May 9th, 1945

[ParkCungHee]

Nationalism is a disease propagated by the wealthy and swallowed by the masses. When such a virulent infection as this exists, to expect people to make a "fair" decision is like waving ice cream and asparagus in front of a child and expecting them to make the best decision about their health.

I know, how can you possibly let the Rabble decide how to run a government? Clearly only those of higher breeding deserve to have a say, and you should be quiet about politics.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Your beliefs are unfalsifiable. I'm a proponent of liberal nationalism; that either means I've swallowed a great deal of propaganda, or I'm a malicious author of it. If I attempt to escape either proposition, you can easily classify me as being guilty of one of them. If there was any possibility that your beliefs were wrong, how would I possibly demonstrate it?

By disavowing nationalism, as it is the major force for arbitrarily dividing humanity.

Now, I have a question. What is the final goal of government? Is it the happiness of the citizens, or something else?

Irrelevant.

When the Soviets plundered all of the East German industry, was that in their capacity as communists, or because they reverted to imperial capitalism for a moment?

Are you suggesting that Africa, Asia, and the Americas perpetrated some kind of grave deed against the Europeans that justified their rape of those places?

Because the war was that of the North Vietnamese, who were communist, attempting without pause to force their beliefs undo the South Vietnamese, who were not. I am of the opinion that war to protect a weaker faction from being oppressed by a stronger one is just.

The United States was the one who forced through the UN the partition of the country in the first place. They artificially created "South" Vietnam; the Vietnamese wars were wars of unity against invaders, not of conquest by one state against another.

If liberal democracy is great and desirable, then why couldn't Americans have let Vietnamese people come to this conclusion on their own, rather than starting war against spreading of "evil ideology", killing hundreds of thousands of them?

The number is actually in the millions.

I know, how can you possibly let the Rabble decide how to run a government? Clearly only those of higher breeding deserve to have a say, and you should be quiet about politics.

If you are suggesting that liberal democracy as practiced in the West (the supposed standard that people here are holding things to) is fairly representative of the whole population, then you are sadly mistaken.

If I thought that the people could magically run things themselves and knew what was best in all respects, I would be an anarchist. But I am a realist, and understand that there are very real barriers that have to be destroyed before people can make such decisions with a clear mind. Nationalism is one of them, arguably the biggest one.

 

[LightSpectra]

By disavowing nationalism, as it is the major force for arbitrarily dividing humanity.

I lol'd because this is exactly what I'm talking about. If nationalism were a good thing, how would I prove it to you? It's your conclusion that its adherents are either evil or ignorant, and if there was any possibility that this were not the case, you unfortunately pre-classify me as being evil or ignorant, and thus, I am unable to convince you.

Irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. Is the final end of government happiness or something else? If it's happiness, then the notion that you should suppress what people want in order to give them better government is a paradox. If it's something else, then please educate me as to what the end of government is.

Are you suggesting that Africa, Asia, and the Americas perpetrated some kind of grave deed against the Europeans that justified their rape of those places?

No, in fact, I was simply asking if you think the Soviets were justified in plundering East German industry.

The United States was the one who forced through the UN the partition of the country in the first place. They artificially created "South" Vietnam; the Vietnamese wars were wars of unity against invaders, not of conquest by one state against another.

I'm sure the thousands of South Vietnamese that were killed at Saigon in 1975 would agree with that.

 

[red_elk]

Because the war was that of the North Vietnamese, who were communist, attempting without pause to force their beliefs undo the South Vietnamese, who were not. I am of the opinion that war to protect a weaker faction from being oppressed by a stronger one is just.

So, you consider it as justified war and that it had nothing to do with imperialism?
Ok, then I may as well say that Soviet communists protected communist minority of Eastern Europe from being oppressed by various types of anti-communists. But unlike America in Vietnam, they did it without starting a bloody war and killing millions of people who didn't share their views.

The number is actually in the millions.

Right, I didn't remember number of Vietnamese losses, and resorted to safe to say number.

 

[LightSpectra]

So, you consider it as justified war and that it had nothing to do with imperialism?
Ok, then I may as well say that Soviet communists protected communist minority of Eastern Europe from being oppressed by various types of anti-communists. But unlike America in Vietnam, they did it without starting a bloody war and killing millions of people who didn't share their views.

Americans didn't start the Vietnam War. Try again.

Edit: Though perhaps I should make it clear that I'm not an apologist for the U.S. America has done plenty of despicable things in its history. The contention here is whether the Soviets were justified in creating the Iron Curtain and its puppet states, and my position is obviously not. It is entirely irrelevant if the U.S. can take a moral high ground; the issue is if the Soviets were right or wrong, not better or worse.

 

[red_elk]

Americans didn't start the Vietnam War. Try again.

And they did not kill more than million of Vietnamese probably?
Unless you are going to claim that Vietnam tried to invade American mainland, it doesn't matter much. The USA was aggressor there.

 

[LightSpectra]

And they did not kill more than million of Vietnamese probably?
Unless you are going to claim that Vietnam tried to invade American mainland, it doesn't matter much. The USA was aggressor there.

The U.S. was defending its ally, South Vietnam. If this is aggression, then the Soviets and Chinese were also aggressors for helping their ally, North Vietnam.

 

[Kullervo]

Much less, even if you are going to count people who died because of famines as deliberately killed.


???
Only in USSR alone, 20-30 millions (estimates vary).

Yes, I think I accidentally mixed the two numbers up. It was the other way around. But you get my point, do the math. Yes, both groups killed millions of people. The Soviets just killed less. That doesn't in any way diminish the horrors or Stalinist repressions and the imprisonments and the works of Beria, but despite all of that, things were still better than under Nazi rule.

 

[Kullervo]

I really don't think the US gave a hoot about South Vietnam. The US had attempted to isolate itself from world affairs, afraid of entangling alliances, for the past 60 years, and only got involved when they could stop the spread of Communitsm. What the Vietnam war about was containing Communism, not supporting South Vietnam; that just happened to be what they thought was the right way to go about it. I'm willing to bet that if there were just two groups, say, the equivalent of Republicans and Democrats (perhaps not the best example, but, not being a historian or politician, I cannot think of any other) fighting and killing one another, the US would shake a disapproving finger and then turn a blind eye. And the US was indeed the aggressor in the war. The North Vietnamese were probably not so crazy as to actively go up in arms against one of the world's two superpowers, even with support from the Soviet Union.

 

[LightSpectra]

Containment would be the reason why the U.S. chose to assist its ally, but the fundamental motive here would be "the assistance of an ally against a potential enemy."

Buuuut, as I've already pointed out, if if I'm wrong about this point, the issue at hand isn't if the U.S. was better or worse than the U.S.S.R., but rather if the U.S.S.R. was right or wrong in itself.

 

[Masada]

FYI North Vietnam had already begun to infiltrate cadres across the border as early as May 1955 even before the vote scheduled for July 1956 had been suspended. This was notwithstanding the 10,000 or so cadres that had been left in place from the Indochina War. Technically, the North had been breaking the Geneva Accord before the ink was even dry. So, America didn't start the war. It certainly escalated it though.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If I thought that the people could magically run things themselves and knew what was best in all respects, I would be an anarchist. But I am a realist, and understand that there are very real barriers that have to be destroyed before people can make such decisions with a clear mind. Nationalism is one of them, arguably the biggest one.

And I am telling you that you are no more capable of managing things then they, so if they should not have a say in governance, neither should you.

 

[Plotinus]

Seems like I should have looked at this thread a while ago. If you want to argue moral and political philosophy, please feel free to do so somewhere else.

Moderator Action: Unsalvageable - closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889