3 ms·

As someone in the same situation I find this opinion to be equivalent to a Vietnamese man telling everyone he is reminded of the Vietnam war on the day that Bar

As someone in the same situation I find this opinion to be equivalent to a Vietnamese man telling everyone he is reminded of the Vietnam war on the day that Barack Obama dies.

moomoo11 4y ago
Onewildgamer 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago
  Then how about a Vietnamese person getting upset about Emmanuel Macron? The French ruled Vietnam even more harshly than the British did India and did it for almost 100 years. They extracted everything they could economically, prevent any Vietnam from gaining anything more than token power. Then fought a war to keep their colony that killed millions of Vietnamese.
  - Onewildgamer 4y ago
    Why not try their monarch? if they've abolished that system they're more modern than the Brits. If they're irrelevant, that's probably the right place. Which is what I say of the British monarchs, they should be irrelevant but their society hangs on nostalgia and influences the same through the media while conveniently forgetting the past. I don't see any other monarch's death being in the news and the public crying, some thoughts for you.
shmde 4y ago
- bodge5000 4y ago
  Is this to imply that a country has nothing to gain by going to war with another country? Obviously not, war costs billions, and the US wasn't directly (or arguably indirectly) under threat from vietnam, so there wasn't any reason to engage in war unless they had something to gain (or fear losing, which seems just as bad). Going by the logic that the US had something to gain in engaging with war in Vietnam, or any of the other many places they've done so, it stands to reason that future presidents would benefit from it. Maybe not in extracted wealth, but to say anything goes unless its directly earning money from it seems a bit odd.
- fareesh 4y ago
  The Queen is a symbol of the UK's terrible past just as much as Barack Obama is a symbol of the USA's terrible past. In fact, the Queen was a figurehead and had zero authority over any decisions that the British government made. Nobody chooses to be born into their specific circumstances. Barack Obama overcame all of the circumstances of his birth and became more powerful than the Queen, who gained her position by birthright. Scoffing at someone for benefiting from the circumstances of their birth is an outdated, pessimistic and cynical worldview in my opinion. It's out of touch with a world where Barack Obama and Rishi Sunak and Leo Varadkar are world leaders. Everyone is free to keep having those views though, I just don't relate at all.
0xAFFFF 4y ago
A lot of colonial atrocities happened during Elizabeth II's reign, directly under her rule. Afaik, Vietnam War was well over when Barack Obama became president.
- fareesh 4y ago
  No analogy is perfect - however the Queen has zero influence over those atrocities. She's a puppet.
  - nojonestownpls 4y ago
    So if she's a puppet that can't really change things for the better, why this enormous thread with so many people gushing over her? If she was just another paper pusher and camera model in a world filled with them (like you seem to be saying), her death isn't one of any significance to humanity. If she was someone who could have used her influence to change things for the better, like Diana would have if she'd been alive - if the Queen was someone who could have done that and didn't, because she didn't want to risk her position, then the anger in this thread is justified and deserved.

As someone in the same situation I find this opinion to be equivalent to a Vietnamese man telling everyone he is reminded of the Vietnam war on the day that Barack Obama dies.

moomoo11 4y ago

Onewildgamer 4y ago

refurb 4y ago
Then how about a Vietnamese person getting upset about Emmanuel Macron? The French ruled Vietnam even more harshly than the British did India and did it for almost 100 years. They extracted everything they could economically, prevent any Vietnam from gaining anything more than token power. Then fought a war to keep their colony that killed millions of Vietnamese.
- Onewildgamer 4y ago
  Why not try their monarch? if they've abolished that system they're more modern than the Brits. If they're irrelevant, that's probably the right place. Which is what I say of the British monarchs, they should be irrelevant but their society hangs on nostalgia and influences the same through the media while conveniently forgetting the past. I don't see any other monarch's death being in the news and the public crying, some thoughts for you.

shmde 4y ago

bodge5000 4y ago
Is this to imply that a country has nothing to gain by going to war with another country? Obviously not, war costs billions, and the US wasn't directly (or arguably indirectly) under threat from vietnam, so there wasn't any reason to engage in war unless they had something to gain (or fear losing, which seems just as bad). Going by the logic that the US had something to gain in engaging with war in Vietnam, or any of the other many places they've done so, it stands to reason that future presidents would benefit from it. Maybe not in extracted wealth, but to say anything goes unless its directly earning money from it seems a bit odd.
fareesh 4y ago
The Queen is a symbol of the UK's terrible past just as much as Barack Obama is a symbol of the USA's terrible past. In fact, the Queen was a figurehead and had zero authority over any decisions that the British government made. Nobody chooses to be born into their specific circumstances. Barack Obama overcame all of the circumstances of his birth and became more powerful than the Queen, who gained her position by birthright. Scoffing at someone for benefiting from the circumstances of their birth is an outdated, pessimistic and cynical worldview in my opinion. It's out of touch with a world where Barack Obama and Rishi Sunak and Leo Varadkar are world leaders. Everyone is free to keep having those views though, I just don't relate at all.

0xAFFFF 4y ago

A lot of colonial atrocities happened during Elizabeth II's reign, directly under her rule. Afaik, Vietnam War was well over when Barack Obama became president.

fareesh 4y ago
No analogy is perfect - however the Queen has zero influence over those atrocities. She's a puppet.
- nojonestownpls 4y ago
  So if she's a puppet that can't really change things for the better, why this enormous thread with so many people gushing over her? If she was just another paper pusher and camera model in a world filled with them (like you seem to be saying), her death isn't one of any significance to humanity. If she was someone who could have used her influence to change things for the better, like Diana would have if she'd been alive - if the Queen was someone who could have done that and didn't, because she didn't want to risk her position, then the anger in this thread is justified and deserved.