Was the Vietnam War Genocide?

[NWO Sentryman]

As above, because i was reading Amazon reviews on Vietnam:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1WJ7QMYJZYFLS/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R1LK67CZEIXX6S

Basically, the reviews are saying the US committed genocide throughout the cold war.

Is anything he writes in his reviews true? :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

[Praktik]

I dunno, it wasn't a conscious genocide, as in "let's kill all the southeast asians", so its a little hyperbolic.

Still, 4 million of them dead. Carpet bombings of villages, agent orange - clearly there was a callousness there and an undervaluing of their lives.

Also: the 4 million figure includes those killed from all causes, whether that's asian versus asian or american versus asian.

[NWO Sentryman]

I dunno, it wasn't a conscious genocide, as in "let's kill all the southeast asians", so its a little hyperbolic.

Still, 4 million of them dead. Carpet bombings of villages, agent orange - clearly there was a callousness there and an undervaluing of their lives.

Also: the 4 million figure includes those killed from all causes, whether that's asian versus asian or american versus asian.

I thought it was 3 million (John Stockwell) including Cambodia and Laos.

[Talby]

It's not genocide when Americans do it, that's called collateral damage.

[king catfish]

It's not genocide when Americans do it, that's called collateral damage.

Yes, of course bigotry is acceptable when it's aimed at Americans, because we USians are so EVIL. :rolleyes:

[Praktik]

I thought it was 3 million (John Stockwell) including Cambodia and Laos.

4 millions seems to be the number I've come across but its been a while... either way the number is atrocious...

Nonetheless the policy aims of the war were related to anti-communism and spheres of influence. There was no policy predicated on eliminating people based on race.

There was however a policy of eliminating people based on ideology - and it was carried out with quite a strong degree of ruthlessness.

Surely, the enemy was ruthless also.

[theprestige]

Let's see...

... no indication of any formal or informal policy of eradicating the Vietnamese people as a race, culture, or ethnicity.

... substantial numbers of Vietnamese people alive and well today, including over 1.5 million Vietnamese-Americans, many of them refugees or descendants of refugees, living here since shortly after the end of the war.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say the Vietnam War was not a genocide, either in principle or in practice.

[gumboot]

Let's not forget that most of the Vietnamese victims of the Vietnam War were killed by other Vietnamese...

In which case it would be genocidal suicide perhaps...?

The only examples I'm aware of in which a concerted effort was made to eradicate a particular ethnic group was the efforts of the Viet Cong against the South Vietnamese.

If you want to argue that Communism is a distinct ethnic identity (I'd love to hear that argument!), the Cold War is a pretty clear-cut attempt at Genocide, although a dismally unsuccessful one.

[cornsail]

[Nixon] ended by saying, "Right now there is a chance to win this goddamn war, and that's probably what we are going to have to do because we are not going to do anything at the conference table."

Mr. Kissinger immediately relayed the order: "A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27TAPE.html?ex=1400990400&en=6fc3dd5c0d415b85&ei=5007

[theprestige]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27TAPE.html?ex=1400990400&en=6fc3dd5c0d415b85&ei=5007
Which has nothing to do with genocide.

Kissinger is describing a perfectly reasonable and effective military strategy of focusing overwhelming firepower on the enemy supply line. This is precisely how wars are won.

[Sunray Breaker]

Which has nothing to do with genocide.

Kissinger is describing a perfectly reasonable and effective military strategy of focusing overwhelming firepower on the enemy supply line. This is precisely how wars are won.

I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.

[cornsail]

Which has nothing to do with genocide.

Kissinger is describing a perfectly reasonable and effective military strategy...

Sure, it probably wasn't racially motivated and thus not technically genocide. Atrocious nonetheless though.

[dudalb]

I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.


A lot of us think that Hichens can be brilliant one day and full of s--- the next.

[theprestige]

Sure, it probably wasn't racially motivated and thus not technically genocide. Atrocious nonetheless though.
Bombing the enemy's supply line, in order to weaken their army and bring the war to a swift, victorious conclusion? Sure it's atrocious, but only in the sense that "war is hell". What do you think was happening in Cambodia at that time, for Kissinger to single it out for such treatment? Hint: It was hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers, moving under cover by foot through the jungle, transporting food and ammunition and other supplies to the front lines, enabling daily continuation of wartime atrociousness. What would you have done to win the war? Mindlessly continue to fight a constantly-replenished enemy, while leaving your vastly superior air arm idle when it could be used to more quickly end the fighting?

[nota]

there were some tribal people who were victims of the reds
h-mong and the mouti-yards
didn't the usa export most of them to avoid a genocidal results
and numbers killed post war will bump those numbers
esp mr pots score

[theprestige]

I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.
Historically, "war criminal" only has any meaning when the victors are in a position to make it stick to the vanquished. Everything else is rhetoric.

[cornsail]

Bombing the enemy's supply line, in order to weaken their army and bring the war to a swift, victorious conclusion?

If you equate "[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” to "bombing the enemy supply line", then yes it is atrocious.

[theprestige]

If you equate "[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” to "bombing the enemy supply line", then yes it is atrocious.
Have you considered what the Ho Chi Minh Trail actually was? Have you ever wondered just what was involved in shipping enough military supplies from China to south Vietnam to sustain a war against the United States for several years? Do you actually have any idea at all what Kissinger was talking about? Did it really never occur to you that the North Vietnamese Army might actually have been capable of a logistical effort that merited such a response?

[plumjam]

I was about to invent a new word there: "Ideolocide"

Unfortunately, I googled it and one single damned person beat me to it :thumbsdow
http://pjw-truth.blogspot.com/2007/11/ideolocide.html

[linusrichard]

If you equate "[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” to "bombing the enemy supply line", then yes it is atrocious.

Oh, come on. If people like you had been in charge, we probably would have lost the Vietnam War, rather than bringing it to a swift, victorious conclusion.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused:

[Safe-Keeper]

Which Vietnam war? The war against the Americans, who invaded Vietnam because the US populace sincerely thought this would make the country a better place in which to live? Or the one against the French, who marched into Vietnam and ruled the country for over a hundred years?

Oh, wait, they weren't American... :rolleyes:

Oh, and genocide?! The determined effort to wipe out a country's people, culture and language? Are you serious?

[anor277]

Which Vietnam war? The war against the Americans, who invaded Vietnam because the US populace sincerely thought this would make the country a better place in which to live? Or the one against the French, who marched into Vietnam and ruled the country for over a hundred years?

Oh, wait, they weren't American... :rolleyes:

..................?


You forgot the war with the Japanese, the Cambodians, and the Chinese; wait, they weren't Americans either.

[Travis]

If defending a sovereign nation from from an invasion by a neighbor without a concurrent counterinvasion or specific policy of social/cultural group elimination is now considered "genocide" then I think that term has now lost all useful meaning. It can join "socialism" on the dustbin of once specific terms destroyed by overuse through hyperbole.


All you might want to know is this: when did the boat people appear? While the US was there or after the Communists took power?

[NWO Sentryman]

Well Capitalistholocaust also uses declassified records to say the US committed genocide in vietnam:

"United States of Holocaust Deniers"

[Kevin_Lowe]

Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Certainly there was genocide in the sense of killing large numbers of people just because they were Vietnamese and in the war zone. My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) counts as genocide in that sense.

One view of the Vietnam was that's been expressed is that the mass killing of the Vietnamese people was seen as desirable by US policy makers, because the intention was to deter further communist revolutions in the region. The theory was that they were far more interested in making an example out of Vietnam than they were interested in a positive outcome for the Vietnamese people. Lacking mind-reading skills I don't know whether this theory is true or false. I'd class it as plausible, and at the very least more plausible than the "aw, shucks, we had the very best of intentions, but we done screwed up again, can't we have points for trying?" theory of US overseas intervention.

The genocide of the Iraqi people by means of bombing and sanctions between the two Gulf Wars has certain similarities.

[gumboot]

Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Certainly there was genocide in the sense of killing large numbers of people just because they were Vietnamese and in the war zone. My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) counts as genocide in that sense.


Have you actually thought about the above statement? I wonder if you can spot why it's such utter drivel.

[Praktik]

Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Certainly there was genocide in the sense of killing large numbers of people just because they were Vietnamese and in the war zone. My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) counts as genocide in that sense.

One view of the Vietnam was that's been expressed is that the mass killing of the Vietnamese people was seen as desirable by US policy makers, because the intention was to deter further communist revolutions in the region. The theory was that they were far more interested in making an example out of Vietnam than they were interested in a positive outcome for the Vietnamese people. Lacking mind-reading skills I don't know whether this theory is true or false. I'd class it as plausible, and at the very least more plausible than the "aw, shucks, we had the very best of intentions, but we done screwed up again, can't we have points for trying?" theory of US overseas intervention.

The genocide of the Iraqi people by means of bombing and sanctions between the two Gulf Wars has certain similarities.

great post... "aw shucks..." deserves a gold star specifically! ;)

[Praktik]

To what degree was South Vietnam a "sovereign nation"?

Wouldn't "pseudo-colonial construction of great powers" be a more accurate description?

[Cainkane1]

I dunno, it wasn't a conscious genocide, as in "let's kill all the southeast asians", so its a little hyperbolic.

Still, 4 million of them dead. Carpet bombings of villages, agent orange - clearly there was a callousness there and an undervaluing of their lives.

Also: the 4 million figure includes those killed from all causes, whether that's asian versus asian or american versus asian.
While there were incidences of atrocities like Me' lai the americans generally kept to the geneva Convention. When Americans were caught killing civilians they were put on trial. Actually many Amercians who should have been punished weren't and many who were punished like Lt. William calley weren't punished enough. Genocide wasn't part of American policy.

The american performance aside I have to add this. The communist forces committed far more atrocities than we did. At a city called Hue the North Vietnamese killed I believe 6000 civilians when they lost the battle for the city. There were other massacres and they were worse than ours.

Overall the american soldier was a decent human being. Many soldiers who were ordered to "waste" civilians refused to do so. Those that followed the orders for the most part regretted it for the rest of their lives.

America must have done something right. Millions of Vietnamese now call America home.

[Aepervius]

Which Vietnam war? The war against the Americans, who invaded Vietnam because the US populace sincerely thought this would make the country a better place in which to live? Or the one against the French, who marched into Vietnam and ruled the country for over a hundred years?

Oh, wait, they weren't American... :rolleyes:

Oh, and genocide?! The determined effort to wipe out a country's people, culture and language? Are you serious?

I have no opinion on the topic here, I know next to nothing about the US vietnam war, except for one "massacre" and i doubt it is representative of anything whatsoever except the evilness of the guy doing it.

But I *DO* want to point that "we are as bad as the other guys, why don't you poo-poo the other guys too?" isn't really a good defense.

[cornsail]

Have you considered what the Ho Chi Minh Trail actually was?
Yes. I never claimed there was no military objective behind it.

Did it really never occur to you that the North Vietnamese Army might actually have been capable of a logistical effort that merited such a response?

Killing 100,000+ civilians in order to try to damage a supply line supportive of legitimate military action is not merited in my opinion. Nor was our invasion of North Vietnam in the first place.

If defending a sovereign nation from from an invasion
There was no invasion of South Vietnam. There was an insurgency against South Vientam's brutal government.

If you'd like to know more about the South Vietnamese government and how the insurgency started:

"The elections were held, with Diệm's brother and confidant Ngô Đình Nhu, the leader of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Diệm's electoral base, organising and supervising the elections.[12][13] Campaigning for Bảo Đại was prohibited, and the result was rigged, with Bảo Đại supporters attacked by Nhu's workers. Diệm recorded 98.2% of the vote, including 605,025 votes in Saigon, where only 450,000 voters were registered. Diệm's tally also exceeded the registration numbers in other districts.[12][14] Three days later, Diệm proclaimed the formation of the Republic of Vietnam, naming himself President."

"Diệm's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diệm Can Lao political party, who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs.[18[16][17]"

"Diệm was also passionately anti-Communist. Tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were committed on a daily basis. The death toll was put at around 50,000 with 75,000 imprisonments, and Diệm's effort extended beyond communists to anti-communist dissidents and anti-corruption whistleblowers.[26]"

"As opposition to Diệm's rule in South Vietnam grew, a low-level insurgency began to take shape there in 1957. Finally, in January 1959, under pressure from southern cadres who were being successfully targeted by Diệm's secret police, Hanoi's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing the use of armed struggle in the South. On 20 December 1960, under instruction from Hanoi, southern communists established the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam in order to overthrow the government of the south. The NLF was made up of two distinct groups: South Vietnamese intellectuals who opposed the government and were nationalists; and communists who had remained in the south after the partition and regrouping of 1954 as well as those who had since come from the north, together with local peasants."

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

Lovely, eh? And by Eisenhower's estimate 80% of the Vietnamese would have voted with the north had the 1954 Geneva Convention elections taken place.


by a neighbor without a concurrent counterinvasion or specific policy of social/cultural group elimination is now considered "genocide" then I think that term has now lost all useful meaning.
I conceded not calling it "genocide".

All you might want to know is this: when did the boat people appear? While the US was there or after the Communists took power?

So more people started leaving Vietnam country after we blew it to ******

[Kestrel]

I have no opinion on the topic here, I know next to nothing about the US vietnam war, except for one "massacre" and i doubt it is representative of anything whatsoever except the evilness of the guy doing it.

Lt. Calley didn't massacre all those civilians by himself. The soldiers willing to follow his orders were also evil, even if they were never prosecuted.

[Darth Rotor]

Response to the OP.

War != genocide. Killing large numbers of people is not, by definition, genocide. Genocide is a narrow subset of killing, typically in large groups, for a specific purpose of extermination. The purpose of the war in Viet nam was not extermination, it was the typical struggle of two political factions for political control of a particular bit of turf. War. Nothing to see here beyond that grisly habit of mankind.

The continued abuse and misuse of this term, genocide, will in time rob it of meaning. Quite frankly, I find that insulting to the actual victims of actual programs of genocide.

Your pandering to this intellectual dishonesty is pathetic.

Cue David Bowie:

This an't Rock 'n Roll, this is Genocide!
Lt. Calley didn't massacre all those civilians by himself.
True. He was the critical link in the chain that was supposed to prevent actions like that from happening. He failed. (As did, IMO, his company commander).
The soldiers willing to follow his orders were also evil, even if they were never prosecuted.
Stupdest thing I've ever seen you post.

DR

[Kestrel]

Stupdest thing I've ever seen you post.

See part IV of the Principles of International Law (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument) Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

The moral choice in this case would have been refusing orders to shoot unarmed civilians.

[Travis]

Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Certainly there was genocide in the sense of killing large numbers of people just because they were Vietnamese and in the war zone. My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) counts as genocide in that sense.

One view of the Vietnam was that's been expressed is that the mass killing of the Vietnamese people was seen as desirable by US policy makers, because the intention was to deter further communist revolutions in the region. The theory was that they were far more interested in making an example out of Vietnam than they were interested in a positive outcome for the Vietnamese people. Lacking mind-reading skills I don't know whether this theory is true or false. I'd class it as plausible, and at the very least more plausible than the "aw, shucks, we had the very best of intentions, but we done screwed up again, can't we have points for trying?" theory of US overseas intervention.

The genocide of the Iraqi people by means of bombing and sanctions between the two Gulf Wars has certain similarities.

There is so much wrong with that post that I have to believe you are just pulling our leg.

To what degree was South Vietnam a "sovereign nation"?

Wouldn't "pseudo-colonial construction of great powers" be a more accurate description?

So you exclude all post-colonial nations from being considered "sovereign?" Very odd.

Killing 100,000+ civilians in order to try to damage a supply line supportive of legitimate military action is not merited in my opinion.

You realize that civilians were moving the military supplies?

Nor was our invasion of North Vietnam in the first place.

So we are dealing with an "alternate reality" Vietnam War. Of course, in hindsight, if the US actually had invaded the North it would have ended the war much sooner and far fewer might have died.

There was no invasion of South Vietnam. There was an insurgency against South Vientam's brutal government.

Absolutely wrong. US troops did battle with North Vietnamese troops many times inside South Vietnam. Perhaps most famously in the battles at Landing Zone X-Ray and Albany where US forces fought the 33rd, 66th, and 320th Regiments of the North Vietnamese Army. The Tet Offensive was organized, staffed and logistically supplied by the NVA.....and who do you think it was taking Saigon that necessitated those helicopter evacuations?


So more people started leaving Vietnam country after we blew it to ******

No, they started leaving the country after it was apparent the Communists had no interest in "freedom" and started trying to "reeducate" the population forcibly. More Vietnamese died in the first few years of Communist rule than in the entire "shooting war" when the US was there.

[Kestrel]

More Vietnamese died in the first few years of Communist rule than in the entire "shooting war" when the US was there.

In the future, it would be a good idea to check your facts before posting.

[Praktik]

So you exclude all post-colonial nations from being considered "sovereign?" Very odd.

That would be odd wouldn't it?

See cornsail's post above for where my perspective is rooted (re: sham elections, despotic rule by a clique of self-enriching ne'erdowells, the fact that there was supposed to be an election on unification, etc).

[imjohn]

great post... "aw shucks..." deserves a gold star specifically! ;)

You must be kidding.

[boooeee]

No, it wasn't genocide. It was terrorism. Because these semantic debates are oh so important.

You can debate the merits of the US intervention in Vietnam, and the tactics employed. But you don't get to "win" the debate by shoehorning those tactics into a pejorative term like "genocide".

You might as well call capital punishment "pre-meditated murder", or the imprisonment of criminals "kidnapping".

[Praktik]

You must be kidding.

frayed knot - thought he could get some backup after gumboots reply.

A little nervous about the term "genocide" but the characterization I thought was fair, especially when it comes to the "we had the best of intentions" line..

[Darth Rotor]

See part IV of the Principles of International Law (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument) Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.



The moral choice in this case would have been refusing orders to shoot unarmed civilians.
I guess you didn't grok your term that was italicized.

You also choose, like most armchair analysts, to pretend that when immersed in a guerilla warfare scenario that one does not become sensitized/desensitized to the lack of nice pink markers to set everyone apart cleanly. That environment has bloody eff all to do with Nuremberg. That very desensitizatoin sets people up to for what those soldiers did, and the reason that set up was followed through was the critical failure in leadership. Soldiers are well trained to kill, but it is the NCO's and officers who are to control that use of violence. When the leadership errs, it isn't always obvious to the soldier at the time, but to you, in hindsight, it is. Well bully for you.

When you used the term "evil" you were exercising a thing called "stupidity." If you used the term "wrong" you'd be on pretty solid ground, given your follow up, and the way things ought to go.

Consider this. Someone from outside the environment, a helicopter pilot, when he ran across what was going on at My Lai saw what they didn't see: they were doing wrontg. He was able to stop some of the soldiers from doing what they were doing. He was awarded a pretty high honor some years later, mid 1990's. (Can't recall his name, grrr.).

DR

[Nogbad]

Genocide seems inappropriate to me. There was no conscious effort to wipe out a specific race despite the huge numbers of deaths. However, there was callous indifference to life which got worse as the war dragged on and the bombing of Cambodia and Laos was ill advised and far from legitimate really.

Kissenger was not blameless. He was in part at least responsible for some of the ramping up of the bombing of Cambodia and Laos and he contrived to keep it secret not because it was militarily sensitive but because he didn't trust the American people to understand.

Vietnam was essentially a post colonial civil war. It was not about protecting one country from another but siding with one political ally in that civil war. Many in the South of Vietnam supported the communists and that was why it was such a difficult war to prosecute and ultimately why it was lost. That and the fact the Government of the South was corrupt and unpopular. The South needed a rallying figure like Ho Chi Minh. It didn't have one.

[gumboot]

To what degree was South Vietnam a "sovereign nation"?

Wouldn't "pseudo-colonial construction of great powers" be a more accurate description?


I think you could call it a sovereign state based on the fact that it was recognised by other sovereign states. That is widely accepted as the single defining characteristic.

[gumboot]

frayed knot - thought he could get some backup after gumboots reply.

A little nervous about the term "genocide" but the characterization I thought was fair, especially when it comes to the "we had the best of intentions" line..


The International Criminal Court has determined that the "in part" aspect of Genocide requires that the targeted group represent a substantial or important part of the total group. While it's possible for a very small targeted group to constitute genocide, there's some pretty important aspects that need to be met first, such as:

1. The sub group may be vital to the continuing existence of the wider group
2. The sub group may be symbolically representative of the wider group
3. The sub group may be large enough, relative to the wider group, that their loss has a significant negative impact on the welfare of the wider group
4. The sub group may constitute the total population accessible to the perpetrator, this suggesting if the perpetrator had the opportunity they would kill many more people

In the case of the My Lai massacre, and other isolated incidents in Vietnam, I cannot see how you could even begin to argue any of the above points.

[Nogbad]

I think you could call it a sovereign state based on the fact that it was recognised by other sovereign states. That is widely accepted as the single defining characteristic.

Perhaps but hundreds of years of unified Vietnam was interrupted by a partition in 1954. The South dissolved into internecine fighting and coups by 1962 and this resulted in a military dictatorship. This lasted little more than a decade before the country was reunited.

The Vietnamese might want more freedoms but I doubt there is much desire to split the country back into North and South, which was a 20 year aberation caused by Cold War politics.

[Kestrel]

Consider this. Someone from outside the environment, a helicopter pilot, when he ran across what was going on at My Lai saw what they didn't see: they were doing wrontg. He was able to stop some of the soldiers from doing what they were doing. He was awarded a pretty high honor some years later, mid 1990's. (Can't recall his name, grrr.).


Hugh Thompson, Jr. confronted Lt. Calley and others who were shooting unarmed civilians in the ditch at the time.

Dennis Conti's testimony (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_tConT.htm) at the court martial made it rather clear what they were doing:

Lieutenant Calley came out and said take care of these people. So we said, okay, so we stood there and watched them. He went away, then he came back and said, "I thought I told you to take care of these people. We said, "We are. He said, "I mean, kill them. I was a little stunned and I didn't know what to do. He said, "Come around this side. We'll get on line and we'll fire into them. I said, "No, I've got a grenade launcher. I'll watch the tree line. I stood behind them and they stood side by side. So they -- Calley and Meadlo -- got on line and fired directly into the people.

Claiming they didn't know what they were doing is historical revisionism.

[cornsail]

Travis,

Although I may have made some semantic mistakes, I'm disappointed that you ignored addressing the brutal nature of the South Vietnamese regime which was my main point.

Recall:

"Diệm's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diệm Can Lao political party, who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs.[18[16][17]"

"Diệm was also passionately anti-Communist. Tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were committed on a daily basis.The death toll was put at around 50,000 with 75,000 imprisonments, and Diệm's effort extended beyond communists to anti-communist dissidents and anti-corruption whistleblowers. [26]"

"Discontent with Diem's policies exploded following the Hue Vesak shootings of majority Buddhists who were protesting against the ban on the Buddhist flag on Vesak, the Buddha's birthday. This resulted in mass protests against policies that gave privileges to the Catholic Church and its adherents. Diem's elder brother Ngo Dinh Thuc was the Archbishop of Hue and aggressively blurred the separation between church and state."

"As opposition to Diệm's rule in South Vietnam grew, a low-level insurgency began to take shape there in 1957. Finally, in January 1959, under pressure from southern cadres who were being successfully targeted by Diệm's secret police, Hanoi's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing the use of armed struggle in the South. On 20 December 1960, under instruction from Hanoi, southern communists established the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam in order to overthrow the government of the south. The NLF was made up of two distinct groups: South Vietnamese intellectuals who opposed the government and were nationalists; and communists who had remained in the south after the partition and regrouping of 1954 as well as those who had since come from the north, together with local peasants."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

Furthermore, "South Vietnam" had only existed as a state since 1950 and was, in part, a creation of the French. This occurred after the Vietnamese had won a fight for independence against French colonialism. According to the Geneva Accord, Vietnam was supposed to reunify by democratic election in 1954, but Diệm (who had rigged his own election) claimed that the election would not by fair enough and rejected reunification.

"It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier ... I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
-Dwight Eisenhower

Sorry for posting some of this stuff twice, I'm just trying to make sure the importance of it gets through.

You described the US's bombing campaign in Cambodia "defending a sovereign nation from invasion". Do you really think, given the facts, that such a defense is actually desirable? Do you think it merits bombing North Vietnam for years? Do you think it merits slaughtering over 100,000 Cambodian civilians simply because any one of them might be involved in transporting military supplies into South Vietnam (majorly increasing support for Pol Pot in the process)? Do you think it merits spraying agent blue on food crops? Agent orange? Napalm? The Phoenix Program?

You realize that civilians were moving the military supplies?
And this justifies slaughtering over 100,000 people because they might be moving military supplies in support of a justified military campaign? :confused: Wow, just wow. You do realize that Nixon tried very hard to keep this campaign a secret?

No, they started leaving the country after it was apparent the Communists had no interest in "freedom" and started trying to "reeducate" the population forcibly.
Both reasons are true, okay? I'm not going to defend the regime that followed the fall of Saigon, but it would be a stretch to argue that all the house and infrastructure destruction, food destruction campaigns, agent orange etc had no effect on Vietnam's desirability as a place to live. Also let's get real... first of all this is irrelevant to the morality of US actions in the war unless they could have somehow predicted ahead of time that Communist rule would be brutal compared to South Vietnamese rule. South Vietnam was less democratic, more brutal and more corrupt than North Vietnam prior to US involvement, although North Vietnam was bad too. Second, violence begats violence. If you inflict that much damage on a country it's not likely to look like an episode of Barney & Friends in the years that follow.

More Vietnamese died in the first few years of Communist rule than in the entire "shooting war" when the US was there.

I don't know where you're getting this figure, but it appears to be incorrect.

[Praktik]

Well, a very large portion of the Vietnamese that moved to America were brought there because there was at least a hint of morality operating: you can't leave the people behind who served your interest in a war when you leave. In the context of war, the victors would certainly exact revenge on "collaborators."

Canada is already looking at putting an immigration process in for the Afghans who have provided interpreting services, policemen and other people working "on our side".

Its just the right thing to do.

[Safe-Keeper]

I have no opinion on the topic here, I know next to nothing about the US vietnam war, except for one "massacre" and i doubt it is representative of anything whatsoever except the evilness of the guy doing it.

But I *DO* want to point that "we are as bad as the other guys, why don't you poo-poo the other guys too?" isn't really a good defense.It wasn't meant as one. It was to vent my frustration at how Country A can do horrific things and get away with it, while the US has to play by the rules at all times or be internationally shunned.

Shouldn't everyone be forced to play by the rules? Where are all the anti-French and anti-Japanese Europeans decrying the horrors the French and Japanese subjected the Vietnamese to?

[Travis]

Travis,

Although I may have made some semantic mistakes, I'm disappointed that you ignored addressing the brutal nature of the South Vietnamese regime which was my main point.

Recall:



Sorry for posting some of this stuff twice, I'm just trying to make sure the importance of it gets through.

It's irrelevant. No one liked Diem. The US hated him too. That's why the prospect of a coup was cheered in DC.

You described the US's bombing campaign in Cambodia "defending a sovereign nation from invasion". Do you really think, given the facts, that such a defense is actually desirable?

You defend whichever way you can. Cambodia is where supplies were marshaled and where the NVA garrisoned before conducting excursions into South Vietnam. By all rights the US could have invaded and occupied Cambodia outright. In fact it would have been better if they had.

Do you think it merits bombing North Vietnam for years?

North Vietnam supplied the VC and they sent their own troops into the country to pave the way for their eventual conquest of it. Not only was bombing North Vietnam the right thing to do it was criminal that the bombing was limited only to the times when "peace talks" were ongoing.

Do you think it merits slaughtering over 100,000 Cambodian civilians simply because any one of them might be involved in transporting military supplies into South Vietnam (majorly increasing support for Pol Pot in the process)?

First off, there was no "might" about it. U2 pictures clearly showed them on the trail carrying supplies under NVA guard into a closed war zone. Secondly, I don't wish them to be slaughtered but there are only so many ways you can stop the enemy from resupplying itself and aerial interdiction is one of them. Thirdly, Pol Pot played more on the fear of an invasion by the Vietnamese than anything and he would never have been allowed to come to power if the US had decisively won the war in Vietnam early on.....though stopping him would deprive the tie-dyed set of one of their great "misunderstood heroes."

Do you think it merits spraying agent blue on food crops?

So long as you provide the necessary food to the civilian population, yeah. Starving the enemy is very time tested tactic.

Agent orange?

Removing foliage for clearer fields of fire and detection of enemy troops is also about as old as war itself.

Napalm?

An effective weapon. Why shouldn't it have been used?

The Phoenix Program?

Yep......with the caveat that it should operate within the bounds of humane practices.

And this justifies slaughtering over 100,000 people because they might be moving military supplies in support of a justified military campaign?

How was it justified? You really think the North Vietnamese Communists were in the right?

:confused: Wow, just wow. You do realize that Nixon tried very hard to keep this campaign a secret?

Nixon always got into trouble for hiding what should have been brought out early and openly.

Both reasons are true, okay? I'm not going to defend the regime that followed the fall of Saigon, but it would be a stretch to argue that all the house and infrastructure destruction, food destruction campaigns, agent orange etc had no effect on Vietnam's desirability as a place to live.

Except that nobody was fleeing while the war was ongoing. If they were just fleeing the supposed destruction wrought by the "evil" USA they would have been fleeing prior to 1972. But they didn't. They increasingly moved out of the VC controlled countryside and into Saigon, where US operations were concentrated, all through the war. Not the actions of people who think they are being systematically slaughtered by the "evil" USA.

Also let's get real... first of all this is irrelevant to the morality of US actions in the war unless they could have somehow predicted ahead of time that Communist rule would be brutal compared to South Vietnamese rule.

See above.

South Vietnam was less democratic, more brutal and more corrupt than North Vietnam prior to US involvement, although North Vietnam was bad too.

Your metric for determining that was.....what?

Second, violence begats violence. If you inflict that much damage on a country it's not likely to look like an episode of Barney & Friends in the years that follow.

I never argued that there wasn't much destruction. There always is when you are simultaneously fighting a civil war and an invasion at the same time. In fact I'd love to hear how the US could have conducted itself in the face of that situation and not have caused widespread destruction.

I don't know where you're getting this figure, but it appears to be incorrect.

It was incorrect. You and Kestral were right. I conflated the number of those arrested and sent to concentration camps by the Communists with how many they killed. They only executed about 165,000 people for political reasons while imprisoning several million. How many died of disease and famine during economic "reorganization" is unknown.

[NWO Sentryman]

so what about the amazon reviews of Killing Hope, Phoenix Programme and Rogue state?

[cornsail]

It's irrelevant. No one liked Diem. The US hated him too. That's why the prospect of a coup was cheered in DC.

It's irrelevant that the regime we were defending was corrupt, religiously intolerant, stole an election, called off further elections, murdered 70,000 of its own people and modeled its secret police after the Nazis? :confused:

You were operating under the assumption that the US's atrocities are okay, because we were "defending a sovereign nation".

I'm bringing facts and you're just making assertions.

The US could have supported the 1954 Geneva Accord that called for a democratic election to unify the country (which had only been seperate for 5 years). According to Eisenhower 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh as president. Instead, we supported Diem who refused to allow this.

"As French power in Vietnam declined, Diệm's support in America made his stock rise."

"With the backing of the Eisenhower administration, Bảo Đại named Diệm as the Prime Minister. The appointment was widely condemned by French officials, who felt that Diệm was incompetent, with the Prime Minister Mendes-France declaring Diệm to be a 'fanatic'"

"In May [1955], Diem undertook a ten-day state visit to the United States. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support. A parade in New York City was held in his honor."

"The CIA's Edward Lansdale, who had been posted to help Diệm strengthen his rule,[10] led a propaganda campaign to encourage as many refugees to move south as possible."

"In 1957, Diệm visited the United States and Australia, where he was hailed as a "leader of the free world". He was widely feted by the media and politicians of both major parties for his anti-communist convictions."

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

"Kennedy determined to 'draw a line in the sand' and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam, saying, 'Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place,' to James Reston of The New York Times"

"In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.'[84] Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.'[65]"

"By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Here's where your assertion begins to attain some truth:

"During the summer of 1963 U.S. officials began discussing the possibility of a regime change. The United States Department of State was generally in favor of encouraging a coup, while the Defense Department favoured Diem."

"The CIA was in contact with generals planning to remove Diem. They were told that the United States would not oppose such a move nor punish the generals by cutting off aid. President Diem was overthrown and executed, along with his brother, on 2 November 1963. When he was informed, Maxwell Taylor remembered that Kennedy 'rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face.'[92] He had not approved Diem's murder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Coup_and_assassinations

So after 7 years of insurgency, in which the US was supporting Diem have him killed by a military coup. Now the South is ruled by unstable military governments, still supported by the US.

"U.S military advisers were embedded at every level of the South Vietnamese armed forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Coup_and_assassinations

One year later we began the bombing of North Vietnam.

You described the US's bombing campaign in Cambodia "defending a sovereign nation from invasion". Do you really think, given the facts, that such a defense is actually desirable?You defend whichever way you can.
You are misunderstanding the question. Why are we defending the South Vietnamese regime in the first place?

Cambodia is where supplies were marshaled and where the NVA garrisoned before conducting excursions into South Vietnam. By all rights the US could have invaded and occupied Cambodia outright. In fact it would have been better if they had.

So it's okay to slaughter civilians "in defense of a sovereign nation" if it's South Vietnam, but Cambodia deserved to be invaded and occupied. :confused:

First off, there was no "might" about it. U2 pictures clearly showed them on the trail carrying supplies under NVA guard into a closed war zone.

You are misunderstanding again. I said "Do you think it merits slaughtering over 100,000 Cambodian civilians simply because any one of them might be involved in transporting military supplies..." Surely you're not claiming that all 100,000 were doing so or that our bombers were able to determine who was and wasn't involved? I can't believe you're defending the deliberate slaughter of civilians.

Starving the enemy is very time tested tactic.

Okay, I give up. You obviously have a very different sense of morality than I do. If you think deliberately killing civilians and poisoning food crops is okay then I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

Removing foliage for clearer fields of fire and detection of enemy troops is also about as old as war itself.
Your logic is horrible, but to be fair Agent Orange was more the fault of US chemical companies such as Monsanto than the US government. Still, the government holds some responsibility and the Vietnamese should have been compensated for the 400,000 deaths and diseases caused by Agent Orange and the 500,000 birth defects.

Yep......with the caveat that it should operate within the bounds of humane practices.
Please tell me how you infiltrate Vietnamese peasants and have the "Communist sympathizers" executed "within the bounds of humane practices"?

How was it justified? You really think the North Vietnamese Communists were in the right?

Absolutely. The crimes of the South Vietnamese regime, which you've dismissed as "irrelevant" are what started the insurgency in the first place! Can you please tell me why the insurgency was unjustified?

Your metric for determining that was.....what?
I've given you plenty of examples already.

-Stealing an election
-Preventing any further democracy
-Killing around 70,000 of "suspected Communists" and corruption whistleblowers
-Oppressing the Buddhist majority through killings and destruction of holy sites.
-Running a secret police modeled after Hitler
-Blurring the lines between church and state in favor of Catholicism over the Buddhist majority

The North Vietnamese were bad too. They killed around 8,000 land owners considered "enemies of the people", although they made a quasi-apology and engaged in some compensation efforts later on. However,

-They were at least semi-democratic, although it was a one-party system.
-They were favored by the majority of the Vietnamese population (by Eisenhower's estimation)

Anyway, I'm not saying we should have bombed South Vietnam either, or supported the insurgency. In my opinion we should have supported the 1954 Geneva Accord for democratic reunification.

[NWO Sentryman]

Cronsail, the US was defending south vietnam becasue of Geopolitik.

They cancelled the elections because it would have been handing South East Asia to the Soviets on a Silver Platter.

Actually, why did millions of people flee Vietnam in 1975 when the North came into power if they had popular support? Why did they begin a "Great Terror" like that of Stalin?

BTB, you lost all credibility when you cited wikipedia.

[fuelair]

As above, because i was reading Amazon reviews on Vietnam:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1WJ7QMYJZYFLS/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R1LK67CZEIXX6S

Basically, the reviews are saying the US committed genocide throughout the cold war.

Is anything he writes in his reviews true? :jaw-dropp :jaw-droppRe this and a number of others and getting bored with people who refuse to accept standard definitions - in the past, the US, or at least citizens of same have broadly but by no means universally attempted effective genocide. BUT the Vietnam war was not, by any normal definition, genocide. AND if the Vietnamese fighting against us had acted like regular military, it would not even have appeared like genocide. Same for Israeli v. Palestinean, etc. Logic dictates that if the enemy refuses to act like soldiers, you treat them like the hiding cowards they are and blow up everything they can use for cover. The US still has not quite got this right - the Israelis are better at it and the Russians are getting with the program. If you WANT to hide among your civilians and kill the other side's civilians then I want you to die crawling in the dirt (other details shall be left out). If you want to play Army with the big boys and get shot/blown up fair and square, bring it on. Afterwards, we can all get on with real life. The thing the "you" I note just does not understand.

[cornsail]

Cronsail, the US was defending south vietnam becasue of Geopolitik.

Okay.

They cancelled the elections because it would have been handing South East Asia to the Soviets on a Silver Platter.

Hyperbole. The Vietnamese fought wars with Communist Cambodia and China, following the north's takeover. On what basis do you say that Communist = Soviet controlled? China certainly wasn't. Cambodia wasn't.

Actually, why did millions of people flee Vietnam in 1975 when the North came into power if they had popular support?
In part because of a propoganda campaign lead by the CIA to scare Catholics into moving to the south, which was under Catholic rule and discriminated against the majority Buddhists. The Americans and the French also helped transport them from North to South. Beyond that I'm not sure, like I said the North was bad too. And many migrated from South to North as well.

Why did they begin a "Great Terror" like that of Stalin?
Uh?

BTB, you lost all credibility when you cited wikipedia.

This coming from someone with a history of citing blogs? And who has given no cites himself? :covereyes

If you dispute any of the claims made on wikipedia (which are referenced) then feel free to dispute them with your own source.

[NWO Sentryman]

Em, let us see, China had fallen 7 years back, the Soviets had their own H-bomb. Communism was on the march. Ho was in the Soviet Camp and answered to moscow. Eisenhower knew the propaganda coup this would be for the Kremlin, so he decided to prevent that from happening.

as for the Stalinesque purge, Rummel estimates 1.7 million people wre murdered by the north vietnamese state.

Cambodia was still under sihanouk, China was nominally under Soviet SOI (the Sino-soviet split hadn't occured yet).

And Wikipedia is far from a reliable source.

[cornsail]

There was Soviet support and influence, just like there was US support and influence in much of the rest of the world. That's why I called it hyperbole.


And Wikipedia is far from a reliable source.

And you say this again, while still providing no sources for your claims or disputing any of the claims from wikipedia.

Your argument seems to be "we had strategic reasons to defend South Vietnam, therefore the ends justify the means". I disagree, but I can't convince you otherwise since we probably have different views on morality.

[NWO Sentryman]

There was Soviet support and influence, just like there was US support and influence in much of the rest of the world. That's why I called it hyperbole.



And you say this again, while still providing no sources for your claims or disputing any of the claims from wikipedia.

Your argument seems to be "we had strategic reasons to defend South Vietnam, therefore the ends justify the means". I disagree, but I can't convince you otherwise since we probably have different views on morality.
Ho Chi Minh adhered to Marxist Leninist doctrine and was a Soviet Lackey. He also receved tonnes of chinese support according to Qiang Zhai.

so you believe in the Mirror Universe version of us history eh where the US is always evil in its actions?

Dude, Citing Wikipedia is like citing Len Hart. Not a good idea.

It may be right, but wikipedia can be edited

South Vietnam was geostrategically vital and could not have been given to the communists on a silver platter. If All of Vietnam fell, the rest of Indochina and possibly Siam were at risk. Remember, they all bordered vietnam or China. China and Russia were still allies at that point and the split hadn't taken place.

[silver birch]

the Iraq war was

[cornsail]

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself over and over again.

If you want to dispute any of the claims I quoted from wikipedia then specify which ones and provide at least some sort of reasoning. The articles I linked to contain over 250 references and are not flagged as being disputed or lacking citations.

Ho Chi Minh adhered to Marxist Leninist doctrine and was a Soviet Lackey.

Once again you are not citing anything whatsoever and while you're criticizing me for quoting wikipedia. Apparently NWO Sentryman is a more reliable source than wiki.

so you believe in the Mirror Universe version of us history eh where the US is always evil in its actions?

And the straw man (sigh). I never said anything of the sort.

The atrocities the US carried out in Vietnam were evil by any reasonable moral standards. Virtually every major power in history has committed some terrible crimes. If you think the US is an exception then you are suffering from blind patriotism.

South Vietnam was geostrategically vital and could not have been given to the communists on a silver platter.

You've already made it clear. You think the ends justify the means, you think geopolitical strategy trumps morality and you think oppressive but western-friendly dictatorship is preferable to democratic communism. Like I said, I'm not going to convince you otherwise so just agree to disagree with me.

[theprestige]

the Iraq war was
[citation needed]

[fuelair]

I guess you didn't grok your term that was italicized.

You also choose, like most armchair analysts, to pretend that when immersed in a guerilla warfare scenario that one does not become sensitized/desensitized to the lack of nice pink markers to set everyone apart cleanly. That environment has bloody eff all to do with Nuremberg. That very desensitizatoin sets people up to for what those soldiers did, and the reason that set up was followed through was the critical failure in leadership. Soldiers are well trained to kill, but it is the NCO's and officers who are to control that use of violence. When the leadership errs, it isn't always obvious to the soldier at the time, but to you, in hindsight, it is. Well bully for you.

When you used the term "evil" you were exercising a thing called "stupidity." If you used the term "wrong" you'd be on pretty solid ground, given your follow up, and the way things ought to go.

Consider this. Someone from outside the environment, a helicopter pilot, when he ran across what was going on at My Lai saw what they didn't see: they were doing wrontg. He was able to stop some of the soldiers from doing what they were doing. He was awarded a pretty high honor some years later, mid 1990's. (Can't recall his name, grrr.).

DR

Hugh Thompson put his 'copter between US troops and civilians that day, told his door gunner to fire if the Americans chased/shot at the civilians. Thompson is one of my very few heroes.

[Taarkin]

I have no opinion on the topic here, I know next to nothing about the US vietnam war, except for one "massacre" and i doubt it is representative of anything whatsoever except the evilness of the guy doing it.

But I *DO* want to point that "we are as bad as the other guys, why don't you poo-poo the other guys too?" isn't really a good defense.
I like the part where you put scare quotes around massacre.

[cornsail]

It wasn't meant as one. It was to vent my frustration at how Country A can do horrific things and get away with it, while the US has to play by the rules at all times or be internationally shunned.

What on earth are you talking about? The US did "get away with" Vietnam. I don't recall Nixon or Kissinger being tried for war crimes. And we certainly weren't internationally shunned afterward.

Which countries do you think have done horrific things and not received criticism?

Shouldn't everyone be forced to play by the rules?
Of course ideally everyone should "play by the rules". The topic of the thread started by NWO Sentryman was specifically about US actions in Vietnam, though, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. And your implication that the US is "forced to play by the rules" is very wrong.

Where are all the anti-French and anti-Japanese Europeans decrying the horrors the French and Japanese subjected the Vietnamese to?

What do you mean anti-French/anti-Japanese? Are you saying that criticizing France's colonial history would make one "anti-French"? And why must it be done by a European? I must say I'm really confused about what your complaint is.

[NWO Sentryman]

What on earth are you talking about? The US did "get away with" Vietnam. I don't recall Nixon or Kissinger being tried for war crimes. And we certainly weren't internationally shunned afterward.

Which countries do you think have done horrific things and not received criticism?

Mao Tse Tung's China.

Castroist Cuba (persecution of Homosexuals)

Nguema's equitoreal guinea (albeit too obscure)

And as for "Democratic communism" you lost all credibility after that. I wish i could send a thousand laughing dogs without getting kicked though.

My Source:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13485

I'm not american, although i view things from a geostrategic perspective, not a moral one.

[cornsail]

Which countries do you think have done horrific things and not received criticism? Mao Tse Tung's China.

Castroist Cuba (persecution of Homosexuals)

Hi, I'm logic. Have we met?

And as for "Democratic communism" you lost all credibility after that.

Communism with elections... it's not that difficult to figure out. :)

My Source:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13485

"Noam Chomsky: Unrepentant Stalinist". Sounds highly relevant.

I'm not american, although i view things from a geostrategic perspective, not a moral one.
Then why did you start a thread on a topic of morality?

[Praktik]

Ah yes... Front Page magazine. The authoritative source on communist theory and world history.

The only reason I'd cite this would be to illustrate a facet of the American polity, you know, the pseudo-patriotic sons of die-hard anti-communists espousing the "hawk" position.

I guess if you were describing political debate in America it could be useful. But as a source I can trust to describe things in an objective and academically useful manner? Not so much...

Their contributor list is pretty much the place where all this proves out.

[NWO Sentryman]

What's the alternative? Thirdworldtraveler, which is far less reliable than Prisonplanet or Infowars. Heck, i think Len Hart is more reliable than that.

FPM has Ion Pacepa and Oleg Kalugin among its contributors.:cool: What are TWT's? Conspiracy theorists and Death to America authors. Heck, they think that the Soviet Union were the good guys in the cold war. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"communism with elections". By your logic, Stalinist Russia was the most democratic country on the planet after the 1936 constitution. :eek:

And Cornsail, i was citing my source in Vietnam.

My topic was on legal definitions, not on morality.

[cornsail]

What's the alternative? Thirdworldtraveler, which is far less reliable than Prisonplanet or Infowars. Heck, i think Len Hart is more reliable than that.

FPM has Ion Pacepa and Oleg Kalugin among its contributors.:cool: What are TWT's? Conspiracy theorists and Death to America authors. Heck, they think that the Soviet Union were the good guys in the cold war. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Strawman #2

"communism with elections". By your logic, Stalinist Russia was the most democratic country on the planet after the 1936 constitution. :eek:

No..

And Cornsail, i was citing my source in Vietnam.

You linked to an article about Noam Chomsky being a Stalinist..

My topic was on legal definitions, not on morality.

Many of my moral objections can also be extended as legal objections since the US violated international law in many way.

[NWO Sentryman]

the FPM Article had relevant sections on the vietnam war which i was citing.

Stalinist russia was "democratic" because of elections, as was "Democratic Kampuchea" :jaw-dropp . "democratic Communism" makes as much sense as Cold Fire.

Yes there were violations of international law, most infamously in the my lai massacre. No-one is in dispute of that. However, i was talking specifically about Genocide. However, Agent Orange and other chemical weapons were not prohibited until the 1993 convention.

[cornsail]

the FPM Article had relevant sections on the vietnam war which i was citing.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of how sources work.

Stalinist russia was "democratic" because of elections, as was "Democratic Kampuchea" :jaw-dropp . "democratic Communism" makes as much sense as Cold Fire.

You're implying that every Communist country was equivalent to the Soviet Union, which is poor logic. A better strategy would be to point out specific ways North Vietnam was not democratic, although it's also a sort of pointless line to pursue since I've been pretty explicit about the fact that North Vietnam had problems. I referred to it as "at least semi-democratic".

Yes there were violations of international law, most infamously in the my lai massacre. No-one is in dispute of that. However, i was talking specifically about Genocide. However, Agent Orange and other chemical weapons were not prohibited until the 1993 convention.

I agree that it didn't fit the legal definition of genocide.

[SimonD]

I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.

I'd say that if the (North) Vietnamese had got their hands on him they would have tried him as such.

Personally speaking I think prolonging the conflict, as Kissinger, did makes him a prick, but maybe not a criminal in a legal sense.

Curtis LeMay (commander of the fire bombings of Tokyo) has been quoted as saying "...I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal..."