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

[gambit]

Actually, the laugh is on YOU, not ME.

Vietnam War Statistics and Facts 3



Anything else I can lecture you with?

But not until those forces arrive. Those are plans, yes. No disputes there. But until the duly appointed agents of the Allies could arrive, someone had to maintain order. The source I provided is from a Viet and a marxist group. But there are no shortages of such from other sources and they are based on common sense...

What did America need to win in Vietnam?

Basically we used the Japanese military to maintain civil order until such time as local institutions could be redeveloped to take up those duties. Not to attack anyone. Just to keep things from going nuts.

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: In the Ruins of Empire: The Japanese Surrender and the Battle for Postwar Asia

The immediate historical challenges were the huge: undefeated Japanese armies occupying lands some of whose peoples wanted freedom from both the Japanese and their former colonial rulers while others had collaborated or were allied with the colonialists. On top of this were internal ethnic conflicts, some bred by colonialism. With few exceptions, once they were convinced the Emperor had surrendered, the Japanese forces gave power over to the conquerors or exercised power under their direction. Until the Allies had sufficient troops in place they needed the Japanese to keep order.

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/burma-...uton-battle-surabaya-british-indian-army.html

Not all of Japanese troops gave their weapons to the Indonesians. Some Japanese troops even assisted British in maintaining order.

I could go on and on. Looks like the one who needs some measure of military education is YOU.

 

[Obambam]

Of course you can come up with documented facts of American tactics and operations that resulted in X number of Vietnamese deaths. But that is to distract from the more important fact that IF China had not meddled in Viet Nam out of ideological and political motivations, those operational and tactical statistics would not have come to be. That is the uncomfortable argument for you Chinese boys.

There is nothing uncomfortable for us to talk about in regards to the Vietnam war. Same can be said about yourself as you are nothing but a loser's stooge trying to defend a flase flag government and its part in the war. It is an undeniable fact that Americans were there and they caused more havoc and meddled with many parts of Asia, not just Vietnam.

Right...And here we see the completed circular argument from the condescending Chinese camp. China had to get involved because the Viets could not despite the fact that in history, the Viets had more than once defeated the Chinese.

Chinese getting defeated isn't exactly big news. Of course we did lose some of the wars in our thousands of years history. On the other hand, the one with Vietnam are still up for debate. You are not really contributing anything new to the above argument, but to resort to your strawman distractions. So what makes you think Vietnam who doesn't have a working government and army is capable to claim independence from the French and free itself from becoming a puppet like South Korea and Japan is now?

Not at all. Am just going by what the Chinese government said about itself and the ideological foundation of its constitution.

Well then it is agree that we are communist by name and socialist by nature. Not the TRUE communist that you were talking about. In fact you should be calling your former people and its present occupants of Vietnam commies as they are still in the more primitive stages of communism.

 

[gambit]

There is nothing uncomfortable for us to talk about in regards to the Vietnam war. Same can be said about yourself as you are nothing but a loser's stooge trying to defend a flase flag government and its part in the war. It is an undeniable fact that Americans were there and they caused more havoc and meddled with many parts of Asia, not just Vietnam.

And what argument can you come up with to justify the legitimacy of the Viet Minh? So far, you refused to confer legitimacy to Ho's rivals. You must in order to maintain the lie that Viet Nam was completely behind Ho, and therefore South Viet Nam as a political entity is illegitimate. That argument never washed and not now.

Chinese getting defeated isn't exactly big news. Of course we did lose some of the wars in our thousands of years history. On the other hand, the one with Vietnam are still up for debate. You are not really contributing anything new to the above argument, but to resort to your strawman distractions. So what makes you think Vietnam who doesn't have a working government and army is capable to claim independence from the French and free itself from becoming a puppet like South Korea and Japan is now?

Har...The way plenty of Viets in Viet Nam sees today, living like the South Koreans and the Japanese is much better than the lot they are in right now.

Well then it is agree that we are communist by name and socialist by nature. Not the TRUE communist that you were talking about. In fact you should be calling your former people and its present occupants of Vietnam commies as they are still in the more primitive stages of communism.

If you are communist by name and insisted upon that label, there is nothing wrong with calling you by that label.

 

[Obambam]

But not until those forces arrive. Those are plans, yes. No disputes there. But until the duly appointed agents of the Allies could arrive, someone had to maintain order. The source I provided is from a Viet and a marxist group. But there are no shortages of such from other sources and they are based on common sense..

Before World War Two, Vietnam had been part of the French Empire. During the war, the country had been overrun by the Japanese. When the Japanese retreated, the people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back south Vietnam to the French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese. The Chinese treated the north Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew. He had been removed form power at the end of the war. The Chinese pulled out of north Vietnam in 1946 and the party of Ho Chi Minh took over - the Viet Minh.

In October 1946, the French announced their intention of reclaiming the north which meant that the Viet Minh would have to fight for it. The war started in November 1946, when the French bombarded the port of Haiphong and killed 6,000 people. The French tried to win over the people of the north by offering them 'independence'. However, the people would not be allowed to do anything without French permission ! A new leader of the country was appointed called Bao Dai. The Russians and Eastern Europe refused to recognise his rule. They claimed that Ho Chi Minh was the real ruler of Vietnam.

I too can come up with countless sources to counter argue your points. Please don't bother about commonsense as that is largely irrelevant. What matters are facts. not the common sense coming from someone who lost the war and is just acting all sourgrapes right now.

I could go on and on. Looks like the one who needs some measure of military education is YOU.

It looks like you are the one who is in need of some more political history since all you got to talk about are all American propaganda. How many times have you actually brought out your side of the story and about Americans involvement itself? Hardly? I would personally want to see you comment more about the Americans. Mean time do not try lecture anyone as YOU are clearly still in need of much lecturing

 

[Obambam]

And what argument can you come up with to justify the legitimacy of the Viet Minh? So far, you refused to confer legitimacy to Ho's rivals. You must in order to maintain the lie that Viet Nam was completely behind Ho, and therefore South Viet Nam as a political entity is illegitimate.That argument never washed and not now.

Then what have you got to justify the legitimacy of US and France's meddling of Vietnamese politics? You have refused to talk about the way in which the Southern government was formed and the relationships of the Bao Dai's regime has with the west. I dont need to lie about anything. The fact that the US "suspended" vote tells a lot about the popularity of Ho in Vietnam at the time. South VietNam's political entity is as legitimate as the one in the north.

Har...The way plenty of Viets in Viet Nam sees today, living like the South Koreans and the Japanese is much better than the lot they are in right now.

Har.. and what makes you think that the opinion would remain the same in the future? I guess you really need to get yourself clued up about the economy.

If you are communist by name and insisted upon that label, there is nothing wrong with calling you by that label.

Just like there is nothing wrong in others labelling you, as a Vietnamese person, by that very same label.

 

[WeaponUnleashed]

Awwww man... what the frack! I come back to this thread hoping to get some more insight from other people.... twenty three pages and that brainwashed traitor still talking out of his a$$???

Unprecedented!

Obambam, I know you mean well, but like I said... there is no getting that guy to see a different perspective. He has his views and its human nature for him to reaffirm his views by listening to others with similar brainwashed minds. He will continue to post articles justifying anything the U.S. does, he will listen to Fox News, go see Rush Limbaugh in person, call up Glen Beck, join a white supremacist group, I don't know.

I... guess what I'm saying is... have sympathy for him. For some people will just be forever lost.

 

[gambit]

I too can come up with countless sources to counter argue your points. Please don't bother about commonsense as that is largely irrelevant. What matters are facts. not the common sense coming from someone who lost the war and is just acting all sourgrapes right now.

No...You cannot and you never will. The only thing you can do is post reams after reams of documents that while no one dispute in theory, the common sense that you casually dismissed is glaring in your face. It was true then: That upon the official surrender proclamation by the Emperor, Japanese garrisons were instructed to either maintain order over their areas of responsibilities and/or to provide support to any competent agent appointed by the Allies.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V1 Sup/ch2.htm

The order called upon the Imperial General Headquarters "...by direction of the Emperor and pursuant to the surrender to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers...", to order the Japanese forces to surrender themselves and their arms to designated representatives of SCAP in various parts of the Pacific Theater and China.20 The Japanese police force was initially exempted from the general disarmament and was ordered to remain on duty for the preservation of law and order, for which it would be held responsible.

If you could provide such sources to the contrary, you would have done it by now. Common sense and practicality in military affairs are irrelevant. If there is a God of War, I sincerely hope and pray to him that the Chinese military is filled with 'thinkers' like you.

It looks like you are the one who is in need of some more political history since all you got to talk about are all American propaganda. How many times have you actually brought out your side of the story and about Americans involvement itself? Hardly? I would personally want to see you comment more about the Americans. Mean time do not try lecture anyone as YOU are clearly still in need of much lecturing

This is about a specific topic in military affairs. You were proven wrong. Spectacularly wrong.

 

[CardSharp]

Problem with you is, there's no flex to you. No reasoning or no articulation or any the things necessary for civil discourse. One gets the impression you are constantly shouting at the reader.

You're passionate about this and you have a very different view point. Fine. Learn to be a civilized person for god's sakes.

 

[gambit]

Then what have you got to justify the legitimacy of US and France's meddling of Vietnamese politics?

For France, there can be no justifications for trying to reclaim Indochina and my indictment of France is on record as to the true causes of the Vietnam War:

- Ho Chi Minh
- France
- China

For the US, there is no justification other than the explanation that the US wanted to control the growth of communism.

But as usual you are dodging the issue. If you support North Viet Nam as legitimate representative of Viet Nam, what are your reasons to declare South Viet Nam as illegitimate? In order to do that, you have to declare Ho's rivals in North Viet Nam as illegitimate as well. Are you willing to do that? Or are you going to be a coward and bail?

You have refused to talk about the way in which the Southern government was formed and the relationships of the Bao Dai's regime has with the west.

Bao Dai? News for you, pal. Bao Dai abdicated while he was in North Viet Nam. Then Ho asked Bao Dai to remain as a 'senior advisor'. Bao Dai accepted. A few years later after Bao Dai got disgusted with how the Viet Minh mistreated the peasantry, he quit and moved south. So here we have more education for you about the relationships between the three men who mattered in the Vietnam War: Ho Chi Minh had Bao Dai as an advisor. Ho Chi Minh imprisoned Diem. And later fought a war against both. Still think Bao Dai and Diem were chosen from out of nowhere?

I can continue to embarrass you about this subject forever.

I dont need to lie about anything. The fact that the US "suspended" vote tells a lot about the popularity of Ho in Vietnam at the time.

The US did not have the power to 'suspend' any election. Diem already had a reputation as an independent, even among his American supporters. So if Ho was so popular, why were there no uprising by the South Vietnamese during the 1968 Tet Offensive? Too difficult to answer? Or do you need more time to research and interpret Chinese propaganda?

South VietNam's political entity is as legitimate as the one in the north.

Good...Then this admission invalidate ALL that you have argued so far because it made the war waged by North Viet Nam illegal.

Har.. and what makes you think that the opinion would remain the same in the future? I guess you really need to get yourself clued up about the economy.

Failed. Epic fail. I do not see the Japanese or the South Koreans clamoring to be like the Vietnamese, do you? On the other hand, I see plenty of Vietnamese wishing their corrupt, inept and despotic government would just go away so their country can be like either Japan or South Korea.

Just like there is nothing wrong in others labelling you, as a Vietnamese person, by that very same label.

Good...Then label me 'democrat' because nowhere have I called myself 'communist' no matter what the Vietnamese government call itself. If you believe that I am supposed to call myself a 'communist' that would make you a racist because you believe that skin color determine political ideology. Nice work.

 

[gambit]

Problem with you is, there's no flex to you. No reasoning or no articulation or any the things necessary for civil discourse. One gets the impression you are constantly shouting at the reader.

You're passionate about this and you have a very different view point. Fine. Learn to be a civilized person for god's sakes.

This is rich coming from the crowd that resort to cheap personal insults whenever they are challenged.

 

[CardSharp]

This is rich coming from the crowd that resort to cheap personal insults whenever they are challenged.

That's another thing. The sheer hypocrisy of you screaming bloody racism everytime someone says something bad about you on the internet, when you, you actually hold collective guilt for a whole people. You'll even go to the point where you'd argue a point one Chinese person made with someone who is completely unrelated.

You're a walking psychiatric case.

 

[gambit]

That's another thing. The sheer hypocrisy of you screaming bloody racism everytime someone says something bad about you on the internet, when you, you actually hold collective guilt for a whole people. You'll even go to the point where you'd argue a point one Chinese person made with someone who is completely unrelated.

You're a walking psychiatric case.

Negative. Like I said before, I had no reasons to be hostile to anyone, be he Chinese or Pakistani or Indian. It was only after I began to challenged you Chinese boys and remained on point, the lot of you began to pile on the cheap personal attacks for no reasons other than they could not refute my arguments. Once they found out I was Viet, you boys got even more personal. Looks like we know who are the true psycho basket cases -- plural -- here.

 

[CardSharp]

Negative. Like I said before, I had no reasons to be hostile to anyone, be he Chinese or Pakistani or Indian. It was only after I began to challenged you Chinese boys and remained on point, the lot of you began to pile on the cheap personal attacks for no reasons other than they could not refute my arguments. Once they found out I was Viet, you boys got even more personal. Looks like we know who are the true psycho basket cases -- plural -- here.

Right because you're the victim.

 

[Obambam]

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.

The person who claimed to be the first victim is nobody but yourself. The arguments and wild claims made by yourself has been debunked time and time again, to the point that you can no longer sufficiently backup your arguments you resorted to name calling and the belittling of others. However, I do not mind, since what you are calling us can be used on yourself just the same which makes it even more fun.

Who cares about what Roosevelt thinks? The fact that it will not be a peaceful resolve makes the outcome fairly predictable. Ho's popular was on the rise and was seeked independence but French on the other hand will not let Vietnam go. This alone is enough to put what Roosevelt said out of the window. Yeah sure asif the Americans did not play a role in Vietnam. In fact they were there for 20 years until the death toll and political pressure at home was too much for them to bear.

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.

The US did not resist, not at all. In fact they were in favour of French taking over again. It was Bao Dai who sold Vietnam to the French by siding with them. Ho was a freedom fighter and fought for the freedom of Vietnam, and through the eagerness of him and Vietnam's respectable people, they triumphed.

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?

Of course it is old news, since I am only picking up pieces of doceumented history and posting them up on to the forum. I don't have to make up something new in order for it to be accepted do I?
So what if Diem got imprisoned? moreover how did he get out and ended up in the US should be the question. Yes perhaps you should tell us why the US supported him and Bao Dai.

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.

Of course he was less popular. That was dead and buried a long time ago.

He became prime minister of South Vietnam in 1954 just as the defeated French forces left. The peace accord called for elections in 1956 and unification of the divided country. With American support, Ngo cancelled the elections, knowing full well that Ho Chi Minh would have easily won the presidency.

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.

"Would rather" has zero value in reality. You even said it yourself. It is not required for the US to intevene with UK's conolonial affairs with Argentina and the Falklands. Same goes to France with its colony. Which begs the question why the US allowed the Brits to enter Saigon to buy the French military time
to have its mens armed and ready for Vietnam?
China see Ho as the representative of North Vietnam and helped him claim independence, just like the Americans did with Bao Dai and the way Americans supported Bao's regime was no differen't. Initially it was about assisting French secure its colony but in the end it turned into a struggle against communism. Which often makes people wonder what rights does Americans have in trying to replace communism with their own version of democracy?
By the way it doesn't matter who has rivals or not. Politics are full of them and I have not denied the fact that Ho and Diem both have its own rivals. Just like how any political parties would.

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?

I don't care what the west thinks. All I know is we are as "commie" as you are, oh wait, your people are actually more commie than us.
By the way Chinese commie are doing better economically than the US are right now. Don't see China depending on Soviets financial lending as much as America is depending on the Chinese do we? It is even getting to the point where some Americans are starting to think that China is actually the richest country now in the world!

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.

If it weren't for the US meddling, then perhaps countries such as Cuba and north Korea wouldn't have to suffer so much as get to bare fruit and enjoy it the way Chinese are enjoying it now? Mind you, China don't stick its nose into other people's internal affair the way the US did, which they are also widely known for. Take a look at egypt for example, why does it matter to the US? US can't even look after itself and they are trying to stablize the situation there? I smell oil money.

There goes that lie again.

Keep denying and running circles.

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.

How did Vietnam split into two seperate entities? through meddling of the west? or simply because Vietnamese thinks it is nice to have its country split into two? Don't we all hear about how North Koreans and the South wanted reunification? They are still nowhere near claiming independence for their country as a whole. The way I see it is they are only partially independent right now. Vietnam would be the same if it weren't for Ho and China's persistent. You can hate them for it, but people of the future will look back and be greatful for its history of independence. It's funny how the west are going ape s*hit sourgrapes over it, get over it already

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.

Fortunately, that's what the rest of the world is thinking. I think you deserve to be crowned the King of the Strawman ideology. Your work rate is second to non, and if only there are more people like you around defending the failed South Vietnam regime and the American ideas, then there would be no problems getting rid of communism.

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.

Don't really care if it was right or wrong. I only care about the fact that Vietnam is a fully independent country, not two seperate entities. It is not new to the world that Americans are good with its smeer campaign and label everything that it doesn't like as "propaganda".

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

You asked for directions on how to get to Ho Chi minh by driving and then the whole bus erupted in laughter? Boy you must be speaking very loud!
Yes you can call it both and there's is nothing wrong with that. Just like how Beijing can be referred to as Peking. You can call it whichever one you like.
Of course they don't hate their government, it's government isn't the monster the west believed it to be.

[/B]. 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.

Yes I am sure you met him, got a picture taken and signed by him in person too

I am sure people will have no trouble locating sources of American soldiers regretting its participtions. Many of them went into wars thinking it was the right thing to do until they realized that they actually had little to no reasons to be there. Here are some of them:

Vietnam War Crimes: I feel remorse | Suck Bee-when information just won't do.

William Calley ordered in 1968 massacre of My Lai, from the pictures went around the world. Now the American military publicly about his guilt talking.

William Calley, after more than 40 years, publicly apologized for the crime. “It is not a day goes by that I do not feel regret about what had happened in My Lai,” Calley said on Wednesday before members of the Kiwanis Club of Columbus in the U.S. state of Georgia.
“I feel remorse because of the Vietnamese who were killed because their families and the U.S. soldiers who were involved, and their families – I am very sorry.” Became his first apology on Saturday.

I met the William Calley by accident too after his public appology. I commended him for his bravery and told him that he did the right thing and he gave me an Omega watch as a gift. It was from his Jewllery shop.

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?

I would handle it the way Deim did via rigging votes, false imprisonment and killing off rivalries. Sorry, I was just teasing!

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.

You appear to know very little about Diem and Ho yourself. All you seem to know is Ho is a traitor, he sided with the French and killed its rivals. Little did you know that the "popular" Diem you was talking about, has committed crimes of the same (if not worse). I don't care about their personal love affairs. That is not my concern. I am more concerned about someone who knows little about the history of Vietnam and is finding it hard to convey history convincingly.

 

[Obambam]

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.

It's the other way around. France needed to play up the communist threat in order for him to secure American support for the war on communism in Vietnam. It was the Key for getting the Americans into Vietnam. So if traitors were your concern, then you should be looking at Bao Dai and Diem instead. They collaborated with the west, committed to attrocities, killed and jailed rivals etc and hid themselves behind the French and Americans and fought under the so called "war on communism".

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 is a strawman because everything was deflected on to "France and "Ho", there was no mention of America's refusal to help Ho. Afterall Ho did seek them for help first. It wasn't until then he went to save the north from Chiang Kai Shek and went ahead with his temporary short term plan with the French. If Americans helped him to begin with, then there would be no need for the French to come back and no need for KMT and British to be there and there would be no reason for Ho to seek help from Soviet and the Chinese.

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.

You are the one who is misinterpretating history here. Not only are you patchy with your history, you are not really commenting on the Americans role in the war. nstead you chose to hide and deflect everything onto Ho and the Chinese. Roosevelts sentiments means nothing with little actions. According to history, he never went ahead with it in the end. Can you prove me wrong on this? Speaking of which, Obama's famous "Yes we can!" campaign comes to mind, what a difference to America he is making right?

You mean colonialism? You cannot see how you just shot yourself in the foot here? 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 China wanted to be Vietnam's colonial master? That was words from your own mouth
In regards to my statement about PC wanted the same thing, that samething means they were there to help Vietnam claim its indpendence. France tried to do it their way with a self erected puppet government and then the US sbacked that governments actions up and aided them both financially and militarily did they not? Well, China and Soviets did the same my friend. The only difference was of course, China came out of it as the winners but the Americans went home as the sour grape sore losers

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.

Are you implying that the people of the south should live life like a lemming? They should move northward to wave hello to the American fighter planes, napalms and expose themselves to agent orange? I don't really care about why TET failed in getting the people to overthrow the southern government.
The most important part of TET was, it opened up the eyes of the American people. The administration had been touting how well the war was going and how the viet cong were no longer a credible force, instead resulted in the coordinated attack all over south vietnam. It pretty much made the generals and the administration look like idiots. Then of course, you had anti war spin doctors that played it up as a huge failure.

The January-February 1968 Tet offensive sealed American defeat in the Vietnam War. Paradoxically the insurgent armies – the Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and the National Liberation Front (NLF) – achieved few of their main military or political objectives and suffered heavy casualties. But the dramatic scale of the offensive and the images of urban battles seen on TV screens around the world convinced world and American public opinion that the war could not be won by the US. It shattered the bravado and public optimism of the American government and their military commanders in the field. Within five months of the offensive American commander General William C. Westmorland had been sacked, the BOMBING of North Vietnam had been suspended and US president Lyndon Johnson had announced he would not stand again for a second term of office.

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.

Well, we respect anyone who gives us the same level of respect. When you come here with intentions to upset the Chinese population, then you only have yourself to blame for being flamed. Boys like you obviously deserve no respect and it is clear that your attitude from the start is not here to make toast with a glass of champagne. Regardless of your so called technical merit, you've single handedly thrown those out of the window. It's not about challenge. It is about sharing and discussion. If you say that you are here to challenege, then I hereby wish you success in all your future battles

Good...At least now we know you have no choice but to make a tacit admission that Ho colluded with France to commit murders.

Wrong. There was choice. They could have helped Ho claim independence. Then he wouldn't have went with the temporary agreement with the French (I have to give him props for this, it got rid of the KMT presence). Instead the US chose to support Bao Dai (puppet French government - read Alysee Agreement). Diem later took power and was killing its rivals and putting others into prison. This was backed by the US. They didn't really care so long they are fighting with the communist north.

The US did not stop any election. Diem made that decision himself.

Only through American support did Diem managed to. He wasn't as popular as you make him out to be. He too killed rivals and imprisoned people. If he was to lead Vietnam into independence, then Vietnam would have been in a much worser state than they are in today.

He became prime minister of South Vietnam in 1954 just as the defeated French forces left. The peace accord called for elections in 1956 and unification of the divided country. With American support, Ngo cancelled the elections, knowing full well that Ho Chi Minh would have easily won the presidency.

Facts of the Vietnam War

The Beginning of the End
When Ngo Dinh Diem was appointed to be the prime minister, with Bao Dai the then president, Vietnam was split into two separate countries: North Vietnam and South Vietnam. During this separation, more than 860 thousand people fled to the South and more than 50 thousand left for the north.

The northern government however, welcomed this change, as it meant feeding fewer mouths. It is said the Diem rigged the election so as to win, and then became the president of Vietnam. Although he wasn’t particularly popular with his people, the United States still agreed with his policies and completely supported him, as he was against communism.

However, the South Vietnamese despised Diem. Diem on the other hand, abused his power and sent people to kill his enemies while sending still others to jail for no apparent reason. Diem who believed that South Vietnamese people were influenced by communism canceled the election that was scheduled to take place in 1956.

It was then that United States stopped supporting Diem because they no longer agreed with any of his principles and policies. He forced peasants out of their villages and the final straw came when on May 8th, 1963 he sent soldiers to storm Buddhist temples and arrest the nuns and monks. In order to protest this, a Buddhist monk, Thich Quang Duc burnt himself alive in the streets. There were many other protest being led by the Vietnamese, but in other different ways. The northern government wanted to bring about peace and harmony, but this proposal was refused.

Then explain Roosevelt's remarks.

Read, digest and you will see:

Chapter Eight. Franklin Roosevelt, Trusteeship and US Exceptionalism: Reconsidering the American Vision of Postcolonial Vietnam : A Companion to the Vietnam War : Blackwell Reference Online

Just a few months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed doubts about French colonial rule in Indochina and initiated plans to place Vietnam under some form of international trusteeship. By mid-1942, discussions were underway within the State Department on possible forms of international supervision for the development of indigenous political and civil society in postwar Vietnam. From 1942 onward, Roosevelt vigorously pressed members of the wartime alliance to support trusteeship, winning the support of Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin. At the same time, American officials in southern China were increasingly drawn into discussions about trusteeship for Vietnam. By the spring of 1945, however, the United States had retreated from these efforts, abandoning plans for the international supervision of Vietnam's transition to independence and acquiescing to the return of the French to Indochina. Franklin Roosevelt's dogged pursuit of trusteeship for Indochina during World War II has often been viewed as a peculiarly quixotic personal crusade

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.

If you have read about the Pots Dam and Elysee Agreements, then you would have gotten a fuller picture of what actually happened. Vietnam was divided into two from the 16th Parallel (thanks to Pots Dam). South was given to the British to look after and the North to Chiang Kai Shek. This effectively crippled Vietnam's ability to claim its independence. I agree with you on the fact that France was militarily incapable of retaking back the whole of Vietnam, but they were determined to and at all cost. They wanted to salvage some of its much lost pride. This was when Ho-Sainteny Agreement came into play, with Ho failing to secure any American backing. Needless to say, it was only a temporary plan and to force KMT out of the North. The French also sees this as an opportunity for them to gain control of the north, so they did it for mutual benefits. The Brits then moved into Sagon and handed power back to the French and this lead to Ho seeking help from China and the Soviets. War took place between the two and then upon realizing that they have no hope of winning against Ho, they elected a puppet government and this is where the Altsee agreement came into play.

The Ho-Sainteny Agreement is no strawman distraction. It is an indictment against Ho.

It is a strawman distraction. What happened to the Pots Dam and Elysee Agreements? Those played a more signifcant role in determining the fate of Vietnam.
One splitted up the country into two seperate particians and the other for installing a puppet government with an optimisticly foolproof anti communist element attached, which is the key for inviting the Americans in.

If China did not meddle then there would have been no war in the first place.

If America helped Ho, then there wouldn't have been any French involvements at all. Why bother with the temporary French agreement when America is there to aid him? He did ask America for help first afterall. China did meddle and so did the American and France. It's not just about China and Ho. Typical Strawman there.

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?

Wrong.. inter state actions are permitted ONLY if the country's governmental body allows it to. It only goes to show how Americans like to contradict themselves so much. Its policies and actions taken against the global spread of communism is nothing other than a big fat hypocritical nonsense. So please explain why it allows the spread of communism from within but not allow it to be spread from the outside? Does Americans really see themselves being that significant, therefore allowing it to happen in America but went into war elsewhere? Where's the rights of the North Vietnamese people and where's the rights for the North Korean people? Strange why I should be asking this

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.

Well, America went into the second Iraq invasion unilaterally. No one in NATO agreed to it, not even the UN. They dragged everyone else into it have they not? Financially speaking, this put on a lot of weight on to its NATO allies shoulders. So yes, who needs an ally who doesn't work well as a group and just do as it pleases? On the other hand, the great father of democracy is and has been seeking financial help from the big ugly communist China for support its populations most basic needs. Not only that, they are also seeking help in funding for its military. So who is better to have as an Ally? China or the US? I'll let the others decide. In fact, I will tripple dare you to bin everything inside your house that is laballed "Made in China", I guess you hate China that much, you might as well get rid of its products too?