Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you come to that conclusion? It is a point of contention that absent U.S. intervention in Vietnam the Khmer would have never achieved power. There is a credible argument that had the U.S. not overthrown Prince Sihanouk and not bombed NVA supply routes, radicalizing the population, Cambodia would not have become what was in effect communism lite.
And that point of contention is a joke. North Vietnamese rulers appreciated Sihanouk's willingness to collaborate, but they were planning to dispose of his monarchy and put in a communist (and compliant to the Hanoi government and ethnic Vietnamese friendly) regime after North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam.
Meanwhile, Pol Pot was formulating his "Year Zero" plan of utter savagery after meeting Mao in 1966, before the USA even intervened.
Hanoi's regime only turned against Pol Pot's genocidal madness when that madness began to target the ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia.
Funny how you don't implicate cutting off aid to the Lon Nol regime as causing Pol Pot to take power, which Pol Pot did after aid to Lon Nol was cut off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
As for Thailand, the "communist" won in both Vietnam and Cambodia but Thailand didn't even though the U.S. pulled out of Thailand at the end of the war. so what basis would one argue that Thailand would have fallen absent U.S. intervention?
By that 1975 time, (1) economic development in Thailand had taken root and reduced the the communist appeal there, (2) Hanoi was too exhausted from the war to try any further communist expansion, and (3) Pol Pot was just too busy putting his genocidal insanity into motion in Cambodia.
After Pol Pot began to persecute and kill ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia, Hanoi intervened to kick Pol Pot out of power.
Last edited by NickB1967; 12-30-2015 at 01:14 PM..
Zepplin, this is the history forum not the wave the flag and mythology forum. The facts are so abundant regarding American interventions for purely economic interest is so replete with examples that I don't know if the format would allow such a copious posting. But here is just a small sampling.
So better the U.S. get it's ass wiped and hold triumphantly high moral ground?
So better the U.S. get it's ass wiped and hold triumphantly high moral ground?
"If democracy was so good you wouldn't have to force it down people's throats, they'd steal it from you."
Dick Gregory.
How was Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Congo or any number of other developing countries going "whip" the U.S.'s butt? You know what is funny, China has for over forty years pursued a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of developing nations and has never had its citizens held hostage, its embassies attacked and yet has found a way to successfully pursue its economic interest. So yeah, it seems to me that holding the at least to the values the the nation espouses would seem to be a course of action where worrying about your butt being whipped would be the wiser road.
"If democracy was so good you wouldn't have to force it down people's throats, they'd steal it from you."
Dick Gregory.
How was Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Congo or any number of other developing countries going "whip" the U.S.'s butt? You know what is funny, China has for over forty years pursued a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of developing nations and has never had its citizens held hostage, its embassies attacked and yet has found a way to successfully pursue its economic interest. So yeah, it seems to me that holding the at least to the values the the nation espouses would seem to be a course of action where worrying about your butt being whipped would be the wiser road.
China intervened in Korea, invaded and annexed Tibet, clashed with India, clashed with the USSR, and invaded Vietnam. Most of those are developing nations or were so at the time.
Not to mention how they are throwing their weight around in the South China Sea these days.
Yup, he was in a "re-education camp" - Communist Vietnam's version of a gulag/Nazi concentration camp, locked up for decades. He is lucky to have survived it, I understand hundreds of thousands South Vietnamese perished in these camps.
ARVN's elite troops were known as "Black Panthers" I think, as tough as Marines.
And, to be clear, those that "hate us" do it because they see the US as abandoning their country to communists. They hate us, not because we fought in Vietnam, but because we left Vietnam.
Have to agree with the last line in your post because we left Vietnam. Barely a fair warning and we left the vietnamese totally defenseless,high and dry. Watch some of that video if you ever get a chance its more than heartbreaking. That was a govt decision and the military had no control or say so in it. If this decision would have been made sooner,when it became apparent we weren't going to win,look at all the American lives that would have been saved and way less injured.
"If democracy was so good you wouldn't have to force it down people's throats, they'd steal it from you."
Dick Gregory.
How was Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Congo or any number of other developing countries going "whip" the U.S.'s butt? You know what is funny, China has for over forty years pursued a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of developing nations and has never had its citizens held hostage, its embassies attacked and yet has found a way to successfully pursue its economic interest. So yeah, it seems to me that holding the at least to the values the the nation espouses would seem to be a course of action where worrying about your butt being whipped would be the wiser road.
China intervened in Korea, invaded and annexed Tibet, clashed with India, clashed with the USSR, and invaded Vietnam. Most of those are developing nations or were so at the time.
Not to mention how they are throwing their weight around in the South China Sea these days.
Thank you for nailing this guy's post. It is naive at best but I suspect an agenda that woiuld rather that the West not win. Nature abhors a vacuum and given the nature of the enemy countries they would have interfered. They were not about to let any of those countries go their own way, even though I can't see why the Soviets were interested in the Congo.
China intervened in Korea, invaded and annexed Tibet, clashed with India, clashed with the USSR, and invaded Vietnam. Most of those are developing nations or were so at the time.
Not to mention how they are throwing their weight around in the South China Sea these days.
And are now quite heavily intervening in Africa as well.
And let's not forget the big sponsor of Pol Pot's madness was--you guessed it--Red China.
What is interesting is that there are several strands to Vietnam opposition. The first, which I don't subscribe to, is "the U.S. is evil" or "the U.S. shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of independent countries. The second, the view taken by Norman Podhoretz when he was also a Democratic liberal, and which is my position, is that we shouldn't go in to a controversy unless we're prepared to win. It is not fair to put the lives of heroes on the line as cannon fodder.
In simple terms, North Vietnam's independence should have been on the "ten yard line" by virtue of its invasion of the South. Ditto North Korea. Similarly under the Monroe Doctrine we should not have tolerated Soviet presence in Cuba. Reagan (I'll admit voting for Carter) got it right. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ got it dead wrong.
China intervened in Korea, invaded and annexed Tibet, clashed with India, clashed with the USSR, and invaded Vietnam. Most of those are developing nations or were so at the time.
Not to mention how they are throwing their weight around in the South China Sea these days.
Sorry, but when you idea of intervention is honoring a defense pact against what was perceived as foreign aggression in a bordering country then so be it. Both Tibet and India were an are border disputes not intervention. So call me when the Chinese secret service foments a coup in the Congo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
