CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
BTW i am aware that Bush had the majority of the vote against Kerry so i suppose what im really asking is; do the underhanded methods he used (e.g. despicable character assassination and bribery) to attain victory qualify as stealing?
In 2000 the state of Florida was too close to call but with a Bush lead, he lead by under 0.5% of votes which means by state law their has to be a recount. And so they recounted however this process was supposed to take a long time, remember about 6 million people voted in Florida in 2000 and it was hand paper recounts, not only that but protesters who did not want a recount distracted the recounters from getting their job done pretty soon this caught the attention of federal courts in Florida where secretary of state Katherine Harris began getting involved in the recount decision who was and activist for the Bush/Cheney campaign and is responsible Data Base Technologies which knocked many Democratic voters off the voting rolls which had probably lead to the hacked results in the first place! Anyway she had made recount deadlines throughout the month until eventually she had decided to stop all of the voter recounts and give Florida's 25 electoral votes to Gov. George W Bush. The Democrats went to the supreme court to give Florida permission to continue recounting votes unfortunately the members in the supreme court voted no 5-4 and forced Gore to concede. A November 11th 2001 study confirmed that had the recounts persisted Al Gore would have led in Florida! After the 2000 election President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 which led to the problems in the next presidential election.
Well, I had no idea who Gore Vidal was until I saw this video, so I decided to do some research.
Nothing on him having a degree in history. If he is a historian, I would like to know where he got his degree in history. Otherwise, he is just a guy who likes history... I like history 8l
As well, in this video he has said nothing about HOW Bush stole the election (or even the 2nd one). He just speaks on how Bush/Cheney is nothing like government before and it's all corrupt. Oh yes, how easy it is to say that Bush/Cheney is so corrupt, yet present nothing but random news clippings (that have little to do with corruption) as your evidence.
Did Bush steal the first election? Well, I believe that the electoral college is bad for Democracy, so I believe that Bush should not have won the first election. But evidence to suggest that Bush made this elaborate scheme to win the election is scarce and speculative. As well, if Bush wanted to steal the election, I think he would have made it seem that he also won the popular vote.
As for the second... the smear tactics went both ways, and the Kerry campaign not only smeared Bush (as Bush smeared Kerry), but Kerry smeared his own brothers in arms, claiming that it was just a bunch of barbaric murders, even though, as proven, those slaughters were not frequent and not a fair representation of the American Military in Vietnam.
There are far better things to criticize Bush for, this is not one of them. Making up conspiracies (be it 9/11 truth or NWO) is not going to help the Liberal cause to shed light on the bad things that Bush ACTUALLY did.
"Well, I had no idea who Gore Vidal was until I saw this video, so I decided to do some research.Nothing on him having a degree in history. If he is a historian, I would like to know where he got his degree in history. Otherwise, he is just a guy who likes history... I like history 8l"
Your right he doesn't have a history degree, im sorry that you think he needs one as the man is widely acknowledged as being a truly great historian, he received his education from extremely exclusive private schools and when he graduated he jloined the US army and fought in WW2. The man is a genius and the fact he didn't get a formal degree in history from a college is immaterial but you'd know that if you knew who he was.
"As well, in this video he has said nothing about HOW Bush stole the election (or even the 2nd one)."
You clearly didn't watch the video, watch from minute 3:15 onwards he talks about how Bush stole the election from Gore, then he talks on the Kerry campaign and the underhanded tactic (e.g. Bribery) used by Bush.
"He just speaks on how Bush/Cheney is nothing like government before and it's all corrupt. Oh yes, how easy it is to say that Bush/Cheney is so corrupt, yet present nothing but random news clippings (that have little to do with corruption) as your evidence."
I am sorry i didn't think i needed evidence to claim that Bush and Cheney are corrupt, i mean i don't think in the light of the evidence thats come out during and since their tenure that claiming they were corrupt would be such a controversial statement badly in need of substantiation, i mean lying to the entire american public about WMDs and Al Queda links clearly isn't enough for you, please my friend try to keep up some pretence of objectively, it does not become you, heres your evidence, i didn't include anything liek it cause i know nobody is going to read it but they may watch a 6 min youtube clip in passing but hey if it makes you feel good to criticise me go right ahead:
"But evidence to suggest that Bush made this elaborate scheme to win the election is scarce and speculative."
Yes thats largely correct i was just hoping someone else may surface with something credible.
"), but Kerry smeared his own brothers in arms, claiming that it was just a bunch of barbaric murders, even though, as proven, those slaughters were not frequent and not a fair representation of the American Military in Vietnam."
Ive been to vietnam twice in my lifetime, once when i was just 10 and again last summer, both for 3 month stints, now ive traveled the length and breth of the country and ive read a great deal their history particularly the war with america and i can honestly say that your assessment above is completely and totally wrong in almost everyway possible. Kerry was hero and when he spoke out about the crimes he witnessed he was only furthering this status in my eyes, (even if not to americans who would rather keep their heads buried in the sand)., i have enoprmous respect and admiration for that man.
Now if you'll indulge me i will tell you exactly why the above claim (i.e."those slaughters were not frequent and not a fair representation of the American Military in Vietnam.") is completely and totally false.i cannot stand the perpetuationg of lies realting to that conflict, while i understand the american political establishments desire to sweep it under the rug and completely distort and downplay the history i cannot tolarate it, i have been to this country and seen how friendly and nice the peolpe there are i have witnessed with my own eyes the scars of war left on that country, and talked with mnay poeple who were directly afffected by the war, over 300,000 vietnamese are still unaccounted for, many mothers in the years proceeding the war appeared on state tv asking if anyone anywhere knows what happened to their sons or daughters, this continued right up to the 90s.
Well over 3 million people died in the vietanm war(some put it at 4 but in reality its probably closer to 3.5), amny died in cambodia and Laos also (approx. 1.5 million), most of these were civilians. The incident that typfies the way in which the amercian army conducted military operations in vietnam is the My Lai massacre, if you know anything about the war you will have heard of this. This was largely been misrepresented as an isolated incident by the americanmedia but there exists an overwhelming body of evidence that proves this was anything but an isolated incident, besides the words of every vietnamese person i have ever talked to about it many of which actually fought in the war.
The famous journalist John Pilger interviewed some of men taken part in the massacre, many of which were never charged, nearly all of them was adamant that they were told from above to " kill everyone one and everything"
Homocide was the means by which tht war was conducted, the famous US ninth division were notorious, they are credited with killing 11,000 people (mostly civilians) in a campaign known as "operation speedy express" (i.e.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express). The fatal flaw in the claim that this was a military operation lay in the fact that only 700 weapons were ever recovered from the area where so mnay were killed. This mass slughter was condoned and covered up at the time, they admitted they had killed at least 5000 civlivians, the actual number is far far far higher but it was all covered up by the US. Many provinces in vietnam thought to be heavily sympathetic to the veit cong were turned into "free fire zones", this is military speak for we do whatever the hell we want, a perfect example of this is Quang Ngai province, this resulted in large scale mass slaughter, the complete and total destruction of villages either by means more akin to Gengis Khan by going in killing raping and burning, or by simple dropping lots of bombs, or dropping massive amounts napalm (you know the famous picture of the naked girl who's village was bombed with napalm and is covered in it herself, it has become iconic). Then theres "agent orange" the chemical weapon used by the US military in vietnam, this chemical kills everything in its path and is still ravaging the country side is was used on today, i have been to the Saigon war museum and seen the entire wing devoted to the victims of americans agent orange campaign which has caused well over 500,000 children to be born with birth defects.
This was all supposedly done to maintain geopolitical power in the region (as was Korea) stop the spread of communism and, maintain the pro-capitalist pro-american completely undemocratic saigon-government, but this puppet government (just like most of the puppet governments america supports or maintains whether it be in south america or in the ME or asia (like those revolting against US backed oppression)) was responsible for horrible acts of brutality towards its own people (oh i think we've heard that before), in fact amnesety international compiled a reports that showed at the time (prior to the US invasion) that the south vietnamese governmnt were respionsible for half of all the cases of torture in the word. Then theres the nationlists of Ho Chi Minh, those dreaded comminists who had appealed for help from america agaisnt the french and instead got an entirely new and much more destructive reign of terror, well the real question is this, did these people have a popular mandate as the rightful rulers of vietnam, well the record is pretty clear now that he did, in fact many beleive thats one of the reason they invaded when they did as they knew he was going to take power with popular support, president Eisenhower wrote somthing in his memoirs that quite telling on this matter, this is the quote ""I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indo-China affairs who did not believe that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 percent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai."
Other quotes that are accurately characterise the nature of the war include the famous ""We had to destroy the town in order to save it." made by a US major after they admitted that they bombed villages indiscriminately in order to kill VC
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre
The piont im making is that random killing, torture and destruction in vietnam were routine and common place, and this was th result of the orders given to the soldiers fighting there, i am currently reading a book about american history and how american high school history education and hidtory books competely distort the truth of many famous events with vietnam coming in for a lot of criticism, it more or less deatils in a much more comprehensive way than i just have how killing, torture, mass murder and slaughter, mutilation, indiscriminate and random killing, destruction of property and the landscape by shooting lachine guns and rockets from helicopters or dropping black pepper bombs (look it up) or napalm, this was commonplace, in fact it was expected from above, it was how the war was conducted and the results it produced (i.e. the compelte and total destruction of the coutnry and mass murder of a substantial portion of the population) were what expectedly followed.
If you want any further clarification or info. or sources don't hesitate.
"Making up conspiracies (be it 9/11 truth or NWO"
What conspiracies, i deal in facts, where is the conspiracy here.
BTW the book is called lies my teacher told me, the author is professor James W. Loewen and i strongly urge you to read it you are think your history education in high scholl made you knowledgeable on americans dark history think again. Also, i havent forgotten about that penn and teller video and the issue reagarding your view of Noam Chomsky.
You criticize me for using wikipedia a lot... but okay, I'll let you slide, since you ALSO used a book, which didn't even prove that murders of innocent people was a common thing from the American military. It did show that it happened, and yes, it did... i didn't deny that it happened. I denied it being something that was common. Like, ordinary. You know, "everyone's doing it". No, it wasn't like that.
I'm not denying that the Vietnam war was a bullshit operation from our government, and I'm not denying that many innocent died for a bullshit reason. What I am denying is this new, hip style of attacking the troops calling them all baby murderers just because John Kerry was involved in a massacre and decided to throw his own brothers in front of a bus to save his own ass.
"You criticize me for using wikipedia a lot... but okay, I'll let you slide,"
I wouldn't say a lot in fact i cannot ever remember me criticising you for using, i have openly acknowledged using that it is an inherently unreliable source due to the fact fact that anyone can alter it, i wouldn't include it as a source in any of work but it is sufficiently accurate for this site. I use it myself all the time, i only use it to back up claims that i know are true, i have no problem with someone taking issue with a source i prevent.
", I'll let you slide, since you ALSO used a book, which didn't even prove that murders of innocent people was a common thing from the American military"
Thats not true actually, i have read a lot on vietnam, John Pilger is an excellent source on this issue, he was a young war correspondant when he went to vietnam just starting out, his experience there he has admitted argely influenced his career and his work, you should read some of his articles on this is you doubt what i am saying, or the book i mentioned, i don't know what kind of proof you're looking for, surely the 3.5 million (mostly civilians) dead and the endless list of atrocities, plus the testimony of many american service men are evidence enough, i mean i get the impression the only way you'll conceed is if i get Nixon to admit it, the evidenmce of the conflict proves my point entirely, what i have provided you with is but a tiny sample of what went on there, Pilger himself has said that the war is viewed as being the first ion which atrocities were put on camera but he has said this simply isnt true, most of what went on was never reported, in fact it was completely wiped from the pages of history, but the numbers don't lie.
" I denied it being something that was common. Like, ordinary. You know, "everyone's doing it". No, it wasn't like that."
Yes it most certainly was, this really isn't up for debate, i mean you might beleive some of the hollywood propaganda but the only moive to actually show some truth was Jubricks Full Metal Jacket, again i must say that stubbornly disagreeing really does make you look that good here, the facts are the facts, iamerican soldiers did what they wanted in vietnam, im not all of them engaged in it but they knew it was going on supoerios included, the attitude was that they didn't care, it was completely institutional, and yes it was completely common place, please go and read about the war from reliable sources before you try to convince me of an american myth perpetuated in order to save face, i have presented the truth of this conflict, maybe you don't like it cause it doesn't fit in with your values and you think your coutnry could not be guitly of something liek this but i am telling you now that tyou are 100% wrong, and if you don't beleiv me i strongly urge you todo your own investigating, i know first hand from taking to vietnamese people exactly what was done top them and their coutnry.
"I'm not denying that the Vietnam war was a bullshit operation from our government"
It was the worst by far, in fact it was so bad it is comparable to any major world injustices, i don't appreciate this oh it was a failed mission bullshit, you had no right to be there.
"and I'm not denying that many innocent died for a bullshit reason"
Its not a bullshit reason to the people who instigated the thing, in fact 1.2 million Iraqis are now dead for exactly the same reasons.
" What I am denying is this new, hip style of attacking the troops calling them all baby murderers "
Theres nothing new or hip about what i am claiming and i find that characterisation deeply insulting especially coming from someone who has not got one clue about the conflict, i have studied in some depth (out of pure interest) and i have been to country twice, my sources are credible to say the least so please don't try to convince me of the unreality you have convinced yourself of, i happen to like dealing in truth and you are clearly unaware of the truth of this conflcit but that doesn't seem to prevent you from telling im wrong.
"John Kerry was involved in a massacre and decided to throw his own brothers in front of a bus to save his own ass."
Wht he did was incredibly noble and fact that you have characterised in this manner says a lot about you and your own values and humanism.
my own values and humanism see Kerry as a guy who used his service as a reason for why he should become president, even though his service involved murdering innocent people and then testifying against the soldiers he fought with in order to save face.
my own values and humanism are against the conflict that took place in Vietnam and against the idea that Communism must be met with war. It's understandable that the Communists and Vietcong were mass murderers, but our invasion did not help, especially since it cost us lives, money, and an eventual failure that let the Vietcong continue to mass murder innocent people.
War is against my values and humanism because it does not work. The only time I can see it truly working for America (not considering other factors, like the Depression) is when we fought off an oppressive regime on our own soil. It was a war for our own liberty, and it was the most successful thing we've done until the Gulf War. The War on Terror, while being successful in the low amount of lives the soldiers have lost, has failed in eliminating terrorism. As we see, al-Qaeda has only begun to fall thanks to efforts from the CIA and special ops, NOT the actual war. I agree that war brings about casualties unlike we've ever seen.
Where we disagree mostly, though, is that I do not feel that the Military is just a bunch of homicidal lunatics who like to kill innocent people. It is a shameful attack from the left that has made me distant from all the anti-war people. Anti-war arguments should be based on reasoning and logic, as cold-hearted as it may be, instead of pointing to the actions of people who have gone overboard. LBJ is not a baby killer (as much as I disagree with the man, insults like that only hurt my arguments against him because I get lumped in with all the irrational zealots).
"my own values and humanism see Kerry as a guy who used his service as a reason for why he should become president, even though his service involved murdering innocent people and then testifying against the soldiers he fought with in order to save face."
How do you know this? I mean if what you say is true then why did none of his comrades testify against him and si hey John you did the same things we did, i can't of one reason why the soldiers he fought with would not want to clear the record and have their own say on the matter unless they knew he wasn't half as guilty as them and that they should just keep their mouths shut cause they knew exactly what they did out there. I haven't researched the John kerry issues specifically so i can't say this with certainty but this explanation seems most logical to me, now if this is indeed the case then it makes a lot of sense to me that a person who's trying to come president would use as means at his disposal and in my book coming forward and telling the truth (when nobody in that division of the army would) counts as something pretty signifcant and something that would definitely infuence moral (non-nationalistic) voters to vote for Kerry.
"It's understandable that the Communists and Vietcong were mass murderers,"
Where do you get this stuff, i have already provided you with ample proof that the vietcong were supported by a popular mandate, did they murder people, yes of course they it was a bloody war and the south vietnamese government (which i already stated was one of the worst human rightts abusers in the world at the time as decreed by amnesty international) have plenty of money and aid from the US but really the only mass murderers in that war were the US. It wasn't VC bombs that completely desecrated and decimated the vietnamese landscape, it wasn't VC helicopters that travelled round the country spraying bullets and rockets onto villages killing everything and anything that moved in the vicinity, it wasn't VC planes dropping napalm and agent orange (a devastating chemical weapon) onto villages and towns and the country side where suspected insurgents lay, it wasn't the VC that marched thorugh the countryside like Genghis Khan burning shooting raping and pillaging. The VC were largely supported by the people of vietnam, this is one of the main reason they emerged victorious, maybe at the beginning america had some minor support in the south of the country as many south vietnamese did fear communism but this was completely distorted in the media at the time and it didn't take those people long to change their minds about america once they saw exactly what american what doing to their land and their people.
" but our invasion did not help, especially since it cost us lives, money, and an eventual failure that let the Vietcong continue to mass murder innocent people."
WTF? Are you serious, you ability to deceive yourself astounds me, im well aware of what the VC did to those people that wokred for the americans during the war but what you seem tio be entirely unaware of is the fact that those people were in the extreme minority, just like those egyptian people who were treated well under Mubarak and were given some air time in western media prior to his stepping down, they didn't what him to leave they only represented about 1% of population and the same is trure in vietnam, the overwhelming majority of the people were on the aide of the VC especially after american actions against them. I understand that you have probably been fed many lies about this conflcit from pro-Us sources of info. but if you could at least try to remain objective in researching this topic you will begin to realise that the views i hold on this matter are largely correct, the VC were not mass murderers relaitve to the US relative to teh US they were liberators, this is fact, and i can tell you even today any vietnamese person will testify to this, even those that were supposedly sympathetic to america like the some of the southeners or the Mong people of the north mountainous region, i have discussed this with them.
Ill respond to rest later and the other two arguments, im fairly caught for time recently:(
Ive said it once and ill say it again i am truly amazed at the level of self deception on your side, let me explain:
"I call both sides wrong"
Not really all you've been doing since the topic of the debate switched to vietnam is tacitly defneding yiour coutnries actions as much as possible while vociously condeming the actions of the vietcong and painting them (in a very subtle way) as the real bad guys. Let me rpove this, i have gone throught the correspondance so far, heres what you have said that could be construed as being somewhat against your own countries actions in the region:
" It did show that it happened, and yes, it did... i didn't deny that it happened. I denied it being something that was common."
"I'm not denying that the Vietnam war was a bullshit operation from our government, and I'm not denying that many innocent died for a bullshit reason"
"my own values and humanism are against the conflict that took place in Vietnam "
" but our invasion did not help, especially since it cost us lives, money, and an eventual failure"
Thats about it really, i can't see anything else, now heres what you said about the other side:
" It's understandable that the Communists and Vietcong were mass murderers,"
"that let the Vietcong continue to mass murder innocent people"
Now when you contrast these views you get good idea of your unbeleivable bias that lets you beleive something that is compeltely false, again let me demonstrate, the deaths on south vietnam during the war caused by the VC abnd the other communists forces are as follows:
Excerpt from wikipedia: "Deaths Caused by NVA/VC Forces
NVA/VC forces killed about 86,000 civilians and 33,000 prisoners of war between 1957 and 1975. Rummel's summary has a mid-level estimate of 17,000 South Vietnamese civil servants (ARVN's local millitia) killed by North Vietnamese forces (including the Viet Cong). In addition, another 36,000 Southern civilians were executed for various reasons.[12] Another 50,000 refuges were killed, along with 1,260 civilians during the NVA's shelling of Saigon, and some 2,800 to 6,000 civilians killed in the Massacre at Huế during the Tet Offensive.[13] About 130 US POWs and 16,000 South Vietnamese POWs were executed by their communist captors.[14]
During the peak war years, almost a third of civilian deaths were the result of Viet Cong atrocities.[15]"
Excerpt from wikipedai: "Deaths Caused by South Vietnamese Forces
The estimated total number of civilians and suspected communists killed by the South Vietnamese forces from 1955 to 1975 was 145,500.
During the Diem Regime (1955–1963, in the earliest stages of US involvement), an estimated 80,000 persons died during the forced relocation of 900,000 southern civilians. 4,000 communist prisoners were killed through ill-treatment, about 10,000 suspected communists were executed, and 1,500 civilians died during shellings. Diem's total is roughly 95,500 civilian deaths, apart from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces his soldiers killed.[16][17]
From 1964 to 1975, an estimated 1,500 persons died during the forced relocations of 1,200,000 civilians, another 5,000 prisoners died from ill-treatment and about 30,000 suspected communists were executed. 6,000 civilians died in the more extensive shellings. In Qam Ham province 4,700 civilians were killed in 1969. This totals 50,000 deaths caused by the South Vietnamese forces, excluding North Vietnamese forces killed by the ARVN in combat.[18]"
Excerprt from wikipedia: "Deaths Caused by North Vietnamese Communist Power Consolidation
Tens of thousands civilians are thought to have died in the communist re-education camps. Many more took part in forced labor projects; Rudolph J. Rummel argues that nearly 10% of these died. The communists also executed tens of thousands. Some estimates are as high as 100,000 people thus killed. To this must be added the possibly one hundred thousand boat people who died trying to flee now communist Vietnam. The consolidation of power ended in about 1984, although boat people continued to flee and die through 1988. A similarly high death toll had occurred in the 1950s, when the communists their consolidated power in North Vietnam.[citation needed]
About 100,000 civilians were killed as the fled before the final victorious NVA military offensive of 1975.[19] Some 156,000 ARVN troops and Souther 15,000 civilians were killed during Hanoi's invasion of South Vietnam.[20] Sources have estimated that 170,000 South Vietnamese died in the re-education camps,[21] while the number executed could have been more than 200,000.[22] The maximum number killed through slave labor, according to Rummel, is 150,000. Owing to the extreme uncertainty surrounding boat people estimates, but including Vietnam's foreign democide, Rummel estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975-87 at the hands of Hanoi.[23] Many of Rummel's estimates are far higher than most others."
Now these are the main forces (aside from the US) that were involved in the war and if you interpret the data and tot up the number of casualites you get for the NVAVC forces (the vietcong) 242190 people killed, for the south vietnamese forces you get 288200 killed, and for the North vietnamese communist power consolidation (basicall just another offshoot of the VC) you get about 100,000 that were killed by them before the end of the war.
Now i wouldn't be so unfair as to add the south vietnamese total killed to the USA tally, even though there is justification given how america supoported them and aided them when they were repressing their people,now the total dead is approximately 3.5 million, the most conservative estimates put the casualties at just over 2 million people, this is definitely wrong(in my opinion as i have seen credible source in past refuting this), while the highest estimates of the casualities put it at 4 million, heres the wiki quote: "Total dead: 1,912,846 – 3,992,846+"
And heres the source: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War"
So lets agree to meet in the middle with 3 million dead, now the summation of the above three numbers is 630,390 dead, that means that US operations in the country from the start to the end of the war caused
the deaths of 2369610 people.Now this is ball park estimate and i haven't checked the sources wikipedia has provided but i think this paints a pretty clear picture by anyones reckoning, if you have any niggling doubts about the aboce number please check for yourself, maybe even do a more in depth analysis if you really think its wrong but i can assure you it isnt, so in the light of this evidence that you were clearly unaware of let me ask you the following question: who were the real mass murderers in the vietnam war, the VC or your beloved benign bringers of democracy?
"There is no reasoning with you."
Yes there is actaully actually, i don't know half as much about Korea as i do about vietnam but my opinions on that war and the North Korean regime in general are much more impartial as i know that was as clear cut as vietnam, your problem is you can't see through your unbeleivable bias as you have convinced yourself its not there, ill admit i am fairly biased against america but i don't make inflammatory statements (i.e."the Communists and Vietcong were mass murderers") unless i feel ive got the facts on my side, on this particular issue you most certainly have not my friend.
"I can ONLY attack America in order to get your support"
You haven't attacked america once, at rlast not in this debate.
"I can't be the person to say "both sides suck". "
Well since the VC had the popular support of the people i don't think you can say that they were in anyway a bad force in the war, you want to equate the actions of each side so that they are both morally equivalent but you really should have brought this topic up cause i happen to know quite a bit about it (without sounding too arrogant hopefully), i can see thorugh every one of your falsehoods even if you can't.
""Attack America, or shut up"."
I would never endorse the attacking of another coutnry unless they had attacked another and it was in order to prevent them from annexing it, i don't think you can say the same about your own government and regim as the documentary evidence proves conclusively.
for what? oh, i called the vietcong mass murderers. you're right, mass murder does not equate mass murderer. Unless, of course, I call the Americans mass murderers.
So from now on, I will say that Americans are also mass murderers. happy? good.
My argument is one of proportionality, your bias can't let you see the truth of matter even when its presented to you on a plate, were the vietcong some benign force that only wanted democracy for the vietnamese, no of course not, i don't want to get into what was good or bad about the VC, the fact is they had a popular mandate from the people so i really doesnt matter what i think, on the whole while admit they had there badness and they were quite brutal and after the war they may have turned into a more malign force, the fact is they were freedom fighters during the war, there country was occupied by a foreign oprressive power who most definitely didn't have the best inerests if the vietnamese at heart as demonstrated by the pupet government they supported and propped up there (and virtually every other puppet government they have supported.
The VC did not want to see their country in ruins or 3 million of ther countr men slaughtered, the VC did not go on a rampage thorugh the country side killing and slaughtering indiscriminantly, droping napalm, agent orange etc. etc.
it is well known that the overwhleming majority of the casualities were caused by the US yet you didn't call them mass murderers, even though thats exactly what they were, you only just wrote it there when i pionted out how ridiculous you sounded, your criticism of anti-american bias only takes you so far, i have justifed my position and the opinions i hold on this conflcit well enough if you truly beleive yourself to be objective read thorugh what i have written again and ask yourself in the light of the information presented (plus whatever other reasrch you do on the conflict) (id stay away from american sources for obvious reasons) whether my views are really that extreme, and if you think they're overly anti-american do you think they are not justifably overly anti-american?
"you're right, mass murder does not equate mass murderer. Unless, of course, I call the Americans mass murderers."
But you never called the americans mass murderers my friend that what you fail to realise, all you did was try to defend them, don't you remember is your memeory that short, do you wwant me to piot out how you continually tried to subtly justify your countries involvment and downplay the utter massacre they conducted in that country.
If you look at things proportionally then you will realise that the americans can justifably be called mass murderers as they were responsible for approximately 80% of the deaths in the war (as previously shown), the VC on the other had were responsible for about 10-15% of the deaths with the south vietnamese army being responsible for the other 5-10%, so again i feel i should ask, in the light of the given information, if you look at the conflcit proportionally and don't simply assign the label "mass murderers" for some arbitrary number (like 20,000) but actually look at the entire war and circumstances of how american kept it going because they didn't want to be seen taking a loss and thus they had to completely ravage the place, in th elight of the facts presetned who are the real mass murderers in this conflcit? You what the answer is but im sure your just going to deflect again by saying i am biased and thus everything it think and say is wrong but these facts aren't wrong, every vietnamese person i have ever talked to isnt wrong. Americans liek you keep your heqads buried in the sand still living with the fantasy that somehow you are a real force for good in the world thus your actions are bestowed with some sort of benevolent grace but what you fail to realise is that when you refuse to learn the lesson of history it has a way of repseting (i.e. 1.2 million dead Iraqis). Good day.
"I understand that no matter what I say, I'd have to recognize the Americans as far worse than the Viet Cong. "
Please stop playing these games, i know thats not a sincere statement, the facts prove that the americans were far worse to the people of vietnam than the vietcong, the vietcong were a liveration movement with popular support up and down the country, as i said thats exactly why they prevailed.
You don't have to be but id appreciate it you were, im not just looking to smear america for the sake of it, i will praise them where and when it is deserved, i just really don't like when history and truth is completely distorted.
"Take me to room 101, that'll do it."
I don't understand, is this some kind of cultural reference?