• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Are We Doing in Niger?

Abbazorkzog said:
What we've been doing, spreading democracy from the business end of an M4...
Click to expand...

ISIS and terrorists respond better to polite discussion. I agree.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, they were fighting a civil war. That war would have been over quite soon had the US not stepped in to "fight Communism" in an undeclared war sparked by an incident in the Gulf of Tonkein that never really happened.

and even with US help, the South Vietnamese wound up losing the civil war. Why was that?
Click to expand...

Because we trusted North Vietnam to honor it's peace agreement, then did not step up to protect South Vietnam when they were attacked 2 years later.

South Vietnam actually won it's "civil war", although it was not a civil war. It was an invasion of one country by another. Calling the Vietnam War a "civil war" is like calling the Korean War a Civil War. Or the War of 1812 a Civil War. Or the border wars between India and Pakistan civil wars.

Yea, uncomfortable truths a lot of people do not like to hear I know. The Geneva Conference formally partitioned it into 2 nations. And almost immediately the North was working on bringing all of the former colony under their own control.

Tell me, what kind of civil war is it when they had been separate nations already for over a decade prior to the GoT incident?

You should know by now I only deal in facts, not propaganda. But please, feel free to check out the 1954 Geneva Conference, and the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. But yea, I recognize that leftists have been painting that war in the same incorrect manner for decades now.

Then people wonder why revisionist history disgusts me.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Because we trusted North Vietnam to honor it's peace agreement, then did not step up to protect South Vietnam when they were attacked 2 years later.

South Vietnam actually won it's "civil war", although it was not a civil war. It was an invasion of one country by another. Calling the Vietnam War a "civil war" is like calling the Korean War a Civil War. Or the War of 1812 a Civil War. Or the border wars between India and Pakistan civil wars.

Yea, uncomfortable truths a lot of people do not like to hear I know. The Geneva Conference formally partitioned it into 2 nations. And almost immediately the North was working on bringing all of the former colony under their own control.

Tell me, what kind of civil war is it when they had been separate nations already for over a decade prior to the GoT incident?

You should know by now I only deal in facts, not propaganda. But please, feel free to check out the 1954 Geneva Conference, and the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. But yea, I recognize that leftists have been painting that war in the same incorrect manner for decades now.

Then people wonder why revisionist history disgusts me.
Click to expand...

OK, facts, the Geneva Conference:

For the Indochina side, the Accords were between France, the Viet Minh, the USSR, the PRC, the US, the United Kingdom, and the future states being made from French Indochina.[3] The agreement temporarily separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh rebels, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bảo Đại. A Conference Final Declaration, issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a general election be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Despite helping create the agreements, they were not directly signed onto nor accepted by delegates of both the State of Vietnam and the United States. In addition, three separate ceasefire accords, covering Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, were signed at the conference.
Click to expand...

The agreement temporarily separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh rebels, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bảo Đại
Click to expand...

The separation was to have been temporary, until...

......provided that a general election be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state
Click to expand...

an election was held to re unify the country.

Despite helping create the agreements, they were not directly signed onto nor accepted by delegates of both the State of Vietnam and the United States.
Click to expand...

which had been carved up, not by the Vietnamese but by other nations.

It's as if some great power had decided to separate the US into North and South back at the time of our own civil war, then fought on the side of the Confederacy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's as if some great power had decided to separate the US into North and South back at the time of our own civil war, then fought on the side of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

False analogy. It would be more like somebody deciding to break up the US after the Revolutionary War, not during the Civil War. Why is it that some people seem to love when Communist nations invade their neighbors? We see it to this day in Korea, and over Vietnam.

Yea, of course ignoring the fact that the North started preparing for invasion and sending over armed rebels before the ink was even dry on that agreement.

The division was political, not unlike that which divided Germany and Korea. A lot of people in all of those nations did not want to live under Communism, but instead in a republic of some sort. That is one thing that pissed off the Communist leaders of all of those divided nations. Especially when they saw a huge amount of money and abilities fleeing to go to the "free side".

Or do you think the Berlin Wall was to keep the poor slobs from West Germany from overwhelming East Germany?

And really, elections during an invasion? Since you seem to love the Wikipedia article on that treaty, you might want to try reading a bit further down:

North Vietnam violated the Geneva Accords by failing to fully withdraw Viet Minh troops from South Vietnam, stifling the movement of North Vietnamese refugees, and conducting a military build-up that more than doubled the number of armed divisions in the North Vietnamese army (while the South Vietnamese army was reduced by 20,000 men). U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army. The failure of reunification led to the creation of the National Liberation Front (better known as the Viet Cong) by Ho Chi Minh's government. They were closely aided by the Vietnam People's Army (VPA) of the North, also known as the North Vietnamese Army. The result was the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...

Now unless you have some kind of references about South Vietnam trying to take over North Vietnam, this is a rather weak argument.
 
Oozlefinch said:
False analogy. It would be more like somebody deciding to break up the US after the Revolutionary War, not during the Civil War. Why is it that some people seem to love when Communist nations invade their neighbors? We see it to this day in Korea, and over Vietnam.

Yea, of course ignoring the fact that the North started preparing for invasion and sending over armed rebels before the ink was even dry on that agreement.

The division was political, not unlike that which divided Germany and Korea. A lot of people in all of those nations did not want to live under Communism, but instead in a republic of some sort. That is one thing that pissed off the Communist leaders of all of those divided nations. Especially when they saw a huge amount of money and abilities fleeing to go to the "free side".

Or do you think the Berlin Wall was to keep the poor slobs from West Germany from overwhelming East Germany?

And really, elections during an invasion? Since you seem to love the Wikipedia article on that treaty, you might want to try reading a bit further down:



Now unless you have some kind of references about South Vietnam trying to take over North Vietnam, this is a rather weak argument.
Click to expand...

Since South Vietnam and North Vietnam are two halves of the same nation, there is no "invasion." Did the Union soldiers invade the Confederacy during our own civil war? Of course not. The difference is that the Confederacy wanted to secede and go its own way. In the case of Vietnam, the nation was partitioned by other nations.

and Ho Chi Minh was some Communist, wasn't he, quoting Jefferson? He was the leader who routed the French Colonialists. Had the rest of the world simply left the nation of Vietnam alone, they would have been one independent nation back in 1954, and a strong ally of the United States. As it is, it took them another 21 years and untold lost blood.
Today, they're a unified country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom