Neo’s point is that unstated arguments cannot be considered to be “proven.”

Heh?

i just didnt have time last night to show all the weird stuff that we as a people generally have no knowlege of and as such, do not come into our assesments.

Mark Moyar’s “Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965″ is a highly praised new analysis that overturns much of the historical orthodoxy. All kinds of new evidence from primary sources, new analysis, unmatched in any other study. Second volume to come.

Peter Braestrup’s “Big Story” tells the story of the Media treatment of the war.

Always helps to read up.

It should also be obvious that South Vietnam did not want to be part of the communist North Vietnam. They continued to fight well past when *we* had left and were only supplying them with materials and money.

Indeed, they continued to *win* through all of that. It wasn’t until *we* quit doing that that they lost. Further one will note the sheer amount of people that died in an attempt to stop it from occurring even after it was obvious and inevitable that the fall would occur. You do not fight to the death to stop something you want from happening.

Further Vietnam was, at that time, a nation that really only existed on paper. So you can not say that the country of “Vietnam” existed and we broke it into artificial countries in order to fight over it – indeed they were ideologically *MORE* separated than the initial country of “vietnam” was (and is one of the reasons why we ended with such a war there).

Nor does us being there in any way excuse the atrocities of the NV. In fact, the main atrocities such as the boat people and millions massacred were *after* we had left and was a reaction of the totalitarian communist govt to stamp out dissident – not a reaction to us being there. *That* was what we were supposed to be preventing.

I’ll agree we did a *really* piss poor job of doing that and I’ll even buy that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. But that type of rationalization of what happened is, well, foolish.

The Communist sought to gain control of Vietnam through a violent revolution. More than 50% of the population obviously didn’t want it. The SV were obviously content to stay in their land, the NV were not. The NV committed a huge amount of atrocities that had little to do with any fight against us, the SV did not.

They didn’t want another case of Germany or Korea where it was obvious which side was superior and where everyone outside of those with the power would rather be someplace else – been there, done that, and they were loosing in the long term. The only real difference here is they knew we would blink and we did (well, that and Kennedy/Johnson made really poor war time Presidents) – we had as much right and moral authority to be there as in Korea. Indeed, more so – it wasn’t until later than NK really became the crap collector it is now and East Germany didn’t get a full-on cleansing.

So let me get this straight…

You’ve backed off the claim that North Vietnam wasn’t violating the Geneva Convention – yet now claim that because the US was in their “back yard” that the behaviour on their part is excused?

And then you claim we’ve behaved since then – as if we were not behaving then?

What other nation on the planet throughout recorded history has shed so much blood and treasure on behalf of other nations in so many different conflicts that we could have legitimately avoided?

LBJ wiretapped martin luthor king, pandered deals to from the white house like leasing his jet, and other titbits.

put roosevelt, lbj, carter and obama together, and boy do you get four times that the left visited blows and conditions that became huge problems for us rather than any kind of better anything.

with friends like that who needs enemies?