What's new

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

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.
Yes...France was certainly out of the UN trusteeship picture. She was back in the colonialist picture, though...

As for votes, sure who know how much it could have been rigged? :)
Right...So now the independence vote for Puerto Rico was fixed...When all else failed, fall back to loony conspiracy theories...
 
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.

Likewise the best you could do is to come on to this forum to flame the Chinese and make childish remarks on Chinese people.

US had no intention to help Vietnam in the first place so what makes you so optimistic that they will put the so called intention into practice? At least China actioned and they succeeded. Whatever happens after independence lies upon your country's way of handling things.

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.

Vietnam was still a colony of France, therefore it is absurd to think that it would take an agreement for them to re-enter. They would have re-entered regardless.

Allied plans for postwar Vietnam became clear with the Potsdam Agreement in July 1945. This Agreement stipulated that British forces were to occupy the southern half of Vietnam, up to the 16th parallel. Chiang Kai-shek's forces were to take the country north of the 16th parallel. Under Potsdam, these forces were restricted to "the round-up and disarming of the Japanese, and the Recovery of Allied Prisoners of War and Internees."

However, the actual behavior of the Allied occupation went way beyond this limited assignment. The Commander of the British occupation forces, Major-General Douglas Gracey, exceeded both the limits of the Potsdam Agreement and his superior, Admiral Mountebatten, who had specifically told him to confine his troops (British and Indian) to the "tasks which had been set." Gracey, with few troops of his own, relied upon the Japanese forces (he was supposed to be disarming) to control Saigon and the surrounding areas and keep the Vietminh forces at bay. Gracey also rearmed the 5,000 newly released French troops and permitted them to launch a coup d'etat on September 23, by which the French (once again) seized control of the Saigon government from the Vietminh.

I am also willing to bet that this is the first time you had heard of the Elysee Agrrement. Since you are so pro American and supported puppets this is likely to be something that you would have ignored.

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?

In that case France, Britain, US and co had no business to do with Vietnam, still, they were there. Ho requested for help and so we did. Therefore China had about as much business and rights to meddle in Vietnam, just like the way the rest of them did. Vietnam was so hopeless to the point that it doesn't matter in which hands they fall into, they would just end up being colonized or becoming a puppet of France or the US.
China, on the other hand, was differen't, we helped free your country. No matter how much you boat people cry about it, it'll still remain there as a fact. You can argue with your former country about that. I am sure the people of your "Communist" country, Vietnam, will have a lot to tell you about.

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.

If it pleases you to find out that a "Commie Chinese" such as myself does not know it roots, then I would be the first to raise my hand. So I guess we are not so "Commie" afterall? I just pitty you for not being able to keep up with time and still thinks China is a communist country and everyone there are "Commies" :azn:

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

Well, that's nice to hear. At least we made something out of it and turned China into one of the biggest economies of the world, who happens to be the largest creditor to the US. Can't say that about Vietnam or America can we? They're either poor or bankrupt.

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?

You can dream on. The fact remains that China helped liberate Vietnam and US got its butt kicked and went home without actually achieving anything. Oh wait they did help depopulate and flatten out your land. I guess this helped the process of rebuilding your country from scratch. May I also add, they pulled the plug on any form of support to the South Vietnamese.


To maintain independence. Why is that wrong?

I guess under the freedom of speech, you have the rights to say whatever you may please. Same goes to the great communist people of Vietnam. What is wrong for them to claim its independence? You both have to pick a side and so they did and they championed. I see nothing wrong in that.


Convenient strawman distraction.

I think it relates very well to what you say majority of the times.

Sure...

Ho

Quite damning, ya think?

Not at all, considering the fact that Ho had little options to choose from. Vietnam was in a mess, it was colonized and Americans refused to help it claim independence. He had good reasons to do this and rightly so.


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

Just like how I showed you the other side of the coin? In the real Vietnam people's mind Ho must be a hero. No wonder his ideology still exist in Vietnam today.

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

Funny that I am being called dense. I can drinkk that up with coffee and still taste the sweetness of it. Ho was powerless do claim independece by himself and he needed help. Read the bit about what General Douglas Gracey did and the bit about Chiang Kai Shek and if you are still not clear of what was happening at the time.

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.

Sure I did. I learn't that he got killed whilst he was out of his chains :cheers:

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

Sure it was and he bought some new friends with them too. I can bet that it was the first time you heard about the Elysee Agreements. I guess now you know how desperate France were in securing one of its former colony? They've also potrayed their actions as war on Ho's communist army in order to secure US support. That's something new and shocking for you isn't it?

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

Now, that's Ho and strawman distraction made easy.

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's already debunked. They were tacit partners.
You really think that the US would stand on a UN bully pulpit to pressure France to leave Indochina alone? history says otherwise..


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

PRC's reason in Vietnam was the same as the French and the US.


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.

Did I say I accepted the facts that came from you? Of course not. Your facts are warped as we know it. From my personal set of facts, it was due to the level of looting, fighting and bombing that was happening at the time. Not because they don't want to live under communism. Otherwise Ho's men would not have fought the Americans for 20 years. Vietnam people would have overthrown it's current government if they really were unhappy about it. But guess what? Vietnamese boys such as yourself are regarded as commie boys today.


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.

Well, with your attitude it looks like you will always get negative treatments from others. Respect needs to be earned, you cannot command it. When individuals say something offensive to you, you don't hold everyone accountable for it. Needless to say, you don't attack everyone else for it. I guess being a typical yank that you are, you have the urge to cause collateral damage.

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?

Please refer to the Élysée Agreement. France wanted Vietnam back at all cost, so surely killing some Vietminh rivals wouldn't hurt. It is a way for them to get support from both the nationalists as well as the US. Even though some rivals could have been killed by Ho's men, but they are at war afterall. It's not meant to look pretty or be nice.

The Americans stopped the election. That is a fact and if you can call that Chinese propaganda then so be it. For me, if the Americans had to go against their own set of ideology (cough Democracy cough) to achieve something, then that something must be special thing.

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?

Fact is US wasn't looking for independence for Vietnam. They just wanted to help it's colonial ally retain power, either by means of colonizing it as a whole or dividing it amongst themselves.


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.

Could have done it? well I am sorry to upset you once again by saying that the reality was quite the contrary. France went home and so did the US. They both failed and South Vietnam crumbled and that was the story.

Thanks to Ho's treachery.

Typical strawman's comment.

Here is the order:

- Ho Chi Minh
- France
- China

Some more strawman's distraction.


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

Yes they were there but US joined in therefore needs to be accounted for.

This should be the order:

France
UK
KMT
Ho
China
US

If US wasn't there then the war would have long been over.

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.

I was talking about the spread of the communism ideology around the world which the US clearly forbids by the use of force. They tried to stop the Soviets spreading, then they tried to stop the Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans and the Vietnamese etc am I not correct? Don't tell me that is normal practice now. So if America was indeed democratic, then please explain to me why they engage in war at least once every decade? why do they resort to genocide and torture? I think you are the one who's getting all tangled up here, not me.



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...:rolleyes:

Who needs America by their side? The Americans are nothing but a burden to its allies. Take a look at the number of times it dragged its allies into war? To you, dysfunctional American democracy being non prominent equates to being a treacherous commie. :coffee:
 
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?

Well it doesn't take the Brits long to march their way into Saigon did it? China is differen't we had more men power to offset the weakened colonial powers but you don't. We have also fought off the KMT who had much support from America. I guess we have to thank Communism for this. Being a colony with a weak and corrupt puppet in charge, how do you fancy your chances? All this talk is futile. End of the day Communsim triumphed and that's a fact that you have to live with.

But of course...We are inferior Asians, that is why...

If you insist.. I can't help you there buddy.
 
Yes...France was certainly out of the UN trusteeship picture. She was back in the colonialist picture, though...

I guess it matters little where France's standing. Either way they will still have backing from its ally. Just like how no one in NATO did a thing to stop the Brits attack Argentina. Not even the righteous Americans.

Right...So now the independence vote for Puerto Rico was fixed...When all else failed, fall back to loony conspiracy theories...

You guys invented freedom, so you must allow room for freedom of thoughts? :usflag:
 
That is not American propaganda. That is a historical fact. China was in Viet Nam long before the US was. Do you deny that?

American carpet bombed Vietnam, raped childrens and committed attrocities in My Lai those were also historical facts. Do you deny those facts?
Do you still deny the fact that China is no longer a communist country?
 
Some certain extremists love to ignore history.

The worst atrocities in the world were prepetuated under the rabidly anti-communist Germans, Japanese and the KMT of Mr. Jiang. But due to US support for Mr. Jiang his vast crimes are whitewashed and Mao's much smaller errors are blown way out of proportion.

One more question that extremists cannot answer: If communism was soooo bad, why did Russia's GDP fall from that of Soviet times? OK, right wing "economists" and stock sharks say that it was because USSR made fake statistics. But there was no such economic crisis of the proportion that Russia in the 90's suffered! If communism was sooooo bad, why did China not grow even 1% during the 37 year rule of the KMT but grew 9% per year under Mao (1949-1976) excluding disasters such as Soviet backstabbing and sanctions that led to 20% decrease in agriculture and 14% decrease in industry 1959-1961 and Mao's crucial mistake of prematurely launching the cultural revolution and leading to another decline of 14% in 1967?

It was amazing that despite China's backwards state, damage and debt from WW2, civil war and korean war and sanctions from both USA and Soviet Union, that we were able to grow 8-9% per year and develop our indigenous technologies.

It was not Communism that handicapped China. Not by a longshot. It was the KMT thieves that took our gold to Taiwan, the Soviets that pulled aid and sanctioned us, and the US that forced us to fight wars of survival. If it was not for USSR, USA and KMT, China would've easily grew 10+% during Mao's rule.
 
Closure from what? It is a simple question enough. I survived the 1968 Tet Offensive and a Viet Cong assault on my school in Thủ Đức. I have on my left upper chest a scar from a grenade shrapnel thrown by a VC fighter at a pack of children. Half of us kids were killed. Am not here crying about any 'closure' but only to challenge falsehoods. So what 'closure' about the Vietnam War are you seeking?

If US today can stand up and speak the truth about the war. I would close this dark chapter in my life. The truth? They provoked the war as a mean to spread their so called democracy and liberation for all. They manipulated SV to fight against NV for their interest. This was to show power to the world (cold war) that they were still in control. In their attempts to win at all cost, even SV children & women became liable targets. Their use of chemical warfare (agent orange) killed over 400,000 Vietnamese, mostly S.Vietnamese. People still suffer from it today. Every living S.Vietnamese could have become an expendable casulty of war. The war crimes, starvation and rape of innocent women and children was only a casual activity.

Still today, US sometime even label themselves as VICTIMS of the war. Their list of denials is even greater than our blood that has flowed on our soil. We can understand this war was not fought for us.

And you flipping through a few pages of encyclopedia what to tell me facts? You blindly can support this? You have no shame. You are clearly
emotionless and at a level below what a human can be.

Do me a favor, don't tell people you are Vietnamese. We're going end this discussion now.
 
If US today can stand up and speak the truth about the war. I would close this dark chapter in my life. The truth? They provoked the war as a mean to spread their so called democracy and liberation for all. They manipulated SV to fight against NV for their interest. This was to show power to the world (cold war) that they were still in control. In their attempts to win at all cost, even SV children & women became liable targets. Their use of chemical warfare (agent orange) killed over 400,000 Vietnamese, mostly S.Vietnamese. People still suffer from it today. Every living S.Vietnamese could have become an expendable casulty of war. The war crimes, starvation and rape of innocent women and children was only a casual activity.

Still today, US sometime even label themselves as VICTIMS of the war. Their list of denials is even greater than our blood that has flowed on our soil. We can understand this war was not fought for us.

And you flipping through a few pages of encyclopedia what to tell me facts? You blindly can support this? You have no shame. You are clearly
emotionless and at a level below what a human can be.

Do me a favor, don't tell people you are Vietnamese. We're going end this discussion now.
No, kid. It should be YOU who should keep your origin to yourself. You who have no experience in the Vietnam War and yet is pining about 'closure' from some imaginary trauma. That is truly shameless and insulting to those of us, in-country and out, who were affected by the war, who has real memories of real traumas, and yet does not whine about any 'closure'. We are your kind's worst nightmare.
 
Well it doesn't take the Brits long to march their way into Saigon did it?
Even in the Pacific, the British was a major power, so it was only common sense that a competent Allied power established control whenever and wherever possible. At the very least, order, not law, must be maintained and that was why Japanese garrisons were instructed NOT to lay down their arms until relieved. That is common sense. If the few Brits can only maintain control in parts of Indochina, it was better than chaos.

China is differen't we had more men power to offset the weakened colonial powers but you don't. We have also fought off the KMT who had much support from America. I guess we have to thank Communism for this. Being a colony with a weak and corrupt puppet in charge, how do you fancy your chances? All this talk is futile. End of the day Communsim triumphed and that's a fact that you have to live with.
Of course there were times in human history where evil did triumphed. No one is denying that fact. But does victory made that evil any more acceptable and less evil? I guess one you boys answered that question well enough when he admitted that the end does justified the means. For that line of thinking, humanity will continue to suffer in the future.

If you insist.. I can't help you there buddy.
No...It is not I who 'insist' on anything. The implication that the Chinese is the superior Asian has been thrown around here often enough. It proved that the Chinese is no less racist than the Yamato who plunged Asia into a world war.
 
Some certain extremists love to ignore history.
Good to know you finally admit this about China.

One more question that extremists cannot answer: If communism was soooo bad, why did Russia's GDP fall from that of Soviet times?
If communism was so good, then why did the Soviet Empire collapsed? Why did China had to make radical changes to its economic structures in order to survive as a political entity? Why could no communist country produce something like the microwave oven?
 
I guess it matters little where France's standing. Either way they will still have backing from its ally. Just like how no one in NATO did a thing to stop the Brits attack Argentina. Not even the righteous Americans.
It is clear evident of a failed argument when the person persists on repeating the same debunked claim. France may have been a US ally for the purposes of war, but not when it came to the moral issue of colonialism. That fact is undeniable. Like I said, am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you were ignorant of how the US really felt about Indochina. You were ignorant of the fact that it was Ho who committed Viet Nam back to France. To this day, you Chinese boys cannot bring yourselves to answer the question if there were rivals to Ho or not. To do so would blow wide open the myth about Ho and the Viet Minh so cultivated by Chinese propaganda. But it is too late. The current generation of Vietnamese are learning about the true causes of the Vietnam War and they will not look kindly upon China about it.

You guys invented freedom, so you must allow room for freedom of thoughts? :usflag:
Nonsense...The US did not 'invent' any of the sort. The 'Ricans had a chance to vote for independence and they voted 'No'. Am willing to bet dollars-to-doughnuts that you did not know about this. For someone who self-righteously preached about 'history' you are woefully inadequate in this discussion.
 
American carpet bombed Vietnam, raped childrens and committed attrocities in My Lai those were also historical facts. Do you deny those facts?
No...I do not. But I will show the readers on how misleading you Chinese boys have been about this subject...

In any war...In descending order of relevance...

- Ideological
- Political
- Strategic
- Operational
- Tactical

It is convenient that the statistics at the Operational and Tactical levels are available to use to mislead and hopefully to shut down any rational discussions about the Vietnam War. Those statistics would be bombs dropped, gallons of Agent Orange, war crimes committed by US troops, commentaries about the war, and so on...What is dismissed are the ideological and political motivations that created the situation where those horrific statistics can come to be and the facts bears out the truth that for the Vietnam War, in order of relevance as to its cause...

- Ho Chi Minh
- France
- China

What make you think the Vietnamese could not oust the French? We did it to China in the past. Communist China meddled in the affairs of other countries, starting with Viet Nam and was a co-instigator of the Vietnam War.

Do you still deny the fact that China is no longer a communist country?
I only care what the Chinese government said about the country it rule over. If you think otherwise, do try to let the Chinese government know.
 
No...I do not. But I will show the readers on how misleading you Chinese boys have been about this subject...

In any war...In descending order of relevance...

- Ideological
- Political
- Strategic
- Operational
- Tactical

It is convenient that the statistics at the Operational and Tactical levels are available to use to mislead and hopefully to shut down any rational discussions about the Vietnam War. Those statistics would be bombs dropped, gallons of Agent Orange, war crimes committed by US troops, commentaries about the war, and so on...What is dismissed are the ideological and political motivations that created the situation where those horrific statistics can come to be and the facts bears out the truth that for the Vietnam War, in order of relevance as to its cause...

- Ho Chi Minh
- France
- China

What make you think the Vietnamese could not oust the French? We did it to China in the past. Communist China meddled in the affairs of other countries, starting with Viet Nam and was a co-instigator of the Vietnam War.


I only care what the Chinese government said about the country it rule over. If you think otherwise, do try to let the Chinese government know.

By your logic, USA is the biggest islamic terrorist state in the world, as it gives ideological and political support for Bin Laden in 1980's and Xinjiang rebels in 1990's and now!

Also, the word "communism" is not mentioned in China's constitution!
 
Likewise the best you could do is to come on to this forum to flame the Chinese and make childish remarks on Chinese people.
You mean debunked some of the fantastic claims you Chinese boys made about the Chinese military. Then once you boys cannot dispute those challenges, you boys resort to cheap personal attacks. Now you claim victimhood.

US had no intention to help Vietnam in the first place so what makes you so optimistic that they will put the so called intention into practice? At least China actioned and they succeeded. Whatever happens after independence lies upon your country's way of handling things.
That is absurd. What Roosevelt said about Indochina is on record. China's meddling in Viet Nam prevented a more peaceful transition to independence.

Vietnam was still a colony of France, therefore it is absurd to think that it would take an agreement for them to re-enter. They would have re-entered regardless.
Wrong...If possession is 9/10th of the law, then by virtue of Japanese victories in Asia, no European powers were in effect colonial masters of their claims from the start of WW II. France tried to reclaim its possession. The Vietnamese and the US resisted. Then Ho Chi Minh sold his country out, first to France, then to China.

I am also willing to bet that this is the first time you had heard of the Elysee Agrrement. Since you are so pro American and supported puppets this is likely to be something that you would have ignored.
Wrong...You brought on old news to me. Everything you brought on is old news to me. What do you think of the fact that Diem was once Ho's prisoner? Did you just think the US supported Diem from nowhere? Diem may not have been a paragon of democratic virtues, but he was no less popular than Ho himself and that popularity originated from when both men were in North Viet Nam.

In that case France, Britain, US and co had no business to do with Vietnam, still, they were there. Ho requested for help and so we did. Therefore China had about as much business and rights to meddle in Vietnam, just like the way the rest of them did. Vietnam was so hopeless to the point that it doesn't matter in which hands they fall into, they would just end up being colonized or becoming a puppet of France or the US.
China, on the other hand, was differen't, we helped free your country. No matter how much you boat people cry about it, it'll still remain there as a fact. You can argue with your former country about that. I am sure the people of your "Communist" country, Vietnam, will have a lot to tell you about.
That is good. At least now we have an admission from you Chinese boys that China is not so morally different than any power who would meddle in the affairs of states whenever strategic interests are at stake. But this begs the question of why did China not leave alone Viet Nam when it was clear that the US would rather put Indochina into trusteeship and eventually independence? Because China called 'dibs' on Viet Nam first? If China responded to Ho, that mean China viewed Ho to be representative of Viet Nam, which was not even close to the truth. But we should not be surprised that you resisted admitting that there were rivals to Ho because that would blow the China 'liberated Viet Nam' myth out of the water.

If it pleases you to find out that a "Commie Chinese" such as myself does not know it roots, then I would be the first to raise my hand. So I guess we are not so "Commie" afterall? I just pitty you for not being able to keep up with time and still thinks China is a communist country and everyone there are "Commies"
Do not care what you think. Only care what the Chinese government said. But just because you are ignorant of China's dependence upon the Soviets once does not mean you cannot be a 'commie'. Are you?

Well, that's nice to hear. At least we made something out of it and turned China into one of the biggest economies of the world, who happens to be the largest creditor to the US. Can't say that about Vietnam or America can we? They're either poor or bankrupt.
Yes...That is too bad about Viet Nam. But then if it was not for China's meddling, may be communism would never have strangled the people like it did everywhere else.

You can dream on. The fact remains that China helped liberate Vietnam and US got its butt kicked and went home without actually achieving anything. Oh wait they did help depopulate and flatten out your land. I guess this helped the process of rebuilding your country from scratch. May I also add, they pulled the plug on any form of support to the South Vietnamese.
There goes that lie again.

I guess under the freedom of speech, you have the rights to say whatever you may please. Same goes to the great communist people of Vietnam. What is wrong for them to claim its independence? You both have to pick a side and so they did and they championed. I see nothing wrong in that.
More evasions, I see. The question is more significant. What right did North Viet Nam had in continuing the war? There were two political entities in Viet Nam: North and South. Just like the two Koreas. Do you even have the courage to say that South Viet Nam had the right to exist independently of the North? If you do, then that admission would blow your entire argument into orbit.

I think it relates very well to what you say majority of the times.
Nope...The masters of the strawmen arguments are still with you Chinese boys and am happy to concede that title. You boys used it very well whenever you cannot dispute a challenge from me on a technical issue.

Not at all, considering the fact that Ho had little options to choose from. Vietnam was in a mess, it was colonized and Americans refused to help it claim independence. He had good reasons to do this and rightly so.
Wrong...And the propaganda is still here. Ho had plenty of options, least of all: patience for what the US could do with the UN trusteeship, concessions to rival nationalists. What the US did was not refusal but reluctance and no matter how much you try you cannot change the fact that reluctance does not equal to malice. There were rivals to Ho and that alone justify reluctance and assessment by anyone. Failed argument.

Just like how I showed you the other side of the coin? In the real Vietnam people's mind Ho must be a hero. No wonder his ideology still exist in Vietnam today.
:lol: How often do you traveled to Viet Nam? I mean actually traveled there in person and not via Chinese propaganda. I once asked directions on how to get to Ho Chi Minh City by driving from anywhere and the whole bus erupted in laughter. Only party officials call it Ho Chi Minh City. For ordinary Viet, it was still Sai Gon and they believe it will be so again. The majority of the Vietnamese are borned after 1975. They have no emotional ties to the war and even hatred for the government. I talked to a lot of former VC fighters who made it and all of them regretted their participation in the war. Here is one of them...

Amazon.com: A Vietcong Memoir: An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and Its Aftermath (9780394743097): Truong Nhu Tang: Books

I met the man by accident after his book was published.

Funny that I am being called dense. I can drinkk that up with coffee and still taste the sweetness of it. Ho was powerless do claim independece by himself and he needed help. Read the bit about what General Douglas Gracey did and the bit about Chiang Kai Shek and if you are still not clear of what was happening at the time.
Why was Ho powerless in the first place? Do you not think rivals had anything to do with that? But in the interests of fairness, if you know there are rivals to your positions, how would YOU handled it? Would you compromise with them? Or would you collaborate with the enemy and kill them?

Sure I did. I learn't that he got killed whilst he was out of his chains
Bullsh!!...You know zilch about Ho, even less about Diem, and even far less about the history between the two of them. If you did know anything about Diem, you would not have made that flippant remark and give some credible arguments about their relationships.

Sure it was and he bought some new friends with them too. I can bet that it was the first time you heard about the Elysee Agreements. I guess now you know how desperate France were in securing one of its former colony? They've also potrayed their actions as war on Ho's communist army in order to secure US support. That's something new and shocking for you isn't it?
The US did not need France to be suspicious of Ho's communist ties. His history from US OSS agents regarding his French communist party membership was well known.

Now, that's Ho and strawman distraction made easy.
No strawman here. Giving Viet Nam back to France was an option from several for Ho. If that did not happened, there would have been no war.

It's already debunked. They were tacit partners.
You really think that the US would stand on a UN bully pulpit to pressure France to leave Indochina alone? history says otherwise..
You mean the wrong interpretation of history from you. Repeating the same argument that the US wanted France to return as colonial master to Indochina will not make it true. Roosevelt's sentiments made clear enough on what the US really wanted for Indochina: independence.

PRC's reason in Vietnam was the same as the French and the US.
You mean colonialism? You cannot see how you just shot yourself in the foot here? :lol: But it is good that you admitted that China wanted to be Viet Nam's colonial master. First you said that the US and France wanted it. Now you say that the PRC wanted the same thing. Nice.

Did I say I accepted the facts that came from you? Of course not. Your facts are warped as we know it. From my personal set of facts, it was due to the level of looting, fighting and bombing that was happening at the time. Not because they don't want to live under communism. Otherwise Ho's men would not have fought the Americans for 20 years. Vietnam people would have overthrown it's current government if they really were unhappy about it. But guess what? Vietnamese boys such as yourself are regarded as commie boys today.
Then all you have to do is explain why there were no South to North flow of refugees. After all, the South Vietnamese government is not democratic and the Americans were committing all sorts of war crimes. Do not forget to explain why there were no uprising during the 1968 Tet Offensive. What I see is a failed argument from someone who is surprised at new facts that he could not reconciled with what he believed to be 'the truth' all these years.

Well, with your attitude it looks like you will always get negative treatments from others. Respect needs to be earned, you cannot command it. When individuals say something offensive to you, you don't hold everyone accountable for it. Needless to say, you don't attack everyone else for it. I guess being a typical yank that you are, you have the urge to cause collateral damage.
Respect from you Chinese boys is something I never had in the first place. All because you boys could not stand being challenged on when those challenges were supported on their technical merits, not from personal attacks.

Please refer to the Élysée Agreement. France wanted Vietnam back at all cost, so surely killing some Vietminh rivals wouldn't hurt. It is a way for them to get support from both the nationalists as well as the US. Even though some rivals could have been killed by Ho's men, but they are at war afterall. It's not meant to look pretty or be nice.
Good...At least now we know you have no choice but to make a tacit admission that Ho colluded with France to commit murders.

The Americans stopped the election. That is a fact and if you can call that Chinese propaganda then so be it. For me, if the Americans had to go against their own set of ideology (cough Democracy cough) to achieve something, then that something must be special thing.
The US did not stop any election. Diem made that decision himself.

Fact is US wasn't looking for independence for Vietnam. They just wanted to help it's colonial ally retain power, either by means of colonizing it as a whole or dividing it amongst themselves.
Then explain Roosevelt's remarks.

Could have done it? well I am sorry to upset you once again by saying that the reality was quite the contrary. France went home and so did the US. They both failed and South Vietnam crumbled and that was the story.
No...The reality here was that militarily speaking, France was in no position to reclaim all of Viet Nam, let alone Indochina, after WW II. The fact that France needed to collude with Ho and his Viet Minh is testament to that military weakness. The Vietnamese could have ousted France without China's help. This is nothing more than a Chinese condescension to the 'inferior' Asians.

Some more strawman's distraction.
The Ho-Sainteny Agreement is no strawman distraction. It is an indictment against Ho.

Yes they were there but US joined in therefore needs to be accounted for.

This should be the order:

France
UK
KMT
Ho
China
US

If US wasn't there then the war would have long been over.
If China did not meddle then there would have been no war in the first place.

I was talking about the spread of the communism ideology around the world which the US clearly forbids by the use of force. They tried to stop the Soviets spreading, then they tried to stop the Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans and the Vietnamese etc am I not correct? Don't tell me that is normal practice now. So if America was indeed democratic, then please explain to me why they engage in war at least once every decade? why do they resort to genocide and torture? I think you are the one who's getting all tangled up here, not me.
Inter-state actions are different than your argument that somehow the US 'forbid' the expression and association with communism inside the US. You need to reconcile your claim with the contradicting fact that the CPUSA was able to book a convention hall in NYC. Can you do that?

Who needs America by their side? The Americans are nothing but a burden to its allies. Take a look at the number of times it dragged its allies into war? To you, dysfunctional American democracy being non prominent equates to being a treacherous commie. :coffee:
An alliance is voluntary. No one forces anyone to join NATO or a trade compact. An alliance is no good if members do not act upon the requirements set forth inside. So try your hardest to convince others to leave the UN, NATO, NAFTA, and just about all alliances worldwide.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom