Was the Vietnam War Genocide?

[theprestige]

the Iraq war was

[citation needed]

 

[fuelair]

I guess you didn't grok your term that was italicized.

You also choose, like most armchair analysts, to pretend that when immersed in a guerilla warfare scenario that one does not become sensitized/desensitized to the lack of nice pink markers to set everyone apart cleanly. That environment has bloody eff all to do with Nuremberg. That very desensitizatoin sets people up to for what those soldiers did, and the reason that set up was followed through was the critical failure in leadership. Soldiers are well trained to kill, but it is the NCO's and officers who are to control that use of violence. When the leadership errs, it isn't always obvious to the soldier at the time, but to you, in hindsight, it is. Well bully for you.

When you used the term "evil" you were exercising a thing called "stupidity." If you used the term "wrong" you'd be on pretty solid ground, given your follow up, and the way things ought to go.

Consider this. Someone from outside the environment, a helicopter pilot, when he ran across what was going on at My Lai saw what they didn't see: they were doing wrontg. He was able to stop some of the soldiers from doing what they were doing. He was awarded a pretty high honor some years later, mid 1990's. (Can't recall his name, grrr.).

DR

Hugh Thompson put his 'copter between US troops and civilians that day, told his door gunner to fire if the Americans chased/shot at the civilians. Thompson is one of my very few heroes.

 

[Taarkin]

I have no opinion on the topic here, I know next to nothing about the US vietnam war, except for one "massacre" and i doubt it is representative of anything whatsoever except the evilness of the guy doing it.

But I *DO* want to point that "we are as bad as the other guys, why don't you poo-poo the other guys too?" isn't really a good defense.

I like the part where you put scare quotes around massacre.

 

[Meed]

It wasn't meant as one. It was to vent my frustration at how Country A can do horrific things and get away with it, while the US has to play by the rules at all times or be internationally shunned.

What on earth are you talking about? The US did "get away with" Vietnam. I don't recall Nixon or Kissinger being tried for war crimes. And we certainly weren't internationally shunned afterward.

Which countries do you think have done horrific things and not received criticism?

Shouldn't everyone be forced to play by the rules?

Of course ideally everyone should "play by the rules". The topic of the thread started by NWO Sentryman was specifically about US actions in Vietnam, though, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. And your implication that the US is "forced to play by the rules" is very wrong.

Where are all the anti-French and anti-Japanese Europeans decrying the horrors the French and Japanese subjected the Vietnamese to?

What do you mean anti-French/anti-Japanese? Are you saying that criticizing France's colonial history would make one "anti-French"? And why must it be done by a European? I must say I'm really confused about what your complaint is.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What on earth are you talking about? The US did "get away with" Vietnam. I don't recall Nixon or Kissinger being tried for war crimes. And we certainly weren't internationally shunned afterward.

Which countries do you think have done horrific things and not received criticism?

Mao Tse Tung's China.

Castroist Cuba (persecution of Homosexuals)

Nguema's equitoreal guinea (albeit too obscure)

And as for "Democratic communism" you lost all credibility after that. I wish i could send a thousand laughing dogs without getting kicked though.

My Source:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13485

I'm not american, although i view things from a geostrategic perspective, not a moral one.

 

[Meed]

Which countries do you think have done horrific things and not received criticism?

Mao Tse Tung's China.

Castroist Cuba (persecution of Homosexuals)

Hi, I'm logic. Have we met?

And as for "Democratic communism" you lost all credibility after that.

Communism with elections... it's not that difficult to figure out.

My Source:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13485

"Noam Chomsky: Unrepentant Stalinist". Sounds highly relevant.

I'm not american, although i view things from a geostrategic perspective, not a moral one.

Then why did you start a thread on a topic of morality?

 

[Praktik]

Ah yes... Front Page magazine. The authoritative source on communist theory and world history.

The only reason I'd cite this would be to illustrate a facet of the American polity, you know, the pseudo-patriotic sons of die-hard anti-communists espousing the "hawk" position.

I guess if you were describing political debate in America it could be useful. But as a source I can trust to describe things in an objective and academically useful manner? Not so much...

Their contributor list is pretty much the place where all this proves out.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What's the alternative? Thirdworldtraveler, which is far less reliable than Prisonplanet or Infowars. Heck, i think Len Hart is more reliable than that.

FPM has Ion Pacepa and Oleg Kalugin among its contributors. What are TWT's? Conspiracy theorists and Death to America authors. Heck, they think that the Soviet Union were the good guys in the cold war.

"communism with elections". By your logic, Stalinist Russia was the most democratic country on the planet after the 1936 constitution.

And Cornsail, i was citing my source in Vietnam.

My topic was on legal definitions, not on morality.

 

[Meed]

What's the alternative? Thirdworldtraveler, which is far less reliable than Prisonplanet or Infowars. Heck, i think Len Hart is more reliable than that.

FPM has Ion Pacepa and Oleg Kalugin among its contributors. What are TWT's? Conspiracy theorists and Death to America authors. Heck, they think that the Soviet Union were the good guys in the cold war.

Strawman #2

"communism with elections". By your logic, Stalinist Russia was the most democratic country on the planet after the 1936 constitution.

No..

And Cornsail, i was citing my source in Vietnam.

You linked to an article about Noam Chomsky being a Stalinist..

My topic was on legal definitions, not on morality.

Many of my moral objections can also be extended as legal objections since the US violated international law in many way.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

the FPM Article had relevant sections on the vietnam war which i was citing.

Stalinist russia was "democratic" because of elections, as was "Democratic Kampuchea" . "democratic Communism" makes as much sense as Cold Fire.

Yes there were violations of international law, most infamously in the my lai massacre. No-one is in dispute of that. However, i was talking specifically about Genocide. However, Agent Orange and other chemical weapons were not prohibited until the 1993 convention.

 

[Meed]

the FPM Article had relevant sections on the vietnam war which i was citing.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of how sources work.

Stalinist russia was "democratic" because of elections, as was "Democratic Kampuchea" . "democratic Communism" makes as much sense as Cold Fire.

You're implying that every Communist country was equivalent to the Soviet Union, which is poor logic. A better strategy would be to point out specific ways North Vietnam was not democratic, although it's also a sort of pointless line to pursue since I've been pretty explicit about the fact that North Vietnam had problems. I referred to it as "at least semi-democratic".

Yes there were violations of international law, most infamously in the my lai massacre. No-one is in dispute of that. However, i was talking specifically about Genocide. However, Agent Orange and other chemical weapons were not prohibited until the 1993 convention.

I agree that it didn't fit the legal definition of genocide.

 

[SimonD]

I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.

I'd say that if the (North) Vietnamese had got their hands on him they would have tried him as such.

Personally speaking I think prolonging the conflict, as Kissinger, did makes him a prick, but maybe not a criminal in a legal sense.

Curtis LeMay (commander of the fire bombings of Tokyo) has been quoted as saying "...I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal..."