Who won the Vietnam war?

[chaz wyman]

BY the way. Can you provide a reference to Hegel's comment?? these things are so easily taken out of context.

Why don't we Google it an see what we can find?

As you will have seen the phrase is all over the Internet, and in context of Hegel's work.
What do you think it means? And why did you mention it?

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

History tends to be forgotten and we make our own 'winners' in hindsight. The US (and the other countries who took their side) lost, the Vietnamese people lost. In terms of 'winning' it will be the Viet Cong, as they got what they were fighting to get in the end.
Now as for the current Vietnam, it is not necessary a result of that war, it is Globalisation and other factors, we forget that change happens gradually and not necessary by 'force'. Who knows perhaps countless lives would've been saved if the wasted war didn't start and Capitalism flourish on its own. Yup, but I guess it is easier to pat ourselves on the back and delude ourselves into thinking that it was all necessary; the rape, the slaughtering by messed up US soldiers, Agent Orange, flattening of forests, to name a few

[spike]

History tends to be forgotten and we make our own 'winners' in hindsight. The US (and the other countries who took their side) lost, the Vietnamese people lost. In terms of 'winning' it will be the Viet Cong, as they got wha were fighting to get in the end.
Now as for the current Vietnam, it is not necessary a result of that war, it is Globalisation and other factors, we forget that change happens gradually and not necessary by 'force'. Who knows perhaps countless lives would've been saved if the wasted war didn't start and Capitalism flourish on its own. Yup, but I guess it is easier to pat ourselves on the back and delude ourselves into thinking that it was all necessary; the rape, the slaughtering by messed up US soldiers, Agent Orange, flattening of forests, to name a few.

It wasn't nice what happen in Vietnam. But sometimes things do not change sufficiently, in the Burkean manner - gradually and not by force.

If things change gradually and not necessarily by force, then why did the world have to endure two world wars? Those wars happened because the political world refused to change so as to keep up with the changes that were occurring socially and economically. Politicians and rulers were too stubborn and intractable to change. The only way to wipe out the old order and its hierarchy was, unfortunate, by force. We have recently seen this occurring in the Middle East where dictators have been to stubborn or dumb to implement reform.

If things would have changed gradually and not necessarily by force, then why did America have to endure the race riots of the 1960s? The race riots occurred because things were not changing on their own. People were getting frustrated and impatient with the lack of social change. There was an significant element in American society that was unwilling to change their ways, even though the law mandated it, because those people were threatened by change, hence the riots.

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

History tends to be forgotten and we make our own 'winners' in hindsight. The US (and the other countries who took their side) lost, the Vietnamese people lost. In terms of 'winning' it will be the Viet Cong, as they got wha were fighting to get in the end.
Now as for the current Vietnam, it is not necessary a result of that war, it is Globalisation and other factors, we forget that change happens gradually and not necessary by 'force'. Who knows perhaps countless lives would've been saved if the wasted war didn't start and Capitalism flourish on its own. Yup, but I guess it is easier to pat ourselves on the back and delude ourselves into thinking that it was all necessary; the rape, the slaughtering by messed up US soldiers, Agent Orange, flattening of forests, to name a few.

It wasn't nice what happen in Vietnam. But sometimes things do not change sufficiently, in the Burkean manner - gradually and not by force.

If things change gradually and not necessarily by force, then why did the world have to endure two world wars? Those wars happened because the political world refused to change so as to keep up with the changes that were occurring socially and economically. Politicians and rulers were too stubborn and intractable to change. The only way to wipe out the old order and its hierarchy was, unfortunate, by force. We have recently seen this occurring in the Middle East where dictators have been to stubborn or dumb to implement reform.

If things would have changed gradually and not necessarily by force, then why did America have to endure the race riots of the 1960s? The race riots occurred because things were not changing on their own. People were getting frustrated and impatient with the lack of social change. There was an significant element in American society that was unwilling to change their ways, even though the law mandated it, because those people were threatened by change, hence the riots.

Even after the race riots, it had to rely on gradual change and mental acceptance. You would be aware that even after those riots, racism was still rampant. The riot was not a result of being threatened by change, to my understanding the norm was racism, it was normal to have someone sit at the back of the bus because of skin colour (this view was shared from poor man to president). The change came gradually, from one event to another and built up. Bit by bit.
As for the 2 world wars, I'm not understanding why you're making reference to them, perhaps you should elaborate.
The gradual change I was hinting at is from ideologies. The US invaded Vietnam based on one, which is to eradicate the communism. There is a lot of depth to it too. They failed at that time, as communism still exist there but we see that gradually they're capitalistic in nature. The reason for a gradual change when it comes to ideologies as democracy or capitalism is because these things can't be instilled via 'force'. Take a look at Soviet Russia, how after all the needless conflicts it collapsed on its own, inwardly.
On the Middle East, they're yet to change, the US thought that 'force' would've brought the change but this is not working. Example look at Egypt/Libya how they're going back to Sharia Law even after the Arab Spring. It is up to people to enforce change and to develop the mentality to continue it.

"Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel." - Che Guevara.

[chaz wyman]

History tends to be forgotten and we make our own 'winners' in hindsight. The US (and the other countries who took their side) lost, the Vietnamese people lost. In terms of 'winning' it will be the Viet Cong, as they got what they were fighting to get in the end.
Now as for the current Vietnam, it is not necessary a result of that war, it is Globalisation and other factors, we forget that change happens gradually and not necessary by 'force'. Who knows perhaps countless lives would've been saved if the wasted war didn't start and Capitalism flourish on its own. Yup, but I guess it is easier to pat ourselves on the back and delude ourselves into thinking that it was all necessary; the rape, the slaughtering by messed up US soldiers, Agent Orange, flattening of forests, to name a few

There is no such thing as the viet cong and never was.
There was always the Vietnamese people fighting the best way they knew how to rid themselves of the Imperialist; first the French then the USA.
Ho Chi Minh was educated in the USA and was inspired by the American Revolution, when the Vietnamese moved to expel the French imperial authority, he thought that the US would aid him in his struggle as the US had rid the British.

Irony indeed!!

[The Voice of Time]

The difference is that Cambodia and Vietnam are growing whilst the US is in clear and obvious decline.

This may be true in terms of diplomatic power, but the US economy is growing by something like 2+% every year, so it's not in decline (and, 2% of let's say 50 000 GDP pr. capita is 1000 GDP pr. year, whereas Chinese economy grows 8% but from about 5500 GDP pr. capita, being only 440 GDP pr. year, so US economy is still faster in terms of real growth). Also in terms of cultural power, it continues to spread its Hollywood films and music across the new rising economies, so it's still growing there as well. Wu Jintao said he would invest lots of money in Chinese cultural production because the West had too big an influence on China.

You can freely and (of course depending on how much money you have and where you live) easily go and buy Western movies in China today. I bought "Lord of War" in China, and the store I bought it from was full of Hollywood movies, including pop music like Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson and so on. And in the clubs they played exclusively up-to-date pop-music, about the same you'd find anywhere in Europe or America.

[chaz wyman]

The difference is that Cambodia and Vietnam are growing whilst the US is in clear and obvious decline.

This may be true in terms of diplomatic power, but the US economy is growing by something like 2+% every year, so it's not in decline. Also in terms of cultural power, it continues to spread its Hollywood films and music across the new rising economies, so it's still growing there as well. Wu Jintao said he would invest lots of money in Chinese cultural production because the West had too big an influence on China.

You can freely and (of course depending on how much money you have and where you live) easily go and buy Western movies in China today. I bought "Lord of War" in China, and the store I bought it from was full of Hollywood movies, including pop music like Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson and so on. And in the clubs they played exclusively up-to-date pop-music, about the same you'd find anywhere in Europe or America.

I'm not sure if a film written and directed by a New Zealander is classed as 'american'. nor whether or not you can judge the growth of a nation by the appearance of boot-leg dvd in foreign countries.

(But it is true that most films are distributed by corporations, originally american that are now multinationals.
I have no idea what these financially contribute to the US economy.)

Nor can you assert that the US is growing when its debt to the world has increased over the last 4 years, unemployment is growing and they currently face a massive fiscal deficit that is coming to a crunch in January 2013.
One wonders how real this 'growth' you assume is?
I do accept that hollywood can be viewed as cultural growth in a sense, but I wonder what lasting value is offered to the rest of the world by Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga.

On a political level Obama has elevated the reputation of the US across the world, but most of their political exports are still firmly antithetical to democracy, and its reputation in general remains very low indeed, especially in those countries where the US has anathematised and intrigued against emerging democracies.

[The Voice of Time]

One wonders how real this 'growth' you assume is?
I do accept that hollywood can be viewed as cultural growth in a sense, but I wonder what lasting value is offered to the rest of the world by Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga.

You can't judge movies by who makes them. It doesn't matter if it's Japanese or Korean as long as the cultural influence upon the movie clearly is US/Western. A good example which comes to my mind is Spaghetti-Western movies of the 70ies and 80ies. Made by Italians, with Italian actors in Italy, it still was nothing close to "Italian" movies although it came with adjustments to the style, it was The Wild West, with all at its intrigues and humour.

The King of Pop (Michael Jackson) has been extremely influential throughout the world, and he continues to contribute to cultural growth. Lady Gaga is the kind of person whose stylism and popular music aids people around the world defining their lives and personal philosophies, including aiding in defining other music. You must be exceptionally naïve not to see how much pop-music and pop-movies have defined our western world, and how much it continues to define many parts of the Asian world.

I don't know what we will see of the fiscal debt of the US. Only time can tell, but their decline cannot be seen now, as they still got lots of money. We will have to wait and see how they solve it, and then, only, can we say if it will end in a decline or if they manage to solve the crisis.

[chaz wyman]

One wonders how real this 'growth' you assume is?
I do accept that hollywood can be viewed as cultural growth in a sense, but I wonder what lasting value is offered to the rest of the world by Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga.

You can't judge movies by who makes them. It doesn't matter if it's Japanese or Korean as long as the cultural influence upon the movie clearly is US/Western.

Have you heard of changing the goal-posts?
Actually when you are employing the issue in a case related to US economic growth, I think you have to know who makes them. The "West" is not just the US you know.

A good example which comes to my mind is Spaghetti-Western movies of the 70ies and 80ies. Made by Italians, with Italian actors in Italy, it still was nothing close to "Italian" movies although it came with adjustments to the style, it was The Wild West, with all at its intrigues and humour.

Er.. had very little to do with "The West". but you can use a counter argument about the long list of "historical" films, adaptations of Shakespeare, Dickens, epics etc.. that came from the US but was not about them.
So - what are we actually talking about?
I was saying that unlike the economies of the East such as Cambodia and Vietnam, they are growing whilst the US is not. I stick to that. All this stuff about Holly wood and cultural influence is not particularly relevant.
The Vietnamese took on the world's greatest power and largest economy, and in spite of the fact that they were a powerless vassal state of the French, poor and backward technologically, they won.
During which conflict more bombs were dropped on Laos than were dropped on Europe in WW2 - a country that never received a declaration of war from the US, btw! People are still dying of unexploded ordinance, and are still gripped in a struggle with the US to get some financial help and compensation.

The King of Pop (Michael Jackson) has been extremely influential throughout the world, and he continues to contribute to cultural growth. Lady Gaga is the kind of person whose stylism and popular music aids people around the world defining their lives and personal philosophies, including aiding in defining other music. You must be exceptionally naïve not to see how much pop-music and pop-movies have defined our western world, and how much it continues to define many parts of the Asian world.

Fuck that child buggering, monkey fucking sociopath. I think you must have missed the news buddy. I don't think his influence is as great as it was. The best thing he ever did was an overdose.

I don't know what we will see of the fiscal debt of the US. Only time can tell, but their decline cannot be seen now, as they still got lots of money. We will have to wait and see how they solve it, and then, only, can we say if it will end in a decline or if they manage to solve the crisis.

I think I am right in saying that China has just succeeded the US as the world's largest economy. Let's hope that they don't foreclose their $2 trillion debt against the USA, as that would precipitate a full scale depression in the West, especially when the rest of the world that has an additional $12 trillion against the US would probably want to follow their lead.
The US is the world's largest borrower. How lang can it sustain this fantasy?

[The Voice of Time]

Cultural power has more to it than you know. First of all it changes the perception of the population. When cultural power dominates it shows off as psychological dependency, empathy, and so forth. If 100 million Chinese just loved Lady Gaga, as a wild example, how do you think they would respond to populist propaganda against the US? Or what if they entire nation sat watching South Park every day and suddenly China is gonna take on a war against the US and the US stops selling episodes? That's cultural power. Now, imagine if tons of different kinds of products came from the US and were consumed with knowledge of where it came from by a large population of some country, don't you think they would find it problematic to turn against that country which produces so many of the things they buy? (Most likely because they like it, as the US is not known mainly for cheap products but quality or style).

[chaz wyman]

Cultural power has more to it than you know. First of all it changes the perception of the population. When cultural power dominates it shows off as psychological dependency, empathy, and so forth. If 100 million Chinese just loved Lady Gaga, as a wild example, how do you think they would respond to populist propaganda against the US? Or what if they entire nation sat watching South Park every day and suddenly China is gonna take on a war against the US and the US stops selling episodes? That's cultural power. Now, imagine if tons of different kinds of products came from the US and were consumed with knowledge of where it came from by a large population of some country, don't you think they would find it problematic to turn against that country which produces so many of the things they buy? (Most likely because they like it, as the US is not known mainly for cheap products but quality or style).

I was making a point about the economy.

I watch South Park everyday, that does not lead me to love the USA, as such.

Whist this cultural influence is important, it does not ingratiate the USA.

Western values are growing across the world, but as yo have pointed out in another thread, the USA does not have the positive image it would like. It's foreign policy, especially since WW2 has been antithetical to self-determination and democracy throughout the world. People might like Lady Gaga, but they are not completely stupid.
Russians loved the Beetles, and I would be happy to argue that the Fab4 did more to destabilise the Soviet to eventual Glasnost that anything the US did. Americans might think that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union, but I think he only made things worse. Bootleg copies of Beetles record distributed on any bit of old vinyl including old x-ray sheets did more to change minds than the Republican Party.
It is no con-incidence that Gorbachev was a Beetles fan.