Yeah, the “20 years hard labor” kinda clued me in that south vietnam mightve been evil. Seriously, no agenda here other than that forced labor is barbaric, but I dont know what it was like to live in north vietnam. Would you say that they were justified in their use of things such as Punji sticks? Ive always thought those were barbaric too, but not quite as barbaric as Agent Orange. Certainly more effective though when factoring in that youre not doing massive damage to your own troops and the environment.
To rephrase, I understand that an occupying/invading force is expected to be met with lethal resistance, but was the situation so bad/ cruel that hypothetical war crimes(i have no idea if the north did war crimes, i would imagine yes, but i know the US did) were justified in self defense?
Also, theyre capitalist now? Were they even communist to begin with, or was that just another example of the US not having any clue what communism is? Or have they just shifted more towards capitalism?
Thanks for taking the time to respond and not attacking me for asking what I can only assume to be a fairly controversial question.
Vietnam is formally known as the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. It’s officially communist today. But like most officially-communist countries, they operate with a significant amount of capitalism. In some ways more so than officially capitalist countries, with a lot of businesses being under-regulated and prone to exploitation. If you have a bad experience with a business, you’re much less likely to be able to use the law to make you whole again than you would somewhere with strong consumer protection laws like the EU or Australia. It’s much closer, in some ways, to that libertarian caveat emptor ideal. But it’s also got a strong welfare state that looks a lot more genuinely socialist.
It’s also an authoritarian single-party state, which those of us in the west usually associate with communist countries, but realistically is kind of a separate spectrum. Sometimes the government can step in and use that power for good, such as somewhat regular attempted (though usually ultimately ineffective) crackdowns on corruption, which runs rampant. Sometimes it’s less good, such as also somewhat regular attempted (and likewise ultimately ineffective) crackdowns on online free speech. On this latter point, I recall when I lived there 15+ years ago they at one point tried to block Facebook. Word quickly spread around my school that changing your DNS settings to a particular number would bypass the restriction. (This is before quad9, quad1, or Google’s quad8, so the number was a bit harder to remember.) It’s not a country where you want to be on the government’s bad side, but it’s generally speaking much softer in that regard than the PRC or DPRK.
Thanks, definitely sounds like a mixed bag. If im understanding correctly, the citizens, as a basis, have it pretty good under socialst capitalism in Vietnam. The issues arrise in speaking out against the government and having no protections as a consumer, as well as government censorship.
Assuming i got the gist of that correct(lmk if i did not) then it sounds good overall. What sortve socialist programs do they have? More specifically, do they have any form of ubi? Because if so, buisnesses screwing you over seems like a much smaller issue since you have financial security anyways.
Ngl this definitely crossed my mind reading your comment
Yeah, the “20 years hard labor” kinda clued me in that south vietnam mightve been evil. Seriously, no agenda here other than that forced labor is barbaric, but I dont know what it was like to live in north vietnam. Would you say that they were justified in their use of things such as Punji sticks? Ive always thought those were barbaric too, but not quite as barbaric as Agent Orange. Certainly more effective though when factoring in that youre not doing massive damage to your own troops and the environment.
I’d say, personally, that the means of resistance used by North Vietnam were largely valid. Having someone stabbed by a stick is not really fundamentally crueler than shooting them, even if infection is what finishes them off. The poor prison conditions are arguable; but the use of torture on PoWs is indefensible. That being said, South Vietnam tortured North Vietnamese PoWs, so it’s not like it was some exceptional sin of NV; we just remember North Vietnam’s because it was inflicted on American PoWs.
Interesting enough, the US government actually stopped using Agent Orange considerably before the end of the war when it came to light that it had deleterious long-term effects on people. The US had enough bad press during the war, it didn’t need ‘knowingly sanctioning chemical warfare’ in addition. Agent Orange was supposed to be just a defoliant - which has its own set of problems, mind you, but is not a war crime, unlike use of chemical weapons.
To rephrase, I understand that an occupying/invading force is expected to be met with lethal resistance, but was the situation so bad/ cruel that hypothetical war crimes(i have no idea if the north did war crimes, i would imagine yes, but i know the US did) were justified in self defense?
The North and the South both performed numerous war crimes, and in both cases, it was… pretty militarily irrelevant to the outcome. I’d say the war crimes weren’t justified in self-defense, but also that that judgement is pretty married to the fact that war crimes generally don’t actually help the cause of self-defense. They’re just the product of soldiers’ and politicians’ anger, without a deeper rational basis.
Also, theyre capitalist now? Were they even communist to begin with, or was that just another example of the US not having any clue what communism is? Or have they just shifted more towards capitalism?
North Vietnam was definitely Communist at the time, but they’ve shifted towards capitalism in the late 80s/90s.
Funny enough, there’s a great documentary called The Fog of War, wherein the American Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, is interviewed about the whole situation in retrospect. He muses, fairly early on, that one of the core conflicts between the American foreign policy establishment and North Vietnam was that the USA had no fucking clue about the background situation in Vietnam.
I appreciate it! I dont really have any more to ask but your knowledge is invaluable. This thread has definitely helped me gain a greater understanding of the sides and backers of the vietnam war better.
the US government actually stopped using Agent Orange considerably before the end of the war when it came to light that it had deleterious long-term effects on people.
It took many veterans developing chloracne and cancer and many civilians giving birth to defective children for the population to start protesting the chemical weapon and the government finally phasing out its use.
It took many veterans developing chloracne and cancer and many civilians giving birth to defective children for the population to start protesting the chemical weapon and the government finally phasing out its use.
… except Agent Orange doesn’t cause cancer that quickly, and the government phased out its use in response to stateside scientific studies with animal experiments, not veteran outcry, which largely didn’t begin until after the Vietnam War as a whole was over and the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange began to manifest in veterans.
Operation Ranch Hand lasted almost 10 years. Chloracne and pregnancies don’t take that long. I don’t have sources about the cancers*, but seems entirely possible.
*edit: about how long their onset takes. The one journalistic source I had listed cancers among the reasons for protests.
US troop presence was minimal until '65, and even then, most the US troops exposed would not have immediately gone on to impregnate someone in the States (who, thus, the US government might bother paying attention to), considering multi-year tours were and are the norm for military deployment. Use of Agent Orange was ended in '71.
Look up a novel from the time, “The Ugly American”
The title character is an American engineer who goes to the mythical country and shows the locals how to build cheap water pumps that make farming hillsides much easier.
Every American who shows up to the place and does good is eventually replaced by a dolt who can’t speak the language.
Punji sticks are just another weapon of asymmetric/guerrilla warfare. No more barbaric than mines, or claymores. And way less so than agent orange, or invading a soverein country because their government isn’t buying your stuff.
That is super fair, did not think about that. I suppose my issue with punji sticks is that theyre not neccassarily designed to kill, thats why they were often coated in feces. The intent was infection afaik because that disabled the soldier and those who had to help him. But yes, I view bouncing betties in the exact same light. Maybe not illegal, but i cannot understand why, since other weapons thats sole goal is to cause nonlethal permanent damage are banned, such as laser weapons. And yeah, I agree, even starting off this thread i dont think anyone has even attempted to claim the US were the good guys.
And another common tactic was lining the path enemy soldiers would take with the sticks and drop a grenade amongst them. Some would jump away towards them, amplifying the result of a single grenade with cheap materials.
They wouldn’t need to cover them in feces though. The jungle environment and lead time to medical treatment all but guaranteed some infection.
The intent was infection afaik because that disabled the soldier and those who had to help him.
Maiming vs outright killing was the design intent behind the 5.56mm cartridge/M16, which were first deployed by the US on the Vietnam war. For the same reasons.
I don’t know, it’s 20 years of hard labour for attempted assasination
Outside of Vietnam, she is most well known for a photograph of her smiling at her sentencing for an attempted assassination during the Vietnam War. The photograph is popularly known as the “Smile of Victory” and has become a symbol of Vietnamese women who fought in the war.
Tbh not my concern. Hard labor is barbaric, no matter what. Hard labor is enforced by either the threat of violence or the witholding of easentials. It is my belief that it is a human right to eat, and with our current technology barely 1/1000 people actually need to work for our society to function. I think capitalism itself is barbaric, because again, you are forced to work under threat of violence or witholding of essentials.
The purpose of technology is to allow one person to do the work of many. If we invent a machine that lets one person do the job of seven, and you dont want an unfair system where one person literally does all the work, then the fair system is to make those seven people work one day each. Instead, seven people work seven days and the excess product is funneled into the hands of the wealthy. We have the ability with our current tech to almost fully automate most essential supply lines. Therefore, the idea that people should ever be FORCED to work is absurd. If you want excess, work for it. If you are fine with living on essentials only, you should be guaranteed that right as a human, regardless of your employment status.
I’m just saying if you compare to a lot of places 20 years hard labour might be lenient. That’s if you’re making the good/evil distinction in comparison to how world is or to something else
Yeah, someone else pointed that out to me. I really shouldntve used “the good guys”. As you probably noticed, im quite passionate about human rights and ubi. I hope I didnt come off as angry or rude. It just really frustrates me that people arent… just better towards each other.
Yeah, the “20 years hard labor” kinda clued me in that south vietnam mightve been evil. Seriously, no agenda here other than that forced labor is barbaric, but I dont know what it was like to live in north vietnam. Would you say that they were justified in their use of things such as Punji sticks? Ive always thought those were barbaric too, but not quite as barbaric as Agent Orange. Certainly more effective though when factoring in that youre not doing massive damage to your own troops and the environment.
To rephrase, I understand that an occupying/invading force is expected to be met with lethal resistance, but was the situation so bad/ cruel that hypothetical war crimes(i have no idea if the north did war crimes, i would imagine yes, but i know the US did) were justified in self defense?
Also, theyre capitalist now? Were they even communist to begin with, or was that just another example of the US not having any clue what communism is? Or have they just shifted more towards capitalism?
Thanks for taking the time to respond and not attacking me for asking what I can only assume to be a fairly controversial question.
Vietnam is formally known as the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. It’s officially communist today. But like most officially-communist countries, they operate with a significant amount of capitalism. In some ways more so than officially capitalist countries, with a lot of businesses being under-regulated and prone to exploitation. If you have a bad experience with a business, you’re much less likely to be able to use the law to make you whole again than you would somewhere with strong consumer protection laws like the EU or Australia. It’s much closer, in some ways, to that libertarian caveat emptor ideal. But it’s also got a strong welfare state that looks a lot more genuinely socialist.
It’s also an authoritarian single-party state, which those of us in the west usually associate with communist countries, but realistically is kind of a separate spectrum. Sometimes the government can step in and use that power for good, such as somewhat regular attempted (though usually ultimately ineffective) crackdowns on corruption, which runs rampant. Sometimes it’s less good, such as also somewhat regular attempted (and likewise ultimately ineffective) crackdowns on online free speech. On this latter point, I recall when I lived there 15+ years ago they at one point tried to block Facebook. Word quickly spread around my school that changing your DNS settings to a particular number would bypass the restriction. (This is before quad9, quad1, or Google’s quad8, so the number was a bit harder to remember.) It’s not a country where you want to be on the government’s bad side, but it’s generally speaking much softer in that regard than the PRC or DPRK.
Thanks, definitely sounds like a mixed bag. If im understanding correctly, the citizens, as a basis, have it pretty good under socialst capitalism in Vietnam. The issues arrise in speaking out against the government and having no protections as a consumer, as well as government censorship.
Assuming i got the gist of that correct(lmk if i did not) then it sounds good overall. What sortve socialist programs do they have? More specifically, do they have any form of ubi? Because if so, buisnesses screwing you over seems like a much smaller issue since you have financial security anyways.
Ngl this definitely crossed my mind reading your comment
I’d say, personally, that the means of resistance used by North Vietnam were largely valid. Having someone stabbed by a stick is not really fundamentally crueler than shooting them, even if infection is what finishes them off. The poor prison conditions are arguable; but the use of torture on PoWs is indefensible. That being said, South Vietnam tortured North Vietnamese PoWs, so it’s not like it was some exceptional sin of NV; we just remember North Vietnam’s because it was inflicted on American PoWs.
Interesting enough, the US government actually stopped using Agent Orange considerably before the end of the war when it came to light that it had deleterious long-term effects on people. The US had enough bad press during the war, it didn’t need ‘knowingly sanctioning chemical warfare’ in addition. Agent Orange was supposed to be just a defoliant - which has its own set of problems, mind you, but is not a war crime, unlike use of chemical weapons.
The North and the South both performed numerous war crimes, and in both cases, it was… pretty militarily irrelevant to the outcome. I’d say the war crimes weren’t justified in self-defense, but also that that judgement is pretty married to the fact that war crimes generally don’t actually help the cause of self-defense. They’re just the product of soldiers’ and politicians’ anger, without a deeper rational basis.
North Vietnam was definitely Communist at the time, but they’ve shifted towards capitalism in the late 80s/90s.
Funny enough, there’s a great documentary called The Fog of War, wherein the American Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, is interviewed about the whole situation in retrospect. He muses, fairly early on, that one of the core conflicts between the American foreign policy establishment and North Vietnam was that the USA had no fucking clue about the background situation in Vietnam.
I appreciate it! I dont really have any more to ask but your knowledge is invaluable. This thread has definitely helped me gain a greater understanding of the sides and backers of the vietnam war better.
It took many veterans developing chloracne and cancer and many civilians giving birth to defective children for the population to start protesting the chemical weapon and the government finally phasing out its use.
… except Agent Orange doesn’t cause cancer that quickly, and the government phased out its use in response to stateside scientific studies with animal experiments, not veteran outcry, which largely didn’t begin until after the Vietnam War as a whole was over and the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange began to manifest in veterans.
Operation Ranch Hand lasted almost 10 years. Chloracne and pregnancies don’t take that long. I don’t have sources about the cancers*, but seems entirely possible.
*edit: about how long their onset takes. The one journalistic source I had listed cancers among the reasons for protests.
US troop presence was minimal until '65, and even then, most the US troops exposed would not have immediately gone on to impregnate someone in the States (who, thus, the US government might bother paying attention to), considering multi-year tours were and are the norm for military deployment. Use of Agent Orange was ended in '71.
Look up a novel from the time, “The Ugly American”
The title character is an American engineer who goes to the mythical country and shows the locals how to build cheap water pumps that make farming hillsides much easier.
Every American who shows up to the place and does good is eventually replaced by a dolt who can’t speak the language.
Punji sticks are just another weapon of asymmetric/guerrilla warfare. No more barbaric than mines, or claymores. And way less so than agent orange, or invading a soverein country because their government isn’t buying your stuff.
That is super fair, did not think about that. I suppose my issue with punji sticks is that theyre not neccassarily designed to kill, thats why they were often coated in feces. The intent was infection afaik because that disabled the soldier and those who had to help him. But yes, I view bouncing betties in the exact same light. Maybe not illegal, but i cannot understand why, since other weapons thats sole goal is to cause nonlethal permanent damage are banned, such as laser weapons. And yeah, I agree, even starting off this thread i dont think anyone has even attempted to claim the US were the good guys.
And another common tactic was lining the path enemy soldiers would take with the sticks and drop a grenade amongst them. Some would jump away towards them, amplifying the result of a single grenade with cheap materials.
They wouldn’t need to cover them in feces though. The jungle environment and lead time to medical treatment all but guaranteed some infection.
Maiming vs outright killing was the design intent behind the 5.56mm cartridge/M16, which were first deployed by the US on the Vietnam war. For the same reasons.
Look up the PBS series “Vietnam - A Television history.”
It’s mostly the US point of view, but it covers the War pretty well.
Squeaky Fromme got 34 years. Sara Jane Moore, 32 years. Hinkley, 33 years.
I don’t know, it’s 20 years of hard labour for attempted assasination
Tbh not my concern. Hard labor is barbaric, no matter what. Hard labor is enforced by either the threat of violence or the witholding of easentials. It is my belief that it is a human right to eat, and with our current technology barely 1/1000 people actually need to work for our society to function. I think capitalism itself is barbaric, because again, you are forced to work under threat of violence or witholding of essentials.
The purpose of technology is to allow one person to do the work of many. If we invent a machine that lets one person do the job of seven, and you dont want an unfair system where one person literally does all the work, then the fair system is to make those seven people work one day each. Instead, seven people work seven days and the excess product is funneled into the hands of the wealthy. We have the ability with our current tech to almost fully automate most essential supply lines. Therefore, the idea that people should ever be FORCED to work is absurd. If you want excess, work for it. If you are fine with living on essentials only, you should be guaranteed that right as a human, regardless of your employment status.
I’m just saying if you compare to a lot of places 20 years hard labour might be lenient. That’s if you’re making the good/evil distinction in comparison to how world is or to something else
Yeah, someone else pointed that out to me. I really shouldntve used “the good guys”. As you probably noticed, im quite passionate about human rights and ubi. I hope I didnt come off as angry or rude. It just really frustrates me that people arent… just better towards each other.
Nah you’re good