Russia is screwed

Discussion of current events
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by Mr. Perfect » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:53 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:31 am
You must be joking! I haven't the slightest doubt that many Americans are highly ethical, but the whole history of the US is full of the most extreme violence and cruelty, as well as disrespect of the most basic human rights. I look forward to the day when the US will no longer have any influence in the affairs of the world. Americans should spend the next couple of hundred years dealing exclusively with their many problems at home, and forget about the rest of us.
Not really.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by cassowary » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:09 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am


The suffering was caused by the Socialists in USSR, N Vietnam and China which western leftists sympathized with. Whatever death and destruction caused was their fault. They were the bad guys. And so were the western left who lend them a helping hand by opposing the war. The US saved the rest of SE Asia even though they failed to save Indo China. The failure was due to western leftists who forced the US to withdraw prematurely.
Or so you wish!

Jim the Moron just affirmed that what I posted to be true. (see his post above.)
What do you mean by "or so you wish". What I said is true. The 10 year US intervention (in the face of protests from western leftists sympathetic to their fellow Socialists in N Vietnam) gave time for SE Asian nations to put their houses in order. This saved SE Asia from Socialism/Communism.

This is also the view of Lee Kuan Yew:
In his autobiography, Lee Kuan Yew says Singapore and other Asian countries were saved from communism by the Vietnam War:

"Although American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of Southeast Asia. In 1965, when the US military moved massively into South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines faced internal threats from armed communist insurgencies . . . and the communist underground was still active in Singapore. . . America's action [in Vietnam] enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975, they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of ASEAN were nurtured during the Vietnam War years."7
LKY lived through that era and felt threatened by the Socialists/Communists. The view when you are faced with danger is so very different. LKY once visited the US universities during the height of the Vietnam war. He met with some leftist anti-war Professors. He told them that they made him sick.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a conscience of the international system and a man of great sensitivity, said former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger of Singapore's late founding prime minister at a private memorial service in New York City on Sept 25. Here is an excerpt of his speech.

I met Lee Kuan Yew when he came to Harvard in 1967. Singapore had just become an independent country, and Lee its Prime Minister. At that time, all the Harvard faculty knew about him was that he was the head of a semi-socialist party, so they assumed he was a "brother" who would agree with their political judgments. He came into the room, dynamic, electric, as he always was, and he said, "I'd like to hear what you all think about Vietnam." They proceeded to debate whether Lyndon Johnson was a psychopath or merely a war criminal. They did not come to a final conclusion. The Dean turned to Lee expecting great approval. He said: "Now, Mr Prime Minister, we would like to hear what you think." Lee Kuan Yew replied: "You make me sick."
That's how I feel too. Those that led the anti-war movement like Jane Fonda and her husband Tom Hayden, both commies, make me sick.
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
The blood of the killing fields on Cambodia is on their hands and heads.
No! The killing fields madness is entirely on the heads of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge henchmen.
Yes. But that was made possible only because the US was forced to withdraw prematurely from Indo-China by the western left. So they bear part of the responsibility. Don't forget that US forces won all their battles in Vietnam. It was on the home front that they lost the battle of public opinion. This was the result of the western left - men like the Harvard professors that LKY met who made him sick. They also made millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese boat refugees to lose their lives.
.............................................................................................................
By the way, speaking of Cambodia: Are you aware that the Khmer Rouge rebels remained quiet until after the Nixon bombing campaign on their strongholds in Cambodia's eastern border provinces began in 1970? From that point on The KR began their long march on Phnom Penh. Until then Cambodia's ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk had managed to keep his country at peace - unlike in the rest of former French Indochina.

I could wager that you have never even heard of Prince Norodom Sihanouk.
Sihanouk was a Socialist/Communist at heart even though he was Cambodian royalty. He was allied to Communist China. He allowed N Vietnamese soldiers/Vietcong to hide in Cambodian territory to harass South Vietnamese and US forces. That was why his country was "at peace". He was on the side of the Commies. So he had to go. Lon Nol could have survived had US forces remained. The western left (commies like Jane Fonda and her hubby) and the Harvard Professors who made LKY sick forced US forces out prematurely. This brought the downfall of Indo-China. They bear part of the responsibility for the killing fields of Cambodia and the boat people of Vietnam. Millions died because of the western left. Does that make you sick?

It should.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by cassowary » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:34 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:55 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:09 pm

To know how the US screwed up Vietnam you need to go back to WWII.

Following the Japanese surrender there was an opportunity to support a flawed but viable provisional government, instead the Allies, mostly the US, let the French take over again. This alienated Ho Chi Minh and company and pushed them into Moscow's orbit. I think it's one of the all time foreign policy blunders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_ ... e_movement
Yes, I agree!

That they allowed the French to do so was likely seen at the time as a payoff to the French for past favours as an ally. Likewise for the Dutch return to Indonesia (their precious Dutch East Indies Empire). Neither of these continental European powers emerged from the Second World War reconciled to the possibility that the era of white Western imperialism was over for keeps.

Many of the Viet Cong guerilla insurgents and North Vietnamese regular soldiers saw the Americans as stepping into the shoes of the French as another bunch of white western Imperialists attempting to deny their country its destiny as a unified sovereign state. Regardless of whether this perception was right or wrong is beside the point - that's apparently how they saw it.

As with the countless Russian soldiers who gave their lives fighting the Germans during the Second World War, Communism is not worth dying for but their country is.
That's the propaganda that the Commies told their soldiers. They failed to tell them that there were elections in South Vietnam. So South Vietnam was not a colony of America. The western left uncritically accepted the view of their fellow Socialists in N Vietnam and ignored America's attempt to encourage democracy in South Vietnam.

As usual, the left has a knack of siding with the most evil people on earth, in this case, it was the mass murdering Vietcong and N Vietnamese. Things have not changed since then. We have here Sertorio who loves Putin the poisoner and invader of its neighbors. Then there is Jeremy Corbyn who supports the terrorist Palestinians against a democratic Israel.

Is the left inherently evil? I notice that the worst mass killers of the 20th century all came from the left - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro. There must be a reason why Socialism produces evil people. Of course, not all Socialists are evil. Most are simply naive people who fell for the "heaven on earth" ideology. These are people who lost their faith in traditional religions and seek solace in a secular one. They desperately want to believe. These are the "useful idiots".

neverfail
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by neverfail » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:34 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:09 pm




The suffering was caused by the Socialists in USSR, N Vietnam and China which western leftists sympathized with. Whatever death and destruction caused was their fault. They were the bad guys. And so were the western left who lend them a helping hand by opposing the war. The US saved the rest of SE Asia even though they failed to save Indo China. The failure was due to western leftists who forced the US to withdraw prematurely.
neverfail wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:03 pm
Or so you wish!
Jim the Moron just affirmed that what I posted to be true. (see his post above.)[/quote]
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
What do you mean by "or so you wish".
The napalming of Vietnamese villages; the bombing of civilian targets in both North and South Vietnam; the lavish use of Agent Orange defoliants (whose continuing presence in their ecology of Vietnam is still causing children to be born without limbs and other deformities):

https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/viet ... a55e21a3e1

Unexploded Claymore mines in Vietnam and unexploded cluster bombs in Laos that still regularly kill local people - none of the misery and loss of life caused by all of this (the evil continues to this day) was NOT the handiwork of Socialists in USSR, N Vietnam and China but an all American abomination.

[/quote] What I said is true. The 10 year US intervention (in the face of protests from western leftists sympathetic to their fellow Socialists in N Vietnam) ...[/quote]

What you say is NOT true cassowary except in your own bigoted imagination. Yes, a handful of socialists even out here jumped on the anti-Vietnam War peace protests bandwagon - would you seriously have expected them not to? But that does not mean that the bandwagon itself was made up of romantic leftists craving for a Communist Victory in in Indochina. The vast majority of protestors were ordinary, decent people who, like myself, were repelled by the unending carnage up there and by the lies that were told to us by our political leadership to justify the military presence.

I am not merely talking about the lies told by the Johnson administration in the US but (closer to home) the lies told to us by our own government to justify both our own and the American involvement up there.
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
....gave time for SE Asian nations to put their houses in order. This saved SE Asia from Socialism/Communism.

This is also the view of Lee Kuan Yew:
In his autobiography, Lee Kuan Yew says Singapore and other Asian countries were saved from communism by the Vietnam War:
"Although American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of Southeast Asia. In 1965, when the US military moved massively into South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines faced internal threats from armed communist insurgencies . . . and the communist underground was still active in Singapore. . . America's action [in Vietnam] enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975, they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of ASEAN were nurtured during the Vietnam War years."7

Well, bully for LKY and bully for the non-Indochina states of south east Asia for having benefited so richly from the horrendous suffering of Indochina.

I believe that Lee was WRONG in the sense that he (like you) saw Communism as a monolithic global force whose spread was orchestrated from Moscow. It seemed that way in the beginning of the 1960's but as the 1960's wore on it became patently clear that world Communism was breaking up into rival power groupings and sects. It began in 1961 when Mao fell out with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev. Around the world Communist parties split into rival pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing parties - we even had these here in Australia. By 1969 there were even clashes between Chinese and Soviet troops over disputed islands in their Ussuri River frontier so strong had the enmity between the two Communist giants become.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Sovi ... r_conflict

That the North Vietnam government was able to obtain the means to continue prosecuting the war in the South was due to the fact that Hanoi knew about the rivalry between the two Communist giants and astutely played upon it to get what it needed out of both. As a rule, the more sophisticated stuff came from the USSR - like the surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries positioned around Hanoi, maned by Soviet Army technicians and used to shoot down American aircraft on bombing raids. The more basic stuff such as mortars and machine guns that the North routinely smuggled south via the legendary Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos came from the PRC. The point is that it was a North Vietnam initiative and not (as you seem to imagine) a case of North Vietnam acting as a catspaw for either o r both of the Communist giants.

They wanted to unify Vietnam into a single unitary state (as it had traditionally been for centuries) and the South Vietnam government and its US backers got in the way. As for Laos and cambodia these were merely means to that end.

I am amazed that you do not seem to know any of the above Cassowary. Your education on the course of this war still has a long way to go.

I have reason to believe that even if the Americans had not intervened in Indochina in the brutal way they did, the contagion of Communist takeover would likely not have spread beyond the bounds of Indochina.

Singapore, especially, was always safe.

Which moves me to wonder about Lee Kwan Yew's perspicacity.

:idea: Unless Lee was telling scare stories to children for the purpose of achieving some now obscure political goal.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by cassowary » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:34 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:09 pm

The suffering was caused by the Socialists in USSR, N Vietnam and China which western leftists sympathized with. Whatever death and destruction caused was their fault. They were the bad guys. And so were the western left who lend them a helping hand by opposing the war. The US saved the rest of SE Asia even though they failed to save Indo China. The failure was due to western leftists who forced the US to withdraw prematurely.
neverfail wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:03 pm
Or so you wish!
Jim the Moron just affirmed that what I posted to be true. (see his post above.)
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
What do you mean by "or so you wish".
The napalming of Vietnamese villages; the bombing of civilian targets in both North and South Vietnam; the lavish use of Agent Orange defoliants (whose continuing presence in their ecology of Vietnam is still causing children to be born without limbs and other deformities):

https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/viet ... a55e21a3e1

Unexploded Claymore mines in Vietnam and unexploded cluster bombs in Laos that still regularly kill local people - none of the misery and loss of life caused by all of this (the evil continues to this day) was NOT the handiwork of Socialists in USSR, N Vietnam and China but an all American abomination.
What I said is true. The 10 year US intervention (in the face of protests from western leftists sympathetic to their fellow Socialists in N Vietnam) ...
What you say is NOT true cassowary except in your own bigoted imagination. Yes, a handful of socialists even out here jumped on the anti-Vietnam War peace protests bandwagon - would you seriously have expected them not to? But that does not mean that the bandwagon itself was made up of romantic leftists craving for a Communist Victory in in Indochina. The vast majority of protestors were ordinary, decent people who, like myself, were repelled by the unending carnage up there and by the lies that were told to us by our political leadership to justify the military presence.
The military presence was fully justified. War is hell, Neverfail. Are you then against US involvement in WWII? The US should not have bombed the Japanese? Millions also died in the fire-bombing of Japanese cities. Also, don't forget the two nukes they dropped. What about the fire bombing of Dresden? If you leftists applied that kind of standard, the Japanese might be occupying Australia today. Do you want that?

I don't think so. Neither do we want the Communists/Socialists occupying Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. Every time the Socialists take over, millions died. We are grateful that the US spent blood and treasure to have bought us some time. Whatever sufferings the Vietnamese suffered, the total death and suffering would have been worse if the US had not intervened. Then SE Asia would have gone Communists. The fact that Communism is not monolithic is of no importance. People will still die, no matter what variety of Socialism takes over the region.
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
....gave time for SE Asian nations to put their houses in order. This saved SE Asia from Socialism/Communism.

This is also the view of Lee Kuan Yew:
In his autobiography, Lee Kuan Yew says Singapore and other Asian countries were saved from communism by the Vietnam War:
"Although American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of Southeast Asia. In 1965, when the US military moved massively into South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines faced internal threats from armed communist insurgencies . . . and the communist underground was still active in Singapore. . . America's action [in Vietnam] enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975, they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of ASEAN were nurtured during the Vietnam War years."7

Well, bully for LKY and bully for the non-Indochina states of south-east Asia for having benefited so richly from the horrendous suffering of Indochina.

I believe that Lee was WRONG in the sense that he (like you) saw Communism as a monolithic global force whose spread was orchestrated from Moscow. It seemed that way in the beginning of the 1960's but as the 1960's wore on it became patently clear that world Communism was breaking up into rival power groupings and sects. It began in 1961 when Mao fell out with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev. Around the world Communist parties split into rival pro-Moscow and pro-Beijing parties - we even had these here in Australia. By 1969 there were even clashes between Chinese and Soviet troops over disputed islands in their Ussuri River frontier so strong had the enmity between the two Communist giants become.
As I said above, the fact that Communism is not monolithic is irrelevant. Both the Russian and Chinese version of Socialism/Communism resulted in millions of deaths. Stalin and Mao were responsible for millions of deaths of their fellow countrymen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Sovi ... r_conflict

That the North Vietnam government was able to obtain the means to continue prosecuting the war in the South was due to the fact that Hanoi knew about the rivalry between the two Communist giants and astutely played upon it to get what it needed out of both. As a rule, the more sophisticated stuff came from the USSR - like the surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries positioned around Hanoi, manned by Soviet Army technicians and used to shoot down American aircraft on bombing raids. The more basic stuff such as mortars and machine guns that the North routinely smuggled south via the legendary Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos came from the PRC. The point is that it was a North Vietnam initiative and not (as you seem to imagine) a case of North Vietnam acting as a catspaw for either o r both of the Communist giants.
In other words, despite their rivalry, they were able to unite over a common cause - the spread of Socialism/Communism. Again, this proves that the fact that the Communist bloc is not monolithic is irrelevant.
They wanted to unify Vietnam into a single unitary state (as it had traditionally been for centuries) and the South Vietnam government and its US backers got in the way.


Of course. They were just like the Kim dynasty of Korea who wanted to unite Korea under them. Are you saying they had good and noble intentions? Look at the two Koreas today. The South is prosperous and democratic. The North is impoverished by Socialism and ruled by a brutal dictatorship. Are you saying that the North had a noble motive in wanting to unify Vietnam under their rule and tbus the US should not have intervened? In that case, do you think that the Kims also had a noble motive and therefore the US should not have intervened in Korea?
As for Laos and cambodia these were merely means to that end.


I agree they were side-shows.
I am amazed that you do not seem to know any of the above Cassowary. Your education on the course of this war still has a long way to go.
I am amazed that anyone in this day still cannot see US intervention in Vietnam as a noble attempt to stop the spread of Socialism/Communism.
I have reason to believe that even if the Americans had not intervened in Indochina in the brutal way they did, the contagion of a Communist takeover would likely not have spread beyond the bounds of Indochina.
I have reason to believe that Communism would have spread to the rest of SE Asia, putting Australia at risk if the US had not intervened. And I am in good company. LKY also thinks so. He had a bird's eye view of the conflict and is acknowledged for his wisdom and astuteness. I rather believe him than you.
Singapore, especially, was always safe.
LKY did not think so. In 1965, Indonesia narrowly escaped a Communist-led coup. Malaysia had just finished the Malayan Emergency. A victory in Vietman in 1965, according to LKY, would have encouraged Socialist/Communist forces in Malaysia and Indonesia. The Malayan Emergency could have flared up again. A takeover by Communists in either of our giant neighbours would have caused Singapore's downfall. We were and still are always at risk because we are small.

Even if you are right that Singapore was always safe, what about the nearest domino - Thailand? Millions would have died if the Communist insurgents won in Thailand. Also, don't forget the people of Indo-China. Millions died there after the Communists took over. Are they not worthy of concern? The US intervention did cause a lot of deaths in Indo-China. But it was trying to stop even worse deaths and destruction when the Communists/Socialists took over. Those deaths in Indo-China could have been prevented had the western left not pressured the US to make a premature withdrawal.

Remember that the Allies bombed France during Hitler's occupation of France. This resulted in the death of 68,778 French civilians.
That was unfortunate but saved France from a greater evil - Hitler. So the US war in Vietnam must be seen in that light. Yes, US bombing also cost Vietnamese deaths - but it was meant to stop a greater evil - Socialism. The western left forced US forces to leave and this greater evil happened. Millions of people died in the killing fields of Cambodia or drowned in leaky boats fleeing Vietnamese Socialism.

Which moves me to wonder about Lee Kwan Yew's perspicacity.
His perspicacity has been proven by the wise decisions he made that led to Singapore becoming a First World nation. So I believe he was correct in his assessment that the US involvement in Vietnam saved us all. You lack the wisdom to see what LKY and I can see.

neverfail
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by neverfail » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:31 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am

The military presence was fully justified.
Why?

The Diem dictatorship of a half-state that by rights should not even have existed as a sovereign state could not rely upon the conscript sons of peasants who made up the rank and file ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam - known informally as South Vietnam) foot sloggers to put their lives on the line fighting the Viet Cong insurgents in order to preserve a half country and a regime that were not worth dying for. So they called upon the United States to come in and do the fighting for them.

Australia was not even invited to send troops at first. The Saigon regime only wanted Americans, not Australians, to pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them. So at the request of our government of the day the US prevailed upon Saigon to forward an official letter of invitation to the Australian government requesting that they also send soldiers to help out. The Prime Minister of the day (R G Menzies) tabled that letter in Parliament fully a day AFTER it announced its decision to send Australian troops to Vietnam (i.e. before we had even been formally invited). Such was the eagerness of our government NOT to save South Vietnam from Communism per se as much as to demonstrate to the Americans what a wonderfully loyal ally the USA had in Australia. The duplicity and deception involved there was enough to render our gesture morally bankrupt.

The fact that the Saigon regime needed to call in outside help at all was a measure of how little support it really had from South Vietnam's own population.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am
Whatever sufferings the Vietnamese suffered, the total death and suffering would have been worse if the US had not intervened.
The mortality figures suggest otherwise:
The human costs of the long conflict were harsh for all involved. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war. In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war. Over the following years, additions to the list have brought the total past 58,200. (At least 100 names on the memorial are those of servicemen who were actually Canadian citizens.) Among other countries that fought for South Vietnam on a smaller scale, South Korea suffered more than 4,000 dead, Thailand about 350, Australia more than 500, and New Zealand some three dozen.
If the US (and allies) had NOT intervened; apart from the lives of over 50,000 US soldiers that would have been spared; I estimate that the South Vietnam regime would likely have fought on for another couple of years before falling to the local Viet Cong insurgents - not to the regular North Vietnamese army as happened in 1975 after the long bloodbath. The number of civilian casualties would have been miniscule and those among the military on both sides may likely have totaled less than around 20,000. That would have been by far the lesser of two evils.

The result of Western intervention was NOT worth the cost.
cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
....gave time for SE Asian nations to put their houses in order. This saved SE Asia from Socialism/Communism.
Well, I question whether that was true. The big turnaround came about when the largest and most populous of the south east Asian states, Indonesia, underwent the Suharto military coup followed by the upheaval throughout the archipelago that came in its wake and took over half a million lives. Indonesia had purged itself of its local Communists (the PKI) in an immense bloodbath. Meantime, over the 1950's the (ethnic Chinese) insurgency in Malaya-Singapore had been defeated with a lot of help from the UK, Australia and New Zealand with surprisingly few casualties among local civilians and fighters alike - even before the Vietnam War (as we know it) got underway. That leaves only Thailand and woeful Burma. The former neutered its Communist insurgency WITHOUT outside help whilst Burma to my understand never had a Communist insurgency.

In summary: the "domino effect" of the south east Asian states one by one "going Communist" (to use jargon from the 1960's) was nothing but a baseless myth.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by cassowary » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:31 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am

The military presence was fully justified.
Why?

The Diem dictatorship of a half-state that by rights should not even have existed as a sovereign state could not rely upon the conscript sons of peasants who made up the rank and file ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam - known informally as South Vietnam) foot sloggers to put their lives on the line fighting the Viet Cong insurgents in order to preserve a half country and a regime that were not worth dying for. So they called upon the United States to come in and do the fighting for them.
Why? I will tell you why. Because the alternative - Socialist/Communist rule was far far worse. S Korea was at first led by a dictator duriing and after the war. But it evolved into a prosperous democracy under American protection. The same should have happened had the US troops, like in S Korea, remained in South Vietnam. South Vietnam would have become like South Korea today.

Leftist always point to weaknesses on US and its allies but not on Socialist/Communist regimes which are always far, far worse. Why the double standards? Why set a high standard for the US and its allies and an incredibly low standard for the regimes of fellow Socialists?
Australia was not even invited to send troops at first. The Saigon regime only wanted Americans, not Australians, to pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them. So at the request of our government of the day the US prevailed upon Saigon to forward an official letter of invitation to the Australian government requesting that they also send soldiers to help out. The Prime Minister of the day (R G Menzies) tabled that letter in Parliament fully a day AFTER it announced its decision to send Australian troops to Vietnam (i.e. before we had even been formally invited). Such was the eagerness of our government NOT to save South Vietnam from Communism per se as much as to demonstrate to the Americans what a wonderfully loyal ally the USA had in Australia. The duplicity and deception involved there was enough to render our gesture morally bankrupt.
All this is irrelevant to the question as to whether fighting to save S Vietnam from Socialism/Communism was a noble cause. R G Menzies may or may not have been dishonest. I don't know. But even if you are right, it was a noble cause to stop the spread of Communism which never fails to result in poverty, dictatorships and mass murders.
The fact that the Saigon regime needed to call in outside help at all was a measure of how little support it really had from South Vietnam's own population.
Irrelevant. Stopping the Socialists/Communists and saving millions of lives far overweighs the fact of the little support the Diem regime had. You do know that whenever Socialist/Communist regimes triumph, there will be mass murder, don't you? What happened in USSR and Communist China should make it obvious what would have happened in Indo-China if the Communists won even in 1965. But the western left did not care. That is why I believe that the western left had blood on their hands for their part in making it happened.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am
Whatever sufferings the Vietnamese suffered, the total death and suffering would have been worse if the US had not intervened.
The mortality figures suggest otherwise:
One third of Cambodia's population died at the hands of Socialist dictator Pol Pot. Unkown millions of Vietnamese died in leaky boats fleeing the horrors of Socialism/Communism.
The human costs of the long conflict were harsh for all involved. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war. In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war. Over the following years, additions to the list have brought the total past 58,200. (At least 100 names on the memorial are those of servicemen who were actually Canadian citizens.) Among other countries that fought for South Vietnam on a smaller scale, South Korea suffered more than 4,000 dead, Thailand about 350, Australia more than 500, and New Zealand some three dozen.
If the US (and allies) had NOT intervened; apart from the lives of over 50,000 US soldiers that would have been spared; I estimate that the South Vietnam regime would likely have fought on for another couple of years before falling to the local Viet Cong insurgents - not to the regular North Vietnamese army as happened in 1975 after the long bloodbath. The number of civilian casualties would have been miniscule and those among the military on both sides may likely have totaled less than around 20,000. That would have been by far the lesser of two evils.

The result of Western intervention was NOT worth the cost.
I don't trust the Communists estimates. They are liars. you also forgot the numbers that would have died had Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia fell. They would have fallen to Communism had Vietnam fell in 1965 because as LKY said they were weak then and did not have the time to put their houses in order. The 10-year reprieve gave them the time to do that. Thus the American intervention saved Thai, Malaysian, Singaporean and Indonesian lives. The intervention was indeed worth the cost.

cassowary wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:33 am
....gave time for SE Asian nations to put their houses in order. This saved SE Asia from Socialism/Communism.
Well, I question whether that was true. The big turnaround came about when the largest and most populous of the south east Asian states, Indonesia, underwent the Suharto military coup followed by the upheaval throughout the archipelago that came in its wake and took over half a million lives. Indonesia had purged itself of its local Communists (the PKI) in an immense bloodbath. Meantime, over the 1950's the (ethnic Chinese) insurgency in Malaya-Singapore had been defeated with a lot of help from the UK, Australia and New Zealand with surprisingly few casualties among local civilians and fighters alike - even before the Vietnam War (as we know it) got underway. That leaves only Thailand and woeful Burma. The former neutered its Communist insurgency WITHOUT outside help whilst Burma to my understand never had a Communist insurgency.

In summary: the "domino effect" of the south east Asian states one by one "going Communist" (to use jargon from the 1960's) was nothing but a baseless myth.
Had Vietnam fell in 1965, there would have renewed Communist agitation in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and even the Philippines. Their weak regimes would have fallen. That is the view of LKY. It is a "what if" question that is difficult to prove. But I trust LKY's judgment since he had a bird's eye view of events during that time.

As for the 1965 Indonesia coup, it took place on October 1 when Indonesian generals were assassinated. The coup was ruthlessly crushed with as you said a massacre. But US escalation in Vietnam began in March of 1965 with Operation Rolling Thunder. Had the US not shown resolve in Vietnam, it is unlikely if the counter-coup by Suharto would have succeeded.

Put yourself in the shoes of an Indonesian officer. You have to choose sides. A wrong choice will mean certain death or at least life imprisonment in miserable conditions. US help for anti-Communist forces in the region encouraged the officers to choose the anti-communist side. That was why the Communist coup in Indonesia failed.

neverfail
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by neverfail » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:06 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am

His perspicacity has been proven by the wise decisions he made that led to Singapore becoming a First World nation. So I believe he was correct in his assessment that the US involvement in Vietnam saved us all. You lack the wisdom to see what LKY and I can see.


Lee, from his perch of political strongman and unassailable quasi-dictator (latter-day Confucian emperor in hallowed Chinese tradition? ;) :) ) of Singapore may well have implemented some good policies that Singapore benefits from to this day: but does this mean that them man's judgement was infallible?

Perhaps you might consider becoming a freethinker and by so doing cease letting the ghost of LKY do all of your thinking for you.

neverfail
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by neverfail » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:47 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am


Why? I will tell you why. Because the alternative - Socialist/Communist rule was far far worse. S Korea was at first led by a dictator duriing and after the war. But it evolved into a prosperous democracy under American protection. The same should have happened had the US troops, like in S Korea, remained in South Vietnam. South Vietnam would have become like South Korea today.
idle speculation on your part Cass. Vietnam is not Korea.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am
Leftist always point to weaknesses on US and its allies but not on Socialist/Communist regimes which are always far, far worse. Why the double standards? Why set a high standard for the US and its allies and an incredibly low standard for the regimes of fellow Socialists?
Please do not label me a "socialist" or a "lefty" because I beg to differ.
Australia was not even invited to send troops at first. The Saigon regime only wanted Americans, not Australians, to pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them. So at the request of our government of the day the US prevailed upon Saigon to forward an official letter of invitation to the Australian government requesting that they also send soldiers to help out. The Prime Minister of the day (R G Menzies) tabled that letter in Parliament fully a day AFTER it announced its decision to send Australian troops to Vietnam (i.e. before we had even been formally invited). Such was the eagerness of our government NOT to save South Vietnam from Communism per se as much as to demonstrate to the Americans what a wonderfully loyal ally the USA had in Australia. The duplicity and deception involved there was enough to render our gesture morally bankrupt.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am
All this is irrelevant to the question as to whether fighting to save S Vietnam from Socialism/Communism was a noble cause. R G Menzies may or may not have been dishonest. I don't know. But even if you are right, it was a noble cause to stop the spread of Communism which never fails to result in poverty, dictatorships and mass murders.
"Noble" cause? There was nothing noble about the brutal, savage way the US military conducted itself in the prosecution of that war. I do not even believe that the US military people sent to Indochina really believed in what they were doing there. So they made up for low morale on their own side (reflected by the widespread use of hard narcotic drugs and dope by US soldiers there) by using inordinate amounts of explosive ordinance. A big, lethal fireworks display as a smokescreen for lack of a real commitment.

With a liar like Johnson as their Commander in Chief I cannot say I entirely blame them.

The fact that LBJ in the US and Menzies in Australia employed lies and deception in order to get boots on the ground in Indochina is very relevant. Lies and deception from on high undermine public trust and confidence in the government and (by implication) bring government policy into disrepute.

Cass; stop blaming the anti-war movement on "lefties" - the likes of crackpots Jane Fonda. I did not join the anti-Vietnam war protest movement in my country but knew umpteen people who did. None of them (save possibly one) would have wanted to live under a Communist regime themselves. You give the likes of Jane Fonda credit for too much influence far beyond the miniscule amount these individuals had.

The anti-Vietnam war movement was an understandable public revolt against untrustworthy government and its shabby, shady policies that these governments had failed to justify to public opinion. it was the victims of the 'death ballot'; the bereaved families of the hapless conscript soldiers as the death toll mounted along with their many sympathisers among the general public who, I assure you, were the driving force behind the anti-war movement and NOT (as you presume) socialists in Western countries sympathetic to fellow socialists in Indochina.

If Lee felt 'sick in the stomach' at that gathering in the United States it was most likely because he has suddenly come to the realisation that a public revolt was setting in there against having to fight futile wars for manipulative regimes in distant south east asia who lacked the popular support and loyalty of their own peoples sufficient to fight their own wars for themselves. :lol: All very well if you can fox white foreigners into doing it all for you, eh?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Russia is screwed

Post by cassowary » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:19 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:47 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am


Why? I will tell you why. Because the alternative - Socialist/Communist rule was far far worse. S Korea was at first led by a dictator duriing and after the war. But it evolved into a prosperous democracy under American protection. The same should have happened had the US troops, like in S Korea, remained in South Vietnam. South Vietnam would have become like South Korea today.
idle speculation on your part Cass. Vietnam is not Korea.
Culturally, they are similar. Both are Confucianist societies. So the likelihood of success for South Vietnam was high provided it remained under US protection like South Korea. The leftists opposed the war and wanted the US to get out. Under US protection, South Korea became as prosperous capitalist democracy.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am
Leftist always point to weaknesses on US and its allies but not on Socialist/Communist regimes which are always far, far worse. Why the double standards? Why set a high standard for the US and its allies and an incredibly low standard for the regimes of fellow Socialists?
Please do not label me a "socialist" or a "lefty" because I beg to differ.
How would you describe yourself? Whatever you are, why do you have a double standard?
Australia was not even invited to send troops at first. The Saigon regime only wanted Americans, not Australians, to pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them. So at the request of our government of the day the US prevailed upon Saigon to forward an official letter of invitation to the Australian government requesting that they also send soldiers to help out. The Prime Minister of the day (R G Menzies) tabled that letter in Parliament fully a day AFTER it announced its decision to send Australian troops to Vietnam (i.e. before we had even been formally invited). Such was the eagerness of our government NOT to save South Vietnam from Communism per se as much as to demonstrate to the Americans what a wonderfully loyal ally the USA had in Australia. The duplicity and deception involved there was enough to render our gesture morally bankrupt.
cassowary wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:51 am
All this is irrelevant to the question as to whether fighting to save S Vietnam from Socialism/Communism was a noble cause. R G Menzies may or may not have been dishonest. I don't know. But even if you are right, it was a noble cause to stop the spread of Communism which never fails to result in poverty, dictatorships and mass murders.
"Noble" cause? There was nothing noble about the brutal, savage way the US military conducted itself in the prosecution of that war.


So was WWII which saw the detonation of two nuclear bombs on the Japanese. It also saw the firebombing of Dresden which killed a similar number of Germans. All wars are brutal, Neverfail. But the cause was noble. Do you consider stopping Communism to be a noble cause? Or do you secretly wish for the left to win?

The anti-Vietnam war movement was an understandable public revolt against untrustworthy government and its shabby, shady policies that these governments had failed to justify to public opinion.


The anti-war movement was led by Socialists who wanted N Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge to win. The rest were "useful idiots."

Post Reply