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

[gambit]

So now you are trying to publically justify your racist actions against all Chinese users here on PDF by falsely accussing everyone of grouping against you?
When it was you who is often caught generalizing against the Chinese population here and spewing crap at our faces for uncalled reasons? Give people a break already.

What 'racist' commnent have I made? Do you even know what the word 'racist' mean in application? If I were to make a 'racist' insult to anyone, I would have to use well known racially charged words and/or make some kind of attribution of negative human and moral characteristics against a group with clearly distinguishable physical traits, such as black skin color. Calling you Chinese boys 'you Chinese boys' does not constitute a racist insult. It is condescending and you Chinese boys deserves it.

Do I? What you do and how you live your live has nothing to do with me - zilch.

Of course you care. In debates, experience matters and you Chinese boys' lack of it, especially in an arena where the subjects are military and related, made you vulnerable. I used my experience to seek out credible third party sources to support my arguments and challenges to Chinese claims or even when I see a general news story was technically inadequate in some ways. Here is a recent example of that...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/90506-china-wz-10-pics.html#post1594871

That explanation has nothing to do with China but at something more technically basic to aviation. I go out of my way to these look for these publicly available sources so people can verify for themselves for the Chinese claims and my rebutal. Here is a response TYPE that I have come to EXPECT from either a Chinese or a supporter...

That's one big load of baloney

The readers can see for themselves the lack of even a sense of anything expected of a sensible 'debate', especially when the subject is technically related. That expectation by me is from experience. Any challenges from me, no matter how well supported by reasonable arguments AND sources that has no racial implications were interpreted to be an attack on 'the Chinese people', in other words, to challenge a Chinese claim is to be racist in itself. The fact that none of you Chinese boys challenged my assertion that long ago I was originally polite and on subject tells the readers on who had the original provocative behaviors here: you Chinese boys.

We are here talking about the Vietnam War, you can question the way the history of Vietnam is told, but you cannot foist your lobsided view on to the masses.

Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Where and what have I done to constitute an imposition of my view on anyone? Or is it to you that merely questioning popular perceptions qualify as that imposition?

If you are indeed factual then your spectacular claim that Vietnamese wants to be Japanese wouldn't get slapped down hard by asianamerican. Mind you this is about the Vietnamese War, not about Japanese so I urge you to stay within the topic and not try and derail it. Just because you are racist against Chinese does not give you the right to act like an idiot and play victim all the time.

Wrong...I said the Vietnamese envied the Japanese for what the Japanese have done for their country. Even YOU used the word 'envied' to describe what you perceived to be American attitude towards China. When I said this...

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.

That does not mean the Viets want to be Japanese or South Koreans but only that they want to be as prosperous and opportunistic like the latter two peoples. Wishing for a better life is a common thing for all peoples.

A young boy? now that is a funny thing to say to others who you have little to no idea about. I take that as a personal attack. Your consistant denigrating mannerism together with your foul demeaning choice of words does not make you anymore equitably amicable.
Your claims of being a cold war veteran and working alongside nuclear weapon has no significance to your arguments. If you are indeed a veteran then yes it would make you an naive one who is inept at keeping up with time and has its conscience blinded by childhood memories.

Yes you can. And my experience make you Chinese boys' blood boils.

Well the Soviet Union failed but the country China still exist and they are still being referred to as 'Commies'. So please tell the readers, not me, if that is an American fail for portraying China as communist or is it a Gambit fail for trying too hard to put forward his own theories?

The claim was that China does not care about other communist countries regarding unity and survivability of the communist bloc and the communist ideology. I have shown that to be false, not only with common sense but also with at least one historical fact: Ho, the Soviets, and Tito of Yuggoslavia. Just because China could not have saved the USSR from collapse, that does not mean China does not care because not only would such a collapse proved to the world that communism is a failure, but that China has improved odds of the same catastrophe. And that collapse did happened. Countries that shares a common ideological foundation MUST care about what goes on inside their fellowship. That is not being 'nosey' but only observance so that one may head off potential problems. That is why democracies have different methods of being 'democratic' because they did observed and made adaptations. The problem on how to label China, either as 'communist' or some other variant of a dictatorship is secondary to the original claim, which was that China did cared about what went on inside other communist countries. China cared enough about Viet Nam that there were Chinese troops in the country. Why would you want to send troops if you did not cared?

You already epic failed on trying to relate communist countries outside the borders of the US to allowing communism to exist within the US. It bares no correlations other than to further prove that US employs a double standard and interferes with other countries ideologies through the use of military intervention other than its own.

The one with the epic failed argument is YOU with this fail...

Democracy indeed allows competition by nature, but not the version adopted west. It only gives you freedom if you do as you are told and compete according to their own sets of rule (dirty underarm tactics alert), so what freedom is there if it is hindered by their version of rules? So if it gives so much freedom to compete, then why not let Communism compete with it on equal grounds? Why sanction or wage war on communsm? Contradicting? yes, and I do have problems with that.

The competition here is about allowing communists to explain their ideology to the public and let the public make up their own minds. We have an active communist party in the US and the evidence of that allowance is the fact that the CPUSA was able to book a convention hall in NYC for their little get-together. So it has been YOU who tried to convinced people that the US 'forbid' or 'banned' communism inside the country. You followed up with another failure...

Oh.. that's something new! So America embraces communism too? Thanks for bringing it up. I guess the idea of communism is allowed there but forbidden elsewhere? This goes to show how lovely and hypocritically hypercritical America and the Western democracy really is.

So really...Communism is allowed to compete in America but not, as in 'forbidden', elsewhere? So how effective was that ban, as in military interventions, when we can still find a world history map showing the countries in red for the once communist countries? You used the word 'sanction' but do you even know what it mean, let alone how sanctions are applied? I doubt it. This is just another exposure of your ignorance.

Just like how US and its NATO allies on keeping tabs on all of them democratic countries, using persuasions and/or force to keep the clients in line, and morally and economically support each other throughout the years? I see nothing wrong in that if US and its friends carry out the same proceedures themselves

Good...Then we can conclude that you did not know what the hell you are talking about when you said that China does not care about other communist countries.

Good..so you are tacitly agreeing with me that China has no intentions of spreading communism on Vietnam or other countries? and that China has no control over how their communist counterparts govern its own country? Moreover, you have successfully contradicted yourself by self proclaiming that China and the Soviet Union supported each other and its clients economically and morally throughout the cold war years? If that was the case, then we wouldn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Germany being sucked dry by the Soviets after WWII?

Wrong...Saying that 'May be China should have' does not mean such. Helping a country from failure does not constitute spreading an ideology, especially when both already share a common ideological foundation. The Soviet Union's collapse was unforseen even by the Soviets themselves. May be the wiser ones did have some inklings that their empire was in more serious trouble than the rest perceived, but overall, no one expected such collapse. So China's inability to come to the USSR's aid was in no way evidence that China did not have a desire to spread communism.

Also, the fact that China had no intention of spreading communism, supporting it nor kept tabs on other communist countries lead to the collpase of the Soviet Union. US was in friendly terms with China at the time right? If memories selved me right, Richard Nixon made friendly visits to China in the early 70's and, our great leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping also visited America? congratulations on destroying your own argument.

China was in Viet Nam to spread communism. Not to 'liberate' anyone. China's had a political separation with the Soviets, but not an ideological one, but after the Soviets collapse, then of course China had no choice but to question the validity of such a policy, even if such a policy was not actively pursued. But we know that was not true then nor is it true today, if anything, China just have a more sophisticated way to spread communism, or at least the Chinese version of communism...

The Epoch Times | The CCP&#039s Export of Communist Party Culture

After Mao, however, the CCP adopted a more open policy, making it easy for overseas media to expose the CCP's crimes against freedom and violations of human rights. To prevent this exposure, the CCP's strategy was to bribe overseas Chinese media with financial benefits in order to ensure that all Chinese media around the world reflected CCP culture. These media only selectively reported Chinese news, and they only "criticized" the CCP in a positive way. As a result, these forms of media indirectly spread fallacies about the CCP, including that the CCP was not only legal but also necessary to China's growth and prosperity. Though most overseas Chinese people do not believe all of the CCP's propaganda, they tend to believe overseas Chinese media. Through these media, many overseas Chinese people have unconsciously accepted the CCP culture and propaganda.

A thug in a tuxedo is still a thug.

Yes historians all around the world knows the history of Vietnam well enough to have it taught to everyone in schools acrosss the globe. They are able to view and convey history with high degree of parity. It is not the Gambit version of history that is taught, but a universally agreed and collective one. Your one sided opinions are best kept to yourself, we don't need you to foist your inaccurate history upon readers.

Still trying to dodge that 'meddling' charge, eh? History is factual enough, that China was in Viet Nam. But the argument that China was in Viet Nam to 'liberate' is not factual but an opinion. Meddling is more accurate and still historically factual.

Good...so now you have agreed that the US meddled in Vietnam in support of its French South Vietnam ally. Yes America did indeed meddled with Vietnam by supporting a partitioned Vietnam which ultimately resulted in China particiapting in the war or 'meddling in Vietnam' as you'd put it.

Then be brave enough and say China was in Viet Nam for the same motives as the US -- expansion of an ideology. For the US, the goal was to have an ally against communist expansion. For China, the goal was to have an aly for communist expansion. And you are still trying to deceive the readers when you said that China's meddling was the result of the desire to check communist expansion. History has China in Viet Nam long before US involvement. You cannot dispute that fact so the spin come to be 'liberation'. The fear of the word 'meddle' for the Chinese boys regarding Viet Nam is obvious. I have no problems saying that communist containment is a good thing and exporting democratic principles and capitalist ideas are even better things. Do you at least have the courage to say that communist expansion is equally positive for the world?

 

[gambit]

Desperate! Desperate.. you are clearly desperate to try and prove that I didn't know about the Ho-Sainteny Agreement when Vietnam War was part of the curriculum that was taught in schools, let alone I studied it decades back when I was still at in an English school. I trust you to know that England, France and America were all intertwined in this very part of history. I was merely asking you for "prove" that Ho Chi Min gave away Vietnam. Which you have yet to provide. If you know the Ho-Sainteny Agreement so well, then you would have picked up the part which states - "It recognized Vietnam as a "Free State" within the French Union, and permitted France to continue stationing troops in North Vietnam until 1951." I hope you are aware of the date 1951 as stated on the agreement. Please don't let your questionable experience and knowledge of the war coupled with your personal hatrid for us Chinese be the ingredients to your shoddy stories in order to prevaricate the readers.

If you said that the agreement allowed the French to temporarily station troops in North of Vietnam to remove the KMT presence then I would agree with you UNRESERVEDLY. Sadly, this isn't the case. I give you credit for stating that it was a contract though! Within the contract there lies a clause, which clearly states:

"and permitted France to continue stationing troops in North Vietnam until 1951."

Now genius, care to explain why it even bothered with a date if he was handing the French back its colony? Answer for the readers why he didn't simply state Vietnam is a "Free State" within the French Union." and leave it at that?

Look who is the fool now?

Yes...The desperate fool is still YOU. Not only that, you are now duly exposed as a fraud. When wikipedia said this about the Ho-Sainteny Agreement...

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.

The year 1951 does not mean it is a contractual element but that 1951 was the year when France's military prowess effectively began its decline. Here is the true text of the Ho-Sainteny Agreement...

Agreement on the Independence of Vietnam

Agreement on the Independence of Vietnamese

(MARCH, 1946)

1. The French Government recognises the Republic of Vietnam as a free state, having its Government. its Parliament, its army, and its finances, and forming part of the Indochinese Federation and the French Union.

With regard to the unification of the three Ky (Nam Ky, or Cochin China, Trung Ky, or Annam, Bac Ky, or Tonkin), the French Government undertakes to follow the decisions of the people consulted by referendum.

2. The Government of Vietnam declares itself ready to receive the French army in friendly fashion when, in accord with international agreements, it relieves the Chinese troops. An annex attached to the present Preliminary Convention will fix the terms under which the operation of relief will take place.

3. The stipulations formulated above shall enter into ef- fect immediately upon exchange of signatures. Each of the contracting parties shall take necessary steps to end hos- tilities, to maintain troops in their respective positions, and to create an atmosphere favourable for the immediate opening of friendly and frank negotiations. These negotiations shall deal particularly with the diplomatic relations between Vietnam and foreign states, the future status of Indochina, and economic and cultural interests. Hanoi, Saigon, and Paris may be indicated as the locales of the negotiations.

Signed: Sainteny, Ho Chi Minh, Vu Hong Khanh

Source: Bulletin Hebdomada;re Ministere de la France d'Outremer, no. 67 (March 18, 1946) translated in Harold R. Isaacs (ed.), New Cycle in Asia (1947), pp. 161-162.

There are no dates other than when the contract was agreed upon. No dates regarding independence. So for you to take wikipedia at its word is utterly foolish and exposed you for all to see what an utter boob you really are. Your claim that you knew about it is and that this little factoid is taught in school are lies. So that make you an intellectual fraud in this discussion.

Further...After the Agreement was approved and signed, Ho went to the American Embassy in France to present that document to the US asking for American support OF THE AGREEMENT. Ho offered that if the US would approve the Agreement, and thereby approve of himself and the Viet Minh as representatives of ALL of Viet Nam, he would open the semi-independent Viet Nam via Cam Ranh Bay to US access and eventually business investment throughout Viet Nam. The US declined. France did not take very long to land troops in Viet Nam, as in 1946 while Ho was STILL in France, to reclaim her colonial possession. That wiki source about the Ho-Sainteny Agreement is true but incomplete and it is a trap I often used to expose frauds like yourself. Those laughing icons in your post is more appropriately against you as the fool than for me. I do not need to be a genius to expose frauds like you Chinese boys here trying to whitewash China's crimes in Viet Nam. Just experience will do.

Busted...

 

[gambit]

Oh... so Communist countries CAN adopt and incorporate other ideologies and move on to become one of the rishest country in the world? So are you telling the readers here that China is in fact no longer a true "Communist" country? I guess that proves the American fear of communism was indeed a foolish one.

Does your regards of communists being poor and sub human give you the rights to depict the entire Chinese population? By constantly alluding the public that we Chinese are Communists and verbal attacking us with the word "Commies", you are telling the readers here that you are one arrogant and racist bigot.

By your logics, the West should be doing extremely well and we shouldn't be seeing a country, such as China, with heavy communist background bailing them out in 2008 after when they got screwed over by America right? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I thought "all communism turned all communist countries into economical hellholes? Shouldn't it be America "the world's number one economy" be helping them instead? why depend upon China? I guess China is actually not a TRUE communist country; they are rich, the idea of Communism can be altered to whatever way deems fit, therefore Communism can actually thrive and prosper (over taking their democratic counterparts) and that the Americans and the west are now looking rather foolish with their views on Communism?

No...That is YOUR logic, not of any respectable economist or political scientist. It is possible to have a dictatorship with a free market economic system, or at least more capitalist than a communist centralized planning one, and the Western fear of communism is not based upon economic but upon communism's inherent restrictions on human rights and freedoms. Nazi Germany was one such example. May be we should call China a fascist state? If there were no competing ideology, then we would never know if communism is a failure or not. But because we do have competing political and economic ideologies, we now know communism as an economic model is an utter failure and quite independent of the dictatorial structure governing the counry. The communist way of managing the economy did not worked so China had to become dependent upon the consumerism of the West in order to save China from collapsing like the Soviets did. So whatever mismanagement of capitalists on their economies has nothing to do with any implied superiority of the communist economic model over the free market model. Your argument is valid only if China did not change any elements of the communist centralized planning model and proceed to 'bail out' failing free market countries. But the fact that China did change -- had to change -- proved the inferiority of the communist centralized planning model. China's change is an insult to Marx and Lenin.

Let me remind you that you are making personal assumptions about history which took place at the time when you are probably still wearing diapers (if you are indeed from that time). You expect readers here to blindly agree to you yapping about the past and trying in vain to destort history? Let me remind you again that it is not your version of history that is being taught in schools internationally Mr. Gambit. You can have your warped take on the history of Vietnam and keep it to yourself and spare yourself further embarrassment.

Really...??? Then what does that make YOU, a Chinese who was probably borned in the UK, never had any knowledge of China during the Vietnam War, never served in the military, and never knew the Cold War? What make you any more authoritative about the Vietnam War than I? Because China said so? Why should the readers 'blindly' followed you? Because to challenge you -- a Chinese -- mean a person is a racist? That is you Chinese boys' modus operandi so far: to call a challenge a racist attack.

I wonder if anyone actually takes you seriously as a person. Your warped vision of this world and grasp of reality is astounding, as demonstrated here:

Ever seen the old 'Planet of the Apes' series? At one point there was a history of the apes where their increased intelligence made them desirable house servants instead of mere curio items in zoos. That is how the Chinese see the Viets, the Cambodians, the Thais, or the Phis: We have slightly more intelligence than apes and with our opposable thumbs, we are more useful than dogs.

Here, you have cleverly ignored the American relationship with countries such as; Mexico, Cuba, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the NATO countries in the EU.

Are you too coward to admit that America don't see them the way you said China sees its neighbours?

There are far more skin tones in America than in China. Mexicans daily risks their lives to try to get into the US. We have a black President, a Indian governor, and assorted Asians in all levels of governance, state and federal. There are more skin tones in the US Supreme Court alone than there are of the entire CCP. So no, I do not to have to admit anything. The US is not perfect but it certainly is far more racially diverse and tolerant than your China. You Chinese boys' made up 'high IQ' statistics for Chinese is evident enough to the mindset of your lot here. If there is a choice, I will chose living in the imperfect US over your racist China.

Then I feel sorry for you Mr. Gambit. The realities and truth is too much for you and you have failed to come to terms with what America had done to places like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan and South Korea etc the and the list goes on..

By the way, care to explain the cultural destruction of Vietnam for the benefits of the readers here?

Fix your links in your quotes. They are broken. I fixed the previous one. Anyway...You cannot deny the truth of what I said, that cultures evolve. Is the China of today the same as one hundred years ago? If not, then your rebuttal is meaningless. Do you deny the reality that when we look upon Beijing or Shanghai, we do not see Western influences everywhere? If you do so deny, then it is us who should feel sorry for you. Even your pal asianamerican made the observation that in China there are Western influences.

More Gambit's propaganda for the readers? Yes China helped liberate Vietnam and the part about them spreading is debatable as it was already present in Vietnam before the Chinese arrived and it wa spreaded by Ho Chi Minh when Vietnam became liberated. America on the other hand was supporting the idea of a partitioned Vietnam and was standing shoulder to shoulder with Diem, and together they committed all the attrocities mentioned on the above quote and worst and the list goes on..

America basically shot itself in the foot when they chose not to help Ho and use the chance to spread democracy into Vietnam.

Same old stale ChiCom propaganda. China was in Viet Nam to spread communism and to meddle in Vietnamese affairs. France was looking to reclaim Viet Nam, not China, and that was not certain given American attitudes towards colonialism...Again for the readers to see...

Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Summary and Chapter I

I saw Halifax last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country-thirty million inhabitants for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.

As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of Indo-China.

Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of IndoChina is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indo-China are entitled to something better than that.

It was only after Ho's betrayal of the Vietnamese with the Ho-Sainteny Agreement, which you lied about knowing, that France was able to insert troops back into Viet Nam. Between 'meddle' and 'liberation' the latter is the obvious choice for you to use as cover for the truth that China saw France's presence as an opportunity to spread communism into Viet Nam.

Genius! So now you are the Vietnam war expert then? If that is the case then I hereby congratulate you on failing to mainstream your version of the history and everyone else who studied international history are all ignoramuses.

What is mainstream is not always correct. We know that. The Earth is flat was 'mainstream' for a long time. Yours is a very lame argument as it dismisses one of the basic tenets of science: doubt. But hey...We should not expect intellectual honesty from you Chinese boys here as amply shown.

Oh..so now you are calling it a proxy war between America and the"Soviet Union"? and that America was there to fight the Soviet Union to prevent them from spreading Communism? Yet you are here (Trying in vain) to make belief that China was the one trying to spread Communism? Give us a break already.

It is not in vain. China's version of glasnost is paying off dividends as objective researchers are finding out facts that China has been covering up all these years. Asian communism should be the responsibility of China and in Viet Nam, that is what happened.

Then what makes you think Ho wasn't naturally the 'right side'? just because of America's refusal to help him?

How about his ties to communism for starter? Or worse, hwo about the Viet Minh's slaughter of fellow nationalists just because they were not communists? Do you approve of killing political opponents?

Since you are now calling this a proximity war between America and the Soviet Union, then shouldn't you be saying that Soviet took the wrong side and spreaded communism in Vietnam? remember that China was only a client state of Soviet Union and that the Soviets were the core of Communism.

Yes, I could and have. But this is not about the Soviet Union. This is about China.

I am not interested in debating about the non-communist nationalists who were slaughtered as Americans themselves caused many more attrocities in Vietnam slaughtering both non-communists and communists. So are you now saying that American think they are both wrong? if so whose side are they actually on?

Of course you would not because that would be an indictment against Ho and the communists. You Chinese boys are actually fearful of that subject.

In fact, I have a better answer for you - America wasn't on anyone's side. They were there for their own national interests and they see Vietnamese as sub human beings that they can test their napalms and agent orange on - Howzat?

Absolultely you can say so. That would further entrench you into the loony camp.

Like how America and its allies killed the 'so-called' talibans, tyrants and Communists because they think they are the right side? and just because of the small nations unwillingness to bowl down to western imperialism means they are in the wrong side? thus makes them fine bombing targets? Now you're pathetic.

Please spare us all the tripe about 'western imperialism'. You do not even know what it mean and how it is actually applied. It is nothing more than a convenient rhetorical insult that has no basis in reality.