Why didn't the US aid North Vietnam back in the day?

In order to claim the moral high ground, defend democracy, and remain impartial, the US should have aided North Vietnam back in the 60's.

The North had a right to kick the capitalist, southern dogs out of their own country, and the US should have helped out here.

Otherwise = major hypocrisy

 

Because the north were bloody communists and the US rightfully hates bloody communists.

 

You should have stayed out of it. We should have stayed out of it. Let countries solve their problems themselves.

 

So it's ok to murder communists then is it - how does that give the US the moral high ground?

Why is it ok to murder 'communist' civilians then

- - - Updated - - -

Good post , and of course Viet was just US colonialism , just like we have today in all the other places - why not just colonise in the old fashioned way instead of hiding behind all this neo-lib BS

 

They did not aid the North Koreans because they had spent years convincing the American people that all of their problems were because other countries were socialist. If they had aided North Korea, it would have defeated the purpose of demonizing socialism.

The reason we actually invaded was because of North Korea's alliance with Russia. South Korea needed help fending off a Russia backed invasion.

 

Why do you think it's acceptable to murder people of different ideologies?

 

yes, when the situation demands it.

collateral damage.

 

The hypocrisy of Capitalists is astounding.

Thankfully for young people Socialism is more favorable than Capitalism, so that tells us when all the old people who still live in the Dark ages die off the world will be majority Socialist.

 

What hypocrisy?

Young people are always more idealistic and naive than older people because of their lack of experience, so it's hardly suprising they're more to the left. The first thing you'll see with society are the problems, so then you become a socialist because they have "solutions" to all the problems. It takes much more effort to see that society is actually very complex, and as you grow older and get more experience you realise those "solutions" are stupid and contra-productive, and your idealism and naivite is replaced by realism, and you become a conservative.

 

Are you a libertarian or a republican? If you look at the stats its the libertarians who are much younger than the republicans, so if you are a libertarian than I can turn it on you and say "you are just young and naive". The reason socialism is actually rising is because the Red Scare propaganda is fading and the right wing is screaming "Socialism!!" all day to Obama so people are actually googling the term and figuring out all Socialism is essentially is forcing rich people to share their ill gotten gains with the ones they stole it from, which sounds reasonable to anybody who reads that in an unbiased manner. That is how I discovered Socialism, I just googled it after someone screamed it at Obama. I didnt discover Socialism by my parents telling me that Socialism is evil and responsible for millions of death, all of which is red scare propaganda that is not true.

If you look at the pew results from 2010 even for young people Socialism was not in the majority, its only until very recently that it finally passed a majority, are people more naive today than they were before the internet? That sounds very unlikely, it seems to me more people can learn on their own with the internet rather than relying on a friends bias opinion, or a news organizations bias opinion about Socialism.

As for the hypocrisy, you say its ok to kill Communists and label it collateral damage, but doing the same to capitalists? Oh no

 

Your post makes little too no scene what so ever. First of all there is nothing democratic about communism. It turns into what's its supposed to remedy, every single time. A small elite running a massive apparatus that is oppressive, 100% of the time. If you play the whole "but but but they didn't do it right" card like every other commie wannabe, I'm just going to laugh at you. Next there's a whole host of logical reasons why the US didn't support N. Vietnam, and no logical reasons why the allowed themselves to be drawin into the Vietnam conflict.


Lastly, do yourself a favor and leave the regurgatated slogans from the 20th century where they belong.

- - - Updated - - -

Your post makes little too no scene what so ever. First of all there is nothing democratic about communism. It turns into what's its supposed to remedy, every single time. A small elite running a massive apparatus that is oppressive, 100% of the time. If you play the whole "but but but they didn't do it right" card like every other commie wannabe, I'm just going to laugh at you. Next there's a whole host of logical reasons why the US didn't support N. Vietnam, and no logical reasons why the allowed themselves to be drawin into the Vietnam conflict.


Lastly, do yourself a favor and leave the regurgatated slogans from the 20th century where they belong.

- - - Updated - - -

Your post makes little too no scene what so ever. First of all there is nothing democratic about communism. It turns into what's its supposed to remedy, every single time. A small elite running a massive apparatus that is oppressive, 100% of the time. If you play the whole "but but but they didn't do it right" card like every other commie wannabe, I'm just going to laugh at you. Next there's a whole host of logical reasons why the US didn't support N. Vietnam, and no logical reasons why the allowed themselves to be drawin into the Vietnam conflict.


Lastly, do yourself a favor and leave the regurgatated slogans from the 20th century where they belong.

- - - Updated - - -

Your post makes little too no scene what so ever. First of all there is nothing democratic about communism. It turns into what's its supposed to remedy, every single time. A small elite running a massive apparatus that is oppressive, 100% of the time. If you play the whole "but but but they didn't do it right" card like every other commie wannabe, I'm just going to laugh at you. Next there's a whole host of logical reasons why the US didn't support N. Vietnam, and no logical reasons why the allowed themselves to be drawin into the Vietnam conflict.


Lastly, do yourself a favor and leave the regurgatated slogans from the 20th century where they belong.

 

Nothing democratic about Communism? Ok, aside from the fact thats blatantly false which I will explain in the next paragraph, whats democratic about our "democracy"? Especially after the citizens united ruling this country is ran by the richest corporations and billionaires, an oligarchy, money now equals free speech (bribery) so officially rich people have more speech than poor people, that is basic logic. When rich people have more power and speech than poor people, what is not elitist about that? Your critic of Communism was a small ruling elite class ruling the masses, well that is exactly what capitalism is buddy just look at America, corporations have the vast majority of the influence and 1% of the country owns almost the majority of the wealth and political influence there is no denying this. There was a limit on how much you can donate to a candidate, only about 200 people ever reached that limit because its so expensive, now that they have gotten rid of that limit the ONLY people that benefits is those 200 people who were able to reach the limit in the first place, the rest of the masses receive absolutely no benefit.

So, now that I have shown your democracy to be a complete and utter sham, does that mean democracy is a bad thing? NO, it means "but but but they didnt do it right" just as you said about Communism. Democracy gets taken advantage of and hijacked JUST like Communism or Socialism, any system anywhere can be misused. If you agree with Americas "democracy" than look at the middle eastern democracies, are those true democracies or are you going to try and say "but but but the middle east didnt do it right"?

As for Democracy and Communism they are entirely compatible, here is Karl Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln about democracy and the ending of slavery, "We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause."

As you can see, he even called it an Oligarchy which we are indeed today. Marx was in favor of Democracy, Stalin wasnt. That is why there is different forms of Communism, there is Marxism, Trotskyism, Leninism, and Stalinism. Trotsky was supposed to be leader of the Soviet Union after Lenin died, but Stalin jumped in and took over, Trotsky wrote a book about how Stalin betrayed the Communist Revolution and to nobodies surprise, Stalin executed the man who was supposed to lead the Soviet Union along with his supporters, if thats not a hijack than I dont know what is. After that Stalin proceeded to spread his twisted form of Communism, known as Stalinism, around the world thus leading to the "communist" massacres of innocent people. Just remember, it was Marx who wrote the Communist Manifesto, not Stalin.

I Karl Marx

 

I'm Swedish, but were I american I'd be both.

Some libertarians are certainly young and naive. Those bordering on being anarchists are some I'd definitively call just as idealistic and naive as any communist. I'm not a libertarian in that sense. In fact, I wouldn't really use libertarian to describe me at all actually, it's not a very descrptive word. And as I've said, socialism, especially if you put is at you do, is idealistic and naive, and also ignorant of economics.

Naive people are also gullible. As you said, the red scare is slowly withering away, so it's no suprise the big masses of gullible youngsters start moving away from the right.

So, when did I ever say that?

 

Everything you are saying about Socialism can just as easily be said about Democracy. If you think our sham of a democracy is perfect than you are a joke, what we have now is an oligarchy plain and simple. Does that mean Democracy is just a young and naive Utopian dream that will never be realized, just like Socialism? Just because something is hard to accomplish and people try to take advantage of it like they do with everything doesnt mean its just a pipe dream everyone should forget about.

You said it here that its ok to kill Communists as collateral damage,

 

If be democracy you mean some silly leftist idea of a workers' paradise communist utopia or whatever, then yes, it's certainly also naive and idealistic. Yes I believe democracy is very flawed, for the records. It kinda sucks actually, but so does everything else also.

Yes, and where's the hypocrisy in that? Don't tell you used the word without even knowing what it means?

 

So you will admit Democracy sucks before you admit the same about Capitalism?

Look its simple, if even Democracy can be misused and manipulated while still being acceptable than why cant Socialism? That is the hypocrisy

 

The ignorance and obtusity of socialists is truly astounding. It's been 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the True Believers still can't wrap their brains around the painfully obvious implications...

 

Well im 20 so its not like I saw it on the news every day or something, either way as far as im concerned that was Stalinism, not Marxism.

 

I've noticed that problem amongst many young adults. Your teachers and the media have failed your generation miserably because many of them don't want you to know why the socio-economic system in the USSR, et al, failed, why countless human beings were killed or shipped off to the Gulag archipelago and "re-education" camps, why common men and women tore down the Berlin Wall. Why is that? Because they're socialists and neo-socialist "progressives" themselves - they're too invested in their failed ideology to warn you about what it brought on the hundreds of millions of unfortunate human beings who were trapped behind the Iron and Bamboo curtains.

Well, that's what you get with Marxism, MD. The system that existed in the USSR, et al, was developed by the Socialists and Communists who subscribed to Marx's failed theoretical model. As others have pointed out, the germ of authoritarianism exists within the seed of socialism/communism, and that's why it invariably leads to the suppression of individual freedom and totalitarianism.

Not that you asked, but here's a little advice from a former New Leftist: don't make the mistake of confusing socialism/communism/"progressivism" with altruism. The two are not cut from the same cloth.

 

Capitalism sucks too. But the point is it sucks the least, especially compared to socialism.

Because socialism is inherently a bad idea. Collective ownership of the means of production and control of the economy has been scientifically proven to be a very stupid, and fatal in larger quanitities.

 

Bloody being the operative term here.

As we all know, the Communists in North Vietnam are all about promoting and defending the human, civil and political rights of the Vietnamese people. Thadeus Nguyễn Văn Lý can tell you all about it:



Oh, that's right - he can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thadeus_Nguyễn_Văn_Lý

 

Yup, and as you're probably aware, Ludwig von Mises literally wrote the book on that in 1922. It should be required reading for all young skulls full of mush...

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-An-Economic-Sociological-Analysis/dp/0913966630

 

Yes, I am aware. And for those that don't like reading books, but prefer online lectures..

http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia

 

Once again, I have statistics on my side. Every single communist experimentation has ended in a authoritarian nightmare, every single time. You can blabber about what Marx said on paper, I have results in real life. There is nothing democratic about communism, and that has been proven time and time again.

 

Thread has gone off topic slightly - so what I want to know is why all the right wingers think it's ok to bomb people of different ideologies - esp all those women and children in Vietnam.

How does that make the US the righteous policeman?

And why are you all bashing Stalin? - if it weren't for him then everyone would be speaking German by now