A lot of people sympathize with the Viet Cong/NVA because they're seen as fighting for independence while the US are...

Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia been nuked yet? They are LITERALLY the final boss of terrorism. Their entire country is just ISIS + money.

I mean WTF? They’re the ones building madrassas and sending wahabi missionaries everywhere from Timbuktu to Jakarta. They’re the ones who planned, financed, and carried out 9/11.

But somehow everyone ignores the main villain in this story.

>Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia been nuked yet?
1) lots and lots of oil
2) in 2017 alone Saudi Arabia bought $110,000,000,000 worth of missiles from the US
We (the US) don't give a fuck about "terrorism," m8. Hell, we fucking fund and train terrorists all the damn time.

We care about money and looking tough.

Al Qaeda attacks America and to a lesser extent NATO nations because of their support for Israel, through direct aid and military action.

no self respecting nationalist could tolerate having the country the fought force divided like that

>American president: I am declaring war on anyone involved in terrorist activities across the globe
>All the three letter agencies at once: But Mister President, we are involved in terrorist activity across the globe

Attached: 5z4blzq4sd321.png (250x250, 119K)

Taliban and Iraqi insurgents will be seen like Viet Cong

ISIS and Al Qaeda will be seen like the IRA or Red Army Faction

Iraqi Insurgents yes, everyone else no.

I have to say, I really like their trigger discipline.

>Viet Cong/NVA because they're seen as fighting for independence while the US are considered the aggressors
What (((critical theory))) revised history are you reading? The Vietcong were attempting a violent overthrow of the Vietnamese government, and were slaughtering the shit out of villages that didn't join them. Their actions left many heads on pikes simply because "da gubmint ain't sharing enough rice."

I don't give a fuck about the taliban but al Qaeda will be rightfully remembered as evil along with ISIS, Nusra, etc

Oh and to answer your question, stupid people will believe the revised history and see whoever the establishment demonizes as the aggressor.

For example, due to years and years of CNN shilling, the vast majority of Americans believe that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons, despite it being a historical fact that he used them against Iran not 10 years prior and the Kurds not 5 years prior to the ultimatum. Guess we should've just believed him when he said he just threw them away...

Strategically embedded misconception. Something that the masses will believe despite hard evidence existing to the contrary. I can think of a certain alleged genocide attempt that fits that definition quite well.

>1980s
>west German companies teach saddamn how to make mustard gas to dab on the ayatollahs with the go ahead and approval of evryone

>2003
>we must invade cause muh weapons of mass destruction
it was a dumb pretext, and im pretty sure UN inspectors confirmed the distruction of his stock pile

>Where as Vietnam had been split into a North and South. Technically they could’ve gotten along fine
Except for the part where there was supposed to be an election to see which government would unify the country, and the US had it cancelled because the communists would have won a landslide. For good reason too, it was the communists that spearheaded the struggle for independence from Japan and France. The US went back on the deal signed at the end of the First Indochina War, so the communists had every right to try to drive the Southern government out, since they were complacent in that betrayal and later on actively collaborated with the invaders.

No, the actual pretext was to invade a potential regional hazard to Israel. Mossad speculated that the WMDs could fall into the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah, or when Saddam's regime was through someone else could take over who doesn't take kindly to Israel.

The US had no reason to invade. Iraq was no threat to us, and we only have one "ally" in the region. The real reason was obvious, but he damn sure did have WMDs. Sheeple will take the news' word for everything. There are many men, women, and children with scar tissue in their lungs who would disagree, and are happy Saddam is gone.

outside of edgelord leftist tenured academics, few express sympathy for terrorist attacks on civilian workplaces

The US was not a signatory to that agreement. Beside, the agreement was violated by both sides. For example, there was supposed to be freedom of movement across the DMZ, but the Communists sealed it because the flow across the border was 5-1 southwards.

>The Vietcong were attempting a violent overthrow of the Vietnamese government
As they were right to do. The Saigon government would have been swept away peacefully in the election as per the Geneva accords, but instead it allowed a foreign power to intervene and prevent that from happening. What self respecting patriot would accept a foreign country meddling in your election for the purposes of keeping the county divided in two?
>and were slaughtering the shit out of villages that didn't join them.
While the Americans were tear assing around free fire zones shooting everything that moved, or while Diem was arresting anybody who criticized him to the point where motherfuckers were burning themselves in the streets. The South was just as much of a brutal, repressive shithole as the North. The difference was the North was actually independent, and had led the fight in the struggle for Vietnamese independence.

So did Japan now Japan is one of the greatest US allies don't forget it was the US who created Al-Qaeda.

The idea of free and fair elections anywhere in Indochina was humorous, both in the south and in the burgeoning police state of the North. After all, the VWP/VCP rules sans an electoral mandate, so they do not believe that elections confer any special kind of legitimacy, in which case the proposed unification elections would be pointless and decide nothing.

The South was always less repressive. Consider that all of the imagery/footage of the Vietnam was was taken by journalists allowed to operate more or less unhindered. Protests were tolerated and a rudimentary civil society existed. By contrast, during the same time the DRV offered up the Revisionist Anti-Party affair, in which cadres were purged and in some cases sent to prison/labor camps for having the wrong factional alignment.

The legitimacy of the elections themselves is less of an issue than the feelings of the population. It was estimated that 80% of the population favoured Hanoi over Saigon. Also the fact that Hanoi were the legitimate successors to the Viet Minh. Imagine if the Patriots in the American Revolution only got to control half the country, while the other half was given to a group of British sympathizers.

They were filthy commie animals, user. Nothing good has ever come of them taking over anything.

The Viet Cong had sympathy because they kept information about themselves tightly controlled while the US let reporters document every ugly second of the war.
Taliban, Al qaeda, isis, has done the opposite of the Viet Cong. They've shown the world the ugliest parts of themselves thinking people would be more intimidated than incredibly furious.
That thinking may help you control your province, but invites aggression from powerful outside sources.
Whenever "isis" releases beheading videos the CIA scores a victory. People who have no stake in the conflict see them and say "that is something objectively evil that needs to be fought" it's pretty funny, desu.

>allowed a foreign power to intervene
>the North was actually independent,
Like the DRV did when they took in immense quantities of war equipment from the Soviet Union and China, without which their war would've been impossible, a dependence which forced them to get involved and pick a side in the Sino-Soviet split? Like the DRV did when they had hundreds of thousands of Soviet and Chinese logistics/AA troops working covertly throughout the conflict. Like the DRV did when they chained their entire economy and military/diplomatic strategy to Soviet aid? Or how they couldn't even begin Doi Moi without signals from Gorbachev that it was OK? Or how they went begging China to take leadership of the international Communist front following the collapse of the Soviet Union?

KEK

>What self respecting patriot would accept a foreign country meddling in your election for the purposes of keeping the county divided in two?

Attached: 1540423115597s.jpg (250x248, 9K)

But our terrorism is directed by greed not an archaich religion seeking to empower it's priests for expanded boy molestation and woman subjugation/destruction.

Is there material evidence that the population significantly favored the DRV? Anything I can think of (pre-war DMZ migration, lack of northwards migration during the war, the consistent lack of a General Uprising to complement the General Offensive, the ultimate necessity of conventional force to unification following the US departure, the boat people, etc.) suggests popular neutrality at best, with a substantial opposed segment.

In the future, the US will be far, far more demonized than Nazi Germany ever was, all the evil regimes of the past will pale in comparison of the capitalistic US and its impact on the world. Anyone fighting against the terrorism of the NATO will be considered to be heroes on the same level as WWII resistance fighters. So yes, Taliban will be painted as the freedom fighters against the terrible US oppression. Even though it's funny, because in reality the US founded and supported the Taliban for decades, but you ain't gonna read that in the history books of today, or the future.

You only know about the breadth of NVA violence now, fucker. While during the Vietnam war western media had a continuous stream of the "atrocities" occuring on the US side. You're not mature enough to grasp anything with nuance are you? You can't be trusted to be able to discern who (((they))) are, dipshit.

Or how they had their leaders assassinated in accordance with US interests, or how they had half a million foreign combat troops stationed on their soil turning their country into a burning crater? Oh wait. The North got aid from China and the USSR sure, but they weren’t literal puppets who got coup’d if they did something the Russians or Chinese didn’t like. Even with the Sino-Soviet split, the Vietnamese avoided taking sides until they had an actual interest in doing so, ie until Cambodia started fucking with them.

The US did not found, fund or support the Taliban. It came into existence after the Soviet-Afghan war. For that matter, countries like China also funded the Mujaheddin, but everyone "concerned" only ever focuses on the US.

US intelligence reports to Eisenhower gave the 80% figure. The lack of northward migration was likely influenced by the fact that Hanoi explicitly encouraged their supporters to remain in the South to resume guerilla activity if necessary, and also sent NLF cadres South with the civilians.

Vietnamese independence?
That wasn't a cause anyone was fighting for during the Vietnam war except those that were deceived by either side.
The yoke was either communism or capitalism.
Vietnamese independence that existed after the war was due to china and the USSR only having enough resources to fund a proxy war and not redevelop vietnam.
If the US had won, Vietnam today would probably be more wealthy and prosperous than South Korea.

>If the US had won, Vietnam today would probably be more wealthy and prosperous than South Korea.
Or it could be shithole filled with child prostitutes like Thailand. No way to know for sure.

Is the Roman empire more demonized than revered today? The US is demonized only in the eyes of religious fundamentalists and communists.
Two movements that have led to the worst atrocities in human history.

The only people in the world who thought the US was right to be in Vietnam were burger boomer cuckservatives. Pretty much the entire rest of the world knew it was bullshit, including America’s allies. Same with Iraq.

The US didn't ever seriously attempt to occupy Thailand like they did in Korea or vietnam.
There's the difference.

Afghan Taliban are unironically based

Depends on the persons knowledge of the geopolitical situations.
Personally I sympathise with the Viet Cong not because I like commies (I don't) but because the US cancelled free elections because they thought the commies would win which ultimately lead to the Vietnam war.
It was a case of "democracy is only good if we control the outcome".

As for ISIS they just saw a power vacuum and used it to try and seize power but that power vacuum was ultimately caused by US intervention in the middle east. I sympathise with those that were fighting invaders but not with those exploiting the situation to gain power and territory.

I think Korea’s success story had a lot more to do with the fact that they were able to overthrow their own shitty, corrupt dictatorship. It would make sense as to why the South was poorer than the North until the 70s. It’s unclear whether South Vietnam could have done the same.

The major institutional/policy developments that led to the period of economic growth occurred under Park Chung-Hee.

>America’s allies
Like the french who handed off the Vietnamese conflict to the US after their attempt to reassert colonial control failed? The US allies knew and approved of the US plans for invasion.

>able to overthrow their own shitty, corrupt dictatorship.
Something that literally could not be done had the communists asserted control like they did in the north.

The British were against escalation.

The French hardly “handed off” anything. France withdrew in 1954, the US didn’t deploy troops until 1965.

Daily reminder that we could have backed North Vietnam and had a capitalist puppet state right in China's back yard.

These are some amazing mental gymnastics.

Desu we really helped the wrong side. Vietnamese people DESPISE the Chinese (and rightfully so). Imagine if we had an excuse to attack them during the Sino-Vietnamese war.

Most Viets just saw us as annoying but well meaning Fulangis who would soon be gone.

Communist Vietnam is a regional power with a prosperous Chinese style economy

The Taliban banned things like music, computers, and brown paper and made women wear burlap sacks and turned a decent country for hipster tourists in the 70s into a third world shithole

But they did end the opium scourge and banned the rape of little boys

>$110,000,000,000
Thats twice the yearly budget. How'd they manage that???

The best example of misinformation in the Vietnam war conducted by the media is the Saigon execution photo. The dud was a NVA officer who infiltrated Saigon and had been leading a group of VC saboteurs around killing Govt. officials and their families, hell the dude capping him in the picture was actively being target by his group. The "journalist" decided that it wasn't important till the 90's to admit that.

youtu.be/m0m573MxXXw?t=921

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Nguyễn_Văn_Lém

>The dud was a NVA officer who infiltrated Saigon and had been leading a group of VC saboteurs around killing Govt. officials and their families
Based. Traitors and collaborators get what’s coming.

Attached: 0CEBC835-0A40-4D41-AD9D-7E2D453EB45B.png (500x386, 198K)

It's not direct actions, it's about what they produced later.
Vietnam now has a nation in which everyone can split an apple with their bare hands.
I don't believe the Iraqi's will be that successful.

>Vietnam now has a nation in which everyone can split an apple with their bare hands.
What?

What? No the guy he popped was a child/woman rapist and murderer. They found a body dumping ground and waited for the killer to return to dispose of more bodies then they caught him and capped him in the street. Pretty sure there’s even a documentary of the guy saying that and talking about how the video was used out of context and how it ruined his life.

>No the guy he popped was a child/woman rapist and murderer.

And an VC Officer. And yeah it did ruin Leon's life and the Scum Fuck Journo who took the picture waited till the 90s to come out and say that Bảy Lốp was an enemy combatant, rather than just a civilian he picked at random to waste.

>Vietnam now has a nation in which everyone can split an apple with their bare hands.
What did he mean by this?

No

Gotcha m8

$110 billion is the number the Trump administration claims.

So far the arms deal has only netted the US around $15bn iirc.

I hope the taliban are

They definitely already are in certain circles in the usa

>A lot of people sympathize with the Viet Cong/NVA because they're seen as fighting for independence

and they're retarded for doing so. VC units had quotas for how many civilian bodies they had to rack up, they're no freedom fighters.

The only reason anyone thinks like this is because they see a black and white picture of underdog vs bully and assume the former must therefore be in the right

>VC units had quotas for how many civilian bodies they had to rack up,
Press X to doubt.

Concur. There were liquidation lists (most famous in the Hue Massacre) and village pacification actions, but I don't recall any kill quota.

Anyone else read Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy by Max Hastings?

Yeah but there’s a big difference between making lists of known collaborators with the enemy vs killing civillians at random.

>Attacked America first
Fucking what?

No. Is it good? What makes it different from other accounts of the war?

I found it to be pretty good. It does a good job of incorporating experiences from a diverse set of participants in the war, and it manages to sweep across the war, from the experiences of individual soldiers at the bottom to leaders at the top, while maintaining a coherent narrative of how the war progressed as it did. It's got three chapters at the beginning that cover French rule and the French Indochina war, which doesn't get covered that often (except in passing) by works or narratives about the Vietnam war.

Only, ISIS is NOT made out of native Muzzies, they're largely composed of foreign nationals loosely aligned together based on religion. They're no different than the crusader states.

It could go either way. We did invade with overaggression, but they then retaliated with brutality, violence, and even attacked innocent Americans who had no involvement whatsoever. They started out as an insurgency, and ended up a violent terrorist group.

youtube.com/watch?v=Eptt2623XJY

Yes, the VC did the former. The US military on the other hand, set up free fire zones and killed civilians wholesale. See: Operation Speedy Express.

Japan was already a prosperous state entity going to war with the US, it became even more prosperous post-war and has experienced relative peace ever since. Al-Qaeda is a non-state entity sponsored by state entities under the table that is constantly in a state of aggression or war. If Al-Qaeda was in fact a legitimate nation-state that made an act of war upon the US on US soil, the US response would have been just as overwhelming as it was on Japan and the mid-east might've been selectively glassed by the US without fear of reprisal. It's the fact that terrorist groups are non-state entities that makes going about how to deal with them much more tricky.

>>but he damn sure did have WMDs.
Where are those "WMD's"?

>>If the US had won, Vietnam today would probably be more wealthy and prosperous than South Korea.
Vietnam is doing pretty good without further US micromanagement

Ho Chi Minh wanted US support.

OK, they got two things right.............

lol, vietcong are only sympathetic because they won
If they had lost, the south vietnamese would instead be the glorious nationalist heroes who had successfully defended their native land from evil imperialist communist aggression

in plenty of cases, might still makes right

Japan attacked america at pearl harbor.
Islamists attacked america on 9/11.
Although you can argue that the various groups had no part in the attack (such as the taliban) I am sure most people in the future will not make distinctions between the different organizations. Also actions the US took before 9/11 will probably be ignored

>objectively
>moral

Take a look at the population, total GDP, GDP per capita, and PPP of Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and North Korea and you will quickly notice how incredibly well off SK and Japan have been after they adopted US modeled economies. My state has a higher GDP than Vietnam with 1/13th the population. Vietnam has done really well on its own though and they have experienced a large amount of growth, but it still could be so much better.

Every war we’ve been in has been started by a false flag.
>Mexican American War
We crossed the Rio Grande and goaded the Mexicans into firing on us
>Spanish American War
We used an explosion on a ship that was started by an engine fire to blame Spanish mines
>WWI
We filled the Lusitania with arms, knowing it would be targeted
>WWII
FDR knew that his sanctions against Japan would lead to war and knew of the Pearl Harbor attack ahead of time. We were also aiding the allies long before we entered the war which is why Hitler declared war
>Vietnam
Declassified documents confirm the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete sham
>9/11
Do I even need to explain this one?

My Staff Sergeant flat out said that he held far more sympathy for the Taliban than he did for the Afghan National Army who are our supposed allies.

Attached: A_U.S._Special_Operations_Marine_provides_security_as_Afghan_Local_Police_members_collect_their_firs (1280x853, 204K)

Probably because they spend as much time shooting at their 'allies', each other, whoever they owe money too and people they probably have some kind of grudge against going back to antiquity.

Had a funny conversation with some people a few weeks ago and somehow the topic ended up about these WW2 and Vietnam vets going to see their former enemies, making up with them, hugs and shit. Of course it wanders back to me and they go "would you want to meet some of the Taliban and make up with them?"
>I'd smash the filthy cunt in half soon as I knew he was one
Yep... good conversation
I honestly don't see this ever changing in the near or far future, just be this cranky old dude yelling at the young dudes that they look like pussies and turn the music down I can't hear my tinnitus

Well thats quite a special set of opinions you've got there user.

Attached: t34.jpg (543x540, 25K)

Papa Cheeto and presidents afterm him love big brown cock.
Also because saudi royal family consist if crypto-jews and we know how much USA loves happy merchants.

before him*
Though it does not matter, next ones are saudi lovers as well