China Got Bodied By Vietnam

[African Peasant]

There is no communism in Vietnam. There is only a one party dictatorship that practices free market capitalism. The U.S. has no problem with dictatorships as long as they follow USA’s rules. The USA got everything it wanted from Vietnam through trade embargo’s and skillful diplomacy.

The fact that you can’t see how the long game is played is why you always lose.

No. I see that you're lying.

The US did not fIght in Vietnam for the one party state to open its economy 25 years later. That was not the goal of that war.

The goal of that war was to stop the communist party from conquering SOUTH VIETNAM. It did.

The funny thng is the Vietnam communsit party opened its economy because of... China... Not because of that useless war.

 

[Mister Terrific]

No. I see that you're lying.

The US did not fIght in Vietnam for the one party state to open its economy 25 years later. That was not the goal of that war.

South Vietnam was a one party dictatorship. Just one open to American interests and apart of Americas global order. Today Vietnam is a one party state, open to American interests and apart of Americas global order.


The military war ended in 1975 but the economic and political war continued. The U.S. embargoed Vietnam, destroyed the economy, defeated the Soviet Union and flipped China as an ally.

Again you play short games, the U.S. plays long games.

 

[Zime]

Japan pushed their shyt back something awful in WW2

Japan got that GOAT PR. I don’t know how they did it.

 

[African Peasant]

South Vietnam was a one party dictatorship. Just one open to American interests and apart of Americas global order. Today Vietnam is a one party state, open to American interests and apart of Americas global order.


The military war ended in 1975

The war was LOST in 1975. That's the whole debate.

The discussion is not about whether the US has been conducting a succesful diplomatic policy in Asia since the 70's. It's about the Vietnam war. That war did not achieve its objective.

Don't be confused or trying to confuse people by mixing DIFFERENT things.

The rest of your comment has NOTHING to do with that war.

Also, South Vietnam was an american client State, Vietnam is not.

That war was a total failure.

 

[Mister Terrific]

That war was a total failure.

Nope. The USA’s strategic positioning in South East Asia was stronger post Vietnam than pre Vietnam. Not only did it demonstrate the U.S. ability to absorb losses in a long conflict and come out relatively economically unscathed it also damaged our main competitors the Soviets and Chinese economically and politically.

Again force of arms are only one way to gain advantage politically, often economic and political means are more important. Today Vietnam has been completely absorbed into the American hegemonic fabric and has zero connection to the movement founded by Ho Chi Minh.

Your inability to understand this is again why you always lose.

 

[African Peasant]

Nope. The USA’s strategic positioning in South East Asia was stronger post Vietnam than pre Vietnam.

This still has nothing to do with the War.

The goal of the war was to protect the existence of South Vietnam, not to damage China, especially when the US was already in cahoot with China before the end of the War (the Sino-Soviet split already happened). You cleary have lacuna on the issue.

The existence of an US client state in South Vietnam is the only metric that matters when it comes to the Vietnam war. That State is gone.

 

[Mister Terrific]

This still has nothing to do with the War.

You called the war completely useless. It can be demonstrated that the aid emerged in a stronger position in the region post war. Thus the war was not useless as it furthered US geopolitical goals of weakening its main adversaries. The fact that in a mere 19 years Vietnam would also become a main geopolitical ally and absorbed into the U.S. system just shows how complete a victory it was.

The goal of the war was to protect the existence of South Vietnam,

False. The over arching goal was to limit the spread of communism and defeat the Soviet Union. Both achieved. South Vietnams existence as a state was never necessary. As to why in 1975 the U.S. didn’t just bomb the hell out of North Vietnam like it did in 1973. China had flipped meaning maintaining South Vietnam was no longer necessary to the USA’s long term strategic goals in the region.

 

[African Peasant]

You called the war completely useless. It can be demonstrated that the aid emerged in a stronger position in the region post war.

Not because of the war. Correlation =/= causation.

False. The over arching goal was to limit the spread of communism and defeat the Soviet Union. Both achieved. South Vietnams existence as a state was never necessary.

The war did not stop the spread of communism and did not defeat the USSR.

China and the US getting close is also not a result of the war. It just proves my point: what the US could not get military through Vietnam war, they got it diplomatically by alling with China. That's the real chess move in Asia (for a moment).

That war was useless and did not achieve anything. You take out that war, nothing change: the USSR will always be dissolved after Afgha and China and the US will still make money together for 4 decades.

Useless war.

 

[Mister Terrific]

Not because of the war. Correlation =/= causation.

That doesn’t mean anything. The USwas actively trying to strengthen its position throughout the war. The Sino-Soviet split and China winding up allying with America didn’t just happen.

The war did not stop the spread of communism and did not defeat the USSR.

False. The containment of communism was largely a success and the weakened geopolitical positioning of the Soviets post the indochina wars contributed to its collapse.

China and the US getting close is also not a result of the war.

Nobody said the result of the Vietnam war was the Soviet Sino split. What was said was the Soviet Sino split made maintaining South Vietnam as a country no longer a priority.

It just proves my point: what the US could not get military through Vietnam war, they got it diplomatically by alling with China.

Agreed.

That war was useless and did not achieve anything. You take out that war, nothing change: the USSR will always be dissolved after Afgha and China and the US will still make money together for 4 decades.

Useless war.

There is nothing inevitable in politics and diplomacy.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

Putin’s the one doing all the Nuclear saber rattling..he's the weirdo that keeps mentioning nukes when everyone else is talking conventional warfare.
Why do some Africans feel a need to defend Russia??

Because Ukrainians threw Africans off trains and attacked pregnant African women in February 2022

 

[Dr. Acula]

Because Ukrainians threw Africans off trains and attacked pregnant African women in February 2022

An African Student’s Murder Sheds Light on Russia’s Race Problem - The Moscow Times

Diana Akue has been on her guard lately.

www.themoscowtimes.com

Russian mercenaries behind slaughter of 500 in Mali village, UN report finds

Report implicates Wagner group fighters in Moura atrocity, including the torture and rape of civilians

www.theguardian.com

if that is your reasoning wouldn't taking no side be best?

 

[African Peasant]

That doesn’t mean anything. The USwas actively trying to strengthen its position throughout the war. The Sino-Soviet split and China winding up allying with America didn’t just happen.



False. The containment of communism was largely a success and the weakened geopolitical positioning of the Soviets post the indochina wars contributed to its collapse.



Nobody said the result of the Vietnam war was the Soviet Sino split. What was said was the Soviet Sino split made maintaining South Vietnam as a country no longer a priority.



Agreed.


There is nothing inevitable in politics and diplomacy.

Not in the case of Vietnam war. In Africa, yes ? In the Korean peninsula? Yes. In the Vietnam war? No!

The leadership of the NVA had ONE goal (a goal they inherited from Ho Ch Minh): the reunification of Vietnam. They reached it. They won.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

An African Student’s Murder Sheds Light on Russia’s Race Problem - The Moscow Times

Diana Akue has been on her guard lately.

www.themoscowtimes.com

Russian mercenaries behind slaughter of 500 in Mali village, UN report finds

Report implicates Wagner group fighters in Moura atrocity, including the torture and rape of civilians

www.theguardian.com

if that is your reasoning wouldn't taking no side be best?

That’s not MY reasoning, I’m just providing the reasoning I’ve observed.

My own reasoning is that I want to see the West, and its proxies, weakened.