Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 12w

Or, to be fair and balanced on the USA, not just for oil. We also blew up a lot of people’s moms for opium in Afghanistan. And for rubber in South Vietnam. It’s not always oil. But America’s always sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, always throwing rocks at hornets nests, and then using the hornets buzzing, not even really stinging, as an excuse to just throw more rocks at it.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 12w

It never was about the natural resources. Vietnam was genuinely because we wanted to stop the spread of communism, Afghanistan was genuinely because of 9/11, Iraq 1 was genuinely because Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Iraq 2 was genuinely because George Bush is kinda dumb, didn’t want to live in his dads shadow, and Saddam Hussein was actually a bad guy. Least defensible of these was probably the second Iraq war or maybe Vietnam idk.

5

Anonymous discotheque 12w

Vietnam was about the natural resources, but not for us. France wanted the rubber from South Vietnam, which is why they set up the fascist puppet government in South Vietnam to continue extracting the rubber. The North’s objection to this wasn’t out of Communism, it was that as long as South Vietnam existed, Indochina was not fully liberated from French colonialism. So then the French told us the North were scary communists so we would go fight their colonial war for them after they got shit on.

1

Anonymous discotheque 12w

France fed us a line about stopping Communism in Vietnam, which we listened to like a horse with blinders on, and then we got sucked into a war of national liberation on the objectively wrong side of it. Which we unfortunately did not realize until we were already there and saw what was actually going on.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 12w

You’re implicitly conceding the argument here, I’m confused?

1

Anonymous discotheque 12w

I don’t think it’s conceding the argument that America fights for resources when America was just unwittingly fighting for resources on behalf of another country lmfao

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 12w

Your argument would make sense if the Viet Minh weren’t actually communist. It seems the only reason the US ever cared about it was because they were. The US’s role and actions in the Suez crisis support this as well.

1

Anonymous discotheque 12w

Wow, the colonial superpower was opposed to a national liberation struggle using the most effective national liberation playbook of the 20th century? Whodathunkit?

1

Anonymous discotheque 12w

Also, Ho Chi Minh was a liberal until the late 1940s, when it became clear that the French would never accept his logical and liberal arguments for decolonization. Then he embraced socialism as a way of gaining favor from the Soviets, since he was gonna need AK-47s to get the French out of his country and other liberal powers had refused to help. Dude was a communist of advantage, his ideology wasn’t super hardline Marxism.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 12w

The US opposed Britain and France’s efforts to maintain control of the Suez so idk what your first reply is going on about.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 12w

Secondly calling Ho Chi Minh a liberal until the late 1940s is laughable to say the least. Ho Chi Minh was literally a founding member of the French Communist Party (1920). Bro was literally at Lenin’s funeral. The DRV was heavily communist, yes the aligned themselves with “bourgeois elements” when the Japanese invaded, but they were purged soon after.

1