130 replies to this topic

[jiangji]

It depend on how you define as won. Victory over the Viet Cong, Conquer the entire Vietnam or winning majority local Support. US had the resources to conquer the entire vietnam but will never win against the Viet Cong and or get majority local support. US was hugely unpopular among the local because they support a dictatorship government instead of choose Ho Chih Minh democarcy path.

Edited by jiangji, 28 February 2006 - 04:32 PM.

[MC420]

It depend on how you define as won. Victory over the Viet Cong, Conquer the entire Vietnam or winning majority local Support. US had the resources to conquer the entire vietnam but will never win against the Viet Cong and or get majority local support. US was hugely unpopular among the local because they support a dictatorship government instead of choose Ho Chih Minh democarcy path.

First of all, in 1950's there wasn't any democratic gov't existed in entire Asia or Southeast Asia region; Regardless it was in Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, or Vietnam!

Secondly, Ho-Chi-Minh <-- was never ever followed any democratic path!

The US lost Vietnam <-- simply:

1) the Americans were underestimated their opponents and their will to fight (as the Ming's Yongle did learn his lesson as well from 1407-1427)!

2) they took the war over by themselves (bit off more than they could chew), by the time they planned to withdraw from the since 1969 <-- it was already too late!

3) they supported wrong ally (supporting the outdated colonist French) by rearmed them and brought back to Indochina after the WWII

4) they dictated and controlled the fighting by themselves (by the time they wrapped up to run in 1972), the Vietnam war <-- technically speaking was already a lost cause!

Edited by MC420, 28 February 2006 - 05:48 PM.

[jiangji]

First of all, in 1950's there wasn't any democratic gov't existed in entire Asia or Southeast Asia region; Regardless it was in Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, or Vietnam!

Incorrect. In Southeast Asian region, Malaya and Philippines are a democratic nations.

Secondly, Ho-Chi-Minh <-- was never ever followed any democratic path! )

Incorrect. Ho did tries to submit his Eight point programme to the US president Wilson which demand that "the right of self determination"; "Constitutional government"; freedom of press; "freedom to organize and assemble";"abolition of forced labor". However, it was being ignored by the US at that time and never made it onto Versaillers agenda. Finally, Ho had no choice but turn towards USSR.

Even during the Vietnam wars, Ho did want peace but not on terms set up by the USA. USA know very well that the Communists will surely win if there was a election. You can check the history book on Vietnam wars written by Canadian historian like E Alyn Mitchner and R joanne Tuff.

3) they supported wrong ally (supporting the outdated colonist French) by rearmed them and brought back to Indochina after the WWII

The french was already out by the time 1965. Then, The Americans support the unpopular dictatorship government at the South.

Edited by jiangji, 28 February 2006 - 07:05 PM.

[MC420]

Incorrect. In Southeast Asian region, Malaya and Philippines are a democratic nations.

Corrections! Malaysia did not confederate to obtain independent until 1961. Regarding what happens in Indonesia in the 1950's; who would considered Pres. Sukarno as "domocratic"? In the Philippines, the country was still pretty much dominated by the American's influence and aids from the 1950's through the Marcos' regime which lasted until the late 1980's. If one considers these were democratic/elected form of gov't <-- yes, it looked nice on paper though!

Incorrect. Ho did tries to submit his Eight point programme to the US president Wilson which demand that "the right of self determination"; "Constitutional government"; freedom of press; "freedom to organize and assemble";"abolition of forced labor". However, it was being ignored by the US at that time and never made it onto Versaillers agenda. Finally, Ho had no choice but turn towards USSR.

Corrections! Ho Chi Minh <-- had always been a Russian agent himself from the very beginning of his returning to Vietnam therefore and thereby he could never been a democratic person. He was riding on the indepedent movement after the defeat of the Japanese by the Allies in 1945 and Ho and his comrades systematically eliminated hundred of thousands Vietnamese nationalists who didn't follow his proclaimed communist party.

The French colonist officially left VN after the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954; nevertheless, the Americans took over the war officially in 1964 (when they poured in about 500,000 troops); the South Vietnamese gov't (or pupet gov't in lieu of South Korean or Taiwanese, etc) didn't really have a chance to oppose the NVA and VC at all!

I personally did try to compile a short period of Vietnam history from 1960-1980 while I was still in college in the US .. therefore I would welcome any additional information to update my understanding of the Vietnam war! Many thanks in advance!

[adoo]

Ho-Chi-Minh <-- was never ever followed any democratic path!

at one time, he was a CIA operative, an ally of the US; his handle was erik

1) the Americans were underestimated their opponents and their will to fight

they also over-estimated SVN military's will to fight.

2) they took the war over by themselves (bit off more than they could chew)

the US was too macho thinking that it can fix the mess left behind by the French, who were more than happy to hand-off the mess to the Yanks.

[jiangji]

Corrections! Malaysia did not confederate to obtain independent until 1961. Regarding what happens in Indonesia in the 1950's; who would considered Pres. Sukarno as "domocratic"? In the Philippines, the country was still pretty much dominated by the American's influence and aids from the 1950's through the Marcos' regime which lasted until the late 1980's. If one considers these were democratic/elected form of gov't <-- yes, it looked nice on paper though!

Incorrect. Malaya and Northern Borneo(Sarawak and Sabah under British control) are totally unrelated before the 1961. Northern Borneo were never under control or part of Malaya. You can check the history of both states.

Malaya become a totally independent country in 1957, then the prime minister of Abdul rahman invites the Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei with Bumiputra majority to join the federation. When Sarawak and Sabah become independent and join Malaya. By then, Malaya become Malaysia.


For philipine, it you consider that not democractic...none of the countries like USA, Japan and Western European is considered as democractic. Do you hear about "lobby group" ?

Corrections! Ho Chi Minh <-- had always been a Russian agent himself from the very beginning of his returning to Vietnam therefore and thereby he could never been a democratic person. He was riding on the indepedent movement after the defeat of the Japanese by the Allies in 1945 and Ho and his comrades systematically eliminated hundred of thousands Vietnamese nationalists who didn't follow his proclaimed communist party.

Incorrect. Look at his history before 1920s. In 1918, he submit a eight point programme to US president Wilson but was ignored. You can read some of the history books written by more neutral historian like the one I suggested above.

The French colonist officially left VN after the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954; nevertheless, the Americans took over the war officially in 1964 (when they poured in about 500,000 troops); the South Vietnamese gov't (or pupet gov't in lieu of South Korean or Taiwanese, etc) didn't really have a chance to oppose the NVA and VC at all!

This is what I said. I don't know what you trying to says.

Edited by jiangji, 28 February 2006 - 07:51 PM.

[MC420]

The french was already out by the time 1965. Then, The Americans support the unpopular dictatorship government at the South.

It's my correction for you; the French withdrew from VN in 1955; South Vietnam also went through couple general elections (should you called it democratic) prior to the first presidential election of Ngo Dinh Diem.

Look at his history before 1920s. In 1918, he submit a eight point programme to US president Wilson but was ignored. You can read some of the history books written by more neutral historian like the one I suggested above.

Who was Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam before 1930; basically he was still an unknown entity in VN before then. Ho joined the French's communisty party while he was still in Paris in 1920. He went to the former USSR in 1924 and received his training as a communist agent over there. What position could he be in to address to Pres. Wilson who attended the Versailes Peace conference in 1919?

Regarding who's & who's among Vietnamese nationalists in the early's 1900's perhaps one could search for the names of Phan Boi Chau (who found the Duy Tan party) and Nguyen Thai Hoc ho later organized the Vietnam's KMT in 1927 instead!

Ho-Chi-Minh <-- at one time, he was a CIA operative, an ally of the US; his handle was erik!

Correction; During the WWII, any entities which resisted the Japanese would be considered as the allies including the former USSR or its operative agents in Vietnam such as Ho & his comrades! Secondly, CIA did not exist back then but agents of the SOS were placed all over from Burma to China and North Vietnam as well!

Perhaps we would need a separate thread to discuss the entity of Ho Chi Minh eh!

[jiangji]

It's my correction for you; the French withdrew from VN in 1955;

I think its my phrase of word that mistaken you. I says "the french was already out by the time of 1965". What I tries to tell you is that the french already out long before US full scale war with Viet Cong which start at 1965.

South Vietnam also went through couple general elections (should you called it democratic) prior to the first presidential election of Ngo Dinh Diem.

This is well recorded that US and the Diem government does not recongnize elections mandated by Geneva agreement 1954. This is undeniable fact. The US does not come to bring democarcy to Vietnam but to supress it because they know pretty well that the communists is going to win the election. You know this, right ?

Who was Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam before 1930; basically he was still an unknown entity in VN before then. Ho joined the French's communisty party while he was still in Paris in 1920. He went to the former USSR in 1924 and received his training as a communist agent over there. What position could he be in to address to Pres. Wilson who attended the Versailes Peace conference in 1919?

We do know he did want Vietnam move towards a democracy path but the US ignore it. Even long after that, Ho wants US to obey the Geneva 1954 agreement but were rejected because the US know very well the Communists will surely win any election. So, Ho only ways to reunify Vietnam is to fight. Read the "Global Forces of 12th century" by E Alyn Mitchner or other neutral sources.

Edited by jiangji, 28 February 2006 - 11:40 PM.

[MC420]

We do know he did want Vietnam move towards a democracy path but the US ignore it.

Who do you refer to as "we"? CCP & VCP? These entities would want to move forward to democratic path? Is it someone fantasy or merely hallucination? Who would consider any Stalinist agents such as Ho Chi Minh or Kim Jung Il would want democracy?

Read the "Global Forces of 12th century" by E Alyn Mitchner or other neutral sources.

Regarding current VN's history, millions of Vietnamese would not need to have a reality check with E Alyn Mitchner or anyone else since we are still the surviving witnesses of many atrocities committed by HCM's followers, which caused and brought VN to its current doormat position in the Southeast Asia region!

What would be HCM and his followers agenda?

Kick out the American emperialists?

Down with the American's pupets (including the South Korean, Taiwanese, etc)

After million deaths during their liberation war, hundred thousands of the brightest Vietnamese became imprisoned in those so called "reeducation camps", what do they achieve now? Rolling out the red carpet to welcome back the capitalist Americans and their pupets (South Koreans, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.) and even their former archrival enemies .... the South Vietnamese who live in overseas?

It must be the joke of the century for someone to associate HCM and his followers with intention to move forward to the democratic path!

People Republic of Vietnam <--- Democratic, Independent, and Happy <--- It's so truth for those VCP comrades who are exploiting their monopoly power to enrich themselves over the sufferings of the mass!

Edited by MC420, 01 March 2006 - 12:15 AM.

[LYY]

do you people feel that the u.s could have won the vietnam war if they had not given in to public pressure from the states?

I think the first part of the answer is reflected by the efficacy of the US army in his mass military actions against the Saddam's regime in Iraq in 2003. The second part is reflected by the US policies in Iraq after the mass military action.

Edited by LYY, 01 March 2006 - 12:37 AM.

[jiangji]

Who do you refer to as "we"? CCP & VCP? These entities would want to move forward to democratic path? Is it someone fantasy or merely hallucination? Who would consider any Stalinist agents such as Ho Chi Minh or Kim Jung Il would want democracy?

Ho chin Minh want to move its nation toward democracrtic path. Do you remember the Geneva agreement 1954 ? Need I explain further to make you understand ? As I already said, it is history not "fantasy or merely hallucination". Ho Chin Minh want the US to obey the agreement which is an free elections but was rejected. I wonder who is hallucinating.

Regarding current VN's history, millions of Vietnamese would not need to have a reality check with E Alyn Mitchner or anyone else since we are still the surviving witnesses of many atrocities committed by HCM's followers, which caused and brought VN to its current doormat position in the Southeast Asia region!
What would be HCM and his followers agenda?

Now, I suggest you to read the Vietnam wars history carefully instead of reading from the internet about which sides incurred more death. If HCM followers did commit such serious atrocities, US and the South Vietnamese government is even worse than that. You should refer to reliable sources or BBC news about the death of millions of vietnamese that killed by US and the sourthern government. The northern Vietnam suffer the most lossess with millions of viet cong and peasants were killed. Now tell me... Why do the viet cong want to kill their supporter ? why do majority of people continue support them ? Why do the US did not support democractic process which could easily eliminate them if the Viet minh is unpopular?

After million deaths during their liberation war, hundred thousands of the brightest Vietnamese became imprisoned in those so called "reeducation camps", what do they achieve now? Rolling out the red carpet to welcome back the capitalist Americans and their pupets (South Koreans, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.) and even their former archrival enemies .... the South Vietnamese who live in overseas?

It must be the joke of the century for someone to associate HCM and his followers with intention to move forward to the democratic path!

You got it wrong again. Ho chih Minh tries his best to avoid the wars. Firstly, he ask the US government to obey the Geneva agreement 1954 but get rejected. If you are him, what are you going to do ? Fight to reunify Vietnam or let it divided like North and south Korea ? It is no joke that Ho want to move his nations towards democarcy. If he is as "evil" as you said he is, why do he support the Geneva agreement 1954 which was rejected by US ? Use some logic or common sense to support your argument evethough you hate him.

Edited by jiangji, 01 March 2006 - 11:50 AM.

[jiangji]

Why did the Communists not implement democracy after the United States left, and the nation was once again reunited? Would it be plausible to assume that Ho Chi Minh supported democracy only when he knew it would serve his interests because he knew he would win in much the same vein as the United States? Or similar to Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillippines who came to power via "democracy" and then assumed absolute control by denying democracy once he was in power. Marcos, however, was supported by the US. They would prefer him than the Communists.

Ho chin Minh died in 1969 long before the Vietnam Wars ended. He can't stop what would happen after he died. It is just like Mao does not control or can't stop China from moving towards capitalism.

Edited by jiangji, 01 March 2006 - 12:38 PM.