Vietnam Defence Forum

[Silent Knight]

Economic partners are fine and some military technology exchange are also good but a military alliance ? Pfff like hell someone will die for a country that is not his homeland.

* cough * 'Murica in the Middle East *cough*

FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!

The soldiers of course, not the politicians.

 

[gambit]

"Bitching" ? Really ? Substance and depth ? I can write 15 A4 pages explaining what going on from the 1954 to 1975 but i do want keep it short for people eyes here.

And it will be meaningless to everyone, including the Viets on this forum. At best, you will get a few 'Thanks' and a few posts praising how you stick it to the US, but in the end, you will have contributed NOTHING, even on the intellectual front, on how to solve Viet Nam's predicament.

My point is to let people know what happen if VN goes down the alliance road. Its retarded if the only thing you got to argue back with me is i also has to present something else if i hate the idea about alliance. And if you really like the alliance so much, mind explain to me the way for VN to enter an alliance with a country that will ready to bomb VN enemy, expert heavy economic pressure against it, set up embargo along the coast line and will even threaten to use nuclear weapon to protect VN.

The issue is not what I like, but WHAT IS/ARE NECESSARY. Get that thru your head. Even Uncle Ho, at one time, felt it was necessary to put on a front for the US by way of quoting the US Constitution and it was good enough to fool people until this day.

Now since you like politics, i will entertain you a bit,

You already have.

News of terrible communist atrocities, so i guess you read it on the same paper that will later claim Saddam Hussein has WMD in his country , Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter and VN still keep US POW after the war ?

No, unlike communist countries, there are plenty of sources of news. So far, not one of them (plural), domestic US and foreign, ever said those communist atrocities did not occurred. Tell us, were you alive at that time ?

Shit hole after 1975 ? Yea sure since US go full swing in support of China and Khmer Rouge so VN has to start mobilizing man for a 2 front war which add another 20 years of isolation and embargo. Thanks a lot Uncle Sam. I bet if UK has keep up a navy embargo toward the entire North America sector, a similar kind of hole will be formed in the colonies then ? You beat up someone and use everything in your power to make that guy life as miserable as possible. Finally you claim that the guy is just a wreck........Well, i have nothing to say with that kind of action and logic

An embargo ? That tell me that I should not take that 15 A4 pages from you seriously. Perhaps you mean a BLOCKADE.

A blockade is an act of war. That is when there are PHYSICAL measures to prevent access, in and out. Last I checked, there were no US fleets off the coast of Viet Nam and if I recall reading newspaper in the BI (Before Internet) era, Soviet ships docked in Cam Ranh Bay regularly, no ? So what 'embargo' are you talking about ?

An embargo is VOLUNTARY, meaning the US does not have any legal and physical measures to enforce its will. For your education, while the US government prevented US businesses from Viet Nam, tne JPNese and the SKReans were in country.

So why was Viet Nam an economic shithole ? To further your education, there is no right to trade, young man. Trade is a privilege, not a right. At best, I have the right to propose trade, but not to force it upon you. So if the Soviets, the Chinese, the Warsaw Pact, the JPNese, and the SKReans were trading with Viet Nam, why was Viet Nam that economic shithole ? Too embarrassed to admit that the Marxist experiment failed and that you must latch onto the most convenient scapegoat, the US ?

Write those 15 A4 pages, see if anyone cares when you have proven you do not know as much as you think when you cannot even distinguish the difference between an 'embargo' and a 'blockade'. If you are intellectually honest enough, you might include how much Soviet aid there were to Viet Nam after 1975.

I dont hang to anything. I learn and see things. History to you people like a nothing but a minor stuff.

Actually, history matters a lot to people like me who thinks beyond history. Unlike people like you, we do not let history get in our way of progress.

George Santayana famous quote goes: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The sad part is that the corollary is equally true: Those who learned from history are doomed to repeat it.

Why ? Because people like you imprisoned yourselves via the same history books since you failed to realize that there are different perspectives to the same event.

Come and go straight to trash can. When i tell it you say, "Hey that old stuff, dont apply it here. Dont cling to it." Well damn then i guess what can we say a bout a country reputation if we dont check his god damn history ? Now ? What happen to Philippine NOW ? What happen to Ukraine NOW ? What happen to Iraq NOW ? I update stuff everyday and everywhere i check, i cant see any bright spots about "alliance". And when i point it out, you say that im "insulting people". Name 1 time after the Gulf War that military alliance actually work for me, please. And do exclude all the gang fight from like half or NATO bomb the crap out of Libya.

The problem for you is that you believe, or at least think, that there must be a universal solution to all problems. Are the Viets identical to the Iraqis ? Why did the US able to support VN instead of Ukraine ? I guess that communist experiment must have succeeded for you since communists believes theirs is the universal solution so now you must believe there are fixed methods for everything.

Pfff like hell someone will die for a country that is not his homeland.

If you have to resort to this, that tells me you got nothing worthwhile to offer for the country we both came from.

To start off, I am in good company since the US is an immigrant nation.

Next, it seems you do not understand human nature as well as you think you do. A person's political allegiance often goes to the country that offers him the best opportunities to better his life. I do not see people swarming to become Vietnamese citizens. Do you ?

All of this is entertaining enough. I still do not see a single credible argument from you on how Viet Nam is to survive Chinese military onslaught other than the potential problems of alliances, which does not DIRECTLY address the problem in the first place.

Since you have demonstrated you do not understand the difference between an 'embargo' and a 'blockade'. If China succeed in gaining physical control of the South China Sea, it does not matter your view on alliances since China will make that decision for Viet Nam -- China will not care. Whether it is Viet Nam, the Philippines, or Indonesia, China will not care. In fact, China is counting on people like YOU to make her job easier. If Viet Nam is made to be all alone, what differences do alliances make regarding the SCS ? None. China will control Viet Nam's access to the seas and trade as you write those 15 A4 pages about how terrible the US was in those post WW II yrs.

 

[Viet]

@Viet i don't oppose if we view Us as a counterpart, but not our ally. I talk it many times on PDF. See our history clearly, We saw China as a brother, and 1972, they sell us. We saw Russia as the ally, and 1988, they didn't do anything when we had the war with China, even 1979, our treaty with Russia is an only paper draft, no more. Japan, They have history affairs with China from WW2, Our purpose is our lands, not fight for US or Japan.

sis I agree, history is always a good teacher, giving us good advise and providing hint how actors acted yesterday and will act tomorrow, but I believe nevertheless it should not darken our focus on today´s problem. comparing our security situation to Ukraine, Iraq and others won´t help us. sure, I also know America is evil. they abandoned South Vietnam in the battle of Paracels. are the Soviets not in the same boat in the clash of Spratlys? you see, all lead our discussion to a dead end. ok why not step back a while and ask ourselves this $5 trillions question: are Vietnam armed forces capable to defend her territories over land, sea and sky by now and the future?

if the answer is YES, then all speculations whether alliance or not are just academic speculations.

 

[Aqsuperman]

Hah this is indeed a funny deal.

And it will be meaningless to everyone, including the Viets on this forum. At best, you will get a few 'Thanks' and a few posts praising how you stick it to the US, but in the end, you will have contributed NOTHING, even on the intellectual front, on how to solve Viet Nam's predicament.

First you demand something with a bit of depth then after i show you that i can do it then youjust outright declare even if i do, its will still be meaningless. The double standard is strong in this one. You simply cant take it that my main point is against the option about the alliance. Yet all you see that i "dont contribute" any solution and like i have forsave the whole nation.

The issue is not what I like, but WHAT IS/ARE NECESSARY. Get that thru your head. Even Uncle Ho, at one time, felt it was necessary to put on a front for the US by way of quoting the US Constitution and it was good enough to fool people until this day.

WHAT IS/ARE NECESSARY ? What is it in your point then ? All i do is expressing what i see all the news about alliance in history and around the word now. BUT YOU claim that i "insulting" US allies. Then hopping around from this subject to another.

No, unlike communist countries, there are plenty of sources of news. So far, not one of them (plural), domestic US and foreign, ever said those communist atrocities did not occurred. Tell us, were you alive at that time ?

Pfff so i need to be alive at certain time period to argue history ? 500 years ago people belive that that the Earth is the center of the universe and up to the 18th centuries people still think that the Earth is flat. Just because many people spread and beilive in something does not automatically make it a truth that will last. One stuff that everybody know is the US POW problem that someone brought up to do nothing more than to promote a movie that made people think VN keep US POW and wont release them.

An embargo ? That tell me that I should not take that 15 A4 pages from you seriously. Perhaps you mean a BLOCKADE.

A blockade is an act of war. That is when there are PHYSICAL measures to prevent access, in and out. Last I checked, there were no US fleets off the coast of Viet Nam and if I recall reading newspaper in the BI (Before Internet) era, Soviet ships docked in Cam Ranh Bay regularly, no ? So what 'embargo' are you talking about ?

An embargo is VOLUNTARY, meaning the US does not have any legal and physical measures to enforce its will. For your education, while the US government prevented US businesses from Viet Nam, tne JPNese and the SKReans were in country.

So why was Viet Nam an economic shithole ? To further your education, there is no right to trade, young man. Trade is a privilege, not a right. At best, I have the right to propose trade, but not to force it upon you. So if the Soviets, the Chinese, the Warsaw Pact, the JPNese, and the SKReans were trading with Viet Nam, why was Viet Nam that economic shithole ? Too embarrassed to admit that the Marxist experiment failed and that you must latch onto the most convenient scapegoat, the US ?

Write those 15 A4 pages, see if anyone cares when you have proven you do not know as much as you think when you cannot even distinguish the difference between an 'embargo' and a 'blockade'. If you are intellectually honest enough, you might include how much Soviet aid there were to Viet Nam after 1975.

Wow such a nice explanation. Just happen to conveniently not include the Khmer Rouge and China in our North and Southwest border into the big picture. And the reason i use the "navy embargo" is in that time, sea is the most direct way of transportation. You cut it off and a country trading is stuck for good. But then this is mostly a minor issue. Why dont you bring out some clever analysis about the Khmer Rouge and China into VN economic ? You think that another nearly 2 decades of 2 front war wont effect anything ? Pfff and guess who give those guy the most support, surely not the Soviet and the Warsaw Pact ? And if that is not enough, guess how many economic sabotage from ex - RVN supported by US has been exposed.

ctually, history matters a lot to people like me who thinks beyond history. Unlike people like you, we do not let history get in our way of progress.

George Santayana famous quote goes: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The sad part is that the corollary is equally true: Those who learned from history are doomed to repeat it.

Why ? Because people like you imprisoned yourselves via the same history books since you failed to realize that there are different perspectives to the same event.

Wow nice interpretation there. "Those who learned from history are doomed to repeat it" LOL LOL LOL really ? Cut out a word and its "equally true" ? Who vouch for that idea ? You ? What a great world i live in. You seem incapable to acknowledge that i do update recently events and you just can get it through your head.

The problem for you is that you believe, or at least think, that there must be a universal solution to all problems. Are the Viets identical to the Iraqis ? Why did the US able to support VN instead of Ukraine ? I guess that communist experiment must have succeeded for you since communists believes theirs is the universal solution so now you must believe there are fixed methods for everything.

One more point to show that you cant process my idea. I OPPOSE the military alliance. And then you start demanding i present another idea and presume i must have think for a "universal" solution. But truth is when i oppose something, i skip it and look for another way. Your assumption show to me that the only way you want or have by all mean necessary is military alliance. You dead stuck on it and wont let it go no matter what.

If you have to resort to this, that tells me you got nothing worthwhile to offer for the country we both came from.

To start off, I am in good company since the US is an immigrant nation.

Next, it seems you do not understand human nature as well as you think you do. A person's political allegiance often goes to the country that offers him the best opportunities to better his life. I do not see people swarming to become Vietnamese citizens. Do you ?

All of this is entertaining enough. I still do not see a single credible argument from you on how Viet Nam is to survive Chinese military onslaught other than the potential problems of alliances, which does not DIRECTLY address the problem in the first place.

Since you have demonstrated you do not understand the difference between an 'embargo' and a 'blockade'. If China succeed in gaining physical control of the South China Sea, it does not matter your view on alliances since China will make that decision for Viet Nam -- China will not care. Whether it is Viet Nam, the Philippines, or Indonesia, China will not care. In fact, China is counting on people like YOU to make her job easier. If Viet Nam is made to be all alone, what differences do alliances make regarding the SCS ? None. China will control Viet Nam's access to the seas and trade as you write those 15 A4 pages about how terrible the US was in those post WW II yrs.

Oh you sound like you or anyone here can do that. This is a forum for news, not a government post for taking people thoughts. But yeah, people do swarm to countries that they think offer them the best. And when shit dont work out, the country that they come from has to pay money for their flight ticket homes, irony eh ? But then you are still clinging to the idea about " single credible argument from you on how Viet Nam is to survive Chinese military onslaught". I show you tons of proof about how military alliance doesnt work and you still sound like its will work for 100% here ? You criticize me not to accept the alliance idea but have you know a successful model around yet ? So check this if you think that this alliance still work: ROKS Cheonan, a SK corvettes warship got sunk by North Korea torp in 2010, pretty much an act of war. You know the first move from the US command there ? Advise the South Korea not to take any action. Just the "usual" alert That is when they got more than US 30,000 troops there. Seem good to your senses ? People like ME keep stuff realistic, people like YOU keep living in the clouds. So if someone sunk one of VN war ship when VN in an alliance with US, will US come and hit them with us ? Hope you have an answer for that.

If there is an idea on the table and someone speak against it, you have to bring evidences what show otherwise, not things like "its will be different this time" or "Take it or bring a new ones". Its the argument from someone with a retarded mind.

You cant answer how VN will be able to enter an alliance that guarantee a swift respond both military and economic.
You dont know a bit of the current event yet you dare to claim that people like me "live in the past"
You know nothing, Jonh

 

[William Hung]

To make sense of this debate, I think you all need to first clarify and define what you meant by the word “ally”.

Do you all actually have the same concept in mind when you use the word “ally”? It might turn out that you are debating the pros and cons of being an “ally” but you all have different idea of what “ally” is under discussion.

So I’m interest to hear first, what is your idea of being an “ally” or in an “alliance”, and then you can explain why an “alliance” is good or bad, particularly in the present context.

Hah this is indeed a funny deal.



First you demand something with a bit of depth then after i show you that i can do it then youjust outright declare even if i do, its will still be meaningless. The double standard is strong in this one. You simply cant take it that my main point is against the option about the alliance. Yet all you see that i "dont contribute" any solution and like i have forsave the whole nation.



WHAT IS/ARE NECESSARY ? What is it in your point then ? All i do is expressing what i see all the news about alliance in history and around the word now. BUT YOU claim that i "insulting" US allies. Then hopping around from this subject to another.



Pfff so i need to be alive at certain time period to argue history ? 500 years ago people belive that that the Earth is the center of the universe and up to the 18th centuries people still think that the Earth is flat. Just because many people spread and beilive in something does not automatically make it a truth that will last. One stuff that everybody know is the US POW problem that someone brought up to do nothing more than to promote a movie that made people think VN keep US POW and wont release them.



Wow such a nice explanation. Just happen to conveniently not include the Khmer Rouge and China in our North and Southwest border into the big picture. And the reason i use the "navy embargo" is in that time, sea is the most direct way of transportation. You cut it off and a country trading is stuck for good. But then this is mostly a minor issue. Why dont you bring out some clever analysis about the Khmer Rouge and China into VN economic ? You think that another nearly 2 decades of 2 front war wont effect anything ? Pfff and guess who give those guy the most support, surely not the Soviet and the Warsaw Pact ? And if that is not enough, guess how many economic sabotage from ex - RVN supported by US has been exposed.



Wow nice interpretation there. "Those who learned from history are doomed to repeat it" LOL LOL LOL really ? Cut out a word and its "equally true" ? Who vouch for that idea ? You ? What a great world i live in. You seem incapable to acknowledge that i do update recently events and you just can get it through your head.



One more point to show that you cant process my idea. I OPPOSE the military alliance. And then you start demanding i present another idea and presume i must have think for a "universal" solution. But truth is when i oppose something, i skip it and look for another way. Your assumption show to me that the only way you want or have by all mean necessary is military alliance. You dead stuck on it and wont let it go no matter what.



Oh you sound like you or anyone here can do that. This is a forum for news, not a government post for taking people thoughts. But yeah, people do swarm to countries that they think offer them the best. And when shit dont work out, the country that they come from has to pay money for their flight ticket homes, irony eh ? But then you are still clinging to the idea about " single credible argument from you on how Viet Nam is to survive Chinese military onslaught". I show you tons of proof about how military alliance doesnt work and you still sound like its will work for 100% here ? You criticize me not to accept the alliance idea but have you know a successful model around yet ? So check this if you think that this alliance still work: ROKS Cheonan, a SK corvettes warship got sunk by North Korea torp in 2010, pretty much an act of war. You know the first move from the US command there ? Advise the South Korea not to take any action. Just the "usual" alert That is when they got more than US 30,000 troops there. Seem good to your senses ? People like ME keep stuff realistic, people like YOU keep living in the clouds. So if someone sunk one of VN war ship when VN in an alliance with US, will US come and hit them with us ? Hope you have an answer for that.

If there is an idea on the table and someone speak against it, you have to bring evidences what show otherwise, not things like "its will be different this time" or "Take it or bring a new ones". Its the argument from someone with a retarded mind.

You cant answer how VN will be able to enter an alliance that guarantee a swift respond both military and economic.
You dont know a bit of the current event yet you dare to claim that people like me "live in the past"
You know nothing, Jonh

OK since you are currently online, I will ask you first:

What do you mean by an “alliance”. Can you first define the meaning of it so we all are clear what you are talking about. Then explain why VN should not be involved in this form of “alliance”?

Actually, what you have written so far does not really answer why Vietnam should not be involved in an alliance. What you have done is given some examples from history how some “alliance” was proven worthless. But that is cherry picking because you deliberately ignore alliance that had proven productive. So giving examples from history alone is not a sufficient explanation of why Vietnam joining an alliance is bad, or good, because there have been historic examples for both the good and bad alliance. At best, this is just a flawed reasoning tactic called cherry picking.

So you will still have to explain why Vietnam should not join an alliance with xyz, particularly in the present context, why is it bad? what are the reasons or your predicted outcome of this alliance that makes you think it is bad and need to be avoided?

 

[Carlosa]

To make sense of this debate, I think you all need to first clarify and define what you meant by the word “ally”.

Do you all actually have the same concept in mind when you use the word “ally”? It might turn out that you are debating the pros and cons of being an “ally” but you all have different idea of what “ally” is under discussion.

So I’m interest to hear first, what is your idea of being an “ally” or in an “alliance”, and then you can explain why an “alliance” is good or bad, particularly in the present context.



OK since you are currently online, I will ask you first:

What do you mean by an “alliance”. Can you first define the meaning of it so we all are clear what you are talking about. Then explain why VN should not be involved in this form of “alliance”?

Actually, what you have written so far does not really answer why Vietnam should not be involved in an alliance. What you have done is given some examples from history how some “alliance” was proven worthless. But that is cherry picking because you deliberately ignore alliance that had proven productive. So giving examples from history alone is not a sufficient explanation of why Vietnam joining an alliance is bad, or good, because there have been historic examples for both the good and bad alliance. At best, this is just a flawed reasoning tactic called cherry picking.

So you will still have to explain why Vietnam should not join an alliance with xyz, particularly in the present context, why is it bad? what are the reasons or your predicted outcome of this alliance that makes you think it is bad and need to be avoided?

Yes, I think that's part of the problem here. From my perspective, there is a de facto lose alliance with the US, but its super "light". Treaty alliance with mutual defense is another thing and it will not come free either.

I think people need to relax a bit. The article brought up some good points, but there is no need to go political here.

 

[William Hung]

And it will be meaningless to everyone, including the Viets on this forum. At best, you will get a few 'Thanks' and a few posts praising how you stick it to the US, but in the end, you will have contributed NOTHING, even on the intellectual front, on how to solve Viet Nam's predicament.


The issue is not what I like, but WHAT IS/ARE NECESSARY. Get that thru your head. Even Uncle Ho, at one time, felt it was necessary to put on a front for the US by way of quoting the US Constitution and it was good enough to fool people until this day.


You already have.


No, unlike communist countries, there are plenty of sources of news. So far, not one of them (plural), domestic US and foreign, ever said those communist atrocities did not occurred. Tell us, were you alive at that time ?


An embargo ? That tell me that I should not take that 15 A4 pages from you seriously. Perhaps you mean a BLOCKADE.

A blockade is an act of war. That is when there are PHYSICAL measures to prevent access, in and out. Last I checked, there were no US fleets off the coast of Viet Nam and if I recall reading newspaper in the BI (Before Internet) era, Soviet ships docked in Cam Ranh Bay regularly, no ? So what 'embargo' are you talking about ?

An embargo is VOLUNTARY, meaning the US does not have any legal and physical measures to enforce its will. For your education, while the US government prevented US businesses from Viet Nam, tne JPNese and the SKReans were in country.

So why was Viet Nam an economic shithole ? To further your education, there is no right to trade, young man. Trade is a privilege, not a right. At best, I have the right to propose trade, but not to force it upon you. So if the Soviets, the Chinese, the Warsaw Pact, the JPNese, and the SKReans were trading with Viet Nam, why was Viet Nam that economic shithole ? Too embarrassed to admit that the Marxist experiment failed and that you must latch onto the most convenient scapegoat, the US ?

Write those 15 A4 pages, see if anyone cares when you have proven you do not know as much as you think when you cannot even distinguish the difference between an 'embargo' and a 'blockade'. If you are intellectually honest enough, you might include how much Soviet aid there were to Viet Nam after 1975.


Actually, history matters a lot to people like me who thinks beyond history. Unlike people like you, we do not let history get in our way of progress.

George Santayana famous quote goes: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The sad part is that the corollary is equally true: Those who learned from history are doomed to repeat it.

Why ? Because people like you imprisoned yourselves via the same history books since you failed to realize that there are different perspectives to the same event.


The problem for you is that you believe, or at least think, that there must be a universal solution to all problems. Are the Viets identical to the Iraqis ? Why did the US able to support VN instead of Ukraine ? I guess that communist experiment must have succeeded for you since communists believes theirs is the universal solution so now you must believe there are fixed methods for everything.


If you have to resort to this, that tells me you got nothing worthwhile to offer for the country we both came from.

To start off, I am in good company since the US is an immigrant nation.

Next, it seems you do not understand human nature as well as you think you do. A person's political allegiance often goes to the country that offers him the best opportunities to better his life. I do not see people swarming to become Vietnamese citizens. Do you ?

All of this is entertaining enough. I still do not see a single credible argument from you on how Viet Nam is to survive Chinese military onslaught other than the potential problems of alliances, which does not DIRECTLY address the problem in the first place.

Since you have demonstrated you do not understand the difference between an 'embargo' and a 'blockade'. If China succeed in gaining physical control of the South China Sea, it does not matter your view on alliances since China will make that decision for Viet Nam -- China will not care. Whether it is Viet Nam, the Philippines, or Indonesia, China will not care. In fact, China is counting on people like YOU to make her job easier. If Viet Nam is made to be all alone, what differences do alliances make regarding the SCS ? None. China will control Viet Nam's access to the seas and trade as you write those 15 A4 pages about how terrible the US was in those post WW II yrs.

Sir, I am also interested to know what you mean by the word “alliance”. Can you define it first? Then I would like to hear why you think joining an alliance is needed for Vietnam. I personally dont think a war will break out any time soon so can you clarify why you think VN needs to join an alliance? Or if you disagree with that then can you clarify what circumstances you think are possible and why you think VN needs to join an alliance in those circumstances?

Yes, I think that's part of the problem here. From my perspective, there is a de facto lose alliance with the US, but its super "light". Treaty alliance with mutual defense is another thing and it will not come free either.

I think people need to relax a bit. The article brought up some good points, but there is no need to go political here.

Yep, even for the US, they have their own definition or degree of “alliance”, there are officially nato-ally, non-nato major ally, etc.

And other countries too will have different concept of “alliance”. That is why I think everyone debating here needs to first define what they meant by “alliance”.

 

[Carlosa]

No I don´t forget India. But Japan shares more with Vietnam many things in common, not only because there are only 3 countries in the world knowing the Chinese in and out: Vietnam, Japan and Korea.

I don't agree about Japan being more valuable than India. I think both contribute, but I see the contribution from India about to become a lot bigger and in the things that count more. I don't see any weapons from Japan or much of a chance that the Japanese will get involved in the SCS, but India has oil fields there and is willing to send ships and confront the chinese if needed. I don't see that from the Japanese.

Many people forget the US-Philippines defence treaty does not cover the islands in dispute in the South China sea. actually I really wonder why the Chinese do not dare to take more islands from the Philippines..

I didn't forget that, but still, it doesn't mean that you let the chinese walk over your ally. In my view, that was unacceptable

no objection to India and Israel supporting our military build-up. but I believe, except Japan, no other country in the world will go an extra mile to build a military alliance with Vietnam. there are still too much sensibilities in Vietnam toward America, so I think it is not an option right now.

I don't see Japan going the extra mile for Vietnam at all. They already have a full plate with the chinese and just last week they were warned by the chinese that they will fire on their ships if the do freedom of navigation in SCS. Actually, I believe that India is the one wiling to confront the chinese in SCS (at the right time and for the right reasons).

 

[William Hung]

I think people need to relax a bit. The article brought up some good points, but there is no need to go political here.

Actually, I would like to see this turned into a formal debate, with the topic “Should Vietnam join an alliance? With whom? Why or why not?”, maybe we can start a new thread for that.

Formal debate as in, each person gets allocated something like 3 or 4 posts each, with maximum and minimum words count, one person posting after another (responding to each other) with a time deadline given to them to make their posts. This way, the debate will be concise and straight to the point.

It can be @gambit vs. @Aqsuperman
or @gambit vs. @Silent Knight since they have opposing views.

Sirs, can we make this a formal debate similar to what I have suggested?

 

[Aqsuperman]

To make sense of this debate, I think you all need to first clarify and define what you meant by the word “ally”.

Do you all actually have the same concept in mind when you use the word “ally”? It might turn out that you are debating the pros and cons of being an “ally” but you all have different idea of what “ally” is under discussion.

So I’m interest to hear first, what is your idea of being an “ally” or in an “alliance”, and then you can explain why an “alliance” is good or bad, particularly in the present context.



OK since you are currently online, I will ask you first:

What do you mean by an “alliance”. Can you first define the meaning of it so we all are clear what you are talking about. Then explain why VN should not be involved in this form of “alliance”?

Actually, what you have written so far does not really answer why Vietnam should not be involved in an alliance. What you have done is given some examples from history how some “alliance” was proven worthless. But that is cherry picking because you deliberately ignore alliance that had proven productive. So giving examples from history alone is not a sufficient explanation of why Vietnam joining an alliance is bad, or good, because there have been historic examples for both the good and bad alliance. At best, this is just a flawed reasoning tactic called cherry picking.

So you will still have to explain why Vietnam should not join an alliance with xyz, particularly in the present context, why is it bad? what are the reasons or your predicted outcome of this alliance that makes you think it is bad and need to be avoided?

Its depend lots on what kind of benefit you can have. Alliance that only involve economic expanding and technology exchange, these field i totally approve. But an military alliance ? This type is unpredictable and unreliable in many case. We can all sing and drink wine to each other yet when time of hardship come, its every man for himself. All countries desire the best stuff for themselves, yet when blood and war come into the picture, who dare say its will be smooth sailing all the way.

Joining such alliance require commitments, you dont just get in that type easy. This reduce a country flexibility while handing diplomatic matters and even interfere with internal affairs. Cam Ranh bay open for both Russia and US ships as long as they obey the rule. That has always been the way VN do the stuff. If someone ask how VN can handle a China onslaught if not in an military alliance with the US, i ask can US fully commit itself to a country that half the globe away from him ? For this i do a head count. Not cherry picking or anything but the number of times that US failed to come in time or properly react against aggression toward its ally just happen to be larger than the time he does. And when i mean properly reaction, i mean if someone sunk 1 of my ship, you come and sunk 1 ship of that guy.

Licensing technology or selling weapon from US? Sure. A military alliance with him ? Nah, im pass

 

[William Hung]

Its depend lots on what kind of benefit you can have. Alliance that only involve economic expanding and technology exchange, these field i totally approve. But an military alliance ? This type is unpredictable and unreliable in many case. We can all sing and drink wine to each other yet when time of hardship come, its every man for himself. All countries desire the best stuff for themselves, yet when blood and war come into the picture, who dare say its will be smooth sailing all the way.

Joining such alliance require commitments, you dont just get in that type easy. This reduce a country flexibility while handing diplomatic matters and even interfere with internal affairs. Cam Ranh bay open for both Russia and US ships as long as they obey the rule. That has always been the way VN do the stuff. If someone ask how VN can handle a China onslaught if not in an military alliance with the US, i ask can US fully commit itself to a country that half the globe away from him ? For this i do a head count. Not cherry picking or anything but the number of times that US failed to come in time or properly react against aggression toward its ally just happen to be larger than the time he does. And when i mean properly reaction, i mean if someone sunk 1 of my ship, you come and sunk 1 ship of that guy.

Licensing technology or selling weapon from US? Sure. A military alliance with him ? Nah, im pass

Okay thats quite a good reply. Basically you are saying VN can not be sure of the US as a reliable military ally for VN and that VN joining an alliance would force inself into various commitments and render itself unflexible in various aspects. So put these two factors together, VN should not commit to such a “military” alliance, or that its not worth it.

That is quite a reasonable explanation. What would your respond to that be Sir @gambit?

 

[Silent Knight]

It can be @gambit vs. @Aqsuperman
or @gambit vs. @Silent Knight since they have opposing views.

Thanks but no thanks.

From what I saw, members like gambit and hoangsa74 are former residents of Republic of Vietnam, who are still feeling bitter about their past. Also, they would denounce everything about Vietnam nowadays, blaming everything on the "communist regime".

I see no point in arguing with them, as I stand for the very basic principal of Vietnam:
- Do not join any military alliance or became a military ally of any country.
- Do not allow any country to put military base on Vietnam.
- Do not lean on any country to be against another country.

So, military cooperation with the US is a must, but become one of their lap dogs is not. As I said, case in point = the Philippines (Spratly Islands dispute), Georgia (2008 war), Ukraine (current situation).

 

[BoQ77]

any alliance require obligations of participants. Any participant joins an alliance for their benefits.

Give and receive.

If Asean develop the APSC P for political S for security, Vietnam would join it. US may join it too. even China.
It is difficult to create a body with mission is to oppose unilaterally a country like China.

 

[Carlosa]

Vietnam says all will lose in any South China Sea war
http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/vietnam-says-all-will-lose-in-any-south-china-sea-war-65659.html

Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang warned on Tuesday there would be no winners in any armed conflict sparked by territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Quang, who is on a state visit to Singapore, told a forum that recent developments there were threatening regional security.

The Vietnamese leader did not mention any country but there is growing unease over China's actions.

China, which claims most of the South China Sea, has reclaimed reefs and built airstrips capable of hosting military equipment, sparking anger from competing claimants.

"The East Sea, located at the heart of Southeast Asia, not only brings about many important benefits to nations in the region but it is also a vital route to maritime and air transport of the world," Quang said, using the Vietnamese name of the sea.

But "recent worrying developments" there "have had a negative impact on the security environment of the region, especially maritime security and safety, freedom of navigation and overflight".

"And should we allow instability to take place, especially in the case of armed conflicts, there will be neither winners or losers but rather all will lose," he warned.

Tran was speaking to diplomats, academics and students at a forum organised by the ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute.

Four Southeast Asian states -- Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam -- as well as Taiwan have competing claims in the sea.

Last month the Philippines won a case against China at a UN-backed tribunal in the Hague which rejected Beiijing's claims to most of the sea.

China boycotted the hearing and has refused to recognise the ruling.

 

[Farhan Bohra]

No I don´t forget India. But Japan shares more with Vietnam many things in common, not only because there are only 3 countries in the world knowing the Chinese in and out: Vietnam, Japan and Korea.

You undermining India,

India is the only country in Asia that hold 4000 KM long "ceasefire line", not border, but ceasefire line aka LAC against China.

I am going to post some stories of real events and current situation of India China.

The above-mentioned plans were also the result of lessons drawn by the Indian Army from the Sumdorong Chu crisis of late 1986. Sumdorong Chu is in the Thagla Ridge area of Kameng District in Arunachal Pradesh from where the 1962 war started. After the Chinese unilateral withdrawal in 1962, Beijing had warned India not to enter certain areas evacuated by them. The routine of India’s small Intelligence Bureau (IB) detachment at Sumdorong Chu that left its border checkpost at Le for collection of salaries and rations was monitored by the PLA’s BDRs. One day in June 1986, when the IB personnel got back to the post after collecting supplies from a point near Nymjang Chu, the main river in North Kameng, they found it taken over by a PLA detachment that had built permanent barracks there and constructed a helipad which was then being used by the PLA’s newly acquired S-70C Black Hawks. This minor incident triggered off what came to be known as the Sumdorong Chu crisis between India and China. The Indian Army immediately retaliated by using the IAF’s newly-acquired Mi-26T helicopters to airlift troops and occupy a parallel ridge, known by the peaks Lurong La, Hathung La and Sulung La. In addition, two forward posts, Jaya and Negi, were set up across the Nymjang Chu river just below the ridge and only 10 metres from a Chinese forward post. At the peak of the Sumdorong Chu crisis in late 1986, three Mountain Divisions of IV Corps were pushed to the McMahon Line in Arunachal Pradesh. Two Divisions were deployed in Kameng District to defend Tawang, and a better part of the third Division was in Lohit District to defend Walong. Tawang was designated as the IV Corps’ vital area, which had to be defended at all costs (as per the political directive). Extremely strong field artillery elements—especially the just-arrived Bofors FH-77Bs, were placed in support of the troops in Tawang. The then COAS, Gen K Sundarji, under OP TRIDENT, ordered airlifting of field artillery ammunition estimated at hundreds of million rupees to be stockpiled in the forward areas. The field artillery units deployed near Tawang commanded the complete zone over which PLA re-enforcements would come in case of a crisis. Gen Sundarji also used the IAF’s new air-lift capabilities (thanks to the IL-76MDs and Mi-26Ts) to land a Brigade in Zimithang, north of Tawang, and a makeshift helicopter-base close to Sumdorong Chu. Indian forces also took up positions on the Hathung La ridge, across the Namka Chu River, where India had faced a humiliating defeat in 1962. By October 1986, eight reinforced Division-sized formations of the PLA hailing from the Chengdu MR, which took up to 20 days to travel non-stop by road from Chengdu via Lhasa, were facing two Indian Mountain Divisions deployed in a holding role to secure Tawang. HQ IV Corps deployed a total of three Mountain Divisions on the line with formations of HQ III Corps acting as reserves. To cater for an escalation of hostilities, vital areas and vital points which form the framework of a border conflict with China received very heavy deployments catering for the entire border length, especially in North Sikkim. However, sensible people in Delhi and Beijing reckoned that nothing worthwhile would come out of the conflict, and the situation was sought to be eased through back-channel diplomacy. Yet, a clear message had gone to China: India had the political will and the military muscle to defend itself. Once OP TRIDENT was completed, Army HQ ordered the then GOC-in-C Eastern Command, Lt Gen V N Sharma, to forcibly evict the PLA garrisons from Sumdorong Chu. This is when the shit hit the fan, as Lt Gen V N Sharma asked Gen Sundarji for instructions on follow-up actions in case the PLA, in retaliation, would decide to employ tactical nuclear weapons. Both Indian Army HQ and the then Govt of India were totally unprepared for this scenario (since India had not yet embarked on a nuclear weaponisation programme) and were therefore faced with an enormous debacle. Consequently, there was no other option for India, but to blink first. Subsequently, liaison channels between R & AW and China’s Ministry for Public Security were activated for arriving at a mutually acceptable de-escalation/draw-down schedule.