Opinion of Ho Chi Minh

[EnglishPete]

For those here who are ignorant of the US military's Rules of engagement for the Vietnam war and how they (deliberately in my view) caused the US to lose the War here are a couple of interesting links

http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/08/fighting-with-one-hand-tied-behind-our-back-in-vietnam-and-afghanistan/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/DM.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These absurd rules were supposedly put in place to avoid provoking the Soviets and Chinese and to supposedly 'win hearts and minds'. This is nonsense, you win people's hearts and minds by ridding them of communist oppression and by showing yourself to be more powerful than the enemy and defeating them. As for not upsetting the Soviets and Chinese you can anyone win a war without wanting to upset the enemy?

Can you imagine the US beating Germany and Japan using these rules of engagement? They won those wars and did a pretty good job of winning hearts and minds afterwards. If similar tactics that had been used to win WWII had been used by the US in the Vietnam war it would have been won pretty quickly and the North vietnamese communist government would have collapsed and the country could have been reunited under the saigon government and be much better off today

[parochial boy]

For those here who are ignorant of the US military's Rules of engagement for the Vietnam war and how they (deliberately in my view) caused the US to lose the War here are a couple of interesting links

http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/08/fighting-with-one-hand-tied-behind-our-back-in-vietnam-and-afghanistan/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/DM.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Americans didn't want to murder civilians therefore they were deliberately trying to lose the war? umm, ok.

The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to succesfully win a war against guerillas - as has happened in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq over and over again. You can't bomb an enemy into submission if they can dissapear at the drop of a hat.

Really, all you're doing is spouting nonsense conspiracy theories.

[EnglishPete]

For those here who are ignorant of the US military's Rules of engagement for the Vietnam war and how they (deliberately in my view) caused the US to lose the War here are a couple of interesting links

http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/08/fighting-with-one-hand-tied-behind-our-back-in-vietnam-and-afghanistan/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/DM.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Americans didn't want to murder civilians therefore they were deliberately trying to lose the war? umm, ok.

The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to succesfully win a war against guerillas

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

For those here who are ignorant of the US military's Rules of engagement for the Vietnam war and how they (deliberately in my view) caused the US to lose the War here are a couple of interesting links

http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/08/fighting-with-one-hand-tied-behind-our-back-in-vietnam-and-afghanistan/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/DM.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Americans didn't want to murder civilians therefore they were deliberately trying to lose the war? umm, ok.

The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to succesfully win a war against guerillas

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The British had years of experience owning Malaysia, and I'd imagine the Malay rebels didn't get f[inks]tons of assistance from China. Ditto for Brazil.

[parochial boy]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

[EnglishPete]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

[Intell]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

They were liberated from decades of colonialism and oppression of the indochinese people by foreign powers, through subdjication and force.

But please by into the own propaganda you have set out for yourself.

[EnglishPete]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

They were liberated from decades of colonialism and oppression of the indochinese people by foreign powers, through subdjication and force.

But please by into the own propaganda you have set out for yourself.

Good Lord. You come out with a line of pure communist BS propaganda and then talk about not buying into propaganda. Just look at how much massively better off in every way the people of Taiwan are today compared to the people of mainland China. The ordinary people of Vietnam would have been and would be today much better off if the Saigon government had won the war and reunified the country just as the people of mainland China would be and would have been if Chiang Kai-shek had won the Chinese civil war.

[Intell]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

They were liberated from decades of colonialism and oppression of the indochinese people by foreign powers, through subdjication and force.

But please by into the own propaganda you have set out for yourself.

Good Lord. You come out with a line of pure communist BS propaganda and then talk about not buying into propaganda. Just look at how much massively better off in every way the people of Taiwan are today compared to the people of mainland China. The ordinary people of Vietnam would have been and would be today much better off if the Saigon government had won the war and reunified the country just as the people of mainland China would be and would have been if Chiang Kai-shek had won the Chinese civil war.

The vast majority of people of Taiwan aren't better than the vast majority of the people of mainland china, and ask a Vietnamese about their stimulation in colonial France, and ask a person who actually lives in Vietnam about that, or Laos, or even Cambodia, after the west supported Khmer Rouge and that fascist regime.

Anyone you're an idiot with no logic, so I won't bother debating you. Probably a facist in that.

[parochial boy]

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

The US didn't want to engage in an all out war with North Vietnam at least in part because they didn't want to risk all out war with China or the USSR, any such war would have been unwinnable to say the least.

They also did bomb both North Vietnam and Cambodia, which failed as it simply wasn't viable to bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail to pieces.

As to whether a conventional engagement would have been successful (ignoring China or Russia getting involved), there is no way the US would have ever been allowed to make that sort of sacrifice by the American own people. In addition, the combination of nuclear proliferation and the struggles that both the US and Russia have had in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and on and on suggests that it wouldn't have been a viable route to victory. They might have toppled the North Vietnamese government, but as you admitted, a guerrilla war would have continued and I doubt the US would have been willing to continue to fight a low intensity war for the following decades.

And whether Vietnam would have been better or worse of or not without a Communist government is speculation - neither communism nor free market capitalism are particularly suited to agricultural, low income countries. Looking at Indo-China, Myanmar has the lowest living standards of any country in the region, and it never had a Communist government.

[EnglishPete]

It shouldn't be for a modern army of a major Industrial country. the British managed it in Malaysia, President Medici managed it in Brazil

The tactics the British used in Malaya in the 1950s were actually very different to the standard US strategy of bomb to the ground and send in the shock troops, which does not work against a guerilla force. The British put a lot of effort into the "hearts and minds" side of the conflict, which has been a real weakness for the US in the guerilla conflicts it has been involved in.

Also bear in mind that the Malaya crises was a 12 year effort by the British, and that Guerilla tactics have come on along way since the 1950s.

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Siege.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

They were liberated from decades of colonialism and oppression of the indochinese people by foreign powers, through subdjication and force.

But please by into the own propaganda you have set out for yourself.

Good Lord. You come out with a line of pure communist BS propaganda and then talk about not buying into propaganda. Just look at how much massively better off in every way the people of Taiwan are today compared to the people of mainland China. The ordinary people of Vietnam would have been and would be today much better off if the Saigon government had won the war and reunified the country just as the people of mainland China would be and would have been if Chiang Kai-shek had won the Chinese civil war.

The vast majority of people of Taiwan aren't better than the vast majority of the people of mainland china, and ask a Vietnamese about their stimulation in colonial France, and ask a person who actually lives in Vietnam about that, or Laos, or even Cambodia, after the west supported Khmer Rouge and that fascist regime.

Anyone you're an idiot with no logic, so I won't bother debating you. Probably a facist in that.

Average income in Taiwan is much higher than that in the mainland. Income inequality is also significantly lower in Taiwan compared to the mainland whilst life expectancy is significantly higher on the island. There has also developed much greater political freedom in Taiwan and the KMT even at their most dictatorial were never as bad as Mao.

As for Vietnam the question isn't whether life was great for ordinary people eighty years ago in south east Asia. It wasn't great for ordinary people but then it wasn't great for ordinary people in Thailand either which had never been colonized. The question is whether ordinary people in would have been better off in a Vietnam run by a pro French client government or one run by a communist pro Soviet client government. The evidence from other parts of east Asia points massively to the former being the better option for the mass of the people.

The Khmer Rouge were communists I'm afraid so don't try blaming them on the right. I've just explained at length my opposition to the west supporting communists.

As for asking people in Vietnam and Laos what they think those countries are one party dictatorships ruled over by the old communist tradition of state terror. You go over there and ask people their honest opinion of politics they're hardly likely to tell you.

[EnglishPete]

The problem in Vietnam was that the VC were controlled and supplied by the North Vietnamese communist government. The VC guerilla war was in reality a  North Vietnamese attack. However throughout the war the US government made very clear that it had no intention of overthrowing the Hanoi government and in fact all of the highly restrictive Rules of Engagement the US army, navy and air force worked under helped ensure that there was no danger to the northern government whilst the southern government was under constant Seine.

It didn't take long for the northern army to invade and occupy the south in 1975 and reunify the country under the Hanoi government. Using rules of engagement more similar to those used against Germany and Japan in WWII it shouldn't have taken any longer for US forces a decade earlier to work with Republic of Vietnam forces to invade and occupy the North and reunify the country under the Saigon government. For sure guerilla warfare would have persisted for a while but the Vietnamese could have dealt with that problem if they had hadfhadf full US support to do so, support that would have had a much lower cost, in every sense than the Vietnam war ended up having.

The people of Indochina would also have been spared decades of the misery of living under communism.

The US didn't want to engage in an all out war with North Vietnam at least in part because they didn't want to risk all out war with China or the USSR, any such war would have been unwinnable to say the least.

They also did bomb both North Vietnam and Cambodia, which failed as it simply wasn't viable to bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail to pieces.

As to whether a conventional engagement would have been successful (ignoring China or Russia getting involved), there is no way the US would have ever been allowed to make that sort of sacrifice by the American own people. In addition, the combination of nuclear proliferation and the struggles that both the US and Russia have had in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and on and on suggests that it wouldn't have been a viable route to victory. They might have toppled the North Vietnamese government, but as you admitted, a guerrilla war would have continued and I doubt the US would have been willing to continue to fight a low intensity war for the following decades.

And whether Vietnam would have been better or worse of or not without a Communist government is speculation - neither communism nor free market capitalism are particularly suited to agricultural, low income countries. Looking at Indo-China, Myanmar has the lowest living standards of any country in the region, and it never had a Communist government.

Far from being unwinnable a war to overthrow the North Vietnamese government would have been successfully concluded quite quickly. Communist China would not have risked all out war with the US over Vietnam. They only got involved in Korea because with Harry Truman in the White House they knew that they were safe from that or from any other firm of sanction from the US. A US government with a bit more resolve (i.e. not a Johnson or Nixon government) would have no problem deterring a Red Chinese intervention.

Once the reunification had happened there would have been a period of pacification of the communist terrorists in the jungles but this wouldn't have required a massive number of US troops. Without the backing and direction of a North Vietnamese government the VC terrorists  would have been manageable by the Vietnamese government with support from the US.

As for Myanmar it was until recent reforms started ruled by a one party socialist dictatorship. The fact that this dictatorship chose not to call itself Marxist doesn't alter that.

[EnglishPete]

Some interesting quotes from military experts in 1968 on the Vietnam war

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.alor.org/Volume4/Vol4No11.htm

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This thread is a thread for stating expression of ones opinion of Ho Chi Minh, a thread for discussion of the man.

It is not a thread for shouting matches over the Vietnam War, hackish "debate" about left or right wing dictatorships, or paranoid assertions about Communists in the state department, that's out of the question.

This post is a semi-parody of the linked skit(@4:28 within a large collection of skits). Video may be NSFW(there is at least some swearing, albeit bleeped, for example, among other things)

[EnglishPete]

This thread is a thread for stating expression of ones opinion of Ho Chi Minh, a thread for discussion of the man.

It is not a thread for shouting matches over the Vietnam War, hackish "debate" about left or right wing dictatorships, or paranoid assertions about Communists in the state department, that's out of the question.

This post is a semi-parody of the linked skit(@4:28 within a large collection of skits). Video may be NSFW(there is at least some swearing, albeit bleeped, for example, among other things)

I don't think that opinions about HCM can be separated from opinions about his government or opinions about the Vietnam war.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This thread is a thread for stating expression of ones opinion of Ho Chi Minh, a thread for discussion of the man.

It is not a thread for shouting matches over the Vietnam War, hackish "debate" about left or right wing dictatorships, or paranoid assertions about Communists in the state department, that's out of the question.

This post is a semi-parody of the linked skit(@4:28 within a large collection of skits). Video may be NSFW(there is at least some swearing, albeit bleeped, for example, among other things)

I don't think that opinions about HCM can be separated from opinions about his government or opinions about the Vietnam war.

In a thread about Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh himself should be getting mentioned quite often. He hasn't been mentioned for like a page before me.

[EnglishPete]

This thread is a thread for stating expression of ones opinion of Ho Chi Minh, a thread for discussion of the man.

It is not a thread for shouting matches over the Vietnam War, hackish "debate" about left or right wing dictatorships, or paranoid assertions about Communists in the state department, that's out of the question.

This post is a semi-parody of the linked skit(@4:28 within a large collection of skits). Video may be NSFW(there is at least some swearing, albeit bleeped, for example, among other things)

I don't think that opinions about HCM can be separated from opinions about his government or opinions about the Vietnam war.

In a thread about Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh himself should be getting mentioned quite often. He hasn't been mentioned for like a page before me.

Its a bit rich you complaining about that when you've made about a dozen posts in this thread that neither mention nor discuss HCM.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This thread is a thread for stating expression of ones opinion of Ho Chi Minh, a thread for discussion of the man.

It is not a thread for shouting matches over the Vietnam War, hackish "debate" about left or right wing dictatorships, or paranoid assertions about Communists in the state department, that's out of the question.

This post is a semi-parody of the linked skit(@4:28 within a large collection of skits). Video may be NSFW(there is at least some swearing, albeit bleeped, for example, among other things)

I don't think that opinions about HCM can be separated from opinions about his government or opinions about the Vietnam war.

In a thread about Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh himself should be getting mentioned quite often. He hasn't been mentioned for like a page before me.

Its a bit rich you complaining about that when you've made about a dozen posts in this thread that neither mention nor discuss HCM.

Which all basically translated to "your post isn't even intelligent enough to respond to". Now how about getting back on topic.

[EnglishPete]

This thread is a thread for stating expression of ones opinion of Ho Chi Minh, a thread for discussion of the man.

It is not a thread for shouting matches over the Vietnam War, hackish "debate" about left or right wing dictatorships, or paranoid assertions about Communists in the state department, that's out of the question.

This post is a semi-parody of the linked skit(@4:28 within a large collection of skits). Video may be NSFW(there is at least some swearing, albeit bleeped, for example, among other things)

I don't think that opinions about HCM can be separated from opinions about his government or opinions about the Vietnam war.

In a thread about Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh himself should be getting mentioned quite often. He hasn't been mentioned for like a page before me.

Its a bit rich you complaining about that when you've made about a dozen posts in this thread that neither mention nor discuss HCM.

Which all basically translated to "your post isn't even intelligent enough to respond to".

If you think it isn't intelligent enough to respond to then the obvious solution for you is to not respond. If you are going to respond with a "lol" repeated to the point it becomes trolling its pretty absurd of you to then complain about the thread going off topic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider discussions on the nature of the Vietnam War and the North Vietnamese government to be off topic on a thread about HCM's reputation as how people view those two topics is central to their view of the man. I've asked the mods and they advise this is an interpretation they are happy to accept.

Your suggestion that I should avoid these topics on this thread is therefore noted and I will not be following it.

[EnglishPete]

Here's what happened when some of the restrictive rules of engagement on air crews were lifted in late 1972

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
http://blog.vvfh.org/2016/12/the-rules-of-engagement-in-the-2nd-indochina-war/

[EnglishPete]

But what about those terrible evil South Vietnamese government oppressors. Who could forget this haunting image of the South Vietnamese police Chief and former general Nguyễn Ngọc Loan summarily executing VC prisoner Nguyễn Văn Lém (AKA Bay Lop)



what could this poor innocent prisoner have done to warrant such punishment, presumably it was just for being communist



Oh right, he had just killed Vietnamese Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan and massacred his entire family when he refused to cooperate with the VC. So the South Vietnamese police chief was executing an enemy spy caught out of uniform who had just massacred a group of civilians (which execution is not a war crime) whilst it was the North Vietnamese controlled VC agent who had just carried out the war crime.

But then that doesn't fit the narrative of 'oppressive South Vietnamese vs communist liberators' so its disregarded. For the benefit of Scarlet Sun I will spell out exactly how that related to HCM. Its yet another example of how the idea that the South Vietnamese government was somehow worse or more oppressive than the communists was so far removed from reality that all kinds of dishonest propaganda had to be employed to spread this idea.

[EnglishPete]

Furthermore if we are talking about Ho Chi Minh and what he and his government were responsible and why he has a far better reputation that he deserves and why far too may people, many of whom should know better, think that the communists were 'good guys' and the South Vietnamese were 'bad guys' during the war lets look at another blog article detailing media bias in one US media outlet (and the reasons for it), although this is all too typical.

This is a bit of a lengthy quote but I think its important to include chapter and verse on this particular issue just to make things clear

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://vnafmamn.com/VNWar_atrocities.html

[Intell]

[EnglishPete]

Given all the chapter and verse evidence above about what a disaster communism was and is for the people of Vietnam perhaps you'd like to provide some (any?) evidence for your extraordinary claim that HCM was a FF.

[EnglishPete]

Furthermore if we are talking about Ho Chi Minh and what he and his government were responsible and why he has a far better reputation that he deserves and why far too may people, many of whom should know better, think that the communists were 'good guys' and the South Vietnamese were 'bad guys' during the war lets look at another blog article detailing media bias in one US media outlet (and the reasons for it), although this is all too typical.

This is a bit of a lengthy quote but I think its important to include chapter and verse on this particular issue just to make things clear

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://vnafmamn.com/VNWar_atrocities.html

In this thread so far I've said that the South Vietnamese government, highly flawed as it was, was far better for the ordinary people of Vietnam than the highly oppressive and totalitarian Northern communist government.

Further I've asserted that US could have won the war relatively easily if it had not been sabotaged by its own policy decisions and rules of engagement preventing it (deliberately in my view) from being able to win.

The response from lefties has been



On the other hand provide chapter and verse evidence of these facts (for example the evidence quoted above) and ask if they have any evidence to the contrary

The response from lefties