3 ms·

The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fa

by b112 2mo ago

The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace. And yet, the poster you're replying to said no such thing. Not even close. They merely said they wanted help repelling an enemy. You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. edit -- Re your response. Were they ordered to rape and pillage by their full chain of command? Or were they acting illegally, regardless of the outcome? Would a military in a dictatorship have deemed that "illegal"? What about 200 years ago? 1000? You seem to be ignoring the concept of comparables. And taking acts that the military itself teaches its own soldiers, was wrong. It's good to have principles. And good to defend them. But if you ignore what others are saying, and the context of their words, you start to slide into zealoty.

ElProlactin 2mo ago
> You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US. On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violating the Selective Service Act and millions more found a way not to go to Vietnam through deferments and exemptions. It's both amusing and sad that there are some people (like you) who 50 years later can't see what was apparent to so many people at the time. > The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. That's right. Those pesky Vietnamese villagers just wouldn't let American GIs stop torching their villages, gang-raping their women and children, and executing them. The American military was trying to leave but spreading democracy demanded sacrifice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
- spwa4 2mo ago
  How is any of this a response to my claim: "The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets." None of anything you guys have said even attempts to dispute that. The Vietnamese did not want Vietcong rule. Not in the North, not in the South. And that this shamed (or whatever your claim is) some ideology, probably your ideology, does not change that. The Vietcong "had to" do incredibly cruel and horrible things to force the loyalty of citizens. They emptied orphanages, executing kids and even babies, in the middle of the street, slowly, one by one, to "ensure loyalty". That is who you're dealing with here. This goes for A LOT of the parties that socialism supported, especially in Asia. And elsewhere. Socialism has always been enforced by terror, from the red terror in Russia to China's Public Security Bureaus. You might be right that that does not make the other side 100% good. But you should not get confused. Comparing US, including all the atrocities it committed, to the Vietcong? No sane person has to think even 1 second about that comparison: USA! USA! USA! I certainly do not always agree with what the US government does, the more recent the actions, the less I agree, but that does not bring it even close to the level of the Vietcong. And that this does not fit your ideology? Tough. Was USA behavior very inconvenient, even unfair, to the people executing children? You know perfectly well how sorry you should feel about that. But we all know: that's just not what you care about.
  - switchbak 2mo ago
    You know, you had a bunch of statements in a row, in what appeared to be someone trying to make a point. And then you said "USA! USA! USA!" ... what in the actual fuck are you trying to achieve with that? "Was USA behavior very inconvenient" - inconvenient? Inconvenient for the people of El Salvador to have roaming contras, funded and trained in the USA terrorizing the countryside and killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocent civilians. You sure do have a way with words. But by all means, "USA!".
inigyou 2mo ago
Have you really backslid from "modern militaries don't rape and pillage" to "modern militaries rape and pillage, but it doesn't count because it's illegal"?
- b112 2mo ago
  Backslid? What on Earth are you talking about? If you read carefully, when pulled into deeper nuance, I'm consistently discussing what is legal behaviour for that military. Yes, there is a difference between "that military itself calls that act illegal" and "that military says it's OK to engage in that act". A massive difference. And at no point did I lump all "modern militaries" together. In fact I specifically talked about democracies vs dictatorships in modern times, too. So you're confusing "modern militaries rape and pillage" with "militaries' members rarely perform ilegal acts, and rape and pillage". Or are you trying to claim it's standing, legal, normal operating procedure for the US military to rape? Are you? Because with the framing you're using, that's what you're apparently trying to build here.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Backtracked was the intended word

by b112 2mo ago

ElProlactin 2mo ago

> You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US. On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violating the Selective Service Act and millions more found a way not to go to Vietnam through deferments and exemptions. It's both amusing and sad that there are some people (like you) who 50 years later can't see what was apparent to so many people at the time. > The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in. That's right. Those pesky Vietnamese villagers just wouldn't let American GIs stop torching their villages, gang-raping their women and children, and executing them. The American military was trying to leave but spreading democracy demanded sacrifice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

spwa4 2mo ago
How is any of this a response to my claim: "The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets." None of anything you guys have said even attempts to dispute that. The Vietnamese did not want Vietcong rule. Not in the North, not in the South. And that this shamed (or whatever your claim is) some ideology, probably your ideology, does not change that. The Vietcong "had to" do incredibly cruel and horrible things to force the loyalty of citizens. They emptied orphanages, executing kids and even babies, in the middle of the street, slowly, one by one, to "ensure loyalty". That is who you're dealing with here. This goes for A LOT of the parties that socialism supported, especially in Asia. And elsewhere. Socialism has always been enforced by terror, from the red terror in Russia to China's Public Security Bureaus. You might be right that that does not make the other side 100% good. But you should not get confused. Comparing US, including all the atrocities it committed, to the Vietcong? No sane person has to think even 1 second about that comparison: USA! USA! USA! I certainly do not always agree with what the US government does, the more recent the actions, the less I agree, but that does not bring it even close to the level of the Vietcong. And that this does not fit your ideology? Tough. Was USA behavior very inconvenient, even unfair, to the people executing children? You know perfectly well how sorry you should feel about that. But we all know: that's just not what you care about.
- switchbak 2mo ago
  You know, you had a bunch of statements in a row, in what appeared to be someone trying to make a point. And then you said "USA! USA! USA!" ... what in the actual fuck are you trying to achieve with that? "Was USA behavior very inconvenient" - inconvenient? Inconvenient for the people of El Salvador to have roaming contras, funded and trained in the USA terrorizing the countryside and killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocent civilians. You sure do have a way with words. But by all means, "USA!".

inigyou 2mo ago

Have you really backslid from "modern militaries don't rape and pillage" to "modern militaries rape and pillage, but it doesn't count because it's illegal"?

b112 2mo ago
Backslid? What on Earth are you talking about? If you read carefully, when pulled into deeper nuance, I'm consistently discussing what is legal behaviour for that military. Yes, there is a difference between "that military itself calls that act illegal" and "that military says it's OK to engage in that act". A massive difference. And at no point did I lump all "modern militaries" together. In fact I specifically talked about democracies vs dictatorships in modern times, too. So you're confusing "modern militaries rape and pillage" with "militaries' members rarely perform ilegal acts, and rape and pillage". Or are you trying to claim it's standing, legal, normal operating procedure for the US military to rape? Are you? Because with the framing you're using, that's what you're apparently trying to build here.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Backtracked was the intended word