The Drums of War? Pentagon Provokes New Crisis With China

[gambit]

Yes, it was as if it was up to Ho Chi Minh or Emperor Bao Dai to decide the future of Indochine after WW II.

In every country, there is always the necessary to have continuity from regime to regime. From king to prince, from an outgoing president to his successor. And that the transition of power should be as peaceful as possible. When there is a disruption the people will naturally look for a credible link to the past regime, a point where the disruption begin. Bao Dai was a descendant of the Nguyen Dynasty and therefore had a more credible link to the past than Ho did. The US did not execute Hirohito out of the need to preserve this cultural and emotional link to the past that was important to the Japanese and to pacify the population. So this practice is nothing new. If anything, the more acceptable the new ruler to the people, based upon this cultural and emotional link to the past, the more peaceful the resumption of governmental rule over the country.

Am going to dismiss you from now on regarding Viet Nam. You proved to me you know next to nothing relevant that would bring any new to the discussion. You know only what is needed to fit your preconception, to vainly rehabilitate communism and that you have not the courage to seek out perspectives contrary to that preconception.

 

[gambit]

If you apply this principle to everything, where does it lead to then. China could legally according to international law attack US or India for this matter back in the later 50's when CIA was sponsoring and arming Dalai Lama for armed uprising in Tibet, and later he got refugee in India.

If Tibet or any territory under Chinese control is in a conflict against China, then yes, China is justified in a militarily response against said sponsor.

Afghanistan was permitted by most of countried in the world, where as the bombing of Cambodia was not. That is what made the difference. The bombing of Cambodia was not even very legal according to the US congress, and War Powers Resolution was passed later to address the loophole.

The War Powers Act of 1973 has nothing to do with international law but about asserting Congressional prerogatives. Under international law, if Cambodia and Laos asserted their neutrality, they MUST prevent their territories from being used by the NVA as war staging grounds, even if they have a political alliance with North Viet Nam.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

If you apply this principle to everything, where does it lead to then. China could legally according to international law attack US or India for this matter back in the later 50's when CIA was sponsoring and arming Dalai Lama for armed uprising in Tibet, and later he got refugee in India. Afghanistan was permitted by most of countried in the world, where as the bombing of Cambodia was not. That is what made the difference. The bombing of Cambodia was not even very legal according to the US congress, and War Powers Resolution was passed later to address the loophole.

100 million genocide????
You know what genocide means?

Basically you are saying Mao's failed policies' was deliberately aimed at systematic killing of its people. While you at this, why don't you add the number of natural death in China to it, let alone as recently as 1950, China's population was a mere 563 million. Your insistence on the fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is admirable.

Your right it wasnt genocide, it was just incompentence, stupidy and a leadership that didnt care how many that died. Plus the deliberate starvation and imprisonment and excution of the part of the population that did not fully support communism, and I do admire your restraint when thousands of chinese are murdred in cold blood some morning.

 

[chauism]

In every country, there is always the necessary to have continuity from regime to regime. From king to prince, from an outgoing president to his successor. And that the transition of power should be as peaceful as possible. When there is a disruption the people will naturally look for a credible link to the past regime, a point where the disruption begin. Bao Dai was a descendant of the Nguyen Dynasty and therefore had a more credible link to the past than Ho did. The US did not execute Hirohito out of the need to preserve this cultural and emotional link to the past that was important to the Japanese and to pacify the population. So this practice is nothing new. If anything, the more acceptable the new ruler to the people, based upon this cultural and emotional link to the past, the more peaceful the resumption of governmental rule over the country.

I was not talking about the who was more appropriate between Ho or Bao Dai to rule Vietnam after WW II. The fact is that right after WW II, the fate of future Vietnam was not in the hands of any Vietnamese.

Am going to dismiss you from now on regarding Viet Nam. You proved to me you know next to nothing relevant that would bring any new to the discussion. You know only what is needed to fit your preconception, to vainly rehabilitate communism and that you have not the courage to seek out perspectives contrary to that preconception.

Dido to you.

 

[gambit]

Dido to you.

I lived through the Vietnam War and my family became a refugee, twice, once from North Viet Nam and later out of South Viet Nam. Compared to you, am willing to bet you are not even matured enough to grasp the significance of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

[chauism]

Your right it wasnt genocide, it was just incompentence, stupidy and a leadership that didnt care how many that died. Plus the deliberate starvation and imprisonment and excution of the part of the population that did not fully support communism, and I do admire your restraint when thousands of chinese are murdred in cold blood some morning.

If anyone knows the consequences of their doing, the world would be a nicer place, but that is not the reality. You made it sound like when they set those policies, they had those of death in mind. And do you still want to insist on the number of death being 100 millions?

Starting in the early 1980s, critics of the Great Leap added quantitative muscle to their arsenal. U.S. government employee Judith Banister published what became an influential article in the China Quarterly, and since then estimates as high as 30 million deaths in the Great Leap became common in the U.S. press. Wim F Wertheim, emeritus professor from the University of Amsterdam, disagrees with the numbers presented on the basis that they lack scientific support.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD01Ad04.html.

Also you completely ignored the effects the three year natural disaster it had during same period on the death toll. The fact is that China still managed to add 100 million people to its population in the decade of you so called genocide. So adding your numbers and including the death from old age, how did China manage to add 200+ million newborns in that decade.

As for the Jun 4th incident you were mentioning, I hold sympathetic attitude towards those students who are being stupid and used, but wishing the student leaders then should be among of those who perished. Where are they now? They are living comfortably in the west. As for the numbers again, here is a good article you should read.

From Tibet to Tiananmen

on May 27, 1989, a coalition of the student leaders and supporting workers and intellectuals agreed that the students would leave Tiananmen Square on May 30 so that they could, as student leader Wang Dang had long advocated, continue to pursue grassroots democracy on campuses.

But radical student leaders changed their minds and decided to stay on. One of them was Commander-in-Chief Chai Ling, who confided to an American journalist: “what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the government has no choice but to brazenly butcher the people… I can't say all this to my fellow students. I can't tell them straight out that we must use our blood and our lives to call on the people to rise up.”


“Are you going to stay in the Square yourself?” asked the interviewer.


“No, I won’t.”


“Why?”


“… I want to live.”

 

[chauism]

I lived through the Vietnam War and my family became a refugee, twice, once from North Viet Nam and later out of South Viet Nam. Compared to you, am willing to bet you are not even matured enough to grasp the significance of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

With all due respect, that totally explains your unbiased knowledge of North Vietnam.

 

[CardSharp]

I lived through the Vietnam War and my family became a refugee, twice, once from North Viet Nam and later out of South Viet Nam. Compared to you, am willing to bet you are not even matured enough to grasp the significance of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

No one who doesn't share your views can "grasp the significance" can they? After all your views are the truth and if others don't share them, they must be wrong.

 

[chauism]

No one who doesn't share your views can "grasp the significance" can they? After all your views are the truth and if others don't share them, they must be wrong.

The world is just in black and white, you should know that by now.

 

[gambit]

No one who doesn't share your views can "grasp the significance" can they? After all your views are the truth and if others don't share them, they must be wrong.

Whether they are 'wrong' or 'correct' depends on the strength of their evidences and reasoning when expressing and defending their views. This is a publicly accessible forum. Or have you forgotten that? Take a look at the often laid charge that after WW II the US 'supported' France in reasserting colonialism in Indochina. How many people here took that charge at face value? Am willing to bet YOU are one so gullible. Now try to exercise some intellectual honesty and reassess that charge after knowing that the US supported putting Indochina under UN trusteeship as a plan towards full independence under their own governments and that it was the Viet Minh themselves who made a devil's pact with France via the Ho-Sainteny Agreement that pushed aside the US and invited France back in? How many here know this was the basis for Ho's famous comment that it was preferable to swallow French sh!t for one hundred years than Chinese sh!t for one thousand? At least this was attributed to Ho.

Ho Chi Minh - Wikiquote

You fools! Don't you realize what it means if the Chinese remain? Don't you remember your history? The last time the Chinese came, they stayed a thousand years. The French are foreigners. They are weak. Colonialism is dying. The white man is finished in Asia. But if the Chinese stay now, they will never go. As for me, I prefer to sniff French **** for five years than to eat Chinese **** for the rest of my life.

Ho often boasted of his alliance with the US during WW II. He knew that the US had no colonial interests in Indochina. He even plagiarized the US Declaration of Independence. He could have leverage that relationship against France and with the support of other nationalists Indochina would have been successful in the bid for independence with guidance from the international community. But Ho wanted communism to prevail in Viet Nam and if that require treachery and increased potential of war, Ho was willing to spill Vietnamese blood for it.

Like I said that this is a publicly accessible forum. No matter who said what in defense of their positions, it will be the readers themselves who will judge who is telling 'the truth'.

 

[mDumb]

<You fools! Don't you realize what it means if the Chinese remain? Don't you remember your history? The last time the Chinese came, they stayed a thousand years. The French are foreigners. They are weak. Colonialism is dying. The white man is finished in Asia. But if the Chinese stay now, they will never go. As for me, I prefer to sniff French **** for five years than to eat Chinese **** for the rest of my life.>

Fu&king Ho and you fu&king believe him? I think he is bipolar.

He changed his Vietnamese name to Chinese name from Nguy&#7877;n Sinh Cung to Ho Chi Minh. Chi Minh means bringer of light.

He married a Chinese woman despite the objection of his comrades. He told them "I will get married despite your disapproval because I need a woman to teach me the language and keep house."

From the statement you can see he prefers the Chinese language than the Vietnamese language.

NOTE: He is proficient in Chinese. And He has lived in Hong Kong and China.

Without China there is no Vietnam.

 

[CardSharp]

Whether they are 'wrong' or 'correct' depends on the strength of their evidences and reasoning when expressing and defending their views. This is a publicly accessible forum. Or have you forgotten that? Take a look at the often laid charge that after WW II the US 'supported' France in reasserting colonialism in Indochina. How many people here took that charge at face value? Am willing to bet YOU are one so gullible. Now try to exercise some intellectual honesty and reassess that charge after knowing that the US supported putting Indochina under UN trusteeship as a plan towards full independence under their own governments and that it was the Viet Minh themselves who made a devil's pact with France via the Ho-Sainteny Agreement that pushed aside the US and invited France back in? How many here know this was the basis for Ho's famous comment that it was preferable to swallow French sh!t for one hundred years than Chinese sh!t for one thousand? At least this was attributed to Ho.

Ho Chi Minh - Wikiquote

Ho often boasted of his alliance with the US during WW II. He knew that the US had no colonial interests in Indochina. He even plagiarized the US Declaration of Independence. He could have leverage that relationship against France and with the support of other nationalists Indochina would have been successful in the bid for independence with guidance from the international community. But Ho wanted communism to prevail in Viet Nam and if that require treachery and increased potential of war, Ho was willing to spill Vietnamese blood for it.

Like I said that this is a publicly accessible forum. No matter who said what in defense of their positions, it will be the readers themselves who will judge who is telling 'the truth'.

Yeah about your weight of evidence (don't talk to me about the scientific method, I come from three generations of academics and researchers), here is you're obviously blind to your confirmation bias. I posted a definition of this in another part of the forum but it may be of interest to you, if you can bring yourself to read it.

This is from the psychology textbook "Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory: Rüdiger F Pohl"

"Imagine that you are presenting two scientific studies on the effectiveness of the death penalty to people opposed to it and to people in support of it. One of the studies you present supports the conclusion that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and thus lowers the crime rate. The other study contradicts the effectiveness of the death penalty.

How will research findings that either confirm or deny the death penalty's deterrent effects be judged, and what impact will they have on the supporters and opponents of death penalty?


The experiment demonstrated, participants gave higher ratings to the study that supported their own opinion, while pointing to shortcomings in the research that questioned their point of view. This kind of confirmation bias led to the remarkable outcome that participants were even more convinced of their original opinion after reading both studies than before."

Look I'm not interested in arguing with you since you've obviously have some issues about this period of history. Why don't we agree to disagree.

 

[ao333]

Gambit, you're Vietnamese, and as such, you need to do your devoir well by being razed down on the forefront of any war so as to preserve the lives of those who cremated millions of your kind.

I am allayed that you preceive yourself as a gambit, or in real wars, a meat puppet.

If you're interested in free Vietnamese meat products, I recommend you Hanoi. You can find them roasted on the ground, skewered by the bough or braiseed in the river. For those bloated resurfaced fricassee, I like them parched.

 

[gambit]

Yeah about your weight of evidence (don't talk to me about the scientific method, I come from three generations of academics and researchers), here is you're obviously blind to your confirmation bias. I posted a definition of this in another part of the forum but it may be of interest to you, if you can bring yourself to read it.

I know about confirmation bias. I have to deal with the likes of yours about this subject. What I bring to the discussions are facts that are previously unknown to you and to counter your confirmation biases.

Look I'm not interested in arguing with you since you've obviously have some issues about this period of history. Why don't we agree to disagree.

Of course you are. Why else are we having this conversation? You are not fooling anyone, least of all with me, by putting on this facade. Me having 'issues'? By what context of 'issues'? That I have problems with people having their own confirmation biases about the subject? Hardly. What I see here so far with many personal insults hurled at my direction is that people like YOU have 'issues' with your perceived sophistication about the Vietnam War challenged, not just by someone who knows more than you about it, but also by someone who actually lived through it...

Chinese Proverbs quotes

“Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.”

Chinese Proverbs quotes

What you may pretend to know about the Vietnam War versus my own involvement tells the readers who is the more credible one here. Confirmation bias or not.

 

[Speeder 2]

..

What you may pretend to know about the Vietnam War versus my own involvement tells the readers who is the more credible one here. .

No one is more credible than Saigon Gi&#225;p, with his pump of course.