|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 22, 2011 2:29:16 GMT -5
Sorry you feel insulted, but this isn't "evidence", its fantasy history camp. Clearly the Paris Peace Accord isn't evidence. Only whatever you cited is evidence. OH WAIT. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 22, 2011 2:37:07 GMT -5
Girls, girls, you're both pretty.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 22, 2011 2:46:07 GMT -5
Sorry you feel insulted, but this isn't "evidence", its fantasy history camp. Clearly the Paris Peace Accord isn't evidence. Only whatever you cited is evidence. OH WAIT. Um... you didn't cite the Paris Peace accord, you invoked it, but you didn't actually quote anything from it to support your contention that the North had any legitimate claim over the South. So obviously Phillip Adams' historical Fantasy Camp needs to brush up on its academic instruction, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 22, 2011 3:09:34 GMT -5
Clearly the Paris Peace Accord isn't evidence. Only whatever you cited is evidence. OH WAIT. Um... you didn't cite the Paris Peace accord, you invoked it, but you didn't actually quote anything from it |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 22, 2011 6:09:39 GMT -5
Clearly the Paris Peace Accord isn't evidence. Only whatever you cited is evidence. OH WAIT. Um... you didn't cite the Paris Peace accord, you invoked it, but you didn't actually quote anything from it Riddle me this... why is it that the NORTH is the real country, that got to re-unify with the South, and not the other way around, hmmm? And now, do please explain how you can possibly justify the Norths flagrant breach of the The 'border' was known as a "provisional military demarcation line", "on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal". Final Declaration, Article 6: "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." bits? You know, by, like, invading...? I really don't want to have this conversation with you. I really don't. Like I said, there is no point arguing with ideologically driven True Believers. You want to believe that the Jane Fonda loving North were the good guys, and that the South were evil puppet despots whose people longed for reunification with their socialist brothers to the North, and nothing I can say is likely to change that. Fuck the fact that ARVN was a voluntary force and fought tooth and nail to keep the Cong, and then the NVA out. No, no, obviously the South WANTED to be "liberated". I guess thats why there wasn't a single refugee from the Vietnam conflict either, all the proletariat in the South were so happy to see 390 crash through the gates of the presidential palace. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 22, 2011 10:19:32 GMT -5
What have I done?
|
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 22, 2011 14:06:51 GMT -5
turned yet another thread into a flame war, looks like. Way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 22, 2011 17:06:50 GMT -5
Riddle me this... why is it that the NORTH is the real country, that got to re-unify with the South, and not the other way around, hmmm? Absolutely, I agree. There should have been an election in 1955 and the Vietnamese should have decided who was to run their country. But the US put the kibosh on that and created their own fako-government. The North, at least, weren't run from abroad. It was no such thing. The demarkation line (non-border) existed in order to maintain peace until unification in 1955. Once it was clear that wasn't going to happen, it became an anachronism, which is to say nonexistent. The North couldn't violate the border that didn't exist with a country that wasn't there. Too bad. Indeed it is difficult to get the consensus of history into some people's thick skulls. No, I don't. They were murderous dictatorial bastards (as were the South). But they were still in the right. There was no country called South Vietnam, it was a colony-creation of the US. The country ought to have been unified after elections in 1955. Well, that was the belief of the US State Department in the 1950s. We can't be sure that they were right (because there were no elections or polls), but we can be sure that the Southern Vietnamese absolutely hated the government the US subjected them to. Nup, draftees. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837161,00.html They were famously half-arsed, cursed with super-dooper desertion rates and massive corruption. The most common observation US soldiers made of the ARVN was that they didn't want to be there. Compared to the VC, who were fanatical. There were, of course, refugees from the US war of independence. Clearly they were also in the wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 22, 2011 17:07:52 GMT -5
There were, of course, refugees from the US war of independence. Clearly they were also in the wrong. Well, obviously. Monarchist pricks. There were also quitters in the American Revolution. We called them Kentuckians! |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 22, 2011 18:12:25 GMT -5
I don't think you're using that word correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 22, 2011 23:06:28 GMT -5
I don't think you're using that word correctly. The Partition line was designed for a different time, to seperate French and Vietnamese troops (in order to allow peaceful reunification). By 1955, the French had all buggered off back to France, so the line no longer served any purpose, and therefore did not exist. In this sense it is an anachronism. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 23, 2011 5:17:12 GMT -5
I don't think you're using that word correctly. The Partition line was designed for a different time, to seperate French and Vietnamese troops (in order to allow peaceful reunification). By 1955, the French had all buggered off back to France, so the line no longer served any purpose, and therefore did not exist. In this sense it is an anachronism. Are you suggesting that provisional arrangements are unable to continue to exist beyond their appointed lifetime? Edit: Rhetorical question, fine, but let's cut to the chase. No, while it may have served its purpose, this doesn't meant that it disappears overnight. Concluding that just because it isn't needed, it doesn't exist, is wishful thinking. Anachronism however is a proper appelation (and if it wouldn't exist, it couldn't be an anachronism, so you're contradicting yourself here) I'm not getting into the arguments about justifications for the Vietnam War, but that bit of logic was fallacious. |
|
