Who cares about what Roosevelt thinks? The fact that it will not be a peaceful resolve makes the outcome fairly predictable. Ho's popular was on the rise and was seeked independence but French on the other hand will not let Vietnam go. This alone is enough to put what Roosevelt said out of the window. Yeah sure asif the Americans did not play a role in Vietnam. In fact they were there for 20 years until the death toll and political pressure at home was too much for them to bear.
Wrong...If possession is 9/10th of the law, then by virtue of Japanese victories in Asia, no European powers were in effect colonial masters of their claims from the start of WW II. France tried to reclaim its possession. The Vietnamese and the US resisted. Then Ho Chi Minh sold his country out, first to France, then to China.
The US did not resist, not at all. In fact they were in favour of French taking over again. It was Bao Dai who sold Vietnam to the French by siding with them. Ho was a freedom fighter and fought for the freedom of Vietnam, and through the eagerness of him and Vietnam's respectable people, they triumphed.
Wrong...You brought on old news to me. Everything you brought on is old news to me. What do you think of the fact that Diem was once Ho's prisoner? Did you just think the US supported Diem from nowhere?
Of course it is old news, since I am only picking up pieces of doceumented history and posting them up on to the forum. I don't have to make up something new in order for it to be accepted do I?
So what if Diem got imprisoned? moreover how did he get out and ended up in the US should be the question. Yes perhaps you should tell us why the US supported him and Bao Dai.
Diem may not have been a paragon of democratic virtues, but he was no less popular than Ho himself and that popularity originated from when both men were in North Viet Nam.
Of course he was less popular. That was dead and buried a long time ago.
He became prime minister of South Vietnam in 1954 just as the defeated French forces left. The peace accord called for elections in 1956 and unification of the divided country. With American support, Ngo cancelled the elections, knowing full well that Ho Chi Minh would have easily won the presidency.
That is good. At least now we have an admission from you Chinese boys that China is not so morally different than any power who would meddle in the affairs of states whenever strategic interests are at stake. But this begs the question of why did China not leave alone Viet Nam when it was clear that the US would rather put Indochina into trusteeship and eventually independence? Because China called 'dibs' on Viet Nam first? If China responded to Ho, that mean China viewed Ho to be representative of Viet Nam, which was not even close to the truth. But we should not be surprised that you resisted admitting that there were rivals to Ho because that would blow the China 'liberated Viet Nam' myth out of the water.
"Would rather" has zero value in reality. You even said it yourself. It is not required for the US to intevene with UK's conolonial affairs with Argentina and the Falklands. Same goes to France with its colony. Which begs the question why the US allowed the Brits to enter Saigon to buy the French military time
to have its mens armed and ready for Vietnam?
China see Ho as the representative of North Vietnam and helped him claim independence, just like the Americans did with Bao Dai and the way Americans supported Bao's regime was no differen't. Initially it was about assisting French secure its colony but in the end it turned into a struggle against communism. Which often makes people wonder what rights does Americans have in trying to replace communism with their own version of democracy?
By the way it doesn't matter who has rivals or not. Politics are full of them and I have not denied the fact that Ho and Diem both have its own rivals. Just like how any political parties would.
Do not care what you think. Only care what the Chinese government said. But just because you are ignorant of China's dependence upon the Soviets once does not mean you cannot be a 'commie'. Are you?
I don't care what the west thinks. All I know is we are as "commie" as you are, oh wait, your people are actually more commie than us.
By the way Chinese commie are doing better economically than the US are right now. Don't see China depending on Soviets financial lending as much as America is depending on the Chinese do we? It is even getting to the point where some Americans are starting to think that China is actually the richest country now in the world!
Yes...That is too bad about Viet Nam. But then if it was not for China's meddling, may be communism would never have strangled the people like it did everywhere else.
If it weren't for the US meddling, then perhaps countries such as Cuba and north Korea wouldn't have to suffer so much as get to bare fruit and enjoy it the way Chinese are enjoying it now? Mind you, China don't stick its nose into other people's internal affair the way the US did, which they are also widely known for. Take a look at egypt for example, why does it matter to the US? US can't even look after itself and they are trying to stablize the situation there? I smell oil money.
There goes that lie again.
Keep denying and running circles.
More evasions, I see. The question is more significant. What right did North Viet Nam had in continuing the war? There were two political entities in Viet Nam: North and South. Just like the two Koreas. Do you even have the courage to say that South Viet Nam had the right to exist independently of the North? If you do, then that admission would blow your entire argument into orbit.
How did Vietnam split into two seperate entities? through meddling of the west? or simply because Vietnamese thinks it is nice to have its country split into two? Don't we all hear about how North Koreans and the South wanted reunification? They are still nowhere near claiming independence for their country as a whole. The way I see it is they are only partially independent right now. Vietnam would be the same if it weren't for Ho and China's persistent. You can hate them for it, but people of the future will look back and be greatful for its history of independence. It's funny how the west are going ape s*hit sourgrapes over it, get over it already
Nope...The masters of the strawmen arguments are still with you Chinese boys and am happy to concede that title. You boys used it very well whenever you cannot dispute a challenge from me on a technical issue.
Fortunately, that's what the rest of the world is thinking. I think you deserve to be crowned the King of the Strawman ideology. Your work rate is second to non, and if only there are more people like you around defending the failed South Vietnam regime and the American ideas, then there would be no problems getting rid of communism.
Wrong...And the propaganda is still here. Ho had plenty of options, least of all: patience for what the US could do with the UN trusteeship, concessions to rival nationalists. What the US did was not refusal but reluctance and no matter how much you try you cannot change the fact that reluctance does not equal to malice. There were rivals to Ho and that alone justify reluctance and assessment by anyone. Failed argument.
Don't really care if it was right or wrong. I only care about the fact that Vietnam is a fully independent country, not two seperate entities. It is not new to the world that Americans are good with its smeer campaign and label everything that it doesn't like as "propaganda".
How often do you traveled to Viet Nam? I mean actually traveled there in person and not via Chinese propaganda. I once asked directions on how to get to Ho Chi Minh City by driving from anywhere and the whole bus erupted in laughter. Only party officials call it Ho Chi Minh City. For ordinary Viet, it was still Sai Gon and they believe it will be so again. The majority of the Vietnamese are borned after 1975. They have no emotional ties to the war and even hatred for the government
You asked for directions on how to get to Ho Chi minh
by driving and then the whole
bus erupted in laughter? Boy you must be speaking very loud!
Yes you can call it both and there's is nothing wrong with that. Just like how Beijing can be referred to as Peking. You can call it whichever one you like.
Of course they don't hate their government, it's government isn't the monster the west believed it to be.
[/B]. I talked to a lot of former VC fighters who made it and all of them regretted their participation in the war. Here is one of them...
Yes I am sure you met him, got a picture taken and signed by him in person too
I am sure people will have no trouble locating sources of American soldiers regretting its participtions. Many of them went into wars thinking it was the right thing to do until they realized that they actually had little to no reasons to be there. Here are some of them:
Vietnam War Crimes: I feel remorse | Suck Bee-when information just won't do.
William Calley ordered in 1968 massacre of My Lai, from the pictures went around the world. Now the American military publicly about his guilt talking.
William Calley, after more than 40 years, publicly apologized for the crime. It is not a day goes by that I do not feel regret about what had happened in My Lai, Calley said on Wednesday before members of the Kiwanis Club of Columbus in the U.S. state of Georgia.
I feel remorse because of the Vietnamese who were killed because their families and the U.S. soldiers who were involved, and their families I am very sorry. Became his first apology on Saturday.
I met the William Calley by accident too after his public appology. I commended him for his bravery and told him that he did the right thing and he gave me an Omega watch as a gift. It was from his Jewllery shop.
Why was Ho powerless in the first place? Do you not think rivals had anything to do with that? But in the interests of fairness, if you know there are rivals to your positions, how would YOU handled it? Would you compromise with them? Or would you collaborate with the enemy and kill them?
I would handle it the way Deim did via rigging votes, false imprisonment and killing off rivalries. Sorry, I was just teasing!
Bullsh!!...You know zilch about Ho, even less about Diem, and even far less about the history between the two of them. If you did know anything about Diem, you would not have made that flippant remark and give some credible arguments about their relationships.
You appear to know very little about Diem and Ho yourself. All you seem to know is Ho is a traitor, he sided with the French and killed its rivals. Little did you know that the "popular" Diem you was talking about, has committed crimes of the same (if not worse). I don't care about their personal love affairs. That is not my concern. I am more concerned about someone who knows little about the history of Vietnam and is finding it hard to convey history convincingly.