Defending democracy is bad

>republic
>dictatorship
>Pick one and only one
Being this sort of demented nigga.

They quite literally had one single vote, and that was to oust Bao Dai, and even then it was rigged so 133 percent of the population turend up to vote with a 98% win margin. Hardly a bastion of democracy

Under communism.
Also a communist movement.
What are you people not getting here? Communism is BAD.

The Noviets have fought for 20 years, more if you consider past clashes
they have a very strong case for self rule and Ho Chi Minh even quoted the declaration of independence and appeased the american whom he thought was model country but the america was wallowing deep into two dimensional politicking

No worse than the tinpot regime in the South, and more popular with the Vietnamese themselves.

>USA decides to arm radical movement in Vietnam during WW2
>The French don't approve
>French soundly defeated politically and militarily at Dien Bien Phu
>America decides to get involved
>Make basically all the mistakes the French did, but kill a lot more
>Still get defeated in the propaganda war
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

>let go to a war to fight against my enemies instead let they fight against themselves

Just because the general public like something doesn't mean it's good

>Democracy is great unless the popular consensus disagrees with me.

Guess we should just never have elections then

It's the lesser of two evils when your choices are shitty popular movement v.s. shitty unpopular movement.

shit dude you are extremely wrong on every level

>democracy
You think the South Vietnamese had a vote to decide if they got integrated into a communist regime? No.
The public is right a lot of the time, just not on this occasion.
>republic that never really had a chance to get going with the war and all
>communist dictatorship
Gee I wonder which is better

Democracy is a joke. We will always have a malevolent boot consisting of the masses in such a system.

>The public is right a lot of the time, just not on this occasion.
Well the public might get it wrong again, better not to risk it, we should just all be like South Vietnam and have a coup every 9 months

You keep talking as if communism is somehow wrong. Why is it wrong to not want unproductive bankers and merchants to become rich by demanding ransom they call "rent" from the workers who actually produce things?

Strawman

They didn't have a fair vote to decide anything else. What makes this one worse than anything else they had?

Well you fucking built it retard, what else am I meant to think when you suck off the South Vietnam revolving military dictator state?

Because it never really gets attempted. It's just an excuse for the state to exact absolute power over its citizens.

Oh I'm sorry for SV not having a stable government while being invaded and having their main Line of defense be Americans.

>It's just an excuse for the state to exact absolute power over its citizens.
>Forced people off of their traditional village lands
>Compulsory conscription and child soldiery
Sounds pretty South Vietnamese to me

>be invaded for 20 years
>get desperate for manpower
Gee I wonder

And yet somehow North Vietnam managed to have a far more stable government despite being thrown into the exact same war right off the bat for its independence.

South Vietnam never had democracy. It was probably never going to have democracy. Shifting the goalposts to now talking about stability (which they didn't have either) wouldn't change the fact that if they did attain it, they'd have a stable pseudo-republic a la all those South American ones. They were just a miserable shitpile, and I have no idea why you're defending them, outside of your wish to play a tough internet warrior fighting the good fight against the red menace that abated when you were a child.

>It's OK because I said so
Great argument, bravo user, want to know who was fighting for twice as long and didn't conscript 12 year olds (granted the Vietcong had child soldiers, but never conscripts)?

>be popular for some reason
>get money thrown at you by your daddy the Soviet Union
>also china helps you some
>be somewhat stable
Makes sense.
>probably never going to have democracy
Nice assumptions there pal
>pseudo-republic a la SA ones
And they're mostly doing a damn sight better than Indochina
>your last sentence
Lots of assumptions, some personal attacks, no arguments. Come back when you've got some good material.
>have more people and more people willing to fight
>don't need to conscript
Gee.

>events in indochina not being related to events in indochina
after vietnams when we started giving the khmer rouge the time of day
They were friendly with china and we were friendly with china and none were friendly with vietnam

>be popular for some reason
It was a nationalist, anti-colonial movement.

>get money thrown at you by your daddy the Soviet Union
They approached the U.S. to be their daddy first & got rejected.

>also china helps you some
They went to war with China (and all of their other communist neighbors) right afterwards.

>after Vietnam
You just played yourself

>have more people and more people willing to fight
1) The South was way more populous than the North
2) America literally funded the Viet Minh during WW2
3) it's almost like the South Vietnamese regime was an incestual shitshow isn't it?

>Communism is BAD

Hey let's go around violating nation's sovereignty and the will of their own people because we don't like their economic system.

is the implication that vietnam never ended or something or that we were down with pol pot before the end of the war

>The general public's consensus doesn't meet some vague and arbitrary criterion of good. Time to bust out the agent orange.

Haha, remember South Korea guys? Can't believe we supported that dictatorship. Good thing we pulled out of Vietnam so that it could flourish unlike the shit hole that is South Korea.

half the reason faltering asian economies were able to get off the ground was the vietnam war. The copper boom and demand for US naval logistics brought in serious cash for South Korea and the Philippines for a while.

>way more populous
North Vietnam
>1960 est. 15,916,955
South Vietnam
>1955 est. 12,000,000
I couldn't find any other figures, before you go whining about how the years aren't the same.
Your first point isn't even a argument, just an explanation.
And yes, China did support North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
>vague
>arbitrary
Do you people not understand Communist history at all? Previous Communist countries had done horrible theming before this, and continued to do horrible things after.
It has nothing to do with the Vietnam War because it happened after the Vietnam War.

>defending SV helped other countries
See?

>South Korea and South Vietnam are the same thing guys
>Ignore all that annoying shit like history and facts
>They were both South and not communist, and that's all that matters
The date is very important seeing as thousands of Catholics and other religious people came south

THE reason that South Korea is a first world country is because of a couple of years of a single resource being worth more? Can you explain the reason that South Koreans make tens of thousands of dollars per capita more than people from Iran even though oil has been a commodity for decades? I guess South Koreas democratic institutions and free market economy has nothing to do with it.

Yeah but who would south vietnam get a war boom from
Its recovery would hinge on the US going to war with another asian country
idk maybe cambodia?

>Other countries made money off the blood of American GIs
Guess Israel and Saudi Arabia had some competitors for once, truly a victory for free market capitalism

A single commodity being good is a big surplus that can be reinvested into the economy in general. And it wasn't a single commodity, port leasing and naval equipment also brought in good coin.
>it must be south korea's democracy
South Korea's military Junta was less democratic than Iran's later islamic republic, but the former had much better economic growth than the latter. There are of course conditions unrelated to the form of governance involved, since usually there are in any case.
Iran has little industry to supplement the oil economy. Even if it wanted to reinvest, there's little for it to reinvest in.

>It has nothing to do with the Vietnam war because it happened after the Vietnam war
Are you autistic? Does cause and effect not exist in your mind?

Supporting communism was literally the right move this time.

>tfw no non-aligned gookoslavia

The original point of my post was that South Korea was obviously a dictatorship that was supported in order to block the communism that would have taken over if we had not intervened. You strengthened my point when you pointed out that South Korean had little economic growth under the military junta. The dictatorship was destined to become more democratic because time had made the country become more stable and US pressure enabled it.

I literally can't refute your nonsense about how copper made South Korea a first world country other than to say it's idiotic.

Do you think it's merely a coincidence that South Korea and Japan grew enormously after they became democracies and are the only 2 first world countries in Asia?

When Ho-Chi Minh was around they were pretty much just Soc Dems, if America told France to fuck off it wouldn't have turned into what it did in a bid for foreign support. And then they got involved in the China-SU feud because of it

>From the end of the war to the end of 1953, the US provided grants and credits amounting to $5.9 billion to Asian countries, especially China/Taiwan ($1.051 billion), India ($255 million), Indonesia ($215 million), Japan ($2.44 billion), South Korea ($894 million), Pakistan ($98 million) and the Philippines ($803 million). In addition, another $282 million went to Israel and $196 million to the rest of the Middle East.
Seems they had some advantages South Vietnam didn't get to me

Ho was an Ameriboo and a nationalist, yes?

Still, the precedent is there. Also, SV isn't even around anymore, so you can't accurately make comparisons.

>thousands
How many thousands?
Also
>regime causes thousands of Catholics to move south
Doesn't sound very good to me.
The US would go on to support the Khmer Rogue after the VW, yes, but that doesn't mean they weren't defending some form off democracy in the VW.

More or less, he probably should have learned from what the US did to fellow Asian Ameriboo Aguinaldo though
South Vietnam was a French run shithole in the era of American post-war financial aid, it couldn't benefit from the Marshall Plan or any other investment in the long or short term because the French used that money to pay off literal gangsters like Bình Xuyên
>How many
Anywhere from 800,000 to over 1 million
>Doesn't sound good
Hasn't got shit on what Diem and his equally autistic if not more so brother did to the Buddhists in South Vietnam

I didn't mention any form of financial aid in my post.
>one leader does some bad shit
Happens sometimes. America's had some bad leaders.

No American president has set out to fuck with at least 75% of their population

True, but America wasn't invaded for twenty years right after being made.
Also,
>inb4 Obama

>True, but America wasn't invaded for twenty years right after being made.
>The American Revolution was a colonial revolt that took place between 1765 and 1783
Bet you feel real fucking silly now

>Boston Tea Party and Townshend act protests count as part of the war
Fuck off. L and C didn't happen until 1775, and the D of I wasn't fully signed until the end of 1776.

Just like North Vietnam only invaded South Vietnam in 1975 ;^)

There were battles and offensives way before 1975

By the Vietcong, aka South Vietnamese insurgents, Tet is the only time NVA got involved before 1975

>admit that they got involved before 1975
Even if the Vietcong doesn't count as enemy soldiers (which they do) you've proven yourself wrong.

>Not even a year of fighting
>Barely any commitment, instead letting the Vietcong fight it because they were local and knew the land
>LOOK THE NVA WAS CUMMIN FOR DA SOUTH!
This is why Americans are fucking retarded about Vietnam, you were never fighting an army, you were fighting hopped up protestors with AKs and RPGs who saw you as exactly the same as the French they'd fought so hard to throw out

Protesters who were funded and supplied by the North Vietnamese with the intention of taking over the country. That's an invasion.

So the French invaded the Thirteen Colonies? The Soviets invaded Republican Spain? The Cubans invaded Angola? What a fucking dumb thing to say

The Soviet weren't going to eat Spain. The French weren't going to eat the Thirteen Colonies. The Cubans weren't going to eat Angola. What North Vietnam did was more akin to the Nazis invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.

>Previous Communist countries had done horrible theming before this, and continued to do horrible things after

This is at vague as it gets. Capitalist countries did horrible things before and continue to do them now.

>What North Vietnam did was more akin to the Nazis invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Sorry, guess I missed the part about how the majority of Czechs fed up with a shit government assisted the Volksdeutsche to overthrow the Czech government in history 101, because those half a million active South Vietnamese Vietcong and their millions of collaborators were just such a minority movement

More akin /= the same
>Holodomor
>struggle sessions
>mass famines caused by their communist systems
>low productivity
>low civil liberties and freedoms
Want anymore reasons Communism is shit?

>More akin /= the same
Just keep shifting those goalposts user
>low civil liberties and freedoms
Why are you defending South Vietnam if you care about that?

Giving Indochina back to France was a mistake

>dictatorship is okay when we support it

Ever heard of a fellow named Papa Doc? How about Pinochet or Suharto?

>democracy
Learn your history.

I'm not shifting the goalposts if that's what I meant when I originally said 'more akin'.
>3 capitalist leaders did bad shit, that means communism is justified or something
strawman

You've moved them several times already, you've gone from "SV was a democratic state" to "well maybe it wasn't, but it was justified" throughout this thread you gay cunt