|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 19, 2011 14:10:55 GMT -5
I'd say it boils down to 3 factors:
1. We aren't bringing full force to bear.
2. It's more guerilla warfare.
3. We don't have backing from the other powers.
All of those helped to deliver a decisive victory in WWII. But guerilla warfare is hard to stamp out, especially if you're holding back, which you're likely to do if (A) the people aren't big on the war & (B) the rest of the world is looking down its nose at you.
I also wouldn't ignore the country itself. Surely, at some point, they realized that they were following crazy people & that's why they became cautious about those ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 19, 2011 17:31:00 GMT -5
@ those who have derailed the thread to debate the morality of military interventions against dictatorships: You've brought up something very interesting. The conservatives and the war-hawks know that the Axis Powers of World War II could not have been stopped by anything but all-out war, and, more importantly, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that nowadays Germans are terrified of any Nazi symbolism and Japan has (rather hypocritically, IMHO) become quite anti-war. It is quite reasonable to assume that since military force turned extreme dictatorships into peaceful democratic societies then, that it would work in other circumstances. Thing is, this strategy never worked again, at least not in places that are large enough to really matter in global events. It failed in Vietnam, it's failing in Iraq, and it would likely fail anywhere else we try it, and I would like to know why. I have never received an answer to this question that satisfies me. Any thoughts? Germany and Japan were expansionary, conventional, first-world powers with no history of oppression or occupation. Many, perhaps most, Germans and Japanese didn't have any particular love for their governments. The fascist governments of those countries, regardless of the rhetoric, did not actually achieve totalitarianism, they were not 'total governments'. So many people, in private, didn't mind if Hitler was replaced with a foreigner. Germany's defence policy was an offence policy. When their conventional army was dead, they had no further plans. Civilian Germans certainly weren't organised, nor willing, to fight in some kind of guerrila campaign. Germany was also highly urbanised, not the case in Vietnam. So many Germans couldn't just slip out and fight in the woods. There was also the sense that Germany had suffered enough. In Vietnam, the zeitgeist was that any occupation would lead to more suffering than just another war. They could do war, they'd been fighting for decades. Germans had never fought on German soil, not for hundreds of years. And the allies, particularly the United States/Britain, had quite a good reputation in Germany so their occupation could be quite harmless. Continued colonialism in Vietnam was, quite rightly, regarded as a tragic catastrophe, an agony that they'd have the end by blood anyway. Might as well do it right away. I think this is all due to Germany being first-world and white, while Vietnam was third-world and asian. Germans knew they wouldn't be turned into a colony, white people don't get turned into colonies. Germany wasn't used to war, they weren't even willing to gear for war and reduce the production of consumer luxuries until 1944. Vietnam's society was wholly, entirely, geared for the fight for independence, because they were perfectly aware that independence was vital for any hope of a prosperous future. All of those helped to deliver a decisive victory in WWII. But guerilla warfare is hard to stamp out, especially if you're holding back, which you're likely to do if (A) the people aren't big on the war & (B) the rest of the world is looking down its nose at you. That's by far the biggest myth of the Vietnam war. The US did not hold back, they bombed everything, shot everyone. There were almost no limits on what force you could use where. Even children could be murdered without consequence. (Also, the US did have allies in vietnam, dammit. Australia, South Korea, New Zealand... We always get ignored. Grrrr). |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 20, 2011 2:17:13 GMT -5
ZOMG! Obama's killing teh Christians!one!!1!
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 20, 2011 10:26:35 GMT -5
I think this is all due to Germany being first-world and white, while Vietnam was third-world and asian. Germans knew they wouldn't be turned into a colony, white people don't get turned into colonies. Germany wasn't used to war, they weren't even willing to gear for war and reduce the production of consumer luxuries until 1944. Vietnam's society was wholly, entirely, geared for the fight for independence, because they were perfectly aware that independence was vital for any hope of a prosperous future. So you are basically saying, Fred, that countries where white people are not in the majority are incapable of democracy. I am sure that that is not what you wanted to imply. And since it is obvious that we can't just sit back and do nothing while governments exist that deny basic freedoms to their own citizens, what do you suppose we do to actually spread democracy? I for one can't stand the fact that only half the world (and that is a high estimate) currently enjoys the rights and freedoms that all human beings should possess no matter what. Yet whenever any countries try to intervene, we get yelled at and screamed at for "making it worse". What, has the world reached equilibrium to the point where further democratization is impossible? Because that would dearly suck. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 20, 2011 10:43:23 GMT -5
I think this is all due to Germany being first-world and white, while Vietnam was third-world and asian. Germans knew they wouldn't be turned into a colony, white people don't get turned into colonies. Germany wasn't used to war, they weren't even willing to gear for war and reduce the production of consumer luxuries until 1944. Vietnam's society was wholly, entirely, geared for the fight for independence, because they were perfectly aware that independence was vital for any hope of a prosperous future. So you are basically saying, Fred, that countries where white people are not in the majority are incapable of democracy. I am sure that that is not what you wanted to imply. And since it is obvious that we can't just sit back and do nothing while governments exist that deny basic freedoms to their own citizens, what do you suppose we do to actually spread democracy? I for one can't stand the fact that only half the world (and that is a high estimate) currently enjoys the rights and freedoms that all human beings should possess no matter what. Yet whenever any countries try to intervene, we get yelled at and screamed at for "making it worse". What, has the world reached equilibrium to the point where further democratization is impossible? Because that would dearly suck. The fuck was that? The Vietnamese, as a whole, did not support us, they wanted a Communist government. They hated us so much they allied themselves with the fucking Chinese (hint: that would be like if Palestinians and Israelis found themselves allied). If anything, we were fighting against democracy because we decided they picked wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 20, 2011 14:59:55 GMT -5
That's by far the biggest myth of the Vietnam war. The US did not hold back, they bombed everything, shot everyone. There were almost no limits on what force you could use where. Even children could be murdered without consequence. Do I really need to spend the thirty seconds to find and cite a source detailing the restrictions ( particularly in regards to the bombing campaign) that congress placed on the military during that war, or will you just admit that you're full of shit? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 20, 2011 15:01:28 GMT -5
So you are basically saying, Fred, that countries where white people are not in the majority are incapable of democracy. I am sure that that is not what you wanted to imply. And since it is obvious that we can't just sit back and do nothing while governments exist that deny basic freedoms to their own citizens, what do you suppose we do to actually spread democracy? I for one can't stand the fact that only half the world (and that is a high estimate) currently enjoys the rights and freedoms that all human beings should possess no matter what. Yet whenever any countries try to intervene, we get yelled at and screamed at for "making it worse". What, has the world reached equilibrium to the point where further democratization is impossible? Because that would dearly suck. The fuck was that? The Vietnamese, as a whole, did not support us, they wanted a Communist government. They hated us so much they allied themselves with the fucking Chinese (hint: that would be like if Palestinians and Israelis found themselves allied). If anything, we were fighting against democracy because we decided they picked wrong. Thats not true. The South vietnamese didn't want a communist government... thats why they were in the South. There is absolutely no excusing the agression of North Vietnam against the South, no matter how much historical revisionism one swallows. The NORTH Vietnamese wanted a communist government, but then, they had one. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 20, 2011 15:09:28 GMT -5
The fuck was that? The Vietnamese, as a whole, did not support us, they wanted a Communist government. They hated us so much they allied themselves with the fucking Chinese (hint: that would be like if Palestinians and Israelis found themselves allied). If anything, we were fighting against democracy because we decided they picked wrong. Thats not true. The South vietnamese didn't want a communist government... thats why they were in the South. There is absolutely no excusing the agression of North Vietnam against the South, no matter how much historical revisionism one swallows. The NORTH Vietnamese wanted a communist government, but then, they had one. That's been refuted somethng like 35, 000 times. The Viet Cong, Southeners, started the war (after Saigon started hunting them down). And they were supported, either voluntarily or by force, by virtually everyone in the South. US and Northern troops ultimately ended up in the South at the same time (1965). There's also the point that the South wasn't an independent country. The Paris Peace Agreement said the country should be unified under elections in the late 50s, elections that the US stopped. It's a bit like accusing Queensland of aggression against Tasmania. That's by far the biggest myth of the Vietnam war. The US did not hold back, they bombed everything, shot everyone. There were almost no limits on what force you could use where. Even children could be murdered without consequence. Do I really need to spend the thirty seconds to find and cite a source detailing the restrictions ( particularly in regards to the bombing campaign) that congress placed on the military during that war, or will you just admit that you're full of shit? There were a few restrictions on the bombing, though only above the border or in the cities. I think this is all due to Germany being first-world and white, while Vietnam was third-world and asian. Germans knew they wouldn't be turned into a colony, white people don't get turned into colonies. Germany wasn't used to war, they weren't even willing to gear for war and reduce the production of consumer luxuries until 1944. Vietnam's society was wholly, entirely, geared for the fight for independence, because they were perfectly aware that independence was vital for any hope of a prosperous future. So you are basically saying, Fred, that countries where white people are not in the majority are incapable of democracy. I think maybe you mean someone else. Or something else. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 20, 2011 15:20:22 GMT -5
Thats not true. The South vietnamese didn't want a communist government... thats why they were in the South. There is absolutely no excusing the agression of North Vietnam against the South, no matter how much historical revisionism one swallows. The NORTH Vietnamese wanted a communist government, but then, they had one. That's been refuted somethng like 35, 000 times. The Viet Cong, Southeners, started the war (after Saigon started hunting them down). US and Northern troops ended up in the South at the same time (1965). There's also the point that the South wasn't an independent country. The Paris Peace Agreement said the country should be unified under elections in the late 50s, elections that the US stopped. It's a bit like accusing Queensland of aggression against Tasmania. Tapdance all you like, the people in the South were in the South because they didn't want a communist government. Neither the North, and especially not the Viet Cong, had any legitimate reason to engage in a military annexation of the South. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 20, 2011 15:29:10 GMT -5
Because blatant lies & empty promises don't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 20, 2011 15:53:59 GMT -5
In fact fred, to use your own analogy... what you seem to be OK with is something similar to; if the Queensland government didn't like the Tasmanian government, it would be OK for the Queenslanders to embark on campaign of terrorism against the Tasmanians (the Viet Cong) and then to militarily annex them (the NVA).
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 21, 2011 3:51:50 GMT -5
That's been refuted somethng like 35, 000 times. The Viet Cong, Southeners, started the war (after Saigon started hunting them down). US and Northern troops ended up in the South at the same time (1965). There's also the point that the South wasn't an independent country. The Paris Peace Agreement said the country should be unified under elections in the late 50s, elections that the US stopped. It's a bit like accusing Queensland of aggression against Tasmania. Tapdance all you like, the people in the South were in the South because they didn't want a communist government. Bulllshit. The people in the south were in the South because they'd been living there for thousands of years. There was never an election held, because the US was scared Ho Chi Minh would win it. So we can't be sure, but there are strong indications that the South wanted to unify. There was no North and South and there was no annexation. It is and has always been all one country, as laid out in the Paris Peace Accord. Perhaps half a dozen countries recognised the existence of the South as an independent country. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 21, 2011 8:19:03 GMT -5
Tapdance all you like, the people in the South were in the South because they didn't want a communist government. Bulllshit. The people in the south were in the South because they'd been living there for thousands of years. There was never an election held, because the US was scared Ho Chi Minh would win it. So we can't be sure, but there are strong indications that the South wanted to unify. There was no North and South and there was no annexation. It is and has always been all one country, as laid out in the Paris Peace Accord. Perhaps half a dozen countries recognised the existence of the South as an independent country. Can't argue with a True Believer *sigh*. I shan't bother you with facts when your mind is clearly made up. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 21, 2011 15:34:57 GMT -5
Bulllshit. The people in the south were in the South because they'd been living there for thousands of years. There was never an election held, because the US was scared Ho Chi Minh would win it. So we can't be sure, but there are strong indications that the South wanted to unify. There was no North and South and there was no annexation. It is and has always been all one country, as laid out in the Paris Peace Accord. Perhaps half a dozen countries recognised the existence of the South as an independent country. Can't argue with a True Believer *sigh*. I shan't bother you with facts when your mind is clearly made up. The is a gross insult and bullshit. I've provided evidence and argument, not just the handwaving of a fanatic. You, on the other hand, have nothing but handwaving. And then you have the temerity to say that I have made my mind up. Yeah, screw you too. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 22, 2011 2:26:44 GMT -5
Sorry you feel insulted, but this isn't "evidence", its fantasy history camp.
|
|
