"It's an ill wind....."

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: "It's an ill wind....."

Post by cassowary » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:21 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:04 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:19 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 am
I think it is very difficult to convince a leftist that the US intervention in Vietnam was a noble deed. That’s because leftists see any attempt to implement Socialism as something noble though moderates now admit it failed because it was unworkable. (There are still diehards like Sertorio who still want to try Socialism.) Thus they see America’s attempt to thwart the spread of Socialism/Communism as evil or morally wrong.

While the leftist usually reject and appalled by the millions killed by their ideological kindred, they put it down to failure to implement Socialism properly. It’s just the method of doing it that was wrong, not the goal of Socialism itself.

This is the main source of anti-Americanism, even from Americans.
You will never understand this, but socialism is simply promoting human rights for all. Right to life, right to access to food and shelter, right to health care, right to an education, right to social security, right to a clean environment, right to self rule... When you are agains socialism, you are just saying that you don't care if some - many - people do not have access to those rights. No wonder you are so pro-American.
You will never understand this. But the RESULTS of Socialism is the trampling of human rights, needless deaths, lack of education, no social security, polluted environment, dictatorship and foreign control.

Exhibit A is Venezuela. Chavez and his successor, Maduro tried to implement Socialism. Look what happened. Poverty and a dictatorship propped up by foreign troops. Breakdown in healthcare system. People eating from garbage cans.

We both want the same thing. A well fed, educated healthy population with human rights. This requires the generation of wealth. It is capitalism that generates wealth. Socialism does the opposite.

You see the stated goals of Socialism. I see the results.
One more thing.

I think it’s hard for you to admit that you wasted your long life supporting a ideology that produced the opposite of what you wanted, despite its stated goals.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The Americans bungled the politics.

Post by neverfail » Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:42 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:12 pm

The Communists fighting in the jungle of Malaya also claimed to be nationalists, fighting against colonialism. It’s just propaganda.
In their case probably true. As the Malaya insurgents were almost to a man comprised of Straits Chinese (and led by one) they were arguably unrepresentative of society as a whole. Further, as the British were already in the process of relinquishing their control over Malaya-Singapore to sovereign independence the Communist claim would just have likely lacked credibility.

But in Vietnam it was not mere window dressing propaganda but the real thing. The roots of the North Vietnam republic lay in the armed insurgency struggle (1946-54) by the Viet Minh to evict the French when these attempted to re-impose colonial rule back on Indochina by force of arms (beginning with the seaborne shelling of the port of Haiphong). The Vietnamese no longer wanted the French as their colonial rulers and had set up their own civil administration in the interim 6 months between the Japanese surrender and the return of the French.

The post-WW2 return of the French was an invasion. The Vietnamese had a right to fight back. It was Ho Chi Minh who gave them the leadership and General Vo Nguyen Giap who devised the successful war strategy to do it. Both were Marxists.

Move on to the 1965 to 1972 conflict in the South and time after time Viet Cong insurgents from the rural villages (peasant youth) were captured and interrogated by South Vietnamese and American troops. Time and again it was discovered that they had never heard of Marx or Lenin and had not a clue what the word "dialectic" meant. As far as they were concerned they were patriots fighting for their country against invasive foreigners.

The way the Americans went on in South Vietnam must have given many Vietnamese the impression of a foreign occupation.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2670
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: "It's an ill wind....."

Post by Sertorio » Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:12 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:04 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:19 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 am
I think it is very difficult to convince a leftist that the US intervention in Vietnam was a noble deed. That’s because leftists see any attempt to implement Socialism as something noble though moderates now admit it failed because it was unworkable. (There are still diehards like Sertorio who still want to try Socialism.) Thus they see America’s attempt to thwart the spread of Socialism/Communism as evil or morally wrong.

While the leftist usually reject and appalled by the millions killed by their ideological kindred, they put it down to failure to implement Socialism properly. It’s just the method of doing it that was wrong, not the goal of Socialism itself.

This is the main source of anti-Americanism, even from Americans.
You will never understand this, but socialism is simply promoting human rights for all. Right to life, right to access to food and shelter, right to health care, right to an education, right to social security, right to a clean environment, right to self rule... When you are agains socialism, you are just saying that you don't care if some - many - people do not have access to those rights. No wonder you are so pro-American.
You will never understand this. But the RESULTS of Socialism is the trampling of human rights, needless deaths, lack of education, no social security, polluted environment, dictatorship and foreign control.

Exhibit A is Venezuela. Chavez and his successor, Maduro tried to implement Socialism. Look what happened. Poverty and a dictatorship propped up by foreign troops. Breakdown in healthcare system. People eating from garbage cans.

We both want the same thing. A well fed, educated healthy population with human rights. This requires the generation of wealth. It is capitalism that generates wealth. Socialism does the opposite.

You see the stated goals of Socialism. I see the results.
Capitalism doesn't give a damn about human rights. Just look at the US.

User avatar
armchair_pundit
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: "It's an ill wind....."

Post by armchair_pundit » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:06 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:12 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:04 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:19 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 am
I think it is very difficult to convince a leftist that the US intervention in Vietnam was a noble deed. That’s because leftists see any attempt to implement Socialism as something noble though moderates now admit it failed because it was unworkable. (There are still diehards like Sertorio who still want to try Socialism.) Thus they see America’s attempt to thwart the spread of Socialism/Communism as evil or morally wrong.

While the leftist usually reject and appalled by the millions killed by their ideological kindred, they put it down to failure to implement Socialism properly. It’s just the method of doing it that was wrong, not the goal of Socialism itself.

This is the main source of anti-Americanism, even from Americans.
You will never understand this, but socialism is simply promoting human rights for all. Right to life, right to access to food and shelter, right to health care, right to an education, right to social security, right to a clean environment, right to self rule... When you are agains socialism, you are just saying that you don't care if some - many - people do not have access to those rights. No wonder you are so pro-American.
You will never understand this. But the RESULTS of Socialism is the trampling of human rights, needless deaths, lack of education, no social security, polluted environment, dictatorship and foreign control.

Exhibit A is Venezuela. Chavez and his successor, Maduro tried to implement Socialism. Look what happened. Poverty and a dictatorship propped up by foreign troops. Breakdown in healthcare system. People eating from garbage cans.

We both want the same thing. A well fed, educated healthy population with human rights. This requires the generation of wealth. It is capitalism that generates wealth. Socialism does the opposite.

You see the stated goals of Socialism. I see the results.
Capitalism doesn't give a damn about human rights. Just look at the US.
That's the stupidest comment you've made in awhile... You always deflect any serious challenge to your strawmen with a, but, but the US... might as well be, but, but Trump, like the lefties here do.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Americans bungled the politicr

Post by cassowary » Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:52 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:42 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:12 pm

The Communists fighting in the jungle of Malaya also claimed to be nationalists, fighting against colonialism. It’s just propaganda.
In their case probably true. As the Malaya insurgents were almost to a man comprised of Straits Chinese (and led by one) they were arguably unrepresentative of society as a whole. Further, as the British were already in the process of relinquishing their control over Malaya-Singapore to sovereign independence the Communist claim would just have likely lacked credibility.

But in Vietnam it was not mere window dressing propaganda but the real thing. The roots of the North Vietnam republic lay in the armed insurgency struggle (1946-54) by the Viet Minh to evict the French when these attempted to re-impose colonial rule back on Indochina by force of arms (beginning with the seaborne shelling of the port of Haiphong). The Vietnamese no longer wanted the French as their colonial rulers and had set up their own civil administration in the interim 6 months between the Japanese surrender and the return of the French.

The post-WW2 return of the French was an invasion. The Vietnamese had a right to fight back. It was Ho Chi Minh who gave them the leadership and General Vo Nguyen Giap who devised the successful war strategy to do it. Both were Marxists.

Move on to the 1965 to 1972 conflict in the South and time after time Viet Cong insurgents from the rural villages (peasant youth) were captured and interrogated by South Vietnamese and American troops. Time and again it was discovered that they had never heard of Marx or Lenin and had not a clue what the word "dialectic" meant. As far as they were concerned they were patriots fighting for their country against invasive foreigners.

The way the Americans went on in South Vietnam must have given many Vietnamese the impression of a foreign occupation.
If you care to read “The jungle is neutral”, and other books, you will find that Chin Peng did recruit Malays. But following setbacks, he lost the Malay wing and his insurgents became wholly Chinese. He like Ho Chi Minh also fought against the Japanese and later the British when they returned.

So Chin Peng claimed to be a nationalist fighting Japanese and British colonialism just like Ho Chi Minh. But both men and their parties were also Socialists/Communists and received help from China. Chin was defeated while Ho triumphed. Malaya and Singapore became prosperous democracies while Indo-China went to hell. Millions died in Cambodian killing fields and drowned in leaky Vietnamese boats.

We would have shared the latter’s fate had the British and Commonwealth forces not persevered during and after the 12 year Malayan Emergency. Many of Chin Peng’s troops also never heard of Marx. Marxist ideology was incomprehensible to illiterate rural youths. But that did not matter. The leadership was convinced of Marxist ideas and would have implemented Socialism had they won. We would be either dead like one third of Cambodians under Pol Pot or have become like the Vietnamese boat people and gone to Australia.

Say, I might have become Neverfail’s neighbour. America was only trying to give the South Vietnamese the same thing we now have in Malaysia and Singapore - peace, prosperity and a degree of democracy. I think their intentions were noble.

............".....................................................................................................

The Malayan Emergency was declared over in 1960 but it was not really over. It was declared over for political reasons. Communist forces made a strong offensive in 1967 after a period of quiet.

US presence in Vietnam only lasted 10 years from 1965 to 1975. That’s too short a time to deal with an enemy that was easily supplied from China. In contrast, British and Commonwealth stayed for twenty years.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: "It's an ill wind....."

Post by cassowary » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:49 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:12 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:04 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:19 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 am
I think it is very difficult to convince a leftist that the US intervention in Vietnam was a noble deed. That’s because leftists see any attempt to implement Socialism as something noble though moderates now admit it failed because it was unworkable. (There are still diehards like Sertorio who still want to try Socialism.) Thus they see America’s attempt to thwart the spread of Socialism/Communism as evil or morally wrong.

While the leftist usually reject and appalled by the millions killed by their ideological kindred, they put it down to failure to implement Socialism properly. It’s just the method of doing it that was wrong, not the goal of Socialism itself.

This is the main source of anti-Americanism, even from Americans.
You will never understand this, but socialism is simply promoting human rights for all. Right to life, right to access to food and shelter, right to health care, right to an education, right to social security, right to a clean environment, right to self rule... When you are agains socialism, you are just saying that you don't care if some - many - people do not have access to those rights. No wonder you are so pro-American.
You will never understand this. But the RESULTS of Socialism is the trampling of human rights, needless deaths, lack of education, no social security, polluted environment, dictatorship and foreign control.

Exhibit A is Venezuela. Chavez and his successor, Maduro tried to implement Socialism. Look what happened. Poverty and a dictatorship propped up by foreign troops. Breakdown in healthcare system. People eating from garbage cans.

We both want the same thing. A well fed, educated healthy population with human rights. This requires the generation of wealth. It is capitalism that generates wealth. Socialism does the opposite.

You see the stated goals of Socialism. I see the results.
Capitalism doesn't give a damn about human rights. Just look at the US.
Really? I never knew. What human rights abuse did the US do? Was it some thing like the Great Purge done by your ideological kin, Joe Stalin. An estimated 850,000 people were executed by Joe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: In Malaya the British got the politics right?

Post by neverfail » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:49 pm

I must at this juncture pay you tribute. You are very good about airbrushing out inconvenient details of history;, garbling together unrelated events in order to prove your point. But being clever at advocacy does not make you right. :)

I will probably need to devote at least two successive posts to clear away the main errors projected via your rant.
cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:52 am


If you care to read “The jungle is neutral”, and other books, you will find that Chin Peng did recruit Malays. But following setbacks, he lost the Malay wing and his insurgents became wholly Chinese. He like Ho Chi Minh also fought against the Japanese and later the British when they returned.
I know from one of your previous posts that Chin Peng initially did recruit Malays as well as Chinese but I do not believe that it was because of "setbacks" (you are vague about that) that prompted the Malays to part company as you allege. I believe that such a split was inevitable.

The period between the two World Wars appears to have been a time of rising nationalism throughout colonial Asia. The natives must have discovered that their white rulers were not the demigods they had previously assumed they were. However in Vietnam only one unitary nationalism arose; that of the Vietnamese themselves. In Vietnam the Chinese minority was demographically small and all others were insignificant.

The problem in Malaya-Singapore is that TWO separate, incompatible nationalisms must have arisen: that of the Straits Chinese and that of the Malays. Unfortunately for Chin Peng the realization must have set in that "dialectic materialism" in socialist jargon meant mandatory atheism in practice: possibly acceptable to Chinese with their tradition of agnostic philosophy behind them but anathema to all true Muslim believers. News of Stalinist repression of religion, including that of their Muslim brothers in Soviet Central Asia may well have filtered through to them as well.

Of course the British would have quickly realized the potential in that split and employed it to isolate Communist support to within the Chinese community - grist to their mill. I do not believe that the British and their Commonwealth allies could have won the war against the insurgents were it not for the support lent by the Malays. Any more than the Malays could have won off their own bat unassisted by outsiders.

That might also explain why when the British left they saddled Malaysia with a constitution that vested institutionalized political power permanently in Malay hands. A one-off payment for services rendered perhaps?

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: "It's an ill wind....."

Post by Jim the Moron » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:01 pm

Chin Peng was perhaps the greatest of Malaysian patriots. He led the fight against the Japanese occupation, and then the fight against British occupation. Politics be damned. Malaysian authorities won't even allow his ashes to be returned from Thailand for interment in his beloved Malaya.

neverfail
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: With Vietnam the Americans bungled the politics.

Post by neverfail » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:50 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:52 am

We would have shared the latter’s fate had the British and Commonwealth forces not persevered during and after the 12 year Malayan Emergency.The leadership was convinced of Marxist ideas and would have implemented Socialism had they won.
A fair and reasonable supposition Cass. But are assuming a lot in presuming that the effects would automatically have been the same as in parts of former french Indochina.
cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:52 am
We would be either dead like one third of Cambodians under Pol Pot or have become like the Vietnamese boat people and gone to Australia.
Let us disentangle this garble. Vietnam is NOT Cambodia and never was - and vice versa. There was no killing fields scenario of mass murder in hateful retribution against perceived former opponents in Vietnam as there was in Pol Pots Cambodia (or Kampuchea, as the bastard renamed his country). Of course having conquered Saigon in 1975 they rounded up every known supporter of the extinguished Saigon regime and sent them off to "re-education (i.e. forced labour) camps" in the highland back-blocks to work at clearing jungle then growing subsistence food on the cleared plots of land (could you have seriously expected the victors to have done otherwise?) . After the War there was bound to be a severe economic downturn even without the usual socialist mismanagement (like the organizing of state-owned collective farms) so it was not only the defeated who suffered privation in the years after.

I know from the character of the intake of boat people refugees into this country in the late 1970's into the early 1980's is that, compared to the pro-rata in the population back in Vietnam two groups were represented disproportionately. The first were Sino-Vietnamese and the second were Vietnamese Catholics. I am not suggesting that mixed among the refugees there were an not a certain number of former Viet Cong supporters who subsequently became disillusioned with Hanoi's policies. But Vietnamese Catholics were the very backbone of support for the South Vietnam regime.

Ngo Diem Diem, the founder and dictator of the illegitimate Republic of (South) Vietnam was a Catholic and after the Communist victory at Dienbienphu I believe that he led a column of around one million co-confessionals from future North Vietnam down to the (initially French protectorate) of the south for sanctuary and resettlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

I take note of the fact that the exodus of Vietnamese boat people/refugees only got underway in earnest about 1978 and picked up speed in the following years. This would have coincided with the end of their 2 year compulsory stints in the "re-education camps" up in the highlands back into a new order that had no honorable place for them. As for the Chinese, in Saigon before the Communist takeover I believe that their triads ran the rackets (narcotic drugs, prostitution, extortion of protection money from honesty businessmen) that made them unloved.

Summary: compared to Pol Pot's Cambodia (and for that matter the USSR under Stalin and the PRC under Mao) what strikes me about the track record of Communist Party rule in Vietnam since reunification has been how relatively benign it has been.
cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:52 am
Say, I might have become Neverfail’s neighbour.
You would hope in vain Cass. The bad news is that the years of your Malaya emergency coincided with the final two decades when the White Australia doctrine was rigidly applied to our immigration intake. You would not have been permitted to enter this country for resettlement. Indeed, the influx of the Vietnamese boat people might have been with hindsight the final nail in the coffin of our White Australia doctrine of yore.
cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:52 am
America was only trying to give the South Vietnamese the same thing we now have in Malaysia and Singapore - peace, prosperity and a degree of democracy. I think their intentions were noble.
It demonstrates the verity in the old truism that 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

The Yanks blundered their way into the Vietnam quagmire, ignorant of the country and its needs, blindly like a herd of stampeding elephants. They did so devoid of any plan for its salvation that could possibly work.

neverfail
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: "It's an ill wind....."

Post by neverfail » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:59 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:01 pm
Chin Peng was perhaps the greatest of Malaysian patriots. He led the fight against the Japanese occupation, and then the fight against British occupation. Politics be damned. Malaysian authorities won't even allow his ashes to be returned from Thailand for interment in his beloved Malaya.
:shock: "British occupation" my fat Aunt Fanny's bum-hole!

In 1947 the UK had already granted sovereign independence to India so it was only a matter of time before they did the same for their other Asian colonies. Chin Peng would have been better advised to go into peaceful politics to lobby the British for the best deal he possibly could have instead of trying to do a junior Chairman Mao in attempting to lead a subversive civil war against the authority of temporary British rule.

Post Reply