Libya: should anything be done?

[sandinista]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

It depends on what your opinion of "liberated" means.

Nearly one million Vietnamese emigrated to the US since the fall of Saigon. Another quarter million went to Canada or Australia. Another 200,000 to Europe. Over 100,000 to Hong Kong. More than ten thousand to Japan. Even Israel allowed some in. And who knows how many died at sea, or never found the opportunity to escape? And all that despite the re-education camps set up by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I guess all those people have different interpretations of what the North's "liberation" meant as well.

This is a thread about Libya I already pointed out why the majority left Vietnam. Even more left because the entire country was destroyed, homes, farm land, businesses, not to mention millions murdered by US bombs and soldiers. That doesn't change the fact that the country was liberated from foreign rule.

[Ian]

If the Hanoi government had collapsed and the South took over the north and unified the country under Saigon, would you still be championing "the fact that the country was liberated from foreign rule'?

I seriously doubt it. Your idea of "liberation" seems to be "the communists won". Not that it could've happened at all were it not for foreign intervention (i.e. supplies from the USSR). And leave it to you to put a smilie emoticon after I point out the sheer numbers of people who risk everything to flee your preferred system of government. And guess what else? Emigration from Vietnam peaked in the late 1980s - long after the war and any excuse that it was damaged infrastructure that forced many people to leave.

But I agree that this thread is about Libya.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

Yes, I know the Party line, Sandi. That assumes that Hanoi was the lawful government of Vietnam.

That's some pretty fucking convenient "obligations". You bomb the shit out of a country, murder millions then claim..."oh, it's your responsibility now"...holy shit.

I didn't write the Geneva Conventions - the express obligation of an occupying nation includes the maintenance of order. I don't know what's so fucking hard to understand about that. After Hanoi CONQUERED the remainder of Vietnam (the south), then obviously there was no more US occupation, and the US couldn't be obligated to maintain order in a place it no longer had effective control over. Capice?

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

I went to college with a Vietnamese guy who came to the US as small child when his family fled the Hanoi "liberation" of the South.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

It depends on what your opinion of "liberated" means.

Nearly one million Vietnamese emigrated to the US since the fall of Saigon. Another quarter million went to Canada or Australia. Another 200,000 to Europe. Over 100,000 to Hong Kong. More than ten thousand to Japan. Even Israel allowed some in. And who knows how many died at sea, or never found the opportunity to escape? And all that despite the re-education camps set up by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I guess all those people have different interpretations of what the North's "liberation" meant as well.

This is a thread about Libya I already pointed out why the majority left Vietnam. Even more left because the entire country was destroyed, homes, farm land, businesses, not to mention millions murdered by US bombs and soldiers. That doesn't change the fact that the country was liberated from foreign rule.

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course the South was liberated, the country was united, the North didn't "occupy" the south.

WTF? Try telling that to all the Boat People.
I know several people whose families fled the country in 1975. And it wasn't because they had just been "liberated".

We were picking up boat people as late as 1988. Don't know about since then, but the pirate problem over there may have made them seek other routes. The overland route was still available if you had money into the '90s.

[sandinista]

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

So...the US didn't destroy Vietnam? Interesting theory you've got there. Must have been bombs made of chocolate. All the unexploded bombs which exist to this day, must be harmless firecrackers as well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

So...the US didn't destroy Vietnam? Interesting theory you've got there. Must have been bombs made of chocolate. All the unexploded bombs which exist to this day, must be harmless firecrackers as well.

Snork. How far do you have to warp your mind to get your head around that idea.

[Warren Dew]

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

Ah, I see. You mean they "liberated" the land from its people. Kind of like how the U.S. "liberated" North America from the American indians.

[sandinista]

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

Ah, I see. You mean they "liberated" the land from its people. Kind of like how the U.S. "liberated" North America from the American indians.

No, actually, not at all. The American Indians were murdered by foreigners for their land, the Vietnamese people aren't foreigners on their own land.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

Ah, I see. You mean they "liberated" the land from its people. Kind of like how the U.S. "liberated" North America from the American indians.

No, actually, not at all. The American Indians were murdered by foreigners for their land, the Vietnamese people aren't foreigners on their own land.

Can you name one North or South American tribe at the time of Columbus who were the original occupants of their land?

[sandinista]

I know a lot of Vietnamese who came to canaduh as well. People who either disagreed with the government, people who worked for the americans, or wealthy people who didn't want anything to do with the Communist north. That doesn't mean it wasn't liberated. I have spoken to people in Vietnam as well who are immensely proud of liberating the country from the americans and the french. Because individuals leave a country doesn't mean it wasn't liberated.

Ah, I see. You mean they "liberated" the land from its people. Kind of like how the U.S. "liberated" North America from the American indians.

No, actually, not at all. The American Indians were murdered by foreigners for their land, the Vietnamese people aren't foreigners on their own land.

Can you name one North or South American tribe at the time of Columbus who were the original occupants of their land?

There were many peoples on this land long before the spanish, british, americans, french etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

So...the US didn't destroy Vietnam? Interesting theory you've got there. Must have been bombs made of chocolate. All the unexploded bombs which exist to this day, must be harmless firecrackers as well.

Destroy? No - there was a war there, of course, and things did get blown up. But, destroy the whole country? No, of course not.

Your interesting theory that the Vietnamese resoundingly viewed the US as the "destroyer" and then thought it would be the best place to move...cuz they thought we sucked.

[sandinista]

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

So...the US didn't destroy Vietnam? Interesting theory you've got there. Must have been bombs made of chocolate. All the unexploded bombs which exist to this day, must be harmless firecrackers as well.

Destroy? No - there was a war there, of course, and things did get blown up. But, destroy the whole country? No, of course not.

Your interesting theory that the Vietnamese resoundingly viewed the US as the "destroyer" and then thought it would be the best place to move...cuz they thought we sucked.

Destroy? Yes. A war? No...an invasion by the US which was countered by a popular struggle for independence and unification against the foreign invaders. Nice try at revisionist history...again

[Thumpalumpacus]

I will assume you haven't registered to vote, then.

None of your business really.

Both "yes" and "no" involve fewer keystrokes. The fact that you go out of your way to not answer is a data point, despite your wishing to play hard-to-get.

That's because you Canucks don't value free speech. Don't you fine racial slurs, and such? And you wish to lecture me about freedom?

I'm not "lecturing to you about freedom " but if I was...I'll give you a hint...if it bothers you don't read it Mr.Freedom.

What's funny is, I'm not afraid to face disagreement. Why does it so obviously bother you? It doesn't bother me; I thrive off of interchange, and let's face it, echo chambers are boring. You, at least, have entertainment value.

Perhaps if a government with different policies might win votes, it might win office?

Little right now. Not sure what that means.

That explains much of your posting, apparently.

And if after this discussion you still don't know how I define democracy, you're too much the fool for me to bother with; have a nice day. Troll elsewhere.

So, what do you "mean" by "democracy"?

Scroll up. I've already answered this question. Is your short-term memory having problems?