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

Yes I know I was waiting to see what idiotic reasoning would be used to answer.

 

Uh....ok

 

It's rather a stretch to say socialism is rising. But I am sure you believe it. Even if it is it is not for the reasons you claim. One reason it may be " rising " or gaining in popularity is the mass effect of making more and more people dependent on government assistance.

But I digress.

Googling a word gives you a definition and incidentally not the definition you gave.

Socialism is not about forcing rich people to share their ill gotten gains. First of all it is an absolute falsehood to assume that all wealthy people acquired said wealth through such means. Such a blanket statement is imaginary and unsupported by any fact or evidence. It is a fact tghat most wealthy people did not STEAL their wealth no matter how much you attempt to twist reality.

Second of all socialism never really effects the wealthy who simply benefit from it. Usually by exporting and moving their wealth around to avoid the theft of it. Those who do suffer are the less wealthy who have to work more and more to support the gorwing legions of bums and welafe queens who demand ever increasing support because socialists told them it is their right.

I cannot answer for Sweidih guy but that fact is the OP got it dead wrong. The communists were the agrressors who attacked a foreign country in Vietnam. The capitalists did not invade the north

 

If America becomes a socialist country, there's no hope for the rest of the world. We are the last bastion of freedom. There's nowhere else to go.

 

I agree.

Socialism always enjoys a boost now and then when young idealistic people get turned on by it.

But then they grow up

 

Same could be said for capitalism. How many have you and your buddies killed for that 'ideology' - think, WW1,2, Vietnam, Korea etc etc...

 

When they 'asked' foreign powers to bomb the North.

 

Capitalism is imperialistic by nature - it is still happening today, via neo-liberalism. Take a look around all the 3rd World sweatshops employing virtual slaves, in order to feed the CAPITALIST machine!

 

I might differ some in that we were no longer a republic as envisioned by the Founders. That concept died at Appomattox.

 

Bombing is not an invasion.

The North invaded the south long BEFORE the foreign powers ( the USA ) started bombing targets.

The communists were the aggressors in that war

 

Ho Chi Minh asked the West for help in the 1920's because he wanted to remove French ownership of his country. We refused, because France was our ally The Soviets helped him The North established a brutal dictatorship from which many people fled for the South. The North invaded the South and the war became a proxy battle between the Soviets and the West.It was better than a direct involvement which risked the accidental use of nuclear weapons. Our involvement began with Harry Truman and slowly expanded over the years.

We won the war militarily, but as the North Vietnamese admitted, they won on Americas' college campuses. We left after training South Vietnamese to fight with our methods and we were on the way to seeing a Korean style stand off. Liberal, anti-war Democrats stopped military aid and let the country collapse, in a way similar to Obama's treatment of Iraq. We left a country we had broken to its own devises. The hardest part of a war is after the fighting ends. An occupying force must be in place for years to rebuild what was broken. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are prosperous allies in part because of the stabilizing influence our occupying military gave them. Iraq, which which was an artificial country created after WW1.

A lesson both wars taught us which we refuse to learn is don't fight a war unless you intend to win and to fix the enemy when the fighting ends.

 

Capitalism is not imperialistic at all.

Those sweat shop workers in third wolrd countries work those jobs by volitional choice and in the vast majority of cases their lives are improved by it. Without those sweat shops most of those people would be eking out a living on subsistance farming or child prostitution.

It also improves the economy of those 3rd world nations so that eventually they can evolve beyond such methods.

 

Yes, humans are greedy, and therefore socialism is not a good system because it pretty mcuh ignores that. Capitalism on the other hand, is all about using peoples' greed and make it into something good. I'd say you are wrong. capitalism does not lead to corporatism. The very essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange, the essence of socialism is forced redistribution of wealth. Corporatism is not about voluntary exchanges. Businesses are only interested in getting bed with government if the government has something to offer, and the ones who make sure it does have something to offer are well intentioned socialists who give it more power with the intent of doing good, but which actually ends up benefitting big business.

No it certainly could not. Firstly, I don't think you can blame ww1 and 2 on capitalism. And secondly, the communists killed many times more of their own in peace-time than all the causualties of both vietnam and korea put together. While the communist countries were busy commiting genocide, the west was not.

No it's not.

How are sweatshops imperialist?

Obviously not, but you're still a republic. But so was the USSR, and so is north korea. There's not much to a republic than the lack of a monarch.

 

The main reason poor people dont like to vote for republicans is because you call them "growing legions of bums and welfare queens" when you dont even know what the hell you are talking about. You see a few exceptions where they really are like that, than use a blanket statement for all of them, the exact same criticism you had of me with rich people. You literally just proved my signature, you are trying to convince everyone to blame poor people. Its very sad you have to resort to blaming the least fortunate people in society just to keep your privileged position, at least I have the balls to blame the most privileged and powerful people in society, I do not attack the weak like you and the rest of the right wing does. You are only going to create more Communists with that ignorant attitude, so by all means please continue.

 

Well I am not a republican so it does not bother me at all if they do not vote republican.

The exceptions are those few peopple who really need help the generalization I made was accurate.

Distracting from those facts by attacking me merely proves you have no substantial base to argue from. For example you are more of a right winger than I am whether you like it or not.

I proved nothing at all except you are really not as enlightened as you think you are.

 

What right wing ideology do I hold to? How am I farther right than you?

 

You cannot invade your own country.

 

They were two seperate countries.

 

Artificially created by the Western powers, so the North were just re-uniting the place.