Can you read? Can't you see "retribution and consolidation of power that always followed a violent change of regime" in there?
Can you read?
Now you specify that a 'violent change of regime' was necessary to institute bloody retribution, but still you suggested, somehow, that South Vietnam 'would have done the same thing' if, what, they instituted a bloody violent regime change in the north?? If, somehow, magically, the positions were reversed What does that mean? What are you trying to say? You are making no sense.
It baffles me that with whom and why you keep on arguing here
This is what you have said
"violent change of regime causes bloody retribution"
"South Vietnam would have done the same thing"
Your original statement
"As to the victors slaughter their defeated enemies, that was pretty much expected in those countries. South Vietnam would have done the same if they had won"
Either South Vietnam would have done the same thing *in the north*, *if they won* (which was clearly your initial implication even though now you try to back off from it once you learned how completely incorrect it was)
as you seem to insist now, if South Vietnam was actually North Vietnam, and was backed by the communists of China and the Soviet union, they would have done the same thing after instituting a bloody regime change *in the south*? So, in magicall anti-history land, South Vietnam was backed by the communist super powers and was invading the north, and had it won, it would have committed the same bloody attrocities?
Please specify which of these scenarios you are trying to draw a parrallel to. In WHAT scenario would SOUTH VIETNAM have "DONE THE SAME THING" Clearly you are now trying to insist that if South Vietnam sought a "bloody regime change" in the North, they would have done the same thing, but that is not what South Vietnam was fighting for, so what are you arguing? Just making up red herrings?
Yes, Hong, I can read, but you obviously have a lot of difficulty either conveying what it is you are trying to say, or hiding the fact that you are obfuscating every point you make as you try to distance yourself from them once it is shown how absurd they truly are. So now you were not saying South Vietnam would have done the asme to the North had they won, but if in some other magical history land the South was actively invading the North in an attempt to try to conquer it, it would have done the same thing. But that is not at all what South Vietnam was trying to do, so if your point was really this latter, 'new' interpration of your point, why did you make it in the first place? Hey, maybe, I dont know what happens in magical history land, maybe if South Vietnam built a giant nuclear space cannon they would have killed every North Vietnamese, but in the real world and in this real geo-political context "The South would have done the same thing" is an egregious and disgusting comment no matter how you try to spin it.