Chinese on this matter?

The Ho-Sainteny Agreement is probably the least known document regarding the Vietnam War and its causes. Ho spent time in France at the behind-the-scenes invitation from France via Sainteny. France did not chose Sainteny from drawing straws among the French diplomatic corps. There was a PERSONAL relationship between the two men. Sainteny was a patriot to France but also a friend to Ho. The Agreement worked out for both men in that Ho would be able to solidified his position in North Viet Nam and Sainteny would be able to satisfy his obligations to France

Is there any wonder why this personal relationship and the Ho-Sainteny Agreement would be suppressed by state propaganda machines in communist countries who supported communist Vietnamese? No need to have high IQ to say 'No', does it? It is far easier to turn attention to the more public political relationship between the US and France and to the public announcement that the US conceded Indochina to France when it was clear that the US did so only AFTER being appraised by France of this back-door Agreement.

The Ho–Sainteny agreement was an agreement made March 6, 1946 between Ho Chi Minh, President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and Jean Sainteny, Special Envoy of France. It recognized Vietnam as a "Free State" within the French Union, and permitted France to continue stationing troops in North Vietnam until 1951.

The weight of the Chinese occupation (both politically and economically) forced the Vietminh into accepting some of France's demands in order to secure the evacuation of Chiang Kai-shek's forces from the northern part of the country. Hence Ho Chi Minh only agreed to let France continue to station troops in the north until 1951. It was a short term plan that happened to ended in Ho Chi Minh's favour. The KMT was defeated and Chiang Kai shek fled to Taiwan in 1949.

"In 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech called "Beyond Vietnam", in which he stated:

"They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence -- in 1945 -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives."

Martin Luther King, assorted commentators, and you Chinese boys got suckered....

I guess Martin Lurther King's speech is all cleared up and made even better sense now? looks like the only ones who got suckered are Vietnamese boys like you.

Liberate from what/who?

To liberate your former country from being a French colony.

Give me a break...China did not because China learned the hard lessons that she could not.

As said before, it's because we never intended to. On top of that, it makes no sense since the Chinese civil war had only just ended. We have a country to rebuild and colonizing another is definitely out of the question. We have kept the US at bay on both wars and halting the American objectives. This speaks volumes alone.

So if you swallowed the propaganda line that China helped 'liberated' Viet Nam, then answer the question: Liberated from what/who? Certainly not from the US as the US never had any colonial interests in mainland Asia and immediately after WW II, even less of a need since the US would be focusing on rebuilding its economy. France, on the other hand, is a different story and the US would be able to stand on a UN bully pulpit to pressure France to leave Indochina alone. The US had no reason to deviate from what Roosevelt wanted. The US might even arm the Vietnamese to stand against France. But with the Ho-Sainteny Agreement, all bets for a UN endorsed independence plan are off.

Already gone over those points and USA was France's tacit partner.

China is guilty of co-instigating the Vietnam War.

The only thing China is guilty of is helping some spineless idiots claim independence for its country.
France, Britain, Southern Vietnam and the US were the ones co-instigating the war.

Of course some American embraced communism. And there is nothing hypocritical about it. In America, the burden is upon the proponents of an ideology to convince people to its side. Do you have a problem with that 'convince' notion? Your original complaint and whiny implication was that communism is 'banned' or 'forbidden' in America, which I educated you that is not true. If the CPUSA is able to book a convention hall in New York City, then communism is not 'banned' or 'forbidden' in America. But I guess like all good communists, you and the Chinese boys here have a problem with persuasions and prefer a club to beat people into submission.

I am not sure if the problem lies with your reading or typing? You happen to have this strange habbit of misquoting, understanding or putting words into people's mouth. I mentioned 'forbidden', not "banned" which has a different meaniing. Not allowing something doesn't mean it is banned. I guess like all good boats people, you have a tendency to lean on the leg of your fatherly America and repeats whatever your father says. You are entitled to do so by all means

As for beating people into submission? Surely that is better than marketing water boarding, packaging up Guantanamo bay and hosting wargames in Afghanistan and Iraq etc? I hope I have educated you some more. You may go and come back with more of your whiney little posts. Oh, and no need to thank me dung khach sao em trai.

 

[Obambam]

And if Ho did not talk with France, there would have been no Vietnam War and no Chinese involvement.

If Ho did not talk to France, then they would still be a colony today. There will still be KMT involvement up in the north regardless, although their history after the world war was short lived.

 

[Obambam]

You forget that communism in Vietnam enjoyed broad popular support. The Vietnamese chose communism, freed their country from French and American imperialism, and now enjoys rapid economic growth and improving living standards. The Vietnamese made their choice and you should be supporting their difficult task of building a modern nation. Instead all you do is complain about China and your own country, sitting on your couch a world away.

He is segregated from Vietnam after being away from there for so long. Therefore we must pardon his understanding of the past and present Vietnam affairs.

 

[gambit]

He is segregated from Vietnam after being away from there for so long. Therefore we must pardon his understanding of the past and present Vietnam affairs.

I have more experience in Viet Nam today than you think. It is clear from you Chinese boys' words here that you swallowed wholesale Chinese propaganda regarding China's role in co-starting the Vietnam War.

 

[gambit]

If Ho did not talk to France, then they would still be a colony today. There will still be KMT involvement up in the north regardless, although their history after the world war was short lived.

Wrong...If Ho did not made that secret deal with France, Viet Nam would have been rid of the Viet Minh, Indochina would be under UN trusteeship, and eventually independent. But it is good that you finally admitted that Ho gave away all Viet Nam back to France in contrary to post 286 where you denied that such happened. It is also telling that you use the phrasing 'talked to France' in trying to deny the truth when we all know what the Ho-Sainteny Agreement really meant -- the return of colonialism to Viet Nam via Ho Chi Minh.

 

[Obambam]

The joke is on YOU for putting forth this kind of nonsense. The microwave oven question was not about mere scientific achievements but about which system can best exploit scientific achievements FOR THE PEOPLE to the point where the people do not need extensive training to use the products. In that vein, democratic and capitalist regimes have a far better record than communist ones. More like zilch from the latter.

The fact that China is Communist by name but socialist by nature explains why it is doing so well in the global markets and investments.
If China was a true Communist country, then private ownership of anything would NOT have been allowed, nor would they allow foreign businesses and investments.
Whether Communism works or not, nobody knows for sure. Why? Because we have NOT really had a single TRUE communist country.

 

[Obambam]

I have more experience in Viet Nam today than you think. It is clear from you Chinese boys' words here that you swallowed wholesale Chinese propaganda regarding China's role in co-starting the Vietnam War.

Your experience in Vietnam is as relevant as believing that China is still a communist country. It is also clear to us that you swallowed wholesale American propaganda regarding China's role in co-starting the Vietnam War.

 

[Obambam]

Wrong...If Ho did not made that secret deal with France, Viet Nam would have been rid of the Viet Minh, Indochina would be under UN trusteeship, and eventually independent. But it is good that you finally admitted that Ho gave away all Viet Nam back to France in contrary to post 286 where you denied that such happened. It is also telling that you use the phrasing 'talked to France' in trying to deny the truth when we all know what the Ho-Sainteny Agreement really meant -- the return of colonialism to Viet Nam via Ho Chi Minh.

I personally would not hold such high hope. As the UK is still in charge of the Falklands and US with Puerto Rico and Guam respectively.
Besides, the Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994, with the independence of Palau, the last remaining United Nations trust territory, on 1October 1994.

 

[gambit]

Your opinions of China got debunked over and over, yet you still come back for more with your ridiculous claims that it was China who started the war.

You 'debunked' zilch. The best you could do was regurgitate the same line: That China helped 'liberated' Viet Nam. China had no business in Viet Nam in the first place. At least the US had intention of putting the UN in charge of Indochina.

The entire event was well documented information on all aspects of the war are there for all to see. If all you could do is to come up here with your whiney comments on how China started the war, how we screwed you boat people up and how your former powerless puppet government of the south could have lead your beloved country to freedom then you are very welcome to. Our patience are tested and we will listen to you regardless of what you have to say

Wrong...Not all of history was presented. Am willing to bet that this is the first time you Chinese boys had ever heard of the Ho-Sainteny Agreement and how it opened the door for the return of France to Indochina. And please spare me the line about how your patience are tested. Am also willing to be that this this the first time you ever meet a Viet who is not willing to suck up to you and taught you Chinese boys a few things.

Now, let me reiterate myself. We are not here to save face. There is no need for us to. It is not our country that was incompetent in freeing itself from a colonial power; it is not us who begged for help and it is not us who has to worry about the future of Vietnam. Those are of your concern.
We are simply here to listen to your absurd and falsified claims and debunking them as they come like any users would.

No falsifying of any claims. China had no business in Viet Nam. China meddled in Viet Nam, contrary to you boy's claims about how China does not. China was involved in Viet Nam long before the US was. Do you deny those fact?

The Soviet Union was not there to hold China's hand. Submitted to Kremlin's what will? I'd like to see you elaborate on that statement of yours.
The absurd science was a tragic indeed. However, what happened has happened and end of the day, we took it on with our chin and no one helped us. It is amazing how the determination and will power of the people can turn China around from being colonized, impoverished to the second richest in the world.
Our enviable history cannot be abandoned and it will forever be there for us to reflect on and use as a guide. I particularly relish the way the Vietnam and the west subjected themselves to SunTzu's famous stragetigy guide "The Art of War", which still has tremendous relevance to our current military and political affairs.

Bullshtt...!!! China relied upon the Soviets for ideological and material support. Would you care to research and cite for everyone how often does Mao cite Marx and Lenin? Am willing to bet that this is the first time you learned about Lysenkoism and that China adopted it. Why? Merely telling us that it was a tragedy does not explain why.

Sorry but I think I fail to see what your definition of holding hands is? Can you really call the borrowing of someone's short lived ideology holding hand?

Yes...You Chinese boys have no problems attributing the same or similar to everyone else.

However China did have to hold your hands and walk you to freedom. Could Vietnam do so without military assistance? French was mistreating your people daily during its colonial days and Vietnam was powerless to fight back. Ho asked America for help, they refused so he turned to Russia and China. Look at what happened when Americans got involved? Nepalm sure was nice wasn't it? How about My Lai? oh wait they even cut aid for South Vietnam when they pulled out.

If China did not get involved then may be Ho would have gone away and no war, or at least a war not in the scale we know today, would have happened. So what business did China had in Viet Nam?

Yet today, the South Vietnamese boys like you can come out without shame and gloriously speak of America and South Vietnam? May I ask what was South Vietnam and Americas objective in the war?

To maintain independence. Why is that wrong?

You seem to think that the United States has been a monumental success and failed to realize that its society is at an advance stage of decay. The Americans and people such as yourself are too delusional to spot any disasters coming, often until it is too late. Americans and the south jumped into a meaningless war with little achieved objectives, little reasons to fight and low morale. I guess your country's history isn't rich enough to open up your eyes.

Convenient strawman distraction.

What historical record? Since when did Ho Chin Minh gave away Vietnam?

Sure...

Ho

The Ho–Sainteny agreement was an agreement made March 6, 1946 between Ho Chi Minh, President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and Jean Sainteny, Special Envoy of France. It recognized Vietnam as a "Free State" within the French Union, and permitted France to continue stationing troops in North Vietnam until 1951.

Quite damning, ya think?

After World War II the Japanese Army left and he saw it as an opportunity to claim independence for Vietnam. The post war French governemt wouldn't let him and the US refushed to help and they ended up in a war with the French. It didn't change until Mao defeated Chiang Kai-shek in 1949. So you have to refer to your little name calling now? the only coward here is you for refusing to learn history properly and for refusing to accept the truth.

Wrong...I learned history well enough. I showed you something new and shocking about Ho, did I not?

Where are your sources for this? As said before Ho Chi Minh never committed all of Vietnam to France. If he did, then there is no need for him to ask US for help to secure independence for Vietnam? makes sense?

It really is amazing that someone can be so dense despite repeated presentation of evidences. See the Ho-Sainteny Agreement above.

After WWII France continued to pour more money, time and effort into keeping Vietnam, despite the fact that they were losing money. French military expenditure in Vietnam surpassed the total of all French investments in Vietnam, and although a few investors made enormous profits, they were not influential enough to determine French foreign policy. So why throw more good money down a hole?
Well, it is to do with the psychological and political factors of the French imperialist ideology than economic reasons. France had already experienced a major defeat in World War II. Most Frenchmen would have considered having one of their colonies throw them out on their ear as a further loss of national dignity. They also feared that if the Vietnamese won independence from them, restive nationalists in their other colonies such as Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia would be inspired to follow their example.

The historical record paints Bao Dai and Ngo Dinh Diem as the traitors that sold Vietnam out, not Ho Chi Minh. As a Vietnamese that you say you are, it is shameful of you not to know your country's history.

Wrong...The historical records said no such thing. Those are opinions that you took to be 'historical records'. By the way, Ho imprisoned Ngo Dinh Diem in North Viet Nam for a while. The historical records has it that Diem called Ho a 'traitor' to Ho's face. The records also has it that Ho actually feared Diem and that if Diem was killed, the Viet Minh would not be able to handle a popular revolt since the Ngo family was quite popular in North Viet Nam. Diem was the youngest province governor and under his watch, he rooted communist cells out of his province. And still Ho did not dare kill Diem even when Diem was in chains. Learn anything new? Of course you did.

the increase in popularity of Ho Chi Minh throughout all of Vietnam convinced the French that they would not defeat the Vietminh by pure military means, so they decided to establish a Vietnamese regime to compete with the Vietminh. Although France would be the one pulling the strings, they wanted this group to have enough of an appearance of independence to attract substantial nationalist support away from the Vietminh. So, the French chose Bao Dai.
Bao Dai agreed on the condition that all of Vietnam would be "independent within the French Union.". The Elysee Agreements now comes into play.
Elysee Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was in 1949. France was invited back into Viet Nam via Ho in 1946.

Throughout the eight years of fighting with the French, the US had provided them $2.5 billion in U.S. aid up until they lost the final fight in 1954, at the Battle of Dienbienphu.

If Ho did not invite France back in, may be the UN, not US would have been involved.

Already debunked and is now irrelevant to further discuss that warped part of history.

You 'debunked' nothing. Reluctance does not automatically come from malice. If the US was reluctant to support Ho, wrongly or rightly, Truman believed that reluctance was warranted. By your argument, every time a businessman ask for time to consider any proposal, that mean he was hostile and has malice towards the deal.

It was Chiang Kai Shek's KMT who were occupying the North at the time, though they should have been spending the time to round up the Japanese, showed more interest in looting the countryside. That was during the mid 40's, not 50's. Those were the events which was recorded down in history.

Fine...Then we can condemn the KMT troops for that. But then what business did the PRC had in Viet Nam?

I have already talked about the boat people and I personally do not see the need for me to talk about them any further. The waves of boat people took place between the 70's through to the 80's. As said before, they were either trying to leave Vietnam due to political reasons or to seek a better living away from the aftermath of their former country.

Good...Then this mean you accept the fact that during the war, the refugee flow was North-South and it had nothing to do with the bombing campaign. It had everything to do with the people not wanting to live under communism. So much for the lie that the Vietnamese wanted communism.

You have just as much idea as I have over you age. The use of "em" was deliberate since you are seemingly in love of belittling others. You can go ahead and teach us more of your Vietnamese and in return we will educate you more on the real history.

Nope...Only giving you Chinese boys what you sowed. In the past, I have been polite and challenged strictly on point, usually technical. It is only once some of you cannot stand being challenged and done by a Viet, a supposedly inferior Asian, that the cheap personal attacks became standards for you boys. I do not belittle the Indians or the Pakistanis here.

The weight of the Chinese occupation (both politically and economically) forced the Vietminh into accepting some of France's demands in order to secure the evacuation of Chiang Kai-shek's forces from the northern part of the country. Hence Ho Chi Minh only agreed to let France continue to station troops in the north until 1951. It was a short term plan that happened to ended in Ho Chi Minh's favour. The KMT was defeated and Chiang Kai shek fled to Taiwan in 1949.

Even if the KMT ousting was true, what is more relevant was the fact that once France came back to Viet Nam, rivals to the Viet Minh began dying. Let me guess, you believe the standard Chinese propaganda that all of Viet Nam were behind Ho?

I guess Martin Lurther King's speech is all cleared up and made even better sense now? looks like the only ones who got suckered are Vietnamese boys like you.

Does King's stature as a civil rights leader made him infallible? The man was wrong about a subject. Do you deny the fact that the US wanted independence for Indochina?

To liberate your former country from being a French colony.

Could have done it without China's help. But then again, I could use the same argument to say that American presence was necessary to keep communism at bay. Too bad that America lost faith but that does not negate the fact that South Viet Nam was independent in spite of Chinese propaganda.

Already gone over those points and USA was France's tacit partner.

Thanks to Ho's treachery.

The only thing China is guilty of is helping some spineless idiots claim independence for its country.
France, Britain, Southern Vietnam and the US were the ones co-instigating the war.

Here is the order:

- Ho Chi Minh
- France
- China

They were there before the US. Please do not try to change the timeline of historical records.

I am not sure if the problem lies with your reading or typing? You happen to have this strange habbit of misquoting, understanding or putting words into people's mouth. I mentioned 'forbidden', not banned which has a different meaniing. Not allowing something doesn't mean it is banned. I guess like all good boats people, you have a tendency to learn on the leg of your fatherly America and repeats whatever your father says. You are entitled to do so by all means

So now you resort to quibbling words in trying to squirm out of the fact that you have been proven wrong about communism in America. If the CPUSA can book a convention hall in NYC, the capital of capitalism in America, then how the hell does that mean communism is 'forbidden'? How does that mean 'not allowed' and by whom? Did you believe the hotel management was ignorant of their client else they would have refused the business? You got busted. Own up to it.

As for beating people into submission? Surely that is better than marketing water boarding, packaging up Guantanamo bay and hosting wargames in Afghanistan and Iraq etc? I hope I have educated you some more. You may go and come back with more of your whiney little posts. Oh, and no need to thank me dung khach sao em trai.

Got nothing to do with communism being unable to persuade America to its side. You are still proven wrong about this. To you, communism not being prominent mean 'forbidden'. Give me a break...

 

[gambit]

Your experience in Vietnam is as relevant as believing that China is still a communist country. It is also clear to us that you swallowed wholesale American propaganda regarding China's role in co-starting the Vietnam War.

That is not American propaganda. That is a historical fact. China was in Viet Nam long before the US was. Do you deny that?

 

[gambit]

The fact that China is Communist by name but socialist by nature explains why it is doing so well in the global markets and investments.
If China was a true Communist country, then private ownership of anything would NOT have been allowed, nor would they allow foreign businesses and investments.
Whether Communism works or not, nobody knows for sure. Why? Because we have NOT really had a single TRUE communist country.

China experimented with 'true communism' and found it a failure. The move away from 'true communism' should not be interpreted that no communism country ever existed. Of course such existed, how else could China found out it was a failure?

 

[gambit]

I personally would not hold such high hope. As the UK is still in charge of the Falklands and US with Puerto Rico and Guam respectively.
Besides, the Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994, with the independence of Palau, the last remaining United Nations trust territory, on 1October 1994.

Puerto Rico VOTED to remain a US protectorate. As for the Trusteeship Council business, what need is there for its involvement in Viet Nam when Ho and France made a secret deal? What a lame argument...

 

[Obambam]

That is not American propaganda. That is a historical fact. China was in Viet Nam long before the US was. Do you deny that?

I wasn't talking about China liberating Vietnam from USA was I? I was talking liberating your former country from France. As for US being there last for the party, that is indeed a fact.

 

[Obambam]

Puerto Rico VOTED to remain a US protectorate. As for the Trusteeship Council business, what need is there for its involvement in Viet Nam when Ho and France made a secret deal? What a lame argument...

Of course the deal matters no more. What is there to matter when France was already out of the picture? What actually mattered was, Vietnam finally claimed its long awaited independence with help from China.
As for votes, sure who know how much it could have been rigged?

 

[gambit]

I wasn't talking about China liberating Vietnam from USA was I? I was talking liberating your former country from France. As for US being there last for the party, that is indeed a fact.

France's return to Indochina was NEVER assured. France has been away from her colony for too long. If China can wrest the former European colonies away from their former masters, what make you believe the Viets cannot do the same? But of course...We are inferior Asians, that is why...