European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Ed Anger]

Didn't Ho already declare a state before that?

Bros before Ho's.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, I got that part.

My question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military advisors, covert operation, funding of domestic political factions, the imposition of a client regime and the other things we're accepting, for the sake of argument, the US carried out in Vietnam (and other countries have carried out elsewhere)?

Why do we need to call it anything at all?

[Razgovory]

What's your definition of subject state Yi?

Didn't Ho already declare a state before that?

My understanding was that he declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and was head of North Vietnam after Geneva, but that he rejected Diem's plebiscite and never declared a state of North Vietnam.

Wait, run that by me again.  He declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam but didn't declare a state of North Vietnam?  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me are disagreeing with me.  Or both.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, I got that part.

My question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military advisors, covert operation, funding of domestic political factions, the imposition of a client regime and the other things we're accepting, for the sake of argument, the US carried out in Vietnam (and other countries have carried out elsewhere)?

realpolitik?

[derspiess]

Yeah, I got that part.

My question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military advisors, covert operation, funding of domestic political factions, the imposition of a client regime and the other things we're accepting, for the sake of argument, the US carried out in Vietnam (and other countries have carried out elsewhere)?

Why do we need to call it anything at all?

Because we *must* use a single controversial word to describe it!

[Admiral Yi]

What's your definition of subject state Yi?

A tentative definition is a state that faces the possibility of military punishment for going against the wishes of the overlord.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah, I got that part.

My question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military advisors, covert operation, funding of domestic political factions, the imposition of a client regime and the other things we're accepting, for the sake of argument, the US carried out in Vietnam (and other countries have carried out elsewhere)?

Why do we need to call it anything at all?

Same reason we give anything a specific word, to distinguish it from similar object or phenomena, in this case imperialism.

[Malthus]

@ Malthus, do you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism without physical occupation?

I suppose so. Though this has nothing to do with Vietnam.

@ Berkut, imperialism is a touchy subject for Americans becuase their founding myth is of fighting against it.  But if you look at the actions of the US around the world particularly South and Central America and the role the US played in bringing the Shah to power in Iran in order to protect US commercian interests it is hard to think of a different word.

But if you can suggest one that would be great.

Again, whatever the US did in Iran or central America, of all the wars fought, Vietnam is the *least* "imperialist". In central America presumably the US was interfering to promote commercial interests (hence "banana republic") and in Iran for oil; all the US got from Vietnam was a bunch of ethnic Chinese boat people ...

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I was thinking that if this is empire, then we are doing it fucking backwards.  They are suppose to give stuff to us, not the other way around.

I think the discussion of the deficiencies in South Vietnam and the US relationship with it misses a major point.  South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam which was an extremely murderous and oppressive state.  I think defending a people from a state that put something like a million people in forced labor camps and killed hundreds of thousands of people is a worthy goal.  Perhaps doing this is "Imperialism", in the mind of Europeans.  I don't know.  If it is, then I suppose Imperialism is not such a bad thing.

[garbon]

@ Malthus, do you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism without physical occupation?

I suppose so. Though this has nothing to do with Vietnam.

@ Berkut, imperialism is a touchy subject for Americans becuase their founding myth is of fighting against it.  But if you look at the actions of the US around the world particularly South and Central America and the role the US played in bringing the Shah to power in Iran in order to protect US commercian interests it is hard to think of a different word.

But if you can suggest one that would be great.

Again, whatever the US did in Iran or central America, of all the wars fought, Vietnam is the *least* "imperialist". In central America presumably the US was interfering to promote commercial interests (hence "banana republic") and in Iran for oil; all the US got from Vietnam was a bunch of ethnic Chinese boat people ...

In California, we ended up with many more fabulous donut shops.

[Malthus]

In California, we ended up with many more fabulous donut shops.

Imperialism for donuts? That's the sort of imperialism that would appeal to Canadians ... 

[garbon]

In California, we ended up with many more fabulous donut shops.

Imperialism for donuts? That's the sort of imperialism that would appeal to Canadians ... 

No blood for Timbits! California's are all locally owned and operated.

[Jacob]

Why do we need to call it anything at all?

Because it was one of the defining features if not of the 20th Century, then at least of the Cold War.

Because we're interested in history and politics, and a precise vocabulary enhances our ability to discuss and understand.

[Jacob]

My question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military
Because we *must* use a single controversial word to describe it!

Quit whining. It's unbecoming.

[CountDeMoney]

No blood for Timbits!

I lol'd.