Hey, OP: You seem to have forgotten a couple of nifty points. One: The UN Forces fought to protect South Korea and, obviously, South Koreans from North Korea. I’d have to say that South Koreans are generally, if not always, Koreans. Two: The US fought on the side of South Vietnam. I’d also have to say that the South Vietnamese were generally, if not always, Vietnamese.
I fear I already know what your answer will be to this question, but I feel compelled to ask you anway: Who do you think started the Korean War?
Jane Fonda was a fool for what she did. She and the other “fools” hold a great deal of responsibility for the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese after they won by giving them “comfort and support”.
We know now that the leaders of the anti-war movement in the U.S. were largely communists or fellow travelers.
“McCarthyism” is about false accusations of communist sympathy and criticising or investigating people who were actual communists at one point in their lives, such as Paul Robeson - is not “McCarthyism”.
There’s this silly idea some people have that only recognized military troops are combatants and they are the only legitimate targets in a war. This is a position of extreme ignorance.
If your home state and city was invaded, would you feel that it had nothing to do with you and you were just a complete bystander that both sides should ignore? Would you do absolutely nothing to help or hinder either side (including your own countrymen fighting for their freedom)? Because I’m pretty sure those kind of people are a small minority.
To be fair, the OP said “almost genocide”. And I use the word “fair” with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek.
Typical, hysterical nonsense. Of course you were careful to use the word “practically” so you could weasel your way out of that ridiculous claim while still being able to make it.
There were no systematic efforts made by the US to perform mass murder or ethnic cleansing upon either the populations of North Korea or North Vietnam. No camps were established to efficiently dispatch either nation’s populations, no patterns of removing North Korean or Tokinese civilians from their homes wholesomely and relocate them and ,in the case of North Vietnam, the US never invaded the country.
The wars in East and Southeast Asia were certainly bloody by modern standards, but definitely not “genocidal” by any meaningful definition of the word.
the bombing may also have been used to prevent Chinese military forces from crossing the river. However, it didn’t occur; although in retrospect perhaps it might have shortened the conflict if it had. The dams were (technically) military targets.
That wasn’t the reason we bombed German cities during WWII. It was Total War, and we were trying to demoralize the population and reduce their capacity to fight. Make no mistake, if we got into a Total War with China, both we and they would do the same thing. Only with nuclear weapons.
Pancho Villa actually was a brilliant leader of horse cavalry. The Mexican Revolution wasn’t a genocide either but 10% of the civilian population was killed. Dang, name a war since the fighting on the Western Front in WW1 that didn’t involve a great slaughter of innocents. As R.McNamara said, if you win you don’t have to worry about being tried for war crimes.
And my cat’s breath smells like cat food. In other words, what Chimera said, war crimes committed by Germany had nothing at all to do with the reasons for the strategic bombing campaign. “War crimes” wouldn’t have been the reason we’d have incinerated every city in Eastern Europe and the USSR had the balloon gone up during the Cold War. “War crimes” isn’t the reason the US and Russia are still prepared to destroy each other. Last time I checked, Eastern Europeans and Russians were generally considered white, just like Germans and Italians.
This doesn’t even address the way that the VA and the Pentagon treated returning Vietnam vets in that era as so much chattel. People complain about the VA today…and there are valid complaints to be sure, but compared to the way that Vietnam vets were treated in the early 1970’s…well, it’s no Hanoi Hilton but progress has been made.
That has always really irked me. “We” send you to war and when you are broken and useless when you come back, “we” try to weasel out of the cost of helping you, or worse, you just get ignored.
The United States was wrong to fight in Vietnam, we committed horrible war crimes, and if I’d had my way, Nixon and Kissinger would have been shot for war crimes. None of that makes us guilty of genocide. Words mean things.
Oh, I wasn’t making fun of Mr. Villa. He was brilliant. I was trying to make a joke that we needed him to raid the southern U.S. for some reason, I don’t know.
Hey! Quit it! You’re helping me make this thread more of a blob!
Ehh, it’s really too late. My cat’s breath smells like cat food, too.
And if you really want to find the U.S. committing genocide, the Indian wars in Texas qualify, certainly. However, as I am descended from both sides of that conflict, I must admit that the actions of some groups of Indians made it easy to perpetuate the war on them, however wrong it was.
Some time ago I started a thread called How will our era be misremembered 2000 years from now?**, **and now I’m pretty sure that will include everyone thinking the Vietnam War was an overt invasion of Vietnam by the United States.