| | Thankfully I have never been to this place you pull these disgusting statements out of, and by disgusting, I mean, implicitly, not only untrue but so flagrantly untrue that the mere assertion of them is insulting. Much like if I asserting that you love cut the fingers off of small children with hacksaws, asserting that "South Vietnam would have done the same to the North" is equally untrue and yet far more disgusting.
Your statements are not disgusting and atrocious because they are politically incorrect, but instead because they are so absurdly untrue. There is not even a remote kernel of truth to them. They amount to hardly anything less than slander against millions of people.
What is clearly untrue is your wishful assertion that "the population of North Vietnam in 1956 was much larger than that of South Vietnam.
Hardly, you cite one single, obviously biased website, in order to ‘prove’ me wrong? A website you admit is biased? Ha. Do you not think it odd how difficult it is to find those population numbers on web sites? The population of North Vietnam *was* larger, by a few million people, in 1956, and was ruled by an oppressive government which instituted universal conscription, murder quotes, collectivization, etc, and was a system which had no problem attaining miraculous perfect voter turnouts.
Who says it was "larger"? I do, but I can put the numbers up on a web site, and link to it here, if you consider that a final arbitration of truth. I say so because I have read it, in books, not web sites, which are historically more accurate than Chomsky-ite front page template web ‘historians’. Sorry, I have over 1,000 books in my personal library and I do not recall which one, exactly, I read those figured in. Please tell me what what your criteria is for an accurate source of historical information. If it is merely something on a web site, I will go ahead and add a subsection to my "Free Vietnam" page stating the population difference.
But all of this is besides the point, even if the population was equal, which it wasn’t, the "Vote" was absurd. The fact that you place any moral value on this "Vote" at all is ridiculous in the first place. Hong, what is the nature and purpose of a democratic vote? What do we have a right to vote for and against? Can I vote to enslave you? Can I vote to confiscate your property? Can I vote to confiscate the property of another, much freer population, merely because I am armed to the teeth by the most brutally repressive regime ever known to exist on this planet? Can I vote to take away your life? Please expand on the idea, Hong, enlighten us as to what ought to be considered a just vote. If you are here to legitimately and sincerely discuss ideas, here is topic worthy of development.
Of course you won’t, because instead of sincerely discussing ideas, you are here to throw out bumper sticker slogans about a complex topic you know, admittedly and demonstratably, almost nothing about, intended not to discern the truth of a complex matter, but merely to troll.
As you so obviously consider yourself an expert on Vietnam, I have to wonder what are the other "facts" that you have in your mind to support your arguments
Quite the contrary, in my first post I wrote "while I am certainly no crystal ball of knowledge on Vietnam, I know your assessment of the history and the context surrounding the Vietnam war is completely wrong" I am no expert, but I am far more ‘experienced’ about Vietnam than you appear to be, with your absurd "the South Would have done the same" statement.
"You guys keep arguing with things that I never said and interpret what I said to its exact opposite"
That is because your statements are so patently vague, it is easy to misinterpret intentionally vague statements. Perhaps you can try making some specific points or arguing specific ideas, instead of "no blood for oil" like knee jerk statements.
"My purpose has never been to "incite emotional responses", but to "incite" a completely non-emotional and deeper understanding of issues. Clearly, I failed completely here"
I doubt that is your purpose, because you have demonstratably failed to actually develop on any of the important ideas in question, and instead appeal to sophomoric generalizations. What is the idea you wish to discuss? Was it just for the US to be involved in Vietnam? Lets take a look at your first post.
Just a hypothetical: if the Vietnam war were not "canceled", would US have won?
I'd say no. Because US sided itself with the losing party.
Obviously you missed the fact that the US and South Vietnam actually won the war, negotiated a peace, and were dolled out Nobel Peace Prizes. It was only after the Democratically controlled US congress pulled completely the funding to South Vietnam that their fate was sealed. The North ignored the peace treaties and turned right around and started attacking the South Again. They stood their ground for two years, but ultimately the small nation of South Vietnam could not fight off the Soviet Union and China through North Vietnam. The Vietnam war was WON, it was OVER, the despicable actions by members of congress here, and leftists activists, writers, and politicians, regurgitated defeat out of the jaws of victory, by far the most despicable action this nation has taken this century.
All in the name of the same moral ambiguity you argue here.
"The absurdity of accusing me of defending communism is like"
I have not accused you of defending communism, instead you are defending moral ambiguity, which is practically just as bad, asserting that in most of these cases there was no way to know which side we should have supported, and additionally in most of these cases both scenarios were equally bad, even tough you practically admit to knowing hardly anything about this situation, and demonstrate this lack of knowledge through your absurdly incorrect statement.
While it is understandable and rational to withhold judgement on complex issues when not enough information is available, it is murderous incompetence to withhold judgement on matters where life and death are the consequences, where a system based explicitly on death strives to come to power, a primary point of my "Communism and Moral Ambiguity†article, which, in this post seemed to have had quite an effect on you. Why the change of heart now? Why so reluctant to make a choice regarding communism?
It is this same kind of moral ambiguity, combined with short sighted expediency of the moment decisions, that has allowed the living embodiments of evil to become so well entrenched over and over again through the history of civilization. Even in 1919, Winston Churchill was warning the world of the dangers of communism, any system based explicitly on the denial of property, of the material means by which a man can sustain his own existence, is inherently evil. Churchill tried to send troops and material aide, a modicum of which, he argued, would have helped the Russian generals of the time defeat Leninism. The people of Britain called him a war monger and war profiteer and suffered (somewhat understandably) from an irrational disdain for
more war, having just come out of the worst war in history.
Churchill warned, every step of the way, about the growth of Nazism, and warned over and over that an even worse war would follow. The people ignored him, called him a war monger, and capitulated over and over again to a murderous dictator. Again he was right.
Churchill again warned the world of the threat of communism and this time Stalin after World War II, and again the people cried that he was a war monger and again they did nothing against the worst evil this world has faced. Again they ignored him, and again he turned out to be correct.
In all of these, moral ambiguity was a primary motivator in this capitulation and depraved indifference. In all of these, murderers became ever more powerful, and killed many millions more people that they otherwise would have.
(Edited by Michael F Dickey
on 6/14, 9:40am)
|
|
The Vietnam war was...canceled, not lost.
