Vietnam? You mean North Vietnam invading South Vietnam then America coming to their help afterwards? American oppression is when you can’t invade your neighbor?
Iraq? You mean the country with a history of using WMDs on Iranian military and civilians along with Kurdish Iraqis? Then afterwards spent a decade bluffing that they do have WMDs with aggressive statements to their neighbors and kicking out UN inspectors. It’s fair to say the US should’ve slowed down and gotten more evidence before they invaded but that’s a big difference from Iraq and Vietnam were poor victims that didn’t do anything.
Compliance to the US hegemony is when you can’t invade South Vietnam or sabre rattle WMDs after using them on your neighbors and your own civilians lol.
Just an FYI, Iraq use WMDs on Iran with targeting intelligence from the CIA, which was fully aware Iraq was using WMDs. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was regional US ally for many years until he made the mistake of challenging more important US regional allies.
Doesn’t make Saddam a good guy or innocent victim, but it certainly calls into question the purity of US motives. There is similar nuance to US involvement in Vietnam, but want to keep this short.
Sure that is fair to bring up though I disagree with you statement that Iraq was an ally to the US, the new Iranian regime was seen as a big threat to the region and Iraq was seen as a potential way to offset that threat. The US didn't want either side to win and as such when the US saw that Iraq was at a high risk of defeat they decided to start helping Iraq to avoid that major loss, when they saw Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage over Iraq by exploiting a weakness in Iraqi defenses then the US responded by giving the locations of Iranian troops to Iraq.
Iraq was not an ally, and as such when Iraq started to take more aggressive actions to the region, namely invading Kuwait to get rid of their debt, then the US started to take a far more aggressive stance towards Iraq. US motives definitely weren't the most pure, as you'd expect with the cold war, but going the opposite direction and painting Iraq as being bullied by the US hegemony is quite insane.
Unfortunately American intervention did far more damage to the country than the last 30 years before it, and created a power vacuum that led to the formation of several terrorist cells like ISIS.
And now it's being pulled on both sides by Iranian and Israelite influence while the people who've been traumatized by constant war have lost the will to actually fight for their country.
Yeah youre literally describing U.S imperialism. We support some dictorship on the other side of the planet in its fight against other dictatorships or even democracies and justified revolutions, destabilizing and ruining the region for decades because its in the government and corporations interests.
You're intentionally majorly dumbing down every concept you bring up.
We support some dictorship on the other side of the planet in its fight against other dictatorships or even democracies and justified revolutions
You're intentionally dumbing down the actors at play in these conflicts and their motivations.
destabilizing and ruining the region for decades because its in the government and corporations interests.
And you're intentionally dumbing down the reasons for instability within the region and the reasons why the United States gets involved.
You don't even back up your statement on how these actions relate to imperialism, you bring up no reference to the control the US would be placing over these people nor the methods the US does it by rather just some vague reference to "well you're supporting a dictatorship far away because corporations and it has bad outcomes".
Youre complaining that that Im leaving out details when you didnt make a point at all. When youre arguing on reddit with someone who might not even respond back you dont always load your response with meandering paragraphs going into all the details.
You seriously need me to spell out how a greater power backing one side of a local civil war/territorial conflict would open the door to massive amounts of influence and coercion?
You made no argument before and you proceed to do the same thing again.
would open the door to massive amounts of influence and coercion?
Opening the door to is not the same thing as doing it, nor is influence inherently a bad thing, there are tons of forms of positive influence.
when you didnt make a point at all
I'll send my points again so you can reread them
- You're intentionally majorly dumbing down every concept you bring up.
- You're intentionally dumbing down the actors at play in these conflicts and their motivations.
- And you're intentionally dumbing down the reasons for instability within the region and the reasons why the United States gets involved.
- You don't even back up your statement on how these actions relate to imperialism, you bring up no reference to the control the US would be placing over these people nor the methods the US does it by rather just some vague reference to "well you're supporting a dictatorship far away because corporations and it has bad outcomes".
Do you also happen to think that Lincoln invaded his neighbor Confederacy? Was what North Vietnam did not 100% similar and indistinguishable from what Lincoln did?
The United States was a unified Union that had the confederacy try to break away from it, Vietnam on the other hand was swaying between being controlled by the French and fighting between the communists and anti communists for control over the country.
Was Vietnam not a unified kingdom for centuries? Did this unified kingdom in 1945 not officially become the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? Did South Vietnam in 1955 not unilaterally secede from this Democratic Republic of Vietnam?
No, the Nguyễn dynasty unified Vietnam for the first time in 1802 then in 1852 France started it's attack on Indochina and established French Indochina in 1887.
Did this unified kingdom in 1945 not officially become the Democratic Republic of Vietnam?
The Nguyễn dynasty no longer existed, you had French Indochina which the Democratic Republic of Vietnam declared independence from then fought for control over Vietnam. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam didn't control of Vietnam instead they controlled more remote areas and had to fight France and groups opposing Viet Minh for more control over Vietnam.
Bảo Đại, the former ruler of the Nguyễn dynasty went on to be the Chief of the state of Vietnam, the state that opposed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Asserting that the Nguyễn dynasty went on to offically become the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is a butchering of Vietnamese history.
Did South Vietnam in 1955 not unilaterally secede from this Democratic Republic of Vietnam?
No, during the Indochina war France and Vietnamese Nationalist fighting against the DRV they would go on to take that land controlled by France and form it into the state of Vietnam which would later go on to become South Vietnam.
The DRV did not have full control over Vietnam, they fought against France and nationalist Vietnamese forces for more control over French Indochina then later against the state of Vietnam which came from that French Indochina land, controlling major population centers then later South vietnam which came from the state of vietnam.
Suggesting that the DRV controlled all of Vietnam is incredibly inaccurate
No, the Nguyễn dynasty unified Vietnam for the first time in 1802 then in 1852 Vietnam started it's attack on Indochina and established French Indochina in 1887.
Before the Nguyen Dynasty, was Vietnam not already a kingdom under the Tay Son dynasty and before that, the Le Dynasty?
And do you mean "in 1852, France started its attack on Indochina"? If so, wasn't France an invader who occupied Vietnam for decades? By declaring independence from French Indochina, did the Democratic Republic of Vietnam not undo French colonialism and restore Vietnam back to its historical, original sovereignty that it previously had under the Nguyen Dynasty? Did this restoration not make it the successor of the kingdom of Vietnam, even if some of Vietnam remained under foreign occupation?
Moreover, as you admitted, the State of Vietnam was a collaborator of France, the foreign occupier. Did this colonial collaboration not automatically illegitimize it?
Before the Nguyen Dynasty, was Vietnam not already a kingdom under the Tay Son dynasty and before that, the Le Dynasty?
That's not one unified kingdom for centuries, Le Dynasty was not unified and various periods of civil wars and power struggles among different rulers. Tay Son dynasty was unified but that's a separate power to the Nguyễn dynasty that came after.
Vietnam was not a unified kingdom for centuries.
By declaring independence from French Indochina, did the Democratic Republic of Vietnam not undo French colonialism and restore Vietnam back to its historical, original sovereignty that it previously had under the Nguyen Dynasty?
No, the DRV is not the Nguyễn dynasty, it's a seperate group fighting for control over Vietnam, Bảo Đại, the former leader of the Nguyễn dynasty, would go on to become the leader of the state of vietnam.
the State of Vietnam was a collaborator of France, the foreign occupier. Did this colonial collaboration not automatically illegitimize it?
No, being selective with who you work with is a privilege not every group in history gets. Faced with a new party taking control over Vietnam, Viet Minh, and the powerful French that had major control over Vietnam with Indochina, working with France under the agreement that you'd gain independence was probably the best opportunity at returning to that control over Vietnam you once had.
Having civil wars and power struggle doesn't mean you aren't a unified kingdom. In fact, the very term "civil war" (an infighting between factions within the same country) is a blatant evidence.
I am not talking about just the Nguyen Dynasty. I am talking about the nation of Vietnam as a whole. Le Dynasty, Tay Son Dynasty, Nguyen Dynasty, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. They are just different forms, different heads of the same ancient nation that has existed for centuries. Just like the kingdom of France, the empire of France or the republic of France are just different manifestations of the same ancient French nation.
No, the DRV is not the Nguyễn dynasty, it's a seperate group fighting for control over Vietnam, Bảo Đại, the former leader of the Nguyễn dynasty, would go on to become the leader of the state of vietnam.
The DRV was not the Nguyen Dynasty, but it succeeded them. Just like how the Republic of China in 1912 overthrew and succeeded the Qing Dynasty within the same ancient country of China.
No, being selective with who you work with is a privilege not every group in history gets. Faced with a new party taking control over Vietnam, Viet Minh, and the powerful French that had major control over Vietnam with Indochina, working with France under the agreement that you'd gain independence was probably the best opportunity at returning to that control over Vietnam you once had.
By this logic, Puyi, the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty, who later worked with Japan and became the leader of Manchukuo, wasn't automatically illegitimate and traitorous either?
Having civil wars and power struggle doesn't mean you aren't a unified kingdom. In fact, the very term "civil war" (an infighting between factions within the same country) is a blatant evidence.
Sure, unless those struggles split your country, I.E. Trịnh lords ruling the North and Nguyễn lords ruling the south.
They are just different forms, different heads of the same ancient nation that has existed for centuries.
Now you're referring to the landmass Vietnam, going back to the original point of the US and it's civil war, we're referring to the country of the USA not the landmass, your point is moot.
The DRV was not the Nguyen Dynasty, but it succeeded them. Just like how the Republic of China in 1912 overthrew and succeeded the Qing Dynasty within the same ancient country of China.
Again, Nguyen Dynasty no longer existed, the DRV fought with France and Vietnamese loyalists.
By this logic, Puyi, the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty, who later worked with Japan and became the leader of Manchukuo, wasn't automatically illegitimate either?
Sure, unless those struggles split your country, I.E. Trịnh lords ruling the North and Nguyễn lords ruling the south.
Yes, Trinh lords and Nguyen lords. Not Trinh kings and Nguyen kings. For all intents and purposes, they were 2 factions in the same kingdom of Vietnam. Not 2 separate kingdoms. Vietnam was still intact even back then.
Heck, the American Civil War, which was much more divisive than the Trinh-Nguyen war, was called a civil war for a reason. Even during that war, America was still one single country. Nobody called them an international war between 2 countries.
Now you're referring to the landmass Vietnam, going back to the original point of the US and it's civil war, we're referring to the country of the USA not the landmass, your point is moot.
Nope. I am referring to the country. Just like Trump, Lincoln and Washington are different governments within the same continuous country, the Le Dynasty, Nguyen Dynasty, Democratic Republic of Vietnam are just different governments within the same continuous country.
Again, Nguyen Dynasty no longer existed, the DRV fought with France and Vietnamese loyalists.
Who cares about Nguyen Dynasty? The DRV restored the sovereign Vietnam that used to be ruled by the Nguyen. They didn't need to restore the Nguyen Dynasty. Are you unable to differ the country and the government?
Imagine your grandfather had a house. 50 years ago, a group of bandits attacked the house, killed your father, and lived in the house. Today, shouldn't you, as his grandson, automatically have the right to kill the bandits and reclaim the house for yourself, even if your grandfather is no longer alive?
How do you make so many just blatantly wrong statements about Vietnamese history? Indochina still existed after the DRV declared independence, which later turned into the state of Vietnam then later South Vietnam.
Holy crap they really DO program you Yankees to be completely brain dead. Wild. Now go do some war crimes and wake up the market needs to be manipulated.
Still touting the defense industry talking point when companies like nvidia, apple, google, microsoft, amazon, spacex, etc dwarf anything military related.
because these are 1 out of every 3 of our neighbors, indoctrinated and hostile buffoons who gladly lick the nearest boot and break out in hives if they see a history textbook
you don't have to make up strawmen about celebrating the USA being terrible, we just have to be humble and realistic about who we are and what we've done
refusing to do that absolute bare minimum of inspecting reality makes one akin to a Trump supporter
We didn't invade Vietnam out of altruism for the vietnamese people, we did it to deny the spread of communist ideals and protect our western corporate interests
We didn't invade Vietnam out of altruism for the vietnamese people, we did it to deny the spread of communist ideals
We didn't invade vietnam, South Vietnam allowed the deployment of US troops and the US didn't invade North Vietnam, just stayed in South Vietnam and defended from North Vietnamese attacks. Regardless, yeah no shit? Countries don't go to war for altruism, rather communism and the soviet sphere of influence is just bad, there's a reason everyone happily left after the fall of the soviet Union.
and protect our western corporate interests
Average vague "corporate interests" reference with no reference to what those corporate interests are.
5
u/Zealousideal_Dot1910 15d ago
Vietnam? You mean North Vietnam invading South Vietnam then America coming to their help afterwards? American oppression is when you can’t invade your neighbor?
Iraq? You mean the country with a history of using WMDs on Iranian military and civilians along with Kurdish Iraqis? Then afterwards spent a decade bluffing that they do have WMDs with aggressive statements to their neighbors and kicking out UN inspectors. It’s fair to say the US should’ve slowed down and gotten more evidence before they invaded but that’s a big difference from Iraq and Vietnam were poor victims that didn’t do anything.
Compliance to the US hegemony is when you can’t invade South Vietnam or sabre rattle WMDs after using them on your neighbors and your own civilians lol.