Who won the Vietnam war?

[chaz wyman]

Vietnam won it. The US lost it. There is nothing more to say.
The US did not achieve its goals; ergo they lost.

Nevertheless, Vietnam is now in the American world sphere. Vietnam is now looking more like America than America is looking like Vietnam. I would call that is a de facto victory for America and its foreign policy of opening up and liberalizing of the world.

Vietnam is now one less enemy America has.

You are weird. This 'sphere' does not exist. Vietnam would continue happily and without harm if it cut off all trade relations with the USA. You sound like Robert De Nero in "Meet the Fockers" with your imaginary 'circle of trust'.
Have you ever been to Vietnam?
Vietnam liberated itself. First it had to liberate itself from the French, then when the US took over its imperialist policy, it kicked your arse too.
I have nothing but admiration for the dogged, brave and unrelenting courage of the Vietnamese and nothing but scorn for the sick aggressiveness and arrogance of the US in probably its worst and most disgraceful period in its history.
Everything the US did to Vietnam whet against any notion of liberalisation.
The US has not helped one iota in Vietnam's struggle for independence, it only even hindered it.

Sorry Spike, but you are obsessed with your own country so much that you are blind to the basic facts of history.
Open your eyes and grow up.

[spike]

Throughout history wars have had the effect of integrating the world. This was particularly true after the second world war with the creation of the United Nation where the world came together to institute peace. The UN was most championed by the victors, America and Britain. This was a victory for the ideal forces of the life over the physical ones.

America may not have physically won the Vietnam war. But ironically that war worked to integrate the world further. Prior to that war North Vietnam was a nation in isolation, like North Korea is today. Civilization abhors isolation (isolation breeds contempt and enemies). America won the war in a de facto manner in the fact that Vietnam was drawn out of its isolation, first by being engaged in war and then through diplomacy and trade, which slowly persuaded it to enter the world order. The world works in perverse ways.

The Vietnam war had a liberalizing effect on Vietnam in that it opened it up and made it part of the war order. This has always been the aim of American foreign policy, to liberalize the world and integrate it. Unfortunately this has rarely been achieved without war.

I think the world of today has moved beyond that, not integrating the world by force but instead through commerce and trade. That is why capitalism and globalization should be viewed as positive, because those institutions integrate the world peacefully and not through physical violence. Why, integrated Vietnam - North and South, today is one of America's most favored trading partners, a country in which it has invested a lot of money.

[Arising_uk]

... This has always been the aim of American foreign policy, to liberalize the world and integrate it. ...

LMFAO!!
So thats why they supported all those dictators over the years!! All those death squads, tortures, disappearances, etc, etc.. . Who'd have guessed it was all a cunning plan! It's the Black Adder plan for global democracy Baldrick.

Face the facts Spike, its always been for your national interest and your national interest has been to make a buck and grab resources. Nothing odd about that, its what Imperial nations have ben doing since dot, but please stop believing the bullshit.

[spike]

Face the facts Spike, its always been for your national interest and your national interest has been to make a buck and grab resources

If you think The US is my country you are mistaken. I am not a citizen of there nor do I have, as you say, a national interest. I just study the political/economic currents of the world and see a pattern. Over the years I have observed a pattern of integration, the establishing of stability and world-system building. However, as I recognize, it has not always been done in a sensible or rational way since that is not the initial nature of the beast (humankind, civilization). It unfortunately has always been at the expense of others.

One thing I crave is more intelligent people on this forum. Alas, I find only its substitute of name calling, sarcasm and mealy-mouthed people.

[Arising_uk]

Fair enough Spike.
If this is the case then I think you should be more precise with your words, as your words clearly implied it was a foreign policy of the US when it is debatably not. Otherwise they would have supported the creation of democracies rather than the dictators that they do.

[chaz wyman]

Throughout history wars have had the effect of integrating the world. This was particularly true after the second world war with the creation of the United Nation where the world came together to institute peace. The UN was most championed by the victors, America and Britain. This was a victory for the ideal forces of the life over the physical ones.

You have no sense of history. You can't make a general statement from a single example.
You might as well argue that the Creation of the wider Soviet Union after WW2 was 'integration' - is that the sort of think you mean?
What about WW1 - what 'integration did the lead to?


America may not have physically won the Vietnam war. But ironically that war worked to integrate the world further.

You are forcing a what if... What if the US had supported Ho Chi Minh's move to independence? DOn't you think that this would have led to 'integration' without all the bloodshed?
The simple fact is that the war had FUCK ALL to do with the fact that Vietnam has capitalised its economy.




Prior to that war North Vietnam was a nation in isolation, like North Korea is today.

It was nothing like korea,.
Minh studied in the US and modelled his independence movement on the the History of 1776! He expected the US to help him in his bid to rid the region of the imperialist French. If the US had not been full of idiots like you that do not understand communism because they treat it like a dirty word then 'integration' would have happened in the early 1960s.
But since you mention Korea, perhaps you would like to tell us all how the Korean War led to 'integration" - like you say war have done "all throughout history".?


Civilization abhors isolation (isolation breeds contempt and enemies). America won the war in a de facto manner in the fact that Vietnam was drawn out of its isolation, first by being engaged in war and then through diplomacy and trade, which slowly persuaded it to enter the world order. The world works in perverse ways.

Hey wow what a great theory - lets invade Poland and annex the Sudetenland for an integrated Germany!!! WHooppppseee.
Meanwhile the US can invade Canada and Mexico and continue its march to conquer all of Central America!!


The Vietnam war had a liberalizing effect on Vietnam in that it opened it up and made it part of the war order.

THis has got to be one of the most obscene and misguided comments I have seen in a very long while!


This has always been the aim of American foreign policy, to liberalize the world and integrate it. Unfortunately this has rarely been achieved without war.

It has NEVER been achieved through war.


I think the world of today has moved beyond that, not integrating the world by force but instead through commerce and trade. That is why capitalism and globalization should be viewed as positive, because those institutions integrate the world peacefully and not through physical violence. Why, integrated Vietnam - North and South, today is one of America's most favored trading partners, a country in which it has invested a lot of money.

[spike]

If this is the case then I think you should be more precise with your words, as your words clearly implied it was a foreign policy of the US when it is debatably not.

Auk, you also have to read more closely and with less malice. Thanks.

[chaz wyman]

Fair enough Spike.
If this is the case then I think you should be more precise with your words, as your words clearly implied it was a foreign policy of the US when it is debatably not. Otherwise they would have supported the creation of democracies rather than the dictators that they do.

You are right to point that out. The US have never supported foreign democratic movements, they have always supported right wing dictatorships that kept their peace.
Syria, pre-revolutionary Iran, pre-Gulf war Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Chile, San Salvador, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, Liberia, Nigeria, Ecuador,... I could go on.

In fact there are key instances where the US CIA has caused the overthrow of a democratically elected leader in favour of a dictatorship.

If you want to know more I suggest you see John Pilger's The War on Democracy.

[chaz wyman]

If this is the case then I think you should be more precise with your words, as your words clearly implied it was a foreign policy of the US when it is debatably not.

Auk, you also have to read more closely and with less malice. Thanks.

Its hard to do that when you talk such contradictory nonsense.

[spike]

Its hard to do that when you talk such contradictory nonsense.

It's not just me that may sound contradictory. The world also speaks in contradictory terms. Hericlitus was the first to recognize this and then Hegel, who asserted that "contradiction is the very moving principle of the world".

[chaz wyman]

Its hard to do that when you talk such contradictory nonsense.

It's not just me that may sound contradictory. The world also speaks in contradictory terms. Hericlitus was the first to recognize this and then Hegel, who asserted that "contradiction is the very moving principle of the world".

Good luck with that approach. Once again you are missing the point.
A collective can stand in contradiction, such as a conception such as "American Sphere", which is an abstraction of your own making. It is contradictory as the parts of the whole are not in agreement.
It is unwise to have internal contradiction within the individual.

BY the way. Can you provide a reference to Hegel's comment?? these things are so easily taken out of context.

[Arising_uk]

... then Hegel, who asserted that "contradiction is the very moving principle of the world".

I'll have to read him sometime as I disagree so far, as to me its difference thats the 'moving principle of the world'.

[spike]

On this post I was accused of blabbing "contradictory nonsense". Though I may have said something contradictory I wasn't talking nonsense. It's only perceived nonsense because my accuser doesn't understand the contradictory nature of ideas and the world.

Robert Tucker wrote is his book Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx wrote " So Hegel asserted, in explaining his dialectical idea, that contradiction is the very moving principle of world". Hegel came to this conclusion observing the conflicting nature of ideas and the world. To my mind contradiction is a life force.

For one to understand the contradictory nature of life and the world one just has to examine one's own behavior. There are many circumstances in our lives that we have conflictive thoughts or instances of 'mixed mindedness'. For instance, one may think of themselves as being a good religious Muslin and yet be homosexual but have no problem with that contradiction. There are other times we are torn by our contradictions. But most of us learn to balance them so that we can live with ourselves. I'm sure that the idea of balance would never have come into existence if there weren't contradictions in life. Moreover, look at the contradictory nature of our bodies, parts of which are both utilitarian and sexual in function.

My accuser got me thinking about what got me started wondering about the ways of the world. It was the conflicting, contradictory nature of the world that got me wondering about why it acts the way it does. It started with the collapse of Communism and the triumph of Democracy, two conflicting and contradictory ideas of human governance. I was wondering what could have caused such an event.

Then I got seriously thinking about Democracy itself. In democratic countries we also practice capitalism. But capitalism and democracy seemed to contradict each other. Theoretically they do. Democracy espouses equality while capitalism doesn't. So there is a tension between the two. But it is a 'creative tension' that produces unimaginable stuff. My conclusion was that one big reason communism collapsed is because it lacked the creative tension of its rival capitalism/democracy, aka liberal democracy.

And then there is the contradiction of society and the individual. How do those institutions, which often contradict each other, manage to live together? Who comes first and which rules. Like most inescapable contradictions they manage a reconciliation and in so doing create something greater.

I am thinking of the contradictory, creative tension of Shakespeare and how he uses it to animate things. For instance, in Romeo and Juliet he has Juliet calling Romeo a "beautiful beast". Now that is a contradiction in terms. But the clash of those two opposing ideas creates an unbelievable and extremely sophisticated meaning. It animates the situation. And this is how I see contradiction, in dealing and balancing it in ourselves and society — if balanced right it brings life and a sophistication to the things it touches.

And most important, if there were no contradictions in life we wouldn't need philosophy to understand and figure things out. Everything would be black and white and no need for philosophy to deal with the gray, contradictory matter in between.

When contradiction becomes entrenched and cultural it becomes a paradox, like the contradictory, paradoxical coexistence of society and the individual or the simultaneous, paradoxical independence, interdependence of nations that occurs with globalization.

[chaz wyman]

On this post I was accused of blabbing "contradictory nonsense". Though I may have said something contradictory I wasn't talking nonsense. It's only perceived nonsense because my accuser doesn't understand the contradictory nature of ideas and the wor..<snip>..ral it becomes a paradox, like the contradictory, paradoxical coexistence of society and the individual or the simultaneous, paradoxical independence, interdependence of nations that occurs with globalization.

"contradiction is the very moving principle of the world".

BY the way. Can you provide a reference to Hegel's comment?? these things are so easily taken out of context.

You have only said what someone else said about Hegel. And the rest of what you say does not really help that rest of the thread.
Saying that the US did not loose the Vietnam war is a contradiction does not make that true.

[spike]

BY the way. Can you provide a reference to Hegel's comment?? these things are so easily taken out of context.

Why don't we Google it and see what we can find?