|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Israel won.
Palestine Lost.
Allies won.
Nazi Germany lost.
European Conqueres won.
Amercian Natives lost.
Oh and the neanderthal also lost to the modern human.
There was no refugee camp for nazis in occupied germany, the people who wouldn't accept the de-nazification were in jail or executed.
I think that's also applicable in Gaza. Occupation, strict weapons ban, and re-education.
Half of Gazas population is younger than 18.. they can still lead a life thats more than being meatshields for iranian assholes.
|
On October 09 2024 22:31 KT_Elwood wrote:
Israel won.
Palestine Lost.
Allies won.
Nazi Germany lost.
European Conqueres won.
Amercian Natives lost.
Oh and the neanderthal also lost to the modern human.
There was no refugee camp for nazis in occupied germany, the people who wouldn't accept the de-nazification were in jail or executed.
I think that's also applicable in Gaza. Occupation, strict weapons ban, and re-education.
Half of Gazas population is younger than 18.. they can still lead a life thats more than being meatshields for iranian assholes.
When Allies occupied Germany, they didn't tell Germans to pack up and fuck off. They didn't demolish German homes and didn't arrest random civilians. The comparison to colonization of Americas is much more apt -- except, you know, just about every sane person living today agrees that the colonizers there weren't the good guys.
|
On October 09 2024 22:31 KT_Elwood wrote:
Israel won.
Palestine Lost.
Allies won.
Nazi Germany lost.
European Conqueres won.
Amercian Natives lost.
Oh and the neanderthal also lost to the modern human.
There was no refugee camp for nazis in occupied germany, the people who wouldn't accept the de-nazification were in jail or executed.
I think that's also applicable in Gaza. Occupation, strict weapons ban, and re-education.
Half of Gazas population is younger than 18.. they can still lead a life thats more than being meatshields for iranian assholes.
Are you calling the Allies the aggressive colonizers and Nazi Germany the oppressed victims? I mean, obviously not... So what is your argument? I don't get it.
To the second part of your argument, the Germans weren't displaced, for the most part they continuted to live in the same Germany that exists today. They didn't lose their country, they reclaimed it after decades of Soviet occupation. A few land concessions were made post-WW2, but nothing too out of the ordinary (it's mostly Nazis who argue otherwise).
And to your claim of "people being executed". No. War criminals were executed, not the people who just opposed de-nazification on ideological grounds alone. They weren't being rounded up and put on death row.
I don't even know what your argument is at this point, where are you going with all of this? I can't find anything coherent about your argument, and that is disregarding the blatant misreprentation of history.
|
On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator.
When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that).
The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight.
So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different.
At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah!
Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel?
|
On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel?
The Vietnam war killed something in the vicinity of two million Vietnamese people. The US had no right to cause this much death and suffering. They should've done much more to end the war much much sooner, but their anti-communism propaganda was so raging hot that they lost sight of what actually matters in life. US troops also suffered horribly, which is one of the main reasons the US finally withdrew.
Do you want to argue that ending the Vietnam war was worse than continuing it? Are you arguing that the post-war suffering was worse than that during the war? Do you want to die on that hill?
|
On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel?
The US support of brutal dictators against the local left leaning population isn't something to be proud of, You know...
|
On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel?
The only reason civil war in Vietnam even happened at any sort of scale in the first place was because the dictatorship in the South was emboldened by support from the US.
|
On October 10 2024 02:17 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel? The only reason civil war in Vietnam even happened at any sort of scale in the first place was because the dictatorship in the South was emboldened by support from the US.
Are you sure about that? Because the First Indochina War had extremely little US involvement. It only included France who was still reeling from WW2 and had little power to project overseas. It ended in a split country. So how did south Vietnam get absorbed into the north during the Vietnam war? Oh right, the north invaded. The US went in to prop up the western friendly leader.
On October 10 2024 02:15 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel? The US support of brutal dictators against the local left leaning population isn't something to be proud of, You know...
I'm not "proud of it". I'm stating the facts. The US supported a large portion of the south Vietnamese population against an invading force from the north and a relatively small insurgent force from within. We don't know what percentage of the population actually supported Diem in the south because he won 98.91% of the vote in a clearly fraudulent election. We do know that a large number of people in the south still preferred him over communism and had to flee (or die or be "re-educated") when they lost.
On October 10 2024 01:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel? The Vietnam war killed something in the vicinity of two million Vietnamese people. The US had no right to cause this much death and suffering. They should've done much more to end the war much much sooner, but their anti-communism propaganda was so raging hot that they lost sight of what actually matters in life. US troops also suffered horribly, which is one of the main reasons the US finally withdrew. Do you want to argue that ending the Vietnam war was worse than continuing it? Are you arguing that the post-war suffering was worse than that during the war? Do you want to die on that hill?
It was a civil war. The Vietnamese were killing each other. Of course the number of Vietnamese dead are going to be high.
I'd argue for the millions of people that had to flee and hundreds of thousands that died in the aftermath, the war was better than the resolution.
|
On October 10 2024 04:21 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 02:17 Salazarz wrote:On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel? The only reason civil war in Vietnam even happened at any sort of scale in the first place was because the dictatorship in the South was emboldened by support from the US. Are you sure about that? Because the First Indochina War had extremely little US involvement. It only included France who was still reeling from WW2 and had little power to project overseas. It ended in a split country. So how did south Vietnam get absorbed into the north during the Vietnam war? Oh right, the north invaded. The US went in to prop up the western friendly leader. Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 02:15 Silvanel wrote:On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel? The US support of brutal dictators against the local left leaning population isn't something to be proud of, You know... I'm not "proud of it". I'm stating the facts. The US supported a large portion of the south Vietnamese population against an invading force from the north and a relatively small insurgent force from within. We don't know what percentage of the population actually supported Diem in the south because he won 98.91% of the vote in a clearly fraudulent election. We do know that a large number of people in the south still preferred him over communism and had to flee (or die or be "re-educated") when they lost. Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 01:50 Magic Powers wrote:On October 10 2024 01:41 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2024 20:36 Magic Powers wrote:
Vietnam is another example of liberation, in their case it happened after a very brutal war against the US/France had ended. It cost many people their lives, but they succeeded. How did they succeed? They were much weaker, realistically they couldn't win. But they did, because all they had to do was to bleed out the aggressor. A thousand cuts was finally enough, and the US withdrew.
Why was this war fought? It was an ideological war by the US against the spread of communism. On the Vietnamese side it was a war for liberation. That isn't to say Vietnam is now a place of perfect freedom and prosperity with no major problems, but their people are no longer being massacred by the thousands, or even millions. What was it all for? Why did the US not relent sooner? Was the fear of communism worth all this?
Your understanding of Vietnam is severely lacking. First, Vietnam was a civil war between the North (funded heavily by foreign powers - USSR, China) versus the South (funded heavily by the US and allies). The US ended up doing a huge amount of the fighting to protect the South who had a pro-west, but corrupt, brutal, and incompetent dictator. When the US abandoned South Vietnam to its own fate, it was a massive betrayal and cost the South Vietnamese people a ton. The ones who weren't killed were sent to re-education camps. North Vietnamese migrated south onto good land and the South Vietnamese were moved into the mountains (it was an ethnic cleansing, except we see them all as Vietnamese, so we don't call it that). The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) also claims over 3 million refugees (combined with the Laos and Cambodian civil war refugees). With an estimated 200,000-400,000 people dying at sea during their flight. So while I'm sure you think 200k-400k South Vietnamese dying at sea is a nice overthrow of those evil Americans, I think the Vietnamese people who were driven off their land and saw their family and friends die at sea would feel quite different. At least Vietnam gets to be relatively peaceful now that they killed off or re-educated (through torture) anyone who disagreed with their communist philosophy. Huzzah! Now that Vietnam has been reframed with some more information, can we draw some parallels to Israel? The Vietnam war killed something in the vicinity of two million Vietnamese people. The US had no right to cause this much death and suffering. They should've done much more to end the war much much sooner, but their anti-communism propaganda was so raging hot that they lost sight of what actually matters in life. US troops also suffered horribly, which is one of the main reasons the US finally withdrew. Do you want to argue that ending the Vietnam war was worse than continuing it? Are you arguing that the post-war suffering was worse than that during the war? Do you want to die on that hill? It was a civil war. The Vietnamese were killing each other. Of course the number of Vietnamese dead are going to be high. I'd argue for the millions of people that had to flee and hundreds of thousands that died in the aftermath, the war was better than the resolution.
Two million dead is better than the deaths caused by the civil war? How many died before the US intervened?
|
On October 09 2024 10:22 Magic Powers wrote:
No, you don't understand the point at all. This is about all Palestinians being displaced for good. They can't return in the case that we're arguing about. Stop interferring when you don't know what people are talking about.
I'm not sure why you always get so angry when people disagree with your opinions. But yes many Ukrainians will never get to return to their homes, but it was better for them to leave than die. It of course sucks, but still preferable to dying.
|
If the thread is now ready to move on to whether it is the best outcome or not that Israel gets to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestine, can I get the people who said for months in this thread that this isn't what Israel wants to do to acknowledge in some form that it is, in fact, what Israel wants to do?
|
I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
|
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote:
I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
|
On October 10 2024 05:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote:
I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants. So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
I have not read enough from Mohdoo to make a determination that he saying that. He does seem to be saying that he believes it would be better for the Palestinians to go somewhere else, I'm not sure if he means forever or for right now while Hamas and Israel are fighting the war. Seems like he would be a interesting guy to talk to if a bunch of people didn't just jump down his throat.
KT_Elwood seems happy to have an internet fight with you guy and you guys seem happy to attack him, not sure what I would add. If it was a "safe" environment where people had open discussions and didn't just ask people questions to set up their next attack, I'd be interested to talk to him as well. Just don't believe it is possible here.
|
Allow me to offer you some further reading from Mohdoo so that you can make a determination:
On October 08 2023 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:
I should have said ethnic cleansing. Israel seeks to have Palestinians not live there. Either way; every Palestinian parent trying to keep their kids there is a lunatic that should be prevented from harming their children.
If Palestinians are capable of leaving, it is deeeeeeply unethical for them to force their children to stay there
I am saddened to hear that you don't think this is a good place to talk about politics. I have some issues with it myself, but they're different from the ones you outlined. But at least you just got here, you're not super invested in it so it doesn't hurt you too much, it's not as if you had written 22817 posts on this forum or something.
|
Not much discussion happens here, barely anyone listens.
And what based on that quote exactly do you think I should be arguing with Mohdoo?
|
Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
|
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:
Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
|
On October 10 2024 06:26 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:
Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument. I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks. I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
|
I'm pretty sure Mohdoo has also said the Jews should have been given a rural area of the United States to call home instead of Israel. So it's fair to say he's proposed of ethnically cleansing the area of Palestinians or of Jews in different times. Mohdoo often proposes solutions that you might get if you explained the situation to a 10-year old and asked them for the best course of action. Two groups of people don't get along, solution: remove 1 group of people. Easy peasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
