How many were killed in the Vietnam War?

[Gracchus]

Do you have any references for the above?

Yes, but it is a simple matter to search them out yourself. You would be more likely to believe them then anyway.

And have you ever heard of the Truman Doctrine, NATO and SEATO?

Yes. I have also heard of the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, and the Missouri Compromise.

What's your point?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, but it is a simple matter to search them out yourself. You would be more likely to believe them then anyway.

Yes. I have also heard of the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, and the Missouri Compromise.

What's your point?

You must think the Truman Doctrine, NATO and SEATO were all formed with the intent of stealing people's oil.

 

[Gracchus]

You must think the Truman Doctrine, NATO and SEATO were all formed with the intent of stealing people's oil.

More than one type of business enterprise benefited from those, and from the things I mentioned. Oil, gold, land, etc, can all drive the greed that sets the policies of nations leading to nearly every war in history.

It is nearly always a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

 

[Chesterton]

More than one type of business enterprise benefited from those, and from the things I mentioned. Oil, gold, land, etc, can all drive the greed that sets the policies of nations leading to nearly every war in history.

Could you be more specific?

 

[Gracchus]

Could you be more specific?

Ah!

You want a for instance?

The planters of Virginia Colony, having grown rich on tobacco, hired one of their own, a fellow named Washington, and others, to survey and claim for them land west of the Appalachians all the way up to the Ohio river and west to the Mississippi.

The English had forbidden the expansion of the colonies over the crest of the Appalachians, so a war was necessary to throw out English power and claim the land. The war was succesful and much wealth was accumulated by the investors when the land was subsequently sold to settlers.

Of course there were others who made a profit from that war, like the New England manufacturers who got to open their trade to the world instead of funneling it through English ports.

Pick a war. The ones who get rich are the winners, and everyone else pays for the war in blood. property, and liberty. The more widely the profits are to be shared, the more popular the war becomes.

 

[Chesterton]

Ah!

You want a for instance?

The planters of Virginia Colony, having grown rich on tobacco, hired one of their own, a fellow named Washington, and others, to survey and claim for them land west of the Appalachians all the way up to the Ohio river and west to the Mississippi.

The English had forbidden the expansion of the colonies over the crest of the Appalachians, so a war was necessary to throw out English power and claim the land. The war was succesful and much wealth was accumulated by the investors when the land was subsequently sold to settlers.

Of course there were others who made a profit from that war, like the New England manufacturers who got to open their trade to the world instead of funneling it through English ports.

Pick a war. The ones who get rich are the winners, and everyone else pays for the war in blood. property, and liberty. The more widely the profits are to be shared, the more popular the war becomes.

I think you posted this in the wrong history thread.

 

[tanzanos]

.

 

[Gracchus]

I think you posted this in the wrong history thread.

I asserted that wars are almost invariably driven by greed. You asked me to be specific, and I mentioned some factors in a specific war.

Some specifics of the Viet Nam conflict had already been mentioned.

What did you wish me to specify?

 

[Chesterton]

NATO? Hmm! NATO is nothing more than a front for the arms industries of the US, UK, Italy, Germany. It had done nothing but cause animosity between neighbours for the purpose of selling more arms. A good example is Greece and Turkey. Allies in NATO but enemies at the behest of the arms industries to secure national interests by buying more arms.

You're actually blaming NATO for Greece and Turkey being enemies? And that Greeks and Turks are so stupid and gullible that a third party could make them enemies for the sake of making money off of them?

Truman doctrine? Ah yes; kill millions of people so that they will not fall victim to communism. Under the Truman doctrine; more dictators received US support than at any time in history. More international thuggery was committed in the name of freedom and lest we forget US interests.

You admitted the main point at least; the goal was stopping communism. But you think more thuggery was committed in the name of freedom than in the name of communism?

 

[Chesterton]

You must think the Truman Doctrine, NATO and SEATO were all formed with the intent of stealing people's oil.

More than one type of business enterprise benefited from those, and from the things I mentioned. Oil, gold, land, etc, can all drive the greed that sets the policies of nations leading to nearly every war in history.

It is nearly always a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

Could you be more specific?

I asserted that wars are almost invariably driven by greed. You asked me to be specific, and I mentioned some factors in a specific war.

Some specifics of the Viet Nam conflict had already been mentioned.

What did you wish me to specify?

You're saying the Vietnam War was fought for money. I asked you specifically how and you gave me some trivia about the American Revolution.

 

[Gracchus]

You're saying the Vietnam War was fought for money. I asked you specifically how and you gave me some trivia about the American Revolution.

Well then!

To state the obvious:

The given reason for the Viet Nam war (Which wasn't ever officially a war, by the way. I wonder why.) was to stop the spread of communism. Communism is an economic system whose stated objective is to stop the concentration of wealth and thus political power into fewer and fewer hands. That is about money.

It meant big military contracts for private industry, and that is about money.

And although I don't remember it being mentioned at the time, Viet Nam has large off-shore oil reserves, and that is about money.

What part of that don't you understand, and do you understand it now?

 

[Chesterton]

Well then!

To state the obvious:

The given reason for the Viet Nam war (Which wasn't ever officially a war, by the way. I wonder why.) was to stop the spread of communism. Communism is an economic system whose stated objective is to stop the concentration of wealth and thus political power into fewer and fewer hands. That is about money.

We should certainly put a lot of stock in the "stated objectives" then, shouldn't we? Everyone knows how the communists spread the wealth and treated everyone equally. I guess that's why Christians were "fleeing" into North Vietnam as you said earlier. I guess in your fantasy world, West Berliners were "fleeing" into East Berlin?

It meant big military contracts for private industry, and that is about money.

And although I don't remember it being mentioned at the time, Viet Nam has large off-shore oil reserves, and that is about money.

What part of that don't you understand, and do you understand it now?

If we wanted the off-shore oil reserves, we'd have just taken them. You could make a perfectly legitimate tactical military case for doing it, and the Vietnamese navy couldn't have given any trouble to the American navy.

 

[MorkandMindy]

There are said to be 600 million barrels of proven reserves, and exploration will probably reveal more.

Many Americans definitely lost. Some made oodles of money.

Some went south to be with family members sundered by the failure of America to honor the Geneva accords. The north-south separation was supposed to be temporary, but the oil was largely in the south, and that had to be sequestered for western business.

Roman Catholics fled the north at the urging of their bishops. Religious folks will act against their own best interests if they can be convinced that it will earn them pie in the sky, by and by, when they die. Since they already believed ridiculous nonsense, such conviction was easily secured.

To the extent that foreign troops were driven out the Vietnamese won.

Arms dealers in the U.S. made lots of money, and could be said to have won.

The common folk on both sides lost much, and are still losing.

The North Vietnamese were ordinary people. The NVA were ordinary people in an army.

There were some people, ordinary in every way apart from believing in a God. They believed the Virgin Mary had gone South and those were Roman Catholics who could be convinced to do a lot of things as long as they thought their God wanted them to.

There was a 300 day period allowed for people to relocate. There was no chance of voting out Ho Chi Min in the North and nearly all the oil was in the South so the decision was made to move the Catholics from the North to the South in the hope of holding it.

So in the US the slogan was invented: 'The Virgin Mary is heading South', and although it was estimated, that overall 80% of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Min, partitioning the country got that figure down to only about 60% in the South.

But it wasn't to last. The Buddhists majority in the South was shocked when Diem dedicated South Vietnam to the Virgin Mary. Then Diem's brother raised the Vatican flag and the Buddhist flag was made illegal, the Buddhists protested and some were shot, and eventually pagodas were sacked and more Buddhists shot.

And religious sectarian fighting continued, albeit somewhat one-sided.

Buddhists are not fond of killing but were more than happy to help Ho get rid of the troublesome Roman Catholic rule in the South. Also although nominally Buddhist, the actual religion is rather syncretic, including other religions and ancestor worship. The Communist government is rather keen on getting rid of all the religions. I'm not sure they will succeed.

 

[Gracchus]

We should certainly put a lot of stock in the "stated objectives" then, shouldn't we? Everyone knows how the communists spread the wealth and treated everyone equally.

Christians of course, have always been fair and tolerant. People fail at their idealism and governments seldom even try to succeed.

I guess that's why Christians were "fleeing" into North Vietnam as you said earlier.

No, some fled south when they realized that the America and the puppet government were not going to allow reunification, and they wanted to be reunited with their families. Some fled south because the Roman Catholic hierarchy told them to.

I guess in your fantasy world, West Berliners were "fleeing" into East Berlin?

People fled from East Germany for the same reasons the Gemanic tribes came across the Rhine into Roman Gaul, and the Mexicans are crossing the Rio Grande. They wanted more money.

If we wanted the off-shore oil reserves, we'd have just taken them. You could make a perfectly legitimate tactical military case for doing it, and the Vietnamese navy couldn't have given any trouble to the American navy.

And just so, Hitler made a perfectly legitimate tactical military case for invading Poland. The Polish army certainly couldn't give him any trouble. The nations of the world weren't fooled by his stated reasoning, and perceived the clear threat of international piracy. He could kill all the Jews and Gypsies he liked with impunity, but his grab of land and assets made foreign businessmen very nervous.

It may be easy to conquer an empire, but history has demonstrated just how hard it is to hold one.

The American people won in Viet Nam by getting out.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... No, some fled south when they realized that the America and the puppet government were not going to allow reunification, and they wanted to be reunited with their families. Some fled south because the Roman Catholic hierarchy told them to.
...

We should certainly put a lot of stock in the "stated objectives" then, shouldn't we? Everyone knows how the communists spread the wealth and treated everyone equally. I guess that's why Christians were "fleeing" into North Vietnam as you said earlier. I guess in your fantasy world, West Berliners were "fleeing" into East Berlin?

...

This pointless dispute is based on an error Gracchus made in post 19:

Some went south to be with family members sundered by the failure of America to honor the Geneva accords. The north-south separation was supposed to be temporary, but the oil was largely in the south, and that had to be sequestered for western business.

Roman Catholics fled the north at the urging of their bishops. Religious folks will act against their own best interests if they can be convinced that it will earn them pie in the sky, by and by, when they die. Since they already believed ridiculous nonsense, such conviction was easily secured.

 

[Gracchus]

This pointless dispute is based on an error Gracchus made in post 19;

Some went south to be with family members sundered by the failure of America to honor the Geneva accords. The north-south separation was supposed to be temporary, but the oil was largely in the south, and that had to be sequestered for western business.

Roman Catholics fled the north at the urging of their bishops.

What, pray tell, was the error?

 

[Chesterton]

Christians of course, have always been fair and tolerant. People fail at their idealism and governments seldom even try to succeed.

I guess the communists should have tried a little harder to acheive their golden ideals. Maybe they should have invaded Western Europe and enslaved them. Then maybe they'd still be around (as we are).

No, some fled south when they realized that the America and the puppet government were not going to allow reunification, and they wanted to be reunited with their families. Some fled south because the Roman Catholic hierarchy told them to.

People fled from East Germany for the same reasons the Gemanic tribes came across the Rhine into Roman Gaul, and the Mexicans are crossing the Rio Grande. They wanted more money.

"Events resulting from the Vietnam War led many people in Cambodia, Laos, and especially Vietnam to become refugees in the late 1970s and 1980s, after the fall of Saigon. In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] According to published academic studies in the United States and Europe, 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured.[1] These factors, coupled with poverty and the total destruction of the country that happened during the Vietnam war, caused hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to flee the country. In 1979, Vietnam was at war (Sino-Vietnamese War) with the People's Republic of China (PRC). Many ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, who felt that the government's policies directly targeted them, also became "boat people." On the open seas, the boat people had to confront forces of nature, and elude pirates."

Boat people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just so, Hitler made a perfectly legitimate tactical military case for invading Poland. The Polish army certainly couldn't give him any trouble. The nations of the world weren't fooled by his stated reasoning, and perceived the clear threat of international piracy. He could kill all the Jews and Gypsies he liked with impunity, but his grab of land and assets made foreign businessmen very nervous.

It may be easy to conquer an empire, but history has demonstrated just how hard it is to hold one.

The American people won in Viet Nam by getting out.

You acknowledge that America didn't act as Germany did. You're agreeing with me.

 

[MorkandMindy]

What, pray tell, was the error?

Some went south to be with family members sundered by the failure of America to honor the Geneva accords. The north-south separation was supposed to be temporary, but the oil was largely in the south, and that had to be sequestered for western business.

Roman Catholics fled the north at the urging of their bishops.

You are right, there isn't an error, I just misread it and so did the other respondent. I took it to mean 'fled South' and just thought it was a typo, whereas it was a reado, whereas the other respondent decided to use it as an excuse to waste everyone's time.

You are right that:
Roman Catholics fled the north at the urging of their bishops.

Means the same as
Roman Catholics fled South at the urging of their bishops.
given that we are talking only about the temporary N. and S. partitions of Vietnam.

But since the primary motive was to bring an obedient population into the South I prefer the second way of expressing it.

Anyway I enjoyed that because I come to CF principally to improve my reading and writing skills and that helped with my reading, cheers, Mork

 

[Chesterton]

You are right, there isn't an error, I just misread it and so did the other respondent. I took it to mean 'fled South' and just thought it was a typo, whereas it was a reado, whereas the other respondent decided to use it as an excuse to waste everyone's time.

You're right. Very strange we both read "fled the north" as "fled north". But why was an honest mistake on your part an excuse to waste time on my part?

You are right that:
Roman Catholics fled the north at the urging of their bishops.

Means the same as
Roman Catholics fled South at the urging of their bishops.
given that we are talking only about the temporary N. and S. partitions of Vietnam.

But since the primary motive was to bring an obedient population into the South I prefer the second way of expressing it.

You call it temporary, but no one knew that at the time. I would have told anyone I cared about to flee communism.

(Not that anyone needs me to tell them. No one today flees into North Korea or Cuba.)

 

[MorkandMindy]

You're right. Very strange we both read "fled the north" as "fled north". But why was an honest mistake on your part an excuse to waste time on my part?

Not much of a waste of time it is true, and I guess it may have been unavoidable so maybe I shouldn't have commented on it, but here's the bit:

We should certainly put a lot of stock in the "stated objectives" then, shouldn't we? Everyone knows how the communists spread the wealth and treated everyone equally. I guess that's why Christians were "fleeing" into North Vietnam as you said earlier. I guess in your fantasy world, West Berliners were "fleeing" into East Berlin?

...

at first reading it came across as being sarcastic