• 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!

Was Vietnam a just war?

Was Vietnam a just war?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Yes, it was just

    Votes: 10 23.8%
  • No, it wasn't just

    Votes: 30 71.4%

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
The worst act the US could have ever done was allow England to retain all English forts. Same for the South.

The English were an imperial power ruling over the American colonies. South Carolina voluntarily entered into the United States and voluntarily ratified the Constitution that made forts the communal property of the United States via the Federal government.

No one held a gun to their heads and made them sign that agreement. They did it of their own free will. Likewise, they freely gave up any rights or claims of ownership they had over any of that communal property when they unilaterally seceded without any negotiation.
 
Now you’re claiming you went to East Germany? I’m calling even more bull**** on that.

Also, modern Vietnam isn’t exactly under the thumb of the Stasi.

YES, i spent time in East Germany two times. I feel sorry for the republic of Vietnam. Truly I do.

I can tell you sites in East Germany I visited. For instance the ruins of the Hitler Bunker were still there. And the Russians had a magnificent Cemetery where troops were buried standing up. It was explained that it was a symbol the Nazis did not cause them to be fallen. It was dumb to me but it was some Russian idea.
 
The English were an imperial power ruling over the American colonies. South Carolina voluntarily entered into the United States and voluntarily ratified the Constitution that made forts the communal property of the United States via the Federal government.

No one held a gun to their heads and made them sign that agreement. They did it of their own free will. Likewise, they freely gave up any rights or claims of ownership they had over any of that communal property when they unilaterally seceded without any negotiation.

Abraham was an imperial power. They sent representatives to Abe but he kicked them out. Refused to negotiate.
 
Abraham was an imperial power. They sent representatives to Abe but he kicked them out. Refused to negotiate.

Lincoln hasn’t even been inaugurated when South Carolina seceded. The time to negotiate was before secession, not after.

If they wanted to unilaterally withdraw from the US without any discussions first, then **** them, show their reps the door. I would have done the same thing.
 
Lincoln hasn’t even been inaugurated when South Carolina seceded. The time to negotiate was before secession, not after.

If they wanted to unilaterally withdraw from the US without any discussions first, then **** them, show their reps the door. I would have done the same thing.

The issue is how South Carolina seceded. And at that time, it was considered lawful.
 
The issue is how South Carolina seceded. And at that time, it was considered lawful.

Yep. I agree with that. It was 100% lawful at the time. It also totally abrogated any claims they had on communal property of the United States by being unilateral.

Had they left Fort Sumter alone, it would have been fine.
 
Is that why you are devoted to the communists? Communists were not mere leftists, they were very evil and killed millions.

Not everyone who fought fascism was a devoted communist. You can look it up. The choice in these situations is not between Hitler and Stalin, but between tyranny and freedom.
 
Not everyone who fought fascism was a devoted communist. You can look it up. The choice in these situations is not between Hitler and Stalin, but between tyranny and freedom.

It seems as if Hitler did far more for Germany than Stalin ever did for the Soviet Union. Hitler was not a fascist. But very evil the same.

We in America elected this wonderful president and you see the enormous resistance from prior to him taking office developing. And he is no communist, fascist nor socialist.
 
Yep. I agree with that. It was 100% lawful at the time. It also totally abrogated any claims they had on communal property of the United States by being unilateral.

Had they left Fort Sumter alone, it would have been fine.

They would have made a huge error staying clear of Sumter.
 
Without superpower willingness to project power around the globe, fledgling democracies would never have been safe to get on their feet.

We also destroyed democracies in the process.
 
Vietnam helped establish the umbrella of freedom under which the world blossomed.

I dont think we really did with the vietnam war all the while kissinger was jumping to support pol pot which the viet cong was fighting, pol pot was an even worse tyrant.
 
Numerous elections have elected communist candidates in various places in the world.

The South, under Diem, did their best to make sure there was no election. It was the North, under Ho Chi Minh, that wanted one.

Elections Balked
July 5, 1971


Credit...The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
July 5, 1971, Page 14 Buy Reprints

In July 1955, under the provisions of the Geneva agreements, the two zones of Vietnam were to begin consultations on the elections scheduled for the next year.
But Premier Diem refused to talk with the Communists. And in July 1956, he refused to hold elections for reunification. He asserted that the South Vietnamese government had not signed the Geneva accords and therefore was not bound by them.

...................................................snipe.............................................................................

But the Pentagon account also cites State Department cables and National Security Council memorandums indicat ing that the Eisenhower Administration wished to postpone the elections as long as possible and communicated its feelings to Mr. Diem.

As early as July 7, 1954, during the Geneva conference, Secretary Dulles suggested that the United States ought to seek to delay the elections and to require guarantees that the Communists could be expected to reject.

In a secret cablegram to Under Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith, who filled in for him after he withdrew from the Geneva conference, Secretary Dulles wrote:

“Since undoubtedly true that elections might eventually mean unification Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, this makes it all more important they should be only held as long after cease‐fire agreement as possible and in conditions free from intimidation to give democratic elements best chance.”

Following similar reasoning, the National Security Council in May 1955, shortly before consultations on the elections were supposed to begin, produced a draft statement, “U.S. Policy on All Vietnam Elections.”

According to the Pentagon study, “held that to give no impression of blocking elections while avoiding the possibility of losing them, Diem should insist on free elections by secret ballot with strict supervision. Communists in Korea and Germany had rejected these conditions; hopefully, the Vietminh would follow suit.”

But on June 9, the account says, the Council “decided to shelve the draft statement. Its main features had already been conveyed to Diem.”
Secretary Dulles's ambivalent attitude toward the Geneva accords is also re flected in a cablegram he sent to the United States Embassy in Saigon on Dec. 11, 1955, outlining Washington's position toward the International Control Commission.

Neither Help Nor Hindrance

“While we should certainly take no positive step to speed up the present process of decay of Geneva accords,” it said, “neither should we make the slightest effort to infuse life into them.” In May 1956, in what the Pentagon account says is an “example of the U.S. ignoring” the Geneva accords, 350 additional military men were sent to Saigon under the pretext of helping the Viet names recover and redistribute equipment abandoned by the French.

Elections Balked - The New York Times
 
I really don't care what you doubt. And if you really need an education about why wearing masks is important to protect other people, even arrogant people that refuse to wear a mask, then you should learn how to google. I'm not here as your information source for mask wearing.

BS BS BS

No one asked if you need an education about anything. You were asked to explain how masks designed to filter particles greater than 3,000 microns can protect against viruses smaller than 50 nanometers? You claim to be a nurse, here's your opportunity to prove it true.
 
The South Vietnamese had no problem with lining people up against the wall and shooting them in the name of protecting capitalist profits.

link if you can.
 
Yep, dictatorships are cool so long as the rich have the freedom to make record profits, right?

Don't ask me, I refuse to accept dictates from anyone other than my wife, uh okay, my grandkids and Dog. And my sisters, very scary.
 
BS BS BS

No one asked if you need an education about anything. You were asked to explain how masks designed to filter particles greater than 3,000 microns can protect against viruses smaller than 50 nanometers? You claim to be a nurse, here's your opportunity to prove it true.

Nursing is my science, not particulate research, nevertheless, N95's filter out most airborne particles. I wear an N95 whenever I go out in public. It will filter out particles down to 0.3 microns in diameter. The coronavirus measures between 0.05 and 0.2 microns in diameter.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh tested all kinds of masks, from N95 to surgical and dust masks. They ran a diesel generator (to mimic car exhaust) and piped the exhaust through the masks. They used a particle counter to see how many particles made it through the mask. The specific particle counter they used measured particles as small as 0.007 microns and that's over 10 times smaller than the coronavirus particle diameter. We’re talking about truly tiny particles here.

A surgical mask filtered 80% of particles, a handerchief filtered only 28%, but a 3M filtered 96.6% of particles. And surprisingly, a regular dust mask filtered out 98.3%. The bottom line is that you can be just about as safe using a type A dust mask as you are using a 3M hepa filter mask - without the valve of course.

You claim to be a 'old fat guy' and I need proof of that. GO
 
Of course it was just. Any military action opposing the communists was inherently just.
 
Ho Chi Minh and Duan had no legal right to impose their will on the South.

For a very long time it was under the protection of France, like we did for Hawaii prior to it getting statehood.

We annexed Hawaii as a territory after destroying the indigenous population with measles. And we did so for Dole foods. They wanted those pineapple plantations. We protected Hawaii from no one, for no one threatened Hawaii but our own nation.
 
I’m discussing 1945. France abandoned its colony in Indochina in 1941 to the Japanese without a fight.

We should have told them to go **** themselves when they demanded it back, especially after the Viet Minh fought for years against the Japanese occupation.

But DeGaulle, DeGaulle, DeGaulle, the pompesass was tall.
 
You sound like a Leninist, who would naturally say “there is no such thing as an unjust war against a capitalist.” Blind anti-communism has resulted in mass killing and misery in many places, as has blind communism.

And of course, “communist” means anything a dictator wants it to be. As Steinbeck had one of the farm bosses in one novel say when faced with attempts at a union, something like, “A communist is any sob who asks for 35 cents an hour when I am paying 25.”

What’s your definition? Other than bogeyman, that is.

There is no such thing as Anti communist mass killings.

Occasionally countries like Spain or Chile needed to take decisive action to stop Marxist subversion in their countries, but these were police actions to prevent real mass killings like what happened in Russia or Cambodia or China

Steinbeck was very ignorant of economics if that was his beliefs.
 
I fought in Vietnam and it didn't take long to realize we were an occupying army. The ARVN were inept and unmotivated. Any success or failure in Vietnam rested squarely on the shoulders of the US military. We did a very good job of killing our enemies. The kill ratios in the engagements I was in were always 10 or 20 to one. But that is not what we were there for. We were in Vietnam to break up the USSR. Our leaders knew that forcing the USSR to spend Billions to supply their proxy military would severely damage their economy.

Considering that the USSR collapsed a few years after the Vietnam War, the strategy seems valid. If the Vietnam War was an integral part in destroying the evil that was the USSR, it was a just war.

That's what was said about the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for your theory, the Russian presence in North Vietnam was minimal at best, with support in both materials and engineering coming from China. Twice the Russian military advisors were evicted from North Vietnam, mostly because of their arrogance, When Ho had been in Moscow as a student, he was treated like trash. He never forgot.
 
Back
Top Bottom